Thursday, October 7, 2010


This update is to fill you guys in some things that are happening and what will happen in the near future. Let's get straight to it.

Michael Lewis the independent challenging Jim Wayne is being sued to try and get him off the ballot. By whom? Democratic attorney, and former Chair Jennifer Moore of course. Notice the pattern? Her argument is that Lewis signatures include people who are not registered to vote or live outside the District. The problem?

Taking all of the signatures away that she allegedly says do not qualify leaves Lewis with the required number of votes to meet the ballot qualification. Since that would make him still eligible the only other option is to use the argument that the signatures on his petition are "illegible."

Folks someone define to me from a legal perspective what constitutes an illegible signature? The voter registration card itself requires a printed name and a signature to make you a legal voter. The signature form for candidates require only a signature and no printed name.

So what do you do? Moore files a lawsuit, yes I know she is acting like she is just the attorney for someone else, but she filed it without even checking the voter registration cards to see if the signatures were suspect thus forcing Lewis to prove his innocence rather than her having to prove his guilt. That is backwards of the legal system and the "innocent until proven guilty" theory we supposedly work from.

More importantly when Lewis went to check out the voter registration cards today at the Jefferson County Board of Elections he was refused access. These are public records folks they cannot deny him access. Their reasoning was that since he is currently being litigated over this he could not view public records! Or so I am told.

Anyone else have a problem with that?

Deonte Hollowell is on the hot seat thanks in large part to a two pronged effort to disqualify him from seeking election or ensuring his credibility is shot. First there was a report done by Democratic supporter, former Board of Alderman attorney, and current pseudo journalist Thomas McAdam over at the Louisville City Hall examiner, that accuses Hollowell of being arrested for having marijuana in his possession last year.

At first McAdam issued the story based on his review of the document and did not give proof of his allegations. Later he decided to take it personal when questioned about proof by an anonymous poster on his site and provided links to a pdf file of the report.

The report McAdam uploaded does not appear to be an official copy of an arrest report. Doing further research I am told that the document, if issued from the Metro Department of Corrections could indeed be possibly printed without an official letterhead or logo. Fair enough BUT if that is the case then it could only be accessed by an attorney, an officer, or an officer of the court.

So what does this mean? Regardless of whether the charges are true or not (Hollowell still denies them) they clearly show an intent by someone on the inside to disparage Hollowell's character in the hopes of negating his chances at being elected in November.

As you know I feel certain that David James had nothing to with this but I do believe that perhaps there are some that have.

Thomas McAdam donates to Democrats only for political office (though there are now questions about reporting procedures because he says he donated to Abramson yet it does not show up on KREF records). We know Democratic party attorney, and former Chair Jennifer Moore, has filed multiple suits against candidates trying to get them disqualified from the ballot. Both have access to the Metro Corrections records and Courtnet themselves.

Is this yet one more game for Moore using McAdam to do her dirty work? Time will tell but this is getting very suspect.

Speaking of which McAdam has apparently decided to use some anonymous posters on his website to accuse me of hiding. It is laughable at best to think I would use anonymity on anything I state.

McAdam says I owe him an apology for my previous story outlining his inconsistencies. None will be forthcoming as nothing has been proven by McAdam yet. I have no problems manning up and apologizing when I think there is reason to.

Ask David James he got a public apology yesterday. Deservedly so.

McAdam I owe you nothing. The report is not an official one. Without an official report or a source on the one you listed it is a problem. Because this is not an official public released report, we cannot rely on a journalist's "word." A journalist would prove their story or admit it is their opinion. You know someting along the line of "I reviewed a document given to me by an anonymous source that appears to state Councilman Hollowell was arrested and possesed half an ounce of marijuana last year. In my opinion these charges appear to be valid."

That would be an opinion piece and without substantiated evidence folks would understand. They could believe you or not but it woulld have been more truthful in my opinion. Instead you chose to legitimize something you cannot prove based on a record that is or is not a legit arrest record. See the point?

Like me, love me, or hate me when I write I ensure the reader knows this is my opinion and why I believe what I believe. If not I provide substantiated proof to back my allegations. Remember the King story where you tried to downplay it? I was right then and proven so. I am still right and he is still under investigation.

Why bring it up? I never saw any story from you when you minimized me stating you were wrong and I was right. To-ma-to, to-mah-to except in this case my history is proven. Your story is not. Yet.

By the way alluding to Councilman Hollowell in your comments to my stories as "My dope smoking buddy?" Seriously? Perhaps you owe me an apology. I won't hold my breath.

According to some who actually read your blog daily you are accusing me of being an anonymous poster on your site. You really should know better.

Anyone with half a brain knows I never hide behind anonymity when writing anything. I get moderated quite a bit because some bloggers refuse to allow people to communicate freely and prefer to bash others without allowing an equal opportunity to defend themselves. I have much documentation to show such moderation as I will always use my name when I do anything.

Anonymity is for cowards. Ask around I have lived through the worst of the threats to date and I certainly have not done that by being a coward. Read throughout this website (which I know you do on a regular basis)and I think history will prove I am not shy about using my name on anything.

Life would certainly be easier if I would have listened to many people years ago when I was told to back off, or be anonymous, but it just isn't my style. I won't hide nor have I ever hid from my opinions.

Additionally, the record you put forth in the form that you used can easily be copied with word processor and if it did indeed come from Metro Corrections than it could only be obtained by a lawyer, officer, or officer of the court via courtnet once again. From what I gather you generally do good work on your site but in this case considering the seriousness of the charges justice demands a higher standard.

What does that mean?

You, or someone you know, made public a record that was not intended to be so. IF it is a true record then someone on the inside wanted to use this smear campaign tactic because apparently they think Hollowell is a threat for re election. That is the problem today and one of the reasons I fight daily. I and many others are sick of this negative smear game of "politics." We demand better. If proven true Hollowell has much to answer for and deservedly so but it must be proven or it is opinion and that needs to be stated.

My opinion?

You did a poor job as a journalist in this case primarily because you ran it without proving verification. More importantly you violated privacy info by releasing Hollowell's full Social Security number as well.

As an attorney and a "journalist" you should have known better.

Finally, Councilwoman Vicki Welch has been busier than I thought. I ran a story on September 8 challenging Welch's spending habits with our tax dollars on travel etc. Louisville News and Politics: LOUISVILLE CHECKBOOK A WINNER: WHAT SAY YE VICKI WELCH? Though I got no mention from WHAS 11 Adam Walser, or WLKY 32 Andy Alcock, both did a story tonight on the expenses by some Council members spending habits and they were enlightening.

For example I have taken some heat by not reporting on Kevin Kramer's expenses. I did not report on his because he was not in a contested race so I did not spend time researching him. Time is limited so I do have to prioritize a bit.

Turns out I was slightly wrong about Welch. I reported that she had spent over $10,000. It turns out it is over $18,000 almost double what I found. She is clearly the front runner on wasteful travel expenses and abusing our tax dollars. Kramer comes in second, and Dan Johnson apparently third.

Good story guys glad to see mainstream finally catching up.

See you next time folks.........

1 comment:

  1. If I'm not mistaken, in the Lewis case, the law states that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff...not the defendant.


Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston


The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...