canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england


Levitra instead of such famous love-drug Viagra?canadarxgeneric.com

Tag Archive for 'Public Service Commission'

Jim Powell and the Run-Off Election!

Jim Powell’s campaign for a seat on the Public Service Commission might be over if Secretary of State Karen Handel had not tried to keep him off the November ballot. It took from July until 5 days before the election for the Supreme Court to get the case and tell Handel, in an unanimous decision, that she was wrong. Think of all those early voters who may not have voted for Jim because his candidacy was in limbo. And what about the supporters who might have contributed to his campaign, if they had known they were not wasting their money on a “non-candidate?”

Such is the power of politics. Such is the abuse of political power. Anyway you cut it, Handel cannot defend her actions in drawing out this election. Was it partisan? Was it intended to help Powell’s opponent? Who knows? The regrettable truth is that her conduct raises these questions. The question for the future is whether or not this will come to haunt her should she decide to seek higher office (Governor) in 2010.

Even with the adversities caused by Handel, Powell still received 23,000 votes more (47.9% to 47.2%) than his opponent.

In this interview just a few days after the general election, all the votes had not yet been counted, but Jim explains the financial inequality that he had in the general election, whatever the cause.
If you check Jim’s campaign reports you will find that in the last report filed just days before the election, Jim had received contributions totaling $61,000.00, rounded. In the same reporting period, his opponent reported contributions of $146,000.00, rounded. That is the difference that can make a difference.

According to the financial disclosure filled with the State Ethics Commission, Powell’s opponent has a net worth of just over $1 million. Jim’s financial disclosure puts his net worth at about half that.

Jim did point out that Angela Speir won her seat on the PSC in 2002 on a tight campaign budget, spending less than $5,000.00 on the effort. Wow!!!

Jim Powell does not have time to wonder about what might have been. The race is not over until December 2nd.

VOTE!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 Jim Powell, Candidate, PSC District 4 [30:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (396)

Unanimous—Jim Powell Lives!!!! (In The 4th District)

The Georgia Supreme Court today ruled in Handel v Powell that Jim Powell, candidate for the Public Service Commission, District 4, was qualified to run.

You can read the entire opinion here, or this excerpt:

The superior court determined the Secretary made such an error of law when she concluded that the candidate’s homestead exemption on property outside the District was sufficient to determine that the candidate did not reside in the District.3 We agree with the superior court that the Secretary committed an error of law that authorizes reversal of the Secretary’s decision.

The Secretary acknowledged in her decision the existence in OCGA § 21-2-217 of “a set of rules” to be followed in determining residency to qualify to run for elective office, but employed only one of the fifteen rules contained in the set, the “homestead exemption” subsection. When the issue is the residence of a person desiring to qualify to run for elective office, OCGA § 21-2-217(a) directs that the rules contained therein are to be followed “so far as they are applicable[.]” The facts of the case at bar call into consideration at least seven of the fifteen rules: Subsections 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 6, and 9, as well as the homestead exemption rule found in subsection 14.4 but the Secretary’s decision did not take into account any of the applicable rules other than the homestead exemption rule. The Secretary’s analysis had the effect of elevating the “homestead exemption” rule of OCGA § 21-2-217(a) above the remaining rules contained therein, effectively eviscerating their application in any case questioning the qualifications of a candidate for elective office should the candidate own a home on which a homestead exemption is enjoyed. A statute must be construed “to give sensible and intelligent effect to all [its] provisions and to refrain from any interpretation which renders any part of the statute meaningless.” R. D. Brown Constrs. v. Bd. of Educ. of Columbia County, 280 Ga. 210, 212 (626 SE2d 471) (2006). Had the General Assembly intended such a preeminent role for the homestead exemption in determining the residence of a person desiring to qualify to run for elective office, it would have so stated in OCGA § 21-2 -217(a). Inasmuch as the superior court did not err when it reversed the decision of the Secretary, we affirm the judgment of the superior court.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.