Gunn Loses Appeal To DE High Court

After Four Different Counts, In An Election That Gunn Initially Won, Gunn Loses In Delaware’s High Court.

In one of Delaware’s Strangest and most obvious cases of voter election fraud, Lamarr Gunn’s run for the Kent County, Recorder of Deeds bid to regain the seat, he clearly won, was rejected by Delaware’s Supreme Court.

The election results indicated that Gunn won the election by two votes. State election laws dictates an automatic recount of votes, in an election that close. The absentee ballots were counted three times and in the first two recounts, Gunn won. Betty Lou McKenna won the last recount by two votes, at a late night count and the Board of Canvass certified that count in a late night session, after most people had gone home.

Mr. Gunn then appealed to the State Superior Court. A recount of the absentee ballots was ordered by the court, and once again a hand count of absentee ballots took place, resulting in a tie. Under Delaware State Law, Gov. Jack Markell vacated the seat and appointed McKenna as the Recorder of Deeds until 2016.

According to local news sources, Gunn said, “it caught me off guard. At this point it is beyond the Recorder of Deeds office. Now it’s about the integrity of the process. Any clear thinking Delawarean is scratching their head about this election. If I have anything to do with it I’ll make sure it will get the attention it deserves.”

Gunn was also quoted as saying that he plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision was a total surprise, he stated, according to local news sources.

Mr. Gunn, who is also the President of the Kent County Chapter of the NAACP, has recently said that all he wanted was the chance for another election. He is right, this obvious theft of the Recorder of Deeds seat has left many Delawareans “scratching their heads” wondering about the veracity of Delaware’s entire election system.

In my opinion, after two counts, it was clear that Mr. Gunn was the winner of the election. Only in Delaware would a Superior Court and Delaware Supreme Court step in and invalidate an election such as this. The entire Delaware election system should be investigated by the Federal Election Commission. This is one good reason why Delaware should have an “Office of Inspector General.”

20 thoughts on “Gunn Loses Appeal To DE High Court”

  1. Hey, DE Supreme Court Justices, how about taking off your white hoods and resigning. After the debacle your court perpetrated on the people of Delaware by not enforcing Article 15, Section 1 of the Delaware’s Constitution, by declaring that the Sheriffs are indeed not” conservators of the peace in the counties in which they reside respectively,” you judge LaMarr Gunn not the victor in the race for Kent County Recorder of Deeds. Say huh?
    You enrage many people with your incompetent decisions! We are disillusioned with your sense of the constitution and justice. We know you are not elected to your offices and don’t feel responsible to the people but a certain decorum is expected from you, or if you will, a certain respect for the Civil rights act. The Jim Crow laws are gone and you guys need to realize that fact!

  2. Of course, we all knew who was going to win this particular decision before the appeal was ever filed.
    Hmmm, let’s see. No judge in this state is elected and they are political appointees. That means they owe their jobs and income to their political appointment. If I were a Superior Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge, would I risk the wrath of those who appointed me along with my families future and livelihood and do the right thing by either declaring Gunn the winner of the election or making a judgement for a special election to decide who the real winner is. Well, we all know what those judges did!
    It’s not a difficult decision because the judges must account to no-one. There is no Inspector General, no right to recall, no referendum, no initiative. And the great thing about Delaware is: all government agencies are self policed with no information being released.
    Does it sound like a police state. Well they haven’t been able to complete it quite that far but it won’t take them much longer.

    Yes, as many have told me this decision was in the bag from the start. Do we want a corrupt Recorder of Deeds to be upended and exposed for everything corrupt that is happening, by the new African American Honest Recorder of Deeds. Well, I guess that question was answered by the master of GOBS (good ol boy system) once and for all. A handy appointment by Gov. Markell. Yes, this one was in the bag from the start, and the real problem with this, is that there is very little outrage. Hell, it didn’t even make national news!

    However the people of Delaware never get tired of being beaten in the ground, we can’t even elect people we want in office, good and honest people who would make a difference!

  3. They have not yet achceived Gleichschaltung , as there are some currents of Freedom and Liberty left in the First State. The Democrat and Republican parties have made the Faustian Bargain with corporate collectivism a long time ago. It’s time for the People to look for alternatives.

  4. its good to be in the company of such constitutional scholars. carry on gentlemen.

  5. Salty
    We’ll allow anyone to come on and discuss the veracity of the Delaware Supreme Courts decisions on either the LaMarr Gunn case or the Sheriff Jeff Christopher case. Instead of sarcasm, a real discussion would be welcome. I’m not hiding behind a pseudonym!!!!!

    When our civil rights are violated at the highest levels, it is neither an issue for sarcasm or ridicule, but instead, good honest discussion. Carry on Saltyindependent.

  6. The court may well be correct. The complaint was not properly grounded. This is the fault of Gunn’s attornies, not the court.

  7. saltyindependent May 17, 2015 at 23:09 “its good to be in the company of such constitutional scholars. carry on gentlemen.”

    What issues of constitutional law do you think it takes to hide from the obvious and rationalize injustice?

    I am a constitutional scholar.

    But if one has to hide behind convoluted arguments to try to escape obvious common sense, than constitutional technicalities have simply become instruments to rationalize injustice.

    But let’s be clear: When anyone today talks about a constitutional scholar or lawyer or constitutional lawyer THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

    They are talking about the study of past judicial precedents.

    That is not constitutional law. These are not constitutional scholars.

    They are simply flunkies who are expert at parroting what judges have said in the past.

    But if a recount goes for Lamarr Gunn, by increasing numbers, and the courts don’t seat the winner of the election,

    in what way are the courts acting propertly or rationally?

  8. there is such intellectual heft on this site. truly a privilege to read it. carry on gentlemen.

  9. Salty
    Your comments are redundant and you must be out of material. We thought you might come up with an original idea but we were wrong.

  10. don

    your use of the word veracity in your comment demonstrates that you don’t know what it means. veracity speaks to factual truth and accuracy. the veracity of a ruling of a court (opinion) cannot by definition be measured for truth or accuracy. but hey, carry on with your loftiness.

  11. saltyindependent May 18, 2015 at 23:26 “the veracity of a ruling of a court (opinion) cannot by definition be measured for truth or accuracy. ”

    I don’t know what Don was referring to.

    But what if a judge — as I have often seen — deceptively misrepresents the facts in the record when reciting the facts, and then draws a conclusion (the opinion of the court) based on a false misrepresentation of the facts?

  12. Salty:

    According to my Merriam-Webster Dictionary, obtained handily from my ancient oak bookcase.
    Veracity: devotion to truth —-Truthfulness—–Conformity to fact —Accuracy —-Something true

    So Salty, I believe I said exactly what I meant. Carry on with your life.

  13. Salty:
    Jon offers constant informative, substantive and competent argument to issues presented at DP, while you offer sarcasm. Who do you think people would read?
    I know you are an intelligent individual and could join the debate with substance, but instead you choose wander in the background with sarcastic comments. Why? You do yourself a great disservice.

  14. what if-as i have seen often- you are full of it?

    This comment is emblematic of the left’s fatuity. Carry on.

  15. Good one Rick:
    fatuity: Stupidity, foolishness.
    I haven’t seen anyone use that word for quite a while!

  16. rick

    you make some good arguments on here. mosely’s a big boy. he can take care of himself, although i do appreciate the fact that you limit your words when making your point. by the way… i’m not from “the left”. i will not be voting for hillary clinton.

  17. saltyindependent May 24, 2015 at 00:02 “i’m not from “the left”. i will not be voting for hillary clinton.”

    Not when you can vote for Vermont’s Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

    People’s philosophy is clearly revealed by what they say, how they say it, and their analysis in making their points.

    It is very obvious that Salty Independent is playing the “seminar caller’ game — trying to influence the debate by pretending to represent independents that foolish campaign consultants claim are important to winning elections.

    But despite claiming to represent independents, Salty is a liberal, as revealed by what Salty says, how Salty says it and the thought process revealed in what Salty says.

    Salty, like all “seminar callers” is trying to fool us into thinking that Republicans have to position themselves to the far Left to win over independent voters.

    By contrast, very conservative Ronald Reagan won over independents and Reagan Democrats by staking out very strong, very conservative positions — bold colors, no pale pastels.

    Independents — while not a uniform group by definition — are not impressed by wimpy begging and pandering. They are persuaded by strong, compelling arguments.

  18. Same with Bill Roth and Pierre DuPont and other successful Republicans in Delaware…. they all ran as conservatives.

    Even Mike Castle originally pretended to be conservative.

    Even now Mike Castle supporters will insist that Mike Castle was a conservative.

    So clearly the only way to win elections even in Delaware is to run as a conservative — and to stop listening to bad advice from liberals who want the DEGOP to lose.

Comments are closed.