This is why the Framers allow us a militia!

I wonder if the folks that filed the challenge realize that they could potentially pay for the legal fees for the City if they loose............not counting the lawsuits that they could have if something catostrophic happens within the annexation area in the  meantime. 

??? There is a stipulation that the Municipality can be held accountable for the costs to the challenger if found in their (challengers) favor. The numbers read pretty clearly and they did not get the required amount of valid signatures needed.
The residents that filed are not the only one's irritated by this fact either. Owners that reside in Phoenix, mesa, maricopa, etc. are also upset about the annexation being filed. Some are afraid to sign against or voice an opinion for fear of retaliation, threats of citations and other such have already been made to a few maricopans.
There are only approx 8-18 (roughly) signatures from anyone even claiming to have a maricopa address or reside in the area, the rest were developers, and people with development agreements to benefit themselves at the residents costs!!

Just as I said all along, they wanted the area for industrial and commercial, so verifies the development agreements and the proposed zoning changes from low density to commercial on their last few and next few agendas. Some had no choice but to place development agreements on the table so that they would have some recourse. Though the city had those areas slated for commercial also.

So much for their promise of maintaining the rural lifestyle!!! Let this one go and you will see Hidden Valley North dissappear just like seven ranches did.

Another thing I've always said......what is rural about the city of maricopa???

The challenge is available to read by anyone.  Look at Pinal County Recorded documents, look under the challenger's names and you can download the pdf. file. It appears that there was (as always) a jump to conclusions, by their own exhibits.  It is sad, that these folks apparently did not consult an attorney prior to filing this.  Now the rest of us will get to pay for their misunderstandings of not only law, but corporate law in Arizona and the US. 

The Citizens for annexation are also on the front signed by a individual person for and on behalf of the Citizens for annexation?  I'm note sure why they are on the Caption page, unless they were wanting the free press????  Although, it is interesting to note, that the same person did not actually put their name on the challenge itself, leaving the liability to the three that signed the challenge ..........

The people that were against the annexation made their point loud and clear...........by not sending in their petitions. 

For three people to tell me that 51% of the people don't count....., well, it will be rather interesting..............when they pay the fees.

Just needed to make a correction.   On the caption page I said it was Citizens for annexation.  Please excuse me.  It should have read Citizens Against Annexation.

The name does actually appear on the documents, to the fullest extent the law will allow. The one that filled out the challenge cover page with name for CAA was and is not a legal property owner...therefore having no right legally or other to sign a court document to challenge, that is why VALID property owners did so.

AS for the misunderstandings thank your city council, had they not filed a document claiming something that is not factual according to all their records leaves the fault and responsibility on them, not the persons attempting to maintain their current lifestyle (s).
Three people did not make a decision for anyone, 6 made a decision for many and the decision was not in the wishes of the residents as you will see if you read the doc.

Check this from ARS 9-471 F. For the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the percentage of persons owning property under this section, the number of persons owning property shall be determined as follows:

1. In the case of property assessed by the county assessor, the number of persons owning property shall be as shown on the last assessment of the property.

2. In the case of property valued by the department of revenue, the number of persons owning property shall be as shown on the last valuation of the property.

3. If an undivided parcel of property is owned by multiple owners, such owners shall be deemed as one owner for the purposes of this section.

4. If a person owns multiple parcels of property, such owner shall be deemed as one owner for the purposes of this section.

Then go to pinal county and look up the filed, signed petition and see what a mess this petition is and was filed under, duplicate name after duplicate name, duplicated parcels, no dates, not matching signatures, faxes!!!

and they did not get the required signautres even per a meeting with them the day before the documents were filed!! 

Come on the City did this they just didn't think they would get caught!! They did the same on thier previous annexations also, same, same same, person, name, person, name, parcel, parcel, and no one said a word....well these people didnt lie down and take it!!!

If your city was honest the lawsuit wouldn't exist point blank so dont blame those protecting their own!!

R u one of the ones who filed this document for the city being that you just signed on today and have had nothing to say prior to such? Then you try to defame my character on the cities issues tisk tisk....

Apparently someone is worried and with good reason ARS also stipulates it is a class 6 felony for anyone knowingly filing a document in the manner such as the City did on the signed petition!!!!!

SOmeone has to stand up for the residents and being one, I will along with a few other GOOD PEOPLE will..... Since the city kept promising to do such and obviously ,we got it now that it was a lie, as do most of the few residents that signed and most definately those who knew what the city was about and didn't sign!!!!

Thank you very much for making my point for me...........again.  That's the importance of knowing the law.  I have verified the the Challenge against the exhibits..............That is why it is so extremely sad that we will have to pay for all of this.  The City did not try to get by with anything.  They followed the law to the letter.

By the way, who are the other 3?

I don't engage in any other manner than with facts.  No one is defaming you,  as I don't know who you are, nor do I care.

The documents speak for themselves. 

exactly they do speak for themselves and they didn't get their numbers, end of story. if none of it matters to you then drop it a
and we will continue with our part, leaving you out of it

obviously you didn't and don't know the facts since you questioned why I left my friends hanging.... so gues you read the documents so well you skipped right over my name correct, great review fact finder!!

Oh and the duplicate signatures filed as 182 comlpleted petitions??? you missed those? come on now lets get real!

I will not engage in personal attacks.  I find it threatening.  As I stated before, I cannot respond to you because I don't know who you are and I don't know your friends.  Are you one of the ones that signed the document?  Are you one of the six?  Are you the one that is claiming duplicate signatures? 

As for petition count............ The petitions and the documents are available per statutes anytime during office hours. 

The readers need to know ALL the facts.  Not claims......the facts.  Just the facts, Maam.  They have the right to know, and they have the right to know if YOU are one of the ones that is going to cost the City monies that didn't need to be expended.

Hang in there azcowgrl, this wanna be from who nows where will come forward and find out that facts from day one have been scewed by the "NO BRAINER" attitude of certain city staff, now, and former .   

Fernie, sorry but I have not the time and energy to waste on your name.  But I will at city hall Thursday morning for a meeting with you and your superiors to get this problem solved.  Be it yeh or ney, accept what it is and don't worry about your life.   You thought I was too aggressive concerning your status as an "annexation specialist" when in the end you were a graduate student following the Rick Busse regime.  OK   Fernie you are dealing with financial status and possibilites good and bad for what?  I feel that the council decision was premature and not researched properly to make such a quick now or nothing approach.   Communication is probably the best way now, but be prepared to prove your validity.

...scurries off to the concession stand for a bucket of popcorn and a 44 oz. coke.