Thanks to the Winston-Salem Journal, all documents in this case are now available in one place, including the original petition with supporting documents, Aceto's sworn response, and now the petitioners rejoinder to Aceto, which rather seriously ups the ante in this legal struggle. (PDFs of all documents are listed and are available on the W-S Journal page linked above, in the left-hand column.)
Petitioners brush aside Bill Aceto's request for summary judgment, pointing out that "there is no statutory procedure for summary dismissal of voter complaints," since the original petition to remove Eggers and Aceto alleged no criminal activity. However, the newest document points out, Aceto's sworn affidavit may indeed involve perjury, so petitioners request referral of this matter to the Attorney General. Further, the petitioners request a public hearing of the charges and ask for certain individuals with information be subpoenaed so that testimony can be taken under oath, including County Attorney Stacy C. Eggers IV ("Four") and Republican Party Chair Anne Marie Yates.
|Andrew Cox, The Appalachian|
Republican Party Chair Anne Marie Yates "must testify under oath and be subject to questioning in a hearing as to exactly how she acquired advance knowledge of the specifics of the matters the Board was to vote on at the August 12 meeting."
Petitioners say that they "suspect that Mr. Aceto’s response was prepared by County Attorney Stacy C. Eggers, IV," which of course everyone following this case in Watauga County had assumed. We further assume that Four Eggers prepared that response for both Aceto and brother Luke Eggers to sign. The fact that only Aceto signed it raises all sorts of red flags: why has Luke Eggers gone completely silent on the matter? Why would he not sign the response to the original complaint against him? How can Aceto speak for Luke Eggers?
Petitioners' entire answer to Aceto makes for very interesting reading.