Effect Of Arnebeck Suit To Contest Election

[righteous1]

I started this thread to clear up misconceptions concerning the Arnebeck suit and it's impact.

The Ohio Supreme Court received the contest of election suit file by Cliff Arnebeck a few hours before the Ohio slate of electors voted, but failed to act on it. Had they acted, they could have ordered a revote or overturned the outcome and declared JK the winner.

By refusing to grant relief prior to the electoral vote the court allowed the process to continue to a point where the jurisdiction of the courts is no longer viable. In other words at this point in the process, the courts have no authority to intercede or effect anything to do with the 2004 election results, period. Once the electors have cast their choice, the sanctity of those votes in "inviolate".

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041214/NEWS09/412140393



http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/041130a.htm

[smartvoter]

1. So, by taking too long, it was too late? nt

[righteous1]

2. I am afarid so, It just slays me why he waited to the very

last minute to submit his suit. He had to know that a ditrict court let alone the Supreme Court wouldn't act that fast

[smartvoter]

4. I just read the articles. Looks like we get Shrub unless a Senator

will stand up.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. He is a former REPUBLICAN congressional candidate and Perot supporter

This guy is a lawyer. He knows exactly what he is doing.

[ClintCooper2003]

88. He's an old-school Republican type. My Dad is an old-school...

Republican and a staunch Kerry supporter. I think Arnebeck just didn't have time to gather the evidence he needed.

[proudtobeadem]

97. I think Kerry

asked him to wait. I know this sucks, but I think Kerry started to get enough info to change his mind too late, or just really doesn't want to take a chance on looking bad this time in order to run in 2008 -BIG mistake. I think now that he has all this info,he might wait until after the inauguration to start to try to destroy the whole admin with the fraud and war. He probably even has a few Repugs who are ready to go along with him (not all repugs like the chimp or his policies).

[Higans]

111. They did it deliberatly. We knew they would

This is my question. That the one Head line I want to see.

I'll Buy add time. I will join together with ever American Indeed Ever Human. We Will print Bumper sticker in every Country around the world. Ever one Print Bumper Stickers:


Is E-Voting ME-Voting? Prove it.

Chant this slogan at every election day every ware.

MAIL IT TO SANTA EVERY HOLYDAY.

GO HUMANS GO.

(Who's side are you on?)

[New Earth]

3. wouldn't he have known this

if it was going to effect the court hearing the case? i would think he'd know this, he is a lawyer.

maybe there is something we are missing.

[righteous1]

9. He might have thought that by submitting an 11:00

contest, the Ohio S.C. would immediately stop the slate of electors untill they had time to full study the document

[KyndCulture]

5. I maybe wrong about this, but Thom Hartmann said yesterday

Something to the effect of, that by letting the electors vote, it removes this from the OH Supreme Court being the final word on it, and now only Congress can be the last word on the lawsuit, since Congress would be the one to remove the electors and re-instate new ones.

Not a quote, just what I got from his statement. So maybe Arnebeck was shrewd by waiting, since the OH S.C. is vastly republican?

my .2 cents anyway.

[liam97]

8. Bonifaz has explained this as well

He said that the date to look at is Jan 6, they are arguing that this cast of votes by electors is invalid

[Karenca]

10. thanks liam, a little ray of hope and sunshine just swept over to me :))

eom.

[Carolab]

98. The Bonifaz suit is separate

and relief is being brought on the basis of "morals" and "equal protection" due to different standards for counting ballots in the various Ohio counties, as I understand it.

[hlthe2b]

118. That is the very important point I was looking for!

[righteous1]

20. Yes, if the recount can show that JK received more votes

Blackwell would need to submit a "new" slate of electors to Congress and then they would vote on which set to accept. That is the remedy now

[Razorback_Democrat]

28. So you're saying this was strategy?

Crashing by design?

We gotta get a senator on board before that will happen though

[Karenca]

6. OYE VEY :(( nt

[KoKo]

7. His suit was delayed by first the Conyer's hearings and then by Kerry

making his press release. Arnebeck was ready to go two weeks ago but it seems our own Democrats stopped him. Perhaps they had a better plan in mind? It seems the emphasis has been shifted to "civil rights violations" as having a better chance to succeed? :shrug:

Wondered if anyone else who has followed this, has noticed how his lawsuit kept being delayed after he appeared on C-Span and was so confident of his proof that votes were moved. Then it was delayed and delayed. I have to believe the guy is a competent lawyer and would not have delayed unless he was told to. He's been after a couple of the Ohio Supreme Court Judges for taking money from "outside sources." Maybe he was considered to controversial?

[righteous1]

11. Yes, that would mean they are concentrating on indicting

individuals rather than trying to overturn the election results

[Karenca]

13. we should keep this kicked, because I am sure alot of us are

very confused and saddened ny the events of yesterday...do you mean that this is a better strategy?

[Diane L]

16. But if they are attempting to indict individuals and

then if they are indicted, wouldn't that still be cause to overturn the election?

[KoKo]

30. If the "individuals" are guilty of fraud or tampering then it would seem

the votes in the counties would be in danger. There might need to be a re-vote in the county like NC is doing. But, it would seem like a long process that would go on for months or a year to prosecute the "individuals." So, it would be too late for re-vote to help us :shrug:

Blackwell would be the biggest target, I would think. They have so much evidence of roadblocks he's put up, but the Warren County Courthouse "lock down" because of a "terrorist threat" sure seems to me to be something that would get attention. Was it legal what he did, or not?

Plus if Arnebeck has evidence some of the Ohio Supremes took money from outsiders (not having to do with the election) but that they were profiting then it might not look good for the Judges.

Still, if we are trying to find evidence of Opt-Scan tampering, I don't know that going after all the other individuals isn't kind of overwhelming to proving computer fraud of some kind.

It's hard to know where they are going with this lawsuit. It would seem that they would have filed a separate one just for Blackwell. Maybe they will after the recount is over. Charge him with "Obstruction of Voting and Serious Civil Rights violations" in the federal courts.

I think it's in the hands of the lawyers and how seriously Kerry/Edwards want to take this..:shrug: Just my 2 cents..not a lawyer.

[electropop]

50. If it is about laying groundwork for indictment

that may be better in the long run. Overturning one election is great (and I expect it to happen in good time). Changing laws is better (HAVA may be a Trojan Horse, but better changes are possible). Best of all is to let people know they will obey whatever the law is, or they will pay with jail time. Even a right wing operative is capable of understanding jail time. Plus think how satisfying to watch them all frogwalked into the prison. :D

[Pseudofool]

15. AP says court can rule.

"If the court decides to hear the challenge, it can declare a new winner or throw out the results. "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20041213/ap_on_re_us/ohio_electoral_college&printer=1

[righteous1]

18. That was referring to "before" the electors were chosen, read the

links, it explains it.

[Pseudofool]

27. Not sure about your claim righteous

"Yet, nothing in Ohio law purports to assure that Ohio’s electors will be certified, and that any dispute regarding their certification will be resolved, within 41 days of the November balloting"

Basically what Peter Shane is getting at is their is no clear guidance in the event the Ohio election is overturned.

Nowhere does the law (at least as relayedin Shane's text) forbid the Supreme Court from overturning the election.

Wouldn't the court look to precendence to make its decision rather than simply not act?

Moreover, ultimately this is just one man's interpretation of Ohio's state law, certainly the issue is murky, not one of "absolute finality".

[righteous1]

34. Please look at the law, once the electors have voted it is

no longer a matter of state law, it's federal law. The only thing the state can do is submit another set of electors and let Congress hash it out

[righteous1]

117. "Not Acting" is in the case of the SC an action n/t

[merh]

37. The lawsuit was not stopped by Conyers or anything else.

Read the complaint and you can see that it was a logistics nightmare to prepare it and make sure all the i's were dotted and t's crossed. (imho) It's amazing, folks blame Kerry for not being involved and for being involved. Kerry's letter is separate from the lawsuit.

The information and facts regarding irregularites were included in the complaint, not to mention the voting totals (which could not be included in the suit until the SOS has certified to the votes). He wanted to be sure he had everything covered before he filed and I think folks second guessing his strategy is silly. :silly:

[rucky]

99. Try getting two attorneys to agree on something....

much less 20,000.

[righteous1]

100. Good point n/t

[IndyOp]

14. Could Arnebeck call for/get criminal prosecutions in

the Ohio Supreme Court? If witnesses keep reporting in and he can get criminal prosecutions then it will make convincing Congress to contest the election must easier...

:eyes:

[righteous1]

24. Arnebeck was looking to the Ohio S.C. to either stop the electors

from voting, order a revote or reverse the results. They did none of the above. It all rests with the recount and the US Congress

[Moonwatcher]

17. email response from OSSC

"There has not been a hearing scheduled for Moss et al. v. Bush et al. (Supreme Court of Ohio case number 04-2055)."

[Broken Acorn]

19. The lawsuit is still valid

This already happened in Hawaii in 1960.

If they find fraud or the recount shows Kerry really won (which we all know) then the first slate of electors, sent yesterday, becomes invalid and Ohio selects a new slate of electors; the dems which would vote for Kerry.

Keep the faith people. Arnebeck know what he is doing.

[Diane L]

21. I'm really trying hard to keep the faith...

[righteous1]

22. No it's not, the Ohio Supreme court does not have jurisdiction

anymore unless by chance the recount shows JK got more votes, but if that happened you won't need the SC because Blackwell would have to submit a new slate of electors to Congress reagrdless, and of course it would be in their hands

[Stephanie]

26. "unless by chance the recount shows JK got more votes"

Isnt't that the whole point?

[CatWoman]

32. I've read his doom and gloom bullshit

on almost every Ohio Election thread.

I had to put my 2 cents in before putting him on ignore.

[Stephanie]

36. Okay thanks

I thought an atty would know the difference between affect and effect!

[KoKo]

40. But, even if Kerry doesn't get more votes...there was still intimidation

and obstruction. Violation of "Civil Rights" might still come into play in getting Blackwell and others who "conspired." So, if Kerry doesn't come out ahead there's still a way to prove that he might have, if Ohio had an "even voting field." :shrug:

[righteous1]

63. Yes, that is the crux of it

[Wordie]

45. I thought there was some issue of all controversies needing to be resolved

by the date of the meeting of the electoral college, and if not, then safe harbor was not considered to have been reached. Since safe harbor was not reached, is there anything in OH election law which might allow re-selection of the electors by OH up until the Jan. 6th date, as this was a pre-existant controvery? Could Arnebeck press this in the U.S. Supreme Court?

Isn't there also a step somewhere, yet to happen, where Blackwell has to present or send the vote tally or physical votes to the congress? Could that step be blocked by the Arnebeck suit?

Here is the information on the Moritz website about the safe harbor provision:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/041117a.htm

<snip>
This year the Electoral College meets on December 13. This date is specified by an Act of Congress, which states that “he electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.” Congress, moreover, has specified that all controversies regarding the appointment of electors should be resolved six days before the Electoral College meets – in other words, before December 7 this year – in order for the vote of the state’s electors to be binding on Congress when that body meets on January 6 to review the Electoral College votes and formally declare the winner of the presidential election. The earlier date is known as the “safe harbor” deadline and figured prominently in Bush v. Gore: the Supreme Court stopped the recount process in Florida because that deadline had arrived by the time of the Court’s decision.<unsnip>

I must say, I realize at this point that I am probably grasping at straws, but I really hope that there are people who are making sure that no stone has been left unturned.

[buzzard]

25. Link to Hawaii interesting read.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/how_kennedy_won_hawaii.htm

[KoKo]

49. Thanks....maybe the article will have some clues to where this case is

going.

[KoKo]

35. Somebody else referred to that Hawaii case. Do you have a snip of

an article about it? It might give us all some hope..

[johnaries]

23. Wrong! go back and read the Moritz article again....

Read the section "Recounts Concluding Subsequent to December 13" and further down "Applying Federal Law to a Post DEcember 13 Recount: Presumably – which means we are now leaving the world of certainty – if the executive does certify a new slate of electors to the Archivist, that later certification will either cancel, or act as a withdrawal of, the certification granted to the original slate of electors.
This also explains the mention in the first Conyers hearing about 2 sets of Electors.
If a recount shows the wrong Electors were chosen, the SoS can certify a second set of Electors, which are considered to "over-ride" the first certification. Although it looks like there is some wriggle room for Congress to to pick the first set, I doubt they would if it gets this far. It also mentions scenarios if the SoS refuses to certify the second set (which I'm sure Blackwell will), and that's where Ohio Courts come in by ordering him to certify the results, or else go to jail.

[righteous1]

31. How am I wrong, what I have been saying is exactly that

the only thing that can have any effect on the existing electoral slate is if the recount shows JK gor more votes, a new slate of electors would have to be submitted by Blackwell to Congress. The then choose which set of electors to honor. It is in the US Congress' hands. The courts are out of it, unless of course Blackwell would refuse to issue a new set of electors, and that won't happen if the recount clearly shows a JK victory

[johnaries]

41. Actually, what you said in your original post was

"In other words at this point in the process, the courts have no authority to intercede or effect anything to do with the 2004 election results, period. Once the electors have cast their choice, the sanctity of those votes in "inviolate". "

But they are not "inviolate" according to the article. If the Courts determine the election was fraudulent, then they can order a re-vote and Blackwell would be instructed to certify a second set of Electors.

[righteous1]

43. Read the Moritz law page

It says nothing about the Supreme Court "interceding" or granting relief after the electors have voted.

[righteous1]

95. Not any more, that remedy was available prior to the electors

committing and being submitted to Congress

[KoKo]

44. But doesn't that throw it to the US Congress to decide which slate of

electors they deem is the correct set? And, in that case with Repugs ruling both houses we know which set they would pick. Given a Media Lock Down how could we turn public approval against congress for approving the Bush/Cheney Electors over the Kerry/Edwards?

There would have to be evidence of horrendous fraud with a couple of folks with backgrounds like Bernie Kerik and sex and pedophilia thrown in for this story to get out. Ohio doesn't seem to have any investigative reporters like the New York City "Newsday" and "Daily News" reporters who maybe know what Blackwell others have been up to for years. And, maybe Blackwell is "clean" he's just an outright Partisan who stays with in a hair of the law as dreadful as his actions have been. :shrug:

[righteous1]

58. Maybe, but if it's that blatant ,public opinion would turn to such

an extent that Congress would pretty much have to do the right thing

[merh]

29. Ok, where did you get your degree?

Just wondering, I think the lawyer that has filed the action knows what he is doing.

:shrug:

[Razorback_Democrat]

33. Are you a lawyer?

If so, are you an election lawyer?

If not, why are you telling us what Arnebeck's suit will or won't do?

[libertypirate]

38. Thank you --

I suspect we have been infested.

How many of them know their little princess has got a Adams Apple? How many of them spank to visions of their mAnn?

The suit is to see how serious the rethugs are, we know they are going to keep pressing for the finish line.

[righteous1]

39. No. But call yours if you feel that I am incorrect

I am just trying to clarify misconceptions, if you disagree challenge me with pertinent Ohio law, more than happy to be proven wrong

[merh]

46. There is no Ohio law on the issue, it has never been challenged

in the manner that exists now, today. Precedent does not exist. Provide me with the law that supports your claims!

[IndyPriest]

47. Righteous: you raise important issues here, So I emailed

Arnebeck, and just asked him about them. If he gets back, I'll pass along his response.

[righteous1]

51. Thank you, and per chance I am wrong let me know first so I

can run away and hide LOL

[PennyMan]

42. Only One Of 11 More To Come

I Think I Read That This Is only One Of 11 More To Come Does Anyone Else Remember This

[gdub]

48. righteous1 is correct

At this point, it turns on the recount and a new slate of electors, if warranted by the recount. We have until January 6, 2005 to put a new slate of electors before Congress.

BTW, Congress can always choose to reject both slates of electors. In that case, Bush still wins.

A dismal outcome to be certain.

This is why public and media pressure continues to be key.

[Pseudofool]

52. Why the Lawsuit is valuable

Whether or not SC can overturn the election does not make this lawsuit invaluable. If the SC chooses a new set of electors, this forces Congress' hands a bit more than without such electors--don't you think.

If for only the possibility of having a new slate of electors this suit improves our odds of the election going for Kerry (no matter how slight).

But I gander that if Conversitive court finds fraud enough to elect a new slate of electors, Congress will have a pretty tough time dismissing those.

[righteous1]

55. Where in the law do you see where the Ohio Supreme Court

can select a new set of electors?. My read on this is that they have the option of ordering a revote, reversing the results or do nothing. The first 2 options must occur prior to electors voting. Once the electors have voted they are there forever, the only remedy is selecting another slate of electors which is legislative not judicial and submitting them to Congress

[anamandujano]

73. those congresspeople who have to face the vote soon

will think beyond the party line to their own hides.

of course the voting machines have to go or all bets are off.

[Razorback_Democrat]

114. dupe

[Razorback_Democrat]

115. sorry, triplicate!

[Razorback_Democrat]

116. Okay, Gdub? n/t

[MrUnderhill]

53. I don't think they could have ordered a re-vote

Doesn't the Constitution require electors to meet on a specific date? There is no Constitutional provision for running another election.

[righteous1]

56. Yes it's Federal law, the first Monday after the second

Wednesday in December

[troubleinwinter]

54. I think the point of the Arnebeck suit was deeper than Dec. 13th

Ohio does not have 'safe harbor' protection, so various scenarios exist to submit a new (after recount) slate of electors Jan. 6.

I think the most IMPORTANT portion of the suit is that Blackwell is named specifically as having committed election fraud, so will have no position as the "executive of the State" to make further determinations to Jan. 6.

I think Dec. 13th is not the issue at all. It is all about BLACKWELL / FRAUD, and he will be removed from having any say at all.

I think Arnebeck is doing vital work. The best that can be done in the circumstances- to show the Ohio results are fraudulent.

The end result.... who knows. But I think Blackwell will be removed and fraud proven, and the nation will know that the chimp is the Pretender for the second time, that no one in the world needs to even bother to regard him as 'President'.

[troubleinwinter]

61. I think there is strategy here, I would NOT want to play chess with him!!!

[righteous1]

65. I am certainly not saying that there is not something he knows that I

don't, but I still can't understand why he didn't give the OH S.C. more time to act, not saying they would have, but at least give them an opportunity

[Viktor Runeberg]

57. Your links

Your links don't support your statement. The Toledo Blade is a second-rate paper owned by a third-rate, right-wing, set of twins named Block - and the referenced article says nothing much anyhow. The Moritzlaw link concludes with, "Ohio helps to make the unthinkable thinkable by failing, in its election law, to account fully for the need to integrate state law with federal." The whole thrust of the article is that the statutes are vague and the case law is nonexistent, so courts would have to in effect make law to adjudicate this. Given the certainty, if Cobb's witness is telling the truth, that votes were rigged in multiple Ohio counties and that now a coverup is underway, when this thread unravels farther the public disgust with the Republican lawbreaking will have weight with the courts, which would not want to lose all respect for lawful conduct by taking the side of clear outlaws.

[righteous1]

60. Show me one area that I am contradicted

in the Moritz law summary

[Viktor Runeberg]

64. Moritz concludes inconclusively

Moritz concludes inconclusively, on the other hand you conclude firmly. That's a contradiction. Also, Moritz as a source does not have any special standing. On most any point in law you can example lawyers taking every conceivable side and interpretation. That's what lawyers do. But lawyers also hedge. Moritz is suggestive but highly hedged. You, on the other hand, make a bald statement which _may_ be consistent with where Moritz was pointing, but which, inconsistent with Moritz, is bald.

An interpretation of the law is already a step removed, and of no standing short of a court agreeing with it. An interpretation of an interpretation, by someone with no training in law, what's that? Why do you think, having read one debatable and inconclusive article, that you're qualified to conclude anything?

[righteous1]

67. I conclude conclusively only my opinion of the facts.

But with the Congressional archivist with electoral slate in hand as we speak, how could one possibly think that a state court could tell the US Congress not to do that which is required by them of federal law

[keithjx]

59. There are two actions here

seeking two different remedies.

I agree with righteous1 that the motion for the TRO and preliminary injunction is probably rendered moot b/c the s.ct failed to act on it (this IS a departure from my previous position, but upon further research, and in light of this post, I think I was wrong).

BUT this doesn't render pointless the petition contesting the election. While it would have been nice (and garnered an assload of public attention) if the ct HAD granted the TRO, Jan 6 is still the big day. Under the statutory authority for election contests (Ohio Revised Code 3515.08 et seq.) BushCo only has 15 days from the date of service (which, upon looking at the petition, date of service was Dec 13, 2004) plus 3 days for service by mail (probably) means 18 day, or New Year's Eve, Dec 31, to respond to the petition.

So relax a little - all is NOT lost. Not having the injunction sucks from a PR point-of-view, but it was a long shot to begin with (esp. filing it the MORNING OF the meeting).
Keithjx

[righteous1]

62. Interesting second thought. But what relief would be available by the

court concerning the "election contest" other than to sway congressional opinion. With the congressional archivist having Ohio electors "in hand" the only power to invalidate those electors in preference to another set resides in the Congress

[Pseudofool]

69. ...

I've been opmistically muddling around in here (I apologize). But what if the SC determines that the first set of electors were choosen due to fraud--there must be some recourse the State has to remedy the treason (after all it would be before the Jan 6 deadline).

I think whats really important is that the State law doesn't forbid action, and as some suggested, SC would be writing law by making their decision.

[righteous1]

70. One could surmise that if the fraud was blatant provable and

quantifiable there could be a chance that another slate of electors would be demanded to be submitted to Congress. But that would mean 2 slates of which Congress could pick one or worse pick none

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. Isn't the Ohio Supreme Court

mostly Repug?

Maybe by filing this suit so that it bypasses the OH Supreme Court and goes to Congress instead was a way of setting this thing up for a more favorable venue? I know thinking Congress is a more favorable venue might be nuts, but getting it out of the hands of the state of OH folks might be the lesser of two evils?

[righteous1]

68. 5 (R) 2 (D) n/t

[JackORoses]

83. there is a strategy here

you answered your own questions about what it could be...

"Yes, that would mean they are concentrating on indicting individuals rather than trying to overturn the election results"

but don't you see, indicting is overturning

both Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell
and Supreme Court Chief Justice Moyer
are implicated in this case.
in fact, the very election of Moyer is drawn into question

Moyer and Blackwell were the presiding officials in yesterday's electoral count

if Moyer is unseated/indicted and Blackwell is indicted

the results of that count will become invalid
because the presiding officials held no authority

[newyawker99]

107. Hi JackORoses!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MrUnderhill]

71. You're 100% CORRECT.

Thinking that Congress is a more favorable venue IS "nuts". ;-)

[read the law first]

72. righteous1

I've got a copy of the suit. I'll let you know if there's anything in it interesting that you haven't already heard.

You get this privilege because of your diligence and level-headedness. You've done a dang good job for a layperson.

RTLF

[righteous1]

74. Thanx RTLF, got my asbestos bloomers a bit scorched though

[troubleinwinter]

79. Hahaha! Yep, it's what we do here, right?

Usually (!) all in good humor.

I have read Arnebeck's petition to the court (there are two different documents). THAT is what was so interesting to me. The accusation of election fraud against Blackwell. I do think that is a large part of Arnebeck's thinking.

[righteous1]

82. Could be, think they have painted a bullseye on his head

also has ramifications beyond this election I believe, he is planning on running for Gov in 2 years and if they can at the very least cast doubt on him now it may take him out of contention

[troubleinwinter]

84. Blackwell, ya mean?

Yes, having been indicted for electon fraud, he could not very well run!

[righteous1]

86. Yes, Blackwell....it wouldn't even take that much

[troubleinwinter]

87. Think Arnebeck's focus is to remove him from the current process

[righteous1]

89. YEA n/t

[troubleinwinter]

93. YEA! And I think many more officials in Ohio will similarly be removed.

THEN what'd'ya got? A completely invalid Ohio election.

Hmmmm... mighty interesting.

[read the law first]

102. Help me with this.

Every Secretary of State in the country is a partisan. I'm pretty sure that every Secretary of State in the country is their state's chief election officer. Accordingly, the Secretary of State is making partisan decisions that impact elections every day. How are we going to run a system that disqualifies partisan secretaries of state from election issues? The office would be worthless.

Now, on the other hand INDICTED Secretaries of State is an entirely different question.

[troubleinwinter]

104. The question in Arnibeck's assertion in the petition to the court is:

ELECTION FRAUD, in violation of specific Ohio law, not partisanship.

[troubleinwinter]

106. That is, election fraud by Blackwell, himself.

[read the law first]

108. That's my point. n/t

[righteous1]

105. Well as you say every Secretary of State is going to be partisan

because he/she is a member of a party. It is also not uncommon for a SOS to have some form of participation in the re-election of people within the party. The rub comes when a persons partisanship would interfere with there ability to fairly and justly perform their duties under the law. Is a chief election official actively participating in the re-election of people within his scope of duty a desirable situation, probably not. Is it common, extremely. Is it ripe for change, very doubtful.

[4democracy]

109. Nader said tonight on DemocracyNow that the New Hampshire SOS

was very non-partisan and was very helpful to his recount requests

[righteous1]

112. That's the way it's supposed to be, the SOS in NH

was a Dem or Pub but obviously he didn't not let his politics get in the way of performing his dutiies in a fair and just way

[keithjx]

75. A copy of the suit?

You're not the only one...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=155528&mesg_id=155528

Righteous1 - I think that's why Arnebeck said they are NOT trying to change the outcome of the election. It's too late for the court to do that AFTER the TRO becomes moot. But in order for the election contest to go forward, they still have to allege that the outcome would change (there's a strong line of Ohio case law on that point).
Keithjx

[righteous1]

76. That doesn't make sense to me though, If an election "contest"

is not for the explicit purpose of changing the outcome of the election....what then?

[keithjx]

81. The process is set for STATE elections generally.

So when it's a federal election but we're proceeding under state law, there will be a disconnect (hence Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s call for NATIONALLY recognized right to vote and NATIONAL standards).

If this was a state matter, then the Ohio Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over the whole process (it would have been filed in common pleas court first, though) because electors/the electoral college process don't enter into it. So Arnebeck's case (Moss v. Bush) can result in the Ohio Supreme Court declaring the results of the election invalid through fraud, error, etc. Then, as you state, it becomes incombant on the FEDERAL groups (Congress, National Archivist, etc.) to act appropriately. The Congress would look pretty ridiculous accepting Ohio electors for Bush when the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Kerry won the state, for example.

The PRIMARY reason for Moss v. Bush is the integrity of the vote. Whether the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling causes federal recognition of fraud, etc., is beyond the scope of the case (or Ohio Supreme Court authority).

[righteous1]

85. That is a gray area for sure, whether it is in the power

of the Judiciary to declare an election invalid because of fraud etc; That would be a rendering of fact and hence the pervue of a jury. The Supreme Courts jurisdiction would be limited to judgements of law, not fact. Granted I am reaching back to the few college law courses i've had but I think that's correct

[keithjx]

90. Ah, but

The Ohio Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter (R.C. 3515.08) and it doesn't hold jury trials. In this instance, it acts as both finder-of-fact and adjudicator of the law. (This isn't unheard of. There are plenty of instances where judges are finders-of-fact).

Anyway, it's a wreck and I'm glad Cliff is handling it and not me! And cheres to you for getting this discussion going.

:toast:

[righteous1]

94. That I won't argue, still leaves the question of whether they can

force an additional slate of electors to be submitted to Congress, and even if they could, would they

[read the law first]

101. Appellate courts review matters of law de novo

Appellate courts usually are able to review conclusions of law de novo (which means they are not bound by the lower court's decision but will review it anew or fresh). On matters of fact, appellate courts are usually bound by what is called the "any evidence rule" which means determination of fact will be upheld as long as they are supported by "any evidence." You've got a little different situation here because the OSSC is the court of first impression i.e., it's the first court that this matter is coming before. Therefore, you don't have the fact/law dichotomy.

[righteous1]

103. Thanx for the info

[smartvoter]

77. Righteous, this is a very important thread. Thanks for it. nt

[righteous1]

78. Thank you for your

comments, I was beginning to think the whole forum was asking "where's the rope"

[smartvoter]

80. Unwelcome news. My neck's been sized up a few times, too. nt

[ClintCooper2003]

91. This is all so damn complicated sometimes. I also blame...

the Democrats for not INSISTING that our electoral process be transparent.

[righteous1]

92. You would think that this issue would

have been addressed by now. In 200 years there have been some unbelievable shenanigans perpetrated in elections and yet most of the proceedures are vague and scrutiny benign

[ClintCooper2003]

96. What I was wondering as I was driving down the freeway was this...

Would I be just as outraged if this were the other way around? Honestly, maybe I wouldn't be "outraged" but I sure would be sympathetic to the other side, given the mountain of evidence that has accumulated since election day.

[Last Lemming]

110. Just a doctor

not a lawyer here but my take on all of this is that the only way the Dems could win would be to make a case that was criminal rather than civil Sure elect the president but it really looks bad when he's just been indicted for election fraud


This has been worked out on many level. I think I mean a conspiracy for good, I think even the media stuff is worked out The reason the media isn't covering this is that without coverage there can be no Republican noise machine put into gear Quiet little suit in a no where part of the country Nobody says a thing What's there for Republican's to protest with the "liberal" media? The media has said nothing at all The only noise we hear is from the noise machine itself

But more has to happen This has been a coup and these guys will have to have their cold, dead fingers pried off the crown and scepter--so it has to come from elsewhere--FBI maybe? Like the indictment of a few neocons involved in the Valerie Plume affair--and the CIA will have to make their presence known--no guesses there--the media has to come on full tilt--If they don't do it together all at once and simutaneous then we end up with another run of anthrax cases . or worse . .

The worst could be very bad I can already see the administration setting us up for the next "terrorist attack on American soil" This time by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a clear Rumsfeld fabrication) that will be used to justify the draft

If they don't get this right we are really f**ked

[EMunster]

113. kicking great thread, righteous