Moyer - Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence Denied

[read the law first]

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7119.pdf

In Moss v. Bush, Moyer denies motion on pleading technicalities regarding the affidavits and exhibits in support of motion.

Not a good day today in Moss v. *

[shraby]

1. Moyer should have recused himself.

This stinks

[Truman01]

183. Moyers had no reason to recuse himself. nt

[Chimpanzee]

189. Yes he certainly does

[Truman01]

203. And what would that be? nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Aw shit!

I'm virtually speechless. Not surprised, but pissed off and speechless.

[Al-CIAda]

3. Outrageous!

These MF'ers have stolen our democracy.

[roseBudd]

4. Any idea what the exhibits were?

[read the law first]

8. He lists them in the order. You have to scroll down.

The order is the third or fourth one on the link. You have to scroll down.

[roseBudd]

11. So no statistical analysis as prima facie evidence of fraud, just

just affidavits relating to Triad recount possible nefarious antics

[berniew1]

171. But followup has documented fraud where the statistical analysis indicated

But followup has documented fraud where the statistical analysis indicated in many of the counties; and the voter logs necessary to document it in other counties were denied to recounters by officials.
i.e. we have the documentation and won't let you see it; so prove it without having any info. If we say we won, we won. Trust us.

[euler]

179. We had no statistical evidence.

TIA is an amateur. He (or anyone claiming what he claims) would be destroyed on the stand.

[Truman01]

184. Stats don't meet prima facia evidence in this case nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Legal Question:

Forgive my ignorance, this may be incredibly stupid but I have to ask. What recourse do the plaintiffs have at this point? Can a motion like this be appealed to SCOTUS or does it have to be an entire case? Basically, what are the ramifications...

[davidgmills]

28. Lawyer's take

Probably no further appellate recourse as this was a motion to expedite discovery. However, since the affidavits were not proper, probably because they were made in haste or perhaps done by a non-lawyer, they could be redone correctly and in much more detail and the motion resubmitted. This is definitely a screw up, but the lawyer may have had no choice but to use what he had.

This is not unexpected to me, because as I have pointed out on several occasions, and as I think the judge pointed out, there is no evidence that can be submitted to the court at this time to suggest the fraud is so great to have produced in improper winner of the election. This is the application, conscious or otherwise, of the "harmless error" rule which I have been harping about for days.

If the judge had good reason to believe that there was evidence to show that the outcome of the elcection was in doubt, I think he might have recused himself and/or I think he might have looked the other way on these defective affidavits, or at least requested that they be submitted properly before he ruled.

That is why I repeat again we needed to re-exit poll Ohio. If a re-exit poll showed Kerry to be the winner, the judges would take these kinds of motions far more seriously. Unfortuantely, I expect more of the same in federal court.

[spooked]

38. You're right, That the KEY: Re-Exit Poll Ohio

Also, why couldn't someone phone EVERY registered voter in some of the smaller pricincts and see if the numbers jive.

[mod mom]

101. CASEOhio is working on a project like this and could use volunteers

as well as funding <caseohio.org>

[buddysmellgood]

141. Exactly. MoveOn has the system to do this. I emailed them repeatedly.

MoveOn could easily call every registered voter in a number of counties. Perhaps there is a programmer on DU that could set up a web system whereby we could each check out 100 names and call them with a number of questions.

[kitkat65]

152. I e-mailed them a couple of time about this issue as well.

And I didn't get any replies either. I'm not real happy with them right now.

I know they have voter information for precincts here in Franklin Co. that could have been very useful in contacting people about their voting experience PLUS they had a network of "precinct captains" and volunteers from their Leave No Voter Behind campaign and they completely dropped the ball.

I'm not real happy with them right now. I seriously doubt if I will ever work with them again on anything.

[buddysmellgood]

165. Me too. I was a precinct captain. I went to a post election MoveOn meeting

where 18000 from across the nation got together on the net. We did some strategic planning. The two top issues folks want to work on are election reform and media reform. That was in the middle of November. What did we get....silence.

[kitkat65]

177. Do you know any other precinct captains?

Do you still have your contact lists? Maybe we could do something without MoveOn. Maybe get a list of all registered voters in our neighborhoods and do some sort of audit such as, how long was your waiting time, could you not vote because of the lines, etc.

[buddysmellgood]

211. It wouldn't help here. I'm in Wisconsin.

[kitkat65]

224. Oh, well. Worth a shot. Thanks.

[euler]

180. To what end ?

Nothing like this would ever be admitted in court.

[Truman01]

191. Even this would not begin to be evidence.

You don't know these people are telling you the truth. There is no "under oath" affidavit, nor is there any confidence in a poll taken by the PLAINTIFF. Common guys, you that have legal training know this is BULLSHIT pure and simple. Flame me if you will, but "RE-exit polling?"

The affidavits didn't say that they were sworn to? They didn't have language that said the affiant signed in front of the notary? We have been hoodwinked. These complaints were not real.

TC

[davidgmills]

226. RE- exit polling evidence highly admissible

With expert testimony.

And certainly relevant on the issue of whether Kerry won instead of Bush. Goes straight o the heart of an election contest suit. In fact part of the proof necessary for an election contest is to show that the outcome was questionable and likely wrong.

The proof is subject of course to expert testimony that the exit poll was flawed or inaccurate. But that takes rebuttal expert proof.

Hypothetically, suppose you had a highly accurate exit poll and you could get experts like Zogby and Harris and Gallup and about 20 statisticians, mathematicians, computer scientists, and social scientists from the premier universities in the country to testify that the polls almost surely were indicative of widespread computer fraud. Suppose it is widely covered by the media as it would probably be if this were blockbuster evidence.

Now suppose that the defendants can only come up with rinky dink local yokels to counter this testimony.

The judge is going to be in a real box and if it is a jury case (I have no idea if election contests are jury cases or not), maybe the jury goes your way. All hell breaks loose.

By the way, I am not talking about any rinky dink exit poll either. Here is a copy of an article I submitted to Informationclearinghouse for publication yesterday. They have published a number of my articles before but who knows whether they will publish this one.

...............

Why We Must Re-exit Poll Ohio Now

The stalemate. Late on election day, and well through election night, Kerry was winning the exit polls, causing many to predict his victory. Then something happened. Despite being substantially ahead in many of these election polls, his lead dramatically disappeared.

The day before election day, some pollsters had Kerry ahead, some had him slightly behind, some had it a dead heat. Virtually no pollster had him behind by 3%, Bush’s ultimate margin of victory, and that certainly was not the consensus of the polls. Most had Kerry ahead in critical swing states.

Immediately, because people were told that exit polls are extremely accurate, something appeared to be amiss. Soon there were arguments on both sides about whether the exit polls were accurate or not. In short, a stalemate began to exist between those who believed the exit polls were accurate, and those who believed they were not, and that is where we still are eight weeks later.

The reason for the stalemate. The reason for this stalemate is due to a polling phenomenon that statisticians call “clustering.” Before I describe it further, let’s look at some basic background information on polling.

In pre-election polling, potential voters are called at “random.” In pre-election polling, the uncertain variable is who will actually vote. The “likely voter” variable causes most of the margin of error prior to election day. Pre-election pollsters rack their brains trying to figure out who will be “likely voters.” While exit polling solves the problem of trying to figure out who the “likely voters” are, it creates one of its own, one called “clustering.” The experts say that exit polls are not “random” polls, but instead are polls of “clustered” communities.

An example of putting marbles in a jar will illustrate the difference between the two. If one puts 500 red marbles and 500 blue marbles in a jar and one mixes the jar thoroughly until the marbles are totally random, then when 50 marbles are randomly taken from the jar, the expectation is that one will get very close to 25 reds and 25 blues. Then it is very easy to predict that the jar is full of half reds and half blues with a high degree of accuracy.

If however one puts “clusters” of 50 reds and “clusters” of 50 blues in a jar and the jar is not thoroughly mixed, but left in “clusters,” then it is easy to see how if 50 marbles are taken randomly from the jar, one might get 32 reds and 18 blues, and consequently, be totally wrong about what percentage of reds and blues there are in the jar.

The experts say that pre-election polling is like the first example; exit-polling like the latter. They believe that many precincts where the polls take place are clusters of Democrats and clusters of Republicans and that these clusters must be accurately taken into account or their predictions will be off.

The best known analysis of the exit polls has been done by Dr. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania. When Dr. Freeman did his first analysis, he was accused of having “failed” to take into account the “clustering” effect when he came up with his now famous 250 million to one odds of something being terribly amiss. When he was informed of his “mistake” he factored in a “clustering” correction that reduced his odds to 650,000 to one. Later his critics claimed his “clustering” correction was still not adequate and that he had still underestimated the “clustering” effect. (Experts refer to it as a “design effect”, but I will use the term “cluster effect”).

But just how much should one correct for the “clustering” phenomenon? No one knows. Others, as well as I, have many questions about it.

To begin with, the effect of clustering should only occur with small sampling. Using the example of the marbles in the jars again, one can see that if you sample 50 marbles in 1000 clustered jars, the 35 reds you get in one jar will be offset by 35 blues in another and the effect at some point will cancel itself out. The higher the population, the more samples will be required; thus as our population has increased, the clustering effect should be headed towards extinction. Surprisingly though, the "experts" say the clustering effect is heading in the other direction. According to expert pollsters, pollsters used to account for a 30% clustering effect in 1996 (the number Dr. Freeman used in his corrected analysis), but now claim that for 2004 it has increased to between 50-80%.

My second concern is whether we really are in fact polling in "clustered" places. More and more I see graphs of a purple America, not a blue and red one. Yes, there are a few truly red areas and a few truly blue areas, but I have a hard time believing that the average polling place is much greater than a 70/30 split. Probably most are less than that. This would certainly reduce any cluster effect.

Third. If there is a cluster effect in exit polling, it should be evident when compared to pre-election polling which is supposed to be random. Random sampling and clustered sampling are not supposed to produce the same results. But in a study done on Democratic Underground by a mathematician (who uses the pen-name, Truth is All), he compared the very last pre-election polls with the latest "non-corrupted" (meaning mixed with actual results) post election polls, and instead of the numbers being different as one would expect if there were a clustering effect, they were almost identical. He is one of the mathematicians who believes that the cluster effect concept is bogus, at least as it applies to polling. He was not attempting to show the cluster effect was a bogus concept by the study. I pointed it out to him. He thinks the cluster effect is so bogus he doesn't even want to engage in the argument. But his results should be evidence that the claimed cluster effect doesn't exist or has cancelled itself out due to the volume of samples.

My fourth problem is a business one. If you include the cluster effect in your calculations, it means that margins of error are easily 3.5% or more in some of the best of situations. I cannot imagine networks paying the millions of dollars they pay for election night to only be within a 3.5% margin of error when the polls close. You would not be able to call any of the swing states on anything like the timetable the networks want. I don't buy the argument that they pay all this money for other data. Sorry.

Fifth. Another mathematician on Democratic Underground, (who uses the pen name macdonald and who believes in the concept of clustering) has reworked the numbers using the highest numbers for the clustering effect. His conclusion is still the same as Freeman’s (i.e seriously amiss) but with not nearly the 650,000 to one odds. But even he has no idea what the real numbers for cluster effect should be; he's just using the latest ones the experts have thrown out.

Sixth: Why were exit polls apparently so accurate in the past but not now? To be fair, some dispute this notion.

Seventh: Why are they still accurate in Europe? Presumably they have political clusters there and they can get it right. Again to be fair, some dispute just how accurate they are.

Eighth: Could it be that whatever factor you use for clustering is only as good as the honesty of the last election?

Ninth: Could it be that gradually increasing usage of computers accompanied by computer fraud has caused these numbers to inflate?

Tenth: Another mathematician on Democratic Underground (who uses the pen name jwmealy) has shown that the exit polls of those states with paper ballots were far closer than those that used paperless systems. He suspects computer fraud.

Regardless of its reliability, or lack of it, the exit poll data is still driving the uncertainty about the election, with uncertainty likely to persist.

The best solution to the stalemate -- Re-exit poll Ohio now in a do-or die poll. Ohio was the key swing state in the election; Kerry was leading in the exit polls by over three percent until exit poll numbers were “contaminated” with actual numbers; it is also the state where several lawsuits have been filed questioning the election results.

Exit polling Ohio now would be random and not clustered. It would also eliminate the variable of who is a likely voter and who is not. A proper exit poll now of 16,000 Ohio voters would produce an accuracy, I am told, of 1%. I am also told it would not be unbearably expensive.

Given all the questions raised in Ohio about computer fraud and questionable ballots, it would give us a really good idea of what the voters of Ohio intended. To me, a highly accurate exit-poll is nothing but a very valid check of the system. If the exit poll results do not square with the actual results, a red flag is thrown up and people are almost obligated to check the system out.

Suppose for example the news tomorrow was that three highly respected pollsters, Zogby, Harris and Gallup had, in a joint venture for the good of the country, exit-polled 16,000 voters in Ohio and found that of Ohioans polled, 52% had voted for Kerry and 48% for Bush? Suppose they also said their poll was accurate within 1%.

What would happen when the news got out? Not only would the media be covering it, but all judges in the Ohio election contest suits would instantly take a different viewpoint on their cases. Would Kerry then look like a sore loser if he got active in the Ohio lawsuits? Would what Conyers is doing be taken seriously? Might some senators balk on January 6?

I think the answer to all these questions is yes.

I am a lawyer, so I tend to look at what is going on from a legal perspective. From the standpoint of a lawyer, every lawyer knows of the “harmless error” rule. If you want to have a case overturned, you must convince a court that the error was not harmless and that it likely made a difference in the outcome of the case. This harmless error rule, whether consciously or not, is in every judge’s mind. If you want to prove that there was fraud in an election, you also have to prove that the fraud likely caused a loser to win and a winner to lose. Unless the margins of victory are incredibly small, how can you prove that there is a good chance the outcome of the election was in doubt? I say you need an exit poll, and one which the scientific, mathematical and statistical community almost universally accepts as valid. Right now the status of the 2004 election is the electoral equivalent of the “harmless error” rule.

Certainly, the litigation in Ohio is staring the “harmless error” rule in the face. If you want really good discovery, you need the judge to be on your side and hammering the hell out of the opposition. If he doesn't, they will stonewall the hell out of you. To get the judge's attention, you have to have him believing that your case probably will make a difference in the outcome of things. If the judge believes that the possibility for making a difference is slight, he is likely not to give you much help.

But a really accurate exit poll, which showed Kerry won or should have won, changes the dynamics, especially given what has happened in the Ukraine. A judge will see the double standard instantly if the Republicans start to argue that a really legitimate poll was flawed.


Did the Ukraine elections get set aside for any reason other than the exit polls? No.

In hindsight, I think one of the major mistakes of the 2000 election, is that extremely accurate exit polls weren't taken. If the Supreme Court of the US had been faced with extremely accurate exit polls of Florida that showed Gore won Florida by 2%, maybe they would not have decided the way they did. Judges are political animals. It would have been a much tougher decision for the moderate voices on the court.

Moreover, if a new exit poll of Ohio shows the opposite of a Kerry victory and Bush wins the poll 52% to Kerry’s 48%, would most of the major election controversy go away? In a heartbeat.

So I say, for the good of democracy, let us re-exit poll Ohio with reputable pollsters right now and get it done before January 6.



David G. Mills is an attorney who practices in Memphis, Tn.

[righteous1]

227. For every expert on one side there would be one on the other.

Think about it, using polling to prove that the actual election was flawed, thats like trying to prove it's raining by using the weather report and historical weather data patterns rather than walking outside and seeing if it is or not

[davidgmills]

228. When you can't walk outside

That's what you have to rely on

[righteous1]

236. How so? Just as in FL 2000, An independemt groups like the NYT/WSJ

can hand count every ballot and come up with a defintive tally

[Truman01]

231. Good post I agree in part and disagree in part. nt

I'll have to answer later though. Tough day, I'll be on in two hours.

TC

[Truman01]

232. Admissible is one thing.....

I'm sure it could be admissible, but getting a trier of fact to take an after the fact exit-polling by an interested party as your soul proof of fraud?

TC

[davidgmills]

233. Not the sole Proof but

An election contest case has two main elements: (1) fraud or irregularities; and (2) proof that the fraud or irregularities put the validity of the election in jeopardy. Competent exit polling proof suffices for the part of the case that requires proof that the fraud caused the election outcome to be in doubt.

For example in an election contest in Florida in 2000, that kind of evidence would not have been necessary because the election was so close that it is self evident that even small irregularities could jeopardize the validity of the election.

But when there is a wide margin between purported winner and purported loser, you need some evidence to show that the fraud, irregularities and/or suppression was numerically sufficient to put the election's validity in doubt. Exit polls seem to be the only scientific means to supply that proof.

And unfortunately, this proof is apparently missing in all these Ohio cases. What proof there is seems to be nothing more than rank speculation and will be treated (harshly I expect) as such.

[Truman01]

235. The fact that proof is missing is my point.....

All we have is conjecture. We are using exit polling the the pollster disavows. There is zero evidence for the main allegation: that Triad fiddled with the tabulation. We have "voter suppression" because people were made to wait a couple hours to vote? I waited almost 3 hours in a very wealth white precinct what does that mean?

The end of this story is that we don't like the way this election turned out and we are desperate to blame it on, Blackwell, Rove or space aliens to avoid the obvious. We lost.

TC

[Doctor O]

241. Prior to the election, I remember that:

The pollsters were cautioning the networks AGAINST using the exit polls to predict the winner. and:

There was much speculation with the pre election polls that one large problem all the pollsters were having was the predicted voter turnout.

It seems that they were speculating on shifts in the % of Reps / dems /. Independents and they were concerned about not being able to hit the right mix. in order to predict the models.

In 2000 the networks in claimed the exit polls were flawed, and hired mitofsky to build a new exit polling process and scrapped the old one. 1992 and 1996 exit polls while right in selecting the winner had poll results showing favoring democrats by up to 8 percentage points from the final results.

I also remembers hearing speculation that the pollsters were unsure of the models when the turnout hit 120 million. I beklieve the comment of one pollster was "Once the turnouts hits 120 million, all bets are off."

If these were in fact comments by respected pollsters, would this further damage reliance on exit polls for evidence.

[davidgmills]

242. Since the 2000 election I have always beleived that litigation

Is a very poor (hopeless) means of changing the outcomes of our national elections.

The basic problem is that all election law is state law and designed with state timetables in mind. If in a state senator's race, the race is questionable and suit is brought under normal conditions, it might take 8 or 9 months for the court to determine the outcome of the suit. Election suits usually have statutes that require courts to expedite these cases, which is why they might only take 8 or 9 months instead of the usual 2 -3 years for civl suits.

So now you see every Presidential candidate's problem. How to get an election contest done in time to make a difference. Gore was not enjoined by the US Supreme court from continuing his recount options. But by the time the SC ruled, it was only days away from the electors vote in Congress.

So I think that frankly, all you can reasonably do is what Conyers is doing. Get enough evidence to put the outcome in some doubt and hope that Congress will do something about it. Again, this is where I believe that a very valid exit poll showing Kerry won Ohio would have put enormous pressure on Congress to reject the electors of Ohio. The Democratic senators would have really been on the hot seat then. Now they can throw up their hands and say, well, where is the evidence? If for no other reason alone, we should have extremely accurate exit polls from now on so that Congress has reasonable grounds to challenge the electors of a particular state.

[merh]

238. Question?

Aren't the issues raised in Conyers letter and Arnebeck's motion sufficient under Ohio law?

CONYERS LETTER
Moreover, bringing in Triad officials into other Ohio Counties would also appear to violate Ohio Revised Code § 3505.32 which provides that during a period of official canvassing, all interaction with ballots must be "in the presence of all of the members of the board and any other persons who are entitled to witness the official canvass," given that last Friday, the Ohio Secretary of State has issued orders to the effect that election officials are to treat all election materials as if they were in a period of canvassing,2 and that "Teams of one Democrat and one Republican must be present with ballots at all times of processing."

Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: "A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title."

[righteous1]

239. So the question is : did Triad "interact" with ballots

[merh]

240. If an independent review of the equipment is not allowed,

one will never know.

[righteous1]

225. kick

[gkhouston]

46. what about the canvass the Free Press did?

I read that the Free Press canvassed one precinct with an unusually high voter turnout -- over 98% -- basically all but 10 people in the precinct would have to have voted on election day. They canvassed less than half of the precinct and found 25 people who had not voted. Would affidavits from those non-voters be persuasive? Granted, it's only one precinct, but it's something fishy that can be documented instantly. A poll is going to take some time to organize, fund, and execute.

And another question: if fraud is suspected, will they keep chugging away to uncover potential wrongdoing, even after the 6th or the 20th? I can appreciate the argument that the courts might not be able to provide a remedy after a certain day but just giving up sends the message that the statue of limitations on election fraud is less than 3 months; you sure don't get that bargain with any other kind of crime.


Gina

[davidgmills]

57. I still think

The Courts will be faced with the question of "so what?" Elections aren't perfect. They are not likely to take much interst in the status quo if they don't think the status quo will change. They have to be convinced that there is something really striking going on that affected the outcome of the election.

Where is the evidence that Kerry won the election or came darn close? This is not like Florida in 2000 where the tallies were 500 votes apart and any moron would know that a recount or even small fraud could make a difference. We are talking nearly 120,000 votes. How do you convince a court that there was so much fraud that 120,000 votes can be overcome?

The only way it has been done is with exit polls, period. The argument is that the exit polls in Ohio were not accurate enough to prove Kerry won. My solution -- get some exit polls that are accurate, that scientists and mathematicians don't squabble over and if Kerry wins, now the judges are in the hot seat. No exit polls clearly showing a Kerry win-- no hot seat. No action.

[mod mom]

104. One problem in Ohio is Blackwell's refusal

to allow access to the Poll signature books.

[Peace Patriot]

116. I really don't understand this.

How can Blackwell hide the poll signature books? That's a critical piece of election information, presumably in the public domain? Can someone explain to me on what grounds he is withholding this information?

You shouldn't need discovery for this. It's public information.

Have there been motions to obtain it, in either case?

[euler]

186. Ohio law gives Blackwell...

...the right to do everything he has done thus far. In fact, many of his decisions are mandated by Ohio law - he had to rule as he did because he would be breaking the law if he didn't. In other instances, he is the person who decides what the law and rules are.

The real problem is that the US constitution allows each state to come up with its own procedures. We have to live with this. I doubt any attempt to amend the constitution to remedy this issue would succeed.

[nodictators]

115. Don't judges and courts abhor statistical arguments?

Polls are done with statistics. It's now nearly two months after the election. Would a judge allow such a case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a numbers guy. I wouldn't view a poll taken two months after an election as evidence of anything.

It seems to me that Arnebeck and Fitrakis have a decent showing of evidence of fraud. Certainly, there is documentary evidence of the biased distribution of voting machines. The inadequate number of voting machines was the means of disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters. The election was fraudlent.

Yesterday, I viewed the video re that in Franklin County. How can election officials be allowed to get away with that kind of crap?

Moyer, Blackwell, Damnschroder should be sent directly to Hell!

[euler]

188. Would a judge allow ? Of course not.

The notion that a judge would allow it is a dream only.

[saracat]

148. Couldn't Arnebeck use the Judge's refusal to recuse himself as a reason

for appeal?

[shiina]

168. He said in an interview he would make an issue of the judge

[Truman01]

219. He didn't have to recuse himself. He only made an administrative

ruling on the suit that had him as a defendant, and then there was no more rulings by him on that suit. Besides, any contest concerning that recusal would run into the obvious: Arnebeck tried to mix two suits that were not to be mixed so that he could force Moyer to recuse himself on the one issue that Arnebeck was really interested in.

TC

[mostly_lurking]

167. A "re-exit" poll would be nothing by hearsay

And wouldn't sway any judge (unless you get a sworn affidavit from every voter).

[Truman01]

190. I am beginning to smell a rat in the filings.....

As an attorney, you know and I know what constitutes an affidavit. You don't have to be an attorney to know that this affidavit doesn't even come close to qualifying. I'm beginning to wonder what this was all about.

These orders aren't technicalities and they aren't unexpected. If half of what these orders are saying is true then I'm surprised this whole thing wasn't summarily dismissed upon application. This is a sham, I don't know what Arnebeck was doing but he wasn't seriously contesting this election.

TC

[unpossibles]

6. does this mean...

...that we've been fucked once again? They could have at least bought me dinner...

[alexisfree]

50. yeap!!

fuck and with out lubrication!....:scared:

[KoKo]

59. There may be an "appeals" process or Arnbeck was putting something

on the record as a basis to work from? :shrug:

[righteous1]

69. The Ohio SC is not the place to launch a weather balloon n/t

[KoKo]

89. Maybe Arnebeck can claim "Prejudice" and bump it to Federal Court,

though. :shrug:

[Truman01]

199. They are in the Supreme Court of Ohio, there is no appeal

except to en banc which means to appeal to the entire pannel. That isn't going to happen with what is in this order. I hope you guys didn't contribute to this crap or you ask for your money back.

TC

[genieroze]

107. Yup, up the butt.

Bend over and let ROVEr take over

[mattclearing]

7. Blech. The affidavit wasn't valid? Is it amateur night?

Is Moyer crazy or did Arnebeck really screw up the affidavit?

[Doctor O]

81. Arnebeck has some shortcomings n/t

[eowyn_of_rohan]

102. I doubt there is ANYTHING wrong with the affidavit

what is wrong is that a SCUMBAG like this is in a position of power.

[mattclearing]

108. Your informed legal opinion is duly noted.

;)

[eowyn_of_rohan]

111. You're welcome. Anytime

But having lived through Katherine Harris and SCOTUS-2000 I feel qualified to respond as I did ;)

[merh]

128. There isn't anything wrong with the affidavit. No evidence it

was signed in front of the purported notary, that is hogwash. Law provides notary can only sign a document signed in their presence. He is making factual conclusions outside of the record before him. He is the amature. Hopefully the law provides that Arenbeck can Petition the entire court to review the matter. Moyers bogus findings (outside of the record before him) and his failure to recuse himself should be enough to get some action out of the full court.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

134. Could the Ohio State Bar Assoc do something about this?

I reworded my subject line. But I am serious about this. I don't know how these things work, and am wondering what, if any, action the bar association could take against someone who refused to recuse themself when there is a clear conflict of interest.

[Truman01]

195. I HATE to back bite an attorney but this STINKS!!!!!

Affidavits are tools of the trade. These are very amature mistakes. I 'm very lost.

TC

[read the law first]

212. hoo boy. now you're gonna get it.

:nuke:

[Truman01]

213. My degree of accomplishment in law means I have the

ass to question this sort of horseshit. Let them flame me.

TC

[mikelewis]

9. He dismissed it because the documents weren't prepared correctly

He also claimed lack of evidence.

Case closed?

[read the law first]

14. No. This is just the emergency motion to preserve evidence.

The action is still in place. It's just that the emergency motion to preserve evidence is denied.

Technically, since the law already requires that this evidence be preserved as public record, nothing's changed.

But one doesn't like to hear words like "woefully inadequate" applied by the Judge presiding over the action unless the Judge is applying them to the other side.

[mikelewis]

16. So WTF??? isn't a lawyer supposed to know how to submit an affidavit?

If what Moyers says is true, this is very sloppy work. Why would Arnbeck knowingly submit affidavits that don't pass muster?

[Helga Scow Stern]

45. What makes you believe Moyer? Wouldn't he be spouting the party line,

like Blackwell? What is it KB says? Something like that the entire question of election fraud is just an attempt to discredit Ohio for no good reason?

It stands to reason that Arnebeck could have had any evidence in the world and presented it to perfection and Moyer would have said the same thing. What better way to discredit the suit than by claiming incompetence?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

125. EXACTLY.

Why can't everyone here see this? All this Arnebeck bashing. Don't they remember Florida and SCOTUS in 2000?

[KoKo]

88. Just talked to friend who's been involved with Fortune 500 Co's Lawsuits

He said...this kind of "nitpicking" goes on back and forth...and when I said...but it looks like "sloppy lawyering" that affidavit's weren't witnessed and a Notary wasn't proper... He said...it's just games. :shrug:

When a judge or lawyer quotes one case as the basis for their judgement...it's up to the lawyers for the plaintiff (Arnebeck or whomever) to cite another case which takes precident over the case the judge cited. But, that only is true in "TRIALS."

In this case, he said it's petitioning a Judge...and the Judge can be "influenced" by their own bias. Given Ohio's strong Republican background for decades..the Judge can "nitpick," stall and delay which is what seems to be happening.

I just throw this out. Corporate Law is very different from Election Law...but there must be some "commonality" that exists between the two.

I can't believe that Arnebeck & Co. are "clueless idiots," wanting their reputations tarnished forever, or that Rove bought them off.

Therefore, I have to believe that there is a "method to their maddness." :shrug:

[gkhouston]

93. I can believe the "nitpicking" argument to some extent...

especially the complaint about not saying that certain machines were election-related equipment... No, guys, we want to impound their COFFEEMAKERS!! Yeah, that'll teach 'em not to cheat. :eyes:

Gina

[gdub]

122. Yo, beachgrl60 whatever. You have made some interesting statements...

Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us.

You have suggested the following:

1) you are from Ohio;

2) you have reason to belive that Cliff Arnenbeck is not a competent attorney;

3) you have reason to believe that your fellow Ohioians believe he "is a joke."

Please elaborate or back off...

[zann725]

210. I trust Arnebeck. He knows what he's doing. Patience...

n/t

[Truman01]

196. The short answer to your question is YES!!!!! nt

[righteous1]

30. Yes, I caught that too. You know better than I ,but when he

referred to what had been presented to the court as "woefully inadequate" to disqualify and election result; My take is that sort of ominous tone does not bode well for the action as a whole

[KoKo]

58. What's puzzling is that it wasn't properly notarized and affadavit wasn't

wasn't sworn under oath?"

It's hard for me to believe that the lawyers wouldn't have known that.

This is really weird...:crazy: Makes it sound like the lawyers were idiots...and I don't believe that...so what the heck is going on here?

[righteous1]

62. I have to agree with you, Arnebeck has done at least

a half a dozen things that have bewildered me and right from the start with the late filing I was scratching my head

[read the law first]

161. "Comes now before the undersigned officer" is pretty basic stuff

Prior disclaimers that this is general comment and not legal advice are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth verbatim.


As y'all know, I've posted again and again and again that I always give other members of the bar the benefit of the doubt as to strategy. There are as many strategies as there are lawyers, but "Comes now before the undersigned officer duly authorized to admister oaths, xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, who after being duly sworn deposed and stated as follows" and "sworn to and subscribed before me this __ day of ___" is pretty basic stuff for affidavits.

If you know in advance that the judge will be unfair to you and will use every artifice to screw you, it's hard to see how it's part of the overall strategy to give the judge this kind of an opening. Bear Bryant is created with having said "It's our fault that the referees cheated us because we shouldn't have given them the opening."

Now that being said, I repeat, Ohio law already requires that this evidence be preserved already, so, technically, nothing has been lost by the denial of this motion. I actually predicted earlier that it would be denied as being moot if y'all might recall.

[Truman01]

193. If this is indicative of the case then we are F*cked nt

[henslee]

10. Read it. Saw the part about affidvaits being denied. Saw the part about

the request to disquallify Moyers being denied. It seems weird that Moyers could have the final word on his own disquallification.

Where was the part about preservation of evidence? I am no law dude. I will read again.

I will await the postings of the DU law experts.

[troubleinwinter]

15. from pag. 3 here:

IT IS ORDERED that the contestors’ motion for emergency expedited hearing and
emergency expedited relief to prevent spoliation of evidence and to preserve
documentary and electronic evidence be, and hereby is, denied.

[garybeck]

214. I hate to say I told you so....

but I've been saying for weeks that the Ohio Supreme Court is a dead end and a waste of time.

Arnebeck's suit should not only be focusing on Ohio. It's a federal crime to steal the presidency. Focusing only on Ohio forces Diebold and ES&S to not be involved in the suit. That is bad. Arnebeck should be investingating Diebold and ESS just as much as Triad, but he's not because he's stuck in Ohio.

Even if Ohio Supreme court ruled for Moss/Arnebeck it would only be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

To save time Arnebeck should have, from the start, had his eyes on getting to the US Supreme Court before 1/6. That is very important, because it will focus national attention on the issue, regardless of the media. Just as the electors are coming to the senate and Conyers n' friends are weighing the implications of contesting.

Which brings up another important point. WE SHOULD NOT BE JUST ASKING THE SENATORS TO CONTEST OHIO. We should be asking them to contest the entire election. If they have to name certain states, they should also contest Florida, NM, NV and a few others.

So with one week to go to 1/6, the sooner Arnebeck breaks out of Ohio the better.

Remember, the US Supreme Court was 5-4 in 2000, only 1 vote away from a Gore presidency. And even if they haven't ruled yet, just having the case before them would have an impact on the 1/6 event.

IT IS TIME TO BREAK OUT OF OHIO

[steelyboo]

23. Its been awhile, so don't quote me, but I think what is meant by

"Moyers,C.J., in chambers." at the end of both the summaries means that he was in his chambers at the time of the decision, i.e. he sat it out to avoid improprieties. Similar to how they note dissents, because otherwise you just assume a judge went with the majority. In this case, you assume all the judges ruled on something, unless noted.

[davidgmills]

63. This is an original proceeding in the state Supreme Court

Which means that the Supreme Court is acting like a trial Court as well as an appellate court. Often in a situation such as this, only one judge makes the ruling, not the entire court. The "in chambers" part means that he made the ruling from his chambers not in open court.

[steelyboo]

144. thanks, I had forgotten what is normally written when they have a recused

member... Oh, and I slipped for a minute and thought we were talking about someone with integrity, like a REAL judge.

[Truman01]

197. In chambers means that there was no formal hearing.

You can have a Judge here and emergency motion in his office. Some times it is ex parti which means the other side isn't there. This was a request, probably ex parti that didn't have a formal hearing.

None of that is strange. The affidavit, the deposition, the evidence is amateurish and stinks to high heaven. Arnebeck knows better so whatever his reason it isn't mistake or error.

TC

[righteous1]

94. It's there, and a different justice denied the Moyer disqualification

[cyberpj]

118. Ditto thought here !

It seems weird that Moyers could have the final word on his own disquallification.

[Darknyte7]

12. I bit of a blow, but...

this only denies expedited consideration of the matter. It does not however dismiss the underlying action.

I'm about to pull the cases cited in the order with regard to the affidavit(s).

[davidgmills]

68. Unfortuantely,

Those cases sound pretty much like the law of affidavits which I am familiar with. Some courts are much more picky than others. You might get away with a defective affidavit in a trial court, but in the Supreme Court it is likely to be much more difficult.

[Darknyte7]

82. Once upon a time as a judicial law clerk...

I drafted an order denying the expedited consideration of a motion for my judge. I ended up finding a technical reason for the judge to deny the motion, but honestly he (the judge) just didn't want to do it (i.e. - consider the motion on an expedited basis).

The Ohio Court had grounds in this case to deny the motion for expedited consideration, but it is a pretty technical one IMO. Just another ploy really to continue running out the clock. It doesn't rise to the level of gross abuse of Moyer judicial discretion, but the argument could be made.

[righteous1]

77. I am a bit more concerned, calling the motions and attachments

"woefully inadequate" is anything but good

[DoYouEverWonder]

91. This is the same judge

who thought Arnebeck's previous filing was too complicated?

I am not surprised that this judge is looking for whatever technicality he can find for an excuse to delay things.

[Doctor O]

113. He did not say complicated. He said that according to

Ohio law, the two races could not be contested in the same filing.

[DoYouEverWonder]

136. Read the ruling

In adopting R.C. 3515.08 the General Assembly recognized that election contests by their nature are not well suited to consolidation. Consolidation of two election contests-one challenging the results of the presidential election and one challenging the election of the Chief Justice-unnecessarily complicates the two contests procedurally.


http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf

[righteous1]

138. From my review of the courts opinion, Arnebeck might have wisely

utilized the time given him to upgrade his attachments (evidence)

[Doctor O]

139. Read it, he did not say it was complicated, he cited the statute

which was adopted cited it unnecessarily complicated it.

[New Earth]

13. i'm so shocked

my jaw is on the floor. :eyes:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubleinwinter]

33. How many lawyers constitute "most" in Ohio? You asked them?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

112. I thought you said you were a doctor in California?

:shrug:

[New Earth]

127. lol

maybe she has mutliple personality disorder like Miss Brooks :shrug:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

133. Certainly seems that way!

:hi:

[RevCheesehead]

135. Well, one, if not all of her personalities...

is now pushing up daisies! :evilgrin:

[Helga Scow Stern]

37. Arnebeck is undoubtedly unshocked as well....

after all he has spent quite of bit of energy dealing with the SCO.

[New Earth]

53. do you know what sarcasm is?

do you know what this emoticon means? :eyes:


here i'll do it again. :eyes:

ok, gotta go...time to leave work :hi:

[loritooker]

114. Faye--you have a job? (sarcasm) : )

I don't know how to use emoticons yet--(I enjoy your postings)!

[New Earth]

126. i do now

i usually do, except for the past two or three weeks. i work for a temp agency right now, some times i have gaps between jobs. it's killing me :( but i JUST got my password at work to get onilne, so i'll be able to sneak in a few 'STFU freep' posts while i'm there :hi: hehehe

[loritooker]

147. :(( n/t

[Truman01]

202. Faye, did you ever get your DADDY's check so you can

go to DC on the 6th???

This is serious dear. An attorney, ARNEBECK has solicited donations for a law suit that isn't real. So far there is nothing to indicate that there is anything in this lawsuit worth pursuing.

I admire your diligence, your intelligence, and your passion. I don't admire your immature willingness to poo-poo others who really know what they are talking about.

TC

[regularjoe]

17. Specifics...

3 main points followed by conclusion

"Their first, and principal, exhibit is claimed to be an affidavit of Hocking County Board of Elections Deputy Director Sherole Eaton. ...This exhibit, however, does not qualify as an affidavit. Although the exhibit contains the signature of both Eaton and a purported notary public, there is no specification that the statement is made under oath by Eaton or is based on her personal knowledge. In fact, much of the document is a recitation of statements purportedly uttered by someone else, and thus inadmissible hearsay. Nor is there any statement that the alleged notary witnessed Eaton’s signature....In fact, even if a proper affidavit by Eaton were before the court, it remains unclear whether the purported actions of the Tri Ad employee amounted to ballot tampering."

"The contestors’ second exhibit is an excerpt from a deposition of Catherine L. Buchanan. Neither the exhibit nor the contestors’ motion, however, specifies who Buchanan is, where she works, or whether her excerpted testimony relates to the presidential election. Buchanan testifies that an employee was going to reprogram a machine. Even assuming the specified machine was an electronic voting machine that was used in the presidential election, however, there is no evidence in the deposition excerpt concerning how this would necessarily affect the recount ─ or more important ─ this election-contest case."

(Isn't it illegal to "reprogram a machine" before a recount is completed? Either this didn't occur to the judge or it doesn't concern him.)

"The contestors’ final exhibit is an unsworn, December 2, 2004 response by the Shelby County Board of Elections to a public-records request in which the board notes that, “Tabulator test deck reports were discarded after election, to reduce paper-work and confusion with official results.” From the exhibit itself, there is no indication whether this relates to the presidential election. Further, 12-29-04 3 there is no evidence that these particular reports would be required or helpful to a recount, or whether other county boards of elections are preparing to discard similar records, so as to warrant the requested emergency relief.

"The contestors have proffered nothing suggesting that Ohio
election officials are engaging, or will engage, in illegal conduct. The motion filed by contestors, and attachments thereto, are woefully inadequate to cause me, at this time, to order the boards of elections of all 88 counties to engage in any conduct not already required by R.C. 3599.34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the contestors’ motion for emergency expedited hearing and emergency expedited relief to prevent spoliation of evidence and to preserve documentary and electronic evidence be, and hereby is, denied."

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7119.pdf

[davidgmills]

73. This is the harmless error rule and the part you should have noticed

"there is no evidence in the deposition excerpt concerning how this would necessarily affect the recount „Ÿ or more important „Ÿ this election-contest case."

Bingo!

[The Judged]

216. TRIAD employee acted without providing both timely notice to and

the opportunity for direct observation by a representative from each interested political party representative being present, and none of the interested political party representatives waived their right to be present. => clear violation of Ohio state law.

This allegedly occurred in 86 of 88 Ohio counties, and, at a minimum, one TRIAD employee has attested to his own such action in a sworn affidavit.

[Benhurst]

18. Gosh, do you think "Justice" Moyer might be a corrupt Republican

hack? Surely not. BushAmerica sets moral standards for the whole world, after all.

[elizm]

19. Should make AT LEAST one Senator angry enough...

...to contest on January 6.

[Doctor O]

85. No it will make them less likely to contest since the

so called evidence is falling apart. They will not want to have egg on their face if their is no evidence. Most of them are lawyers and are going to look for real evidence.

[Quakerfriend]

I'm furious !

Is the judicious system so partisan that we are beyond ethics now!

[mod mom]

117. Hello, remember the 2000 election? Supreme Court elects *

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Helga Scow Stern]

48. How do you know so much about the validity of the evidence, and if you

are active in Ohio, how is it that you misspell the name of this important judge, Moyer?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidgmills]

76. I would have told him to redo it!

But then I'm a Democrat.

[merh]

21. So, did Arenbeck anticipate this, that one judge would make

such unfair decisions, now he is able to file a petition asking that the entire court consider the matters (including Moyer's failure to recuse)?

[KingoftheJungle]

This is going to be really hard to fight

I'm almost convinced that we will not be able to shake off these fraudulant elections for a very, very long time. The fix is in and they have rigged all the offices they need to stop us at every turn (ohio court, congress, the senate, and the supreme court). We are fucked and there ain't shit we're going to be able to do about it.

[glitch]

32. Unless we go street-level. Doable.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

[wendypan]

34. Oh yes....wear them down...

We are not giving up on our democratic system, even if they can't see the writing on the wall.

The eveidence keeps mounting and mounting...the dam will break!

[KingoftheJungle]

even if you are right

I don't think anything can happen, no matter what evidence is uncovered. Even if we get an affidavit from one of the computer hackers and find the election tampering software on a tabulator machine, everyone is going to spin it as a left-wing conspiracy to plant evidence and take over the "legitimate" government, and I have no doubt in my mind that they will resort to a civil war against us to maintain that power. We're just fucked no matter what happens.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patchuli]

159. We've fought tyranny before

and will again. The Declaration of Independence is still valid,
as far as I know.

Are you a plant from the RW side of the street? Discouraging (or attempting to discourage) progressives will get you nowhere. Pardon
me if you're not a plant and just a negative type.

Also keep in mind that Watergate which brought down Tricky Dick,
started slowly with a few voices and a bungled burglary. We have
even more evidence these days of malfeasance.

[bush_is_wacko]

178. Before you attack me, let me assure you that I am not a plant

but it looks pretty clear to me that no matter what Arnebeck tries, Ohio Supreme court is NOT going to allow this case to go forward. I expect the ruling on the case itself, will be just as bad at this point. Sadly, I'm beginning to think this country will be unrecognizable in 4 years as anything resembling a democracy unless there is a favorable ruling in regards to this case and SOON!

[johnaries]

24. Just another example of how OH officials are screwing up...

the whole election process. More Ammo for us to get Congressmen and Senators to challenge on Jan 6. Send this to Conyers and your State Senators! I would send it to my Senators, but they're Frist and Alexander. Yeah, I can see THEM standing up on Jan 6!

[davidgmills]

78. Frist and Alexander

Are mine too. Choke!

[GetTheRightVote]

25. Yes, what is the follow up on this action today ???

:kick:

[libertypirate]

26. Can someone dig this pricks personal email up?

[righteous1]

27. Appear to have shut the door.....HARD

[spooked]

29. We can STEAL AN ELECTION but YOU didn't have your witness notarized!

FACE IT!! This is child's play for these EVIL WAR MONGERS!!

IT'S OVER!!

SO let THEM clean up the F*cking MESS in IRAQ!!!

[wendypan]

36. NO WAY!

I'm not bowing to the Bush altar...EVER!

[spooked]

42. I'm with you, really I am

but I don't think we realize just how corrupt these people are.

[mikelewis]

31. Did Arnebeck Fuck Up?

Is there clear cut and established guidelines in evidenciary prodedure that were not followed? If so, why was this information submitted in this manner? Did Arnebeck fuck up?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

49. He did win an important case yesterday

So I will take your assessment with a grain of salt

[Helga Scow Stern]

52. Oh is that so? And by whom? The one's whose campaign contributions

he has been so scrupulously challenging?

[KoKo]

66. Could you give more info on why folks in Ohio think that? Where have

you heard people make those comments? Is it because he's been unsuccessful in showing corruption with Ohio Sumpreme Court?

It would be good to know some background.

[impeachthescoundrel]

35. You aren't really surprised are you?

It is just what was expected of him. I am not shocked. I can't wait to see him go down with the rest of the scum he supports.

[GetTheRightVote]

40. We must continue to fight to show they will not defeat us, We Are The

American People who demand that our vote be counted,
but they are not counting them, only stealing election after
election, this must stop now, we must stay on this issue until
it is fair for all to vote in this country.

:kick:

[SueZhope]

41. it would be helpfull

to get a statement form Arenbeck on this.

[SueZhope]

44. i found this

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10523670.htm

Posted on Wed, Dec. 29, 2004
Chief justice refuses to remove self from vote challenge

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to remove himself from a case challenging the results of the presidential election.

Moyer also rejected a request by voters challenging the results for a speedy hearing and an order that election boards preserve evidence from the election.

The voters and their attorneys filed poorly documented affidavits that contain hearsay, don't indicate who the people making statements are and don't explain what their statements have to do with the election, Moyer said.

[LiberalHeart]

51. Once again Arnebeck's mistakes bewilder me.

Seems like an attorney of his standing working in his home state in his field of specialization would have anticipated the problems with the three exhibits and avoided them. I keep hoping there's method in his madness.

There's an additional problem with the Hocking County affidavit: the woman who made those statements later claimed too much had been made of what she said and that she was taken out of context. She may not have used those words in her backing away from the affidavit, but if not the same, they were very close. She sounded like she felt she'd been used for political purposes. Of course, her later remarks might have been the result of experiencing the fall out from her remarks at her place of employment. Hard to tell from this distance.

Once again (as with the request to recuse himself from the other suit), the Judge appears to me to be making the best ruling he could, given the problems with the filing.

I hope to hell the suit behind this emergency request is on solid ground and will not be tossed so easily.

[Helga Scow Stern]

54. That's nice that you impune such nice motives to the judge. n/t

[LiberalHeart]

55. It's a court of law, not a popularity contest. N/T

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terre]

98. I could say the same for you

Innuendos and hearsay don't cut it in a court of law.

Nor do yours cut it here. Show me your credible and verifiable evidence that Arnebeck's reputation is as you say, then let's talk.

[mod mom]

119. You sure have a lot of animosity toward Arnebeck

Now why is that?

[Vektor]

56. Is anyone surprised?

This Moyer guy is a bought and paid for Bush stooge, himself fraudulently elected. You think that before they decided to steal Ohio they didn't cover every angle, including how to squelch investigations into the fraud? Only a major uprising, forcing these corrupt, bankrolled, right-wing judges who are clearly obstructing the law into accountability, and out of power is going to get things done. How do we do that? I don't know.

I certainly do not believe that any of these legal proceedings are going to be handled fairly, because long before the Rethugs started fraudulently stealing elections, they padded the courts with their henchmen/women.

There may be a mountain of evidence 10 miles high, and if the neocon judges choose to toss it out, it doesn't matter. Those who stole this election did not need to cover their asses all that well. Why should they? They control the courts too. Anything we produce will be tossed out, anyway.

We all know they stole it. The judges do too. But they're being rewarded not to care.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubleinwinter]

70. Want to explain that?

"no one respects"

[Mojorabbit]

74. I think the last thing we need right now

Is a Arnebeck feeding frenzy and after two posts dissing him I think your opinion has been noted.

[troubleinwinter]

95. Pardon me... I think you posted to the wrong person.

I am NOT the one criticizing Arnebeck. I am asking "lawyer" beachgrl to explain his/her gratuitous comments against him.

[Mojorabbit]

96. My apologies

I was replying to the same post you were. Still getting the hang of things here.

[troubleinwinter]

99. Yeah, no problem.

I am beyond caring about beachgrl's comments and am off to find the 'ignore' button!

x(

[Vektor]

80. I'm not saying he's perfect...

..but these judges are definitely right-leaning, which helps us none. The Ohio Courts are notoriously conservative, and the Bushes have been sure to pad the swing states with conservative appointed judges. If you look at the court websites, you can see who appointed many of the judges.
It's not pretty.

The fact that Moyers was fraudulently elected, and was well aware that a motion had been filed questioning the validity of his election - THEN WAS ASSIGNED THE CASE in which he was accused of being fraudulently elected? A huge conflict of interest/miscarriage of justice.

He should not have been put on that case at all.

[BrotherBuzz]

83. So, just when did the 'Dems" pick Arnebeck?

[Doctor O]

90. The Democratic party did not pick him, I believe his group

solicited these clients and neither the Democratic Party nor Kerry solicited his help. He has done more damage to any claims of election problems with his imporper legal actions. Moyer is not the problem here, Arnebeck is.
I still think Arnebeck's motives need to be examined. He may be using this as attention getting and a way to raise funds for whatever use. Its time to start questioning him.

[LiberalHeart]

75. Moyer "Highly Recommended" by Ohio Bar Association....

...in this past election, along with two other Republicans running for spots on the Ohio Supreme Court. The Dem candidates had lesser ratings, with the woman running against Moyer getting only an "Adequate".

I don't really know much about the makeup of the Ohio Bar Association, so I don't know if that simply means Republicans were backing a fellow Republican -- but, as a voter, I have relied on those ratings when deciding who to vote for. Party affliation does not appear on the ballot next to the names of those vying for judicial positions. At least that's the case in Ohio; I dunno about other states.

I voted for Lanzinger despite her being a Republican because I followed some of her cases in county court and liked what I saw. And yes, I voted for Moyer -- because "Highly Recommended" looked a hell of a lot better to me than "Adequate".

[Vektor]

84. Do you think...

The preferential treatment of Republicans might have been deliberate? It wouldn't be the first time a Dem didn't get proper credit in his or her field when a conservative got a glowing review. Who decides that the Dems are "adequate" and the Republicans are "highly recommended?" The Ohio Bar Association? I wonder what their politics are. From all accounts, they are REALLY conservative.

[davidgmills]

87. A word on "highly recommended"

As a member of the bar in two states, I can tell you that most judges are nominated by the big law firms and backed with contributions or approval ratings by these firms. A very competent solo practitioner who wants to be a judge has a very difficult time getting the backing to be a judge. An adequate rating may just be the big firms' way of not dissing the guy too much when they prefer a big firm (usually conservative, pro insurance and pro business) lawyer and then rate him highly.

[LiberalHeart]

100. Moyer's opponent was a retired judge....

...but popular in her home county. Would a bar association be influenced at all by the "retired" part?

[Vektor]

120. I've heard this too. n/t

[bush_is_wacko]

185. How true, how true.

So is there someplace we can go that doesn't have a bought and paid for judge on the court? I'm beginning to think only Switzerland might be able to provide and effective an unbiased ruling. How do you turn something this noxious around? Is this country doomed?

[Vinca]

64. Wake me when the Bush term is over

and, while you're at it, pass the Thorazine. This is unbelievable.

[Vektor]

121. I may have taken all the Thorazine myself by then. n/t

[Eye_on_prize]

162. Thorazine coming right up. Bush's New Freedom Commission will be dropping

by soon with your starter pack.

[Vektor]

182. I'll be eagerly awaiting

that much needed delivery!

[Alizaryn]

67. Moss vs Bush is ascertaining that there was fraud

involved in the voting in regards to Bush. I understand that the cases had to be split to separate Moyer's case from Bush's however, HOW CAN ANY REASONABLE PERSON NOT SEE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST with Moyer not choosing to recuse himself?

The "faulty affidavits" used to toss this motion were not a part of the original filing were they? Any idea when they were added?

[mod mom]

123. look at Ohio Secretary of State AND Co-Chair */*ey '04

no integrity left in government.

[sepia_steel]

71. EGADS!!! I am stunned!

Not.

[Kota]

72. You say he isn't respected, he came accross well and

respected at the hearing and in his interviews.

[Doctor O]

79. WTF Arnebeck does it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is solid grounds here for Moyer to act on. If he granted the motion based on three more examples of sloppy work by Arnebeck, higher courts would throw these out without thinking about it.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-oh...

And this is the Great Lawyer Arnebeck. He really should have known b better on these affidavits. Any court would have tossed these!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[davidgmills]

92. Giving him the benefit of the doubt

I bet he didn't have much to work with and because of time probably had non lawyers doing the work. Also if he is in a small firm, he may not have the staff to do what is required to do a bang up job.

[Doctor O]

97. Maybe he has a small staff but these were not very lengthy

affadavits. Thye should have been done right. I believe that more and more mistakes made throw more and more doubt on the actionas a whole.

I have said this before, and I believe it more now. He has ulterior motives that don't have prevailing in this case at the top of the list. Maybe Money And Public Acclaim top his list.

[KoKo]

105. Disagree...he wouldn't shame himself and his whole fight to show that

many on Ohio Supreme Court took money from "outsiders" just to go down in "Flames" over supporting Kerry's WIN in this election.

Reputation is VERY Important to all of us...There was no way Arnebeck, et al, would want to "implode" over Ohio....there's no "fame" in DEFEAT!

What you say...just doesn't work...if you ask a "Sherlock Holmes" type...:shrug:

[Doctor O]

146. If my employees had made mistakes like this

in the performance of their duties, or in contracts they negotiated, they would have been relieved of responsibilities, if not canned.

[Straight Shooter]

150. So if you gave money to him, go file a grievance with the Ohio Bar Assoc.

Thread to thread to thread, carp carp carp about Arnebeck. No wonder the freepers like to lurk over here, they can watch the mudslinging and enjoy the show. :eyes:

[euler]

201. I would not have agreed with you yesterday,

But now I do. His aim is fame.

Also: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Sorry for this. I've had one too many glasses of wine.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

106. Are you sure any court would toss these?

Or just a corrupt court that would find some nit-pick thing wrong with anything that was presented to him, if he felt like it? Think of the kind of crap Katherine Harris (I loathe to type the name) and SCOTUS pulled in the 2000 election... THIS IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME.

[livvy]

86. What are they hiding?

[LiberalHeart]

103. Read The Law First: Remember when Anebeck promised....

....to blow the lid off the election? Have you seen anything yet that looks like that'll happen?

[KoKo]

109. Something happened there....maybe he was "overly optimistic" but

I've not seen many "optimistic" lawyers in my time here...and I have worked for a few lawyers. They are usually very cautious folks who warn you before taking a case of what you are up against.

My "Google" of Arnebeck didn't show anything to say that the guy was either a "Doofus" or a "Traitor to Dems" in the making for money or profit...

I don't know what the hell all this means and am as frustrated as all of you...but I wouldn't through out Arnebeck just yet. :shrug:

[LiberalHeart]

110. I'm not ready to throw him out, either...

I'm just trying to understand his game plan. I will admit, though, it is becoming harder and harder to keep the faith.

Edited typo.

[KoKo]

130. If Arnebeck isn't familiar about how David Boise got tossed by Bush buddy

Ted Olsen in "Selection 2000" before the US Supreme Court...then I would really wonder about all of this that we were being "gamed."

But...I think Arnebeck has read the Case of "Bush vs. Gore." I don't think he's "clueless or a traitor," at this point. And I'm one of those "tinfoilly hat" Dems here on DU...

What's coming from Ohio is MEGA STONEWALLING...Just like when the Chimp said he wouldn't tesitfy before 9/11 Commission...and then he had to cave even though Cheney had to hold his hand through all of it.

It's Classic REPUG STONEWALLING... Do I have faith that we have DEM Lawyers who can run circles around the Repugs/Rove and Olsen (whose probably behind the scenes) in Ohio?

Not much. I would have to believe that WE DEMS learned a thing or two since "Selection 2000" but given the "learning curve" for our Dem Heirarchy...it might be "wishful thinking." :shrug:

But..."Hope Springs Eternal in the Human Breast." I have to hope that we aren't all Doofuses..or "garbage left on the roadside" in our Democratic Party's Mind...:shrug:

[LiberalHeart]

129. Oops ... CORRECTION....

I claimed that Anebeck promised to blow the lid off the election, but after a Google search for that quote, I've concluded I must have made it up. I can't find any reference to that quote, other than someone posting that Cliff told Randi Rhodes he would blow this thing apart -- and I'm not sure what "this thing" is supposed to be, so clearly I goofed. Sorry, Cliff.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

132. What I see is that he had a lot of time to prepare his filing so that it

would have no holes in it at all. What I saw was the first filing was flung back at him which he had to correct, and what I also saw is that the the i's weren't dotted nor the t's crossed in the affadavit. He had a great deal of time, and it appears that his work was sloppy.

He knows that he was going to be against prejudicial judges* and everything should have been picture perfect.

I am exceptionally disappointed in his work.

*BTW...What Are they hiding????

[read the law first]

157. I sound like a broken record, but it's the MARGIN that is the problem.

If the margin was 500 votes, I would say that there's plenty to challenge the election. But it's a 119,000 margin that has to be overcome. You have to show enough illegal votes or unlawful ballots to overcome the margin. In some states, it's even worse, you have to overcome the margin and the undervote. Candidly, I have not seen the evidence (meaning very precisely evidence that will likely be admissible under the FRE or other applicable rule in State Courts with proper foundation and chain of custody and will most likely be accepted into evidence by the court) to beat the margin yet. That's not to say it's not there, it could be there, but I haven't seen it yet. There's a lot of people who have seen more of the evidence that would know better than I.

And again extrapolation doesn't cut it unless it's extrapolation that ELECTION experts traditionally use. For example, say that I sold 10 sodas in the last five minutes for a dollar a piece. If I multiply that out by the entire year, I'll be a millionaire. But of course just because I sold 10 sodas in the last five minutes for a dollar a piece doesn't mean that I'll sell that many more sodas for the rest of the year. In fact, I might not sell a single one for the rest of the year. IMHO, "I need 100,000 votes to switch the election and therefore in my professional opinion 100,000 votes were switched" without any foundation as to who, what, when, where and how is not evidence, again in my opinion, that will sway a court. In legal and deductive reasoning circles, it's called ipse dixit. Asserting the truth of a statement simply because the statement is made. There were 100,000 illegal votes simply because I say there were 100,000 illegal votes without telling you whose they were, how they were illegal, etc. Ipse dixit statements are not evidence (unless they're admissions by party opponents and then maybe you can get them in).

I wish the evidence were there. I hope the evidence is there. Election cases are not won on argument like cases where the evidence is not at issue, election cases are won on hard proof of numbers of illegal votes and unlawful ballots exceeding the margin. I hope that the evidence is there and just has not been produced for strategic reasons or that we find it soon.

[LiberalHeart]

163. Yes, the margin = a mountain.

This is why I think before we can obtain the necessary proof (if, indeed, the election was hijacked) there needs to be a forensic examination of the machines and ballots and poll books. If you agree with that, is there any scenario under which you see that happening? I do, but it's outside the courtroom.

[read the law first]

174. Admitted. It's a big margin.

The question that you've posed is a good one and one that has puzzled me for several years. Especially in states that use all computerized voting. I'm working my way through it with people who'll know (real live paid professionals, not hobbyists) to try and figure this out. It's a real problem is all computerized voting states IMHO. But in punch card and optiscan counties and precincts, it's not as much of a problem. It will not be answered in time for this election, but it's a good question.

[LiberalHeart]

181. I think Optiscan can be a problem, too.

Not sure I have this right, but I think Optiscan tabulators can be manipulated to produce false results. Something else I've wondered about re Optiscans is whether, when it's a two-sided ballot, someone could design a ballot that, if it were put in the machine with the wrong side up, could falsify the count. By that, I mean: could the filled in ovals from one side of the ballot be tabulated for the races on the other side of the ballot? This would take some fancy planning, but maybe it's possible. It crossed my mind this past election day because a poll worker took my ballot from me and fed it into the scan machine. Losing control of it at that point concerned me because the worker opened the folder the ballot was in and did some kind of adjustment to the ballot. This was after he appeared to have trouble getting the ballot to feed into the slot.

Seems to me that the forensic examination could be accomplished via existing open records and freedom of information laws. If not in Ohio, then in Florida where the open records law is pretty good.

[read the law first]

206. True, but you can always go back and look at an optiscan ballot. n/t

[LiberalHeart]

208. Oh, duh. I forgot about that :) N/T

[m.standridge]

187. Numbers, right away

we need big numbers, solid big numbers, right away.
These statistical analyses have to have solid proof of over 120,000 votes in Ohio having been invalidly cast, or invalidly counted.
The argument that so many people's votes didn't get counted, because they got out of line, isn't going to get it in this shorter run scenario. That only works in the long run.
We have to have physical evidence of x number of ballots, actual cast ballots, that were counted wrong, that were not counted and should have been (and more for Kerry than for Bush). And that x-number has to be large enough, to upset a 120,000 vote lead.

I just am not seeing how this can be produced with these recount claims, but if the testimony of the Triad people can be illustrated to be showing that number of ballots, then this would turn around.

This is going to be about numbers at this point. Not about whether the principle of someone's vote being counted has prevailed. That only counts, if enough votes were not counted to have turned the election around. And that has to be demonstrable, and in the short-run.

[LiberalHeart]

198. We're on the same page here...

The Catch-22 is that, in order to find that huge number of votes, you gotta dig into the innards of the machines, software, ballots, and poll books. I, too, think that -- unless there's a miracle -- we're going to have to settle for a long-term examination of what went on rather than a short term resolution. But that has its benefits, also -- just not for this election.

There might be another avenue into this via equal rights/civil rights investigations, examining how minority voters were affected. That's just one part of what needs to be looked at, and it certainly didn't do much good when it was undertaken after Florida's 2000 fiasco, but every little bit helps.

[davidgmills]

243. We definitely agree.

You see the same problem I do. See my posts at 226, 233 and 242 as to how this problem might have been overcome.

[gdub]

124. Yo, beachgrl60 whatever. You have made some interesting statements...

Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us.

You have suggested the following:

1) you are from Ohio;

2) you have reason to belive that Cliff Arnenbeck is not a competent attorney;

3) you have reason to believe that your fellow Ohioians believe he "is a joke."

Please elaborate or back off...

[earth mom]

160. I'd like to know

the answer to your question too. Because while I'm new, I thought we were ALL on the same side around here...or am I wrong about that?

p.s. I'm not talking about your post gdub.

[fooj]

131. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Damn...ok fellow DU's-pick yourself up, dust yourself off...
Lets keep the momentum moving forward.......:)

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???????:bounce:

[bemis12]

137. Moyer's Opinion on the disqualification request

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7120.pdf

[righteous1]

140. Interesting, hard to argue when logic and the law are on your side

[thanatonautos]

142. Is there a res gestae exception to the hearsay rule in Ohio?

It's no surprise to me that CJ Moyer has denied the emergency
motion: to grant it would have been effectively to admit
that there's enough smoke around that he thinks there may
actually be a fire. It was too much to hope for, I think,
that this would happen.

I suppose that any technical problems with the affidavits
could in principle be fixed.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'ld appreciate it if someone
who is could set me right on a few issues.

Most disturbing to me about this ruling
was Moyer's generic comment about hearsay
with respect to the Eaton affidavit:

`In fact much of the document is a recitation of
statements purportedly uttered by someone else, and
thus inadmissible hearsay.'

Is the judge correct here? Or could the statements
be admissible as present sense impressions reported
by Eaton, which are descriptive of all of the events
that took place relevant to the alleged tampering
with the recount?

Also, Eaton references other potential witnesses
to the statements in her affidavit, so there could
be corroboration, I suppose. For example, someone
named `Lisa' apparently also overheard the following
seemingly very significant statement from `Michael,'
the Triad employee:

`He advised Lisa and I on how to post a "cheat sheet" on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county. He left about 5:00 PM.'

It seems to me, in any event, to be completely
unnecessary for the CJ to comment on admissibility
if he found the affidavit to be technically deficient.
He seems to be suggesting that he's inclined to disregard
this evidence even if technical aspects were made correct.

In addition, the statement that the motion is
`woefully inadequate,' seems possibly to betray
some bias.

All in all, it's not auspicious news.

[righteous1]

145. It would be considered bias if it was a mischaracterization, from

what I have seen it may not be.

[thanatonautos]

170. Good point ... I guess it may be in the eye of the beholder. eom

[righteous1]

149. Ohio v Roberts.....heresay may be admitted if has significant

"indicia of reliability"

[thanatonautos]

169. Thanks for the cite. n/t

[thanatonautos]

223. That made for very interesting reading.

So a transcript of adverse testimony, elicited on direct
examination by counsel for Roberts, offered at a preliminary
hearing, was considered admissible, even though the witness
was unavailable at trial and had not formally been
cross-examined, because the court found that counsel
nevertheless effectively had cross-examined the witness.

I guess possibly I can follow CJ Moyer's reasoning a
bit better now.

Clearly the testimony of Eaton does not rise to
such a level.

It certainly begins to look like it was a real mistake
to push for this emergency motion, which one must certainly
estimate had little chance of being granted in the first
place, without more in hand than this `affadavit.'

I wonder what's going on. I sure hope there's something
that I'm missing.

Thanks again.

[shiina]

172. Hearsay

Does anyone have a link to Eaton's testimony?

I got hit by a truck about a month ago, and I was told that anything the driver said after the accident would be admissible in court. I would think anything that was said by the "criminal" at the time of the "crime" would be admissible as well. You can tell a court "He told me to put my hands up." "She said she had a gun." and stuff like that.

The hearsay arguement sounds like BS to me. Hearsay is more like "He said he saw someone come out of the building at 10pm." Things someone said on the scene are completely different.

[read the law first]

175. Your example is an exception to the hearsay rule.

It's called an admission by a party opponent. It's an exception to the hearsay rule and you can get it in. The hearsay rule is an important safeguard to the right to cross examine witnesses.

If I come into court and say Johnny told me that the light was red when you went through it, I've actually only got knowledge that Johnny told me that. I don't have any knowledge as to whether the light was red or green when you went through it. Accordingly, the fact that Johnny told me the light was red has no probative value unless it falls into an exception to the hearsay rule (i.e. Johnny is the driver of the other car). Otherwise, you would have been prevented from your right to cross examine Johnny as to whether the light was green or red because I am one person removed from the eyewitness.

The answer is, don't tell me what Johnny said about the color of the light, get Johnny down here and let him testify.

[LiberalHeart]

194. The Affadavit

Here's a link to Eaton's affadavit:

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=494

But this is also a quote from Ms. Eaton, not in her affidavit:

"I have had, and still do have, complete trust in Triad," Eaton said. Eaton, who is 65 and by her own admission not computer-savvy, did not understand much of what Barbian did, and said that when he asked if he could take apart the computer, he had to ask for a screwdriver from one of the office workers. "He brought no tools with him," Eaton told Wired News, "which indicates to me that he wasn't planning on working on the machines."

[thanatonautos]

220. Here's a link to Conyers' letter. Eaton's affidavit is appended to it.

Conyers letter to the FBI and Hocking County prosecutor.

What you say you were told about the case of your
accident -- by the way, very sorry to hear about
that, and I hope you are doing OK -- I think does
come under a common exception to the hearsay rule.

You are probably talking about admissions by the
truck driver which were made against his own interests
... I think courts reason that such admissions
aren't made unless they are true. There is then
no problem in having a witness testify that
they heard the truck driver say XYZ. In addition,
there are corroborating facts in your case, like,
there definitely was an accident, the driver was
definitely driving the truck, and so on.

With the Eaton affidavit I'm not sure that
it's quite the same thing. But I did wonder
whether what she says about what the Triad
employee said might actually be admissible
for different reasons.

He hasn't necessarily made any admissions
against his own interests ... you'ld
have to assume he was conscious that he
was committing a crime to conclude that,
I guess. Would one expect a random computer
technician employed by Triad to know that posting
a cheat sheet is against Ohio election statutes?
Maybe ... maybe not, I don't know.

But depending upon the state, I think
that sometimes witnesses are allowed to
describe everything that was said and done
during some event that is the subject of
a trial when it goes toward establishing
some element of a crime. It seems like
Eaton's testimony is more along those
lines.

See what you think.

[shiina]

230. I think Conyers is right, it's admissible because it's part of the scene

Right. This is what I was talking about :

"sometimes witnesses are allowed to describe everything that was said and done during some event that is the subject of a trial"

When Eaton talks about what the TRIAD tech said, she's not describing something she had no knowledge of, she's describing what he said as part of the scene...just like how she describes what she saw.

Thanks thanatonautos, you've been a great in helping me clear up some of the legal questions I've had.

[sharman]

229. Admission against interest

exception to the hearsay rule

[Peace Patriot]

143. I think some comments here are naive on the political and grass roots...

...aspects of this case. I have experience as a paralegal in public interest litigation on forestry issues, protection of public trust recources, and the public's right to participate in decisions regarding the use of resources. When the fix is in, the fix is in. There is nothing you can do but proceed with litigation for its educational value (informing the public), and for making the point, however Quixotic it may be, that the law should followed and the public's rights asserted.

I have been involved in cases that were so obviously fixed it was laughable. The corporate forest destroyers' security guards in the courtroom corridor to intimidate litigants. The judge winking and sharing 'ol boy jokes with the corporate attorney. Being unable to find a judge who had not worked for the corporate forest destroyers before they were appointed.

It sure looks to me like this is the kind of atmosphere that Arnebeck is having to litigate in--only probably far worse.

Law firms rarely take up cases like this. It's generally sole practitioners--with no staff, little or no money, few resources, up against virtually unlimited money and resources (there is nothing a corporate forest destroyer won't do, legal-wise, to kill off the public's right to partipate in resource decisions). And almost always with hostile judges.

It's okay by me if a grass roots, sole practitioner attorney understands that the main value of what he is doing may be informing the public. That's often half or more of the battle on public interest issues. So Arnebeck being "out for publicity" just doesn't wash with me, as some kind of charge against him. Publicity is vital in public interest litigation!

So here you have an attorney working under hardship conditions, going after the bad guys--in this case, REALLY bad guys--on a matter of overwhelming importance to Americans, and of worldwide significance, and you're worried that he might want to write a book about it and make some money? Or that contributions from the public might help keep him going?

And you are accusing him of these motives (as if they were necessarily bad) because he has lost a couple of motions in a ridiculously prejudicial situation?

I've seen utterly absurd rulings on things like this--evidence issues and procedures. Totally prejudicial. The judge obviously looking for ANY excuse to rule in favor of the rich and powerful.

The basic Catch 22 they're putting Arnebeck into is that they've denied his motions for protection of evidence and expedited discovery, etc.--the means of building a case--and now are dumping on him for his evidence not being in order. These are highly discretionary calls, and--just like all voting machines default to Bush--all discretionary calls by the court go in favor of Bush and against the voters and the public.

In the case of forestry, the whole forest is basically gone, the endangered species, once abundant, down to ten fish or one bird. They're now going to clearcut that last bit of viable habitat, the trees are falling--and the ol' boy judge rules that there is no evidence.

When the fix is in, the fix is in. You can choose to litigate for other reasons, for the principle of the thing, for publicity. But you know that you are going to be nitpicked to death, and that the truth has no bearing in the courtroom.

I've also reviewed rulings on the death penalty that are similar. Utterly heartless--and almost gleeful--nitpicking by judges to insure that a youngster, caught up in neighborhood gangs, will not just go to prison, he will be executed.

This is not justice or fairness. These are not wise people with good motives, seeking the truth. Judges protecting corporate interests--or enforcing racist policies that serve the ends of the corporate state--are never going to give you justice, and they are not going to give your any breaks whatsoever, any benefits of the doubt, and any ol' boy winks and jokes.

They are the enemy.

This isn't to say that attorneys shouldn't try their best to dot i's and cross t's. That's only sensible--to the extent humanly possible.

But I think the quick judgments here that the grass roots attorney is at fault--and not the vast, greedy, cold, conscienceless, lethal and utterly corrupt legal system that put BushCons in the White House in the first place--is either naive or a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble.

Criticize? Discuss? Yes! Dis the man, impugn his motives with no evidence whatsoever--when he is representing US, and is one our few advocates? Not good.

One of the most eloquent legal pleas ever written--the one that resulted in Miranda rights--was written by hand in pencil by someone who was barely literate. Justice has NOTHING TO DO with dotted i's and crossed t's. NOTHING. And to make such things into matters of importance is, in this case, on this issue--and on others I can think of--a gross IN-justice.

[Straight Shooter]

151. Thank goodness someone recognizes difference between David and Goliath.

Jeebers. If someone doesn't do every little thing just-so perfectly, and if every little arrow doesn't hit bulls-eye, it's like a feeding frenzy.

I've seen what you're talking about in court, too. I've seen murderers let off the hook, petty thieves thrown in jail for god-awful lengths of time, cases dismissed despite clear evidence, innocent people pleading guilty because the odds were stacked against them, deals made under the table and behind closed doors. Everyone gives it a wink and a nudge and, hey, it's just business as usual when the gavel comes down on the bench.

Money talks, democracy walks. Nobody should be judging Arnebeck unless they're helping him directly. Ms. "Columbus election lawyer" hasn't even set foot in his office to offer her illustrious skills, you can count on that.

[LiberalHeart]

155. Look, if what constitutes an affidavit is known to lawyers...

...and Arnebeck fell short of delivering that kind of document, no "fix" is necessary. Our guy fixed himself, and didn't need to rely on the Chief Justice to do it. I read the decision and think it makes sense. Much as I wish I could cry "Bias!", I just don't see it here. In fact, I would not like to think that my state Supreme Court is ignoring basic legal rules and requirements when looking at the worthiness of a case. Lawyers go to law school to learn how to do this stuff, and their clients should be able to expect and receive competent representation. If all this was done for "educational" purposes only, I certainly do wish Arnebeck's organization had announced from the get-go that was their goal. I might have thought twice before contributing to the effort.

[Helga Scow Stern]

156. Praise the Lord and Thank You. Those "naive" comments were really

becoming annoying. I don't usually feel like telling people to STFU, but it was getting close. You did it with far more weight and eloquence.

[hootinholler]

164. Well said! N/T

[idealista]

173. HEAR HEAR! and lets stop eating our allies, our brave friends

I think I will go to the Free Press site and send another contribution to Arnebecks' legal fund. If we really care about democracy in this country, we must realize that the forces trying to take it away are well funded. We must fund our own. I've given a bit to many entities trying to do this work, including BBV. I hope it is put to good use. If only some of it ends up mattering, that is enough for me. In fact, I just need to be right with myself that I TRIED to help in this struggle.

[jdog]

176. Wow, Peace Patriot.

Thank you for that. Beautifully, and heartbreakingly, said. And I agree. Anyone who stands up to fight in this deserves our respect.

[bush_is_wacko]

200. For sure

I have seen "the fix" in almost every local issue I've ever been a part of. The only time I saw "the fix" swing in the favor of those who would have the most to lose, is when Pete Coors stood up and told our county commissioners that if they did what they were proposing to do he would pack up Coors Brewery and move it the hell out of here. It took less than a week for one commissioner to lose his job and the proposal to fail. We at a grassroots level had been fighting the GD proposal for months, but nothing we had told them and none of the evidence we had provided them was going to stop them from doing what they wanted. Power and Money always wins.

Sad to say, but a friggin Republican environmental disaster maker was our hero that day. Funny thing is he still couldn't win an election in this state!

PS - the issue was an experimental youth sex offender home larger than anything ever built in the entire world and it was going to be less than a mile from my home. Pete Coors lived more than 5 miles to the west of the proposed facility, but his voice was the only voice they heard despite the fact we had psychiatric experts up the ying yang who said it was insane to put that many sex offenders in one location!

[Left coast liberal]

209. Thank you, Peace Patriot, the voice of reason.

I think you are coming at it exactly right.

:)

[Alizaryn]

221. Thank you.

[ebayfool]

237. Thanks, Peace Patriot - I can't tell you how frustrating it is to know ...

what I want to say, but not how to put it into words. You just did!

[rumpel]

153. Found this analysis "Pleading and Discovery in an Ohio Election Contest"

It appears, it is quite specific in the requirement. As a layperson reading this, it has not encouraged me.

Pleading Burdens

The main statutory requirement of an election contest petition is that the petition must “set forth the grounds for such contest.” R.C. 3515.09. 2 The Ohio Revised Code does not, however, provide a list of possible grounds. To comply with the statutory provision, a contestor must allege the two elements of an election contest: (1) that one or more election irregularities occurred, and (2) that the irregularity or irregularities affected enough votes to change or make uncertain the results of the election. In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Election Held May 4, 1999 for Nomination of Clerk, Youngstown Municipal Court, 717 N.E.2d 701, 702 (Ohio 1999).

How specific must these allegations be? The Supreme Court of Ohio clearly recites the standard: an election contest petition is subject to what lawyers call “notice pleading,” not “fact pleading.” Id. In other words, to state a claim for election contest, the petition must allege the elements of an election contest with sufficient particularity so that reasonable notice is given to the opposing parties. Id. Inherent in this pleading burden is two requirements: pleading the elements of the claim and doing so with sufficient particularity. (By contrast, fact pleading—also called “heightened pleading”—imposes a higher burden on the party initiating the lawsuit. Under this stricter standard, a party must allege in the petition the specific facts that if proven at trial would cause the party to prevail on the merits under the relevant legal rules.) 3

In re Election Contest for Youngstown Clerk illustrates what is necessary. The contestor’s petition alleged that the board of elections did not remove a candidate's name from the ballot after he withdrew from the election, in contravention of state law, and that this affected the validity of the election and altered its outcome. In re Election Contest for Youngstown Clerk, 717 N.E.2d at 702. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the petition met the notice pleading burden by alleging the elements of an election contest claim: (1) that an irregularity occurred (the board’s failure to remove the name from the ballot), and (2) that this irregularity affected enough votes to affect the outcome of the election. Hence, the petition withstood the contestee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Ohio Civil Rule 12(b)(6). See id. at 702-03.

full article at
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/041207b.htm

[LiberalHeart]

158. Nader was on my Mom's absentee ballot (Ohio)....

That paragraph in your post about the Youngstown Clerk & the name of a non-candidate being on the ballot caught my attention because Nader was not allowed on Ohio's ballot, but he was on an absentee ballot sent to my Mom. There was a thin red line drawn at a slant on the line where his name was. I wonder if such ballots were thrown out.

Something else that bothered me about her absentee ballot was that the outer envelope said she was supposed to use the enclosed pencil to fill out the ballot, and that she should not use ink. But there was no pencil enclosed, and on the ballot itself it identified certain kinds of ink that could be used. Since one item contradicted the other, I wondered if this provided some sort of avenue for declaring ballots invalid.

[rumpel]

205. I would bring it to the attention of Arnebeck, immediately

[LiberalHeart]

217. Ok, consider it done, rumpel. N/T

[cyberpj]

154. Here's some input from another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x208854

You know, people say they're in it for the long haul and understand how long Watergate took and understand the level of corruption and still freak out and start pointing fingers everywhere at every problem. It's human.

But we've got to learn to take a deep breath after the punches and have the next step ready in advance. It doesn't appear that we have any knockout punches of our own.

PJ

Quote of the Day
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at in the right way, did not become still more complicated." --Poul Anderson

[ihelpu2see]

166. does this mean Moyer does not think the 6+ hour wait for

voting in Democratic districts does not need investigating???

[Last Lemming]

192. Chill

Bush isn't hiding out in Texas, refusing to give a statement about Mother Nature, the only current challange to his almighty power, because everything is going "according to plan" If you are going to watch the chess game--it may help to keep your eye on the whole board

[euler]

204. I would like to know your secret.

When I say similar things in a measured way, as you do, I get flamed.

[read the law first]

207. me?

read the law first not get flamed? I even had somebody gratuitously insult me for my selection of neckties. LOL


I know what I know. I've done what I've done and I've seen what I've seen, so it doesn't matter whether somebody on the other side of the planet agrees or not, especially if they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I actually get a wierd feeling of compassion when I get blistered by some of the more, shall we say, impassioned posters. My dad once told me that to graciously withstand the attack of a fool without responding in kind was the sign of a mensch.

[LiberalHeart]

218. I think your necktie is outstanding....

...and you're definitely a mensch. If your dad is single, tell him I want to meet him.

[IndyPriest]

215. So, let's say we lose the emergency motion in Moss vs. Bush but

win one just like it in Yost vs. Cobb. So, what are we in, some shouting match about whether the vote machines can be impounded???

[Alizaryn]

222. Sometimes I stop and think that maybe it all comes down

to who can cheat,scam,hack better. Maybe the only solution will end up being, beating them at their own game to get to the point where it could be repaired, because they are sure not going to do it.

Join in their games and philosophy: "the end justifies the means".

[NoBushSpokenHere]

234. I think it was more about not having enough money to hire more

attorneys to review and doublecheck items. I would guess this case will be sent in again with the proper docs attached.