*************Disclaimer
I am not an attorney, therefore I can not give legal advise. I can talk about my personal experiences, and I can say “what I would do if I were you”. No information in this document should be construed by any entity or organization to be legal advise. Those wishing legal advise should consult an attorney within the jurisdiction they are interested.
*************
Basically that depends on the state sunshine law and what information you are shooting at. Lets pick on Ohio as you mentioned that state in your post.
The first thing you do in any legal matter is PULL the law and READ IT. Usually you can just google with a search string something like <ohio “sunshine law”> Almost all states have provisions in there laws stating that the language of the law must be written in a manor that common laymen with modicum of education can understand.
From this Ohio Attorney General page
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/site_map/sunshine_laws.htmI pulled this PDF “2004_yellow_book.pdf” You’ll note that the doc is annotated with pertinent court rulings of tests to define and explain the law in the various tests it has encountered. I’ve pulled a list of the sunshine laws and the document disclosure laws from each state with citing and sections numbers of the revised code that can be pulled for your state. I put them both on my server so you don’t have to hunt so hard.
http://eagle-access.net/2004_yellow_book.pdfhttp://eagle-access.net/sunshineallstates.docMost states have sunshine laws that primarily deal with public meetings, making private meetings of governing bodies illegal and requiring open meetings. In the case of Ohio, theirs is quite extensive and includes an “Open Meetings Act” and a “Public Records Act”. It appears to be one of the better sunshine acts I’ve seen.
Whether the public document discloser laws exist in sunshine or elsewhere in the particular states laws all states have provisions for discloser of public documents.
So Ohio would be a potential sunshine law that could be applied to garner data on the decision making process that went into choosing to place too few machines in democratic precincts. Here is an area were the “lay researcher” can have a great impact. Begin with a theory, like how did they organize the purposeful placement of too few machines in democratic strongholds? Similarly, How did they decide to place/keep antiquated 30-40 year old punch card machines in democratic strongholds (responsible for the majority of spoiled ballets) with full prior knowledge that 8% would be disenfranchised by spoilage, (around 250,000 voters if memory serves correct).
If I were a researcher in Ohio I would begin with Mr. Blackwells’ “calendar” or schedule. I’d want to reconstruct everything he did in his public performance as the Chief Elections Officer for 18 months prior to the theft. This is my root document. Perfecting the search would be ordering all minutes to all listed meetings in particular, meetings with the county elections officials that assisted him in the erroneous decisions. Order all minutes to those meetings. Order all transcripts or recordings of all those meetings. Order all info on number of machines available and how they are/were dispersed. Order that same info from across multiple previous elections including some for primaries.
Now, a month or so later your going to be sitting there with possibly thousands of documents. It may not look like much evidence but there is a ton. Before you, you’ll have many of the conspirators’ names and the meetings in acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Now the hard part. Analysis and perfecting your research with subsequent requests for information that will expand on your discoveries. You should have some experience at this analysis or locate someone that does. It doesn’t have to be an attorney. It can be a para-legal or just someone with some experience.
Keep in mind that the conspirators are not going to state in a public meeting anything as easy as ‘OK remove three machines from each of these 16 precincts because they are 75% democratic’. They’re going to talk about that in the hotel or privately. What you are looking for is obvious evidence of certain decisions made but no allusion in the record as to why. That’s evidence of private meetings. You are trying to demonstrate that decisions are/were being made out of the public eye, a violation of the sunshine act. You will invariably find that these individual county elections officials didn’t just error in choice of number of machines per precinct. With this root evidence alone, our attorneys will show the court the unlikely hood of mere error in booth numbers. The attorneys will ask the court, which is more plausible, their explanation of simple error or the more likely scenario a coordinated act. Is it more likely that these six county elections officials all arrived at the same error in the same manor only at democratic precincts across multiple jurisdictions or the more plausible explanation, they acted together.
Your looking for evidence of known problems with machines and how they arrived at keeping them. For example, it has been reported that Blackwell has admitted publicly that he knew the punch card machines would disenfranchise and in fact has already slated them to be replaced with, you guessed it, touch screens with no paper trail.
Or another method might be to pass this info to those that CAN analyze. Getting the basic research can be a great help to legal folks. Back ground research of this nature can be very time consuming to an attorney putting together a case when their time is at premium, and many times just doesn’t get done.
By my count, there are at least 10 methods being utilized by republiclone operatives to disenfranchise. Develop theories for each scenario and attempt to devise research that will produce evidence to each type of conspiracy. Take anecdotal reports (that aren’t evidence by themselves), such as mountains of complaint forms filled out by voters and devise ways to get to the info that might exist in the public record. If I had a magic wand I’d wave it across every state and produce all the root info to see were the real search needs to happen. Note, the juicy stuff usually won’t ooze out till the second and third round of document requests if the clones have done a fair job at obstructing justice. But they will not be able to hide it. Their only chance to keep it hidden is we can’t get the research done and or we can’t get it in front of a proper body for adjudication. Rest assured it’s there, the conspiracy is too great to hide it all.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
