| Author | Message | ||||
     Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 200 Registered: 2-2003 |
OHIO LAWSUIT SAYS KERRY WON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ABSTRACT OF LAWSUIT: (Complete text attached 
Lawsuit asks the Court to declare Kerry-Edwards the winner of Ohios 20 electoral votes. The lawsuit sets forth allegations of election irregularities which caused at least 130,656 votes cast for the Kerry-Edwards ticket to be counted for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Asks the Court to add at least 130,656 votes to the Kerry-Edwards total and deduct at least 130,656 votes from the Bush-Cheney, which would result in a victory by Kerry-Edwards by at least 142,537 votes. The irregularities include: Election Fraud based on discrepancy between tallied results and exit poll results (paras. 66-79) -- Study by Prof. Steven Freeman on exit poll discrepancies cited (Exhibit A) (paras 75-76) Ballots cast for non-existent voters and ballots of real voters destroyed (para. 82) Fraudulent absentee ballots cast (para. 83) Prevention of public inspection of poll books by Sec. Blackwell (paras. 84-85, 91) Changing vote totals via physical or remote electronic access to voting machines (paras. 86-87) - Analysis by computer expert Chuck Herrin cited (Exhibit B) (para. 87) Deducting votes for Kerry-Edwards by error, fraud or mistake (para. 94) Racial discrimination (violations of equal protection clause of 14th Amendment and voting rights provisions of 15th Amendment) in registration, designation of precincts, right to cast provisional ballots, assignment of voting machines, voting machine errors, improperly discarded ballots and intimidation (paras. 96-125) The lawsuit also seeks an Emergency Motion to preserve evidence by not making any modifications to any data stored electronically and to impound all voting and tabulating machines and related equipment (end of lawsuit) Paul Surovell - - - - - - - - - - EXERPTS OF LAWSUIT - - - - - - - - - - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. 04-2088 VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION (R. C. 3515.08) ___________________________ CONTESTORS [36 Ohio voters listed PS editor] CONTESTORS, -v- George W. Bush 43 Prairie Chapel Ranch Crawford, Texas 76638 Richard B. Cheney 242 West 14th Street Casper, Wyoming 82601 Karl C. Rove 616 Crystal Creek Drive Austin, Texas 78746 Bush-Cheney `04, Inc. P.O.Box 684 Arlington, Virginia 22216 J. Kenneth Blackwell 180 East Broad Street 16' Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 [plus 19 members of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio PS editor] JURISDICTION 1. This Election Contest Petition is filed pursuant to R.C. §3515.08 et seq. The Ohio Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to R.C. §3515.08. VENUE 2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to R.C. §3515.09. NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. This is an election contest filed pursuant to R.C. §3515.08 et seq. For the reasons set forth herein, the contestors contest the certification of the election of the electors pledged to George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for the offices, respectively, of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States for the terms commencing January 20, 2005, 65. A general election was held on Election Day November 2, 2004. 66. During the course of the day, a consortium named the National EIection Pool (NEP) sponsored an exit poll or exit polls. The members of the NEP are a wire service (AP) and five (5) news organizations (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC) owned by five (5) conglomerates. An exit poll is conducted by interviewing voters immediately after they vote. Credit for inventing the exit poll is generally given to Warren Mitofsky a world recognized expert in exit polling in particular and public opinion polling in general. The NEP contracted with Mr. Mitofsky's firm (Mitofsky International) and another well-respected firm, Edison Media Research, to actually conduct the exit poll or polls. 67. This is what the NEP website (http://www.exit-poll.net/edisonmitofsky.html) states about Mitofsky International and Mr. Mitofsky's experience: "Mitofsky International is a survey research company founded by Warren J. Mitofsky in 1993. Its primary business is conducting exit polls for major elections around the world. It does this work exclusively for news organizations. Mitofsky has directed exit polls and quick counts since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests. He has the distinction of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. is (sic!) record for accuracy is well known. `This caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, The Super Pollsters. Mitofsky International election research clients in the United States have included all the major television Networks, major newspapers such as NY Times, Washington Post and WSJ. Mitofsky also has a diverse roster of international Broadcast clients. Along with CESSI, Ltd., his was the sole exit poll for the Russian presidential elections in 1996 and 2000 as well as all other Russian elections since 1993. His was the only exit poll and quick count reported by the Mexican broadcast industry for its 1994 presidential Election. Since then he and Consulta S.A., have done all national and state exit polls for Televisa, Mexico's largest broadcaster. Warren Mitofsky started and directed the first network election pool, Voter Research & Surveys, from 1990 to 1993, later to become known as Voter News Service (VNS). Mitofsky and Edison Media Research have recently conducted exit polls in D.C., NJ, NY and for the 2003 California recall election. With the dissolution of VNS in 2002, the election consortium has chosen Edison and Mitofsky International to be the sole provider of Exit Polls for all Primaries and General Elections. Mitofsky created the Exit Poll research model and its execution in 1967 at CBS News; he continued to bring his innovative and accurate view of election data to Political reporting and analysis within CBS as director of its election unit for the next 27 years and a founder of the CBS/New York Times Poll. Mitofsky is a vital member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and a fellow of the American Statistical Association. He is currently working on a book about exit polls." 68. This is what the Mitofsky International website http://www.mitofs international.com/coman .htm states about Mitofsky International and Mr. Mitofsky's experience: "Mitofsky International is a survey research company founded by Warren J. Mitofsky in 1993. Its primary business is conducting exit polls for major elections around the world. It does this work exclusively for news organizations. Mitofsky has directed exit polls and quick counts since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests in United States, Mexico, Russia and the Philippines. His record for accuracy is well known. `This caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well...,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, The Super Pollsters. Mitofsky International also specializes in legal proceedings. Its cases included the change of venue portion of the Amadou Diallo shooting by four New York City police; the challenge in the U.S. Senate to seating Diane Fienstein (sic) after her victory over Michael Huffington; the South Carolina video poker law suit; the First Amendment law suits by the news media challenging the anti-exit poll statutes of the states of Washington, Florida and Georgia; the change of venue portion of the Orange County, California, law suit agains (sic) Merrill Lynch; a trade mark law suit concerning Billy Banks' Tae-Bo exercise video; an arbitration proceeding among 17 oil companies that banned together with DOJ approval to avoid takeover by Libya's Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi; the authenticity of polling conducted for Oregon's assisted suicide vote; MI election research clients in the United States have included ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Time; international clients include Televisa and the National Chamber for Radio and Television Broadcasting (Mexico), RAI (Italy), ZDF (Germany), Fuji (Japan), NTV and RTR (Russia) and Austrian and Finnish television. MI conducted the only exit polls for the Russian presidential elections in 1996 and 2000. It also polled for the 1993 and 1999 Duma election. In 1994, MI conducted the only exit poll and quick count for the Mexican presidential election reported by the country's broadcast industry. Mitofsky received public commendation by President Carlos Salinas for his contribution to the election's credibility. MI and its Mexican partner, Consulta, have conducted exit polls for most governor elections between 1997-99 for Televisa, Mexico's largest television network. ConsultalMitofsky also covered the first PRI national presidential primary in 1999. MI started the only public opinion poll in Sri Lanka. MI conducted exit polls for the 1994 mid-term U.S. elections for leading national newspapers. Since 1996, Mitofsky has done the electoral projections and analysis for president, governor and congress for CBS and CNN. MI's president, Warren Mitofsky started and directed Voter Research & Surveys from 1990 to 1993, which was the election consortium of the four major television networks, ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. It is now known as Voter News Service (VNS). From 1967 to 1990, Mitofsky was executive director of the CBS News election and survey unit, and was an executive producer of its election night broadcasts. He conducted the first exit polls for CBS in 1967, and developed the projection and analysis system used successfully by CBS and Voter News Service. He started the CBS News/New York Times Poll in 1975 and directed it for CBS for its first 15 years. Mitofsky was president of both the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP). He currently is president of the Reserach (sic) Industry Coalition. He received KAPOR's Lifetime Achievement Award in 1999. He is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and serves on the boards of the Roper Center and the NY State Committee on Open Government. In 1995 he was a fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Later that year he was the Howard R. Marsh Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan. Mitofsky came to CBS News in 1967 from the Census Bureau where he designed many surveys during the early days of the poverty program and for presidential commissions including those investigating the selective service system and the Watts riots. He also designed many other demographic surveys. Along with Joseph Waksberg, he developed a highly efficient random digit dialing telephone sampling method, which has been widely adopted. At the University of Minnesota, Mitofsky became a doctoral candidate in mass communications, but did not complete the degree. With Paul Sheatsley, he edited A Meeting Place: The History of the American Association for-Public Opinion Research, and was an editor of Campaign 16 and Campaign '78. He currently is working on a book about exit polls." 69. Mr. Mitofsky's work abroad (as acknowledged by then Mexican President Salinas) serves to protect against election fraud. In short, if there is a marked difference between the exit polls and the official results, other nations know enough to conclude that there was fraud or other irregularity in counting the votes which were cast by the same people who provided the information for the exit polls. The laws of statistics do not change when one crosses the United States border. 70. Under the direction of the respected and world-renowned Warren Mitofsky, the NEP conducted two basic types of exit poll in 2004. First, there were statewide exit polls which in total involved interviews with over 73,000 voters. Second, there was an entirely separate national poll which involved interviews with over 13,000 voters. This reported sample size of over 13,000, which is approximately six (6) times larger than that customarily employed in high quality pre-election national polls, yields a very small margin of error and results in a very high level of expected accuracy. Therefore, one would expect to find a very close congruence between exit poll results and actual vote results. As discussed below however, the lack of congruence in this election between the exit poll results and the actual vote results is dramatic. 71. Just before the first polls close, the only available information about the voters' actual choices comes from the exit polls. As the polls close and the votes are counted, "official" tabulated results become available. On November 2, 2004, following the closing of the polls in each venue, the NEP "corrected" its results by combining actual vote data with exit poll data to permit the exit poll results to conform to the reported "official" results. In the process, any evidence of fraud as shown by a difference between the exit polls and the "official" results was erased as the so-called exit poll results (as reported the day after the election on November 3, 2004) were forced to correspond to the "official" results. 72. The NEP did not post "corrected" results for several hours on the evening and early morning of November 3, 2004. The uncorrected NEP exit poll results were available on the CNN website until early on Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004. Copies (screenshots) of the images from the website showing the uncorrected results of the exit polls in about 46 states were obtained. As discussed below, when these uncorrected results are compared to the "official" state-by-state results, it is clear that election fraud (or other irregularity) occurred in the counting of the vote in Ohio and a number of other states. 73. The pre-corrected exit poll data for Ohio predicted that Kerry would win 52.1% of the Ohio Presidential vote. The actual certified result shows Kerry winning 48.7% of the Ohio vote. The difference between the exit poll projection of Kerry's share of the vote and the certified actual Kerry share of the Presidential vote is 3.4%. According to standard statistical analysis, assuming a random exit poll sample and an honest vote count, there is a probability of roughly one in a thousand (0.0012) that this certified election result would occur. This implies that there is a 999/1000 chance that the Ohio exit poll result is either not based on a random sample or that the election itself was not honest. The probability that a pollster with the experience, reputation, and ability of Warren Mitofsky would not be able to draw a random sample is vanishingly small. While there are some unconvincing red herrings which could be raised (e.g., disproportionate spoilage of ballots, alleged reluctance of Bush supporters to speak with exit pollsters), the inescapable conclusion is that there was election fraud in connection with the vote counting in Ohio. 74. The basic reason the statistics provide clear and convincing evidence of election fraud flows from the following general principles. An exit poll based on responses from a random sample of a given number of people has a margin of error determined by the sample size. The margin of error decreases (but not in a linear manner) as the sample size increases. The margin of error is generally stated in terms of the expected difference in percent between the poll result and the actual result which will occur 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, the actual results will be outside the margin of error. That is, if a poll is taken from a random sample of a given population, 95% of the time the result obtained by sampling the entire population will be less than the margin of error away from the poll result. Given that the error can occur because the actual result is either above or below the poll result, half the errors occur in one direction and half in the other. For example, if the margin of error of a given sample is ±1% and the poll shows a given candidate receiving 50% of the vote, then 95 times out of 100, if all the people who actually voted were asked for their candidate preference (which is what happens when people cast a vote and the vote is counted) the candidate would receive with somewhere between 49% and 51% of the vote (both of which are exactly 1% away from the 50% poll result). With proper sampling methodology, as the difference between the exit poll result and the actual result increases substantially above the margin of error, the probability that there was election fraud increases markedly and approaches a near certainty (over 98 or 99 chances out of 100). 75. Similar results occurred in Florida (27 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) both of which were also key states in the election. The odds of all three states having shifts in the Kerry-Bush margin in the direction of Bush of 4.9% (Florida), 6.5% (Pennsylvania), and 6.7% (Ohio) have been estimated at about 662,000 to 1 by Prof. Steven F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania. A copy of Prof. Freeman's article is attached as Exhibit A. 76. Similar clear and convincing evidence of election fraud was found by Prof Freeman when he compared the exit poll results with the "official" results in a group of 11 so-called "battleground" states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). There was an unusual shift in favor of Bush which occurred in 10 of the 11 "battleground" states. In these 10 key states, the unusual shift in favor of Bush ranged from 1.6% in Michigan to 9.5% in New Hampshire. If there were innocent errors involved, one would expect to see shifts in favor of both Bush and Kerry. In the 11th state (Wisconsin), there was no difference between the Kerry-Bush margin predicted by the exit poll and the "official" Kerry-Bush margin after the votes were counted. 77. Similar results also occurred in the separate NEP national exit poll conducted under the direction of the respected and world-renowned Warren Mitofsky. The exit poll data for the separate national poll (reported sample size 13,047) predicted that Kerry would win 50.8 % of the national Presidential vote. The actual result shows Kerry winning 48.1% of the national Presidential vote. The difference between the exit poll projection of Kerry's share of the vote and the certified actual Kerry share of the Presidential vote is 2.7%. Assuming a random exit poll sample (corrected for the effect of interviewing in clusters at targeted precincts instead of evenly geographically distributed throughout the nation) and an honest vote count, there is a probability of roughly one in 45,000 that this official election result would occur (that is, that Kerry would receive 48.1% of the vote or less). This implies that there is a 44,999/45,000 chance that the national exit poll result is either not random or that the election itself was not honest. The probability that a pollster with the experience, reputation, and ability of Warren Mitofsky would not be able to draw a random sample is vanishingly small. On a national basis, there are even fewer red herrings which could be legitimately raised than there were with respect to the fraudulent certified Ohio results. The reasonable conclusion is that there was election fraud in connection with the vote counting on a national basis. 78. The vote fraud in connection with the national vote may also mean that the national exit poll is the most accurate representation of the votes actually cast. This means that candidate Bush probably did not win a "mandate" of 3.5 million votes but actually lost the national vote by a significant margin to John Kerry. The chance of Kerry receiving a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bush in an honest election was 98.7%. 79. Knowing that the evidence of the election fraud (the exit polls) would be in plain view for a short period of time, there was a further part of the plan to steal the election which plan was designed and/or implemented by defendants-contestees Bush, Cheney, and Rove acting through as yet unidentified agents (John Doe, Richard Roe, and Karl Roe 1-100). That part of the plan was to reduce or eliminate the amount of time the fraudulent results would be subjected to serious scrutiny by a well-funded adversary. Accordingly, Andrew Card, an associate of defendants-contestees Bush, Cheney, and Rove appeared on national television in the very early morning hours of November 3, 2004, to make a very nervous and shaky claim to victory in Ohio. Mr. Card essentially called for a concession and an end to any inquiry into the results.
| ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12843 Registered: 10-2001  |
Boring | ||||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 201 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois -- As boring as the exit poll discrepancies in Ukraine? -- Paul Surovell CONYERS WILL OPPOSE SEATING OF OHIO ELECTORS ON JAN 6th http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Report Thursday 30 December 2004 Representative John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will object to the counting of the Ohio Electors from the 2004 Presidential election when Congress convenes to ratify those votes on January 6th. In a letter dispatched to every Senator, which will be officially published by his office shortly, Conyers declares that he will be joined in this by several other members of the House. Rep. Conyers is taking this dramatic step because he believes the allegations and evidence of election tampering and fraud render the current slate of Ohio Electors illegitimate. "As you know," writes Rep. Conyers in his letter, "on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law." The letter goes on to ask the Senators who receive this letter to join Conyers in objecting to the Ohio Electors. "I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort," writes Conyers, "to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election." There are expected to be high level meetings with high ranking Democratic officials next week to coordinate a concerted lobbying effort to convince Senators to challenge the vote. The Green Party and David Cobb, as has been true all along, will be centrally involved in this process, as will Rev. Jesse Jackson. The remainder of the Conyers letter reads: 3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received." The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof." When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes...from any other State shall be acted upon until the (pending) objection...(is) finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted. Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State. Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of". A key legal aspect of this is the second clause referenced in the letter. Rep. Conyers and the other House members involved do not believe the electors have been lawfully certified. They believe that there has been too much illegal activity on the part of Blackwell, other election officials, and Republican operatives on the ground and therefore, as stated in the letter, the electors were not "lawfully certified" under state law. Next week, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff will release the report referenced in the letter, which is now still in draft form, and which led Mr. Conyers to this decision. The Senators who shall receive the greatest focus from Conyers in this matter are Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Conrad, CORZINE, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Inyoue, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, LAUTENBERG, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wyden and Obama. - - - - It is also of interest that Conyers has asked the NEP consortium of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the AP (mentioned in the Ohio lawsuit) to provide the raw data for the exit polls. The consortium has thus far refused to provide the data. - - - - - - - | ||||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 4447 Registered: 5-2001  |
So does this mean Kerry is the president of Ohio? | ||||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 202 Registered: 2-2003 |
Here's Exhibit A of the Ohio Lawsuit, a paper by prof. Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancies." I've deleted some of the graphics because they were difficult to upload. If anyone wants the complete Freeman file and any of the other lawsuit exhibits, contact me at paul4sure@aol.com -- Paul Surovell
| ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12844 Registered: 10-2001 |
As boring as get over it already. | ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12846 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sbenois Sues Democratic Party For Allowing Left Wing Radicals to Take Over Now THAT would be a good lawsuit. | ||||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 203 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois, Your opposition to raising questions about the exit poll discrepancies invokes image of the "WHIPPED DOG SYNDROME" among Democrats, articulated by Sen. Robert Byrd in October. He was criticizing his Democratic colleagues who had (as they had in the war powers act) agreed to to halt further investigation and discussion about the homeland security bill in October: "Today's situation is eerily reminiscent of the autumn of 2002. Two years ago, the hue and cry went up for all Senators to support a massive bureaucratic reshuffling of our homeland security agencies and a war resolution against Iraq, just weeks before Election Day. Like a whipped dog fearing its master, the Senate obediently complied with the demands of the White House. Hindsight reveals the mistakes the Senate made two years earlier." Why not at least set up a blue-ribbon commission to answer the discrepancies in the exit poll discrepancies, as recommended by John Zogby? Or is the "WHIPPED DOG SYNDROME" too powerful to overcome? Paul Surovell | ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12848 Registered: 10-2001 |
The Democrats didn't lose because of election irregularities. They lost because they allowed their party to become infested with left wing radicals who turned off the majority of Americans. So it you want to talk up this lawsuit go right ahead. Keep fighting the, um, silly fight. | ||||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 932 Registered: 8-2003  |
yeah right. left wing "radicals" who somehow were still able to appeal to 48% of the voters. if you use the word "radical" to describe Democrats, what word is left for eco-terrorists or militia men, or other actual fringe jobs? | ||||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 562 Registered: 5-2004  |
Sbenois, I thought you supported Kerry over Bush. Does that mean you supported those left wing radicals? | ||||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 556 Registered: 11-2003 |
Shocking the dem's keep losing elections--on one thread they are exploiting one of the worst events in history by bashing bush and on this one making claims kerry won Ohio... | ||||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1597 Registered: 6-2003 |
A lot more legitimate then suing our towns with an ultra right wing religous law team. | ||||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1334 Registered: 12-2001 |
Sorry - this is just BS. They're saying it is MORE likely fraud was committed because the same shift happened in several states. I'd say it's less likely if it occured in several states. Also - the "further part of the plan" stuff is just lame. "Similar clear and convincing evidence of election fraud was found by Prof Freeman when he compared the exit poll results with the "official" results in a group of 11 so called "battleground" states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). There was an unusual shift in favor of Bush which occurred in 10 of the 11 "battleground" states. In these 10 key states, the unusual shift in favor of Bush ranged from 1.6% in Michigan to 9.5% in New Hampshire. If there were innocent errors involved, one would expect to see shifts in favor of both Bush and Kerry. In the 11th state (Wisconsin), there was no difference between the Kerry Bush margin predicted by the exit poll and the "official" Kerry Bush margin after the votes were counted." "Knowing that the evidence of the election fraud (the exit polls) would be in plain view for a short period of time, there was a further part of the plan to steal the election which plan was designed and/or implemented by defendants contestees Bush, Cheney, and Rove acting through as yet unidentified agents (John Doe, Richard Roe, and Karl Roe 1 100). That part of the plan was to reduce or eliminate the amount of time the fraudulent results would be subjected to serious scrutiny by a well funded adversary. Accordingly, Andrew Card, an associate of defendants contestees Bush, Cheney, and Rove appeared on national television in the very early morning hours of November 3, 2004, to make a very nervous and shaky claim to victory in Ohio. Mr. Card essentially called for a concession and an end to any inquiry into the results." | ||||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1335 Registered: 12-2001 |
sbenois likes to be reasonable, and also be associated with winning. | ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12849 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sbenois likes to be reasonable and rather objective. And while Sbenois did support Kerry, Sbenois thinks that many of the swing voters opted for Bush because of the way that the Dems shifted over to the left. Sbenois never suggested that all Democrats are radicals. Far from it. | ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12850 Registered: 10-2001 |
P.S. It took me about 90 seconds to get over Kerry's loss. McCain is still the most Presidential guy in our country. | ||||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 933 Registered: 8-2003 |
OK, "infested" doesn't mean "all." Gotcha. I'd still like to know what you mean by "radical," and how widespread you would consider "infested" to mean. Seems more like you're backpedaling from a patently absurd notion - that the Democratic party is controlled by a radical fringe element (or at least to a greater extent than the Republicans are influenced by their own wing nut elements). | ||||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1040 Registered: 9-2001  |
Sbenny: It would be good to understand what you think is left wing or radical about the Dems. As a former lefty myself, I find the party to be tepid at best, hardly left wing and certainly not radical. I think it is the Dem's timidity and lack of a coherent rallying cry (along with bad choices for President and weak state officials) combined with a very on-focus GOP from top to local bottom that led to the GOP ascendency. | ||||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12851 Registered: 10-2001 |
Now there you go again. Where did I say "controlled". This is a pretty simple concept: the Democratic Party in the last election was most outwardly seen as quite a bit to the left. It was a turnoff. It turned ME off. When the Party decides to come back towards the center - by not having people like Al Sharpton service as keynote speakers, please call me. If Sharpton and Kucinich are the best that the Party could come up with (after Obama who was great) then that's pretty sad. But don't take my word for it, just look at the griping that party insiders are engaging in right now. |
Complete Text of Lawsuit