Most promising words from Will Pitt's interview with Arnebeck...

[EMunster]

CA: Let's assume you could prove it statistically. You say 15,000 did not vote and the likelihood of their voting would have been 75% for Kerry. That's not enough to contest an election. Unless you have enough in the way of votes so that it actually goes to the question of what was the true outcome, the true result, who was the winner, you can be thrown out for not having proper evidence for an election contest.

We believe, based upon these multiple levels of statistical analysis, the statistical anomalies, that in that area alone there is a basis to say the result of the election was statistically opposite of what has been reported. That's without even going into the horrendous civil rights violations and saying, "Here's the evidence to show that these people, had they been able to vote, would have voted the other way."

http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml


But I have one question...

...for the lawyers or law students out there: Can anyone cite a successful case for anything solely using this kind of evidence?

If you're one of the negative freepers (negfreeps), spare me your bought opinions and useless dismissals. Instead, cite a case proving your assertions. (You might not be familiar with this method...it's called making a point.)

[tk2kewl]

1. its my understanding that statistical techniques are used extensively

by forensic accountants and that their finding are used as evidence in financial fraud cases

[goldengreek]

28. Wow. So the case may be well recieved...

Based on statistics alone if it's a strong one. Good to know.

[tridim]

2. I'm not a lawyer, but statistics is a hard science

Statistical anomalies are just that, anomalies. A Vegas casino's business plan is based on statistical outcome, and they ALWAYS make money. Why? Because stats don't lie when flipping a coin or dealing random cards.

I suppose there's always that 1 in 10 billion chance the stats are wrong in the Fraud issue. I don't know how the law looks at that, but IMO it's proof of fraud beyond reasonable doubt.

[Zan_of_Texas]

3. If the election is tossed out, there is a current precedent for a revote -

Carteret County, NC - the Unilect voting machine irretrievably lost 4000 votes. Couldn't find 'em ANYwhere!

They are revoting, for the lost voters, in that one race.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=125708&mesg_id=125708

[read the law first]

8. Zan of Texas is correct. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

4. Statistics are used all the time in court to prove lost wages

In cases of severe injury or death, experts are called in to show and explain to the jury statistics which prove that the person has lost wages in such-and-such an amount based upon actuarial tables. Airlines rely extensively upon such experts in cases of major crashes with large loss of life.

I don't have a case to cite vis-a-vis Mr. Arnebeck's assertions, but am assuming there is some sort of parallel argument to be made.

Mr. Arnebeck, you'll notice, repeatedly cites that Gore actually won Florida. Perhaps he will use the statistics gleaned from that election as a comparative basis for arguing that 2004 was fraudulent because the same political operatives employed the same methods of manipulating the vote, as well as the malfunction of the evoting machines creating reasonable doubt in a prudent person's mind as to whether the election in fact was fair or not.

[goldengreek]

29. Again, good to hear.

I was worried about the case if it were "only" based on statistics. But as backup Arnebeck apparently has clear violations of the law that cost Kerry the election.

[ClintCooper2003]

5. The basic problem is that the Repukathons will send out someone

to lie and say the exact opposite.

[zann725]

23. I still think our strongest evidence would be Blackwell...

who I firmly think will 'slip-up' somewhere soon. (A point numerous other bloggers have mentioned as well.) There's just something truly ambivalent about him...despite his retentive ways.

If only we could figure out what might nudge him in that direction? Are there no pictures of him on Election Day anywhere near where Bush was in Columbus?

[sharman]

6. It's the discovery, grasshopper

The hope of this lawsuit, if it survives attacks to throw it out from the gitgo, is that it gives us the tools to really investigate. The right to compel people to testify, to turn over documents, etc. The statistics raise the question of fraud, discovery gives the means to get the hard evidence

[read the law first]

7. Our statistician in Gore 2000 was torn to pieces

I don't want to take a bunch of crap for sharing an informed opinion and I don't have a gazillion posts but unlike others, I've actually handled election contests recently. (I'm not admitted in Ohio though).

The extrapolation and assumptions and general BS that's been flying around the Internet would be a pathetic parody of a satire of a joke if the stakes weren't so high.

That being said, We have come up with an amazing array of actual real life hard evidence (e.g. machines that reported more votes that registered voters) such that if the margin were 527 like Florida it would be really exciting and interesting to watch what happened next. It would be something for the history books and DU would have to be appropriately mentioned as the central location for making history.

Beware of anyone who says that an election contest would have Kerry be declared the winner. That's not how election contests work. The remedy in an election contest is a new election (some people call this a revote) not to have another candidate declared the victor.

Beware of anyone who posts an affidavit that contains the words "in my professional opinion." Real professionals lay a foundation for their opinion and then state their opinion not their professional opinion. I always laugh at (and hold up for public humiliation) experts who want to state their "professional" opinion rather than proving that they are professionals and merely stating their opinion. The need to state that it is a "professional opinion" means "unarmed target" in my world.

Beware of any affidavit that bases ANYTHING on an assumption. An affidavit by its very nature is a recitation of facts based on personal first hand knowledge, not assumptions.

Beware of anyone who says that an affidavit is evidence at trial (unless it's used for impeachment of a witness). Even a first year law student knows that an affidavit can not be cross examined and therefore can only be used in motions and not at trial.

Statistical analysis can be used at trial and is frequently used in trials. In fact, in Florida, the bulk of Gore's case was based on statistical analysis but if you recall our expert ( a professor from Yale I seem to remember) was ripped to shreds on the stand. It was embarassing to just stand there and watch the beating that took place.

Beware of someone who doesn't know the difference between a spoiled ballot and an undervote or overvote.

Beware of anyone who doesn't know that in order to win a contest, you have to prove more illegal votes or unlawful ballots than at least the margin.

Beware of anyone who doesn't know the difference between voter fraud and voter suppression.

Beware of anyone who says "I expect this or that number of votes to break for Kerry" in any part of an election contest proceeding. Real Election lawyers know that it doesn't matter who the people would have voted for, the standard is an unlawful ballot or illegal vote and you can use your supporters or the other guys supporters to meet this standard. Also, people who state that are usually wrong in their expectation for some other reason as well.

Beware of anyone who talks about something being obviously frad when that something doesn't meet the statutory requirements of fraud (whcih is quite specific i.e. a representation of fact known at this time to be false for the purpose of inducing someone to reasonably change a position on the basis of such knowing misrepresentation of fact and which in fact does cause the person to change a position)

It's obviously fun and an interesting pasttime for people who watch lawyers on TV to want to play lawyer based on what they've seen on television but for real lawyers who have actually handled election contests it's kind of painful to watch.


There. Thanks for letting me vent. I know I'll get flamed for this, but I just had to get that off my chest.

And also remember that I've indicated that DU posters really have uncovered real life evidence of irregularities that would be admissible in a contest.

[Paligal]

9. No flames here- Actually a good, sobering dose of reality

While some might flame you because what you point out is a bitter pill to swallow for those who wholeheartedly believe that this will play out by Jon Stewart, Michael Moore and John Kerry stepping forward last minute crying foul, Madsen proving a massive web of deception in the next week, and the Congress and Senate overturning the election and inaugurating Kerry in January.

I do believe there was fraud, and I hope wholeheartedly it is revealed in the next year or so. But I am also a realist and have been flamed for saying anything sobering on this board, like it doesn't matter what we (or Madsen) allege. We have to prove it. And that's only the first hurdle. We then have a lengthy battle to get it heard and legally dealt with. That will not happen before December 13th. And I don't believe it will happen before January 2nd (or whenever the Congress opens the result of the electoral college vote).

BTW, since you seem to be learned in the way of election laws, what happens if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was fraud and Bush did not win? Can he be impeached? What if he claims to have not knowledge of it? Has he actually committed an impeachable offence? I'm curious.

[tommcintyre]

12. No, you must prove he knew. But...

even so, if it goes that far, we will have won a tremendous victory.

1 - Bush's agenda would most likely be severely compromised - since so much doubt would be thrown on his legitimacy, let alone his proclaimed "mandate".

2 - By far, MOST IMPORTANTLY, raising this issue to such a level would nearly assure meaningful election reform. In effect, this would save our democracy in the nick of time, since 100% HAVA-mandated Evoting, combined with no paper trail would "finish us off" in 2006. The producer of "Invisible Ballots" warned BEFORE the election, that "no reform candidate would ever be able to change the situation" <once this happened>.

6-17-04 - Listen Online (52 minute interview) - INVISIBLE BALLOTS
Edward Griffin discusses electronic voting machines and how they will negatively affect our lives. (Source)
<G. Edward Griffin is the Executive Producer and host of the documentary, "Invisible Ballots". (watch preview online).>

links here (down the page):
http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud.htm

[EMunster]

10. Thank you....

I actually think your post should be elevated to a thread all it's own. Thanks for taking the time. Learned a lot.

later:
Hope you don't mind. I've reposted it as its own thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x132301

I can delete or make changes if you like. Just let me know. I hope this is all right. I'll quickly remedy if it is not. I think this question is in the back of everyone's mind. You answer it. Do monitor it if you can, as I'm sure there'll be other questions.

best and thanks...

[Snivi Yllom]

24. A great post that was sorely needed

[Carolab]

11. Some key points I'd like to make

One thing that is different in 2004 from 2000 is that there were 25,000+ boots on the ground and observing actual instances of various activities, including machine malfunctions. There are testimonies and there are written reports and there are logged complaints up the wazoo and there are even corroborating newspaper accounts.

Also, we have discovered specific patterns and these patterns have been born out by statistical analyses and charts and graphs that we did not have time to produce in Florida, let alone be able to introduce them into a legal contest.

There is also videotape of actual voter suppression that is documented evidence of illegal activities in violation of civil rights laws. There is the conflict of interest inherent in having a Secretary of State who is a key campaign official for Bush in addition to a CEO of the principal voting machine company who not only operates in Canton, Ohio but who also has donated extensively to Bush and promised to deliver the election to him. Not to mention that the Secretary of State has already violated laws and is acting in an extremely obstructionist way, contrary to his prescribed role.

And there are actual printouts of vote tallies that do not square with the facts, and actual documented and witnessed events of machine malfunction, as well as multiple violations of elections laws in Ohio. There is also evidence from other states that replicate the "irregularities" seen in Ohio, indicating clearly that these were not isolated incidents and that there was a pattern that points quite strongly in the direction of an organized vote-rigging effort.

In short, we have a lot more to go on that we did in Florida in 2000. This time, we were ready. And Arnebeck is quite experienced and conversant in Ohio election law, having already handled related cases in Ohio in the past, not to mention the obvious skill, knowledge and passion of the rest of the lawyers involved such as Susan Truitt.

And I might finish by reminding everyone that this time we have in fact, if all the votes were truly counted, a MAJORITY of people who dedicated themselves in heroic fashion to getting out the vote and who have not forgotten the theft of 2000. Nor are they unaware of what the neoconservatives have done in the last four years and what they are planning to do. This all amounts to no small thing, and if you think that it is, you have a very poor understanding of human behavior.

But thanks for stopping by and pooping all over us.

[tommcintyre]

13. Excellent points Carolab! n/t

[KittyWampus]

15. Kick

[KittyWampus]

22. Kick

[Sideways]

14. God Damn Best Post Of The Day

I have nothing to add but thank you Carolab.

[Vidar]

16. Great post. Thank you.

[read the law first]

17. You're absolutely right.

I thought that's what I was saying when I said (twice) that we had uncovered real and true evidence that would be admissible in a contest. Even though your post came after mine, I was in essence incorporating your post by reference.

I sincerely meant that if we can overcome the margin, it'll be one for the history books.

Didn't mean to poop on you.

[Amaryllis]

27. Not to mention a whole lot more of us on the internet than in 2000

who are spreading the word at nearly lightspeed in spite of the MSM blackout, and who were already educated about e-voing fraud and voter suppression before the election even happened, thanks to all the citizen watchdogs groups and voting rights groups and people like Ronnie Dugger.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

18. SCOTUS strongly weighted social science stats in

Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas. Stats have long been considered relevant in courts of all levels. DNA evidence, after all, is based on statistics. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer.)

[Flint-oid]

19. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain)

[MarkusQ]

20. The closest cases I can think of (from personal knowledge)

I am not a lawyer, I am a computer programmer.

I used to do technical support for various auditing groups (financial, not electoral). Statistical evidence was very valuable in determining where to look but was seldom the entire "case" (I say "case" in quotes because these were generally internal investigations and seldom went to trial; I helped with discovery-phase a few times, but that was as close as I got).

In one case I recall, the manager of a retail store (in a mall) was caught entirely on the basis of the ratio of cash to credit card sales; in his store, when he was there, the ratio was much lower (far less cash taken in) than at other stores or that store when he wasn't there. It wasn't until after he was confronted that the inventory side of the issue was discovered.

In another case, in which I was not involved but people I knew were, a known and documented high-error rate in the processing of home mortgages was elevated to a criminal case on the basis of a statistical pattern--the errors mostly favoured one lender, who had ties to the account servicing firm, and the victims were almost entirely Hispanic. Note that the statistics were not used to prove the existence of problems, but to lay a basis for the pattern of abuse needed to bring criminal charges.

In general, I would not recommend working to overturn the election. That route is well guarded and prepared for assault from someone with the resources of (for example) the DNC. Instead, I would recommend starting with small "inconsequential" cases (local races, individual or class disenfranchisement, specific machine "errors") and building to the point where public awareness of "the problems" fuses into awareness of "the problem."

Because numbers matter even where statistics don't.

--MarkusQ

[read the law first]

21. good post n/t

[truehawk]

25. Stastics can provide the Reasonable Suspicion needed to have further exam

Stastistics in and of themselves can prove voter supression of a protected class, and if that class is show to vote 87% for Kerry then it can be shown that Kerry was probably deprived of votes by that method.

The fact that this method was used and this pattern prevailed in every county where we have the census data and the precincts by latitude and longitude show that the voter supression was not a regretable incident but a coordinated action, or a conspriricy meeting standards for criminal conspriicy under the Rico Act.

Using this evidence of a conspiricy to supress the Kerry vote by voter supression, we can then ask for discovery of the source code of the Triad tabulators, and DREs and a reconcilation of voter counts with the poll books etc.

We did not have any of this evidence in Florida.

[truehawk]

26. Statistics can provide Reasonable Suspicion for Discovery

Message:
Statistics in and of themselves can prove voter suppression of a protected class, and if that class is show to vote 87% for Kerry then it can be shown that Kerry was probably deprived of votes by that method.

The fact that this method was used and this pattern prevailed in every county where we have the census data and the precincts by latitude and longitude show that the voter suppression was not a regrettable incident but a coordinated action, or a conspiracy meeting standards for criminal conspiracy under the Rico Act.

Using this evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the Kerry vote by voter suppression, we can then ask for discovery of the source code of the Triad tabulators, and DREs and a reconciliation of voter counts with the poll books etc.

We did not have any of this evidence in Florida.

[Quakerfriend]

30. Don't forget

We also have the pre election analysis of the software/hardware used in these machines, done by Dr. Avi Rubin. He found it to be deeply flawed and susceptible to hacking, and said this much in his written analysis which came out ~ a year prior to the election.