Edited to add link:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/10... and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... From: Arnebeck@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 02:02:40 EST
Subject: Arnebeck Letter to Congress Regarding Electoral Vote Challenge
To: AllianceCouncil@topica.com
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5117
Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
Arnebeck Law Office
1351 King Ave., 1st Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43212
614-481-8416
Fax: 614-481-8387
Email: <mailto:Arnebeck@aol.com >Arnebeck@aol.com
January 6, 2005
Dear United States Senator or Member of Congress:
Today, you are being asked to certify the reported votes of the Electoral
College even though the status of the Ohio electors is still the subject of
the meritorious election contest. You are being asked to do so on the
basis of one or more of the following three fallacies:
1) The faith-based neocon fallacy that vote counts do not have to be
independently verified.
This new "con" holds that facts may be overcome by assertions of faith by
those in power. Thus, the Bush campaign co-chair for Ohio and Secretary of
State Kenneth Blackwell need not count 106,000 as yet uncounted Ohio
ballots, because he has faith they would not make a difference in the
reported 119,000 vote difference even thought these uncounted votes all are
in areas of Ohio that demonstrated strong support for John Kerry, and
because, as Secretary of State he has the power not to count them.
A corollary of this fallacy is that Ken Blackwell need not answer questions
under oath. The answers to such questions might upset peoples' faith in the
new "con."
2) The fallacy that Karl Rove is a nice guy/clean campaigner, and those who
suspect otherwise with respect to this election which Bush was expected to
lose, are conspiracy theorists.
Karl Rove fights hard for what he wants . . . a worthy quality. However, no
one has accused him of being a stickler for cleanliness in his campaigns.
Yet, you are being asked to believe that fewer machines and longer lines in
Afro-American precincts, the scandalously lower vote counts in
Afro-American precincts, the confusion over precincts and ballots and
counts and the disproportionate requirement that Afro-American voters vote
provisionally all as unintentional glitches.
You are being asked to believe that the biggest glitch of all, that is Ohio
and national vote counts which are realistically impossible in light of the
exit poll results, is accidental
Those of Jewish faith and Afro-American ethnicity are being labeled as
conspiracy theorists rather than people with a special insight based upon
historical maltreatment in institutions like slavery and the Holocaust, for
their belief that anybody intentionally directed all these glitches just at
them.
3) The rule of power fallacy which exempts those in power from the rule of
law and the rules of evidence.
This fallacy is based upon the double standard where rules applied to
others do not apply to those in power. America, because it is the world's
military superpower, may use
exit polls to verify or challenge the validity of elections in other
countries, such as
the Ukraine, Mexico and others, but exit polling may not be used to
challenge election results reported in the United States.
In the United States the party in power, that is, the Bush-Republican
Party, may exempt itself from rules which apply to Democrats and those not
in control of the Bush-Republican Party.
The rule of power fallacy is the most important of these three fallacies
because it teaches Democrats like John Kerry, John Edwards and Terry
McAuliffe that there is no point in challenging Bush Republicans based upon
law or fact because Bush Republicans control the Congress, the Courts and
the Presidency and will use that control to impose their will no matter
what may be the facts or the law.
In my experience over the past four years in successfully litigating on
behalf of the non-partisan Alliance for Democracy in partnership with
Common Cause/Ohio as Chairman of its Legal Affairs Committee against the
Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
neither the candidates nor the party that have been targeted by the
approximately $14 million of illegal corporate money have been involved as
parties or public supporters of the litigation. In politics the targeted
candidates and parties place a higher priority upon avoiding the appearance
being sore losers than upon seeking the true facts and upholding the rule
of law.
It does not surprise me, based upon my most recent election litigation
experience, that John Kerry and the Democratic Party which appear to have
been the intended victim of the most massive election fraud in history are
not contesting this election.
In contrast to the intended victims of this fraud, you as a United States
Senator, whether a member of the Democratic or Republican Party are called
upon to judge this election not as a party but as a judge. You are bound
by your oath to uphold the Constitution to judge this election
independently and objectively with regard to the facts and the law.
Ohio voters who formally contest the November 2, 2004, contest the election
not only for its irregularities, but also because the evidence shows that a
majority of Ohio voters and a majority of American voters voted for John
Kerry. We assert that the evidence for this meets, not only the clear and
convincing standard of Ohio law for an election contest, but also the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law.
Ohio's Secretary of State has refused to answer questions under oath as to
either the blatant irregularities or the results he has certified. He is
stonewalling, on the apparent belief that Congress will simply proceed to
count Ohio's electoral votes today, along with the votes of all the other
states, and the matter will be over. He is looking to Congress to free him
and others from responding to the overwhelming evidence that the Ohio
election results he certified are fraudulent and that John Kerry won Ohio
and therefore the presidency.
In the 2000 presidential election the U.S. Supreme Court took
responsibility for stopping the verification and counting Florida votes for
purposes of the certification of the Florida presidential electors. The
Congress then took responsibility for accepting, without challenge, the
unverified electoral votes of Florida.
A consortium of news organizations took the initiative to count all the
Florida votes after the inauguration of George W. Bush. Thus, history now
records the fact that Albert Gore actually won the Florida popular vote had
all votes been properly counted.
Based upon the evidence, uncontroverted by any sworn testimony whatsoever,
if the Ohio litigation challenging the Ohio presidential vote is allowed to
proceed, it will promptly establish as a matter of fact that John Kerry won
Ohio and Presidency.
All of the Ohio votes, whether cast or simply tabulated on computerized
voting machines, can and should be promptly counted by independent
companies whose tabulating equipment, personnel, procedures and software
are fully transparent to both political parties and the independent
nonpartisan groups that support an honest Ohio election.
For us to complete our non-partisan job of litigating the Ohio election
result we need your help in challenging the electoral votes of every state,
until due process in our litigation can be completed. If instead, you
accept the reported electoral college votes today or limit your challenge
only to the Ohio vote, it appears likely that the Ohio Supreme Court will
dismiss our election challenge as moot because the challenged Ohio electors
will today have been fully discharged by the completed act of Congress.
Because of the importance of this matter, history requires that the Ohio
2004 presidential election votes ultimately be accurately counted. If that
happens after an inauguration, then, based upon the evidence at hand,
history would record that, for a second time, George W. Bush would have
been elected on the basis of an incorrect count of the votes that were
actually cast and that, for a second time the Congress certified an
inaccurate Presidential election result.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
Chairman of the Ohio Honest Election Campaign and Co-Chair of the Alliance
for Democracy
Counsel of Record for the Contestors in Rev. Bill Moss et al. v. Bush et
al., Supreme Court of Ohio, Ca
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(699 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
