DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE TIME/MONEY/RESOURCES TO RECOUNT OHIO?

[New Earth]

Please answer the above three questions. If we could afford the trip there, afford to take off work to go there, and be able to come up with the money to pay for the recounts, WOULDN'T WE HAVE ALREADY DONE IT?

Enough already.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Huh?

NGU.

[New Earth]

2. i'm trying to help out qgbwiahhann

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=308661&mesg_id=308661

[waz_nc]

3. I can donate some

I have no idea how much it would cost, but I'm sure I could come up with $50 or $100. A couple more people in the other thread said that they would willing to donate too. I would guess that it wouldn't be difficult to come up with the money to recount several precincts anyway. I sent the Roper Center an email asking them when they will have the state exit poll data for 2004 and how much it will cost per state. As I said in the other thread, I plan on buying the Ohio data and looking at it to identify precincts that might be good candidates for a recount.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi waz_nc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KatieB]

65. I'd give $ to have an Ohio recount - first banning all Triad employees

from getting within 1 mile of all tabulating machines.
Honey chil,' we can't afford not to recount.

[KatieB]

66. Better yet - how about I take my tax $ and give it to the recount, since I

have no vote right now.

[qwghlmian]

4. Wrong. You're misrepresenting what I said.

I said that the "personal" recounts of Ohio are the way to get hard proof of vote-counting fraud. It's the surest way (the other being getting the machines, dissecting their programming, and showing proof that miscounts were programmed in) of finding actual hard proof. Yet nothing is being done about it by those who believe that vote-counting fraud has occurred.

Note the words "vote-counting fraud". For someone who is so sensitive to the wording of others, ("election fraud" vs "voter fraud") you seem to be pretty sloppy about your own.

[New Earth]

5. i didn't even mention the words 'vote counting'

i said 'recount'. i do not understand what you are referring to.

[qwghlmian]

6. In the original (before you edited) post

you accused me of claiming that the "electoral fraud" claims are baseless unless "personal" recounts are done. Glad you changed your original post - except it is customary not to do this without indicating what you changed.

[New Earth]

7. i changed it wayyyyy before you replied

3 or 4 posts before you replied, actually.

[marions ghost]

8. good question...

Don't have time, but would contribute along with others...get a proposal together :kick:

[ivorysteve]

10. Ditto to #8. Kick! n/t

[Last Lemming]

11. A little bit of time

and more money--will be glad to--but I don't know if any of us are rich enough to fund the entire operation

[troubleinwinter]

12. Time, money, resources don't seem to be the entire issue, anyway.

There was a so-called "recount" in Ohio.

Most county BOEs made a legitimate recount impossible by making poll books unavailable, and non-random precinct selection... stonewalling and obstructing the whole way.

Evidence of fraud is already there, as shown in the Conyers report and the recent affidavits regarding the recounts. I 'get' that more evidence has been unearthed that has not yet been made public by Arnebeck, recount volunteers, et al.

Actual hand recount of all of the ballots (recounts of the machine votes cannot be legitimately counted anyway) is not necessary. The fraud is clear from existing evidence.

We do not need a video tape of a bank robber, if we have knowledge that he entered the bank at the exact time, wearing the clothes and matching the description of the robber, and placed the exact amount of the stolen money under his mattress. It would be sufficient proof of guilt, and he'd be sent to prison.

I think it's grand that Petro (shooting himself in the foot) has filed against Arnebeck, et al. This gives opportunity for all of the evidence of fraud to be presented in court and exposed for all to see.

Aw, but Faye, ya know all this stuff already! ;-)

[marions ghost]

13. good summary of the current situation in Ohio...

refuting all those qwugwellian relentless arguments such as:

"Personal hand recounts needed to prove fraud"
"Personal hand recounts ensure transparency"

;) LOL it seems Faye has already presented the red herring award to Q
but I appreciate all the info that came out here

[troubleinwinter]

14. And a well deserved award, it is.

I forgot to add the statistical work by 'the nine Ph.D.s', TIA and others!

A pile of DUers running over to Ohio to hand count would be useless... we'd be stonewalled, lied to and tricked. Even if we managed to do it, what would come of it? It would be said that "a buncha radical dissidents came up with their own so-called 'vote count' numbers..."

What we need to be doing is what we ARE doing. Keep the pressure on! Support those who need support... let them know we support them...email, FAX and phone. Donate whatever $$ we can, to the people who put it to valuable use... to people like Arnebeck and Andy Stephanson, and the organizations that are really doing the work. Disseminate info far and wide. Support our "alternative media".

And give no 'quarter'* the 'red herring people' who would try to divert our attention from the tasks at hand.

*Defined: Mercy or clemency, especially when displayed or given to an enemy.

And read my sig line, from the Lone Star Iconoclast.

[qwghlmian]

21. If you really want to find "hard proof" -

then recounting is one of the very few ways to get it. The official recount in Ohio was flawed. You are free to make the "personal" recount as perfect as you want, since you're in control of it.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

[EFerrari]

15. Why do you think anyone would be allowed to recount Ohio?

I mean, they faked the recount just as they faked the vote.

Do you have an in or better information, Faye?

[New Earth]

16. i'm not even being serious

some people saw that, some people didn't. :shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

17. Meet ya on the corner of 5th and Jefferson in Cincinnati 9:00 Tues, Faye.

[New Earth]

19. it's a plan

i'll bring my Ramen noodles and my 30 cents life savings for lunch.

[troubleinwinter]

20. I hate ramen. It kept me alive for a year once.

But I'll make ya a deal... I will eat cup-a-noodles at Blackheart's trial.

[New Earth]

22. haha sounds good

i'll bring popcorn for that one! (i'll save the last packet in the cabinet for the special event) :bounce:

[Amaryllis]

41. And THIS time, Blackwell and the BOE's are gonna give us FREE REIN!

No obstruction, no hassles, no violation of recount laws! Because Blackwell has - miracle of miracles! had a complete character overhaul and transformation now that W has been inaugurated. I'll be there with you. We will see justice done, by god! We will go where no one has gone before!

[qwghlmian]

46. As I pointed out before -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

can you show me one example of the same request in Ohio being rejected somewhere? And if you cannot, can you explain claiming it will be thwarted without even trying?

[roseBudd]

102. There is no corner called 5th and Jefferson in Cincinnati

[New Earth]

103. we were just kidding

:hi:

[EFerrari]

29. lol. where's my bus? nt

[qwghlmian]

23. Because today, right now,

you can make a request to inspect the ballots and go and recount in Ohio.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

[farmbo]

18. Don't recount Ohio...just Warren, Clermont, Butler and Miami counties.

That ring of SW Ohio counties is where the election was stolen.

And they're doable.

Let's make plans for spring break.

[qwghlmian]

24. Sure - all you have to do is

make a request from local BOEs, and pay for the time of the county employees who will handle the ballots while you recount.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

For some reason Faye and her admirers love to poo-poo this idea. Wonder why :hi:

[New Earth]

25. maybe because

we dont' have any money? :hi:

[qwghlmian]

26. You seem to be poo-pooing this idea

for anyone, not just for yourself.

And as I pointed out, it may cost as little as $50 to recount a couple of precincts. Hardly a monumental sum - and worth it if you come up with hard proof of vote-counting fraud. Wouldn't you say?

[New Earth]

27. sure

but i personally cannot contribute anything. i am unemployed and broke and i have no way to get to Ohio.

As I and others have said, find someone with the resources/money/travel time/ etc and i'm sure someone would be willing to do it.

[troubleinwinter]

28. Seemingly you have not taken note of the "recount" in Ohio.

How will you count the Diebold machine votes?

How will you count the votes that were NEVER cast because of disenfranchisement?

How do you propose to suddenly and miraculously get honest cooperation from the Ohio BOEs and SoS?

How much time have you spent on trying to assure honest and transparent elections in the future?

Have you donated to the people that are doing the work on this, or is your entire focus to do an impossible "recount"?

[qwghlmian]

31. Once again - please explain what is "impossible"

about this "personal recount".

1. Make a request to the local BOE of a county that has paper ballots (a huge majority of counties in Ohio do have paper ballots) to inspect the ballots.

2. According to Ohio law (and according to the Ohioan whom I quoted) they will agree to the request and set up the date for you to come and do it. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357

3. Go and hand-recount - you will control what you are recounting, the speed and thoroughness of the recount.

You and Faye and all these people on DU are so extremely sure that there was vote-counting fraud in Ohio. Note: I am not talking about disenfranchisement. I am not talking about DREs. I am talking about people who are 100%, absolutely sure that the paper ballots were not counted correctly in Ohio, to the tune of hundreds of thousands. If that is actually true, the "personal" recount of a few dozen precincts should come up with enough discrepancies to constitute "hard proof" of such fraud, if it exists.

Yet no one is doing this.

[New Earth]

32. and how many times does someone have to explain to you

that we need the MONEY TIME AND RESOURCES TO GET IT DONE? Find someone with ALL THREE of those things and I am sure they'd be willing to do it.

Why do you refuse to listen?????????????????????????????????????????




?????????????????????????????????????????????//

[qwghlmian]

35. See the post I was responding to -

it claimed that such a recount is "impossible". That is plainly not true. Why do you refuse to read?

[Amaryllis]

45. And we need cooperative officials...minor detail , that. See post #41

You think they've all had character transplants and will be nice and cooperative now?

[farmbo]

50. AG's opinion 2004-49...BOEs HAVE to show us the poll books and ballots now

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/sections/opinions/2004/2004-050.pdf

[Amaryllis]

57. Can't get link to work?

[qwghlmian]

58. It's a PDF -

you have to have Acrobat reader installed to read it.

[Amaryllis]

63. I do have acrobat but I get an error message when I click on the link.

[qwghlmian]

100. The site is now back up - try again. n/t

[qwghlmian]

64. Right click on the link, download the PDF

file to your computer, then double click on it wherever you saved it to. It should open.

[farmbo]

43. Well...for a start...

These are punch card counties not Diebold machines. Add up the ballots, see if they have the same number of signatures in the poll books, account for absentee and provisionals, and do the math. This was NOT done in the bogus December machine recounts.

You must not know about these counties, otherwise you wouldn't be worried about "disenfranchisement" down there. Hell, those counties, which had enjoyed only 5-7 % growth in population since 2000, "delivered" a whopping 15,000 to 25,000 extra Bush votes per county (25 to 35 % increase)in November. We will be looking for GOP "enfranchisement" instead... ballot stuffing with pre-punched punch cards, and even some with cute little stickers over the Kerry Edwards hole (e.g. Clermont county).

A December 2004 Atty General's opinion requires BOE's to make ballots and poll books open as public records "...after the (DEC.) recount". They won't necessarily cooperate, but they'll have to bring out the poll books for public review...for the first time!

The best way to ensure transparent elections in the future is to demonstrate that they were rigged this time, and show the whole goddamn world.

Any just by the way, yes. I have contributed to the people doing this work. I'm sure they're looking at doing public hand recounts of those counties as well.

[qwghlmian]

49. Do you have a link or a copy of the

AG's opinion?

[pauldp]

30. Prima Facie Case of Fraud ...SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!

Many of you know this but when Blackwell locked down the poll books he violated Ohio law which states that those records must remain public. A violation of this law is deemed "a prima facie case of election fraud". So there it is staring us in the face. FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD!!! And perpetrated by the SOS of OH no less. All that is missing is the political will to enforce they law because the repukes have Ohio wrapped up.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN ELECTION FRAUD. BELIEF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! IT IS A FACT BLACKWELL COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD. PLEASE LETS KEEP THIS FACT ALIVE!

[qwghlmian]

33. Blackwell acted according to Ohio law

that says that election materials are not subject to public access during "canvassing period". The official recount constituted such a "canvassing period". This period is now over, and has been over for more than a month, thus the poll books and the ballots are open to inspection. Ask Andy Stephenson about his access to poll books, or see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5335#5357


Do you really think that Blackwell would blatantly violate Ohio law in such a manner and no one would sue him for it? Just how gullible are you.

[New Earth]

34. not gullible enough

to not realize your purpose here.

[qwghlmian]

36. Let's see -

my purpose in these threads is to let those people who think there was vote-counting fraud in Ohio know that they can go and personally conduct hand-recounts of the ballots under their own control and at their own pace.

Your purpose seems to be to shut me up about it. Wonder why. :shrug:

[New Earth]

38. well my purpose is to say

thank you for your suggestion, but as you can see, so far on this board we do not have the resources to conduct such recounts.

For some reason no matter how many times I or anyone else says it, you refuse to listen. Wonder why :shrug:

[Karenca]

37. Faye is not gullible at all!

Oh, I see gullibility,
and it shows itself in the form of someone that poats 235 negative comments....
235!! negatives only!!
since they joined DU ONLY FOUR days ago
....and they're thinking we aren't onto
their agenda. :grr:

KERRY
KERRY
KERRY

:dem: :dem: :dem:

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[qwghlmian]

39. You seem to be having problems with your arithmetic,

as well as with reading comprehension.

[Karenca]

40. You are so right!!!

And I am wrong!!

It's been 258 negative comments in 4 days,
NOT 235!!

Duh...:dunce:

[New Earth]

42. it's 14 days

:crazy:

[Karenca]

47. Ok,,

258 in 13 days....
still, an admirable number.

[pauldp]

44. Do you think Blackwell used obstructionist tactics?

Simple question.

[qwghlmian]

48. Yes - but "obstructionist" is very far from "illegal"

and what I am talking about right now has nothing to do with it. You can request access to ballots in order to inspect them from your local BOE - and according to Ohio law they (not Blackwell) have to grant your request. I have given an example where they said the request would be granted. No one came up with an example where such a request was NOT granted. Yet, without even trying, you and others seem to pile on shouting that this will not be possible to do.

[pauldp]

51. My point was about Blackwell's tactics.

Not about whether people can currently access ballots. Your point about the canvassing period is valid and was not in all of the articles I read online. Yet since you always come back to this belief system of "I don't believe there was fraud in Ohio" one has to ask you "then why all the obstruction on Blackwell's part?"

[qwghlmian]

52. Why the obstruction on Richardson's part in New Mexico? -

he is a Democratic Governor, after all. Politicians don't like trouble in their domains, and they don't like suggestions of problems. That's quite a natural reaction.

The reason why I am pointing out that "personal recounts" are possible is that exact fact - whether people will actually do it or not, it is possible to do. This alone provides the "check" (as in "checks and balances") that would make it impossible for anyone to perpetrate massive vote-counting fraud. The risk of being found out is just too huge. If someone contemplated such fraud, they would have to take into account the fact that any citizen out of millions in Ohio can go and conduct a personal recount of the ballots and uncover it. They just cannot count on no one doing it.

[pauldp]

53. What about...

electronic voting with no paper trail? Does it not provide an opportunity for massive fraud.

[qwghlmian]

55. Certainly does -

that is why it should be eliminated. I agree there could have been fraud with DREs that cannot be detected by recounts.

That is not what is claimed, though. Since there were just a couple of counties with DREs in Ohio, there could not have been fraud on the scale high enough to change the outcome. So there are all kinds of claims of machines miscounting paper ballots on massive scale. I disagree that this is what happened.

[KaliTracy]

54. come now -- it's against the law to put stickers or deface ballots in

any way -- yet someone in Clermont County did this -- not once, but several times that was noted in the 3% sample alone. Was this done throughout the county? Hopefully the truth will come out soon -- and with the proper investigators on the scene.

http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/conyers_fbi_letter_128.php

Simply saying the risk is to great to get caught means that no one will do it is like saying that no one will go over the posted speed limit because the potential of getting a ticket it too great. You may stay strickly within the 55 to 65 speed limit. The people passing you may not.

[qwghlmian]

56. Since the law mandates public access to ballots -

then according to the same law it is possible for someone to go and examine every ballot in Clermont county. Hopefully this will be done. If there was fraud there, it will be exposed this way - this is EXACTLY my point. I want to hear what the explanation is for the stickers. I have seen in several election stories mentions of precinct workers correcting the ballots with such stickers at voter's request when the voter double-voted or something. If so, there should be records kept of such corrections. We will see what comes out.

Can you explain why the common kneejerk reaction to this suggestion of "personal recounts" in DU is to shout it down with the cries of "impossible"?

[pauldp]

59. Why don't you do a personal recount?

Then you could prove your belief system that there was no fraud and tell us all to STFU.

[qwghlmian]

60. Because I don't believe in wasting time

on futile efforts. I don't need to "prove my belief system", and neither do you. I also don't need to tell anyone to STFU, that compulsion seems to belong to people who believe in vote-counting fraud. But what you do need is hard proof of fraud to show to people, and the "personal recounts" (if there actually was vote-counting fraud) is one sure way of getting such proof.

[pauldp]

72. So you are telling people to waste their time?

I think there are enough irregularities and suspicions to warrant a full scale investigation and I don't think helping to prove our national elections are free and fair would be a "futile effort". If that's the case then you sure seem to be wasting alot of time in this forum. I don't have a belief system or at least I try not to if possible. I would encourage people not to believe anything untill all the facts are known, and all the facts in this matter are far from being known. Given your stated beliefs and the subject of your above reply, your call for personal recounts seems more like a taunt than anything else.

[qwghlmian]

74. That's your opinion - not mine

in my opinion, I am providing a service to those who think that massive vote-counting fraud occurred, showing them a way to find hard proof for such fraud with which they can convince the rest of us.

[New Earth]

75. you are providing a service?

what am i missing :shrug:

[pauldp]

76. No, you said it was a waste of time. n/t

[qwghlmian]

77. What is a waste of time for one person

may be life's purpose for another.

[New Earth]

78. aww how cute

look at you getting all philosophical and shit :hug:





NOT

[troubleinwinter]

85. "hard proof" is a BS phrase, having no legal meaning.

Too much Perry Mason watching?

WHAT is up with "personal recounts"???!!! The recounts were obstructed. It does NOT matter if they were "personal" or done by devoted knowledgeable volunteers.

[KaliTracy]

61. I think the reaction you are referring to is one of frustration. As many

of us have gone out to canvas in December and get words thrown at us, or doors slammed in our faces, or as the recounters did, have arguments over how the recount was occurring, your blithe statements that anyone can do this, at any time just kind of rubs the wrong way. Take a bus, take a train or any mode of Transit to Ohio and help us. And come see how sic this situation really is.

And I do not see any indication in the Clermont county recaps that had anything to do with "voter request" -- it is against the law to have stickers on optiscan ballots, period. (read the link in my post above) If the voter made a mistake he/she would have been given another ballot. Please, post a link that shows this explaination that you have just given.

from December 16th http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/clermont.php

""Random" sample selection — not random... Staff admitted that small precincts were chosen because fewer problems would be encountered in smaller precincts"

"Should use random number generator or pick from 191 precincts in a hat. A Green witness challenged to allow the addition/substitution of more populous precincts — he was asked to write his request (Miami CXYZ) and then it was later denied by the Democratic Chairman, Pricilla O'Donnell"

"On some ballots, there was a sticker on the ballot, the Kerry vote was covered with a sticker — no one could explain these stickers. Board of Elections — no one would 2nd the motion to bring this to a vote. Later other witnesses noticed stickers on other ballots. May have to invoke tampering, defiling statutes."

— Green Party Observer
Clermont County Recount"


{emphasis mine}
edited to add month

[qwghlmian]

62. The official recount has nothing to do

with what I am proposing. My statements are not "blithe" - they are plainly true, anyone who says such recounts are "impossible" has not offered even one example of anyone obstructing such a recount, and your frustration should not lead you to kneejerk reactions, especially when they contradict facts.

In the link that you gave above, contrary to what you said, I have not seen any indication that it is "against the law, period" to have stickers on optiscan ballots. If you have a cite for any such law, please provide it. In quite a few official recount eyewitness accounts there have been mentions of county officials, in order to resolve the clear intent of the voter, placing such stickers on ballots before running them through tabulators, so I would doubt it very much that it was against the law. Want URLs to such accounts? They can be found on votecobb.org site.

The question remains why those stickers were on the ballots, how many such stickers there were, under what circumstances they were placed and whether there is any documentation for them being placed on election day. Partly these questions can be resolved the the recount that I suggested, and the rest, I am sure, will be investigated.

[KaliTracy]

67. now who's not reading closely?

To Repeat: it's a "Felony for any person to willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate or alter any such record."

{emphasis mine}

http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/conyers_fbi_letter2_128.php

I've still not seen your link for the official recount eyewitnesses to "resolve clear intent of the voter" by placing stickers on ballots. I would like the URL you are referencing to be as complete as the ones I have given you, since there are so many counties in Ohio -- if I can find my page references pretty quickly, I've no doubt you could do the same, and could give me the same courtesy.

However, given the above statements posted about in Conyers' letter about the Voter Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 1973 and Section 1974, county officials who did this would be altering the ballot, would they not?

Please post your source that Optiscans are allowed to have such a manipulation. Thanks.

edit: formatting problem (and second section number)

[qwghlmian]

69. Let's see -

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/lucas.php

was rejected by the optical scanner several times. We were told that the reason for this was that it was counted as an over-vote. The election officials determined that the intent of the voter was to vote for Bush. A white sticker was placed over the pencil mark next to Kerry's name. With this modification, the optical scanner did not reject the ballot.

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/washington.php

The first 3 ballots we saw in Aurelius precinct had the oval for write in candidate filled and without a candidate name written AND the oval for Bush filled in. The write in oval on each one had a white oval sticker covering the mark so that they were counted for Bush rather than as overvotes. The 4th ballot had an "x" on the Bush oval which had been marked over to make it show up.

I objected to the altering of ballots and we were told that this was the policy of the board to correct the ballots so that they would count correctly in the machine.

There was one I particularly objected to in Belpre 4A. The voter both marked the oval and put an X through it for Peroutka and marked the oval for Bush. They put a band-aid over the Peroutka vote and put their own X on the Bush vote. I said the ballot should definitely be an overvote. (Side note — the Republican observer actually leaned over from her social conversation, looked at the ballot and said "I agree" to me). All members of the BOE agreed the vote should count for Bush.

The last counted were absentee ballots and they were kicking out and being re-marked faster than I could even count. I DID watch every re-mark.

At one point Bill and I viewed the official Remarked ballots which seemed to only be done if there was no way to make it go through the machine after working on it with a marker or band-aid OR if they were torn. There were not many. Of note, Bill requested to see the remade ballot for the top one which was in Wesley precinct. The BOE was unable to find it.

---------------------

On edit: I am pretty sure as I was reading recount reports I have seen more mentions of such stickers, just don't feel like looking for more, since that site does not have a search feature.

[KaliTracy]

71. thanks for the links. However, I'm still missing one. The one that

states it is not a violation of the Voter Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 1973 and Section 1974 to alter such ballots. I'm still waiting for the link that states that a voter can change his/her Optiscan vote with a sticker rather than turn in the ballot and request another.

Your post above proves that putting stickers on ballots did happen in front of the recounters -- to the recounters' objections -- but this still does not explain why no one could give an explanation about what happened to Clermont county, and that the stickers in question were already in place. Surely, if it were a "voter request" this would have been noted, and given as an explanation - if that indeed was the reason behind it. But no one gave such information.

If the county officials in your posts decided to do this of their own volition, would you not agree that they are walking on thin ice in terms of the legality of this action? For -- this would be altering the ballot, which is a felony under the Voter Rights Act U.S.C. (1973 and Section 1974).

qwghlmian states: "I have not seen any indication that it is "against the law, period" to have stickers on optiscan ballots. If you have a cite for any such law, please provide it."

I think I have shown that "it is "against the law, period" to have stickers on optiscan ballots. The fact that the County Officials chose to do this does not prove that it was a legal thing to do.

[qwghlmian]

73. I presume that county officials

would not commit clear federal felonies in front of a dozen witnesses. Thus, either what they did is legal (and I hope they consulted the attorneys or AG before placing those stickers on) or they are criminally stupid and should be prosecuted to the fullest.

So - yes, the law says it is criminal to alter such ballots. (by the way, in case you're interested, here is a direct reference, not second hand: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.htm) If that is the only law, then what they did is a criminal offence. Not just in Cleremont, but in every county where this happened during the official recount. If so, they should be prosecuted to the fullest. Where are lawsuits filed in federal courts by Democratic lawyers to do this (these are Federal laws).

[merh]

79. Gee, you really don't understand the law, do you?

To be prosecuted for a crime a prosecutor must investigate and have a grand jury hear the evidence and return an indictment or the prosecutor must file a criminal complaint on his own. Since the AG is the state prosecutor that is responsible for investigating such crimes (Ohio state laws have been violated) and he is a repuke that is protecting his party, as are the county prosecuting attornies in the counties where these things occurred, it seems that they are not interested in investigating, let alone filing charges. Rep. Conyers has asked the FBI to investigate, but the FBI is an arm of the DOJ and the DOJ is run by the weed's admin and they have not been quick to investigate or get involved. Also, it is up to the DOJ (again, controlled by the admin) to investigate and prosecute for violations of the Voting Rights Act.

BTW - this is not a dem issue, so expecting only dem lawyers to file suit is silly. Civil litigation is different from criminal prosecutions. The attorneys in Ohio are still contemplating their options or don't you read all posts in the silly threads you start?

[qwghlmian]

81. It is a federal law that has been

violated, this the lawsuit should be filed in federal court.

By the way, the way the law is formulated, it leads to absurd situations. Example:

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/delaware.php

"At one point during the recount, a crumpled corner on a card kept a precinct from completing. (I noted the precinct in question on my daily report chart). After Kim (the Democratic worker) tried unsuccessfully several times to run it through, it was determined they needed to replace the ballot. They punched a replacement ballot (we verified all punches were correct) and ran that through."

According to the literal interpretation of the law, this is an alteration, and this a federal criminal offense. Do you agree?

[merh]

86. Ohio law was violated too

and, as I pointed out the FBI is responsible for the investigation of violations of federal law and the DOJ is responsible for the prosecution of those that have violated federal law.

Prior to the election, the Justice Department was filing lawsuits accross the nation alleging that they are the only ones who have the right to bring lawsuits on behalf of the voters when the Voting Rights Act has been violated.

The Justice Department (FBI, US Attorney's office) is controlled by the weed's admin.

Civil lawsuits are not criminal prosecutions.

[qwghlmian]

88. You did not answer my question. n/t

[merh]

93. Alterations are alterations.

Are you dense?

[KaliTracy]

82. thanks so much for the direct reference. I believe the FBI is a Federal

organization, which would then conduct a Federal Investigation -- if they choose to be thorough about it. I don't believe Conyers would be invoking these statutes if it weren't against the law. Now, if it will be investigated this way will be another story.

[qwghlmian]

84. Question -

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/d...

"At one point during the recount, a crumpled corner on a card kept a precinct from completing. (I noted the precinct in question on my daily report chart). After Kim (the Democratic worker) tried unsuccessfully several times to run it through, it was determined they needed to replace the ballot. They punched a replacement ballot (we verified all punches were correct) and ran that through."

According to the law you cited, this is an alteration, and thus a federal criminal offense. Do you agree?

[KaliTracy]

90. They were trying to avoid a total hand recount -- and should not have

created a new ballot in the first place. They should have recorded this as how the machine counted (or didn't count) it, and -- if there was a discrepancy to the original hand count, they should have recounted by hand the entire precinct.

That said, I am not a lawyer -- but it would seem suspect to me -- however, the only difference here that I see is that all of the votes in the new card matched the damaged card. It was not about deciding if a corner of one chad was broken through and two corners of another were broken through and determining "voter intent." There were not holes punched for different candidates than were on the original card.

[qwghlmian]

91. But the law does not talk about matching or intent.

it says "altering". Is making a new ballot instead of an old ballot "altering"? I would say it is.

[KaliTracy]

94. I would have objected if I were an observer. My objection probably

wouldn't have stopped them from doing it, just as it didn't stop them from doing it in the first place. Doesn't matter to me who did it (Democrat or Republican), I would have still objected, if that's what you are getting at. Now that it's on public record, we'll see where it goes.

[roseBudd]

104. A spoiled ballot is noted, discarded and a new ballot with new ballot stub

number is noted in the roster book. The number of ballots minus the spoiled ballots must equal the total number of ballots for that precinct.

[qwghlmian]

107. But according to the federal law

that can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.htm
any such discarding of ballots, or substituting new ones, seems to be a federal crime.

[roseBudd]

108. The spoiled ballots are not discarded they are put in a separate

sealed envelope and the notation is put in the roster book next to that ballot stub number.

there is no reason to use stickers

[brindis_desala]

101. it's not impossible it would simply be non-dispositive

no only is there circumstantial evidence the ballots were altered equally likely is there were a large amount of undervotes due to deliberately poorly maintained machines that would require independent sanctioned appraisal to determine the voters' intention.

Subjective criteria:
detectable mark
A mark on a ballot that can be detected as a vote by a vote tabulating machine.

reliably detectable mark
The form of mark on a ballot that will be detected and counted each and every time the ballot is run through a tabulating machine, irrespective of which voting target is being marked, and irrespective of the particular machine being used.

reliably ignored mark
The form of mark on a ballot that will never be detected or counted no matter when the ballot is run through a tabulating machine, irrespective of which voting target is being marked, and irrespective of the particular machine being used.
marginal mark

A mark on a ballot that may or may not be counted, depending on which voting target is marked, depending on what vote tabulating machine is used, and depending on when the count is made.


If you're really concerned about what happened in OHIO read this:
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm

[troubleinwinter]

80. Amazing bullshit.

Clearly, whatever "Ohio law" states does NOT matter. State and federal laws and constitutional protections have not been abided by from the beginning. Look at Conyers' committee report.

Your "example" "where they said the request would be granted" was a post by some poster who said, "Spoke with a representative at the Board of Elections today. He advised the public can make requests to view ballots from certain precincts from the Nov election."

Your contention that "No one came up with an example where such a request was NOT granted." is utter nonsense. It is documented over and over in affidavits by those involved in the official recount.

WHAT do you mean "without even trying"? There WAS a recount "try", but it was stonewalled and cheated against.

If an official recount has been sabotaged, why would you think a "personal recount" would be of any particular use? Even if not stonewalled, it would be utterly dismissed.

ASSUME we have the time/money/resources to do a "personal recount". Then what? Tell me.

[qwghlmian]

83. You apparently did not read the whole thread,

otherwise you would have noticed that I said that this current situation has nothing to do with the "official recount", in fact, is legally quite different from the official recount, since during the official recount public access to ballots was, in fact, prohibited by Ohio law while today that public access is mandated.

see http://www.ag.state.oh.us/sections/opinions/2004/2004-050.pdf

[troubleinwinter]

87. a fish of a rouge color

[troubleinwinter]

89. your link is dead.

[qwghlmian]

92. No it isn't -

right click on it and download the file, then open it as a file instead of in the browser. Some browsers have problems with inline PDF files.

Edit: the site seems to be down. Try later.

[troubleinwinter]

95. Your link is dead.

Has nothing to do with PDF.

[qwghlmian]

99. The site is back up -

you can get it now.

[berniew1]

68. Whats needed is to follow up on specific known fraud and malfeasance

There is a lot of documentation of fruad and malfeasance that has been compiled such as

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel.html
http://freepress.org/ departments articles
http://www.flcv.com/greenrc.html

what is needed is for specific followup to further investigate and document fraud and malfeasance, collect affidavits, and follow up on it as appropriate. We know mostly what happened and that there was a lot of illegal and unethical things that happened, that should not be allowed to stand without followup to deal with those responsible. This is possible even though hard because of the widespread corruption of the adminstrative and judiciary systems in Ohio. But there are ways to deal with such.

[KaliTracy]

70. thanks again Berniew1 for compliling all of this information! it is

much appreciated. :hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

96. Who ARE you all talking to?

I don't see anyone. :shrug:

Could you be talking to a talking red herring? Hmmmm...stranger things have happened: fish that talk. If so, I'm sure it's enjoying all the attention.

Back to my nap.

:hi:

[New Earth]

97. yes, go to sleep

nothing to see here. move along kids :hi:

[troubleinwinter]

98. Post #87

[babsbunny]

105. YEAH!

I'm in Columbus! I have the "time" I could take off work! I had an idea of mass mailings of info to our fellow Dems who may not know anything about the fraud, Kenneth Blackwell, the law suits, how to find out if their vote counted, etc. If everyone here mailed 20 letters to get the word out?

[qwghlmian]

106. See the following post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x308661

If you believe there was vote-counting fraud in Ohio, you can uncover it.