under the safe harbor provision of 3 U.S.C. § 5 no further challenge to th

[truehawk]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Anita Rios, et al., Case No. 3:04CV7724
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER
J. Kenneth Blackwell,
Defendant.

On November 22, 2004, several plaintiffs, including the candidates for the Presidency of the United
States of the Green Party, David Cobb, and Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik (“candidate plaintiffs”),

filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs ask for an order
requiring the defendant, Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio, to take appropriate measures

to ensure that a recount of the ballots cast on November 2, 2004, commences and proceeds in such a

manner as to be completed by December 7, 2004, the date Ohio’s electors will be certified for the
Electoral College.

Snip

Absent such showing, neither candidate could be harmed irreparably if the recount, if such were
to occur,

went beyond December 7, 2004, the date for appointment of Ohio’s electors. This is true even

though under the safe harbor provision of 3 U.S.C. § 5 no further challenge to the outcome of the

presidential election can thereafter be made.

Without a showing of irreparable injury, the plaintiffs cannot prevail.

Cincinnati Sub-Zero
Products, Inc. v. Augustine Medical, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 1549, 1557 (S.D. Ohio, 1992)

Snip

In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED THAT plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction be, and the same hereby is denied.


So ordered.
/s/ James G. Carr
James G. Carr
United States District Judge

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/Rios/order.pdf

[Carolab]

1. WHAT ABOUT BEING IRREPARABLY HARMED AS A CITIZEN?

What about THAT, JUDGE???????

[truehawk]

2. If you read the ruling, he finds no right of recount for a citizen

It sucks.
We need to change the law.