"Scoop"/Autorank: Election Nullification 2-Denny's Source on Bilbray "win"

[autorank]

Even I'm shocked. How can the Speaker get an endorsement from the Assistant Secretary of Elections, California Secretary of State's Office on June 6th that Brian Bilbray was the official winner. Curious bed fellows...PLEASE Get this one AROUND. Thanks!!!


Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00338.htm

Election Nullification 2: Speaker of House had
Special Source for Election “Certification”

California Assistant Secretary of State for
Elections Tells House Clerk, it’s all good!

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent Media
Washington, DC

What would you think if you heard that a Member of Congress was sworn in prior to the official certification of his hotly contested and controversial election?

Would it matter to which political party the Member of Congress belonged?

On August 25, 2006, "Scoop" revealed that there was something very wrong with Brian Bilbray’s swearing in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Bilbray allegedly defeated Francine Busby in a close and controversial special election in California’s 50th Congressional District. There were immediate cries of foul and demands for both an investigation and a recount. The problems were well publicized before the swearing in.

Nevertheless, this sequence emerged: June 6 - unofficial results announced with Bilbray over Busby by a few thousand votes, followed by immediate public protests; July 13 - Speaker Hastert swears in Republican Bilbray on the House floor and Bilbray becomes a Member of Congress; and, June 30, 2006 - 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County, officially completed the audit of election results required for certification, and officially certifies the election of Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 total votes.

The problem with the sequence is simple to spot. The swearing in of Bilbray occurred a full 17 days before the election became official as a result of the San Diego Registrar’s certification of results. The question raised in the previous article was, how could Speaker Hastert swear in Bilbray without notification that the election results were official? We have an answer.

Speaker Hastert’s Special Source on “Certification”

The swearing in ceremony for Republican Brian Bilbray, alleged winner of the California 50th District special election on June 6, 2006, was tucked in between actions to commend Canada for its renewed commitment to the war on terror. The Congressional Digest for that day contains a remarkable revelation; the source that the Speaker of the House used to justify the official induction of Bilbray.

Oath of Office--Fiftieth Congressional District of California: Representative-elect Brian P. Bilbray presented himself in the well of the House and was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker. Earlier the Clerk of the House transmitted a facsimile copy of the unofficial returns of the Special Election held on June 6, 2006 from Ms. Susan Lapsley, Assistant Secretary of State for Elections, California Secretary of State Office, indicating that the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray was elected Representative in Congress for the Fiftieth Congressional District of California.
Here(statement only) or here (full record)

Bilbray, it would now seem, was not sworn in without forethought, as though there were no issues involved. Somehow, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives received notification from Republican Bruce McPherson’s Assistant Secretary that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.”

This may come as news to the legal team fighting the recount in San Diego Superior Court. They have asserted that the recount is irrelevant because Federal authority supersedes state authority as a result of the June 13th swearing in of Bilbray. This logic was confirmed in a letter to San Diego Superior Court by Paul Vonivich, counsel for the House Committee on Administration. In that letter, he acknowledges the sequence of events and asserts that the swearing in makes moot any recount based on superior federal authority in congressional elections.

Now we find out that that swearing in was based on the confirmation provided by a state government official. This strongly implies that the Congress actually recognized state authority to determine that the election outcome was official.

A careful look at the statement in the Congressional Digest reveals some interesting assumptions and perhaps careful planning. The Speaker, Hastert, administered the oath based on word from California’s Assistant Secretary of State for Elections that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Several assumptions are embedded in this statement. First, Hastert knew that he needed an authority to justify the election as official. Second, he relied on state authority, Susan Lapsley specifically. Third, Hastert knew that there were only “unofficial results,” because those are clearly referenced yet he accepted the word of the Clerk that Lapsley had made the call that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Finally, Lapsley, who has no official status in San Diego County where the election was held, used “unofficial results” to convey to the court that Bilbray was elected.

The “Scoop” August 25th article generated significant public outcry. There is now a campaign to challenge Speaker Hastert’s role in the San Diego election. This web page provides a rationale based on the premature swearing in and a recent Zogby Poll that showed 92% of Americans insist on the right view election results and raise questions. The site, Say No To Another Election Theft Before Fall Midterms: Recall House Speaker Hastert For Interfering With Local Elections, went up today and is reportedly receiving significant activity. The site quoted the initial “Scoop” article, noted the disregard for procedure and law, and linked the struggle against election fraud in the United States with protests in Mexico, the, site of a highly questionable presidential election.

Conundrum

According to the official record of the U.S. House of Representatives, we had a Speaker of the House swearing in a new Member of Congress from San Diego based on the word of an Assistant Secretary of State in Sacramento. That state of California official reportedly verified the San Diego election as official in a communication to which the “unofficial results” were attached.

At the same time, we have a legal team representing the Registrar of San Diego County challenging a suit by citizens which seeks to open up the election records and perform a recount. The San Diego Registrar is refusing to conduct a recount based on the supremacy of federal authority, namely the House’s prerogative to swear in new members. The Registrar argues that the June 13 swearing shows federal supremacy.

Now, from the actual record of the swearing in, we discover that the Speaker and Congress actually relied on a politically appointed California state official whose authority was used to determine that the election results were official. That state official has no authority for elections in San Diego County.

The only consistent thread that runs through the entire affair, the swearing in of a candidate before an electron controversy was settled, is that each and every point in the decision making process, the decisions are dominated by Republicans or officials under the control of Republicans. The process is not flawed because of this particular partisan label, it’s flawed because it violates the expectations of a free people to have their elections taken seriously by those it elects, regardless of their party.

*************
Copyright: This article may be used in whole or in part with attribution to the author and a link to “Scoop” Independent Media.
***END***

[midnight]

1. Thanks for the update.

So from what I can decipher, Hassert is in more trouble because he relied on a California official who had no jurisdiction in San Diego. I wonder what the Federal judge is thinking about this misstep.

[autorank]

3. You're welcome.

Right about everything, except it it a San Diego Superior Court Judge who has been told by the Registrar that the case should be thrown out because federal law prevails, namely that Bilbray was sworn in by Hastert. And you're right, the judge will be very curious...like I am or anyone who reads this. How is it federal authority when the federal figure, Hastert, relied on a state official, who has nothing to do with San Diego, no authority. Twilight Zone stuff here...

[althecat]

2. & that makes 4....

[autorank]

4. Ahoy althecat, thank you & "Scoop" for getting this out so very fast!!!

Hopefully, the effect will be volcanic;)

[tyedyeto]

5. An error in your report:

Nevertheless, this sequence emerged: June 6 - unofficial results announced with Bilbray over Busby by a few thousand votes, followed by immediate public protests; July 13 - Speaker Hastert swears in Republican Bilbray on the House floor and Bilbray becomes a Member of Congress; and, June 30, 2006 - 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County, officially completed the audit of election results required for certification, and officially certifies the election of Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 total votes.

Shouldn't that read June 13?

Other than that... :yourock:

[autorank]

6. Thanks for the heads up...word out to the "central office"...:)

[althecat]

63. Damn right.. corrected on scoop now

[autorank]

79. Apologies, Chief, my error, and you say "Don't call me chief!!!"

:)

[babylonsister]

7. Can this be nullified at this point? I realize it should be, and

Hastert purposely jumped the gun, but are there any rumblings in the house about the illegalities? Are any 'federal' employees kicking and screaming? And if not, why not? If not contested, this could set a legal precedent; not good.
Thanks for the info, autorank. As you can see, I've not been availing myself of what's wrong w/CA.

[autorank]

12. I think that San Diego Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann can do something

If I were him, I'd be furious. People come in and say, no recount because there is no jurisdiction - BILGRAY HAS ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN - federal law rules the case. AND THEN I find out that the federal authority - HASTERT - relied on a CA appointed official in the state capitol...is this too strange yet...

I'd digest all this and think (a) I can given in to this stupid federal argument and get away with it but (i) I'll look like a fool and (ii) I'll give up the chance to use recounts to every California county if I let the Speaker swear anyone in at any time or (b) I can really piss off some people, lots of Republicans, and call this one what is, a pack of contradictory arguments, a power grab by Hastert, and a clear thwarting of the will of the people --- open up the ballot boxes, we're going "to recount every vote in every precinct."

He'll either be Judge Sirica or Judge Alito...let's see what happens.

The fact that it wasn't dismissed out of hand last Friday means he's thinking about this.

If I were him, I'd haul them all in and make the San Diego Registrar's attorney explain how federal law could prevail when the feds relied on someone in the state capitol who has no authority over San Diego then I'd decide for the citizens and Lehto & Simpkins.

[Einsteinia]

43. Wow! This is so blatant

Predicting this sort of crapola would continue (post 2000 and 2004) the Titanium Standard for Election Verification and Security had this to say about announcements of winners:

5. Announcement of the Winner. While the entire process and tallies will be transparent and may last a week, the winner cannot be announced until Consilience has been achieved. Specifically, no longer can the media announce the victor, nor shall there be mock inaugurations, nor candidates declaring themselves winner or loser, and the like, until the election verification process has been completed. Democracy shall be achieved by rigorous adherence to a public and methodical process and not by a power grab.

[slackmaster]

66. You want the people of CA-50 to go back to having a vacant seat

In the House of Representatives?

Thanks for the support.

:eyes:

If not contested, this could set a legal precedent

Bullshit.

[tyedyeto]

71. So, I take it you don't mind any politician being sworn in to office befor

the election and votes have been officially certified? Let's just swear everyone in and count the votes later. Not a good idea, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

92. In this specific instance the answer is no, I don't mind.

In general it's a bad idea and I would not approve.

[autorank]

88. Here's the guy that slackmaster is so concerned about keeping in Congress

Brian Bilbray Nice choice, he'll do a lot of good for the peopld of San Diego...not...

[slackmaster]

93. He's a shitload better than having nobody in the seat

And a double shitload better than Duke Cunningham. He's reasonable on environmental issues, pro-choice. What more could you ask for in a Republican?

Have you ever been disenfranchised in the House of Representatives, autorank? We have another chance to replace him in November. Why aren't you helping with that effort? Why are you supporting a court challenge that our candidate, Francine Busby, has distanced herself from?

Why do you hate the people of CA-50? (Just kidding on that one.) :-)

[autorank]

95. Oh stop it. Your arguments make no sense other than you like Bilbray.

Disenfranchised means you can't vote. You got to vote didn't you. Bilbray's in isn't he? A recount won't stop him from serving and voting will it? Happy now?

Having someone take office who may not have been legitimately elected means your vote was stolen. If Busby won, and all it takes is a recount, then all of her voters are disenfranchised. You're here on a Democratic political forum arguing for the premature installation of a Republican Lobbyist as your representative when almost all the Democrats in your district and the DNC supported Busby and when the DNC supports a recount. Why are you so upset about not having someone in there? You do, having a recount won't take the person away so you'll have your Bilbray security thing going.

The recount will just tell the truth. But in addition to supporting Republican Bilbray taking office prior to certificaiton, you probably oppose the recount even though it wouldn't eliminate Bilbray.

And you asked, do I know what it's like not to have a reprsentative in Congress? Sure I do, George Allen is my Senator and John Warner is my Senator. I have no one in the Senate that I can tolerate. It's not causing me an existential crisis.

[slackmaster]

109. I meant disenfranchised in the broader sense

Disenfranchised means you can't vote.

It also can mean deprived of a legal right or privilege. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnell's. My use of the term was perfectly legitimate. I was deprived of my right to have a voice representing me in the House of Representatives, officially for more than six months. That's a serious issue to me. I write and call my elected representatives more often than most people do. Having nobody to rag on in the House, or to simply go to for information, cramped my style.

You got to vote didn't you.

Yes, just as I have without fail at every opportunity since the 1976 California Democratic Primary when I cast my very first vote for Jimmy Carter.

Bilbray's in isn't he?

Yes.

A recount won't stop him from serving and voting will it?

It would stop him only if it turns out that Busby got more votes. I don't believe there is any real chance that happened. I've lived here most of my life, I know the district and the many kinds of people who live here. We'll find out later today whether there is any possibility of a recount happening.

Happy now?

A hell of a lot happier than I was for essentially a year with nobody to complain to when things weren't going my way in the House of Representatives.

Having someone take office who may not have been legitimately elected means your vote was stolen.

That's right, but I believe Bilbray was legitimately elected. If it turns out he wasn't, then there is a real problem. We'll find out later today what happens next.

You're here on a Democratic political forum arguing for the premature installation of a Republican Lobbyist as your representative when almost all the Democrats in your district and the DNC supported Busby and when the DNC supports a recount.

No, I'm a Democratic resident of a Republican enclave in a strongly Democratic state, on a Democratic political forum saying that people, most of whom don't even live here, who are whining about the technically premature installation of the moderate Republican who has been officially certified the winner of a special election, aren't doing my party or my candidate for the November election any good. Of course almost all the Democrats in my district supported Busby. I voted for her. Almost all the Republicans in my district supported Bilbray. Big surprise - Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in this district. The fastest growing category of voters here is "declined to state" BTW, fueled by Republicans and Democrats jumping ship in droves. Howard Dean and the DNC are not doing a good job of representing me or my local interests in this case. Thanks for the reminder BTW, I need to write them and chew them out.

If there are grounds for a recount we'll find out today, but I find it very troubling that outsiders are pushing for a recount that my Democratic candidate doesn't support.

...you probably oppose the recount even though it wouldn't eliminate Bilbray.

Don't give up your day job and run off to join the carnival circuit as a mind reader, autorank. My personal opinion is that a recount would be a waste of time and money. If someone wants to pay for it that's fine with me, bring it on but don't bother asking me for a donation. My money has already gone to the Busby campaign. Here's a link to her site BTW - http://www.busbyforcongress.com/

My political opinion is that pushing for a recount that is almost certain to fail to change the outcome of the election will be spun down the road by my Democratic candidate's opponents as evidence that Democrats are troublemakers who tried to steal the election. Busby won't be able to shake off that taint even though she does not now nor has she ever supported a recount. She's focused on the future as she should be.

And you asked, do I know what it's like not to have a reprsentative in Congress? Sure I do, George Allen is my Senator and John Warner is my Senator. I have no one in the Senate that I can tolerate. It's not causing me an existential crisis.

Whether or not you like your representatives is not the issue, autorank. I have one Senator I like and one that I can't stand. At least you have warm bodies to complain to, with staff who will answer the phone when you call. At least you got to vote against the people who are in those seats, as have I in mine, finally, after six months of officially having nobody there at all. I've already given Bilbray's staff work to do. He may not always do what I'd like him to but he is now my servant. Whoever wins in November will be hearing from me, frequently and loudly.

ETA - Although you and I disagree on this specific issue, I wish to thank you for keeping the discussion civil. You are head and shoulders over a lot of us.

[katinmn]

8. Thank you so much, autorank!

Certainly looks like another plot to undermine voters.

I'm glad to see this story but angry that once again Repubs are showing their distain for the people and the law.

Keep up the great work.:yourock:

[mod mom]

9. Thanks, Auto-Sent through the list servs.

:patriot:

[autorank]

97. Great - the is such an outrage...

...but I'm sure there are those on Capitol Hill who would say, "What's their problem, we do this all the time." Well that is our problem, routine disregard for the rules, all the time. Cheers:)

[Me.]

10. What's Even More Frightening

is that if B*** and Cheney were ever removed from office (God willing) Hastert would become president. So the bonus here is if Hastert's move is discredited perhaps that will also discredit him from any other coup de'tats, if you get my drift. Sort of a present/future double dip.

*shadow government*

[autorank]

13. I'm kirking out here...Pres. Hastert...we'll have a new Speaker election

...and anyone can be Speaker (correct me if I'm wrong) and that new Speaker's picture is in the middle of my sig line...this is the Frank Capra version.

:hi:

[Me.]

15. Ray Of Hope

If the Dems take the house there will be a dem as speaker. I'm not sure if Pelosi automatically gets the job or if there are new elections. In any case, there will be no more of this jiggery pokery about swearing in candidates before they have been certified.

*shadow government*

[EFerrari]

36. Exactly. That's why we have to note and challenge each infraction.

No slack, none, zip.

[formercia]

11. This is what they will use in November

to swear in their candidates, regardless of the outcomes and maintain control of the Congress.


They did it in 2000 with Fearless Leader. Everyone now knows he lost the election but once sworn-in, he was good as gold.

The precedent has already been set.

[autorank]

14. formercia, Great analogy...this is the "one trick pony" gang...

Of course!!! This is * 2000, forget everything, just get a court to say OK. Judge Hofmann will have to hold the line or we're screwed. Every time they get away with this it's like one of Pavlov's dogs getting a treat ...

[formercia]

26. The method behind the madness

Goal: A one party State

Objective one: Gain an absolute majority in Congress. This will allow them to pass laws that will chisel their regime into Granite. It doesn't matter if the election is subsequently nullified, all they need is a short period of absolute majority to pass the laws they need. The statutes are probably already written and all they need is a vote and signature from Fearless Leader.
Every time they get away with one of these pranks, it sets another legal precedent for their ersatz legal arguments that will be used to obfuscate any challenge. If you cite any statute in your appeal, they will repeal the statute retroactively.

[never_get_over_it]

69. No that is not correct....

the freak in chief was not sworn in until January 20th - after the SC ruled to stop the vote count and after the election in FL was certified and after the electoral college had voted.

in this case they swore in the Member before the election results were certified. Hastert can not do this in November because the incumbents are still Members of the House until the session of Congress ends and the new one begins on January 3 which is provided for in the Constitution. This is when new memebers are sworn in and the only way they could be sworn in earlier than this is if the Member they are replacing resigns. Hastert could swear them in then but only if the seat is vacant.

[H2O Man]

16. Speaker Hastert

.... Gosh, what might he be best portrayed as, were we to think in terms of "Animal Farm"?

This is a valuable source of very important information. Thank you.

[autorank]

17. Let me ponder that for a moment...

...and discretely demure;)

[Me.]

20. One Doesn't Usually Expect

To be LOL so early in the day.

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

22. Early?

The day is growing old.

[Me.]

46. It's All Relative

And I'm not referring to the Baggins type.

*shadow government*

[autorank]

24. Subtle sense of humor, "me" thinks...

I'm Lewis and H20Man is Martin;)

[Me.]

47. Roadshow?

*shadow government*

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Circular hypocrisy weds circular logic, throwing the will of the people ..

.... into the circular file.

I'm so glad this is being challenged in court. This is what happens in banana republics when banana republicans are in charge.

K&R

[autorank]

23. ...and Husb is not talking about the high-end clothing store...

...were the country run as well as that fine company the citizens would be treated well, the country would be on a positive swing ever upward, and we'd all look just terrific.

The court challenge is vital. This judge can make history. I hope he does. I can't believe that he'd let a flagrant challenge go unanswered - the San Diego County legal position being federal authority supersedes while the federal authority, Hastert, relied on a state official in Sacramento (1) fib #1 who (2) had no authority over San Diego elections.

Let's rumble Judge Hofmann!!!

[zeemike]

19. K&R I hope everyone that reads this will sign the petition n/t

[autorank]

21. Petition link (also in article)...

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=471

Go for it!!! Great service too - your Congressperson, both Senators and the nearest newspaper.

Qute impressive...

[babylonsister]

27. Done, but question.

Tom DeLay is showing up as my rep though he no longer is. I'm NOT represented until November.
Maybe DeLay's name should be removed from the petition? That could give someone a big smile for the day!

[EFerrari]

25. Why does that petition go after Hastert and not McPherson?

(Okay, it IS early, lol. I don't get it. )

Nothing comes out of McPherson's office that isn't run through the GOP strainer.

[autorank]

30. This is unfolding so quickly...the petition is a good national goal...but

CA needs to do one for McPherson too...if, in fact, his office did this. Could be the Clerk of the House never said that, was "misunderestimaated," or said it but was in a trance state...who knows but McPherson's office needs to produce documents real quick to settle this before trial tomorrow.

Good point!!! It's not too early, you're just too far out front...

[EFerrari]

35. The Secretary of State's Office is supposed to manage elections

not subvert them. Let's see what they do tomorrow. Maybe they'll hang themselves a little higher.

:)

[lonestarnot]

45. Thanks for posting update!

[emlev]

48. Yes, let's go after McPherson on this, too!

And get Debra Bowen elected SoS in CA!

[EFerrari]

59. I'm in! Let's see what his office says tomorrow unless you

have a better plan. We need to use every opportunity!

:toast:

[emlev]

64. Why would they say something tomorrow? EOM

[EFerrari]

106. autorank's #30 is what I was referring to?

[lala_rawraw]

28. KICK

[autorank]

31. THANKS!!! n/t

[acmejack]

29. You guys have done some yeoman's work on this issue

I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. You are true American heroes!

[autorank]

32. Thank you very much.

Big day in court tomorrow and this information should, in a logical world, make a difference.

If I'm the judge, as I said above, I'm pissed...I'd day to the County of San Diego lawyer:

"But counsel, you said this issue was settled by federal authority, Mr. Hastert's swearing in ceremony on June 13. Now I understand from the congressional Digest that Mr. Hastert relied on an affirmation from the California Secretary of State's office. Can you explain that? Because if you can't and real quick, we're going to start counting." Then the San Diego lawyer mumbles something and the gavel comes down - "Reocunt every vote in every precinct!!!"

Or something like that...

[kpete]

33. the arrogance

is beyond real...

Thanks for this post

[autorank]

34. "We're through the looking glass kpete" n/t

[kpete]

41. "There's the King's Messenger....

He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."

"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.

"That would be better, wouldn't it?"

[autorank]

62. Perfect;) n/t

[Peace Patriot]

37. "No representation without representation!"

And no painting the white roses red!

Jabberwocky time!

[autorank]

50. Excellent slogan...how many must agree with that...

Those who vote against the incoumbents PLUS those who don't vote (a NO on the quality of representation). What a state of affairs.

[Blackhatjack]

38. The Court's Decision in This Matter Will Be Earthshaking Either Way

If the Judge accedes to the argument that the House has usurped the authority to determine who was "officially elected" and now the state court has no jurisdiction --then all future elections to federal office are merely perfunctory since the Federal Government can swear in whoever they deem "elected." Voting at the polls will of no consequence.

If the Judge rules that the state has the power to determine who was "officially elected" as a representative of the people to the Federal Government as set out in the Constitution, then appeals will naturally follow and the Supreme Court will eventually decide this important issue. Even with the makeup of the SCOTUS it is highly unlikely that it will come down on the side of the Federal Government in this matter.

THere are no other options here, and literally the states' rights as set out in the US Constitution are at stake. Democracy as we know it is will be decided.

[autorank]

52. Will the Supreme Court of the US have the nerve to do this for a non

presidential election? I agree with your point, that the results of this will be huge. There is no reasonable way to look at the procedural elements of the "no recount" position without supporting the obviously flawed and unreasonable process of swearing in Mr. Bilbray. The process is not one that was the subject of speculation on our part, it's all there in the public record. The latest public record, the congressional Digest is very disconcerting. I suspect that we will find out that there is more of this going on than we'd like to hear. However, in this case, there is a stark dividing line between rational and civil behavior (to wait until "certification" by the County) and behavior reflecting a total disregard of reality and the rights of the public (a rush to induction). Had they waited on certification, I don't think we'd be here discussing this particular case.

The heavy handed rush job was exposed only because there was a law suit. How much more is there that would put us in a state of "shock and awe?" A great deal I'm sure. This is the Congress that has rubber stamped everything * asked for, including the Patriot Act and a war based on deliberate lies. Why would procedural matters merit any attention to rights and logic. "Might is the only right" recognized here.

[NVMojo]

39. kick and rank!!! and get it around!

[autorank]

82. Ola Mojo...you gave us Lapsley. Many thanks;) Keep up the great work.

[cascadiance]

40. Sounds like Debra Bowen should hear about this!

If McPherson's office is conducting activities like this, it DEFINITELY should be an issue brought forth to the voters in November. Any chance Ms. Lapsley/Mr. McPherson will now get added to the list of plaintiffs in this suit now?

[autorank]

80. She should...the Speaker/House Clerk is way out of line or McPherson's

office is on this issue (they're all out of line on other issues). If Lapsley just sent the unofficial results, that's one thing but there's something more implied here. If the implication is that by sending unofficials Lapsley is indicating that bilbray was elected, then the Clerk or Hastert or both are plain full of you know what. On the other hand, if Lapsley sent some CYA message to the Clert with weasel words to cover the swearing in, then it's her and her bosses problem. This should be cleared up pronto. Good citizen inquiries would be most helpful, from Californians.

Let's see how it comes out. It's all very "in crowd" to me - a combination of convenience and semi awareness/tolerance of procedural requirements. I do hope Bowen is elected. That would be profound.

[rumpel]

42. So the excessive recount estimate by Haas was to stall and let Hastert

confirm -

will they argue because "it was expedited to fill a vacancy" ?

Won't fly with me, though - uncertified is uncertified!




:kick:

[autorank]

55. Expedited...great term...;)

It shouldn't fly and it has not in this case. I had no idea how important this was when it was first the object of attention right after the election. My mind changed quickly after reaching a certain information level about this case. It's a a real stinker. The most odious parts are the parts like this where the Speaker gets information from the Assistant Secretary of State for California, on one hand, and the County of San Diego uses that process as justification for no state or local involvement. THEY DON'T CARE.

Brad Friedman deserves a great deal of credit for starting and sustaining this effort and DUer 'garybeck' who rang the alarm bells in the starkest terms immediately deserves acknowledgment for some outstanding "Paul Revere" action.

Paul Lehto has outlined a great case as anyone can see by reviewing the brief and it's not been answered effectively. Now the case has even less merit with the alleged involvement of the California Secretary of State's office. That's another situation entirely: what was Lapsley's communication to the Clerk of the House?

We'll see I'm sure.

[bleever]

44. Congress did NOT decide to swear in Bilbray.

There was no vote; there was not even a motion for unanimous consent.

This was a unilateral action by Hastert.

EVEN IF the defense contention that Congressional authority to decide upon the qualifications of its members supercedes state electoral law is true (which it is not), they still fail to show this act was carried out with the express will of ANYONE in Congress aside from Hastert.



:mad:

[Einsteinia]

49. Bravo, BRAVO!!!!

#: )

[Einsteinia]

51. is this also on Election Reform forum?

I don't see it there?

[emlev]

53. DUers--make calls to talk radio today! Help get this story out!

Local and national shows. Go for it!!!

[emlev]

57. And don't forget to send people here:

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=471

[autorank]

81. That's such an impressive site. up so quick. Kudos to womever!!!

[cascadiance]

58. Check out my posting here on the Union Tribune message board..

I think I might have talked a right wing guy into feeling a bit differently about this issue now. And maybe even having him looking at voting for Debra Bowen too! I'd advise you all to put in a plug for Bowen if you're talking to folks in California. This latest news really should expose who's the appropriate choice for SOS in November.

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/upload/showthread.php?t=64214

[Patsy Stone]

54. If taking the oath of office supersedes election certification

Why do we bother to hold elections? Just asking....

[autorank]

56. That is the question...imagine the possiblities...

The Speaker could hold a bidding war within the party...who contributes the most and then have special plans to "buy inductions," sort of like the old process of "buying indulgences" way back in the church. "Oh, you want a seat? That will be $10 million dollars." "Thanks, and we'll see you on the floor. Don't forget to wear a suit." It would take the notion of political contributions as "legalized bribery to unheard of levels...progress in the collocation of power among the elite. After all, the struggle for voting rights is one between those who wish to contract and those who wish to expand the franchise. This move, simply going from contributions to induction, bypassing elections, in our absurdest elaboration, would mean final victory for the forces of contracting the franchise. The elites could argue that they would have much more time to "rule" if they didn't have to spend all that effort manipulating elections. It all fits in to the logic behind the defendants case in San Diego..."its federal...forget about it." Sound familiar?

[Patsy Stone]

60. Can you say Politburo?

and... "Don't forget to wear a suit." :rofl: You know, though, for my $10 million, I think I'm gonna wear shorts. Who's gonna stop me??

This is such an insane story. It's the worst possible ending to the whole election debacle. Here we are all worried about fair elections. It seems the joke is on us, and the democratic process.

[autorank]

61. "This is such an insane story. " Isn't it though...

Hazzard pay in Monopoly Money is due to those of us who really follow these scandals and have to integrate this, struggling to understanding it from some rational basis. I juse reread "conundrum", the last section and I'm ready for a vacation;)

By all means, wear shorts! Fashion is our next playing field for protest:evilgrin:

[AntiFascist]

73. K&R, in a banana Republic where the climate is becoming...

more and more tropical, shorts would be appropriate.

[slackmaster]

67. It doesn't supersede the certification, and never will

So much paranoia in this thread.

:tinfoilhat:

[slackmaster]

65. Two key facts that have been systematically omitted from every thread

About this topic:

1. Democratic candidate Francine Busby graciously conceded defeat late on the evening of June 6. The only other players were a Libertarian candidate and an Independent, who together accounted for just over 5% of the final vote tally. Busby has said NOTHING about this lawsuit and has never disputed Bilbray's victory.

2. We the people of CA-50 were officially without representation in the House of Representatives starting December 6 when carpetbagger Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned the seat. He had been distracted for at least another 6 months prior to that by his legal battles.

You can spin this sequence of events as an arrogant attempt by Hastert, Bilbray et al to usurp the power of the state to decide who won an election. But you can also spin the premature swearing in of Bilbray as a pragmatic bypassing of formalities in order to bring a prompt end to the disenfranchisement the constituents of a vacant seat in the House had been suffering for a year.

Francine Busby had the courtesy to step aside and not file a challenge to the results. Why are people contradicting her, trying to fight a fight that she didn't think was in the best interests of the people? Why the disrespect for our Democratic nominee? BTW - She still IS our nominee and will be running against Bilbray in November.

Statements made by lawyers in courtroom motions need not be correct or even logical. What we have here is something that defense lawyers for Bilbray and Mikel Hass said to a judge in an effort to get the case summarily dismissed. While what they said may seem outrageous to people who aren't familiar with what really goes on in our courts, it's well within the bounds of what trial lawyers are permitted to do in order to provide a vigorous advocacy for their clients. If the judge has any sense he'll laugh it off. I think that reaction would make more sense than some of the histrionics I've seen about this on DU.

Nomex suit on.

[tyedyeto]

72. Just because a candidate concedes...

does not mean the election has been certified. No candidate, be they Dem, Repub, Indie, Green or other, should be sworn in before the votes and election have been officially certified.

[AntiFascist]

75. Note to Busby:

the reason for this election in the first place was to replace a corrupt Republican politician, but by conceding early you have only enabled further corrupt activities. If you weren't serious about running for office, you shouldn't have made the decision to run in the first place.

How aware was Francine Busby, at the time she conceded, of the security breaches- namely the Diebold machine sleepovers?

[autorank]

76. Our rights do not belong to candidates, to convenience, to judges even...

Disenfranchisement is inappropriate in the extreme. It's used to refer to lifetime, generational loss of the vote by the poor or minority voters. The use of it for a few days until proper procedure is complete is incorrect. YOu're talking about convenience. Why don't you tell us what Bilbray, former lobbyist, did for your district during those 17 days. Not much.

Francine Busby did not have the right to give away the rights of voters, all voters, for a fair count. There were questions, a recount was requested, and a ridiculous price was proffered, six or seven times the price neighboring Orange County charged for a recent recount.

We are the holder of rights, uniformly. Your particular bent, that Bilbray was just essential to be in Congress even thought he was not certified has no bearing on the need for procedure. If elections are not complete, then the swearing in process becomes arbitrary. In this case, there Re protests, yet he was sworn in.

I expected a statement like this on this thread and it's useful to make the point that the rights of democracy are protected by the citizens, not the politicians. Citizen rights, whether we're talking about a majority or minority of citizens, are permanent and inviolable. They can't be surrendered. Conceding an election means th candidate gave up, it does not mean that the votes of citizens are void.

As far as court goes, the answer to the swearing in is fairly simple - it was a sham. Hastert clearly felt the need for some plausible deni ability and he got it; or, he claims he got it and it was really not forthcoming. Either the Assistant Secretary of State is uninformed about state law, which I seriously doubt, or Hasteret's interpretation was a stretch just t put Bilbray in Congress.

I wonder why you are so bent on giving up rights and reasonable democratic process in return for having a political insider, lobbyist like Brian Bilbray as your representative? But I really don't need an answer.

[roody]

84. I'm tired of Democrats quickly

conceding their stolen elections.

[Land Shark]

89. Candidates are among the LAST people to protect democratic rights

unlike the average person, a CANDIDATE can and will be made to pay a very high price for contesting an election. Particularly here, with another election set for November, it is not in the interest of any candidate to be focused on the past when another election looms in November. However, the public always has an interest in the integrity of the elections. I find the premise of your statement (Busby concedes) utterly lacking in any merit as an indication that there's little or nothing to go on. By the time the issue is litigated, there's either nothing left of the short term at issue, or only a few days left of the short term at issue in the June 6 special election.

Once again, the idea that Busby did not concede as being indicative or proof of anything at all is truly a misleading if not preposterous idea.

[emlev]

68. How You Can Help

Those of us working hard on this CA-50 case are having to spend some of our time raising money for legal fees, to send out press releases over the wire service, etc. It sure would be great if someone else would take on doing some fundraising to free our members up for other tasks.

Contributions can be made at www.nosleepovers.org.

Host a house party! Email your friends! Raid your mattress! If you host a barbecue, you can even wear a "Where Did Your E-Voting Machine Sleep Last Night" apron! Check out our merchandise at www.cafepress.com/nosleepovers.

Thank you (almost) all for your support.

[mod mom]

105. Gladly donated for a second time. I would encourage other Ohioans

to do the same, as the good folks from CA did so much for our efforts in 2004!

[slackmaster]

110. An alternative way to help out the people of CA-50

Look ahead to the November election. Our candidate needs help.

http://www.busbyforcongress.com/

[Me.]

70. !

*shadow government*

[autorank]

77. Brings new meaning to the term "Only the Shardow knows." n/t

[Me.]

104. Only The Shadow Knows

And that's what we need to find out, everything the shadow does know and, what the shadow has done.

*shadow government*

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. Who needs an election

when the Bushbots in Congress can just swear in whomever they please?

Go get 'em.

[autorank]

78. Idea for an inclusive Republican approach...

:sarcasm:
Now that they can induct 435 or so members of congress, maybe we could consider subdivision. There are certainly more than 435 major donors, or there would be if they could all have a "piece of the action." One solution would be to subdivide each member, sort of like a vacation time share. Upon reaching a certain donation limit, a "fat cat" wold be given, let's say 1/20th of that donors congressional seat. Strict rules would forbid multiple congressional time shares outside of the district and only one time share to a major donor with in the district. The 20 "stake holders" would be able to appoint one of themselves or go outside the pool and select a designated representative would would operate based on the instructions of the twenty. This would get rid of the notion that we actually elect anyone in a free way, which we don't with the legalized bribery of major campaign donations while, at the same time preserving group rule, "the twenty," as they would be known. I knew some good would come out of this.

[emlev]

83. New info re: Susan Lapsley at BradBlog

So who is Susan Lapsley, Assistant to the Secretary of State for Elections? She was previously Susan Bilyeu, previously Deputy Secretary of State in Nevada. Her husband, Rob Lapsley, was the former deputy SoS to Republican SoS of California, Bill Jones. According to an official involved with the California voting system certification process, when asked if he was surprised to hear her name connected with this story about Congress's intrusion into the Busby/Bilbray election,
"If anybody would tell them this, it would be her."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3339

[autorank]

86. Nice one emlev..."if anyone would tell them this, it would be her."

Where were you at 5:00 a.m. edt???

This is grat informaiton.

[emlev]

87. some other good quotes at the link. You'll enjoy them. EOM

[autorank]

85. US Code and Denial of Our Civil Rights - Group effort to do so

CITIZEN ACTION NOW
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm#5
The EAC may have opened up the opportunity for civil rights litigation against government officials, forcing this dark age for democracy and leaving no basis for public confidence in elections. Concerning the civil rights of citizens, the United States Code says:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…

- United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Civil Rights, Sub chapter I-
Generally. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Well, what have we hear US Code 1983...Read this and see if it applies to the "custom" of swearing in new members with minimal or no regard to state law, which thus involves the "deprivation of ..rights...of the Constitution" (the part that says it's a popularly elected House of Representatives).

The intervention of Hastert in the induction causes the people of San Diego to lose their ability to handle recounts. It's a crime, in other words. Hmm...

[emlev]

90. Time for the Shadow Police Force?

What shadow government can make it without one?

[Me.]

108. What Makes You Think We Don't Have One?

Far too much hiring of Blackwell, and other private security forces, these days. Patrolling the streets of NO.? Scary stuff going on and I don't put anything past these buggers.

*shadow government*

[emlev]

111. That's not what I meant.

I thought "shadow government" was, for example, what Lopez Obrador is setting up in Mexico. Maybe what I mean is "parallel government." Whatever it's called, it seems to me that we're it. I was talking (lightly) about needing a "police force" portion of the democracy movement in the U.S., perhaps to make citizens' arrests of the criminals.

[Me.]

113. The Cast Of Different Shadows

The one I refer to is the one Cheney and his co-criminals have set up without any bye your leave or congressional oversight.

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer

These are not the people we want setting up shadow governments.

*shadow government*

[Zhade]

91. K/R

Cake/eating it - NOPE!

[Wilms]

94. Thanks, Auto. n/t

[autorank]

96. Welcome. You guys out there have a few ?'s you get to ask.

Enjoy it...it's called democracy in action.

[Swamp Rat]

98. k&r

[autorank]

100. Buddy

Hey, lookie here http://electionfraudnews.com/pics/FreedomCity.htm

:)enjoy...!!!

[Swamp Rat]

101. ¡Viva México Libre!

¡El país de mis bisabuelos! :bounce:

[emlev]

99. Photo of our new friend Susan Lapsley

She's seen here with Bruce McDannold, the interim director of the state’s Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment.

[althecat]

102. He looks asleep. Must have been a certification meeting.

[emlev]

112. Not absolutely certain, but I believe it was. EOM

[tyedyeto]

103. Just a little nudge to the top of the page

:kick:

[EFerrari]

107. This thread is everything I love about DU. Kiss @ss, DU.

:kick: