In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio’s 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing

[helderheid]

July 31st, 2007

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on July 30, 2007, Printed on July 31, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/

Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records, according to letters from county election officials to the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.

The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus.

The destruction of the election records also frustrates efforts by the media and historians to determine the accuracy of Ohio’s 2004 vote count, because in county after county the key evidence needed to understand vote count anomalies apparently no longer exists.

“The extent of the destruction of records is consistent with the covering up of the fraud that we believe occurred in the presidential election,” said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney representing the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, which filed voter suppression suit. “We’re in the process of addressing where to go from here with the Ohio Attorney General’s office.”
http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1248#more-1248">Read More

[helderheid]

1. small k

[helderheid]

2. fallin fast

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. K & R. They wouldn't destroy records unless...

...they had something very serious to hide -- something much bigger than minor irregularities.

[helderheid]

4. Thank you!!

[donkeyotay]

5. I'm sure it's just another coincidence

Evidence being destroyed.
:eyes:

[Vincardog]

6. K&R

[kster]

7. K&R..nt

[renate]

8. rock on, Cliff

<i>"On the one hand, people will now say you can’t prove the fraud," he said, "but the rule of law says that when evidence is destroyed it creates a presumption that the people who destroyed evidence did so because it would have proved the contention of the other side."</i>

Any lawyers here? Is this really true?

[lmarcotty]

9. Yes, it's true

In most, if not all states, if evidence is destroyed while in the care/custody/possession of party A, then party B is entitled to a presumption that the evidence would have been adverse to party A's case. What that means in practical terms is that party B can argue to the jury, and the court will instruct the jury, that the logical inference from the facts that (1) A had control of the evidence, and (2) A now can't produce the evidence, is that A destroyed the evidence because it was damaging to A's case.

In a civil suit, the jury weighs the evidence and finds something is fact if it is more probable than not. If a presumption arises that the lost/destroyed evidence was adverse to party A, then party A must offer evidence that it didn't destroy the evidence or the evidence wasn't adverse to party A in order to rebut the presumption.

Sorry if this isn't very clear - end of the work day!

L-A

[renate]

10. thanks!

I was going to say "Welcome to DU" but from your profile it looks like you've been here a while and are just very very quiet! Thanks so much for explaining what must be a very important point that Arnebeck was making.

And BTW, it was perfectly clear. :applause:
Great news!

[ThomWV]

11. Haul every county election commissioner in front of a Judge

And if they can not produce the records that they are responsible for either jail them or fine them so harshly that no one in the future will ever lose a ballot.