|
 Link:http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00300.htm
Destruction of Evidence – Ohio’s 2004 Ballots
Saturday, 20 October 2007, 12:24 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins
“Letters from the Edge” - Part 1
By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.
“Overall this blatant destruction of evidence only reinforces the widespread belief that the 2004 election was stolen.”
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Free Press August 2, 2007
The 2004 presidential election was mired in controversy all over the country. Candidate Kerry’s legion of volunteer lawyers was ready to fight anticipated election fraud. Serious challenges were defused when Kerry conceded the election in the early morning of November 3, 2004. Failing to recognize that candidates cannot concede the votes of citizens, the news media and political parties called it a night.
Ohio was ground zero for charges of election fraud. These are ably detailed in several articles and won’t be repeated here. One post election event is worth mentioning. The March 13, 2007 Toledo Blade ran this headline at the end of a major trial in Cleveland:
2 election workers get 18 months for rigging presidential recount.
The tale of the lost ballots and destroyed evidence begins with a law suit brought by citizens against Ohio officials: King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association (KLBNA) v. Blackwell. The suit charges Blackwell and other Ohio officials with: “election fraud, vote dilution, vote suppression, recount fraud and other violations.”
SNIP
The presiding judge in the case, Algenon L. Marbley, issued a court order on September 6, 2006 extending the retention requirements for an additional 12 months. Blackwell was instructed to distribute the order to Ohio’s boards of elections.
The Judge then ordered that the ballots be turned over to the new Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner on April 7, 2007. Brunner sent a request out for the ballot evidence two days later.
When the Ohio Secretary of State sent requests for delivery of the ballots, 56 of Ohio’s 88 counties replied that they no longer had some or all of the ballots requested. Only 41 bothered to provide an explanatory letter as to the missing ballots. Fifteen counties offered no reason at all for noncompliance. Counties failing to return complete sets of ballots accounted for a majority of Ohio’s 2004 presidential votes.
Through the Secretary of State, a federal judge, and the lead attorney in a law suit, the 88 counties received multiple notices that they were to retain all ballots from the 2004 election for federal office, president in particular, for at least 22 months and after that “until such time as otherwise instructed by the court.”
********
But look what happened.
Destruction of Ballot Evidence
SNIP
The first letter in the collection is from the Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney. Why would the prosecuting attorney write this letter when all the other explanatory letters were written by election board members? Perhaps someone in that county understood the gravity of destruction of evidence and the penalties involved.
Unfortunately, the actual ballot cards were inadvertently discarded and destroyed by the Ashtabula County Board of Elections just prior to the receipt by the Board of Judge Marbley’s Order and subsequent directive to your office.
Thomas Sartini, Prosecuting Attorney, Ashtabula County Apr. 16, 2007
There is a clear intent to use the term inadvertently or somehow imply unintentional destruction of ballots in many of the letters. Webster’s defines inadvertent as: 1: not focusing the mind on a matter: inattentive. 2: unintentional.
In Athens County, for example, the board said “they feel that these unvoted ballots were inadvertently discarded.” These must have been very special feelings since they were powerful enough to intuit inadvertent discarding of ballot evidence. No further explanation was offered.
On April 11, 2007, Clermont said that they didn’t know where the ballot evidence was but that “no one remembers specifically discarding the ballots.”
SNIP
Cuyahoga County, population 1.3 million, was unable to determine how many unvoted ballots it had in its possession. It took records for “ballots ordered” for 2004 and subtracted the total ballots cast, assuming the difference was sufficient instead of actually counting the unused ballots.
The unused ballots are of grave importance for Cuyahoga. The county was the site of a wide range of election problems. One would think they’d want to explain why they needed 1,135,265 ballots for 1,007,187 registered voters when turnout is rarely exceeds 60%. That’s a lot of extra ballots floating around in a county that produced a “rigged” presidential recount. There were several other counties with large quantities of extra ballots.
Cuyahoga County acting elections director Jane Platten was so concerned about the state of the ballots delivered that she amended her certification statement to the Secretary of State.
http://freepress.org/ballot/BOE.pdf">Statement of Jill Platten, April 17, 2007 Full Collection of Letters and Reports, (p. 223)
Platten wrote in an email regarding the issue on April 17, 2007: “I did not know the chain of custody and storage of those ballots since the November 2004 election. None of the persons responsible for those ballots … work at the BOE any longer.” (Full Collection, p. 225) Did those persons cease to exist altogether? Surely they could have been reached by phone, paid a visit, or asked for a sworn statement or deposition. Was any such effort made? Apparently not.
Reaction by Ohio’s Secretary of State and Attorney General
Both Attorney General Dann and Secretary of State Brunner made clear promises to pursue 2004 election fraud investigations during their campaigns. Their words on this subject are well documented. Once elected and faced with the massive destruction of evidence from the 2004 election, they may have experienced an inadvertent memory lapse.
2006 general election winner, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D), was quick to respond to the destruction of evidence. The http://tinyurl.com/yqslen}Cincinnati Enquirer] of August 11, 2007 reported Brunner’s remarks: “If I had evidence of a cover-up, I would investigate. For me, the bigger question in 2004 was how many people were prevented from voting (something) you can’t quantify?” Attorney General Marc Dann (D), also elected in 2006, responded quickly by seconding Brunner’s position. So much for campaign promises.
While the two Democratic officials were quick to absolve those who destroyed evidence, both have refused to meet with voting rights activists[/b> to receive and discuss extensive data and analysis that supports election fraud in the 2004 presidential election.
SNIP
All counties had a responsibility to know and obey federal law and the court order. All counties had a responsibility to store safely and with care all of the 2004 ballots and any other ballots they had in their possession. All counties had a responsibility to have a chain of custody procedure in place to assure that the ballots stored could be accounted for as the original set from the election. This is standard operating procedure for any organization. Why wasn’t this done?
Will there be justice and accountability? Will the possible theft of a presidential election cause the newly elected Secretary of State and Attorney General to reconsider their quick dismissal of destruction of election evidence? Will the federal courts take note and provide a consequence for those who inadvertently or intentionally destroyed evidence?
“America has been robbed of its history here. The public has a right to know the true outcome of the 2004 election, and to have its laws about preservation of critical records honored.”
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, http://tinyurl.com/2a5j2b}Free Press> August 2, 2007
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
