Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Time to switch gears. Fraud ----> Irregularities

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:55 PM
Original message
Time to switch gears. Fraud ----> Irregularities
We had two months to demonstrate fraud. We failed (but, hey, at least we might get to see the DVD in six months!).

A few experts in Ohio should keep digging, but the rest of us need to focus on spreading the word about 'irregularities', not fraud. No need to frighten the old ladies.

Ultimately, we need to get legislation passed. Letters to the editor, contacting congressmen, because we are concerned about 'irregularities' in the process. 'Irregularities undermine our faith in the election and we need to do something about it.' Fraud is hard for most to believe, but there was strong evidence of irregularities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. no way
let's report the truth. this isn't FOX News. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Then cite exactly one concrete example of fraud. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
55. It will come out.
Look Conyers and those guys know what they were doing when they call it irregular.

I have seen photocopies of election documents shown to me by a nationally known activist that demonstrate fraud to me. It will come out when there is an overwhelming case. Unfortunately, the courts were able to run the clock this time. Discovery hasn't even begun yet.

I still think that we should call them irregularities until the evidence is presented. It is good strategy. Grandma can talk about irregularities, but won't listen to it once fraud is brought up.

Read yer Sun-Tzu.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
82. Voters attempting to vote for Kerry, who saw "Bush" vote pop up instead
That happened a lot...in a lot of different pricincts. And did NOT happen the reverse way ONCE that I've heard of. If the machines just had "glitches," then it would've erred the same way BOTH ways.

"Fraud" it is word. "Irregularity" is the "sanitized," watered-down, nothing-to-see-here, move on concept they want us to embrace!

Sorry pals, it's an "F" word...like "Fox"..."FRAUD." Spread it far and wide, with pride!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
83. I believe that Rep conyers has cited several criminal acts
involving both state & federal election law.

So if you prefer to say criminal activity, then who am I to stop you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KerryReallyWon Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
69. i'm with you... no faux news here! Its.
FRAUD!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. 30 pages of fraud and irregularities evidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. and why don't we have physical concrete evidence?
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:01 PM by Faye
the votes are tallied with f*cking computer software. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. That doesn't prove fraud. It's irregular, but there's no hard evidence
of fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
85. Election '04: Is it Irregularities, Fraud or Criminal Gangs?
Some people want to say irregularities.
Some want to say fraud.

Now note this statement from John Conyers:

" Conyers prefers to call them things that went wrong "
http://www.blackcommentator.com/119/119_cover_vote_thie...

That's seems a litle wish-washy by Conyers, eh?

But hold on. Here's the Kicker!

" Well, you know, orchestrated attempts don't always require a conspiracy... " -Conyers

Oops.... where's he going with this?? :)

The article continues:


"But conspiracies do exist; they occur every time a group of
persons plans to commit criminal acts. Conyers knows this. Hes not
only a lawyer, hes a Watergate lawyer, having sat on the same
Judiciary Committee that saw Richard Nixons presidency unravel in
1973-74. District attorneys in big cities across the nation love
conspiracy law, designed to connect the seemingly random depredations
of criminal gangs. Conspirators can be convicted even if they dont
know all the other players or the whole scope of the criminal
enterprise. They need only be shown to have acted in the furtherance
of the larger scheme.


Sounds very much like Rep. Conyers orchestrated attempts, doesnt it? "



Oh dear.....

"The 2004 presidential election had many irregularities" .....NOPE

"The 2004 presidential had many instances of fraud" .....BETTER

"The 2004 presidential had many irregularities
and instances of fraud, consistent with a federal
vote crimes conspiracy" .....ROCKS!!


I love that line from the article:
"...conspiracy law, designed to connect the
seemingly random depredations of criminal gangs."

..seemingly random.... criminal gangs... Ahhhh...

I think I'll frame that :)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Lots of irregularities, but no proof of fraud there n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. see my post right above
WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THERE IS NO PHYSICAL PROOF? OUR VOTES ARE TABULATED BY FUCKING MACHINES :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. No it is not irrgularities...
Dem strong precincts - voters stand in line for 10 hours.
Repub strong precincts - wait time 15 minutes.

Exit polls.
Voting machines w/o paper trails.
Provisional ballots and disenfranchisement.

Secretary of State Blackwell -need I say more.

Sorry- this was election fraud on all levels.

We did not fail - American Democracy failed.

I am an American - not a Fascist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I thought we were the reality based community.
-Dem strong precincts - voters stand in line for 10 hours.

Prove that it was done intentionally. It was highly irregular, but prove it was fraud.

-Exit polls.

The election was pretty close. Were the rural communities under-represented?

-Voting machines w/o paper trails.

No proof of fraud, only the potential for fraud.

-Provisional ballots and disenfranchisement.

How is that fraud? Was it illegal?

-Secretary of State Blackwell -need I say more.

Yes, you actually do.

-Sorry- this was election fraud on all levels.

Sorry, this is fantasyland stuff unless you can prove it. There is a difference between irregularities and fraud. You have no PROOF of fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. do i have to say it again?
or are you going to keep ignoring my replies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. No offense - you're not worth any more of my time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Have you read through Conyers report yet?
If not, it may give you a bit more info:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats /

PDF titled: Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept...


Blackwell's Fundraising Letter (just to give you an idea of the man)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/blackwellfundr...

If after reading both, you don't believe that something went terribly wrong on 11/02 - then nothing will convince you. And if that's the case, then at least you can say you haven't suffered from "Paranoia Shift".

Ya know, humans used to think the world was FLAT, until someone PROVED that it wasn't. But wasn't it round to begin with before it was PROVEN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Read them. Things were terribly wrong, it's just that no one
has PROVEN fraud. Not a single concrete example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. are you ever going to look thru my replies in this thread?
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:36 PM by Faye
how many times do i have to say it? please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I replied to both of your substantive posts above n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. and i'm telling you
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:40 PM by Faye
why it's nearly impossible to prove it with physical evidence. it still doesn't change the fact that it was fraud. now if you dont' think it was fraud, wtf is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Because if you are accusing people of crimes
you need to have evidence. If you accuse people of crimes with no evidence, you look like a loon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. good
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. If I recall correctly
didn't Scott Peterson get the death penalty based on "circumstantial evidence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. Conyers believes there is evidence of crimes, and
he is most assuredly not a loon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. When all the arrows
point in that direction, what else can you gather but that fraud occurred? How many "irregularities" favoring * would it take?

Is the whistleblower the only thing that will convince you? Do you need to see the computer code?

Here are some definitions of fraud that georgia10 looked up for her Guide:

Actionable Fraud


Fraud: n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.

Constructive fraud: n. when the circumstances show that someone's actions give him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means ... the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

Common Definitions


Fraud: n. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Fraud In Law: n. fraud that is presumed from the circumstances although the one who commits it need not have had any evil intent.

Website links to the above definitions (in order):
1 http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=785&bol...
2 http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=318&bol...
3 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=fraud
4 http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/fraud+in+law





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #44
70. Beautiful. But they throw around "fraud" like it's some impossible
standard. It's defined by "I'll know when the press tells me I see it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senegal1 Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. To prove fraud will require a court case -- however the suspicion
of fraud is there due to the overwhelming number of irregularities. To focus on the irregularities and not the case for fraud is to put the cart and the horse on two separate streets. Sorry that this might scare the little old ladies but maybe little old ladies are stronger than you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
77. This thread will never be 100% reality-based.
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:44 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
Not as long as your kind infest it, jughead. One of your uber "reality-based pals thinks that if the US hadn't entered WWII, the Russians would have let the Germans occupy Western Europe!

I suspect San Marino would have had something to say about that, and the state the Russians would have left Germany in, there wouldn't have been many left alive in it, to dispute it with the San Marinese, with sticks and stones.

"Sorry, this is fantasyland stuff unless you can prove it. There is a difference between irregularities and fraud!.

Oh, foolishness, thy name is JPJones! We are not currently in a court of law, so the canons of common sense are more than adequate to make the accusation of fraud, loud, clear and repeatedly. But that is what is getting to you people, isn't it? Your conscience and the fear of people's certainty at the informal extra-legal level, nationwide and throughout the world, growing ever more widespread. Hence your posts.

Only "bent" courts could discount the overwhelming statistical evidence of intentionality, unequivocally indicating Republican fraud. So-called "irregularities" + plus causative intentionality = fraud. Overwhelming statistical probability is good enough for insurance companies and DNA identification, while the probability criteria used in both fields would be much smaller. Nuff said. Elementary reason indicates that keeping 64 machines warehoused, while poorer districts of minority voters are scandalously deprived of them, to the effective disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters is clear evidence of fraud. Surely there are sworn affidavits to that effect, i.e. the 2 to 10 hour waits, will be forthcoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. You know, we can't call it "irregular" if it happens every time! lol
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:12 PM by sfexpat2000
True statements work, though. We don't know what happened because our elections are broken. For the purposes of educating citizens, that works. And context is important. It really is more important to talk to my grandma in a way she can connect with than to unload everything I know and/or believe the first go round.

That's just good communication skills.

And, we know that if there is a vulnerability in a voting system, someone will try to exploit it. I think we can say that with certainty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Umm, really?
Let's soften the language?

Murder=Assisted death
Rape=Non-participant Sex
Child Abuse=Improper Child Rearing
War=Peace Objective
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. LMAO!
w00t!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Thanks for laughing
But can I please get a welcome? How come I never get a welcome to D.U.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. sorry
i don't usually welcome people cuz i don't realize if they're new unless they're conspicuously freeping :shrug: sorry :hi: Welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. That's okay, really
I'm not a freeper, mostly just a lurker. I read and read here and I love reading YOUR posts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Yes, you.
I like your spirit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. aww thanks
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
78. Yeah, me too, Faye,
Ya know, I will always wonder who is really welcome to DU until I see something that makes me quit wondering.

Welcome to DU, wonderingwhy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
72. Did you fill out welcome form sQ4629op-6?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. It has nothing to do with softening the language. It has
everything to do with backing up what we say with evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. Then how 'bout
Suspected FRAUD?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. A little pregnant? Fraud is fraud. Suspected fraud = irregularity. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwillalwayswonderwhy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. Suspected Fraud
is circumstantial evidence without hard evidence.

What I don't like about "irregularity" is that it makes it sound like a rare, meaningless, unintentional accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. Fraud is rampant. What do you call this?
Why do you suppose Cuyahoga County lied and claimed they had a terrorist threat to lockout the media from witnessing vote counting?

Or that Triad posted "cheat sheets" so workers wouldn't have to bother actually recounting ballots?

What on earth made votes "flip" from Kerry to Bush on so many review screens, but none went the other way?

What do you call it when voting machines are pre-programmed to default to Bush if no vote is cast, and to be cast aside as spoiled ballots (double votes) if a voter choose Kerry?

When a Democratic headquarters is burglarized, computerized voter records stolen, and Democrats are then sent mailers with bogus election dates and threats of arrest if they have unpaid parking tickets, I would call that fraud.

When thousands of Democratic registration forms are thrown away by people hired by the Republican Party to only register GOP voters, those Democrats have been defrauded.

When exit polls match tallied results in precincts with one method of voting, but precincts with certain types of voting machines all have an amazing reversal from exit poll to final outcome, what do you call that?

When a programmer testifies under oath that he was hired by a Republican Congressman to create vote-rigging software, it's obvious that fraud was intended.

When the Ohio Secretary of State refuses to count all votes, sends out the wrong weight of paper and then denies registrants the right to vote, withholds voting machines in minority neighborhoods, orders a place where ballots are stored to be left unsecured overnight, and defies state law to be sure suspicious precincts are not included in the recount, he has defrauded the voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. You believe there is fraud, but you don't know the facts
It was Warren county, and Kerry lawyer Jeff Rupert was in the room and saw nothing unusual.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GLBEz4PkdS4J:www.m...

The lockdown was irregular, but there was a K/E lawyer watching the count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
47. I call it fraud.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:59 PM by troubleinwinter
So does Conyers and the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
19. I ALMOST Agree With You.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. i want fraud, it was nation wide and the people need to know
not going to stop with irregularities. i want those too. i wasnt to make clear from here on out, support republicans you support voter suppression and intimidation, right there with when women didnt have the right to vote and the blacks had to fight for their right to vote in the 60's.

no way, leaving out voter fraud isnt good enough for me. have to start sending people to jail, get more to turn on each other. 2 months is BOT enough time to get this out. it is gonna come out. why would you want to stop now. no way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. ok, but
it's not voter fraud. it's Election Fraud :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. ALmost ALways say election fraud faye
good catch, you are right on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starone Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
22. Irregularities will bring in the fold
I totally agree! The word will get out so much faster if we start with voting "irregularities"...something that will pertain to both "red and blue" and won't frighten those loyal to the Grand Old. As the process unfolds more and more people will realize the fraud that is exposed. History proves that it took more than Democrats to bring down a Republican president in the '70s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. nope
not gonna do it :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starone Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. "Irregularities" won't work for you because you already Know
It's those that don't know that we need to bring in now. If you go to the people with "fraud" they'll close up. It's too extreme. Irregularities are the truth...something was wrong with the election. So we say, "Let's investigate irregularities for the sake of all our futures." We investigate in the public eye....you and I know fraud will be exposed in the public eye. We deliver it to those who don't know on a silver platter. That's the job that's before those who know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. Irregularities produce "fraud"
Irregularities produce fraud in this sense: If you believe the vote totals literally, you're deceived and thus defrauded.

Under most consumer protection statutes, it is not required that the plaintiff prove that the merchant intended to deceive, only that a reasonable consumer would IN FACT be deceived.

If our election system is inaccurate in any way, it's a huge problem. If it's systematically inaccurate in a way that favors one party of the other, it's a huge problem and it's a gross injustice. Proving that someone intentionally gamed the system is relevant mostly to the amount of criminal punishment that should apply and to certain political consequences. But from the standpoint of election integrity, intentional fraud is interesting to investigate but not critical to prove. I think it should be investigated at all levels, but one should not get hung up on intentional fraud analysis.

Look, I'm a business and consumer fraud attorney. I prove fraud in court. Nobody admits to defrauding anybody. You have to prove it circumstantially. So before you type another post suggesting "hard evidence" of fraud is absolutely required, ask yourself if you haven't been temporarily possessed by post-election stress, because such hard evidence is rarely present even in successful cases of proving fraud.

Still, you can exercise your independent judgment on all of the facts in the study, because there's not room to state them all on DU

The document can be downloaded from http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudI...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. For me it depends on who I'm talking with and how much...
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 10:42 PM by Wilms
...they now about the election.

And irregularity does not preclude fraud. It even sort of suggests it as one possibility.


on edit: Anyone need a towel to wipe whip cream off their face?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. On Edit: that cracked me up...
I bet the republicans buy alot of knee pads!


(I know I should not have type this - but what the hell)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I was referring to the pie fight above.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 11:32 PM by Wilms
(I know I should not have type this - but what the hell)

on edit :9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Opps...Probably still applies....!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
45. Here is some information for you to try on for size:
Definition of fraud:

1)A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2)A piece of trickery; a trick.


Following is an excerpt from a letter from Representative John Conyers to the FBI, requesting an investigation of evidence found in the Ohio election:

"There are several important considerations you should be aware of with respect to this matter. First, this course of conduct would appear to violate several provisions of federal law, in addition to the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. 42 U.S.C. 1973 provides for criminal penalties against any person who, in any election for federal office, knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by...the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held. 42 U.S.C.1974 also requires the retention and preservation, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of a federal election, of all voting records and papers and makes it a felony for any person to willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter any such record. Further, any tampering with ballots and/or election machinery would violate the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote and have their votes properly counted, as guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

He aslo notes violations of Ohio law.

He does not use the word "fraud", only "defrauds", "defraud" and "fraudulent", along with "felony".

You can find the letter here: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/brockbealohele...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joevoter Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #45
74. I suggest "FRAUD investigation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Hmmm... sounds like a good idea. With indictments all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
52. No, irregularities is too soft. We need to call them cheats, lies, unfair,
and crimes. Irregularities, glitches and shenanigans sound like hijinx from a teen-age summer fun movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. l;ol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
54. I agree. PROVING fraud wd be nice, but REFORM is critical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #54
84. Lets not forget prison sentences
Republicans are big on long prison sentences to act as deterrents to crime. What crime could be worse than thwarting the very foundation to our Democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
56. I don't like the word "irregularities." How about "error"?
People just shrug off the word "irregularities." It's too benign.

Malfunction, error, fault, anything which implies something wrong with the hardware and/or software. We want to inspect the damn machines, inside and out.

My preference is the word "error." Here is one Wikipedia definition of "error": An error is a difference between desired and actual performance. ... Errors in a system can also be latent design errors that may go unnoticed for years, until the right set of circumstances arises that cause them to become active.

For your viewing pleasure, a photo of the Ohio election:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. i dont' like the word 'error'
it presumes innocence. and i don't believe they are innocent errors for one minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
58. To prevent people from voting by locking up voting machines is FRAUD (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
59. FRAUD
FRAUD...The vote was stolen from Kerry, just like it was stolen from Gore.
We will prove it, and this administration will have "scandal" written all over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
60. Go all the way
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:45 AM by adolfo
I used the word "dosh garnit" once and an old wise chinese man said to me; "If you are gonna say it, go for the gold!".

So now I say "Fuckin ballot stealing bi#$!@..."!

It is much better (& cheaper) than psychiatric therapy. Try it, you may actually enjoy it.

Since there is evidence it is your right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
61. Jones, you've fallen for the herring.
British fugitives in the 1800s would rub a herring across their trail, thereby diverting the bloodhounds that were hot in pursuit. In the 1920s, American investment bankers started calling preliminary prospectuses "red herrings" as a warning to investors that the documents were not complete or final and could be misleading.

The line is, "We have no proof of fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election."
The point is THE ELECTION WAS UNFAIR. Take any example you like. Any one of them is enough to reject Ohio's votes.
Define fraud. Define irregularity. At what point does an irregularity become fraud.
I don't believe intent is part of the definition of fraud. You can have a fraudulent election without an overlord. But Ohio had even that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Some definitions of fraud defined in my post #44
but I don't think JPJones wants to comment on them.

As a matter-of-fact, I do believe s/he's "vanished". If they're going to start a thread, at least follow-through. If they can't, for whatever reason, just say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
62. Wow, JP, you've got your hands full
I've been trying the constructive approach today, too, urging people to throw themselves into the election reform effort. Haven't had too much luck so far. A lot of people are still working through the pain. (By the way, you have an excellent command of the facts -- but factual arguments don't sway the "fraud" contingent. There's that one unanswerable line of logic, as "Faye" was arguing -- they can't provide the "proof" us practical-minded people are demanding since the paperless machines ate the proof, so to speak. Half of me believes it's true, but I still want the darn proof because elected Democratic officials will look pretty doofy arguing this in public, where Americans will hear them.

Anyway, here's something practical-minded I posted in the "General Discussion: Politics" category. a list of sites where people can get info about how to support Sen. Boxer and help with election reform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


I only got 20+ replies. The post that was entitled, "What is your favorite French thing", got 90+, last I looked. Oh well...I'm gonna keep trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Here's some FRAUD info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #62
68. i am not getting why those that dont believe it is fraud insist
that all of us agree with you. what is in it for you. why is there an intense need to get me to forget about the fraud. then if you half believe i truly cannot understand how you can just shrug your shoulders on it

:shrug:

why dont you all that want to focus on the irregularity go out and work on that. and those of us that can deal with fraud issue without "feeling the pain" will go about our business trying to prove there is fraud to better help you with election irregularities in 2006

you dont need to change our mind. you dont need to convince us. i dont need to convince you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Well said (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #68
76. Yes, good point, "convincing" not necessary
The "half of me that believes it" hopes that people who will tenaciously keep searching for "smoking gun proof" find it. I got riled up on the issue because the true believers were calling Dems who didn't vote against certification names and saying "I'll never vote Democratic again". I guess I should shake that off and, as you say, get back to focusing on the irregularity angle, which is the one I've chosen to devote my efforts to. Like you say, if the "fraud" side comes up with more proof, that can only strengthen the "irregularity" side's efforts to help Boxer and other Dems get real election reform (what am I saying? it would be a slam-dunk after that!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. high five moggie, and this is the practicality of it
embrace the fact there is going to be the extreme, adn those saying democrat for life, getting out of party, me the centralist, middle of road saying hey...........wtf, i can see some really good going on both in grassroot computer communication and connection and after all, this is it, bush or kerry.....dem or repug

let em fall along side of the road. and many wont. what i do see we need to do is the fellow mothers and fathers all around me need to see they really dont want the world they think they do, it is not happening open your eyes. gonna become a scary place for your kids, hey already is because bush is creating it and saying it and feeding it

what we put out loud matters. when you and i sya exactly, when we were saying opposite, that is how we grow.

so i have total faith. i am liking what i see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. High five you back, I like what I see, too. n't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
super simian Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
65. THIS "old lady" ain't scared!
Wanna see...?

Fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud....

...is what you call it when people deliberately set out to deceive other people, as in deceiving them into thinking there are enough voting machines in their precinct, deceiving them into thinking they can vote on 11/3, deceiving them into thinking they registered and then tossing their registration, deceiving them into thinking that they voted for Kerry when their vote went for Bush, deceiving them into thinking they can vote with a provisional ballot and then not counting it, deceiving them by handing them a pre-punched ballot, deceiving them by giving them the wrong ballot so that they end up voting for the wrong candidate, deceiving them that their registration is not valid, and -- in the end when all these deceptions are challenged -- deceiving them into believing that there was a fair and legal recount. :silly:

That's what THIS old lady calls election fraud! :silly: And she's going to keep on calling it election fraud. :silly:

Now if you want to get onto the topic of irregularity, isn't there a pill for that?

:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. hahaha that looks like fun
FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
super simian Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. See? It is fun! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MandateThis Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #65
87. Ol ladies call 'em as they see 'em as shout FRAUD!!!
I'm happy and proud to join Americans who understand the true meaning of democracy and speak the truth refusing to be intimidated!!! You know there were many people who said Hitler wasn't rightfully elected. Soon after, he called for terror measures and he regulated his own patriot act to oppress the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreepFryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
66. I would have to call Blackwell's behavior, and Warren County's, fraudulent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
75. FRAUD!
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 02:19 AM by Al-CIAda
Get used to it.

His FRAUDulentcy...George Bush won the popular FRAUD...Commander in FRAUD...Hail to the FRAUD...In FRAUD we distrust...Don't FRAUD on me...One small step for man, one giant leap for FRAUDkind...ask not what your vote can do for you, ask what FRAUD has done tto your country....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
86. Nope that would be a step backward
Now that even some in the msm have taken to the possibility of fraud, that we worked so hard to get our representatives to discuss, we're going to change it? I think not. You're insulting grandma here. My 72 year old mom can believe fraud, she also knows a criminal when she sees one. She's seen one for the last 4 years, and is extremely worried about the next 4.

Why are you using all these "not fraud" arguments to go backwards? As someone else said, discovery has not even started. Those "irregularities" are so many in number, and so much in shrubbies favor that FRAUD is the reasonable conclusion. I believe I am reality-based. I also disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC