Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OHIO JUDGE DENIES KNOWING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD PLOT

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
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:28 PM
Original message
OHIO JUDGE DENIES KNOWING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD PLOT
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 04:57 PM by BreakForNews

Ohio Judge Denies Knowing Of
Presidential Election Fraud Plot


Ohio Judge Denies Knowing Of Presidential Election Fraud Plot
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MoyerDeniesKnowing...


Ongoing developments in Ohio legal cases have the potential to
severely affect George Bush's claim on Ohio's electoral college
votes; to blow the lid off corrupt practices in Ohio's political
and judicial spheres; and to land a sticky mess of election fraud
and judicial bias before the US Supreme Court and/or legislators
convening to roll-call the presidential electoral college votes
on January 6th, 2005.


BreakForNews.com, 30th Dec, 2004 15:00ET
by Fintan Dunne, Editor EXCLUSIVE



In an Ohio voters legal suit with potential to alter the outcome of
the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the chief justice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio has denied having personal knowledge of a plot to steal
votes; has refused an emergency motion to recuse himself from the case
and has declined a request to secure election evidence in the voters'
legal contest of the Ohio presidential election result.


Chief Justice Thomas Moyer made the rulings Wednesday in the 'Moss v.
Bush' case taken by thirty-seven Ohio voters to reverse the awarding
of Ohio's electoral college votes to George Bush.

The voters suit is led by Columbus, OH attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and
Bob Fitrakis. Moyer had been assigned to the case automatically by
virtue of being the senior judge of the Ohio Supreme Court.



In court documents, the voters had sought have another judge hear the
case. One of the reasons they cited was that Moyer had "wittingly or
unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate national and statewide
election fraud."

Moyer ruled that their assertion was "wholly without foundation and
totally lacks any degree of veracity." The voters have yet to detail
the basis of their claim.

"Its speculative and ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for
disqualification," Moyer decided. He also thanked the voters for not
claiming that he had any actual criminal involvement in such a plot.

The suit claims that patterns of irregularities in the Ohio
presidential and judicial elections on November 2, 2004 show there was
an orchestrated election fraud plot which involved tampering with
electronic vote tabulators and deliberately creating shortages of
voting machines --predominantly in minority neighborhoods and college
campuses likely to back John Kerry.

The suit continues, but Judge Moyer also rejected a request to
expedite a hearing and declined to grant discovery orders or ensure
that elections boards preserve evidence from the election.

Responding to the decision, Cliff Arnebeck, attorney for the
Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, which brought the cases
said "the important thing about the judicial process is the concept
that you have a neutral judge."

"It's disappointing that doesn't seem to be the priority here,"
Arnebeck said.


MOYER'S ELECTION CHALLENGED

As well as contesting the result of the November 2nd. Ohio
presidential election, the same voters are also disputing the election
of Moyer himself on similar grounds --in the judicial elections held
on the same day.


Both cases were originally one suit, but an earlier ruling by Moyer
ordered them filed again as separate cases. The presidential challenge
case is no longer joined to that contesting his own election. As a
result, Moyer says there is now no reason for him to remove himself,
for he has nothing to gain by a change in the presidential result.

Moyer's earlier move procedurally landed the case against his own
election on the desk of Gov. Bob Taft. He assigned another Supreme
Court judge ---who has also refused an emergency motion to immediately
secure evidence, and has threatened to dismiss the suit.

Joining the club is Ohio's newest Supreme Court justice, Judith Ann
Lanzinger.

At 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Chief Justice Moyer swore in Lanzinger, in a
private meeting in chambers. She replaces retiring Democratic Justice
Francis Sweeney, and her election increases the Republican political
bias of the court's composition.

Lanzinger will attend a public swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 7 that
will be attended by Gov. Bob Taft.



SECRET JUDICIAL SMEAR FUND

Earlier this year, Moyer did recuse himself in a long-running related
suit to force the Ohio Chamber of Commerce to disclose who bankrolled
television ads it ran implying that Justice Alice Robie Resnick, a
Democrat, was being influenced by campaign contributions from wealthy
trial lawyers. That suit had its genesis in another case also by Cliff
Arnebeck.


Moyer was among four of the Supreme Court's seven justices who recused
themselves in the case. Moyer and Justices Resnick and Terrence
O'Donnell, had benefited from the television smear campaigns of an
Ohio Chamber group called "Citizens for a Strong Ohio." Judge Evelyn
Lundberg Stratton, who was a target of the ads, also recused herself.

Coincidentally, just this week the remaining Supreme Court judges
--augmented by four appeals court judges temporarily assigned to the
case, turned down an appeal against a lower court decree which imposed
a potential $25,000-a-day fine for every day the Ohio Chamber group
remains in contempt by refusing to reveal who funded the campaign.

Arnebeck says the decision ends the appeals by the Ohio Chamber which
have delayed imposition of the $25,000-a-day fine --absent an unlikely
intervention by the US Supreme Court.

"They're in contempt as of right now," said Arnebeck.

The list of donors to the Strong Ohio campaign, if revealed could
result in executives of twenty-five Ohio corporations facing legal
charges, says Arnebeck.

Corporate officers could get jail terms for making illegal biannual
declarations regarding use of corporate funds for partisan political
purposes. Arnebeck says that the ongoing failure to launch criminal
investigations in the matter is an indictment of Ohio policing,
prosecutorial and judicial systems.


OHIO ELECTION MELTDOWN

Ongoing developments in these issues have the potential to severely
affect George Bush's claim on Ohio's electoral college votes; to blow
the lid off corrupt practices in Ohio's political and judicial
spheres; and to land a sticky mess of election fraud and judicial bias
before the US Supreme Court and/or legislators convening to roll-call
the presidential electoral college votes on January 6th, 2005.


Just seven day away.

A week, they say, is a long time in politics. In law also, perhaps.

The 'Moss v. Bush' voters election contest is relentlessly exhausting
it's legal remedies before the Ohio Supreme Court -a necessary
prerequisite to any US Supreme Court appeal. Though grounds for the
higher court review of Ohio's decisions are the subject of legal
debate centering around the "safe harbor" provisions of Ohio's
peculiar election laws.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer may find his refusal to recuse hard to
defend, if reviewed by more exalted justices. The benchmark of
judicial probity in all this was the rightful recusal by four Ohio
Supreme Court justices --Moyer included-- in the "say or pay," $25,000
a day fines case over the 2000 judicial election smear campaigns.

That earlier recusal, should have set the benchmark.

This week's ruling on that case by the specially constituted Ohio
Supreme Court --sans Moyer, came just two days before Moyer determined
that the new Arnebeck/Fitrakis 2004 election suit was suitably
tailored for him.

Solomon-like he reached for their baby case and carved it in two.

This decision despite the fact that the judicial and presidential
voting cases concerned the same voters, on the same day, in the same
state, using the same voting equipment, overseen by the same election
officials, operating under the same procedures; tainted with the same
undercurrents of political bias; and against the backdrop of possible
illegal funding swaying judicial elections.

Solomon could not carve such a baby. Neither should have Moyer.



THE PRICE OF LEGITIMACY

Even a Supreme Court predisposed to repeat the 2000 debacle and
install its "favorite son" again, may balk of doing so if it means
rubber-stamping a partisan hijack of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Especially if that hijack proves to be illegally funded.


Which is where the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and a raft of potential
criminals among Ohio corporations come in.

How much is it worth to the Ohio Chamber to grin and bear the
potential $9 million a year cost of not disclosing their donors?

Once the donors are known to be corporate entities, proof of
malfeasance will not be needed. Their false declarations are already
in the public record, to also taint the election of Ohio Supreme Court
judges.

By it's silence, the Ohio Chamber is protecting the judges. The
decisions of those judges are serving to protect Bush. Is $9 million
a small price to pay for keeping the lid on? Probably.

After all, the mystery donors have already plowed $12 million into
campaigns aimed at getting their choice of judges to administer
justice in Ohio. A extra $9 million could keep the lid on things for
another year. But only if the fine remains at $25,000 a day.

Now that the specially constituted Ohio Court decision has started the
clock ticking on the fine, perhaps the lower court will soon be
amenable to a new application to increase the fine to ensure prompt
vacation of the contempt. Such a move could be a show-stopper.

The legitimacy of the reelection of George Bush, in the end may come
down to a question of just how much Ohio hush money it is going to
take to keep him looking legitimate.


Full article with source hyperlinks:
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MoyerDeniesKnowing...


See Also:

Teflon Kerry: More Slick Moves On Election Fraud by Fintan Dunne
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/TeflonKerry.htm
Kerry Preparing Grounds to Unconcede
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/KerryPreparingGrou...
Kerry to Enter Ohio Recount Fray By William Rivers Pitt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404Y.shtml


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grumpy old fart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great post with new angles....
Good to see a little more context on this court and Arnebeck's case...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:49 PM
Original message
Thx for this great post, BFN!
It looks like the fire might be getting very hot in the kitchen soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darknyte7 Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Chamber of Commerce...
thread of this story really stinks to high heaven. More pressure needs to be applied there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyPriest Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Gosh, you mean all those fine people who fixed - I mean - paid
for my election were trying to fix the presidential election?? I had NO idea! What's this country coming to??"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Verrrry interesting tie-ins between the Chamber case and voting case
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 04:55 PM by troubleinwinter
and the recusal issue

-from the article:

"Chief Justice Thomas Moyer may find his refusal to recuse hard to
defend, if reviewed by more exalted justices. ....
.....
This decision despite the fact that the judicial and presidential
voting cases concerned the same voters, on the same day, in the same
state, using the same voting equipment, overseen by the same election
officials, operating under the same procedures; tainted with the same
undercurrents of political bias; and against the backdrop of possible illegal funding swaying judicial elections.

Solomon could not carve such a baby. Neither should have Moyer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bmoney07 Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fuck em - he'll get his, fuck em all - the truth will come out
God I am so pissed right now!

In th famous words of Zell the Hell Miller - I wish we were in different times so I could challenge all of these fucks to a face to face duel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Man O' Man BFN!
The way you set up your articles is so damn artful and though out. Your photo placements are gorgeous, its almost like reading an adult story book! Not to mention always very well written and adept at explaining the events to the layman!

You go and dont stop!! Im right behind you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. Cool.
Hope you are right beside me. lol :) Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #21
55. Lol... well Im a bit outa shape, but yeah maybe beside you is better!
Again thanks again, for your attention to detail! Just lovely to look at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. nice headline
did he deny beating his wife too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. We gave Moyer's side of the issue.....
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 07:11 PM by BreakForNews
Our article takes care to report:

Moyer ruled that their assertion was "wholly without foundation
and totally lacks any degree of veracity." The voters have yet to
detail the basis of their claim.

"Its speculative and ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for
disqualification," Moyer decided. He also thanked the voters for not
claiming that he had any actual criminal involvement in such a
plot.


I think that gives Moyer a fair run at his side of the election plot issue.

By the way, Moyer was very polite about it all.

He thanked the voters for only claiming that he knew
- not that he was in on the plot.

Very gracious and very interesting exchange between
the voters and the Chief Justice on the plot issue.


That's why we headlined it.

Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.BreakForNews.com




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EMunster Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
51. Yea, just as nice as "Bush Wins Election"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. This just in: Bush denies knowing his shit stinks
Sorry, it's just one of them days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. ROFL!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
49. Good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. Should we trust breakfornews.com? This is the site that claims...
to have debunked Wayne Madsen and/or Clint Curtis, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarkusQ Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. That would make me trust them MORE.
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 07:01 PM by MarkusQ
The Clint Curtis story1 smells like a red herring to me. Lots of flash, but no meat. It's exactly the sort of thing that is easier to come up with (breaking: Clint's murdered dog was an Austrian Shepherd; "Governor" Arnie is Austrian too--need some DUer's to dig into the Austrian connection, you know the drill) than it is to refute.

It's exactly the type of story I would put out if I were trying to distract people from a real story. Did you ever see "Wag The Dog"?

--MarkusQ

1. (Phrasing slightly edited (in response to comment) to make clearer that it is the story surrounding Clint Curtis that I am dubious of, rather than Clint himself.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Clint Curtis didn't make any wild claims....
Just that he was asked to write a program... he didn't overstate anything at all. I believe him, but it doesn't make or break the case. It just puts in that shadow of doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintCooper2003 Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. If the Clint Curtis story were a red herring...
I doubt Conyers would have given it so much attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. When Clinton gave testimony, Conyers had left the hearing....
...according to K. Olbermann

"Several e-mails noted that the programmer, Clint Curtis, testified before the Conyers Voting Forum in Columbus, Ohio, earlier this month. Well, yes and no. He did tell his story there, but its instructive to note that he was not asked to do so until after Representative Conyers left the forum, and had turned the chairing of the meeting over to a local politician. This wasnt a case of Conyers rushing to catch a bus, nor a problem with too many witnesses, nor a coincidence."

Keith doesn't elabotrate, but there it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6667405/#041227a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. Whew, glad you clarified, Markus...
...it is the story surrounding Clint Curtis that I am dubious of, rather than Clint himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdb Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. hmmm..
The article doesn't say but I'm assuming Moyer won't preserve potential evidence because there is no evidence? Is it me or does anyone else feel they entered The Twilight Zone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyPriest Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes, these news items need to come with theme music attached! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Great read.
Hopefully the house of cards will finally crumble on this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. He won't even bother...
...to go discover the evidence.

Moyer uses nitpicks to discount the affidavits, ignoring the thrust
of their content. He treats them like documents in the course of
a regular trial. That standard should not apply to an Emergency
Motion. He also fails to factor in the potential damage to the
appelants case were discovery not to be granted.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. I thought he would play the
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 09:51 PM by hootinholler
State law already requires the preservation of the evidence, so it would be redundant for me to order it card.

Maybe he's saving that one.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTGold Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. So happy to see all this new News today! I was going to beg DUers....
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 06:26 PM by VTGold
... to make something up to brighten the day :)

Post some audio Fintan!!! (I'm going to donate as soon as I recover from Christmas!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Hey VTG !
Been so busy with thw writing/research stuff
did not get time for an audio show - :) soon, yes

Will we ever recover from this Christmas? lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTGold Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. Keep researching! Keep finding the truth! And thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Homerun! The MSM must be chewing their nails. They know
their losing this battle.

I feel so sad for their corporate owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaBecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. WOW.......n/t
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thank you for putting everything into the proper context. Arnebeck has a
great many more cards in his hand than some here realize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon2 Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. This is wonderful... GOP strategy turned right back on them
Keep him denying he had carnal knowledge of the sheep. "No, your honor, I was unaware she was a minor."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
23. Am I missing something? I don't see a blanket denial by Moyer.
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 08:03 PM by Straight Shooter
In court documents, the voters had sought to have another judge hear the case. One of the reasons they cited was that Moyer had "wittingly or unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate national and statewide election fraud."

Moyer ruled that their assertion was "wholly without foundation and totally lacks any degree of veracity." The voters have yet to detail the basis of their claim.

"Its speculative and ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for disqualification," Moyer decided. He also thanked the voters for not claiming that he had any actual criminal involvement in such a plot.


I'm reading Moyer's derisive comments, but fail to find an unequivocal denial in his rebuttal of the charges. So, am I missing something? What law prevents him from saying, "These are fabricated, untruthful charges"? Why does he not find Arnebeck in contempt of court for impugning the integrity of a Supreme Court Justice?

edit: formatting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Indeed, which begs the question
what does Arnebeck know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Yeah....
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 10:29 PM by BreakForNews
...I found the whole "thank you for not calling me an out and out crook" thing was begging a lot of questions.

The response by Moyer doesn't lead you to figure it was certainly
a dumb move to throw in the "knowledge" of a plot issue.

So.......yes. What does Arnebeck know.

Here's the actual ruling (pdf)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-oh...

Here's what Moyer wrote:


" I am grateful for contestors generous statement in their motion
to disqualify, that they "have not made (and do not at any time
make) any allegation that Chief Justice Moyer personally did
anything improper on or before Election Day (November 2, 2004)
or in any way participated in the deliberate national election
fraud and deliberate fraud in Ohio."

Their further statement that "it is possible that Chief Justice
Moyer wittingly or unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate
national and statewide election fraud" is wholly without foundation
and totally lacks any degree of veracity. Its speculative and
ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for disqualification.
"

--Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
In Chambers December 29, 2004
2004-Ohio-7120 Page 3


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Well, Fintan, you want to take on the challenge, and find out?
Mr. Arnebeck might be very circumspect in his responses, but he is a personable and cordial man. Perhaps he can answer some of the questions raised by Moyer's oblique rhetoric.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Good point.
...Having heard him interviewed twice,
Arnebeck is certainly as you say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Some DUers have said that Arnebeck has tried a lot of cases with
the OSC and he knows the goods and "where the bodies are barried" so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Well, let's exhume those bodies and see what tales the dead men tell.
Mr. Arnebeck is an interesting man in interesting times, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Yes, he is and yes he does, Straight Shooter!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. As are we all, ESPECIALLY on DU
Back atcha, and g'night.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
38. Wow this is beginning to look like Arnebeck might know what he's doing.
Judge Moyer seems to be pushing the envelope of what is proper and legal precedent in Ohio. I'm no lawyer but shouldn't he have recused himself from this case entirely, based on the other case that he did recuse himself from? Of course, this in a world where Scalia goes duck hunting with Darth Cheney the week before he hears his energy meeting case. These guys seem so tainted, nothing shames them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Firespirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. My faith in Arnebeck has faltered but it's restored.
I try to ignore the bash-Arnebeck posts and doubters over what his people have. I've seen just enough insider leaks to have faith that they have some good stuff. They do have proof of fraud already with the Trumbull County absentee ballots, the Miami County precincts "98 % turnout" disproven, and they seem to have had people sniffing around Warren County.

Bonifaz is involved with BOTH suits. I would not imagine that there are issues involved with sharing information, in this case. It would seem that everyone involved is sharing evidence and working closely together.

Also, I read on DU that Arnebeck and Kerry have been friends for some time. Which might well explain why Kerry signed on to the Green lawsuit and has steered clear of this one. That would have looked kinda bad.

(Incidentally, that fact also supports BFN's theory of "Teflon Kerry" and explains this: "In mid-December, Cliff Arnebeck told the L.A.Times that Kerry did not really want to challenge Bush. Why? It must be some kind of "Skull & Bones thing," said Arnebeck." -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

Arnebeck has MY trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. I thought he sounded very sharp when Thom Hartmann interviewed him
this week. I think he might really have something. I trust that he is highly competant and is working very dilligently.

I love the 'Teflon Kerry' post. It all makes tons of sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Judged Donating Member (613 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
40. Refusal to recuse himself not covered by MSM when he split up the cases!
But MSM awakens to cover the remaining case that is nothing more than fruit of the poison tree based on his failure to recuse himself from the initial case, without any mention of the conflict of interest Moy<bien-gracias>ers already committed against the citizens of both Ohio and the United States? OMG

Talk about a selective and strictly partisan MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
42. Fintan, 2 little questions:
1) When was that picture of * taken?

2) Any news on Kerry filing in federal court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTGold Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Yeah - I want to know that too - about the picture...
...looks like he's 5 minutes or 5 feet from a Vodka Tonic

Look what the JPEG is called - smarmyjerk.jpg - tee-hee

feckin' great :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Helga Scow Stern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. He has been looking really bad lately.
I can't help but feel sorry for him. They say prison is one of the best places for people to face up to themselves. Better than rehab.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
43. Great "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife"
story about a a real sleeze bag judge.

:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyPriest Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. How dare you! I'm sure he gave nice Christmas presents to his kids!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Firespirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
52. You said it.
Such a nice guy. It's a wonder * hasn't nominated him to anything yet.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
47. You so rock BreakForNews, this is right up there with my favorite post
Teflon Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTGold Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
48. Double-negative?
Fintan:

Do you think Moyer has the balls to both take the case AND throw it out/find in favor of Bush, in a pre-meditative way?

Am I fantasizing or could he only hear the case IF he's really going to hear the evidence with an "open mind"? At least in his mind, I mean.

He doesn't know what their evidence is after-all - so it would appear that he's in it to do his job - again, in his mind.

Secondly, don't you think denying the expediency request is in our favor - because if we get a Senator....then its big news and all eyes on Moyer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
53. This is the part of the ruling that stands out like a neon sign...
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 01:36 AM by 8_year_nightmare
Imagine reading this judge's words through the eyes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice:

{7} Contestors claim that I should be disqualified from presiding over this presidential election contest based on their assertion that I have a conflict of interest and bias or prejudice against them. Contestors assert that this conflict of January Term, 2004 interest, bias, and prejudice are established because (1) allegations of deliberate election fraud in this case are similar to allegations in the separate election contest involving the chief justice election, (2) it is possible that I acquired knowledge of deliberate national and statewide election fraud and that contestors may decide it is necessary to depose me, (3) as Chief Justice, I have an economic interest in this presidential election contest because it could contribute to the loss of the income I earn from the position, and (4) I did not grant contestors December 17, 2004 motion for emergency expedited hearing and emergency expedited relief to prevent spoliation of evidence and to preserve documentary and electronic evidence.


This stinks to high heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. And this is the part in which he THANKS THE VOTERS!
Again, imagine reading this through the eyes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice:

{8} Because the General Assembly has vested the Chief Justice with the responsibility to hear and decide statewide election contests such as that now before the court, it is my ethical obligation to do so. Canon 3(B)(1), Code of Judicial Conduct (A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required). Having reviewed contestors motion, I conclude that it is without merit. I am grateful for contestors generous statement in their motion to disqualify that they have not made (and do not at this time make) any allegation that Chief Justice Moyer personally did anything improper on or before election day (November 2, 2004) or in any way participated in the deliberate national election fraud and deliberate election fraud in Ohio. Their further statement, however, that it is possible that Chief Justice Moyer wittingly or unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate national and statewide election fraud is wholly without foundation and totally lacks any degree of veracity. Its speculative and ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for disqualification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truman01 Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
56. In a RELATED STORY Moyers denied being involved,
with the Kennedy Assassination too.

So our theory on why he should recuse himself is that we are alleging, with ZERO evidence, that he knew of the fraud.

Yeah.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
57. Just read this thread for the second time
Yes, BFN, this ranks right up there as #1 best post ever! Thanks again for all your work!
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 Tue Nov 21st 2017, 05:26 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