Missouri DUer Arrested For Trying To Vote

[matthewf]

Run time: 00:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJlkk6MKwao   Posted on YouTube: August 11, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 11, 2008 By DU Member: matthewf Views on DU: 2053

 
Hey DU,
Hope you enjoy today cartoon inspired by DUer Galloglas. If you haven't yet, read his story here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3735725&mesg_id=3737989

[Kire]

1. other links

the link above is to Galloglas' account of what happened, which is a reply to another OP, which now has over 71,000 views on DU, which is pretty high


somebody cross posted it on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/6/9488/29311

Galloglas was interviewed on the Thom Hartmann radio and then the election board worker who should have been in charge was on later:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3752957

MyFox Kansas City: Voter Arrested After Not Showing Photo ID
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7160121&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Brad Blog: Missouri Voter Refuses Illegal Demand to Show Photo ID at Poll, Gets Thrown in Jail
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6252

the Kansas City Star calls him a "voting rights provocateur" (and Galloglas writes a lengthy response in the comments section):
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/13608


the "kctribune" has a big picture of Phil (Galloglas) Lindsey
http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18250

[matthewf]

3. Thanks for all the links, Kire!

[Kire]

10. you are welcome

[Piewhacket]

5. Links to prev DU discussion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3735725&mesg_id=3735725

I note that Galloglas is facing criminal misdemeanor charges, so you should also consult
the Missouri Sec of State site at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default.asp?id=voter
where the Secretary of State advises:

" No person shall be entitled to vote: ..... After conviction of a felony or
misdemeanor connected with voting or the right of suffrage."


Robin Carnahan, MO Sec State

BTW Robin Carnahan's star of infamy is presently in meteoric rise because she has made several
defamatory claims about Galloglas on this subject relating to the sequence of events and
how he was acting, and these statements appear utterly unsupported or contradicted by available
factual statements made by people who were there.

In other words, it begins to look like Robin Carnahan does not know what 'lying'
is, or perhaps just doesn't care.

[galloglas]

9. I cannot thank you enough!

I was totally aware of this, "No person shall be entitled to vote: ..... After conviction of a felony or misdemeanor connected with voting or the right of suffrage." but have been having a Brain Burp.

Since this happened, I've been asking myself "Why is she that over the top about the Photo ID? But, now I see it. I rather suspect it is about the Hand Counted Paper Ballot Provision which our 501(c) Show Me The Vote !! filed this past year.

If these false charges stick on the "Disorderly Conduct at the Polls" lie, it would completely knock me out of the Voting Integrity Arena. Now I understand!

She wasn't just being mean and authoritarian. Nor was she being STUPID! She was being masterfully canny and going for my throat about the HCPB Amendment !!

Thank you so much!! You just woke me from a very nasty dream!

[Piewhacket]

14. Yer Welcome...

From your comments I figured out you might be missing that.
Kinda serious, huh? (don't answer that).

You started a fire by challenging a clearly illegal MO voter id requirement.
I cannot say you were wrong to do that and salute your courage, for it is
a citizen's moral duty to oppose, by lawful means, the unlawful conduct of
public officials. Not everyone has the courage to do that, but thankfully some do.
(I myself might have proceeded slightly differently, but bridge, water, etc.)

But, as I have previously posted but you may not have seen, I suggest
you are now in need of the guidance of a lawyer. Perhaps it is also wise
to leave others to discuss the matter while you proceed with your legal
defense. This is important and you must win the criminal case.
So DO NOT attempt to defend yourself.

Just remember the other thing Lincoln should have said (but didn't):
If a fool is to defend you, then why not let that fool be a lawyer!
That way you still have grounds for plausible deniability
when the damn lawyer screws it up. hey!

[Plucketeer]

2. Incredible!

[matthewf]

4. Yeah, really, Plucketeer.

[bjobotts]

6. This DUer in MO heard that he was arrested for threatening and disruptive behavior

I don't know what to believe except that i was told the election volunteers were extremely old and got very frightened by the guy's behavior. I never believe republicans except that elderly people at these places sometimes have to be shown what they are supposed to do etc...There are conflicting statements about what really happened, so I guess I just really don't know but in MO I've never seen the kind of behavior this DUer describes from workers voter voluteers. Never.

[Piewhacket]

7. Skepticism is needed when swimming in the sea of politics....

There are the accounts and interview transcripts of an eyewitness (the arrested DUer),
the links are posted in the beginning of this thread.

It is so that these are not under oath. However, these accounts can be admitted into
evidence against the speaker at his criminal trial. If he has spoken falsely, and it
is shown, then it will not be so well for him. If they are NOT admitted, it is
because prosecutor does not want them in evidence, probably because they are true.

I therefore take the remarks as against the speaker's interest (right to remain silent), and
also having (IMO) many independent indicators of truthfulness son was present with his father and was a witness also, and will be called to testify. Would
dad first speak falsely before his child then later allow the child lie and commit perjury
for him? I don't easily believe it, in any event such a man would have a gross
reputation as a liar, and there is no indication of that here.] There were other witnesses,
remember. Others here in DU also know the speaker, and have indicated they believe him.

So we accept these accounts, for the moment, while keeping an open mind, there may be more to it.
But we are now prepared to hear something from the other side... after all, they are not
charged with a crime. Yet do we hear anything from someone who was there or directly involved?

No, instead we hear only UNSUPPORTED accusation from the MO Sec of State. She was not there.
Her statements are not about things that she saw or did.
Her statements are not against interest and they have no other source or independent
indicators of truthfulness. I found them not believable, actually I thought
she actually broke bullsh*t-o-meter, and I'm pretty cynical about such things. Others here at DU
have commented that her comments were not credible. In any event, she is not a witness who knows
anything, she is a public official covering her **.

So, DUer known by folks here.... presents a credible claim of willful gross misconduct by poll officials
including a clearly illegal and easily verified poll requirement imposed over an entended period of
time and despite having the benefit of having the requirement challenged by a voter, then add in
assault and possibly false imprisonment of a voter by poll officials.

On the other side of the story we have a prevaricating Sec of State, who issues the the
most concocted load of steaming (and odiferous) non-denial denial crapola I've had the displeasure
to hear in some time. Obviously have not much nice to say about her.

There could be criminal charges against at least one poll worker. So it seems to me the other side
has clammed up, and is issuing spin and disinformation through the mouthpiece of the Sec of State's
office (if they used a lawyer, the lawyer would be obliged to be truthful, the Sec of State has no
such constraint, which may begin to suggest to some why she is the chosen spokesman).

In sum, while I'm not on a jury this also raises touchy political issues and so far it doesn't
look like much of a close call at all. So far. But you get to decide for you.

[galloglas]

8. This is the arrested man here!

please believe it. And when you ask yourself, why did some scare the old people, please ask who did it.

I'll tell you. A man who himself will be sixty three on Friday, and has been disabled for 10 years. And there are six of them, saying I must surrender my vote or show a Photo Picture ID. That or go to jail.

The GOP has twice tried to pass that bill. Succeeded in 2006 only to have it ruled unconstitutional. The same attempt this year fell short in the MO. Senate.

So what is happening here that allows six judges to demand of me what has been declared unconstitutional? Why were my other four pieces of ID not considered (the SoS's office declares them so. Check their web pages)?

And not once did I raise my voice or was I impolite. Nor was my son. But when I demanded to be told why me ID was not accepted, I was told, "You'll show us a signature ID or you will not vote!"

When I asked "Will you please call your Election Director?" they refused. When I asked "will you call the Missouri SoS?" they refused.
When I asked, "Will you, at least, look at the requirements by the SoS?" they refused.

Then they said, "Show us your signature (read:Photo Voter ID) ID, or get out!" (this as the police arrived).

When the police said, "Leave without voting, give them the ID they demand, or we will handcuff you and send you to jail."

I thought long and hard and decided that I would not allow my vote to be stolen, and I said "I will not leave unless I am told why I cannot use the ID that I please, since it is permitted by the Missouri SoS."

I was then arrested and taken to jail. The trial is in Independence, MO on 9-11 at 8:30 AM and I ask all of you to come.

This was not a case of a person out of control. It is a case of a bureaucracy out of control and will to crush anyone who tries to stand up for themselves.

If you had been me, would you have surrendered to their totally illegal demand? Or would you , also, have taken a stand?

[King Coal]

12. I believe you. I do wish you had a video, for your own sake.

[King Coal]

13. And boy do you have grounds for false arrest.

[ihavenobias]

11. Belated K & R, I was out yesterday

:)