Here's one guaranteed to start some discussion.
Republicans for Gore
I think it raises some good questions about why folks follow a particular party [regardless of their issues at a particular place in time.] What happened to voting for the people who represent ME, regardless of party affiliation? WAS there ever such a thing?
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Answers
THAT CLOWN IS A DEM. Ran for Congress as one. Read his "position"
and then know that he LOST. Surprised?
http://www.perkel.com/congress/stand.htm
MY RESPONSE: I'm the Democratic candidate for Congress.
These are my
views so get used to it. If you don't like it then vote Republican. I
represent
15 counties with over 500,000 people. If the Democratic party doesn't
like my
views they should have ran a candidate who could beat me. If I hadn't
filed, the
Democrats wouldn't even have a candidate. It is my position that
because of the
apathy of the Democratic Party in Greene County that they have no
room to
complain.
The party mentioned two issues that are offensive in particular;
Legalizing
Pot and Prostitution. It's time for America to get real here. Pot is
a safer
drug than beer and it's stupid to put people in jail for it. Drug
addiction is a
medical problem that requires a medical solution, not a criminal
solution. I'm
right about this and if the party doesn't like it I don't care.
And if this county legalized prostitution then it could be
regulated and the
vast amount of money wasted on persecuting women could be better
spent on social
programs to help women who don't want to be prostitutes, but have to
out of
poverty. There is no one on either side of this issue who wants women
to be
forced into prostitution because they need to feed their children.
But I have
yet to have those who would continue to criminalize prostitution
explain to me
how putting a woman in jail helps feed her kids or cure her poverty.
Quite frankly, this is a Republican area and if the local
Democratic party
doesn't like my positions it can only make me more interesting to the
rest of
the electorate. If the party wants to pose as being interested in
family values,
then they should go after crooked lawyers who profit from destroying
traditional
families for money. If the prosecutor were to prosecute crooked
lawyers instead
of harassing whores, Springfield would be a much better place to
live.
eforming the Courts
This is my main issue and you can read about it in detail on my People before Lawyers pages. I
believe that the
rights of citizens come before the profits of lawyers. I believe that
the courts
should follow their own rules and obey the law. I believe that the
problem with
the courts is that they are self regulating and that self regulation
doesn't
work. I believe that the solution is to eliminate
self regulation and institute external regulation. I believe
that self
regulation of the judicial system is unconstitutional and that it
violates the
balance of powers doctrine of the constitution.
I believe that a person should have the right to represent himself
or herself
pro se and not have judges
deliberately rule
against you because you don't have a lawyer. A judge should show
respect for the
pro se litigant rather than disdain. I believe that there are many
cases where a
person can do a better job of representing themselves than a lawyer
can because
they are more familiar with the facts. Small claims court works with
and without
lawyers. All other courts can do likewise. There are times when you
need a good
honest professional lawyer. But you should not be forced to get one
by judges
who are hostile to the citizens they are supposed to serve.
I believe that more court processes should be changed to not
require lawyers,
especially in Family Court on
custody
issues. I believe that the court should protect families during their
very
difficult time of divorce to help ensure a smooth as possible
transition through
the separation. The courts should protect families from dishonest
lawyers who
would take advantage of families in their time of vulnerability. I
believe that
it is morally reprehensible for a judge to allow lawyers to rip off
and
completely destroy families and not enforce the Rules of Professional
Conduct to
stop them. We are not food for crooked lawyers and we are no longer
going to
stand for it.
I am not against lawyers. I am against crooked lawyers. If crooked
lawyers
are allowed to cheat, then honest lawyers will never win. This forces
honest
lawyers out of the system and lawyer ethics becomes a race to the
bottom. If
crooked lawyers are punished they will stop being crooked. If crooked
lawyers
are allowed to flourish then there is no justice in the "Justice
System" and
"Justice" is merely a brand name to create the illusion of justice in
the minds
of the public. We don't have justice, all we have is a simulation of
justice.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
DON"T YOU EVER RESEARCH **WHO*** IS BEHIND THESE WEB SITES?? Two more
minutes of surfing turned this up:
http://sex.perkel.com/escort/index.htm
How to Use Escort Services
A Men's Guide
by Marc Perkel
This page contains material of an
adult
sexual nature.
|
Escort Etiquette
There are a lot of things they don't teach you in school, and one
of them is
how to use an escort service. Somehow society seems to think that men
should
just know how to do this. Why they make this assumption is beyond me.
The truth
is that most guys don't have a clue about what to do in this
situation, so I'm
going to tell you what I've learned -- and what the pros have taught
me. By the
way, I Ran for
Congress and I Ran
for United States Senate and supporting the legalization of
Prostitution.
Hiring a
sex professional is the same as hiring any other professional, like a
doctor,
lawyer, or auto mechanic. You pay them money for a service. It
doesn't matter
what the service is: if you're nice to the professional, you
generally get a
better result than if you aren't. I treat sex professionals the same
way I treat
other professionals I hire. And like other professionals in my life,
these women
treat me as a valued customer and may even become friends of mine.
They look
forward to seeing me again, the same way any other professional likes
to see
their good clients come around.
So let's start at the beginning. Maybe you've never called an
escort service
before, or maybe you have but didn't have a good time. What I hope to
do here is
give you a step by step guidebook, telling you exactly what to do so
that you
can get the most out of your escort experience.
Disclaimer
Prostitution is illegal. I have written a Legal
Brief arguing that Escort Services are not prostitution
businesses. The
government and uptight moralistic religious and political nut cases
have created
laws to put you in jail for selling sex or buying sexual services.
You can give
it away for free, but you can't sell it. Therefore, everything I say
here is
fiction and is for your entertainment and amusement only. If you are
under 18, I
apologize for the world we are leaving you. If you read this, you are
instructed
to forget everything as soon as you're done.
Related Links on This Site
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Thanks for the response, Charlie. Is THIS guy a Democrat, as well?
Silicon
valley Republican balks at Seminole County case
Personally, I don't know what should be done about Seminole county,
but I DO know that I dislike the attempts of Republicans to smear the
judge involved.
No matter how this turns out, this is the weirdest election in MY
lifetime. [I'd pay money to have been a fly on the wall during the
Rutherford B. Hayes election.]
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Charlie:
Regarding your SECOND post, I've followed your interest in sex on the
web, and I certainly defer to your outstanding knowledge on the
subject.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
I posted the previous link instead of the current one, and I've
already moved on from the current one. Sorry about that. Perhaps
this will give y'all a look into Seminole County.
Seminole County
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Don't you have studying to do Miss?
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Don't you have studying to do Miss?
Of course I do, but I've ALSO looked at the numbers, and no matter
WHAT I do on the final exams, my grades will be pretty much
unaffected. I can afford a few hours of play time.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Does this read TO YOU as it reads to ME? The Republicans hired a
Freeper to fill in the numbers in Seminole County?
Testimony in Seminole County
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Stephen:
What say you on the law in this regard?
"Despite the Republican attempt to dismiss the Seminole County voting
irregularities as a “hypertechnicality,” the depositions released
yesterday make it clear that there was intentional voter fraud in the
actions of Republican officials. Further, there is clear precedent
for the proposed remedy and good prospects for it being upheld on
appeal.
First, the depositions just made available provide clear evidence of
intentional voter fraud. Trial testimony established that election
supervisor Sandra Goard had repeatedly and publicly stated her policy
that no absentee ballot request would be accepted without the voter
ID filled in by the voter, family member or guardian as required by
Florida law. She changed this rule to favor the Republicans.
Indeed, Goard’s office bent over backwards to help aid the Republican
Party’s unlawful effort to alter and resubmit applications: They
became so consumed with this task that they were unable to alert
other voters – including Democrats – that their applications were
incomplete. One clerk, Eleanor Bailey, testified that GOP operative
Leach often entered the wrong Voter ID number on applications; she
admitted that she was told to give these forms special treatment.
They were processed and absentee ballots mailed when all other forms
with incorrect information were rejected.
Second, the remedy is just and has good precedent for being upheld on
appeal: The most useful precedent for an appellate court victory
comes from Roe v. Alabama, a case spawned by a post-election dispute
in 1994. Republican Perry Hooper appeared to have defeated incumbent
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Sonny Hornsby by 262 votes. At
issue were about 2,000 absentee ballots that hadn't been opened, and
were deemed illegal, because they lacked witnesses, notaries, or
other requirements. Hornsby wanted them counted and both sides
assumed that that if the ballots were counted it would lead to a
Hornsby victory. A state judge in Montgomery ordered that the non-
complying absentee ballot envelopes be opened and counted. Hooper,
joined by Mobile Republican activist Larry Roe, filed suit in federal
court, seeking to prevent the counting of the ballots. Their lawyers
argued that if the 2,000 ballots were counted, it would violate the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by treating one group
of voters - those with the faulty ballots - differently than other
citizens.
The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Alabama, Georgia and Florida)
agreed. It ruled that under state law those votes didn't qualify.
Counting the non-complying ballots would "dilute the votes of those
voters who met the requirements" and "have the effect of
disenfranchising those who would have voted but for the inconvenience
imposed by the notarization/witness requirement." As a result the
votes weren't counted, and Hooper became chief justice. The central
finding was that by allowing people with incomplete and therefore
illegal ballot requests to receive ballots and to then vote the 14th
amendment rights of voters who complied with the law, as well as
those who might have voted had they not had to follow Florida's
strict requirements for making absentee ballot requests, had been
violated."
Are we going to stick to the constitution on this one or
say, "Nothing but a technicality. NO problem."
The Justice in Florida campaign works in cooperation with Palm Beach
law firm Richman Greer to support the plaintiff in the case and to
help defend the integrity of Florida's election laws. It provides
ongoing coverage and access to news and information on the case at
http://www.justiceinflorida.com. The campaign is also being
supported by the members of Democrats.com http://www.democrats.com,
the largest independent community of Democratic activists on the
Internet. This activity is independent of the Democratic Party and
the Gore campaign.
The principle issue in this case is that election supervisor Sandra
Goard arranged for GOP operatives to alter absentee ballot requests.
Numerous similar Democratic requests were rejected. Florida law
requires that only a voter, a family member or guardian may complete
all information on the absentee ballot application. Anti-Fraud
legislation in 1998 and a court ruling that year granted Florida
judges broad authority to invalidate elections if fraud or even
unintentional error results in a flawed outcome."
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
I just ran across that Republican from Silicon Valley link. I'd said
I'd provide it if I found it again, so I will:
Skirsch
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Anita - I'm in agreement that the GOP operatives acted illegally and
that some penalty should be paid for their intentional fraud and
deceit, but the big question that everyone seems to be struggling with
is "What should the REMEDY be?"
I've struggled with this issue myself. While it would be easy to
shit-can all 15,000 absentee votes in Seminole County, to do so would
obviously disenfranchise several thousand innocent voters. I finally
solved my dilemma while reading the Seminole County link you provided
where it was stated:
"The defense did not contest that GOP operative Michael Leach worked
15-21 days unsupervised in Seminole election offices adding voter IDs
to 2,126 GOP-mailed absentee ballot request forms."
Since Leach's unlawful activities gave the GOP an "unfair advantage"
of 2,126 votes, that's the magic number I would use to reduce the
statewide Republican vote tally, keeping the rest of the absentee
ballots intact. Gore, of course, would then win.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/whyGore.htm
skirsch was a GOP for GORE before the voting. What's the point of
this? He is just another citizen whose guy LOST denying reality just
like their Leader.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Potato-person:
I agree that 15,000 voters shouldn't be disenfranchised by the
illegal acts of a few people. Seminole and Martin are counties that
[IMO] need to be dealt with by someone smarter than I.
If I add it all up, however, we have X number of folks who were
deprived of their opportunity to vote because their names erroneously
appeared as felons on various county lists. We have folks who
requested absentee ballots and never received them. We have folks
who thought that their application for voter registration at the DMV
would put them on the record. We have folks who were turned away
from the polls despite the fact that they were in line before the
polls closed.
There are many, many more reasons to suggest voting irregularities in
this election than I can count.
Frankly, I think it sucks, and I think it sucks that Bush supporters
are willing to overlook these irregularities.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
OnePotato:
Here is the Seminole County fact situation as I read it at cnn.com
and in the testimony before the court.
Republican and Democratic voters requested applications for absentee
ballots in Seminole County. The Democrats provided these voters with
complete applications, but some glitch caused the Republican
applications to be missing a voter registration code that should have
been on there.
Both Republican and Democratic voters then filled out and returned
these ballot applications. Those Republicans who received
applications without voter registration codes had no idea their
applications were flawed. Nobody contests that any applicants did
anything wrong. Nobody claims that Democratic voters were harmed in
any way by being provided with correct application forms.
The Republican staff received these applications and realized that
the voter registration codes had inadvertently been omitted. They
filled this field in by hand, since the printer missed it initially.
Nobody contests that anyone filled in anything different manually
from what should have been printed on there in the first place.
All applicants were then sent valid ballots, some of which were
filled in and returned by these absentee voters. Nobody contests that
the *returned ballots* were incorrect in any way.
So OK, you might ask, just what's the problem here anyway? Well, the
Plaintiffs in this case are contending that those Republican
applicants who inadvertently received incomplete applications SHOULD
have THEREFORE been disenfranchised! Nobody is claiming any kind of
"intentional fraud and deceit" on the part of anyone. What is being
claimed is that BECAUSE some Republican voters received faulty
applications for absentee ballots, they should NOT have been
permitted to vote AT ALL! Indeed, they should not have been sent
absentee ballots, because their applications were faulty (through no
fault of their own).
The Republicans are claiming that this is a technicality -- that the
original omission of the registration codes was inadvertent, that
given time and labor constraints they adopted the only workable way
of correcting the problem, that the alternative was to DENY voters
their absentee ballots and deliberately disenfranchise them (which
would have been even worse).
The Democrats are arguing, essentially, that the original printing
glitch was simply TOO DAMN BAD for those unfortunate voters who
received the incomplete applications. The law says it's gotta be on
there, it wasn't, tough shit, you can't vote! The Democrats are not
even claiming that anyone was playing partisan politics or trying to
bias anything in any way. Their entire argument is that the printing
glitch rendered the applications invalid, therefore those who
received them could not legally receive absentee ballots and should
not have been permitted to vote at all.
Some of the legalities here are quite fascinating. The lawyer for the
Democrats argues that Gourd "refused to let Democratic Party workers
amend ballot applications from Democratic voters and covered up the
fact that she was playing partisan politics." Later, that lawyer was
asked if there *were any* ballot applications from Democratic voters
that needed to be amended, and he admitted there were none, and that
the reason he said Gourd "refused" was that she *was not asked*!
So far, I haven't been able to find any allegation of "fraud or
deceit" anywhere in this case. The facts are not contested. The
Democrats are simply trying to claim that the Republicans should have
disenfranchised some number of voters *rather than* correct their
error as well as they could.
Incidentally, this is *precisely* why the Gore campaign is NOT a
party to this suit. Here their mantra has been that everyone's vote
is sacred and should count even though we must GUESS that the voter
intended a Gore vote, and now they're trying to disenfranchise
Republican voters (only) on a technicality nobody claims altered the
intent of ANY voter in ANY way.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Nobody contests that anyone filled in anything different manually
from what should have been printed on there in the first place.
Au contrare. From Anita's link: Depositions released in the
Seminole case revealed new evidence of intentional fraud. Many of
the 2,126 voter ID numbers that GOP operative Michael Leach illegally
added to GOP absentee ballot requests proved to be incorrect.
The Republicans are claiming that this is a technicality -- that
the original omission of the registration codes was inadvertent, that
given time and labor constraints they adopted the only workable way of
correcting the problem...
Bull! The moment they realized there was a printing error - waaaaay
before Election Day - they should have sent out a "Whoops, we goofed"
letter..."we inadvertently neglected to include your voter
registration number on your original absentee ballot request form.
This information is REQUIRED BY LAW therefore we've corrected the
omission and have included it on the enclosed postage-paid postcard.
Please sign, date and return this postcard immediately to safeguard
your opportunity to vote by mail." See how easy that would have been?
.... that the alternative was to DENY voters their absentee ballots
and deliberately disenfranchise them (which would have been even
worse).
But - golly, gee - it's okay to deny DEMOCRATIC voters and
disenfranchise THEM. We have no qualms about that. IF Gourd extended
the "courtesy" of providing the required information on both
Republican AND Democratic requests, then I'd say "no big deal. She
was non-partisan, no harm, no foul." But that isn't the case.
She willingly, knowingly and intentionally broke the law to favor her
party to the detriment of the Republican opponent(s). THAT is the
issue being litigated.
that the reason he said Gourd "refused" was that she *was not
asked*!
DUH! It was ILLEGAL and the Democrats knew it and TOLD Gourd as much
but she continued on with her illegal activities nevertheless. THAT
is indeed "deceitful and fraudulent".
And if more than 2,000 votes manage to get thrown out because of this,
then the Republicans need to accept responsibility for their screw-up
without being belly-aching cry-babies and pointing fingers at the
Democrats for catching them at it.
And what's with the Republicans wanting it both ways...we want EVERY
military vote to count but we don't want ALL of Miami-Dade tallied.
Bush knows damn well that the REAL numbers prove him to be the loser
which is why he's fighting so hard to prevent the handcounts.
"...come January, we may inaugurate a president (George W. Bush)
who not only lost the popular vote by some 340,000 ballots but, if all
its votes are counted, also lost Florida, whose 25 electoral votes
handed him the White House.
Evidence of the latter is mounting. An analysis conducted for the
Miami Herald by an Arizona University professor suggests that if all
the thousands of Florida ballots tossed out -- for a variety of
reasons -- were counted, Gore would win the state by some 23,000
votes, far more than the 537 votes by which Bush currently leads.
The study, which covered every Florida county and all 5,885 voting
precincts, concluded that even if so called "undervotes," those in
which no presidential preference was clear or could be reasonably
inferred, Gore still would win by about 13,000 votes.
Despite its show of confidence, the Bush camp is playing scared,
sitting on a lead and hoping to run out the clock.
And the Republicans have the audacity to call this Election
"fair"! So please don't insult me by whining about an election
supervisor who got caught breaking the law.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
Here's the link for the quoted text above
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
lolololol. Anita's still campaigning?????? ROFLMAO!
Psssss...elections over......
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
[Many of the 2,126 voter ID numbers that GOP operative Michael Leach
illegally added to GOP absentee ballot requests proved to be
incorrect.]
This doesn't surprise me. Hurried, massive manual operations like
this have a VERY high error rate. But this is not fraud, nor is it
anyone's intent (or even *claimed* to be anyone's intent) to defraud
anyone.
[Bull! The moment they realized there was a printing error - waaaaay
before Election Day - they should have sent out a "Whoops, we goofed"
letter..." See how easy that would have been?]
You may be right. Hindsight may be 20-20 sometimes, but not here. You
claim they could have corrected this error by a better method. Maybe
your method would have been better, we'll never know. Maybe yet a
third method of correction would have worked best. But still, nobody
is claiming any fraud, or any intent to disenfranchise anyone.
[But - golly, gee - it's okay to deny DEMOCRATIC voters and
disenfranchise THEM. ... She willingly, knowingly and intentionally
broke the law to favor her party to the detriment of the Republican
opponent(s). THAT is the issue being litigated.]
I think you mean the Democratic opponents? Yet the testimony is that
the Democratic party did NOT have any such printing error, and as a
result no corrections were required. I have not seen any claim that
incorrect applications were even SENT to any Democrats, much less
that they were deliberately not corrected. Nobody has claimed that a
single Democrat who applied for an absentee ballot failed to receive
one for this reason.
[THAT is indeed "deceitful and fraudulent".]
But nobody claims this but you! The Democratic lawyer is merely
claiming that Republican voters should NOT have been sent absentee
ballots because of a printing error on their application forms.
[And if more than 2,000 votes manage to get thrown out because of
this, then the Republicans need to accept responsibility for their
screw-up without being belly-aching cry-babies and pointing fingers
at the Democrats for catching them at it.]
If this is true, then it is AT LEAST as true that Democratic voters
who failed to completely punch their chad should be accepting this
SAME responsibility. Yet I don't see you acting adult and making this
case. Why not?
As for "catching them at it", the testimony is that Hoard made
appeals OVER THE RADIO for people to return their applications for
correction. This is NOT an attempt to keep something deceitful a
secret. It only shows that different avenues were followed in an
attempt to correct an error that otherwise would have disenfranchised
innocent voters. Don't you care about them?
[And what's with the Republicans wanting it both ways...we want EVERY
military vote to count but we don't want ALL of Miami-Dade tallied.]
These are two false statements. Do you care? The law says military
votes must EITHER have a postmark, or be signed and dated. One or the
other (or both). What the Democrats tried to do is get the envelopes
containing these things THROWN OUT for lack of a postmark, BEFORE
EVER LOOKING to see if the ballot was signed and dated. And these
Democrats managed to get several hundred shredded WITHOUT OPENING
THEM before they got caught red-handed and made to open them to see
if they were signed and dated. And if they were NEITHER, then they
were discarded, according to the law. Please get your facts straight.
As for tallying Miami-Dade, this was done. Twice. What you are asking
for (but not honest enough to say so) is that you want these votes
counted a THIRD time, but THIS time by different rules favoring Gore.
And YOU complain about deceit? BOTH clauses in your statement were
deceitful. Again, do you care?
[Bush knows damn well that the REAL numbers prove him to be the loser
which is why he's fighting so hard to prevent the handcounts.]
You can read his mind now? No winner has ever wanted a recount, and
no winner ever will.
["...come January, we may inaugurate a president (George W. Bush) who
not only lost the popular vote by some 340,000 ballots but, if all
its votes are counted, also lost Florida, whose 25 electoral votes
handed him the White House.]
And come January, world peace might break out and last forever! We
have counted Florida's votes twice, and some of them 3 times, and
Bush has won every time. Now you want a very selective count, only
where Gore is most likely to benefit, and using rules also most
likely to benefit Gore, of ballots now badly degraded after being
handled so many times by people motivated to alter them -- who just
happen to favor Gore in their alterations.
[Despite its show of confidence, the Bush camp is playing scared,
sitting on a lead and hoping to run out the clock.]
As would Gore, if the tables were reversed. This is the optimum
strategy for the winner to follow, while the loser risks his
reputation trying every trick he can dream up to reverse the results.
[So please don't insult me by whining about an election supervisor
who got caught breaking the law.]
I laid out the facts as presented in court, by both sides, and
described the legal matter at issue. That's what I did. You are
trying desperately (and as I detailed above, dishonestly) to convince
yourself black is white. You are failing. This is not my fault.
-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000
There are too many holes in your rationale, discrepancies in the facts
and distortions of the truth for me to address each and every
offense while a roaring fireplace, a good book and a bowl of popcorn
await. Much like trying to rationalize with a "christian", this
conversation will go nowhere but in circles so why waste my time? I am
confident that justice and fairness will prevail and Gore will be in
the White House soon enough. Then you can bitch, moan and whine to
your hearts content.
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
The ballot requests were sent to the voters. The instructions said
they were to check the information and sign them and send them in.
Can't they read??? Isn't the big joke about the punch ballots the fact
that the voters didn't read the instructions to check to make sure the
chads were punched out? Also the documents had been signed by the
voters. It is illegal for a non qualified people to change the
information on them, no matter the justification they give. Before the
signature was attached it was ok for the party to insert information,
but not after.
Another point, you talk about dimples not being
counted. The ballots that Gore wants checked have ballots where 2 and
three corners have been broken and on which the chad may have flipped
over the hole preventing the vote to regester. No one has hand counted
these ballots to see if even the republicans agreed to requirement has
been met, not just ones where there is a tiny indentation.
The
Bush camp has no problem with throwing out thousands of ballots that
had votes by people who honestly believed they had voted, which may
have had a pile of chads under them preventing the chad to be removed
completely. Yet the absentee ballots which could be thrown out due to
an illegal action on the on the part of republican workers are whined
and cried about.
Another point.. you say that there were no
democratic ballot requests with the problems that the republicans had.
Perhaps not, but there were many which had other problems, many were
set aside because the instructions were not followed. Those did not
have someone come in and change them to "qualify" for a ballot to be
issued. The voters were not even notified that there was a problem
with them. These people were no different then the republicans who
neglected to read the instructions and verify that their voter
regestration numbers were correct.
So many jokes have been made
about the punch card voters not reading instructions, yet it was
thousands of republicans who didn't bother to check to see if their
numbers were correct-even though they had written instructions in
front of them, with plenty of time to read everything. The voters who
were in the booths had pressure on them to complete their voting so
the long lines of people behind them could get in to vote.
Kinda
funny that all of the degrading remarks that have been spewed about
the punch card voters are suddenly non existent when the republican
voters have been found to have made simular mistakes. It was up to the
individual, as a matter of fact, the Governer explained on the ballot
requests that the voter needed to check the information on the form
before they signed them.
The piont of law, which applies in every
case where a signature is required, is that the document can not
legally be changed by anyone but those who have a legal right to,
after the signature is applied. Otherwise it is invalid.
Is there
some particular reason why the law should not apply in this case when
it the standard in the United States is to follow the law and not
ignore it or discount it because the perpitrator has an excuse?
Suddenly all the reasons the republicans have given in the past month
for laws to be followed and no excuses accepted have been thrown out
the window and they are now parroting what the democrats have been
saying. Geeze, talk about twisting things for your side.
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Oh geesh, Flint gets drilled a new one by a Potato. Then does the
predictable and uses his patented cut and paste+insertion of
the "truth by Flint" inbetween the posters comments. Making any
worthwhile reply to his dribble a graphical impossibilty. I don't
know which is worse..a simple blind meme like Maria, or one like
Flint who looks right past direct evidence of election fraud and then
spends 16 grammatically masterful paragraphs explaining why he is so,
ah, blind?
Way TOO funny all this shit. The Leach deposition is CLASSIC, thank
you Anita! Steve Kirsch link is as well a gem. What do you think
David? any "facts" around these links?
Oh ya Clinton lied over a BJ God help us, Whhhhaaaahoohehehehe. Here
you have Republican sanctioned vote tampering, to the tune of
thousands of offenses. Felonies all around.
Democrats were offered the same opportunity? YOU BET DINGBATS and
unlike the Republican morons understood the implications and said no
thanks to the chance at committing criminal acts. Love the part where
Goad turns off her computer and tells Leach "Oh no boy, you do your
own work". Then this wench says in open court the whole thing is no
biggy, ya OK that flys, not.
Also the part where Richman asks this slimebucket LEACH if the Repubs
had advertised their application errors to alert folks, ya right they
are gunna do that...hey at least the meatball answered it,
blaaahahahaaa.
And what-up with that Victory Suite software program Leach speaks of?
Have to look into that one.
Gettin exciting
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
"watcha mean. miss?"
"sorry, have a cold".
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Anita,
If those Republican workers broke the law, they should be punished.
And it's up to the judge(s) to decide if they did, and if so, what the
punishment should be.
The quote about "deliberately created fraud" represents an opinion
and an allegation. The judge is going to decide whether those
workers did, in fact, "deliberately" commit fraud; that's the whole
reason why the case is in court!
I can give you my opinion: throwing out ALL of those votes would be a
gross overreaction (not to mention patently unfair to those whose
applications weren't questionable), and I doubt the court will do
that. That request smacks of politics: by asking that both Democrat
AND Republican votes be disallowed, it appears to be "fair" to the
general public, but in fact, it's not.
Could the court determine which ballots were actually cast from the
bad applications? If so, at worst, they could throw those out -- which
would give Gore the lead.
I don't know how this would play out, because I'm not completely
familiar with the details of the situation, and one other thing that
I've learned from watching these things as I grew up is, the press
very rarely gets all of the little details right. They pull
interesting and provocative quotes from the players, then try to
condense it down into something that'll fit into the paper or a brief
broadcast report. Details get lost in the telling.
Interpreting the law in situations is the job of the courts. And in
case you're wondering (somehow, I just know these things[g]), I assure
you, as long as they do that, I can't complain.
The Florida Supreme Court got thumped on the earlier case for
"fashioning" a decision out of whole cloth. Now THAT, I object to.
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
I'm getting more and more confused about Seminole County. Their
website has a copy of the absentee voter request form. Maybe I
missed it, but I saw NOTHING on the form which would indicate whether
a voter intended to vote Republican or Democratic. There is a PLACE
for the voter to fill in the identification number. In fact, it
states that if ALL the information isn't filled in that the
application will be void.
Seminole
County
I just don't see how there's any such thing as a Republican form or a
Democratic form, let alone see how a printer could have LEFT
OFF information that specifically states MUST be filled in by the
requestor.
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Do you know your voter ID number?
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Anita,
You're a programmer; surely you've run across bugs? It's my
understanding that the two sides used different software to pre-print
the applications.
The program that pre-printed the forms allegedly left off the voter ID
number on the forms in question; that number was then entered by hand
after the forms were returned.
Now, think about this: there is nothing in the instructions that
states that the form *itself* must be filled out by the
requestor; and in fact, if that was the case, then NONE of the
pre-printed forms -- Dem or Repub -- would be valid, would they?
Suppose the Dems OR Repubs had chosen to hand-print the applications.
They do so, mail them to the voters, which are then returned with
valid signatures. Those would have been perfectly legal.
The issue in this case is that the voter ID number was added *after*
the signature was emplaced, not before.
Cases like this are difficult for most in the general public to
understand, because you're dealing with very picky details. After
reading the material at that site and examining the form itself, I
believe the court will probably do what happened in that sheriff's
case in 1996: they'll accept the ballots, but severely scold (or
remote chance: punish) the workers who entered the ID numbers by hand.
This is a tempest in a teacup.
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
The dem lawyer told the judge that he first learned of this on October
30 (through a televised broadcast of the county office explaining the
"technicality") and didn't do anything about it because it was too
late. Hmmmm, it was too late in October before the
election and we're now into December more than four weeks after
the election; things that make you want to go hmmmm.
Doc, LOL, it amazes me that you can dress yourself!
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Stephen:
I understand what the press is saying about this. However, I find
absolutely nothing in the Florida code to suggest that the voter ID
number can be put on the application by anyone other than the person
requesting the application. It's part of the identification process
included in 13:
Section 13 provides procedures for requesting absentee ballots and
mandates that electors, or a person making a request for an absentee
ballot on behalf of an elector, must provide certain identifying
information such as social security numbers and voter ID numbers.
This provision should be implemented immediately. However, absentee
ballot requests received prior to August 14, 1998, and requests from
overseas voters pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973 ff, should be treated
under 1997 Florida Law. See §§ 101.62, 101.694, Fla. Stat.
Florida
Election questions and answers
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
I agree with Stephen on this. Let's let the courts decide what damage
was done, if any, and what the remedy should be, if any.
I was just trying to describe what happend and why, and what was done
about it and why, and who was affected and how. My reading is:
There was a printing error, through nobody's fault. It affected only
applications sent to Republican voters.
The Republican workers did all they could think of to correct this
error. Perhaps they could have done more, or done it differently.
What they did was technically illegal.
As a result, nobody was disenfranchised or damaged, and nobody is
claiming anyone was. The number of votes for BOTH candidates, as far
as anyone can tell, is *exactly* what it would have been had no error
occurred to begin with. The repairs were effective, but not legal.
The Plaintiffs in this case claim, correctly, that IF the Republicans
had insisted on being strictly legal in making these repairs, THEN
some number of Republican voters would have been unable to obtain
absentee ballots. These unfortunate voters had only two choices -- to
receive a ballot illegally, or to receive no ballot at all. Their
votes should be thrown out on the grounds that they cast illegally
received ballots.
The Defendents in this case claim that their method of correcting
their error did no harm to anyone, whereas denying thousands of
people their right to vote would have done great harm.
OK, let the courts decide. I personally find it hard to believe a
circuit court will reverse a Presidential election by deliberately
disenfranchising selected voters when no harm was actually done to
anyone. But we shall see. Judge Clark was passed over for promotion
by Jeb Bush last year. Could that influence her impartial judgment?
Nahhh...
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
I agree with Stephen on this. Let's let the courts decide what
damage was done, if any, and what the remedy should be, if any.
Isn't it odd how those courts never call to ask for our opinion?
-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000
Moderation questions? read the FAQ