Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
From: Mark Cook (mcook_at_prodigy.net)
Date: 03/10/05
- Next message: Mark R. Whittington: "Paperwork Too Much for t/Space"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: Sneezing on Greenpeace"
- In reply to: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:43:00 GMT
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:oVLXd.9584$RM2.5260@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> So Bush Did Steal the White House
Complete and utter BS. This article is going to be so easy to defeat.
Further, IF we want to get into the discussion of the ramifications of the
Electoral Count Act of 1887, the argument would be soundly defeated (any
recount after state certification is non-binding).
> By Robert Parry
>
> November 22, 2001
>
> George W. Bush now appears to have claimed the most powerful office in the
> world by blocking a court-ordered recount of votes in Florida that likely
would
> have elected Al Gore to be president of the United States.
This is wrong. Bush already had the electors he needed to win. A shame of a
recount was not going to change this fact. Just because the FSC decided to
try to give the election to Gore, does not mean that Congress would go along
with them.
> A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that
> was
> stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have
> taken
> into account so-called "overvotes" that heavily favored Gore.
> If those "overvotes" were counted, as now it appears they would have been,
> Gore
> would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad - dimpled,
> hanging, punched-through - was used in counting the so-called
"undervotes,"
> according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news
> organizations.
It was GORE who claimed including those ballots was illegal, thus he did NOT
CONTEST those ballots. In other words, Gore did NOT ask for those overvoted
ballots to be included in the recount.
JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean
there 110,000 overvotes?
MR. BOIES: That's right.
JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the chief
justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes
and not overvotes?
MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And
the contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a
rejection of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But as a matter of remedy, it's ordered a statewide
recount in counties where the ballots were not contested, and that's where
I'm having some difficulty. And it goes back in part to your answer that
you gave to Justice Stevens -- Justice Scalia about Broward County, and in
part to the answer you're giving to Justice Stevens now.
Why is it that you say on the one hand to Justice Scalia, "Oh, well these
weren't part of the contest", but now all of a sudden we're talking about
statewide that are not -- well, all of which are contested, but we're not
talking about the overvote?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html
> In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more than
a
> half
> million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of Florida and thus
> the
> presidency, if Florida's authorities had been allowed to count the votes
> that
> met the state's legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of the
> voter.
FALSE. The examination by those news organizations did NOT include all of
the disputed ballots.
The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp
The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as
many as 179,855 disputed ballots.
http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf
The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.
> The Newsweek disclosure - a memo that the presiding judge in the state
> recount
> sent to a county canvassing board - shows that the judge was instructing
the
> county boards to collect "overvotes" that had been rejected for indicating
> two
> choices for president when, in reality, the voters had made clear their
one
> choice.
WRONG AGAIN.
Under Florida Code, the law requires that a uniform standard be in place
across the state.
(c) Any manual recount must be completed in accord with standards for
counting chads that are uniform across the counties.The Legislature has
directed: "The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing standards
for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems. Such
standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and consistent
manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for the ...Scoring
of ballots. FLA STAT.§101.5609(8) (emphasis added). See also
FLA.STAT.§97.012 (the Secretary of State shall "Obtain and maintain
uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the
election laws).
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf
Further, Federal Code says that laws CANNOT be changed AFTER an election has
taken place. Dimple chads were not legal votes before this election, to
change to a counting standand that includes those type of ballots is
illegal.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.html
Clearly, the counties were violating both Florida and Federal Code by
changing the counting standards. IF the recount have been allowed to be
completed, the results would have been thrown out because of the violations
to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
> "If you would segregate 'overvotes' as you describe and indicate in your
> final
> report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter," wrote
> Judge
> Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee
the
> statewide recount, "I will rule on the issue for all counties."
Just exactly when was he going to rule on this???? Remember, the Florida
Supreme Court had set a deadline on 12/12/2000. Here are 3 days before the
deadline, and Lewis had only addressed this question with 1 of Florida's 67
counties.
From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000.
"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only
if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will
compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1)
by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." (reference to footnote 55)
"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."
The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
Also see their decision on 12/11/2000
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf
Further, Lewis ruling wasn't going to settle the issue, it was going to
cause more problems.
"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands
of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly
partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours
after the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence
on) what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds
of untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions,
thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a
recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted
twice."
"In short, Judge Lewis understood his marching orders: Damn due process.
Full speed ahead. So, it seems, did a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2000-12-28.htm
> Lewis's memo to the chairman of the Charlotte County canvassing board was
> written on Dec. 9, 2000, just hours before Bush succeeded in getting five
> conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida
recount.
> Lewis has said in more recent interviews that he might well have expanded
> the
> recount to include those "overvotes." Indeed, it would be hard to imagine
> that
> he wouldn't count those legitimate votes once they were recovered by the
> counties and were submitted to Lewis.
>
> The "overvotes" in which voters marked the name of their choice and also
> wrote
> in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than the so-called
> "undervotes" which were kicked out for failing to register a choice that
> could
> be read by voting machines.
>
> Misguided Articles
This article certainly qualifies as one of those "misguided articles".
> This new information indicating that the wrong presidential candidate
moved
> into
> the White House also makes a mockery of the Nov. 12 front-page stories of
> the
> New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets, which
> stated
> that Bush would have won regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.
> Those stories were based on the hypothetical results if the state-ordered
> recount had looked only at "undervotes." The news organizations assumed,
> incorrectly it now appears, that the "overvotes" would have been excluded
> from
> such a tally, leaving Bush with a tiny lead.
WRONG AGAIN. No proof that Gore would have won Florida.
> In going with the "Bush Wins" headlines, the news organizations downplayed
> their
> more dramatic finding that Gore would have won if a full statewide recount
> had
> been conducted in accordance with state law. Using the
> clear-intent-of-the-voter
> standard, Gore beat Bush by margins ranging from 60 to 171 votes,
depending
> on
> what standard was used in judging the "undervotes."
>
> Beyond the big newspapers' false assumptions about the state recount, the
> news
> stories showed a pro-Bush bias in their choice of language and the overall
> slant
> of the articles.
>
> The New York Times, for instance, used the word "would" and even
declarative
> statements when referring to Bush prevailing in hypothetical partial
> recounts.
> By contrast, the word "might" was used when mentioning that Gore topped
Bush
> if
> all ballots were considered.
>
> "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots," the Times
wrote,
> "reveal that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States
Supreme
> Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the
Florida
> Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans
of
> former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United State Supreme Court
> did
> not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by
Mr.
> Gore."
What comprehensive review?? The one that left out as many as 4,800 disputed
ballots???
> Two paragraphs later, the Times noted that the examination of all rejected
> ballots "found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a
full
> statewide recount. . The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked
out
> a
> victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly
> advocated
> when he called on the state to 'count all the votes.'"
>
> Left out of that formulation, which suggests that Gore was a hypocrite, is
> the
> fact that Bush rejected Gore's early proposal for a full statewide
recount.
> Bush
> also waged a relentless campaign of obstruction that left no time for the
> state
> courts to address the equal-protection-under-the-law concerns raised by
the
> U.S.
> Supreme Court in its final ruling on Dec. 12, 2000.
Florida code DID NOT REQUIRE Bush's permission. IF Gore wanted a full
recount, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED FOR ONE!!!!! Gore is a hypocrite. He didn't
care if all ballots were recounted, he FOUGHT ONLY for 4 DEMOCRAT COUNTIES.
He NEVER wanted a full recount.
> Note also how the Times denigrates as misguided Gore "partisans" those
> American
> citizens who concluded, apparently correctly, that the U.S. Supreme Court
> awarded the election to Bush.
Yet Gore DID NOT FILE for a full recount. Just exactly how did Bush
"obstruct" Gore???? Did Bush use mind control tactis on Gore?? "Don't file
for a full recount, don't file for a full recount, don't file for a full
recount....."
> The headlines, too, favored Bush. The Times' front-page headline on Nov.
12
> read, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the
> Deciding Vote." The Washington Post's headline read, "Florida Recounts
Would
> Have Favored Bush."
>
> Spreading Confusion
>
> The pro-Bush themes in the headlines and stories were repeated over and
over
> by
> television and other newspapers, creating a widespread belief among casual
> news
> consumers that Bush had prevailed in the full statewide recount, rather
than
> only in truncated recounts based on dubious hypotheses.
>
> Now, Judge Lewis's memo undercuts both the tone and the content of those
> news
> reports. It is certainly not clear anymore that the state-ordered recount
> would
> have favored Bush. It also appears likely that the interference by the
U.S.
> Supreme Court was decisive. Based on the new evidence, the major
newspapers
> look
> to be wrong on both these high-profile points.
>
> Beyond Gore's narrow victory from the recoverable ballots, the news
> organizations concluded - but played down - that Gore lost thousands of
> unrecoverable ballots because of flawed ballot designs in several
Democratic
> strongholds. Gore lost other votes because Gov. Jeb Bush's administration
> disqualified hundreds of predominantly black voters who were falsely
labeled
> felons.
WRONG AGAIN.
First, Jeb Bush does NOT have the authority to remove a voter from the
rolls. Under Florida Code, ONLY a county election supervisor has that power.
In Florida 2000, the MAJORITY of those supervisors were DEMOCRATS.
Fla. Stat. 98.0975 (4) (1999)
(4) "Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must
attempt to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not
determine that the information provided by the division is incorrect, the
supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next subsequent
election the name of any person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or
adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting."
Second, the Palm Beach Post could only find 1,104 names that were wrongfully
removed.
"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did
not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told
he couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."
"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."
Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001
See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
Third, That does NOT mean those people were not allowed to vote because
Florida Code allows these voters to sign an affidavit, and then cast a
ballot.
"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the first
of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first experience
with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
accurate list."
and
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
Fourth, The Palm Beach Post found 5,643 felons illegally cast ballots. The
registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore
benefited from these illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number
clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001
This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/today/news_1.html
Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gore-2004-Community/message/11378?source=1
> The New York Times also reported that Bush achieved a net gain of about
290
> votes by getting illegally cast absentee votes counted in Republican
> counties
> while enforcing the rules strictly in Democratic counties. Though the new
> recount tallies did not include any adjustments for these irregularities,
> the
> news organizations estimated that Gore lost tens of thousands of votes
from
> these disparities, compared to Bush's official victory margin of 537
votes.
> For months, the leading news organizations have been bending over
backwards
> to
> protect Bush's fragile legitimacy, possibly out of concern for the
nation's
> image in a time of crisis. Yet, whatever the motivation for trying to make
> Bush
> look good, the evidence is now overwhelming that Bush strong-armed his
way,
> illegitimately, to the presidency.
Here is the link to the NYT article:
http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm
They have some of the same mistakes as the Democrats. They claim that
Florida Code says these ballots are invalid, yet they ignore the
controlling laws in this case.
"Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas envelopes
had multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of
defective ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:"
"344 ballots with no evidence they were cast on or before Election Day.
They had late, illegible or missing postmarks."
Under both Florida Code and Federal law, ballots cannot be disqualified for
a lack of postmark. Since a postmark is NOT required, an illegible postmark
has no significance.
From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board
"183 ballots with United States postmarks."
To disqualify a ballot because it does not have a APO, FPO, or foreign
postmark is a violation of Federal Law. The Judge in the Hillsborough case
specifically addressed this issue, i.e. US postmark are acceptable.
From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board
"96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness."
Under Florida Administrative Code, which is controlling, if a ballot has a
postmark, it is NOT required to be signed.
From: Robert Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission
"169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the
envelope or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by
federal law."
They grouped 3 different things together. As I pointed out, a signature is
not required under Florida Code. Second, to disqualify ballots solely
because the state has no record of a ballot request is a violation of the
law (just the opposite of what the NY Times said).
From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board and From: Robert Harris
vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission
"5 ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline."
If true, they shouldn't count.
"19 voters cast two ballots, both of which counted."
If true, 19 should not have counted.
They should not have grouped all of the categories together. Of the 680
they claim, I can only find 24 that I would agree are invalid.
Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf
Medina vs. Florida Election Canvassing Commission:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/medinaorder.pdf
(Robert) Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
> In the days immediately after the election, Bush obstructed a
full-and-fair
> recount in Florida, even dispatching hooligans from outside the state to
> intimidate vote counters. When Gore pressed for recounts in the courts,
Bush
> sent in lawyers to prevent the tallies. Then, after losing before the
> Florida
> Supreme Court and the federal appeals court, Bush ultimately got a
friendly
> hearing from five political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Utter BS
> If Bush truly respected the precepts of democracy and what those
principles
> mean
> to the world, he could have joined Gore in demanding as full and fair a
> Florida
> recount as possible. He could have accepted the results, win or lose.
The only person who went to court as argued for a full recount was BUSH
(through Katherine Harris)!!!! Her arguments were rejected by the DEMOCRAT
MAJORITY of the Florida Supreme Court.
>From Gore vs. Harris, FSC, 12/8/2000....."Appellees contend that even if a
count of the undervotes in Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168,
Florida Statute (2000), require a count of all votes in Miami-Dade County
and the entire state as opposed to a selected number of votes challenged.
However, the plain language of section 102.168 refutes Appellees'
argument."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
The fact is Gore NEVER filed for a full recount. In fact, he argued that the
law DID NOT REQUIRE a recount of all ballots.
Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its conclusion
on three errors of law:
"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is no
support for it in this or any other state."
"Second, that under one 168, it's an abuse of the discretion standard.
Again, we don't think there's any case that says, in terms of what a ballot
means, whether a ballot does or does not reflect the voter's intent, that
is something that, in the judicial proceeding of a contest, discretion
resides in the canvassing board."
"And third, that in order to even look at the ballots, which are already
admitted into evidence in the case, you have to show a reasonable
probability that you will change the election, before you even look at the
ballots. And again, we think that is inconsistent, first, with the standard
in 168, which says "or place in doubt," and is inconsistent with the way a
trial goes, which is that you look at the evidence before you reach that
conclusion."
Boies is saying that all the voters need NOT BE HEARD. He says the is no
legal support for a statewide recount. Yet, this was a challenge to the
certification of a statewide vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.ht
m
> Instead Bush opted for the opposite course, deciding that his getting the
> White
> House was more important than the voters having their judgment accepted,
> both
> nationally and in Florida. By refusing to hold Bush accountable for his
key
> role
> in thwarting the voters' will, the major news organizations are not doing
> the
> cause of democracy any service.
More BS
> It turns out that the thousands of demonstrators who protested Bush's
> Inauguration were closer to the truth when they shouted at his motorcade,
> "Hail
> to the Thief!"
>
- Next message: Mark R. Whittington: "Paperwork Too Much for t/Space"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: Sneezing on Greenpeace"
- In reply to: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
