READER COMMENTS ON
"House Admin Committee Set to Dismiss Clint Curtis/Tom Feeney Election Challenge According to Curtis Campaign"
(31 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 2:03 am PT...
Once again Democrats expose that, at heart, they are institution worshippers who base choices and opinions not on facts or merit but on whatever is status quo. Their plans to dismiss this without actually weighing its merits demonstrate the weakness, moral cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and lack of backbone that are the hallmarks of the Democractic party today. They are not fit to lead.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 3:08 am PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 3:13 am PT...
This is what I just sent to the Committee - suggest everyone write or call with similar concerns:
Failure to investigate hard evidence of voter fraud put before your
Committee will be a disgraceful use of Congress. Of particular concern
is Curtis vs Feeney - CURTIS IS A COMPUTER EXPERT IN THIS AREA.
Certainly, he should testify before Congress. Affidavits PRESENTED to
your Committee are more meaningful and LEGALLY more BINDING than lost
votes in dubious voting machines that can be programmed to lose votes.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 4:06 am PT...
This deserves a red siren and an upfront plea to call as many members on that committee as possible!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 6:18 am PT...
I have not seen Clint's complaint, nor any of the affidavits, so I will not post foolish talk about something I know nothing about as some have.
In response to the post at #1, however, I can certainly say that it is common for complaints to be dismissed without a full evidentiary hearing on the merits (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 12(b) and 56). It is done thousands of times each day by about every court in the nation.
I can say this. Affidavits are not ipso facto containers of admissible evidence.
For example, they may not contain conclusions of fact, conclusions of law, non-expert opinion, or be based on speculation or hearsay rather than on the personal knowledge of the affiant.
There are other requirements taylored to the specific case as well. When the requirements are not met, or the facts attested to do not meet the burden of proof, then affidavits can not carry the day.
There are cases where it is a tactical mistake to use affidavits at an early stage.
For those who want to test themselves, ask yourself if you know what the legal issues are, and what admissible evidence, in the form of properly set forth facts, did the affidavits contain?
An example of a horrible affidavit is "I swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that electronic voting machines suck, Feeney is a crook, Cliff is not, and the election was rigged and Cliff should win."
No rants please, just logical, legally sound, and applicable explanation, because bitchery ("unless I win the adjudication is evil") does not carry the day in a tribunal.
It is also critical to know the burden of proof and the degree of proof formally required. Is it prima facia, preponderance, or the clear and convincing standard that applies?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 6:38 am PT...
I sent the following letter to everyone on the list....
We have lost so much faith in the election process, as the oversight committee designated
to ensure proper administration of elections, please, please, do not dismiss any challenges without
first, at least, examining the evidence brought forth. Particularly, FL-24 Clint Curtis' challenge,
where the statistical anomaly evidenced in the closing hours of the count on election night saw
a 49%-51% race jump to a 10 percentage point blow out. It is historically unprecedented for such a surge, so late in an election count, that it SHOULD raise eyebrows where it counts.
View the evidence before dismissing, please. If a person's signature on an affidavit is not enough,then what is. That signature is easily verifiable, all you need do is look.
I myself, was dumbfounded by Feeney's late surge...
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 6:55 am PT...
Dredd or is it Dreck? misunderstood tha Affidavits in question and has not been following the story. They were canvassed from Curtis's constituents as to who they voted for......
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 7:54 am PT...
I called the chair's number and told the woman who took the message to please not just blow this investigation off-that fair elections are the only way we can keep our democracy yada yada yada.
She was nice. Now what?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 8:36 am PT...
The vote is at 1:00pm, eastern time, so call your people.
They need to hear from us.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 9:05 am PT...
Your post is non-responsive to the material aspects of my post.
Those who know me here know I do not deal in frivolity. I deal in reality.
What are the factors in an election contest? For your perusal, I offer a link to a book that discusses contested elections from 1933 to 2000, if you want to bone up on the issues.
I have looked up the applicable statute, and here is a link to it: 2 USC 381-396.
The statute mentions affidavits in section 387 ( c ), but does not allow their use except upon agreement of both the contestant (Cliff) and the contestee (Feeney). If Feeney objected then depositions are the requited instruments in place of affidavits (section 386).
The reason depositions are preferred in merit hearings is that cross examination has taken place, and therefore both sides have been allowed to question witnesses.
We will have to wait for a copy of the committee determination, judgment, or order before we know what they had in mind.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 9:11 am PT...
RE post #10
I made a typo, and "requited instruments" should have been "required instruments".
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 9:32 am PT...
I emailed this to all committee members:
It would seem appropriate for House Committees that are contemplating the dismissal of a "Notice of Contest" (2 USC 382), to follow the standards that have worked for the federal courts many years.
Especially since the federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that congress fashions.
I will simply mention the seminal case of Conley v Gibson, 355 US 41 (1957), where the Supreme Court held:
"In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief".
So I urge the committee to not dismiss the Curtis case unless it is "beyond doubt" that Curtis can prove "no set of facts" that would merit hearings.
Hope it helps!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:14 am PT...
Don't the affidavits confirm Curtis votes? "I voted for Clint Curtis, signed ________" And they don't come close to matching "the count"? Or is it more complicated than that?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:21 am PT...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:22 am PT...
i called Zoe Lofgren's number and asked the young man who answered if he'd heard anything about the Feeney case, to which he replied "all day"
We spoke for a few minutes and he concluded by telling me that there is a hearing going on right now and that the Email that circulated stating that the case would be dismissed for insufficient evidence was premature; that the committee has yet to reach a decision (according to him, anyway).
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:24 am PT...
Let me say this: If the affidavits clearly state that said voter voted for Clint Curtis, AND these numbers aren't even close to "the count", then the U.S. govt is saying, "FUCK YOU" to we, the people! And democracy is a sham!
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:36 am PT...
Big Dan, #16 - would you be the least bit surprised?
I know I wouldn't. They've basically already said F You the last 2 presidential elections and (American) democracy is a sham. Realizing that fact is what first led me to this website.
My question is, other than bitch & moan to our so-called "elected" officials, what can we do about it?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:36 am PT...
... big dan said...
"Don't the affidavits confirm Curtis votes? "I voted for Clint Curtis, signed ________" And they don't come close to matching "the count"? Or is it more complicated than that?"
Nope, it's just as simple as that.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 1:24 pm PT...
Welcome to reality. For nearly 5 decades I have been hooted at, vilified, and derided by all kinds of political "know-it-alls" because I stated that the idea that voting could change anything was illogical.
In primitive societies tribal members believe that by cutting up animals their future can be assured. In even MORE primitive societies tribal members believe that by placing marked papers in a box their future can be assured.
I ask you WHICH belief in black magic is MORE ignorant???
Especially, when history shows that regardless of WHO is elected (person, party, philosophy, etc.) taxes increase; laws become more oppressive; more are killed in wars; economic opportunity declines; and life becomes more brutish and miserable.
Oh I know, somehow THIS time it will be different --- yeah right, and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real too...
WAKE UP you idiots!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 1:25 pm PT...
Big Dan #13, #18
If you read my post #10 you will see that affidavits can only be submitted upon agreement of the Contestor and the Contestee.
I can't imagine Feeney agreeing to anything that would make it easier and less costly for Clint, and so Clint probably can't submit affidavits as easily as hoped for. It probably will take more than that if Feeney objects.
And in that case, the law says (as I pointed out in post #10), that depositions are required in those circumstances instead.
There is a way or two around it, but I am not going to discuss that in public lest Feeney's crew get wind of it.
And it is an extremely difficult case in the sense that the margin reported is 16%. He needs to depose some of the pollsters, both pre-election and those done during the voting (exit polls) as well.
Being "simple minded", bitchy, and whiney is why we have had these sucky machines these 40 years even tho the government has known all about it all these years.
People in this movement sometimes do not care whether or not they have a clue, and that hurts all of us.
The poster at #15 has even raised the possibility that Brad was chasing a rumor in this post:
"the Email that circulated stating that the case would be dismissed for insufficient evidence was premature"
I doubt that because Brad is very careful to check things out. And you have been around long enough to know that the regulars here do too.
But even if it was a rumor, Brad gave us a heads up saying it was "too late this afternoon to get confirm from Capitol Hill sources" and let us check it out with that in mind.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 2:20 pm PT...
Carl Street - Sorry sweety, if you're looking for people who will throw up their hands and say, "There's nothing I can do", you've landed in the wrong place.
We've seen too much here, we've worked too hard over the past few years. We've seen the changes, we've been a huge part of them - WE are the reason that oversight is returning to our government.
What comes after won't be perfect, and it won't happen overnight - it takes time to destroy fascism one criminal at a time.
But I think I speak for everyone here when I say, this is MY country, MY government, these people work for ME - and I'll be damned if I'll become a passive observer.
The choice is up to you - lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way. But if you stand there and do nothing as your democracy is stolen right before your eyes, you might just get exactly the kind of government you deserve - and you voluntarily give up the right to bitch about it.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 3:34 pm PT...
Thanks KBE! I needed that!
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 4:04 pm PT...
Any word on a decision yet?
I'm meeting John Russell for a beer in about 30 minutes. Hr hasn't heard anything yet either.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 4:31 pm PT...
decision on committe site poor clint
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 5:38 pm PT...
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 6:01 pm PT...
I can't help but be persuaded by your concerns !!!!!
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 6:20 pm PT...
unfortunately more is needed than affadavits since they are not considered as proof by law in a case such as vote vaerification due to blind ballots. without a papertrail affadavits mean almost nothing.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2007 @ 10:18 pm PT...
Dredd, I certainly wasn't claiming that Brad is spreading rumors, just telling you what "they" told me, despite assuming that it was a foregone conclusion that Brad was correct and this would be dismissed. Brad may very well be more in the loop than the phone flunky i spoke with.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 5/9/2007 @ 6:11 am PT...
I did not intend to criticize you, but rather to compliment you.
I respect those who question things because it is one way to the reality of a given situation.
When you remind us to question you are reminding us to stay real, which is a good thing.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 5/10/2007 @ 8:41 am PT...
Thanks for the compliment (though i'm not really sure i earned it) I'm just trying to do what i can; a phone call here, a donation there, email, petitions, posts... does it help? From my perspective it's hard to say. I'm just one voice amongst '6 or 7'
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 5/11/2007 @ 12:22 am PT...
Another story about people going above and beyond the call of duty without pay and devoting their precious time, trying to save our democracy while being ignored by the congress.
I think this is an outrage!