UPDATE 5/8/07 5:45pm PT: The U.S. House Administration Committee voted unanimously to dismiss all of the U.S. House election contests other than the FL-13 Jennings/Buchanan race. More details now here…
The campaign of Clint Curtis (D), the vote-rigging/Tom Feeney whistleblower who challenged Feeney (R-Abramoff) for the U.S. House seat in Florida’s 24h Congressional district last November, has told The BRAD BLOG that the U.S. House Administrative Committee is set to dismiss Curtis’ Congressional contest of the race — filed under the Federal Contested Elections Act — when the committee meets on Tuesday morning.
Though they’ve yet to examine the “hard evidence” the Curtis campaign says they’ve collected in the matter, the reason for the dismissal, as given to campaign manager, Marty Ward by a Capitol Hill staffer, was “insufficient evidence”. Ward says that two different offices have informed the campaign of the committee’s plan to dismiss the case tomorrow.
Ward told us tonight, however, that Congress hasn’t even seen, much less investigated, the “hard evidence” in the form of sworn affidavits from voters that the campaign’s volunteers have collected over the past several months via door-to-door canvassing in the district. The results of that canvass, the campaign says, reveal that Curtis’ votes, as tallied on Florida’s paperless touch-screen voting systems, were under-reported by anywhere from 12% to 24% per precinct so far canvassed.
Curtis was declared the loser by some 16 points after the election, despite an “Election Eve” Zogby Poll which declared he and Feeney to be in a “statistical dead heat”. An 8 point or better misreporting of the true results in the race, they maintain, would have swung the election in Feeney’s favor as they believe likely happened.
Ward sent us these thoughts in response to the Democrats plans earlier this evening…
- Not enough evidence. What we did not have is mainstream media coverage. What we do have is hard evidence that there is a discrepancy between the official count and the affidavits that were gathered from actual voters.
- Sworn affidavits not good enough. In the past, it was exit polls that were considered not good enough because they did not connect the vote with the voter. Our system does exactly that. It is like having a paper ballots to count except even better. It is signed. Affidavits and eye witness testimony are the corner stone of our legal system.
- Your signature not good enough. If the committee is not willing to accept what every court in the country requires as evidence, what level of proof are they willing to accept?
- Source code. If the committee requires the errors in the code to be found, we must be allowed access to the code and the machines. We are aware of hundreds of experts willing to independently examine and blueprint those proprietary systems should that opportunity become available.
In the meantime, an Independent Investigation will determine once and for all if the machines in District 24 counted accurately.
- An Independent Investigation can be conducted easily and inexpensively and the results verified. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on Jennings’s race chasing votes that unfortunately can never be found. For under $30,000 you could know for sure what happened in District 24. This is not about partisan politics. It is about our Democracy. Every vote needs to be counted.
Two weeks ago we ran a story with more details on the above as the campaign had then issued a press release calling for an investigation after months of inaction by the committee.
Last week, the House Admin Committee decided to ask the GAO to investigate the contested Jennings/Buchanan FL-13 election. Aside from that race, where 18,000 votes disappeared on Sarasota’s touch-screen systems in an election decided by 369 votes, no public action (or even private, as far as we can tell) has been taken on Curtis’ race. Another two challenged races from Florida and another from a Louisiana race have all be contested under the federal act this year.
Neither Curtis, nor the candidates in the other challenged elections — other than FL-13 — have been allowed to testify to Congress concerning their contests.
While there is no notice on the Democratic House Admin Comm website about tomorrow’s meeting, a page on the Minority website confirms consideration of the Holt Election Reform Bill (HR811) on Tuesday along with the election contests of: “Russell v. Brown-Waite (FL”“5), Gonzalez v. Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (FL”“21), Curtis v. Feeney (FL-24), Cox v. McCrery (LA”“4)”.
An emailer — not part of the Curtis campaign — writes to us late tonight concerning the House Democrats reported plans to say: “How dare they say there’s not enough evidence [in the Curtis/Feeney matter] and then push a bill [Holt’s HR811] that allows continued use of machines that hide the evidence! If that’s not an invitation to steal elections, I don’t know what is.”
Another writes: “This case is of the utmost importance. If sworn affidavits from the voters don’t count, what counts? Only the machine count?”
An action alert being circulated tonight by the People’s Email Network and the Curtis campaign asks citizens to voice their concerns by phone and/or email before tomorrow’s meeting (if possible) to the members of the House Administration Committee whose contact info is posted below…
Note: Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-37th/CA) was the Committee Chair until she passed away recently due to cancer.
Robert A. Brady (D-1st/PA), Chair
ph: (202) 225-4731, fax: (202) 225-0088
Chief of Staff: Stan White
email: stan.white@mail.house.gov
Zoe Lofgren (D-16th/CA)
ph: (202) 225-3072, fax: (202) 225-3336
Chief of Staff: Stacey Leavandosky
email: stacey.leavandosky@mail.house.gov
Michael Capuano (D-8th/MA)
ph: (202) 225-5111, fax: (202) 225-9322
Chief of Staff: Robert Primus
email: robert.primus@mail.house.gov
Charles A. Gonzalez (D-20th/TX)
ph: (202) 225-3236, fax: (202) 225-1915
Chief of Staff: Kevin Kimble
email: kevin.kimble@mail.house.gov
Susan A. Davis (D-53rd/CA)
ph: (202) 225-2040, fax: (202) 225-2948
Chief of Staff: Lisa Sherman
email: lisa.sherman@mail.house.gov
Vernon Ehlers (R-3rd/MI), Ranking Member
ph: (202) 225-3831, fax: (202) 225-5144
Chief of Staff: Bill McBride
email: bill.mcbride@mail.house.gov
Dan Lungren (R-3rd/CA)
ph: (202) 225-5716, fax: (202) 226-1298
Chief of Staff: Victor Arnold-Bik
email: victor.arnold-bik@mail.house.gov
Kevin McCarthy (R-22nd/CA)
ph: (202) 225-2915, fax: (202) 225-2908
Chief of Staff: James Min
email: james.min@mail.house.gov
The Clint Curtis/Tom Feeney/Yang Enterprises Vote-Rigging Scandal series, please see:
– A Quick Summary of the story so far.
– An Index of all the Key Articles & Evidence in the series so far.
– Curtis eventually ended up running for U.S. Congress against Feeney in 2006.
For more info, see: www.ClintCurtis.com
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.
(f-word)-ing Criminals!
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.
This deserves a red siren and an upfront plea to call as many members on that committee as possible!
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?
I sent the following letter to everyone on the list….
======================================================
Please,
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…
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……
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?
The vote is at 1:00pm, eastern time, so call your people.
They need to hear from us.
Marzi #7
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.
RE post #10
I made a typo, and “requited instruments” should have been “required instruments”.
I emailed this to all committee members:
Hope it helps!
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?
Brad: Coverage of the DOJ “voter fraud” issue, by Keith Olberman:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/o...teup_0508.html
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).
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!
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?
… 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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
Thanks KBE! I needed that!
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.
decision on committe site poor clint
KBE #21
Thank you.
Dan #6
I can’t help but be persuaded by your concerns !!!!!
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.
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.
Newjesustimes #28
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.
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’
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!