READER COMMENTS ON
"On The State of Our Democracy: 'Get Over It, Losers!'"
(23 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 12:24 pm PT...
Exactly which representatives are on the U.S. House Committee that purportedly told the "losers" to "get over it?" And did they actually say/write this, or are their comments being paraphrased? I'd like to learn where I can find their actual comments, before taking any constituent action in my district.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 1:04 pm PT...
Comment was paraphrased/concocted for effect by the author, per the editor who as noted, was just trying to have some fun! Meeting was not publicized... I only was made aware of it third hand... That is, Contestants were not given any advance notice of the meeting to be held by the committee, or their representatives so that we might have the opportunity to be present for the meeting.
Susan Davis, D California was the committee member who brought up the issue of recommendation for dismissal to the committee for a vote. The committee eventually voted unanimously for dismissal in violation of the Federal Contested Elections Act and the U.S. Constitution in violation of our right to due process.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 2:03 pm PT...
The DNC and the rest of them are cowards, pure and simple. Docile whores at the beck-and-call for their corporate pimp-daddies, more interested in plush private-sector jobs awaiting them in reward for affecting legislation to assist cancerously ravenous corporate greed. Sure, they'll be nice to their constituents --- that's how whores are with clients. Don't let it fool you. They don't love you.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 2:26 pm PT...
Thanks, John. I'll mention Davis in my correspondence with Woolsey (D-CA).
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 2:49 pm PT...
Here's a letter to use if anyone is interested in copying and pasting and sending it along to their rep:
Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,
Re the U.S. House Administration Committee's oversight into several contested Congressional elections from 2006.
I just learned that Susan Davis (D-CA), the leader of the U.S. House Administration Committee, brought up the issue of recommendation for dismissal of questioning official election results, so that this issue wouldn't come up for a vote. The Committee then voted unanimously for a dismissal. In my opinion, this dismissal is in violation of the Federal Contested Elections Act and the U.S. Constitution in violation of our right to due process.
This election integrity issue is at the core of everything else we work for in our democracy. I think, based on all that I've read over the past several years, that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. So everything that has happened since 2000, including the invasion of Iraq, is a fraud against the American people.
I hope that you can have some influence with the House Committee and with Rep. Davis. They made a mistake in the case of this dismissal.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 3:18 pm PT...
You lost me from the word go sir. Neither does this government in any way shape or form belong to us anymore nor can it honestly be labeled a Democracy. We live in a country controlled by the corporations who pretend to count the votes of those who succeed at playing in the game of charades that takes place on every election day!
Thank you very much for your efforts and the best of luck to you in your endeavors. I think you are going to need an awful lot of luck to get anywhere with those efforts.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 4:50 pm PT...
I will go public with a statement that Clint Curtis and the other challengers and their cases were dismissed without due process of decent law.
As to more than that, I am tired of typing at the moment, so if you want to read an olde style Dredd rant as deep as vote and terror fraud here it is.
Love ya brad bloggers!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 5:48 pm PT...
Following is the list of the members of the House Committee on Administration with their office phone numbers and a link to the Committee’s website http://cha.house.gov/
Robert A. Brady (D-1st/PA), Chair (202) 225-4731
Zoe Lofgren (D-16th/CA) (202) 225-3072
Michael Capuano (D-8th/MA) (202) 225-5111
Charles A. Gonzalez (D-20th/TX) (202) 225-3236
Susan A. Davis (D-53rd/CA) (202) 225-2040
Artur Davis (D –7th/AL) (202) 225-2665
Vernon Ehlers (R-3rd/MI), Ranking Member (202) 225-3831
Dan Lungren (R-3rd/CA) (202) 225-5716
Kevin McCarthy (R-22nd/CA) (202) 225-2915
I know that you feel that there is not much that can be done to restore responsible government. However, if our Founders did not fight against all odds to give us a government that was supposed to be responsible to the people, then we would be no better off than other colonies like those found in Asia, Africa, and South America. Our families would also live in poverty and fear if not for a few people who made the effort to stand up for their rights!
Instead of giving up your right to our government, call your Congressional Representative at 202-225-3121, ask them to follow the law and let John Russell present his evidence to Congress, and ask them to protect our democracy by restoring public vote counting of paper ballots.
Also, call the Committee members and tell them what you think of their illegal and unethical action. Tell them that if they want to redeem themselves, then vote against dismissal when this matter comes up before the House.
Don’t give up when you can still fight for your rights!!! If you do give up, then you will most likely regret it and your children and grandchildren will surely suffer the consequences.
Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA
Attorney for John Russell
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 8:19 pm PT...
What choices remain for Americans today? They have an administration which they despise, enacting policies they loathe. So they did what the good citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, they went out in large numbers and voted in a new government. We should make no mistake about what the landslide election of 2006 meant.
Democrats had no agenda to put forth and were not chosen for the purpose of advancing any such non-agenda. They had one qualification going into last November's contest, and it was the one which got them elected: They were the non-Republicans, the non-regressives. Their singular mandate was to curb the excesses of the insane kleptocracy which, by all manner of nefarious techniques, had seized control of the American democracy and was taking every step imaginable to destroy it. www.regressiveantidote.net
So what did the Democrats do? They immediately put impeachment off the table. We should understand clearly what that meant. By doing this, the Democratic leadership was saying that no matter what crimes might be uncovered, their sense of political expediency in serving their own personal interests would come before those of the country they were paid to be serving instead.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 6/3/2007 @ 10:49 pm PT...
I agree with you. The Bush administration has ignored the law and our Constitution repeatedly, and when the Democrats had the opportunity to allow us to show how elections had been stolen, they instead chose to ignore the Federal Contested Elections Act and the Constitution.
Moreover, the Democrats are pushing the Holt bill which continues to dangerously allow our votes to be counted in secret on computers, and it prohibits the public from ever seeing the code which may be used to flip votes from a Democrat to a Republican.
Following is one of the documents that I filed when I learned that the House Committee on Administration was going to consider the motions to dismiss the election contests filed by John Russell, Frank Gonzalez, and Clint Curtis.
It shows how the Committee's recommendation to dismiss the contests was contrary to the Federal Contested Elections Act and violated due process. The Act provides that the contestants are allowed to conduct discovery and present their evidence to the House.
I guess that the members of the Committee felt that it was more important to keep election fraud quiet than it was to follow the law and the Constitution and allow evidence to be presented which would show that the official results were not accurate and that votes were stolen from Democrats and given to Republicans.
By the way, this is the same Committee that sent the Holt bill to the House for a vote.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
VIRGINIA “GINNY” BROWN-WAITE
CONTESTANT’S RENEWED REQUEST
FOR DENIAL OF THE CONTESTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR FOR A HEARING ON THE SAME
COMES NOW, the Contestant, JOHN RUSSELL, by and through his undersigned attorney, and files the Contestant’s Renewed Request for Denial of the Contestee’s Motion to Dismiss or for a Hearing on the Same showing:
1. On January 17, 2007, the Contestee filed a Motion to Dismiss this contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
2. On February 5, 2007, the undersigned filed the Contestant’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Contestee. The Contestant’s Response pointed out that, in addition to the other substantial reasons stated therein, the Contestee’s Motion to Dismiss was legally insufficient because it did not even raise any ground for dismissal provided by the Federal Contested Elections Act. Furthermore, the Contestant’s Response requested that the Honorable members of this Committee either deny the Motion to Dismiss or grant a public hearing on such motion.
3. “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’ Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233, 17 L.Ed. 531. See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 23 L.Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215; Grannis v. Oredean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363. It is equally fundamental that the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard ‘must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 1994 (1972). (Emphasis added).
4. Due process “has never been interpreted to safeguard only the rights of undisputed ownership. Rather, it has been read broadly to extend protection to ‘any significant property interest,’ Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S., at 379, 91 S.Ct., at 786, including statutory entitlements. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S., at 539, 91 S.Ct., at 1589; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S., at 262, 90 S.Ct., at 1017.” Id. at 1997. (Emphasis added).
5. “Due process protection in the substantive sense limits what the government may do in both its legislative, see, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), and its executive capacities, see, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952).” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1716 (1998). (Emphasis added.)
6. “We have emphasized time and again that “[t]he touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), whether the fault lies in a denial of fundamental procedural fairness, see, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, …, or in the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective, see, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S., at 331, 106 S.Ct., at 664 (the substantive due process guarantee protects against government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised).” Id.
7. The Federal Contested Elections Act provides the Contestant with a statutory right to bring this contest of the election of the Contestee before the House of Representatives, and the Act specifies the grounds upon which an election contest may be dismissed.
8. The House is required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as abundant precedent construing the same, to act in a manner which is consistent with due process of law.
9. The Contestant’s statutory right to bring this contest should not be denied without a public hearing as such action would deny the Contestant’s right to procedural due process.
10. Likewise, the Contestant’s statutory right to bring this contest should not be denied based on a motion which does not raise any ground for dismissal specified by the Federal Contested Elections Act as such action would deny the Contestant’s right to substantive due process.
11. If this contest is dismissed, especially in a manner which does not comport with the dictates of due process, such action will likely erode the public’s confidence in any reforms proposed by the members of this Committee or the House and will also likely erode the public’s willingness to participate in future elections. In addition, such action would cause the American public and the world to seriously question whether those who supported it are committed to democracy and the rule of law pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America and whether they value the freedom and prosperity that government pursuant to our Constitution ensured.
12. A full and complete investigation is necessary to provide information to the House and the public to ensure that our voting system is reformed in order to restore the public’s confidence in the official election results and our government.
WHEREFORE, the Contestant, JOHN RUSSELL, respectfully requests that the Honorable members of this Committee deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Contestee, VIRGINIA “GINNY” BROWN-WAITE, and grant the Contestee ten days from the date of such order to answer the Notice of Contest in this action as provided by 2 USC § 383(d) or grant a public hearing on such motion.
Mark A. Adams, Esquire
Attorney for Contestant
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 3:01 am PT...
Thank you very much for your response to the jumbled up mess I posted yesterday. My patience got the best of me. I had to rewrite that post because the site no longer remembered me and as a result my first try at that response got lost. My patience was further tested when I attempted to add the link I had been linking to my name each time I post here. I then attempted to use that link again but when I checked first to see that it had no typos it would not come up. I visited my home page and added “\Return” to that address to eliminate any typos and it still would not come up. I then googled “The Return of the Silent Majority” and it was no longer at the top of their list like it has been the last couple of years. In fact it was no longer on their list. There have never been any links to that page on my home page and in over a year the only place on the net I posted a link to that document was here at Brad Blog where it was linked under my name every time I posted. Yet of the millions of documents that have been posted on my web page it is the first I know of to have disappeared into thin air all by itself. Did it disappear all by itself or did somebody shove it clean out of cyberspace. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must but give the long odds of that being the only document my home page has lost on it’s own I am leaning on the later. So this very slow typing quadriplegic was about completely out of patience when I made that post.
Thank you very much for your efforts on the part of “our Democracy”. I didn’t mean to imply that we should give up. I just realize there are some very powerful forces working against us. If they really did venture through cyberspace to delete that page of mine they are trying very hard to hide the fact that “our Democracy” amounts to nothing more that a well hyped illusion. Keep up the good work Mark but just don’t expect victory to be anywhere near as easy to achieve as it was for the neoCons in Irag!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 5:44 am PT...
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 9:35 am PT...
I think that even those of us who see the glass as half full instead of half empty still become discouraged.
Here are a few points about communicating views that I have discovered over the years:
(1) Our representatives DO care what we think. And they (in some cases, staff members) DO read our correspondences with them. Write frequently, keep your letters (e-mails) short and to the point, and don't use offensive language. Offensive language detracts from, rather than adding to, your point(s). The more frequently you write, the better you will get at writing letters quickly that make sense.
(2) After sending a letter (e-mail) to your rep, send it to your local paper's letters to the editors, too, with the opening statement that you are not necessarily sending this letter for it to be printed in the paper, but rather you would like your local paper, which you support, to know that, as a reader, you are interested in this topic. Editors read all letters received. They care what you are thinking and reading about.
(3) Don't expect that every communication you make will elicit a response, or even a reaction of any kind. But some will!! I track a lot of what my three reps are up to (Feinstein, Woolsey, and Boxer), and I have found all three on various occasions to have used phrases/talking points pulled right out of some of my correspondences to them. When you write to them, you become part of their staff/team, though unpaid. You never know when one of their aides will be moved by a correspondence from you, and then go to the rep with your idea and push it through.
(4) If you NEVER hear back from your reps re any of your correspondences, let your newspaper know that. And in this case, I would definitely take the extra time to write a letter to the ed worth printing. Reps who do not respond to their constituents are not doing their job. When I wrote the CA Sec of State about his purchase of Diebolds a while back, and never heard a word back, I wrote the governor and complained. When the governor's office wrote back and said it wasn't their job, I wrote to my rep in Congress and complained hugely about the lack of response back here in our state. Even though it wasn't her job to oversee elections or the Sec of State's job, she took it on to contact both the gov and sec of state's offices to let them know that their lack of response was getting back to her.
(5) Net neutrality must be maintained!!! None of this ease of timely communication was possible until the internet opened up communication channels. Whatever you do, DO NOT let your reps get away with selling off our access to the internet.
(6) A lot of what changes in our system, and when, happens only after similar injustices have cycled through a particular generation's lifetime twice. We see it happen once and get mad. But when we see it happen a second time, we've had years to mull it over and so know better how to respond.
Because I have been at this for a while now, I have come to realize that my letters (e-mails) to my reps DO matter. In some cases, they affect one or more rep's congressional to-do list. I have experienced this as happening.
That's all. I'll get off my soapbox and get back to work.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Jeannie Dean in FL-13
said on 6/4/2007 @ 12:07 pm PT...
I'm thrilled to see the contribution from the buoyant John Russell and his amazing, uber-bright attorney Mark A. (don't let the ESQUIRE throw you) Adams on BRADBLOG. Kids, these two are the real beans. If you haven't heard of them before now, I can tell you that is because they are too often marginalized by the press and the Congressional powers that be. I don't have to tell you fine people why that is...
They have been an inspiration to me as I have grown increasingly disappointed in MY would-be Congresswoman, Christine Jennings, and her council, who have gotten the lion's share of media attention, (not to mention the only federal investigation) and yet seem to be completely out of the loop re: her very own investigation! (Even "surprised" to learn about the SQL slammer worm that affected early voting in FL-13 from "the internet", even though it was handed over to them, albeit buried, in thousands of e-mails/ paperwork received by her attorneys. Christine, Christine.)
Jennings' lawyers, in my opinion, fell down on us in a Tallahassee courtroom in December by playing it safe, failing to admit some of the most compelling evidence of malfeasance discovered by experts and independent investigators. (To be fair, I think Judge William L. Gary was a patsy, bought and sold--as any substanital evidence they DID submit was dismissed outright.) Still, it was amazing to me that the contested elections of John Russell, Clint Curtis and Frank Gonzales were so roundly snuffed out by the Congressional Muffy Rug, while the Jennings case is being used by these same representatives, held up as the "reason" to pass HOLT 811 (which Jennings is actively promoting on her web-site, by the way. Christine, Christine...)
I also share Mr. Young's frustration. I keep thinking that our numerous videos of FL-13's absurd corruption in 2006 will be viewed by the PUBLIC, enrage them enough to DO something. Sadly, it seems the videos are circulated here amongst the saved (and thank you, my people, for watching them) but my Republican Cousin shrugs them off, citing "elections have always been corrupt..." and "there's nothing we can do"...
"But Michael", I persist, "I'm making these videos FOR YOU!"...
Mark A. Adams, John Russell and Co. are a great allies for us here in this forum, as their "never say die" attitude, tenacity, and BALLSALICIOUS efforts to keep this fight alive--no matter the odds--
fall in line with our own. Lest we forget, we are attempting nothing shy of undermining a New World Order.
Thanks, Brad, for giving these heroes a voice in your amazing, active, wide-awake forum!
LINK TO MY VIDEO CLIP of Mark A. Adams in Tampa, telling the FCC about these contested elections and the respective media blackout:
Mad Respect to All.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
Jeannie Dean in FL-13
said on 6/4/2007 @ 12:10 pm PT...
And thanks to LINDA (#13) for the encouraging post!
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 12:36 pm PT...
I can't seem to locate the article we're talking about here in the St. Pete Times. Does anyone have the link to it?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 12:49 pm PT...
It sure is. Google and I both lost it but they can't hide it from everybody!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 1:23 pm PT...
Neither does this government in any way shape or form belong to us anymore nor can it honestly be labeled a Democracy.
This is true. I know of only four ways to take back democracy:
1) With the cooperation of the media, build grass roots pressure so strong it changes the dialog
That was difficult in the 60s and is more difficult now that so many reporters don't do enough research to construct meaningful followup questions, and instead think that "journalism" means getting a quote from each side and believing the one from whoever has the most initials after their name. Guess what guys? You're not supposed to take anyone's word for anything, you're supposed to dig out the truth for yourself.
2) Vote 'em out: If crooks are in control, it is impossible to vote them out when they count the votes in secret. Auditing schmauditing, they have custody.
3) Take the 2nd Amendment seriously and take up arms
Dangerous and some of us will get kilt, but I'm glad we still have the Second Amendment.
4) Abolish and/or alter the government by way of a Constitutional Convention per the Bill of Rights
Perilous indeed. Let Fox News and the spinmakers get hold of this one and we could manage to lose 250 years of tradition in a single week.
Of the above, the simplest and cleanest and safest solution is to abolish secret vote counting and reassert the authority of citizens to exert control over elections.
It really is just that simple. Any other elections solution forces everyone to run through a maze while the clock ticks, with the owners of the maze --- the government --- laughing at us.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 1:32 pm PT...
I still can't locate the newspaper article Russell references in this guest blog. When I google the St. Pete Times site, I get about a thousand hits on sports articles, and that's it. I moved away from Florida 23 years ago, and have forgotten how OBSESSED Florida is with sports. Can somebody help me out here?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 2:35 pm PT...
Here Linda, about the third or fourth one down
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 6/4/2007 @ 2:46 pm PT...
Link don't work Linda, here's a copy/paste of it
"Better luck next time, losers
A U.S. House committee has a message for some sore losers: Get over it. The House Administration Committee is recommending that the full chamber dismiss appeals by four losing congressional candidates. Three are in Florida: Democrat John Russell, who lost to Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville; Democrat Clint Curtis, who lost to Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo; and Democrat Frank Gonzalez, who lost to Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Miami. The committee said it will continue to investigate the close race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings."
Last link on page
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 6/5/2007 @ 1:04 am PT...
Bev #18, the kilt thing made me chuckle with its double meaning because I was looking at my roots recently and I found out that I come from the Ulster Scots, so whenever we're ready to roll...
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 6/6/2007 @ 7:12 am PT...
Thank you for your kind comments. Markand I will have more to report in the coming weeks that I am certain will be of interest. We thank you for your continued support. John Russell