Oakland

Thank you, Nasus, for posting this. This apathy on the part of the entire Senate has bothered me since first seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" last summer. In fact, I was so upset I decided to write my Senator, Barbara Boxer, who of course is considered one of the real "liberals" in Congress. I point-blank asked her, if a similar situation (to the 2000 election problems) occurred again, would she be willing to support the members of the House Black Caucus in protesting the election results. Her answer bothered me: she stated that then VEEP Al Gore, who presided over the senate at that time, requested that no senators protest the election "FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION". Can you believe that? Well, this morning I tried repeatedly to reach her office by phone. The line was constantly busy, so I e-mailed her asking her to be the ONE senator to join John Conyers in contesting the election of 2004. It will be interesting to see how she wiggles out of this one!

nasus

We who want a full accounting of THIS election and not just future election reform promises, owe much to Sen. Boxer for her courageous move today. We also owe even more thanks to Rep. Tubbs Jones for leading the challenge and convincing Sen. Boxer to join in the effort. Because of them the concerns regarding the Ohio election are now a matter of record and out there for the entire world to see, no thanks to the media. This is the first victory for the "GOOD OF THE NATION" and it originates from the people, not the politicians. And for the record - I received my Kerry email last night where he stated he would not support the challenge. I replied with words I don't think he wanted to hear. Yes, for those of you who might not know, you can reply to those emails like any other. The messages do go through most times. How convenient for Kerry to be in the Middle East today. In my opinion, he is not worthy to be president this time or in any time in the future. The Democrats need to search long and hard for a new candidate for 2008.

Harold_Z

Proof that the "Liberal Media" chant of the right wing is just another tactic.

nasus

What the election challenge means
by David Swanson, ILCA
January 8, 2005

Thirty-three Members of the US House of Representatives, and one all-important Senator -- one more than four years ago -- voted not to accept Ohio's 20 electoral votes for George Bush. The votes were 33 to 260 and 1 to 72. The protesters lost. What does it mean?

First, it's worth noting that more than one Senator took action. Barbara Boxer announced her intention to challenge the election on Thursday morning. By midday Senators Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama had let it be known that they would support Boxer. During the discussion in the Senate, Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Edward Kennedy, Ron Wyden, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Harkin joined the others in speaking in support of Boxer's challenge. And in the House, numerous members spoke, one after another, until the time was up, and the number voting for the challenge jumped to 33 from the 8 that had been known early in the day.

Yet, those looking for as strong as possible a challenge were disappointed. Plenty of Democrats voted No, including Senators who had spoken in support. And one Democratic Senator, Mark Dayton, actually rose and spoke against the challenge. Several Senators and Congress Members spoke in support of the challenge but said they were not questioning Bush's victory. (The election system is broken, but the election system worked -- a notion that makes political sense to some if logical sense to few.) Not a single Republican joined the Democrats in either chamber. The certification of the vote was not stopped. Nothing was changed.

Or was it? I would suggest that the following things have been changed:

1. The topic of election fraud has been forced into the corporate media. Reporters wanting to write about it now have a "hook." They can report on it now in the way they could have two months ago if Senator John Kerry hadn't crawled under his bed to hide. Sure, much of the media today treated the story as one of "political theater" and "grandstanding Democrats," but until now the story had not been there at all.

http://ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1398

Now the Democrats have the opportunity to explain why fighting for Democracy is the only decent thing to do, even when success seems unlikely.

2. We now have solid evidence that a political party can challenge a stolen election without causing national trauma of the sort Kerry tried to protect us from by conceding. Most Americans are not now in agony over the tensions felt on January 6th in Congress.

3. We have demonstrated that a grassroots movement of minorities and progressives can mobilize around an issue completely blacked out of the media and move US Senators to act. The reason Barbara Boxer stood tall today, while not even Paul Wellstone would do so four years ago, is that four years ago there was no massive grassroots lobbying effort. Nobody was holding "Boxer Rebellion" demonstrations at Boxer's offices four years ago. There were no hearings and bus rides, telephone and fax campaigns, nothing like what we've seen for the past two months. We also lacked the leadership that Congressman John Conyers has shown, but Conyers will be the first to say he couldn't have done this without a movement behind him. The rally Thursday morning across from the White House (report and photos here:

http://ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1445

was a celebration of success against the odds, of accomplishment in the face of scorn and ridicule with only justice and determination to keep people going. There will be momentum coming out of this for supporters of democracy all over this country.

4. A coalition has begun to form and to feel its power. Cliff Arnebeck of Alliance for Democracy and Common Cause Ohio told me Thursday morning that the way the Cleveland AFL-CIO worked with the white public interest crowd and the black civil rights folks on this issue is matched by the way the Ohio state AFL-CIO is working with these groups in opposition to a Republican proposal in Ohio to eliminate campaign finance limits. Labor, Arnebeck said, is one of the three key parts of a coalition that must be built nationally.

"Labor has to be viewed as a public interest organization," he said. "Every organization has its own selfish interests. But the labor union movement stands for democracy and not for benefiting a small elite, but for the vast majority - not for this CEO club. It's going to come together…This will revitalize all three movements."

5. The Democratic Party has put its toes into the water of actual opposition to the Republicans. Today ended any remaining credibility for another presidential nomination for Kerry -- and probably for any other senators who did not voice their support for Barbara Boxer's challenge. Those who did not speak today will have to campaign against that record, as Kerry campaigned against his vote for Bush's war. The Democrats have begun to emerge as a second party in what has often seemed a one-party or duopolistic system. More power to them. It's up to us to keep this ball rolling by urging aggressive action on election reform and all other issues. The Democrats have started to copy Republican brashness. If they can cease copying Republican policy positions, there may be hope for them yet. Reid announced that he would introduce an election reform bill in a few days.

Call Reid's office. Thank him for what he did today. Ask him to think big and write the bill he wants, not the bill he thinks the Republicans will accept.


http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1074

Oakland

Nasus, thanks for posting this. Somehow it feels good to get my most important political news on a Jazz Forum.

Saundra Hummer

Sure does!

Did any of you notice that Tucker Carlson got the boot? They are saying it is because "the powers that be" decided John Stewart was right all along!

__________________
Sandi from Hermosa Beach

nasus

I have read much about the Ohio challenge and many thinking it was a lost cause because the challenge wasn't upheld. Many believe this was evidence of no support within Congress. The goal of the challenge was to take advantage of the one and only last opportunity for news coverage of the Ohio election/recount irregularities that were blantantly ignored or dismissed by the media up to this point and also to make the Ohio election irregularities a matter of Congressional record. To have the challenge upheld with the Ohio electoral votes cast out would have rendered the existing lawsuit moot. See this article. I've highlighted the relevant paragraph. Everyone knew that a challenge to all states was "beyond" likely but it made the point that it had to be all or none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnebeck letter to Congress re Presidential Electoral Challenge
by Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
January 6, 2005

Dear United States Senator or Member of Congress:
Today, you are being asked to certify the reported votes of the Electoral College even though the status of the Ohio electors is still the subject of the meritorious election contest. You are being asked to do so on the basis of one or more of the following three fallacies:

1) The faith-based neocon fallacy that vote counts do not have to be independently verified.

This new "con" holds that facts may be overcome by assertions of faith by those in power. Thus, the Bush campaign co-chair for Ohio and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell need not count 106,000 as yet uncounted Ohio ballots, because he has faith they would not make a difference in the reported 119,000 vote difference even thought these uncounted votes all are in areas of Ohio that demonstrated strong support for John Kerry, and because, as Secretary of State he has the power not to count them.

A corollary of this fallacy is that Ken Blackwell need not answer questions under oath. The answers to such questions might upset peoples' faith in the new "con."

2) The fallacy that Karl Rove is a nice guy/clean campaigner, and those who suspect otherwise with respect to this election which Bush was expected to lose, are conspiracy theorists.

Karl Rove fights hard for what he wants . . . a worthy quality. However, no one has accused him of being a stickler for cleanliness in his campaigns.

Yet, you are being asked to believe that fewer machines and longer lines in Afro-American precincts, the scandalously lower vote counts in Afro-American precincts, the confusion over precincts and ballots and counts and the disproportionate requirement that Afro-American voters vote provisionally all as unintentional glitches.

You are being asked to believe that the biggest glitch of all, that is Ohio and national vote counts which are realistically impossible in light of the exit poll results, is accidental

Those of Jewish faith and Afro-American ethnicity are being labeled as conspiracy theorists rather than people with a special insight based upon historical maltreatment in institutions like slavery and the Holocaust, for their belief that anybody intentionally directed all these glitches just at them.

3) The rule of power fallacy which exempts those in power from the rule of law and the rules of evidence.

This fallacy is based upon the double standard where rules applied to others do not apply to those in power. America, because it is the world's military superpower, may use exit polls to verify or challenge the validity of elections in other countries, such as the Ukraine, Mexico and others, but exit polling may not be used to challenge election results reported in the United States.

In the United States the party in power, that is, the Bush-Republican Party, may exempt itself from rules which apply to Democrats and those not in control of the Bush-Republican Party.

The rule of power fallacy is the most important of these three fallacies because it teaches Democrats like John Kerry, John Edwards and Terry McAuliffe that there is no point in challenging Bush Republicans based upon law or fact because Bush Republicans control the Congress, the Courts and the Presidency and will use that control to impose their will no matter what may be the facts or the law.

In my experience over the past four years in successfully litigating on behalf of the non-partisan Alliance for Democracy in partnership with Common Cause/Ohio as Chairman of its Legal Affairs Committee against the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States neither the candidates nor the party that have been targeted by the approximately $14 million of illegal corporate money have been involved as parties or public supporters of the litigation. In politics the targeted candidates and parties place a higher priority upon avoiding the appearance being sore losers than upon seeking the true facts and upholding the rule of law.

It does not surprise me, based upon my most recent election litigation experience, that John Kerry and the Democratic Party which appear to have been the intended victim of the most massive election fraud in history are not contesting this election.

In contrast to the intended victims of this fraud, you as a United States Senator, whether a member of the Democratic or Republican Party are called upon to judge this election not as a party but as a judge. You are bound by your oath to uphold the Constitution to judge this election independently and objectively with regard to the facts and the law.

Ohio voters who formally contest the November 2, 2004, contest the election not only for its irregularities, but also because the evidence shows that a majority of Ohio voters and a majority of American voters voted for John Kerry. We assert that the evidence for this meets, not only the clear and convincing standard of Ohio law for an election contest, but also the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law.

Ohio's Secretary of State has refused to answer questions under oath as to either the blatant irregularities or the results he has certified. He is stonewalling, on the apparent belief that Congress will simply proceed to count Ohio's electoral votes today, along with the votes of all the other states, and the matter will be over. He is looking to Congress to free him and others from responding to the overwhelming evidence that the Ohio election results he certified are fraudulent and that John Kerry won Ohio and therefore the presidency. In the 2000 presidential election the U.S. Supreme Court took responsibility for stopping the verification and counting Florida votes for purposes of the certification of the Florida presidential electors. The Congress then took responsibility for accepting, without challenge, the unverified electoral votes of Florida.

A consortium of news organizations took the initiative to count all the Florida votes after the inauguration of George W. Bush. Thus, history now records the fact that Albert Gore actually won the Florida popular vote had all votes been properly counted.

Based upon the evidence, uncontroverted by any sworn testimony whatsoever, if the Ohio litigation challenging the Ohio presidential vote is allowed to proceed, it will promptly establish as a matter of fact that John Kerry won Ohio and Presidency.

All of the Ohio votes, whether cast or simply tabulated on computerized voting machines, can and should be promptly counted by independent companies whose tabulating equipment, personnel, procedures and software are fully transparent to both political parties and the independent nonpartisan groups that support an honest Ohio election.

For us to complete our non-partisan job of litigating the Ohio election result we need your help in challenging the electoral votes of every state, until due process in our litigation can be completed. If instead, you accept the reported electoral college votes today or limit your challenge only to the Ohio vote, it appears likely that the Ohio Supreme Court will dismiss our election challenge as moot because the challenged Ohio electors will today have been fully discharged by the completed act of Congress.

Because of the importance of this matter, history requires that the Ohio 2004 presidential election votes ultimately be accurately counted. If that happens after an inauguration, then, based upon the evidence at hand, history would record that, for a second time, George W. Bush would have been elected on the basis of an incorrect count of the votes that were actually cast and that, for a second time the Congress certified an inaccurate Presidential election result.

Sincerely yours,
Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.

Chairman of the Ohio Honest Election Campaign and Co-Chair of the Alliance for Democracy Counsel of Record for the Contestors in Rev. Bill Moss et al. v. Bush et al., Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 04-2088

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1068

maygar

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/

this site seems to re-group info on the subject

nasus

Yes, this has been a very good, always current, resource on the 2004 election information and developments. Here is one of the more recent postings.
----------------------------------------------------------
Open Letter From
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
January 10, 2004

Dear Friend:

I want to thank you for the time and energy you have already given to help me in my pursuit of the truth about the 2004 Presidential election, particularly the truth about what happened in Ohio. I also want to let you know what I will be working on in the coming months.

I believe what we achieved on January 6 will be a seminal event in the history of progressive politics, and significantly advance the cause of electoral reform. For this challenge to Ohio’s electors to have occurred, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the internet activists, who spread the story of my efforts and supported me in every way possible. I am also thankful to the alternative media, including talk radio and blogs that gave substantial attention and investigation to these matters when all but a handful in the mainstream media refused to examine the facts. I cannot thank all of you personally, but you know who you are.

With the exigency of January 6 behind us, I wanted to let you know what I will be doing in the coming months. First, my investigation of Ohio voting irregularities is not over. In an effort to get as much information confirmed and circulated in advance of January 6, many valuable leads still need to be pursued and I pledge to do so. Substantial irregularities have come to light in other states during the course of this investigation and I will also pursue those leads. While there has been powerful opposition to my efforts and personal attacks against me as a result of my efforts, I want to assure you I remain steadfast.

Second, there are other matters involving wrongdoing by Administration officials that I will continue to pursue. Among other things, I will continue to seek answers about the role of senior Bush Administration officials in outing an undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative. I will also continue to examine the sources of the fraudulent case for the Iraq war, which intersects with the outing of this operative.

Third, I intend to develop and introduce legislation in a number of areas. Most importantly, I intend to introduce comprehensive election reform legislation in the coming weeks, and I will fight for its passage at the earliest possible moment. I intend to hold further hearings on this issue. I will also continue to fight the job loss and the loss of retirement security that has so negatively impacted working families in my district, and I will fight the economic policies of this Administration that are the cause of these serious problems. Finally, the Judiciary Committee will also be at the center of the efforts to oversee the U.S.A. Patriot Act and ascertain which, if any, provisions should be renewed. I expect to lead the fight against a number of provisions that I believe compromise our civil liberties.

Again, thank you for all you have done. I look forward to working with you on these and other important matters in the weeks and months ahead.

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.


http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/01/open-letter-from-congressman-john.html

nasus

Congressman Conyers Asks Justice Department to Appoint Special Counsel to Investigate Ohio

Congressman Conyers Has Asked the Justice Department to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Possible Criminal Conduct in Connection with the Ohio 2004 Election by J. Kenneth Blackwell.

In this detailed letter, Conyers stated that through the House Judiciary Democrats' investigation, they had learned of "numerous instances of voter intimidation and misinformation,improper purging, caging of minority voters, misuse of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds, voting machine tampering, perjury, and most recently, potential misuse of the federal seal in a campaign solicitation by Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell. Since this and other apparent violations by the Secretary of State presents such an obvious conflict for your office, we would ask that you appoint a special counsel to investigate this matter."

Full text of the letter: http://miamedia.com/news/20050114dojelectionspconltr.pdf
or http://www.BradBlog.com/Docs/SpecialCounselLetter.pdf
or http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/dojelectionspconltr11405.pdf
or http://shadowbox.i8.com/HJCletter2DOJ.pdf

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/01/congressman-conyers-asks-justice.html

nasus

Election 2004

In the Shadow of Dr. King, counting the vote remains a civil rights issue
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
January 17, 2005

In the shadow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., America's electoral crisis continues.

King marched across the south and the nation to guarantee all Americans, black and white, the right to vote. But in 2000 and again in 2004, that right was denied.

Now in the wake of another bitterly contested vote count, is the electoral situation improving in the spirit of Dr. King?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, when briefing the Senate Democratic leadership on the day before the historic challenge to the Ohio electors, told them that in the 40 years since the Voting Rights Act, the people opposed to voting rights have simply changed parties -- from "Dixiecrats" to Republicans -- while still doing "everything in their power to suppress the voting rights of [the] poor and minorities." Jackson also told Senators Reid, Durbin and Stabenow that after President Lyndon Johnson refused Martin Luther King, Jr.'s pitch for voting rights in 1964 at a ceremony commemorating King's Nobel Prize award, it was a "remnant of the civil rights movement that went down to Selma" that was beaten and bloodied in a struggle that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In Jackson's analysis, all that was won was a Jim Crow "state's rights" voting system that with new Republican political strength has moved to openly suppress voting rights. His Rainbow/PUSH is beginning talk about a Montgomery (Ohio) to Selma bus ride in the spring.

In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell is taking steps to ensure perpetual Republican domination of Ohio. On January 12, Blackwell issued a statewide directive requiring all of Ohio’s 88 county Boards of Elections to commit to optical scan voting machine systems from two notoriously partisan Republican corporations – Diebold Election Systems or Election Systems & Software (ES&S). The choices are to be made by February 9.

Blackwell supporters say this move will effectively put the entire state into paper ballots, a crucial step toward unifying procedures and facilitating recounts.

But the machines and their makers remain suspect. John Kerry expressed concern over similar opti-scan tabulators that were used in the New Mexico election in 2004. In a conference call with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and two Ohio election litigation attorneys, Kerry observed that despite the registration percentages in New Mexico, he seemed to lose in every county where the optical scan systems were used, no matter what their demographic make up or party history.

Blackwell has come under fierce fire for running a bitterly contested election while serving as Ohio co-chair for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Ohio's vote was challenged January 6 by some three dozen Senators and Representatives under an 1887 law never before applied to an entire state's delegation. Blackwell was angrily criticized on the floor of Congress for his conflict of interest in running an Ohio election that gave George W. Bush the presidency while being riddled with a wide range of partisan irregularities.

Some 14.5% of Ohio's votes were cast on touch screen machines in 2004, a total in excess of 600,000 votes in an election where the official margin was under 120,000.

In Volusia Country, Florida, Diebold machines mysteriously switched thousands of votes from Al Gore to Bush at a crucial time on election night 2000, reversing trends that showed the election going to Gore. It was later shown the Diebold equipment had initially shown Gore with a minus 19,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist Party candidate got 9,000, far more than anywhere else in the state. Diebold later blamed the episode on a "faulty memory chip." But coming at a watershed moment on election night, the critically timed malfunction caused major networks to switch their predictions from a Gore victory to one for Bush.

In 2003 Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell issued a fundraising letter in which he pledged to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes" to Bush. O'Dell lives in Upper Arlington, a Columbus suburb, and is a major Bush donor -- a member of the Pioneer and Ranger team.

ES&S, the only other company from which Blackwell says the election boards of Ohio's 88 counties may buy their electronic scanning machines, also has deep Republican ties. The company was founded by Bob Urosevich, who still helps run it, and his brother Todd, who now works at Diebold. At one point the two companies were estimated to be counting up to 80% of the all the computerized votes in the country. But perhaps more frightening are the opti-scan machines that read the opti-scan paper ballots. These ballots that have to be marked with a special pen proved a notorious failure in Lucas County, Ohio, particularly in Toledo's heavily Democratic wards. One of the problems is that the machines can be calibrated to be very sensitive, rejecting abnormally high rates of ballots if the marks stray outside the designated area. The machines counting mechanisms are adjusted by technicians and controlled by secret proprietary software owned by the company. This lack of transparency is unacceptable in all other democratic governments.

Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been elected and re-elected on machines made by ES&S, which is owned in part by a company in which Hagel still has a million-dollar stake. His most recently defeated rival has implied Hagel's ES&S-tabulated vote counts in both elections appear highly suspect. In particular, several African-American and Native American precincts gave Hagel large margins of victory that appear highly improbable.

The demand by Blackwell that the next Ohio election be tabulated by GOP-owned hardware and software has been angrily denounced by numerous county election board officials and election protection activists. But those aren't the only problems surfacing in Blackwell's office. The Secretary of State recently issued a fundraising letter taking credit for having delivered Ohio to George W. Bush, a controversial boast in light of Blackwell's control over how the election was conducted. Blackwell has also been cited for signing on to a fundraising letter soliciting corporate contributions, which is illegal. Blackwell's office has called that part of the letter "a mistake."

But in a lame duck session shortly after November's contested election, the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature grabbed another lever of power. In a hasty special session, the GOP rammed through a bill expanding the amount of money private individuals can give in election campaigns while restricting contributions from unions. Though the bill requires public disclosure of large donations, it tips the balance very heavily toward wealthy donors who are primarily Republican. Many observers believe the "reform" could guarantee Republican rule in Ohio for decades to come.

Meanwhile, new legal actions are being pursued in Ohio where the Alliance for Democracy filed to intervene in a pending Election Day suit in hopes of staying the inauguration. And in New Mexico, a recount is still being sought. Talk has also spread about the possibility of civil rights lawsuits being filed in Ohio in response to the denial of thousands of African Americans' right to vote on November 2.

The original Moss v. Bush lawsuit filed to overturn the seating of George Bush has been withdrawn, in large part because it was expected the courts would rule it moot. But the prospect of new litigation based on the legacy of Dr. King means the election of 2004 won't be over for a long time. It is 37 years since the legendary civil rights activist was shot. But in Ohio, New Mexico and around the US, the battle for the ability of all Americans to vote, and to have those vote fairly counted, has never been hotter.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1096

Saundra Hummer

Why isn't there more outrage and efforts afoot by more organizations and just everyday people to see that this can't and doesn't happen? Are we so ripe for the picking? When will we all wake up? This is a dangerous prescedent, this intimadation at the polls, this disallowing of legitimacy. History tells us what can happen and usually does when the people of a country become complacent. We're walking on shakey ground when we let this go on.

__________________
Sandi from Hermosa Beach

Saundra Hummer

Why isn't there more outrage and efforts afoot by more organizations and, just everyday people to see that this can't and doesn't happen? Are we so ripe for the picking? When will we all wake up? This is a dangerous prescedent, this intimidation at the polls, this disallowing of legitimacy. History tells us what can happen and usually does when the people of a country become complacent. We're walking on shakey ground when we let this go on.

__________________
Sandi from Hermosa Beach

nasus

I think because most people believe the mainstream media which states that those who question the integrity of the 2004 election are a small fringe group of conspiracy theorists (read "quacks") or unable to accept reality that Kerry lost. Few people want to be associated with such a group. It is not easy to stand out before the pack with a different viewpoint and those that are trying are targets of a huge political machine that wants to silence them. But internet activists can play a significant role in assuring that this matter does not go uninvestigated by sharing information they read on this on other sites.

Read the next two items.


Ohio's GOP Attorney General launches revenge attack on Election Protection legal team
by Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
January 19, 2005

COLUMBUS -- In a stunning legal attack, Ohio's Republican Attorney General has moved for sanctions against the four attorneys who sued George W. Bush et. al. in an attempt to investigate the Buckeye State's bitterly contested November 2 election.

Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck and Peter Peckarsky were named by Attorney General James Petro in a filing with the Ohio Supreme Court. Petro charges the November Moss v Bush and Moss v. Moyer filings by the Election Protection legal team were "frivolous." Petro is demanding court sanctions and fines.

Link to full article http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1102
---------------------------------------------------------------

Open Letter to Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro from Representative John Conyers, Jr.
by Representative John Conyers, Jr.
January 20, 2005

January 20, 2005
The Hon. Jim Petro
Attorney General
State of Ohio
State Office Tower
30 E. Broad St, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215


Dear Attorney General Petro:

I write to express my concern regarding your recent request to sanction those attorneys who brought a legal challenge to last year's presidential election in Ohio. In particular, I am concerned that by seeking official censure and fines, you are engaged in a selective and partisan misuse of your legal authority. As eager as many disgruntled voters are to have a court of law finally assess the merits of the challenge actions, I have serious doubts about the validity of the sanctions case your office is pursuing.

Link to the complete letter http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1111

Rep. Conyers, Jr.'s letter is priceless. He is a true public servant who is honoring his duty as a U.S. Representative to protect the U.S. Constitution. I think Ohio Atty. General Petro might regret the day he tried to "punish" the four attorneys who are pursuing the issues of the 2004 Ohio election. Did he not remember that the little people have some support in DC? Did he not "get" the challenge by Rep. Tubbs-Jones and Sen. Boxer to the certification of the electoral votes? This will be an interesting one to watch. And if you appreciate what these people are trying to do, you can support them by either donating to the legal fund or by contacting Rep. Conyers, Jr. and thanking him for his efforts.