... about Arnebeck's letter.... Bush and Rove named in lawsuit???

Arnebeck's letter states:

On Monday, 12/13, we filed a lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, Rove and others on behalf of 44 Ohioans alleging that Bush won the Ohio election as a result of fraud.

This is the first I've heard of Bush, Cheney, and Rove actually being named in the lawsuits. This is incredible if it's true. Is there any documentation to this effect? Can we read the filing? I haven't seen it.

I had thought that the lawsuit was against the Ohio BOE and Blackwell.

-g


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The most important issue we face as a nation is election reform. In the 2004 election, 80% of the votes nationwide were counted on machines made by two private companies that support the Republican Party, many of which produced no paper trail that could be checked in a recount. There was also documented widespread voter suppression based on race and party affiliation. A bill was introduced in Congress to outlaw the paperless voting machines but the Republican Party prevented the bill from coming to a vote. A growing list of statistical experts are agreeing that the exit polls indicate a problem with what happened on November 2nd. A congressional investigation has uncovered sworn testimony of tampering with the election.

While Democrats today are trying to figure out what they did wrong, and how to change the party for the future, the real issue is the voting machines and election reform. It is more important than the economy, the war, the environment, health care, taxes, and women's rights. If we do not take back our right to vote and have it counted properly, none of these other issues matter at all and nothing will change. For more information on this important subject see:

http://election.solarbus.org

and i believe that is why Arnebeck is asking for so much money for help.

you know how hard Bush/Cheney/Rove etc lawyers are going to fight it.

ARNEBECK HAS A LOT OF GUTS.

I haven't heard anything implicating those guys until now. I just started reading the lawsuite. Is there anything in there that explains why they are named as defendants? Is there evidence that they planned it or at least knew about it?

Of course we all know that Rove had something to do with it, and I've always thought that they might have protected Bush by not telling him. Either way I'd love to hear the evidence implicating Rove.

but i would assume whoever is being contested would be a contestee and named on the suit.

it is a little extreme feeling - seeing their names on there, specifically Rove's. :o

i dont' know what Arnebeck thinks he has, but it sounds pretty intense...

Fitrakis said yesterday that today (Monday), Bush, Cheney and Rove would be subpoenaed.

He also told me that his Free Press.org website had recently been hacked.

A few tidbits, if you don't have time to read the whole document:

(Based on the national exit poll results,) "The chance of Kerry receiving a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bush in an honest election was 98.7%." --page 28

p. 29 "Unconstitutional discrimination served as a deliberate provocation which distracted attention from vote fraud needed to control absolutely the outcome of the election. The discrimination served to decrease the vote for candidates Kerry and Connally by an amount which could not be known precisely in advance. The vote fraud served to control precisely in certain critical counties the certified vote for candidates Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Moyer, and Connally by amounts which (when taken in the aggregate) could be known in advance and which would be sufficient to control the outcome of the election."

p. 31 "On information and belief, a second of these means of changing a legitimate result to a fraudulent result included inserting unauthorized and so far undetected operating instructions into the software used to operate either the vote tabulating machines or the voting machines (in the case of direct recording electronic voting machines without a voter verified paper audit trail)...On information and belief the undetected operating instructions were only operational on November 2, 2004."

p. 35 ..."the true result was that the Kerry-Edwards ticket won Ohio by at least 142,537 votes."

Remember Rove's famous statement (paraphrased here), "Well, I started looking at the numbers and I felt sick, and then I got angry and, well, I just shoved a bunch of fraudulent steenkin' numbers from Horsehead over to Turd Blossom's side of the column."

Yes, I'm really paraphrasing, but the gist of the message came across loud and clear: Rove fixed it, and he was telling us he fixed it and there wasn't one itsy-bitsy-teenie-weenie-yellow-polka-dot-bikini thing we could do about it.

And then along came Arnebeck.

yeah that's about how it went.
i do wonder wtf he was doing that night.

those phone records from the WH room that Pillsbury Roveboy was in making those calls that night. I bet they could be very telling.

when she came to tell him that Kerry was winning, and he just told her not to worry and put the earpiece back on?

and he just smugly smiled and said, "Kerry may have the crowds, but we've got the votes."

To tell you the truth, though, I think they kept Little Boots out of the loop until the last minute. You know how he's always spilling the truth when you least expect it. ("The enemy is clever and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm America, and neither do we.")

check page 15, article #42.

it clearly alleges that Rove was involved, either directly or through "agents" that are unknown at this time. (funny that they name the agents "John Doe, Richard Roe, and ***Karl Roe***")

Thanks to the right-wing conspiracy of the 90s. Oh, oh, let's start planning now on the perjury trap:

(1) Will it be something regarding Condi?
(2) Will it be something involving drugs or alcohol?
(3) Pretzels? Maybe Bush has some fetish with pretzels that involve erotic asphyxiation?

Just boggles the mind. Oh, how much fun the right-wing conspirators must have had dreaming these things up in the 90s!

against the Bush family and the entire admin on Homeland Security Forum. Must see p. 4 where he states that "The enterprise has engaged in a conspiracy to commit election fraud" and names Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, as well!!

Bush & Co. end up getting busted for purgery in something unrelated to election fraud, but in the context of Arnebeck's lawsuit?

...I think it's easier to put all the usual suspects in the lawsuit initially than adding them later. Names can be removed down the road. Am I correct?

That is correct. Bush, Cheney and Rove are named as acting through their campaign operatives in Ohio.

Their names are on there - as well as their addresses. Freeping stalker types will make their lives hell, I'm sure.

I'm not lawyer and although I firmly believe that all named respondents on that suit SHOULD be there, it is common knowledge in the legal community that in civil litigation, you name everyone when you file the suit and then sort it out later once discovery has begun.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4816

It's astonishing, what all is covered there. My favorite line (other than seeing * & co as contestees) was that the accuracy of statistics doesn't stop at the US border.

I got a hint of what Arnebeck is after in talking to him at Conyers' 12/8 meeting in DC. We were talking about the exit polls and I said we really needed to get full data on the polls, who polled, where, time of day, etc., and he just smiled and said "That's all part of the discovery phase". Now, I'm no lawyer, but I think that means that if the suit is not thrown out, they go into a discovery phase where they can subpeonea (sp) people and ask for evidence and have experts examine voting machines and records. Anyone know for sure?

ARNEBECK :yourock: and HAVE GUTS!

Whether people testify or not is another matter. There are many stalling maneuvers which can be implemented, needless to mention the infamous "Taking the Fifth," or, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me."

Regarding examining the voting machines and records, that's another matter entirely. I think Triad is becoming increasingly the center of attention and although I haven't heard yet of them yammering about the proprietary nature of their software/hardware, they will also come up with some excuse to refuse examination.

OTOH, statistical analysis provides a good pattern upon which any judge should be able to discern that something went wrong within the intricacies of the machine, at some level. We can only hope that all eyes will be on Ohio, both the eyes of the media and of the public, and whoever is the judge will be under extreme pressure to do his/her job with integrity.

I also want Triad to provide records reflecting a "chain of custody" for maintenance of those removed parts and/or switched out parts, and if their recent so-called maintenance is a typical or unusual occurrence following an election or even routine day-to-day servicing.
Those are the records I would want to see if I were Arnebeck. As many on DU have said, in political crimes it's rarely the deed that traps you; it's the coverup.

edit - typo gremlin

One of their main people, the Rapps, said so in an interview last week.

Virtually all of the companies say that.

But, even if they all opened up their records and showed all their software (open source), it wouldn't be sufficient to stop electronic vote fraud.

1. Scientists like David Dill say it is IMPOSSIBLE to get all the bugs out of software, even after it's been used quite a bit. Voting software is used infrequently, and doesn't have the feedback of the voters to check on its performance. Recounts are rare and highly contested (and in Ohio, there seems to be an interesting dance going on attempting to shield various portions of the evidence like the pollbooks).

2. Scientists also say it's nearly impossible to ferret out insider fraud -- a software programmer employed by the company who inserts a trojan horse or a backdoor at the outset can make sure it's not found.

3. Even if you could have perfectly bugless software and perfectly honest insiders, you have to have 100% pure chain of custody from the time the software is designed to installation to transportation to storage in warehouses to transportation to polling places to use on election day (weeks) to the counting period. Testimony in various states (CA and Texas and GA I know of) shows that voting machines have been stored, with no protection from theft or fraud, in precinct election judges' homes and cars during the course of an election, for example.

It only could take a knowledgeable person a few minutes to insert code that would allow fraud.

It's impossible to know what's on each machine at the time the voter uses it -- you are talking 50,000 or 100,000 lines of code. It's REALLY impossible to know what's going on in the crucial tabulating machines that are housed in central offices, and those often have modems and phone connections and can have their votes altered through the phone lines.

(At least in the case of Diebold, this was documented quickly by a hack test by RABA Technologies in January. Coming in through a modem, they were able to change test election tallies at will and exit without a trace of their visit. Md. computer testers cast a vote: Election boxes easy to mess with," January 30, 2004,
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-te.md.machine30jan30,0,4050694.story?coll=bal-local-headlines)

Arneback's suit also alleges the possibility wireless modems could be a method of altering votes.

Therefore, I suggest to you that counting votes by nontransparent machines is not appropriate. Counting by watched human beings is. Like Canada. Anything else is just an invitation to new kinds of fraud.

doesn't apply to civil suits? Only in criminal proceedings.

-Hoot

"statistical analysis provides a good pattern upon which any judge should be able to discern that something went wrong."

Well, yes, but the other side will present contradictory statistical analysis that sounds every bit as good as ours. Such analysis is already out - use google.

"and if their recent so-called maintenance is a typical or unusual occurrence following an election or even routine day-to-day servicing.
"

Thank you for this. It's refreshing to see someone recognize that these activities are not necessarily evidence of fraud.

Every time we make assumptions that are not warranted, and base statistical analysis on assumptions that aren't valid, we do a dis-service to the country. MSM won't ever cover a story where emotion appears to have replaced reason among it's proponents.

There are some valid evidence that point where we should place our resources, but we aren't.

I think this is more current:

http://freepress.org/images/departments/Election_Contest_2.pdf