Cliff Arnebeck update

It was posted a few days ago that Cliff was on the radio (ring of fire).

I just listened to the interview and I found that Cliff mentioned something previously unknown to me. I've transcribed the important parts, and I have a question below:


Arnebeck: "Three days after we did the voluntary dismissal (of Moss. v Bush) I filed a motion to intervene in a federal pending case to essentially proceed with the same litigation and take these emergency depositions of Bennet and Blackwell. We're hoping to get into this federal case and prove the fraud and all the civil rights conspiracies.

And if the case we selected is not available because the judge won't let us in, we intend to file additional litigation. We are intending to broaden the investigation to prove how the votes were stolen all over the country."

3/12/05, Ring of Fire


My question is, does anyone know what federal case he's trying to get in to? Is it the Cobb case that Kerry was joining in on too?

I'm glad to hear Cliff is still literally "on the case." I should mention he said his new website is http://ohiohonestelections.org

and you can hear the whole interview here
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/show.asp?jid=54

legal maneuvers going on, even if we were not hearing about it every day.

I was really wanting to hear that interview and couldn't get the link to work!!!

Nice to know my beloved Cliffie is still at it. Good man.

I haven't been around much lately so I've lost track if they're off the hook from that ridiculous suit Blackwell and the Ohio attorney general filed against them.

it sounded like it was still pending but he said he wasn't worried about it and it was more of a maneuver to scare other people from pursuing lawsuits. he commented that it signified they are afraid of something. if the election was legit, wouldn't they welcome an investigation to clear suspicion?

and still taking a lot of time and money from the attorney'defendants, which is exactly what was intended by this harrassment.

And yes, one could list a few dozen (hundred?) examples of ways in which the Blackwell et all are behaving like guilty people who are in the process of being caught in the act.

I don't think even being governor would be enough punishment for him, do you? <g>

own even more of the courts than we know about, and they are feeling invulnerable.

but still not much, and it strikes me as odd that the name of the case isn't mentioned. This is from http://ohiohonestelections.org

"This federal court case began when the Ohio Democratic Party sued Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth J. Blackwell in order to protect the rights of Ohio voters.

Currently the Ohio Democratic Party is abandoning the case and Cliff is trying to replace the Ohio Democratic Party in order to find out what happened on Election Day 2004 and to prevent those abuses from occurring again. The Ohio Democratic Party is resisting Cliff’s motion to join the case as the plaintiff, including paying the cost for the case. Having Cliff join the case would not cost the Ohio Democratic Party a penny. "

On the ohiohonestelections site in their news of today, March 16, 2005, it says:

"Cliff Arnebeck testified on behalf of Common Cause today at the Ohio State Capital. The hearing was held to discuss provisional ballots. Cliff was questioned on many topics including verified paper *trails* for voters. We will post the transcript of the hearing when it becomes available."

This quote, though, is a link to what appears to be a draft transcript of the statement in which I saw no mention of paper trails. (Or should we call them paper "droppings?")

most of Ohio has a paper trail and it could still be recounted.

(emlev i think you said that on the radio once didn't ya?)

He was crossing the street walking in the direction of the library or maybe the courthouse. I recognized him from the Cincinnati voter suppression hearing and the Jesse Jackson breakfast rally. He asked me to sign a petition he was crarying obout the doubling of the acceptable political contributions in Ohio.

I find it strange that someone for Common Cause would be supporting an increase?!?!?!?!?!?!/

For non-Ohioans wondering what this is all about...
1 - At the very end of 2004, the rethugs snuck a bill through which increases limit on personal contributions to candidates, parties and PAC's from $2,500 to $10,000. It's too complex to explain, but a family of four (two children 7 or older) can kick in
$200,000! Plus there are restrictions on union contributions.
The bill is 132 pp long, so you know there are endless advantages to the wealthy rethugs.
2 - the petition is to keep the bill from becoming law on April 1 this year which will seriously affect Dems' fund-raising for the fall elections. If about 200K signatures are approved, the bill will be on hold and in November be put to the vote of the citizens.
3 - It's typical of the rethugs' tactics to essentially disenfranchise
the average citizen. The bastards! So Bill Woods circulating a petition is very pro-democracy!

the petition was "about" increasing limits on personal spending in campaigns, but it was *opposing* that notion?
Whew.

You're correct, but it's better understood to say the petition
is to stop the bill - already signed by Gov. Taft on 30 Dec '04 after approval by the ridiculous-right-controlled Ohio legislature - from taking effect on 1 Apr. If it IS stopped, the electorate will vote for/against HB 1 on the November '05 ballot. It was written to advantage the wealthy class and restrict traditionally non-rethug supporters' fund-raising. About a 3% sample of registered voters (+/-200, 000) is needed to successfully petition the state gummint. We'll know in about ten days...

why is the Ohio democratic party abandoning the case?

we should slam them with email.

we all said "finally" the democratic party is doing something. I'm fuzzy on the details. I should be able to find something on it.

http://www.ohiodems.org/index.php?action=GetDocumentAction&id=233

THE SANDUSKY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC
PARTY
1703 Moore St. Apt 5
Fremont, Ohio 43420
and
THE OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY
271 E. State St.
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Plaintiffs,
v.
J. KENNETH BLACKWELL, Secretary of State,
in his official capacity,
180 E. Broad St. 16th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Defendant.

This one appears to be prior to 11/02 and more related to the previous election.

this link summarizes:

http://www.ohiodems.org/index.php?display=ReleaseDetails&id=152236

Does it strke you as weird at all that Arnebeck refers to the suit without naming or otherwise identifying it? That's unsettling to me. I don't know what it means.

it could just be an oversight. or maybe there's some kind of a gag order. I would think the public would want to know about this case if we don't already. I'm going to make some phone calls and see what I can find out.

g

Who needs to be ordered?
This whole f*ing election mess makes me gag!

http://www.ohiohonestelections.org/fcms_data/files/HB3TestimonyV21.doc


TESTIMONY
H.B. 3

COMMON CAUSE
Cliff Arnebeck, Member Common Cause Ohio Advisory Board

Before the House Elections and Ethics Committee
The Honorable Jim Hughes, Chair

March 16, 2005

I am here today on behalf of Common Cause, a nationwide nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.

Now, with nearly XYZ members and supporters in Ohio, Common Cause remains committed to honest, open and accountable government, as well as encouraging citizen participation in democracy.

While it appears that the intent of HB 3 is to bring Ohio into compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), this legislation goes beyond what is necessary with the net result being to further restrict the voting process in at least two specific ways.

Provisional Voting

Common Cause believes that voters should be allowed to cast a provisional ballot for federal or statewide offices even if, for whatever reason, they are not in their own precinct, and that every provisional ballot cast by an eligible voter should be counted. Additionally, it is critical that Ohio fully implements the HAVA-required notification system for voters using provisional ballots and perhaps most importantly, fully trains poll workers on the use of provisional ballots.

In 2004, provisional balloting did not function as the “safety net” that it was intended to be for registered voters whose names did not appear in the registration book. The Help America Vote Act says that a provisional ballot “shall be counted” if the voter is “eligible under state law to vote,” leaving substantial room for states to establish appropriate regulations regarding the handling and counting of provisional ballots. I am pleased that this body is interested in establishing some of these standards. However, making the counting of provisional ballots cast by registered voters more restrictive violates the spirit of the Help America Vote Act and creates a false promise of a vote counted. As Kay Maxwell, President of the League of Women Voters said at the Moritz College of Law recently, “whether to count the vote is a question of eligibility, not one of administrative practice. Eligibility questions go to the status of the individual, such as age and citizenship. It is a mistake to see the physical location from which a provisional ballot is cast as impugning the voter’s eligibility. The physical location is an administrative issue, not an eligibility issue.”

Unfortunately, as currently drafted, HB 3 would allow a voter’s location to determine his or her eligibility, at least in part. HB 3 defines "jurisdiction" as the precinct in which a person is legally qualified to vote for the purpose of determining whether or not one is eligible to cast, and have counted, a provisional ballot. In our opinion, "jurisdiction" should be defined as the county in which one is legally qualified to vote. The county board of elections, not the precinct, is responsible for maintaining and administering voters’ registration records and we should work within this framework in administering provisional ballots.

Our recommendations are to change the definition of jurisdiction in section 3505.181 line 354 to the “county in which a person is a legally qualified elector” and to add clear standards and procedures for issuing, processing and counting provisional ballots that make it likely more, not fewer, qualified voters will have their votes counted.

Recount Standards

Common Cause supported the Ohio recount as a way to review and audit what was clearly a troubled election process. Through our support of the recount, we learned that the timeline allowed for a recount, after certification and before the safe-harbor date, is inadequate. Slow initial counts and slow recounts created at least the perception of foot-dragging, although the strain on local boards of elections and vote counters was significant. In light of this recent history, it is our preference that the recount process be examined and standardized in a way that allows the process to be meaningful. However, H.B. 3 appears to move in the opposite direction, stripping what recount standards currently exist and failing to correct the moot timeline.

Specifically, H.B. 3 will eliminate existing standards regarding how and when the board of elections determines the cost of a non-automatic recount. The bill would require the applicant for the recount to pay the entire cost of the recount if the results do not change the results of the election, but removes requirements that the cost be determined and the money be posted by the applicant prior to the start of the recount. There is a clear need to reform the recount process, but H.B. 3 removes the current standards regarding how and when costs are assessed, potentially leaving the door open for subjective or punitive charges.

Additionally, H.B. 3 fails to address the timing problem around recounts - namely that for presidential elections, there is just not enough time to complete the recount and contest process before the federal safe harbor date for conclusively resolving controversies about the choice of presidential electors. In 2004 the safe harbor date was December 7th.

We recommend that you reinsert the language requiring that recount cost be determined and posted by the applicant prior to the start of the recount. We also recommend you develop clear standards by which to assess recount fees based on historical data and voting equipment to be recounted. Additionally, we believe you should adjust the recount timeline to ensure that all recounts and challenges can be fully executed in all applicable counties well before the safe harbor date and the meeting of the Electoral College.

Thank you for your time today and for considering these important issues. As a supplement to our testimony on H.B. 3, we are submitted an outline of our election reform agenda which outlines our positions on issues raised in H.B. 3 and other bills before this committee. Common Cause would be pleased to work with you on any of the above recommendations.

It appears this hearing is not related to Ohio Dems lawsuit. But it's all good. Cliff is a true patriot

...he ad libed a bit not having gotten the data in time, but this is the basic script of the testimony.

Unfortunately, as currently drafted, HB 3 would allow a voter’s location to determine his or her eligibility, at least in part. HB 3 defines "jurisdiction" as the precinct in which a person is legally qualified to vote for the purpose of determining whether or not one is eligible to cast, and have counted, a provisional ballot. In our opinion, "jurisdiction" should be defined as the county in which one is legally qualified to vote.

and ask them why they're dropping the suit against Blackwell!

they don't have a "contact us" page but, this email address is on their website:
todd@ohiodems.org

could also prolly use
info@ohiodems.org

Legal filing highlights Blackwell's hypocrisy in Ohio recount case
by Blair Bobier
March 7, 2005

A spokesman for the Green Party's 2004 presidential campaign, which initiated the Ohio recount, today blasted the suggestion by Ohio's Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell that he would need to take depositions from John Kerry and John Edwards as part of the Ohio recount litigation.

"Mr. Blackwell's contention that he needs to depose Senators Kerry and Edwards is a laughable and blatantly political move. Mr. Blackwell has refused to be deposed himself about the Ohio election, has refused to appear before Congress and has refused to answer questions from members of the House Judiciary Committee who have been investigating allegations of election fraud. To suggest that Kerry and Edwards should be deposed to address a legal technicality while Mr. Blackwell continues to avoid any public scrutiny of his own misconduct in the Ohio election is the height of hypocrisy," said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the 2004 Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1186

Here's a thread on a case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=337553

The original story link is dead but this one works.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/11033738.htm

State Wants Judge To Rule On Its Role In Election
Long Voting Lines Spurred Request
by AP

March 2, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The state has asked a federal judge to determine whether it complied with the law in how it conducted last year's presidential election, saying it needs a precedent for challenges in future elections.

-snip-

The request grew out of a case originally brought by the Ohio Democratic Party against Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, and two county boards of election on Election Day. The party sought to alleviate long lines at polling places in two counties.

-snip-

After Kerry conceded, the Democrats asked Marbley to dismiss the case. However, the Ohio Attorney General's office, representing Blackwell, is trying to keep it alive so Marbley will rule on its request. The state filed a motion to intervene, asking Marbley to rule that the state and county boards did not violate constitutional guarantees of the right to vote, as claimed by the Democrats.

-snip-

The state countered that Marbley should rule so a judgment will be in place if similar court actions are filed in future elections.

-snip/more-

I'm going to use the old telephone if they don't get back to me soon.

I was able to talk to Cliff Arnebeck and I asked him which case it is.

This is the case:

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell
U.S. District District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:04-cv-01055

here is a PDF of the actual filing:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

Here is all the documentation of the case:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation-ohiodems.htm

This case was filed on election day.

Cliff affirmed to me that the Democratic Party, even though it began the case, is trying to withdraw now and also prevent Cliff from joining it. Cliff has requested that if the Dems back out that he be allowed to continue the same case.

All of this has to be decided by a judge and that's where we're at. Cliff seemed to think that if the judge lets him in, that he'll be able to start using the power of subpoena.

-Gary

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------

After the past days and now this, how can they abandon us like this?

he didn't really understand why they were withdrawing

that's why I think we should slam them with email and try to get an answer out of them.

Go to Hell!

what is going on. They can ignore emails.

ohiodems.org

I should mention one thing.

While it appears on the surface that they are being jerks by withdrawing the case, there is a (remote?) chance that there's more to the picture than meets the eye.

We know that $500,000 was sent to Ohio by the national democratic party to pursue litigation.

It may be that there's another plan we don't know about. Maybe another suit. Maybe they're putting everything into the Cobb/Kerry suit, although that would be unfortunate because it only focuses on the recount.

There is a lot goingon in Ohio right now, and some of it appears to be "hush hush".

I'm just saying we should appear to be honestly seeking information in a fair manner when we ask them why they're withdrawing. Just attacking them won't accomplish much.

there's this from another post I did on this thread:


The question is, if this is strategy on their part because they see a different, better plan, or if they are complicit, or if they are running scared in the sense that they think they'd only get screwed worse by pursuing this.

I thought it was generally for "investigation."

It seems like someone at DNC should be able to give us a general idea where it was sent and what it's being used for. If Ohiodems didn't get it, who did? Or maybe they haven't decided exactly what to do with it yet.

614-221-6563


The person I talked to said these things

-The Ohio Democratic party has not received any of the $500,000 that was supposedly sent by the DNC

-He's not sure why they're withdrawing

-refered me to Don McTigue for more direct answers. He gave me his phone number but I probably shouldn't post it here. If anyone wants it PM me.


I think if more people call and start asking questions, they'll have to find some answers and not just refer everyone to McTigue.

Gary

The DNC press releases that I saw said that the DNC, specifically its Voting Rights Institute, not the Ohio party, would be investigating the Ohio 2004 election. And that "up to" $500,000.00 was committed.

So I'm not surprised that the Ohio DP has not received any $ from the DNC, and does not tell you much about the project. This is a DNC project apparently run from HQ.

Several highly-placed officials in the state party are on the State Advisory panel to the national panel, so the Ohio DP chair and previous chair, for example, may have some inside information. This form of organization seems a little unusual, and it is hard to tell which panel does what, and how either panel interacts with the staff of the DNC or the VRI. Does anyone know?

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050202/NEWS01/502020378/1056

2/2/05

WASHINGTON - The national Democratic Party will spend up to $500,000 to investigate voting problems that critics say might have occurred last year in the battleground state of Ohio, the party's leader said Tuesday.

"I want them to open up the machines," outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe told Gannett News Service and USA Today reporters. "If there's nothing wrong with the machines, we ought to be able to go in and take a look at them."

this is strategy on their part because they see a different, better plan, or if they are complicit, or if they are running scared in the sense that they think they'd only get screwed worse by pursuing this.

I hate all this guessing and not knowing what's REALLY going on. To be a fly on the wall...

On that thread, there was some discussion about how a bad outcome could create a bad precedent.

(But then, these bad systems sure can produce bad presidents.) :grr:

Unless they have another plan they think will work better, this is a lame excuse. You can't win if you don't play the game. Fear of the repercussion of losing is weak. If you lose, who cares, go on to the next thing. At some point they need to go for it. I'm still hopefull there is some kind of plan they're working on. I just can't tell what it is, and I'm worried that there might not even be one.

Maintaining a healthy fear of losing is not weak. It's called being prudent.

I'm not arguing for inaction, but I'm not arguing for going off half-cocked.

I'm also very glad that garybeck doesn't know the plan. It gives me a modicum of hope that there's actually some real gamesmanship going on among those fighting the fight with deeds rather than words alone, and that election reform efforts will not be blunted by attacks in/by/on the blogosphere.

you go to the various Board of Election web sites and all you see is a whole bunch of white, fat, middle age people with Uncle Tom J. kennet Blackwell doing the yah-suh,yah-suh off to the sides....

what exactly do you mean by this:

"I'm also very glad that garybeck doesn't know the plan. It gives me a modicum of hope that ... election reform efforts will not be blunted by attacks in/by/on the blogosphere."

Can you please indicate what kind of election reform efforts are in any way being blunted by attacks in/by/on the blogosphere??? Either my site (which is not a blog anyway) or any other?

The truth is that if it weren't for blogs we wouldn't know about Clint Curtis and a bunch of other things.

And I'm surprised that you are implying that my site has done anythng to "blunt election reform efforts."

Excuse me?

I've been fighting my ass off to try to get some election reform, since well before election day. I'm extremely disappointed that no on in congress has even proposed anything that will prevent election fraud. But in no way am I blunting election reform. That is ludicrous.

The reason that I don't know what they are up to is likely that there is a complete lack of leadership and direction within the democratic party and particularly in regards to investigating the election.

You say blogs, or people like me have "blunted" the investigation?

I'll tell you who has blunted the investigation - the Democratic Party! Just ask the lawyers who were (and still are) trying to bring these crooks to justice. Every step of the way, the Democratic party has asked them to stop what they're doing. The party allowed crucial evenidence to be destroyed in New Mexico. All their proposed legislation tries to fix voter suppression but does very little to fix the real problem - computer fraud.

But I guess it's people like me who are only trying to get the truth out to the American people, who are responsible. I guess we're "blunting" the efforts to fix the system. Excuse me while I go sharpen my blunter....

Perhaps he's saying we had better hope that these guys have a pile of "arrows in their quiver", some known only to them. You mentioned above, "hush-hush". That kinda thing. As you're aware the legal case angle itself is a three dimensional chess game. Then add the PR angle.

He wasn't complaining about the blogs that have supported the investigation and opposition. Rather, he indicates that these legal teams should not be worn down by those that have been disappointed with what they've perceived of K/E post 11/3.

Off Topic:

Here's one for the SolarBus Legislation Reference (under Voter Enfranchisement)

H. J. Res. 28: Jesse Jackson (D-IL) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-28


Shameless Plug:

http://www.solarbus.org/election/legislation.shtml

Ohio Honest Elections Campaign

Breaking News

Sunday, March 20, 2005

We will send an email tomorrow discussing the increasingly dire situation in Ohio.


http://ohiohonestelections.org

I signed up for their email list.