Kenneth Blackwell's attorney's say... It's Moot

August 2006 Blackwell agrees to retain 2004 ballots for activists
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=209177


Friday, September 01, 2006 New lawsuit alleges ballot tampering in 2004 election
http://www.dispatch.com/election/election.php?story=dispatch/2006/09/01/20060901-E3-00.html


Filed 08/31/2006 Lawsuit filed KLBNA v. Blackwell
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php

Case 2:06-cv-00745-ALM-TPK

<snip>

2. Specifically Defendant Blackwell and those acting in concert with him at all times under color of law have conspired to deprive and continue to deprive Ohioans of the right to vote ....

<snip>

First claim: Violation of Equal protection of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments

<snip>

Second Claim: Violation of Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

<snip>

Third Claim: Conspiracy Claim

<snip>

Fourth Claim: Actions Taken Pursuant to Invidious Racial Animus in Violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.§1985(3)


Segue:


Amendment XIII (...Moot?)

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Amendment XIV (...Moot?)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male (Doh!) inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Amendment XV (could it be ...Moot?)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Segue:

filed 12/11/06 - MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Moot by Defendant J Kenneth Blackwell

MOTION OF DEFENDANT J. KENNETH BLACKWELL, SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT
Now comes Defendant, J. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of the State of Ohio, by and through counsel, and requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as all issues contained therein have been rendered moot. A Memorandum in Support is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

<snip>

In the present case, it must be noted that while the majority of Plaintiffs’ allegations relate to the conduct of the 2004 Presidential Election, Plaintiffs allege that a conspiracy is ongoing and capable of repetition in the future. Specifically, Plaintiffs request injunctive relief from this Court to direct Secretary Blackwell to act in a specific fashion in his capacity as Ohio Secretary of State (See Amended Complaint, ¶ 236). There appears to be no issue that all alleged irregularities regarding the 2004 Election are moot. There is simply no fashion by which Plaintiffs could “go back in time” and alter the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election.




United States Constitution (...Moot?) not where I come from

Responses to Defendant J Kenneth Blackwell MOTION to Dismiss - due by 2/5/2007 ---stay tuned.






Special thanks is due to mod mom for supplying a wonderful resource.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x465151

Moot: Blackwell's arrangements to move into the Governor's mansion.

Not moot: the U.S. Constitution, state law of Ohio, and the size of orange jumpsuit that Kenny needs.

SO "They can't turn back the hands of time & change the results" makes it in HIS mind a "moot" point.

What he isn't understanding is this is about justice and securing the rights of voters regardless of how he was able to successfully rig the voting process to *ush's favor and avoid immediate prosecution at the time.

This is a little better than his first trial, where he just refused to show up. He said he was being harrassed.

didn't they?

hawking a big ol' can of Moot®...and getting a percentage.

going ...moot! moot! moot!

...The unknown whom may have potentially conspired against the great state of Ohio.

From what I have read this the best action ( Case #2:06-cv-00745-ALM-TPK) currently on the table to support the possibility of a full accounting of the 2004 vote in Ohio.

Thanks for the listings on your forum Dude.

in answering the questions that Rep Conyers sent him after '04!

While I do think he has a bone to pick with Mr Blackwell ...the executive signing statements are currently what he's pursuing and that is fine with me.


From Conyers Blog

We are Up and Running

Submitted by JC on January 24, 2007 - 6:59pm.

I am pleased to report that the Judiciary Committee held its first organizational meeting today and we are up and running. It was the first Committee activity in which I was the Chair and I felt humbled and honored by the experience.

We also announced our first hearing, an oversight hearing, a week from today at 10:15a entitled: "Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration: A Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law?"

I am looking forward to it.

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Joint motion filed Feb. 5th.


First:
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was inaugurated on January 8, 2007 and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), is automatically substituted as a defendant.


Joint Motion To Stay All Proceedings Until April 9, 2007

"The Plaintiffs and Defendant Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner jointly move this Court for an order staying all proceedings until April 9, 2007. Secretary Brunner has a desire to attempt to resolve this litigation. The parties hope that a stay will allow them to explore settlement options and are entering those discussions in good faith. Such discussions are also in the public interest and may mean that the parties will be able to save the expense of litigation. This motion is not meant for purposes of delay."


What will Clifford Arnebeck negotiate?

There is far more to place in evidence now, and there will be more again in April. A lot of inquiry can happen in two months. Hopefully, more counties will be analyzed this semester.

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

There certainly are a number of fronts of activity right now.
So far, I'm seeing little mention of miscounting from any officials.

the new Secretary of State and Attorney General say they are inclined to settle most or all of the various lawsuits, including this one, essentially agreeing that the claims are meretorious and that the remedies called for are aimed at protecting the peoples' right to vote, a goal which they share.

If the state agrees to the demands and the lawsuits are settled then unfortunately this lawsuit will no longer be the means of exposing the facts about the 2004 election like it would have been if Republicans had won the SOS and AG races and continued to fight it. Definitely a good news/bad news kind of thing.

But the other good news (beside the good news that elections in Ohio will now be run by someone who actually wants them to be fair) is that AG Marc Dann made a campaign pledge to investigate the 2004 presidential election and, if violations are found, to prosecute them. A recent law change makes that possible for the first time under Ohio law and apparently there is not a problem of statute of limitations.

So this lawsuit is probably not the vehicle anymore but luckily there is now the possibility of criminal prosecution, which sounds a lot better anyway when you think about it.


_{Standard disclaimer: IANAL}

It will most likely go into some sort of arbitration/mediation. In the event of mediation exposing some facts of the 2004 election could be come part of the settlement. (with possibly a contribution of state resources to help in an accounting of 2004 votes). And while Landshark made a VERY credible point earlier about "chain of custody" issues, the evidence (as it were) points to a conclusion in this Blackwell fiasco. There is room for optimism.

Sure would be great if a deal like that would come out of the settlement.