Independence Man Denied Right to Vote; Arrested.. Excellent 8/10 KCTribune article (galloglas)

Excellent article posted originally by new member Watchdawg. Give him a grand welcome if you see him.

This is a completely different article then then tne posted in GD with similar title

(snip)



Lindsey's son, Eamonn Lindsey, 21, also was with his father. Eamonn said before his father was arrested, he witnessed one of the election judges "chest bump" his father.

"This little man came by me, less than an inch from my shoulder, and came up to my dad and chest bumped him," he said. "He strode out and puffed up his chest and bumped up against my dad and stayed there leaning forward, trying to get my dad to back up."

Before the police arrived, Eamonn Lindsey said he also overheard another judge on the phone say to someone, "'So we don't need to see signatures? We don't need signatures? Oh, okay.' He said it twice. But once he got off the phone, he didn't recant, he pretended like he never said that."

Eamonn Lindsey said he also observed the judge who bumped his father approach a third judge and, referring to his father, say, "He does this every time, every time.' He said, yes, he knew exactly who we were, that he remembered us."

much more...

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18250


More discussion in GD here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3771149&mesg_id=3771149


Original Aridcle now with 505 replies and 70,000 plus views here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3735725&mesg_id=3735725

Screwing with anyone's right to vote should entail mandatory prison time.

By the reports shared I understand the following...

- galloglas admits butting heads with these folks in the past

- he admits going there in part to make a point but doesn't mention legal counsel that might have helped in the staging of this street theater, and has no other witness apart from his son.

- he admits knowingly not giving sufficient ID at first

- he may not have had a required signature on the precinct ID card (I'm not sure about this one)

- he got "chest-bumped" but hasn't filed an assault charge against the bumper.

- he makes no mention of Democratic party judges present and their part in this mess.

Is this all correct? :shrug:


This is reminding me of galloglas' failed "Hand Counted Paper Ballot Initiative" that nowhere mentioned a requirement for hand counting paper ballots.


Still, I'll bet a lot of polling places will have knowledgeable workers as a result and that's a good thing.

Yes, you're the only perfect one here Wilms. :P


"This is reminding me of galloglas' failed "Hand Counted Paper Ballot Initiative" that nowhere mentioned a requirement for hand counting paper ballots."

Wasn't he part of a group of individuals on that?


I think there is precinct card and a voter ID card, I'm not certain, it's part of the confusion.


You'll just have to ask him.

An HCPB initiative that fails to mention HCPB is an oversight unworthy of mention? And now this.

Shall I look up the old link to that so we can see what it's like getting a straight answer out of galloglas?

It doesn't take perfection. It takes thought. So drop the pitchfork and discuss it with me. Or don't.

Actually, the thread's gonna come up sooner or later might as well post it.

I was "disappointed" in that outcome. Others like you skilled in the nuance of HAVA would have todiscuss it. I'm not really qualified

This is a different topic.

I don't disagree with you that galloglas is persnickety and could have acted differently. He didn't.

LOL! :toast:

he was denied his right to vote and was mistreated, we have a very active ACLU here. He should go to court instead of just keeping this thing posted. File the suit. All I know there were thousands that voted without any problem including myself. Not saying nothing like what he said occurred or didn't occur. According to the paper they were getting the election officials there to straighten things out and when he started yelling and pounding on the desk, they called the police he was arrested for disorderly conduct and here we are.

We need to have everyones rights protected but to do that we need to remain credible.

If all occurred as he said, simply file a lawsuit where everyone testifies under oath. However, with all the voters not having problems and this was his second occurrence when most of us have never had even one, he has a slight hurdle there in itself.

He's not posting this. He hasn't asked either.

This is becoming more about embellishment and who is doing the embellishing.

No one is embellishing anything.

I also wonder how anyone can think that a voter arrested and not allowed to vote is NOT an important story.

Let me clarify galloglas is not embellishing(IMO) which leaves...?

and why would she if she didn't fuck up to begin with.

A first year law student focusing on litigation would rip this woman's story to shreds in a court room. If/when you listen to her on Hartmann (I know you have) She's embellishing without a doubt. Hartmannn knew it too.You could tell by his half chuckle at the end.

was when she said he didn't go there to vote. Yeah, sure. What the hell does she think he went there to DO??

and easily down-loadable just a click or two away.

http://server6.whiterosesociety.org/content/hartmann/Members.html


Friday, August 8th, 2008

a little over half way through the show

O8)

Assuming he was assaulted, of course.

From his account, it sounds like he had produced proper ID, but it's not clear if that was before or after the bad feelings. If he is, too, to blame, or solely to blame for the scene, I'm not sure he could claim being disenfranchised by anyone but himself.

Ill-informed poll-workers apart from it being a really bad thing. Shedding light on it is a good idea. The "need to remain credible" is a prerequisite.

the poll worker requested one, he/she was wrong and I believe the lady in charge said that. However, if he did not, he should have given them a chance to rectify it without a commotion. I understood in the news, they had called for the election commissioners or whoever they call to get it right but in the meantime he started his yelling and pounding on the desk so they got scared and called the police who arrested him for disorderly conduct. There was nothing about the chest bump mentioned except for the DUer.

I am not saying he did not get bumped but if his side of the story is as he says it, I am just saying I know if that had happened to me, I would have gone right to the ACLU, the Obama campaign headquarters for guidance or whatever and you can bet if I had had my rights not handled correctly in the voting I would get legal assistance for sure to make sure this doesn't occur to anyone else. As I also said thousands voted without any problem and this is the only incident mentioned in the news and it is his second time.

I mentioned in one of the other posts they posted about this we discussed this at work after it was first in the news and we have a mixture of republicans and democrats in our office and we are all from either KS or MO and we have a couple of people who have volunteered to work the polls for a long time. We were all discussing this based on the news reports and most felt he could have probably avoided the arrest if he had shown a little more composure towards the workers. Everyone knows most of them are older, most are trying hard to do their job without much appreciation or pay and it is a citizen trying to be a good citizen. Now, we know there could be a bad poll worker or one that for whatever reason made a mistake as mentioned here but these poll workers are not the main culprits for like the 2000 incident in FL, it is higher up than that. Also, most felt he just could have handled the whole thing better than it appears he did. Again, knowing what we know. That is why if he says it happened, especially if he thinks he was assaulted by that old guy, he needs to take it to court.

I am not saying it did occur nor it did not occur but if he feels it did, he needs to get it to court where everyone can testify under oath, there should be plenty of witnesses to either corroborate the story or not.

Since it wasn't a federal election and they probably wouldn't care anyhow, I'll leave the DoJ Civil Rights Division off the list. But the guy had choices, for sure.

And the devil, as always, is in the details, while everyone involved is gonna want to spin it their way.

Now, was he asked to show a photo ID? Or was it suggested that he could show a driver's license which happens to have a photo? Bit of a difference.

I know. There I go with nuance. :eyes:

Straightening it all out hasn't occurred in hundreds of posts on 1/2 a dozen threads.

Familiar?

Is that some low income and older folks Do not have have Photo ID and would be disenfranchised following the illegitimate procedure followed in his precinct. Given just how tight the election was in 2006 and given the polls today in Missouri he was making an effort to remedy that within his precinct before the general election. He had previously filed a complaint on this... but was told it was lost or misplaced.


By having a signature ID makes it easier to compare them to the poll books. It doesn't make it right.

If the law says you can use a voter ID card that is signed, and have one that isn't, there's a problem.

Not that I want to go all Perry Mason on the guy.

the next worker where I signed & initialed to verify my home address and it had not changed, moved to the next worker who asked what ballot I wanted, said democrat of course,(also, the precinct I vote in is probably 75% - 85% republican)but no problem getting the democrat ballot, so I took my ballot, voted, took my card to the lady next to the door folded and I dropped it in the box and got my sticker to put on my shirt showing I had voted. A swift and easy process for me and many thousands is all I can say.

Again, not saying what happened only what we know and are talking about.

Does the "Voter ID" card have your signature on it?

vote and at the bottom it says ID NO. with the number.

If you can't answer definitively, it's ok with me.

know. Doesn't really matter as who knows what occurred except for what was posted here and what was in the news. I just stand by if he wants it straightened out he needs to get it in the courts and we will all know then won't we. Not saying who is right or wrong by not being there. I do know that it is one of several thousand who voted so doesn't appear to be a common occurrence.

Anyway, just want the truth to get out and if he takes it all the way, court records are public so we will all know in time.

Getting ready to watch some olympics now.

A non legal ID ... as I said before on the other thread this is a clusterfuck.

Are we speculating that maybe galloglas presented a card that showed where he was supposed to vote, but did not give his address?

As I read the SoS site, if it has his name and address, he is good to go.

The Examiner story seems to make no sense when it says that a bank statement is OK "shown in combination with the precinct card." If the bank statement has his name and address, it's enough all by itself.

And galloglas's account has him saying, "My son and I have both brought the proper ID, and the Sos"s sheet verifies that." Unless he was totally embroidering there, I figure he must have submitted something like the yellow card.

...some times conveniently.

galloglas hasn't said much outside of his account and that's probably a good thing until this is resolved.

This article has the best compilation of detail to date. Thats it.

IMO Ms. Davis, credibility from her own words and actions seems to run downhill with time.

But as far as tangible facts... there are no statistics here. I would guess depositions, discovery, will present them in time.

It is as Wilms said in the last sentence of his first post. "Still, I'll bet a lot of polling places will have knowledgeable workers as a result and that's a good thing."

Good summer to you sir

I'm subjectively pretty confident that galloglas presented acceptable ID from the get-go -- but there is a lot we don't know.

Election Commissioners. It is a small white card with your info on it. Name, address, etc.

on the website is generic... hers were gray. It is from the board of elections humor me is it similar to one Wilms made readable? (thank you sir)

Here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=506638&mesg_id=506667




Thanks for the answer above. I posted in the wrong spot above... DoH.

Enjoy the Olympics.

one that quick but that means we all won't have to wait long to see how this plays out.

about a website, Thom mentioned to let him know when it was up and that he'd plug the site.


But I have no clue if it will be about this or previous work galloglas has been focusing on.

want to see what all took place.

OK. So no signature on the voter ID card.

1) I gave them ample opportunity to rectify this. I first offered them the printout from the SoS office, and they refused to look at it. The single docu,ment they wouod even look at was the EB card.
I was later told by Charlene Davis, when I went to the EB, that they should have had their own copies on the table, and posters of it on the wall. There were none visible to us on tables or walls.

2) I then asked them to call either the SoS office or their own election Bureau. And they refused, simply repeating "ID with signature or get out!"


The allegation that I was "yelling and pounding on the desk" is simple slander, and libelous.

Charlene has described the fright of the election judges, due to their ages. The police report shows my accuser as being a mere 18 months older than I. And I am disabled.

Perhaps no one thinks that simply because I am nearly as old as the judges, and incapacitated, that I would balk at their tampering with my civil rights?

Re: The "chest bump". Not only did it occur but my son was also manhandled on the way out. All 5'2" of him.

Re: Legal representation. I was contacted by both the ACLU and another group by Thursday and our talks and strategies continue. I did not even need to call them. They solicited me. But it takes time to file the lawsuits. For instance, the police report only became available today.

Re: "he could have probably avoided the arrest if he had shown a little more composure towards the workers."

My answer: Yes, I could have avoided arrest. But only after the police arrived.
When we went outside, the police gave me three choices.
A) Provide my Driver's License (literally "Follow their rules"), or
B) Leave without voting, or
C) Be taken to jail in handcuffs.

Let me ask. What would you have done if they demanded something illegal?

Would you comply with the illegal demand?
Would you give up your vote?
Or would you stand your ground?

I simply said, "tell me why I cannot use these valid ID to vote, and I will leave. If you do not, I will stay here in the precinct until it is sorted out." And since the police entered with two minutes, I assume they'd already been called.

As to taking it to court, that will be done. For sure.

But please understand that there are at least three different entities to charge: the police, the election judges and the Election Board. And all are, I understand, guilty of misconduct 42 U.S.C., section 1983, providing remedy for abrogation of civil rights through color of law.


In addition, let me post this section of HAVA. Does it not seem that this was contravened?

SEC. 302. PROVISIONAL VOTING AND VOTING
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Provisional Voting Requirements.--If an individual declares that
such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote, such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot as follows:
(1) An election official at the
polling place shall notify the individual that the individual
may cast a provisional ballot in that election.
(2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional
ballot at that polling place upon the execution of a written
affirmation by the individual before an election official at the
polling place stating that the individual is-- ...

Finally a section from the Missouri Constitution:


Section 4. Privilege of voters from arrest—exceptions.—Voters shall be privileged from arrest while going to, attending and returning from elections, except in cases of treason, felony or breach of the peace.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. VIII, Sec. 4 (as amended February 26, 1924).

Reading this, is there any real question why Charlene Davis has made the outrageous claims she made to Thom Hartmann, and to others?

They had me arrested and I was clearly not guilty of treason or felony. If they don't claim I was "disturbing the peace", it would be a clear admission of the denial of my Missouri Constitutional Rights.


Hope this helps. If you have other questions, please ask them.

I hope that everyone realizes that it could YOU next time. Please remember Neimoeller's word, engraved on the New England Holocaust memorial.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

He refused to leave without voting and they called the police.

And yes, he has several attorneys and is also working with several elected officials.

the elected officials. That is good to hear as that is what he should be doing. If it all happened like he said then he deserves to have this played out in a courtroom where it will not occur again. Also, I now understand this is his second involvement with the election board so now maybe he will get these things resolved.

Will be good to hear when there is a trial date.

court and what judge? Thanks for the info.

I don't know other than Independence.

then and get it. Thanks.

The Municipal Court is at 111 E. Maple, Independence, MO

However, all the other actions to be brought will be with myself and my son as plaintiffs. The times, dates, etc. will be determined by talks with ACLU, Election Protection attorneys, etc.

(perhaps ominously) set for 9-11-2008 at 8:30 AM

Shouldn't that carry the same penalty as trying to commit "voter fraud" by voting twice?

K&R.

The judges should do jail time!