The truth about voter fraud and intimidation in the 2004 election

[Navy Pride]

Bugliosi is not a Democrat. You should also read "Outrage," by Bugliosi about how OJ got away with murder, and of course, "Helter Skelter," about the Manson family, and if you can find it, "No Island of Sanity," about how SCOTUS allowed a sitting President to be sued in civil court.

Or just try reading, period. And no fair saying the last book you read was TV Guide! LOL

I heard Bugliosi on several talk shows prior to the 2004 elections and he was a Kerry Supporter...There is no doubt about that..........

I have read Helter Skelter and it was good reading but had nothing to do with politics........

 

[Republican]

Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppression I

Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppression In 2004, Thousands Of Americans Disenfranchised By Vote Fraud On Election Day

http://www.ac4vr.com/news/acvrnews080205.html
Contact: Jim Dyke, (843) 722-9670

Washington, DC – The American Center For Voting Rights Legislative Fund (“ACVR Legislative Fund”) today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election.

 

[ludahai]

Re: Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppression I

OF course, the Democrats don't want to see the hard evidence of their efforts to steal the White House. They accuse Bush of stealing it with no hard evidence, yet they are caught stealing votes all the time, and they continually deny it!

 

[Stinger]

Re: Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppressi

Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppression In 2004, Thousands Of Americans Disenfranchised By Vote Fraud On Election Day

http://www.ac4vr.com/news/acvrnews080205.html
Contact: Jim Dyke, (843) 722-9670

If you will search the message threads you will see I post this about a week ago and there is an active discussion going on. Please join in.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Republicans are dirty little rascalz too!

US elections: Republicans marshal “poll watchers” to suppress working class vote
By Joseph Kay
28 October 2004

The Republican Party has announced plans to place thousands of recruits in polling places in many closely contested states on Election Day. These so-called “poll watchers” will be tasked with challenging the credentials of would-be voters in predominantly Democratic urban centers.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Re: Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation And Suppressi

The Rest Of The Article:

 

[cnredd]

Re: Republicans are dirty little rascalz too!

US elections: Republicans marshal “poll watchers” to suppress working class vote
By Joseph Kay
28 October 2004

Did you miss this part of the original post?

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, “Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election,” finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.

Pointing out examples from either side is irrelevant. The admission of "both sides" is already agreed upon.

Also, please provide the source when you post...People(OK, at least, ME) want to find out if Joseph Kay is an objective author or a politically driven person with an agenda.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Republicans are dirty little rascalz too!

Moderator Note:
I've merged the threads. Please do not copy full articles and please give cites and links of articles.
/Moderator.

 

[cnredd]

Re: Republicans are dirty little rascalz too!

Moderator Note:
I've merged the threads. Please do not copy full articles and please give cites and links of articles.
/Moderator.

That's what "I" said, but do they ever listen? Noooooooo......

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

This is a non partisan report about voter fraud and intimidation in the 2004 presidential election...............What it shows is that democrats were the ones who committed voter fraud and felony acts against republicans offices and vehicles and there were no cases of republicans doing that to democrats.........

http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/default.html

Of particular interest in Wisconsin and Pennsyvania two states that Kerry won by very close margins that if votes were counted correctly President Bush would have won...........

This is a report that states just the opposite:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/poll-o28_prn.shtml

Oh, and just because a report claims to be non-partisan does not excuse them from the truth that they failed to address all the FACTS.

 

[Hoot]

P.S.- An independent media recount showed that Bush did win by applying the standards set by voting law within the state, but why let facts get in the way.

I just want to say one last thing on this topic, and then I'm done with this, as it's very old news, and since there's no law against what the Supreme Court did in FL, 2000, we can't very well hang the SCOTUS traitors by the neck for treason against the United States, can we? ( I can dream)

Here are the facts...like it or not....

After the election on Nov., 7th, 2000, the difference in total votes between Bush and Gore was less than one half of one percent. ( Bush had a plus 1,784)

Under the FL Election Code 102.141 an automatic machine recount is mandated by law. This machine recount, completed on 11/8 and 11/9, lowered Bush's lead to 327 votes!

In light of the closeness of the election, the FL Democratic Executive Committee (Not Gore) on 11/9, under FL Election code 102.166, requested manual hand recounts be conducted.

Before a manual recount can be done under 102.166, a sample recount MUST be done of at least 1 percent. This 1% recount showed Gore picked up several net votes, therefore, a full manual recount was ordered, again under FL Election Code Law.

This full manual hand recount was stopped by SCOTUS before the results were known, thus handing the election to Bush.

Let me make one thing clear....I don't care what the results of the recounts were after the fact...the important thing here is SCOTUS stopped the recount and handed the Presidency to Bush before the results were known!
Don't you get this? Don't you see the seriousness of this?

Of course you don't, if your guy won, you don't care if SCOTUS usurped the powers of the Legislature given to it by the Constitution. Your guy won...who cares if an election was stolen by the highest court in the land? Your guy won.

If the hand recount were completed and Bush was the victor, wouldn't that affirm his presidency? Wouldn't the "I'm for the people" guy want this?

The Equal Protection BS put out by SCOTUS has been ridiculed by every intelligent legal mind in this country...here's the deal...Scotus said...well, this county is counting hanging chads as votes, and the next county in FL is counting dimpled chads as votes, and the county after that is counting swinging door chads as legal votes...so since that's not the same, county to county, there's no equal protection.

What possible difference does this make if a dimpled chad is counted for Gore and Bush in the same county? And in the next county they say the chad has to be hanging by only two or less corners to be a valid vote...both Bush and Gore are treated equally in each county.

The truth is, we have diferent standards for what determines a valid vote in every county of every state in this nation!

If SCOTUS believes this, then we haven't had a valid election at any point in our history. Scotus knew their decision was bogus though, because they ruled this decision only applies to Bush v Gore and can never be used as precedent in any other future court decisions...that should tell you all something right there...besides the fact they didn't have the courage to sign their decision!

Again, what is most frightening is that SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal recount of the people's votes BEFORE the results were known.

That alone should scare every single one of us who is a true patriotic
American.

 

[Fantasea]

All of the above notwithstanding, I wonder why it is that with the ability folks have to electronically transfer billions of dollars in millions of transactions every day with complete accuracy through ATMs, and make millions of purchases daily at retailers and pay for them electronically, and pump their own gasoline which they have purchased with credit or debit cards, with accuracy to the penny, why can't a foolproof system be devised to capture votes electronically and produce accurate tallies?

Could it be that politicians are not interested in accurate tallies?

 

[Stinger]

Under the FL Election Code 102.141 an automatic machine recount is mandated by law. This machine recount, completed on 11/8 and 11/9, lowered Bush's lead to 327 votes!

Under 2005 law but not under 2000 law. Your whole premise is flawed and inaccurate. You are citing law that was not in existence at the time.

In light of the closeness of the election, the FL Democratic Executive Committee (Not Gore) on 11/9, under FL Election code 102.166, requested manual hand recounts be conducted.

Yes the candidate or any voter or commitee can (could this is 2000 law which has been superceded by 2005 law) REQUEST a manual recount, but one is not mandated nor guarantied, the requestor has to show the reason why one is (was) being requested.

Before a manual recount can be done under 102.166, a sample recount MUST be done of at least 1 percent. This 1% recount showed Gore picked up several net votes, therefore, a full manual recount was ordered, again under FL Election Code Law.

Actually THE manual recount is (was) as follows

[SIZE=-1](d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

And here is the kicker

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

NO vote tabulation errors were shown. Gore went to court and tried to say there were and lost, lost quite badly the court threw out his case. There were no tabulation errors only VOTER errors and VOTER errors do not (did not) get you a manual recount.
[/SIZE]

This full manual hand recount was stopped by SCOTUS before the results were known, thus handing the election to Bush.

Because the FSC could not explain why it was ordering a manual recount when under the existing state law one was not called for. AND they could not explain under what authority they were changing existing law to allow one. Only the state legislature had the authority to do so.

Let me make one thing clear....I don't care what the results of the recounts were after the fact...the important thing here is SCOTUS stopped the recount

Yes it was important since they were making a sham of the election and were devining votes and trying to determine an election using spoiled ballots.

and handed the Presidency to Bush before the results were known!

The on results that mattered were those of the machine recounts, where no tabulation errors were shown. Those results, the only official ones, were preserved by the SCOTUS decission.

Don't you get this? Don't you see the seriousness of this?

I certainly do and if you did you would be citing the proper law not 2005 law.

Of course you don't, if your guy won, you don't care if SCOTUS usurped the powers of the Legislature given to it by the Constitution.

Proving you don't know the facts. Scotus preserved the legislative powers and prevent the judicial branch from invoking authority it did not have.

If the hand recount were completed and Bush was the victor, wouldn't that affirm his presidency?

His election was properly affirmed under FL law.

The Equal Protection BS put out by SCOTUS has been ridiculed by every intelligent legal mind in this country

Yes it was a shodding decission, the decission of the lower courts in FL was much better but the the FSC without the authority to do so rewrote FL election law and usurped the authority of the SoS.

What possible difference does this make if a dimpled chad is counted for Gore and Bush in the same county? And in the next county they say the chad has to be hanging by only two or less corners to be a valid vote...both Bush and Gore are treated equally in each county.

It is a statewide election.

Again, what is most frightening is that SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal recount of the people's votes BEFORE the results were known.

No it wasn't.

That alone should scare every single one of us who is a true patriotic
American.

What should scare people is the Gore almost got the FSC to usurp state law and the proper election authority in order to get his hands on the ballots and change an election outcome.

here is the web-site of the existing law at the time. Make sure you select 2000 and not 2005.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section 166#0102.166

 

[Stinger]

Re: Republicans are dirty little rascalz too!

US elections: Republicans marshal “poll watchers” to suppress working class vote
By Joseph Kay
28 October 2004

The Republican Party has announced plans to place thousands of recruits in polling places in many closely contested states on Election Day. These so-called “poll watchers” will be tasked with challenging the credentials of would-be voters in predominantly Democratic urban centers.

There is nothing new about parties having pollwatchers, they are quite common. And in view of the attempts by Democrats to commit voting fraud much needed.

 

[Stinger]

No, it's not.

The AC4VR is comprised of two key high-level GOP operatives: Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04, Inc., and Jim Dyke, the Communications Director for the RNC.

Sounds non-partisan to me. :roll:

Here are thier board of directors

Brian A. Lunde, Board Chairman

Brian A. Lunde has served at the highest professional levels within the national Democratic Party. Since beginning his political career as a field coordinator for the 1976 Jimmy Carter for President campaign, Mr. Lunde has served as Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as Campaign Manager for the Presidential bid of Senator Paul Simon, and as Director of two winning campaigns for the DNC Chairmanship (Chuck Manatt in 1981 and Paul Kirk in 1985). Mr. Lunde founded Helping Americans Vote (www.helpingamericansvote.org), a nonpartisan group helping corporations and trade associations educate employees about new voting rules such as vote-by-mail and early voting. A graduate of the University of South Florida, Mr. Lunde resides with his wife and two daughters in Arlington, Virginia.​

​

Ann Browning

Attorney, Newport Beach, CA​

Eric F. Kayira

Eric F. Kayira is an Associate at the Lathrop & Gage law firm in St. Louis, Missouri. Prior to joining Lathrop & Gage, Mr. Kayira served as Speechwriter to the late Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan (D). A 1992 graduate of Hampton University, Mr. Kayira received his law degree from St. Louis University School of Law in 1998. Mr. Kayira has served as an adjunct professor at St. Louis University teaching business law to undergraduate students.​

Whitson W. "Whit" Robinson

Whitson W. "Whit" Robinson is Of Counsel at the law firm Robinson and Robinson. A graduate of Maine Maritime Academy and University of Baltimore School of Law, Mr. Robinson is licensed to practice law in Virginia and the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.​

Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, Counsel

Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II is a member and principal of the Lathrop & Gage law firm and serves on the firm’s government relations committee. Hearne is General Counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) and serves as a member of the organization’s Board of Directors. Prior to joining ACVR, Hearne served as National Election Counsel to Bush-Cheney ’04 and Missouri counsel to Bush-Cheney ‘00. Hearne has also served as General Counsel to Missouri Governor Blunt, and was appointed by then Secretary of State Blunt as an advisor for the implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hearne testified before the Missouri commission established by Blunt to investigate the 2000 Missouri general election and voter fraud in the city of St. Louis. Hearne also served as General Counsel to the re-election campaigns of Congressman Kenny Hulshof and Congressman Todd Akin.​

Hearne is a longtime advocate of voter rights and an attorney experienced in election law and litigation. Hearne has spoken to numerous groups and organizations about issues of election reform and served as chair of the RNLA National Election Law School in 2003 and 2004. The RNLA Election Law School is a continuing education program for attorney’s involved in election law and is accredited by the bar associations of various states. Hearne was named one of Missouri’s ten best attorneys by the Missouri Lawyers Weekly in 2004. Hearne was also named one of the “Up and Coming Young Attorneys” by the St Louis Business Journal for his work on real estate and real estate-related regulatory matters.​

Hearne also served as an attorney and law clerk in the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights during the Reagan Administration.​

He has been admitted to the Michigan and Missouri bar and has been admitted to and practiced in a number of courts including the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of International Trade, the Supreme Courts of Missouri and Michigan, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.​

Hearne received his law degree from Washington University Law School and his B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis. He is a licensed pilot who has provided commentary for National Public Radio, FOX News and MSNBC and has authored a number of law review articles on various aspects of Missouri law.​

Hearne and his wife Susan live in St. Louis, Missouri with their two daughters, Amelia and Elise.​

​

​

​

​

Sounds pretty balanced to me. What is the basis of your contention otherwise?

​

​

​

 

[Stinger]

After what the Republicans pulled down in Florida, 2000, you should be thanking your lucky stars that Bush is even in the White House, because it's obvious that more Floridians intended to vote for Gore then they did Bush.

And as Bush said..."Nominating a new justice to the US Supreme court is very important...after all, the Supreme court gets to pick who's president."

Not according to the studies that were done afterwards. But then there were no tabulation errors ever shown, the machine counts were official.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

All of the above notwithstanding, I wonder why it is that with the ability folks have to electronically transfer billions of dollars in millions of transactions every day with complete accuracy through ATMs, and make millions of purchases daily at retailers and pay for them electronically, and pump their own gasoline which they have purchased with credit or debit cards, with accuracy to the penny, why can't a foolproof system be devised to capture votes electronically and produce accurate tallies?

Could it be that politicians are not interested in accurate tallies?

EXACTLY.

It's funny you mention that, because I had a similar thought the other day. You know, the IRS somehow get's the american populace to pay thier taxes, something we all dislike. That's remakable. I mean here we are, all doing something we hate to do. Yet, something simple like voting is soooo complicated. It really makes no sense, other than the fact you mentioned. The government is obviously not concerned with taking an accurate tally of our votes.

 

[groundhogsteve]

The report doesn't mention the threat of a Republican official in Madison, WI to challenge every UW student at the polls. He had to quickly retract his threat, since apparently the Republicans are still under an old 1970's federal court injunction (from Maryland?) to not target classes or groups of voters.

A couple other points - about Milwaukee supposedly having thousands of voters at bogus addresses. I volunteered to help sort voter registration cards on election eve (the county was too bogged down to handle all the new registrations) so they could be sent to the precints. Believe me, a lot of the problem was just plain old bad handwriting - so the address may have been entered as the clerk's best interpretation of what was written, and it may not have been bogus. Mayor Barrett issued a press release for the 10 o'clocfk news boradcasts (I was using a table in the "media relations" office) asking voters to bring photo ID to the polls. Mayor Barrett himself was there, sorting cards, until 3am, too. (That's when we finished).

The report also doesn't mention that in Volusia County, FL, (home of the 17,000 Gore vote disappearance in 2000) the county elections chairperson refused to provide copies of the records coming from the voting machines. The people at Black Box Voting even found records in the garbage, when they should have been stored away.

A lot of stuff happens in elections - some of it is just clerks overwhelmed by the process, some of it corruption of the process.

 

[Hoot]

>>here is the web-site of the existing law at the time. Make sure you select 2000 and not 2005.<<

I'm afraid you're wrong...all the laws I quoted were taken from a book copyrighted in 2001. It would be a pretty good trick to forecast FL Election Law and predict what it would say 4 years in the future. I say you go back to your link and make sure you read 2000 again.

The rights of the people to have their votes counted is the single most fundamental right in our nation.

Everything done in FL, 2000, was within existing FL State law.

The only reason SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal counting of undervotes was because each county had differing standards on what determines a valid vote.....this was an inapplicable constitutional provision which literally threw out the votes of 50 million Americans and made them meaningless.

This is the single most frightening and dangerous thing to ever happen in the history of our nation...and all you right-wingers are fine with it, cause your guy got in.

 

[Stinger]

The report doesn't mention the threat of a Republican official in Madison, WI to challenge every UW student at the polls. He had to quickly retract his threat, since apparently the Republicans are still under an old 1970's federal court injunction (from Maryland?) to not target classes or groups of voters.

ah yes the site of the Vote Early Vote Often movement. The Republican official was quote right and quote prudent to challenge those students at the polls after thier public pronouncements that they would be casting multiple ballots. Or do you believe people should be allowed to vote more than once?

 

[Stinger]

>>here is the web-site of the existing law at the time. Make sure you select 2000 and not 2005.<<

I'm afraid you're wrong...all the laws I quoted were taken from a book copyrighted in 2001. It would be a pretty good trick to forecast FL Election Law and predict what it would say 4 years in the future. I say you go back to your link and make sure you read 2000 again.

Yes the current laws were changed in 2001, AFTER the election. No I am not wrong I say YOU go back and see that the laws you are citing were not in effect in 2000. Manual recounts required proof of tabulation error, and none was proven. Gore totally lost that case in the lower court. He appealed that to the FSC which didn't even rule on the challenge just declared that they thought it would be a good idea to throw out FL election law, take away the delagate power of the SoS and let Gore do what he wanted.

The rights of the people to have their votes counted is the single most fundamental right in our nation.

And it is their duty to cast them properly and if they don't they do not have special claims to have them reevaluated.

Everything done in FL, 2000, was within existing FL State law.

The then current law which is not what you are citing.

The only reason SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal counting of undervotes was because each county had differing standards on what determines a valid vote

The primary reason is because they had sent the issue back to the FSC and asked them to explain how and why they are interferring in a federal election. The FSC ignored SCOTUS and issued an order to restart the counting, in a very split decission. SCOTUS then said sorry you have not explained your authority and the counts are not being done under any existing standards, which only the state legislature can deem. So the election as certified was declared valid.

.....this was an inapplicable constitutional provision which literally threw out the votes of 50 million Americans and made them meaningless.

I have no idea how you deem 50 million votes were thrown out, they were counted and Gore lost. The inapplicable, or rather non-existance provision was the the FSC could take over a federal election and create election law and usurp the power of the SoS.

This is the single most frightening and dangerous thing to ever happen in the history of our nation...and all you right-wingers are fine with it, cause your guy got in.

Spare me the hyperbole. But what was frightening was the chance that Gore would have been able to steal the election by phoney vote counting and an out of control Democrat FSC.

 

[Hoot]

>Manual recounts required proof of tabulation error, and none was proven.<

Nonsense...the tabulation error was proven when the second machine count lowered Bush's lead from 1,784 votes to only 327 votes.

What SCOTUS actually did was throw out all the undervotes, meaning those votes where the voters intent can clearly be seen IF examined by a manual hand count. Then SCOTUS had the nerve to say that their decision was intended to "preserve the fundamental right to vote." What a load of hogwash!

I will give you this much...Gore had crap for lawyers, or the outcome would've been different.

If you believe FL Election code 102.166 was not in existence before this election, then you prove it to me. The fact is it did exist, and the manual counting of undervotes was perfectly within FL State Law.

Of course, Scalia wrote something like....counting the undervotes could cause irreparable harm to a Bush presidency by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of the election. In otherwords, eventhough the election had not yet been decided Scalia was presuming that Bush had already won the election--indeed, had a right to win it, and any recount that showed Gore got more votes could cloud the Bush presidency.

Only a criminal on the run and in desperation could possibly write the words Scalia did knowing that he had no legal basis for what he was doing.

Let me also throw this at you....then I'm done with this...

Under FL case and statutory law, when the FL Supreme Court finds that a challenge to the certification of an election is justified, it has the power to "provide any relief apprpropiate under the circumstances" 102.168

On Friday December 8, 2000 the Florida court, so finding, ordered a manual recount (AUTHORIZED UNDER 102.166 (4) (c) of the FL Election Code) of all disputed ballots.

Again, it was this count that was stopped by SCOTUS.

Again, this is my only objection...I don't care what recounts were made to show after the fact...the fact is that 5 traitorous members of our Supreme Court acted as known surrogates of the Republican party and refused to allow the valid and legal and fundamental right to have every vote be counted. There's nothing anyone can say that can convince me that this was a good decision.

In fact, after this decision, 500 law professors from around the country took out a full page ad in the NY Times denouncing the decision as having no legal basis.

I've said this before, but just because those 9 individuals put those black robes on does not make them infallible Gods.

God help us if Scalia becomes head of the court.

 

[ludahai]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf

The Supreme Court decision in the 2000 Florida election case can be seen here for those (I presume most if not all) who haven't read it yet. I will, in fact, read it later today and will include my comments AFTER I HAVE READ THE DECISION IN ITS ENTIRETY!

 

[Stinger]

>Manual recounts required proof of tabulation error, and none was proven.<

Nonsense...the tabulation error was proven when the second machine count lowered Bush's lead from 1,784 votes to only 327 votes.

No that does not prove there was a problem with the tabulation machines or method. Gore tried to prove that in court and his claim was totally dismissed.

What SCOTUS actually did was throw out all the undervotes, meaning those votes where the voters intent can clearly be seen IF examined by a manual hand count.

No what SCOTUS did was demand the FSC justify it's actions which it did not and could not.

I will give you this much...Gore had crap for lawyers, or the outcome would've been different.

No you want give me that since he the best lawyers money could buy, he simply did not have a legal leg to stand on. His campaign blew his filing of his protest and there was no evidence a problems with the machines. The SoS carried out her lawful duties as Fl law mandated. Gore simply did not have the facts on his side.

If you believe FL Election code 102.166 was not in existence before this election,

No where have I said any such thing. However it did not exist in the wording you cited.

then you prove it to me.

You brought it up, YOU prove the code stated what you claimed at the time of the 2000 election. I gave you the website that has all the FL statutes including those in existence in 2000. I also cite the relevent clauses, I don't need to do it again. It's YOUR claim YOU prove with it accurate information.

The fact is it did exist, and the manual counting of undervotes was perfectly within FL State Law.

In the manner I cited along with the relevent clause that IF tabulation were proven.

Of course, Scalia wrote something like....counting the undervotes could cause irreparable harm to a Bush presidency by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of the election. In otherwords, eventhough the election had not yet been decided Scalia was presuming that Bush had already won the election--indeed, had a right to win it, and any recount that showed Gore got more votes could cloud the Bush presidency.

The election had already been decided and lawfully certified the FSC was trying to rewrite election law and dictate how the election would be held. They had no authority do so and could never present anything that gave them such authority.

Only a criminal on the run and in desperation ............

Your continued use of hyperbole only leads me to the belief you realize you cannot prove your assertinos.

Let me also throw this at you....then I'm done with this...

Cutting and running before you can prove your case I see.

Under FL case and statutory law, when the FL Supreme Court finds that a challenge to the certification of an election is justified, it has the power to "provide any relief apprpropiate under the circumstances" 102.168

Here is the entire clause

[SIZE=-1](8) The circuit judge to whom the contest is presented may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.

The CIRCUIT JUDGE, who did not rule such relief since no voting tabulation errors were produced in court and that the election had been properly certified.
[/SIZE]

On Friday December 8, 2000 the Florida court, so finding, ordered a manual recount (AUTHORIZED UNDER 102.166 (4) (c) of the FL Election Code) of all disputed ballots.

I find it curious that you demand above that I prove to you that you quoted the wrong law and here you are citing the law I that was actually in force. Do you now admit that you originally quoted 2005 law and not 2000?

Than being said let's look at all the relevent clauses which you conveinently edit to suit your arguement.

[SIZE=-1](c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
It did not.
[/SIZE]

Again, this is my only objection...I don't care what recounts were made to show after the fact...the fact is that 5 traitorous members of our Supreme Court acted as known surrogates of the Republican party

And again your use of such hyperbole only leads one to believe you realize you cannot win the arguements on it's merits.

and refused to allow the valid and legal and fundamental right to have every vote be counted.

Every properly cast vote was counted and those are the only ones that have a right to be counted. What was being counted in the manual recounts were spoiled ballots. Ballots of people who did not vote for a particular candidate but now that thier ballots had been spoiled thier vote was being counted for someone they did not vote for. That is FAR more aggregious and a violation of ones rights than someone who does not properly cast thier vote not having thier vote count at all.

There's nothing anyone can say that can convince me that this was a good decision.

Probably not, you are more concerned that Gore lost than the proper outcome of the election.

In fact, after this decision, 500 law professors from around the country took out a full page ad in the NY Times denouncing the decision as having no legal basis.

The decission has it's flaws, but less so than the FSC decissions. And in the end the proper outcome was brought about.

I've said this before, but just because those 9 individuals put those black robes on does not make them infallible Gods.

Since no one has said that why do you feel a need to make such a statement.

God help us if Scalia becomes head of the court.

More so if Ginsberg ever got a shot or some of those who sat on the FSC.

 

[Stinger]

BTW here is just one reason why the manual recounts were a sham, and how it was the recounts that was disfranchising voters. The ballots were spoiled, they no longer reflect the actual vote.

http://www.kovr13.com/11nov00/vo111600i.htm
[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss] Chads are found on the floor in a Florida County recount room!
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss] Officials were sealing off one of the recount rooms in Broward County, when a sheriff's deputy found Chads on the floor.
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss] [/FONT][FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss]Just when you think the legal recount battle could not get any more tedious, out comes another bizarre morsel. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss]Officials were sealing off one of the recount rooms in Broward County, when a sheriff's deputy found Chads on the floor. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss]Chads are the little pieces of paper that fall out from the punch out ballots. So a republican asked the recount to stop, to no avail. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,geneva,heveltica,sans,swiss]Now 78 Chads were collected for evidence. Also, two deputies, a democrat and a republican are sleeping in the room to make sure no cheating is going on.
[/FONT]


And this wasn't the sole case of the ballots being spoiled.