So the Arnebeck suit apparently hasn't stopped the electoral vote?

[saracat]

And no other state is not going to protest? There were rumours that California wouldn't vote.:bounce:

[Karenca]

1. this is not what i thought was going to happen today. This feels like

November 2nd, all over again.

[saracat]

4. It must be the Judge is ignoring or refusingto hear the case?

[electropop]

38. My goodness, relax!

The Arnebeck suit isn't just about stopping the electoral vote, which he never expected to happen. It's about contesting the election, so the electors can be invalidated, hopefully before they show up in DC on Jan 6th.

We will prevail, whether by Jan 6th, July 6th, or 2006. The righties are wild-eyed with terror because they see we are on to most of their crimes, and many of them will go to jail.

Remember, it took almost 2 years to topple Nixon, though his electoral crime was much smaller by comparison. This is a big complex case and might take years to unravel. Worth it in the end when half the Repubs are in jail and the other half are out in the cold for at least a generation.

[mostly_lurking]

2. The Arnebeck suit is very weak

Based on everything I've seen, the suit is extremely weak. I doubt if the court will even hear it.

It's possible he has been hiding something in reserve, but if he has I have no idea what it might be.

[Wordie]

6. What, exactly, is the suit based upon. There has been a dearth of info,

and tons of speculation. Do you know?

[mostly_lurking]

11. I posted this last week. It contains all that we know about the suit...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123460

In a nutshell, the suit is based on the idea that 65,000 votes for Kerry were flipped to Bush in 4 specific Republican counties. The above post goes over the data... it looks very weak.

[Wordie]

32. If this is truly all Arnebeck has, we've put our "faith" in another "false

prophet" it looks like. People keep saying things like, "...it will all be revealed" but I, for one, am here not because I am looking for a religious experience based on faith, but to understand and to hopefully act on FACTS. I recognize that sometimes it's just not a smart idea to publish all the information before the fact (before the filing of a lawsuit), so perhaps this is just to be expected, but jeez this is frustrating.

[pointsoflight]

12. I suggest you listen to Conyer's hearing, then

They have affadavits from people who say they PARTICIPATED in the vote rigging. They also have a witness saying they saw a Triad official tampering with a central tabulator just this past Friday!!!

[jamboi]

23. Very strong actually, but courts can always shut their eyes. whatever

happens this morning is just the beginning.

[mostly_lurking]

26. I have repeatedly asked what additional evidence...

... that Arnebeck had to back up his suit. The ONLY evidence anyone has pointed to, including Arnebeck himself, is an anomaly in 4 Republican counties.

I know there are are other questions out there, but apparently not included in the Arnebeck suit.

You say the case is "very strong"... can you provide a link to other evidence that Arnebeck has? I would love to see that there is something more here.

[jamboi]

29. It will all be revealed. n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

37. Yeah, mostly lurking, like you've seen anything of the suit!!

ROTFLMAO

[Wordie]

3. We're just watching OH now, I don't know about the other states. And,

you are asking the same question I've been asking. Someone else had posted that the Arnebeck suit had to result in the OH Supreme Court acting before the vote, or else it was all academic. Is that true? Who knows!

[KarenS]

5. I'll be the first to admit that I do not completely understand

the whole process,,,,, I am watching the Ohio Electoral College procedings on CSpan right now,,,,, I am really irritated at their cute little paper trail comments. The sign of a true liar, is flaunting the lie in the victim's face,,,,,

[Wordie]

7. It really is smarmy and disgusting isn't it. Joking about people's concern

about their country, their democracy. Blackwell is a turd.

[Kansas Wyatt]

8. If fraud is the charge....

And you wanted to make sure that you caught everyone involved in it, wouldn't they want them to go ahead and continue the crime?

[Wordie]

10. NO! I would want to STOP the crime! n/t

[WilliamPitt]

9. It wasn't intended to stop it

The point is to have the recount either done or in progress by January 6th.

[Wordie]

13. I thought the Arnebeck suit was supposed to stop the electors from being

even seated. Others in another thread, said that if they were seated, the entire thing would just become academic. Jeez, it is so hard with all this info floating around! I wish I had a clear picture of how this all works!

[bones_7672]

14. The recount will be done this week, using the same method as 11/2

for 97% of the vote. 3% will be recounted by hand. In essence, there will be very little change from Bush's 118,000 vote cushion.

[Carolab]

30. No, that is not right.

3% is to be counted in each county. It is supposed to be a RANDOM selection by LAW. I have repeatedly asked the recount team to MAKE SURE it IS random. I am due to go to Ohio on Thursday and help to recount one of the counties. I told them that I wanted the specifics on how they are making sure the 3% is indeed random. If the random count has even ONE discrepancy the whole county gets recounted. So I was worried (apparently quite rightly so) that someone would hand-pick the 3% and then "jigger" the numbers and the pollbook data, etc. in advance so it would all "match up". Judging by what happened in Greene County, apparently my fears were not unfounded.

[bones_7672]

34. So, basically, what I said was correct. The only way it would

be incorrect is if there was a discrepency, which I highly doubt will be found.

[Igel]

40. Highly *likely* one will be found.

Ever count a few thousand of anything ... twice ... and get the exact same result? And this goes county by county.

[saracat]

15. But there was a request to block the vote in the suit was there not?

And my understanding is that Arnebeck is in court today. What is up with that, Will?

[crispini]

16. IMO, it's kind of yes and no:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041213/NEWS/412130393

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Congressional Democrats and challengers of Ohio's presidential election results asked state officials today to delay the Electoral College vote until the challenge is decided and a recount completed.

The governor's office said there would be no delay. The request also was made to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The vote in the Ohio Senate chamber was expected to be accompanied by demonstrations outside the Capitol sponsored by groups that don't accept that President Bush won the key swing state by 119,000 votes, guaranteeing his victory over Democrat John Kerry.

Hours before the Ohio delegation's meeting today, the challengers asked the Ohio Supreme Court to review the election outcome. If the court decides to hear the challenge, it can declare a new winner or throw out the results.

[righteous1]

17. My understanding is the Ohio Supreme Court can

do this untill the electors have voted, after that it is a federal matter

[Wordie]

21. What we need is the text of the Arnebeck lawsuit, in order to understand.

It hasn't hit Moritz yet, which isn't surprising, as it was only filed a couple of hours ago. I'll keep checking throughout the day, and post it when it does.

[sockpuppet]

22. How?

How can a state court declare a new winner in a federal election?

[Truman01]

33. I don't think the Ohio SC has the authority to declare a new winner...

They can order the election commission to do a new count, invalidate the slate of electors, maybe even order a revote (all of which are HUGE) but I can't imagine they would change the count, or that they even have that ability.

TC

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Injunctive relief means

what went before doesn't matter. Today is an official ceremony that the suit will seek to have set aside!

[mbee]

19. John Kerry was a prosecutor, John Edwards was a expert

trial lawyer! John Kerry and John Edwards will be inaugurated in January - you can take it to the bank!

[bones_7672]

35. Oh, that's a bet I'd take in a heartbeat. n/t

[righteous1]

25. I don't believe that is correct.

Injunctions are meant to stop something from occuring or going any further, can't remember an injunction ever being applied "retroactively". Once a slate of electors has voted, the Ohio Supreme Court does not have the power to invalidate their action

[Pithy Cherub]

27. You are more correct. They will appeal for injunctive relief

at a higher level than the Ohio Supreme Court once they finish today's ceremony - appellate to SCOTUS. and on it goes... was typing too fast...

[renaissanceguy]

28. And so we're revisiting 2000.

And we all know how that one turned out.

Ugh, I can't stomach it.

[bones_7672]

36. Won't happen. No Federal court will touch this one with a 10 ft. poll n/t

[delphine]

31. That is not what injuctive relief means

Injunctive relief is when you try to stop something from occuring, not after the fact.

[BoomerSoonerOKU]

20. How could

the Ohio Supreme Court agree to hear a case when the Chief Justice was at the electoral college vote?

[jamboi]

24. Probably down the hall. n/t

[KerryReallyWon]

39. california to vote 5:pm eastern time

Yes, a member of the electoral college in CA. who spoke at rally said we would see something different today, when CA is supposed to put their electors in place.

[RaulVB]

41. Missing the point here

You guys keep thinking in a very "legalistic-formal" way.

What they do or don't do is irrelevant.

Certified crimes have no legal consequences in any country!