Is Arnebeck actually acting as a lawyer in the case?

[WilliamPitt]

I spoke to him at the first Conyers hearing, and he said he was involved "as a client." See:

WP: You are working with Jon Bonifaz on the lawsuit.

CA: I am working with Mr. Bonifaz in the capacity of a client.

http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml

There are people here wondering if Arnebeck geeked the case, and others saying he is a good lawyer, etc. It seems to me that Arnebeck isn't lawyerin' on this one. Bonifaz is involved in this case and the Green/Lib/Kerry case, so I wonder if he wrote the thing. I'd doubt it, because his reputation as a good attorney precedes him. I called Bonifaz at his ofice yesterday and got him. His office is in Boston. Perhaps they have local counsel.

The main analysis here is sound, by the way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=205230&mesg_id=205230

Blowing the Rule 9 aspect is first-year law school stuff.

[jdog]

1. I'm confused. Which lawsuit is this then?

From the Alliance for Democracy site:

44 voters in Ohio are contesting the certification of the election for President of the U.S. and Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court based on evidence of vote fraud and discrimination. Alliance Co-chair Cliff Arnebeck is lead attorney.

http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/

[WilliamPitt]

3. That's the one

He is Co-chair of the Alliance, but this says nothing about his serving as the attorney on the case.

[jdog]

5. Sorry, confused again.

What does this mean then???

"Alliance Co-chair Cliff Arnebeck is lead attorney."
:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

6. I guess I am confused too

because that isn't what he told me.

[georgia10]

7. If he isn't an attorney on the case

Why did he file a motion for pro have vice, which was granted and allowed other lawyers to argue with him?

http://198.234.109.19/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6994.pdf

[georgia10]

17. ignore the typos - pro hace vice I meant n/t

[PennyMan]

12. Is This Anything

Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney representing the voters in the challenge, wasn't taking much stock in the recount effort. He questioned why there was no independent investigation into the accuracy of counting machines to determine whether the machines had been tampered with.

[mordarlar]

2. so if it is first year stuff...

what would be the point? Any opinion?


http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-recounts.html

I think this names him as counsel also.

[WilliamPitt]

4. That is the question of the hour

and I make no offerings to that point. I am wondering if Arnebeck was the one who wrote the case filings. From what he told me, he wasn't.

[mordarlar]

8. the previous link names him as counsel of record. not sure what that means

[saracat]

19. Will, someone on the board said Arnebeck is a longtime friend of Kerry's.

What do you know about that? I think this was also mentioned elsewhere. I'll try to dig it up.

[WilliamPitt]

9. I guess that answers my question

I wonder why he handed that stuff to me about acting as a client?

Hm.

[mordarlar]

10. I am getting tired of having nobody to trust... : ( Do they ALL LIE?

I am not looking for an answer and i do not mean to annoy anyone.... Just a little beat.

[Firespirit]

13. He is an Ohio citizen...

Was he one of the plaintiffs as well?

:shrug:

Weird.

[georgia10]

22. Is it possible that after your interview

on the 8th he decided to put his name on as an attorney for the case before filing? Lots of strategic thinking could have happened in the week after your interview.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Perhaps a victory in the courtroom is not his true goal

:shrug:

[liam97]

14. Yesterday

Hartmann introduced him as lead counsel

[SnoopDog]

15. Can someone just spill the beans on this?

What is going on? You are talking in riddles...

[lonestarnot]

16. keep em guessing LOL

[PennyMan]

18. What Is This That Arnebeck Was Doing Yesterday In Court

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1104237060313870.xml

[IndyPriest]

20. He said in an interview on 12/13 (or was it 12/15) that he's been

working on this "exposure of contributors" suit for many years, now. The Chamber of Commerce has been functioning as a front for illegal campaign contributions for a long time.

[liam97]

24. my guess

is that they knew all along Moyers case cannot stand alone, so they filed 2 in 1. That didn't work so as per order, filed seprately, expecting fully that the Moyers case may be thrown out

the Moss V Bush case is much stronger and discussed at freepress.org

[fearnobush]

21. It looks like he's been going after the SBVFT of a justice in Ohio

from a 2000 race, she won but was smeared by a GOP SBVFT like TV campaign to un -seat her.

<http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:O5mdxZ__F5oJ:www.constitutionproject.org/ci/survey/ohio.htm+Justice+Alice+Robie+Resnick&hl=en>

[Mojorabbit]

23. This may be off the wall

and my head spins with this legal stuff but if it was illegal for these people to try to influence judicial elections(did they give contributions) and if Moyers benefited from this groups work...
Would this suit be part of a four pronged approach to our goal?
Tell me if I have the facts all wrong. I am a bit confused.

[IndyPriest]

25. It's all part of Arnebeck's life-work. Whether these pieces are all

supposed to play together as one game about the 2004 election, who knows. Arneck's been fighting election fraud in OH for a LONG time on several fronts. Each of these fronts certainly helps the other (a lot of them - d'uh! - have to do with the same people over and over). But the one referred to in the Cleveland paper, against the OH Chamber of Commerce, has been in the works for a lot longer than Moss vs. Bush. But do these suits support each other? Sure. Info from one feeds into the other.

[Mojorabbit]

26. Thanks! ,n/t

[PennyMan]

27. Thanks For The Info Interesting It Was During The 2000 Campaign.

Wonder What Else Went On ?????