Ohio Judge Denies Knowing Of
Presidential Election Fraud Plot
Ohio Judge Denies Knowing Of Presidential Election Fraud Plot
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MoyerDeniesKnowingElectionPlot.htmOngoing developments in Ohio legal cases have the potential to
severely affect George Bush's claim on Ohio's electoral college
votes; to blow the lid off corrupt practices in Ohio's political
and judicial spheres; and to land a sticky mess of election fraud
and judicial bias before the US Supreme Court and/or legislators
convening to roll-call the presidential electoral college votes
on January 6th, 2005.BreakForNews.com, 30th Dec, 2004 15:00ET
by Fintan Dunne, Editor EXCLUSIVE
In an Ohio voters legal suit with potential to alter the outcome of
the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the chief justice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio has denied having personal knowledge of a plot to steal
votes; has refused an emergency motion to recuse himself from the case
and has declined a request to secure election evidence in the voters'
legal contest of the Ohio presidential election result.Chief Justice Thomas Moyer made the rulings Wednesday in the 'Moss v.
Bush' case taken by thirty-seven Ohio voters to reverse the awarding
of Ohio's electoral college votes to George Bush.
The voters suit is led by Columbus, OH attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and
Bob Fitrakis. Moyer had been assigned to the case automatically by
virtue of being the senior judge of the Ohio Supreme Court.
In court documents, the voters had sought have another judge hear the
case. One of the reasons they cited was that Moyer had "wittingly or
unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate national and statewide
election fraud."
Moyer ruled that their assertion was "wholly without foundation and
totally lacks any degree of veracity." The voters have yet to detail
the basis of their claim.
"Its speculative and ungrounded nature does not constitute grounds for
disqualification," Moyer decided. He also thanked the voters for not
claiming that he had any actual criminal involvement in such a plot.
The suit claims that patterns of irregularities in the Ohio
presidential and judicial elections on November 2, 2004 show there was
an orchestrated election fraud plot which involved tampering with
electronic vote tabulators and deliberately creating shortages of
voting machines --predominantly in minority neighborhoods and college
campuses likely to back John Kerry.
The suit continues, but Judge Moyer also rejected a request to
expedite a hearing and declined to grant discovery orders or ensure
that elections boards preserve evidence from the election.
Responding to the decision, Cliff Arnebeck, attorney for the
Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, which brought the cases
said "the important thing about the judicial process is the concept
that you have a neutral judge."
"It's disappointing that doesn't seem to be the priority here,"
Arnebeck said.
MOYER'S ELECTION CHALLENGED
As well as contesting the result of the November 2nd. Ohio
presidential election, the same voters are also disputing the election
of Moyer himself on similar grounds --in the judicial elections held
on the same day.Both cases were originally one suit, but an earlier ruling by Moyer
ordered them filed again as separate cases. The presidential challenge
case is no longer joined to that contesting his own election. As a
result, Moyer says there is now no reason for him to remove himself,
for he has nothing to gain by a change in the presidential result.
Moyer's earlier move procedurally landed the case against his own
election on the desk of Gov. Bob Taft. He assigned another Supreme
Court judge ---who has also refused an emergency motion to immediately
secure evidence, and has threatened to dismiss the suit.
Joining the club is Ohio's newest Supreme Court justice, Judith Ann
Lanzinger.
At 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Chief Justice Moyer swore in Lanzinger, in a
private meeting in chambers. She replaces retiring Democratic Justice
Francis Sweeney, and her election increases the Republican political
bias of the court's composition.
Lanzinger will attend a public swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 7 that
will be attended by Gov. Bob Taft.
SECRET JUDICIAL SMEAR FUND
Earlier this year, Moyer did recuse himself in a long-running related
suit to force the Ohio Chamber of Commerce to disclose who bankrolled
television ads it ran implying that Justice Alice Robie Resnick, a
Democrat, was being influenced by campaign contributions from wealthy
trial lawyers. That suit had its genesis in another case also by Cliff
Arnebeck.Moyer was among four of the Supreme Court's seven justices who recused
themselves in the case. Moyer and Justices Resnick and Terrence
O'Donnell, had benefited from the television smear campaigns of an
Ohio Chamber group called "Citizens for a Strong Ohio." Judge Evelyn
Lundberg Stratton, who was a target of the ads, also recused herself.
Coincidentally, just this week the remaining Supreme Court judges
--augmented by four appeals court judges temporarily assigned to the
case, turned down an appeal against a lower court decree which imposed
a potential $25,000-a-day fine for every day the Ohio Chamber group
remains in contempt by refusing to reveal who funded the campaign.
Arnebeck says the decision ends the appeals by the Ohio Chamber which
have delayed imposition of the $25,000-a-day fine --absent an unlikely
intervention by the US Supreme Court.
"They're in contempt as of right now," said Arnebeck.
The list of donors to the Strong Ohio campaign, if revealed could
result in executives of twenty-five Ohio corporations facing legal
charges, says Arnebeck.
Corporate officers could get jail terms for making illegal biannual
declarations regarding use of corporate funds for partisan political
purposes. Arnebeck says that the ongoing failure to launch criminal
investigations in the matter is an indictment of Ohio policing,
prosecutorial and judicial systems.
OHIO ELECTION MELTDOWN
Ongoing developments in these issues have the potential to severely
affect George Bush's claim on Ohio's electoral college votes; to blow
the lid off corrupt practices in Ohio's political and judicial
spheres; and to land a sticky mess of election fraud and judicial bias
before the US Supreme Court and/or legislators convening to roll-call
the presidential electoral college votes on January 6th, 2005. Just seven day away.
A week, they say, is a long time in politics. In law also, perhaps.
The 'Moss v. Bush' voters election contest is relentlessly exhausting
it's legal remedies before the Ohio Supreme Court -a necessary
prerequisite to any US Supreme Court appeal. Though grounds for the
higher court review of Ohio's decisions are the subject of legal
debate centering around the "safe harbor" provisions of Ohio's
peculiar election laws.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer may find his refusal to recuse hard to
defend, if reviewed by more exalted justices. The benchmark of
judicial probity in all this was the rightful recusal by four Ohio
Supreme Court justices --Moyer included-- in the "say or pay," $25,000
a day fines case over the 2000 judicial election smear campaigns.
That earlier recusal, should have set the benchmark.
This week's ruling on that case by the specially constituted Ohio
Supreme Court --sans Moyer, came just two days before Moyer determined
that the new Arnebeck/Fitrakis 2004 election suit was suitably
tailored for him.
Solomon-like he reached for their baby case and carved it in two.
This decision despite the fact that the judicial and presidential
voting cases concerned the same voters, on the same day, in the same
state, using the same voting equipment, overseen by the same election
officials, operating under the same procedures; tainted with the same
undercurrents of political bias; and against the backdrop of possible
illegal funding swaying judicial elections.
Solomon could not carve such a baby. Neither should have Moyer.
THE PRICE OF LEGITIMACY
Even a Supreme Court predisposed to repeat the 2000 debacle and
install its "favorite son" again, may balk of doing so if it means
rubber-stamping a partisan hijack of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Especially if that hijack proves to be illegally funded.Which is where the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and a raft of potential
criminals among Ohio corporations come in.
How much is it worth to the Ohio Chamber to grin and bear the
potential $9 million a year cost of not disclosing their donors?
Once the donors are known to be corporate entities, proof of
malfeasance will not be needed. Their false declarations are already
in the public record, to also taint the election of Ohio Supreme Court
judges.
By it's silence, the Ohio Chamber is protecting the judges. The
decisions of those judges are serving to protect Bush. Is $9 million
a small price to pay for keeping the lid on? Probably.
After all, the mystery donors have already plowed $12 million into
campaigns aimed at getting their choice of judges to administer
justice in Ohio. A extra $9 million could keep the lid on things for
another year. But only if the fine remains at $25,000 a day.
Now that the specially constituted Ohio Court decision has started the
clock ticking on the fine, perhaps the lower court will soon be
amenable to a new application to increase the fine to ensure prompt
vacation of the contempt. Such a move could be a show-stopper.
The legitimacy of the reelection of George Bush, in the end may come
down to a question of just how much Ohio hush money it is going to
take to keep him
looking legitimate.
Full article with source hyperlinks:
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MoyerDeniesKnowingElectionPlot.htm
See Also:
Teflon Kerry: More Slick Moves On Election Fraud by Fintan Dunne
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/TeflonKerry.htmKerry Preparing Grounds to Unconcedehttp://www.breakfornews.com/articles/KerryPreparingGroundsToUnconcede.htmKerry to Enter Ohio Recount Fray By William Rivers Pitthttp://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404Y.shtml
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(241 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
