The Legal Concept to Require an Investigation is Reasonable Suspicion t

[truehawk]

What is the Legal Concept of "Reasonable Suspicion"?

There is something else of import that all of us should keep in mind. It is the concept of "reasonable suspicion." In brief, it's a standard that law enforcement authorities need to meet in order to stop and search a citizen, a car and so on; and it can be the valid basis of an eventual arrest. Indeed, it is less than a "probable cause" or "more likely than not" legal standard. Thus, a twenty or thirty percent likelihood of a given event or fact would meet the "reasonable suspicion standard."

Furthermore, hearsay can be the basis of a "reasonable suspicion" threshold finding, while an actual warrant issued by a judge or magistrate is not necessarily required. Certainly, it is a much less stringent minimal bench mark than "actual proof." Unquestionably, if actual proof were always required, there would be very few legitimate searches conducted across the country on the part of law enforcement authorities.

The point that should be garnered from the brief recital of law set forth in the previous paragraph is that absolute guarantees of proof are never required in the law before a search of anything can be conducted.

Furthermore, under our legal system, this basal or minimum standard of "reasonable suspicion" is quite sufficient in the criminal law arena where rights are more greatly coveted and protected than in the civil law arena in which considerations of recounts would more generally apply. Therefore, a suspicion legitimately based upon any facts and inferences, including hearsay, are enough to base a civil or quasi-civil case (which a recount case is), even if those facts represent only a small percent of actual likelihood or probability, so long and on the condition that it is made in good faith.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/185532/75

[HeyManThatsCool]

1. Gotta love Kos

I love that he posts all that

[truehawk]

2. Not Markos --------- Major Tom

[truehawk]

6. Do We Have Sufficient Grounds?

To all those who are screaming "where is the indisputable facts or truth, because I haven't heard any yet," I say to them, "that at this point in the proceedings, indisputable proof is not required whatsoever."

In fact, because we are not suggesting that a criminal action be brought, the standard of proof is even less than "a reasonable suspicion." Don't we at least have some of that from what we have thus far heard? OF COURSE, WE DO. Just think about what we now know to have occurred in Volusia County, Florida; or what has occurred in South Carolina; or what has occurred in Ohio, and so on and so on. Even the enormous
improbabilities regarding the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual poll results should raise within all reasonable people a "reasonable suspicion" that something is definitely awry concerning many of the 2004 poll results. Wasn't the odds 250,000,000 to 1?

Actually, with regard to some of the reports we have been hearing from here and there, I would respectfully suggest that the criminal law, "reasonable suspicion standard" has also been met concerning some of the activities that we have been informed about - destroying original polling tapes. At least, that is my view. Again, however, we are not suggesting that someone bring a criminal action at this point in the continuing controversy. We're talking about a "quasi-civil action" here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/185532/75

[truehawk]

7. What "Civil Discovery" Would Allow:

There is also the matter of "civil discovery." When someone begins a civil action, the parties then have a corresponding right to request an inspection of documents and or other evidence, including equipment, admissions, and answers to specific questions under oath (interrogatories or depositions) from the other party or parties to a civil action. All of these rights are set forth to assist and aid each party in proving their base allegations as set forth in their complaint or petition.

In our particular situation, we would greatly appreciate a look into the brains and guts of some of the voting machines and voting tabulators, wouldn't we? Yet, unless and until we request a formal recount, or we challenge an election outcome itself, we will never be allowed that right and opportunity to analyze what these machines actually do and don't do.

[truehawk]

8. Res Ipsa Loquitor," What It Means: They have the Burden of Proof

There is something else that I should discuss at this point. There is an old legal doctrine on the books known as "Res Ipsa Loquitor." It is a Latin phrase which basically means, "Let the object speak for itself."

Where's the Burden of Proof?

How is Res Ipsa Loquitor applicable here? Well, in theory, when something goes awry concerning an object or instrumentality which is in the exclusive control of a person or persons, be it equipment or the like, and that failure does not normally occur without fault or without negligence, then the burden to prove that the object or the machine did not malfunction in a certain way then legally shifts to the owner or exclusive possessor of that very object or machine.

Respectfully, under the principles of this specific, time-tested legal doctrine, I would contend that Diebold, et al., should be required to prove how any of its vote machines malfunctioned in any given instance, or put another way, they should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all of its machines functioned properly, just as they were intended to function. You know, when you really think about the fact that our democracy itself happens to be at stake, that isn't asking a whole lot.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi HeyManThatsCool!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[truehawk]

3. lick

[spoogly]

4. If There's a Doubt, You Have To Recount n/t

[truehawk]

5. Historical Precident

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/185532/75

Historical Precedent for the Taking

Yet there was precedent for Al Gore not to give up so easily and scream "foul" to the top of his lungs. Back in the Presidential Election 1876, there was close election where vote fraud had been claimed and which involved no less, the State of Florida. That election was between Samuel Tilden (Dem) and Rutherford Hayes (Rep). Tilden had received 250,000 more votes than Hayes, and he needed just one (1) electoral vote from the four disputed states of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Oregon to win office. On the other hand, the very determined Rutherford B. Hayes needed to take the electoral votes from all four of those states in order to win the Presidency. Because the Constitution did not give the U.S. Supreme Court the relegated power to decide the election controversy, the dispute eventually fell to the Republican Congress which swiftly voted along party lines and awarded the election to their brethren, Rutherford Hayes. At that point in time, Tilden and his brethren could have sheepishly walked away like Al Gore had done in 2000, as appears Kerry is doing now; however, they didn't.

The Democrats were so outraged and DETERMINED not to be defrauded, they fostered nationwide threats of civil war. With the country in such grave turmoil, the two parties subsequently entered into negotiations and finally reached the famous "Compromise of 1877" by which the Republicans acceded to several hard demands of the Tilden forces which included guaranteed appointments of Democrats to certain Federal offices and posts as well as a promise that Hayes would not seek a second term of office as President. Gosh, if only Gore had been more like Tilden.

The main point of the above history lesson is that Democrats should not be afraid to stand up at any cost and declare they will not be hoodwinked by Republicans fraudsters. Incidentally, Rutherford B. Hayes kept his promise and did not run for re-election in 1880.

[marions ghost]

9. Great topic, thanks

Thank you for this discussion about what legal options might be initiated.
I'm not very up on the law so I want to KNOW -- what options are out there for addressing these crimes against voters, whether civil or criminal.

I was wondering if there's be any point in a class action suit against Diebold and the rest?

What about fraud, as in RICO?

I have come to think the US Justice Dept doesn't care about this at this point. What can they do?

[truehawk]

10. The Justice Dept has actively fought against voter rights

Since Bush has been in office.
They have opined that only the Justice Dept has standing to sue under the Help America Vote Act.

This is basicly Bullshit and needs to be challanged.

There is a lot of precident for individuals having a right to sue under the voting rights act, and individual Republican voters have sued over proported Democratic voter fraud.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, though they have no problem argueing out of both sides of their mouth, if we don't hold them accountable no one will.

[marions ghost]

11. Thanks for reply

It seems like we should all read up on the Help America Vote Act -- HAVA --and start challenging it locally and nationally.

So all they've left us is --INDIVIDUALS can file a suit....of course most people can't really afford it. So u say Republicans have sued Democrats, but not the other way around....hmmm

Yes, we must hold them LEGALLY accountable for theft and suppression. Obviously the penalties don't scare anybody.

[truehawk]

13. The suits filed so far are on behaf of individuals

[truehawk]

15. I think Rico should apply

[understandinglife]

14. Thanks for creating this thread and I'll suggest a simple barrier...

.....we can all start throwing in the path of this current National Election and bring it to a halt.

"I Declare The 2004 Election Invalid: Someone I do not know was prevented from voting"

Peace.

[truehawk]

16. Or someone that I DO know was prevented from voting

[understandinglife]

17. The reason why I decided on...

....using ...."Someone I do not know" ....was to force recognition of the fact that each of us is responsible to defend every citizen's right to a fair and verified vote -- whether we know that person or not.

Thank you for your suggestion and I assure you, I am happy for folk to edit any way that they consider appropriate. What matters is we should be having millions and millions of our fellow citizens demanding a halt and declaring this election to be what we all know it is -- invalid.

Peace.

[truehawk]

18. The most unnerving thing is to watch a line of Kerry voters

disappear into the polls, and have the results declared 66% Dubba.

[understandinglife]

19. In_deed it is! And, the huge puss-filled 2004 election process....

....is just one pin prick away from exploding.

All Senator Kerry has to do is pick up the pin and stick it.

That metaphorical pin is the statement: "I Declare The 2004 Election Invalid: Someone I do not know was prevented from voting"

He makes that statement and in minutes he'd have millions of Americans doing whatever it took to support him.

It's time, Senator Kerry -- either we emerge as a democracy or we fail, but we fail not because we just sat around and watched it happen as was the case on 6 Jan 2001.

Peace.

Pertinent reminder of staying on one's butt:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/cong-j08.shtml