Reply #102: I took my time to answer this because I wanted to think.... [View All]

[Truman01]

Quoted from Geo:

"Would you readily know of case, code, Opinion that would indicate what "good chance" might mean? Good chance could mean anything from just enough encounted votes or disenfranchised people to make up the difference, to some burden that we prove another candidate is almost certain of a victory.

My concern is that it is difficult to discern how much damage fraud, voter supression, vote mahines, etc. did in each of these states. At least in Ohio there have been hearings recorded under oath, so we might be able to show x-number of votes from that, but what about the rampant fraud or computer mishaps?"

I'm going to address point two first: Absolutely the concern is that quantifying the amount of damage fraud has caused is by definition difficult and hidden because fraud is hidden. So the challenge is to convince a judge that there is enough evidence of fraud that he/she believes there is a preponderance of the evidence (51% or more believable) that the fraud presented would have changed the outcome of the election.

I'm sure that this seems much easier to us (believers) than it really is, which is why my posts have been on balance negative. I know that even a friendly judge has to make a decision that he/she feels will withstand appellate review. This is why I didn't understand the Florida lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit was wholly agreed to and the whole vote in the county was thrown out (extremely unlikely and not what was asked for) it would not have changed the result of the Florida election. So, the point, as far as the court is concerned, is moot. If true fraud is found it may later be a criminal matter, but the civil injunctive relief is unnecessary because there is no irreparable harm.

I know that is real hard to swallow for us true believers.

It is better in Ohio if we can get our ducks in a row before too much time passes. We have to PROVE not allege that fraud occurred, and prove how it occurred, and that the fraud was significant enough to change the results of our particular race. That is a very heavy burden. It was heavy for Gore in 2000 with no more than a 527 vote margin, imagine how heavy it is with a 136,000 or so margin.

Anyway, there is great hope that at some point we will show election fraud and the low level perpetrators will be criminally prosecuted and the process will undergo change. However, (and I know this isn't popular) I would be absolutely stunned if we are able to pull of a change of the election before certification.

I am not saying that we don't do everything in our power to do so. We work and fight until there is nothing that can be done. I'm just saying that we should not be too optimistic about changing the result on January 20th this coming year.

I'll prepare for the flames. I'm sorry but that is my opinion.