Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Would Dems Cover Up Neo-Con Election Fraud?

Would Congressional Democrats Cover Up Neo-Con Election Fraud? Part 2 in the 'Democracy' in America Series – No Way, Right?!?!


By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

In the previous article in this series, Have American Elections Really Been Stolen? Part 1 in the 'Democracy' in America Series – The Proof information was provided showing that the official vote 'count' was wrong in Florida’s 2006 Congressional elections, that the 'news' media first covered the news in a slanted way, then joined in a blackout of most of Florida’s Congressional election contests along with a number of organizations which claim to be working to make sure that our votes count, and that the Democratic Party was more concerned with scaring contributors away than it was with taking action to make sure that the votes were counted accurately.

Knowing this, you probably will not be very surprised by how Congress handled this serious matter. Still, you would expect that members of Congress would be concerned that they may lose a lot of their power if they can no longer rely on getting votes to get elected and instead have to rely on the whim of those who control the secret vote counting computers. After all, members of Congress wouldn’t want to lose their power and be relegated to pandering to those who control the machines, would they?

Well, let’s see. John Russell filed his contest of the official vote 'count' in Florida’s 2006 election in the U.S. House of Representatives. Of course, like Bush and so many Neo-Cons who claim that they are seeking your votes so that they can serve the public, Ginny Brown-Waite took legal action to try to stop the will of the voters from determining her 'election' by filing a motion to dismiss.

We can’t have the official vote 'count' being questioned in America, can we? Why that would be un-American, wouldn’t it? After all, you can’t have a democracy if you’re going to have people wanting to make sure that their votes get counted, can you? The count is the count, no need to count anything again. This is America, you sore loser!

So, John Russell filed a response to Brown-Waite’s motion to dismiss. His response pointed out that her motion failed to raise any ground for dismissal of an election contest under the Federal Contested Elections Act, 2 USC § 381 et seq., and asked the House Committee on Administration to deny her motion or hold a hearing on it. Imagine asking Congress to follow the law!

Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, Chair of the House Committee on Administration, sent a letter to John Russell saying that the Committee would notify the parties when it reached a decision on how it intended to proceed. It seems that this letter was sent before the House received John Russell’s response which pointed out that there was no legal basis to dismiss his contest.

A couple of months went by as we continued to try to get support for our efforts to obtain an accurate count of the votes cast in Florida in 2006 and to restore a process in which the votes could be counted accurately. Something that you would expect in a democracy or a democratic republic unless of course, you’re talking about some little third world country with Democratic Republic in its name only.

On May 7, 2007, we received a message from a staff member of one of the members of the House Committee on Administration informing us unofficially that the Committee would hold a hearing on the election contests brought by John Russell, Clint Curtis, and Frank Gonzalez the very next day! Congresswoman Millender-McDonald had passed away suddenly and apparently the new Committee Chair, Robert A. Brady, a Democrat from Pennsylvania’s First District, decided to hold a hearing without giving us any notice or an opportunity to be heard, fundamental requirements of due process designed to protect us from decisions being made in secret without our input in our 'Democratic Republic.'

In order to remind Congressman Brady and the other members of the Committee of the fundamental requirements of due process and their duty to follow them, I prepared John Russell’s Renewed Request for Denial of the Contestee’s Motion to Dismiss or for a Hearing on the Same, and I prepared requests for Clint Curtis and Frank Gonzalez. I sent these requests via facsimile to the Clerk of the House and Staff Counsel for the Committee and via email to the chiefs of staff for each member on the Committee.

These requests pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has required the legislative branch to act in a manner consistent with due process which of course, requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and also requires the government to follow the law. Once again, the motion to dismiss did not raise any legal basis to dismiss the contests.

So, although we were concerned that the Committee was going to hold a hearing without inviting us or even notifying us, we thought that it would be very unlikely that the Committee would just decide to ignore the law and cover up election fraud.

In spite of notice that the Committee would be violating the fundamental requirements of due process by holding a hearing without giving the contestants notice and an opportunity to be heard, it went forward with the hearing anyway. Apparently, the members of the Committee didn’t want any embarrassing questions being raised in their nearly secret session, and when you find out what they decided, you’ll see why.

The members of the House Committee on Administration, Robert A. Brady (D-1st/PA), Zoe Lofgren (D-16th/CA), Michael Capuano (D-8th/MA), Charles A. Gonzalez (D-20th/TX), Susan A. Davis (D-53rd/CA), Artur Davis (D –7th/AL), Vernon Ehlers (R-3rd/MI), Dan Lungren (R-3rd/CA), and Kevin McCarthy (R-22nd/CA), voted unanimously to recommend dismissal of the election contests brought by John Russell, Clint Curtis, and Frank Gonzalez.

Since I had pointed out that the motions to dismiss the contests had not raised any legal basis for dismissal provided by the Federal Contested Elections Act, the Committee concocted a new reason for dismissal, that ballot secrecy rules prevented the voters from testifying about how they voted!!! A staff member informed us of this 'reason' via email, and it was also confirmed by Brad Friedman, see House’s Dismissal of Fla. Election Contests.

Could it be that any member of Congress does not understand that the law protects a voter from being required to disclose how he or she voted, but that it does not make it a state secret that the voter may never reveal? Not only is this 'reason' for dismissal complete nonsense, it is also not a ground for dismissal under the Federal Contested Elections Act.

As of several months later, the transcript of this hearing was still not available, and to this day, the Committee has not sent any notice of its decision to me or my clients. It’s no wonder these fine upstanding members of Congress wanted to hold this hearing in secret They obviously didn’t want anyone ever knowing that they ignored the law and covered up election fraud!

After the Committee members’ stunning displays of lack of concern for the law and of total disregard for democracy, we spent a few weeks trying to decide what to do. Clint and Frank decided not to pursue their contests any further.

However, John Russell didn’t want to give up, and I sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi informing her that we would file a lawsuit seeking an injunction in Federal court if the House voted to ignore the law and dismiss John Russell’s contest or if the House did not allow John’s contest to proceed. Unfortunately, we received no positive response from the Democratic leadership in Congress. Although we still have not been notified that Congress has ever voted to dismiss the contests by John, Clint, or Frank, other action was taken, but you’ll have to wait to see what the powers that be did next.

If you want to know how a few people in each county can take action to make sure that the votes are counted accurately or that a fraudulent vote count is exposed, see How to Stop Election Theft and How Not to Stop Election Theft?

Finally, if you want to help send the courageous person who gathered proof that an election was stolen in America to Congress, support John Russell’s campaign and help Project Vote Count by volunteering to help conduct an exit poll or by donating to support our efforts.

*************

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Gordon Campbell: On The Latest Allegations Against Helen Clark

According to former PM and UNDP leader current Helen Clark, the allegations leveled at her this week in a Foreign Policy magazine article by the prize-winning UN journalist Colum Lynch have been ‘totally fabricated’. Hmmm. That would be very, very surprising. More>>

Letter From The Editor: The State Of Scoop

Gordon Campbell: The PledgeMe campaign currently being run by the Scoop Foundation does provide a useful opportunity to update you on what gets done with your money. Further down the track, other documents will set out what we plan to do, resources permitting. For now, lets stick with the practical nuts and bolts. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Rise Of The Far Right (And Battle Bots)

In his victory speech at the Cannes film festival this week, the British film director Ken Loach [pictued] warned that the rise of far right parties in Europe was being fuelled by the economic policies of austerity, and manifested in a welfare bureaucracy that systematically denies assistance to those in most need. More>>

Julienne Molineaux: Stuff-Me - The Newspaper Gobble-Up

In New Zealand, concentration of newspaper ownership via mergers and acquisitions has a long pre-digital history. The trends of declining readership and fragmented audiences began before digital content, and mergers and acquisitions proceeded apace, enabled by weak legislative protections. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Foundation Membership Drive:

The Scoop Foundation: The best chance to create an independent guardian for public interest journalism in NZ

The Scoop Foundation is seeking public support to safeguard the future of public interest journalism in New Zealand. To ensure public access to comprehensive, free, timely news is maintained during this dark hour for journalism. And to provide every voice in NZ the opportunity to be heard in the national debate. More>>
PLEDGE NOW: Journalism: A New Model - The 2016 Scoop Foundation Membership Drive

Scoop Foundation Timeline:

Gordon Campbell: On Trump And The Madman Theory

Years ago, Richard Nixon explained to his chief adviser Bob Haldeman what has since become known as the “Madman Theory” of foreign policy. Basically, if America’s rivals could be reminded that Nixon was an unstable, rabid anti-Communist with his finger on the nuclear trigger, Nixon reasoned, then maybe they’d be less willing to challenge the US in the world’s hot spots… More>>

Australia And The South China Sea: Another Foreign Policy Blunder Looming

James O’Neill: The overblown rhetoric from the United States has led at least one commentator to describe so-called ‘analyses’ of the South China Sea situation as “the biggest load of analytical rubbish about South East Asia to emerge since the CIA mistook bee feces for a Soviet-supplied biological weapon in 1981.” More>>

Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news