Resolve It or Relive It: Ohio Election Fraud 2004
| By Ohio Election Justice Campaign - Jun 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am EDT |
Contact person: Paddy Shaffer, Director, Ohio Election Justice Campaign, (614) 266-5283
Please note: Links at the end of summery for the court case, exhibits (evidence, records, research), articles, and a video.
The below summarizes the unresolved election fraud situation in Ohio, then goes into depth with a synopsis, further background, and research resources. Your help is urgently needed before the statute of limitations expires.
Please contact US Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555 and ask him to work with the Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) and other supporting individuals and organizations to quickly initiate a special grand jury investigation into the 2004 election before it is too late.
Summary
• The manipulation of the 2004 election in Ohio resulted in one of the most massive violations of constitutional rights in this country's history. Five years later, the results of this assault to our democracy could not be clearer than in the shock and pain of our current economic devastation.
• The January 6, 2005 challenge to certification of Ohio's electoral votes, led by Boxer (D-CA) and Tubbs Jones (D-OH), was the first time in U.S. history that a state's entire electoral college vote was challenged.
• Ohio's statewide recount following the 2004 election was blocked by Ohio election officials; when the recount did occur pursuant to federal court order, it was rigged. Ohio's state courts refused to resolve the issues raised by the recount.
• In 2006, suit was filed against the State of Ohio for violations of constitutional rights in King Lincoln v. Blackwell; the federal court ordered the 2004 ballots preserved as evidence.
• The ballots were also protected from destruction under federal statute.
• Ohio election officials mocked the notion of preserving the ballots in e-mail correspondence discovered pursuant to a public records request; 58 out of 88 counties destroyed most or all of their records in clear violation of federal law and U.S. federal court order.
• In June 2008, Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. Article 29 deals with election manipulation in Ohio, specifically, conspiracy to violate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It presents detailed evidence.
• In July 2008, shortly before the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations on the destruction of evidence, the Ohio Election Justice Campaign asked, in King-Lincoln v. Brunner, for a special grand jury investigation into, at least, the destruction of the 2004 evidence.
• Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, objected to the special grand jury investigation. A former judge, Brunner took no action following the destruction of the evidence. Contrary to her public statements, she did not file materials showing the destruction of evidence in court.
• The attorneys for the plaintiffs (Arnebeck and Fitrakis) asked the judge to strike (remove) the motions for intervention and the special grand jury and all the accompanying evidence from the record, claiming that the motion would be "disruptive to the parties and the progress of cooperative negotiations (between the attorneys and the Secretary of State) in this case."
• Several months subsequent to the OEJC motions, the plaintiff attorneys engaged in a pursuit of a private individual who runs an IT business for government agencies, linking this individual to Karl Rove in the media. The attorneys have not filed any action in court against Karl Rove or named him as a defendant; the deposition taken of this private individual has never been transcribed.
• On March 5, 2009, the district court judge denied the OEJC motion for intervention; the judge also granted the request of Arnebeck and Fitrakis to strike all the materials (approximately 1400 pages) showing that the 2004 evidence was destroyed from the record.
• Several OEJC members have since interviewed multiple plaintiffs in the case. None seem to be fully aware of what is being done in their names by the plaintiff attorneys, and most have no idea what has happened at all with the striking of the OEJC filings regarding the destroyed 2004 evidence.
• This is documented and has been filed with the court on March 24, 2009 and May 8, 2009 with the OEJC motion asking the court to reconsider its order.
• The OEJC also filed new evidence that documents 10 Ohio counties are engaged in the ongoing destruction of 2004 election evidence; records have been destroyed as recently as March and April 2009.
• The statute of limitation on state election crimes is six years. Before an indictment is issued, an investigation must be held. The time for holding such an investigation is rapidly dwindling.
• Holding the Ohio election officials accountable under federal law would be a national deterrent to future election manipulation and fraud.
• The politicians, attorneys, and courts in Ohio have shown themselves incapable of addressing the magnitude of Ohio's corrupt electoral process.
• The structural issues that allowed election fraud to flourish in Ohio have not been squarely faced, in part because a thorough investigation has never been conducted.
• If this is not resolved, we will relive it.
Synopsis
Eight members of The Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) from five counties in Ohio came together and filed two pro se motions in King-Lincoln v Blackwell (now King-Lincoln v. Brunner), case no. 2:06-cv-745. By filing pro se, they were acting as their own attorneys. These members come from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations.
This case is in front of Judge Algenon Marbley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio). The case is a class action lawsuit brought against the State of Ohio claiming numerous constitutional violations arising out of the conduct of the 2004 (and 2006) election.
In 2006, the Ohio election officials destroyed all or some of the 2004 ballots in 58 of Ohio's 88 counties, the evidence in this case, in defiance of this federal court's order.
The two motions:
1. A motion to intervene and become plaintiffs in this case
2. A motion for criminal contempt and special grand jury proceedings
It is our understanding that the new U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio could commence special grand jury proceedings in this matter.
The OEJC has collected documentation that the destruction of additional evidence is ongoing, and, even more significantly, that the statute of limitations will expire if no action is taken very soon. For example, there is a six-year statute of limitations on certain state election offenses. This statute of limitations could expire shortly. The Secretary of State and the attorneys for the plaintiffs have been informed.
No steps have been taken to stop the documented ongoing destruction of the protected evidence in this case. Additional newly discovered evidence of the continued destruction of 2004 records involving 10 counties was submitted to the federal court on Friday, May 8, 2009.
Given that this is a federal case for constitutional violations, and that the evidence points to disobedience to a federal court on a statewide scale without historical precedent (the closest analogy is disobedience to school desegregation orders), action is urgent.
Background on Motion for Criminal Contempt/Special Grand Jury Proceedings
In September 2006, Judge Marbley issued an order requiring the election officials to preserve their 2004 ballots because they were evidence in this case. The order was clear and strong in its language, including the penalties the election officials would face if they disobeyed.
Nonetheless, out of 88 counties, at least 58 counties destroyed the evidence. The destruction did not come to light until July 2007. It is well-documented.
Neither the plaintiffs' attorneys nor the Ohio Secretary of State's office, through her attorney, the Ohio Attorney General, filed the extensive documentation of destroyed evidence with the court.
Therefore, there was no record in the court docket of the destruction of evidence and no way for the judge to legally hold the election officials accountable for disobeying his order. Our research of early July 2008 proved the court not only did not have this evidence, but was unaware of its existence.
Shortly before the one-year statute of limitation was to expire on possible criminal contempt charges against the election officials (July 2008), the OEJC filed their motion for criminal contempt proceedings and a special grand jury.
In their motion, the OEJC filed the extensive documentation of destruction of evidence with the court. The OEJC plaintiffs also filed documents obtained through public records requests.
These documents show that certain election officials, especially those in a leadership position within the Ohio Association of Election Officials, mocked the idea of preserving the evidence and had ample actual notice of the legal requirement to preserve the evidence.
These election officials are still in office, still hold leadership positions, and they continue to control Ohio's elections. These election officials, although nominated by party, are primarily loyal to each other and their association, the Ohio Association of Election Officials.
The lobbyist for the Ohio Association of Election Officials (OAEO), Aaron Ockerman, was also a lobbyist for private election vendors such as ES&S during the HAVA inspired selection of the electronic voting machines. The OAEO is a private corporation that will not release records or even the names of its past officers.
Given the extent of the destruction of evidence as well as the varying degrees of responsibility on the part of the election officials, a special grand jury would be fair to the election officials, grant them due process guarantees, and also serve as an economical use of federal judicial resources.
Further, a special grand jury is authorized, by law, to issue a public report on its findings. Most grand jury proceedings are secret.
The Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, through the Ohio Attorney General's office, has asked the court to deny both motions. The Ohio Secretary of State is now running for the U.S. Senate.
The plaintiffs' attorneys have asked the court to strike the OEJC motions from the record, including all the documentation showing the 2004 evidence was destroyed, as well as the e-mail correspondence among the election boards and Blackwell's office and other citizen-collected evidence that would lead a jury to believe this evidence was, in many cases, intentionally destroyed.
Motions to strike are usually rare in litigation, and intervenors on the same side, as we are, customarily are allowed by the plaintiffs. In fact, the OEJC now has good reason to believe the plaintiffs were never asked - or even knew - of the actions their attorneys were taking.
On March 5, 2009 the court issued the judge's order and opinion. All requests of the OEJC were denied and all evidence submitted will be stricken from the records. The OEJC motion for an expedited conference for fraud upon the court was denied and will be stricken.
Subsequent to this order, the OEJC learned that multiple current plaintiffs are unaware of the actions being taken in their name, especially the attorneys' request to strike the material showing the 2004 election records were destroyed. In addition, the OEJC learned that members of the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood association, in mid-May 2009, did not know they had been named in a law suit (this is the lead organizational plaintiff in the case).
On March 24, the OEJC filed a motion for reconsideration with the federal court. Documents and a video interview were filed to substantiate the questionable lack of fairness and notice to the plaintiffs of what was being done in their names and on their behalf.
Several plaintiffs signed affirmations but wanted them filed under seal (privately) because of a fear of retaliation from the attorneys. An affirmation was filed by the OEJC from a California attorney that these same plaintiff attorneys did not inform the plaintiffs of their actions in the 2004-05 Moss v. Bush election lawsuit, especially of the attorneys' decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
According to the court's opinion in Moss v. Bush, sanctions were brought against the same two attorneys handling the King-Lincoln case because they failed to adequately research the law and failed to adhere to the procedures and time requirements. They escaped sanctions by dismissing the lawsuit. Moss v. Bush, 105 Ohio St.3d 458 (2005) (Motion for Sanctions). A substantial amount of evidence had been gathered for that lawsuit.
Another affirmation was filed with the OEJC motion for reconsideration regarding the plaintiff attorneys raising over $25,000.00 for that past 2004-05 election legal work and then not accounting for the spending of it when asked.
Given the local politics in Ohio and the age of this case, it is likely that multiple conflicts of interest and compromised positions have now occurred at the state level. For example, the assistant Ohio attorney generals currently handling this case are the same attorneys from 2006 responsible for preserving the evidence now destroyed.
The OEJC believes that structural reform of our electoral process, in Ohio and nationally, can be meaningfully accomplished only if there is a thorough investigation, and thus, understanding, of the actions and principals involved in the 2004 election in Ohio. In order to move forward, we need to look to the past. The public is entitled to know the actual history.
Further, the OEJC does not believe the changes made to date address the problems from 2004 or will prevent those problems from occurring again. Current reforms being undertaken in Ohio are, at best, an effort to restore the status quo as it was pre-2004.
In fact, what the 2008 election demonstrated to us was that Ohio, to have any semblance of a fair election, will need an army of election protection attorneys, observers, and volunteers to guarantee the integrity of the vote. For example, many precincts will continue to require upwards of four to six volunteers to guarantee that people can simply cast a vote, which is only one component of the election process.
One Example: Franklin County failed to process approximately 15,000 voter registration cards in 2008. No amount of helpers at the polls on election day will be able to help these people to vote, as these people were not be entered in the voter rolls. The Franklin County Board of Elections voted themselves permission to destroy those registration cards. The record retention schedule appears to suggest these would be kept permanently.
The director stated they have no intention to complete those registration cards. According to OEJC research, they still existed in early spring 2009. Some of those boxes of cards appear in the below documentary, "Democracy Deadlocked."
The deputy director of the Franklin County Board of Elections has been a named defendant in the King-Lincoln case since 2006. He has never been held accountable for his actions in 2004, when he was director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, in disenfranchising voters. The attorney representing this election official in the King-Lincoln case is a former law associate of Secretary of State Brunner, and he used to work with her private law office.
Without significant action, future federal elections will continue to be seriously compromised.
Further research resources:
Documentary Video (under 20 minutes):
Democracy Deadlocked, Part I, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WOw1TzImg
Democracy Deadlocked, Part II, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y44dtUCMf2E&feature=related
This documentary was produced by Melissa Cornick, who in her career as a network news television producer has received numerous awards for her groundbreaking original investigative reports, including the prestigious 2006 Edward R. Murrow and the Mongerson Prize for Ethics in Investigative Reporting awards, among others, for her work at 60 Minutes, Dateline, 20/20 and for the legendary Walter Cronkite's former documentary unit.
Investigative Journalism:
Michael Collins' articles on Ohio election:
Part One: http://www.scoop.co.nz:80/stories/HL0710/S00300.htm
Part Two: http://www.scoop.co.nz:80/stories/HL0711/S00161.htm
Hardball in Ohio & The Lost Ballots: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/HARDBALL-IN-OHIO--THE-LOS-by-Michael-Collins-090326-39.html
Litigation:
Most of the litigation history of this case is online through O.S.U. law school:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/index.php
The link to the King Lincoln v. Blackwell case: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php
Links to specific filings are under the above link as pdf files:
The OEJC Motion to Intervene: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Intervene-7-7-08.pdf
The OEJC Motion for Criminal Contempt and Special Grand Jury Proceedings: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Intervenor-7-10-08.pdf
The OEJC Motion for Reconsideration:
1. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Motion-3-24-09.pdf (plus four exhibits, also pdf files on the website).
2. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/KLNBA-Reply-5-8-09.pdf (plus ten exhibits to this reply brief, also pdf files on website; Ex. K documents the ongoing destruction of records: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/KLNBA-ExhibitK-5-8-09.pdf )
Litigation Exhibits: The exhibits are out-of-order on the website, but the links are below. We can forward to you a more readable copy if you are interested. Because of the extent of the documentation (over 1400 pages), the full evidence is on paper file with the court.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Exhibit-7-11-08.pdf (99 pages);
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-ExhibitEx1-7-11-08.pdf (101 pages);
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-ExhibitEx2-7-11-08.pdf (51 pages)
Dismissal of Defendant Sam Hogsett. He is an ES&S technician involved in election manipulation in Delaware County and other counties at the recount.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NOTICEbyPlaintiffsofVoluntarydismissalofdefendatSamHogsett.pdf
Please note: Links at the end of summery for the court case, exhibits (evidence, records, research), articles, and a video.
The below summarizes the unresolved election fraud situation in Ohio, then goes into depth with a synopsis, further background, and research resources. Your help is urgently needed before the statute of limitations expires.
Please contact US Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555 and ask him to work with the Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) and other supporting individuals and organizations to quickly initiate a special grand jury investigation into the 2004 election before it is too late.
Summary
• The manipulation of the 2004 election in Ohio resulted in one of the most massive violations of constitutional rights in this country's history. Five years later, the results of this assault to our democracy could not be clearer than in the shock and pain of our current economic devastation.
• The January 6, 2005 challenge to certification of Ohio's electoral votes, led by Boxer (D-CA) and Tubbs Jones (D-OH), was the first time in U.S. history that a state's entire electoral college vote was challenged.
• Ohio's statewide recount following the 2004 election was blocked by Ohio election officials; when the recount did occur pursuant to federal court order, it was rigged. Ohio's state courts refused to resolve the issues raised by the recount.
• In 2006, suit was filed against the State of Ohio for violations of constitutional rights in King Lincoln v. Blackwell; the federal court ordered the 2004 ballots preserved as evidence.
• The ballots were also protected from destruction under federal statute.
• Ohio election officials mocked the notion of preserving the ballots in e-mail correspondence discovered pursuant to a public records request; 58 out of 88 counties destroyed most or all of their records in clear violation of federal law and U.S. federal court order.
• In June 2008, Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. Article 29 deals with election manipulation in Ohio, specifically, conspiracy to violate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It presents detailed evidence.
• In July 2008, shortly before the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations on the destruction of evidence, the Ohio Election Justice Campaign asked, in King-Lincoln v. Brunner, for a special grand jury investigation into, at least, the destruction of the 2004 evidence.
• Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, objected to the special grand jury investigation. A former judge, Brunner took no action following the destruction of the evidence. Contrary to her public statements, she did not file materials showing the destruction of evidence in court.
• The attorneys for the plaintiffs (Arnebeck and Fitrakis) asked the judge to strike (remove) the motions for intervention and the special grand jury and all the accompanying evidence from the record, claiming that the motion would be "disruptive to the parties and the progress of cooperative negotiations (between the attorneys and the Secretary of State) in this case."
• Several months subsequent to the OEJC motions, the plaintiff attorneys engaged in a pursuit of a private individual who runs an IT business for government agencies, linking this individual to Karl Rove in the media. The attorneys have not filed any action in court against Karl Rove or named him as a defendant; the deposition taken of this private individual has never been transcribed.
• On March 5, 2009, the district court judge denied the OEJC motion for intervention; the judge also granted the request of Arnebeck and Fitrakis to strike all the materials (approximately 1400 pages) showing that the 2004 evidence was destroyed from the record.
• Several OEJC members have since interviewed multiple plaintiffs in the case. None seem to be fully aware of what is being done in their names by the plaintiff attorneys, and most have no idea what has happened at all with the striking of the OEJC filings regarding the destroyed 2004 evidence.
• This is documented and has been filed with the court on March 24, 2009 and May 8, 2009 with the OEJC motion asking the court to reconsider its order.
• The OEJC also filed new evidence that documents 10 Ohio counties are engaged in the ongoing destruction of 2004 election evidence; records have been destroyed as recently as March and April 2009.
• The statute of limitation on state election crimes is six years. Before an indictment is issued, an investigation must be held. The time for holding such an investigation is rapidly dwindling.
• Holding the Ohio election officials accountable under federal law would be a national deterrent to future election manipulation and fraud.
• The politicians, attorneys, and courts in Ohio have shown themselves incapable of addressing the magnitude of Ohio's corrupt electoral process.
• The structural issues that allowed election fraud to flourish in Ohio have not been squarely faced, in part because a thorough investigation has never been conducted.
• If this is not resolved, we will relive it.
Synopsis
Eight members of The Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) from five counties in Ohio came together and filed two pro se motions in King-Lincoln v Blackwell (now King-Lincoln v. Brunner), case no. 2:06-cv-745. By filing pro se, they were acting as their own attorneys. These members come from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations.
This case is in front of Judge Algenon Marbley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio). The case is a class action lawsuit brought against the State of Ohio claiming numerous constitutional violations arising out of the conduct of the 2004 (and 2006) election.
In 2006, the Ohio election officials destroyed all or some of the 2004 ballots in 58 of Ohio's 88 counties, the evidence in this case, in defiance of this federal court's order.
The two motions:
1. A motion to intervene and become plaintiffs in this case
2. A motion for criminal contempt and special grand jury proceedings
It is our understanding that the new U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio could commence special grand jury proceedings in this matter.
The OEJC has collected documentation that the destruction of additional evidence is ongoing, and, even more significantly, that the statute of limitations will expire if no action is taken very soon. For example, there is a six-year statute of limitations on certain state election offenses. This statute of limitations could expire shortly. The Secretary of State and the attorneys for the plaintiffs have been informed.
No steps have been taken to stop the documented ongoing destruction of the protected evidence in this case. Additional newly discovered evidence of the continued destruction of 2004 records involving 10 counties was submitted to the federal court on Friday, May 8, 2009.
Given that this is a federal case for constitutional violations, and that the evidence points to disobedience to a federal court on a statewide scale without historical precedent (the closest analogy is disobedience to school desegregation orders), action is urgent.
Background on Motion for Criminal Contempt/Special Grand Jury Proceedings
In September 2006, Judge Marbley issued an order requiring the election officials to preserve their 2004 ballots because they were evidence in this case. The order was clear and strong in its language, including the penalties the election officials would face if they disobeyed.
Nonetheless, out of 88 counties, at least 58 counties destroyed the evidence. The destruction did not come to light until July 2007. It is well-documented.
Neither the plaintiffs' attorneys nor the Ohio Secretary of State's office, through her attorney, the Ohio Attorney General, filed the extensive documentation of destroyed evidence with the court.
Therefore, there was no record in the court docket of the destruction of evidence and no way for the judge to legally hold the election officials accountable for disobeying his order. Our research of early July 2008 proved the court not only did not have this evidence, but was unaware of its existence.
Shortly before the one-year statute of limitation was to expire on possible criminal contempt charges against the election officials (July 2008), the OEJC filed their motion for criminal contempt proceedings and a special grand jury.
In their motion, the OEJC filed the extensive documentation of destruction of evidence with the court. The OEJC plaintiffs also filed documents obtained through public records requests.
These documents show that certain election officials, especially those in a leadership position within the Ohio Association of Election Officials, mocked the idea of preserving the evidence and had ample actual notice of the legal requirement to preserve the evidence.
These election officials are still in office, still hold leadership positions, and they continue to control Ohio's elections. These election officials, although nominated by party, are primarily loyal to each other and their association, the Ohio Association of Election Officials.
The lobbyist for the Ohio Association of Election Officials (OAEO), Aaron Ockerman, was also a lobbyist for private election vendors such as ES&S during the HAVA inspired selection of the electronic voting machines. The OAEO is a private corporation that will not release records or even the names of its past officers.
Given the extent of the destruction of evidence as well as the varying degrees of responsibility on the part of the election officials, a special grand jury would be fair to the election officials, grant them due process guarantees, and also serve as an economical use of federal judicial resources.
Further, a special grand jury is authorized, by law, to issue a public report on its findings. Most grand jury proceedings are secret.
The Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, through the Ohio Attorney General's office, has asked the court to deny both motions. The Ohio Secretary of State is now running for the U.S. Senate.
The plaintiffs' attorneys have asked the court to strike the OEJC motions from the record, including all the documentation showing the 2004 evidence was destroyed, as well as the e-mail correspondence among the election boards and Blackwell's office and other citizen-collected evidence that would lead a jury to believe this evidence was, in many cases, intentionally destroyed.
Motions to strike are usually rare in litigation, and intervenors on the same side, as we are, customarily are allowed by the plaintiffs. In fact, the OEJC now has good reason to believe the plaintiffs were never asked - or even knew - of the actions their attorneys were taking.
On March 5, 2009 the court issued the judge's order and opinion. All requests of the OEJC were denied and all evidence submitted will be stricken from the records. The OEJC motion for an expedited conference for fraud upon the court was denied and will be stricken.
Subsequent to this order, the OEJC learned that multiple current plaintiffs are unaware of the actions being taken in their name, especially the attorneys' request to strike the material showing the 2004 election records were destroyed. In addition, the OEJC learned that members of the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood association, in mid-May 2009, did not know they had been named in a law suit (this is the lead organizational plaintiff in the case).
On March 24, the OEJC filed a motion for reconsideration with the federal court. Documents and a video interview were filed to substantiate the questionable lack of fairness and notice to the plaintiffs of what was being done in their names and on their behalf.
Several plaintiffs signed affirmations but wanted them filed under seal (privately) because of a fear of retaliation from the attorneys. An affirmation was filed by the OEJC from a California attorney that these same plaintiff attorneys did not inform the plaintiffs of their actions in the 2004-05 Moss v. Bush election lawsuit, especially of the attorneys' decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
According to the court's opinion in Moss v. Bush, sanctions were brought against the same two attorneys handling the King-Lincoln case because they failed to adequately research the law and failed to adhere to the procedures and time requirements. They escaped sanctions by dismissing the lawsuit. Moss v. Bush, 105 Ohio St.3d 458 (2005) (Motion for Sanctions). A substantial amount of evidence had been gathered for that lawsuit.
Another affirmation was filed with the OEJC motion for reconsideration regarding the plaintiff attorneys raising over $25,000.00 for that past 2004-05 election legal work and then not accounting for the spending of it when asked.
Given the local politics in Ohio and the age of this case, it is likely that multiple conflicts of interest and compromised positions have now occurred at the state level. For example, the assistant Ohio attorney generals currently handling this case are the same attorneys from 2006 responsible for preserving the evidence now destroyed.
The OEJC believes that structural reform of our electoral process, in Ohio and nationally, can be meaningfully accomplished only if there is a thorough investigation, and thus, understanding, of the actions and principals involved in the 2004 election in Ohio. In order to move forward, we need to look to the past. The public is entitled to know the actual history.
Further, the OEJC does not believe the changes made to date address the problems from 2004 or will prevent those problems from occurring again. Current reforms being undertaken in Ohio are, at best, an effort to restore the status quo as it was pre-2004.
In fact, what the 2008 election demonstrated to us was that Ohio, to have any semblance of a fair election, will need an army of election protection attorneys, observers, and volunteers to guarantee the integrity of the vote. For example, many precincts will continue to require upwards of four to six volunteers to guarantee that people can simply cast a vote, which is only one component of the election process.
One Example: Franklin County failed to process approximately 15,000 voter registration cards in 2008. No amount of helpers at the polls on election day will be able to help these people to vote, as these people were not be entered in the voter rolls. The Franklin County Board of Elections voted themselves permission to destroy those registration cards. The record retention schedule appears to suggest these would be kept permanently.
The director stated they have no intention to complete those registration cards. According to OEJC research, they still existed in early spring 2009. Some of those boxes of cards appear in the below documentary, "Democracy Deadlocked."
The deputy director of the Franklin County Board of Elections has been a named defendant in the King-Lincoln case since 2006. He has never been held accountable for his actions in 2004, when he was director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, in disenfranchising voters. The attorney representing this election official in the King-Lincoln case is a former law associate of Secretary of State Brunner, and he used to work with her private law office.
Without significant action, future federal elections will continue to be seriously compromised.
Further research resources:
Documentary Video (under 20 minutes):
Democracy Deadlocked, Part I, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WOw1TzImg
Democracy Deadlocked, Part II, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y44dtUCMf2E&feature=related
This documentary was produced by Melissa Cornick, who in her career as a network news television producer has received numerous awards for her groundbreaking original investigative reports, including the prestigious 2006 Edward R. Murrow and the Mongerson Prize for Ethics in Investigative Reporting awards, among others, for her work at 60 Minutes, Dateline, 20/20 and for the legendary Walter Cronkite's former documentary unit.
Investigative Journalism:
Michael Collins' articles on Ohio election:
Part One: http://www.scoop.co.nz:80/stories/HL0710/S00300.htm
Part Two: http://www.scoop.co.nz:80/stories/HL0711/S00161.htm
Hardball in Ohio & The Lost Ballots: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/HARDBALL-IN-OHIO--THE-LOS-by-Michael-Collins-090326-39.html
Litigation:
Most of the litigation history of this case is online through O.S.U. law school:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/index.php
The link to the King Lincoln v. Blackwell case: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php
Links to specific filings are under the above link as pdf files:
The OEJC Motion to Intervene: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Intervene-7-7-08.pdf
The OEJC Motion for Criminal Contempt and Special Grand Jury Proceedings: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Intervenor-7-10-08.pdf
The OEJC Motion for Reconsideration:
1. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Motion-3-24-09.pdf (plus four exhibits, also pdf files on the website).
2. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/KLNBA-Reply-5-8-09.pdf (plus ten exhibits to this reply brief, also pdf files on website; Ex. K documents the ongoing destruction of records: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/KLNBA-ExhibitK-5-8-09.pdf )
Litigation Exhibits: The exhibits are out-of-order on the website, but the links are below. We can forward to you a more readable copy if you are interested. Because of the extent of the documentation (over 1400 pages), the full evidence is on paper file with the court.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-Exhibit-7-11-08.pdf (99 pages);
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-ExhibitEx1-7-11-08.pdf (101 pages);
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Lincoln-ExhibitEx2-7-11-08.pdf (51 pages)
Dismissal of Defendant Sam Hogsett. He is an ES&S technician involved in election manipulation in Delaware County and other counties at the recount.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NOTICEbyPlaintiffsofVoluntarydismissalofdefendatSamHogsett.pdf
Comments are closed for this post.
Jennifer Brunner is a tremendous disappointment as Secretary of State -- almost as bad as Ken Blackwell. She has ignored repeated pleas to conduct an investigation (let along prosecute), despite having mounds of evidence (including photographs and eyewitness testimony) presented to her. At least with Ken Blackwell you know what to expect. With Brunner, the motives are less obvious.