We have some crazy memories. Wasn't it the Republican party who used to act like they gave a damn about "The Rule of Law! The Rule of Law!" --- yeah, we think it was the Republican party.

In the meantime, "The Rule of Law" no longer seems to matter at all in Ohio, and apparently --- by extension --- in the United States of America.

And yet, it's difficult to find a Republican who seems to care about that notion anymore...or equal protection under the law, or statewide standards, or all those things they acted like they cared about back in 2000.

We suppose they must have just been kidding about all of that.

Well, we're not kidding about that. We give a damn about "The Rule of Law". We did then, and we do now.

And with 86 of the 88 counties in Ohio not recounted according to The Rule of Law, and Ohio Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell who is supposed to be in charge of open, fair, free, unbiased and transparent elections cynically ducking legal depositions in the case, refusing to answer all congressional U.S. Judiciary Committee inquiries about the election, and simply continue to run out the clock until his candidate, George W. Bush wins "by default"....Well, I guess there's a reason he was also named co-Chair for the Bush/Cheney Re-Election Committee in the state.

What a fraud.

The "Rule of Law" is a sham. And every Republican, be they elected official or simply American citizen who sits on their hands and says nothing, knows that they are frauds.

We know it too.

When did hypocrisy become a "moral value"? Liars.

Rally at 10:00am ET on Thursday, Jan 6th in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Sponsored by the good folks who really do give a damn about the Rule of Law. Folks like the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats of America.

Be there.

UPDATE: P.S. If you elected Democrats think you're off the hook, think again. Stand up for democracy on Thursday, or proceed at your own peril. The BRAD BLOG has a very long memory.

We've been receiving reports via Email all morning concerning the possibility of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) joining Rep. John Conyers' announced intention to challenge to the Electoral College results when the Congress meets in joint session to ratify (or not) those results this Thursday.

Only one member of the House and one member of the Senate is required to begin debate on an Electoral challenge. More info on those statutory Congressional procedures here.

A source in Bill Nelson's office has informed The BRAD BLOG that Nelson is seriously taking a look at the issue, and is currently amidst meetings and phone calls on the very topic.

As it is their "first day back to work since the holidays," as the staffer who wished to keep their name off the record told us, much is currently "up in the air" for the moment. Therefore, the source told us, they "cannot confirm anything as of yet."

The staffer was willing to tell us off the record, in regard to whether Nelson will join the challenge, that "I am hoping that he will. And so is he...There are many of us in the office who are hoping he will do so."

Pressed about the "so is he" comment, the staffer explained that Nelson has been a long time campaigner for "higher voter accountability" and is troubled by many of the reports he's seen concerning the results of Election 2004.

The staffer told The BRAD BLOG that Nelson has been in communication with Sen. John Kerry, and is currently "waiting to hear back" from him. They could not, however, tell us what the results of those communication have been so far.

Senator Nelson can be contacted via Phone, Fax or Email at this page.

UPDATE 2:30pm PT: Conflicting information has now been giving to us by Nelson's Press Secretary...And additional info from a source on the Judiciary Committee... Both reports updated here shortly!

UPDATE 3:03pm PT: The BRAD BLOG has now been contacted by Bryan Gulley, the Press Secretary for Senator Bill Nelson. Gulley has said in an email to us that our report is "completely false".

While we are pleased to report the information from Gulley, we stand by our original report of what we were told this morning by a Nelson staffer as being 100% accurate. We reported precisely what we were told.

Gully, however, understandably takes issue with the information that we were told and reported above. He has given this statement to us via email within the last hour:

After having been given similar information from a RAW STORY reporter earlier (which is now being reported here), in regards to our story, we spoke with a source on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee staff to inquire whether or not they have had any contact with Nelson's office on this matter.

Our source reported that, "To my knowledge, we haven't had any contact with him or his staff".

After we read Nelson's Press Secretary's statement to our source, they told us --- "with all due consideration to Senator Nelson, who has been incredible in fighting for voter-verified paper trails and other important election reform causes in the past" --- that perhaps Nelson's office was currently "setting the bar too high" for what is constitutionally required to challenge the Electoral votes in Congress.

According to our source, "I think that what he's articulated as what it'll take to challenge the Electors is higher than the Constitituion requires. It does not require evidence that will overturn the election. It simply requires evidence that the Electors were not legally appointed, which means that there were substantial illegal actions within a state."

That information would seem to be borne out by information on the Constitutional and statutory implementations concerning the challenge of Electors, which our article had previously pointed to.

"What it means," our source continued, is that "The threshold question for a Senator is not whether Sen. Kerry would have won Ohio...The threshold question is whether there is substantial and credible evidence that there were significant illegalities in the conduct of a state's election. In other words: Did Ohio follow it's own law and the Federal law and the Constitution in implementing it's election. That's the question that needs to be answered when considering the challenging of Electors."

To that end, The BRAD BLOG has been told that Rep. John Conyers' office and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee staffers, "anticipate" in the next day that they "will release a major report that will detail that full body of evidence. And will be sending it to every Senator."

The source added, "It will make it absolutely crystal clear what the standard is for challenging Electors."

The BRAD BLOG will, of course, continue to follow these developments throughout the week as the January 6th date nears for ratifying (or not) the Electoral College votes in a joint session of Congress.

...on what may lie ahead.

I know Fox News won't be telling you about it (unless and until they have to).

(Thanks to Coalition Against Election Fraud for the summary, and to our friend "understandinglife" for the pointer.)

In a posting title, "A Message From A Real Republican", thirty-year Republican party member, Dr. Garth Eldritch easily claims the latest "BRAD BLOG Intellectual Honesty Award".

We haven't been able to give one of those out to a Republican for quite a few weeks (months?) --- so we're pleased that BRAD BLOG commenter, "Bando Bling", has pointed us towards Eldritch's brilliant letter.

Please read the entire thing. Particularly you apologists for the Bush Administration who still consider yourselves either Republican or --- more ironically still --- "conservatives".

Here's a few key passages in the meantime. After describing the proud and storied history of a once great Republican party, Eldritch goes on to ask...

Indeed. And though the divisiveness Eldritch describes above was invented by --- and has now become a staple political weapon/strategy of --- GOP operatives towards only the goal of "staying in power" rather than fighting for the good of our country, it is not only Rightwingers who are guilty in the matter...

Concerning the lawsuit filed in Ohio's Supreme Court demanding the results from a fraudulent election be set aside due to claims that votes were moved from Kerry's column to Bush's...This from today's Toledo Blade...

The Republican party: "A President by default is good enough for us!"

They must be very proud.

Call us unpatriotic, but we prefer our Presidents chosen by democracy, not default.

Make noise. Go to Ohio. Go to D.C. Take your country back. It's time for America's Velvet Revolution.

UPDATE: For a very fine roundup of today's latest Election Irregularity news, see Joseph Cannon hard at work on New Years Day with "American democracy, RIP: 1789-2005"

According to a press release just out, several coalitions who are "working on a Constitutional Challenge to the electoral votes of Florida, Ohio and potentially other states" will be holding a forum on Wednesday, Jan 5th at the Captitol in D.C.

The forum, sponsored by groups such as The Coalition to ReDefeat Bush, the We Do Not Concede Coalition and others, will be led by outgoing U.S. Congressman Peter Deutsch (D-FL) who finishes his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives on the 3rd.

Featured guests to be questioned by Deutsch include Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org and Clint Curtis who some of you may have read something about recently at The BRAD BLOG.

From the press release...

As well, ReDefeatBush.com is sponsoring "two Rallies for the Republic" next week. One in Boston on Monday at 7:00 PM at Fanueil Hall. The other in San Francisco on Tuesday at the Herbst Theater at 7:00 PM.

Both rallies will feature Linda Byrket's extraordinary 24 minute film shot on Election Day in Columbus, OH. We've seen it, and it's worth the price of an airline ticket to Boston or San Francisco.

In lieu of that, however, you can --- and should --- watch this disturbing film online. Scroll down the right side of the linked page for plenty of viewing options.

We dare you to watch that film, and then explain to us why this Election should not be challenged, and the entire system REFORMED from top to bottom. (UPDATE: The filmmaker, Ms. Byrket, has just contacted me to say that if there's any problem downloading the film at the above link, you can also get at it via jeff04.com --- so please do!)

The groups --- great patriots all, in our humble opinion --- also announced that they will be placing a quarter page ad on Washington Post's Federal Page this Monday.

It's time to rock the vote.

As mentioned on Wednesday, and following in the footsteps of The Seminole Chronicle before them, Tom Feeney's other hometown weekly newspaper has jumped into reporting on the emerging "FeeneyGate" scandal. The previously promised article in their Dec. 30th edition hit the stands yesterday.

While The Oviedo Voice --- the older of the two local newsweeklies --- has a website, we are told they are currently transitioning it and thus it is not being regularly updated. Given the national attention this story is now receiving, however, the editors of the paper have told The BRAD BLOG that they will make an attempt to get their full Feeney article online this coming Monday. We'll update this item to provide a link to it at that time.

For now, we've received a faxed copy of the story, and it represents mostly the "balanced coverage" the paper had promised in their previous week's teaser item.

While chosing to focus, for now, only on the initial Feeney-related allegations in her article (as opposed to the wider-reaching Yang Enterprises, Inc. and Florida Dept. of Transportation related charges), reporter Darla Kinney Scoles writes that her report would "only address those statements made regarding Mr. Feeney."

The result is a mostly even-handed story, though it fails to advance the story-to-date too terribly much.

We are told by the editors, however, that they "intend to continue reporting on this story over the next three to four weeks at least". Encouraging news. And we hope, in the process, that they will be able to investigate more of the specifics in those future pieces now that they've gotten the main meat and potatos of the story out of the way for their readers.

Aside from (note to our former best-friends at crosstown-rival Seminole Chronicle) the appreciated hat tip to The BRAD BLOG for the "over 50 pages" said to have been reviewed by Kinney Scoles in preparing her piece, the most notable point taken from the article is the fact that Feeney himself, who had contacted the paper to offer an interview on the matter, kept his promise, but would not allow the interview to be "on record"!

As reported by Kinney Scoles...

Once again, Feeney continues his now-growing track record of, if not having anything to hide, sure as hell acting like someone who does!

Why did he chose to duck attempts to get comment weeks ago from Oviedo's Seminole Chronicle? Why did he decide to approach The Voice only after The Chronicle published their report on the matter? Why all the "off record" interviews and comments to reporters? Why the apparently coordinated threats of lawsuits against a small local newsweekly for merely reporting on public news of note to their local readers?

And perhaps most notably: Why no such legal threats by Feeney against the actual person, Clint Curtis, making the allegations which Feeney's attorneys have described as "outrageous" and "obviously false and defamatory"?

As all responsible news organizations say: We report, you decide.

A few other items of note from the Voice piece...

We appreciate that Kinney Scoles points out the very plausible reason for the lack --- so far --- of corroborating sources who have been willing to come forward (publicly, via affidavit or at least "on the record" anyway) to confirm some of the details of Curtis' claim that Feeney conspired to create "vote-rigging" software.

On that point, she astutely notes:

It would be nice if other members of the media would recognize that seemingly-obvious point before reporting on a surely-relevant aspect of the story, but doing so without bothering to look particularly closely at the matter.

A point which would be made particularly clear if such reporters actually took the time to examine some of the horrifying things that Curtis claims has happened to him over the years as a result of initially blowing the whistle with these allegations.

For Feeney's part, Kinney Scoles quotes Feeney staffer Shannon Conklin as saying "These claims are too ridiculous to answer. It is irresponsible for anyone to publish allegations without close investigation of all claims."

Such broadly dismissive boilerplate comments from both Feeney and his surrogates have, by now, become all too commonplace and accepted by many of the journalists who have been looking into these matters. Particularly in light of the very "close examination of all claims" that has occurred and continues to occur over these last nearly-four weeks by us and many others. Add to that the "close examination" of many of the related claims made previously in the matter against Feeney in a long series of articles by both The Daytona Beach News-Journal and The Orlando Sentinel back during 2001 and 2002 when the bulk of these charges were first brought to light.

Lastly, the article finishes on a by-now fairly obvious, though no-doubt disconcerting note for Feeney who might have hoped to put out the fire set ablaze in the past few weeks by giving an "off record" interview to a hopefully-friendly hometown paper:

And with that we are pleased to add The Oviedo Voice to the growing list of news organizations who seem willing to place the public interest ahead of both fear and political cronyism.

At least for now.

AS IT IS SAID...DEVELOPING...

Funds pledged by the Bush Administration on behalf of the United States for aide to victims of the greatest natural disaster in the history of mankind: $35 million.

Funds being spent by Republican supporters on the inauguration parties for the worst President in the history of the United States: $40 million.

Efforts made to convince sentient human beings that the Bush Administration or its Republican supporters understand the meaning of the phrase "Moral Values" or the word "Compassion": Pointless.

Arguing that the initial Ohio recount was flawed due to a lack of uniform standards throughout Ohio (Florida 2000, Bush v Gore, anybody?) attorneys for the Green and Libertarian Parties filed in Federal Court this afternoon to have Ohio counted again. This time, according to the law...

From the AP article...

We congratulate the Greens and Libertarians again for aggressively standing up for democracy, and expect that all good Americans (even Republicans) will support their call for standards to be followed and the rule of law to be strictly applied.

In not-unrelated news...

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) has announced in a letter released today that he will officially object to the Ohio Electors when a joint session of Congress convenes on January 6th to either ratify --- or set-aside, as the case may be --- the official results of the Electoral College.

In his letter, Conyers, who has been leading the Minority effort in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to investigate the hundreds of reports of Election Irregularities, Supression of Voters, and possible Recount Malfeasance, states "I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law."

William Rivers Pitt of Truthout has more details.

RAW STORY has Conyers' actual letter to all of the U.S. Senators.

In support of Conyers efforts, please use this link to send a letter to several Senators asking them to join in the contest of what has clearly been a desperately flawed election in Ohio, and several other states!

There are a number of other Actions that we will be recommending all good American Citizens take over the next week or two, including attending rallies in Ohio on January 3rd, in DC on January 6th, and even hitting the streets to join a round the clock vigil at John Kerry's house. Information on the rallies can be gathered from The "We Do Not Concede" Coalition whose efforts The BRAD BLOG heartily endorses! Info on the Kerry vigil is right here.

More on those Actions, and others, as we find time to breathe while covering the continuing developments in the Clint Curtis story and other related matters...

In a story yesterday, we alluded to "public documents and email which seemed to directly contradict statements made by Feeney" to the Florida Commission on Ethics which investigated some --- but not all --- of the serious charges Clint Curtis has recently made in a sworn affidavit and public testimony to members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee concerning Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL).

Some of the information we alluded to was based, in part, on an October 12, 2002 Daytona Beach News-Journal piece headlined "E-mails at odds with Feeney denials".

We'd seen the article some time ago, but as it was not publicly available other than via purchase at the The News-Journal Print Archives we hadn't linked to it specifically or discussed it in depth.

A linkable copy of that original 2002 article has now been found via The Wayback Machine (an Internet archive/cache site), which allows us to look in a bit more detail at the contradictory statements made by Feeney at the time to the Florida Commission on Ethics which was investigating charges against the then-House Speaker of the Florida Legislature.

Feeney, now a U.S. Congressman who sits on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and several of his surrogates have recently pointed, on a number of occassions, to the findings of that Commission citing their conclusions of "no probable cause" as his defense for the charges being made by Clint Curtis.

Those findings were alluded to in a threatening letter from Feeney's attorney to The Seminole Chronicle, who wrote a recent article on the matter; in another nearly-identical threatening letter to The Chronicle purported to be from a Yang Enterprise, Inc. (YEI) attorney; and again just today in an off-the-record interview by Feeney, which was used in an article published by The Oviedo Voice. (More on that article here hopefully later today).

As the findings of that commission seem to be the main, if not sole, defense that Feeney is using to answer to Curtis' charges that Feeney was involved in a "vote-rigging" conspiracy in 2000, it would seem that some of the contradicting information discovered in the 2002 News-Journal article (and there were a series of them) has become rather relevant again.

We've already pointed out that 6 of the 8 appointees to the commission were appointed to it by and/or had close ties to either Feeney himself or his one-time running mate Jeb Bush (Feeney was Bush's running mate during his first unsuccessful run for Florida Governor in 1994).

We also pointed out that --- in apparent contradiction to Florida state law --- the two people having filed the charges in the first place with the commission, Clint Curtis and his then-boss at the Florida Dept. of Transportion (FDOT) Mavis Georgalis, were never interviewed at all by the commission.

And as well, we pointed out that the commission wasn't even investigating the alleged "vote-rigging" conspiracy now being discussed amongst Curtis' charges.

But let's take a look at some of the specific troubling information that the News-Journal's Laura Zuckerman uncovered during her investigation into those Emails back in 2002.

Many of both YEI and Feeney's current apparent strategies of denial, dismissal and multiple contradictory statements about the charges seems to have already been in full play even back in 2002, despite strong evidence which contradicted many of their public statements on the matter...

After receiving a faxed letter from Congressman Tom Feeney's (R-FL) attorneys last week threatening legal action, The Seminole Chronicle has now received a second such letter, this time from the attorneys of Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI).

The language in both letters to The Chronicle is remarkably similar, and in some cases, virtually identical suggesting a collusion between the two different parties in an attempt to silence the local weekly in Feeney's hometown from reporting on the growing "vote-rigging" scandal.

The certified letter, with the signature of Michael A. O'Quinn of "Fowler and O'Quinn, P.A.", (though confirmed by The BRAD BLOG to have in fact been signed in his name by his paralegal, Rebecca Saylor, who has told us that "Michael O'Quinn is currently on a boat in the Bahamas" and will not be back to work until January 3rd) asks Feeney's hometown newsweekly, to "place your liability insurance carrier on notice of YEI's intentions in this regard" and requests that they "forward to the undersigned promptly the name of said insurer, the policy number of said liability policy, and the coverage limits thereunder."

The YEI attorney, Michael O'Quinn is a large campaign contributor, along with Dr. and Mrs. Yang, to Feeney, and served as Feeney's law partner for many years until 2002. "Fowler and O'Quinn, P.A." was previously known as "Fowler, Barice, Feeney and O'Quinn, P.A."

This is the second legal threat to The Chronicle since they published their initial story on the sworn affidavit and sworn public testimony by software programmer Clint Curtis.

Curtis's affidavit and testimony charged that Feeney conspired with YEI to create a "vote-rigging software prototype" in 2000 when Curtis was employeed by the firm and Feeney was their corporate counsel and registered lobbyist even while he was a member of, and then Speaker of the Florida Legislature.

The BRAD BLOG originally broke the news of Curtis' affidavit on December 6th.

Both the Feeney attorney letter from John P. Horan, and the YEI attorney letter from Michael A. O'Quinn refer to the charges by Curtis as having been "fully investigated by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics" and state identically that "The Commission found that 'there was no probable cause' to believe the assertions and dismissed each complaint."

In our response to the original letter from the Feeney attorney, we pointed out that 6 of the 8 members of that "State of Florida Commission on Ethics" were appointed by and/or had close ties to either Tom Feeney or Feeney's former running-mate for Florida governor, Jeb Bush.

As we mentioned, The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported in a series of articles on the matter in 2002 that the commission's investigation --- in apparent violation of state law --- never interviewed the original investigator of the claims or the two key witnesses making the claims (Clint Curtis and Mavis Georgalis) before releasing their findings of "no probable cause".

Also in apparent violation of state law, the commission did not bother to examine public documents and email which seemed to directly contradict statements made by Feeney, who was reported to have been interviewed by the commission.

It must also be pointed out that the scope of the "Florida Commission on Ethics" investigation into the charges against Feeney did not even include the "vote-rigging" charges being alleged by Curtis and upon which The Chronicle's story reported.

It was, however, the virtually identical language in both letters that immediately caught our eye, strongly suggesting the direct coordination of this latest legal strategy between Feeney and YEI in a joint and concert effort to suppress reporting of the growing scandal.

Given the years-long tenure of Feeney as YEI's corporate attorney and his personal relationship to his old law partners at his old law firm who still represent YEI, such an attempt to work in concert between the two parties is not difficult to imagine.

That, despite Feeney's recent claims to MSNBC that "his only connection to Yang Enterprises was as an attorney prior to 2002."

As we've previously noted, the 2004 "Tom Feeney for Congress" campaign headquarters are located, even today, inside the YEI Building at 1420 Alafaya Trail, Oviedo, Florida 32765.

"Tom Feeney for Congress" is in Suite 103, according to his official campaign website. YEI's corporate address is in Suite 200, according to their website.

Here is a side-by-side look at the virtually identical language in each of the letters sent over the past week to The Seminole Chronicle by attorneys claiming to represent the two different clients...

Good news to those of you who have been asking us about this, we've finally added an RSS Feed for The BRAD BLOG.

It can be added to your RSS reader at this address: https://BradBlog.com/BradBlog.rdf

For those unfamiliar with RSS, it's ostensibly a syndication feed that allows folks who use RSS-capable readers to "subscribe to our feed" (it's free, of course) to receive automatic notification when new items are added to The BRAD BLOG. Here an article with more info on RSS at Wikipedia.

During our testing and set up, we have been using the RSS reader called PLUCK, a free application that works with Internet Explorer and can be downloaded for free here. There are many such RSS readers out there, however, and most are free. Here's a listing of many downloadable RSS Readers for many different operating systems.

And MyYahoo users can now add our syndicated feed to their customized MyYahoo pages! Just click the "Add to MY YAHOO" graphic now in the right navigation sidebar and you're done!

As we've just unleashed RSS here, and are just learning about RSS ourselves, please feel free to let us know via comments or email if there are any adjustments we may still need to make to ensure that the feed is working properly and is as convenient as possible for RSS users.

Thanks to all that have waited so patiently for us to find the time to get it added, and to our great friend Ronny Brodin for handling the bulk of the tedious technical details!