10 Responses

1. 

   1)

   George Walker Bullshit said on 10/2/2005 @ 9:26am PT: [Permalink]

   Nobody invited me!!!

2. 

   2)

   Neal said on 10/2/2005 @ 5:49pm PT: [Permalink]

   So sad that our own media is so asleep at the wheel that we have to read about this in a New Zealand newspaper.

3. 

   3)

   MarkH said on 10/2/2005 @ 6:27pm PT: [Permalink]

   Neal, they’re not asleep. They’re riding shotgun, making sure nobody stops this administration from running it off a cliff. What is it they say, ‘drown the beast’?

   There’s talk about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and even Bush & Cheney as being traitorous for being involved in the Plame outing. But, what can one make of the large corporations and news media who cooperate? Are they too not dangerous Tories? Of course, an across the board charge would be too much. There are plenty of exceptions. But, the MSM do seem to support Bush 100%.

   If the press would report on the election fraud, then the public could be informed. But, instead they’re ‘fair and balanced’ and the public is actively denied information essential to their fate. For example, this evening the CBS news did a story about a girl named Katrina and how she’d suffered because her name was the same as the hurricane. Fer fricking sakes, we’ve got bigger issues to talk about and they waste time on something like that. It’s enough to make a person scream.

   It’s been said recently that the Republicans are in disarray. But, I think it’s the Democrats who are split: pro-ignore-vote-fraud, anti-vote-fraud, pro-Iraq-war and anti-Iraq-war, pro-Bush and anti-Bush (see Senate vote on Roberts nomination, 22-22). The Republicans are fully united in their sleaze and corruption.

4. 

   4)

   Phil said on 10/3/2005 @ 9:42am PT: [Permalink]

   I think the Democrats need to split.

5. 

   5)

   Jim Oberg said on 10/3/2005 @ 2:10pm PT: [Permalink]

   Sent the following to the Oregonian in Portland. Would have been nice to see some local coverage.

   I was pleased to see the fine coverage of the National Summit to Save Our Elections, held over the weekend here in Portland with representatives from across the country. Unfortunately, this fine coverage came from a newspaper in New Zealand! See their fine report at:

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00003.htm

   Unfortunately, the Oregonian was conspicuously absent from the event, as far as I could tell. I certainly hope that you consider picking up this report for your readers here, or find other sources to share the result of this important non-partisan effort to protect our democratic election process. As a participant, I found new hope that we might recover a sense of confidence in the legitimacy of our national elections if the recommendations offered at this gathering are given serious consideration.
   Nothing is more important to our democracy than our right to vote, and our trust that every vote is counted.

   Thank you.

6. 

   6)

   Ada said on 10/4/2005 @ 7:39am PT: [Permalink]

   Why do they need a summit?

   It’s simple make a voting system (or improve existing) that can’t be back doored, that the voter can verify the print out agrees with his/her chosen votes, that can be audited with the paper log (don’t even bother auditing with computer backups we all know they are not even secure)!

   Also make it so voters (throughout the year, not just before elections) can log online or dial via their phones into a system where voters can verify their registration and voting location. This would reduce (give disenfranchised folks time to fix the state’s screw ups) questions about legallity of voters.

   Make every state comply yesterday to have a system with integrity on line before the 2006 elections.

7. 

   7)

   Joan said on 10/4/2005 @ 1:15pm PT: [Permalink]

   Ada,
   Sounds to me like a really good plan. I’m sure it will be ignored in favor of a way more complicated plan that really sucks but makes billions of dollars for some lucky corporations.
   Oh wait….that’s the plan we’ve got now.

8. 

   8)

   Joan said on 10/4/2005 @ 5:00pm PT: [Permalink]

   I’m one of the organizers of the Summit, which was really great. We recorded much of it and hope to have DVDs available soon. Much was said and much was to be learned.

   Thanks to BradBlog and all the other people who traveled all the way to [wet] Portland to attend.
   It made all the work worthwhile.

   In answer to an earlier question:

   Here’s why we needed a Summit –

   The subject of the stolen election arose on The Ed Shultz Show on Monday. (which is braodcast on the same channel as Air America Radio)

   A GOP called in and proclaimed that since they won the election, W has the right to appoint whomever he wants to the Supreme Court.

   Ed agreed with the caller that the GOP won the election, but went back to carrying on about Harriet Meirs being a poor choice for the SC.

   Shortly thereafter, another caller took Ed to task about agreeing with caller #1. Caller #2 said, I’m a middle aged black man in Missouri and that election was STOLEN ! And Bush should be impeached !

   This led Ed to declare that Bush would never be impeached. And to proclaim You give me lots more power than I have if you think I can change this.

   THEN a woman called in and told Ed that he had lots of power because he had the ear of lots of people every day and that he should be talking about the election fraud.

   SO – Ed Shultz, who has a 3-hour show Mon – Fri, some of which is repeated on the weekends, declared that he will start spending …

   1 hour a MONTH on the election fraud issue.

   Yep – 1 hour a month. Out of 60 hours of air time each month.

   1 hour out of 60 each month.

   There – That’ll light a fire under the Dems !

   The Summit that we held last weekend has at least 24-36 hours of discussion and presentations. If Ed broadcast 1 hr of the Summit each month, it would take him 3 years to go through all of it.

   Can we wait that long?

   Joan

9. 

   9)

   Joan in Portland said on 10/5/2005 @ 10:45pm PT: [Permalink]

   PS: I’m a different Joan from the woman who posted the 4:15 comment.

   Also, we are trying to get the Summit played on C-SPAN. On of the attendees wrote C-SPAN a great letter telling them they needed to broadcast it.

10. 

    10)

    Insider said on 10/25/2005 @ 9:28am PT: [Permalink]

    State of U.S. Courts. . .

    Consider this:

    Open Letter

    October 23, 2005

    United States Judicial Conference
    Administrative Office
    of the United States Courts
    Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
    One Columbus Circle, N.E.
    Washington D.C. 20544

    Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
    United States Department of Justice
    Civil Rights Division
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20530

    Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
    U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
    United States Department of Justice
    U.S. Post Office and Court House
    700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
    Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

    United States Judicial Conference
    Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
    c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
    Office of the Clerk
    c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
    Marshall of the Court
    No. 1 First Street, N.E.
    Washington, DC 20543

    Third Circuit Judicial Council
    United States Court of Appeals
    c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
    Circuit Executive
    22409 U.S. Courthouse
    601 Market Street
    Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

    Chief Justice
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
    Circuit Executive
    22409 U.S. Courthouse
    601 Market Street
    Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

    RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
    28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
    Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)

    Dear All:

    Please be advise of the following criminal activity.

    On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.

    In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.

    At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
    Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
    The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.

    The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”

    Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).

    Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.

    In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).

    I demand an immediate investigation.

    Respectfully,
    (Name Removed)