Friday, March 30, 2007

Iraq Weapons Mass Destruction

Appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, Debra Saunders said she had to speak out about the distortions on the issue of whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He did, she stated.

Saunders pretty much summarized for O'Reilly points she presented in her article.

George W. Bush October 2002 speech

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

March 22, 2007
Bush Lied is the Big Lie
By Debra Saunders


Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson wants to impeach President Bush. In arguing that point, he asked Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, "Have you seen the National Intelligence Estimate that was provided in October of 2002, in which the intelligence agency under the State Department said that Iraq was not building up a nuclear capability, that this whole story about the aluminum tubes (reportedly sought by Saddam Hussein in Niger) was completely off base?"

I decided to re-read the NIE excerpts that the administration released. What does the report say? "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The NIE also reported that Iraq had "expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production," that Baghdad had renewed production of mustard and sarin gases, and that Iraqi missiles could threaten the "U.S. homeland."

Yes, the NIE key judgments reported that some officials in the State Department did not believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing a "comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." But the report also noted that, "Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed -- December 1998."

So let us review the Bush-lied argument that Anderson and other war critics espouse. They say Bush lied about WMD, when, in fact, America's best intelligence presented no doubt about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. And according to the NIE, most intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had been working on nukes for four years.

Here's another point that the Bush-lied misinformation campaign has forgotten. While war critics point to Bush's inclusion of this sentence -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- in his 2003 State of the Union Address as proof that Bush misled the country into war, Bush uttered those words three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Bush Lied is the Big Lie. It takes the controversy over one aspect of U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD -- the nuclear program question -- to argue that the whole WMD argument was bogus. That is, the president's accusers are guilty of the very sort of dishonest selectivity that they accuse Bush of using.

Now the Bush-lied lie is boomeranging on those Democratic presidential hopefuls -- Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards -- who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

By going along with the Bush-lied spin, by refusing to acknowledge that the intelligence community presented strong reasons to vote for war, these Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner. They now have only one rationale for their vote that they can use -- they were duped by the nincompoop Bush -- or one rationale that they cannot use -- they sent U.S. troops to Iraq against their better judgment but out of naked ambition.

And the dishonesty now has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the uncomfortable position of pushing for passage of a bill to continue funding a war into next year that the grassroots believe was based on a lie.

So how does Pelosi plan on getting the House to pass the Iraq spending bill? As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic leadership has larded the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act with pork. After all the (deserved) rhetoric decrying Republican big spending, the Democratic leadership inserted $25 million for spinach growers, $75 million for peanut storage, and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen into the supplemental spending bill.

The idea is to sweeten the pot so that war opponents will agree to fund a war they oppose, while war supporters will vote for the bill, despite provisions the seem to be designed solely to undermine the Bush surge...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_lied_is_the_big_lie.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/22/EDGRJN7BSR1.DTL


Searching for more about that, came across

Democracy Now interview

http://www.democracynow.org/hardball-041124.shtml

and this great discussion

June 21, 2006

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/06/struggling_with.html

Related

Bush: Iraq war plans memo wrong
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 9:03 PM EDT (0103 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/07/iraq.uk.memo/

Libertarian Party Position

http://www.lp.org/media/article_452.shtml

CNN Duo Lou Dobbs & Anderson Cooper

Anderson Cooper of AC 360 is the man to watch. During his program last night, he and another anchor talked about the Radio and TV Correspondents' Dinner. Anderson asked her if she attended. She replied, no, she isn't in that class to be invited.

Anderson said he's attended once in the past. Now he finds that's not appropriate...

He said exactly what we've been thinking and posting. What kind of professional journalists party with the very people they are supposed to be grilling with questions we, the people out here don't get the opportunity to question?

Lou Dobbs Tonight has been coverning the Ramos and Compean prosecution and conviction nonstop for months, and we're sure he didn't attend. If he had, they'd have probably had to throw him out because he'd have shouted out their names and asked why they were still in prison and why George W. Bush has refused to look at the entirety of the case, not just what his Attorney General, Homeland Security Director, and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton are telling him happened - none of them were present at the scene.

The prosecution of these men is one of the worst actions our government could have ever taken. It shows an out-of-touch government ready and willing to prosecute our own law enforcement persons on the word of a known drug-smuggler.

That isn't to say that rogue law enforcement and border patrol agents shouldn't be investigated and prosecuted on the evidence when that evidence shows culpability.

The Ramos and Compean case isn't an example of rogue agents out to shoot unarmed people whether they are crossing the border illegally or legally.

In fact, something really smells about the entire case, unfortunately though Dobbs had U.S. Attorney Sutton on his program after he had spokespersons for Ramos and Compean, he failed to ask the really pertinent and provoking question that has been brought up on websites dedicated to the case.

And though Dobbs asked Sutton who referred the case to Justice, or Homeland Security, he failed to press Sutton for more than the mumblings he gave. In several instances during the interview, there's crosstalk so we can't read what was said and we couldn't understand what Sutton said at the time while viewing the interview.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hypocrits Attend Radio TV Correspondents Dinner

Radio and TV Correspondents dinner is evidence of out-of-touch (and worse) media.

How much do you want to bet Lou Dobbs did not attend this function? Dobbs has been nonstop covering the travesty of the wrongful prosecution of ramos and Compean. don't think he'd stomach for one moment being in the same room as dozens upon dozens of so-called investigative reporters cavorting with Carl Rove and George W. Bush.

Fox 'n Friends showed clips all morning from the extravagant dinner, and not one of the trio said hey - there's that little matter of the two border patrol agents who are languishing in prison for 11 and 12 years when 100 plus Congressmen are questioning how the prosecution of the pair was handled. What's up with that? Nope, all morning not one question from Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and whoever was sitting in for former beauty queen, Gretchen Carlson.

What honest hard-working investigative journalist would spend any amount of time at the function when there are unresolved questions about the Ramos and Compean prosecution and conviction amounting to the number of Mexican trucks about to be unleashed across the NAFTA superhighway?

Bet attendees were just giddy with all the oh ah secrecy. What babies. What idiots.

Radio/TV Correspondents dinner surprise
Washingtonians are eagerly awaiting Wednesday’s Radio & TV Correspondents dinner at the Washington Hilton, but event organizers are tight-lipped about the evening’s top entertainment.

“It is very different,” Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Brian Wilson tells Yeas & Nays. “It’s never been done before. It’s a little outside the box, and people will talk about it for 20 years to come.”

So secretive is the entertainment that Wilson hasn’t even let his executive committee in on the secret (Wilson serves as vice chairman of the Capitol Hill Radio/TV Correspondents’ Association). Although Wilson did try to get Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat) for the event, Cohen’s scheduling difficulties got in the way.

The national anthem will be sung by country star Ricky Skaggs, and the evening will feature the debut of a new JibJab.com cartoon video. The video will parody the state of television journalism and include such cartoon appearances as Anderson Cooper, Geraldo Rivera, Larry King and even Wilson himself. More than 2,400 guests are expected at the dinner, and President Bush will make his first appearance at the dinner since 2004...

http://www.examiner.com/a-634738~Yeas___Nays__Friday__Mar__23.html


Fun, fun, fun

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/events/radiotv_dinner_part_i_20268.asp

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Border Guards Prosecution Explanation Still Unclear

Border Guard Agents face unbending buraucracy and uncaring President of United States and languishing in prison for some 11 and 12 years while President Bush defends actions firing other prosecutors. If anyone should have been fired, it's U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton... Instead Bush is digging in on the conviction - no pardons for them... Sick

See court transcript links here http://agentramos.blogspot.com/

Special Edition: Border Betrayal
Aired March 27, 2007 - 20:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, we're outside the federal prison in Yazoo City, Mississippi.
We're here tonight to help uncover the truth about the prosecution and the ultimate imprisonment of two former Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Ramos is serving his sentence here. Compean is in a prison in Ohio. This is as close, by the way, as we're allowed to be to this prison in Yazoo City. We wanted to be here for this very important report. Tonight, you're going to meet the man who prosecuted these two agents, the people who defended them, and some of our elected officials who have the decency and courage to overcome what many see as a grievous injustice against these two former Border Patrol agents.

The two men are serving harsh sentences for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler from Mexico. That smuggler was given immunity by the U.S. Justice Department in return for his testimony against those agents.

Stay with us for this very special hour, as we look for the answers and examine this very important case, a case that many are calling, straight out, a miscarriage of justice.

ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: "Border Betrayal."...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/27/ldt.02.html


More Broken Borders Lou Dobbs Tonight

Important Links

http://www.outtahear.com/Britton/downloads.html

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

PA Constitution Did No Wrong

Again, the Pennsylvania Constitution is not at fault for the unconstitutional actions of elected members of the state legislature. The law of the PA land is clear on the remuneration of members of the General Assembly. When Republican and Democrat state legislators passed the payraise - salary increase - for themselves back in July 1995 - during their term of office - they were within bounds of the document they swore to uphold.

When overwhelmingly many of those same legislators additionally passed authorization to take the payraises as "unvouchered expenses" in the same term in which they were passed, they did so out of the bounds of the document that tied them to the letter of the law.

Later, that part of the legislation was repealed by legislative action.

It isn't the PA Constitution's fault that the people of PA elected in droves the same people back into office, despite their negligent actions. Oh, some retired in the wake of the public outcry of their actions. According to Brad Bumstead, Thirty incumbents, most of them pay raise supporters, decided to retire this year. (2006).

One of two justices seeking another ten year span of office in retention elections was defeated in the first election held immediately after the legislative payraises. The defeat of one was attributed to furor over the payraise, however, to date, nobody has explained why the Republican justice was retained in the election.

According to a wikepedia entry on 2005 Pennsylvania General Assembly pay raise controversy, Despite the repeal, a total of 17 legislators were defeated in the 2006 primary elections including Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Senate Majority Leader David J. Brightbill. They were the first Pennsylvania legislative leaders to lose a primary election since 1964.

The November 2006 General Election claimed several more members who supported the pay raise including House Minority Whip Mike Veon, and Reps. Gene McGill, Matt Wright, Tom Gannon and Matthew Good
...

Yet, how to explain name after name of incumbents who voted for the payraises and unvouchered expense accounts showed up as re-elected back in to an office of public trust, though the majority of the General Assembly changed from Republican to Democrat, by a slim margin.

What happened in those last few elections after the payraise affront?

Public exposure, including hundreds upon hundreds of articles captured for posterity in blogs and websites on the internet, state-wide publicity of organizations that grew out of the public's frustration with the state legislators' actions, well-publicized lawsuits putting the payraises and unvouchered expenses on trial, pork-pig rallies at the Capitol in Harrisburg.

Still in the next Primary Election immediately following the payraise, when both chambers' membership faced a reportedly maddened and angry electorate of Democrat and Republican voters , only 20-25 percent of those voters registered of one of the two-majority political parties who could have voted showed up or cast absentee ballots. In the General Election immedately following, though some incombents fell in the Primary to newcomers, and it would be expected there would be a groundswell of newly registered voters to participate in the historical changes, only between 30 and 40 percent of all registered voters lined up to throw the remaining bums out.

Even Governor Edward Rendell who didn't veto the unvouchered expenses was sent back to his office of public trust instead of back to his home district. Though Rendell faced no opposition from a challenger in his own party, he had opposition in the General Election from Republican Lynn Swann.

The people simply didn't regeister anew to vote, or arrive at polling places in massive droves to vote him out. In the Primary, Democrats who did turn out - re-elected him instead of giving him his walking papers. Had they been of so mind they could have cast write-in votes since nobody ran as a Rendell opponent then.

It isn't the PA Constitution's fault if voters didn't replace each and every one of the senators and representatives and Governor Rendell who broke their oaths of office to abide by the PA Constitution.

It's the people's fault.

Yet that isn't what reformers who popped up like a Jack-in-the-box singing we want, we want, would have you believe.

After expounding on how they don't expect the sitting members of the PA General Assembly to really take action, or quick-enough action on reform proposals, they are now claiming there are "more than" structural faults in the PA Constitution itself.

They want you to believe the PA Constitution is foundationally defective. They want you to think it's the Constitution that's somehow able to be trumped by members of the legislature - it's the PA Constitution's fault.

What they don't want you to think about is after all of the unparalled statewide attention to their cause to throw all out of office who voted for the payraise, and those who allowed it to happen, the voters kept the majority of the same people in office.

Admittedly, there are procedural items that need to be changed in PA government. Those reform measures can be accomplished one by one or in groups by the current legislative process.

Other weighty measures like reducing the size of the legislature can be proposed by amendments to the PA Constitution. Those would go through the rigorous and deliberative process in the state legislature and then those would be presented to the people in a referendum. The process takes a while. And so it should.

Ballot access to allow for competition by independents and third-party candidates can be changed by the usual - yet deliberative - process already contained in the PA Constitution.

If a soldier can round-the-clock defend these United States of America wherever sent to foreign lands to fight for our rights, the people of this state can wait a while until the the state legislative process for proposing amendments unfolds. They can become engaged in the process and put pressure on the legislators to make changes.

If the legislators bottle everything up in committees, and so forth, there is a next election in two years, and the next two years, more than enough time to continue to educate the public and gain their strong, large numbers to kick them out of office.

The PA Constitution isn't foundationally broken and doesn't need fixed at its base.

People like Mark Widoff of Democracy Rising, PA, and Madonna and Young would have us believe the PA Constitution is broken - all because enough voters who could have kicked all the scoundrels out of office - didn't.

We are being misled to accept the idea that what PA needs are initiatives and referendums. Direct democracy, that's what we need, according to reformers who want a PA Constitutional Convention.

Our Founding Framers of the original United States Constitution didn't give us a democracy, and warned of the perils of direct democracy.

Our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to each of the states.

Initiatives and referendums as proposed for one of the alterations of the PA Constitution guts the PA Constitution and its foundation.

There isn't a groundswell of the public that wants a convention to alter our PA form of government just as there wasn't a groundswell of the public that desired all the incumbents be voted out of office. The Great Harrisburg Caper piece recognizes the historical truth that it would take an overwhelming distain of actions of the legislature for there to be a massive change in the "party" people who continue to be elected and re-elected over and over again.

Because that happened again, with some change, some 50 new members elected, many of whom championed reform, doesn't mean the PA Constitution should suffer in the aftermath.

The PA Constitution did no wrong. Don't make it out as the bandit, when it wasn't.

Net the Truth Online March 27, 2007 1pm
revised March 29, 2007 1pm

The Great Harrisburg Caper of 2005
July 18, 2005


http://www.fandm.edu/x8427.xml

AS I SEE IT MARK P. WIDOFF
A constitutional convention is required
Monday, March 19, 2007

The mere fact that we are seriously discussing meaningful reform in Harrisburg is heartening. For many years it seemed as if no one was paying attention and no one cared about the awful stench coming out of the ornate Capitol dome. It appeared that we had surrendered to the cynics who derided as hopelessly old-fashioned the high ideals, integrity and standards of political leaders like former governors Bill Scranton and George Leader.

One might have thought these reform-minded leaders had served hundreds of years ago, rather than just a few decades earlier.

But there is hope today in Harrisburg, thanks to a handful of heroes who have risked everything to fight the cynics and the prevailing power structure. They have endured ridicule and poverty. They have endured the hatred and the threats of people with power and influence who drafted legislation in secret and forced votes on this legislation in the middle of the night...

http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/asiseeit/index.ssf?/base/columnists/1174091130136190.xml&coll=1



State panel hears call for revising constitution by 2008
Friday, February 23, 2007
By Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Voters in Pennsylvania could have a new state constitution to ratify as soon as the next presidential election.

But there's a lot to do if that's going to happen.

The state Senate Government Committee, headed by Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola, R-Dauphin, held its first in a series of hearings yesterday on convening a constitutional convention for the first time in 40 years...

...Joel Fishman, the co-director of Duquesne University's Pennsylvania Constitution Web Site, gave a possible time frame for a constitutional convention which called for the current hearings to wrap up in March; the general assembly to pass an act calling for a constitutional convention by June; the electorate to vote for the convention in November; a primary election for the delegates in April 2008; and the convention to run from May through August with the final step being the adoption of the new articles from the convention in November 2008...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07054/764382-85.stm


The following opinion was published back in August 2005 before the pay raise issue became a major factor in the 2006 Primary election. There were hundreds of articles across PA, including blog published articles and attention to them on radio talk shows, television talk-shows and the Pennsylvania Cable Network for the next sevral months leading up to the Primary election of 2006...

The following stories about the legislative pay raise appeared in the latter part of August. Since then, the pace of such stories has slackened considerably...

http://www.paconstitution.duq.edu/PAC_CONST_NEWS_2005.html


Year after pay raise, still no reforms
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Friday, July 7, 2006


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/capitalcash/s_460942.html

Related

The media reported widely on the first of several hearings scheduled by the Senate Committee on State Government on the subject of a possible limited state constitutional convention. The hearing was held on 2/22/2007 at Duquesne University School of Law. The co-directors of this web site, Dr. Joel Fishman and Professor Bruce Ledewitz, both tesified.

http://www.paconstitution.duq.edu/PAC_CONST_NEWS_RECENT.html


The media widely reported the decision in Stilp v. Commonwealth, decided 9/14/2006. The decision upheld most of the 2005 government pay raise and most of the repeal of that pay raise. Notably, the Court struck down unvouchered expense account increases for legislators in the original pay raise, but refused to apply the statute's nonseverability clause. Then the Court struck down the repeal of the pay raise for judges. The effect of these rulings is that judges, and only judges, receive both an immediate pay raise and a change in the method of compensation that ties judicial salaries automatically to increases in federal judicial salaries in the future. Justice Thomas Saylor, who is expected to run for retention in 2007, dissented on the nonseverability issue and would have struck down the entire pay raise, including the raise for judges...

http://www.paconstitution.duq.edu/PAC_CONST_NEWS_RECENT.html


Rendell proposes slew of changes to PA Government
Posted March 27th, 2007 by Stanley in Around the Capitol

In the Capitol-wide race to improve government accountability and openness, Gov. Rendell yesterday saw the legislature's bid and raised it - dramatically.

Limit campaign contributions. Expand access to government records. Set term limits for lawmakers. Shrink the legislature. Change the way legislative districts are drawn. Choose judges through a "merit" system instead of electing them...

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/rendell-proposes-slew-changes-pa-government


The twisting and turning argument for initiatives and referendum

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Studies/Tarr%20-%20DD%20in%20the%20State%20Constitutional%20Tradition%20IRI.pdf

Link to poll whether to limit or not limit or hold a convention

http://papundits.com/index.php/2007/02/22/pa-government-best-in-america-re-apportionment-more/

Pennsylvanians for Effective Government hosted speakers on PA Constitutional Convention broadcast on PCN

PCN PUBLIC AFFAIRS SCHEDULE

http://www.pcntv.com/schedule.html

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007 Pennsylvanians for Effective Government Meeting Constitutional Convention

http://www.pcntv.com/monday.htm

Pennsylvanians for Effective Government

http://www.pegweb.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=5033

PEG Guide to Legislators

http://data.memberclicks.com/site/pfeg/New_Legislators_Guide.pdf

Pennsylvania Prosperity Project (PAP2) is a non-partisan effort that focuses on providing objective, factual information about public policy issues and candidates for federal, state, and local office.

http://www.pennsylvaniaprosperity.org/page.asp?content=startpage&g=PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.pegweb.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=5051

Pennsylvanians for Effective Government Education Committee

Total Grants to Pennsylvanians for Effective Government Education Committee
Total $ Granted: $ 325,000
For Years: 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1988 1985


http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1751

Turley: propose independent bad law review

This could be an excellent idea, but who would make the appointments? Turley's proposal doesn't cover how the members of the independent commission he suggests would be chosen. Would the appointments be made by the same state legislatures and governors who now propose not only bad laws and sign bad laws into the legal domain, but also propose and enact unconstitutional laws, such as what we have here in Pensylvania in the form of tax-exemptions called Keystone Opportuntiy Zones.

I'd be all for an independent commission made up of citizens - regular citizens - but therein is another problem. Would the citizens be aware of the current PA Constitution and its contents, and would they be able to review laws and make judgements about what are unconstitutional enactments?

I'm not so sure they would as there has been little, miniscule outcry in PA regarding the Keystone Opportunity Zones. You'd think Pennsylvanians who had to foot the bill for those who have tax exemptions on local property taxes (and other taxes including local and state) in addition to their own taxes would have already stormed Harrisburg. They haven't. You'd think they'd start the tarring and feathering the first time a homeowner comes upon hard times and loses his home to the county tax sales while at the same time the individual across the county is living tax-free for ten years in a house worth a couple hundred-thousand dollars.

The KOZs were implemented by former Governor Tom Ridge and his Republican majority state legislature back in 1998, and continue to this day all around the state and supported by now Governor Edward Rendell and a slight majority Democrat state legislature.

So in Pennsylvania, an independent commission would likely not even take a look at the KOZ legislation as it would be way too political to eliminate it wholly as unconstitutional since the legislation spans both Republican and Democratic majorities.

What we need are citizens who band together and start a legal challenge to a long-list of laws such as the Keystone Opportunity Zones.

What we need are individuals who are aware of their rights for jury nullification, for instance. When they are called in to jury duty to decide the facts of the case, they can determine the law the case rests on is contrary to the PA Constitution, and natural or common law.

We don't need an independent commission that will be politicized. We need active citizens aware of the foundation of our country and our independent states.

Ask the man on the street what the Ninth Amendement to the Constitution is about and he'd give you a blank stare.

Ask the man on the street in Pennsylvania what is the uniformity clause contained in the PA Constitution about and he'd give you a blank stare.

We need people who are willing to hold these elected officials accountable each and every time they continue their own abrogation of either the U.S. Constititution or the constitution of their own state.

But what happens? The same Democrat and Republican party is sent back into office. Names and faces may change from time to time, but the basic tenets these two political parties hold remains the same, and so the unconstitutional acts keep on coming under new administrations.

Jonathan Turley opinion:

Justice? What a joke.
Low-rider jeans that are too low? Call 911. Failing to shovel that snow-covered sidewalk? Book 'em. In America today, lawmakers are criminalizing innocent behavior at an alarming rate and undermining our criminal justice system.
By Jonathan Turley
Texas Rep. Wayne Smith is tired of hearing about parents missing meetings with their children's teachers. His proposed solution is simple: Prosecute such parents as criminals. In Louisiana, state Sen. Derrick Shepherd is tired of seeing teenagers wearing popular low-rider pants that show their undergarments — so he would like to criminally charge future teenagers who are caught "riding low."

Across the USA, legislators are criminalizing everything from spitting on a school bus to speaking on a cellphone while driving. Criminalizing bad behavior has become the rage among politicians, who view such action as a type of legislative exclamation point demonstrating the seriousness of their cause. As a result, new crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate, and we risk becoming a nation of criminals where carelessness or even rudeness is enough to secure a criminal record...

...The criminalization of America might come as a boon for politicians, but it comes at considerable cost for citizens and society. For citizens, a criminal record can affect everything from employment to voting to child custody — not to mention ruinous legal costs.

Yet, it now takes only a fleeting mistake to cross the line into criminal conduct. In Virginia, when a child accused Dawn McCann of swearing at a bus stop, she was charged criminally — as have been other people accused of the crime of public profanity.

Our insatiable desire to turn everything into a crime is creating a Gulag America with 714 incarcerated persons per 100,000 — the highest rate in the world. Millions of people are charged each year with new criminal acts that can stretch from first-degree murder to failing to shovel their sidewalks.

We can find better ways to deal with runaway bushes, castaway pets, or even potty-mouth problems. Congress and the states should create independent commissions to review their laws in order to decriminalize negligent conduct, limiting criminal charges to true crimes and true criminals. In the end, a crime means nothing if anyone can be a criminal.


Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070327/oplede15.art.htm

Gore Live Earth Concert

The best way to deflate erroneous information is to have widespread access to the information and an opportunity to dispute it point by point.

That's exactly what is happening with Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth documentary for which Hollywood handed him an Academy Award.

Point by point, errors in the documentary are being exposed.

And the news coverage as we all know leans towards the global warmers position with just about every major mainstream print media online linking features and articles pro-manmade global warming to every article published online. They overwhelmingly ignore any information that disputes Gore.

But even with all the free exposure, an Academy Award win, more free exposure, and trips around the world and in U.S., more free press coverage, when polled, less than one-fourth of the American public believes Al Gore is an expert on the issue.

24% Consider Al Gore Global Warming Expert

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007/March/alGoreGlobalWarming.htm

That's a recent poll. Just wait as the public becomes privy to the other-side - the arguments of the skeptics who point by point challenge and dispute Gore's facts. The truth is much more difficult to get out when global warming (manmade) debunkers are demonized. Compared to holocaust deniers, they're called global warming deniers.

Few media networks other than Fox News Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly Factor, and Fox 'n Friends even discussed the recent New York Times piece, March 13, 2007 "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype" by William J. Broad, but bloggers across the net did.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/will-new-york-times-get-pulitzer-for.html

Senators Reid and Snowe introduced a bipartisan resolution Senate Con. Res. 17 also S. Con. Res. 24: A concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Capitol grounds for the Live Earth Concert to enable Gore's Live Earth concert to be staged in Washington DC, but the resolution apparently was blocked by Senate Republicans last week, according to a report at blogger Bob McCarty's site http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/gop-senators-block-live-earth-concert-resolution/.

According to the Politico, the Senate measure remains in the Rules and Administration Committee.

With the Republican action, Gore simply gets sympathy and the big-bad Republicans who blocked the resolution get negative press coverage for being partisan while the validity of the contents of the documentary and the global warming theorists hype slides under the radar.

If the concert would go forth in Washington, scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday portrayal would have another opportunity to continue to shoot down one by one the errors and misinformation of An Inconvenient Truth.

Don't miss the Great Global Warming Swindle video documentary (links at sidebar) or

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/F084DA7F-75E3-4ADE-9736-F216FAC97D9C/

Don't miss sidebar James Spann WeatherBrains - streaming video archives which feature interviews with not-so-well-known names, but scientific experts nonetheless, who refute global warming theory as portrayed.

Each time you hear about An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore, replay the Great Global Warming Swindle, revisit Spann's site, and of course, revisit Net the Truth Online which links to those pesky debunkers as well as Ronald Bailey and Al Gore.

The United States public is not convinced on manmade global warming, otherwise, Gore wouldn't need to stage a massive concert here and have rock stars sing-song how we're all doomed.

If the American public were overwhelmingly of one mind on manmade global warming Gore's film wouldn't be the only one shown in elementary schools and high schools.

If the public here were already convinced, the mainstream media wouldn't continue day after day with its one-sided news coverage to try to convince them.

How about the sixth grade class that held a mock trial of global warming? Given both sides, the majority determined it couldn't be proved humans were the primary cause of global warming!

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/evidence-convincing-humans-blameless-on.html

Contrary to Ronald Bailey's We're All Global Warmers Now, we're not.

The fact We're Not All Global Warmers Now - for good reason - is increasingly being made known by citizen journalists all across the internet.

GOP Senators Block ‘Live Earth Concert’ Resolution
March 26th, 2007
·
On Friday, Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attempt to give Rev. Al Gore and members of The Warmin’ Church™ permission to stage a revival (a.k.a., “Live Earth Concert”) on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol...

http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/gop-senators-block-live-earth-concert-resolution/


March 25, 2007
Senate GOP Says No to Al Gore-Global Warming Concert at Capitol


You probably didn't notice it (since readers of The Crypt have actual lives), but late Friday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to get Senate Republicans to allow former Vice President Al Gore to stage a global warming concert on Capitol grounds. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected to Reid's request, and the resolution authorizing the concert, for now, remains stuck in the Rules and Administration Committee.

Specifically, what Reid tried to do was get an unanimous consent agreement approving S. Con. Res. 24, which would permit Live Earth and the Alliance for Climate Protection, which Gore runs, to stage a July 7 concert on Capitol grounds...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0307/Senate_GOP_Says_No_to_Al_GoreGlobal_Warming_Concert_at_Capitol.html


Gore's Live Earth Concert May Be Staged at Capitol
By J. Freedom du Lac
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page C02


Rock on, Al Gore.

That's the message coming from Capitol Hill, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a resolution yesterday to allow Gore to stage a global-warming concert on the Capitol grounds...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201620.html?nav=hcmodule



Gore Gets a Hand From Congress for Climate Concert
By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters

Mar 14, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President and environment crusader Al Gore still has some pull in Washington, D.C. — getting a venue for a rock concert.

The former Democratic presidential candidate had wanted to highlight the need to address global warming by staging one of seven worldwide "Live Earth" concerts on the National Mall in the U.S. capital on July 7.

But two events already are scheduled for that day on the Mall so Gore reached out to a close friend in Congress, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to use the front lawn of the Capitol — albeit a much smaller area.

Reid of Nevada and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine have introduced a resolution in the Senate offering the Capitol grounds for the event. It would also have to pass the U.S. House of Representatives...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2948528



Gore eyes venue for climate concert: Congress
National Mall taken, so he's asked for 'Live Earth' event on Capitol lawn


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17600495/

Al Gore to Announce Global Climate Change Concert Series
Thursday, February 15, 2007


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252149,00.html

24% Consider Al Gore Global Warming Expert
March 24, 2007


Al Gore Former Vice President Al Gore (D) received a warm welcome on Capitol Hill last week for his testimony on the environment and Global Warming. However, while he is now an Academy Award winner and celebrity activist, just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic (see crosstabs).

In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. Thirty-one percent (31%) say he does not know what he is talking about while 33% are not sure. Women, by a 2-to-1 margin, say Gore knows what he is talking about. Men, by a similar margin, say he does not. (More Below)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007/March/alGoreGlobalWarming.htm


Climate expert says Gore's concert tour fueled by exaggeration

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/climate_expert_says_gores_conc.php

Monday, March 26, 2007

Anna Nicole Smith Accidental Overdose by Injection

Seminole Tribe Police: Accidental overdose cause of death of Anna Nicole Smith.

OK but what all exactly was in her body if there were no "pills?" Oh, drugs given by injections? Guess she gave herself an injection of a drug in her behind.

Yep. That's what Howard K. Stern said to investigators, according to Fox News Report - Anna Nicole Smith injected herself in the left buttocks.

(Any bets there is an explanation should Stern's fingerprints show up on the injection needle)

Press conference continues...

Tuesday... she couldn't eat, she had only fluids. Wednesday went to breakfast and dinner had chloral hydrate medication.

Feb. 8 Stern says he woke up and Anna Nicole was awake at 10 a.m. asked for his help went to bathroom - on way back she went back to bed to go to sleep. He left and never checked on her again... she was still watched by wife of so and such

Perper doesn't even name these people!

at 1:30 pm. she was unresponsive.

How long did it take before taken to hospital... he confirms there was no delay atrophine medication given in resuscitation minimal effect...

right but what is the meaning of "long" - ten minutes? 20 minutes?

On the Nancy Grace program - a previous appearance - Dr. Perper was way off in his statement that Anna Nicole must have still been alive when people tried to resuscitate her otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to attempt to resuscitate her. The medical examiner even said on the Nancy Grace program - her body felt warm to those attempting to revive her.

Well duh, she had been laying in bed covered with sheets, and another medical examiner explained it takes quite a long while for the body temperature to go down to a noticeable chill, cold body!

This smacks of a coverup. Wonder when Perper will receive royalty checks for an increase in sales of his earlier book?

Officials: Anna Nicole Smith died of accidental overdose
A drug overdose killed reality TV star and former Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith, Seminole Police Chief Charlie Tiger said today. Tiger said there was no evidence of foul play and the overdose was accidental. Tiger said the case was now closed.

Nancy Grace segments Anna Nicole coverage

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ng.html

DEVELOPING STORY

Officials: Accidental overdose caused Smith's death
POSTED: 10:41 a.m. EDT, March 26, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/26/smith.autopsy/index.html

• Smith autopsy results briefing

• No illegal drugs found; death accidental

http://www.cnn.com/

Court TV

http://www.courttv.com/people/anna-nicole-smith/

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Letter of Law Must B Followed

More Primary Party election candidates off ballot due to filing problems, which include not using a complete surname

Election Law: petition names must be exact match

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/election-law-petition-names-must-be_23.html

one man opines that these judicial seats are just a local election.

No sir, IT'S THE LAW! If candidates seeking a judicial seat can't follow the letter of the law, or any other public office, they shouldn't be running. Go do something else if you don't know the current law regarding the office you are seeking as a representive of all the people who themselves are subject to the law - the exact law.

Remember, for all the rest of us, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. We're told, oops you didn't know about that, too bad, you still have to pay the fine, or serve some time in jail...

These nomination petitions are the very first chance a candidate has to show how detail-oriented and serious the candidate actually is. And even the man who left III out of his surname shows he isn't qualified to be a representative of not one other person in a position of public trust.

(Net the Truth Online)

Half of candidates for judicial seat gone from race
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, March 23, 2007



Half of the 12 candidates running to succeed Ernest Marraccini -- a former Elizabeth Township district judge who obstructed an FBI investigation -- have dropped out of the race or were thrown off the ballot because of filing problems.
Candidates George Hobaugh, Brian A. Merten, Darla J. Poorman and Robert W. Similo withdrew petitions, officials said. A judge removed Dennis M. Pohodich and Bonnie Martin Neander from ballots because challengers found errors in their petitions.

Six names will appear on Democratic ballots in May: Mary H. Levdansky, Patrick McDaniel, Dale T. Provins Sr., Beth Scagline-Mills, Michael Alan Shuey and Jace M. Younge. Each candidate, except Shuey, also will run as a Republican.

Other office-seekers were removed from ballots Thursday. Lawrence Bolind, a Findlay district judge hopeful, can't run because he lacked 100 legitimate petition signatures. A judge ruled William "Buz" Brown can't seek a South Fayette commissioner seat because, when he signed his petition to meet a 10-name requirement, he didn't note he and his son share a name and address.

"Why is anyone so afraid to just let the voters decide?" asked Brown, 54. "It's just a local election, for God's sake."



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_499142.html

Friday, March 23, 2007

Anna Nicole reportedly OD’d on sedative
Reports say model had chloral hydrate, not methadone, in her system


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17757095/

Birkhead Looks to Make a Buck

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2974069&page=1

Evidence convincing humans blameless on global warming

Students weighed the evidence presented to them, and determined from the evidence humans aren't to blame for global warming. Let's repeat that over and over...

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame
Publish Date: 3/23/2007
By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call


LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.

With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.

Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab...

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357


World Net Daily Forum

Take part in global warming debate
Newest WND forum examines climate change controversy


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54766

Election Law: petition names must be exact match

Candidate off ballot for not using full name
Friday, March 23, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Right after striking William W. Brown III from the Republican primary ballot because he didn't include a middle initial and a Roman numeral after his name, Judge Joseph James told the South Fayette man not to give up, to try next time.

"You know what, your honor? I seriously doubt that it's worth it," Mr. Brown said yesterday. "It's just a local election, for God's sakes. I don't know why anybody would go to the trouble."

The trouble Mr. Brown went to consisted of two days missing work so he could wait through a record series of hearings in which candidates and their proxies attempted to bump potential rivals off the ballot on a range of technicalities. In some cases, signatures on the petitions turned out to be questionable. In other cases, ethics forms weren't filed on time.

In the case of William Brown, it was that two people by the same name live in his home. There's William W. Brown III, who wanted to run for township commissioner in South Fayette, and his son, William W. Brown IV, who is a student at Penn State.

Neighbors came over in February, and the requisite 10 signed the candidate's petition, including the candidate himself.

But election law states that names on a candidacy petition must be an exact match with the name on the voter registration list. On that list, he's William W. Brown III. On the petition, including the spot where he signed as one of the 10 needed signatures, he was William Brown...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07082/771862-178.stm


Judge boots 2 council challengers off ballot
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, March 22, 2007

Democrats vying to unseat two Pittsburgh City Council members went to court Wednesday to thin a crowded field of challengers in the May primary...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_498979.html


Peduto drops uphill fight in mayor's race
By Jeremy Boren
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, March 22, 2007

The race for Pittsburgh mayor was Luke Ravenstahl's to lose. Now he probably can't.
His lone challenger in the May 15 Democratic primary, City Councilman Bill Peduto, dropped out of the race Wednesday, disappointing supporters who wanted him to maintain a desperate fight against a popular and better-financed opponent.

Peduto, 42, of Point Breeze, said he simply didn't have the stomach for a dirty campaign, even though some recent Ravenstahl gaffes gave him an opening...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_498883.html

Sec. State Demands Resignations Cuyahoga County EB

(OH) Ohio sec. state calls for resignation of entire Cuyahoga County Elections Board

On the local ABC News affiliate this morning, it has been reported that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Bruner has called for the resignation of all four Cuyahoga County Board of Elections members...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46965.html?1174608702

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/47033.html?1174622759

More info

see electionline.org

http://electionline.org/ElectionlineToday/tabid/84/Default.aspx


Article published Wednesday, March 21, 2007
1 Cuyahoga County elections board member quits, 3 defiant


ASSOCIATED PRESS


CLEVELAND — One of four elections board members from the state’s most populous county quit today but the others defied a demand by Ohio’s chief election officer that they resign by the end of the business day.

Edward C. Coaxum Jr., a Democrat, resigned from the Cuyahoga County board in compliance with Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s demand that they step down over persistent voting problems

Republicans Robert Bennett, the board chairman and head of the GOP in Ohio, and Sally Florkiewicz said at a board meeting that they wouldn’t resign. Democrat Loree K. Soggs said after the meeting that he also would stay on the board.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS24/
70321027

Fayette Judge: county voter database needs update

When I heard Fayette County Judge Steve Leskinen utter "the county voter database needs updated" on the final day of a 4-day hearing in court - Roberts v. Lally - I almost jumped out of my seat.

Judge Leskinen got it exactly right. But then the Judge noted county resources were lacking.

Say what? It is the obligation of county commissioners who comprise both the Registration Commission and the Election Board, during the time they are not candidates for re-election, to ensure the citizens and voters of the county have a clean and accurate voter registration database.

The excuse that the county doesn't have the resources just can't stand one more day.

It is time for someone like Judge Steve Leskinen to order the county to clean up its voter registration database.

During this election cycle, in fact, the election board, at least, possibly the Registration Commission as well, are comprised of others than the commissioners.

To my knowledge, a judge appointed two Republicans (as that party holds the majority position in the county) and one Democrat to comprise the Election Board.

It is time for that board to act to initiate a process in the county to make sure that each and every name and address on the voter registration database is ACCURATE.

There is more than enough time for that process to begin before November of 2007 and the General Election.

No one is suggesting a blanket purge of qualified and valid voters.

But it became sickeningly obvious during the proceedings in Judge Leskinen's court that the potential existed for many, many, many names and addresses in the database to be "abused."

In fact, during the testimony of Document Examiner Michele Dresbold, she compared signatures which were original to voter registration cards (entered into the database by scanning) and the signatures on the Lally petitions.

In her professional estimation, many, many, many simply did not match.

Election Bureau director Laurie Lint also testified that the county database was not yet revamped to dispense with what are known as PO (post office) boxes.

Lint couldn't find as well names of several signers of the petitions in the county database of registered voters. She was not asked to testify about the complete 70 names presented as questioned as to mismatched names and addresses. Lint was asked last Friday to review records to determine whether those who may have moved out of a municipality in the county, or out of the count, had used the one more chance voting, had not submitted a change of address, and had been sent confirmation of address and residency mailings from the county.

Only one woman came in to testify she was registered in Greene County to vote but had signed Lally's petition. She did state she had never been registered in Fayette County.

Other woman who may not have changed from their maiden name to a married name and who may have moved out of the county or the state years ago were not subject to a court appearance. How many names of such remain on the voter registration list?

How many others remain when individuals have died, or moved out of the county or state? Fayette's voter registration database is comprised of some 80,000 plus names, (some 86,000 possible), after the computerized database was implemented.

This is in a county with a population base of 149,000, approximately. You do the math. It simply isn't believable that more than half of the population of the county are registered to vote.

The fact that names remain on the county voter listing which should not be there is a travesty to every valid voter in the county, the state, and the nation.

Judge Leskinen also noted during the proceedings that signatures did not match the original voter registration cards. He said a layman could determine that.

The Judge did not remove any name from Lally's petition which was not tagged as challenged in Robert's complaint as to petition number, line number, and reason.

I found it puzzling however when a Document Examiner testified as to defects on lines, and potential possible additional forgery, that the complaint had to specify what a non-expert could not know. Signatures didn't match. Laymen could see that, said Judge Leskinen.

The court should have given time, even time it may not have had, for the those names to go through the subpoena process, again, as it was acknowledged that some people didn't show up per previous subpoena.

The concept as stated by the judge that the presumption is the elector is valid and must be proven to be disqualified or with defect is not a bad one during a proceeding such as the nomination petition challenge.

However, it is a bad one for duly elected officials of the county (who take oaths of office)to continue using a database of registered voters which may be flawed, using the same reasoning.

The registry must be as clean as possible to secure and retain the rights of valid registered voters.

It couldn't be more simple than that.

Board should appoint inspectors of voter registration

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id33.html

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Lally retains primary ballot access

Net the Truth Online Report Thursday, March 22, 2007 filed 10:45 PM (subject to updates and revision)

Lally Retains Primary Ballot Access

The name of Democrat Sean P. Lally will appear as a candidate on the May Primary election ballot for Fayette County controller as an opponent to incumbent controller Mark Roberts.

Roberts, represented in court by attorney Jason Adams, failed to show evidence to remove a sufficient number of signatures from the nomination petitions of Sean Lally by the end of the court hearing before Judge Steve Leskinen, who was assigned the case last week after Judge Solomon recused himself.

A candidate needs 250 signatures to gain a position on the Primary election ballot for the office of county controller. Lally started with well over that - 436.

In court today, proceedings began with the continued, but brief, testimony of election bureau director, Laurie Lint. Lint indicated election law had required the transfer of signatures and voter information from voter registration cards when Pennsylvania adopted a computerized system called Secure Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE). She checked the local database against printed addresses on the challenged petitions as directed last Friday.

She testified in the one instance she wasn't able to find anything under an incomplete written name, and nothing was available for that address.

Instances arose where the registration for the person named could not be found in the database. Those continued to appear to be enveloped under potential maiden names of women who retained their voter registration with it.

However, some 70 addresses which were slated to be checked for official mailings last week did not come up under questioning by Roberts' attorney, Jason Adams.

During further testimony of subpoenaed witnesses, one woman testified she apprised Sean Lally of her Greene County residency and voter registration, saying she wouldn't be of any help to him, but he said it was ok for her to sign his petition. As it turned out, her name had already been stricken as not registered in Fayette County.

Another woman testified she signed two petitions, one for Lally she recalled at the Mt. Vernon firehall bingo and another for a different candidate elsewhere. She couldn't tell if Lally was the one who presented her with the the former petition .

An expert witness from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Michele Dresbold, who holds certification as a Document Examiner, testified for over an hour.

Laurie Lint had testified the original registration cards were no longer used under the SURE system as all information is entered into the computer database and original signatures are scanned.

Dresbold worked from the original photocopy of the database signature "cards." She was asked to compare those signatures to the election nomination petitions. Additionally, she was asked to give her professional opinion about printed names, addresses, and dates contained on Lally's nomination petitions.

Some discussion focused on the requirements for the person who signs the document by their own hand must also fill out the rest of the petition as to printed name, address, municipality, and date.

Lally's attorney, Tim Andrews weighed in on the need for specificity of the complaint which was fleshed out in later discussions.

Dresbold gave her professional opinion as to "defects" noticed in the cited lines on the petitions.

She noted on a petition which contained the affadavit of circulator Sean M. Cavanagh that the Union in Uniontown on his affadavit appeared the same as the Union in the word Uniontown on successive lines 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of petition number 8.

Dresbold would not testify to the similarity of other printing that matched on successive lines saying she couldn't say whether the matching print on two successive lines was the person who wrote on the line above or the line below, unless it was the circulator.

On another notable petition, the name of John Croftcheck was compared to three signature cards. Dresbold cited differences in ends, formation of letters, and individual letters between the three cards and the petition signature. She then noted the house number, municipality, and date were all filled in the same and authored the same on lines 64 and 65 of petition number 13.

Laurie Lint was called by Lally's attorney to testify about changes in the election code which were implemented in 2002. Lint said the one more chance voting was called fail safe voting. Lint was also asked about Provisional Ballots and testified that some of the addresses in the county database still contain PO boxes as addresses. She said in those cases, it's best to have the names and date of birth to check registration status of individuals.

Andrews spent a few minutes inquiring about Roberts approach at the bureau and specifically whether he asked for them to check the PO Boxes on Lally petitions. He asked if she went over any of those with him. Lint testified all she did was provide copies of Lally's original petitions.

Lint was asked if there are any other specific provisions in Election Law to try to ensure people have the right to vote and are not disenfranchised other than the Provisional Ballots, fail-safe voting?

Andrews elicited Mark Roberts approach to his re-election campaigns was to initiate calls to people who signed the petitions of his opponent asking what was said about him and was there any way he could sell them back on his vote.

Pressed on whether he said during the calls "are you against me?" Roberts testified absolutely not and he would say anyone who portrayed that he'd said that was "misguided," meaning "there are political forces driving some of what you heard..." Representatives who made calls on his behalf during this time were given a script to follow with leeway to use their own words but keep to the spirit of the script. Roberts description of the calls was they were to be polite.

Roberts said his pursuit of a challenge to Lally's petitions arose out of the calls when he was told people hadn't signed the petitions.

Andrews asked if Roberts recalled the woman who testified she was asked why she signed Lally's petition and does she have anything against him. Andrews said the woman was told "you better look out."

Roberts disputed that characterization of the woman's testimony, saying she testified "you should think about that."

At that point, the exchange between Andrews and Roberts prompted an interruption from Judge Steve Leskinen "to stay on point and on relevance"... this "is not a show trial."

Andrews responded saying his client was under attack yesterday.

Noting the time constraints, Judge Leskinen said there would be opportunity to prepare whether a complaint was filed falsely, a matter for criminal law down the road... only interest is in the validity of signatures - we're interested in signatures, not politics, he said.

Andrews continued for several minutes, eliciting from Roberts that he'd gotten little sleep over the last weeks, he spent daytime and night-time hours on the challenge, he didn't make any calls from the controller's office, he didn't seek immediate counsel, but over a weekend talked to former Judge Adams, an employee of Roberts, in a personal capacity. He obtained his court counsel, Jason Adams, to represent him after he'd completed a spreadsheet of names appearing on the petitions.

Andrews pointedly asked whether Roberts could identify with 100 percent certainty the reason for challenge for each of the names listed on the first sheet.

After a few minutes, Roberts indicated his lack of sleep over the course of the last weeks, but said he's spent so many hours on the project if he were given the one page to review he would suspect he could.

Asked if he was aware prior to the filing of his complaint he needed to list the name, line and reason for each challenge, Roberts testified he was aware.

Andrews said Roberts hadn't done that for a number of people and there were other people not identified at all for challenge.

Shortly after the exchange, Andrews asked if Roberts would agree that some defects could be found on everyone's petitions. Roberts agreed.

At one point, Andrews queried Roberts on the process he used while at the election bureau offices, for instance, did he sit down with Lint or other employees and go over the database registry of names and addresses. Roberts replied he was in there every day but hadn't sat down with anyone to do that.

Andrews backtracked to the testimony of Lint which concurred with that, and indicated Lint testified the database contains addresses known as post office boxes, or PO Boxes as the street address.

Timothy Mahoney had been present to testify on behalf of Lally and his knowledge of how Lally circulated some petitions as was Sean M. Cavanagh, but neither of them were called to testify to the generalities. Instead, both parties agreed to stipulate the men would testify favorably.

The proceedings continued on matters of specificity of defects per petition number, line, and reason of the defect.

Judge Leskinen ruled out striking any signatures where those three qualifiers had not been stated in Roberts' complaint. Even though Judge Leskinen noted some of the signatures looked to him, to any layman, as if they didn't match the voter registry, or looked as if they'd been penned by the same hand, or printed information looked like it was authored by the same person, he said he was bound by the law in each instance.

Judge Leskinen at approximtely 2 PM said the county's database should be updated. That issue went to situations that had arisen where married women retaining maiden names could remain on the voter registration database. He continued the county doesn't have the resources.

Thereafter the matter of a post office box address vs a potential street address known as Box 161 arose with the Judge saying he's not convinced that's a post office box and could be disallowed if it were on the complaint as to specifics.

Andrews interjected the law had been changed since 9/11 for the address reassignments. He said Lint had testified some post office box addresses remained on the registry database and had not been changed.

Judge Leskinen commented he would find a matter of fact for the record that the address did not contain a street number, but he would not strike the name as the Roberts complaint failed on the specificity of identifying petition number, line, and reason.

Jason Adams offered signature after signature for final review. Another signature was eliminated for having a PO Box which Judge Leskinen indicated was obvious it was not an authorized street address.

One signature line was stricken as being registered Libertarian.

The Judge struck out two because the writing looked the same to him, and one was registered Republican. Another was stricken as not being registered.

Those were apparently on the complaint listing.

At several points Judge Leskinen reiterated the defect was not listed, but the signature looked to him completely different than the election card. In some instances he thought the same person signed for two persons, at the same time, possibly a spouse.

He said his factual finding was that one did not sign for himself, but he is barred from striking the one name or two names due to being bound by case law.

He also said it isn't the law for these purposes that someone can sign a signature for another person unless that is so noted on voter registration and legal paperwork.

An hour-and-a-half later, going challenged item by item, by Judge Leskinen's count, Roberts showed some 171 stricken names, leaving 265 not challenged. There was further discussion by the Judge pertaining to blocks of names on petitions which appeared to be subject to "improper affadavit of circulator."

Judge Leskinen said Mr. Lally's testimony to recalling names that preceded or followed other names he didn't specifically recall "that day" and his own position that the complaint had to be specific to petition number, line, and reason would not give him leeway to strike those names.

He had struck some names where a woman named Winkler admitted to gaining the signatures out of the absence of Mr. Lally. Under questioning of Lally on those, it was admitted he wasn't present and counsel stipulated his non-presence. As well, some names had been stricken in the case of a petition passed around by Sean M. Cavanagh at the offices of American General insurance company wherein testimony from Mark Santore revealed Mr. Lally remained ouside in a car.

In another case of a block of names, the Judge said the record of Lally's testimony reflected he recalled being at O.C. Cluss and there was sufficient evidence therein to retain those names.

A strong point Judge Leskinen made during the review was the a candidate's potential to not recollect names of person's who signed in the candidate's presence on this, or that, day. Sufficient evidence would have to be provided to show the circulator/candidate was not present, for instance, if it could be shown the name at the beginning and at the ending of a petition circulated in the same location on the same day were not obtained in the presence of the circulator/candidate.

Lally's attorney, Timothy Andrews argued to put some names back on, however it appeared Judge Leskinen had stricken those using notations in red ink on the first day of testimony before Andrews raised objections as to specificity.

At that point, it is possible the earlier total given by the Judge fell slightly below 150 - but the official record in the form of a transcript won't be available for several days.

At any rate, Judge Leskinen did rule that on the specific challenges the court had not discovered enough sufficiently challenged to disqualify the candidate's name from the May Primary ballot.

Sean P. Lally's name retains access to the Democrat Party side of the Primary Ballot in Fayette County.

Mainstream news links

http://www.topix.net/city/lake-lynn-pa

Names and Addresses of Voters Need Full Review

The Fayette County board of election and voter registration commission need to meet forthwith to review all 80,000 plus names and addresses on the voter registry of the county. For decades, tattered registration cards comprised the documentation of who was registered as a qualified elector in the county.

That was changed via the state's compliance with new Federal law after the presidential election of 2000. Each state was to create a computerized database of voters. The state implemented what is called the SURE registry, and every county was to comply with transferring data already on registration cards to the new system.

Officials scanned existing cards into the computer database, complete with signatures. In addition, new voters fill out voter registration forms made available in a variety of locations, and there is even online access to that process.

The SURE system also involved a geographic information mapping system intended to pinpoint the correct voting district for locales situated on close boundaries between municipalities and counties.

Yesterday, during a noontime break in court proceedings Roberts vs Lally, I posed a question to Election Bureau Director Laurie Lint about the 70 addresses which were to be checked by EB employees.

Lint was to continue testimony regarding mismatched addresses, names on Lally petitions that were different than names on the voter registry.

Years ago, after 9/11, state law required a new address system for all the little byways and towns.

The local tax assessment bureau handled the process of implementing address changes which in turn affected the street and house numbers.

I asked whether it was possible if voters could put in a new street or house number on the nomination petitions which might vary with what the Election Bureau had on record.

Lint responded that was a possibility as not all of the addresses had been able to be updated.

Election officials need to remove all old addresses from the voter registry as well as names of persons who have moved from one county to another, or one state to another.

On another point, candidates for office obtain the database of names specific to their Party affiliation. These can be obtained on computerized disk and a printout hard copy of names and street address.

Couldn't a situation arise wherein an individual puts the current street address or house number printed beside his/her signature on a nomination petition, yet, the county voter database reflects a different address for the registered voter?

Court proceedings resume today at 9 a.m. before Judge Steve Leskinen.

States implement voter database

http://electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=288
Tribune Review article

Fayette candidate admits not collecting signatures
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, March 22, 2007

A Fayette County political candidate conceded Wednesday that he didn't personally collect all of his nominating signatures, but said he didn't think he did anything wrong when he identified himself as the circulator for the names gathered by his supporters.

Sean Lally said he believed it was "perfectly reasonable" to sign election affidavits confirming he was present when dozens of registered voters nominated him for county controller, although those citizens were solicited by a handful of his campaign volunteers.

Controller Mark Roberts is asking Judge Steve Leskinen to eliminate the signatures, which could threaten Lally's candidacy in the Democratic primary.

"To me, this was part of a process that I honestly believed I was doing everything according to the letter of the law," Lally testified yesterday under questioning by his attorney, Timothy Andrews...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_498993.html
Dozens testifyOn Lally's petitions for nomination
By Amy Zalar
03/22/2007
Updated 03/22/2007 12:51:24 AM EDT

More than three dozen people who signed nomination petitions for Fayette County Controller candidate Sean P. Lally testified in court Wednesday during a hearing in which Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts is attempting to have Lally thrown off the ballot.

A steady stream of people appeared in court one by one, each testifying about whether or not they signed Lally's petition, where they were when the signing occurred, if they knew what they were signing and who gave the petition to them to sign. Most of those who testified said they knew their signature was to get Lally on the ballot, and they were fully aware of that when they signed...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18110754&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Lally present as woman signed names of relatives

Net the Truth Online report March 22, 2007 (12:48 a.m.filed and subject to revision)

A few developments almost as unsettling as the continued questionable status of the accuracy of Fayette County's voter registration list occurred during testimony by Sean P. Lally, the subject of Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts' nomination petition challenge being heard in the courtroom of Judge Steve Leskinen.

Lally has been noted as the circulator of some 14 petitions to which he signed an affadavit of circulator.

One weighty allegation involving the status of some possible 150 signatures on nomination petitions centers on the personal presence of Lally when the petitions were signed. Those appear to be enveloped into a category called "improper affadavit of circulator."

Roberts has challenged Lally petitions on several fronts, including signatures that appear on both men's petitions, names of voters registered in another party, or No Party, duplication of names on Lally petitions, non-registration status of signer, and the use of a printed rather than a cursive signature. Many of those appeared to be dispensed with last week.

In several instances, the names of women who may have retained maiden names were slated for further review, thus putting their status on hold, but apparently central to the question of Lally's presence when such individuals signed.

In at least 70 instances, mismatched addresses on petitions to names of voters on the county registry were questioned and scheduled to be checked by the Election Bureau. Testimony by election bureau director, Laurie Lint, was postponed until Thursday, the last day scheduled for the hearing. Those as well will go to the heart of Lally's presence and affadavit.

For several minutes individuals subpoenaed by Roberts filed into the courtroom to find an available seat and await a turn to testify.

As the seating filled to near capacity, Jason Adams, attorney for Mark Roberts, requested the witnesses be sequestered outside the courtroom in the hallway until called for testimony. Spanning some six hours, with a half-hour break for a short lunch period, person after person reappeared to take a seat on the witness stand.

Kathy Winkler testified about asking Annette Flora to sign the petition and said she was told she was Democrat. Flora subsequently signed three names to the petition in Winkler's presence to which Winkler asked her what she was doing and admonished that she couldn't do that. Winkler said she hadn't told anyone about the occurence and hadn't spoken to Lally about that though she did speak to him, she said.

She testified she had inadvertently signed the petitions two times. Her name was stricken in the one line.

Winkler also testified to obtaining a dozen other names.

One woman testified she had been contacted about petitions by Sean Lally. She took the petitions to the Rod and Gun Club and didn't sign as circulator, but she double-signed her own name on Lally's petitions by accident. Upon questioning by Andrews about the circumstances of her being contacted by anyone from Roberts' camp, she testified to being contacted the first time in the evening and was asked by Roberts what he had done wrong and why she signed someone else's petition.

The next morning, she said, she received another call at 9:55 a.m. and was scared by it. She said she used her cell phone to take a photograph of the phone call and the number was 430-7319.

She offered she suffered from an illness years ago, and had to make lists of everything. She knew she should have signed as circulator, but just didn't.

In turn, subpoenaed witnesses were asked by Adams whether they were registered to vote, registered as a Democrat, who was present when they signed the petitition, did they know Lally, could they recognize Lally if they did not know him and hadn't met him, and specifically was Lally present when they signed the petition. Many were directed to Lally at the front of the courtroom, and subsequently said they had not seen him at the time they signed his petition.

Lally's attorney, Tim Andrews countered with questions about whether the individual read and/or understood what they signed, did they have an objection to their valid signature appearing on the petition for Lally to gain ballot access.

Many witnesses who avowed they had signed the petition and had no objection to their names appearing on Lally's petition could not testify for certain to Lally's presence.

Locations which cropped up over and over were Vinny's Pizza Parlor, the offices of American General, a bar, at a committee party for another candidate, at a spaghetti dinner, and a bingo event.

Mark Santore's testimony placed Lally in a car outside the American General offices while signers in that location testified Sean Cavanagh brought in petitions which they signed.

The signers at Vinny's Pizza Parlor testified they did not see Sean Lally there.

A Christine Brownfield testified she signed Lally's petition which her husband gave to her. Lally was not present, she said. She passed the petition on at work at Community Action.

Later testimony revealed Mr. Brownfield employed by Lally.

One woman testified she'd been handed the petition near Value City at the Mall and as it was a cold day, there were not many people outdoors and she was certain Lally was not present.

One man testified he was at the bar at a table and Sean Lally was there, but he was handed the petition by the person seated next to him, a doctor.

One man testifying appeared set that the signature was not his, but he indicated he had signed a petition, he wasn't sure when or where, and he could not answer who asked him to sign. Lally's attorney conceded to strike his name on the basis of he appeared confused.

One woman said she had been asked to sign a petition, at school where she is employed, but she was told it was for a school board candidate. She was asked by Lally's counsel whether she understood what she signed and objected to her name being used for the candidate's ballot position. Her answers caused the attorney to concede to have her name stricken.

Another woman said she had worked at Sean Cavanagh's Vinny's, and was told "this is a democratic place." She was registered as an independent for years and was asked if she wanted to change her registristration a day before she signed the petition.

When Lally took the witness stand he was asked immediately whether he sought advice of other candidates, an attorney, anyone who ran before his bid for the controller position. At first, Andrews raised objections, but Judge Leskinen quelled debate noting a record was being created and the questions were within bounds to be asked.

Lally testified he had sought a election to a row office previously.

He indicated he'd read and reviewed the affadavit and complied with it to his knowledge of what it meant.

He believed it was accepted practice to give the petition to someone else to obtain signatures and he wasn't aware there was a case wherein it was determined you must be physically present as circulator of the petition.

Judge Leskinen interjected around this point with a question about his belief of what the affadavit contents require and Lally said no, he doesn't believe that's the case that you must be physically present.

When questioned about name after name for at least one-hour, Lally appeared frustrated. He had sat through the entirety of the testimony of dozens upon dozens of individuals. He maintained he could recall some of the names he was asked about, but couldn't be expected to remember some 436 individuals.

At one point, Lally was asked if he recalled the testimony of one woman, and he asked what was her description. Adams, Roberts attorney, couldn't oblige. He said he couldn't remember her appearance. Lally responded if you can't remember, I can't remember.

Upon pressing, Lally was able to recognize well over a couple of dozen individual names, connections of many to others he recalled appeared to jog his recollection.

During his testimony, Lally said he was present while a woman who had been identified as Paula Paull signed the name of her spouse, son, and daughter-in-law.

On Friday, in turn, without her being present, the three testified to what happened.

Robert Paull, Sr. testified he is registered to vote, but hadn't voted in a few years. He said he knew what the petition was for, he was present, but he didn't sign the petition. He gave his wife permission to sign it at her place of business.

Her son, Robert Paull, Jr. and daughter-in-law, Kim Paull, similarly testified they'd given her permission, but they themselves did not sign.

On the stand, Lally testified he thought that was accepted legal practice if someone gives permission to sign their name.

At one point, Judge Leskinen engaged the attorneys in a brief discussion of a few cases, including a Flaherty case. These were brought up after the court transcriptionist left.

Basically, one of the cases seemeds to focus on the requirement for a three-fold specificity in challenges as to petition number, line number, and reason for the line challenge.

Discussion ensued for half an hour on questions about the circulator being present when petitions were signed.

During Lally's testimony, he admitted to being registered in Fayette County, and at one point Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It wasn't clear whether the Ohio registration was inactivated by registration officials there. Lally said he did not vote there. Adams asked him about a voter registration in Allegheny County, but he couldn't recall the particulars.

As the court was about to adjourn for the evening, Judge Leskinen asked Roberts attorney how many signatures of his 318 challenged he had met so far and how many he expected to cover for challenge on the last day.

Adams responded about 135 by his count with an expected 50 more and the potential for others depending on additional testimony which included a handwriting expert.

We asked who the expert was afterwards. Michele Dresbold.

http://www.michelledresbold.com/


Court resumes Thursday at 9 am in Courtroom 3.

revisions 1 a.m.
revision for clarity 10 p.m. (3/22)
spelling Cuyahoga County corrected Lally testimony statement inserted(3/24)
revision cases specificity challenges 3-fold and presence of circulator (3/24)

Wrong Party Affiliation Signers Lose Candidate Ballot Spot

Over in Westmoreland County, a challenge against a Republican opponent for the office of county commissioner resulted in the invalidation of nomination petititions. According to the Tribune-Review report, 27 signatures were ruled invalid because they were from registered Democrats or voters affiliated with political parties other than Republican.

Because of slightly over two-dozen petition signers, the candidate didn't have enough signatures to qualify for a position on the Primary Ballot.

Would-be voters need to brush up on their duty - know what you can and cannot sign for a Primary Election.

Westmoreland Co. commissioner candidate tossed
By Rich Cholodofsky
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, March 16, 2007


Westmoreland County commissioner candidate James Bortz was thrown off the Republican primary ballot Thursday after his nominating petitions were invalidated by a county judge.

Bortz, outside the courtroom yesterday, blamed Republican Party leaders for orchestrating his ouster from the primary and said he would actively work against the GOP's endorsed candidates for county commissioner.

Earlier this month, Bortz, a Delmont councilman and owner of Fontana's Cafe in North Huntingdon, lost out on the GOP endorsement to Hempfield Township Supervisor Kim Ward and Penn Township Commissioner George Dunbar.

Bortz, attorney Wayne McGrew and Mike Reese, the chief of staff to outgoing county Commissioner Phil Light, remained in the race...

... Westmoreland County Judge Gary Caruso yesterday ruled 27 signatures on Bortz's nominating petitions were invalid because they were from registered Democrats or voters affiliated with political parties other than Republican.

As a result, Bortz had just 246 valid signatures, four shy of what he needed to qualify to appear on the primary ballot...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_498062.html

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Chris Hedges, author American Fascists

featured author Saturday, March 17, 2007 rebroadcast of 1/18/07 appearance

http://www.booktv.org/schedule/


Links to video
BLOGGED BY Alan Breslauer ON 2/12/2007 4:44PM
VIDEO - American Fascists
Author Chris Hedges Warns About The Christian Nationalist Movement
Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4145

The New Fascists?
by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.
March 8, 2007


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0308new-fascists.asp

Newt Gingrich was interviewed 3/2/07 author Rediscovering God in America rebroadcast Saturday, March 17, 2007

Don't forget Newt is buddy buddy with the Tofflers who want a New Constitution for the United States of America...

After Words

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday, June 3 at 9:00 pm and Sunday, June 4 at 6:00 pm and at 9:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Words: Alvin Toffler interviewed by Newt Gingrich
Watch

Description: In 1970, the book "Future Shock" put Alvin Toffler on the map as a serious futurologist. His new book, "Revolutionary Wealth" -- written with his wife Heidi -- takes a look at the 21st century. The Tofflers argue that the United States is spearheading a new civilization, but that corporations, government, and social institutions left over from an era of mass production are not keeping up in this rapidly changing world. Alvin Toffler discusses his book with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. As a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College in the early 70s, Newt Gingrich began working with the Tofflers. He often referred to their work during his political career and even put Toffler books on his required reading list for members of Congress and all Americans.

http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=7127&schedID=424&category=After+Words

Gingrich confession: Clearing the way for a 2008 run?
POSTED: 7:13 p.m. EST, March 9, 2007


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html

Election Bureau to check 70 voter address notices

Finally, in the last paragraph of a local news article - in print for voters alive and kicking to take notice.

Exactly what should be done with some 80,000 plus names that remain on the Fayette County voter registration rolls (SURE DATABASE) - check all of the addresses and names therein. The county commissioners who in a non-re-election term comprise the Registration Commission and the Election Board should have already caused this to happen a decade ago. What's the excuse with the computerization of the registry of electors into a database accessed on computer?

All of the names of the electors should also be placed on the county's website.

The county site includes how to use the high-tech direct recording electronic Hart-InterCivic eSlates so as to familiarize newcomers to the system with its ease of use.

So why not go high-tech and place the names and addresses of electors in the county's database online for everybody who cares to check?

That can be accomplished just as Allegheny County reportedly has done, without any personal information other than the name and address of the registered voter.

One thing that should result from the Roberts challenge of the Sean Lally nomination petitions and Judge Leskinen's hearing: the Judge should require the Fayette Registration Commission to meet and implement a full-scale purge over the course of the next two months and report back to him how many names are going to receive those "mailings..."

See Net the Truth Online report for March 16, 2007

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/names-of-electors-to-be-checked-for.html

Mainstream local news Herald-Standard clip
Names taken off election petitions
Amy Zalar


Numerous other signatures are being challenged because of inaccurate addresses. Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, was directed on Friday to investigate whether or not the 65 or 70 people whose signatures are in question have been given notices to change their addresses. If they have been, and did not do so in a certain time limit, their signatures will be stricken as well
...

Names taken off election petitions
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
03/17/2007
Updated 03/17/2007 12:48:34 AM EDT

The attorney for Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts whittled away at names on the nomination petitions of challenger Sean P. Lally Friday and by the end of the day a total of 68 signatures had been deemed invalid and stricken from Lally's petitions.

The 15 names eliminated by Judge Steve Leskinen were in addition to the 53 names that were erased on Thursday, leaving Lally with 368 valid signatures out of the 436 he secured. A total of 250 are required to remain on the ballot.

The hearing was continued until Wednesday, March 21, at 9:30 a.m., when numerous individuals whose names appear on Lally's petitions are expected to testify about who was circulating the petition when they signed it, among other issues.

Several individuals whose names appeared on Lally's petitions testified Friday afternoon, after receiving subpoenas from Roberts' attorney, Jason F. Adams. While Adams said he sent subpoenas to about 300 individuals, there was apparently some confusion as to the time of the hearing, and some people showed up at the Fayette County Courthouse at 9 a.m. when testimony was not slated to begin until 1:30 p.m.

Annette Flora of Masontown was among a handful of witnesses who testified regarding the validity of her own signatures. Flora said a woman that she works for told her that the petition she was signing was to get someone out of the courthouse "who was stealing money." Flora admitted that not only did she sign her name; she also signed the names of her boyfriend, her son and her boyfriend's mother on the petition.

"I was told it was alright. But I'll never sign a petition again," Flora said. She said she was sorry and realized after the fact that what she did was wrong.

Flora said she was first questioned about the signatures after her son received a telephone call asking him if he signed the petition. Flora said she returned a call to Roberts to discuss the petition, adding that her son was mad at her. "My son's mad, my boyfriend's mad and my boyfriend's mother said everybody makes a mistake," Flora said.

Based on testimony, Leskinen redacted all the names in question, calling the incident a "complete subversion of the whole electoral process."...

excerpt continued

Other names that were stricken were done so because the individuals had previously signed Roberts' petitions, people signed Lally's petitions twice, or were not registered or had not affixed a proper signature, instead printing their names.

Roberts, a Democrat concluding his second term in office, is challenging Lally's petitions and is seeking to have Lally's name removed from the May 15 municipal primary ballot. Lally is also seeking the Democratic nomination for the position, and filed nomination petitions containing 436 names.

At the beginning of the hearing, Timothy Andrews attempted to have a challenge Roberts is mounting against 150 names for Lally's alleged failure to circulate his own petition thrown out for there being an insufficient explanation on the court challenge.

Andrews said simply writing "improper affidavit of circulator" does not give Lally enough information to defend the allegation. Andrews said Roberts is contending Lally did not personally circulate his petition, which should have been spelled out, and cited cases to support his position.

Leskinen said he was not sufficiently confident Andrews was correct, and opted to allow the hearing to continue.

When testimony resumes Wednesday morning, Adams said he intends to call witnesses who will testify that Lally did not personally circulate some of the petitions he signed an affidavit for, as required by law.

Adams has estimated that about 150 signatures are being challenged on the basis that Lally did not personally circulate them.

Numerous other signatures are being challenged because of inaccurate addresses. Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, was directed on Friday to investigate whether or not the 65 or 70 people whose signatures are in question have been given notices to change their addresses. If they have been, and did not do so in a certain time limit, their signatures will be stricken as well
...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18091993&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6