Contact person: Paddy Shaffer, Director, Ohio Election Justice Campaign, (614) 266-5283
Please note: Links at the end of summery for the court case, exhibits (evidence, records, research), articles, and a video.
The below summarizes the unresolved election fraud situation in Ohio, then goes into depth with a synopsis, further background, and research resources. Your help is urgently needed before the statute of limitations expires.
Please contact US Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555 and ask him to work with the Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) and other supporting individuals and organizations to quickly initiate a special grand jury investigation into the 2004 election before it is too late.
• The manipulation of the 2004 election in Ohio resulted in one of the most massive violations of constitutional rights in this country’s history. Five years later, the results of this assault to our democracy could not be clearer than in the shock and pain of our current economic devastation.
• The January 6, 2005 challenge to certification of Ohio’s electoral votes, led by Boxer (D-CA) and Tubbs Jones (D-OH), was the first time in U.S. history that a state’s entire electoral college vote was challenged.
• Ohio’s statewide recount following the 2004 election was blocked by Ohio election officials; when the recount did occur pursuant to federal court order, it was rigged. Ohio’s state courts refused to resolve the issues raised by the recount.
• In 2006, suit was filed against the State of Ohio for violations of constitutional rights in King Lincoln v. Blackwell; the federal court ordered the 2004 ballots preserved as evidence.
• The ballots were also protected from destruction under federal statute.
• Ohio election officials mocked the notion of preserving the ballots in e-mail correspondence discovered pursuant to a public records request; 58 out of 88 counties destroyed most or all of their records in clear violation of federal law and U.S. federal court order.
• In June 2008, Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. Article 29 deals with election manipulation in Ohio, specifically, conspiracy to violate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It presents detailed evidence.
• In July 2008, shortly before the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations on the destruction of evidence, the Ohio Election Justice Campaign asked, in King-Lincoln v. Brunner, for a special grand jury investigation into, at least, the destruction of the 2004 evidence.
• Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, objected to the special grand jury investigation. A former judge, Brunner took no action following the destruction of the evidence. Contrary to her public statements, she did not file materials showing the destruction of evidence in court.
• The attorneys for the plaintiffs (Arnebeck and Fitrakis) asked the judge to strike (remove) the motions for intervention and the special grand jury and all the accompanying evidence from the record, claiming that the motion would be “disruptive to the parties and the progress of cooperative negotiations (between the attorneys and the Secretary of State) in this case.”
• Several months subsequent to the OEJC motions, the plaintiff attorneys engaged in a pursuit of a private individual who runs an IT business for government agencies, linking this individual to Karl Rove in the media. The attorneys have not filed any action in court against Karl Rove or named him as a defendant; the deposition taken of this private individual has never been transcribed.
• On March 5, 2009, the district court judge denied the OEJC motion for intervention; the judge also granted the request of Arnebeck and Fitrakis to strike all the materials (approximately 1400 pages) showing that the 2004 evidence was destroyed from the record.
• Several OEJC members have since interviewed multiple plaintiffs in the case. None seem to be fully aware of what is being done in their names by the plaintiff attorneys, and most have no idea what has happened at all with the striking of the OEJC filings regarding the destroyed 2004 evidence.
• This is documented and has been filed with the court on March 24, 2009 and May 8, 2009 with the OEJC motion asking the court to reconsider its order.
• The OEJC also filed new evidence that documents 10 Ohio counties are engaged in the ongoing destruction of 2004 election evidence; records have been destroyed as recently as March and April 2009.
• The statute of limitation on state election crimes is six years. Before an indictment is issued, an investigation must be held. The time for holding such an investigation is rapidly dwindling.
• Holding the Ohio election officials accountable under federal law would be a national deterrent to future election manipulation and fraud.
• The politicians, attorneys, and courts in Ohio have shown themselves incapable of addressing the magnitude of Ohio’s corrupt electoral process.
• The structural issues that allowed election fraud to flourish in Ohio have not been squarely faced, in part because a thorough investigation has never been conducted.
• If this is not resolved, we will relive it.
Eight members of The Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC) from five counties in Ohio came together and filed two pro se motions in King-Lincoln v Blackwell (now King-Lincoln v. Brunner), case no. 2:06-cv-745. By filing pro se, they were acting as their own attorneys. These members come from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations.
This case is in front of Judge Algenon Marbley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio). The case is a class action lawsuit brought against the State of Ohio claiming numerous constitutional violations arising out of the conduct of the 2004 (and 2006) election.
In 2006, the Ohio election officials destroyed all or some of the 2004 ballots in 58 of Ohio’s 88 counties, the evidence in this case, in defiance of this federal court’s order.
The two motions:
1. A motion to intervene and become plaintiffs in this case
2. A motion for criminal contempt and special grand jury proceedings
It is our understanding that the new U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio could commence special grand jury proceedings in this matter.
The OEJC has collected documentation that the destruction of additional evidence is ongoing, and, even more significantly, that the statute of limitations will expire if no action is taken very soon. For example, there is a six-year statute of limitations on certain state election offenses. This statute of limitations could expire shortly. The Secretary of State and the attorneys for the plaintiffs have been informed.
No steps have been taken to stop the documented ongoing destruction of the protected evidence in this case. Additional newly discovered evidence of the continued destruction of 2004 records involving 10 counties was submitted to the federal court on Friday, May 8, 2009.
Given that this is a federal case for constitutional violations, and that the evidence points to disobedience to a federal court on a statewide scale without historical precedent (the closest analogy is disobedience to school desegregation orders), action is urgent.
Background on Motion for Criminal Contempt/Special Grand Jury Proceedings
In September 2006, Judge Marbley issued an order requiring the election officials to preserve their 2004 ballots because they were evidence in this case. The order was clear and strong in its language, including the penalties the election officials would face if they disobeyed.