The story says:

The attorneys intend to file a racketeering lawsuit, under RICO, against those identified in this case and will refer any proof of criminal activity to both state and federal authorities for criminal prosecution.

This legal strategy will require significant resources for lawyers, expert witnesses, videotaped depositions, public relations, and investigators. The attorneys will need to go toe to toe with the top lobbyist law firms, which will be hired to represent these targets.

When you first look at it, it sounds pretty good, right?

But do you know who the biggest election thieves in the country are?

Do you remember who stole the election of 2000?

Now stop and think about this one seriously, okay?

Suppose they raise all this money and suppose that they have an excellent case and they actually win in the lower courts. The defendants would then appeal to the Supreme Court.

So what they'd end up with is the biggest election thieves in the country sitting in final judgment on a case against lesser election thieves.

And guess who they'd rule for?

If they really want to go after the election racketeers, they'd need to start at the top and refer the Supreme Court for criminal prosecution.

Otherwise they're not getting a dime from me. 

ROFFLMFAO!

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:39:45 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for this, Joan. 

The point is, Mark, that

a) there aren't a lot of unbiased contexts in which to fight back - even the opinion polling companies are being nobbled and so may many of the 'exit polls' on the night, - or else there will be tighter control over announcing how they add up.  

b) struggle in different contexts - streets/parks/primary scholls, polling stations, media, courts, legislatures, academia, etc - none of these need to be mutually exclusive;

c) contesting in legal contexts, using serious affadavits from many voters and and highly expert witnesses, can help to 'credibilise' allegations - even if the top judges are going to side with the Junta no matter what. Indeed - if it ever goes that far, that will show the Supreme Court up again, perhaps, and the case could be a focus for civil resistance and moral force efforts of other kinds.    

I like how they are adopting the Velvet Revolution mythology back from Czechoslovakia - even though many of the 'colour revolutions' are seriously compromised NED/CIA affairs. Maybe Gene Sharp should stop helping 'strategic nonviolence revolutions' in places the neocons want to take over and lend a hand in Ohio?

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:34:00 PM

  (0+)

Having been aware since '04 of what this lawsuit has accomplished, I think it is a terrific effort. However, jailing the miscreants is not going to give us election integrity in this critically important election, nor, as the article stated, reverse. NOW, the march to a unitary executive, a supportive judiciary, a weak legislature and a fearful press. We need: 1)the right to vote (Election Day Registration); 2)integrity of the record (supermarket-secure voter receipt which can be compared to the machine record), and 3)integrity of the counting (public witness and posting at every neighborhood precinct, which will enable every candidate to count his/her own votes). These are essential if an election is to be Voting Rights Act compliant.*** The Supreme Court ruled in the Paula Jones lawsuit against William Clinton that she had standing to sue during presidential time in office; it intervened in the matter of a day in 2000; Justices Roberts and Alito are Bush appointees, and should recuse themselves from a case involving George Bush. I think this lawsuit has the potential to clean up our elections before November. If the lawsuit demands relief that will ensure election integrity on the above three points, I can get very excited about it. Otherwise, it is just another good cause - one of several. *** Voting Rights Act 42 USC Section 1973i - Prohibited Acts Chapter 20 - Election Franchise Subchapter 1-A Enforcement of Voting Rights (a)Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote No person acting under color or law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of Subchapter 1A to 1C of this chapter or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count and report such person's vote.

by Jean Braun (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:07:05 AM

  (0+)