Its out of my hands now!

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

more updates...

http://www.examiner.com/article/ron-pau ... ote-freely

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

[quote="liberty_belle"; BlueMoon5]
. . . .

You present very helpful information; obviously, you have done your homework, and I commend you for that.

[quote]: Wow, a compliment that I may know something [/quote]

I want, however, to skip to the following:

[quote]: So with that knowledge of AZ, I ask you again would it be appropriate for a computer programmer to be working on the tallying program the night of, and still testing it the day of the Convention without ever having any witnesses as to its accuracy? If the programmer admits the error and then continues to use the program to tally votes, is there the chance that the votes could be altered at some other point in the process? What if those responsible for the tallying refuse to do a hand count to verify votes, would you suspect fraud? [/quote]

There is "the chance," but it's far from a certified fact. Moreover, you refer only to AZ. Are you suggesting that there is "the chance" that the same situation happened nationwide?

[quote]: The only issue is if there was a "chance." If there is even a chance that votes could be altered, the process is contaminated and therefore any court would throw out the results. I have more than ample evidence from just what I personally witnessed to prove that the votes were contaminated and cannot be trusted. [/quote]

[quote]"Chance" isn't much to hang your hat on; nor does it play well in a court of law. Also, all the votes "were contamnated and cannot be trusted." Isn't that a questionable judgment call on your part?
[/quote]

BM5: If chance was all I was "hanging my hat on" do you think I would put my neck on a chopping block? Regardless of that, "chance" is all that is needed to throw out votes. Please do some research on that issue. The votes were contaminated that is not in question, there are many other witnesses to that fact besides myself, including the AZGOP and the Romney Campaign when they brought out th plastic container, unsealed, on May 14th 2012.


[quote]: I can only refer to what I personally have seen and heard. [/quote]

[quote][color=#BF0040]That's an appropriate admission--one that augurs against your case.[/quote][/color]

Actually all it means is that I am not at liberty to discuss the other evidences because they are not mine. I have seen them and heard them, just not going to speak them

[quote]: I will tell you though, through this process I have spoken to many in other states that have worse situations and have witnessed much. In their own states they are doing the same things that we have done here and are collecting affidavits and evidences. Some have already filed personal lawsuits beyond what we are doing. [/quote]

[quote]Have they told you, specifically, that the "worse situations" they witnessed involved taking votes from Paul and giving them to Romney? If so, by what means do they claim to be able to prove that?[/quote]

I have already provided a link to vote flipping in this thread that shows the diabold machines that were used transfered votes from Paul (sometimes adding Gingrich, Santorum and others) and gave them always to Romney, did you see it? That was the result of months and months of many individuals doing the analysis from Primary or Presidential Primnary Elections.

This same things has happened in State Conventions where Delegates for RP were deprived of being a National Delegate, I have evidence of this in my own state. I held and viewed the results on May 14th 2012 as they came out of the printer. Having been part of the team in AZ, I can tell you that one of our delegates was able to recreate the data based on those results sheets. We can see that there were State Delegates for RP that are denied being National Delegates in favor of others...if that data is correct of course.

For other state witnesses you might want to look at Edward True's testimony that can be found on youtube on how Romney was given 20 more votes in his district than what he reported. Oklahoma has some doozies.


[quote]: If you see this on a ballot "*Romney for President Endorsed Delegate" and the #1 name on the ballot has the next to that name (while all of the other delegates are listed in alphabetical order) would you consider that electioneering and setting up for a per-determined outcome? If this kind of endorsement is illegal on a ballot, who then is responsible for that endorsement? [/quote]

I suppose that is a question for the AZ GOP leadership; I don't pretend to have the answer for it.

[quote]: You want evidence and you want to be a juror, but now you are trying to deflect to the AZ GOP to answer and not you. [/quote]

[quote]In a court of law, prosecutors and defense attorneys often rely on professional witnesses who know more about a given issue than the attorneys could possibly know. Likewise, I'm simply saying I don't know the answer to your question, and my "professional witness" is probably someone in the AZ GOP leadeship. That isn't "deflection," as you blithely charge; it's simply using good sense.[/quote]

let me make this a little more simplistic so that you dont need a professional witnesses to come to a conclusion. On the TV ads why do the candidates always add their "I am xxxx and I approve this message?"

When you personally see the saying "Romney for President ENDORSED Delegate" what comes to your mind? If you were a delegate in our convention what would that mean to you? Lets combine that with this electioneering from the pulpit by Josh Romney himself

Prior to this video, he was booed one other time and that was when he stated that his father was the nominee for the GOP. This was booed because we had not even had our convention yet, nor had Tampa happened and he disregarded delegates in the room by presuming his father was going to be the Nominee.

However, after that, we all listened to him talk about his father and mother with respect. Once he was done he received applause and then he comes back to the pulpit and pushes a Romney Approved Slate(the green paper) If you listen close he is trying to tell the delegation that the asterisks will denote the endorsed delegates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIX2tpXV74Y



[quote]: I am notifying you of verbal evidence of electioneering. I also do have from my cell phone a picture of this evidence, which is illegal on ballots. That is why there is the 75ft law at any poll. No one can electioneer within a certain area of voting. The RNC and the AZGOP rules state similar rules, electioneering is not permitted. [/quote]

[quote]I take your word for that.[/quote]

Whew, that is good to know.

[quote]: This is a question that you can answer and should not deflect, is that statement reflective of the Romney Campaign's approval and is it also reflective that the AZGOP approved of it? If not, how then did it get on the ballot and why was the official statement of Romney's Campaign used? [/quote]

[quote]I'm not "inside" the Romney campaign or the AZ GOP, and the fact is, neither are you. You continue to build your case on cynical suppositions.[/quote]

I heard with my own ears a conversation with Nathan Sproul (Romney), Shawn Dow(Ron Paul), George Teegarden and Thayer Verschoor (GOP) on May 14th 2012 about how the Romney for President Endorsement got on the pages. It is not a supposition, it is fact. You keep suggesting that I am speaking based on jumping to conclusion when I am simply giving you things to think about hoping you will realize that there are evidences of which I speak. There actually may be video of Tom Morrissey on youtube, in which he stated on the Floor that the GOP "offered the same deal to RP, but we refused." That deal was brought up in my presence, wherein Shawn said we refused because it was unethical and Nathan Sproul blew his top and stormed out of the room. Thayer asked George why he even brought it up, to which George said he was sorry and that he actually did not agree with putting it on the ballots.


[quote]: I would give you the link to my affidavit (means that its a legal binding testimony) but I am not sure if I am allowed to do that or not at this point since I am hoping the AG will do an investigation? Also, I do not want to give it as it provides all of my contact information. So, you can ask questions and I will be happy to answer them. I am not at liberty to talk about other peoples evidences, but I can answer straight your questions about mine. [/quote]

But you're talking only about AZ--right? Moreover, you're conjecturing that something illegal may have taken place--right?

[quote]: What I said is that I can only speak of what I personally witnessed, but can without hesitation say that I have talked with other witnesses over the phone from many other states having similar situations and worse. [/quote]

[quote]I don't find the fact that you talked "with other witnesses over the phone from many other states" particularly persuasive. It's my belief that you accepted their "testimony"--without knowing much about them--based not on a test of its veracity, but because you wanted to believe it.[/quote]

LOL-- yep, several witnesses plus video tapes are simply because I want to believe it. Why are witnesses important? One witness can convict a person if the Jury believes him. Two or more witnesses is one of those things that is pretty hard to dispute, right?

[quote]: I am not conjecturing at all, I am openly saying that just putting out a National Delegate list that is loaded with Romney Delegates who will cast votes in Tampa even though those ballots were contaminated and the computer program was flawed and NOT verified by a hand count, is illegal. [/quote]

[quote]So, if I understand you correctly, virtually all of the delegates who will cast votes in Tampa for Romney really meant to vote for Paul. Is that what you're claiming? No? How then, if only some of the delegates were misled, do you suppose Paul will garner enough votes to overtake Romney's circa 1,300 delegate lead? Wait--that scenario is irrelevant, because what you seek is a brokered convention, in which Paul will emerge as the nominee, thereby assuring that this country will be victimized (and probably destroyed) by another insufferable four years of Obama.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with what I stated. I was speaking of what happened here in AZ that was illegal. That was your original comment and questions to me. It was/is illegal and unethical for the GOP with the help of the Romney Campaign (yes, I heard this conversation between Thayer and Nathan) to compile the list of A Delegates which was 26/29 Delegates Romney favored when the result could not be verified because of the "anomoly" (Nathan Sprouls word) in the programming. The only reason we had three is because they were won with much frustration in the CD Caucuses where we forced a hand count.

However, the Federal Lawsuit is simply asking the judge to determine which is the higher rule/law that a delegate must obey. The Civil liberties law which states

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1971

(pay special attention to 3B)

or the GOP rules in each state that may bind the delegates by unity on the first round. If there the higher law is the civil liberties law (no brainer) then even states like AZ cannot force their delegates to vote for Romney on the first round. AZ GOP made sure that this would not be an issue because they hand picked their delegates who were in support for Romney.



. . . .

[quote]: I am a witness that our Chairperson told us that the reason our CD votes were wrong was due to the Asterisk that was placed on the ballot that caused the votes to be "shifted" to other people. [/quote]

[quote]"Other people" doesn't mean all the votes were shifted to Romney, nor does it necessarily mean that votes were taken from Paul. (Perhaps, though, you challenge my statement below.) Is a "CD4 delegate" an RP delegate?[/quote]

There are only two camps who are have not conceded, Romney and Paul. Therefore there can only be one way to shift any vote either, to or away from Ron Paul or from Romney. However, there was another group who supports Romney but who had their own delegation list that they were promoting. Either way, votes were shifted to other delegates besides the ones that received the votes. That makes the program unreliable and contaminated.

A CD4 Delegate means Congressional District 4. We have 9 Congressional Districts and I was in 4. CD1 Was right next to me and I had witnesses from there tell me what happened in that district. That is Juliette's district.

[quote]: Therefore they willingly gave the answer that it was the computer program (which it was) that caused the error, but "we fixed it, now" [/quote]

[quote]Do you not believe that they fixed it, or that they fixed it only after the damage had been done?[/quote]

I dont know how or if they "fixed it" these are some of my many questions we need answered. As far as the CD4 ballots all I know is that they came back and admitted there was an error caused by the asterisk and the #1 position guy being out of order. George may have been able to program it differently to not read that asterisk, but if that was the case, why was it programed to read it in the first place? I was refused by Thayer to do a hand count on the second ballots, so I do not know exactly if that was fixed. These are the things we want the AG to investigate.

As far as the Floor votes (meaning all the CD's came back together) I had the results pages from the At Large Ballots in my hands (I still can view them, I have them on a googledoc) and the results are flawed. Therefore it could not have been fixed. Regardless, a program that has been proven flawed should never be continued to be used, this is what is meant by contamination. They cannot be trusted.
Further there are these issues:

a) witnesses of ballot stuffing
b) two page ballot whose numbers were identical and had to be merged and a program rewritten.
c) The GOP's refusal and fits about hand counting ballots for verification. If there isnt a problem why not hand count to verify? What is there to be afraid of?
d) watching for 6 and half hours while George Teegarden "trained" the program, admitted that he had only given paramaters in his program to count the first 160 votes instead of all votes. ( )

[quote]: The GOP also gave other reasons to different CD's as to why the CD winner's vote's were transposed. I know they were shifted in CD4 because the two RP Delegates that all RP Delegates voted for did not get one vote, yet, two other RP Delegates were elected that we did not vote for. This was verified by a hand vote in the caucus at the demand of the declared winner as to who voted for them. The two people who were elected ie J.Lewis was one above C. Moon and W. Wood was one above L. Zanna. If these had not been RP Delegates we would have never known that this error had occurred. However, since we all knew who we voted for, the error was exposed. This happened also in other CD's at the same time. [/quote]

[quote]If what you say is true, how significant do you believe it to be given the sampling size?[/quote]

We had 1147 Delegates in our Convention. Each of those 1147 broke out into 9 different CD's
If I am remembering right, out of our 9 Congressional District 6 had issues. CD3 (which only had 40 Delegates) refused to send theirs down to the tally room and hand counted in their caucus where everyone was a witness. That is how it should be done. The other two, did not have anyone who challenged them so it is not clear if there was an issue with them. Maybe so or maybe not, we will never know.

In other states, some had these issues and others states had different ones. I will not know exactly until they have finished compiling their evidences.

[quote]: I did witness the computer programmer manipulating the program on Saturday May 12th and again on May 14th. [/quote]

[quote]Manipulating the program" doesn't axiomatically mean he was doing that to take votes away from Ron Paul. Do you know that is what he was doing, or is it simply your supposition? What proof can you provide? [/quote]

No, it does not and I say that. I know that there were errors coming up because it happened on Monday the 14th. However, It does not matter whether he was or not. It is the very fact that he was manipulating the computer during the scans and tallying that is crucial point. No one was able to check him because he was the only one operating the computer and he was the programmer. The point is that in order to have clean elections, you must have a reliable, pre-tested program prior to any vote. You know that old saying "avoid the very appearance of evil"

[quote]: The GOP admitted they had to fix the program because it had counted wrong. Is that not a manipulation. [/quote]

[quote]"Manipulation" is typically associated with evil intent; hence, you deliberately use an emotionally loaded word.[/quote]

I use it in the sense that an inanimate object and program which George created, was under his control. My gut feeling tells me that there was malicious intent because of his own admission the asterisks caused a shifting. How would this happen if it had not been programmed to do that? If had it not been, how did George know that was the issue and was able to "fix it," further he called this his "test project.....and would be able to fix all the errors later" What does that mean? It could mean "wow, I made a lot of mistakes that caused incorrect counting" or it could mean "wow, I need to fix the errors so that no one can trace who we scammed the votes" Now, I have no idea to what degree there were just plain errors in programming vs purposeful intent, but again that is why we need an investigation as to why this occurred. I would have not perused this if they had stopped using it and went to hand counts when they knew of the issues, but they didn't and insisted on using it, why?

[quote]: Besides that, since I had been present on May 12 and watched him entering information while ballots are being scanned and then counted. Again, this in essence is proof enough that the ballots are contaminated and is highly suspicious. No one should ever be entering data into a computer while ballots are being counted, wouldn't you agree. However, on May 14th, I was present for 6 1/2 hours while the programmer explained to me that once he was done with this "test project" he would be able to go in and fix all the errors. In addition, while scanning the At Large ballots on May 14th there were error alerts that kept coming up. Finally, he had to verge the information from page 1 and page 2 together into one program. These pages 1 and 2 numerically, started from 1-250 on both pages. Since he did not do consecutive numbering he had to once again manipulate the program to differentiate the votes on both pages and then bring them together....hmmmmm? [/quote]

[quote]I'm not willing to accuse him of malicious intent. An honest series of errors? Yes. [/quote]

You know this was just mistakes, how? Were you present for all the conversations and ballot counting? You are a computer programmer? How do you KNOW it was an honest series of errors?

[quote]: I did witness that ballots were being refused to be hand counted.
I did witness that the results on both the At Large Delegates and At Large Alternates did not match when ran two times each, yet the GOP and Romney Campaign together put out the Delegate list anyway. [/quote]

I assume the party has certain prerogatives, as do state election commissions. Do you know for a fact that the exercise of them is ipso facto illegal? The rules in AZ are very likely not the same from state to state. And again, you're referencing only AZ--right?

[quote]: Huh? Why would AZ have different rules as to how Delegates are sent to the RNC? The GOP's rules are basically in line with RNC rules as far as how Delegates are chosen. The Delegates who receive the most votes are elected to National Delegates. Those who are alternates also are elected by the most votes, but are seated according to how many votes they received. To put together a list of National Delegates whose votes are not positively confirmed is illegal. They are being contested but the GOP does not care and has refused all attempts to rectify the situation. Just like it wold be if you were to elect a Legislature. If the votes could not determine between two individuals because of circumstances I described, should the Governor be able to say, "well, let this guy/gal be the legislature, they are more in line with what we want or believe?" This is a legal process it cannot be subverted by some local official. They have a duty to provide a clean election and provide the results. If those results are questionable they are required to do a hand count, which they have refused. [/quote]

[quote]I think you'll find that there is not across-the-board uniformity among the states re. the process by which delegates are sent to the RNC.[/quote]

Now you do some work. Please show me where there are different ways in which a National delegate is elected? I want to know which State does not use the "most votes" process to select their delegates.

[quote]: I did witness that ballots were not secured and anyone could replace or change them. [/quote]

"Could" doesn't mean "did." You're conjecturing.

[quote]: Again, all I have to do is provide one piece of evidence that the ballots are contaminated and that is all the is necessary to overthrow any results on any election. Our ballots left the convention in the hands of the GOP whose actions are at the least questionable. They were brought out on Monday the 14th without a seal. Therefore they are considered contaminated and not valid. That is how voters are protected from possible fraud. [/quote]

[quote]You alone, with one piece of evidence, have the power to overturn the results of any election? Wow! It probably depends on the nature and veracity of the evidence. In any event, I question the accuracy of your claim.[/quote]

Of course you question it. I mean really, why would any election be overturned based on me being a witness for two days on how they were scanned, tallied and secured? Ya, I am pretty worthless as a witness with everything I've told you. This just goes to prove, that ignorance is not bliss, its dangerous. I am seriously mind boggled that any of these things would be acceptable to you when it comes to your own vote. That you make excuses for it, when you should be outraged.

. . . .

[quote]: You believe otherwise because you have not thought it through very clearly, either because you have never been involved in the election process or because you needed more information. Either way, based on what I have alone, the whole convention results would be thrown out. [/quote]

[quote]You give yourself a lot of "credit." You assume your evidence is not open to challenge. On cross-examination, a defense attorney could demonstrate otherwise.[/quote]

I do give myself a lot of credit for having to endure 14 days one day and 6 and a half another. I took veracious notes, I watched, listened and documented everything. After doing much research into election fraud and talking with Attorney's, I know that what I have is substantial to 1) cast doubt on the credibility of the whole convention's elections. 2) cast doubt to the integrity of the GOP to not be biased toward one candidate which ultimately lead to securing a predetermined outcome.


[quote]: You also do not have before you the other evidence that I know of but cannot disclose. So since you are not an actual juror, what I have said will have to do. I suggest you ask more questions. I also suggest you find out how your state runs their conventions and what measure are in place to prevent election fraud.[/quote][/quote]

Are you a member of Tools for Justice: Building an Army of Legal Activists?[/quote][/quote]

Of course I am. These guys were the first to give me direction on what I needed to do to hold accountable those in my state who disenfranchised every delegate. They are amazing!


Just an FYI: Beware! If you join and you use any information/testimonies you find to your own advantage, you will be facing a 1million dollar lawsuit, so I would be very careful about what you do. professional witness

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

[quote="liberty_belle";BlueMoon5]: Again, all I have to do is provide one piece of evidence that the ballots are contaminated and that is all the is necessary to overthrow any results on any election. [/quote]

Are you able to cite case law for this claim? In virtually every election, from a city commission race to the White House, there are elements of fraud. Almost inevitably, those on the losing side claim, therefore, that the election is invalid. Under that all-too-real scenario, thousands of elections would be invalidated, according to you. Perhaps your claim refers only to presidential elections. That doesn't help, however, because claims of fraud have been made in virtually every presidential election. How many have been invalidated based on such claims? Moreover, you fail to say what percentage of the ballots would have to be contaminated for a plaintiff to "overthrow any results of any election." All of them in all of the states? You need to qualify your statement. As it stands, it simply isn't credible.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

[quote="liberty_belle";BlueMoon5]: Again, all I have to do is provide one piece of evidence that the ballots are contaminated and that is all the is necessary to overthrow any results on any election. [/quote]

Are you able to cite case law for this claim? In virtually every election, from a city commission race to the White House, there are elements of fraud. Almost inevitably, those on the losing side claim, therefore, that the election is invalid. Under that all-too-real scenario, thousands of elections would be invalidated, according to you. Perhaps your claim refers only to presidential elections. That doesn't help, however, because claims of fraud have been made in virtually every presidential election. How many have been invalidated based on such claims? Moreover, you fail to say what percentage of the ballots would have to be contaminated for a plaintiff to "overthrow any results of any election." All of them in all of the states? You need to qualify your statement. As it stands, it simply isn't credible.[/quote]

BM5, you are full of questions and doubt but I do not see you doing any homework, tisk tisk tisk

here is a simple place to start that I found for you today: Uggg even though I dont like wikipedia it will have to do at this moment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

As for your question about how many ballots would invalidate, I am not talking one ballot, I am talking about all of them that were cast in the AZ Convention. Read through wikipedia and see if anything I have said here rings a bell.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

BTW BM5I dont know what you mean by a "professional witness" but if you are suggesting that I am some kind of professional that went into my convention to find situations where I could be a witness on a lawsuit.....

uh, let me tell you that is a serious accusation, because nothing could be further from the truth. I just happen to be a mother of three kids who has loved liberty from the days of my youth. My parents taught me correctly. I have been self-educated that put me in a unique situation. I just wanted to have a great experience at my convention and its is to bad my GOP deprived me of that

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

As for your question about how many ballots would invalidate, I am not talking one ballot, I am talking about all of them that were cast in the AZ Convention.

Sorry, that won't work. Why? Because the defense will call voters who had made up their minds to vote for Romney regardless of what was printed on the ballot or any of the other irregularities/violations you allege. They will so testify under oath, which will make for a revealing moment inasmuch as the pro-Romney voters will outnumber the RP voters by a huge margin.

Sometimes when you play hardball you strike out.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

BTW BM5I dont know what you mean by a "professional witness" but if you are suggesting that I am some kind of professional that went into my convention to find situations where I could be a witness on a lawsuit.....

You are whistling in the wind--and off-key at that.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

As for your question about how many ballots would invalidate, I am not talking one ballot, I am talking about all of them that were cast in the AZ Convention.

Sorry, that won't work. Why? Because the defense will call voters who had made up their minds to vote for Romney regardless of what was printed on the ballot or any of the other irregularities/violations you allege. They will so testify under oath, which will make for a revealing moment inasmuch as the pro-Romney voters will outnumber the RP voters by a huge margin.

Sometimes when you play hardball you strike out.

BM5 did you read the link? When one voter is disenfranchised in the process they all are. It does not matter if my vote actually went to the person I wanted it to go for. If another person's vote did not get accurately counted and placed, the whole process is sullied. the end.

The only solution to the question of a contaminated election is to have a re-vote with proper controls in place. In our convention that is actually not feasible because delegates left and therefore nullifying their votes from any further elections. If we had proper controls over credentials, those who left would have turned their credentials in and only those who were left would still be allowed to cast their votes with those things that were left undone, but since that did not happen, well, there is no real solution. In our Convention, pretty much everything was left undone by 9pm when the Chairman illegally adjourned the convention.

You are whistling in the wind--and off-key at that.

Whistling in the wind, what is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself. I am not a professional anything...lol....

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

. . . . There are only two camps who are have not conceded, Romney and Paul.

This raises a problematic question about Ron Paul's integrity. He was defeated by an overwhelming margin in state primary after state primary, frequently coming in last. The other candidates, once it was clear that Romney would reach the required number of delegates, conceded, which was the proper, ethical, time-honored thing to do. As you note, RP did not concede. Was that honest? Was that playing by the rules to which you repeatedly pledge allegiance?

Did Ron Paul have his mind fixed on facilitating a brokered convention by not conceding? I think that's a distinct possibility. If that is the case, he thumbed his nose at voters across the nation who clearly indicated they wanted Romney to be the nominee.

Is Paul really the quality of candidate you want to represent the Republican Party in the national election?

I would hope not, setting aside the brutal fact that he would get decimated in a contest with Obama.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

What you actually mean is that in state after state diabold machines etc. were being manipulated as shown in the link that I had provided earlier (are you purposely avoiding it), so we should shut up and deal with treachery?

The honorable thing to do was for Paul to bow out and concede? Whose honor should we be measuring that by? Yours, Juliettes, Bob's? If there was any honor at all in Romney he would never have gotten in the race in the first pretending to be conservative. So lets dispense with the nonsense, okay.

Get past Romney and Paul, this is about the State Delegates and I have said that from the beginning.

Do you have anything more to add to what I have said? Nothing to dispute what I have been said with viable documentation? I have provided what you asked for and I hope you are doing some research.


However, you still did not explain your "professional witness" "whistling in the wind" comment. Are you going to avoid that?

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

What you actually mean is that in state after state diabold machines etc. were being manipulated as shown in the link that I had provided earlier (are you purposely avoiding it), so we should shut up and deal with treachery?

The honorable thing to do was for Paul to bow out and concede? Whose honor should we be measuring that by? Yours, Juliettes, Bob's? If there was any honor at all in Romney he would never have gotten in the race in the first pretending to be conservative. So lets dispense with the nonsense, okay.

Get past Romney and Paul, this is about the State Delegates and I have said that from the beginning.

Do you have anything more to add to what I have said? Nothing to dispute what I have been said with viable documentation? I have provided what you asked for and I hope you are doing some research.


However, you still did not explain your "professional witness" "whistling in the wind" comment. Are you going to avoid that?

I'll address the foregoing shortly, but are you aware that Ron Paul himself doesn't support your lawsuit?; i.e.:

Paul supporters file lawsuit claiming GOP improperly helped Romney; Paul not joining suit
Article by: STEPHEN OHLEMACHER , Associated Press
Updated: June 20, 2012 - 3:15 PM

WASHINGTON - Supporters of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul have filed a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and nearly every state party claiming they improperly helped Mitt Romney during the primaries while using intimidation and threats of violence to thwart them.

Paul's campaign says the Texas congressman doesn't support the lawsuit. An RNC official called it frivolous [emphasis added].

The lawsuit asks a federal court in California to clarify whether delegates attending the national convention in August can vote for any candidate they choose, even if they were won by Romney. Most state parties require delegates to vote for the candidate who won them in primaries or caucuses.

The lawsuit was filed June 11 by more than 100 people who say they are delegates, though some aren't on lists released by state parties.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

BM5 LOL Ron Paul stated that he supports any one of us in standing up for ourselves if our rights have been violated. Listen to the whole interview on youtube. AP spins it how they want to.

Of course the RNC says its frivolous their regime is threatened. Gee I did not know an organization would be against having ones legal obligations and civil liberties defined.

Please get back to answering the question BM5-----your stalling

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

What you actually mean is that in state after state diabold machines etc. were being manipulated as shown in the link that I had provided earlier (are you purposely avoiding it), so we should shut up and deal with treachery?

Knowing as I do that you dislike Wikipedia, I opened that link. Therein I found a statement under the heading "Misleading or confusing paper ballots." Inasmuch as you have gone ballotistic about an asterisk by Romney's name, you will cherish the following: Poor or misleading design is not usually illegal and therefore not technically election fraud. . . [emphasis added]. I also found the following in Wikipedia's introduction to "Election Fraud": "In a narrow election a small amount of fraud may be enough to change the result." Let's see, the gap between Romney and Ron Paul was anything but narrow; wider than the Grand Canyon, in fact.

: The honorable thing to do was for Paul to bow out and concede? Whose honor should we be measuring that by? Yours, Juliettes, Bob's?

Your diversionary tactic is transparently bogus and betrays desperation. The "honor" is the ages-old tradition of a loser graciously stepping aside by conceding, extending congratulations to the victor, and then supporting the victor's campaign. That's an integral part of politics in America--a revered tradition. Even though Gingrich and Santorum and the other candidates were ahead of Paul in delegates, they had the decency to concede when it became clear Romney was the people's choice. Your adored Ron Paul couldn't muster the decency to do that, a circumstance that speaks volumes about his character.

You might also think about pre-election polling data. After surges by Gingrich and Santorum, Romney emerged as the frontrunner. Again, clear evidence that he was the people's choice. In most polls, Ron Paul placed last.

: If there was any honor at all in Romney he would never have gotten in the race in the first pretending to be conservative. So lets dispense with the nonsense, okay.

It isn't nonsense, and it isn't OK to dispense with it. Mitt Romney is a faithful Latter-day Saint; hence, he is by definition conservative. Your concept of a conservative is a candidate who wants to go back to the gold standard and practice Woodrow Wilson-style isolationism (among other anachronisms).

: Get past Romney and Paul, this is about the State Delegates and I have said that from the beginning.

False. What this is about is your veneration of Ron Paul and your frantic, ill-fated effort to make him the nominee.

: Do you have anything more to add to what I have said? Nothing to dispute what I have been said with viable documentation? I have provided what you asked for and I hope you are doing some research.

Yes--the news that Ron Paul himself wants nothing to do with a lawsuit, as I report in my previous post. Here you are all discombobulated about alleged "crimes" against Ron Paul in the Republican primary election process, and he has pointedly distanced himself from you and your cohorts and those alleged crimes. The irony, I must say, is delicious.

: However, you still did not explain your "professional witness" "whistling in the wind" comment. Are you going to avoid that?

[/quote]

My comment was made to disabuse you of the fanciful illusion that I had you in mind as a professional witness. "Whistling in the wind" was my way of dismissing that fantasy; in other words, blowing it into the wind.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

BM5 LOL Ron Paul stated that he supports any one of us in standing up for ourselves if our rights have been violated. Listen to the whole interview on youtube. AP spins it how they want to.

Gallant try. RP supports you in standing up for yourselves, but he won't stand with you. Too, too funny.

: Of course the RNC says its frivolous their regime is threatened. Gee I did not know an organization would be against having ones legal obligations and civil liberties defined.

It depends on who is doing the defining; in your case, the term "frivolous" could not be more appropriate.

: Please get back to answering the question BM5-----your stalling

See my previous post for the breathtaking answer.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

All of the replies you post are breathtaking Bluemoon! I anxiously await them!

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

Ah, BM5 Its so interesting your remarks that Juliette waits to read...

First, The Asterisks and Romney Delegate listed out of order is NOT a poor or misleading error, it was blatant electioneering and there is a difference. Is that all you picked out of that little article? Nothing else in there would support my evidences huh?

As far as Ron Paul goes its so sad that you don't understand him. If you did, you would be able to understand his words. However, it does not matter to me whether or not he stands with us or not. We have the right to have our voting rights defined and protected. We also have the right to plead for an investigation into a crime.

You can call me or what I am doing "diversionary" if you want, does not bother me at all. I am not going to be unified with a bunch of people who are willing to throw away our country just to support a guy who is LDS even when he clearly shows he is not conservative or upholds the Constitution. I will be divided with you all day long on that issue, and will fight with every means I have available to me to keep someone like Romney/Obama from being my President. Regardless, it does not matter if he wins or not because I am still going to pursue my GOP and hold them accountable for their part in disenfranchising delegates.

Mit Romney a faithful priesthood holder---that makes him conservative? So, do you embrace Harry Reid, too? Is this the very same Romney one who just said in an interview that he, as the President, has the power to go to war without the approval of Congress?

My comment was made to disabuse you of the fanciful illusion that I had you in mind as a professional witness. "Whistling in the wind" was my way of dismissing that fantasy; in other words, blowing it into the wind.

Actually you said I was whistling in the wind, not you. How would you hold me as a professional witness when according to you I think sloppy because I write sloppy?

No, I think you actually realized that you were making an accusation that you better retract. No worries, I wont sue you. lol

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Ah, BM5 Its so interesting your remarks that Juliette waits to read...

Indeed, she has an eye--and a mind--for quality. Thanks.

: First, The Asterisks and Romney Delegate listed out of order is NOT a poor or misleading error, it was blatant electioneering and there is a difference.

The correct wording is "Poor or misleading design," not error.

: Is that all you picked out of that little article? Nothing else in there would support my evidences huh?

Nothing worth noting, that's why I didn't note it. You did miss, however, the statement, "In a narrow election, a small amount of fraud may be enough to change the result." I pointed out that there was nothing "narrow" between your hero and Gov. Romney in terms of public support.

: As far as Ron Paul goes its so sad that you don't understand him.

Nor do millions of other voters. I do understand (and know, as do others) that he has one of the poorest "bill-passing" records in Congress.

: If you did, you would be able to understand his words.

A classic example of the Great Semantic Escape Trick.

: However, it does not matter to me whether or not he stands with us or not.

Being coy, are you? Of course it matters.

: We have the right to have our voting rights defined and protected.

Splendid, but the fact is Mitt Romney shredded Ron Paul in the Primary, and all the whining in the world won't change the fact that Mitt Romney has earned the right--via the voice of the people--to be the Republican nominee. Ron Paul is a 2012 GOP presidential primary footnote (or is he an Asterisk?).

: We also have the right to plead for an investigation into a crime.

Of course you do, depending on your understanding of what constitutes a crime and the requisite evidence necessary to convict the villians.

: You can call me or what I am doing "diversionary" if you want, does not bother me at all. I am not going to be unified with a bunch of people who are willing to throw away our country just to support a guy who is LDS even when he clearly shows he is not conservative or upholds the Constitution. I will be divided with you all day long on that issue, and will fight with every means I have available to me to keep someone like Romney/Obama from being my President.

What you fail to grasp is that if Ron Paul became the nominee, Obama would win another four years in a landslide of earth-shaking magnitude. Do you like that idea?

: Regardless, it does not matter if he wins or not because I am still going to pursue my GOP and hold them accountable for their part in disenfranchising delegates.

But you're perfectly comfortable disenfranchising Mitt Romney, huh?

: Mit Romney a faithful priesthood holder---that makes him conservative?

Absolutely, based on his many years of selfless service as a bishop and stake president.

: So, do you embrace Harry Reid, too? Is this the very same Romney one who just said in an interview that he, as the President, has the power to go to war without the approval of Congress?

I embrace Harry Reid as a brother in the restored gospel. I do not embrace his politics. Re. presidents going to war without the approval of Congress, you may find the following instructive (read the concluding paragraph carefully).

War Powers Resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action, and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]

My comment was made to disabuse you of the fanciful illusion that I had you in mind as a professional witness. "Whistling in the wind" was my way of dismissing that fantasy; in other words, blowing it into the wind.

: Actually you said I was whistling in the wind, not you.

You're correct. Thanks for admitting it.

: How would you hold me as a professional witness when according to you I think sloppy because I write sloppy?

As you herewith demonstrate, to wit: The verb think is properly modified by an adverb; hence, you may say of yourself that you "think sloppily--not that you "think sloppy."

: No, I think you actually realized that you were making an accusation that you better retract. No worries, I wont sue you. lol

You are swatting at more fruit flies than are found in a peach-packing shed. I have zero interest in involving you as a "professional witness" to anything, including a pie-eating contest.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

BM5 I hope someday you can find your way down out of your tall and spacious building.

I hope you felt really good about your last post. I am done trying to have an honest conversation with you, like Bob and Juliette, your only goal has been to humiliate and mock me. Well done, you did well. Mission has been accomplished and you have proven how ignorant of an individual I am and therefore have nothing of value to share.

My only goal has been to help educate on clean elections and have done so honestly. Mission failed.

Now you can rejoice together with your fan club.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

"You are swatting at more fruit flies than are found in a peach-packing shed. I have zero interest in involving you as a "professional witness" to anything, including a pie-eating contest. "

I think Liberty_Belle is conceding. She has been outmatched!

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

I think Liberty_Belle is conceding. She has been outmatched!

not quite..... she is tired of trying to make a few obviously thirsty horses drink .........

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Pepsi for me please!

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Shucks, and I was so enjoying the conversation! Facts remain, both Arizona and California are, according to state GOP rules, winner take all states. Romney won both by wide margins, hence he gets all the first vote delegates in both states. The baseless lawsuits will not change the facts despite the attempted theft, and yes, the outright theft of Romney delegates by Belle's paulistas.

Ron Paul couldn't come close to winning by any other means, so he resorted to theft, taught his disciples how to steal, and his paulistas, his disciples, carried on from there!

Bob

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Shucks, and I was so enjoying the conversation! Facts remain, both Arizona and California are, according to state GOP rules, winner take all states. Romney won both by wide margins, hence he gets all the first vote delegates in both states. The baseless lawsuits will not change the facts despite the attempted theft, and yes, the outright theft of Romney delegates by Belle's paulistas.

Ron Paul couldn't come close to winning by any other means, so he resorted to theft, taught his disciples how to steal, and his paulistas, his disciples, carried on from there!

Bob

What you obviously don't understand is that the NATIONAL convention does not follow any state rules, it follows the national rules. And when asked about it in 2008, the LEGAL COUNSEL for the national GOP said that regardless of STATE RULES that delegates at the national convention were free to vote for whomever they wished on the first round or any round. For someone who likes to complain about rule breakers, you sure don't know them, Bob. I provided a link to the query letter and the reply earlier in this thread. But of course, some people already know how things should be because they say so! To heck with the rules! Wait, wouldn't that make you the rule breaker? Isn't that what you have been accusing the Paulites of?

Google "GOP rule 38" If you don't believe me. Oh, as an aside the ruling back in 2008? It was because a Utah delegate who was "bound" to vote for John McCain wanted to vote for...you guessed it - Mitt Romney. And she was allowed to. And AMAZINGLY we didn;t see all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding delegates overturning "the will of the people".

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Then WHY all the lawsuits OI, HUH???

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Then WHY all the lawsuits OI, HUH???

What are lawsuits for, bob? To enforce the law, maybe? Wasn't it you that was saying that if the Paulistas had any complaints they should file a lawsuit? And now that they have done so, they get more of your ignorance.

Like I said, you complain about sore losers and people bending the rules, the fact is you don't even know the rules, you are just a cranky old man with no clue, whose generation has largely pissed away the freedoms that they were blessed with. And then have the chutzpah to name themselves "the greatest generation". Yes indeed, the greatest generation of warmongers, partisans, and supporters of cradle to grave nanny-statism. Well done.

I'm done with both you and Juliette, at least regarding politics. There are other Romney supporters that at least can carry on a conversation, but when it comes to politics, all you two know how to do is falsely accuse (that's your specialty), repeat the same tired mantras over and over and essentially bury your head in the sand when plain facts are presented that don't match your alternate reality.

Best of luck to you Bob. There's no fool like an old fool, you've convinced me of that.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

http://jimhightower.com/node/7758

SuperPACs, the new money beasts of American politics, have already funneled more than $100 million into this year's presidential election.

The über-wealthy are allowed to dump unlimited sums of cash into whichever of these beasts is backing their favored candidate. It's okay, declared the Supreme Court, because each superPAC operates entirely separately from candidates themselves. Indeed, the Court banned any coordination between the candidate's campaign and the electioneering of the PAC.

To see how splendidly this is working, visit Suite 555 in an Alexandria, Virginia, office building. You'll find Target Point Consulting there, headed by Alexander Gage, a top staffer in Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential run. This year, Target Point is consulting with the Romney campaign – but it's also consulting with Romney's superPAC. Gage admits that this might look "ridiculous," but he promises that Target Point staff working for Romney are kept separate from those working for Romney's PAC.

Uh-huh, but, what about WWP Strategies, headed by Romney's deputy campaign manager, Katie Gage? Yes, she's married to Alexander, and her firm also is located in Suite 555. Cozy huh?

Then there's Black Rock Group, headed by Carl Forti, who was Romney's 2008 political director. Now, though, Carl is senior strategist for Romney's superPAC. Guess where Forti's Black Rock Group is headquartered? Right – Suite 555.

Mr. Gage explains that while his firm and Ms. Gage's firm are in the same suite, the two principals do not discuss Romney's campaign or PAC with each other. And he points out that while Target Point and Black Rock also share the space, the two firms are separated by a conference room. "It's not like we're a commingled office," he assures us.

There's a word for this: silly. Also, fraud. And,
corrupt.

"Fine Line Between 'SuperPACs' and Campaigns," The New York Times, February 26, 2012.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Then WHY all the lawsuits OI, HUH???

What are lawsuits for, bob? To enforce the law, maybe? Wasn't it you that was saying that if the Paulistas had any complaints they should file a lawsuit? And now that they have done so, they get more of your ignorance.

Like I said, you complain about sore losers and people bending the rules, the fact is you don't even know the rules, you are just a cranky old man with no clue, whose generation has largely pissed away the freedoms that they were blessed with. And then have the chutzpah to name themselves "the greatest generation". Yes indeed, the greatest generation of warmongers, partisans, and supporters of cradle to grave nanny-statism. Well done.

I'm done with both you and Juliette, at least regarding politics. There are other Romney supporters that at least can carry on a conversation, but when it comes to politics, all you two know how to do is falsely accuse (that's your specialty), repeat the same tired mantras over and over and essentially bury your head in the sand when plain facts are presented that don't match your alternate reality.

Best of luck to you Bob. There's no fool like an old fool, you've convinced me of that.

I've been done with you for a long time Orig! You can't ever stay on topic without name calling. Its immature to call Bob an old fool. I don't know why you get away with things like this. I liken you to Info Warrior and Liberty. Bad teachers with techniques that turn people away from the message you proclaim to give. Reactionary and hot tempered, thats who you are! I truly hope you are done with me and stop making constant jabs because you can't get me out of your mind! This is the last response I will lower myself in giving to you.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

By the numbers especially for you OI, from this old fool direct to you;

1. All you paulistas are phony republicans, you're libertarians posing as republicans
2. None of you ever intended to vote for the Republican nominee
3. And you OI are the most phony of the whole phony bunch of paulistas posting on this site, and Belle is next! Flagg is just simple noise!

Old Fool!

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/100-2-election-431-1-19624312

What Constitutes an Election where Federal Laws take jurisdiction even in a private organization like the RNC or DNC?


Title 11: Federal Elections

CHAPTER I: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUBCHAPTER A: GENERAL

PART 100: SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (2 U.S.C. 431)

Subpart A: General Definitions

100.2 - Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)).

(a) Election means the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal office. The specific types of elections, as set forth at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are included in this definition.

(b) General election. A general election is an election which meets either of the following conditions:

(1) An election held in even numbered years on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November is a general election.

(2) An election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office (i.e., a special election) and which is intended to result in the final selection of a single individual to the office at stake is a general election. See 11 CFR 100.2(f).

(c) Primary election. A primary election is an election which meets one of the following conditions:

(1) An election which is held prior to a general election, as a direct result of which candidates are nominated, in accordance with applicable State law, for election to Federal office in a subsequent election is a primary election.

(2) An election which is held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President of the United States is a primary election.

(3) An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election.

(4) With respect to individuals seeking federal office as independent candidates, or without nomination by a major party (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 9002(6)), the primary election is considered to occur on one of the following dates, at the choice of the candidate:

(i) The day prescribed by applicable State law as the last day to qualify for a position on the general election ballot may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(ii) The date of the last major party primary election, caucus, or convention in that State may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(iii) In the case of non-major parties, the date of the nomination by that party may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(5) With respect to any major party candidate (as defined at 26 U.S.C. 9002(6)) who is unopposed for nomination within his or her own party, and who is certified to appear as that party's nominee in the general election for the office sought, the primary election is considered to have occurred on the date on which the primary election was held by the candidate's party in that State.

(d) Runoff election. Runoff election means the election which meets either of the following conditions:

(1) The election held after a primary election, and prescribed by applicable State law as the means for deciding which candidate(s) should be certified as a nominee for the Federal office sought, is a runoff election.

(2) The election held after a general election and prescribed by applicable State law as the means for deciding which candidate should be certified as an officeholder elect, is a runoff election.

(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.

(f) Special election. Special election means an election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office. A special election may be a primary, general, or runoff election, as defined at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c) and (d).

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

I've been done with you for a long time Orig! You can't ever stay on topic without name calling. Its immature to call Bob an old fool. I don't know why you get away with things like this. I liken you to Info Warrior and Liberty. Bad teachers with techniques that turn people away from the message you proclaim to give. Reactionary and hot tempered, thats who you are! I truly hope you are done with me and stop making constant jabs because you can't get me out of your mind! This is the last response I will lower myself in giving to you.

Juliette, I want them filing lawsuits, I want the paulistas making all the noise they can, it's my understanding that the Republican Party is getting very weary of all their noise. So, lets let the phony republican paulistas continue on doing exactly what they're doing, and encourage them to further---lows!

During the convention I'm hoping they make so much noise, create such a commotion, that the liberal media even notices. I want the Conservative parts of the Republican Party to recognize exactly who the paulistas are, I want even Ron Paul thoroughly embarrassed by their actions. Looks like I'm gonna get my wish!

It's we Conservative Republicans who are changing the Republican old guard, libertarians and all their liberal friends not wanted!

Bob