🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100o1v346ru654c@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:z1MOb.58325$A45.8958@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100mc32s12l6e3f@corp.supernews.com...
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:_jEOb.58217$eL3.29960@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:100lqh9ce2sa579@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:hYpOb.9823$Dv2.2915@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:100jvja4ko3vudf@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bush went to court to stop ILLEGAL PARTIAL recounts. It was
> Bush
> > > who
> > > > > > > argued
> > > > > > > > that the recount should be of all ballots statewide, it was
> Gore
> > > who
> > > > > > > argued
> > > > > > > > that all ballots need NOT be counted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Revisionism, pure and simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is called truth. I notice that you have backed up your
> argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's not truth, it's revisionism.  And that fact has been
backed
> > up
> > > > many
> > > > > times in this forum.  You want a reference?  Start with:
> > > > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/
> > > >
> > > > Everything that I have posted is backed up with links. If they are
> > wrong,
> > > > then post the appropriate links to prove otherwise.
> > > >
> > > Obviously you've 1) not followed up my link
> > > (http://www.consortiumnews.com/), and 2) persist in framing the issue
> > > inappropriately.
> >
> > I have correctly responded to you accusation. Your quote:
> >
> >  "Baloney.  Bush was first to go to court to block any and all counts."
> >
> > The fact is the court record supports my contention that 1) Gore never
> filed
> > the paperwork to get a full recount.
>
> How does that negate my statement that "Bush was first to go to court to
> block any and all counts"?

Because you infer that Bush tried to block legal recounts. We know that to
be false.

>
> >2) Florida Code requires that a contest
> > of the election to include all ballots, statewide.
>
> No it does not.  Even if it did, how does that negate my statement that
How
> does that negate my statement that "Bush was first to go to court to block
> any and all counts"?

Yes it does.

Sauls also noted that under Florida Code, Gore was required to contest all
ballots, statewide, not just 4 counties.

"As recently stated by Judge Klein with the concurrence of Chief Judge
Warner in the Fourth District Court of Appeal case, of Bedell v. Palm Beach
Canvassing Board, Section 102.168 provides in Subsection (1) that the
certification of elections may be contested for presidential elections.
Section 103.011 provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as
elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice
President who receive the highest number of votes."

"There is in this type of election, one statewide election, and one
certification. Palm Beach County did not elect any person as a presidential
elector, but, rather, the election with the winner-take-all proposition,
dependent on the statewide vote."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html

 It negates your statement because Bush did not try to block a full
statewide recount. How can he block something that was never ordered?

> > 3) That Bush did NOT
> > stop, or try to stop any legal statewide recount that included all
> ballots.
>
> Bullshit.  When the Florida Supreme court ordered a recount, Bush appealed
> to the USSC.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered an illegal partial recount. Gore's
attorney admitted that to the SCOTUS. And I have said before, Bush tried to
stop all illegal partial recounts.

From the transcript of Bush vs. Gore:

JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Mr. Boies, one of the dissenting justices on the Supreme
Court of Florida said that meant 177,000 ballots. Was he correct, in your
view?

MR. BOIES: No, that is a result of adding the so-called undervotes that were
mentioned and the so-called overvotes that were mentioned.

Either an undervote, where no vote registers for president, or an overvote,
where two or more registers for president, are discarded because you can't
vote twice, and if you vote not at all -- under either circumstance, your
vote doesn't get counted.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: So, if you disagree that 177,000 ballots will be
involved in this recount, how many do you think there are?

MR. BOIES: It's approximately 60,000, I think, Your Honor. It turns out to
be less than that because of the recounts that have already been completed.
But I think the total sort of blank ballots for the presidency were about
60,000.

The protest period

JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean
there 110,000 overvotes?

MR. BOIES: That's right.

JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the chief
justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes and
not overvotes?

MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And the
contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a rejection
of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But as a matter of remedy, it's ordered a statewide recount
in counties where the ballots were not contested, and that's where I'm
having some difficulty. And it goes back in part to your answer that you
gave to Justice Stevens -- Justice Scalia about Broward County, and in part
to the answer you're giving to Justice Stevens now.

Why is it that you say on the one hand to Justice Scalia, "Oh, well these
weren't part of the contest", but now all of a sudden we're talking about
statewide that are not -- well, all of which are contested, but we're not
talking about the overvote?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html

> > 4) Bush did try to stop illegal partial recounts.
>
> "Illegal recounts"?!   Repuglican spin - not fact.

You mis-quoted me. I said "illegal PARTIAL recounts." I also said in this
thread that the recounts in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach were illegal because
they changed the counting standards.

Sauls also noted that under Florida Code, Gore was required to contest all
ballots, statewide, not just 4 counties.

"As recently stated by Judge Klein with the concurrence of Chief Judge
Warner in the Fourth District Court of Appeal case, of Bedell v. Palm Beach
Canvassing Board, Section 102.168 provides in Subsection (1) that the
certification of elections may be contested for presidential elections.
Section 103.011 provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as
elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice
President who receive the highest number of votes."

"There is in this type of election, one statewide election, and one
certification. Palm Beach County did not elect any person as a presidential
elector, but, rather, the election with the winner-take-all proposition,
dependent on the statewide vote."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html

> > 5) The Bush Campaign was
> > on record in the Florida Supreme Court saying the Florida Code required
> > the court to include all ballots in a manual.
>
> Your phrasing is interesting - and a complete lie.  Bush was never that
> high-minded.

The court record is clear, it shows that it was BUSH who was advocating a
full recount, not Gore.

From the order, Gore vs. Harris, Florida Supreme Court,
12/8/2000....."Appellees contend that even if a count of the undervotes in
Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168, Florida Statute (2000),
require a count of all votes in Miami-Dade County and the entire state as
opposed to a selected number of votes challenged. However, the plain
language of section 102.168 refutes Appellees' argument."

The Appellees in this case was Katherine Harris, Bush's Florida Campaign
Chair. Her argument to the court was that if you are going to order a
recount, it should be of the entire state. But of course that is not what
Gore wanted.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

From the transcript of Bush vs. Gore:

JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Mr. Boies, one of the dissenting justices on the Supreme
Court of Florida said that meant 177,000 ballots. Was he correct, in your
view?

MR. BOIES: No, that is a result of adding the so-called undervotes that were
mentioned and the so-called overvotes that were mentioned.

Either an undervote, where no vote registers for president, or an overvote,
where two or more registers for president, are discarded because you can't
vote twice, and if you vote not at all -- under either circumstance, your
vote doesn't get counted.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: So, if you disagree that 177,000 ballots will be
involved in this recount, how many do you think there are?

MR. BOIES: It's approximately 60,000, I think, Your Honor. It turns out to
be less than that because of the recounts that have already been completed.
But I think the total sort of blank ballots for the presidency were about
60,000.

The protest period

JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean
there 110,000 overvotes?

MR. BOIES: That's right.

JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the chief
justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes and
not overvotes?

MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And the
contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a rejection
of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But as a matter of remedy, it's ordered a statewide recount
in counties where the ballots were not contested, and that's where I'm
having some difficulty. And it goes back in part to your answer that you
gave to Justice Stevens -- Justice Scalia about Broward County, and in part
to the answer you're giving to Justice Stevens now.

Why is it that you say on the one hand to Justice Scalia, "Oh, well these
weren't part of the contest", but now all of a sudden we're talking about
statewide that are not -- well, all of which are contested, but we're not
talking about the overvote?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html

> > 6) Gore was on record with both
> > the Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States
> saying
> > the he had not, and was not required to have all ballots recounted.
>
> Regardless of what was argued, the fact is that the SCOTUS said the votes
> should be counted, and then did not allow time for that to happen.

Under the US Constitution, if the votes are counted in an unconstitutional
way, those votes can be thrown out. IF the SCOTUS had ordered a recount to
go past the safe harbor date, they would have been in violation of both
Florida Code and the US Constitution, ie the state of Florida could have
been left out of the electoral college. That is why both majorities (6 Dems,
5 Rep, 1 Ind) of the FSC and the SCOTUS said that the Safe Harbor date was
the final deadline.

There were several Democrats who comfirmed this fact. Here, Judge Sauls is
making the case that if the ballots counted using the illegal counting
standards in Palm Beach County, that the state could be barred from
electoral college. It follows that if the law is CHANGED as to the final
deadline for settling election disputes, the state could also be barred.

......."As the State's chief legal officer, I feel a duty to warn that the
final certified total for balloting in the State of Florida includes figures
generated from this two-tier system of differing behavior by official
Canvassing Boards, the state will incur a legal jeopardy under both the
United States and the state constitutions."


"This legal jeopardy could potentially leave Florida having all of its
votes, in effect, disqualified, and this state being barred from the
Electoral College's election of a President."



http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html

> Regardless of what was argued before the SCOTUS, better legal minds than
you
> or me said their ruling made no sense.

Only if you rely on the left wing biased legal minds. If you read the
ruling, it makes perfect sense. It says that Palm Beach and Miami Dade
Counties could not change the law as to what defined a legal vote after the
election had taken place. It also says that Florida Code REQUIRED that all
election dispubtes MUST be settled by the Safe Harbor date. To go past that
date would be a violation of Florida Code.

> > I have given quotes to prove all of these facts to be true. Please feel
> > free to try to refute them.
> >
> You've still not shown how anything you've posted would negate my
statement
> that "Bush was first to go to court to block any and all counts".

Playing word games. I noticed that you could not find a single link to
disprove my points. Bush went to court to block illegal recounts, AS HE
SHOULD. Bush was in court telling the judges that they could not order
partial recount, that the only legal remedy was to order a full recount of
all ballots. That fact negates your "any and all counts" statement.

Since Gore did not want to follow the law and file for a legal recount, Bush
could not block such.