Claims And Issues

NO WONDER THEY DON'T LIKE DEMOCRACY.

The Canadian Truckers (who weren't really all Canadians, or all Truckers, but that's another story) wanted to overthrow the Canadian government.

Putin wants to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

The far-righteous in the U.S. want to overthrow the government of the United States.

They all want to overthrow the government because they cannot win at the ballot box.  They cannot win democratically.  So they are against democracy.

That's what I realized.  What do you think, do you think differently?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DROWNING THE LAW IN THE BATHTUB: THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER.

In the past week, we have explored the draft Executive Order (XO) of December 16, 2020 in this space.  Today we hear that there were at least two draft Executive Orders, the one we've seen dated December 16, 2020, and at least one more that we have not yet seen.

          A few things to mention about the draft XO dated December 16, 2020 before we pass on to other things and other draft orders.  Today we move from incompetence to deception, from things that actually happened to things that did not happen at all.

          One is the reference to an order issued by Judge Amy Totenberg in the Northern District of Georgia before the 2020 election.  Judge Totenberg actually threw out a request to ban the voting machines that were chosen by the Georgia State government to use in the 2020 election.

          After the 2020 election, not one but several recounts found the election in Georgia free of any significant fraud whatsoever in 2020.  

          Second, the draft XO declares that Coffee County, Georgia "refused to certify its result."  That is not true.  The Coffee County Board of Elections and Registration wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State on December 4, 2020 -- 12 days before this draft XO is dated, so it was certainly known when the order was drafted -- that "the Coffee County Board of Elections and Registration have voted to certify the votes cast in the election night report."  (Emphasis added.)

          The final thing worth mentioning at this time is the draft XO's similar flaw in its description of voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan.  Dominion Voting Systems has since filed its lawsuit for libel and slander, so I will not say much more about it here other than to point out that a Committee of the Michigan Legislature with a Republican Chair and a majority of Republican members issued a written report finding that the voting machines in Antrim County did not include any significant fraud.   And that they also sent a written request to the Michigan Attorney General to take action against those who falsely said that fraud was committed with the voting machines in Antrim County.

          Is there no end?  Apparently not, not with more draft "Executive Orders" still to see the light of day.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHO IS "HER" AS IN "HER DUTIES" IN DRAFT XO?

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MORE QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 12.16.20.

This continues after the biggest question in my mind about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020, which is why the Secretary of Defense and not the Attorney General should be ordered to seize voting machines that were used to elect President Biden.  

          Another good question is why the Secretary of Defense would be directed to use the National Guard, and not the Army.  Why not the Army?  Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.

          Same answer as to why not the Attorney General:  Because they wouldn't do it.

          Recall the summer of 2020, specifically, the protests after the death of George Floyd.  The closest that active-duty soldiers got to the streets of Washington, D.C. was when the 82nd Airborne Division camped in the outskirts of D.C.  They refused to strong-arm the protestors in the streets of Washington, D.C., let alone use their weapons on their fellow countrymen.  Then the 82nd Airborne went back to their barracks.

          The Army just wouldn't do it.  Thus Barr and his boss TFG brought in the border guards and the prison guards from all over.  They came to downtown Washington instead.

         So, same answer as before:  The order is not directed to the Attorney General or to the Army because they could not depend on the Attorney General to order that the voting machines be seized, and they could not depend on the Army to do it.

          But there are more questions, including who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties"?

To be continued ....  For more of an "inside baseball" look at this problem, see today's post at Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/more-questions-about-the-draft-xo-dated-december-16-2020.html. 

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 16, 2020.

The most glaring takeaway from the draft Executive Order of December 16, 2020 to my mind is the assignment to the Secretary of Defense of seizing voting machines used to elect President Biden.  Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.

         Why the Secretary of Defense and not the Attorney General?  Why order the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines and not not the Attorney General, who is more involved with elections than the Pentagon, after all?

           Because they did not think the Attorney General would do it.

          The Attorney General at the time -- remember that this document is dated "December 16, 2020" -- already showed that he was not inclined to seize voting machines, we now know.  The Secretary of Defense at the time was a protege of TFG, appointed as recently as November 2020.

          The goal was to seize voting machines, so the goal had to include picking someone who was likely to perpetrate the seizure of voting machines rather than oppose it.  This first question has a simple answer.  That's why the Attorney General was not included here.  He wouldn't be likely to go along with it.  Someone else had to be the choice to perpetrate the scheme.

          Really, in the end, simple as that.  But why mobilize the National Guard, and why not the Army?

To be continued .... For more of an "inside baseball" look at this problem, see today's post at Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/questions-raised-by-the-draft-executive-order-dated-december-16-2020.html.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DEFLECT, DISTRACT, DESTROY: MORE.

The corporate media are trumpeting the mantra of corporate Democrats that "progressives" are responsible for Terry McAuliffe's loss in Virginia.  (They do not seem to know that McAuliffe got the same 48% of the statewide vote this time as he did last time, when he won in a three-way race.)

          The races yesterday that are in the headlines today did not involve progressives.

          The races that the Democratic Party lost yesterday or in some cases, almost lost, involved corporate Democrats.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

VIRGINIA, GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE CAN CHANGE COUNTRY. GOVERNOR VOTE WON'T.

 

 

(Joshua Roberts / Reuters)

Terry McAuliffe and Glenn Youngkin are tied for second-worst candidate for office in American history.  (Their former bosses tied in 2016 for the all-time worst candidate for office in the country's history.)

          If Mr. McAuliffe loses his repeat race for governor this year, it will not be the end of the Republic.  Despite what the corporate press and cable outlets are chanting.  In reality, then, this governor's race instead shows a very different story.

          When Terry McAuliffe won the governor's election in Virginia in 2013, he got less than 48% of the vote.  There was a third-party candidate in that race who got 6.5%.  The remaining candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, did not do well, either, to say the least; he got slightly more than 45% of the vote.

          So no, if Terry McAuliffe loses this year for governor in Virginia it won't signal the downfall of democracy or anything like that.  If Virginia voters find it hard to vote for one or the other candidate this year, it's pretty clear that it's because the choices are so bad.

          On the other hand, how Virginians vote for their Members of the General Assembly can change the country.  Since the change in power in the legislature in Virginia a couple of years ago, the Old Dominion has changed lanes.  Now in the passing lane, the Commonwealth may well be on its way to leading the nation.

          So yes, the reality is in the General Assembly elections this year in Virginia.

          Personally, my bet from afar is that the voters of Virginia will stay in their lane in their legislature.  Whatever they do with their governor won't affect the rest of us in the U.S. nearly as much.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

VOTING MACHINES AND THE GERRYMANDERED OLD PARTY.

(Common Ground Project)

A Satire in One Act hopefully.

Meadow Lark Oldkin knew that something was wrong with the voting machines.  For years they had registered fewer votes for the Gerrymandered Old Party in the State of Old Dominion.

          Oldkin was running for governor in Old Dominion.   So it is understandable that he was concerned by this.  He was the nominee of the Gerrymandered Old Party, which everyone who lived in the Sixties called the Party of the Gerrymandered Oh.

          Oldkin paid for a video to show the problem.  In the video, a voter voted for the Gerrymandered Oh but the voting machines did not show that the Gerrymandered Old Party had been the winner for 10 years.

          This campaign ad was filmed in a state of hints and allegations (not to be confused with Old Dominion, not that kind of state).  The video was offered as proof that the voting machines are against them.

          Oldkin did not say that the video was filmed 10 years ago.

          Oldkin did not say either that the voter filmed in the video is now a lawyer working for the Gerrymandered Old Party.

          Much of the corporate media did not say these things either.  They never asked Oldkin about the video.  Instead, they said that the video showed the problem.

          Oldkin counted on that.  He bet that the video would be the message regardless of the truth.

          Oldkin's bet may have paid off.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO PAY, NO RECOUNT; SECRETLY FUNDED FRAUDITS ARE JAN6 CONTINUED.

AND FRAUDITS NEVER DIE.

We learned in the 2016 Presidential election that Wisconsin charges whoever demands a recount.  In fact, Wisconsin charges up-front as I recall; no pay, no recount.  In 2016 it was third-party candidate Jill Stein, remember?  She paid and got a recount.

          The Wisconsin recount was run openly.  In fact, it was run by the very same people who have the expertise to run an election in the first place.  By law, not only did the challenger have to pay for the privilege of a recount, there was a time-limit on the recount as well.

          How is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but no-one is talking about them paying for it as Wisconsin law demands? 

          And how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but disguising it as a fraudit, so that they are able to have private individuals run it by counting the people's votes and handling the people's personally identifiable information (PII)?

          Finally, how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but really demanding a fraudit that will go on forever, as fraudits do?

          Each of these questions applies to the demands for a recount in Pennsylvania and in parts of Texas and wherever else they are demanding fraudits.  Why are they not treated as what they are, which is recounts regulated by the law of the States?  Why are the individuals demanding them not being required to pay the States for them?  Why are the fraudits not term-limited instead of going on forever, as fraudits do?

          These are good questions.  There are other good questions as well, I am sure.  So far, we do not have any answers, let alone good answers.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

EQUAL PROTECTION A U.S. VALUE, BUT NOT IN TEXAS FRAUDIT.

Reportedly the current governor of Texas is obeying The Former Guy and conducting a review of the voting in only 4 Texas counties, 3 of which voted for President Biden.  The review is a fraudit and it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

          Putting aside other questions about the Texas fraudit for a moment, the fraudit violates the Equal Protection Clause.  It singles out some counties from others, some voters and not others, some results and not other results.  It is a political power play by the temporarily strong against the currently weak.

          In the United States, we honor Equal Protection.  We do not ignore it, or disrespect it, or try to dismantle it.

          The Texas fraudit is more than a distraction from the worst loss at the polls in the history of U.S. presidential elections history.

          It is unconstitutional.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE?"

Plenty, as it turns out.

I think we may have already begun to get it back.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH JANUARY 17?

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

January 17 is the date reportedly set for Capitol Hill Riot Part Two.  That date is the choice of  the same people who staged the Capitol Hill Riot Part One, on January 6, to do it again.

January 16 -- the date before Capitol Hill Riot Part Two, or shall we call it Capitol Hill Coup Part Two -- is the day that the current chief of the Capitol Police says that he will leave office.

If you believe in coincidence, you are living in the wrong time and place.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HAVE FAITH, ABIGAIL SPANBERGER,* NOT FEAR.

(Doug Mills / New York Times)

The victories of Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock in the U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia surprised many people.  But their victories did not surprise Mr. Ossoff or Reverend Warnock.

And their successes were certainly not surprising to Ms. Stacey Abrams, whose approach to politics is a successful contrast to Democratic Party politics nationally.

    The two Democratic Senate candidates were a striking shift from previous recruits, who tended to be white moderates, and stepped gingerly, and sometimes awkwardly, around the God and guns issues crucial to white voters who had become disenchanted with Democrats.

    Mr. Ossoff, with his degrees from Georgetown and the London School of Economics, speaks without a hint of Southern twang; he could hail from Santa Monica, or Portland. He would also be the first Jewish person to be elected to the Senate from Georgia.

    Mr. Warnock is the kind of preacher who sees activism as central to the mission of the Black church. As pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, he has embraced Dr. King’s philosophy of economic justice as a corollary to racial justice.

    In effect, the two men ran as themselves. As unabashed liberals. In Georgia.

Lisa Lerer and Richard Fausset, Republican Bulwark is Confirmed as an Election Battleground, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, January 7, 2021, at A18, online with the headline and subhead, For Democrats in Georgia, ‘There’s No Going Back’ / The two Democratic victories in the Senate runoffs confirmed that Georgia’s metamorphosis from conservative bastion to battleground state was complete.

*You may be wondering about the name of Abigail Spanberger in the headline of this blog article.  Ms. Spanberger is the person who exemplifies the national Democratic approach to elections.  She famously melted down during a telephone conference call among Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, blaming Progressives for the loss of Democratic seats in the House in 2020.

It seems that the national Democratic party needs to look at how it does things just as much as it needs to look at how things are now done in Georgia.  Not a single Progressive lost a House seat in 2020.  Not one.  Now, two Senators are coming to Washington who ran "as unabashed liberals.  In Georgia."

Faith Over Fear, Ms. Spanberger.  Faith Over Fear, Democratic National Committee.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY'RE "ON WISCONSIN!"

(Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press)

We are reliving 2016.  Well, we're not, not all of us.  But The Occupant is reliving 2016.

The Occupant is trying to keep being The Occupant.  That apparently means repeating the imagined triumphs of 2016 in Michigan, Pennsylvania and, yes, Wisconsin.  See MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA & ... WISCONSIN NEXT?  "BE AFRAID.  BE VERY AFRAID, posted here on Saturday morning, November 21, 2020 predicting that the next target is going to be Wisconsin.

Now it is Wisconsin.  Late in the afternoon on the same day, the LOS ANGELES TIMES posted this Associated Press story:  Wisconsin Officials Say Trump Observers Are Obstructing Recount.

Reportedly the current Occupant's Observers are supposed to remain quiet but they can't help themselves, "interrupting vote counters with questions and comments."

They are only supposed to have one representative at each counting table in Wisconsin, but sometimes they have two.

Other times they pose as "independents" so they can have more observers.

It is also reported that there appears to be a pattern in Wisconsin.  Many, some or all of the Occupant's Observers object to every single ballot.

A County Election Commissioner in Wisconsin told the Associated Press that this was all "prima facie evidence of bad faith[.]"

He said it.  The Associated Press quoted it.  "On Wisconsin!"

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

 

MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA & ... WISCONSIN NEXT? "BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID."

 

(Patricia McKnight / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Three states that voted Democratic in past presidential elections and that voted for the present Occupant in 2016 -- and that are widely credited with giving him a majority in the Electoral College -- are of course Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In an effort to keep on being the Occupant, the present Occupant has done some wild things to Michigan's process of certifying its electoral votes in 2020.

Rumors in the corporate media have it that the present Occupant is now turning his lonely eyes to Pennsylvania.

No-one in the corporate media seems to understand why Michigan, or why Pennsylvania.

"It's the 2016 election all over again, stupid."  There's nothing like reliving past glories, I guess.  If this is what's going on, Wisconsin is next on the agenda.

That's another State that went by the many thousands for Biden in 2020, of course.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THANK YOU FOR BEING A VOTER TOMORROW.

(Orlando 2020.  Photo ©Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.)

Tomorrow we get to exercise what many people have lived and died to protect for years in this country:  Our votes!

Thank you for being a voter.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MORE RESOURCES, MORE VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROTECTING THE VOTE!

And now a message from the Common Ground Project in Florida:  More resources, more volunteer opportunities for protecting the vote!

(Common Ground Project)

Defend Democracy:

Poll monitors needed!

Can we count on you?

The Common Ground Project is looking for volunteers to assist in our Poll Monitoring and Election Protection Program. This is a large statewide initiative led by our coalition partners: Common Cause, State Voices, and Florida for All. The Common Ground Project is committed to ensuring that all voters have safe and accessible access to casting their ballots and having their voices heard on November 3rd. We are in need of volunteers!

Please join us for this critical work to protect our election. We look forward to working with you as a leader in your community!

Please register to be a poll worker and sign up for one of the following upcoming training opportunities:

• Friday, October 30th at 6 PM
• Saturday, October 31st at 12 PM

As always, please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions!

Regards,

Lisa Perry

REGISTER

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

Volunteer opportunities for mobile legal support on Election Day ...

and the last weekend of early voting.

 

THIS CALL FROM FLORIDA FOR ALL--ELECTION PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEER LAWYERS TO SERVE IN PERSON AT POLLING PLACES WAS RECEIVED BY EMAIL TODAY, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2020.

 

We have five days left to make a difference!

Thank you to everyone who turned out for National Early Vote Day last weekend to support voter actions at 29 early voting sites throughout Florida.

Now we need to prepare for the last weekend of early voting and Election Day.  We have seen increased partisan voter suppression and police presence outside of polling sites throughout the state, and anticipate that this will continue over the weekend and next Tuesday.  We need everyone to step up to make sure eligible voters are able to cast their ballots.

If you are a lawyer, law student, or paralegal who can volunteer in person to help support voters at polling sites on Oct. 31 or Nov. 3, please complete this google form as soon as possible.

Mobile Legal Support Sign-Up Form 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1dv1e0H4gzkPAmgcpabu6x9W2gs0CgvX3dRpgUwZJWKE/viewform?gxids=7757&edit_requested=true

This is for in-person deployment.  If you have already signed up for a shift in the boiler room or to be on call, you do not need to fill out this form.  If you already filled out this form, you do not need to do it again.

Please also sign up for one of the following trainings. 

Sign Up for Mobile Legal Support Trainings 

• 10.29 Thursday 5:00 - 6:30 PM

o  https://secure.everyaction.com/9iilP2VjKUS2UtYOqTNpRw2

• 10.30 Friday 11:00 - 12:30 PM 

o https://secure.everyaction.com/R7VfCPsnzkObRXCUw0VGzg2

• 11.1 Sunday 3:00 - 4:30 PM - 

o https://secure.everyaction.com/7dqNh2TbmUK-vcW7bbBjVg2

If you’ve already attended a training in the past two weeks, you can attend just the first part, where we’ll discuss practical tips for protecting voters on site and on getting assignments from and reporting to the Boiler Room on Election Day. 

If you haven’t yet signed FFA-EF’s non-disclosure agreement, please do so at the following link.  

FFA-EF Non-disclosure Agreement

 https://bit.ly/2J5P3xj

After you've (1) signed up via the Google form above and (2) signed the NDA, we will send you a link to select priority polling sites for your shift. 

Finally, please forward this message to other lawyers and law students who might be interested in deploying on the ground in Florida.  

Thank you again for your support and commitment to helping voters in Florida! 

--

Katie Roberson-Young
Associate General Counsel
SEIU

(954) 804-2710

pronouns:  she, her, hers

TRUST THE VOTE.

And now, a message from Election Protection.  Trust the Vote.

We care about the integrity of our elections and love when election officials quickly fix errors. Some politicians use these errors to make us feel that our votes won’t count. Do not let this affect our confidence in our system or our willingness to vote. #VoteReady.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCES FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO LAWYERS ASSISTING VOTERS

 

(American Bar Association)

In an email received this morning, the American Bar Association announced it is offering a financial incentive to lawyers who assist voters at this time.  Here is the ABA's announcement:

Volunteering at the polls is an important civic duty that lawyers are especially suited for given the profession's long tradition of civil service. This November, the ABA and MyCase are partnering to give ABA members who volunteer during the general election a $50 credit to ShopABA for their service. Whether you have already volunteered at your local polling place, or plan to volunteer on election day, November 3, you can earn a $50 credit towards books, webinars, CLE and other purchases in ShopABA.*

Register your service by November 6, 2020.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BE NOT AFRAID, VOTE!

(Photo by Ilene Vegazo.  Used with permission of the artist.)

MEMO TO LAWYERS:  As a lawyer, your clients look to you as a leader. When they ask you about voting, your clients are interested in how they can vote. Be a leader. Familiarize yourself with Florida's voting laws, enough at least to guide your clients on how to engage the voting process.

Which is not the same as telling your clients how they should vote! Everyone has their own opinions about that & respectfully, your clients do not think your opinions are special that way. But clients do look to you for help negotiating the process. Thank you for being a voter.

MEMO TO EVERYONE:

Early Voting began in Florida October 19. Early Voting continues through Saturday, October 31. The Election as you know is on Tuesday, November 3.

Remember to vote!

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

RESOURCES TO PROTECT THE VOTE THIS YEAR.

(Brynn Anderson / Associated Press)

Want to help protect the vote this year, but unsure of where to go or what to do?  Here is a list of contacts for places and sources that can help answer your questions.

ELECTION PROTECTION.  This is an umbrella of many different organizations that all have different pieces of election protection, such as Poll Monitors, Social Media Monitors, Legal Volunteers, and On-Call Legal Support, among others.  Telephone 1-866-OUR-VOTE or email grassroots@commoncause.org.

POSTCARDS TO VOTERS.  Just like it sounds, volunteers write postcards with messages provided by campaigns that have signed up with PTV, to addresses that are anonymous as far as names; only mailing addresses are provided.  Volunteers mail postcards on their own dime, so to speak.  For more information, visit www.postcardstovoters.org.

FLORIDA RESTORATION OF RIGHTS COALITION.  You may have heard about this group which works with registering returning citizens to vote.  To find out about their current activities, email them at info@floridarrc.com.

ADOPT A STATE - VOTE SAVE AMERICA.  This group offers ways to contact voters especially in 6 targeted States in which voters will likely affect the outcome of the Election.  Their Email Address is votesaveamerica@crooked.com.

Best of luck and use your best judgment in evaluating these groups, what they have to offer, and your place in it all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE LAST PART: "SO THAT A RETURNING CITIZEN CAN VOTE."*

(Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services)

PART THREE, THE LAST PART.  *PUT THIS ON YOUR CHECK DESCRIPTION IF YOU SEND A CHECK SO THAT A RETURNING CITIZEN CAN VOTE.  I DID.

In this series, we have already explored how Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution came to be approved by two-thirds of Florida voters, was seized by the Florida Legislature after Amendment 4 passed overwhelmingly at the polls, and then was also twisted beyond recognition by 6 federal judges who ignored the votes of millions of people in Florida and incredibly ruled that a poll tax is not a poll tax.

    The end result leave us and returning citizens with a choice:  Pay the poll tax or they won't be able to vote.  We did not choose this; the Florida Legislature and 6 federal judges chose this for us.

    Although the Florida Legislature imposed a poll tax, Florida won't tell Florida voters how much they have to pay before they will be allowed to vote.  These people who want to vote all served their entire sentence including restitution if ordered to any victim of any crime.  People with felony convictions of violent crimes including sex crimes are not permitted to register to vote by Amendment 4 in the first place.  Despite all that, the Florida Legislature added a poll tax and won't tell people who served their terms how much they must pay before they will be allowed to vote.

    We do know, however, that this is a unique way to fund Florida's court system (because apparently the Florida Legislature will not fund it).  From reporting in The New York Times it looks like Florida may be the only State in the nation in which the requirement is imposed on voters to pay court fees before they will be allowed to vote. 

    Now you also know something about this that not The New York Times and not any other media outlet anywhere has reported so far as I know.  No other State in this country refuses to say how much returning citizens have to pay in court fees before the State will allow them to vote.  Only Florida does that.

    But if the people don't pay Florida's court costs, they cannot vote.  This is not "Catch 22" because that was fiction and this is not.  Call it "Catch 2020."

    The only option I can see is to pay the poll tax.  For us to pay the poll tax.  That is the only option the people currently in power have left us.  I for one refuse to let them succeed in this game they have chosen to play.

    You too may want to explore making a donation to pay the court costs imposed on returning citizens in Florida.  If you want to explore making a donation to ease this burden, check out the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition at www.floridarrc.com.  Their deadline to accept contributions is September 24.

    And if you donate by check, don't forget to write in the description of your check what it's for:  So that a returning citizen can vote.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE SECOND THING YOU SHOULD KNOW:

 

(Thomson Reuters West via LinkedIn)

PART TWO.  THE STATE OF FLORIDA WON'T SAY HOW MUCH THEY HAVE TO PAY BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE.

The second thing you should know about returning citizens is that although the Florida Legislature imposed a poll tax on returning citizens who want to vote, Florida won't tell them how much they have to pay before they will be allowed to vote.

    From reporting in The New York Times it looks like Florida may be the only State in the nation in which the requirement is imposed on voters to pay court fees before they will be allowed to vote. 

    Part One of this series of articles focused on a couple of facts.  First, most returning citizens can vote under Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution if they have served out all "the terms of their sentence" including paying restitution when that was a term of their sentence.  Or at least the two-thirds of Florida voters who voted for it two years ago thought so.

    Second, the Florida Legislature said this could not stand.  The Florida Legislature tacked on a requirement that all people eligible to vote under Amendment 4 -- meaning all people who had served the terms of their sentence including restitution -- would also have to pay court fees and costs to keep the court system funded, before they can vote in Florida.  As The New York Times has said:  "The fines and fees in Florida fund the routine operations of the criminal justice system and are not restitution payments to crime victims."

    Parenthetically, 6 federal judges overruled millions of Florida voters and upheld the poll tax.  They said that the poll tax is not a poll tax.  It is fine to say that voters in Florida cannot vote until they pay Florida's court costs, they ruled.  The 6 federal judges also ruled that the State does not have to tell the voters how much they have to pay before they can vote.  By the way, the vote of these federal judges was 6 in favor of the poll tax, 4 against.  There are newspaper stories that warn about them changing the federal courts as if that were something that may happen in the future.  It is already happening.  But that lesson will be the focus of another article.  The focus here is on the vote in Florida in 2020.

    Now you also know the second thing about this.  Florida won't say how much returning citizens have to pay in court fees before Florida will allow them to vote.  But if they don't pay Florida's court costs, they cannot vote.  This is not "Catch 22" because that was fiction and this is not.  Call it "Catch 2020."

Next:  The Third and Final Thing.

    In the meantime you may want to explore making a donation to pay the court costs imposed on returning citizens in Florida.  If you want to explore making a donation to ease this burden, check out the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition at www.floridarrc.com.  Their deadline to accept contributions is September 24.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

 

THREE THINGS ABOUT RETURNING CITIZENS IN FLORIDA YOU SHOULD KNOW:

(Sun Sentinel)

PART ONE.  PAYING COURT FEES AND COSTS WAS NEVER PART OF THE "TERMS OF THEIR SENTENCE."

Returning citizens can vote under Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution if they have served out all "the terms of their sentence" including paying restitution when that was a term of their sentence.

That was the Amendment 4 that two-thirds of Florida voters voted for in 2018.  The voters made an exception for people convicted of certain violent felonies including sexual violence; those people were not given the right to vote by Amendment 4.

Everyone else who served out all the terms of their sentence was given the right to vote by Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution.  At least that is what the voters thought.

That is the first thing that you need to know.  And this:  The Florida Legislature said this could not stand.

So the Florida Legislature tacked on a requirement that all people eligible to vote under Amendment 4 -- meaning all people who had served the terms of their sentence -- would also have to pay court fees and costs to keep the court system funded, before they can vote in Florida.

The New York Times reports that there are over 1 million returning citizens in Florida.  To say again, these are people who have served their time.  They are people who have served out all the terms of their sentence.

By "a conservative estimate," says The Times, three-quarters or some 75% of these people "are indigent and unable to pay."

Now you know the first thing about this.  Did the Florida Legislature know that the result would be to disenfranchise poor people who had already and completely served out all the terms of their sentence?  I am not aware that any of them admit it.

Next:  The Second Thing.  In the meantime you may want to explore making a donation to pay the court costs imposed on returning citizens in Florida.  By the way, according to The New York Times Florida is apparently the only State in the nation in which the requirement has been imposed on people to pay court fees before they will be allowed to vote.  If you want to explore making a donation to ease this burden, check out the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition at www.floridarrc.com.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

IT HAPPENED ON 911.

(Tampa Bay Times)

It happened on 911.  Before then, a federal judge had blocked a modern-day poll tax in Florida.  But on 911, other judges temporarily occupying federal office ruled that a poll tax is not a poll tax.

Even further back, nearly 2/3 of Floridians who voted on it, voted in favor of a State constitutional amendment that when people convicted of certain felonies had served out the terms of their sentences, then they should be allowed to vote.  The exceptions were people convicted of felonies of violence whether related to sex or otherwise.  The people did not impose any more restrictions on the right to go to the polls.

The Florida Legislature intervened.  They could not allow that to stand.  They imposed restrictions on the right to go to the polls.  If the returning citizens want to vote, then the Florida Legislature ruled that they would have to pay a tax.  They would have to pay court costs and every other cost imposed by judges.  Even though Florida cannot tell them how much to pay because Florida is not set up to tell them how much.  They cannot vote if they cannot pay.

The first judge to address this ruled that the Florida Legislature's poll tax is unconstitutional.   The Florida Governor could not allow that to stand.  The Florida Governor appealed to the majority on the Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that overruled the Florida Constitution written by the voters.  (As the saying goes, you can't make this stuff up.)

The Federal majority of 6 outvoted the Federal minority of 4 in this case.  Ironically, they out-voted them just as millions of Florida voters thought that they had outvoted their opponents in 2018, the ones that represented about 1/3 of Florida.  And so the 6 outweigh the millions.  The current occupiers of the Federal government outweigh the people.

Here's hoping the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court.  Not that the Gang of Five will declare a poll tax to be unconstitutional; they probably won't.  They are the kissing ideological cousins of the Pack of Six on the Eleventh Circuit, after all. 

Rather than expecting a reasonable chance of success on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs should appeal because of the risk of not appealing.  There is at least a chance of success, for one thing.  But most of all there's this:  There's no such thing as a free lunch.  To coin a phrase, the poll taxers should pay a tax for blocking the will of Florida voters.  There should be a penalty for voter suppression. 

This may be a country now in which voters are suppressed, but we can lessen the number of votes that are suppressed.  The people who do these things may have a right to rule if we let them.  But they have no right to call their rule the United States of America.

Read about the saga that runs through 911 at The Tampa Bay Times here.  Please read the disclaimer.  ©2020 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

This IS THE ELECTION THAT THEY ARE AFRAID TO LOSE BY MAIL.

One party is afraid of losing by mail. The Leader of the party in power says that if people vote by mail they will never elect a Republican again.

    Many people who respond to this include members of the party out of power. They respond in overwhelming numbers with historical arguments. They tend to point to the facts, that historically voting by mail does not generally favor one party or the other. They say that, further, although in some places voting by mail can make a difference for either party, historically the differences are a wash and the results turn out not to favor either party over the other.

    They miss the point entirely.

    In my judgment, what opponents of vote-by-mail are saying is that they are afraid of losing this election.

    Recent election results reveal that in 2018, the party in power was rejected in great numbers, numbers so great that some might call them "huge." On April 7 of this year in Wisconsin, where State supreme court justices apparently run on partisan lines on the ballot, the candidate for justice backed by the party out of power shellacked (to coin a phrase) the candidate of the party in power. The strength of her victory was provided by mail-in ballots although, giving due, the courage displayed by voters in person at the polls that day was enormous in its own right.

    Opponents of mail-in balloting look at these recent elections and see a coming tidal wave that will wash away their power. They see a tsunami that will sweep them out of office in very large numbers.

    In many ways both parties are driven by fear, and in many ways they are victims of opposite fears. The party in power is afraid of losing power. This party recognizes that they will not win the popular vote without restricting the popular vote. They are afraid that the coming election will be so devastating to their hold on power that their best chance to stay in power is to make it harder for voters to vote.

    The party out of power is moved by a diametrically opposite fear. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they are afraid that the party in power will stay in power. They do not recognize the fear that moves the party in power because it is so diametrically opposed to their own fear. They do not even recognize that fear permeates the party in power. Both fears cannot be right, so one consequence of the party out of power indulging their own fear is that they are blind to the fact that the party in power is afraid, too.

    The party out of power fails to see, in the end, that the party in power is like them: motivated by emotion and not by logic. They try to reason with the opponents of vote-by-mail when emotion, not logic, is what drives their opponents.

    So, do not ask for whom the mail-in ballot historically votes. Ask for whom the mail-in ballot votes today, now, in 2020.

Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.

THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY TIMES. 2020 IS NOT AN ORDINARY ELECTION.

Many people say wait till we vote to do anything.

That may be the way things were done back in the day:  Make change at the ballot box.  These are not ordinary times now.

Women's March 2017.

The 2020 election is not ordinary.

 

 

Women's March 2019.  (Jose Luis

Mangana / Associated Press).

 

 

 

                                                                                             

The harsh attacks on voting are so often reported that we can take one report and speak for them all:

    The F.B.I. has warned that the threat of Russian interference in American elections persists. Intelligence officials have said that Russia interfered throughout the midterm elections last year, and that those efforts are likely to intensify during the next presidential campaign.

Mihir Zaveri and Jacey Fortin, In 2016, Russians Worked to Discourage Black Voters, New York Times, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, p. A5.  And not just Russians worked to discourage voters:

    But domestic restrictions on voting, the vast majority of which are imposed by Republicans, proliferated in many states, the [National Urban League] report found.

Id.

To act as though ordinary ways will work in 2020 when they did not work in 2016 "is a recipe for disaster, and it's a lesson that should have been learned by now."  Dahlia Lithwick, The 2020 Election's Approach is No Reason to Avoid Impeachment / Democrats Are Repeating a Mistake They Should Have Learned in 2016, Slate, May 6, 2019.

More of the same old, same old.  Thinking that we are in a better place than 2016 has rightly been called "demented," even outright "insane."  Id.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.