27 April 2014

Dear United States Senator or Member of Congress:

Today, you are being asked to certify the reported votes of the Electoral College even though the status of the Ohio electors is still the subject of the meritorious election contest.  You are being asked to do so on the basis of one or more of the following three fallacies:



1) The faith-based neocon fallacy that vote counts do not have to be independently verified.



This new "con" holds that facts may be overcome by assertions of faith by those in power. Thus, the Bush campaign co-chair for Ohio and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell need not count 106,000 as yet uncounted Ohio ballots, because he has faith they would not make a difference in the reported 119,000 vote difference even thought these uncounted votes all are in areas of Ohio that demonstrated strong support for John Kerry, and because, as Secretary of State he has the power not to count them.



A corollary of this fallacy is that Ken Blackwell need not answer questions under oath. The answers to such questions might upset peoples' faith in the new "con."



2) The fallacy that Karl Rove is a nice guy/clean campaigner, and those who suspect otherwise with respect to this election which Bush was expected to lose, are conspiracy theorists.



Karl Rove fights hard for what he wants . . . a worthy quality. However, no one has accused him of being a stickler for cleanliness in his campaigns.



Yet, you are being asked to believe that fewer machines and longer lines in Afro-American precincts, the scandalously lower vote counts in Afro-American precincts, the confusion over precincts and ballots and counts and the disproportionate requirement that Afro-American voters vote provisionally all as unintentional glitches.



You are being asked to believe that the biggest glitch of all, that is Ohio and national vote counts which are realistically impossible in light of the exit poll results, is accidental



Those of Jewish faith and Afro-American ethnicity are being labeled as conspiracy theorists rather than people with a special insight based upon historical maltreatment in institutions like slavery and the Holocaust, for their belief that anybody intentionally directed all these glitches just at them.



3) The rule of power fallacy which exempts those in power from the rule of law and the rules of evidence.



This fallacy is based upon the double standard where rules applied to others do not apply to those in power. America, because it is the world's military superpower, may use
exit polls to verify or challenge the validity of elections in other countries, such as
the Ukraine, Mexico and others, but exit polling may not be used to challenge election results reported in the United States.



In the United States the party in power, that is, the Bush-Republican Party, may exempt itself from rules which apply to Democrats and those not in control of the Bush-Republican Party.



The rule of power fallacy is the most important of these three fallacies because it teaches Democrats like John Kerry, John Edwards and Terry McAuliffe that there is no point in challenging Bush Republicans based upon law or fact because Bush Republicans control the Congress, the Courts and the Presidency and will use that control to impose their will no matter what may be the facts or the law. 



In my experience over the past four years in successfully litigating on behalf of the non-partisan Alliance for Democracy in partnership with Common Cause/Ohio as Chairman of its Legal Affairs Committee against the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States neither the candidates nor the party that have been targeted by the approximately $14 million of illegal corporate money have been involved as parties or public supporters of the litigation.  In politics the targeted candidates and parties place a higher priority upon avoiding the appearance being sore losers than upon seeking the true facts and upholding the rule of law. 



It does not surprise me, based upon my most recent election litigation experience, that John Kerry and the Democratic Party which appear to have been the intended victim of the most massive election fraud in history are not contesting this election.



In contrast to the intended victims of this fraud, you as a United States Senator, whether a member of the Democratic or Republican Party are called upon to judge this election not as a party but as a judge.  You are bound by your oath to uphold the Constitution to judge this election independently and objectively with regard to the facts and the law.



Ohio voters who formally contest the November 2, 2004, contest the election not only for its irregularities, but also because the evidence shows that a majority of Ohio voters and a majority of American voters voted for John Kerry.  We assert that the evidence for this meets, not only the clear and convincing standard of Ohio law for an election contest, but also the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law.



Ohio's Secretary of State has refused to answer questions under oath as to either the blatant irregularities or the results he has certified. He is stonewalling, on the apparent belief that Congress will simply proceed to count Ohio's electoral votes today, along with the votes of all the other states, and the matter will be over. He is looking to Congress to free him and others from responding to the overwhelming evidence that the Ohio election results he certified are fraudulent and that John Kerry won Ohio and therefore the presidency.
In the 2000 presidential election the U.S. Supreme Court took responsibility for stopping the verification and counting Florida votes for purposes of the certification of the Florida presidential electors. The Congress then took responsibility for accepting, without challenge, the unverified electoral votes of Florida.



A consortium of news organizations took the initiative to count all the Florida votes after the inauguration of George W. Bush. Thus, history now records the fact that Albert Gore actually won the Florida popular vote had all votes been properly counted.



Based upon the evidence, uncontroverted by any sworn testimony whatsoever, if the Ohio litigation challenging the Ohio presidential vote is allowed to proceed, it will promptly establish as a matter of fact that John Kerry won Ohio and Presidency.



All of the Ohio votes, whether cast or simply tabulated on computerized voting machines, can and should be promptly counted by independent companies whose tabulating equipment, personnel, procedures and software are fully transparent to both political parties and the independent nonpartisan groups that support an honest Ohio election.



For us to complete our non-partisan job of litigating the Ohio election result we need your help in challenging the electoral votes of every state, until due process in our litigation can be completed.  If instead, you accept the reported electoral college votes today or limit your challenge only to the Ohio vote, it appears likely that the Ohio Supreme Court will dismiss our election challenge as moot because the challenged Ohio electors will today have been fully discharged by the completed act of Congress.



Because of the importance of this matter, history requires that the Ohio 2004 presidential election votes ultimately be accurately counted. If that happens after an inauguration, then, based upon the evidence at hand, history would record that, for a second time, George W. Bush would have been elected on the basis of an incorrect count of the votes that were actually cast and that, for a second time the Congress certified an inaccurate Presidential election result.



Sincerely yours,

Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.



Chairman of the Ohio Honest Election Campaign and Co-Chair of the Alliance for Democracy
Counsel of Record for the Contestors in Rev. Bill Moss et al. v. Bush et al., Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 04-2088