Thanks to kpete for this post in Election Forum which I'm crossposting here in GD. A decision on this expedited appeal is due in days or weeks, depending on the Court, of course. The presiding judge upon leaving the bench called it "an interesting case." The question is whether the speaker can swear in a disputed congressional election winner via "unanimous consent" and claim that no citizen thereafter has any standing to contest the election (other than perhaps a losing candidate)
From kpete:
Citizen Surge-Call To Action-Help Land Shark Save Democracy
I was among the lucky citizens present on Monday January 8th to hear Paul Lehto deliver his amazing Oral Argument in the California 50th Congressional District election contest lawsuit: Jacobson & Ritt v Bilbray et al. The issue he was arguing in the California Court of Appeals was whether the California courts had any power or jurisdiction to conduct a recount or do anything else after the Speaker of the House chose to swear in the Republican Bilbray only 7 days after the election – even though tens of thousands of ballots were still uncounted and the controversial election was not even certified or audited, and wouldn’t be for a couple of weeks yet….
On one side of the courtroom sat the supporters of the appellants supporting democracy, and the side was basically full. On the other side of the courtroom sat a single person, Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas. The case was the last of four to be heard that day because the court granted extra time for Lehto to speak on behalf of the appellants: a half hour instead of 15 minutes, because of the importance of the issues.
Summarizing her reaction to the arguments: the plaintiff Lillian Ritt said at the end of the proceedings “I used to be a research attorney in the CA court of appeals and I estimate that I’ve heard approximately 8,000 oral arguments. As a result of that experience and as a client I can say Lehto’s argument was superb and one of the best I’ve ever heard.”
Here is a sampling of highlights from the oral argument obtained from Landshark himself.
1. Lehto noted that jurisdiction existed from the beginning, because every one expected that each race could be recounted the day before the election, for example. The question presented is whether, in effect, the House could pronounce the election over to its satisfaction and swear in their favored candidate while tens of thousands of ballots still haven’t been counted for even the first time, much less recounted or certified.
2. In response to the defendants argument that only candidates can contest congressional elections, Lehto noted the irony that in “the People’s House” only House members and candidates – basically the aristocracy of America – could conceivably have any say, pointing out precedents showing that this is not the practice in the America we’ve known in the recent past.
3. Pulling no punches, he compared asking the Speaker of the House to reverse his own mistaken or self-serving decision to swear in Bilbray to asking the mob to reverse its own hit.
4. Noting that the Constitution was drafted on the heels of the resistance to King George’s tyranny and abuse of power, he noted that the Founders would have had to have been stupid to provide such an easy way (via premature swearing-in) for a corrupt or crony-majority to perpetuate themselves in Congress.
Of course, the argument had its share of cases cited and somewhat more arcane points, but these did not overshadow the true importance and simplicity of the case in its defense of real democracy. For more detail and good reporting, see Mark E SMith's account on opednews.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_e___070108_appeal_heard_on_ca50.htm (A CD recording will be available Friday from the Court and posted here in time for next Wednesdays Election Thread).
I was there as Lehto was introduced by Ed Asner at the San Diego Town Hall Form on October 25, 2006, as one of the nation’s foremost attorneys. That seemed like a bit of hyperbole, but I’m starting to believe it. His knowledge in the area of election fraud is both comprehensive and unique, as well as tested by opposing counsels in various litigation matters in three states. He may be one of the best truly committed patriots in the country that can make the case for paper against machine, or in other words for visibility and public supervision and against invisibility and unaccountability to the public.
THE TIME IS NOW – we can no longer wait to spread these messages to all of America. Legislation is moving forward which we do not agree with. We need to help Land Shark get out and do battle NOW. He is articulate, committed, passionate and able, but he needs our help.
Over the next several weeks, I will be asking for help from DUers. Together with Landshark, I will be asking for people to help write letters, find links, make calls, do research and more than anything else cheer Landshark on in this important fight. We need leaders. Standing before three judges of the California Court of Appeals and deftly answering their toughest questions, he convinced me and everyone else who was there on Monday that he can be and is an outstanding spokesman and leader in this fight.
We cannot wait another minute. As Gary Hart has said, we need a citizen surge to restore the Constitution. Join us and become part of our “Citizen Surge” & help take back our country, now.
If you are interested in helping in this cause post any ideas and links you may have. Get the word out to as many people as possible. It’s all about teaching democracy and teaching the Constitution to our fellow citizens (first and foremost) and to our legislators and other leaders. Make your own points too, but feel free to tell everyone you know, especially those involved in the cause, congress, state officials and citizens that they need to talk to Land Shark: he has a unique clarity that focuses simply and powerfully on We the People.
---Contact if you want to help: kpete (via PM or via email at artcorps (at) san.rr.com )
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
