Best Viewed with IE or Opera. Sorry, Firefox works, but loses some sidebar layout,
'my profile' and other stuff... Anybody with a fix, please leave a comment. Many thanks in advance.

That said, if you must use Firefox (and I don't blame you, it's become my browser of choice, too)
...get the "IE Tab" extension. This allows you to view problem pages with the IE rendering engine. Very cool!

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Election Nullification II: Speaker of House had Special Source for Election “Certification

Election Nullification II: Speaker of House
had Special Source for Election
“Certification


California Assistant
Secretary of State for Elections Tells House Clerk, it’s
all good!
By Michael
Collins

“Scoop” Independent Media
Washington,
DC

What would you think if you heard
that a Member of Congress was sworn in prior to the official
certification of his hotly contested and controversial
election?

Would it matter to which political party the
Member of Congress belonged?

On August 25, 2006,
"Scoop" revealed that there was something
very wrong with Brian Bilbray’s swearing in as a member of
the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Bilbray
allegedly defeated Francine Busby in a close and
controversial special election in California’s 50th
Congressional District. There were immediate cries
of foul
and demands for both an investigation and a
recount. The problems were well publicized before the
swearing in.

Nevertheless, this sequence
emerged:
June 6 - unofficial results announced
with Bilbray over Busby by a few thousand votes, followed by
immediate public protests;
June 13 - Speaker
Hastert swears in Republican Bilbray on the House floor and
Bilbray becomes a Member of Congress; and,
June 30,
2006
- 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member
of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County,
officially completed the audit of election results required
for certification, and officially certifies the election of
Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 total votes.

The
problem with the sequence is simple to spot. The swearing
in of Bilbray occurred a full 17 days before the election
became official as a result of the San Diego Registrar’s
certification of results. The question raised in the
previous article was, how could Speaker Hastert swear in
Bilbray without notification that the election results were
official? We have an answer.

___continued...click link below >>>


CONTINUED...

Speaker Hastert’s
Special
Source on “Certification”

The swearing
in ceremony for Republican Brian Bilbray, alleged winner of
the California 50th District special election on June 6,
2006, was tucked in between actions to commend Canada for
its renewed commitment to the war on terror. The
Congressional Digest
for that day contains a remarkable
revelation; the source that the Speaker of the House used to
justify the official induction of Bilbray.

Oath of Office--Fiftieth Congressional
District of California: Representative-elect Brian P.
Bilbray presented himself in the well of the House and
was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker. Earlier
the Clerk of the House transmitted a facsimile
copy of
the unofficial returns of the Special Election held
on June 6, 2006 from Ms. Susan Lapsley, Assistant
Secretary of State for Elections, California Secretary of
State Office, indicating that the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray
was elected Representative in Congress for the Fiftieth
Congressional District of California
.
Here (statement only) or here (full record)

Bilbray, it would now seem, was not sworn in
without forethought, as though there were no issues
involved. Somehow, the Clerk of the U.S. House of
Representatives received notification from Republican Bruce
McPherson’s Assistant Secretary that Bilbray “was
elected Representative in Congress.”

This may come as
news to the legal team fighting the recount in San Diego
Superior Court. They have asserted that the recount is
irrelevant because Federal authority supersedes state
authority as a result of the June 13th swearing in of
Bilbray. This logic was confirmed in a letter to San Diego
Superior Court by Paul Vonivich , counsel for the House
Committee on Administration. In that letter, he
acknowledges the sequence of events and asserts that the
swearing in makes moot any recount based on superior federal
authority in congressional elections.

Now we find
out that that swearing in was based on the confirmation
provided by a state government official. This strongly
implies that the Congress actually recognized state
authority to determine that the election outcome was
official.

A careful look at the statement in the
Congressional Digest reveals some interesting assumptions
and perhaps careful planning. The Speaker, Hastert,
administered the oath based on word from California’s
Assistant Secretary of State for Elections that Bilbray
“was elected Representative in Congress.” Several
assumptions are embedded in this statement. First, Hastert
knew that he needed an authority to justify the election as
official. Second, he relied on state authority, Susan
Lapsley specifically. Third, Hastert knew that there were
only “unofficial results,” because those are clearly
referenced yet he accepted the word of the Clerk that
Lapsley had made the call that Bilbray “was elected
Representative in Congress.” Finally, Lapsley, who has no
official status in San Diego County where the election was
held, used “unofficial results” to convey to the court
that Bilbray was elected.

The “Scoop” August 25th
article generated significant public outcry. There is now a
campaign to challenge Speaker Hastert’s role in the San
Diego election. This web page provides a rationale based on
the premature swearing in and a recent Zogby Poll that showed 92% of Americans
insist on the right view election results and raise
questions. The site, Say No To Another Election
Theft
Before Fall Midterms: Recall House Speaker
Hastert For Interfering With Local Elections
, went up
today and is reportedly receiving significant activity. The
site quoted the initial “Scoop” article, noted the
disregard for procedure and law, and linked the struggle
against election fraud in the United States with protests in
Mexico, the, site of a highly questionable presidential
election.

Conundrum

According to the official
record of the U.S. House of Representatives, we had a
Speaker of the House swearing in a new Member of Congress
from San Diego based on the word of an Assistant Secretary
of State in Sacramento. That state of California official
reportedly verified the San Diego election as official in a
communication to which the “unofficial results” were
attached.

At the same time, we have a legal team
representing the Registrar of San Diego County challenging a
suit by citizens which seeks to open up the election records
and perform a recount. The San Diego Registrar is refusing
to conduct a recount based on the supremacy of federal
authority, namely the House’s prerogative to swear in new
members. The Registrar argues that the June 13 swearing
shows federal supremacy.

Now, from the actual record of
the swearing in, we discover that the Speaker and Congress
actually relied on a politically appointed California state
official whose authority was used to determine that the
election results were official. That state official has no
authority for elections in San Diego County.

The only
consistent thread that runs through the entire affair, the
swearing in of a candidate before an electron controversy
was settled, is that each and every point in the decision
making process, the decisions are dominated by Republicans
or officials under the control of Republicans. The process
is not flawed because of this particular partisan label,
it’s flawed because it violates the expectations of a free
people to have their elections taken seriously by those it
elects, regardless of their
party.

*************

Copyright: This article may be used in whole or in part with
attribution to the author and a link to “Scoop”
Independent
Media.
***END***

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

free webpage hit counter

Performancing