On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, Coleman is having far more trouble with the Minnesota > Supreme Court, which generally has a conservative reputation, than he
No, they told him it's a lower courts issue. > And the Coleman campaign evidently hasn't either, or it > presumably would have presented it to the Court, which rejected its > petition for lack of evidence. He just presented it. > issue of duplicates once he fell behind in the recount and needed some > way to extend his clock. Before then, his lead attorney had sent an > e-mail to Franken which said that challenges on the issue of duplicate > ballots were "groundless and frivolous". That's dishonest. All canvasing board decisions favored Franken until he finally caught and pasted Coleman, now they want to stop counting. > The Canvassing Board indeed determined that it lacked the > jurisidiction to handle duplicate ballots, telling Coleman that he had > to go to court. Which he did. And the court threw the case out because > Coleman didn't have any evidence. ??? The supreme court told him to dispute it in court and he is doing that now. > Actually, there is some proof: the number of votes identified during > the recount fell 134 short of the number of voters who signed in on > Election Night in this precinct. But they counted the 133 votes even thought they didn't have them. That favored Franken. > The decisions are not inconsistent if the Canvassing Board's objective > is wanting to count every vote. Only when it favors Franken. It seems to prove double counting. > And here again the Journal is going on about the county "showing more > ballots than voters in the precinct". If there is evidence of this, it > would be news not just to me but also to the Coleman campaign. It is news, you just ignore it and you won't read it in the NYTimes. > This is just blatantly false. All counties, red and blue alike, were > instructed by the Supreme Court to identify any wrongly-rejected > absentee ballots, and all of them did. In certain counties, Coleman > claims to have identified additional wrongly-rejected absentee ballots > above and beyond the ones that county officials identified -- but > these were counties that nevertheless complied with the court's order > and turned in their lists of ballots to the state. Why not count Coleman's also? > He'll be at a disadvantage because fewer people voted for him. Not originally. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:284059 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
