Lawyer X ponders what’s next

With no court proceedings scheduled in the election contest, I expect that both sides are now hunkering down, gathering data, and sorting through the evidence. So I asked HA’s expert legal analyst, Lawyer X, for his take on what we can expect in the coming weeks.

I expect the “discrepancies” will begin to fade out of the discourse as the analysis of the “big binder” comes into vogue since everyone knows that the crediting of voters is not particularly relevant to anything.

Well X… not everyone knows. Those who rely on partisan bloggers (or the voices in their head) for their election contest news, haven’t quite figured that one out yet. But I digress….

We don’t know what the real situation was yet in terms of proper ballot handling on election night but the big binder analysis will give a more accurate picture than any credit analysis. But even if the “big binder” shows the possibility of more provisional ballots being accidentally fed into ballot boxes than the 348 that have been alleged in the press, the overwhelming majority of those additional ballots will be from registered voters and be valid votes. Bottom line, there will likely not be much effect from provisional ballots, even if the GOP is allowed to use proportional analysis of the invalid provisionals.

Hmmm… “proportional analysis.” We’ll get back to that in a moment, but first I want to make a couple clarifications about the provisional ballots.

Some have questioned how King County was able to account for 341 of the 348 provisional ballots known to have been improperly scanned at the polling place. The answer is rather simple. Upon receiving a provisional ballot, the voter signed in the back of the poll book. So… those voters who signed for provisional ballots, but for whom envelopes where not received, are assumed to have improperly scanned their ballots at the polling place. Of these, 252 were later verified to have cast valid ballots.

As Lawyer X notes, it is possible that an exhaustive examination of the binder and the poll books could find more improperly scanned provisional ballots, but the majority of these would likely be verified as valid too. You’re not hearing much about provisional ballots these days, because there really isn’t that much to talk about.

The Rossi team’s main focus has been on the “felon vote,” an issue that plays well with the home crowd, and is quite frankly, the only place they’re likely to find a substantial number of clearly illegal votes. We don’t yet know what the actual number really is, but given the GOP’s history of inflated claims, it is probably somewhat less than the 1100 originally touted.

Rossi’s attorneys and spokespeople continue to hold to their stance that we can’t trust a felon to tell us how he voted. And with good reason — an attorney should never ask a witness a question to which he doesn’t already know the answer. Plus, the felons are not likely to give Rossi’s attorneys the answers they want.

That’s why they’ve pinned their hopes on the dubious prospect of the court accepting a proportional analysis. Rossi’s only chance of prevailing is to prove enough illegal votes and errors in heavily Democratic King County, so that Gregoire’s extrapolated margin of victory in these disputed ballots is greater than her actual margin statewide.

But as Lawyer X explains, the felon vote is not that simple.

If the “felon vote” turns out to be factually based, I would expect the ratio of men to women in that pool of voters to be 3 to 1 or so. As a result, it is not representative of any county’s voting population. There is no reason to expect it to vote in proportions similar to the rest of the population and I doubt proportions could be used to any particular benefit for the GOP after any reasonable adjustments are made for the gender bias. Frankly, I expect the GOP is still looking for enough votes to prove their case even under a proportion theory.

(Suggestion: if you cast an illegal vote in King County, and you suddenly receive a check from the BIAW… don’t cash it.)

Personally, I can’t imagine the court wanting to get into proportional analysis unless the numbers are just absolutely overwhelming. At the evidentiary hearings, the judge will surely be treated to dueling demographers wielding statistical analyses so obtuse, they’ll make Stefan’s spreadsheet look like, well… Stefan’s spreadsheet.

But even if the court were to accept a proportional analysis, Lawyer X suggests Rossi’s evidentiary hurdle may be a little higher than his cheerleaders imagine.

One other thing to keep in mind, as an academic point, anyway: even if the Court were to allow the GOP to use proportions, that would only apply to those voters for whom no other information was available. To the extent that voters do disclose how they voted, that disclosure will prevail over any guess based on proportions. In that context, there may be a lot of work remaining for both sides to do before the case is ready to move on. Based on newspapers reports of how people voted, I would say Rossi is more than 129 votes behind at this point.

That’s right… Gregoire could actually come out of the evidentiary hearings having expanded her margin. If the Democrats start deposing felons who voted for Rossi, the GOP will have to match them by deposing felons who voted for Gregoire. Thus despite Rossi’s protestations that felons can’t be trusted to reveal their vote, I wouldn’t be surprised if both sides are already hard at work, quietly deposing felons.

Of course, all this is speculation. But then, Rossi’s attorneys have built their entire case on speculation, so why should I be any more intellectually rigorous than them?

Comments

  1. 1

    Don spews:

    Courts base their decisions on facts, not speculation. If all the GOPers have is speculative analysis, they’re doomed!

  2. 2

    Richard Pope spews:

    The voter crediting process IS relevant to ballot reconciliation. Or at least related. Both processes start with the poll books that voters sign at the polls.

    However, reconciliation involves counting the number of signatures in the poll book (and also the number of names written down by the precinct election worker). The reconciliation figures (BIG BINDER?) are going to be the most reliable measure for the poll votes.

    The problem with the voter crediting process is that the poll book pages are scanned through a computer, and optical recognition software determines whether or not there are sufficient markings by a voter’s name to constitute a signature. This obviously results in a lot of false positives, as well as false negatives.

    We will just have to see what analysis of the BIG BINDER reveals. If someone has concerns about a discrepancy in a particular precinct, it is a very easy matter to go through the poll book and count the signatures again and count the names written down on the listing by the poll worker.

    As for absentee ballot discrepancies, the voter crediting process is the only data which can be practically used. If the voter used their own official absentee ballot outer envelope, the bar code was scanned and their name entered into the computer that way. In certain other cases, the absentee voter’s name had to be entered manually into the computer when the ballot envelope was processed.

    The only way to improve on the absentee voter crediting data would be to go through the 566,000 or so empty absentee ballot envelopes, and run each of them through the bar code scanner and/or manually enter the voter’s name. Not likely this will happen.

    I am much more concerned if phantom ballots have mysteriously been added, than I am by ineligible felons voting. First, these felons could have been challenged before the election, if anyone had cared enough. Second, these felons can be decisively prevented from voting in future elections. Third, when an ineligible felon votes, the ballot is at least cast by a real person. None of these consolations apply if a phantom ballot is mysteriously added.

  3. 3

    Erik spews:

    Some have questioned how King County was able to account for 341 of the 348 provisional ballots known to have been improperly scanned at the polling place.

    Hmmm. That’s news to me.

    I have always thought this was the best bet Rossi had. Really. If they only 7these being illegal, then Rossi’s going to have a hard time.

    If the “felon vote” turns out to be factually based, I would expect the ratio of men to women in that pool of voters to be 3 to 1 or so. As a result, it is not representative of any county’s voting population.

    I agree. Extrapolation is going to be difficult from any theory, and there are endless ones.

    There is nothing I have seen to suggest that the voting error rate from felons and dead people is higher than any other election.

    The only theory left for Rossi is to argue that whenever the error rate is less than the marigin of victory, there should be a re-vote.

    Given the judges oral ruling and the fact that this remedy could never resolve an election without the voter changing their votes, I don’t see any theory left for Rossi to overturn the election.

    they’ll make Stefan’s spreadsheet look like, well… Stefan’s spreadsheet.

    Oh my. There really is no limit to the number of types of extrapolations one could conduct on a spreadsheet using precinct, county, gender, age to try to predict the voting pattern of the felons.

  4. 4

    dj spews:

    Goldy, in academia, the “proportional analysis” you describe is a form of the well-know “ecological inference” problem. Statisticians, political scientists, and biologists have analyzed this problem for many years. The bottom line is that without a whole lot of “ground truth”, the errors of inference based on a proportional analysis are enormous–you simply cannot establish anything with any degree of certainty without establishing how, say, 15 or 20% of the actual illegal (randomly queried) voters voted. This problem is so widely recognized in academia that I would be surprised if the courts/lawyers were not aware of the “ecological fallacy.”

    BTW: bloggers interested in more information, check out the work of Harvard political scientist Gary King, who has written extensively on the ecological inference problem.

  5. 5

    torridjoe spews:

    Erik, there are 7 unresolved. 252 were identified as legal, which means the other 90-some odd they were not able to match, presumed illegal I believe.

    As for proportionality, the one thing the courts won’t be able to use is actual felon voting patterns. There are really no data. The study that’s been cited a couple times is an extrapolation of how they MIGHT have voted, given their characteristics, but NOT including their status as a felon. In other words, they presumed that education, gender, etc. was more relevant to their voting pattern, than being a felon–a questionable conclusion, at least.

    Stefan got his records request back, unsurprisingly citing March 31st as the ready date for most items…the same date they’re supposed to provide similar materials to the SoS. So not only does that mean they’re continuing to work with a compliance goal on schedule–but it also means KC isn’t stonewalling.

  6. 6

    torridjoe spews:

    dj @ 4

    exactly, and thanks for the cite. I’ll look him up. My point is there’s zero “ground truth” as regards felon voting patterns. It’s all inference.

  7. 7

    Don spews:

    Extrapolation has too wide a margin of error to use for this purpose. After the election, I tried to extrapolate the outcome by assuming that uncounted ballots would break down the same way as the votes counted to date. My initial numbers showed Gregoire winning by 25,000. This gradually eroded as more returns were reported until my spreadsheet projected a Rossi win by 4,000. As the number of remaining uncounted ballots shrank, the final returns became less prediction, and for the final batches the extrapolation was nearly meaningless and the allocation of those final votes to the candidates was nearly random.

  8. 8

    martin ringhofer spews:

    SAM REED IS NOT THE ISSUE [825 words]

    Recall Reed appeal filed in the Supreme Court Monday Tuesday morning 03/08/05/

    The Recall Reed Team is discussing the bigger picture of this RECALL REED effort of whether “the people” who reserve certain rights for themselves, and do not delegate to their elected representatives, have the constitutional right “to expect” their elected officials and representatives, at ALL levels, TO UPHOLD and enforce the Constitution.

    What in the constitution or the RCW’s gives these elected officials and Judges the right to TAKE AWAY the right of the people to collect signatures, as a precursor to making the case to the recall an elected official for wrong doing, not allowed or expected to perform, in their official capacity?

    CLEARLY: the King County Prosecutor filing charges against 99 King County Felons who voted is STEP ONE toward undoing this fraudulent election which SAM REED ought NEVER have certified.

    Again: SAM REED is becoming less relevant to this RECALL effort, as the big picture really is:

    (1) Do the people have the right to expect their elected officials to uphold our State Constitution, and

    (2) Can “the people” fire officials who VIOLATE the constitutional requirements.

    Didn’t we go through this with our Declaration for Independence in 1776? It is OBSCENE that we have elected officials who waive sign language and use taxes to defend their ILLEGAL ACTIONS against the interests of the people.

    It is very telling that Paul Berendt, the State Democratic Chair, DEFENDS the REPUBLICAN Sam Reed — NOT Chris Vance, the GOP State Chair. THINK about it.

    As to meeting both LEGAL and FACTUAL insufficiency on our Recall Charges: we laid out the charges as NINE SEPARATE charges for a reason. We did so, to compartmentalize them into chunks, which make up a whole — that of a SET of charges, all of them combined making up a battery of charges. Think of it as a “battery” of tests when they analyze your health by drawing blood. One test by itself may look good; but when you add them all up, you get a composite picture.

    It is indisputable in Judge Wickham’s OWN WORDS, that:

    On some of the nine charges, we met legal sufficiency.

    On some, we met FACTUAL sufficiency.

    When looked at by the “unobservant” and the “mainstream media,” our case was dismissed on 02/14/05.

    When looked at by NINE Supreme Judges, at least 5 Judges will not be fooled and will see what really happened: we met LEGAL AND FACTUAL sufficiency if you look at all nine charges as a battery of charges, all of which are part of one set of charges which we could have submitted as ONE CHARGE.

    In case you have not heard of it, Paul Berendt, the Democratic State Chair has publicly accused me and Linda to be stooges for Carl Rove, and that we were put up to RECALL REED by Carl Rove and the National GOP. Utterly ridiculous. Anyone who knows me and Linda Jordan knows we have been and remain totally NONPARTISAN, have no connection with Carl Rove, the GOP anywhere, and have no idea where Paul Berendt got such NONSENSE. Categorically totally fabricated and a blatant lie and Paul Berendt knows it! It is disgraceful that anyone would make such a charge when they know it is a ridiculous and preposterous lie. Why do I say this? Simple. I know it is FALSE, and as such, I know Paul Berendt cannot dig up any evidence to support such a ridiculous charge.

    Twenty-four hours ago, Harry Stonecipher, the Boeing CEO, was FIRED for having an improper relationship with a company executive. None of this has to do with Harry’s “official” duties as CEO and was not done at the expense of doing his job. Though morally wrong, and violation of company ethics, that’s what it was.

    By comparison, SAM REED violated his oath of office, violated countless State Laws, violated the State Constitution, with implications far greater then Harry Stonecipher having a relationship with another company executive, and SAM REED is DEFENDED by the Attorney General, at a tab of $250,000 legal fund paid by us — the taxpayers — and defended by a Judge who readily admits that SAM REED Legally and Factually violated provisions which entitle the people to merely collect 660,000 signatures, to ultimately decide whether ALL of the people choose to fire or retain him.

    When you think about the above, I bring to your attention that it is an admitted fact by SAM REED’s Office, that when Initiative, and Referendum Signatures are checked —
    TWENTY PERCENT are ILLEGAL. Apply the same standard to the nearly four million voters in this last election, and by SAM REED’S Own statistics, 800,000 were ILLEGAL and SAM REED has done “nothing” to correct the problem.

    In fact, Sam Reed has done EVERYTHING possible to make sure that all the possible and potential illegal voters do indeed VOTE.

  9. 9

    Erik spews:

    Extrapolation has too wide a margin of error to use for this purpose. After the election, I tried to extrapolate the outcome by assuming that uncounted ballots would break down the same way as the votes counted to date.

    Yeah, me too. One of the problems was that there were too many oustanding ballots not received yet. I made an assumption that they should all wash out, but it didn’t.

  10. 10

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Don@7–
    You, a 30-year guv’mint attorney HACK who couldn’t make it in the real world was PROJECTING GOVERNOR RACE RESULTS!!!!
    Har-Har-Har!!!!

    Richard Pope–
    The possibility of “phantom votes” having appeared is very, very high. Unaccounted for ballots at polls, excessive/unrequested duplicate absentee ballots mailed out (1 person received 4) ALL potential sources of the “phantom ballots”.
    Also some Rossi precindts with more voters than votes implies some ballots have been discarded (they are missing).

    tj@5-
    Thank you for once again exposing Goldy as a lying or perhaps just incompetent a$$munch when talking about the status of illegally fed provisionals. C’mon Goldy..get the facts straight. You’ve been on this for months.
    Oops, I forgot you are not capable. I’ll overlook it because I wouldn’t want to lower your self-esteem by pointing out what a DOOFUS you are (as if folks don’t already pity you fool–Mr. T)

  11. 12

    Jpgee spews:

    cynicalidiot @ all posts. once a morontroll, always a morontroll, go back to your teets (BIAW) and beg for more $ for your internet campaign….loser supreme

  12. 17

    rwb spews:

    Martin @ 8

    When you think about the above, I bring to your attention that it is an admitted fact by SAM REED’s Office, that when Initiative, and Referendum Signatures are checked –
    TWENTY PERCENT are ILLEGAL. Apply the same standard to the nearly four million voters in this last election, and by SAM REED’S Own statistics, 800,000 were ILLEGAL and SAM REED has done “nothing” to correct the problem.

    That is such a wild leap in logic that you blow your whole case out of the water. Whatever credibility you might have had just got flushed with that statement.

  13. 18

    Chuck spews:

    Marc@14
    Do you ever use the grey matter? Why would a felon vote for the republicans, Dino or any other? Think about what you said, sopporters of hard time for armed crime, three strikes laws, as well as many republicans support the felons not being allowed to vote. Roll that up and explain to me your train of thought by even insinuating that they might vote conservative.

  14. 19

    Another TJ spews:

    dj @ 4

    BTW: bloggers interested in more information, check out the work of Harvard political scientist Gary King, who has written extensively on the ecological inference problem.

    I’ll second dj’s recommendation. King’s the man when it comes to methodological issues in the social sciences. He is a very lucid writer, too, which helps with digestion. But King’s publications are so extensive, you might want to just get a copy of his book, “A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data” (1997) from Princeton U. Press. Happy hunting.

  15. 21

    RDC spews:

    Chuck @ 18

    A cynic might say that felons would vote for Republicans rather than Democrats because blood is thicker than water. But more to the point (and the truth) no one knows or can even reasonably predict for whom these votes were cast. At this point any argument you might make that they voted D can be offset by an argument that they voted R. From the very limited, completely inconclusive information we have, newspaper reports show more ex-felons voting Rossi than Gregoire.

  16. 22

    Chee spews:

    Chuck@14. Now to answer the WHY part that defrays the GOP illusion. Why would X-felons vote for Christine? Have you soon forgotten what her job was before becoming governor and what her duty entailed. Why would felons vote for her? Majority wouldn’t. Majority of the X-felons are male, not far off to suspect there could be a majority that are chauv pigs also, another good reason not to vote for Christine. A big majority of X-cons hate the system so much they do not care to vote a all. Our system has a hole it when it comes to restoring X-felons rights and tough it will be to prosecute any X-felon who voted illegally due to having to prove intent. Didn’t know any better works here cause we left a crack in the law.

  17. 23

    Goldy spews:

    Cynical @10,

    Excuse me, but I missed it. How did I get the facts wrong regarding the provisional ballots? I wrote:

    King County was able to account for 341 of the 348 provisional ballots … Of these, 252 were later verified to have cast valid ballots.

    Please show me the errors of my ways.

  18. 24

    JCH spews:

    Goldy writes: (Suggestion: if you cast an illegal vote in King County, and you suddenly receive a check from the BIAW… don’t cash it.) Aiding the voter felons, Goldy? Hey Democrats!! Cash the check!! It’s like your other “guvment” checks!! Free Money!! [hehe]

  19. 26

    DangYankee spews:

    (Suggestion: if you cast an illegal vote in King County, and you suddenly receive a check from the BIAW… don’t cash it.)

    So …. you dont WANT illegal voters to be found????

  20. 27

    Chee spews:

    Some may have concern useing a pen name to disguise their signature due to wanting to adhere to stricter banking regulations. Another antidote would be to write back-hand in a totally stretched out illegible scrawl with only first letter appearing readable; sort of Dr. and Atty. style.

  21. 28

    Chee spews:

    DangYankee@27. Your entirely missing Goldy’s point, that is my point. The process by which the sender is going about it makes for a poison pen scam. They created the sham full well knowing what they had up their sleeve and would they would. Goldy NEVER said he didn’t want illegal voters to be found nor did he say he did not. Your yank and twist. Scam artists always have a twist and yank; $10.00 check for example.

  22. 29

    steven spews:

    Martin @ 8~

    Just because you put something in ALL CAPS, doesn’t make it true. But just in case it does, YOUR RECALL EFFORT IS RIDICULOUS.

  23. 32

    Don spews:

    Cynical @ 10

    Yeah, that IS funny, isn’t it? Almost as hilarious as (a) Martin’s rants, and/or (b) Rossites trying to project felon votes! The fun-and-games you can play with spreadsheets and wacky legal theories are endless. Hey Martin, Congress really did go off the gold standard, so you can go ahead and spend the federal reserve notes in your wallet!

  24. 33

    Don spews:

    Marc @ 14

    It would be even more hilarious to have a court declare the majority of GOPers are felons, as appears about to happen in Texas!

  25. 34

    Don spews:

    Chuck @ 18

    Why would felons vote for Rossi? Because they’re not very bright to start with.

    Why would Republicans (e.g. Tom DeLay and pals) commit felonies? Because they’re not very bright to start with.

    Why would anyone vote for Republicans? Because they’re not very bright to start with.

    The list is virtually endless …

  26. 36

    Chuck spews:

    Well how about guys like Rostenkowski and many other on your side of the street. You act like you guys have clean noses or something like that. There is a lot more graft on the democrat side of the isle.

  27. 37

    Don spews:

    “There is a lot more graft on the democrat side of the isle.”

    Hee haw har ha ha ha You are too funny ha ha har de har haw haw hee ha ha hoo boy ha ha hahahahahaha

  28. 38

    Don spews:

    Rostenkowski is ancient history. You have to go back into the dim mists of prehistory to even find one. I’m talking about the $9 billion that went missing in Iraq and that’s just for starters.

  29. 39

    jcricket spews:

    Not only that, but here’s a handy-dandy link to 34 of the Republican scandals in the first 4 years of the Bush White House:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feat.....8/scandal/

    As they say: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    Those in power (inclusive of both parties) always over-reach and think their newly minted majority gives them the right to do whatever they want. Luckily we have a democracy that allows us to vote the crooks out.

  30. 40

    jcricket spews:

    Ooh, I forgot this chart, from the recent 147 page report documenting all the broken promises from the Republicans in the Senate.

    http://yglesias.typepad.com/ma.....rules.html

    Basically, as Matt puts it: “[The new class of Republicans elected in 94] promised to make things better, took power, re-iterated their promises, then made things worse, then lost power to people who made things even worse.”

    Republicans have accomplished in less than 10 years the stunning level of corruption, graft and mismanagement that it took Democrats nearly 40 years of House control to build up :)

  31. 41

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Don–
    FYI…The LEFTY’s have “cornered the dim-bulb market”.
    I guess if you grab a monikor like “progressive” by definition it makes you someone at least FEEL superior.
    The problem with Washington “progressives” is they aren’t progressing toward anything. Rather they are regressing back to about 1910. They won’t get back quite that far however because the early-1930’s will get in the way (Great Depression) with their tactics.

    LEFTY’s sit around in self-validation groups telling each other how enlightened they are. Enlightened??? They are at best 2-watt light bulbs. Just look at how all the billions they have spent on KingCo transportation. Results? NO.
    PROCESS? Hell yaaaaa!
    LEFTY’s mistake motion for action…….ad nauseum.
    KingCo traffic will eventually swallow them up…thank God.
    And they only have themselves to blame….
    BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CHARGE DON!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. 43

    Don spews:

    Cynical @ 40

    That’s brave talk from a guy who votes for a party that is taking us back to whale oil lamps by making electricity unaffordable.

  33. 44

    Chuck spews:

    That’s brave talk from a guy who votes for a party that is taking us back to whale oil lamps by making electricity unaffordable.>>

    Puget Power has already done that…

  34. 45

    RDC spews:

    Off topic (what is the topic?) but for anyone interested in finding what Retro is all about, try this link:
    http://www.Ini.wa.gov/claimsIn.....efault.asp

    I guarantee that you will find there more than you want to know, but there is a good overview. What I was surprised by is the very large number of employers in Washington who self-insure.

  35. 50

    JCH spews:

    JCH @ 24

    How many tax breaks did YOU send back to the guvmint, pal?

    Comment by Don— 3/9/05 @ 11:44 am
    Oh, Don….What the hell are you talking about? I send checks quarterly to the State of California, the State of Hawaii, and the feds. Then, if I underestimate, I send more on 15 APR, based on my CPA’s review. “Tax breaks”?? DON, are you drinking again?

  36. 51

    jpgee spews:

    lilchuckie @ 36 everyone stop and listen to ronnie jr. he IS the authoritative voice on any and all subjects. what? a repugnican in trouble with the law? cannot be. if convicted the guy was really a democrat running under the neocon name.

  37. 52

    Erik spews:

    Ok lets take a break from the binder talk.

    Newflash : Rossi continues to win Felons to his side:

    One of the felons on The Times’ list was Paul Scott Walker, who was convicted and sent to prison for possession of methamphetamine in 2001. Walker, who voted for Rossi, said yesterday he assumed his rights were restored after he served his sentence, and he plans to challenge the county’s effort to remove him from the voter rolls.

    (Times)

  38. 53

    Chuck spews:

    Walker, who voted for Rossi, said yesterday he assumed his rights were restored>>>>

    Well lets break this down… ass u me this guy made an ass out of you and me, and probably lied as well as to who he voted for.

  39. 54

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    ERIK–
    The guy is a meth dealer. Do you think he even remembers who he voted for?? Anyone can lie about who they voted for. I’ll bet the guy pleaded innocent on the charges he was convicted of!
    How many lies do most convicted felons tell??
    ANSWER-At least one….usually continual.
    That’s why they are convicted felons Erik.

  40. 55

    Chee spews:

    SAM REED IS NOT THE ISSUE @ 8. 825 words to say Sam Reed is not the issue. By the time you get to “by comparision,” I read Sam Reed violated this and Sam Reed violated that and Sam Reed wrongly did this and Sam wrongly did that. The content betrays your posted title. Sam Reed IS the issue, your recalling his ass dumski. You and Dubya must have went to different schools together.

  41. 57

    Chee spews:

    Re: @12.
    Gee folks heres the proof that the issue is not Sam Reed.
    Tuesday, February 15, 2005
    Effort to recall Reed is quashed by judge
    Allegations that the secretary of state mishandled election ruled insufficient
    By RACHEL LA CORTE
    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    OLYMPIA — An effort to recall….

  42. 58

    Don spews:

    Chuck @ 49

    Looks like your thought process is stuck in 1979. Coulda fooled me, I woulda thought 1879.

  43. 59

    Don spews:

    Thread: “Lawyer X Ponders What’s Next”
    Post #50
    Author: JCH
    Comment:

    “Oh, Don….What the hell are you talking about? I send checks quarterly to the State of California, the State of Hawaii, and the feds. Then, if I underestimate, I send more on 15 APR, based on my CPA’s review. ‘Tax breaks’?? DON, are you drinking again?

    Comment by JCH— 3/9/05 @ 2:59 pm”

    Thread: “Drinking Liberally”
    Post #13
    Author: JCH
    Comment:

    “DON…….Had to pay your own way Last night? Well, that’s not fair! Did the bartender know that you are ‘guvment’ entitled” DON? Like Hillary, did you ‘forget’ to tip? BTW, Chardonny, M. Cynical and I were at the Four Seasons, having a tax deductable ‘business dinner’. DON, was that you under the table?

    Comment by JCH— 3/9/05 @ 7:56 am”

    So which is it? Do you take a tax break on business dinner or not? BTW I’m more lucid drunk than you are sober!

  44. 62

    Chee spews:

    Post eight brags, least five out of four will not be fooled, refering to the recall flimsy. Hee-Haw. Ride ‘em Cowboy.
    Justices of the Supreme Court:
    Chief Justice, Gerry Alexander, Justice Charles Z.Smith, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Barbara A. Madsen, Justice Richard B. Sanders. Justice Faith Ireland, Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, Justice Tom Chambers, Justice Susan Owens.

  45. 63

    Chee spews:

    Ponder on the next. Filing a simple application to be heard by the Supreme Court is the first step in a long drawn out costly, exact and rigid proces for recall Case # 767-58-1. (a) initial filing cost several hun or so, no big deal. (b) brief must be properly prepared, big deal. (c) lot of documents to put in, big deal. (d) laundry list of ridged procedure, big deal. (e) lower court transcript to be procured, no big deal. (f) hiring of a certified, legit, expert person to transcribe lower court transcript, this runs about $1,500-$2000; no deal there. End result, welcome to the Supreme Court where they separate the men from the mice. The fun has just begun, roll over.