The FraudFactor™ Warning Signs of Fraud

Look for the FraudFactor™ warning signs of fraud before initiating, conducting, or completing business transactions to save much money, time, and grief. The FraudFactor™ warning signs are as follows:

  1. Avoid doing business with any person, business, or organization that uses deceptive or fraudulent practices to attract your business, including any form of misrepresentation.One example is a mail solicitation that claims or implies you have won a prize, that contains an imitation check or credit card, or has the appearance of a government or bank official notice, as a ploy to get you to open the envelope. If they will be dishonest and deceive you during their initial contact and solicitation, they certainly cannot be trusted with your money.Another example of misrepresentation is a person or business that claims the products, inventions, and innovations of others as their own.

    Yet another example is a telephone or mail solicitation from anyone who is not your bank but pretends to be your bank and claims they can offer you a better loan than the one you already have. Typically, they will claim something like “We are calling from the bank customer service department. We are contacting you regarding your Bank of America mortgage loan. We have reviewed our records and your credit file, and we feel we can offer you a loan with better terms than your existing loan.” In this example, Bank of America is used as “your bank”.

    They will not state their business name, because they want to deceive you into believing they are calling from your existing bank and therefore you can trust them. The fact that you have a mortgage loan with Bank of America and the interest rate of the loan is public record information available from public record documents filed with the County Clerk’s office (using California as an example).

    Often times, the outside of the envelope will have the name of your bank in bold print in or near the return address area, but without the address. The letter inside the envelope may also have the name of your bank on it, even though it is not from your bank. The solicitation will ask you to contact them, often stating with a sense of urgency that you should do so right away, at a toll free phone number and/or a P.O. box address. The solicitation does not provide the name of their company.

    The loan they want to sell you will typically be much more expensive than your current loan, with a higher interest rate, longer term and greater number of payments, and expensive junk fees not normally charged by banks and reputable lenders.

  2. Avoid doing business with any person, business, or organization that uses pressure tactics or intimidation to get you to buy their product or service.If you feel pressured or intimidated, STOP EVERYTHING. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING. Instead, state that you will not conduct any business with them. Reputable businesses do not need to use pressure tactics to make sales. Pressure tactics may include claims of urgency, limited time special deals with short time limits of only one or a few days, and insults including claims that you are too ignorant or poor to buy their service or product. Other pressure tactics may use reverse psychology, such as statements claiming, “No, I can see you don’t want our product. You really don’t want to buy our product.” Still other pressure tactics are claims that you have to buy the product so the salesperson can win a vacation or a college scholarship.
  3. Follow the old addage, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.”
  4. Avoid doing business with and giving any personal or financial information including social security numbers and credit card numbers to unfamiliar people, companies, and organizations who contact you with unsolicited phone calls, mail, or email. Never do business with anyone who sends you SPAM (unsolicited mass distribution email).When unkown people contact you by phone, mail, and especially email, you have no information about them and no method of verifying their true identity or location. They may be contacting you from outside the state or even the country, where the anti-fraud and consumer protection laws may be different or nonexistent. It is safer and usually better to do your own research and then seek out preferred businesses rather than conduct business with strangers who contact you. Your research should include word of mouth recommendations from trusted relatives and friends, and customer reviews on reputable web sites.It is safer and usually better to do your own research and then seek out preferred businesses rather than conduct business with strangers who contact you. Your research should include word of mouth recommendations from trusted relatives and friends, and customer reviews on reputable web sites.
  5. Avoid doing business with people, businesses, and organizations that refuse to provide information that you will use to make a business decision in writing, or that refuse to provide all terms of a proposed business transaction in writing and provide you adequate time to review the terms and seek advice from others whom you trust.
  6. Avoid signing any contract on the spot, or even the same day or week it is presented to you.Ask for the paperwork to take with you to be reviewed by an attorney and/or financial advisor. Completely read and understand every contract before you sign it. If you sign any contact, make sure it is the same copy that you have read completely and reviewed with an attorney or financial advisor, consider signing and dating every page, and make sure that you have a complete and legible copy of the actual contract you reviewed and signed.
  7. Avoid the bait and switch tactic where a sales person has you sign a contract in your home or place of business, claiming you have some number of days to cancel, and then has you come to their business office to sign the “same” contract.The new contract will probably omit the recision period, and by signing at their place of business rather than your home or buiness, you may or will lose the recision period granted under consumer protection laws.
  8. Beware of recommendations to invest tax defered income in tax exempt or tax deferred investments that provide a useless extra layer of tax benefits. You usually receive a lower return on investment for tax exempt investments than ordinary comparable investments.Consult a competent financial advisor or attorney as necessary and appropriate.
  9. Beware of investments that charge a “load” fee to buy and/or sell the investment, and/or that charge excessive management fees (greater than a small fraction of one percent per year).Also beware of annuities. Ask the broker recommending that you buy or sell an investment how much commission he will earn. Beware of account brokers that “churn” their client’s accounts by conducting transctions primarily for the purpose of converting large amounts of the investment principle into commissions for themselves and their employers.

Save written and electronic records of all business conducted and put it in an organized file system for efficient retrieval if and when necessary.

Remember than an oral contract or agreement “is not worh the paper it is written on”, even when dealing with honest people. People have imperfect memory and different interpretations and understandings of agreements, and tend to remember things the way they want them to be, that is, in the way that is most favorable to themselves.

Always get contracts and agreements in writing, and seek the advice of an attorney when the money amount or other considerations are significant. A lay person may read a contract and believe they understand it, but only a competent attorney will understand how statuatory and case law affect the language include in or ommitted from the contract. A written contract should have a clause stating that all changes and amendments to the contract shall be in writing and that there shall be no oral agreements or contracts relating the the subject written contract.

 

Quotations from around the net

FraudFactor™

Quotations


Quotations from around the net


Democrat Front Man Jesse Jackson Quotes

(he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):

“There’s more with Gore! Stay out the Bushes!”

By: Jesse Jackson, in a speech in October or November, 2000, while campaigning for Democrat Al Gore, and against Republican George W. Bush, in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Source: Actual sound recording broadcast on multiple radio stations. Comments: Note that "more with Gore" is a reference to more money and government programs as giveaways to Democrat constituents at tax payer expense; "Stay out [sic.] the Bushes" is a reference to Texas Governor George W. Bush and his father, former President George Bush, as well as the Bush families. Does this sound like the rhetoric of a real "Reverend"?

 

 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson predicted (and urged) a “civil rights explosion” if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Vice President Al Gore:

“All that we bled for and suffered for the last 25 years is now in the balance here today. This case is up there with the Dred Scott level of case; did the black man have a right the white was bound to respect?

“If this court rules against counting our vote, it will simply create a civil rights explosion. People will not surrender to this tyranny. We will fight back!”

By: Rev. Jesse Jackson, December 11, 2000 after attending the U.S. Supreme Court Hearing for the case, Bush v. Gore, to stop the 2000 Presidential Election vote manual hand re-count of specially selected ballots in specially selected Florida Counties by Democrat officials using no standards for determining what counts as a vote. Source: Washington Times newspaper web site, www.WashTimes.com Comments: It appears that Jackson is using threats of widespread violence if the Supreme Court does not rule to help the Democrat Party steal the election from Republican George W. Bush.

 

 

“We will take to the streets right now, we will delegitimize Bush, discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”

. . .

“But maybe the biggest decision of this sort since the 1857 Dred Scott decision, or the 1896 Ferguson decision, so it’s a huge decision to be made today. Second, is that they kept asking for uniformity of remedy, but you know how uniform procedures, by county.”

. . .

“And you had the Holocaust survivors in the West Palm area, who pushed the button for Gore and they got Buchanan, they didn’t mean to do that, their was a violation, of them for example.”

. . .

“I can live under Bush winning, I can’t live under Bush stealing. We must not give legitimacy to an attempt here to take away America’s honor. I travel a lot around the world. You know, one of the great things I do around the world, is certify elections. You know, South Africa, Asia, etc. We are less able today to do that. We have lost our moral authority, because we are paying a big price just to win!

“We’ve got to fight to save our country. We must also do so with integrity. You can’t build trust around blatant dishonesty.”

By: Rev. Jesse Jackson, December 11, 2000 after attending the U.S. Supreme Court Hearing for the case, Bush v. Gore, to stop the 2000 Presidential Election vot emanual hand re-count of specially selected ballots in specially selected Florida Counties by Democrat officials using no standards for determining what counts as a vote. Sources: Human Events Magazine Reporters Tim Carney and Jordan Gehrke, http://www.HumanEvents.org/ http://www.HumanEvents.org/articles/ special/jackson.html  Drudge Report Web Site, http://www.DrudgeReport.com/ Comments: It appears that Jackson is using threats of widespread violence if the Supreme Court does not rule to help the Democrat Party steal the election from Republican George W. Bush.

 


Democrat Front Man Al Sharpton Quotes

(similar to Jesse Jackson, he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):

“George Bush was selected by the judges, not elected by the people!”

By: Al Sharpton, black leftist Democrat "reverand", while continuing his campaign to steal the election, and now the legitimacy of the election, from Republican George W. Bush and the American people. Source: KABC AM 790 radio news broadcast sound recording of Al Sharpton, Tuesday, January 2, 2000, 11:01 AM, in the Los Angeles area.

 

 



“While this Court must be ever mindful of the Legislature’s plenary power to appoint presidential electors [under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution], I am more concerned that the majority is departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead to chaos. . . .

“. . . Even if by some miracle a portion of the statewide recount is completed by December 12, a partial recount is not acceptable. The uncertainty of the outcome of this election will be greater under the remedy afforded by the majority than the uncertainty that now exists.”

- Florida State Supreme Court Justice
Harding, joined by Justice Shaw,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000

Note the reference to the federal
statutory deadline for completing
the appointment of presidential electors

Chief Justice Wells’s dissent is the most important and compelling. He wrote, in part:

“. . . [T]he majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.

“Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.

“. . . Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters — not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to be embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is ‘the right thing to do.’ Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns.”

- Florida State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Wells,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000

Justice Wells, a liberal Democrat
himself, recognizes that his
colleagues are doing great harm
to the U.S. Constitution and the
rule of law.
“. . . any right to contest an election must be construed to grant only those rights that are explicitly set forth by the Legislature.”

- Florida State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Wells,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000
In support of his argument,
he cited McPherson v. Flynn,
the same decision relied on by
the unanimous justices of the
U.S. Supreme Court when they
vacated the Florida supreme court’s
first rewriting of the legislature’s
election laws.
“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .”

- Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of
the U.S. Constitution, granting plenary
authority to appoint electors

Source:
The Gang of Four
A ruling that is not only unconstitutional, but thoroughly dishonest.
By Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation
National Review web site, http://www.nationalreview.com/, 12/09/00 8:45 a.m.

 


 

After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find “that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision.”

. . .

 

Per Curiam
 

Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature’ s authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000)
Per Curiam
No. 00–836
GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 4, 2000]

 


 

SEMINOLE COUNTY LAWSUIT COURT RULING EXCERPTS

The following are excerpts from the Florida Circuit Court ruling in a Democrat lawsuit to invalidate and not count thousands of absentee ballots cast by Republican registered voters, and to invalidate the entire election in Seminole County. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit lawsuit were attempting to change the outcome of the very close 2000 U.S. Presidential Election by exploiting a nonsubstantive technical procedural violation of Florida law.

Seminole County yielded 75,293 for George W. Bush and 58,888 votes for Al Gore in the first machine count, and 75,677 votes for Bush and 59,174 votes for Gore in the second machine count. Thus, depriving all Seminole County voters of their right to have their legal and legitimate votes counted would have deprived Bush of a 16,405 votes relative to Gore based on the first machine count, and 16,503 votes relative to Gore based on the second machine count. This would have eliminated Bush’s lead and giving Gore a substantial lead, taking the Presidential Election victory from Bush and giving it to Gore.

A similar Democrat lawsuit was filed in Martin County, Florida.

Al Gore, runningmate Joe Lieberman, and the Democrat Party officials all sanctioned these lawsuits and never publicly repudiated or opposed these lawsuits which were obvious attempts to disenfranchise more than 100,000 Florida voters because the majority of them voted for Bush.
 

FINAL ORDER

“THIS CAUSE came before the court upon the bench trial held December 6 and 7, 2000. This case is a contest of election pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. The purpose of a contest of election is to establish specific legal grounds upon which to set aside the results of an election. Significantly, this decision in this case may not be rendered for the purpose of sending a message to the community, a political party or the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections or the Seminole County Canvassing Board. This court decides this case, like any other lawsuit, under the fundamental principles of judicial restraint and judicial independence, and the ruling is necessarily based on existing statutory and case law and on the facts as they were developed during the trial of this matter. Although the court is given authority to fashion relief for proven and substantial violations of absentee voter laws, this court is without authority or jurisdiction to manufacture a solution to a pressing political or social predicament. Where ascertainable, this court must give effect to the will of the people who voiced their political choices by casting their votes on November 7, 2000.”

. . .

“The very purpose of election laws is to obtain a correct expression of the intent of the voters, without imposing unnecessary and unreasonable restraints on that right.”

. . .

“This contest of the November 7, 2000, presidential election was filed pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. The plaintiffs allege that irregularities in thousands of requests for absentee ballots should invalidate the subsequently cast absentee ballots, and that if the ballots cast by those whose requests were not in strict compliance with the absentee voter laws, the entire election in Seminole County should be invalidated.”

. . .

“The parties stipulate that prior to the November 7, 2000 general election, both the Florida Republican Party and the Florida Democratic Party prepared and mailed pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered voters of their respective parties. There is no allegation by any party that this practice is prohibited by law or policy. The absentee request forms mailed out by the Democratic form correctly included a space for the person making the request to fill in his or her voter registration identification number. In some cases, the number was even pre-printed on the request form. In contrast, the Republican form did not include either the requestor’s voter registration identification number, or a space for the requestor to put the number. The Republican form did not instruct the recipients that their voter registration identification number was needed or required.”

. . .

“There is no evidence that the Democratic Party or any other political party requested to add voter registration identification numbers. In fact, the Democratic Party did not need to make such a request, because their forms were correct and included either the pre-printed identification number or instructions that the voter Identification number was required.

“The first issue for this court to decide is whether the absentee voting laws require strict compliance with all its provisions, or whether substantial compliance is sufficient to give validity to the ballots. Did the addition of voter registration identification numbers on the request forms after they were submitted to the Supervisor constitute such an irregularity that the ballots cast thereafter should be invalidated, or did the addition of that information constitute a violation of the absentee voter election laws that did not impugn or compromise the integrity of the ballots cast or ultimately the election itself?”

. . .

“Although the statute clearly sets forth what must be disclosed by the person requesting the absentee ballot, there is no statutory directive regarding the treatment of absentee ballot requests which do not contain all of the information required by Section 101.62(1)(b), Florida Statutes.”

. . .

“Unless a statutory provision also specifically states that the lack of information voids the ballot, the lack of the information does not automatically void the ballot.”

. . .

“It cannot be said that the lack of a voter registration identification number on an absentee ballot request is calculated to effect the integrity of the request itself or the subsequent ballot or the election, when substantial other identifying information has been included on the request.”

. . .

“There is no invalidating directive for failure to include the voter registration identification number on a request for an absentee ballot.”

. . .

“Because the requests for absentee ballots could have been considered valid even without the identification numbers, the violation of Section 101.62 is not a substantial non-compliance with elections law and does not compromise the integrity of the ballots cast or the integrity of the election.”

. . .

“The second issue for the court’s determination is whether the Supervisor of Elections treated the representatives of the Florida Republican Party differently than she treated representatives of other political parties to the extent that the integrity of the ballots or election was compromised. The plaintiffs allege that the Supervisor of Elections “treated the interests of non-Republican voters differently from those of Republican voters” because she informed the public that she would strictly enforce the requirements of Section 101.62, Florida Statutes, including the disclosure of the voter identification number, yet she honored the request of a Republican representative to obtain access to the incomplete request forms and add the voter identification numbers and did not notify the Democratic Party or any other group of this development. The plaintiffs argued at trial that this failure to notify others and invite others to take the same actions constituted illegal disparate treatment. However, the proof offered at trial failed to show that she treated other political parties differently than she treated the Republican party. There was no showing of an violation of 104.0515, Florida Statutes, equal protection under the law under Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, or any other applicable law. Unlike the Republican mail-out, the Democratic mail-out did not suffer from the general omission of the voter identification numbers. Therefore, there was no need for the Democrats to request access to the request forms to correct them, and in fact, there was no evidence that such a request was made by the Democratic party or any other political subdivision. Consequently, there was no evidence that the request of any representative, including any Democrat, was denied by the Supervisor. Thus, there as no adequate showing that there was disparate treatment of Republicans as opposed to any other individuals or groups with regard to the ballot request forms.”

. . .

“There was no allegation or evidence that any of the absentee votes counted were not ‘cast by qualified, registered voters who were entitled to vote absentee and who did so in a proper manner.’ . . . The effect the irregularities complained of could have had on the election was the prevention of voting by certain requestors for absentee ballots whose requests lacked the voter identification number and who were unwilling or unable to go to their precinct to cast their vote on election day. There was no evidence that any absentee ballot requests were excluded or denied solely because they lacked the required voter registration number.”

. . .

“The evidence presented in this case does not support a finding of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing in connection with any absentee ballots.”

. . .

“Likewise, the evidence in this case did not show a ‘substantial noncompliance with the election statutes.’ . . . If the court finds ‘substantial compliance with the absentee voting laws,’ the ballots cast are not void or illegal. . . . there was no evidence that the request for ballots or the ballots themselves were tainted or that the will of the people who voted absentee was thwarted by the involvement of third parties in adding to the ballot request forms. The will and intent of the voters could be clearly determined by the ballots cast, and there is no evidence of substantial noncompliance with the elections laws sufficient to invalidate the ballots cast.

“Finally, the court finds that the irregularities complained of, specifically the filling in of voter identification numbers on absentee ballot request forms after they had been returned to the Supervisor of Elections’ office, did not adversely affect the sanctity of the absentee ballots subsequently cast. While the Supervisor of Elections of Seminole County exercised faulty judgement in first rejecting completely the requests in question, and compounded the problem by allowing third parties to correct the omissions on the forms, no remedy against her is available in this election contest under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. Faulty judgement is not illegal unless the Legislature declares it so. Oversight of elections officials rests with the Executive branch rather than the courts.

“For all the forgoing reasons, the court finds that the certified election in Seminole County was the result of the fair expression of the will of the people of Seminole County. Because the intent of the voters in Seminole County is ascertainable, this court must and does give effect to the will of the people who voted their political choices by casting their votes on November 7, 2000.

“Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to no relief.

“DONE AND ORDERED this 8 day of December, 2000.”

NIKKI ANN CLARK
Circuit Judge

- Ruling by Circuit Judge Nikki Ann Clark
Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit
in and for Leon County, Florida
December 8, 2000
Case No: CV-00-2816
Harry Jacobs, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
The Seminole County Canvassing Board, et al.,
Defendants

 


 

MARTIN COUNTY LAWSUIT COURT RULING EXCERPTS

The following are excerpts from the Florida Circuit Court ruling in a Democrat lawsuit to invalidate and not count thousands of absentee ballots cast by Republican registered voters, and to invalidate the entire election in Martin County. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit lawsuit were attempting to change the outcome of the very close 2000 U.S. Presidential Election by exploiting a nonsubstantive technical procedural violation of Florida law.

Martin County yielded 33,864 for George W. Bush and 26,619 votes for Al Gore in the first machine count, and 33,970 votes for Bush and 26,620 votes for Gore in the second machine count. Thus, depriving all Seminole County voters of their right to have their legal and legitimate votes counted would have deprived Bush of a 7,245 votes relative to Gore based on the first machine count, and 7,350 votes relative to Gore based on the second machine count. This would have eliminated Bush’s lead and giving Gore a substantial lead, taking the Presidential Election victory from Bush and giving it to Gore.

A similar Democrat lawsuit was filed in Seminole County, Florida.

Al Gore, runningmate Joe Lieberman, and the Democrat Party officials all sanctioned these lawsuits and never publicly repudiated or opposed these lawsuits which were obvious attempts to disenfranchise more than 100,000 Florida voters because the majority of them voted for their oppoent, George Bush.
 

FINAL JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

“This case is before me after non jury trial on the Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, contesting the results of the recent election determining the electoral votes for president and vice-president of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a Judgement invalidating all, or at least a portion of, the absentee ballots cast in Martin County.”

. . .

“The essential facts are as follows: Both the Florida Republican Party and the Florida Democratic Party disseminated pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered voters in Martin County prior to the election. The Supervisor of Elections received a number of Republican request forms which had missing or incorrect voter identification numbers on them. There was no similar problem with the Democratic request forms received.”

. . .

“It is for the Legislature, however, the Court said, to determine what sanctions should apply to election officials who do not follow the law, and that the sanction should not be one that would frustrate the will of the voters if the violation of the law is unintentional wrongdoing.”

. . .

“In the present case the persons who signed the request forms in question were duly qualified and registered voters in Martin County. There is no evidence of fraud or other irregularities in the actual casting of the ballots, or the counting of the ballots. The procedure may have provided an opportunity for fraud, but none has been shown. The failure to comply with the statutory procedure was not intentional wrongdoing, but rather was the result of an erroneous understanding of the statutory requirements.

“There is also no basis in the evidence to conclude that the irregularities affected the vote. The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party also disseminated pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered Democrats. The difference is, their printed forms did not have the errors that the Republicans did.

. . .

“I also find, however, from the evidence that there was, in fact, no fraud nor other intentional misconduct, and that the noncompliance with applicable statutory procedures did not compromise the integrity of the election or the sanctity of the ballot.”

. . .

“Without question there were irregularities relative to the requests for absentee ballots. The evidence shows, however, that despite these irregularities, the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election were not affected. The election in Martin County was a full and fair expression of the will of the people.”

- Ruling by Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida
December 8, 2000
Case No: 00-2850
Ronald Taylor and John and Jane Does I-NNN,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

The Martin County Canvassing Board,
Peggy S. Robbins,
the Honorable Stewart Hershey,
Marshall Wilcox,
the Florida Republican Party,
Tom Hauck,
George W. Bush, Richard Cheney,
the State of Florida Election Canvassing
Commission and Katherine Harris,
Defendants

vs.

John Trasher, Richard J. Kosmoski;
Rose Carmel Kosmoski; Ann F. Ford;
Horace S. Ford, Jur.; William F. Zier;
Katharin P. Zier; Virginia White;
Joanne D. Payson and Diane Joffe,

Defendant-Intervenors.

 


 

 

“If you torture these ballots long enough, they will eventually confess.”- former Wyoming Senator Simpson
“Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney had more votes on Election Night. They had more votes after the automatic recount. They had more votes in the election returns submitted by all of the counties on Nov. 14, following additional recounts. They had more votes after the overseas absentee ballots were counted. They had more votes under the standards first applied in selective manual recounts in predominantly Democratic counties by Democratic election boards that were oftentimes divining the intentions of the voters. And now, once again, they have more votes, even after the application of a very loose standard for manual recounts of dimpled ballots.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“The Florida Supreme Court provided 12 additional days for these manual recounts, almost tripling the statutory time period mandated by Florida’s legislature.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“The Florida State Elections Commission has certified Governor Bush as the winner of the presidential election here in Florida. Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney have won this election under rules established by both Florida statutes and Florida’s judiciary, including both procedures in place before the election and different ones in place after the election.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000

“Now the Gore campaign lawyers want to shift from recounts to contesting the election outcome. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that America has never had a presidential election decided by an election contest in court. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that there also has never even been a statewide election contested in court in the state of Florida. Make no mistake, this approach is extraordinary. It cannot be justified simply as business as usual.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“On Nov. 15, when Vice President Gore was stating his case for a manual recount, he told the nation that if its results were added, ‘I will abide by the result. I will take no legal action to contest the result.’ Sen. Lieberman said four days later that if the Florida Supreme Court allowed a hand count to go forward, ‘It is much more likely that we will accept the results as the last word.’”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“Ladies and gentlemen, at some point — at some point — there must be closure. At some point, the law must prevail and the lawyers must go home. We have reached that point.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“I don’t believe that the people of America want this national election turned over to lawyers and court contests. I can certainly understand the pain and the frustration of losing an election so very, very narrowly, but it is time to honor the will of the people. It is time to let the orderly process of transitioning go forward.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“No one underestimates the challenge of uniting the country to face the issues that await the next president and the next Congress. For the healing and uniting and governing to begin, this election must be brought to a conclusion.”

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000

 


 

“An election is a snapshot of a twelve hour period in time, and there is no way to reproduce that snapshot once everyone knows the election results.”- Reform Party Presidential Candidate
Pat Buchanan, November 2000,

in response to claims by Democrat voters
in Florida’s Palm Beach County that they
were confused by the use of a “Butterfly”
ballot and may have accidentally voted for
him instead of Democrat candidate Al Gore
in the 2000 Presidential Election.
These Democrats demanded that the entire
county be allowed to vote again, which would
have allowed Democrat and Green Party voters
to switch there votes from Green candidate
Ralph Nader to Al Gore, thereby effectively
stealing this very close election from
Republican George W. Bush and giving it to
Al Gore.
“You mean to tell me that those old ladies in Palm Beach can play 15 bingo cards simultaneously . . . but can’t punch a ballot hole!”

- unknown

 


 

Quotations from the Media
 

“You cannot say of the ballot, just because nobody voted for Bush or Gore, that it’s really a secret Gore vote that didn’t get counted . . .”

- Peggy Noonan on Fox News Channel’s
“Hannity and Colmes”, November 27, 2000
“They’re talking about 26,000 people that they said their votes didn’t count. There are 35,000 other people in Florida who’s votes were not counted that lie in George Bush country. . .Many, many more are Bush votes and they don’t say a word about that.”

- Pat Caddell, November 27, 2000
Self-described liberal Democrat
on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris
Matthews”
Don Imus and Howard Fineman on MSNBC’s “Imus in the Morning,” November 28, 2000:

Imus: “What if Gore had won, and Bush. . .I mean, what if the roles were reversed, how would, I wouldn’t want to include you in this, but how would the liberal weenies of the news media be treating all this if the roles were reversed.”

Fineman: “Oh my God, . . .you kidding?! That George Bush was a cry baby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed President. You know, you can just here it. The personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious.”

 


 

James Baker, representing George W. Bush

Comments After Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris
Certified Bush as the Winner

This election must be brought to a conclusion.

Sunday, November 26, 2000

Text of comments from James Baker, former secretary of state and adviser to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, following Florida’s vote certification:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Shortly after I arrived here some 19 days ago, I said in this very room that the election process in Florida and the country as a whole needed to conclude with fairness and with finality.

I suggested that everyone step back and pause and think about what was at stake. I warned that there might be no reasonable end to the process of counts and challenges and contests if it slipped away from us. So here is the account of the past three weeks.

Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney had more votes on Election Night. They had more votes after the automatic recount.

They had more votes in the election returns submitted by all of the counties on Nov. 14, following additional recounts.

They had more votes after the overseas absentee ballots were counted.

They had more votes under the standards first applied in selective manual recounts in predominantly Democratic counties by Democratic election boards that were oftentimes divining the intentions of the voters.

And now, once again, they have more votes, even after the application of a very loose standard for manual recounts of dimpled ballots.

The Florida Supreme Court provided 12 additional days for these manual recounts, almost tripling the statutory time period mandated by Florida’s legislature.

So here’s where we stand tonight. The Florida State Elections Commission has certified Governor Bush as the winner of the presidential election here in Florida. Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney have won this election under rules established by both Florida statutes and Florida’s judiciary, including both procedures in place before the election and different ones in place after the election.

Now the Gore campaign lawyers want to shift from recounts to contesting the election outcome. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that America has never had a presidential election decided by an election contest in court. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that there also has never even been a statewide election contested in court in the state of Florida. Make no mistake, this approach is extraordinary. It cannot be justified simply as business as usual.

I hope that the arguments of the Gore campaign’s lawyers are not the last word of guidance from the vice president and the Democratic Party. I have heard other views.

On Nov. 15, when Vice President Gore was stating his case for a manual recount, he told the nation that if its results were added, “I will abide by the result. I will take no legal action to contest the result.”

Sen. Lieberman said four days later that if the Florida Supreme Court allowed a hand count to go forward, “It is much more likely that we will accept the results as the last word.”

Ladies and gentlemen, at some point — at some point — there must be closure. At some point, the law must prevail and the lawyers must go home. We have reached that point.

Now, after almost three weeks of turmoil, we as a country have another opportunity to step back, to pause, and to think about what’s at stake.

I don’t believe that the people of America want this national election turned over to lawyers and court contests. I can certainly understand the pain and the frustration of losing an election so very, very narrowly, but it is time to honor the will of the people. It is time to let the orderly process of transitioning go forward.

No one underestimates the challenge of uniting the country to face the issues that await the next president and the next Congress. For the healing and uniting and governing to begin, this election must be brought to a conclusion.

- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000

 


 

The following statements were made by a clearly annoyed Senator Joseph Lieberman, before cameras, after Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified George W. Bush as the winning candidate Sunday afternoon, November 26, 2000:“thousands of hours of work by hundreds of citizens of Florida, Republicans and Democrats and independents alike are being ignored. What is at issue here is nothing less than every American’s simple, sacred right to vote.”

“How can we teach our children that every vote counts if we are not willing to make a good-faith effort to count every vote?”

“Because of our belief in the importance of these fundamental American principles, Vice President Gore and I have no choice but to contest these actions, as provided under Florida law and in accord with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.”

“It is in our nation’s interest that the winner in Florida is truly the person got the most votes.”

“As we have said all along, we do not know who will prevail, after a full and fair count of every legally cast ballot. But the integrity our self-government is too important to cast into doubt because votes that have been counted, or others that have not yet been counted and clearly should be, have unjustifiably been cast aside. That is why we seek the most complete and accurate count possible.”

“We have an obligation, not just to the 50 million Americans who cast their votes for Vice President Gore and me, but to every American who voted in this election. They all deserve a fair and just outcome that respects their participation and does not diminish the value of their votes.”

“And we have an obligation to uphold the Constitution we are sworn to uphold. The idea of ‘one person, one vote’ is central to our system of government and must never be compromised.”

- Senator Joseph Lieberman,
November 26, 2000,
after Florida Secretary of State
Katherine Harris certified George W.
Bush as the winning candidate

 


 

“I sure pulled the wool over the voters’ eyes this time!”- Former California Democrat Party
political boss and Assembly Speaker
Willie Brown, boasting to television
news crews on election night, after
he defeated a California Redistricting
Reform Initiative with a massive TV
false advertising campaign

 


 

“In Gerrymandered election districts, the voters don’t choose their politicians – the politicians choose their voters!”
- Unknown

“No government is better than our government!”
- A Patriotic Anarchist


“The United States has cultural diversity because of its greatness, rather than deriving its greatness from its cultural diversity. This greatness is the result of the founding principles of individual freedom, limited government, and opportunity for prosperity derived through this freedom, including respect for property rights, capitalism, and free enterprise. Throughout our history immigrants have risked their lives and voted with their feet to escape to the U.S. from countries throughout the world. They came here seeking the stability, safety, and opportunity provided by the American economic and government system which is unavailable under Socialist and Communist dictatorships. The Socialists and Communists in our society, including those in the Democratic Party, have misunderstood this correlation and reversed the cause and effect relationship between greatness and cultural diversity.” 

- Michael D. Robbins

 


 

Quotes on Political Correctness:“We forbid any course which teaches that we restrict freedom of speech!”

- Reason given to Bolling Green State
University Professor Richard A. Zeller
for not allowing him to teach a course
on political correctness and the
chilling affect feminism and other
“liberal” political movements have
created on free speech.

Professor Zeller resigned his position
with BGSU due to the cancellation of his
class and due to the hostile “liberal”
academic environment at BGSU.

The BGSU web site is http://www.BGSU.edu/.

 


 

“We have probed the earth, excavated it, burned it, ripped things from it, buried things in it . . . . That does not fit my definition of a good tenant. If we were here on a month-to-month basis, we would have been evicted long ago.”- Former California Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird,
liberal judicial activist, and first
woman Chief Justice of California.

She was appointed Chief Justice by
liberal Democrat Governor Jerry Brown
in 1977, and she was removed with two
other liberal justices by California
voters in 1986.

Source: “The Book of Quotes”
by Barbara Rowes, 1979.
“It’s always the minorities who aren’t a part of the mainstream who define what the limits . . . of the majority are going to be.”

- Former California Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird,
liberal judicial activist, and first
woman Chief Justice of California.

She was appointed Chief Justice by
liberal Democrat Governor Jerry Brown
in 1977, and she was removed with two
other liberal justices by California
voters in 1986.

Source: The Nation magazine,
January 18, 1986.
The Nation is a far left-wing
political magazine.

 


 

Bill Clinton Quotes (he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):“Unlike [the Republicans], I have apologized to the American people for what I did wrong . . . They never apologized to the country for impeachment. They never apologized for all the things they’ve done.”

- Bill Clinton,
The Esquire magazine interview,
November 14, 2000

 


 

Quotes from various political hacks:“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!”

- Paul Bagala, enthusiastically commenting
on President Bill Clinton’s ability
to abuse Executive Orders, issuing
them like King’s Decrees to bypass
the elected Congress and effectively
legislate from the White House, due to
the failure of the Democrats in Congress
to jealously guard and protect the
Constitutional powers of the legislative
branch of government from usurpations
from the executive branch (or, for that
matter, from liberal judicial activist
judges in the judicial branch).

The founders designed our form of
government to create a balance of power
between competing branches of government
that were expected to have at least
enough integrity to preserve this balance.

Paul Bagala is a liberal partisan Democrat
who served on Bill Clinton’s staff. He
wrote the political hit-piece book against
George W. Bush, titled, “Is Our Children
Learning?” This book was published
September 1, 2000, just in time to serve
as a Democrat campaign piece in the 2000
Presidential Election.

Paul Bagala also stated publicly that
the areas of the U.S. map that were
colored red, representing the majority
of counties won by George W. Bush, are
the areas where a homosexual was murdered,
and a black man was dragged to death, with
the implication that voters who voted for
Bush are evil murderers. It is interesting
to note that the counties won by Democrat
Al Gore have a significantly higher per
capita murder rate than the counties won
by Republican George W. Bush.

 


 

Al Gore Quotes (he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):

“I think ‘undocumented immigrant’ is a lot better term than ‘illegal alien’.”

- Democrat Vice President and 2000
presidential candidate Al Gore

 


 

Rosie O’Donnell (she deserves a section all to herself . . . more to come):“Across America, mothers and others giving birth to a movement”

- Rosie O’Donnell, speaking at the
“Million” Mom March (actually, about
100,000 liberals of all genders).

Note that Rosie O’Donnell is another
wealthy liberal Hollywood celebrity who
has misused her television show and her
celebrity status to lobby for a firearm
ban and confiscation while she had a
personal body guard armed with a firearm
for her own protection.
“It is obvious that Rosie O’Donnell has failed to read any of the last twenty years of scientific criminological research, which shows that gun control increases violent crime and never reduces crime, costing thousands of lives each year, and endangering everyone including those who choose not to own firearms. In spite of her incompetence and reckless disregard for public safety, Rosie O’Donnell knows that it is common sense that one is safer when protected with a firearm. While she has lobbied frantically to disarm and endanger everyone else, she has been protected by a private body guard armed with a handgun.”

- Michael D. Robbins

 


 

First Posted:
Last Updated: Friday, January 5, 2001 – 11:30 p.m. Pacific Time
©2000, 2001 FraudFactor™, FraudFactor.com and its owner. All rights reserved. Copyright/Permissions page.

 


 

Gun Control Actually Increases Crime

RULE 10-2

U.C.L.A. Daily Bruin Opinion Column on Gun Control

RULE 10-2

ucla daily bruin
Volume CVIV, Number 4

University of California, Los Angeles
Thursday, April 9, 1981


Opinion

Is Gun Control Half Cocked?

Hand gun restriction may affect the wrong people


By Michael D. Robbins

April 9, 1981



      In a cartoon I once saw in the Los Angeles Times, one caveman is saying to another, “I think club control is a good idea, but I don’t think it will ever work.” I disagree. I think that attempts to restrict (control is just a euphemism) the use of any vital tool are foolish, and that such attempts will work, only for the wrong elements of society.

      Just as drug control does not keep drugs out of this country, gun control will not keep guns out of this country. It will only make it illegal for law abiding men and women to own a gun to protect themselves and their families when the police and courts cannot and will not protect them. Criminals are already breaking the law and believe that they will not get caught, so they will continue to use guns even more boldly on their disarmed prey than before. Gun control is to guns what prohibition was to alcohol: those who want it will get it and use it anyway.

      All guns, including handguns, are vital tools (used for hunting and self defense from wild animals as well as from potential murderers), as are explosives (used for safely demolishing buildings), automobiles (used for safe, quick, and convenient transportation), and knives (a tool as old as man himself). One report estimates that over half of all reported firearm discharges in this country were in self defense from wild animals or potential murderers. The handgun is primarily a self defense weapon, being ideal for close range where one’s life is most endangered, although many handguns are popular for hunting, both with and without scope attachments. Another vital tool, the automobile, causes many more deaths in America than handguns and rifles combined, yet the speed limit is not further lowered to a perfectly safe speed of one mile per hour. With proper instruction, both handguns and rifles are easier and safer to use than automobiles, and less practice and instruction is required.

Smoking Finger Image

      I must question both the intelligence and motives of anyone advocating gun control as a solution to any of society’s problems. Gun control is a poor attempt at people control. Guns do not kill people–people kill people, as they have done since the beginning of man, using everything from clubs, fire, knives, and water, to screw drivers, saws, gasoline, ropes, chains, guns, bombs, automobiles, and whatever else technology has to offer. Where one avenue for violence is closed, a deranged person merely finds another. Because people are endangered by other people as well as by wild animals, the right to defend oneself from all aggressors has been established as a right of free people–as basic as the right to choose between right and wrong.

      The prospect of gun control via special “gun clubs” is especially frightening, for that is precisely the means of gun control used in the Soviet Union. Coincidentally, members of these clubs are also members of the communist party. This selective gun control is even more dangerous than ordinary gun control, because it selectively arms and disarms different elements of society. Likewise, banning inexpensive firearms selectively disarms the poor of our society while arming the rich.

      The best gun control laws and enforcement may be found in the Soviet Union and Cuba. In such countries, the people cannot possibly free themselves from their communist captors unless revolution erupts from the military itself, which is married to the political system. Revolution is virtually impossible. The American Constitution was written with just this danger in mind, specifically giving citizens the right to keep and bear arms against all enemies, be they domestic or foreign. Recent legislation and court decisions, however, have beaten the Constitution to death, taking away basic rights that our forefathers fought long and hard for. Crime is used as an excuse to twist the Constitution any way one sees fit. Telephone conversations are monitored to catch possible “drug dealers”; spies in the skies watch for “potential criminals”; and attempts are continually being made to place video cameras on city streets to monitor “criminal activity”, although these cameras can also see into people’s homes.

      Big Brother is nearly upon us. If this dangerous trend continues, America will surely fall from within, yet not a single American will be able to prevent it. Any form of gun control and confiscation would be a terrible precedent and would signal the beginning of the end for America.



Robbins is a senior majoring in mathematics-computer science.

Copyright ©1981 Michael D. Robbins



Author’s Note:
This opinion column was submitted to the Daily Bruin with the title, “Gun Control Actually Increases Crime”, and was printed with the title, “Is Gun Control Half Cocked? Handgun restriction may affect the wrong people”.