[EL] in-person voter fraud Washington 2004 follow up

[BZall at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/31/2011 11:45:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
lminnite at gmail.com writes:

There  were more violations of the nation's migratory bird laws over the 
same period  than there were cases of voter fraud. I don't know because I'm 
not an outdoors  person and I don't know how wildlife investigators might go 
about doing their  job, but I have to believe it's hard to find migratory 
bird law  violators.


 
Actually, it's not. You find them when you fill your gas tank. 
 
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, is a strict  
liability statute. Birds die + conditions found = violation. Violators  are 
subject to penalties of up to $15,000 per bird. Birds covered include  
swifts, martins and others not ordinarily thought of as migratory. 
 
Many prosecuted oil or chemical spills include MBTA claims. For a  review 
of bird kill questions involving the Gulf Oil spill, but also lots of  
citations to MBTA prosecutions, see here: 
_http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/10Sep/R41308.pdf_ (http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/10Sep/R41308.pdf) .  
Some violators, such as oil barge operator Bouchard Transportation Corp., 
which  pled guilty to violating the MBTA in 2003, have paid fines in the 
millions of  dollars; BTC paid $8 million. In Exxon Valdez, Exxon paid $150 
million  in wildlife-related claims.
 
It's kind of like Lori Minnite's claim in the Project Vote brief  in 
Crawford that “It  is difficult to conceive of whole categories of criminal 
behavior that go almost  completely undetected or ignored by law enforcement 
officials.” Lorraine  C. Minnite, Ph.D., The Politics of Voter  Fraud, Project 
Vote,  at 11 (2007). 
 
Not all that hard to conceive, since information is  available: “Another  
[U.S. Attorney] office reported that they declined to prosecute a number of  
investigations (number not tracked) that involved aliens who registered to 
vote.  Rather than prosecute, they allowed administrative procedures 
regarding  deportation to occur.”  GAO-05-478,  at 60.   
  
 
Similarly, the  House Committee on House Oversight reported in 1998 that 
the Immigration and  Naturalization Service was unwilling to assist in investi
gating fraud by  non-citizens in the 1996 elections. H. Rpt. 105-416, at 88, 
and n. 79. In California, the House Oversight Committee reported,  the 
Orange County District Attorney failed to obtain indictments, even though  his  
investigation demonstrated huge  amounts of vote fraud, including that 61% 
of an advocacy group’s voter  registrations were “illegal.” Id., at  337. 
The Secretary of State determined that 442 non-citizens voted in the  disputed 
1996 election, but no prosecutions appeared. Id., at 338. A grand jury 
refused to  issue indictments for the “several individuals who coordinated the 
Hermandad  Mexicano Nacional voter registration effort. At least one witness 
who had worked  for Hermandad fled to Mexico early in 1997, making the 
investigation more  difficult.” Id., at 337. All this  even though the head of 
Hermandad Mexicano Nacional admitted registering  non-citizens on 
McNeil-Lehrer (as it was then called). 
 
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani,  LLP
11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
Rockville, MD 20852
301-231-6943  (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/) 
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S.  Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this  communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal  tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another  party any
tax-related matter addressed  herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The  information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended  only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon  
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney  
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original  
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank  you.
______________________________________________________________   

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110801/6b13479f/attachment.html>