[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Fri Oct 21 11:52:34 PDT 2016

; - )
On Oct 21, 2016 2:17 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Based on the private messages I have been getting, you are in a very small
> minority of listserv readers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of
> Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:04 AM
> *To: *Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>
>
>
> No, not "too long". And not "worn out its usefulness."
>
> I've enjoyed reading most of it --  and am mostly glad the two camps are
> talking.
>
> Thanks for the debate.
>
> On Oct 21, 2016 2:00 PM, "Benjamin Barr" <benjamin.barr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect Mr. Mattison's admonition is correct.  This thread is incredibly
> long and quickly wearing out its usefulness.
>
>
>
> I am concerned about the well-established pattern of criminal misconduct
> by ACORN.  I'm proud of James and his team for bringing that to light.
>
>
>
> I am not so concerned about one-time incidents related to civil
> disobedience by reporters to pursue a lead.  That's fairly common, like the
> WaPo and Huffington Post reporters arrested in Ferguson, or the Vice News
> reporter arrested in Houston at a Trump event.
>
>
>
> I'll conclude my posts for the time being on this topic as I have far too
> much legal work to do.  Stay tuned!
>
>
>
> Forward,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barr
>
> Counsel
>
> Project Veritas Action Fund
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Jerald Lentini <jerald.lentini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Benjamin -
>
>
>
> Two questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Your punctuation is generally excellent, so why are you putting
> RuthAlice's name in quotation marks? I assume there's a civil and
> reasonable explanation for that, and I'm curious what that might be.
>
>
>
> 2. Since you're implying that contract employees trying to shirk work
> <http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Pierce-County-to-pull-230-names-off-voter-list-1263443.php>,
> including one turned in by ACORN itself
> <http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/64013102.html>, prove that ACORN
> as a whole was nefarious and corrupt, what should we infer about an
> organization whose founder and several employees were arrested and
> convicted for illegally trying to infiltrate a U.S. Senator's office
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20100330211616/http:/neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm> to
> access her phone system?
>
>
>
> Hope this message finds you well,
>
> Jerald
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear "RuthAlice,"
>
>
>
> Would you be talking about Latoya Lewis of ACORN who pled guilty for voter
> registration fraud because she was "trying to meet her quota"?
>
>
>
> Or would you be talking about the investigation that led to five
> Washington ACORN employees going to jail?
>
>
>
> Or perhaps you're talking about the Ohio indictment of four ACORN
> employees for submitting false voter registration forms?
>
>
>
> Or the ACORN we discovered was happy and tolerant of a dozen underage
> prostitutes?
>
>
>
> Is this the ACORN you're championing?
>
>
>
> Funny stuff, "RuthAlice."
>
>
>
> Forward,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barr
>
> Counsel
>
> Project Veritas Action Fund
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:56 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <
> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ACORN did great work organizing low income people on the downside of power
> to have a voice in their communities. Most people in politics don’t care
> about them. Most advocacy groups don’t care about them because they are not
> a reliable voting bloc. ACORN’s focus was helping the poorest people to
> organize around poverty issues like poor public services, no storm drains,
> stop lights, predatory lending, and other issues that just are under the
> radar for grassroots groups oriented toward the middle class.
>
>
>
> Project Veritas has no purpose other than producing false, defamatory
> “sting” videos. ACORN’s purpose had nothing to do with underage
> prostitution and we know that those videos were a vicious slander.
>
>
>
> I would stand with ACORN over Veritas any day of the week.
>
>
>
> RuthAlice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> And "RuthAlice" you'd like to attach your reputation to a group promoting
> underage prostitution (hint:  ACORN)? It's your life.
>
>
>
> http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4j8aff/the-daily-show-with-
> jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-hos
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 1:56 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <
> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> T <http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf>here are links to
> all the investigations here
>
> http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7780&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>
>
>
> He showed video of himself presenting himself as a pimp on the video he
> published, but on the unedited video, he said he was a lawyer. If you want
> to attach your reputation to someone like him, it’s your life.
>
>
>
> RuthAlice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Mark Scarberry <
> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had not heard an allegation that the ACORN videos were dubbed. Source?
>
>
>
> Mark Scarberry
>
>
>
> _____________________________
> From: RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
> To: law-election at UCI.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
>
>
> People from ACORN were fired and resigned as well and those videos were
> dubbed, edited and designed to deceive. The thing is, the long list of
> malicious misrepresentation by O’Keefe is such that if he produced the NPR
> Christmas Yule Log film, I would assume the log is styrofoam and the fire
> is photoshopped.
>
>
>
> RuthAlice
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:59 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> If you elect not to review salient information concerning voter fraud,
> like the Veritas evidence this week, then the ostrich position of seeing no
> voter fraud is sensible, Professor Hasen.
>
>
>
> But since the White House and CNN are discussing our reports, maybe you
> should review them?  Especially after Bob Creamer, longtime buddy of Obama,
> has resigned from Democracy Partners and his co-conspirator, Scott Foval of
> Americans United for Change were also pushed out.
>
>
>
> Seems like our reports illustrating Democratic operatives engaged in this
> very pursuit is noteworthy and might merit your attention.
>
>
>
> Forward,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barr
>
> Counsel
>
> Project Veritas Action Fund
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> “Commit massive voter fraud.”
>
>
>
> No evidence whatsoever of that. There are serious questions about what’s
> going on in Indiana, and I say let’s wait till we know all the facts.
>
>
>
> And voter registration fraud does not generally lead to fraudulently cast
> votes. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081
>
>
>
>
>
> I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and
> this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making
> fundamentally honest arguments.
>
>
>
> And I’ll let others continue this with you if they see it as fruitful.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:39 PM
> *To: *"rkelner at cov.com" <rkelner at cov.com>
> *Cc: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>
>
>
> What is hideous and unprecedented is this concerted attempt by liberals
> and Democrats to try to preclude a candidate from utilizing perfectly
> appropriate and legal means to ensure the fairness our elections by asking
> for a recount, if legally available under state law. This is particularly
> chilling here in Indiana when our State Police have just uncovered
> thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92
> counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud.
>
>
>
> Click here: “Statement from Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug
> Carter Regarding Possible Voter Fraud ” from Indiana Stat
> <https://local.nixle.com/alert/5757504/>
>
>
>
> This looks like a one two punch to me. Commit massive voter fraud and then
> force a candidate to say in advance that he will accept the outcome on
> election day.  This is a serious attack of the Rule of Law and an attempt
> to subvert our elections.  Jim Bopp
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:15:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rkelner at cov.com writes:
>
> Of course a presidential candidate can contest results in the
> exceptionally rare case of a truly close election. But neither George W.
> Bush nor Al Gore would ever have hesitated to say, prior to the election,
> that they would respect the outcome of the election. That hideous
> distinction is now uniquely owned by Donald Trump.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:08 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com
> <JBoppjr at aol.com>>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com
> <JBoppjr at aol.com>>> wrote:
>
> Some of those on this list serve may have taken note of this exchange:
>
> Chris Wallace: "Will you accept the result of this election?"
> Donald Trump: "I will look at it at the time. ... I will keep you in
> suspense."
> Hillary Clinton: "That's horrifying."
>
> Let me say that I think that Clinton's reaction was as phony and as it was
> absurd. Al Gore did not accept the results of the 2000 election. He sued
> for a recount in Florida which was not resolved until early December by a
> decision of the US Supreme Court. Only then, when no other legal recourse
> was possible, did he accept the results of the election. This, of course,
> was Gore's legal right to do. It would be ridiculous for Trump to say in
> advance that he will accept the election day count, if it would be
> appropriate to institute a recount.
>
> State laws provide legal remedies to contest election or ask for recounts
> under certain circumstances. It is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to
> use these if legally available. Jim Bopp
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election@
> department-lists.uci.edu <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161021/6a85e797/attachment.html>