Paul V. Buitenen - God's hand on earth

[James Jeffers]

From http://www.europatransparant.nl/ you learn a lot about Paul v. Buitenen.

We learn that Paul has a close, personal relationship with The Almighty:

5. The role of God


In 1998/1999 Paul van Buitenen was a EU whistle blower which had unexpected important consequences. Van Buitenen never expected these consequences and his actions alone could never have led to these results (namely the fall of the European Commission). Back then the circumstances worked together for the result. Also now in 2009, the efforts of Paul van Buitenen seem insufficient and now the circumstances also have to work together for the good to reach any results. Van Buitenen also wants to leave the possibility open for these special circumstances. Paul van Buitenen considers this as part of ‘Gods hand’. It is therefore not Paul van Buitenen but ‘Gods hand’ who eventually decides. Under the current circumstances, this means the end for Paul van Buitenen as a parliamentarian. He has however prayed to God to get clarity on this matter before April 16th. This is one week before the deadline of application with the Dutch Electoral Council. Only when God ‘intervenes’ before that date will Van Buitenen decide to recall his intention to stop as parliamentarian.

Apparently, Paul enjoys self-martyrdom and more importantly, complaining about it:

By not joining the normal parliamentary activities combined with his lack of compromise and an almost complete focus on internal fraud cases, Van Buitenen has found himself in an isolated position which has had a high personal toll. This would be more bearable if concrete results were achieved. Because these results are still lacking, the conclusion is justified to call it quits. Otherwise Van Buitenen would perhaps become like a Don Quichot.

After reading this, I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

[dhyatt]

From http://www.europatransparant.nl/ you learn a lot about Paul v. Buitenen.

We learn that Paul has a close, personal relationship with The Almighty:

5. The role of God


In 1998/1999 Paul van Buitenen was a EU whistle blower which had unexpected important consequences. Van Buitenen never expected these consequences and his actions alone could never have led to these results (namely the fall of the European Commission). Back then the circumstances worked together for the result. Also now in 2009, the efforts of Paul van Buitenen seem insufficient and now the circumstances also have to work together for the good to reach any results. Van Buitenen also wants to leave the possibility open for these special circumstances. Paul van Buitenen considers this as part of ‘Gods hand’. It is therefore not Paul van Buitenen but ‘Gods hand’ who eventually decides. Under the current circumstances, this means the end for Paul van Buitenen as a parliamentarian. He has however prayed to God to get clarity on this matter before April 16th. This is one week before the deadline of application with the Dutch Electoral Council. Only when God ‘intervenes’ before that date will Van Buitenen decide to recall his intention to stop as parliamentarian.Apparently, Paul enjoys self-martyrdom and more importantly, complaining about it:

By not joining the normal parliamentary activities combined with his lack of compromise and an almost complete focus on internal fraud cases, Van Buitenen has found himself in an isolated position which has had a high personal toll. This would be more bearable if concrete results were achieved. Because these results are still lacking, the conclusion is justified to call it quits. Otherwise Van Buitenen would perhaps become like a Don Quichot.After reading this, I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

James,
Welcome to Cary Politics :-) Excellent first post :sign5:

[CatherineE]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

[VVActivist]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

Well Catherine - It could be the reason why Joanne Casey is not responding to PVB is because no one believes that anyone named PVB actually made that post! Didn't you get the whole "sock puppet" thing?

If you feel that you have been libeled, you are certainly free to take whatever legal action you wish. You can have a lawyer draft a letter to anyone you feel has libeled you. If you can find a lawyer desperate enough for the business who will draft a such a letter without laughing his/her *** off!

You do know what such a letter looks like, don't you? Maybe you have received one in the not too distant past? You know - right before PVB made an appearance? ;-)

No one believes that there is a real PVB who came in on your side and wrote that screed. PVB is just a sock puppet. Just like the sock puppets who stick up for you on BlueNC and on Facebook. I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!

Sockey had a profile and made lots of friends in the Democratic Party. Problem is - none of her FB friends had actualy met her - except it seems for people who are real-life friends of yours. After I wrote all of the other people who Sockey had friended on FB, and they claimed not to know her or have ever met her, she was de-friended by many people - including the former Wake Dems Chair that Sockey claimed to have talked with about me. Then Sockey defriended everybody - still has the original profile on FB even though she filled in some name she got from God knows where.

Then Sockey opened up another profile under that same expanded new name - and made more friends - you are one and so was that lady who nominated you from the floor of the SEC meeting. Then she started blog-stalking myself and Joanne Casey and another of her friends. This is interesting that someone who claims to work as a "researcher" at a personal injury law firm would know so little about the standards of proof in civil cases.

When I mentioned on FB that there is no person registered to vote in NC using that name, Sockey claimed that I am culturally ignorant of Indian/hindu customs of women changing first and even last names. Of course, that does raise the question - is the new name that Sockey uses her new name that she hasn't updated with the BOE, or is she going by her old name on FB and she has a new name she uses to vote under?

It doesn't really matter - there is no Sockey - she's a sock puppet. But that does explain the thinking behind the unraveling of Sockey (get it - unraveling a sock?).

So when I complained about being blog-stalked by Sockey, FB closed down her new profile.

Maybe PVB will post about that one too! But it is interesting that someone with PVB's rep hasn't weighed in on this matter since then - where is your European champion Catherine? Could it be that he never really existed? I mean why else would PVB have gone through all the time and trouble to review the information on Catherine's case and not have made an appearance on Cry Politics other than the first one?

No one at Goodwin House recalls ever getting a request from anyone named Paul V. Buitenen about the Catherine Evangelista matter. So whoever it is who claims to have reviewed this information didn't get it from the NCDP. If it is an actual person, it must be someone known to Catherine - I mean come on Catherine - how many people did you show that stuff to?

So if there is a real PVB - Catherine must know how to get hold of him. And, as I suspect there is no real PVB, Catherine must know who she showed this information to, and therefore, the identity of the person claiming to be PVB.

There is of course another option....but that is too horrible to contemplate! ;-)

[DarylB]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

Well Catherine - It could be the reason why Joanne Casey is not responding to PVB is because no one believes that anyone named PVB actually made that post! Didn't you get the whole "sock puppet" thing?

If you feel that you have been libeled, you are certainly free to take whatever legal action you wish. You can have a lawyer draft a letter to anyone you feel has libeled you. If you can find a lawyer desperate enough for the business who will draft a such a letter without laughing his/her *** off!

You do know what such a letter looks like, don't you? Maybe you have received one in the not too distant past? You know - right before PVB made an appearance? ;-)

No one believes that there is a real PVB who came in on your side and wrote that screed. PVB is just a sock puppet. Just like the sock puppets who stick up for you on BlueNC and on Facebook. I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!

Sockey had a profile and made lots of friends in the Democratic Party. Problem is - none of her FB friends had actualy met her - except it seems for people who are real-life friends of yours. After I wrote all of the other people who Sockey had friended on FB, and they claimed not to know her or have ever met her, she was de-friended by many people - including the former Wake Dems Chair that Sockey claimed to have talked with about me. Then Sockey defriended everybody - still has the original profile on FB even though she filled in some name she got from God knows where.

Then Sockey opened up another profile under that same expanded new name - and made more friends - you are one and so was that lady who nominated you from the floor of the SEC meeting. Then she started blog-stalking myself and Joanne Casey and another of her friends. This is interesting that someone who claims to work as a "researcher" at a personal injury law firm would know so little about the standards of proof in civil cases.

When I mentioned on FB that there is no person registered to vote in NC using that name, Sockey claimed that I am culturally ignorant of Indian/hindu customs of women changing first and even last names. Of course, that does raise the question - is the new name that Sockey uses her new name that she hasn't updated with the BOE, or is she going by her old name on FB and she has a new name she uses to vote under?

It doesn't really matter - there is no Sockey - she's a sock puppet. But that does explain the thinking behind the unraveling of Sockey (get it - unraveling a sock?).

So when I complained about being blog-stalked by Sockey, FB closed down her new profile.

Maybe PVB will post about that one too! But it is interesting that someone with PVB's rep hasn't weighed in on this matter since then - where is your European champion Catherine? Could it be that he never really existed? I mean why else would PVB have gone through all the time and trouble to review the information on Catherine's case and not have made an appearance on Cry Politics other than the first one?

No one at Goodwin House recalls ever getting a request from anyone named Paul V. Buitenen about the Catherine Evangelista matter. So whoever it is who claims to have reviewed this information didn't get it from the NCDP. If it is an actual person, it must be someone known to Catherine - I mean come on Catherine - how many people did you show that stuff to?

So if there is a real PVB - Catherine must know how to get hold of him. And, as I suspect there is no real PVB, Catherine must know who she showed this information to, and therefore, the identity of the person claiming to be PVB.

There is of course another option....but that is too horrible to contemplate! ;-)


...and how many of these false personnas that you've created cast ballots for "the One" in the last election, never having been required to provide a valid ID? .... and to then want to "proportionally represent" them via IRV in the next Cary election???? Priceless!!!! If there was EVER an argument for voter ID, you just made it an absolute necessity. When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office?

I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!
Sounds to me like a second grader, but then having made that comparison, I would have to apologize to the second graders of the world!

And we Republicans get a load of crap for holding stock shares in Diebold.... unbe*frickin*lievable.....!!!!!

[VVActivist]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

Well Catherine - It could be the reason why Joanne Casey is not responding to PVB is because no one believes that anyone named PVB actually made that post! Didn't you get the whole "sock puppet" thing?

If you feel that you have been libeled, you are certainly free to take whatever legal action you wish. You can have a lawyer draft a letter to anyone you feel has libeled you. If you can find a lawyer desperate enough for the business who will draft a such a letter without laughing his/her *** off!

You do know what such a letter looks like, don't you? Maybe you have received one in the not too distant past? You know - right before PVB made an appearance? ;-)

No one believes that there is a real PVB who came in on your side and wrote that screed. PVB is just a sock puppet. Just like the sock puppets who stick up for you on BlueNC and on Facebook. I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!

Sockey had a profile and made lots of friends in the Democratic Party. Problem is - none of her FB friends had actualy met her - except it seems for people who are real-life friends of yours. After I wrote all of the other people who Sockey had friended on FB, and they claimed not to know her or have ever met her, she was de-friended by many people - including the former Wake Dems Chair that Sockey claimed to have talked with about me. Then Sockey defriended everybody - still has the original profile on FB even though she filled in some name she got from God knows where.

Then Sockey opened up another profile under that same expanded new name - and made more friends - you are one and so was that lady who nominated you from the floor of the SEC meeting. Then she started blog-stalking myself and Joanne Casey and another of her friends. This is interesting that someone who claims to work as a "researcher" at a personal injury law firm would know so little about the standards of proof in civil cases.

When I mentioned on FB that there is no person registered to vote in NC using that name, Sockey claimed that I am culturally ignorant of Indian/hindu customs of women changing first and even last names. Of course, that does raise the question - is the new name that Sockey uses her new name that she hasn't updated with the BOE, or is she going by her old name on FB and she has a new name she uses to vote under?

It doesn't really matter - there is no Sockey - she's a sock puppet. But that does explain the thinking behind the unraveling of Sockey (get it - unraveling a sock?).

So when I complained about being blog-stalked by Sockey, FB closed down her new profile.

Maybe PVB will post about that one too! But it is interesting that someone with PVB's rep hasn't weighed in on this matter since then - where is your European champion Catherine? Could it be that he never really existed? I mean why else would PVB have gone through all the time and trouble to review the information on Catherine's case and not have made an appearance on Cry Politics other than the first one?

No one at Goodwin House recalls ever getting a request from anyone named Paul V. Buitenen about the Catherine Evangelista matter. So whoever it is who claims to have reviewed this information didn't get it from the NCDP. If it is an actual person, it must be someone known to Catherine - I mean come on Catherine - how many people did you show that stuff to?

So if there is a real PVB - Catherine must know how to get hold of him. And, as I suspect there is no real PVB, Catherine must know who she showed this information to, and therefore, the identity of the person claiming to be PVB.

There is of course another option....but that is too horrible to contemplate! ;-)


...and how many of these false personnas that you've created cast ballots for "the One" in the last election, never having been required to provide a valid ID? .... and to then want to "proportionally represent" them via IRV in the next Cary election???? Priceless!!!! If there was EVER an argument for voter ID, you just made it an absolute necessity. When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office?

I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!
Sounds to me like a second grader, but then having made that comparison, I would have to apologize to the second graders of the world!

And we Republicans get a load of crap for holding stock shares in Diebold.... unbe*frickin*lievable.....!!!!!

I have not created any fale or duplicate profiles. Nor have I voted more than once in the last election. If you have any positive proof otherwise, please present it here. Or apologize.

Sock puppets aren't only created to deal with Dems other Dems don't agree with. I am sure there are some Republican sock puppets too! And what about Karl Rove pretending to be a volunteer for a Democratic candidate and stealing campaign stationary to invite winos to a campaign function? And what about Nixon's "Dirty Tricks" department - the "Rat F*ckers" made famous in "All the President's Men"? So please get off your high horse about the present situation and pretend that Republicans are lily-white and don't do tricks on each other or other parties.

And I do tend to support voter ID, but not as part of Real ID. Nor using licenses for the secondary purpose of ID. I support a robust and free National ID program, and that our privileges and licenses would be keyed to that ID number.

And good lord - if you think I like IRV you are delusional! Catherine likes it, but I do not.

And sorry - the posts I made about Catherine were not to stab her in the back - they were to defend others from her backstabbing. So get your facts and perspective straight!

And I'm not the one who created the sock puppet to blog-stalk people. I just created the silly name for the silly "person" who is blog-stalking me.

And most of the Republicans I know don't like Diebold anymore than I do.

[Don]

I have not created any fale or duplicate profiles.

Maybe I am wrong, but an admin could settle this once and for all could they not? Couldn't an admin say whether Chris has created, or posted under multiple accounts? Can this be done in a manner that does not impact the credibility/reputation of the site or it's admin? A simple yes or no maybe? Of course we would need a similar answer regarding the implications that Chris has raised.

[DarylB]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

Well Catherine - It could be the reason why Joanne Casey is not responding to PVB is because no one believes that anyone named PVB actually made that post! Didn't you get the whole "sock puppet" thing?

If you feel that you have been libeled, you are certainly free to take whatever legal action you wish. You can have a lawyer draft a letter to anyone you feel has libeled you. If you can find a lawyer desperate enough for the business who will draft a such a letter without laughing his/her *** off!

You do know what such a letter looks like, don't you? Maybe you have received one in the not too distant past? You know - right before PVB made an appearance? ;-)

No one believes that there is a real PVB who came in on your side and wrote that screed. PVB is just a sock puppet. Just like the sock puppets who stick up for you on BlueNC and on Facebook. I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!

Sockey had a profile and made lots of friends in the Democratic Party. Problem is - none of her FB friends had actualy met her - except it seems for people who are real-life friends of yours. After I wrote all of the other people who Sockey had friended on FB, and they claimed not to know her or have ever met her, she was de-friended by many people - including the former Wake Dems Chair that Sockey claimed to have talked with about me. Then Sockey defriended everybody - still has the original profile on FB even though she filled in some name she got from God knows where.

Then Sockey opened up another profile under that same expanded new name - and made more friends - you are one and so was that lady who nominated you from the floor of the SEC meeting. Then she started blog-stalking myself and Joanne Casey and another of her friends. This is interesting that someone who claims to work as a "researcher" at a personal injury law firm would know so little about the standards of proof in civil cases.

When I mentioned on FB that there is no person registered to vote in NC using that name, Sockey claimed that I am culturally ignorant of Indian/hindu customs of women changing first and even last names. Of course, that does raise the question - is the new name that Sockey uses her new name that she hasn't updated with the BOE, or is she going by her old name on FB and she has a new name she uses to vote under?

It doesn't really matter - there is no Sockey - she's a sock puppet. But that does explain the thinking behind the unraveling of Sockey (get it - unraveling a sock?).

So when I complained about being blog-stalked by Sockey, FB closed down her new profile.

Maybe PVB will post about that one too! But it is interesting that someone with PVB's rep hasn't weighed in on this matter since then - where is your European champion Catherine? Could it be that he never really existed? I mean why else would PVB have gone through all the time and trouble to review the information on Catherine's case and not have made an appearance on Cry Politics other than the first one?

No one at Goodwin House recalls ever getting a request from anyone named Paul V. Buitenen about the Catherine Evangelista matter. So whoever it is who claims to have reviewed this information didn't get it from the NCDP. If it is an actual person, it must be someone known to Catherine - I mean come on Catherine - how many people did you show that stuff to?

So if there is a real PVB - Catherine must know how to get hold of him. And, as I suspect there is no real PVB, Catherine must know who she showed this information to, and therefore, the identity of the person claiming to be PVB.

There is of course another option....but that is too horrible to contemplate! ;-)


...and how many of these false personnas that you've created cast ballots for "the One" in the last election, never having been required to provide a valid ID? .... and to then want to "proportionally represent" them via IRV in the next Cary election???? Priceless!!!! If there was EVER an argument for voter ID, you just made it an absolute necessity. When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office?

I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!
Sounds to me like a second grader, but then having made that comparison, I would have to apologize to the second graders of the world!

And we Republicans get a load of crap for holding stock shares in Diebold.... unbe*frickin*lievable.....!!!!!

I have not created any fale or duplicate profiles. If you have any positive proof otherwise, please present it here. Or apologize.

And sorry - the posts I made about Catherine were not to stab her in the back - they were to defend others from her backstabbing. So get your facts and perspective straight!

And I'm not the one who created the sock puppet to blog-stalk people. I just created the silly name for the silly "person" who is blog-stalking me.

And most of the Republicans I know don't like Diebold anymore than I do.

Put a sock in it , VV..... it's childish conversation that you're a part of, and your expressed desires for IRV and for preventing voter ID are severely compromised from your own previous admissions. Not created any false profiles you say, just after you went into a rather lengthy discussion of creating "sock puppet personnas" in the process of participating in and/or running an organization responsible for fronting our choices for political leadership? I even quoted you as saying...

I just created the silly name for the silly "person" who is blog-stalking me.

So I ask again, "When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office? "

[VVActivist]

... I think we all owe Paul v. Buitenen our thanks and appreciation for his particular attention and care! We are so blessed!

Well, truth does tend to win out. Still it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.* As the subject of Casey's malicious misinformation campaign, I'm wondering why she hasn't bothered to respond either to defend her comments or to apologize for them.

Joanne? ...Joanne? ....Bueller? (*crickets*) (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)


*James, it doesn't count if you do it for her.

Well Catherine - It could be the reason why Joanne Casey is not responding to PVB is because no one believes that anyone named PVB actually made that post! Didn't you get the whole "sock puppet" thing?

If you feel that you have been libeled, you are certainly free to take whatever legal action you wish. You can have a lawyer draft a letter to anyone you feel has libeled you. If you can find a lawyer desperate enough for the business who will draft a such a letter without laughing his/her *** off!

You do know what such a letter looks like, don't you? Maybe you have received one in the not too distant past? You know - right before PVB made an appearance? ;-)

No one believes that there is a real PVB who came in on your side and wrote that screed. PVB is just a sock puppet. Just like the sock puppets who stick up for you on BlueNC and on Facebook. I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!

Sockey had a profile and made lots of friends in the Democratic Party. Problem is - none of her FB friends had actualy met her - except it seems for people who are real-life friends of yours. After I wrote all of the other people who Sockey had friended on FB, and they claimed not to know her or have ever met her, she was de-friended by many people - including the former Wake Dems Chair that Sockey claimed to have talked with about me. Then Sockey defriended everybody - still has the original profile on FB even though she filled in some name she got from God knows where.

Then Sockey opened up another profile under that same expanded new name - and made more friends - you are one and so was that lady who nominated you from the floor of the SEC meeting. Then she started blog-stalking myself and Joanne Casey and another of her friends. This is interesting that someone who claims to work as a "researcher" at a personal injury law firm would know so little about the standards of proof in civil cases.

When I mentioned on FB that there is no person registered to vote in NC using that name, Sockey claimed that I am culturally ignorant of Indian/hindu customs of women changing first and even last names. Of course, that does raise the question - is the new name that Sockey uses her new name that she hasn't updated with the BOE, or is she going by her old name on FB and she has a new name she uses to vote under?

It doesn't really matter - there is no Sockey - she's a sock puppet. But that does explain the thinking behind the unraveling of Sockey (get it - unraveling a sock?).

So when I complained about being blog-stalked by Sockey, FB closed down her new profile.

Maybe PVB will post about that one too! But it is interesting that someone with PVB's rep hasn't weighed in on this matter since then - where is your European champion Catherine? Could it be that he never really existed? I mean why else would PVB have gone through all the time and trouble to review the information on Catherine's case and not have made an appearance on Cry Politics other than the first one?

No one at Goodwin House recalls ever getting a request from anyone named Paul V. Buitenen about the Catherine Evangelista matter. So whoever it is who claims to have reviewed this information didn't get it from the NCDP. If it is an actual person, it must be someone known to Catherine - I mean come on Catherine - how many people did you show that stuff to?

So if there is a real PVB - Catherine must know how to get hold of him. And, as I suspect there is no real PVB, Catherine must know who she showed this information to, and therefore, the identity of the person claiming to be PVB.

There is of course another option....but that is too horrible to contemplate! ;-)


...and how many of these false personnas that you've created cast ballots for "the One" in the last election, never having been required to provide a valid ID? .... and to then want to "proportionally represent" them via IRV in the next Cary election???? Priceless!!!! If there was EVER an argument for voter ID, you just made it an absolute necessity. When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office?

I even gave your FB sock puppet SJ a "pet" name - Sockey J Puppet!
Sounds to me like a second grader, but then having made that comparison, I would have to apologize to the second graders of the world!

And we Republicans get a load of crap for holding stock shares in Diebold.... unbe*frickin*lievable.....!!!!!

I have not created any fale or duplicate profiles. If you have any positive proof otherwise, please present it here. Or apologize.

And sorry - the posts I made about Catherine were not to stab her in the back - they were to defend others from her backstabbing. So get your facts and perspective straight!

And I'm not the one who created the sock puppet to blog-stalk people. I just created the silly name for the silly "person" who is blog-stalking me.

And most of the Republicans I know don't like Diebold anymore than I do.

Put a sock in it , VV..... it's childish conversation that you're a part of, and your expressed desires for IRV and for preventing voter ID are severely compromised from your own previous admissions. Not created any false profiles you say, just after you went into a rather lengthy discussion of creating "sock puppet personnas" in the process of participating in and/or running an organization responsible for fronting our choices for political leadership? I even quoted you as saying...

I just created the silly name for the silly "person" who is blog-stalking me.

So I ask again, "When you can't even run a political party without creating fictional characters to backstab fellow members, why should we trust you with power in office? "

Daryl - please provide any evidence that I have ever supported IRV? You can't because I haven't.

I merely provided information that I have been given about others on here who have created multiple profiles. That does not prove that I have done so. Again - if you have any real evidence that I have created multiple profiles - please provide it.

And since you have not provided any evidence that I have created any fictional characters to backstab anybody, the rest of your question is silly. On the other hand, we have policed our own and people who do create fictional profiles to backstab fellow members or even trip them - they are dealt with by our own party. You can rest assured you don't have to trust those people with power in office. Unless you believe their BS and vote for them.

[chaboard]

there was EVER an argument for voter ID, you just made it an absolute necessity.!

"There are anonymous sock puppets on the Internet therefore our elections are in serious jeopardy!". That's jaw-dropping, mind-numbing, belly-laughing dumbness. Primo, grade A non-sequitors we can believe in!

[Don]

Darryl,
If there is one person in North Carolina that DOESN'T support IRV it is Chris Telesca - that I can PROMISE YOU.

[VVActivist]

I have not created any fale or duplicate profiles.

Maybe I am wrong, but an admin could settle this once and for all could they not? Couldn't an admin say whether Chris has created, or posted under multiple accounts? Can this be done in a manner that does not impact the credibility/reputation of the site or it's admin? A simple yes or no maybe? Of course we would need a similar answer regarding the implications that Chris has raised.

Yes Don - I would be happy for you to settle the question as to whether I created or posted under multiple accounts.

And I would like to know a similar answer regarding the implications I have raised.

Chris

[chaboard]

Darryl,
If there is one person in North Carolina that DOESN'T support IRV it is Chris Telesca - that I can PROMISE YOU.

Ya think? This thread has gotten very Picasso-esque.

[VVActivist]

Darryl,
If there is one person in North Carolina that DOESN'T support IRV it is Chris Telesca - that I can PROMISE YOU.

Gee - is it that obvious? Thanks Don!

Chris

[VVActivist]

Darryl,
If there is one person in North Carolina that DOESN'T support IRV it is Chris Telesca - that I can PROMISE YOU.

Ya think? This thread has gotten very Picasso-esque.

Makes me wonder what someone must be on if they think I support IRV - or ever posted anything to support it.

Chris

[johnshaw]

Makes me wonder what someone must be on if they think I support IRV - or ever posted anything to support it.

Chris Telesca supporting IRV?!?!? ROTFLMAO!!

You would be more likely to catch him drinking a Bud Light than supporting IRV!

John

[VVActivist]

Makes me wonder what someone must be on if they think I support IRV - or ever posted anything to support it.

Chris Telesca supporting IRV?!?!? ROTFLMAO!!

You would be more likely to catch him drinking a Bud Light than supporting IRV!

John

That is true, but the thought of me drinking a Bud Light is still a disturbing one. ;-)

[DarylB]

CatherineE is the IRV supporter, VVActivist is Chris Telesca, who is NOT an IRV supporter... got it.

As to who is stabbing whom, I have to say it just isn't a pretty sight when you have to wear goggles and a meatcutters apron to view it all, and when those who are spatting are providing candidates and advocating issues that make a difference to who gets to represent us, and to form our laws and to shape our daily lives, it makes everyone the lesser for the enterprise. We complain collectively about not getting participation, and then give everyone who may potentially want to participate multiple reasons not to, ranging from the simple act of voting, to becoming candidates for office, to serving. My basic point is that we need grownups at all levels in all parties concerned, not sand-flipping. If my aim in being one to help give shape to this belief has been occaisionally bad, my intentions are good.

Not real big on stealth personna, from whomever they are... so I do acknowledge that my decoder ring malfunctioned. Shouldn't need a decoder ring, so that goes to my more basic point, and just a general comment as to voter ID, which is really what I'm after in the grand scheme of things as regards my earlier inputs.... we should know who people are, and the fact that it's so easy to have "multiple personalities" is an issue not only with blogging about voting, but counting the actual votes themselves, and being fairly represented.

This is Daryl Baker ..... that much is for sure!

[kellyc]

This is Daryl Baker ..... that much is for sure!

I thought you were a puppet id for Stan Norwalk.

[VVActivist]

CatherineE is the IRV supporter, VVActivist is Chris Telesca, who is NOT an IRV supporter... got it.

As to who is stabbing whom, I have to say it just isn't a pretty sight when you have to wear goggles and a meatcutters apron to view it all, and when those who are spatting are providing candidates and advocating issues that make a difference to who gets to represent us, and to form our laws and to shape our daily lives, it makes everyone the lesser for the enterprise. We complain collectively about not getting participation, and then give everyone who may potentially want to participate multiple reasons not to, ranging from the simple act of voting, to becoming candidates for office, to serving. My basic point is that we need grownups at all levels in all parties concerned, not sand-flipping. If my aim in being one to help give shape to this belief has been occaisionally bad, my intentions are good.

Not real big on stealth personna, from whomever they are... so I do acknowledge that my decoder ring malfunctioned. Shouldn't need a decoder ring, so that goes to my more basic point, and just a general comment as to voter ID, which is really what I'm after in the grand scheme of things as regards my earlier inputs.... we should know who people are, and the fact that it's so easy to have "multiple personalities" is an issue not only with blogging about voting, but counting the actual votes themselves, and being fairly represented.

This is Daryl Baker ..... that much is for sure!

Well actually the issue of multiple personalities voting is not as bad as you think.

In order to register to vote for the first time, or to switch registration from county to county, you need to show ID. Now if you vote at your precinct, chances are that your fellow voters know who you are - and it would be tough for someone to come in claiming to be me and get away with casting a vote under my name. That is the advantage of precinct-based voting.

Where it becomes a problem is with Early Voting. There is nothing really to prevent anyone who is a male from going into an Early Voting location and claiming to be me and casting a vote under my name. Except for two things - one is that if I went in and voted BEFORE this faker did it, they would show that I had already voted. Then this person would have to cast a provisional ballot. Then the BOE would contact me informing me of the problem and asking me to come downtown and testify where and when I actually cast my vote. Then they would only count one of those votes.

If I had come into an Early Voting site or even my precinct after someone else has voted in my name at Early Voting, I'd already know and be able to cast a provisional ballot and go through the whole investigation again.

So there really are many checks and balances on keeping people from casting illegal votes these days. In fact there have been studies on this allegation, and there has been no evidence shown that fake votes have been cast by voters casting ballots for voters other than themselves.

What is more of a problem is electronic voting and registration. There were several documented cases (one of which I was involved with) where a voter verified their registration on the first day of Early Voting at 9 AM, and by 12noon they were no longer registered. That is because the software application that handles the new Same Day Registration overwrote the registration of an existing voter to register a new voter.

Voter registration files can be hacked from outsiders. Vote counts can't really be hacked from the precinct polling place to the County BOE, nor from there to the SBOE. But the SBOE doesn't report the results directly - they contracted with a private company for vote reporting software and the votes are reported on the company's website. That I don't trust.

NC has one of the toughest election integrity laws for the casting and counting of votes. We were ranked #1 by the non-profit Brennan Center in 2006 for vote counting, and one of 8 states most ready for the 2008 general election by the Brennan Center and Common Cause.

We are good, but we need to get better. Less reliance on computers that can be hacked from the outside for voter registration and vote counting. 100% paper ballots across the state - no DREs or IRV.

[DarylB]

This is Daryl Baker ..... that much is for sure!

I thought you were a puppet id for Stan Norwalk.


http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/deer_hunter_roof_rack.jpg

Maybe that's why we can't find him any more.... good camo cover!

[DarylB]

Well actually the issue of multiple personalities voting is not as bad as you think.

In order to register to vote for the first time, or to switch registration from county to county, you need to show ID. Now if you vote at your precinct, chances are that your fellow voters know who you are - and it would be tough for someone to come in claiming to be me and get away with casting a vote under my name. That is the advantage of precinct-based voting.

It's quite easy, and I can tell you that having acted as a precinct judge for a couple years, there were MANY (I'd dare say MOST) who came in to vote that I did not know. In Cary, many, many people don't even know the people who live on the street one or two doors down from them. Counting on precincts, in a constantly moving (and growing) city, is absolutely irresponsible from the standpoint of accountability and voter accuracy. All I would need to do to vote numerous times is to find any one of the over 100,000 Wake voters who have registered, but never cast a ballot, go to the precinct they are assigned to and state the registrants name, and *BINGO* .... one more vote for the candidate of my choosing. All the information needed to cast a bogus ballot is provided on the BoE website... name, address, party affiliation, race, gender, age (even borthday if you still have a copy of the old data as I do), etc etc


Where it becomes a problem is with Early Voting. There is nothing really to prevent anyone who is a male from going into an Early Voting location and claiming to be me and casting a vote under my name. Except for two things - one is that if I went in and voted BEFORE this faker did it, they would show that I had already voted. Then this person would have to cast a provisional ballot. Then the BOE would contact me informing me of the problem and asking me to come downtown and testify where and when I actually cast my vote. Then they would only count one of those votes.

Pick a name who is registered and doesn't vote, and you get to vote another 100,00 times if you so desire. All the available names to use that won't be noticed are available on the website.


So there really are many checks and balances on keeping people from casting illegal votes these days. In fact there have been studies on this allegation, and there has been no evidence shown that fake votes have been cast by voters casting ballots for voters other than themselves.

This only serves my point, that those who do so are in no jeopardy whatsoever of being caught. the present system of only asking for your name is a failed system that couldn't stop anyone doing exactly what I've stated.


What is more of a problem is electronic voting and registration. There were several documented cases (one of which I was involved with) where a voter verified their registration on the first day of Early Voting at 9 AM, and by 12noon they were no longer registered. That is because the software application that handles the new Same Day Registration overwrote the registration of an existing voter to register a new voter.

Voter registration files can be hacked from outsiders. Vote counts can't really be hacked from the precinct polling place to the County BOE, nor from there to the SBOE. But the SBOE doesn't report the results directly - they contracted with a private company for vote reporting software and the votes are reported on the company's website. That I don't trust.

This is like putting your grandmothers ATM pin number on a billboard, and expecting her bank account to be safe, knowing she'll never leave the rest home nor check her account online.

[/quote]NC has one of the toughest election integrity laws for the casting and counting of votes. We were ranked #1 by the non-profit Brennan Center in 2006 for vote counting, and one of 8 states most ready for the 2008 general election by the Brennan Center and Common Cause.

We are good, but we need to get better. Less reliance on computers that can be hacked from the outside for voter registration and vote counting. 100% paper ballots across the state - no DREs or IRV.[/quote]

NC election laws being ranked high for integrity is like asking Enron how their accounting department was doing. Consider me unmoved.....

[VVActivist]

Well actually the issue of multiple personalities voting is not as bad as you think.

In order to register to vote for the first time, or to switch registration from county to county, you need to show ID. Now if you vote at your precinct, chances are that your fellow voters know who you are - and it would be tough for someone to come in claiming to be me and get away with casting a vote under my name. That is the advantage of precinct-based voting.

It's quite easy, and I can tell you that having acted as a precinct judge for a couple years, there were MANY (I'd dare say MOST) who came in to vote that I did not know. In Cary, many, many people don't even know the people who live on the street one or two doors down from them. Counting on precincts, in a constantly moving (and growing) city, is absolutely irresponsible from the standpoint of accountability and voter accuracy. All I would need to do to vote numerous times is to find any one of the over 100,000 Wake voters who have registered, but never cast a ballot, go to the precinct they are assigned to and state the registrants name, and *BINGO* .... one more vote for the candidate of my choosing. All the information needed to cast a bogus ballot is provided on the BoE website... name, address, party affiliation, race, gender, age (even borthday if you still have a copy of the old data as I do), etc etc


Where it becomes a problem is with Early Voting. There is nothing really to prevent anyone who is a male from going into an Early Voting location and claiming to be me and casting a vote under my name. Except for two things - one is that if I went in and voted BEFORE this faker did it, they would show that I had already voted. Then this person would have to cast a provisional ballot. Then the BOE would contact me informing me of the problem and asking me to come downtown and testify where and when I actually cast my vote. Then they would only count one of those votes.

Pick a name who is registered and doesn't vote, and you get to vote another 100,00 times if you so desire. All the available names to use that won't be noticed are available on the website.


So there really are many checks and balances on keeping people from casting illegal votes these days. In fact there have been studies on this allegation, and there has been no evidence shown that fake votes have been cast by voters casting ballots for voters other than themselves.

This only serves my point, that those who do so are in no jeopardy whatsoever of being caught. the present system of only asking for your name is a failed system that couldn't stop anyone doing exactly what I've stated.


What is more of a problem is electronic voting and registration. There were several documented cases (one of which I was involved with) where a voter verified their registration on the first day of Early Voting at 9 AM, and by 12noon they were no longer registered. That is because the software application that handles the new Same Day Registration overwrote the registration of an existing voter to register a new voter.

Voter registration files can be hacked from outsiders. Vote counts can't really be hacked from the precinct polling place to the County BOE, nor from there to the SBOE. But the SBOE doesn't report the results directly - they contracted with a private company for vote reporting software and the votes are reported on the company's website. That I don't trust.

This is like putting your grandmothers ATM pin number on a billboard, and expecting her bank account to be safe, knowing she'll never leave the rest home nor check her account online.

NC has one of the toughest election integrity laws for the casting and counting of votes. We were ranked #1 by the non-profit Brennan Center in 2006 for vote counting, and one of 8 states most ready for the 2008 general election by the Brennan Center and Common Cause.

We are good, but we need to get better. Less reliance on computers that can be hacked from the outside for voter registration and vote counting. 100% paper ballots across the state - no DREs or IRV.[/quote]

NC election laws being ranked high for integrity is like asking Enron how their accounting department was doing. Consider me unmoved.....[/QUOTE]

Do you have any proof that anyone has voted in someone's name other than their own? Just because you don't recognize people doesn't mean they aren't who they say they are. But you have no proof that people voted fraudulently, and if you did - you have a duty to report specific cases.

Also, there were people from both parties at most if not all of the voting sites who were there to deal with legal challenges to voters. Did anyone challenge a voter from your precinct? If not - why not?

And it wasn't NC that ranked it's own voting laws - it was another group - so making the comparison with ENRON ranking it's own accounting processes is not relevant.

And I also favor ID for voting. But a big problem with requiring some current form of ID is that most of these IDs the ID function is secondary to the main purpose of the document. An NCDL is a permit to drive. And according to the Patriot Act, once the driver's license has expired, the document ceases to be a valid ID. It's that way with many such documents - except for a passport.

I favor a free National ID card with a National ID office in each and every city and town. You go in and they research your status for free - you don't need to pay for a birth certificate to get the ID. When you move from one town or state to another, you take the ID you have with you from your old residence, bring in a bill or some other proof that you changed your address (lease, cable or utility bill, etc.) and you get a new ID with your new address on it. Along with that is automatic voter registration in your new precinct.

What about your driver's license? Well, since you don't need to go through the ID checks and searches at the DMV, they take your National ID number, and you get your license (permit to drive a motor vehicle) attached onto your National ID. Any other permit to drive or hunt or fish get tacked onto that ID number).

Why is that needed? Because you may not think it's that big of a deal, but many people don't live close to a DL office. And they can't afford to take time off to drive across the county or county line to get an ID - especially if they don't drive. And while I don't think that it's that big of a deal to get an ID now, it is a big deal for some people. If you're a 104 YO woman living in a nursing home and you want to vote, do you have to have a driver's license in order to vote if you haven't ever driven in your life? And what about absentee by mail voting? Where do you go to show your DL when you apply for an absentee ballot?

[DarylB]

Do you have any proof that anyone has voted in someone's name other than their own? Just because you don't recognize people doesn't mean they aren't who they say they are. But you have no proof that people voted fraudulently, and if you did - you have a duty to report specific cases.


Point is, we ALL have a responsibility to make sure the system is fraud free. I am in fact pointing out the open sore, and am recommending the treatment to fix the problem. Fraudulent voting is so easy, even a caveman could do it. When the current system is so bad that it can neither detect nor prevent a fraudulent vote in the manner I have stated, does that make it a great system? I sure hope that the microbiology department at the lab of the new Nationalized Health Clinic doesn't report no infections in the face of a pandemic, simply because their microbiologist has no idea what bacteria is!

[Brent]

This is Daryl Baker ..... that much is for sure!

I thought you were a puppet id for Stan Norwalk.

Stanyl Bakewalk? That hurts my head!

[chaboard]

Point is, we ALL have a responsibility to make sure the system is fraud free. I am in fact pointing out the open sore, and am recommending the treatment to fix the problem. Fraudulent voting is so easy, even a caveman could do it.

And so worthless hat even a caveman knows here is no point.

On other election system news, here is prominent GOP spokesman MIke Huckabee just today:



"You have two jobs. One, get all those people who are going to vote for Bob out to the polls and vote. If they're not going to vote for Bob, you have another job. Let the air out of their tires and do not let them out of their driveway on Election Day. Keep 'em home. Do the Lord's work, my friend. I'm giving you an opportunity...yes, do the right thing."


Criminal voter supression....the Republican idea of "the Lord's work".

[VVActivist]

Point is, we ALL have a responsibility to make sure the system is fraud free. I am in fact pointing out the open sore, and am recommending the treatment to fix the problem. Fraudulent voting is so easy, even a caveman could do it.

And so worthless hat even a caveman knows here is no point.

On other election system news, here is prominent GOP spokesman MIke Huckabee just today:



"You have two jobs. One, get all those people who are going to vote for Bob out to the polls and vote. If they're not going to vote for Bob, you have another job. Let the air out of their tires and do not let them out of their driveway on Election Day. Keep 'em home. Do the Lord's work, my friend. I'm giving you an opportunity...yes, do the right thing."


Criminal voter supression....the Republican idea of "the Lord's work".

Link for this please? Thanks - Chris

[d4vendel]

Re: Huckabee.

Watch the video. Context is everything. Does anyone think these are actually marching orders?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0409/Huckabees_advice_to_Virginia_Republicans.html

Poor attempt at humor? Perhaps. I find it no worse than anyone comparing their poor bowling skills to that of a Special Olympian.

[DarylB]

Just for grins, I did a database search to see how many votes I have available to me that aren't mine. For this exercise, I searched to find only those who were white (like me), male (like me), the exact same age as me in years (not even using a range here), and who had never, ever voted. How big is the problem? It's a list consisting of 142,743 individuals.... among that field, I found 409 matches, just waiting for me to go to their precinct (which is also conveniently provided in the data), along with all the information available for me to provide to the precinct judges on duty should I be asked (first, middle and last name, complete address, and the complete list of offices for which I could vote) at my disposal to get my ballot(s). Bear in mind, NONE of the individuals on this list has EVER voted in an election going back at least 5 years. I'm not even required to produce ID if by the slimmest of chances someone for the strangest of reasons gets a clue I'm not who I say I am. And those are just the ones that are a match for me.... figure you can do this for ANYONE, of ANY demographic. Got a black female ready to go vote, and just need some names under which to vote so as to "enhance" the turnout for that demographic group more to your favor?....then, *BINGO* we have a winner..or perhaps 409.

Would you like my list of those 409 for whom I can vote in alphabetic, numeric, or chronological order?

[chaboard]

Re: Huckabee.

Watch the video. Context is everything. Does anyone think these are actually marching orders?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0409/Huckabees_advice_to_Virginia_Republicans.html

Poor attempt at humor? Perhaps. I find it no worse than anyone comparing their poor bowling skills to that of a Special Olympian.

I don't see any indication at all that he thought he was attempting humor. He doesn't even crack a smile until he hears the (nervous) laughter from the audience. I find it more chilling in context on the video than I did printed on my screen.

No comparison at all to the bowling comment - one was a self-deprecating winged comment on a national comedy show. The other was a prepared remark in a stump speech. Even if he WAS joking....he was joking about committing felonies. Not as a slip in the normal flow of conversation but with enough forethought to write it into his speech.

I recall a lot of (justified) outrage when Belle's lawn signs were stolen last October - just try to *imagine* the howling here if a Democratic candidate had come to her neighborhood last October and "jokingly" told her neighbors to steal Republican campaign signs? Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think you'd try to pass THAT off a poor attempt at humor.

[chaboard]

Would you like my list of those 409 for whom I can vote in alphabetic, numeric, or chronological order?

What I'd like is a list of elections that are both important enough to you personally and likely close enough that you personally would think risking felony prison time to cast oh, let's say 5 votes , was a rational choice.

[johnshaw]

Considering how few people bother to vote, how many people would not only get off their butts to vote once but would also go to more trouble and risk jail time to vote more than once? What is the gain? There are very few races close enough that Daryl would be able to change the outcome of the vote by going to the trouble and risk of voting multiple times.

[d4vendel]

I don't see any indication at all that he thought he was attempting humor. He doesn't even crack a smile until he hears the (nervous) laughter from the audience. I find it more chilling in context on the video than I did printed on my screen.


Proof positive that two people can view the same thing and come away with completely different opinions.

[chaboard]

There are very few races close enough that Daryl would be able to change the outcome of the vote by going to the trouble and risk of voting multiple times.

And even fewer that he could know ahead of time would be close enough.

Voter ID law proposals are about suppressing legitimate legal voters, not about stopping non-existent voter fraud.

[DarylB]

Considering how few people bother to vote, how many people would not only get off their butts to vote once but would also go to more trouble and risk jail time to vote more than once? What is the gain? There are very few races close enough that Daryl would be able to change the outcome of the vote by going to the trouble and risk of voting multiple times.

The threat of imprisonment for voter fraud is a joke....you are not required to produce ID, and would be stupid to even carry any. If challenged, walk away, and there is no way anyone could ever prove you were even there. It's a scecret ballot, so no way to proe you ever cast a single vote, much less multiple votes... except under the assumed names you've spoken when getting your ballot.

Since 1953, only six people have been sent to prison for voter fraud in Ohio.

ACORN went to the effort of registering people multiple times. If they could (and did) simply use EXISTING registrations to cast actual votes, knowing there is no way to catch, much less prosecute the deed, doesn't it seem reasonable that they would in fact use that mechanism? There have been millions of dollars spent on elections, and the outcomes mean billions to many. Motive? You really shouldn't even have to think hard to understand that the power found in an election outcome is more valuable than a heist on Fort Knox.



Elections board testimony: ACORN pestered me into registering multiple times

Posted by Joe Guillen/Plain Dealer Reporter (jguillen@plaind.com) October 13, 2008 11:54AM

Categories: Open (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/open/), Real Time News (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/real_time_news/)
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/large_freddie-johnson-acorn.jpgMarvin Fong/The Plain DealerFreddie Johnson talks to reporters outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland Monday.
Two Cleveland men who each signed multiple registration cards as part of a national voter registration drive told the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections today they did so to help ACORN canvassers keep their jobs.

One of the men said he was sometimes offered a cigarette or a dollar bill by workers with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

"They would come up with a sob story when they needed a signature," said Freddie Johnson.

The other man, who came to the board wearing a Domino's pizza delivery shirt, said he would tell ACORN workers who approached him while he was reading on Public Square that he already was registered. But the workers would persist.

"They'd just keep saying I could help them hold onto a job," said Christopher Barkley.

Cuyahoga board of elections members learned recently that many ACORN canvassers had quotas and often had to scramble to meet them. Board employees had flagged a number of registration cards handed in by ACORN that showed the same names, but with different addresses or birth dates.

After testifying, both men were led to a private office and were interviewed by Cuyahoga County sheriff's deputies. The board decided during its meeting that it would turn over the ACORN investigation to the sheriff and county prosecutor's office.

A sheriff's deputy said neither Johnson nor Barkley have been charged with a crime, but could be used as witnesses later.

ACORN has been under fire in several states for possible fraudulent voter registration activities.

The board subpoenaed two other people for today's meeting. One could not be found. The other did not show up.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/15/voter-fraud-alert-houseful-of-out-of-state-obama-activists-registered-as-ohio-voters-received-absentee-ballots/

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/19/copy/Brownlee.ART_ART_10-19-08_A1_72BL2JG.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Assume for just a moment that I had in fact used the openly available registrations found on the BoE website to vote multiple times in their places.... using the current system and "protections", how would you go about proving that I had done so?

[James Jeffers]

[...] it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.

This is based on 3 assumptions:

that the PVB identity on this forum is the same PVB who (as far as anyone can tell) is a real person
that the post made by the PVB identity based on facts
Joanne's posts were libel.


Catherine,

The first assumption is doubtful - it's quite possible to assume an identity that is not your own. A face-to-face meeting or correspondence to the real PVB (if PVB is real) should either confirm or refute it. The forum admins could also begin to log IP addresses of forum posters, and then quite easily trace the origin of the communication to the real actor.

The second assumption is also not yet verified (as far as I know).

The third assumption, if we accept that libel means "defamation", or an attempt to harm someone's reputation based on a false claim, is a fairly serious charge. You cannot make a strong claim of the third until the second is at least verified. Even further, if the second assumption is true, you would also have to prove that the posts did actual damage to you and that Joanne created them with intent to do harm.

If you want to talk intelligently and directly about this, then I would welcome the chance to examine your claim. However, based on the posts that I have seen so far, I think you lack this motivation. Of the posts I have read, none of them displayed patience and generous reading required with forum communication.

In the meantime I am not interested in engaging with anyone who uses logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to "prove a point." If I wanted that I would watch cable TV.

Thanks!

[MattD]

In the meantime I am not interested in engaging with anyone who uses logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to "prove a point."

Egads! That's about more than 90% of the posts here on Cary Politics!! (As Admin advertises in the upper right hand corner: Cary Politics "Now with 50% More Rants!"
;-)

[James Jeffers]

Well, I hope that I can enjoy the 10% of the others. There seems to be a decent core of people here.

[VVActivist]

Well, I hope that I can enjoy the 10% of the others. There seems to be a decent core of people here.

Even the ones who don't like IRV or Bud Light? ;-)

[CatherineE]

[...] it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.

This is based on 3 assumptions:

that the PVB identity on this forum is the same PVB who (as far as anyone can tell) is a real person
that the post made by the PVB identity based on facts
Joanne's posts were libel.


James, how gallant of you to join Cary Politics just to speak on Joanne Casey's behalf. It is my pleasure to correct your assumptions while you try to distract attention away from Joanne's harassing actions.

The only ones who give a d*** about PVB are people who want him discredited. It's the content of his post that should actually matter. It also becomes painfully obvious to everyone that once you resort to attacking the person instead of his argument, it's only because you can't win the intellectual debate.
If PVB's content was fiction, Joanne Casey wouldn't be paralyzed to refute it with facts (you know, those wieldy little things verified as true and that make libel cases so easy to win)? Instead she has you responding for her. Are you buddies?
Libel requires proof of intent. Joanne's failure to apologize for misleading people exposed her intent. Thanks to numerous comments Joanne's written here and elsewhere, it's easy exposing her intent as petty, unprofessional and mean-spirited.

What's interesting is how only Joanne's mouthpieces (you and Chris Telesca) have consistently ignored the facts to ferret out the messenger instead. When you've finished tracking all the IPs of CaryPolitics' bloggers, would you please share the real identities of C.Daily, KDfurnish, Ireland and other mudslingers who've posted garbage to harass me. You skip VVActivist, he wasn't hard to out.


The second assumption is also not yet verified (as far as I know).
So why are you letting Joanne drag you into a matter you know nothing about other than to defend her? Dude, you're being used. :scratch:


The third assumption, if we accept that libel means "defamation", or an attempt to harm someone's reputation based on a false claim, is a fairly serious charge.

Absolutely correct! Your point?


Even further, if the second assumption is true, you would also have to prove that the posts did actual damage to you and that Joanne created them with intent to do harm.

Not a problem, JJ. And plenty of documentation to back up her malicious intent based on her own emails, postings and recordings.


If you want to talk intelligently and directly about this, then I would welcome the chance to examine your claim. However, based on the posts that I have seen so far, I think you lack this motivation.

How cute and even a little pathetic you'd think your opinion matters to me. You're unimportant -- but feel free to report back to Joanne Casey she'll have to find another way to pump me for information. Sorry, but you are irrelevant, though I thank you for the enjoyable exercise of sharing that with you and other readers.


In the meantime I am not interested in engaging with anyone who uses logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to "prove a point."

This from a guy who has no clue what's going on. More ironic is your accusation of "ad hominem attacks." Joanne has appealed to your emotions not your intellect. Proof? You lack the motivation to find out anything outside of the rumor mill she's running and here you are attacking the character of her target and her target's supporters.

And I thought chivalry was dead. Good night, sweet rube. I-)

[VVActivist]

[...] it's curious how Joanne Casey has yet to comment on PVB's fact-based refutation to her libelous posts.

This is based on 3 assumptions:

that the PVB identity on this forum is the same PVB who (as far as anyone can tell) is a real person
that the post made by the PVB identity based on facts
Joanne's posts were libel.


James, how gallant of you to join Cary Politics just to speak on Joanne Casey's behalf. It is my pleasure to correct your assumptions while you try to distract attention away from Joanne's harassing actions.

The only ones who give a d*** about PVB are people who want him discredited. It's the content of his post that should actually matter. It also becomes painfully obvious to everyone that once you resort to attacking the person instead of his argument, it's only because you can't win the intellectual debate.
If PVB's content was fiction, Joanne Casey wouldn't be paralyzed to refute it with facts (you know, those wieldy little things verified as true and that make libel cases so easy to win)? Instead she has you responding for her. Are you buddies?
Libel requires proof of intent. Joanne's failure to apologize for misleading people exposed her intent. Thanks to numerous comments Joanne's written here and elsewhere, it's easy exposing her intent as petty, unprofessional and mean-spirited.

What's interesting is how only Joanne's mouthpieces (you and Chris Telesca) have consistently ignored the facts to ferret out the messenger instead. When you've finished tracking all the IPs of CaryPolitics' bloggers, would you please share the real identities of C.Daily, KDfurnish, Ireland and other mudslingers who've posted garbage to harass me. You skip VVActivist, he wasn't hard to out.


The second assumption is also not yet verified (as far as I know).
So why are you letting Joanne drag you into a matter you know nothing about other than to defend her? Dude, you're being used. :scratch:


The third assumption, if we accept that libel means "defamation", or an attempt to harm someone's reputation based on a false claim, is a fairly serious charge.

Absolutely correct! Your point?


Even further, if the second assumption is true, you would also have to prove that the posts did actual damage to you and that Joanne created them with intent to do harm.

Not a problem, JJ. And plenty of documentation to back up her malicious intent based on her own emails, postings and recordings.


If you want to talk intelligently and directly about this, then I would welcome the chance to examine your claim. However, based on the posts that I have seen so far, I think you lack this motivation.

How cute and even a little pathetic you'd think your opinion matters to me. You're unimportant -- but feel free to report back to Joanne Casey she'll have to find another way to pump me for information. Sorry, but you are irrelevant, though I thank you for the enjoyable exercise of sharing that with you and other readers.


In the meantime I am not interested in engaging with anyone who uses logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks to "prove a point."

This from a guy who has no clue what's going on. More ironic is your accusation of "ad hominem attacks." Joanne has appealed to your emotions not your intellect. Proof? You lack the motivation to find out anything outside of the rumor mill she's running and here you are attacking the character of her target and her target's supporters.

And I thought chivalry was dead. Good night, sweet rube. I-)

Who cares about the content of a posting from a sock puppet?

Catherine - no one believes that the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that post - and for many reasons. Just like no one on FaceBook believes there is a real person behind the sock puppet I nicknamed "Sockey J. Puppett". I won't go into all the reasons why no one believes the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that posting.

And if no one believes that the real Paul Van Buitenen actually made that posting, then why should anyone deal with the content of the posting? Let a real person make those claims in print - instead of a sock puppet.

Good night sockey - I wonder what other blunders you will make in the next two weeks!

[CatherineE]

Who cares about the content of a posting from a sock puppet?

Catherine - no one believes that the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that post - and for many reasons. Just like no one on FaceBook believes there is a real person behind the sock puppet I nicknamed "Sockey J. Puppett". I won't go into all the reasons why no one believes the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that posting.

And if no one believes that the real Paul Van Buitenen actually made that posting, then why should anyone deal with the content of the posting? Let a real person make those claims in print - instead of a sock puppet.

Good night sockey - I wonder what other blunders you will make in the next two weeks!

Blah blah blah sock puppet blah blah sockey blah puppetty puppet blah blah sock puppet blah blah blah. Apparently you seem to care a lot. In fact it's all you talk about. Just because you keep repeating this accusation doesn't make it true.

Figures you'd be the kind of blogger who takes potshots at people while hiding behind a pseudonym but demand to know others' identities when they expose your "VV" diatribes as unsubstantiated, VVenomous VVitriol.

You're boring. Go away.

[VVActivist]

Who cares about the content of a posting from a sock puppet?

Catherine - no one believes that the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that post - and for many reasons. Just like no one on FaceBook believes there is a real person behind the sock puppet I nicknamed "Sockey J. Puppett". I won't go into all the reasons why no one believes the real Paul V. Buitenen actually wrote that posting.

And if no one believes that the real Paul Van Buitenen actually made that posting, then why should anyone deal with the content of the posting? Let a real person make those claims in print - instead of a sock puppet.

Good night sockey - I wonder what other blunders you will make in the next two weeks!

Blah blah blah sock puppet blah blah sockey blah puppetty puppet blah blah sock puppet blah blah blah. Apparently you seem to care a lot. In fact it's all you talk about. Just because you keep repeating this accusation doesn't make it true.

Figures you'd be the kind of blogger who takes potshots at people while hiding behind a pseudonym but demand to know others' identities when they expose your "VV" diatribes as unsubstantiated, VVenomous VVitriol.

You're boring. Go away.

Catherine - I am able to talk about a great many things. In this thread, I also talked about IRV and cheap nasty beer, no matter how distasteful I find them both.

The stuff PVB brings up is all you talk about. No one but you seems to care about it. Why is that?

But if there is no real Paul Van Buitenen - who else would want this bought up but you? And in a previous posting of yours dated 03-17-2009, 11:30 AM (IOPL Graduates), when folks brought up the unlikelihood of the real Paul Van Buitenen actually posting to Cary Poltiics - you admitted that you knew who it might be.

Your exact response was:"I don't know who it is but I have an idea. Thanks for sharing."

So even you admit the post from "PVB" did not come from the real Paul Van Buitenen - MP from the European parliament.

And you know that I am not taking potshots from behind a pseudonym - you have known who I am all along. And I'm not taking potshots as you call them - I figuratively "hit" what I aim at. It's easy - moon-bats are easy to see in daylight or at night - no "war driving" necessary!

Here's a question for the rest of the CP followers - how many people who read this thread actually believe the real Paul Van Buitenen actually posted a defense of Catherine on Cary Politics?

Chris Telesca - votes "no"

[CatherineE]

...when folks brought up the unlikelihood of the real Paul Van Buitenen actually posting to Cary Poltiics - you admitted that you knew who it might be. So even you admit the post from "PVB" did not come from the real Paul Van Buitenen - MP from the European parliament.

...And I'm not taking potshots as you call them - I'm figuratively weilding a .50 caliber sniper rifle - and I hit what I aim at. It's easy to see - moon-bats are easy to see in daylight or at night - no "war driving" necessary!

Don Hyatt, the time has come for you to take action concerning Chris Telesca's ranting and bizarre comments. He's now referenced aiming a ".50 caliber sniper rifle" at me and hitting what he "aims at." Please block this unstable individual from CaryPolitics. He has crossed the line and may actually be dangerous.

He has since edited his posting (msg #43) to delete the words ".50 caliber sniper rifle" and hide his threat citing spelling as the reason ( Last edited by VVActivist; Today at 01:17 AM. Reason: spelling). However, I have the email of his original post thanks to the subscriber notifcation which I forward to you. Please take action on this matter immediately.

[VVActivist]

...when folks brought up the unlikelihood of the real Paul Van Buitenen actually posting to Cary Poltiics - you admitted that you knew who it might be. So even you admit the post from "PVB" did not come from the real Paul Van Buitenen - MP from the European parliament.

...And I'm not taking potshots as you call them - I'm figuratively weilding a .50 caliber sniper rifle - and I hit what I aim at. It's easy to see - moon-bats are easy to see in daylight or at night - no "war driving" necessary!

Don Hyatt, the time has come for you to take action concerning Chris Telesca's ranting and bizarre comments. He's now referenced aiming a ".50 caliber sniper rifle" at me and hitting what he "aims at." Please block this unstable individual from CaryPolitics. He has crossed the line and may be actually be dangerous.

And you accused me of taking "potshots" at people - and the operative word was "figuratively" taking aim - which you seem to have let out of your message. Therefore, in the context of responding to your earlier rant against me - it was appropriate to "figuratively" take aim instead of taking potshots - which was your original word.

So if you are going to file a complaint against someone Catherine - perhaps you had better use all the material - not just selectively edit. If you want to talk about unstable - who is it who keeps wanting people to take an imaginary poster like PVB seriously?

Chris Telesca

And say hello to "sockey" for us all - hope her ankle is better!

Chris

[James Jeffers]

I'm not familiar with IRV - I'm just beginning to read and participate in the forum. But if pro-IRV or con-IRV posters are civil and don't need behavior medication to function then I look forward to interacting with them.

[James Jeffers]

IRV - instant runoff voting?

[jdcasey]

Apparently a response is needed so that all members will have closure....

Dear Herr Van Buitenen,

Thank you for your interest in American Politics and communication. I am surprised that the one post out of millions available across our great land, you have chose to examine was the single post I made back in December. Now that the G20 Meeting has come to the close, I am sure you might want to get back to the Cary Politics Blog issue.

Obviously, your English is better than my German, Spanish, or Dutch. Feel free to send me your phone or contact info via the Cary Politics messaging system. I have family overseas so I do have an international phone plan. I look forward to your email.

On behalf of my friends here across the pond, thank you for your leadership and concern. I hope you took to heart President Obama's speech. Being 2nd generation American and a huge fan of imported beer and cheeses, unviersal healthcare, higher CAFE standards, and biomass as a source of energy -- I am sure we will find common ground.

Peace to All,

Joanne

[Brent]

Here's a question for the rest of the CP followers - how many people who read this thread actually believe the real Paul Van Buitenen actually posted a defense of Catherine on Cary Politics?

Here's a question for the rest of the CP followers - how many people who read this thread actually believe the real reason Chris edited his earlier post was "spelling"?

[James Jeffers]

Joanne,

Given all the time you spend slandering Catherine and murdering puppies, how do you have the time to contact PVB by phone?

[dhyatt]

OK - This has gone on long enough folks. I now have the pleasure? of locking the first 'local' thread on CP.