IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION KING LINCOLN BRONZEVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., VS. PLAINTIFFS, JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., CASE NO. :06-CV-745 JUDGE MARBLEY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM CONTRA MOVING INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT S DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Moving intervenor plaintiffs ( movants ) filed, on March 4, 009, a motion for reconsideration of the court s March 5, 009, denial of their motion for leave to intervene. A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend, to be filed not later than ten days after judgement is rendered. Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., 95 F.d 0, 06 (6th Cir.990). Such motions are discouraged out of respect for the economy of judicial resources. Such motions are not properly used to reargue the matter, or even introduce new evidence that could, with due diligence, have been offered within the original argument of the matter. McConocha v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 8, 84. Movants motion is untimely and fails to present any evidence in support. Rumors, speculation, commentary and complaints do not constitute evidence, inasmuch as they are not grounded upon

2 facts within the personal knowledge of a declarant. Because of their defamatory nature, however, plaintiffs counsel has attached a declaration hereto denying Ms. Shaffer s hearsay report from an unidentified source that he asked anyone to investigate Ms. Shaffer. It is difficult to discern the relevance of any of the material submitted to movants motion to intervene. Plaintiff Miles Curtiss has provided a declaration that the answers on the document submitted in his name were written by Mr. Duncanson, whom he believed was interviewing him for a piece to appear on YouTube. Curtiss states that he felt he had been used, when he saw that this paper had been submitted as a declaration in federal court. From an article written and published by movant Duncanson in OpEd News, the movants opposition to the plaintiffs handling of their case appears to be, not for its lack of progress, but rather for its progress toward holding the principal perpetrator of the alleged conspiracy, i.e., Karl Rove, accountable. Movants filing of a motion to convene a grand jury, as if they were the plaintiffs in this case, and broadside national news release regarding that filing, suggests that their motion to intervene in this case was intended to set up their public relations campaign to appear as plaintiffs in this Moving intervenor plaintiff states: Bob Fitrakis and Cliff Arnabeck (of "The Columbus FreePress and Ohio Honest? Elections) are posing as election reformers as they go after Karl Rove, only to let 58 Ohio counties off the hook for destroying ballots. Is it better to go after a slippery puppet master OR the 58 puppets without high powered lawyers. Karl Rove was candidly described by G.W. Bush as the architect of his 004 reelection. When Rev. Jesse Jackson of plaintiff Rainbow PUSH asked Bush, before the 004 election, to Let my people vote, Bush told Jackson to call Karl Rove. American Blackout.

3 federal case, when they were not plaintiffs. It does not appear to be grounded procedurally or substantively on the basis of the legal requirements, including standing and timeliness, for such intervention. As the court recognized in its decision, the plaintiffs in this case are seeking accountability for the theft of the 004 Presidential election, but more importantly, the termination of the ongoing civil rights conspiracy against them, of which that theft was but a part. The filing and ballot protection aspects of this case were broadly disseminated. Anyone who missed that news 3 probably did not have much interest in its subject matter. The moving intervenors motion for reconsideration should be denied. Respectfully submitted, /s/clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr. Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr. (003339) Trial Attorney Arnebeck@aol.com Robert J. Fitrakis ( ) truth@freepress.org 0 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio Movants filed their motion for leave to intervene on July 7, 008, without any prior discussion with plaintiffs counsel after plaintiffs counsel had announced within the election reform community that an effort to reopen the case was in progress. See Arnebeck Declaration, paragraph 8. 3 New York Times, August 3, 006; Associated Press national desk and National Public Radio on September, 006; Associated Press national desk, September 7,

4 Henry W. Eckhart (0000) 50 West Broad Street, Suite 7 Columbus, Ohio Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify a copy of the foregoing was served upon counsel of record by means of the Court s electronic filing system, and by ordinary mail upon the moving intervenor plaintiffs on this 4th day of April 009. /s/clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr. 4

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION KING LINCOLN BRONZEVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., VS. PLAINTIFFS, JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., CASE NO. :06-CV-745 JUDGE MARBLEY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP DEFENDANTS. DECLARATION OF CLIFFORD ARNEBECK I, of my personal knowledge, declare under penalties for perjury the following:. I read Ms. Shaffer s declaration dated March 4, 009, in this matter in which she states that someone told her that David Hickman was investigating her for me, and she wonders whether I had paid Hickman to do so.. I have never paid Dave Hickman to do anything. Nor have I ever asked him to investigate Ms. Shaffer or anyone else. 3. Mr. Hickman was a major activist and leader in the development of meet-ups and Internet lists, supporting the candidacy of John Kerry in the 004 election. I am also aware that he worked with ACORN in promoting the registration of new voters in the 008 election. 4. In 005 Hickman had been active in promoting social gatherings organized by the Free Press and Ohio Honest Elections Campaign. He later was critical of some of what he regarded as unstable and not credible individuals who asked to be included on the mailing list for such salons. 5. Sometime in 007, when we were presenting evidence of criminal activity to the criminal division of the Ohio Attorney General s office, Ms. Shaffer informed me that she was independently presenting evidence to an investigator of the same office. I have been aware of her further activities in this regard, because she has acted in a very public way, including holding news conferences and public demonstrations, videos of which were disseminated on the Internet.

6 6. In the first week of May 008, I met with Paul Scarsella to deliver a hard copy of Richard Hayes Phillips book, Witness to a Crime. Scarsella asked me: Whom do you want us to indict? I subsequently advised him that we would seek to reopen our case for the purpose of conducting limited discovery in order to answer that question. 7. On May 6, 008, I requested of Rich Coglianese the Secretary of State s agreement to lifting the stay for the discovery deposition of Michael Connell. 8. On May 7, 008, at the Free Press Awards dinner, I indicated that further aggressive action on our part, targeting Karl Rove in the King Lincoln case was imminent. I had earlier conveyed similar information to approximately 5 people within the election reform community following a Free Press movie at the Drexel Theater. 9. On July 7, 008, we held a news conference coincident with our filing of the motion to lift the stay in this case. We identified Michael Connell as a key witness and Karl Rove as the principal perpetrator of a criminal conspiracy. This was widely reported on the blogoshere, with a video transcript of the entire news conference posted for viewing. Stephen Spoonamore participated by telephone. Spoonamore commented on my assertion that Karl Rove had orchestrated the shut down of the FBI s criminal investigation of the 004 election. He stated that the head of FBI cyber security had not been consulted in the matter, as he would have been in any serious FBI investigation of the irregularities of the kind that were being reported at the time. 0. On July 9, 008, we received a report of a tip from within the McCain campaign that Connell had been threatened by Rove. The credibility of that tip was checked and confirmed to me by Stephen Spoonamore, our Republican cyber-security expert. On that basis, we began to seek to protect Connell by bringing him into the federal court system. /s/ Clifford Arnebeck April 4, 009 Clifford Arnebeck Date I was accepting the Free Speech award posthumously for Benson Wolman who had assisted us in the Moss v. Bush election contest litigation before the Ohio Supreme Court.

7