Contents:

1. Brief Intro: US Election Fraud: something BIG happening

2. Brief Schedule "This Mon is an historical day...."

3. Summary of European Observation Mission to US Elections: Findings

4. FROM SELMA TO PALM BEACH TO COLUMBUS: House Judiciary/John Conyers
Hearings: Address by Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. December 8, 2004

5. OHIO RECOUNT: House Judiciary/John Conyers Hearings: Sample AFFIDAVIT from Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.; December 10, 2004

6. Veritas Vincit: Committee on the Judiciary Investigates Voting
Irregularities in Ohio: Letter from House Committee on the Judiciary,
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. to Secretary Blackwell; Published: Dec 4, 2004

---
1. US Election Fraud: something BIG happening

Dear Friends,

If you believe in fair, corruption-free elections and a free press -- please forward this message to your friends and family

The link below, The House Forum on Ohio Election Voting Procedures,
contains a CSPAN video of a House Judiciary Forum on the election
irregularities in Ohio and elsewhere on November 2nd. Members of the
House Judiciary Committee held this forum last Wednesday. However, the
mainstream media did not cover this important issue.

There is a large body of evidence suggesting there was widespread
election fraud and voter suppression (especially in Ohio), which
occurred on November 2nd.

The integrity of our voting process, and therefore the fundamental basis
of our democracy, is at risk.

House Forum on Ohio Election Voting Procedures (2004):
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) et al., "Preserving Democracy - What Went Wrong
in Ohio" rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/c04/c04120804_conyers.rm

If you don't have Real Player, please click here for a free download in
order to view this video:  http://www.real.com/

Things you can do:
1. Very Important: CALL your Senators and Representatives and tell them,
if in their best judgment, fraud was executed on November 2nd, ask them
to refuse to certify the slate of electors from Ohio until the recount
effort has determined whether the will of the people was reported on
November 3rd.

2. Tell Congressman Conyers that we want this issue to be fully
investigated. Click here to fill out the feedback form:
 http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/contact.html

3. Email the mainstream media, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. and tell them
you want them to cover this story. (By the way, MSNBC's Keith
Olbermann/Countdown has been covering this story).

4. Educate yourself on this issue.
Here are some useful websites:
a.  http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/981
b.  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html
c.  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html
d.  http://www.auditthevote.org
e.  http://www.usvip.org
f.  http://www.51capitalmarch.com
g.  http://www.votecobb.org/recount/

I am fighting and attending protests just about everyday.
Please support our democracy by fighting for fair and honest elections.

--
2. Subject line: This Mon is an historical day....

Text: Early Mon. Morning, key election fraud cases will be filed in OH
on behalf of 40 individuals that could very well impact the Ohio recount
by exposing both election errors and fraud.

Finally, election fraud/recount efforts in Ohio will no longer be
ignored by the mainstream media!

Here's the rest of Mon. schedule:

At 10:30 a.m., a press conference being held by Senator Conyers, Sen.
Nadler, Jesse Jackson and others will update the press on the Ohio voter
fraud situation.

Also, an injunction will be requested to delay the tramsittal of OH's
electoral votes to its electors, subject to the completion of a full
state recount.

The last time a full state Pres. recount happened was Kennedy vs. Nixon
in 1960. The state was Hawaii. Kennedy challenged the results and here's
how they resolved the elector deadline vs. recount conflict... They
created a second set of electors in addition to the first, which had
Nixon as victor. The new electors were to award the votes to whomever
won the recount which ended up being Kennedy -- so it was this second
set of electors who went to D.C on Jan. 12 of 1961.

This 1960 recount did not effect the Pres. results but in 2004, though a
longshot, it just may. Either way, counting all the votes is a good
thing for democracy.

---
3. European Observation Mission to US Elections: Findings

Summary of the preliminary findings of the Election Observation Mission
(EOM) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
- ref.  http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf - on the
US Elections of 2 Nov 2004. Note that the Mission was terminated at the
moment the polls closed - {this is correct, isn't it - no observation of
the counting?}.

The EOM calls attention to "a number of significant issues" threatening
the idea that "the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed
through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the authority
and legitimacy of all government."

In particular, the EOM observed the following during the pre-electoral
period:

1. "Allegations about voter disenfranchisement and so-called voter
suppression were ... widely aired. It was claimed that such practices
included non-processing of voter registration applications, the improper
removal of eligible voters from voter lists, harassment and intimidation
of voters." However, "while recognizing the seriousness of the above
allegations, the EOM was not provided with first-hand evidence to
substantiate {or otherwise} them or to demonstrate that such practices
were widespread or systematic."

2. There were "no uniform standards for processing absentee ballots."

3. In a number of states, citizens who have been convicted of any felony
(a criminal offence more serious than a misdemeanor) suffer a
"restriction on the right to vote {which} is not made proportionate to
the seriousness of the criminal offence," while, in general, "voters in
different states do not enjoy equal suffrage."

4. The regulations on provisional ballots are "ambiguous as to whether
the voter must cast the ballot in his/her allocated precinct for the
provisional ballot to be counted" and as such are open to abuse. In fact
"deadlines for verification and counting of provisional ballots vary
widely from state to state and have the potential to delay announcement
of final results at the federal level."

5. Furthermore, "there are no uniform certification procedures."

And during the election itself:

1. "Long queues and pressure on poll workers at some polling stations
... deterred or prevented some voters from participating in the
election." - {disenfranchisement or lack of universal suffrage}.

2. Some "poll workers {may not have} received sufficient training to
perform their functions," and there were doubts about the "secrecy of
the vote" in some precincts, since "political party observers were
present in many polling stations, although domestic non-partisan
observers often had no legal right to such access." The EOM also noted
in this context that "the way in which election administrators are
appointed may raise questions of possible conflict of interest." -
{possible intimidation and dirty tricks}.

3. The EOM observed "considerable confusion and varying approaches from
one state to another regarding the use of provisional ballots." - {open
to abuse}

4. There were "faults and breakdowns of DRE (direct recording
electronic) machines" and many voters had "difficulties with newer
voting technologies." - {must be investigated}

In general, the EOM:

1. Observed that "Allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression,
primarily among minorities, were widely reported and presented to the
EOM in the pre-election period."

2. Recommends the "prompt introduction of a paper audit trail" in all
precincts.

3. Regrets that EOM observers were permitted "in a number of states,
sometimes only in specific counties," while "in other states, access was
not possible or was limited... " {elipsis in the original}

4. Suggests the following concerns should be addressed:
- "provisional ballots"
- "problems with DRE (direct recording electronic) machines"
- "polling stations lacking the capacity to ensure a reasonably prompt
throughput of voters"
- "voting {during} ... working hours"

Source: EuroObserver, Democratic Underground,
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=131893

---

4. FROM SELMA TO PALM BEACH TO COLUMBUS
House Judiciary/John Conyers Hearings
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
December 8, 2004

Today as we gather the worth of the America's vote and the credibility
of our democracy is being weighed in the balance. Why is the election in
Ohio certified 34 days after the election?

Why was there such a large exit poll gap in Florida, Pennsylvania and
Ohio? Why are the parallels between Ohio and Florida - pre-election
problems, Election Day irregularities and postelection counting - so
consistent?

We must not adjust to tyranny and gloat that imperfection in voting
irregularities and suppression tactics are reasonable expectations. They
are not. Too many world changing events have hinged on one vote for us
to be cavalier when thousands are systematically disenfranchised.
I am here today to make a moral appeal for a thorough investigation -
including forensic computer analysis of the machines - in Ohio. To
recount the vote in the face of so many irregularities and
inconsistencies. And for those in charge to recluse themselves inasmuch
as the judge or the referee in a battle must have a detached objectivity
with the appearance of fairness.

We must further change the law.

This system of a 50 state, separate and unequal elections must give way
to the fulfillment of the America promise, which requires an amendment
to the Constitutional affirming the individual right to vote, federally
protected, and an even playing field for all Americans. The Electoral
College should be abolished; it should not have the power to defy the
popular will. I am here today to speak up for those who we asked to
stand in line for hours to vote, in precincts with incomplete poll
lists, facing out-of-state shyster lawyers armed with caging lists,
with non-auditable, privately owned voting machines without paper
trails, hemmed in by arbitrary rules issued by partisan, biased and
ambitious election officials.

I am here today to speak up for the poor, for too long denied the right
to vote. For women who's right to vote was extended in the 1920's, for
whites who could not pay poll taxes, and Latinos who are English
language challenged. For African Americans, this has been a 346
year journey, a long road of bloody battles, denials, unjust laws,
lynchings, work without wages, and through it all, served honorably in
our nation's military to create and defend democracy around the world.
This right has been too slow coming, survived by too much violence, for
ourleadership to be so cavalier and with a shrug of a shoulder, to let
it go.

In Ohio I stood in the rain for 2 hours, for 4 hours, for 8 hours, just
to cast a vote that might or might not be counted. Some were told they
were in the wrong line, sometimes with more than one precinct in the
room, told to go to the back of the line, in "line 2." For the poor,
illiterate, the old and sick, this was classic voter suppression.
I am here today to speak up for Latinos in Nevada, who were falsely
registered to vote by thugs who then tore up their voter registration
forms, throwing them in the trash. I am here today to speak up for
Native Americans, who continue to be mistreated and ripped off by
powerful public officials in so many states, who ask only to be allowed
to go cast their votes in a land that was taken from them by force.
We must not betray dreams of those that paid such a high price by
silence, impatience or surrender. I am here today to speak up for
students and young people, who turned out in force despite county
officials who often tried to deter and deny them polling places on campus.

Therefore, a legal complaint should be filed asserting a violation of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act - that the voting procedures in Ohio
resulted in disparate impact on minority voters.

Far too many are being far too silent and passive in the face of this
challenge to democracy. The Attorney General is charged with enforcement
of the Voting Rights Act, and must use the resources of its office to
enforce the equal protection provisions. Silence is betrayal.

For the tremendous legislative work lead by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, for
the awesome leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for the blood of
Goodwin, Schwerner and Cheney, Viola Luiza, Medgar Evers, and the
wreaking pain and humiliation endured by Fannie Lou Hamer, I continue to
urge the Kerry campaign, the DNC and Democratic Party, those who
depend upon the vote of African Americans, Latinos, people of color and
the young - those that profess to love freedom and dignity of any party
- to join us. I urge the Congress to act before Michael Moore comes back
and exposes the violations and the capitulation again.

Why 34 days before certification of Ohio's vote, yet we keep hearing a
clean election without problems?

The Black vote was the object of so much tyranny up to 1965 and so many
maneuvering schemes of gerrymandering, annexation, at-large voting, roll
purging and voter intimidation through the 1990s. The black vote, which
is so instrumental when our vote is counted, was again targeted in
several ways. The impact of that targeting affects us all: 1) the
longest lines; 2) the most spoilage and discounted votes; 3) the most
eliminated provisional votes; 4) the most inconvenienced; 5) the most
victimized by precinct manipulation.

Ohio, 34 days. Suppose five states had to wait 34 days for certification
of their elections.

And they could be if people had the will to contest it. Suppose the
Ukraine or South Africa or Iraq had to wait 34 days before election
certification?

Why 92,000 "unprocessed" ballots, mostly among the poor, under-counts
and overcounts, often a result of a breakdown in machinery. Why 150,000
provisional ballots in 88 counties, using different voting machines and
standards for counting and dis-counting votes?

Why in 2004 do we have an uneven field, different standards and faulty
machines characterizing the vote in too many places?

Why in Warren County did election officials issue a "homeland security
threat," then lock out the press and independent observers while they
secretly counted the vote? Why are voting machines still used that are
privately owned by partisans, still subject to glitches and
manipulation. Why are absentee ballots and military ballots still issued
in an inconsistent, inaccurate, and untimely fashion?

Who is accountable? The integrity of the voting machines, and the
machine tabulation, is an issue. We need a forensic computer analysis of
the voter machines, and the machines left in the warehouses must be
impounded.

The whole idea that partisans with a vested interest in the outcome can
be in charge of the election is unreasonable. Suppose two teams play for
the Super Bowl - and the election is the Super Bowl of American politics
- and the owner of the home, incumbent team was in charge of the judges,
referees and the replay. That would be unacceptable. Impartiality is a
key to the very appearance of fairness.

I urge Congress to come to Ohio to conduct a hearing and you will see
the classic calamity of a state's rights election at work, with
different standards at work in every state and county. The richer
counties have first class machinery, the poorer counties get poorer
machinery. People in rural areas are yet another victim of the uneven
playing field.

Do not take lightly the exit poll gaps, the most superior of "polls."
Don't take lightly the vote disparity between Kerry and Democratic
Supreme Court candidate Ellen Connally - in Cuyahoga County where she is
best known, Kerry got 120,000 more votes than Connally; but in 15 other
Ohio counties, Connally's margin over her opponent was 190,000 votes
GREATER than Kerry's margin over Bush. This abnormal and inexplicable
vote disparity demands investigation.

In conclusion, this race is not over until it is certified that every
vote is counted and honored and until a full investigation shows that
every vote was honored. And for the future credibility of the process,
we must end the practice and precedent of voter suppression and
disenfranchisement schemes.

As we approach the 40th year of the Voting Rights Act ending voter
discrimination in the states, we must honor the legacy of Dr. King and
LBJ, both of whom faced persecution and marginalization. It is a success
of their efforts that has given America credibility, our democracy
bragging rights around the world. Can you imagine America today without
a Public Accommodations Bill or the Voting Rights Act. Yet, the forces
that resisted those landmarks then, never ceased to find ways to
manipulate and undermine them.

Those who never fought for the right to vote at home, who did not stand
with Dr. King and sought to marginalize Lyndon Johnson, now bomb for
democracy in Iraq, and judge democracy in the Ukraine, hold high
standards for democracy in South Africa. I cry out for this sense of
urgency and an even playing field for democracy at home.

I make this appeal today to honor the great American dream to make this
a more perfect union, to complete the task of honoring America's highest
promises. Arguably, the four highest moments in our democracy are:
1) 1865: the 13th amendment to abolish slavery, after 246 years;
2) 1954: the end legal Jim Crow in 1954, after nearly another century;
3) 1964: the passage of the Civil Rights Act;
4) 1965: the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
This promise of the founding fathers, this dream of Dr. King, this
passion of Lyndon Johnson, must be honored.

The unfinished business of this drive for an open, fair and transparent
democracy is our focus today. Before we go any further debating amending
the Constitution for immigrant access to the White House, though a noble
cause, it will only help some, we should implement a one person, one
vote democracy - the direct election of the President - that will
motivate a 51-state campaign inclusive of the entire nation, not just 20
battleground states. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s (D-IL) bill, which
calls for a Constitutional amendment on the right to vote for all U.S.
citizens - Presidential elections with one set of rules where the
individual right to vote is protected by the U.S. Constitution - will go
a long way toward achieving this goal.

Lady Liberty was presented to America as a gift by the French when we
made the bold and bloody step to end slavery and save the Union, when we
broke with the tyrants of suppression, colonialism and slavery - it
elevated America to the mountaintop of hope, it allowed the whole world
to look at our beacon light. It is in the context of the conquest for a
more perfect union, of America honoring it's promise that Lady Liberty
can say, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses - who yearn
to breathe free." We must not allow the flame to go out, even for the
least of these.

Today this is our challenge and our opportunity. Let us celebrate 2005
the year of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, the year democracy
was born for all of us. The year we complete the unfinished business of
American democracy. My brothers and sisters, we have unfinished
business. Keep hope alive.

---
5. OHIO RECOUNT: From the Conyers Hearings

AFFIDAVIT
December 10, 2004

I, RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS, do swear and affirm the following:

1. I hold a Ph.D. in geomorphology from the University of Oregon. I am a
professional hydrologist and am well versed in standard techniques of
statistical analysis, with special expertise in spotting anomalous data.
A copy of my curriculum vita is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit A.

2. I have analyzed unofficial precinct level results from the November 2,
2004 general election in nine Ohio counties, including Cuyahoga,
Franklin, Warren, Butler, Clermont, Miami, Montgomery, Hamilton, and
Lucas. In have compared these results with those from the November 7,

2000 general election where such data is available. I have examined the
unofficial and official results for the November 2, 2004 election, county
by county. I have examined, in Franklin County, data on the number of
voting machines deployed in each precinct. I have also examined United
States census data for 2000 and 2003.

3. There are numerous examples of incorrect presidential vote tallies in
certain precincts in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County. These irregularities
include at least 16 precincts where votes intended to be cast for Kerry
were shifted to other candidates' columns, and at least 30 precincts with
inexplicably low voter turnout, including 7.10%, 13.05%, 19.60%, 21.01%,
21.80%, 24.72%, 28.83%, 28.97%, and 29.25%, and seven entire wards where
voter turnout was reportedly below 50%, even as low as 39.35%. Kerry won
Cleveland with 83.27% of the vote to 15.88% for Bush. If voter turnout
was really 60% of registered voters, as seems likely based upon turnout
in other major cities of Ohio, rather than 49.89% as reported, Kerry's
margin of victory in Cleveland has been wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes.

4. The systematic withholding of voting machines from predominantly
Democratic wards in Columbus, many of them with high black populations,
severely restricted voter turnout in these wards and cost John Kerry
17,000 votes. I have meticulously compared election results with the
number of registered voters per voting machine for each precinct in
Columbus, and for each ward in Franklin County. In Columbus, the median
Bush precinct had a 60.56% turnout, while the median Kerry precinct had
only a 50.78% turnout. County wide, the 73 wards with fewer than 300
registered voters per machine had a 62.33% turnout; 58 were in the
suburbs, and 54 were won by Bush. The 73 wards with 300 or more
registered voters per machine had a 51.99% turnout; 59 were in Columbus,
and 58 were won by Kerry. In addition, there were 68 machines not
provided to anyone, according to data provided by the Board of Elections.

5. It has been widely reported that in Warren County, the administrative
building was locked down on election night and no independent persons
were allowed to observe the vote count. Based upon the official Board of
Elections reports, there has been a 15.51% increase in voter registration
in eight months time, and voter turnout was reportedly above 80% in 55
precincts. Since the 2000 election, voter registration was reportedly up
by 79.0%, 38.3%, 32.4%, 31.0%, 29.7%, and 28.4% in six townships that
provided 68.75% of Bush's margin of victory in Warren County. While the
county population has increased by 14.75% since the 2000 census, 87 of
157 precincts had shown declines in voter registration at other times
since the 2000 election, and yet every single precinct, 157 of 157,
showed increases in voter registration since March 2, 2004. In Butler
County, there are nine precincts and two entire townships where Kerry
received fewer votes than Gore despite a sharp increase in voter turnout;
and there are precincts with reported increases in voter registration,
since November 7, 2000, of 177.9%, 143.5%, 69.3%, 65.5%, 64.5%, 48.2%,
43.3%, 38.8%, 36.9%, 34.3%, 34.0%, and 33.8%, compared to an increase in
population of only 3.12% county wide. In Clermont County, where the
population has grown by 4.39% since the 2000 census, voter registration
was reportedly up by 85.4% and 67.6% in two precincts, and down by 49.4%
in another precinct, all in the same township; there were 23 precincts
where turnout was up, but Kerry got fewer votes than Gore. All these
data are indications that votes may have been shifted from Kerry to Bush.
According to the official results certified by the Ohio Secretary of
State, these three counties combined provided Bush with a plurality of
132,685 votes, which is 13,910 votes more than his statewide plurality of
118,775 votes. Given that George Bush carried these counties by 95,575
votes in 2000, the net loss for John Kerry could be as high as 37,000
votes.

6. It is my professional opinion that there is compelling evidence of
fraud in Miami County. Early on election night, when 31,620 votes had
been counted, and later, when 50,235 votes had been counted, John Kerry
had exactly the same percentage, 33.92%, and the percentage for George
Bush was almost exactly the same, dropping by 0.03%, from 65.80% to
65.77%. The second set of returns gave Bush a margin of exactly 16,000
votes, giving cause to question the integrity of the central counting
device for the optical scanning machines. Compared to 2000, voter
turnout increased by 20.86%, while the population increased by only
1.38%. Voter turnout was reported at 98.55% and 94.27% in two precincts
in Concord, numbers nearly impossible to achieve. Voter turnout was
reported to have increased by 194.58% and 152.78% in two precincts in
Troy compared to the 2000 election, and by more than 30.0% in ten other
precincts. There are no data for voter registration in 2000, so the
ballots cast offer the only meaningful comparison. Comparing the results
of the 2004 election to the results of the 2000 election, there is one
precinct where the reduction in turnout exactly matched the reduction in
votes counted for the Democratic presidential candidate. It is my
professional opinion that these numbers are fraudulent, in that the true
election results have been altered. Given that Bush officially carried
Miami County in 2004 by 16,394 votes, and that Bush carried Miami County
in 2000 by 10,453 votes, the net loss to John Kerry could be as high as
6,000 votes.

7. In Toledo, Lucas County, there were 50 precincts with less than 60%
reported turnout. All of them were won overwhelmingly by John Kerry, by
a margin of better than 5 to 1 in the aggregate. There were 45 precincts
with more than 80% reported turnout; 12 were won by Bush, 33 were won by
Kerry, and most were competitive. When the precinct numbers are combined
into totals for each ward, data not provided by the Board of Elections, a
clear and unmistakable pattern emerges. The 14 wards with the highest
reported turnout were won by John Kerry by a margin of 11 to 7 in the
aggregate. The 10 wards with the lowest reported turnout were won by
John Kerry by a margin of 6 to 1 in the aggregate. It is my professional
opinion that the election in Lucas County was rigged, most likely by
altering the vote totals in each ward by a percentage chosen for that
ward, plus or minus, based upon voting patterns in past elections. If
turnout in Toledo had been as high as that reported elsewhere in the
county, John Kerry's plurality would have been 7,000 votes larger.

8. There are still 92,672 uncounted votes in Ohio, exclusive of any
uncounted provisional ballots. According to unofficial results provided
by the Ohio Secretary of State, there were 5,574,476 ballots cast, and
5,481,804 votes counted, which leaves 92,672 regular ballots (1.66%)
still uncounted. The official results, now certified, do not include
these ballots, but differ from the unofficial results only in the
addition of provisional ballots and some absentee ballots to the tally.
In Montgomery and Hamilton counties, these uncounted votes come
disproportionately from precincts that voted overwhelmingly for John
Kerry. In Montgomery County there are 47 precincts, all of them in
Dayton, where the percentage of uncounted ballots is 4% or more. Kerry
won all 47 of these precincts, by a margin of 7 to 1 in the aggregate.
County wide in Montgomery County, the percentage of uncounted ballots was
1.70%. In Hamilton County there are 26 precincts, 22 of them in
Cincinnati, where the percentage of uncounted ballots is 8% or more.
Kerry won all 26 of these precincts, by a margin of 10 to 1 in the
aggregate. Altogether there are 86 precincts in Cincinnati where the
percentage of uncounted ballots is 4% or more. Kerry won 85 of these
precincts, by a margin of 5 to 1 in the aggregate. County wide in
Hamilton County, the percentage of uncounted ballots was 2.34%. Although
I have not yet had time to examine similar data for Cleveland, Columbus,
Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Canton, or elsewhere, it is possible that the
same pattern will emerge in these cities as well. If these 92,672
uncounted votes were cast for Kerry by a 5 to 1 margin, this would reduce
the statewide margin between the candidates by another 61,781 votes.

9. There are still provisional ballots uncounted in Ohio. On election
night the Ohio Secretary of State reported that 5,481,804 ballots had
been counted, and 155,428 provisional ballots had been issued. According
to the official results, now certified, 5,625,621 votes have now been
counted, an increase of 143,817, which represents the number of newly
counted ballots. Some of these were absentee ballots. The reported
count of provisional ballots was 79,482 for Kerry, and 61,505 for Bush.
This would leave 14,441 provisional ballots uncounted.

10. In summary, it is my professional opinion that John Kerry's margins
of victory were wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes in Cleveland, by 17,000
votes in Columbus, and by as many as 7,000 votes in Toledo. It is my
further professional opinion that John Kerry's margins of defeat in
Warren, Butler, and Clermont counties were inflated by as many as 37,000
votes in the aggregate, and in Miami County by as many as 6,000 votes.
There are still 92,672 uncounted regular ballots that, based upon the
analysis set forth above of the election results from Dayton and
Cincinnati, may be expected to break for John Kerry by an overwhelming
margin. And there are 14,441 uncounted provisional ballots.

11. My research into the topics discussed in this affidavit is
continuing, and I reserve the right to modify my conclusions as new
information becomes available.

TO THIS I SWEAR AND AFFIRM,
--
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

---
6. Veritas Vincit

Committee on the Judiciary Investigates Voting Irregularities in Ohio

By: House Committee on the Judiciary
Published: Dec 4, 2004

Dear Secretary Blackwell:

We write to request your assistance with our ongoing investigation of
election irregularities in the 2004 Presidential election. As you may be
aware, the Government Accountability Office has agreed to undertake a
systematic and comprehensive review of election irregularities
throughout the nation. As a separate matter, we have requested that the
House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff undertake a thorough review
of each and every specific allegation of election irregularities
received by our offices.

Collectively, we are concerned that these complaints constitute a
troubled portrait of a one-two punch that may well have altered and
suppressed votes, particularly minority and Democratic votes. First, it
appears there were substantial irregularities in vote tallies. It is
unclear whether these apparent errors were the result of machine
malfunctions or fraud.

Second, it appears that a series of actions of government and
non-government officials may have worked to frustrate minority voters.
Consistent and widespread reports indicate a lack of voting machines in
urban, minority and Democratic areas, and a surplus of such machines in
Republican, white and rural areas. As a result, minority voters were
discouraged from voting by lines that were in excess of eight hours
long. Many of these voters were also apparently victims of a campaign of
deception, where flyers and calls would direct them to the wrong polling
place. Once at that polling place, after waiting for hours in line, many
of these voters were provided provisional ballots after learning they
were at the wrong location. These ballots were not counted in many
jurisdictions because of a directive issued by some election officials,
such as yourself.

We are sure you agree with us that regardless of the outcome of the
election, it is imperative that we examine any and all factors that may
have led to voting irregularities and any failure of votes to be
properly counted. Toward that end, we ask you to respond to the
following allegations:

I. Counting Irregularities

A. Warren County Lockdown - On election night, Warren County locked down
its administration building and barred reporters from observing the
counting. When that decision was questioned, County officials claimed
they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a "10" on a scale
of 1 to 10, and that this information was received from an FBI agent.
Despite repeated requests, County officials have declined to name that
agent, however, and the FBI has stated that they had no information
about a terror threat in Warren County. Your office has stated that it
does not know of any other county that took these drastic measures.

In addition to these contradictions, Warren County officials have given
conflicting accounts of when the decision was made to lock down the
building. While the County Commissioner has stated that the decision to
lockdown the building was made during an October 28 closed-door meeting,
emailed memos - dated October 25 and 26 - indicate that preparations for
the lockdown were already underway.

This lockdown must be viewed in the context of the aberrational results
in Warren County. In the 2000 Presidential election, the Democratic
Presidential candidate, Al Gore, stopped running television commercials
and pulled resources out of Ohio weeks before the election. He won 28%
of the vote in Warren County. In 2004, the Democratic Presidential
candidate, John Kerry, fiercely contested Ohio and independent groups
put considerable resources into getting out the Democratic vote.
Moreover, unlike in 2000, independent candidate Ralph Nader was not on
the Ohio ballot in 2004. Yet, the tallies reflect John Kerry receiving
exactly the same percentage in Warren County as Gore received, 28%.

We hope you agree that transparent election procedures are vital to
public confidence in electoral results. Moreover, such aberrant
procedures only create suspicion and doubt that the counting of votes
was manipulated. As part of your decision to certify the election, we
hope you have investigated these concerns and found them without merit.
To assist us in reaching a similar conclusion, we ask the following:

1. Have you, in fact, conducted an investigation of the lockdown? What
procedures have you or would you recommend be put into place to avoid a
recurrence of this situation?

2. Have you ascertained whether County officials were advised of
terrorist activity by an FBI agent and, if so, the identity of that agent?

3. If County officials were not advised of terrorist activity by an FBI
agent, have you inquired as to why they misrepresented this fact? If the
lockdown was not as a response to a terrorist threat, why did it take
place? Did any manipulation of vote tallies occur?

B. Perry County Election Counting Discrepancies - The House Judiciary
Committee Democratic staff has received information indicating
discrepancies in vote tabulations in Perry County. For example, the
sign-in book for the Reading S precinct indicates that approximately 360
voters cast ballots in that precinct. In the same precinct, the sign-in
book indicates that there were 33 absentee votes cast. In sum, this
would appear to mean that fewer than 400 total votes were cast in that
precinct. Yet, the precinct's official tallies indicate that 489 votes
were cast. In addition, some voters' names have two ballot stub numbers
listed next to their entries creating the appearance that voters were
allowed to cast more than one ballot.

In another precinct, W Lexington G AB, 350 voters are registered
according to the County's initial tallies. Yet, 434 voters cast ballots.
As the tallies indicate, this would be an impossible 124% voter turnout.
The breakdown on election night was initially reported to be 174 votes
for Bush, and 246 votes for Kerry. We are advised that the Perry County
Board of Elections has since issued a correction claiming that, due to a
computer error, some votes were counted twice. We are advised that the
new tallies state that only 224 people voted, and the tally is 90 votes
for Bush and 127 votes for Kerry. This would make it appear that
virtually every ballot was counted twice, which seems improbable.

In Monroe Township, Precinct AAV, we are advised that 266 voters signed
in to vote on election day, yet the Perry County Board of Elections is
reporting that 393 votes were cast in that precinct, a difference of 133
votes.

4. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the
Reading S precinct of Perry County?

5. What is the explanation for the fluctuating results in the W
Lexington AB precinct?

6. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the
Monroe Township precinct AAV?

C. Perry County Registration Peculiarities

In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily high level voter
registration, 91%; yet a substantial number of these voters have never
voted and have no signature on file. Of the voters that are registered
in Perry County an extraordinarily large number of voters are listed as
having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no federal
elections. Of these an exceptional number are listed as having
registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100 voters apparently
registered in Perry County on November 8, 1977.

7. Please explain why there is such a high percentage of voters in this
County who have never voted and do not have signatures on file. Also,
please help us understand why such a high number of voters in this
County are shown as having registered on the same day in 1977.

D. Unusual Results in Butler County

In Butler County, a Democratic Candidate for State Supreme Court, C.
Ellen Connally received 59,532 votes. In contrast, the Kerry-Edwards
ticket received only 54,185 votes, 5,000 less than the State Supreme
Court candidate. Additionally, the victorious Republican candidate for
State Supreme Court received approximately 40,000 less votes than the
Bush-Cheney ticket. Further, Connally received 10,000 or more votes in
excess of Kerry's total number of votes in five counties, and 5,000 more
votes in excess of Kerry's total in ten others.

It must also be noted that Republican judicial candidates were
reportedly "awash in cash," with more than $1.4 million and were also
supported by independent expenditures by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

While you may have found an explanation for these bizarre results, it
appears to be wildly implausible that 5,000 voters waited in line to
cast a vote for an underfunded Democratic Supreme Court candidate and
then declined to cast a vote for the most well-funded Democratic
Presidential campaign in history. We would appreciate an answer to the
following:

8. Have you examined how an underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court
candidate could receive so many more votes in Butler County than the
Kerry-Edwards ticket? If so, could you provide us with the results of
your examination? Is there any precedent in Ohio for a downballot
candidate receiving on a percentage or absolute basis so many more votes
than the Presidential candidate of the same party in this or any other
presidential election? Please let us know if any other County in Ohio
registered such a disparity on a percentage or absolute basis.

E. Unusual Results in Cuyahoga County

Precincts in Cleveland have reported an incredibly high number of votes
for third party candidates who have historically received only a handful
of votes from these urban areas. For example, precinct 4F in the 4th
Ward cast 290 votes for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 215 for Constitution
Party candidate Michael Peroutka. In 2000, the same precinct cast less
than 8 votes for all third party candidates combined.

This pattern is found in at least 10 precincts through throughout
Cleveland in 2004, awarding hundreds of unlikely votes to the third
party candidate. Notably, these precincts share more than a strong
Democratic history: the use of a punch card ballot. In light of these
highly unlikely results, we would like to know the following:

9. Have you investigated whether the punch card system used in Cuyahoga
County led to voters accidentally voting for third party candidates
instead of the Democratic candidate they intended? If so, what were the
results? Has a third party candidate ever received such a high
percentage of votes in these precincts.

10. Have you found similar problems in other counties? Have you found
similar problems with other voting methods?

F. Spoiled Ballots

According to post election canvassing, many ballots were cast without
any valid selection for president. For example, two precincts in
Montgomery County had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting
for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly
declined to vote for president. This is in stark contrast to the 2% of
undervoting county-wide. Disturbingly, predominantly Democratic
precincts had 75% more undervotes than those that were predominantly
Republican. It is inconceivable to us that such a large number of people
supposedly did not have a preference for president in such a
controversial and highly contested election.

Considering that an estimated 93,000 ballots were spoiled across Ohio,
we would like to know the following:

11. How many of those spoiled ballots were of the punch card or optical
scan format and could therefore be examined in a recount?

12. Of those votes that have a paper trail, how many votes for president
were undercounted, or showed no preference for president? How many were
overcounted, or selected more than one candidate for president? How many
other ballots had an indeterminate preference?

13. Of the total 93,000 spoiled ballots, how many were from
predominantly Democratic precincts? How many were from minority-majority
precincts?

14. Are you taking steps to ensure that there will be a paper trail for
all votes before the 2006 elections so that spoiled ballots can be
individually re-examined?

G. Franklin County Overvote - On election day, a computerized voting
machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded a
total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic
challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters in
that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life
Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer glitch
resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush.

Fortunately, this glitch was caught and the numbers were adjusted to
show President Bush's true vote count at 365 votes to Senator Kerry's
260 votes. However, many questions remain as to whether this kind of
malfunction happened in other areas of Ohio. To help us clarify this
issue, we request that you answer the following:

15. How was it discovered that this computer glitch occurred?

16. What procedures were employed to alert other counties upon the
discovery of the malfunction?

17. Can you be absolutely certain that this particular malfunction did
not occur in other counties in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential
election? How?

18. What is being done to ensure that this type of malfunction does not
happen again in the future?

H. Miami County Vote Discrepancy - In Miami County, with 100% of the
precincts reporting on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, President Bush had
received 20,807 votes, or 65.80% of the vote, and Senator Kerry had
received 10,724 votes, or 33.92% of the vote. Miami reported 31,620
voters. Inexplicably, nearly 19,000 new ballots were added after all
precincts reported, boosting President Bush's vote count to 33,039, or
65.77%, while Senator Kerry's vote percentage stayed exactly the same to
three one-hundredths of a percentage point at 33.92%.

Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd., the reporting company
responsible for vote results of Miami County, has stated that the
problem was not with his reporting and that the additional 19,000 votes
came before 100% of the precincts were in. However, this does not
explain how the vote count could change for President Bush, but not for
Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster. To help
us better understand this anomaly, we request that you answer the following:

19. What is your explanation as to the statistical anomaly that showed
virtually identical ratios after the final 20-40% of the vote came in?
In your judgment, how could the vote count in this County have changed
for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes
were added to the roster?

20. Are you aware of any pending investigations into this matter?

I. Mahoning County Machine Problems - In Mahoning County, numerous
voters reported that when they attempted to vote for John Kerry, the
vote showed up as a vote for George Bush. This was reported by numerous
voters and continued despite numerous attempts to correct their vote.

21. Please let us know if you have conducted any investigation or
inquiry of machine voting problems in the state, including the above
described problems in Mahoning County, and the results of this
investigation or inquiry.

II. Procedural Irregularities

A. Machine Shortages

Throughout predominately Democratic areas in Ohio on election day, there
were reports of long lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting
machines. Evidence introduced in public hearings indicates that 68
machines in Franklin County were never deployed for voters, despite long
lines for voters at that county, with some voters waiting from two to
seven hours to cast their vote. The Franklin County Board of Elections
reported that 68 voting machines were never placed on election day, and
Franklin County BOE Director Matt Damschroder admitted on November 19,
2004 that 77 machines malfunctioned on Election Day. It has come to our
attention that a county purchasing official who was on the line with
Ward Moving and Storage Company, documented only 2,741 voting machines
delivered through the November 2 election day. However, Franklin
County's records reveal that they had 2,866 "machines available" on
election day. This would mean that amid the two to seven hour waits in
the inner city of Columbus, at least 125 machines remained unused on
Election Day.

Franklin County's machine allocation report clearly states the number of
machines that were placed "By Close of Polls." However, questions remain
as to where these machines were placed and who had access to them
throughout the day. Therefore, what matters is not how many voting
machines were operating at the end of the day, but rather how many were
there to service the people during the morning and noon rush hours.

An analysis revealed a pattern of providing fewer machines to the
Democratic city of Columbus, and more machines to the primarily
Republican suburbs. At seven out of eight polling places, observers
counted only three voting machines per location. According to the
presiding judge at one polling site located at the Columbus Model
Neighborhood facility at 1393 E. Broad St., there had been five machines
during the 2004 primary. Moreover, at Douglas Elementary School, there
had been four machines during the spring primary. In one Ohio voting
precinct serving students from Kenyon College, some voters were required
to wait more than eight hours to vote. There were reportedly only two
voting machines at that precinct. The House Judiciary Committee staff
has received first hand information confirming these reports.

Additionally, it appears that in a number of locations, polling places
were moved from large locations, such as gyms, where voters could
comfortably wait inside to vote to smaller locations where voters were
required to wait in the rain. We would appreciate answers to the following:

22. How much funding did Ohio receive from the federal government for
voting machines?

23. What criteria were used to distribute those new machines?

24. Were counties given estimates or assurances as to how many new
voting machines they would receive? How does this number compare to how
many machines were actually received?

25. What procedures were in place to ensure that the voting machines
were properly allocated throughout Franklin and other counties? What
changes would you recommend be made to insure there is a more equitable
allocation of machines in the future?

B. Invalidated Provisional Ballots

As you know, just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, you
issued a directive to county election officials saying they are allowed
to count provisional ballots only from voters who go to the correct
precinct for their home address. At the same time, it has been reported
that fraudulent flyers were being circulated on official-looking
letterhead telling voters the wrong place to vote, phone calls were
placed incorrectly informing voters that their polling place had
changed, "door-hangers" telling African-American voters to go to the
wrong precinct, and election workers sent voters to the wrong precinct.
In other areas, precinct workers refused to give any voter a provisional
ballot. And in at least one precinct, election judges told voters that
they may validly cast their ballot in any precinct, leading to any
number of disqualified provisional ballots.

In Hamilton County, officials have carried this problematic and
controversial directive to a ludicrous extreme: they are refusing to
count provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place if they were
cast at the wrong table in that polling place. It seems that some
polling places contained multiple precincts which were located at
different tables. Now, 400 such voters in Hamilton county alone will be
disenfranchised as a result of your directive.

26. Have you directed Hamilton County and all other counties not to
disqualify provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place simply
because they were cast at the wrong precinct table?

27. While many election workers received your directive that voters may
cast ballots only in their own precincts, some did not. How did you
inform your workers, and the public, that their vote would not be
counted if cast in the wrong precinct? How many votes were lost due to
election workers telling voters they may vote at any precinct, in direct
violation of your ruling?

28. Your directive was exploited by those who intentionally misled
voters about their correct polling place, and multiplied the number of
provisional ballots found invalid. What steps have you or other
officials in Ohio taken to investigate these criminal acts? Has anyone
been referred for prosecution? If so, what is the status of their cases?

29. How many provisional ballots were filed in the presidential election
in Ohio? How many were ultimately found to be valid and counted? What
were the various reasons that these ballots were not counted, and how
many ballots fall into each of these categories? Please break down the
foregoing by County if possible.

C. Directive to Reject Voter Registration Forms Not Printed on White,
Uncoated Paper of Not Less Than 80 lb Text Weight

On September 7, you issued a directive to county boards of elections
commanding such boards to reject voter registration forms not "printed
on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight." Instead,
the county boards were to follow a confusing procedure where the voter
registration form would be treated as an application for a form and a
new blank form would be sent to the voter. While you reversed this
directive, you did not do so until September 28. In the interim, a
number of counties followed this directive and rejected otherwise valid
voter registration forms. There appears to be some further confusion
about the revision of this order which resulted in some counties being
advised of the change by the news media.

30. How did you notify county boards of elections of your initial
September 7 directive?

31. How did you notify county boards of elections of your September 28
decision to revise that directive?

32. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many
registration forms were rejected as a result of your September 7
directive? If so, how many?

33. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many voters who
had their otherwise valid forms rejected as a result of your September 7
directive subsequently failed to re-register? If so, how many?

34. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many of those
voters showed up who had their otherwise valid forms rejected to vote on
election day and were turned away? If so, how many?

We await your prompt reply. To the extent any questions relate to
information not available to you, please pass on such questions to the
appropriate election board or other official. Please respond to 2142
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 by December 10. If
you need more time to investigate and respond to some of these
inquiries, we would welcome a partial response by that date and a
complete response within a reasonable period of time thereafter. If you
have any questions about this inquiry, please contact Perry Apelbaum or
Ted Kalo of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff at (202)
225-6504.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
--