Important Message 4 Ga. Voters: Vote in Today's Ga. Supreme Court Runoff

FYI

Tell friends in Georgia this court position is important for voting rights.

Only the woman is left to challenge the judge who ruled AGAINST fair voting for ALL.

This one's not about parties. It's about giving ALL voters a fair chance.

Dave

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Fortuin <johnfortuin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Please Vote Today, Tue. Nov. 30 in the GA State Supreme Court Runoff
To: johnfortuin@gmail.com


The candidate history below is relevant to the GA State Supreme Court race. Challenger Tammy Lynn Adkins is facing David Nahmias in the GA State Supreme Court Runoff on tomorrow's ballot. The below information should not be construed as an endorsement of candidate Tammy Lynn Adkins, but the incumbent, David Nahmias, is unfit for his current position based on his record since his appointment. Some recent information on Tammy Lynn Adkins can be seen at:

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=1036730

However, the pertinent details on David Nahmias are written below...

John Fortuin

404-438-2389

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Garland Favorito <garlandf@msn.com>
Oct. 30, 2010

Subject: Important Info on GA SUPREME COURT RACE: Please read before voting

VoterGA Supporters,

I have been asked about the judge races in light of our recent lawsuit to restore the integrity of Georgia elections which was decided by the Georgia Supreme Court. Here is some very significant information that I have recently discovered regarding the Georgia Supreme Court candidate race.

 

GA SUPREME COURT CANDIDATES

First, the candidates are David Nahmias, Matt Wilson and Tammy Lynn Adkins.

·         David Nahmias is the incumbent who has been appointed to most of his positions and was appointed by Sonny Perdue to fill the vacancy left by Leah Ward Sears

·         Matt Wilson, the primary challenger, is offering 35 years of civil trial experience for a variety of clients

·         Tammy Lynn Adkins is a Lawrenceville family law practitioner

Tammy has no known, easily accessible web site, no contact information listed with the Secretary of State and I have not seen her in a single one of the many candidate forums I have attended during the last couple of months. She is not running a serious campaign. David Nahmias and Matt Wilson both seem like nice guys but there are major differences.

 

DAVID NAHMAIS AND THE ILLOGICAL GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RULING

David Nahmias voted against our appeal to restore verifiable voting in Georgia although he was not appointed and serving at the time of our oral arguments. When I asked him some pointed questions about the decision, he really could not explain the ruling. Some key unanswered questions are:

1.       The GA Supreme Court ruled that “the voters must assume the risk of necessarily different procedures” between unverifiable electronic voting and auditable absentee voting. Why would this not be a violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions?

2.       All U.S. Supreme Court case law for ballot counting and recounting requires a court to apply strict scrutiny to the fundamental right of voting. The Georgia Supreme Court refused to apply strict scrutiny to the case unless an infringement was first proved. How can that ruling be reconciled with U.S. Supreme Court case law?

3.       As appellants, we disputed 41 major conclusions of material fact in the brief to the Supreme Court that was signed by Attorney General Thurbert Baker. Why would these disputes not warrant a trial when all normal legal precedents require a trial when facts are in dispute?

His answers to these questions were vague and unconvincing. He also falsely stated that the machines could be independently audited and I had to explain to him how that is technically impossible.

 

DAVID NAHMIAS AND MICHAEL BOWERS

The chairman of the Committee to Reelect David Nahmias  is none other than Michael Bowers. Michael Bowers is the father of Bruce Bowers, whose Massey Bowers lobbying firm is the lobbyist for the voting machine vendor that gave us statewide unverifiable voting. (Diebold,now ES&S Premier),  Those of you who follow VoterGa  may remember we filed complaints about improper investigations into voting machine cases with the State Inspector General. The director, Elizabeth Archer, chose to recues herself from the investigation because her husband was a partner with Michael Bowers in the same law firm, Balch and Bingham. David Nahmias did not recues himself from our case even though he had a close personal relationship with Michael Bowers. But David also did not recues himself from the Georgia Charter School case now in the Georgia Supreme Court. In that case Gwinnett County is suing Ivy Preparatory Academy because it received its charter from the state rather than from the county. The attorney representing Gwinnett County is Michael Bowers.How can a judge be impartial when one of the attorneys in a case he is hearing is the chairman of his re-election committee?

 

MICHAEL BOWERS AND THE ILLOGICAL JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE RULING

But there is more. Those of you who follow VoterGa may also remember that we filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Committee regarding the unwillingness of Fulton County Superior Court judge, Michael Johnson, to rule based upon the facts and evidence of our case on as many as 17 points. One example of this bizarre ruling was on a point where there was no disagreement. The Plaintiffs provided substantial evidence that the voting machines certified and acquired in 2002 did not have an independent audit trail of each vote cast as required by law at the time. [O.C.G.A. 21-2-30(b) of the 2001 Georgia Election Code] The defendant’s expert witness, Ray Cobb, admitted under oath in deposition that “I am not aware of any audit trails that are independent of the equipment". Then Secretary of State, Karen Handel also acknowledged at a Madison Forum meeting and elsewhere that “the voting machines do not have a software independent audit trail of the votes cast”. Legislators and the general public are also aware of this deficiency. The defendants wisely never disputed the point and only argued that it was moot because the law that governed the purchase had since been repealed.

 

In spite of all this, Judge Johnson made a conclusion in direct conflict with the evidence and admissions of the case. He referred to an early portion of Mr. Cobb’s deposition to claim that the voting machines have an independent audit trail of each vote cast because they can recreate ballot images. Mr. Cobb acknowledged later in his deposition that such an audit trail is not independent of the equipment but the ruling ignored it. A recreated image is produced internally from the machine and is not independent of it. The image is also stored after the vote is recorded and could have been corrupted. The court’s bizarre finding on this point was critical in establishing mandamus for the 13 counts of the law suit and potentially violated clauses of the Judicial Code of Conduct. For example:

·         The preamble states that: “The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes…”

·         Canon 3B states that the judge “…must consider only the evidence presented”

·         Canon 2A states that a judge “…shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

In May of 2009, we received a reply from Director Cheryl Custer. She found that the complaint “…failed to reveal any evidence of conduct constituting a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” We just found out that the Chairman of the Judicial Qualifications Committee and its chief investigator is Michael Bowers.

 

CONCLUSION

Do we need another appointed judge who will be indebted to those who have appointed him throughout his career and has already made an illogical decision that he himself has difficulty justifying? I have asked the Fulton County Superior Court judge candidates and one of the U.S. Court of Appeal judge candidates similar questions but none of them can explain the Georgia Supreme Court ruling in our case. The false excuse that the judges frequently use is that they may have to rule on the matter and can’t state an opinion. I explained to them clearly that I am not asking for an opinion on how they would vote but asking them if they could offer any rationalization as to why the GA Supreme Court ruled as they did. I also explained that the matter will never come before them in a Georgia court because the Georgia Supreme Court has already ruled.Matt Wilson is the only candidate at any level who has graciously offered to review the case for us. I have declined because he is wrapping up a campaign and I did not feel it was appropriate for him to spend time on that now. As a result of all of our legal experiences, our attorneys and I are left with the conclusion that nearly all  judges decide how they want to rule and then try to find facts and case law to fit their opinions. We believe that some of their bizarre rulings are issued because they are beholden to the people who appointed them. We need to start electing judges who are outside of the federal and state political structure that has damaged our rights so severely. Let’s start now.

 

Garland

www.Voterga.org

404 664-4044 CL