… because it is 2009, as far as the Weekly is concerned! The Jan. 1 issue is online and ready for readers. Feel free to comment on its contents here, and have a happy New Year!

This article appears in Dec 25-31, 2008.

8 replies on “Party Like It’s 2009 …”

  1. Here again is the Weekly’s attempt to mislead the public about the amount and strength of evidence of election fraud. In a portion of her latest article, “Charity and Integrity”, Mari Herreras characterizes the activities surrounding the RTA database files by stating:

    “Besides unsubstantiated affidavits, election-integrity activists have no proof that criminal activity occurred, and efforts to cajole Attorney General Terry Goddard into ordering a recount of the RTA ballots as part of a criminal investigation have been largely ignored.”

    Let’s first look at the idea that “no proof that criminal activity occurred”. Proof is defined as “the establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. It is a broad term comprehending everything that may be adduced at a trial.” The Weekly and its staff are no stranger to word games surrounding terms like “evidence” or “proof” and this article is no exception. We should all recognize that a publication does not have the power to determine whether evidence of a crime is proof- only a judge and/or jury can decide that.

    Stating definitively that there is no “proof” that criminal activity occurred is a particularly dubious position in this case because there is actually quite a lot of evidence of criminal activity surrounding the RTA databases. Let’s say the Weekly positions itself as able to determine what is proof. If this was the case, then Mari Herrera’s statement of “no proof of criminal activity” surrounding the RTA databases is contradictory. In a very polite and indirect fashion, the Weekly has previously reported Tom Moffatt’s abduction of the database files without the presence of the plaintiffs. This is a direct violation of a court order. It is criminal activity.

    Another interesting term is “unsubstantiated affidavits”. I suppose we should be grateful that the Weekly has admitted recently that there is more than one affidavit concerning Brian Crane’s confession. According to one affidavit, Brian Crane admitted that he was instructed to rig the RTA election and that he had indeed performed that task. Two other affidavits verify the presence of Crane at the Boondocks. So now they are classified by the Weekly as “unsubstantiated”. What does this mean? Are they stating that those who signed the affidavits are committing perjury? Are they stating that there is no other proof by other witnesses or videotape that this meeting took place, therefore the witnesses are committing perjury? Does Terry Goddard’s lack of interest in a timely fact-finding mission concerning these affidavits make the affidavits “unsubstantiated” by default?

    Meanwhile, Attorney General Terry Goddard is videotaped reassuring a citizen in public that “his vote counts” and that there is nothing to the allegations of election fraud surrounding the RTA. This is precisely 3 minutes after we publicly established that Goddard and his staff are ignoring a substantial amount of available evidence surrounding the RTA elections. A dereliction of duty?

  3. In my reference to the “affidavit concerning Brian Crane’s confession”, I’m referring to the affidavit concerning Brian Crane’s confession. This is the Zbigniew Osmolski affidavit in which he attests that Brian Crane confessed this crime to him.

    If I was referring to an affidavit given by Brian Crane confessing his actions, I would have called it “Brian Crane’s affidavit”. Didn’t mean to befuddle you.

  4. So, in other words, there is no such thing as a “Bryan Crane confession” other than in claims by other people. Gotchya.

  5. Dear Jim, this isn’t about “Gotchya” politics, it’s about right and wrong! Fact is Bryan Crane said to Garry Duffy of the Tucson Citizen: “I had to look on the Internet to find out where the Boondocks is.” http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/transportation/90624.php Why the lie? Two others have confirmed that Crane was there, Scott Egan and Brooks Keenan and they have told this to the Attorney General office.

    Very soon more will be coming out on the databases through Bill Risner.

  6. Jimmy isn’t playing gotchya politics, but pointing out to JT what unsubstatiated means in this particular case. The Weekly isn’t out to destroy the work done so far by election integrity folks, but I think it’s important for election integrity folks to think before they react and argue of word choices and accusing us of being out to get anyone. I’m just lucky Jimmy allows us to continue to write about this subject. I’m certain if we were all stuck in an elevator together we’d have one lively discussion (beer would be good), but hopefully leave with some level of respect for one another, too.

  7. Being willfully obtuse about what’s contained in the affidavits doesn’t explain to me why these affidavits are “unsubstantiated”.

    Is the Weekly saying that Zbigniew Osmolski and the two other witnesses at the Boondocks have all committed perjury by lying in their affidavits?

Comments are closed.