ELECTION RESULTSgreenspun.com : LUSENET : 1998 Guam Elections : One Thread
I've been asked to start a new thread on the election results, so here it is. This discussion has dominated the "Please be good sports" thread, but that's getting a little long, so please continue the election results discussions here.
Let's see: we have no majority in the gubernatorial race, discrepancies in most of the precincts, uncounted write-in ballots, uncounted absentee ballots, people using the same social security #s, people signing in for others, possible non-u.s. citizens, the feds getting involved, and the election commission auditing itself. In short, chaos.
And Karl and the 98ers seem to want us to ignore these threats to the democratic process, and they want to spin it all as just allegations by the other side. Why would they not want an honest election process? What are they afraid of?
-- Lighthouse Keeper (email@example.com), November 11, 1998
Let the world know, you and I agree on the election! IT IS CHAOS!!!!!
We do have a "majority" in the election for Carl as governor. As Legal-truth has said, a majority is 50% + 1. It is the Ada Camacho folks that want to confuse the issue by asking that blank ballots and ballots with more then one governor be counted. Per Guam law and many court precedents, those ballots are VOID. In order for Carl not to have a majority, you must include voided ballots due to double votes AND those who did NOT vote for governor on total votes cast for governor. If you did NOT vote, then it is not a vote counted! This has been policy of the Election Commission for 26 years but now AFTER the election, the Ada Camacho team wants to change it! If you do not like the results of the election, is that sufficient reason to reverse previous policy which is also against the current legal thinking of the 9th Circuit Court's sister appeals court? (Any decision by the 9th Circuit Court in conflict of the 3rd Circuit Court would be an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court because of Inconsistent Appeals Court rulings.) Remember, the Organic Act say majority of "votes" cast NOT "ballots" cast!
Many of the discrepancies you point out are being resolved through an audit with observers by both parties. I have NOT heard of any substantiated evidence of deliberate tampering. If there is evidence, I support the immediate investigation and filing of both Guam and Federal criminal charges against all persons implicated. Then let the courts determine who is criminally responsible!
The write-in votes WERE counted by computer tabulation. It has been a long time to waiting for the specific names and counts but the numbers were provided. I agree the Election Commission staff has taken too long but this is an independent bi-partisan commission and it is not a part of the administration. We want answers as much as anyone else!
Any improper use of social security numbers by voters and non US citizens voting must be prosecuted (hopefully by the Federal criminal justice system so Guam Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill!)
Again, the election audit was done with BOTH Republican and Democrat observers so I don't think the argument that "if the Election Commission is doing the audit it is a cover up" is very plausible and again they are an INDEPENDENT agency.
IF there was a question on voter eligibility, that should have been raised before the election. Why did Tony Sanchez wait to bring forth these allegations? What was his basis? Was he using his official access privilege for a political gain? Did he violate the privacy rights of those people he named? What was the basis for determining they were not US citizens? Why have so many US citizens come forward claiming they were falsely accused? I think Tony has a lot of questions to answer! By the way, is the Court Administrator covered under the Mini-Hatch Act! His partisanship could be of concern regarding the impartiality of the Court!
IF the number of unresolved contested votes is greater then the margin of victory for this election, then it should be redone!! This would mean IF there are over 3000 votes contested, we must redo the election for governor. It also means that if there are over 307 contested votes (the number between position 15 and position 16) in the Senatorial race that are unresolved we must hold the senatorial race over!
It may turn out that we will redo the Senatorial race only. Maybe the whole election. It may turn out after the Election Commission is done and the courts have spoken, no repeat election will be required. I do not think it could be only a governors race however.
I am not afraid of redoing the election. I am concerned that if it is redone, the absentee be given enough notice and a determination be made on registration. (i.e. will there be a new period? what about those who did not vote on Nov. 3 etc.) I also would oppose doing any election over unless there is sufficient proof that the irregularities were enough to cause a difference!
You ask what are people afraid of? I have not heard any of the senator elects including the Republicans begging for a new election!
Lighthouse, I will still occasionally comment. I am not into throwing or defending insults or defaming character of those that may disagree with me. Despite my reserve and respect I have shown in this forum, many of your other participants seem to feed on mutual verbal abuse. Lighthouse, you and I disagree on a lot of this but you have at lease been a gentleman (or is it a "gentle lady"??)
-- Bob Kelley (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 12, 1998.
Today is a very sad day for the people of Guam as this day will go on in History that democracy does NOT exist on our beautiful island. I watched the 6pm news and Leonila Hererro clearly seemed pressured. Anyone watching this footage would agree. It is so obvious that this was a setup and I know the PEOPLE of GUAM are not going to sit back and let this administration SLAP them on the face. Wake up People we are being controlled by the Governor and his Goons. I hope the FBI will expedite their case on the many corrupt going-ons of this administration before it's too late and we can call our governor another Ferdinand or Saddam.
-- Sad (email@example.com), November 12, 1998.
Yes, I agree, it's completely sad... At least it's all on tape. karl has gone way overboard this time, it's going come back to bite him and his cronies bad in the end. I too was present during the confrontation between Angel Santos and gil shinohara, it was obvious that gil has a problem, maybe all that ice is affecting his mind. He(gil) was picking a fight, he doesn't seem to have a clue as to defusing the situation diplomaticly. Where did karl find this guy? just another hothead/icehead off of the street? Same place where joey duenas was hanging out I guess. All of karl's appointees are below standard, look at that horecky guy, he is a second rate lawyer karl needed in a pinch.
-- (Iknowyou@youdontknow.me), November 12, 1998.
I did not know that there was a confrontation between Gil Shinohara and Angel Santos. Would you care to fill me in on what happened?
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 12, 1998.
Gosh, just one vote short, however tomorrow will be the final down for 98's crowning of King Carl. Control your emotions Lucifer L.G. Santos or you may end up as your buddy Kid Mark Double K.O. Charfauros on election eve. We recorded and enjoyed the KUAM NEWS recordings of the twin madogs in action of Fred L.G. Castro and little mauleg-blue boy Doug Moylan at the Guam Election Commission. Hafa mohon maglegs...what other games will you play. Keep your cool you may not enjoy tomorrow.
-- (email@example.com), November 12, 1998.
Karl Gutierrez has proven he'll do anything to win a vote. He has paved thousands of driveways. He has given away $2.5 million in free power poles. He hires friends and family for big $$$. He has broken bid and procurement laws to give friends and family contracts. He has bought off republicans with big money GEDA loans and contracts.So it's pretty safe to say Karl will bend over backwards to win votes.
With all that in mind, it's scary that Karl, Ron Teehan, Bob Kelley and the 98ers have been in effect saying: "Forget about all this fishy stuff, just certify Karl and Maddy the winners."
With Karl's record, it makes him look pretty guilty. One would think if we had a good governor, he would call for a new election, given the scandal and controversy surrounding this one.
This hoopla about Tony Sanchez waiting to release the information he had is ridiculous. If anybody could read, the PDN reported that he requested the voter list for cross checking after the election, on November 5.
We do have many problems with this election. Mr. Sanchez has turned over a list of possible non-US citizens numbering 5,800. We have instances of ballots turning up in envelopes, we have instances of 151 people conspiring to fraud the election by using fake Social Security numbers. The FBI is investigating.
With all that ugly information staring our leaders in the face, they pretty much say "Forget it, make US the winners."
The bottom line is that if people can fraud an election, affect the outcome and win, democracy is a joke on Guam.
Why even have an election? We should all just say "Seig Hail Karl!" and make him rule for life.
We already live under an administration that won't release information to the public. Directors don't show up to oversight hearings (Arrogance). "Public Servants" don't serve the public, theyn serve their own political supporters, to a degree that is damaging Guam. We have high unemployment, thousands of droped criminal cases, an ice epidemic, and FBI investigation of every major Government agency. What's next?
The number of "possibly tainted" votes clearly shows the People should demand a new election. It's sad we don't see our "leaders" calling for that. Instead they are protecting their own interests, but given Karl's track record, how could I have expected anything else?
Just think people, election rigging is happening right here on Guam. Sobering thought when you think of how many people have died to protect democracy.
-- Chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 12, 1998.
Come on guys, I think it's time for those who oppose Carl wake up. The election commission has unanimously (except for the members that walked out or weren't aware of the meeting) certified Carl as the winner. Everyone must realize that Guam now has the finest governor money can buy. We need to leave the administration alone so they can get back to work. Carl has over 3 million dollars worth of political favors to pay back & only 4 years to get it done. So let's give him some slack
-- just me (email@example.com), November 12, 1998.
So Carl turned the tables at the Guam Election Commission on Joe Ada. Crafty Carl beat Joe at his own rope-a-dope game. Did you see the crying faces of Joe Mesa and Fred Castro on KUAM NEWS after the vote count as approved. Joe Ada's team of Joe Mesa and Doug Moylan were sleeping on the job again. No wonder why they are going down in history as the biggest losers of all the time. Come on 'wake up' Smoking Joe, Carl the mauleg crusher is prepared to knock you out. Wake up Joe the game is over yesterday was the wake and today is the funeral.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 12, 1998.
You (a bunch of words that the moderator deleted because they were just insulting and added nothing to a rational discussion. People have been warned about this already. A couple of follow-up threads were also deleted. This person contributes nothing but posts calling people "crybabies" and "mohons" but adds nothing intelligent to the discussion.)
-- (email@example.com), November 12, 1998.
Hey Chrix! Glad to see that you are still around. I really miss you on talk radio. (Maybe you should open a radio station of your own..)
Anyway people, lets get one thins clear... THE ELECTION PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, it does'nt matter what party was involved, who spun what or even if the list of people that sanchez submitted was a farce, it was just plain compromised.
Thank you for your time.
-- who cares (missing firstname.lastname@example.org), November 12, 1998.
The fact that there were so many discrepancies with the election is one reason to have a run-off election. Another reason is the fact that the Guam Election Commission has conducted it's business unsatisfactorily is another. Another is the fact that, Carl has continually lied throughout the election, deceiving the voters, AND WINNING BY DECEPTION, THAT'S RIGHT CARL, DECEPTION, I DO HOPE YOU'RE READING THIS. These voters have been blinded by GEDA LOANS, Govt. Contracts, paved driveways, $$$, pay raises, free power poles, free utilities, and so forth. What kind of deficit has Carl been talking about all these years, HE WAS THE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE ADA ADMINISTRAITON. What kind of deficit has Carl been claiming that was caused by the TAX REBATES AND 5440, THE SAME ONES CARL HIMSELF AUTHORED BILLS FOR AND PUSHED THEM THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. What kind of deficit has Carl been talking about, THE SAME ONE HE CAUSED BY ALLOWING A LEGISLATIVE BUDGET SO LARGE THAT THERE WERE 600 EMPLOYEES, AND ENOUGH MONEY FOR OFF-ISLAND TRIPS GALORE. What kind of man(Carl) would go to the extent of hiring nearly ALL OF HIS RELATIVES FOR NICE-PAYING GOVT. POSITIONS. He has committed so many under the table deals. And let me clear something up for all of you, JOE ADA solved loadshedding. The securing of money and starting of construction during the ADA administration led to Cabras 3/4 to be built. Carl was there to cut the ribbon. Also, besides the point, Carl claimed during the debate "It's easy to start something, but harder to finish." Why type of asshole can possibly think that he can fool everyone with the black lie. Is it easier to find $100 million dollars and start a project, or complete a project with the money already there, and everyone already paid. 99% WOULD AGREE STARTING SOMETHING IS A LOT HARDER. I have to admit, Joe Ada is not perfect, nobody is. At least Joe is a million times more honest than Carl, AND YES, THAT'S WHY YOU ELECT A LEADER, TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST A SELECT FEW AS CARL HAS ALWAYS CONDUCTED HIMSELF. During the ADA administration, every taxpayer got rebates, During the Gutierrez administration, NOT EVERYONE GOT PAVED DRIVEWAYS... See the difference...
-- Frank Cruz (email@example.com), November 13, 1998.
Thank you for returning to the forum, but I must be frank and say that your post seems a little ignorant. This is not an insult -- it's just an observation that some of your assertions aren't as informed as they could be.
* You state: "Per Guam law and many court precedents, (ballots not marked in the gubernatorial section) are VOID."
This has already been debated on this forum. Guam law does not have precedence over the Organic Act and does not apply when interpreting the Organic Act. You don't tell us what "many court precedents" you're talking about, but I'll assume from latter portions of your post that you're referring to ONE court decision: that of the 3rd circuit of appeals. As has already been stated, this decision is NOT precedence when it comes to Guam. You are misinformed. It has no binding qualities whatsoever.
* You state: "If you did NOT vote, then it is not a vote counted! This has been policy of the Election Commission for 26 years."
The election commission is not perfect, and its previous mistakes don't have the binding qualities that court decisions do. In no other election did the commission's policy on this issue matter so much. Only now, when it really matters, does this issue need scrutiny. You talk about people who "did NOT vote", but no one is talking about people who didn't vote -- we're talking about people who voted but decided to make a statement by leaving the gubernatorial part of the ballot blank. This is a valid issue and should be decided by the courts that govern Guam, and probably by the U.S. Supreme Court.
* You further state: "Many of the discrepancies you point out are being resolved through an audit with observers by both parties. I have NOT heard of any substantiated evidence of deliberate tampering."
An audit should not be done on an agency by that very agency. Just as the attorney general's office should not be investigating itself, and the so-called "governor" Karl Gutierrez should not be investigating corruption complaints in his own office, neither should the election commission audit the many problems it has with its own counting. Voters have already lost trust in this commission -- why should we accept their findings that everything is now magically okay?
* You also state: "I agree the Election Commission staff has taken too long but this is an independent bi-partisan commission and it is not a part of the administration. We want answers as much as anyone else!"
Several times in your post you make a point of stressing that the commission is bi-partisan and independent. You make a point that it is not influenced by this administration, presumably because it's so obvious that the administration meddles in other agencies such as the AG's office and GPD, but I haven't accused this administration with meddling in this case. I said that "Governor" Karl and his supporters seem to want to forget about all the problems with the ballots and declare a winner. Karl has said this over and over, and so have his supporters. Why are they in such a rush to declare a winner? Doesn't the integrity of this process matter as much to "Governor" Karl as it does to the voters?
* You state: "IF there was a question on voter eligibility, that should have been raised before the election. Why did Tony Sanchez wait to bring forth these allegations? What was his basis? Was he using his official access privilege for a political gain? Did he violate the privacy rights of those people he named? What was the basis for determining they were not US citizens? Why have so many US citizens come forward claiming they were falsely accused? I think Tony has a lot of questions to answer! By the way, is the Court Administrator covered under the Mini-Hatch Act! His partisanship could be of concern regarding the impartiality of the Court!"
This paragraph has the most serious flaws of all the statments in your post. It is ignorant, and it is dangerous in that it can spread misconceptions. First, the PDN reported that Tony requested the voter list after the election. If he did have the list before the election, as you imply but offer no evidence for, then what evidence do you have that he ran a check and found the illegal voters before the election? You offer no proof and yet imply some very serious allegations. This is reckless, Mr. Kelly. It is also typical of the 98 kampaign -- you attack every person who might stand in your way without addressing any of the serious issues.
Second, you ask whether he's violated the privacy rights of the people on the non-citizen list. He was forwarding a list of names to the election commission, which he got the names from in the first place. How does this violate their privacy? The commission already has the same information. And these people coming forward with proof of citizenship is laughable -- how do they know they're on the list? It was never made public. The only people who had it were Tony Sanchez, the INS, and members of the commission -- and they're expressly forbidden by law from giving it to anyone else who shouldn't have it. If these people have seen the list, someone is in serious violation of the law. If these people haven't seen the list, it's an obvious political ploy. Either way, it's just funny.
Third, I don't know if Tony is covered by the mini-hatch act. I don't know him, but after being accused of being Tony, I asked a couple people about him. He took a couple weeks leave from the court, apparently, to take part in the campaigns, either for his brother Simon Sanchez or for the republicans, I'm not sure which. But he seems to be the only director who has taken leave for campaigning, instead of campaigning on government time like many of the 98 directors do. How many of the 98 directors were at the 98 headquarters for most of the day? Your charges of him affecting the impartiality of the court is also reckless and without grounds.
* You go on to say: "IF the number of unresolved contested votes is greater then the margin of victory for this election, then it should be redone!!"
First, try using fewer exclamation marks. Second, if there are a large number of ballots thrown into question, there should be a full investigation into the election by the feds, because the whole process has been tainted. How do we know the other ballots aren't messed up either?
If your only concern with redoing the election is that the absentee voters be given enough notice, I think this is a minor point and it can be accomodated.
* Finally, you state: "You ask what are people afraid of? I have not heard any of the senator elects including the Republicans begging for a new election!"
This is illogical. Just because the Republican senators are afraid of a re-election doesn't mean "Governor" Karl isn't afraid. I'm not sure how your statement proves that the "governor" isn't afraid of another election. And another thing: the Republican senators have also not been pishawing the obvious flaws in the election results and calling and pushing for immediate certification. They might want certification, but they have the sense not to mess with the integrity of the voting process.
In conclusion, I was frankly hoping for more from you, Bob. I have not attacked your character, but instead have attacked your arguments, so please do not think I've been insulting. I think this kind of discourse is what is needed on this forum, but I hope in the future that 98ers will come on with a little more logic.
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 13, 1998.
Since I always get hanged for suggesting books, (And honestly I have not read alot of books) I'll give you the opening qoute to CROSSFIRE, the book in which Oliver Stone created the JFK movie, based on his assasination. "A big lie is better than a smaller lie..." Mein Kampf (sic) Aldof Hitler
(Again I may have qouted it wrong, I've only read it once)
And to the people on this forum whom might think it a bit offensive that I have qouted the Fuhrer (indirectly) why not we have admission from partisan contributers whom have acknowledged the comparison between our incumbent govenor and Machiavelli's, The Prince.
Well, I'll add more once I come back from my trip, till then try to keep the island in one piece. I'll need a place to land.
-- ThirdParty (ThirdParty@gov.guam.org), November 14, 1998.
Any rational person would agree that you and I have approached this election from opposite end of the spectrum. One of us is 100% for the reelection of Carl and the other of us is 100% against it. I have seen so much misinformation spread on this forum that it would require me to devote my full attention and time to address it adequately. And even then those on this forum who disagree would refuse to consider it.
I have stated among my family and friends that their are 3 groups regarding the election on Guam. Those that will support the governor no matter what he does, those that oppose the governor no matter what he does and finally those who will try to utilize the information about how are leaders operate and lead to pick who is best for our island.
I can work with anyone as long as we have an understanding of the ground rules. One of which I have previously mentioned is "debate and criticize ideas and philosophies but respect the individuals."
I believe that I gave a rational opinion regarding the election status. You felt it was a little ignorant. Basically, I think we will need to agree that we disagree.
You stated that "Guam Law does not have precedence over the Organic Act and does not apply when interpreting the Organic Act."
If local law is not in conflict with Federal Law, it will apply. Please see sections 11114 and 11114 of the Guam Code and cite any known federal law or precedent that negates them.
'11111. Imperfectly Marked Ballots Void. At any election, any ballot which is not marked as provided by law shall be void; but the ballot shall be preserved. Two (2) or more markings in one (1) voting square or a mark made partly within and partly without a voting square or space does not make a ballot void. SOURCE: GC '2511, as reenacted by P.L. 11-209.
'11114. Only Invalid Portions Rejected. If a voter indicates either: (a) By placing his marks in the voting squares adjacent to the names of any candidates, or (b) By writing the names of persons for an office in the blank spaces, or (c) By a combination of both, the choice of more than there are candidates to be elected or certified for any office, or if for any reason it is impossible to determine his choice for any office, his ballot shall not be counted for that office, but the rest of his ballot, if properly marked, shall be counted.
The key phrase in '11111 is "any ballot which is not marked as provided by law shall be void" and in '11114 it is "the choice of more than there are candidates to be elected or certified for any office, or if for any reason it is impossible to determine his choice for any office, his ballot shall not be counted for that office."
As I stated earlier, if a voter did not like either choice for governor, they should have written as a write-in who they preferred in the write-in section. If those blank ballots had been write-ins I would be in total agreement that in accordance with the Organic Act, we need a run off. As it is, based upon prior Election Commission practice and the Guam Laws stated above, blank ballot do not count. If this were to have been changed, it should have been done prior to the election.
Lighthouse, you said "the 3rd circuitdecision is NOT precedence when it comes to Guam". I have never stated it is binding. I have said we must look at its logic. Any opinion issued by any lower court contrary to the 3rd court decision will surely be appealed to the 9th Circuit. If the 9th circuit issues an opinion contrary to the 3rd Circuit, I said in my last message "Any decision by the 9th Circuit Court in conflict of the 3rd Circuit Court would be an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court because of Inconsistent Appeals Court rulings." The Supreme Court ruling would, of course be final. (We do agree it may ultimately go that far)
Lighthouse both legal-truth and I asked for any precedents in any jurisdiction that support the argument that "blank ballots count in the total when determining the majority". You spend much of your posting arguing why the 3rd circuit should not apply and why the election commission should change policy AFTER an election. You have yet to supply any legal precedents or laws that clearly support your opinion! Can you cite any cases, on point that support your opinion?
You said "The election commission is not perfect, and its previous mistakes don't have the binding qualities that court decisions do. In no other election did the commission's policy on this issue matter so much." This statement is self evident if you mean it only matters if the blank ballots make a difference in the outcome. (Why elese would we even discuss the blank ballot issue if it were moot?) On the other hand maybe you mean it matters more now because it is a plausible (I use the term "plausible" loosely here) way to get your candidate, the loser in the election, a new chance in a runoff. A run off would make sense if you had 3 or more candidates and no one was a clear winner but I hardly think it was the intent of congress to have a run off between two candidates in an election with only two candidates, only because of the blank ballot issue. (See: Congressional Opinion given to Congressman Underwood)
I will again state that the Election Commission had observers of both parties. Lighthouse, you could have been selected if you had volunteered for the Republicans? Do you not even trust the Republican observers?
I have stressed that the Election Commission is bi-partisan and independent because that is the essence of its creation. That is also why it is currently deadlocked. You are muddying up the waters when you try to bring in "AG's office and GPD." You asked "Why are they in such a rush to declare a winner?" I guess we can go 4 years without a winner! I know the Governor remains until a successor is elected.. but what happens to the legislature?
Regarding Tony Sanchez, I have been extremely mild compared to the accusations that have flown around this forum. Until the dates of inquires are publicized and the particular sources he utilized to determine that he believed someone was a non citizen, we must be careful in this discussion. I have not made allegations, I have asked questions, just like you have lighthouse. If the same questions were asked of the other side, you would have been silently awaiting the answers. Please take some time to reflect on how one sided you have been running this forum. (That is my only opinion not an accusation.)
If I am correct, Tony Sanchez took a couple of months off to be the Media Chair of the Ada-Camacho campaign. (Can anyone correct or support this?)
You asked me "How many of the 98 directors were at the 98 headquarters for most of the day?" I dont know.. I have been too busy putting out fires, planning for storms, planning a new 911 system, overseeing the emergency radio system (that was botched by the previous administration when I took over its management) and assisting in investigating illegal telephone interceptions. However, I did attend several meetings at lunch and after work.
Just so I dont get pounced on regarding my presence at the Election Commission Saga. I usually work from 8 (or before) to 11:45 and if I attend the Commission meetings I return to my office between 2:00 and 2:30 and leave at about 7pm. I have worked several hours today (Saturday) and work the same lateness and weekends, even when I do not go to the meetings of the Election Commission. No matter how many extra hours I work or how much I do (or dont do) my pay is the same)
Lighthouse you also said "Your charges of him (Tony Sanchez) affecting the impartiality of the court is also reckless and without grounds." What I said was "His partisanship * could be of concern * regarding the impartiality of the Court!" I believe, ideally the courts should be outside the political life of Guam. This is why judges should not go to fundraisers or be involved it the political life the rest of us "enjoy". I believe this should also apply to the senior administrator and the clerks in the court. I just note the relationships: Tony works at the pleasure of the presiding judge whos brother is a senator whos chief of staff is the chairman of the election commission. Is this good or bad? I dont know. Others may be better able to defend or detail the problems here.
I use exclamation marks to show excitement. I would raise my voice if we were discussing this in person. As far as your remark, "there should be a full investigation into the election by the feds." I already stated earlier, "Any improper use of social security numbers by voters and non US citizens voting must be prosecuted (hopefully by the Federal criminal justice system so Guam Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill!)" I dont think we have an argument on that point.
My only concern is not that the absentee voters be given enough notice although that is important. What I have asked is for precedents and procedures for having a new election and voiding the last one. This is my big concern! Please cite applicable laws and/or court cases. If we are to have a discussion, please give us the information and facts about a new election so we can properly discuss them. (Where is Legal-truth when you need free advice?)
Lighthouse, you stated you wanted more from me. I am just a techno that ran a consulting company four years ago. I came into government from the private sector. I do admire our governor. I think he did a lot for the island and he allowed me to make a contribution also. I will defend him as best I can. As I stated earlier in this forum, I speak only for myself as a supporter.
You concluded with "I hope in the future that 98ers will come on with a little more logic.
I conclude with:
Logic is in the mind of the beholder!!
-- Bob Kelley (email@example.com), November 14, 1998.
Unfortunately the courts are not outside of Guam politics. Jeff Evans is a prime example. Does everyone remember? Or do we need a reminder? Here's what the WorldNetDaily had to say about the situation :
Of all the cases against individuals that WorldNetDaily has examined, one of the most suspicious is that of Jeff Evans, a popular conservative TV talk show host on the U.S. territory of Guam. Thats the island where theemocratic governor, Carl Gutierrez, raised nearly a million dollars for the Democratic National Committee.
Evans was incarcerated in a federal prison for the month of October 1996 -- which he sees as an obvious railroading to keep him off the air during the final weeks before the election. The charge? Failure to file an income tax return for three years beginning in 1990.
A Republican, Evans had been an outspoken critic not only of the Gutierrez administration, but of the ClintonWhite House. Though he was never audited, charges of failure-to-file were filed in federal court in December 1995. The tax bill was supposedly $3,700 for the three years. There was no question Evans had paid taxes --$37,000 had been taken from his paycheck during the years in question. At issue was whether he had filed hisreturns to avoid paying a few thousand dollars more than was withheld. He claims he did file but lost the actual forms during a move.
The burden of proof was on me, he says.
The case dragged on until May 1996, when Evans was persuaded to plead guilty and agree to a plea bargain since fighting the charges hardly seemed worth the effort. Sentencing was set for Sept. 13.
Three years probation, a few hundred hours of community service, a fine, no prison time -- it didnt seem all that big a deal, he recalls. I wouldnt be sent to jail for $3,700 in taxes that I didnt even owe.
As Evans tells it, When the judge read confined for 30 days, I just sort of got numb -- this wasnt going the way it was supposed to. My attorneys chin dropped down to his chest. There were open mouths all over the courtroom. Nobody could believe what they had just seen and heard.
On Oct. 3 -- shackled at the ankles and wrists -- Evans was transported by air from Guam International Airport to Honolulu, then to the North Las Vegas Detention Center where he spent almost his entire sentence. This was no Club Fed, with tennis courts and TV, Evans explained. This was a real-life, shove- the-food-under-the-door kind of prison. Evans found himself sharing a a two-man cell with a guy that looked like Charles Manson.
The last nine days of his sentence were spent at the more upscale Nella Penitentiary where there were doctors, lawyers, politicians -- and two other guys doing time for failure to file.
Asked why he thinks he was targeted, Evans doesnt mince words.
The main reason was to get me off the air before the election, he said. It didnt work, because I came back a martyr and the Republicans gained a majority in the Legislature for the first time in 14 years. And my ratings went through the ceiling, because everyone on Guam knew what had happened.
He does wonder, however, about the extent of White House involvement in all this.
The governor, he observes, has no influence over a federal district judge, so why did the judge get involved? At the time, Governor Gutierrez had just made that $900,000 contribution to the Clinton-Gore campaign. That bought him the 40-minute limo ride with President Clinton, and he was the only governor on the dais with Clinton when he gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. So, I guess it bought him some access. Was it through that that pressure was put on the judge? I dont know. But I know that Gutierrez reached out and touched someone in Washington.
The above was quoted from http://www.guam.net/jeffevans/worldnetdaily.html
Sound familiar? Wake up and smell the coffee.
P.S. (porgot something) Sorry it was so long.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1998.
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I don't respect you -- it was your arguments that I was calling ignorant, not you personally. I agree that we are going to disagree on the election issues, and very likely no amount of arguing between us will change anything. I think it's still worth discussing, because then others can take the information and evaluate it for themselves.
I almost feel like I'm wasting my time arguing issues that have already been discussed on this forum, and to tell the truth, I don't think you offer any new arguments. However, I'm not one to let things sit, so I'll try to keep my responses brief:
* You state: "If local law is not in conflict with Federal Law, it will apply. Please see sections 11114 and 11114 of the Guam Code and cite any known federal law or precedent that negates them."
The issue that needs to be interpreted by the courts is in the Organic Act, not Guam law. It is an interpretation of the term "votes cast" and while Guam law attempts to interpret this, I believe it uses faulty logic and I think an interpretation by the courts is needed. My opinion, your opinion, the election commission's legal counsel's opinion, a Congressional legal counsel's opinion, or anyone else's opinion but the proper courts, do not matter. I think this should be interpreted by the courts and I think we're wasting our breaths arguing here.
* You state: "As it is, based upon prior Election Commission practice and the Guam Laws stated above, blank ballot do not count. If this were to have been changed, it should have been done prior to the election."
I don't see any reason it should have been changed before the election and not after. This issue didn't come up before the election. It only came up after. The commission should address the issue when it comes up. It is perfectly free to change a mistaken policy at any time. If this were an issue that would have caused voters or candidates to do something differently before the elections, that's a different matter. But this issue didn't apply before the elections -- it is a matter of interpreting the results of the elections, which by definition happen after the elections.
* You state: "Lighthouse, you said "the 3rd circuitdecision is NOT precedence when it comes to Guam". I have never stated it is binding. I have said we must look at its logic."
You said in your original post that there are "many court precedents" and later talked abou the 3rd circuit decision -- precedence in the courts is binding, and therefore I took that to mean you were saying the decision was binding in Guam's case. This is incorrect. If you were talking about another of the "many" court precedents, please cite that decision that has precedence.
* You state: "You have yet to supply any legal precedents or laws that clearly support your opinion!"
Mr. Kelly, you also have yet to supply any legal precedents that support your opinion. Again, the 3rd circuit decision is not precedence, and neither is the legal opinion of any lawyer. The courts that rule over Guam have yet to interpret the section of the Organic Act we're talking about. We are both wasting our time here. I say, take this to court, and soon, before this chaos drags on any longer.
* You state: "I will again state that the Election Commission had observers of both parties."
I made the simple point that the election commission, no matter how bi-partisan it is, should never audit itself. No agency or business should audit or investigate itself. This is obvious.
* You state: "Regarding Tony Sanchez, I have been extremely mild compared to the accusations that have flown around this forum. Until the dates of inquires are publicized and the particular sources he utilized to determine that he believed someone was a non citizen, we must be careful in this discussion. I have not made allegations, I have asked questions, just like you have lighthouse."
No. You were very bold in your implications of Mr. Sanchez. You asked questions, sure, but in doing so you questioned the court's impartiality, you questioned whether he violated privacy rights, you questioned whether he withheld info about non-citizens on the voting list before the election -- all without any evidence or reason for believing that any of his actions were questionable. I still think that doing so was reckless. When I question the so-called "governor"'s actions, I do so with good reason. Cite a specific example and I'll give you the good reason.
* You instruct me: "Please take some time to reflect on how one sided you have been running this forum. (That is my only opinion not an accusation.)"
I know I have been one-sided, and I have been open about this. But I have stated repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, that anyone who has suggestions about reckless allegations, insults, or anything else that should be deleted, should let me know and I would seriously consider that. I have done so on every occassion, although not many people have taken me up on this offer. I have offered to add new threads on issues people want to discuss, if only people would suggest them. This thread is a result of that. I have given people every opportunity to balance my one-sidedness, and yet people seem more interested in accusing me of being one-sided than suggesting more balanced approaches.
* You state: "You asked me "How many of the 98 directors were at the 98 headquarters for most of the day?" I dont know.. I have been too busy putting out fires, planning for storms" .... etc.
I wasn't talking about you, although it's interesting that you defended yourself anyway. But it's a fact that many 98 directors spent a lot of time at the 98 headquarters and at other kampaign functions on government time, and I know you can't dispute this. Too many people saw it with their own eyes. Too many govguam employees know their directors haven't been around at all the last few months.
* You concluded: "Logic is in the mind of the beholder!!"
This shows a lack of understanding of logic, which is a system of reasoning that is as objective as mathematics. But yes, I agree that many people interpret statements as logical or illogical based on their perceptions, not on actual logic. I blame this on our education system.
My conclusion: The courts need to decide. There is no legal precedence. End the chaos and take it to courts, otherwise people will never accept whoever is declared the winner. If the courts mandate "Governor" Karl as the winner, I'll accept that easily, although I refuse to go away as an outspoken critic. Maybe I'll even shed my cloak of anonymity and be the thorn in King Karl's side that is sorely needed.
-- Lighthouse (email@example.com), November 14, 1998.
Regarding your recent response to Kelley - you stated:
"My opinion, your opinion, the election commission's legal counsel's opinion, a Congressional legal counsel's opinion, or anyone else's opinion but the proper courts, do not matter. I think this should be interpreted by the courts and I think we're wasting our breath arguing here."
Youre simply misguided on this issue. When a Court, ANY Court - makes OR reviews a decision on anything - EVERYONES opinion matters - if the opinion has substance. Thus, you may be accurate when you state that the 3rd Circuit's opinion on this issue is not binding on the Courts likely to make the decision here. However, there is more to making a judicial decision then "binding" decisions. There are what is called "persuasive" decisions. When a Court from another jurisdiction reflects on an issue "on point" to the issue being reviewed - this is generally called a persuasive decision. If you review some besic Court decisions, you will find that a majority of them always cite some persuasive authority - especially when the issue has not been extensively adjudicated in the particular jurisdiction. Even the U.S. Supreme Court cites lower court decisions from various jurisdictions - when making their decision. These decisions may not be binding - BUT the reasoning used by these lower courts or even administrative agencies ARE utilized in making their ultimate decision. For you to cast away everyone's opinion as not mattering is rediculous - and reflects your misundertanding of the judicial process.
The fact remains - of Course this will be an issue of first impression for any Court under our jurisdiction. - Thus, they could go any way they want. That is already established. However, it also is a fact that because the 3rd Circuit has ALREADY made some reflection on this SAME issue - their arguments and decision - as will the arguments and decisions of the administrative agency (GEC); all the attorneys involved; the legislative history; and just about any substantive argument that makes its way into the Court - - WILL be important and crucial to the ultimate decision of the Court.
AS far as substantively - you state:
"You talk about people who "did NOT vote", but no one is talking about people who didn't vote -- we're talking about people who voted but decided to make a statement by leaving the gubernatorial part of the ballot blank. This is a valid issue and should be decided by the courts that govern Guam, and probably by the U.S. Supreme Court."
You are yourself putting forth an affirmative opinion about what is and what is not a vote - and then akwardly state that the Courts should decide the issue. This is the critical issue - and regardless of which side of the political fence you are - you should be able to think a little more deeply about the issue. Your reasoning is poor - and I think it is the same resoning which led the 3rd Circuit to decide against your type of reasoning. For instance - although you only refer to the governor part of the ballot - what if I as a voter went to to voting booth - took a ballot - left the whole ballot blank - dropped it into the box - and left. Sometimes Court's - just view things with common sense. Do you think I could reasonably answer a question posed to me "Did you vote yesterday?" - with a "yes, I did." If you think I really did vote - then you probably have a twisted view of what a vote means. You view that someone could vote "by making a statement to leave the ballot blank" is just what it is - your view. You and your crew may hate Carl so much that you will make yourselves believe anything. But Court's use a little more reason and analysis then that.
-- Everyone wants to be a lawyer (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1998.
That Jeff Evans thing was cool. He isn't quite the same now, though. I remember two days before the primary election, waiting for Barnett to come on the air, but he was fired. Just in time for the elections ...
Let's see. Administration holds back information, they don't want a new election (hiding?) and they control the media (except PDN, but have messed with reporters there!) and they get people fired.
Hafa Na Klasen Gubetno Gaige Gi Islata?
-- (email@example.com), November 14, 1998.
I think you've misunderstood me, and I'll take responsibility for that. Allow me to clarify.
* You stated: "Youre simply misguided on this issue. When a Court, ANY Court - makes OR reviews a decision on anything - EVERYONES opinion matters - if the opinion has substance."
I was saying no one's opinion but the proper courts really matter in the end. You are talking about persuasive opinions mattering when the issue is brought to the courts -- and I am completely familiar with persuasive (and non-binding) court decisions, so please don't assume I'm misguided. But no matter how persuasive you think your reasoning is, in the end, it's the court's reasoning and opinion that matters, not yours. That's all I'm saying. Arguing about how the Organic Act should be interpreted in this forum might be interesting, but it doesn't accomplish anything. What policy or action do you think you persuaded with your post? None, except my action in responding, and probably someone else's action in responding to me, and so on.
* You state: "However, it also is a fact that because the 3rd Circuit has ALREADY made some reflection on this SAME issue - their arguments and decision - as will the arguments and decisions of the administrative agency (GEC); all the attorneys involved; the legislative history; and just about any substantive argument that makes its way into the Court -- WILL be important and crucial to the ultimate decision of the Court."
It is this ultimate decision of the court that matters in the end, as I've already said. There are several very good lawyers I know who say the 3rd circuit's decision employed faulty reasoning, so it's very possible the 9th circuit and Supreme Court would see it this way as well. I don't see how your post has added any new information -- you are stating the obvious. Obviously the earlier decision is a persuasive decision, and its actual persuasiveness will depend on how sound the reasoning is, and obviously the reasoning brought in by the lawyers will be persuasive if it is sound. What are you telling us that we don't already know?
* Regarding my opinion of what a vote is, you state: "Your reasoning is poor - and I think it is the same resoning which led the 3rd Circuit to decide against your type of reasoning."
This is your interpretation of my reasoning. That's fine. Perhaps it is poor. But I'd like a court to decide, not you, and not the election commission.
* You go on: "For instance - although you only refer to the governor part of the ballot - what if I as a voter went to to voting booth - took a ballot - left the whole ballot blank - dropped it into the box - and left."
None of the ballots we're talking about were completely blank, but if you want to continue your reasoning to its end, let's extend your hypothetical: What if I went to the voting booth and cast a completely blank ballot, and what if every single voter except one voter cast a completely blank ballot? Could we allow the election to be decided by the one vote, and ignore the other votes, when obviously the 48,000 or so other voters made a strong statement against the candidates? I think blank ballots make a strong statement, but I'm sure you feel otherwise. It's a difference in opinion and I don't think we need to waste our time on arguments that won't change any policy or action. If you have strong reasoning on this issue, give it to the 98 lawyers.
Finally, you talk about "me and my crew" hating Karl so much we'll believe anything. First, I don't have a "crew" and I'm not affiliated with any group. I consider myself an ABCer, but I'm not in any organized group except this forum. Second, I don't "believe anything" but rather believe substantiated fact of wrongdoing in this administration (see the 98 sins threads). Third, I think the more common occurrence is 98ers who have bought into Karl's cult seem to believe anything.
Speaking of 98ers, are you Fred Horecky or Phil Carbullido?
The courts should decide. I'm done trying to push this through people's skulls.
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1998.
We have agreed that:
1) The election issue will probably end up in court and only then will it be settled. (There will still be MANY people who will not accept the courts decision! Just wait and count this as my prediction.) 2) That we will disagree about the good and bad of the election and the candidates (Isnt the freedom to have our own opinions great!)
You have asked for examples of why I have not accepted the arguments in this forum. Remember back when I said the school board accepted Carl as the better choice? Did you ever wonder why? Because Joe Ada FIRED the ELECTED BOARD and its director Gloria Nelson and replaced her with a non educator political hatchet lady! He then appointed his own board. We talk about education and text book problems. For the last 2 years of Joes administration, he DID order all the textbooks but never paid for them. When Carl became governor not only did Guam have no credit and have to pay IN ADVANCE. And it still needed to settle the past two years of unpaid bills before the companies would do business with Guam DOE. NOTE: This is not a posting to start a debate but are points that I used as reasons in supporting Carl.
You have misunderstood my use of precedents in your answers. I did not ask for a "binding" precedent, just a precedent that some jurisdiction has followed your logic. A binding precedent would only be in a court with jurisdiction over Guam and that will come after the appeal of our election.
We disagree about the rules needing to be changed BEFORE the election. My belief is that we have known of this situation for years, and it was discussed in groups I hang around before the election. To change a 24 year old policy after the election is not reasonable through my perspective. If we put that issue up on a poll, it would be evenly divided between our sides so again it is not really worth arguing about
I will try to get the Hawaii case. I did mention the Congressional Opinion. What have you cited for you cause?
You state the Election Commission should not audit itself? OK then rather then a system of bipartisan watchers of a bipartisan Commission doing the audit, I suggest that the Commission be audited by the Guam AGs office. Certainly the Federal issues will need the FBI but many of the alleged complaints (miscounted ballots, ballot stuffing etc.) are of a local nature and not a Federal issue. I always felt it was better to have a bipartisan audit but maybe we could move faster if the AGs office just confiscated the ballots and did the reconciliations in their office and reported on their findings.
Mr. Sanchezs innocence or guilt will not be proven or disprove in this forum. Just as their have been many questions previously raised in this forum about Ken Hamlet, George Bamba, Ginger Cruz, Mark Charfauros etc., he has now stepped into an arena to have questions asked. Proper investigations and time will answer all of these questions. I still believe that the courts should be as NON partisan as possible. I dont think if your were accused of a crime or in a civil litigation, you would want a diehard 98er managing your case and I sure dont want an avowed ABCer involved if I am in court. Really, Lighthouse, is my desire to have a court non partisan unreasonable?
I will admit that I have accused you of being one sided. I am one sided also. Our two sides are diametrically opposed however and that is ok"! I would have been happier in a forum with a neutral moderator and you (and your associates) had been an advocate for a change in the administration and the 98ers would have been an advocate for "4 more years". It would have provided more balance!
Although I said "Logic is in the mind of the beholder!!" the real quote is "Reality is in the mind of the beholder!!". Both statements are true to the extent that we believe what we believe based upon each of our distortions of experience, religion, intellect etc. This is a new thread I would rather debate in person someday but it is the essence of how good or bad will come from the emergence of Cyberspace and a global society is developing. Your forum, while I totally disagree with its slant, was a pioneer in the use of Cyberspace in politics on Guam. For that, Lighthouse I commend you. I expect future election pocket meetings will be the norm on the net!
Lighthouse, I look forward to you shedding your cloak of anonymity. Although we will probably seldom agree on politics, I would love to engage you in a roundtable on issues that will benefit Guam in the future. And who knows, maybe if you have some good suggestions, I can get them into the agenda during Carls next term!
-- Bob Kelley (email@example.com), November 14, 1998.
I don't remember asking you for examples of why you haven't accepted the arguments in this forum. I said I felt like I was wasting my time arguing the same issues again, and I'm still wasting my time now.
A quick note on education: attack Joe's record all you want, the fact is that Karl sued and battled with the board of education for 2 1/2 yrs and I'm not sure how this is better than replacing Gloria with a better administrator. Karl also refuses to release textbook money that has been appropriated even though he finds the money for driveway paving, hundreds of political hires and free power hookups. Where are his priorities? * You state: "I will try to get the Hawaii case. I did mention the Congressional Opinion. What have you cited for you cause?"
I would like at this point to eat some humble pie and back off a bit. I have been arguing the counter arguments to your assertions as if the counter arguments were my own. This is not true. I've been playing devil's advocate, but the opinions I've been advocating are not mine. My opinion is that the issue is cloudy, the Organic Act is vague, and an issue this important should be interpreted in court. I think I'm going to stop arguing the other side, because I'm not sure which side I really stand on. The issue is too open to take an intelligent stand. I'll accept completely what the courts decide.
* You suggested that the AG's office audit the election commission. This is laughable. Who controls the AG's office? The allegations of political interference at the AG's office are too believable to allow this process to be "cleaned up" by that same office. The feds need to come in. They're the only ones Karl can't control.
* You state: "Mr. Sanchezs innocence or guilt will not be proven or disprove in this forum. Just as their have been many questions previously raised in this forum about Ken Hamlet, George Bamba, Ginger Cruz, Mark Charfauros etc., he has now stepped into an arena to have questions asked. Proper investigations and time will answer all of these questions. I still believe that the courts should be as NON partisan as possible."
The charges about Hamlet and Bamba had basis -- there were documents and tapes (however illegal they were) that proved them. Allegations against Ginger were groundless, and I deleted them. Allegations against Charfauros were based on an anonymous call, and to date no charges have been pressed and no guilt has been found. Your allegations against Tony Sanchez have no grounds, at least none that you've cited. You simply questioned his behavior based on speculation, and have no real reason to question him other than the fact that his legitimate questions about non-citizens voting might stand in Karl's way. Would it be reckless of me to question whether Karl signed up all the non-citizens to vote for him? Yes, it would, because the only grounds I have for questioning that is third-hand information.
* You state: "I would have been happier in a forum with a neutral moderator and you (and your associates) had been an advocate for a change in the administration and the 98ers would have been an advocate for "4 more years". It would have provided more balance!"
The neutral forum, on Kuentos, was shut down. I stepped in and started my own forum, because one was needed. If anyone else wanted to start one, they were free to do so. But again, I have offered to seriously consider any suggestions by 98ers, but very few have been put forth.
I'm done with these issues.
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1998.
Bob, I suggest you watch your back because the FBI is in on almost everything you and this administration has done to cheat the people of Guam. You 98er's say that anyone can bring forth an FBI investigation, not true. The FBI will only investigate only if there were grounds to and so far they have numerous grounds to go on. I suggest you be careful and don't do anything illegal! As this administration has done to CHEAT the people of Guam.
-- watchful (email@example.com), November 15, 1998.
I will be happy to discuss the education issues including textbooks, vendor payments etc. later. You are upset that Carl battled the Board of Education but do not see that firing an elected board, locking out the duly hired director out of her office (the current chair of the Board )and replacing her with very high paid political favorite hatchet lady was equally or more wrong. It just shows what I have said earlier, we will always see things differently.
You commented that you are wasting your time arguing the same issues again, and your are still wasting your time now. I guess I feel the same way and that is why I have refrained from commenting as much as I read lately.
At least 3 times this week I have said the Federal authorities need to investigate Federal issues. Lighthouse, I dont know how I can make that any clearer! But if you do not want the local irregularities investigated by the Election Commission, I think the AG is all that is left. Please, Lighthouse, tell me who else legally has jurisdiction to investigate Guam Election Code violations.
Lighthouse, you have missed my biggest concern regarding Tony Sanchez. Should senior officials in the Court system be involved in partisan politics?
Today, I was at the business show at the Weston and discussed the Kuentos position on shutting down the forum they had hosted. It was shut down because it was, in their opinion, out of hand and the management was not comfortable with its tone.
Finally Lighthouse, you said you seriously considered suggestions from 98ers, but very few were put forth. That is your opinion and we have already touched that we both had STRONG views. Neither you nor I could be a good moderator because it is difficult to be a good moderator and an good advocate.
Despite all of that, I still think this forum was a good pioneering effort.
If you want to remain anonymous, that is ok, but do find me some time and engage in a discussion on these and related issues. You dont have to admit you are Lighthouse, because I have these same discussions with many folks in person on a regular basis. It is possible that I may have even had discussions with you since I dont know who you are!
-- Bob Kelley (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 1998.
Thank you for the warning. I will be careful, but I do hold a higher standard then just trying to barely stay out of a Federal criminal indictment! I do have to face myself. I must use the yardstick, "have I been fair to the people of Guam?" I have made mistakes, (we all are human) however I believe that I have given fair value to the people of Guam as my employer. And to the best of my knowledge, I have not vilated any Federal laws.
-- Bob Kelley (email@example.com), November 15, 1998.
The FBI should be involved in investigating any form of election fraud. After all, part of this election was for delegate, an elected official of the US government. Do you really think that these things will be resolved locally? NO!
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 1998.
If the elections weren't so horrificically debauched it would be funny. It could well be a movie with the Marx Brothers. It is not however and it is a shame that the political faction on our island has caused this embarrassment to us.
While standing back viewing the pages turn in this historic event, and it will go down in the history, I am reminded of the old Rat Pack severence. For those of you that have no idea of who or what the Rat Pack was, let me enlighten you.
Back in the late 50's and early 60's a group of very high profile stars started palling around together. They were Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop. During this time Peter Lawford, a brother in law to John F. Kennedy, introduced Sinatra to the then Senator. Sinatra became mesmerized by the young and affable Kennedy. Sinatra campaigned for Kennedy and when Kennedy became President he considered he had done his part to get him elected. Now Kennedy was coming to California and he was invited to stay at Sinatra's home. He accepted and Sinatra began doing all sorts of renovations for Kennedy's stay. He built special quarters and such. Well something happened and Kennedy changed his mind and decided to stay with Bing Crosby. Sinatra finding this out became enraged and told Lawford that if he couldn't get Kennedy to stay at his home he would be excluded from the Rat Pack. He couldn't swing it and he was no longer a Rat Packer. In fact a movie in the plans "Robin and the Seven Hoods" dropped Lawford and replaced him with, you guessed it, Bing Crosby.
Now that the history lesson is over let me make my point, Kennedy, Clinton both presidents. King Karl and Ole Baby Blue Eyes both use to getting their way are expecting a visit. When Kennedy changed his plans Sinatra went off like a 4th of July firework, when Clinton changed his plans Gutierrez mimicked Sinatra. Blaming the voters and the Election Commission for the change in plans instead of calling for a runoff or a new election, when it was discovered there were so many discrepancies. He should not have worried about it, if he honestly thought he won the first time, he would win again. The same people would vote for him again. But he didn't much to our shame. Sinatra went to Lawford while Gutierrez went to Whorecky to make sure changes would occur. Lawford failed and lets face it Mr. Horecky it was not smart to call for a vote of hands when the cameras were on Leonila Hererro across the table from you. We all saw that she did not raise her hand, thus the vote fell short of passing but you in your blundering tried to bulldoze it through. And I am sorry but with all your bravado and posturing you do not carry the tiniest bit of intimidation. You rant and rave like a small child not getting your own way. You should be spanked and sent to your room without dinner.
Well Lawford lost out with Sinatra, what did you lose Mr. Horecky besides you self respect and respect from others?
It is also interesting to note that only Bob Kelly deems to use his own name but in this Mein Kampf mentality we are forced to use a "nom de plume" for the safety of ourselves and our families. Just my opinion.
Before I forget I was at the Weston Hotel today for the Business Show and I noticed that GTA now sports red and yellow colors. They use to be white and blue. Any particular reason for the change?
-- Jane Public (email@example.com), November 15, 1998.
you state in response to me:
"None of the ballots we're talking about were completely blank, but if you want to continue your reasoning to its end, let's extend your hypothetical: What if I went to the voting booth and cast a completely blank ballot, and what if every single voter except one voter cast a completely blank ballot? Could we allow the election to be decided by the one vote, and ignore the other votes, when obviously the 48,000 or so other voters made a strong statement against the candidates?"
I am glad you pointed out the extended hypo - we would have to accept the RESULTS - even if only one person voted. What else can we do? - Have noone win? - rediculous! If the voters have a problem with the candidates - they have to find others to run. You can't simply shut down the government and have no public officials. You are confusing yourself with what is and what is not a vote. A strong statement - is NOT A VOTE. IF everyone stayed home and didn't even go to the polls - is not that as strong a statement as wasting your time filing a blank ballot? It accomplishes the same purpose - NOT VOTING FOR ANYONE. It is the same thing. People who decide not to vote are leaving the the matter to the poeple who do decide to vote. If they abstain from utilizing their most powerful tool in a democracy - well - they have to deal with the consequences - and the consequences are the results that occur from people deciding to utlize their vote, the matter how small that group is.
you also state:
"I think blank ballots make a strong statement, but I'm sure you feel otherwise. It's a difference in opinion and I don't think we need to waste our time on arguments that won't change any policy or action. If you have strong reasoning on this issue, give it to the 98 lawyers."
Blank ballots may be a strong statement - but so is not showing up at the polls when you registered - and so is not registering at all. MY opinion - is that in neither of these cases did the person VOTE. Simple as that. Not sure what your opinion is anymore - as your following statement shocked me.
(To Kelley on same issue):
"I would like at this point to eat some humble pie and back off a bit. I have been arguing the counter arguments to your assertions AS IF THE COUNTER ATGUMENTS WERE MY OWN. This is not true. I've been playing devil's advocate, but THE OPINIONS I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING ARE NOT MINE. My opinion is that the issue is cloudy, the Organic Act is vague, and an issue this important should be interpreted in court. (duh)I think I'm going to stop arguing the other side, because I'M NOT SURE WHICH SIDE I REALLY STAND ON."
WOW WOW WOW. When the Lighthouse finds the debate to his detriment - he suddenly does not know what his opinion is on the matter. Interesting. Very interesting. Well - my only remaining point is that WHOEVER you were arguing for - they certainly put you up to arguing some very weak positions.
Finally - we all realize that the Courts will be the last word on the issue. Does the existence of a final authority on this matter negate its worth as a debatable issue? It seems that almost every issue you have brought up will also be decided by some final authority - whether it be the voters for Governor - or the Courts for the allegations you thoroughly discuss. Just another instance of picking and choosing when you are on the losing side of a debate.
You finally stated: "The issue is too open to take an intelligent stand."
Hehe - you may have failed to take an intelligent stand - but the issue is far from being too open to take an intelligent stand. I have certainly put forth decent arguments regarding when a "vote" should be considered casted. Just because you can't put forth intelligent arguments on why the reverse is true (or whoever you are representing these days) - doesn't mean the whole isse is too open for intelligent stands.
Thanks lighthouse - for shedding some light on the weak arguments you presented on the voting/blank ballot issue. Oh - and no - I am not the attys. you suggest.
-- Shocking retractions (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 1998.
The Guam elections held on 3rd of November 1998 resulted in Joe Ada's final defeat by over 3,000+ votes. Two weeks after the election, the Ada billboards are the only signs standing and I find inner joy he will never be governor. Joe is an ineffective manager and the people did not forget those eight frustrating years. Looking forward for the young lions to take over and the end to the old guards.
-- (email@example.com), November 15, 1998.
It's interesting that you describe Karl as a "young lion".
King Karl is in fact OLDER than Joe Ada. Just look at his hairline, which has inspired Mark Forbes to adopt the "comb it over the side" approach. Both Karl and Joe are part of the "old guard".
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 1998.
Hafa Joe F. Ada, Felix P. Camacho, Tony Sanchez, Joe Mesa, Doug Moylan, Angel Santos, Mark K.O. Big Mouth, and Fred Curly Castro and rest of the mauleg cry baby mohons
You may have opposed, frustrated and delayed the election's winners certfication, but the 98's foxes and wolves beat you in your own game. We express our appreciation for the certification of the election to you mauleg mohons. Please take your problems to the courts and become big time money losers over again. Special thanks to Tony Lighthouse for deleting the truth of the conspiracy to deny the people of Guam the right to vote. Goodbye and best of luck cry baby mohons. Go ahead and delete my posting if it makes you cry.
-- (email@example.com), November 16, 1998.
Nice gloating post. But it added nothing to the discussion. You talk about my backing off as if it were a retraction, and as if I were admitting to the weakness of any arguments. Wrong on all accounts, but nice spin.
I was not arguing my opinion, but merely playing devil's advocate. You don't have to believe me, but that's a fact. I don't have an opinion, because the wording of the Organic Act is too vague to have an intelligent opinion (and yes, I think your opinion is unintelligent -- it assumes too much, but so does the counterargument).
* A quick point: You state that "If the voters have a problem with the candidates - they have to find others to run. You can't simply shut down the government and have no public officials."
The voters don't nominate the candidates -- that's a matter of candidates deciding to run and the political parties endorsing them.
* You gloat: "WOW WOW WOW. When the Lighthouse finds the debate to his detriment - he suddenly does not know what his opinion is on the matter. Interesting. Very interesting."
I'm not afraid of any debate. I just realized -- too late -- that I had gotten into a position that I don't actually hold, and I was wondering how I got into that opinion. I looked back, and realized that it was because Bob Kelly made some ridiculous statements that my argumentative nature couldn't resist refuting. So did you. I got carried away. But looking back on your posts, I think you did a pretty weak job of arguing your side, and perhaps a more competent lawyer would do a better job in court. Karl better hope so.
* You ask, "Does the existence of a final authority on this matter negate its worth as a debatable issue? It seems that almost every issue you have brought up will also be decided by some final authority - whether it be the voters for Governor - or the Courts for the allegations you thoroughly discuss. Just another instance of picking and choosing when you are on the losing side of a debate."
Yet another nice spin, but again completely wrong. There is a major difference between this issue and the gubernatorial issues such as the incinerator, education, korruption, etc. This issue should be decided by the courts, and our arguing here will not influence that. The gubernatorial election will be/has been decided by the voters, and they can be influenced by our debate. This whole forum had one purpose -- to ensure that the voters had as much information as possible, because the media was doing such a bad job. By bringing some very important issues to the public, I think this forum may have given at least a few voters some information they didn't have before, and therefore was not a waste of time.
One activity is a waste of time, another is an extremely important endeavor. I choose the latter. You can make your own choice.
So, Mr. Desperado, now that you're done gloating, do us all a favor -- debate me on some of the issues that REALLY matter. Let's talk about current state of our government, of crime, of education, of the economy, of corruption, of the incinerator. Show us some intelligent arguments on things that people can make a difference about.
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 16, 1998.
How many non citizens voted? Was it more or less then last election? Please tell me who voted 150 times!!! This is the most outrageous statement this week! And discrepancies in *most* precincts.. I thought I heard the Executive Director say MOST were reconciled. And of the discrepancies that did exist, it was usually with the exception of several precincts, a over or under count of only 1 or 2! Not enough to make a difference in the election outcome. Finally, a "unclear interpretation of the Organic Act? I think most reasonable people on Guam now recognize: 1) The difference between a majority of ballots (which was your argument) and a majority of VOTES. (which is what is in the Organic Act. 2) The outright silliness of a Runoff Election between two candidates when they were the same candidates that were in the General Election. IF (and that is the operative word) there had been three candidates or had the write-ins been large enough to have prevented either candidate from having a majority, then a run off would have been required by the Organic Act.
Lighthouse, You really slipped on that last post. I guess it has not been a good day for you. Please try to find peace so we can all work in harmony for a better Guam.
-- Bob Kelley (email@example.com), November 16, 1998.
I think you're responding to the wrong thread, but I'll respond here anyway. I'll try to keep it brief.
How many non-citizens voted? I don't know, and neither do you. This is because the election commission refuses to check it out. The Superior Court found more than 500 possible non-citizens in a check of just 9,000 registered voters. Even if only half of the list were actually non-citizens, that's is a rate that projects to almost 1,600 non- citizens on the registered voter list (of roughly 57,000 people). And we don't know how many of them voted. That's the point -- if the election commission had the integrity to actually check these things out, we would know, and there wouldn't be so much confusion.
As for who voted 150 times, that was a typo -- there were 150 voters with the same social security numbers -- I flipped it. Still, this should be audited. So should all the discrepancies, and as far as I know, the election commission said more than 60% of the precincts had discrepancies. But the commission mysteriously cleared up half of those over the weekend, without explaining how, and without a proper audit. Do they think we're fools?
As for the unclear interpretation of the organic act, I think it's pretty clear that the organic act is vague as to what a "vote" is. I never argued about the "majority of ballots" as you portrayed my argument, so get it right. I argued for a different interpretation of "votes" than you offered, but ultimately I'm arguing that what exactly a vote is is unclear in the organic act and the courts should interpret it -- not you or "desperado" or any of the 98 lawyers.
I'm not sure why you reacted so excitedly to me asking for the commission to fully audit all of the discrepancies or possible non- citizens voting. Do 98ers have a problem with ensuring the integrity of the process? What is the problem here?
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 16, 1998.
You state in your reply:
"I'm not afraid of any debate. I just realized -- too late -- that I had gotten into a position that I don't actually hold, and I was wondering how I got into that opinion. I looked back, and realized that it was because Bob Kelly made some ridiculous statements that my argumentative nature couldn't resist refuting. So did you. I got carried away. But looking back on your posts, I think you did a pretty weak job of arguing your side, and perhaps a more competent lawyer would do a better job in court. Karl better hope so."
Your comment, especially the last sentence - only shows that you and your crew (or whatever you want to call them) will argue for anything that will prevent Carl from getting in there, no matter how rediculous and misguided such arguments will be. Bob and I made intelligent arguements on why any Court will find that a vote casted does not include a blank ballot. The oppossing arguments are thin, if not non-existence. This is the reason why you retracted any relationship to your arguments. This is why you suddenly realized that you don't want to take a stand on this issue. The fact is - you don't want Carl in there - but you have NO arguments regarding the interpretation of the ballot issue. Absolutely nothing.
I myself am not the greatest fan of Carl. I sure am not the greatest fan of Ada either. However, when people like you or others start on these rambles that reflect no substance - but are merely disguises for another purpose - then you go too far.
As far as the originatioon of this debate - you started it. Your statement at the top:
"Let's see: we have no majority in the gubernatorial race "
That appears to be a statement of fact as stated by you - is it not? Or do you now have no opinion on whether or not there is a majority? So don;t others for digging the hole that you yourself dug. You dug it - you stand in it.
And finally - I don't mean to gloat in here. Your forum is good - it provides a good avenue to discuss things. You can't be right all the time - Lighthouse - let's face it. And for your information - my desperado title - is a sarcastic twist to what i think of the ballot issue brought up by yourself. - Its a desperate attempt which I will guarantee is not going to get you or Joe Ada anywhere. Lets just see who has the guts to file a suit to challenge this ruling. I am one who is at a lost as to what these arguments would be. Maybe the people you were representing could fill me and Bob in?
-- Hi (email@example.com), November 16, 1998.
Was at the Election Commission yesterday for the "certification".
Witnessed all kinds of 98ers dancing for joy, but hey I would dance too if I knew my $70,000 luxury vehicle driving job was safe.
It's sad that the GEC certified. Leonila Herrero's husband is the mayor of Tamuning. She had a meeting with George "Slowly Dying of AIDS" Bamba, Tommy "Tinaki" Tanaka and Fat Eddie Calvo Sr on Friday night at 5 pm at the Tamuning Mayor's Office. I'm sure Fat Eddie brought his checkbook. During the GEC meeting on Monday, both "Hotel Room" Bamba and "Bus Stop" Tanaka both stared down Leonila, as if to remind her of an "obligation".
Remember this, cuz Jon Andersen keeps f**king it up. 482 non-US citizens voted. That info was gleaned from a list of only 9,000 voters. How many more of the island's 58,000 registered voters are non-US citizens who cast a vote for the driveway-paving, beer-bottle throwing team of Gutierrez/Bordallo?
Also, this morning King Karl was on Rlene Steffy's show. She asked him if he would continue to employ his family members at high salaries. His response ...
"Of course. I employ people I can trust. Who says my family can't help this island? They have no ulterior motives."
Karl was chugging champagne on the front page of the PDN today. Just like he did when Ricky Bordallo was indicted. It will be a sad day for Guam when Karl gets indicted for his crimes against the island.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 16, 1998.
Tony Lighthouse's prophecies for Joe Ada and Felix Camacho are mear sound bites lacking foundation. Tony's better education and debating skills are due to the luck of being the son of the great Doctor Sanchez. There are many among us not as fortunate that have accomplished more than with fewer resources and talents. Moreover to measure your accomplishments with your father is unfair and reveals nothing worth barking about. The thing you have is disrespect, contempt and arrogance against your fellow man, prevents you from ever accomplishing anything significant in the business or political worlds. You are the king of losers.
-- (Gift@kuentos.com), November 16, 1998.
You said: "I'm not sure why you reacted so excitedly to me asking for the commission to fully audit all of the discrepancies or possible non-citizens voting. Do 98ers have a problem with ensuring the integrity of the process? What is the problem here?"
I have consistently called for investigation and action in the election irregularities.
On Thursday, 12 Nov. 1998 I stated on the ELECTION RESULTS forum: "I have NOT heard of any substantiated evidence of deliberate tampering. If there is evidence, I support the immediate investigation and filing of both Guam and Federal criminal charges against all persons implicated. Then let the courts determine who is criminally responsible!"
I went on to say: "Any improper use of social security numbers by voters and non US citizens voting must be prosecuted (hopefully by the Federal criminal justice system so Guam Taxpayers don't have to foot the bill!)"
On Sunday 15 Nov. 1998 I stated on the ELECTION RESULTS forum:
"Certainly the Federal issues will need the FBI but many of the alleged complaints (miscounted ballots, ballot stuffing etc.) are of a local nature and not a Federal issue."
On a later post on Sunday I said:
"At least 3 times this week I have said the Federal authorities need to investigate Federal issues. Lighthouse, I don9t know how I can make that any clearer! But if you do not want the local irregularities investigated by the Election Commission, I think the AG is all that is left. Please, Lighthouse, tell me who else legally has jurisdiction to investigate Guam Election Code violations."
How much clearer can I make it? If non citizens voted, they MUST be investigated and PROSECUTED by the appropriate agencies. They include: FBI, INS, US Attorney and the Guam AG.
Regarding my reacting so excitedly to you asking for the commission to fully audit all of the discrepancies or possible non-citizens voting. Lets look at what we have each said this last week.
On Saturday, 14 Nov. 1998 in response to my statement "I will again state that the Election Commission had observers of both parties" you said, "I made the simple point that the election commission, no matter how bi-partisan it should never audit itself. No agency or business should audit or investigate itself. This is obvious."
Then on Sunday, 15 Nov. 1998 in response to my request for Federal authorities need to investigate Federal issues and the AG investigate the Guam Election Code violations (as quoted above on my second post), you then commented "This is laughable. Who controls the AG's office? The allegations of political interference at the AG's office are too believable to allow this process to be "cleaned up" by that same office. The feds need to come in. They're the only ones Karl can't control."
Lighthouse, I believe I have been far more consistent in this forum then you have and the above stated evidence should speak for its self.
-- Bob Kelley (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
Can someone please tell joe ADA and especially his crooked cronnies to take his campaign signs down already. Hellooooo Joseph, the election is over, maybe in your corrupt eyes it isn't, but please, for the sake of what is left of our "International" reputation that Mark Barfaurous destroyed, TAKE THEM DOWN. Once you accept the defeat, it will be more easier to swallow. OOPS, i forgot you need some one to spell it out for you...... D E F E A T = Y O U L O S T..
And oh how sweet it was to see lucifer santos put into the doggie van. Thank god he did'nt SPIT on the officers... He was is and will always be a disgrace to many chamoru's. Even to those who supported him during the primary.
Lucifer, the people of guam DO NOT PAY YOU TO PROTEST DURING GOVERNMENT TIME, so be the LAME DUCK you are and start cleaning out your desk because you are a loser.
That is all I have to say, Thank you.
-- assault on a peace officer (arrested again@give him life at depcor.com), November 17, 1998.
Joe Ada may never win another election for life. The biggest sorry loser, no class and a total failure in whatever he does. He messed up Guam so bad in eight years that we won't ever reach our real potential. I wish it was Joe that flew the nest and not Ricky the greatest Chamorro warrior. Carl beat Joe in a fair battle, so Joe quit protesting and go home to your family and stay there.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the following phrases:
Cry babies Loser(s) Steal the funds, I mean you're still the one Lucifer
Can't you 98 ingrades come up with more creative ways to express your gloating ways.
The only ones who lost the election are the people of Guam. The sh*t is going to hit the fan real soon.
-- (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
I know perfectly well I started the debate. I've already taken back my statements. I don't know how much more you need to rub this in. I think I've been mature enough to admit that I don't actually believe the arguments I was putting forth. I'm asking you for a little maturity in return.
My position is the same as it was yesterday: The Organic Act is too vague when it comes to what a "vote" is and any interpretation -- including what you're arguing for and what I previously argued for -- assumes too much. Let the proper courts decide.
I admit that I don't want the so-called "Governor" Karl in office. I've said that all along. But I wasn't arguing for anybody or any group. I simply said that the arguments I was presenting were the arguments of others -- what I meant was that these are arguments I've heard from some pretty intelligent people, and I think they are valid. They assume too much, but they still have merit. But I represent no one but myself.
I also noticed that you have failed to take up my challenge to debate the issues that really matter: education, crime, the incinerator, korruption, etc. I guess this is because you're not the biggest fan of Karl's. Too bad. I was hoping to hear some real arguments from you, but I guess I'll wait until the 98ers find someone competent themselves.
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
I'm starting to suspect that you are throwing out random arguments in order to confuse the issues. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps you've been confused yourself.
The issues are clear, and I've been consistent: there are major problems with the results, and they should be fully audited and investigated before the results are certified. The election commission should not audit itself. The AG's office should not audit the election. The feds need to do the auditing, because Karl has no influence on them.
Let us ensure the integrity of the election process and make sure the results are clean before we accept them. The election commission has made a joke of this process.
As for your consistency on these issues, it is true you said the things you've quoted yourself as saying. But you also said the following:
* "Many of the discrepancies you point out are being resolved through an audit with observers by both parties."
A self-audit is not acceptable.
* Kelly: "IF there was a question on voter eligibility, that should have been raised before the election."
Voter eligibility is a serious problem that needs to be addressed now.
* Kelly: "I always felt it was better to have a bipartisan audit but maybe we could move faster if the AGs office just confiscated the ballots and did the reconciliations in their office and reported on their findings."
So you say it's better to have the election commission audit itself, but only suggested the Karl-controlled AG's office because it might be faster.
I disagree. I think we've all seen the results of the commission and the AGs office handling their own problems.
-- Lighthouse (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
Game@kuentos (or whatever you're calling yourself today):
Your post was a classic example of 98er fallacy #7. Please see the "98er fallacies" thread for more info. Approriate reply: "Come back when you find a grown up to hold your hand. This is an adult forum."
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
When will you realize that politics is a business. Bottom line comes down to how many people I can hire. I will hire the people with the biggest families. I will tear apart the opposing party, much like my spanish ancestors did. Divide and Conquer. I will make sure I can influence the media, get people fired or taken off beats or pay them off, anything to make sure I have some friendly media outlets. Or hey, maybe I'll fly a prominent morning talk show host to the President's inauguration. I will pay my directors a lot of money to not show up to oversight hearings. I will pave thousands of driveways for votes, using money for our kids books to pave private property. I will give away $2.5 Million in free power poles and hook ups to my friends' subdivisions. I will try to poison the people of Guam with an Evil Incinerator. I will protect my friends and family from being prosecuted for crimes. I will do anything for a vote. I will dismiss cases, I will hire people with big families. I will get my registrars to sign up nonUS citizens because if I am king I can do whatever I want and if you dont like it get off the island. I will use Rev and Tax to conduct payback audits of my enemies. I will do nothing about the highest unemployment rate of all time. I will continue to raise the cost of living for working people. Higher power bills, higher water bills, higher fees for government services. I will buy luxury vehicles, nice big trucks with full tint, slap private plates on them and 98 stickers. I will put my supporters up in posh hotels after a typhoon. I will do all this for another our years. And hey, maybe more!
Thanks People of Guam! Ahem, You're still the one!
-- (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
Your post was another example of 98er fallacy #7. Approriate reply: "Come back when you find a grown up to hold your hand. This is an adult forum." See how much time the list of common fallacies saves?
-- Lighthouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
The magleg mohons were talking loud and assured the people that they will file a lawsuit before the Guam Election certified Gov. Carl Gutierrez as the winner. After the certifications Fred Curly Castro head of the Republican Party said no decision has been made regarding lawsuits, however Felix Camacho and Joe Ada are considering a lawsuit against the Election Commission. Come on mohons and file your lawsuit I bet you will lose again. I pray you will file so that the people can prove just how legal you are in a legal forum.
-- (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
In response to arrested again: Excuse me! Who the hell are you to tell Angel Santos about Government time! Why dont you tell that to the 98 team who had their champagne bottles during government hours also. What a disgrace to my children who see our learders plastered on the front page of PDN.
As far as I am concerned, Angel Santos was using his government time well: fighting for demcoracy and a clean election that should be ensured by a govt agency GEC.
And if all the 98 supporters were allowed inside the GEC, they shouldn't discriminate Angel from going in too. That police officer just wanted Angel to make a scene so he tried to provoke him
I know who the good Chamorros are. And I am not disappointed by Angel's actions. He's the only Chamorro who will fight for indigenous rights. Thank you HITA!
-- Desperate Spinners (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
HITA and Mark Charfauros are the very reason Joe Ada lost. The people don't want Spitter and Barfauros leading them, doesn't Joe Ada get it???
-- Jane (email@example.com), November 17, 1998.
maybe we should look at why King Karl won.
He outspent Joe Ada 10-1 ($3Milllion to Ada's $300,000)
Karl paved tons of driveways for votes.
Karl gave away $3 million in power poles, and wants to raise our power bills next year.
Karl hired thousands for votes.
Karl manipulated the media so people dont really know whats going on.
Karl ran a Still The One campaign to make people feel "like they're still having fun". The 98 campaign didnt look at issues becuz Karl has failed as governor (high unemployment, fuc*ed up education, dropped cases, selective prosecution). The whole campaign was a diversion.
Karl has great spin doctors (ok, Bob Kelley and Co, there's your ounce of credit.
Karl fooled people into thinking Ada left a huge deficit (Karl in 94 debate : "There is no deficit, Joe Ada ran a clean government")
Karl fooled people into thinking he ended load shedding.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 1998.
You know things on this island are bad when you think about this : If Guahan was independent and things were the way they are now, there would be a flat-out REVOLUTION! Why do we even need elections?
I now quote the brilliant Governor Karl Gutierrez:
"There are kionds of things that tried to come out and taint this election. This election was not tainted, this was a GOOD election."
That quote from the Marianas Variety.
So Karl thinks that with all the fuc* ups we've had in this election, its a GOOD election?
-- (email@example.com), November 18, 1998.
What was the final outcome of the election? Last I heard it was up to the courts in the mainland (San Francisco Supreme Courts).
-- (BLKSTEEL@NETPCI.COM), April 01, 1999.
What was the final outcome of the election? Last I heard it was up to the courts in the mainland (San Francisco Supreme Courts).
-- (BLKSTEEL@NETPCI.COM), April 01, 1999.