Coleman Lawyer: "I Don't Care About Your Procedures" -- Count The Forger's Ballot
Norm Coleman is not giving up on forgery as a constitutional right.
Just now in court, Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg launched into an aggressive defense in the case of Douglas Thompson, the friendly Coleman witness from two days ago who said his absentee ballot should be counted even though his girlfriend forged his signature on the application. Thus, Thompson's ballot was rejected because of a very real signature mismatch against his own signature on the ballot itself.
Friedberg didn't directly mention Thompson by name, but he described the exact same situation. "Now suppose I said to Mr. Trimble [another Coleman lawyer], 'Hey, I'm busy, could you sign an application for me, and send it in for me?' I'm gonna get the ballot, aren't I?" said Friedberg.
After some more back and forth, we got to this interesting exchange:
Friedberg: In point of fact, even though I did something I wasn't supposed to do with the application, my ballot should still count because my signature is genuine.
Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann: Not according to the procedures we use to determine whether the signature is genuine.
Friedberg: I don't care about your procedures.
(Franken lawyer calls an objection, is sustained.)
Friedberg: Okay, I do care...
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
You can't make this stuff up! COMEDY!
January 29, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I make a suggestion on covering the Franken/Coleman bout? Instead of giving each blow a single post, maybe you could do a roundup once or twice a day. The frequent articles aren't allowing discussions to foster. Also, how about a general topic thread?
January 29, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I'm liking the sporadic small updates.
January 29, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess Coleman IS a wealth of comedy gold. OK, nevermind.
And since I'm here, what is Coleman's strategy with all of this? Does he really think he can win? Or is it all just a ploy to get everyone to throw up their hands and demand a revote?
And if there is a revote, has there been a poll recently? Are people turning on one or the other?
January 29, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more of this I watch happen, the more and more implausible I'm starting the idea of there in fact being any "strategy" behind anything the COleman camp is doing...
Maybe this is too cynical.
January 29, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is zero chance of a revote. Think through it and the problems are even worse than what they have now.
I don't think Coleman thinks he can win at the state level. He seems to be setting up an appeal in federal court. I'm not sure a federal court will touch it, though. Once the election is certified and Franken is seated, the Senate could just assert its Art I Sec 5 authority and tell the federal court to butt out.
January 29, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a new election is Coleman's main focus.
He's just trying to slime this election so bad the Court will toss it out. So far it's not working on me.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/01/thoughts-on-the-minnesota-elec.php
January 29, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was Kos who floated the suggestion that they are setting Franken up as "the guy who stole an election!" to gin up fund-raising efforts. Coleman has a new job. His fund-raising appearance on Hannity certainly lends some credence to this idea.
January 29, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course they are. It won't work in MN but it is their thoughts for other places. They want to use Franken's brand in other states like they did in GA.
They are probably thinking Iowa, Louisiana and Tennessee.
Remember they are attack dogs and don't understand how much the electorate is shifting. Also their electorate is dying, literally.
January 29, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could easily see that, but I think it would have worked a lot better without this trial, or at least without this kind of insanity from Coleman's lawyers.
January 29, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what it is is that Norm is going down fighting, much like Senator Stevens did come to think of it, because in a sense he's fighting for his life. Faced with corruption charges with the feds that he knows deep down he's guilty of, the only way he could maintain enough leverage to stave off a future in the footsteps of Bob Ney is to retain the prestige of office as senator, be in a far better position to raise money for his looming trial, and hope that he can get enough political cover from republicans that would try desperately to turn any persecution of him into looking like a Democratic witch hunt. If he loses, then any utility to the precarious Senate republicans evaporates; and just watch as they will be eager to throw him under an Israeli bulldozer when the facts about his misdeeds come out in his upcoming trial.
Fortunately for us, Alaskans did spare us great suffering by not re-electing the felon. I beg may this court have compassion to spare the American people from enduring any more farce from this maggot named Norm Coleman? They could end this as swiftly and decisively as the majority of Alaskan votes did.
January 30, 2009 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And those procedures have been there for how many years? And if the security/safeguards weren't in place Coleman would argue that you shouldn't count any absentee ballots because you can't be sure who really voted with them.
It's not perfect, but they are agreed to rules to abide by. How hard is it to sign your name twice to make your ballot count? Folks on election day stand in like for 5+ hours
Coleman's camp is arguing about election reform, you can't go back and change the rules. I mean can't Franken find folks who didn't vote at all and say the rules were too restrictive to them (planned on voting on election day, but then got sick or had some sort of personal or professional emergency) and they should be allowed to vote now?
January 29, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman sure picked a loser for a lawyer. Friedberg doesn't know Minnesota election law and he never researched it. Gelbmann just embarassed Friedberg in front of the court.
But then losers usually pick those similar to themselves, another loser.
January 29, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an attorney, and I used to clerk for a judge, and from time to time we would see lawyers like this. There was a word we had around the courthouse, and it was used universally by court clerks, law clerks, and judges for these kinds of attorneys: Tools.
January 29, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an attorney and there's a word we have for lawyers like this. The word is ASSHAT!
January 29, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they are the same ones that blame their staff for their mistakes.
January 29, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman is now essentially arguing that you cannot have a uniform standard unless you contact every single rejected voter and take into account all mitigating circumstances as to why they did not complete the absentee ballot process correctly.
They know it's not enough to review the rejected ballots alone, since the vast majority of them were properly rejected by the election officials, so they're left with insisting that in all 12,000 cases, the only way to determine if it's a valid vote is to talk to the voter.
But that still doesn't get you to a uniform standard unless you can successfully contact every single one of them (probably impossible in any reasonable time-frame) *and* have the same panel review every case.
I guess that Coleman knows this and will end up hoping that the court throws out the election result entirely so they have another chance of winning an election. They cannot win any other way.
January 29, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adding to what you said, if the absentee voters are allowed to come into court to argue why their vote should count, the same standard should apply to the ballots rejected from those who voted on election day.
Find the person who voted for the Lizard People, let him/her come to court and state who they really wanted. Publish all rejected ballots and let people come forward to "clarify" for whom they intended to vote.
See? Rules are there for a reason... to prevent such case by case chaos. Tool indeed.
PEACE
January 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
uniform standards this uniform standards that,Michael Corleone said this Michael Corleone said that.....wtf......this is the repb. play book look it up under delay,deny,distract. STUPID HAS A NEW FACE.
January 29, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
See! The GOPers were right, there is voter fraud.
January 29, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's exactly right: this is the crowd who's always decrying VOTER FRAUD.. I guess when voter fraud is committed by white Republicans that's fine with them.. what a pathetic bunch of sore losers, I swear....
January 30, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also a fair number of low-profile but very important news on the 2010 side recently. The least covered story is probably the fact that top-tier challengers are already jumping in against House Democratic incumbents, so the DCCC will have a fair amount of defense to take care of in 2010.
(Also check out this database of more than 150 names of potential Senate candidates for all 36 races.)
January 29, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I value these updates and I am following the blow by blow account. Please keep them coming!
January 29, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I like these quick updates too.
January 29, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Friedberg is one of the top three or four criminal defense lawyers in the state. His "stuff" works well with juries. We will see how well it goes down with the three-judge panel. As a criminal lawyer, he may be less concerned with the immediate trial than with trying to establish some court maneuver or ruling which can be appealed as an "error."
That is, if Coleman really wants to see this trial through to a verdict. My guess now is that he will string it out as long as possible, muddy the waters as much as he can, and vociferate about unfair elections (insinuation: "stolen") at every chance . . . but just before an adverse ruling is handed down, Norm will utter great platitudinous protestations about not wanting to "drag things out" and he will concede---pro forma, with his mouth . . . but not in the fetid settlings of his brains or in his dark, Faustian heart.
January 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it. I think Norm fights until **Infinity!** the bitter end. And Beyond!
January 29, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can bet that a motion to dismiss will be coming after Coleman presents his case.
I am eager to see whether Al can get the court to order the governor and sos to provisionally certify him.
January 29, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought they ruled on that awhile ago and the answer was no.
January 29, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time we closed down all of our law schools. They have been turning out folks who have given up every iota of morality and integrity, and have turned out multitudes of scoundrels willing to sell their souls in order to win court cases.
If not close them, how about two years of nothing but ethics courses BEFORE law school. It might dissuade the scum of the crop from actually desiring to practice law... and floating to the top... IMHO
January 29, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you actually went to law school, and practiced law, you would know that what you just said is complete bullshit. The vast majority of lawyers act in a ethical manner.
And with respect to Friedberg in particular: He is very well respected, actually. Somebody earlier had it right - he is a criminal defense lawyer and just doesn't know this stuff. I don't have a clue why they think it is a good idea to have him doing this. It is much closer to civil litigation than any criminal jury trial, which is where Friedberg excels.
January 29, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also caution substituting our views from the peanut gallery from those who have researched the law in this area and are intimately familiar with the facts.
Coleman may or may not have a pathetically weak case, but his attorneys are zealously representing his interests. That is what he is paying them to do. That is their ethical duty. Within the confines of the disciplinary rules, it is not their ethical duty to do what is "right" or what is "fair".
There is a judge in this case. I am sure that if he/she witnessed unethical conduct in his/her courtroom he/she would ream the lawyer for it in chambers or worse.
As to your suggestion, not only did I have to take ethics courses in law school, a 3-day bar exam (including ethics) and pass an extensive background check, but I also have to take continuing legal education courses (CLE's)every year including ethics (even though I actively practice). Lawyers are no better or worse than other people, the big difference is when we screw a client we lose our license. I read about them every month in the Oregon Bar Bulletin.
January 29, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first thing is let's kill all the lawyers.
Other than my daughter.
January 30, 2009 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may not be a winning argument but it is not a crazy argument. The girlfriend plausibly was the voter's amanuensis. More plausibly if the voter had two hand casts, but plausible nevertheless.
January 29, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Procedures? PROCEDURES????
We don't need your stinkin' PROCEDURES.
You can't make this stuff up. No one would buy it if it were fiction.
January 29, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's simply no way to differentiate between the situation where someone other than the voter signs the application for an absentee ballot and the voter signs the ballot envelope after completing the ballot, and the situation where someone other than the voter signs the application and another someone other than the voter signs that ballot envelope after completing it. Even testimony doesn't really work for that.
January 29, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friedberg is a great lawyer...if you're trying to get off in criminal court in MN. Unfortunately for Norm, this ain't teevee, and I don't see this going to a jury.
January 29, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here I thought that Franken was suppose to be the comedian in this race.
January 30, 2009 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink