I. At least three electors engaged in illegal, corrupt or unethical acts as part of the election:

1. Charles Kane, an attorney, by his own admission tampered with signed documents affecting a federal election, namely absentee ballot applications in Martin and Seminole Counties. This is a felony under both state and federal law.

2. Katherine Harris, Secretary of State and campaign co-chair for candidate George W. Bush, consistently acted to advantage George W. Bush, violating the laws of Florida, and the provisions of the US Constitution in the process.

4. Election Supervisor Clay Roberts has admitted that legally-mandated recounts were not performed in at least five and as many as eighteen counties. The certification of the election by the Secretary of State is therefore based on false county certifications.

5. At least one outstanding contest had not been resolved at the time of the Electoral College vote. A case filed against the Bay County election board was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and neither dismissed nor heard.

III. The vote totals used to judge the election are based on illegal acts. In addition to the felonious alteration of absentee ballot applications, the certification of a vote total based on counties that had falsely certified performing a recount and the inclusion of absentee ballots that did not bear reasonable evidence of having been properly cast, the election is tainted by numerous illegal acts, including

6. Substantial, credible, sworn evidence of violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, including

IV. Three conservative members of the Supreme Court had urgent ethical reasons to recuse themselves, rather than joining to effectively appoint George W. Bush president. Specifically:

14. On Election Day, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, on being told that Al Gore had won Florida, became visibly upset and said “That’s terrible”, betraying a clear bias. Her husband explained that she had hoped to retire and could not do so if a Democrat were elected president.

15. Justice Antonin Scalia, in granting a stay to the recounting of votes declared that "irreparable harm" would be suffered by George W. Bush on counting the ballots. By considering only the possible harm to Bush, and disregarding the irreparable harm to Al Gore the voters of Florida and the nation, Scalia violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. Scalia's opinion demonstrated a clear and unmistakable bias toward Bush. It should be noted that Scalia has, in another venue, denied that Americans have a right to vote and the Supreme Court decision he signed anointing Bush president is ample evidence of his contempt for democratic process. Justice Scalia further had two sons working for law firms associated with the Bush campaign, one of whom worked on a brief presented in the case. Scalia therefore had a personal interest in the case.

16. Justice Clarence Thomas failed to recuse himself, despite the fact that he had a personal financial interest in the outcome of the case. Thomas’s wife was employed by the Heritage Foundation, and she was involved directly in the transition planning for George W. Bush on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. Thomas’s failure to recuse himself, despite his personal financial stake in the issue before the court, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the USSC decision was tainted, illegal, and unconstitutional.

V. Supreme Court interventions into the election were not in good faith and indeed so ludicrous as to have disgraced and delegitimized the courts. Specifically:

17. The US Supreme Court tampered with the electoral process in an unprecedented manner, intervening twice despite clear evidence that the Florida Supreme Court was deferential to the legislature and the Constitution in making its ruling for a statewide recount. Seizing on a shameful and hypocritical claim of denial of “equal protection”, the US Supreme Court denied the vote to tens of thousands of disproportionately minority voters by claiming that counting teams, working under the supervision of a judge, are unable to ascertain “the intent of the voter”, a common standard for vote counting. In so doing, the Court declared over 200 years of manual recounts unconstitutional and ignored the testimony that vote counting machines are less reliable than humans. Further making it clear that the Court was acting in bad faith and for partisan purposes, it provided no remedy.

18. To add further insult to injury, the Supreme Court declared its ruling “limited” to the matter at hand. This amounts to the creation of an ex post facto law to deal with the results of an election that the Court found not to its liking, a creation of special rights for George W. Bush. In so doing, the Court violated the precise constitutional provision that it was invoking, since the rights of those voters whose ballots were never examined by a human being were not weighed and protected.

19. Indeed the Supreme Court displayed hypocrisy that discredited the legal system in applying the Equal Protection clause to the adjudication of a state matter. It is THIS Supreme Court, and precisely the judges that voted in the majority, that demanded in other cases that plaintiffs prove that a statute is expressly or intentionally discriminatory. No such claim was made by plaintiff Bush or found by the Court. This Court has also held that a claim of denial of equal protection requires the identification of a class of people historically subjected to discrimination or that there be a proof that a statute is not grounded in reason. The arbitrary nature of the Court ruling renders it corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional.

20. The US Supreme Court created an artificial deadline of December 12^th, and then intervened in the recount to ensure that the deadline could not be met. The Florida Supreme Court appropriately ruled that the Florida State Legislature “desired” to take advantage of the ‘safe harbor’ (protection against challenge in the Congress) provisions of 3 USC 5 by confirming electors by the 12th of December. The US Supreme Court exaggerated the desire into a requirement, such that it effectively overruled the due process required to determine who actually won Florida.

21. The bad faith of the Supreme Court was further demonstrated by the fact that, thanks to the Supreme Court delays in ruling, the ‘safe harbor’ provision could not be achieved. The Supreme Court ruling issued too late on December 12th for the contest to be finalized and therefore the electors to receive the benefits of ‘safe harbor’. This legally preposterous ruling, which had the effect of preventing the votes of the people of Florida from being properly counted, tainted the Court’s action as corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional.

22. To further illustrate the bad faith of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court allowed ballots that were clearly counted in violation of Equal Protection if that did indeed require a perfectly uniform standard.

25. Media recounts now show Al Gore would have won a statewide recount of Florida. Even in conservative Lake, Hernando and Hillsborough counties, examination of the ballots by independent auditors has shown that clear and legal votes for Gore were not counted. In addition, tens of thousands of predominantly Democratic voters were prevented from having their vote recorded. If elections reflect the will of the people and the consent of the governed, Al Gore will be our next president.

George W. Bush was not elected president of the United States and will never be its legitimate leader. The fact that he is falsely thrust forward by the powerful of this nation as its leader is, instead, a banner proclaiming the moral bankruptcy of the US media, the US court system and many politicians in both the Republican and even Democratic parties.

The essence of this issue is that the law has been applied inconsistently, which makes it unlawful, a travesty. Totalitarians often use the form of legality but apply it as they choose. Had the law been applied consistently, Al Gore’s inauguration would have been assured.