Possible abuses everywhere. Are they true? How would we know if the election commission won't look into them? Will the Superior Court hold a trial so the abuses can come to light publicly?

So many questions, so little time.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (lighthousekeeper@my-dejanews.com), December 09, 1998

Answers

Are the allegations of fraud true? Impossible question to answer right now. Hopefully time will tell. I do know that most of us can take a pretty good guess at whether dead people voted, noncitizens were registered, and nonresidents voted by absentee ballot. And, based on other corruption we know about, we can also take a pretty good guess at which side did it.

I think our hunches will be proven correct relatively soon. I just wish the investigations wouldn't take so long. Lighthouse, you were saying awhile ago that indictments were coming. Where are they? I guess the feds didn't want to make it seem like they were interfering with the election. But maybe after the New Year they'll have a little more freedom to prosecute. Let's just hope that Gutierrez's connection and donation to Clinton won't hinder that.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 10, 1998.

Yep, King Karl cheated. Why vote for him. He has utterly failed to run the island ($100 million-plus deficit that he cant blame Joe Ada for), high unemployment, high crime, fucked-up education. And he is corrupt as hell (bid-rigging, missing Liberation day Parade money). Why should we support this guy? He tried to rip off the people by rigging the election, he has no respect for the dead, he used their names to vote!

After all this crap in the election, Karl still says it clean. With those standards of his, its easy to see why the last four years have been so messed up.

Hafa Mohon?

-- (former98@xmas.com), December 12, 1998.

Have y'all heard the carp that Maddy and Joe T. are spreading in TV and newspaper ads about the "fake" lists that Ada/Camacho are distributing? Of course you have. They've spent thousands to make sure everyone hears about those lists.

A couple points to make: 1) a few mistakes doesn't mean that the whole list is wrong and that there isn't fraud -- Ada/Camacho just might be able to prove 90% of the list is right, and then how fake is the list? And B) There are a few prominent names on the list, but does that mean they aren't unqualified voters? Just because Underwood goes on TV, all indignified, doesn't mean his wife is an eligible voter. And just because Sonny Shelton is in the newspaper claiming his daughter has been a resident since birth doesn't mean he has proof that she hasn't been living with her mother in the states for the last 7 years. They haven't offered a shred of proof.

Let this case be tried in the courts, folks. I think people on both sides are a little too eager to turn the election abuses into publicity stunts.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 15, 1998.

I am an easy person to deal with.. just prove your statements or shut up. If you wish to disagree with my opinions and you do it respectfully, that's fine. If you lie to me, I may call you on it. Two points..

1) jstfedup, You said "Person brought out that when Clinton was here Underwood made the statement that his wife didn't vote for him but voted for Clinton." PLEASE Sir, show me proof that the Congressman said that. I have proof he did NOT say that.

2) Anyone, It has been said by the Ada-Camacho camp that names were added to the list that the Ada-Camacho camp claimed voted illegally. That is an insult to my integrity and all those who prepared and published the list. Aside from a few scanning errors that resulted in a misspelling of a name, I challenge "anyone" to provide names that were added by the 98 supporters!

Monday, a trial is scheduled to start. It has been alleged by the Ada-Camacho camp that THOUSANDS of ineligible voters illegally voted. This makes the alleged illegal voters coconspirators to a fraudulent election. Now, because the 98 committee notified the accused voters in the newspaper of the allegations, the Ada-Camacho camp is calling foul. They brought the suit. They named the individuals. They can withdraw the suit. Or they can prove the charges!

I will admit that some names will prove to be legitimate cases of improper voters. I doubt if this total will be anywhere close to the number the Ada-Camacho team claimed and will not be enough to make a difference in the election. I also know that these cases were not caused or facilitated by the 98 committee. I also know the proper time to challenge a voter is at the polls, NOT 45 days later!!

Thanks for letting me vent!!

Finally, I hope all can let go of the anger and hate and enjoy the holidays for what they were meant to be. Hug your kids. Kiss your parents. Tell your spouse you love him/her. Go to church. It is time to move on.

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 17, 1998.

Congrats Mr Kelly, you've just committed 98ER FALLACY #1: THE HATE AND CONTEMPT ARGUMENT. For that you've won a fat GovGuam job with all benefits related to nepotism and corruption. Enjoy!

-- Karl Klaus (hohoho@gimme.gimme.com), December 17, 1998.

The hate and contempt argument is not a fallacy. Why do people like the HITA cult chant ABC? Is it because they truly believe Joe Ada is the right man to lead our island for the next four years or is it because he's anybody but Carl? Its obviously hate and contempt. Its not about who can do the job, its personal.

-- Feel the Love (itschristmas@getoverit.com), December 17, 1998.

Well like I said before take it to court and you shall see just how simple it is .... Carl the mauleg crusher beats simple Joe in round one. Joe is just a cry baby loser and does not know when to quit. Come on Joe get some more fund raisers and adds on the media the rerun is tomorrow... you wish.

-- (home@com.sox), December 17, 1998.

Feel the Love:

The hate and contempt argument is a fallacy. Is it possible the ABCers think that Carl is actually a very bad governor and want him out of there, and thus support his opponent who doesn't seem as bad? Maybe that didn't cross your mind.

Anyhoo, the Lighthouse Keeper has summed it up better than I can, so to quote from him regarding the hate and contempt fallacy:

"Illogical because: There is no evidence to support this statement. This is the problem with just about every single 98er comment on this forum and in the public -- they have no proof or logical reasons to support their statements. The "Hate and Contempt" argument is not even an argument -- it is a broad dismissal of all the charges without addressing any of them. It makes a vague, general reference to "hate and contempt" without proving any of the allegations wrong or proving that any hate or contempt has been spread in the first place."

"Appropriate reply: The only hate and contempt being spread is the hate and contempt that people have for corruption in Karl's administration. It is completely appropriate to hate corruption. Now tell us which specific charges are false and prove it."

As for Home's post, it was purely the 98er fallacy #7 -- a personal attack. Grow up.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 18, 1998.

Bob Kelley challenged:

"Anyone, It has been said by the Ada-Camacho camp that names were added to the list that the Ada-Camacho camp claimed voted illegally. That is an insult to my integrity and all those who prepared and published the list. Aside from a few scanning errors that resulted in a misspelling of a name, I challenge "anyone" to provide names that were added by the 98 supporters!"

I cannot prove names were added, because I have not seen the original list (although I'm sure it can be obtained). But I did read and hear in the media, and even read in Joe T. San Agustin's newspaper ad, that just over 2,000 names were on the Ada/Camacho list.

However ... when I read Bob Kelley's post just now, I went and counted the names published Tuesday by the 98 camp. There were 3,267 names published by the 98 camp, by my count.

Now, I can't prove names were added, and I certainly wouldn't want to impugn the integrity Kelley claims he has. But this large difference in total names bears an explanation. Kelley? And while I wait for an explanation, I'll go get the original list submitted by Ada/Camacho and compare.

BTW, Kelley, you talked about providing proof for your statements. Well, you claim you have proof about the Underwood speech, but you don't provide it. I'm not questioning your assertion (because I believe you're right in that instance) but it's just ironic that you say your require proof, but don't supply it.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 18, 1998.

hel@cio.us stated:

"I cannot prove names were added, because I have not seen the original list (although I'm sure it can be obtained). But I did read and hear in the media, and even read in Joe T. San Agustin's newspaper ad, that just over 2,000 names were on the Ada/Camacho list.

However ... when I read Bob Kelley's post just now, I went and counted the names published Tuesday by the 98 camp. There were 3,267 names published by the 98 camp, by my count."

I believe the issue is context: Over 2,000 names of alleged "non citizens" but over 3,000 names if you add alleged "non residents", "under age voters" and "deceased voters". The 98 team had no way of knowing about this GROWING list until Curtis Van De Veld provided it to the 98 attorneys last Saturday.

It is the number and names on that list that counts for comparisons not the pervious numbers provided. If there is a problem with numbers, it is because of the inconsistency of Mr. Van De Veld and the Ada-Camacho team, not the 98 committee. I don't think we have ever challenged the election with any names or numbers. We only organized the list and made it public so the alledged illegal voters could be notified and corrected before the Superior Court trial begins next week.

Please call me if you want a copy of original list provided by Ada-Camacho team last Saturday so you can count and compare. (My Number is 482-4262).

hel@cio.us went on to state:

BTW, Kelley, you talked about providing proof for you statements. Well, you claim you have proof about the Underwood speech, but you don't provide it. I'm not questioning your assertion (because I believe you're right in that instance) but it's just ironic that you say your require proof, but don't supply it.

I have provided my name and telephone number to arrange to prove my statements. I can not provide photo copies of lists to anonymous posters, nor can I arrange to have a person hiding behind anonymity come to a conference room and listen to a tape with Underwood's speech.

If you don't want to get a list from me you can get a copy from Randy Cunliff's office or possibly from Curtis Van De Veld. (I am wary of Mr. Van De Veld because he knowingly MISLED the public in his ads. If the Ada-Camacho attorney lacks integrity, it is indicative of the whole bunch. So please if you go to him, verify that it IS the list he provided the 98 attorneys!!)

You may purchase a commemorative tape of the presidents visit from KUAM. It has Underwood's speech and you can hear the truth with your own ears!

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 18, 1998.

Oh so mr kelley wants to talk about integrity. He wants to talk about knowingly misleading the public.

He can talk because him and his administration know a lot about misleading the public. They do it all the time.

-- (guamnews@hotmail.com), December 19, 1998.

Kelley needs to take a big chill pill. Anyone pissed off about their name being on the list should realize that people like Mr Kelley and the 98 kamp are legally liable for printing the list. So is the paper. So if you're really mad, sue the sh*t out of folks like Kelley ("who prepared and published the list").

The 98ers want you to believe that no one on the list voted illegally. Another diversion. Another smokescreen. Another way of "misleading" the public.

Remember how the 98 guys on the election board tried to ram this certification through, even though BY LAW the Guam Election Commission is obligated to investigate fraud. Even though by law, Carl did not have a majority. They just wanted to keep their high-paying jobs.

How can you work for people who try to dance around democracy Mr Kelley?

And remember how the democracts on the board tried to engineer a top secret Gestapo meeting?

How can you defend this administration?

Here's what we got:

$100 million cash deficit

DOE laying off teachers and more GovGuam layoffs to follow. That means all you folks that got jobs cuz Carl wanted you and your family's vote are gonna be on the street.

DOE in a $25 million deficit

12,000 unemployed

Thousands of dismissed cases

Political interference

Money wasted on luxury vehicles (have you guys seen the new batches of expensive 24-hour govguam vehicles?)

A solid waste crisis

Not enough cops, GPD money used to pay DPW salaries

10 FBI Investigations, a Department of Interior investigation into Carl's corruption and pending US Congressional Oversight hearings.

Haven't we had enough?

All this and carl is still paving driveways (In Yona Now). At least he's consistent.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

-- (guamnews@hotmail.com), December 19, 1998.

Kelley:

Thanks for clearing up the numbers. I will indeed get the original list and verify your claims.

But I have a problem with the publication of the list, and as it seems you were at least partially responsible for this, I'll address the concern to you.

The uproar over the list has shown a great public misunderstanding of what the court system is for. The one place someone should make a charge of illegality, impropriety, fraud, etc. is in the court system. If Joe Ada thought there were problems with some of the voters, the proper place for him to take those problems would be the courts -- and that's where he'd have to prove his charges, or the opposing side could prove him wrong. This is what Ada has done. He thought there were some illegal votes, so he brought the case to court and had to turn over to the other side the names of the voters he wanted to challenge. This was proper.

The 98 camp correctly saw there were mistakes on the list. The list wasn't and never has been required to be perfect and mistake-proof. But instead of waiting to prove those mistakes in court -- the proper forum for that, mind you -- the 98 camp, including Kelley, saw it fit to publish the entire list, with illegal and legal votes alike, in the newspaper. Now the charges have been taken from the proper forum, which is the courts, to the media, by the 98 camp. Now people are being charged with illegal voting in the media, without the proper allowances for evidence, arguments from both sides, witnesses, rules of conduct, and a judge. All that was given was a list of names (without social security numbers or other identification so I'll know that I'm the Joe Q. Cruz being named) and allegations that the Ada camp is saying you're a criminal.

I think this is improper. If the 98 camp thought there were mistakes on the list, again, I'm saying they should prove those mistakes in court. Instead, they've embarrassed these people in a public forum without giving anyone a chance to provide evidence or arguemnts. You could say, "But the Ada camp is the one making the allegations, so they're the ones embarrassing people." But the Ada camp made the allegations in the one place that it is proper to make those allegations -- in court, where they can be proven or disproven. There is nothing wrong with that.

The 98 camp published the list for political gain and for legal gain (instead of researching all the voters, they wanted the voters to call them and save the 98 lawyers the effort), but in the process they created a lot of confusion and embarrassment to everyone involved. They scored political points, and I'm sure they didn't lose any sleep over it.

The Ada camp obviously thought there were problems with the election, as did I and many other people. They did the proper thing by bringing it to court. There was nothing else they can do, and I can't find any fault. You might say they should have researched the list better before turning it over to the 98 camp, but think about it -- you have thousands of names and only a couple of weeks to research them. I certainly wouldn't get the entire list right.

I'm certainly looking forward to hearing Kelley's response. I'm sure it will be as well thought out and well spun as usual. Happy holidays.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 20, 1998.

Its sad to see all the problems the island is having now that we're past the election. this is all the stuff they wanted to kept hidden.

its hurting us all.

-- (wheelsoff@98.spin.com), December 20, 1998.

hel@cio.us stated

>The uproar over the list has shown a great public misunderstanding of >what the court system is for. The one place someone should make a >charge of illegality, impropriety, fraud, etc. is in the court system.

First we disagree regarding "secrecy" of the list. The Ada-Camacho team stated that THOUSANDS of votes were cast by ineligible voters. When asked to name them, they provided the list that was published. People have a right to know if they have been accused of criminal activity (illegal voting). The day the list was published, Guam was facing an election just FOUR days later. A trial was scheduled just six days later in Superior Court. The only way to quickly determine the validity of the list was to publish it! You probably disagree, but we will just have to remain in disagreement on this point!

>If Joe Ada thought there were problems with some of the voters, the >proper place for him to take those problems would be the courts -- and >that's where he'd have to prove his charges, or the opposing side >could prove him wrong.

You are wrong! The proper place and time to challenge voters is at the polling place on election day. The Election code says:

'9119. Grounds for Challenge. A person offering to vote may be orally challenged by any voter of the precinct upon one or all of the following grounds: (a) That he is not the person whose name appears on the register. (b) That he is not a resident of Guam. (c) That he is not a citizen of the United States. (d) That he is not a resident of the precinct at which he is voting. (e) That he has voted that day. SOURCE: '2368, GC, as amended by P.L. 12-149. '9120. Examination of Person Challenged. The board shall immediately examine on oath the challenged and his witnesses, if any, together with the voter who offered the challenge and his witnesses, if any. The board may give the voter challenged and the voter who offered the challenge time to present witnesses wherever possible, but in no event shall such time be granted so as to prevent the board from giving a decision prior to the time for closing the polls. Either the voter or the challenger may appeal the decision of the precinct board to the Commission. The Commission shall as soon as possible hear the appeal and shall examine the oaths of the voter and the challenger and hear the witnesses, if any. The Commission shall make its decision prior to the time for the closing of the polls. Either the voter or the challenger may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Superior Court. SOURCE: '2369, GC. COMMENT: The term Island Court changed to Superior Court in conformance with P.L. 12-85. '9121. Refusal to be Sworn or to Answer. If the voter challenged refuses to take the oath tendered, or refuses to be sworn and to answer questions touching on the matter of the challenge, he shall not be allowed to vote. SOURCE: '2370, GC. '9122. Record on Challenges. The precinct board shall cause one of the clerks to keep a list, showing: (a) The names of all persons challenged. (b) The names of all challengers. (c) The grounds of each challenge. (d) The determination of the board upon the challenge. SOURCE: '2371, GC.

The Republican Party had poll watchers at the voting sites. Had they properly challenged the election in a timely manner in accordance with the law we would not be in this situation.

Regarding residency, the Election Code states:

NOTE: '2372, GC, Term of Residence, was repealed by P.L. 12-117. '9123. Place of Residence. The precinct board, in determining the place of residence of any person, shall be governed by the rules set forth in this Chapter, as far as they are applicable. SOURCE: '2373, GC. '9124. Rules for Determining Residency. In determining residency according to these rules a spouse may treat herself or himself separately from her or his spouse. The following rules shall determine residency of voters and candidates: (a) The residency of a person is that place where he lives, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention to return. (b) A person does not gain residency in the territory or any voting district into which he comes without the present intention of establishing his permanent dwelling place within the territory or such voting district. (c) If a person resides with his family in one place, and does business or maintains real property in another place, the former is his place of residence; but any person having a family, who establishes his dwelling place other than with his family, with the intention of remaining there shall be considered a resident where he established such dwelling place. (d) The mere intention to acquire a new residence without physical presence at such place does not establish residence. For the purposes of an election, there can be only one residence. (e) A person does not obtain or lose residency solely by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States, or of the territory, or while a student at an institution of learning, or while kept in an institution, a hospital, or asylum, or while confined in prison. (f) A person loses his residency in the territory if he applies to register to vote or votes in an election held in another state, territory or place by absentee ballot or in person. (g) No person who is registered to vote in another jurisdiction may vote in Guam until his name is removed or requested to be removed from such registration. The Commission shall provide affidavit forms for the removal of names of voters from the election rolls of other jurisdictions. SOURCE: '2374, GC, reenacted by P.L. 12-117; reenacted again by P.L. 21-100:4 (3/31/92). NOTE: '2375, GC, was repealed by P.L. 12-117, as was '2376, GC, and '2377, GC. '9125. Overseas Citizens. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of '9124 respecting residency, any citizen of the United States living outside of the United States shall be considered a resident of Guam and shall have the right to register according to the terms of this Chapter, provided, that: (1) Immediately before abandoning the Guam domicile, he could have met all qualifications except for the qualifications relating to minimum voting age; (2) He has complied with all registration requirements; and (3) He does not maintain a domicile, is not registered to vote, and is not voting in any other place. (b) It is necessary that the overseas registrant maintain the intent to return to Guam. (c) A person loses his residency in the territory if he applies to register to vote or votes in an election held in another jurisdiction by absentee ballot or in person. (d) No person who is registered to vote in another jurisdiction may vote in Guam until his name is removed or requested to be removed from such registration. The Commission shall provide affidavit forms for the removal of names of voters from the election rolls of other jurisdictions. (e) Any person who violates any of the above prohibitions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. These prohibitions shall be clearly displayed on every application for a ballot and at every registration and voting site on Guam. SOURCE: Subsection (a) - '2378, GC, amended by P.L. 13-187:44. Subsection (b) - '2378(b), reenacted by P.L. 12-117. Entire section repealed and reenacted by P.L. 21-100:5 (3/31/92).

It is not the role of the 98 Committee or the Ada-Camacho camp to determine eligibility based upon residency. That is an Election Commission call. If the Republican or Democratic Poll Watcher disagrees, he may challenge it in accordance with the law stated above during the election.

Absentee voters also may be challenged. The procedures for absentee voting and the handling of the ballots is stated below:

'10119. Casting Ballots. At any time between the opening and closing of the polls on election day, the precinct board shall open the outer or carrier envelope and the return envelope, announce the absent or disabled voter's name, and compare the signature upon the application with the signature upon the affidavit. In case the precinct board shall find the affidavit is sufficiently executed, that the signatures correspond, that the applicant is a duly qualified elector of the precinct, and that the applicant has not voted in person at such election, the board shall deposit said ballot in the unopened ballot envelope in the ballot box. SOURCE: GC '2467, as amended by P.L 11-209. '10120. Causes for Rejecting Ballots. In case the affidavit is found to be insufficient, or the signature on the affidavit and the application do not correspond, or the applicant is not a duly qualified elector in such precinct, or the ballot envelope or return envelope is open or has been opened and resealed, or the return envelope contains more than one (1) ballot envelope with ballots enclosed, or that said voter has voted in person, such ballot shall not be accepted. SOURCE: GC '2468, as amended by P.L. 11-209. '10121. Rejected Ballots. Every ballot not accepted shall be endorsed on the back of the ballot envelope "REJECTED BECAUSE ____________ (giving reason therefor)." All such rejected ballots shall be enclosed and securely sealed in an envelope on which the precinct board members shall endorse "DEFECTIVE BALLOTS," with a statement of the precinct in which, and the date of the election at which, the ballots were cast. Said envelope shall be signed by the members of the precinct board and returned to the Commission. SOURCE: GC '2469, amended by P.L. 11-209. '10122. Return of Envelopes With Rejected Ballot. If the ballot is rejected, the ballot envelopes shall be returned with such rejected ballot with the affidavit of voter in the envelope endorsed "DEFECTIVE BALLOTS". SOURCE: GC '2470, as amended by P.L. 11-209. NOTE: Section 2471, relative to an affidavit constituting registration, was repealed by P.L. 12-149. '10123. Addition to Registration Index. The precinct board shall, in case the ballot is deposited in the box, enter the voter's name on the registration index if not already there and roster. SOURCE: GC '2472. NOTE: Section 2473, as amended by P.L. 11-209 was repealed by P.L. 12-149. '10124. Challenges. The vote of any absent voter may be challenged for cause, and the precinct board shall determine, in accordance with the provisions of this Title, the legality of such ballot. NOTE: GC '2474. '10125. Ballot of Deceased Voter. When it shall be made to appear by due proof to the precinct board that any absent voter who has submitted his ballot in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter has died before the ballot is deposited in the ballot box, then the ballot envelope of such deceased voter shall be endorsed, "REJECTED BECAUSE VOTER IS DEAD" and shall be returned unopened with the ballot enclosed by the precinct board to the Commission; but the casting of a ballot of a deceased shall not invalidate the election. SOURCE: GC '2475, as amended by P.L. 11-209.

>The 98 camp correctly saw there were mistakes on the list. The list >wasn't and never has been required to be perfect and mistake-proof. How many mistakes can be contained in the list before the law suit is frivolous? Would 90% errors constitute a bogus list?

>But instead of waiting to prove those mistakes in court -- the proper forum for that, mind you -- the 98 camp, including Kelley, saw it fit to publish the entire list, with illegal and legal votes alike, in the newspaper. The very act of publishing the list will notify the public and those accused to assist in determining who is erroneously on it. This list was generated by Ada-Camacho team NOT the 98 Committee!!

>You might say they should have researched the list better >before turning it over to the 98 camp, but think about it -- you have >thousands of names and only a couple of weeks to research them. I >certainly wouldn't get the entire list right.

You have now acknowledged the time limitation. Ada-Camacho had a couple of weeks, the 98 Committee had less then one week to prepare a response to disprove the list!

If I am slow getting back now, it is because it is time to celebrate Christmas! I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and can set aside this election long enough to celebrate the holidays with your families!!

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 21, 1998.

It seems my entire point about the court system was lost on Kelley. I'd try to explain the concept, once again, at length, but I don't think he has either the mental facility or the willingness to understand what I'm trying to say.

Briefly: To accuse someone of wrongdoing, you must go to the proper forum, which is the court system. When you take those accusations out of the court system, and bring them to the media, you have lost the ability to prove and disprove the facts in a proper forum before smearing someone's reputation. This is what the 98 camp has done. If the Ada camp was wrong, they should be disproven in court, and everyone should move on.

Kelley quoted Guam law irrelevantly at length. The response is easy: it is proper to challenge a voter at the polls, as Guam law allows. It is also proper to challenge an entire election based on widespread voter ineligibility in the court system, as the Ada camp has done. This is why the case hasn't been thrown out of court yet -- it is a proper forum for such a challenge.

Quick question for Kelley: If I (as a private citizen) have not challenged other voters at the polls, have I lost my ability to challenge the election results later in the courts? If I have friends watching 5% of the polls but fail to challenge all the ineligible voters, have I also lost my ability to challenge the results later? Failure to challenge a voter at the polls, when you may not have the time or information to challegenge voters, does not preclude a citizen from challenging the results later when fraud is discovered.

Kelley said: "First we disagree regarding "secrecy" of the list... People have a right to know if they have been accused of criminal activity (illegal voting)."

It is this statement that proves Kelley doesn't understand what I'm saying. I never said anything about "secrecy" as he brilliantly quoted. The court system is not secret -- it is properly meant to be public. But it is also public in a very controlled, rule-bound and fair way. Evidence must be presented, arguments put forth, etc.

Kelley also said: "The day the list was published, Guam was facing an election just FOUR days later. A trial was scheduled just six days later in Superior Court."

This statement proves that it was published because of the election, not because of the need for a fair trial and a fair election. If there wasn't time to gather evidence, the 98 team could request and extension on those grounds. Instead, they used the list for political gain, as Kelley alludes to.

Kelley asked: "How many mistakes can be contained in the list before the law suit is frivolous? Would 90% errors constitute a bogus list?"

Again, Kelley shows his ignorance. It's up to a court to determine the frivolity of a suit, not the media and the public.

Kelley says: "This list was generated by Ada-Camacho team NOT the 98 Committee!!"

Again, he doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the Ada camp generated the list (a point not in contention) but they published the list in the proper forum -- the court system. It was the 98 camp that took it to the improper forum, where evidence and both sides of the story are not presented.

I'm expecting another ignorant response, with irrelevant law quoted, but I guess the public gets what it pays for in its public servants.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 21, 1998.

Wow, Kelley is taking a beating. Just think we wouldn't be in this predicament if 98 supporters had not registered thousands of ineligible voters. Knowingly?

I don't blame Kelley for being as ignorant as he is. With almost 12,000 people unemployed, I'd want to hang on to a fat-ass $70,000+ a year. The problem with Kelley and Co is simple, and it is this : They believe Carl Gutierrez pays their salary. He doesn't. The PEOPLE do.

Unfortunately for the 98ers, the election process leaves a paper trail. Thousands of ineligible voters were registered by prominent 98 supporters. Knowingly?

Also, the Governor's sister lives in Florida. She and her husband used Carl Gutierrez' personal address in Agana Heights. If a candidate is involved in even one instance of voter fraud, the candidate is disqualified from office.

Merry Christmas.

-- (chris@malafunkshun.com), December 21, 1998.

chris@malafunkshun.com (Chris) has stated:

>Wow, Kelley is taking a beating.

I agree, I have taken a beating but consider the source. I am being attacked by persons unwilling to even identify themselves. I have tried to conduct myself as a gentleman while those hiding behind anonymity act like jerks (that is as polite as I can put it.) I am sure any objective observer of this forum would concur with my analysis.

>Just think we wouldn't be in this predicament if 98 supporters had not >registered thousands of ineligible voters. Knowingly?

Chris, I believe you are flat out wrong or misinformed. I also believe the findings in the court will prove me right! Finally, until the facts are presented in court, and a decision is given by the court, I know you will not believe me. Even given a favorable decision clearing the 98 committee, you will have trouble accepting it.

>I don't blame Kelley for being as ignorant as he is. With almost >12,000 people unemployed, I'd want to hang on to a fat-ass $70,000+ a >year.

I guess if I were you, Chris, I would want to hang onto any job. I have other employment options. I am not staying with the government for the money. I do want to insure both the government and private sector are as well prepared as possible for the Y2K transition with the island's information systems. I do want to complete the 911 upgrade for the protection of Guam's residents, I do want to complete the radio system that was virtually useless when I began my work in this administration.

>The problem with Kelley and Co is simple, and it is this : They >believe Carl Gutierrez pays their salary. He doesn't. The PEOPLE do.

I am worth my salary. The people of Guam are saving over 20 million dollars a year because of a project I managed for the governor. That is a savings by the people that pay my salary of over $200 for every one dollar of my salary. This does not include any of the other projects I have assisted in! The problem with you Chris is you are trying to discredit people when you don't even know what they do! (You could at least ask your mother-in-law!)

>Unfortunately for the 98ers, the election process leaves a paper >trail. Thousands of ineligible voters were registered by prominent 98 >supporters. Knowingly?

See my comment above.

>Also, the Governor's sister lives in Florida. She and her husband used >Carl Gutierrez' personal address in Agana Heights.

Carl's sister that lives in Florida DID NOT VOTE in the election! I have verified this by asking a close family member AND having the election files reviewed. I am reasonably close to certainty on this issue, just as I was when I stated that no names have been added to the list by the 98 Committee.

Your credibility problem, Chris, is that you make these substantiated claims and then, if you are challenged on them, you attack the individual challenging you instead of debating the claims. This is the norm for this forum. If it is an attack on your candidate, you want proof. and then you deny it, even if it is valid. An attack on the governor or his supporters is spread and repeated with no proof. When you are challenged, you attack the individual rather then debate the issue in a civil manner.

You said on K57, many names were added to the list by the 98 committee. Please provide me some of the added names. The whole mantra of your side is that 98 added names but after a whole week no one has been able to prove it!

>If a candidate is involved in even one instance of voter fraud, the candidate >is disqualified from office.

I know you implication, but it is without any evidence other then a list that is mostly bogus (I do believe their will be a few instances of problems found in the list but it will be single digit percentages meaning over 90% of the list is bogus!) And I do not believe either candidate was involved.

Quite honestly folks, if all that is going to happen in this forum is unsubstantiated allegations or individual attacks on me or others, I have better things to do during this Christmas season. It is meant to be a time of good will and that seems in short supply around here!

I will monitor this forum and IF anyone wants to discuss the issues with civility, I might comment. In the meantime this forum has degraded to a level not worthy of my active participation. What happened to Lighthouse Keeper? Although he disagreed with me most of the time, he was at least polite!

Merry Christmas!!

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 21, 1998.

Bob Kelly tried to run this line:

> I am being attacked by persons unwilling to even identify > themselves.

I don't know where you get the idea that you personally are being "attacked" but your arguments have certainly been ripped to shreds by Mr. Hel. You also seem to be implying that an argument is invalid if the arguer doesn't give his/her real name and that you can therefore ignore it. I consider that to be an extremely cowardly strategy.

> ....even given a favorable decision clearing the 98 committee, you will have trouble accepting it.

In other words "I'm not gonna make a good argument because you won't believe me anyway". Another cowardly tactic and a personal insult to Mr. Barnett as well. Who's attacking who, Bob?

Would you mind identifing specific lines that you found offensive? It would be a great service to us rubes who are incapable of intelligently discussing the issues.

RTT Still waiting for Kelly to respond to Hel's arguments on their merit

-- RTT (Ratt@tat.tat), December 22, 1998.

Kelley has resorted to vague generalities. Observe:

He says: "I agree, I have taken a beating but consider the source. I am being attacked by persons unwilling to even identify themselves. I have tried to conduct myself as a gentleman while those hiding behind anonymity act like jerks (that is as polite as I can put it.)"

Who exactly is he talking about? Chris gave his name and I've given mine. But Kelley doesn't understand that anonymity has nothing to do with the validity of one's arguments. He is taking a beating because the arguments he's put forward about the publication of the list are weak. That's not to attack him personally -- I wouldn't dare suggest he's weak minded. But his arguments don't stand the test of logic, and showing that doesn't require that you name yourself.

He says: "Your credibility problem, Chris, is that you make these substantiated claims and then, if you are challenged on them, you attack the individual challenging you instead of debating the claims. This is the norm for this forum. If it is an attack on your candidate, you want proof. and then you deny it, even if it is valid. An attack on the governor or his supporters is spread and repeated with no proof. When you are challenged, you attack the individual rather then debate the issue in a civil manner."

Kelley, please back this statement up with specifics. You talk about the "norm" for this forum, as if to dismiss it with the wave of a hand, but you don't offer a single example of someone (besides a 98er) offering unsubstantiated claims and then attacking someone personally when no proof is available. I'm sure just as many substantiated claims as unsubstantiated can be found on this forum. The Lighthouse Keeper, Chris and others have given us some very good information that have been backed up with proof and hard facts. You, on the other hand, seem willing to throw out a vague dismissal of the forum with no concrete examples.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 22, 1998.

The inimitable Bob Kelley stated:

"I have tried to conduct myself as a gentleman while those hiding behind anonymity act like jerks (that is as polite as I can put it.)"

I don't know if you realized this, but the reason people don't want to use their real names is because of fear. People are scared to take a vocal role in the community, because they're afraid (and rightfully so) Carl will get to them. The administration doesn't want anyone criticizing them (Example: The old Jeff Evans, Me, Carmen Ulloa, Chris Iarossi, Rick Blas, etc.). I remember a post here where you told someone to just shut up or something?

Second, I think your claims that the list will be 90% bogus are pure malarkey. It will be proven in court (I've seen the paper trail, I know 98ers registered a ton of ineligible voters, but did they do it knowingly?). I think it is you who is misinformed, or just unwilling to believe.

Kelley goes on:

"I guess if I were you, Chris, I would want to hang onto any job."

Mr. Kelley, I haven't filled out a single application since my unfortunate termination from KUAM. I think I'll start looking now, any openings in GovGuam? Can I be like you and launder furniture purchases for Government House? Does it bother you that the Governor's brother gets about as much as you ($68,000) and hasn't got one piece of evidence indicating he's done even a dollar's worth of work? That is one of the many things wrong with your boss and your administration. Maybe you could also explain your involvement in the GTA Furniture Scam, since your name is all over the documents. Please.

I am well aware that you are some kind of communications consultant, so your claim that I criticize without knowing my target are false. I must admit you sound like nothing more than a glorified mouthpiece for the governor, though.

Kelley goes on:

"Carl's sister that lives in Florida DID NOT VOTE in the electn! I have verified this by asking a close family member AND having the election files reviewed."

Ok, if you say she didn't vote, I'll wait for the trial. You are admitting she does live in Florida, and did willingly and knowingly attempt to vote on Guam by falsely registering under Carl's address.

Kelley goes on:

"Your credibility problem, Chris, is that you make these substantiated claims and then, if you are challenged on them, you attack the individual challenging you instead of debating the claims. This is the norm for this forum."

Ok I'm not sure how I attacked you personally, but if you were offended by my comment about you not realizing the People pay your salary, tough titty. There is an arrogance in this administration that is just unnerving. You work for me, Bob Kelley. If you drive a luxury vehicle comfortable enough to take a pregnant woman to the hospital, that vehicle belongs to the people. And although you appear to think your salary is not high enough, you still make about double what the average person on Guam makes in a year.

An example of the arrogance: Sonny Shelton's "blood in the streets" monologue on election night and Ginger Cruz calling the 7-Cs "just another political attack group". Or how about putting private plates on government vehicles? More examples will be provided later, if you wish.

I think you should take a look around you and a look at your allegiance to Carl Gutierrez. The island is a big mess, all the stuff you guys tried to keep covered up before the election is coming out.

The layoffs at DOE are just the beginning. Our kids are the lousiest test scorers in the US. There will be more layoffs, payless paydays. There will be more dropped cases, more political interference and more selective prosecution. More big-money contracts to relatives who don't do sh*t, more contracts to political supporters who don't do sh*t ( Like Bamba's degreaser, Tanaka's bus stops, all the JJ Moving Service contracts, all the CP construction contracts that never went out to bid). And then there's the unemployment. Carl, your boss, won't release the numbers. All of that, plus the fact the 98ers cheated in the election ... how can you support him?

By the way Kelley, when you see Carl, can you ask him when he'll be ready to release his plans to save money? Four years ago would have been a real good time.

-- Chris (chris@malafunkshun.com), December 22, 1998.

I am in charge of the whole damn island and I'll tell you how I want to save money when I'm good and ready.

The reason I don't want to release my plan to save money (entitled Kitan 2001) is because I am still waiting for the contract consultants to turn the plan in.

My two brothers, Ralph and Roy, are working real hard at Tiyan to come up with a plan to save money. Of course I had to pay them each $50,000 to come up with the plan, but all in the family, right?

When Ralph and Roy get back to me, I'll let the rest of you know how I plan to save money. Until then, it's none of your business.

-- Uncle Carl (unclecarl@ns.gov.gu), December 23, 1998.

It's good of former governor Carl Gutierrez to join us on the forum, but I'm surprised we weren't forced to donate to his campaign for this privelege.

Going back to Kelley's post, which he has yet to defend, I wanted to make a couple minor points:

 I noted before that the lengthy laws that Kelley quoted were irrelevant. To drive that point in a little further, let me demonstrate.

Kelley quoteth: "'9119. Grounds for Challenge. A person offering to vote may be orally challenged by any voter of the precinct upon one or all of the following grounds:" ... yada, yada.

Note that the laws says the voter **MAY** be orally challenged at the polls. It does not say MUST be orally challenged. It does not say that if you don't orally challenge a voter at the polls, you can't challenge election results in court after the results are certified. It doesn't preclude any later action. I know I already made this clear, it's just that it's fun to point out that Kelley researched the law to support MY side.

 After arguing that the Ada-Camacho camp must challenge voters on eligibility at the polls, Kelley then quoted the laws regarding residency of voters. Then he contradicts himself:

"It is not the role of the 98 Committee or the Ada-Camacho camp to determine eligibility based upon residency. That is an Election Commission call."

Is he saying the Ada camp should have challenged the voters on eligibility, or is he saying they have no business doing that at all? It's unclear.

I just wish Kelley would reappear, shake of his hurt feelings after having been so personally attacked, and explain himself. He has yet to show us how ANY of the law he cited was relevant to the arguments I put forth, or indeed why any of that law was worth the time we spent reading it. He has yet to show us how the Ada camp is at fault for producing the list as the court ordered, or to show how it was justified for the 98 camp to publish the list in the media when the proper forum for disproving the accusations was in court. It was irresponsible and reckless of the 98 committee to do what it did, and yet they've offered no apologies.

Well, as I've typed this, it's become Christmas morning. I have to get up early to go visit the family, so I wish you all a Merry Christmas. Even Kelley. And yes, even former governor Carl Gutierrez.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 24, 1998.

I can't believe you Ada cry baby supporters are still crying over the election forum. Ha....guess you just can't get over losing it... Ada will never win or even get a rerun. Ho Ho Ho... you bunch of mauleg mohon cry babies. You never will get a high paying govt. job for as long as you hang around with Joe Ada the mohon loser. See you at the welfare lines....you mohon cry baby losers.

-- (losers@incoporated.cry), December 25, 1998.

Cry: I can honestly say your last "crybaby" post was as intelligent as your previous posts. Again, it's another example of Lighthouse's 98er fallacy #7, a personal attack, and not worthy of a real rebuttal.

While Kelley celebrates Christmas, I'd like to pose a couple questions to him: 1) earlier you mentioned that the infamous list was scanned in and then printed in the 98 ad -- what scanner did you use to scan in the list? was it your personal scanner, or the 98 committee's scanner, or a government scanner? can we see the scanner? 2) when you offer your cell number for people to call and ask about the list and other campaign matters, is that the same government cell phone that the taxpayers pay for? is that the same taxpayer-funded cell phone you use for all your campaign-related calls, including the ones on the infamous tapes? how much are your phone bills, and who exactly pays for the bills? can we see the bills and the receipts? 3) do you take the taxpayer-funded vehicle you drive around home with you? does the governor and other directors? if so, do they pay for the gas and maintanence used in those non-work trips in our vehicles? 4) when you quoted irrelevant law (Guam Code Annotated) at length, where did you get the computerized version of the law? was it from a government computer? were you using the government computer for campaign-related research? how exactly is this related to your job as civil defense director? or even telecom advisor? how many hours a week do you spend at civil defense?

I was just getting curious about a few of these points. I hope you have a good explanation, and if you don't think I and others on this forum have a right to the information as taxpayers, think again.

While I'm typing all this, waiting for a response from Kelley, let me summarize his justification of publication of the list by the 98 camp. He has presented two basic arguments thus far:

1) The list submitted by Ada contained the names of allegedly illegal voters. People deserve to know they are being accused of voting illegally. Therefore, it was necessary to publish the entire list in a series of newspaper ads with no evidence or arguments presented with the list.

2) There were thousands of names on the list submitted by Ada. It was impossible for the 98 lawyers to check every list before the lawsuit came to court. Therefore, it was necessary to print the list so people could come forward and help the 98 committee do its legal research and verify the voters eligibility.

I know I've already attacked these points, but I'm bored. So, on the first point: the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. Sure, if people are accused of voting illegally, they should know about it. But publishing the list in newspaper ads isn't the only way to notify people; it isn't the 98 committee's responsibility to notify them; and it isn't even the proper way to notify people. If the Ada lawyers actually try to disprove a voter in court, they would have to provide evidence and the voter would be subpoenaed into court. They would be properly notified by the subpoena. The 98 camp's ads to notify people were not only unnecessary, they were improper.

On the second point: granted, there wasn't much time for the 98 lawyers to research the list. But again, the conclusion of this argument doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. If the 98 lawyers can prove they need more time to properly research the list, then they should ask for an extension in court. If it's a justifiable extension, the court will grant it. If not, the court will not grant the extension and the entire argument will be proven untrue.

Since the 98 camp's justifications for publishing the list in an improper forum, the media (as opposed the the proper forum, the court), have been proven illogical, I submit the only logical reason for publishing the list was for political gain. (There are other possible reasons, such as the 98 camp really believed their justifications and are just idiots, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

To conclude, publishing the list in the media was improper, and doing it for political gain makes it immoral. They may have gained political points by the publication, as well as some free research, but what they did was wrong. If they won't offer an apology to the rest of us, I hope they can at least sleep at night.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 25, 1998.

Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us)

It is dificult for me to reach you at your e-mail. Maybe you can explain how I should address it. See below:

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:52:04 GMT From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown To: Status:

--- The transcript of the session follows --- 550 cio.us.tcp... 550 Host unknown 550 ... Host unknown

--- The unsent message follows --- Received: from [168.123.110.97] by ns.gu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA55757; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:52:01 GMT Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:35:21 +1000 To: hel@cio.us From: Robert Kelley Subject: Your questions Cc: rkelley

Please E-Mail me with your contact numbers and I will call you on my personal cell number. We can meet and I can answer most of your questions. It may surprise you that I personally own my own cell phone (actually got a new one for Christmas) and have a non taxpayer paid number as well as a tax payer paid number.

98 committee does have several computers and even a scanner. You asked if you can see them. I will ask if you can see them, but you need to tell me who you are soI can arrange a visit. But I also want to go into the Ada-Camacho Headquarters or wherever they operate there computers and see what computer equipment they have. Fair is Fair.

You are a very bitter person. I really don't have the time to continue this debate with you online. (with Christmas and a major fire, my own weekend was shot) Although I would like to comfort you, I really feel you questions are not meant to verify the intergety of the system but to attact it. That, is of course your privilage.

Your construction of the laws I quoted is a bit flaky in my opinion but, my opinion is no better or worse then yours, other then to score a point or two in this forum. It is the court's opinion that counts.

I have given my governemt E-Mail account so that people in this forum can ask me questions. This forum is about our government and I consider these issues relevent to my work for the governor.

Bob Kelley

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 26, 1998.

Kelley:

My email address was obviously fake. I have had problems before with spammers picking up my address and sending me unwanted mail. Plus I like my privacy.

But since you have things to say to me you obviously don't want everyone on the forum to know, you can contact me at helfire@angelfire.com.

I still think that if you want to debate the issues, do it here, in public, so everyone can judge for themselves. I plan to continue to do that, and not meet with you in private.

You may have a personal cell phone, but the number you posted above for people to call for campaign-related info is your government cell number. Funded by us taxpayers. I'm guessing this is the same number you use for other campaign-related calls. And I'm guessing you don't reimburse us taxpayers. But these are only guesses, as you haven't yet answered my questions or provided any proof.

Kelley also said: "98 committee does have several computers and even a scanner. You asked if you can see them. I will ask if you can see them, but you need to tell me who you are soI can arrange a visit. But I also want to go into the Ada-Camacho Headquarters or wherever they operate there computers and see what computer equipment they have. Fair is Fair."

You say the 98 committee has several computers and even a scanner, but you don't answer my question -- which scanner was used to scan in the list? And if you want to see the Ada headquarters, you'll have to call them up. I'm not associated with them and don't even know them.

Kelley went on: "Although I would like to comfort you, I really feel you questions are not meant to verify the intergety of the system but to attact it. That, is of course your privilage."

I think anyone will agree that my questions regarding your use of taxpayer money, as well as the governors and other directors use of our money, is very legitimate. I don't care what you think my intentions are. As taxpayers, we deserve answers to those questions. It seems a bit arrogant to use our money to get the governor re- elected, and then tell us you don't feel like answering our questions about those actions because we're "attacking" you. You have a responsibility to answer those questions, Kelley, and if you can't answer them, I think we taxpayers should call for a full investigation of the use of our money for your campaign.

Kelley states: "Your construction of the laws I quoted is a bit flaky in my opinion but, my opinion is no better or worse then yours, other then to score a point or two in this forum. It is the court's opinion that counts."

What "construction of the laws" are you talking about specifically and how is it "flaky"? Please give specifics and back up your claim. It's a generality that has no support and is not debatable from my standpoint. If you want to say that I misquoted you, or misinterpreted the laws, please state this clearly and prove it. Otherwise, you're wasting our time.

To quote from Kelley, in an earlier post in the same thread: "I am an easy person to deal with.. just prove your statements or shut up. If you wish to disagree with my opinions and you do it respectfully, that's fine. If you lie to me, I may call you on it."

And yet Kelley refuses to prove his statements, or to shut up. Live by your own words.

Back to his most recent post, Kelley goes on: "I have given my governemt E-Mail account so that people in this forum can ask me questions. This forum is about our government and I consider these issues relevent to my work for the governor."

I'll bet you do consider these issues relevant to your work for the governor. Your work as a campaign worker. How is an *election* forum relevant to your work either as civil defense director or as telecommunications advisor? We are talking about election issues on this thread, not civil defense or telecom or even anything to do with government operations (except the issue of government operations money being used for campaigns).

To conclude, I find your answers lacking and your arguments unsupported. I also find this unfortunate, because I thought we had the opportunity to get some real answers from the government. Instead, we get the same line of baloney we get from all other government directors, and we are left without accountability of how our money is being used and our government is being run.

I patiently await your answers, Kelley, to my questions about the use of our taxpayer money, and your counterarguments to my charges that your justifications of the publication of the list by the 98 camp are illogical.

-- Nicholai Hel (helfire@angelfire.com), December 27, 1998.

Nicohlai Hel

Your email like your postings are a fraud. Be brave give Kelly your real name. Your given name is new, but your lies are just the same from the primary to the general election. Where are those indictments you talked about? How come the courts are taking so long and have not ruled in favor of Joe Ada? Perhaps you can promise us a new election? Your an illusion of competence and superiority. You can't reconcile the proven fact that Joe Ada has been exposed and is a cry baby loser and will never win another election. Joe blames everbody but himself for the lost and the forum provides instant gratifications you can't cry in private for your simple leader Joe Ada. Joe will never become Governor of Guam again, bye loser.

-- (losers@incoporated.cry), December 27, 1998.

Just a quick note for helfire:

You expect me to prove something that is not possible. I can not prove what machine used in a scan and neither can you. So this point will be batted back and forth without conclusion. And I am not going to post my cellular bills on this net. (I could do a scan *I wonder what scanner I should use* and then post it as a GIF file on the web but that would invade the privacy of all the callers to my cell.. you know that and so do I.)

I posted my cell number for questions on government issues. I NEVER suggested I be called for campaign issues. Do you really think I would discuss 98 issues with the folks on this forum that I have provided with my number?

By the way, my personal number is 688-4262. Please use it sparingly.

Helfire, you stated:

I think anyone will agree that my questions regarding your use of taxpayer money, as well as the governors and other directors use of our money, is very legitimate. I don't care what you think my intentions are. As taxpayers, we deserve answers to those questions.

Then you said:

I'll bet you do consider these issues relevant to your work for the governor. Your work as a campaign worker. How is an *election* forum relevant to your work either as civil defense director or as telecommunications advisor? We are talking about election issues on this thread, not civil defense or telecom or even anything to do with government operations (except the issue of government operations money being used for campaigns).

I have take my time after normal duty hours (it is 7:08 p.m.) to answer your questions. Questions you dont feel I have a relevant interest in.

In earlier posts, I said the proper place for a challenge is at the voting sites. I quoted laws regarding the settlement of a challenge were:

'9120. Examination of Person Challenged. The board shall immediately examine on oath the challenged and his witnesses, if any, together with the voter who offered the challenge and his witnesses, if any. The board may give the voter challenged and the voter who offered the challenge time to present witnesses wherever possible, but in no event shall such time be granted so as to prevent the board from giving a decision prior to the time for closing the polls. Either the voter or the challenger may appeal the decision of the precinct board to the Commission. The Commission shall as soon as possible hear the appeal and shall examine the oaths of the voter and the challenger and hear the witnesses, if any. The Commission shall make its decision prior to the time for the closing of the polls. Either the voter or the challenger may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Superior Court.

This procedure was clearly spelled out and yet not ONE challenge was received. I stated it was the responsibility of the Election Commission to determine eligibility and it is also the responsibility of the Election Commission to rule on the appeals of challenges.

I consider it flaky that you tried to take my statement that the 98 Committee and the Ada-Camacho team should have intiated their challenges of voters at the polls and followed the process, is in conflict with the statement that it is not the responsibility of the 98 Committee or the Ada-Camacho to determine eligibility. I never said that they could not challenge eleigibility at the polls or, as allowed by law, within 15 days of the election. But IF they were concerned about the votes they should have challenged before the citizens they had concerns about voted.

I am sorry that you are not satisfied with my answers. I am not willing to spend anymore time than I have to try to refute your statements. And you have me in a conundrum. You have challenged issues, that to disprove, I need to ask workers to obtain documents or information out of official files on official time. Then you will accuse me of using my staff or other government staff for political purposes on this forum. That is a path to entrapment that I will not go down.

I have stated in this forum before that I will continue to serve this administration as long as I am needed. That means as long as the Governor wants me here and as long as I feel I am able to contribute to the citizens living here. I am satisfied I have done so. Neither you nor anyone else on this forum will convince me otherwise. I do have other employment options!

I have worked all weekend with the fire. I do not intend to take the little bit of time I have left away from my personal interests or my family to endlessly debate an issue that will not change one participants in this forum mind! My lack of slugging it out with you, can be claimed by you, helfire, as a victory. Claim it if you must, but I just lack the time and resources, at this time, to give you the credible opposition you desire and deserve.

This is not meant as hiding issues. If you feel their are problems, take it to the public Auditor, the AG, the FBI or whom ever.

Happy New year

Bob

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), December 28, 1998.

Damn, Nicholai, you hogged Kelly all up and he didn't even respnd to my post.

You remember the Malojloj dump fire? Remember how long it took GFD to put out the fire? You think the "disaster" was used as a front to grab headlines and give businesses contracts? Wonder if any businesses got contracts? Why do all evacuees go to the Red Carpet in Agana Heights? Why don't they go to the Hilton like George "Degreaser" Bamba and Ken Hamlick?

Anyways, I hope you guys aren't surprised by Kelly's lack of accountability. Look around you, none of these guys are accountable. Our tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet. Why don't we put together a class-action lawsuit for misuse of taxpayer monies? It seems like it would be an open and shut case.

Did you guys notice that the Governor's "hiring freeze and raise freeze" doesn't include "cabinet level appointees"?

Oh yeah, Kelly, my email addy is real!

Don't worry he'll be back. He has said he's gonna quit this forum about four or five times, always using the same BS line.

-- (chris@malafunkshun.com), December 28, 1998.

Nicholai, you mentioned the controversial tapes?

Kelly was on em talking about how he was stuffin an internet poll, just an example of the kind of standards we're dealing with here.

I think we just frustrate Kelly because we don't swallow the spin doctoring he spews.

-- (chris@malafunkshun.com), December 28, 1998.

Like Gutierrez, Kelley is dancing around the facts now. Let's examine his latest post:

Kelley: "You expect me to prove something that is not possible. I can not prove what machine used in a scan and neither can you. So this point will be batted back and forth without conclusion. And I am not going to post my cellular bills on this net. (I could do a scan *I wonder what scanner I should use* and then post it as a GIF file on the web but that would invade the privacy of all the callers to my cell.. you know that and so do I.)"

I simply asked him twice to answer a question he still has not provided a direct answer to: "Which scanner did you use to scan in the ineligible voters list?" Instead of answering, he first said the 98 committee has a scanner, and now says he can't prove which scanner was used. Whatever happened to a straight answer?

And instead of answering my question about how he uses his government cell phone and whether he reimburses taxpayers for personal calls, he says he can't scan in his phone bill. That wasn't my question, Kelley, and I guess I won't get an answer. Next question.

Kelley: "I posted my cell number for questions on government issues. I NEVER suggested I be called for campaign issues. Do you really think I would discuss 98 issues with the folks on this forum that I have provided with my number?"

He only posted his cell phone on this thread for questions on government issues. Interesting. And to quote Kelley from the actual post where he listed his number: "Please call me if you want a copy of original list provided by Ada-Camacho team last Saturday so you can count and compare. (My Number is 482-4262)."

So providing the Ada-Camacho list to people who want to compare it with the one the 98 team published in the paper as a *campaign* tactic is a government issue? Since when? Unfortunately for Kelley, we have his actual post to look at so he can't pretend he did anything otherwise. But wait, there's more.

Kelley: "By the way, my personal number is 688-4262. Please use it sparingly."

Now he's saying the same government cell number is his personal number. Which is it? I thought you said you posted your number for government issues only? And why is this the same number you give out to government officials, the media, and businessmen as your government cell phone? What's your government cell number then, and why do you never use it? Odd. And listen to Kelley's next reply to my questions.

Kelley: "I have take my time after normal duty hours (it is 7:08 p.m.) to answer your questions. Questions you dont feel I have a relevant interest in."

Is that an answer? It seems like a non-answer to me. How does this answer address any of my questions?

Kelley quotes irrelevant law again, and then says in regard to his interpretation of the law: "I never said that they could not challenge eleigibility at the polls or, as allowed by law, within 15 days of the election. But IF they were concerned about the votes they should have challenged before the citizens they had concerns about voted."

IF they were concerned about the votes, where does it say in the law that they have to challenge the "citizens" before they vote? Obviously there were a lot of problems with the voters, and it would be near impossible to catch all of them at the polls. In fact, the voter fraud wasn't discovered by anyone until *after* the election, so I'm not sure what Kelley's point is here. The challenge was correct, as provided by law, and so all the laws Kelley has quoted are irrelevant, as I've said about four or five times. Kelley goes on.

Kelley: "I am sorry that you are not satisfied with my answers. I am not willing to spend anymore time than I have to try to refute your statements. And you have me in a conundrum. You have challenged issues, that to disprove, I need to ask workers to obtain documents or information out of official files on official time. Then you will accuse me of using my staff or other government staff for political purposes on this forum. That is a path to entrapment that I will not go down."

Spend *more* time trying to refute my statements? That would imply you've spent some time doing so already. You haven't answered a single one of my questions, and I'm sorry your time is too valuable to justify to taxpayers such as ourselves why you've been spending our money for campaigns.

As for your notion that I'm trying to entrap you ... I simply asked for answers to simple questions. If you need government workers to answer those questions ... well, you'd know better than I what you'd need government workers for. I wouldn't want to put you out. Sorry for asking legitimate questions.

Kelley went on about how he could get another job if he wanted to, then said: "This is not meant as hiding issues. If you feel their are problems, take it to the public Auditor, the AG, the FBI or whom ever."

Thank you for the suggestions, and the lack of any answers.

-- Nicholai Hel (helfire@angelfire.com), December 29, 1998.

Because Kelley still hasn't answered my questions, let me post them again so people don't forget. I'm still waiting for answers.:

1) earlier you mentioned that the infamous list was scanned in and then printed in the 98 ad -- what scanner did you use to scan in the list? was it your personal scanner, or the 98 committee's scanner, or a government scanner? can we see the scanner?

2) when you offer your cell number for people to call and ask about the list and other campaign matters, is that the same government cell phone that the taxpayers pay for? is that the same taxpayer-funded cell phone you use for all your campaign-related calls, including the ones on the infamous tapes? how much are your phone bills, and who exactly pays for the bills? can we see the bills and the receipts?

3) do you take the taxpayer-funded vehicle you drive around home with you? does the governor and other directors? if so, do they pay for the gas and maintanence used in those non-work trips in our vehicles?

4) when you quoted irrelevant law (Guam Code Annotated) at length, where did you get the computerized version of the law? was it from a government computer? were you using the government computer for campaign-related research? how exactly is this related to your job as civil defense director? or even telecom advisor? how many hours a week do you spend at civil defense?

In addition, I disporved his justification of publication of the list by the 98 camp, and he has yet to address this. He has presented two basic arguments thus far:

1) The list submitted by Ada contained the names of allegedly illegal voters. People deserve to know they are being accused of voting illegally. Therefore, it was necessary to publish the entire list in a series of newspaper ads with no evidence or arguments presented with the list.

2) There were thousands of names on the list submitted by Ada. It was impossible for the 98 lawyers to check every list before the lawsuit came to court. Therefore, it was necessary to print the list so people could come forward and help the 98 committee do its legal research and verify the voters eligibility.

My rebuttal on the first point: the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. Sure, if people are accused of voting illegally, they should know about it. But publishing the list in newspaper ads isn't the only way to notify people; it isn't the 98 committee's responsibility to notify them; and it isn't even the proper way to notify people. If the Ada lawyers actually try to disprove a voter in court, they would have to provide evidence and the voter would be subpoenaed into court. They would be properly notified by the subpoena. Instead, the 98 camp published the names of the accused before the accused had a chance to defend themselves in court. The 98 camp's ads to notify people were not only unnecessary, they were improper.

On the second point: granted, there wasn't much time for the 98 lawyers to research the list. But again, the conclusion of this argument doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. If the 98 lawyers can prove they need more time to properly research the list, then they should ask for an extension in court. If it's a justifiable extension, the court will grant it. If not, the court will not grant the extension and the entire argument will be proven untrue.

Since the 98 camp's justifications for publishing the list in an improper forum, the media (as opposed the the proper forum, the court), have been proven illogical, I submit the only logical reason for publishing the list was for political gain. (There are other possible reasons, such as the 98 camp really believed their justifications and are just idiots, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

I'm still waiting for Kelley to address these questions and points, point-by-point. He has written a lot of words without attempting to answer anything. But I'm patient.

-- Nicholai Hel (helfire@angelfire.com), December 29, 1998.

Happy New Years to all! And at the same time, this forum has passed a milestone: 5,000 visitors. Of course, most of the visitors are 5 or 6 people, but it's quality and not quantity that counts, right?

It looks like there's been a lot of discussion since I was last on here. Nicolai and Kelly are really going at it. Nicolai, you seem to be new on the forum (unless you were just a lurker before), so I'll point out to you that Mr. Kelly never sticks around for the real fight. He throws out a bunch of stuff, and then runs to put out a fire (BTW, my sources tell me that while he claims to spend long hours at Ordot or Malojloj putting out fires, he's very seldom there -- that comes from an actual emergency worker).

But I'm always polite to Mr. Kelly, so he likes me.

As for the issue of publication of the list, I have to agree with Chris and Nicolai. Karl and the 98ers are using it like they did the tapes and all other proof of wrongdoing -- spinning it around on the accuser. When there were tapes proving unethical acts by 98ers, Karl made the accusers out to be criminals. Notice that no criminal charges were actually pressed. When Joe Ada came up with actual proof of fraud in the election (still to be proven in court), the 98ers (possibly afraid of the implications of that evidence) found a few obvious errors and said the whole list was a sham (with no real evidence of that) and made it out so that Ada was the bad guy. Ada is trying to point out fraud in our election and he's in the wrong? That spin is a little suspicious. And familiar.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (lighthouse@yahoo.com), December 31, 1998.

I guess the debate isn't "civil" enough for Kelly. BTW, Nicholai, Kelly is confusing me and you. It seems he gave a message to my grandfather-in-law about one of YOUR posts.

Just thought I'd point out to you that the prefixes in Kelly's two phones are different. One's a 688 and the other a 482.

I guess now that Civil Defense is finished, Kelly will go back to being a furniture purchasing agent.

-- (chris@malafunkshun.com), January 01, 1999.

Hey, anyone who supports 98 and Gov. Carl Gutierrez would like the following page:

http://www.angelfire.com/on/guamchat/friendship.html

Check it out and show your support for 98!!!!

Ansa

-- Ana Marie (ana_marie@hotmail.com), January 01, 1999.

Chris, Nicholai, and all the other members of this forum,

As I stated in my last post on December 28, I am too busy at this time to really debate at length. I actually said: My lack of slugging it out with you, can be claimed by you, helfire, as a victory. Claim it if you must, but I just lack the time and resources, at this time, to give you the credible opposition you desire and deserve.

The operative word was at this time. And I was sure that during my absence all sorts of assumptions and victory claims would be proffered. And they have been!

I have my parents here on island until the first week of March. I also want some time to spend with my family. So.. at this time, I chose to concentrate on the reorganization of Civil Defense, supporting the efforts with the Ordat fire, plan for the Y2K efforts needing attention, work with the emergency communications and work towards privatizing GTA. What is left should be for my personal business and my family.

I did offer my contacts for discussions by telephone that only resulting is some of you flaming me!

I will offer some rebuttals when I have time. In the meantime, dont try to read more into my decreased participation then actually exists. I have been very busy ( lighthouse has also obviously been busy and much less involved, and it is his forum) and so I am temporarily less involved.

Happy New Year!

Bob

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), January 02, 1999.

Chris has shed some light on Kelley's cell phone shell game. In response to one of my questions about how he spends our taxpayer dollars, Kelley implied in a Dec. 28 post that he doesn't post his government cell phone for campaign-related calls:

"I posted my cell number for questions on government issues. I NEVER suggested I be called for campaign issues. Do you really think I would discuss 98 issues with the folks on this forum that I have provided with my number?"

"By the way, my personal number is 688-4262. Please use it sparingly."

So. His personal number is 688-4262, and yet in an earlier post on Dec. 18 he said:

"Please call me if you want a copy of original list provided by Ada- Camacho team last Saturday so you can count and compare. (My Number is 482-4262)."

In that discussion, which was about whether the 98 team added extra names to its campaign ad regarding the list of allegedly ineligible voters, Kelley posted not his personal 688 number, but a 482 number that he uses as his government cell phone and gives out for official business.

So Kelley, unless he can dance himself out of his own statements, seems to be saying that he was asking people to call him on his government cell phone for campaign related issues. And yet he said "Do you really think I would discuss 98 issues with the folks on this forum that I have provided with my number?"

Is this a lie, Kelley? I'd like an explanation. And answers to my questions. Do you reimburse the government for personal or campaign related calls you make on your taxpayer-funded cell phone? Do you think that using this government cell phone for those purposes is justified? And if you would lie to us about this, what else might you lie to us about? And what else are other government officials lying about?

The last few are probably questions you can't answer. But the first few definitely are questions that deserve answers. When you find the time.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), January 03, 1999.

Hel

I tried to get across the point that despite the lies of the Ada- Cammacho camp, no names were added to the list. Not one call came into either of my cell numbers. Not one person requested the list. The lies about names just continued. You are willing to accept public lies about the list. Lets get back to the issue and debate the list. Why did Curtis Van de Veld purposely and deliberately mislead the public on this issue? You do not even have the guts to identify yourself (you may be Curtis for all I know.) I accept that as your right.

I had hoped to have some dialog that would be a little more meaningful than a constant battle over my contact numbers. I do not discuss campaign strategies over the phone for obvious reasons.

I probably should post in the future as an anonymous participant so that I can have more equal standing with the rest of the members of this group.

-- Bob Kelley (rkelley@ns.gov.gu), January 03, 1999.

kelly, Give us a break for a change. Cut out that same old line about how BUSY? you are and about YOU giving out your real name, and everybody else using pseudonames. You have nothing to fear using your real name, not that you are exactly the fearless type, it just appears that you are. kelly, you are starting to actually humor me with the S.O.S . You seem as confused as your boss karl, why don't you finger me if you are such a "techno expert with other employment options"? come-on lets HaCk.

-- sAnDmAn (tr@oll.srpm), January 04, 1999.

So tr, you have recommended kelly (or is it kelley) break the law and hack into Philip Greenspuns lusenet computer site?

Isnt this the only way he could obtain the originating host headers to begin to finger you?

Wouldnt that be breaking the law?

If he does finger you and he informs you or others, wouldnt he then admit to committing a crime of hacking?

Are you trying to get him in jail?

You and ceo seem committed into getting kelly (or is it kelley) into trouble. Why?

Are the posters, including you, sending from an identifiable account?

Is the originating account in your name?

How do the rest of you feel about trs suggestion?

Is this consistent with the values of this group?

Do you object to people trying to hack your identities?

Does Philip Greenspun agree with this suggestion?

Is this indicative of the honesty and integrity of the ada supporters?

Just wondering

-- friend of 98 (including kelley) (ga'chong@98.governor), January 04, 1999.

answers to "friends" questions:

yes pop

no mov

no and

no jmpa

no push

yes or

yes cmp

yes call

yes or

no bcx

no bdx

no ret

no dwrd

-- sAnDmAn (tr@oll.srpms), January 04, 1999.

Kelly's latest post has so many holes in it it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start from the top:

Kelly: "Not one call came into either of my cell numbers. Not one person requested the list."

You say no one called, so that makes it okay for you to go around posting your government cell number for campaign issues. Worse yet, does that make it okay that you lied to us about posting your government cell number? You didn't address that little point. And that lie casts doubt on your other claims, as far as I'm concerned.

Kelly: "You are willing to accept public lies about the list."

I assume the "lies" you are talking about are the claims that names were added to the list by the 98 camp. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I am willing to accept those claims. If you look back on my earlier post, I simply asked for an explanation of why Joe T. San Agustin was claiming there were 2,000 people on the list, but the list published had well over 3,000 names. I never accepted your claim or Van De Veld's. In fact, I still haven't, as I have yet to see the real list. But thanks for assuming what I believe, Kelly.

But ... the more serious problem here is your implied argument: "You accept the lies of others, so why are you making a big deal about my lies?" Two wrongs make a right? I don't think so. If in fact others have lied about an unrelated issue, that doesn't make it right that you lied about posting your government cell number. You've made a weak argument, and a weak attempt to divert us from your lie, which you haven't explained.

Kelly: "Lets get back to the issue and debate the list."

You'd like to switch the topic back, wouldn't you? But you still haven't explained your posting of a government cell number for campaign issues, or your apparent lie about that fact. And it seems that the use of taxpayer money for campaigning isn't important enough for you to address -- surely not as important as an issue we are not even debating anymore (the alleged added names on the list).

Kelley: "You do not even have the guts to identify yourself (you may be Curtis for all I know.) I accept that as your right."

I've said more than once now that I've given my name. If you'd like to question that, how do we know you're Bob Kelly? You post his government cell number, but that isn't proof. My point is that despite my assertion that I've posted my name, you keep questioning it. The real issue, though, is that you seem to think someone has to post their name in order to post valid arguments or to rip apart weak arguments such as yours. This is wrong, and anyone who has studied logic or debate knows this. The validity of an argument has nothing to do with the identity of the person making the argument.

Kelly: "I had hoped to have some dialog that would be a little more meaningful than a constant battle over my contact numbers. I do not discuss campaign strategies over the phone for obvious reasons."

And yet when I posted very valid criticisms of your justification of the publication of the list, you failed to engage in that debate and have dodged every meaningful question. And yet when I moved the discussion along (since you wouldn't address my points), and asked valid questions about your spending of taxpayer money, you have dodged those questions and blown them off as unimportant. Well, Mr. Government Director, the spending of taxpayer money is very important to taxpayers, if you're not aware. And so is the honesty of public officials.

If you'd honestly like to engage in meaningful dialogue, address my criticisms of your justification of the publication of the list. I've posted those criticisms several times, but in case you can't find them, let me know and I'll post them in summarized form once more. I patiently await your response.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), January 05, 1999.

Response to Hel:

You wrote earlier demanding answers from Bob regarding several issues. I have some answers.

"1) earlier you mentioned that the infamous list was scanned in and then printed in the 98 ad -- what scanner did you use to scan in the list? was it your personal scanner, or the 98 committee's scanner, or a government scanner? can we see the scanner?

2) when you offer your cell number for people to call and ask about the list and other campaign matters, is that the same government cell phone that the taxpayers pay for? is that the same taxpayer-funded cell phone you use for all your campaign-related calls, including the ones on the infamous tapes? how much are your phone bills, and who exactly pays for the bills? can we see the bills and the receipts?

3) do you take the taxpayer-funded vehicle you drive around home with you? does the governor and other directors? if so, do they pay for the gas and maintanence used in those non-work trips in our vehicles?

4) when you quoted irrelevant law (Guam Code Annotated) at length, where did you get the computerized version of the law? was it from a government computer? were you using the government computer for campaign-related research? how exactly is this related to your job as civil defense director? or even telecom advisor? how many hours a week do you spend at civil defense?"

These questions posed to Bob are pretty silly. You attempt to portray yourself as participating in intelligent debate. Yet, these questions speak of the same paranoia rampant throughout this forum before or after the election. How many hours a week does he spend at civil defense? Come on now! What are you, some kind of retard version of Sherlock Holmes? You should join a law enforcement agency or something, and if you have already, - get some more training. Maybe your better off giving up like Lighhouse and just await the indictments for all the other paranoia published here before the election. With all the investigations supposedly underway since day one - you figure the professionals will come up with something. An amateur like you stands no chance. More interesting are your arguments regarding the list. In responding to points supposedly made by Bob, you state:

"Sure, if people are accused of voting illegally, they should know about it. But publishing the list in newspaper ads isn't the only way to notify people; it isn't the 98 committee's responsibility to notify them; and it isn't even the proper way to notify people. If the Ada lawyers actually try to disprove a voter in court, they would have to provide evidence and the voter would be subpoenaed into court. They would be properly notified by the subpoena. Instead, the 98 camp published the names of the accused before the accused had a chance to defend themselves in court. The 98 camp's ads to notify people were not only unnecessary, they were improper."

Good try. You obviously misunderstand the judicial system, which is why I hope you are not a practicing lawyer. Basically, you argue that publishing the list is unnecessary and improper, and was not even the 98's responsibility, and your alternative is to have the voters subpoenaed if Ada decides to proceed with disproving an individual voter. Ada filed the complaint - with voer 3,000 names listed as illegal voters, potentially, actually, whatever the case may be. To respond to such a powerful complaint, it is only natural that 98 would want to reject the basis of the complaint - that there were NOT 3,000 illegal voters in this election. If 98 is successful in its intitial response brief that only one or ten or one hundred out of the 3,000 names are even potentially illegal - you know what that does to Ada's complaint? It pretty much transforms it from a very grave and powerful complaint to a very weak complaint. Thus, to argue that the 98 camp should sit around and wait for trial or whatever, while Ada's complaint alleges obviously distorted facts, is rediculous. As a party to the case, publishing the list to discover the rampant negligence of the facts alleged - is necessary, proper, and has obviously resulted in a weakening of Ada's allegations.

Second, your alternative is also rediculous in a judicial functioning aspect. Any court would be glad that a party has eliminated disputed facts before a trial is consummated. When someone files a complaint, the responder makes his best effort to attack that complaint. Your assumption that 98 must wait around for a second allegation by Ada which states more accurately some "true" list of illegal voters - is simply WRONG. When Ada filed his complaint - he left himself open to attacks on his allegations. Publishing the list was the most efficient way to discover the weaknesses of his allegations. Now that Guam has seen these weaknesses - we have you and your cronies who try to distort the process to cry political paranoia all over again.

Finally, your statement that the 98 camp published the names of the accused before the accused had a chance to defend themselves in court, again shows your illogical view of the judicial system. The names on the list are not accused of any crime under the law by the territory. The publishing of these names was not a furtherance of any accusation towards them. Rather, Ada filed the complaint. Ada named these individuals as illegal voters, potentially, actually, or whatever Van de Veld says these days. In either case, the list became a public document. Its more accurate to say that Ada "accused" these individuals in a public court document without the "accused" having a chance to defend themseleves in any manner - to Ada himself or in court. Your next argument: "If the 98 lawyers can prove they need more time to properly research the list, then they should ask for an extension in court. If it's a justifiable extension, the court will grant it. If not, the court will not grant the extension and the entire argument will be proven untrue."

Again, I hope your not a practicing attorney. Granting or not granting an extension is not the basis in which decisions regarding the truthness of arguments are made. Other factors are analyzed - most having little or nothing to do with the validity of the arguments made. Most have to do with efficiency of the judicial process. In any case - your thought process is at least coming clean. First, you argued that it was not 98's responsibility to decipher who on the list was a legal or illegal voter. Now, your saying 98 should have asked for more time to discover who was legal and illegal. Thus, you argue that publishing the list was wrong in the judicial context, and then you argue that publishing was wrong as a technique in discovering weaknesses of Ada's allegations. Either way - your wrong. As the publishing of the list showed, it was the most effective and efficient way to discover who was a legal or illegal voter on the list. You and your cronies - when faced with political backlash of Ada's own doing - are tryiing to argue their way out of a bad situation - you are failing badly. Face it - Ada and his attorney's should have known that the list would become public some way - whether through 98, the media itself, or from some other party - probably a group of individuals named on the list - or the election commission. Just becuase 98 was the one - you assume that it was all political. Not surpising - as now the weaknesses of the complaint are being discovered - and you have no way out.

Now we get to your conclusion: "Since the 98 camp's justifications for publishing the list in an improper forum, the media (as opposed the the proper forum, the court), have been proven illogical, I submit the only logical reason for publishing the list was for political gain. (There are other possible reasons, such as the 98 camp really believed their justifications and are just idiots, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt."

Wow - your smart. You have not proved anything regarding the reasons for publishing the list. With a list of 3,000 alleged illegal voters dwindling fast - you will find out quickly who the idiot is. 98's publishing of the list was important - A complaint which listed illegal voters in a number coincidentally close to the number of votes Ada lost - is dwindling to a point where the complaint will not be able to stand. You see, a Court's function is to decide issues of fact and law. You seem to view it as a system which would subject it to a circus atmosphere. The Court is going to happy that the 98 camp quickly resolved many of the negligent allegations put forth by Ada. A waste of subpoenas and court time is not to their liking.

Bye

-- Cruz (jcruz@uog.edu), January 06, 1999.

Cruz's arguments are so weak that it's probably a waste of my time to refute them, but since I'm still waiting for real answers from Kelley, I'll waste my time:

In response to a series of questions I posed to Kelley regarding how he uses our taxpayer money, Cruz said: "These questions posed to Bob are pretty silly. You attempt to portray yourself as participating in intelligent debate. Yet, these questions speak of the same paranoia rampant throughout this forum before or after the election. How many hours a week does he spend at civil defense? Come on now! What are you, some kind of retard version of Sherlock Holmes?"

My idea of an intelligent debate includes criticizing and refuting an opponent's arguments and evidence, not making personal attacks and calling him names such as "retard." Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes an intelligent debate.

Nevertheless, I think the use of our taxpayer money is important, and that asking for a justification of how that money is spent is valid. I do not pay taxes to have Kelley use that money for cell phones and scanners for campaign or personal purposes, and I think it is valid to ask questions to ensure that is not happening. Perhaps Cruz doesn't pay taxes to GovGuam, or has a different value of money.

Cruz calls my questions about the use of taxpayer money "silly" without providing any explanation or support for dismissing what I think are important issues in such a way. He (or she) also says the questions are an example of "paranoia rampant throughout this forum" without giving any other specific examples of this "paranoia" in this forum or explanations or support for why it is "paranoia." My dictionary (albeit an abridged version) defines "paranoia" as "A serious mental disorder characterized by well-rationalized delusions of persecution or of grandeur." Perhaps Cruz uses a different definition of paranoia, because he in no way shows evidence that asking for justification of the use of taxpayer money is "a serious mental disorder."

In any case, Cruz has utterly failed to provide any support for his assertions that my questions about the use of taxpayer money are "silly" or "paranoia," and his assertions can therefore be promptly dismissed.

Later, after a few more insults, he does make an argument: "With all the investigations supposedly underway since day one - you figure the professionals will come up with something. An amateur like you stands no chance."

So Cruz's argument that the misuse of taxpayer money doesn't exist is basically, "Since professional investigators haven't handed out indictments for the misuse of taxpayer money, such fraud must not exist." Either that, or Cruz is saying that the fraud does exist but I'm too dumb to see it.

Either way, Cruz shows a misunderstanding of how the investigation process works. A federal attorney I talked to said investigations such as the one the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office are conducting into GovGuam fraud can take years, and said people should not expect indictments to come down soon after a grand jury is called to hear evidence in a case, as a grand jury has been called in this case. So, Cruz's belief that because no indictments have been handed out, there must be no fraud, is completely wrong. The feds want to have an air- tight case in situations such as this.

Now, on to Cruz's response to my criticism of the 98 camp's publication of the voter list.

Cruz states: "Basically, you argue that publishing the list is unnecessary and improper, and was not even the 98's responsibility, and your alternative is to have the voters subpoenaed if Ada decides to proceed with disproving an individual voter. Ada filed the complaint - with voer 3,000 names listed as illegal voters, potentially, actually, whatever the case may be. To respond to such a powerful complaint, it is only natural that 98 would want to reject the basis of the complaint - that there were NOT 3,000 illegal voters in this election. If 98 is successful in its intitial response brief that only one or ten or one hundred out of the 3,000 names are even potentially illegal - you know what that does to Ada's complaint? It pretty much transforms it from a very grave and powerful complaint to a very weak complaint. Thus, to argue that the 98 camp should sit around and wait for trial or whatever, while Ada's complaint alleges obviously distorted facts, is rediculous. As a party to the case, publishing the list to discover the rampant negligence of the facts alleged - is necessary, proper, and has obviously resulted in a weakening of Ada's allegations."

Cruz said that to respond to the complaint, the 98 camp would want to reject the basis of the complaint, and therefore it had to publish the list. He seems to have missed my entire point, which was NOT that "the 98 camp should sit around and wait for trial or whatever." This is a complete misinterpretation of my point. My point was, and I'll state it AGAIN: The 98 camp can investigate the list, gather evidence, and do what it needs to disprove the claims, but it SHOULD NOT publish the list publicly. To do so is to publicly harm the reputation of every voter on that list, without giving that voter the chance to respond to the charges. Ada was making the charges, but he was doing so in the proper forum, which is in court, where parties can respond to charges and provide evidence in a controlled setting before a judge. Instead, the 98 camp took those charges outside the court system and into the media, thus making the charges and names public and harming the reputation of those people.

This is a very simple concept, and neither Kelley nor Cruz seems to grasp it. The 98 camp has every right to investigate the list before the trial, but it was wrong to make the list public.

Furthermore, proving that 1 or 10 or 100 names on the list were wrong does not make a list of 3,000-plus voters a weak complaint. It means that there are still 2,900 or more to be disproven, which is quite a lot. Even proving that there were "only" 1,000 actual cases of fraud does not make it a weak complaint. That's about 2% of the actual voters, and that is a very high rate of fraud. Yet, despite the publicity, there haven't been even 10 or 100 names proven to be eligible, because the trial hasn't started and evidence hasn't been presented or examined. The publication of the list did not change that, but it did harm the reputation of 3,000-plus people by taking the charges out of the court system.

Cruz goes on: "Your assumption that 98 must wait around for a second allegation by Ada which states more accurately some "true" list of illegal voters - is simply WRONG. When Ada filed his complaint - he left himself open to attacks on his allegations. Publishing the list was the most efficient way to discover the weaknesses of his allegations. Now that Guam has seen these weaknesses - we have you and your cronies who try to distort the process to cry political paranoia all over again."

First, I don't know what "cronies" I have, but if Cruz is implying that I'm with any political group, he is wrong, and furthermore, he has no support for that belief.

Second, Cruz again misrepresents my argument and says I have an "assumption that 98 must wait around for a second allegation by Ada." I don't believe this at all. The 98 camp should investigate the allegations, not wait around. But there's more -- read on.

The weakness of Cruz's argument is shown later in the above quote: "Publishing the list was the most efficient way to discover the weaknesses of his allegations." This is true. But the most efficient way to do things is often the most unethical and morally wrong way -- fascism is more effective than democracy, but I wouldn't support such a government. If publishing charges in the newspaper so that lawyers can efficiently disprove them were a justified legal tactic, we'd see thousands of ads publishing such charges every year. We don't, because real lawyers actually research and investigate evidence and interview witnesses themselves. Publishing the names in the newspaper was efficient (especially politically) but it was far from necessary.

Cruz goes on: "Finally, your statement that the 98 camp published the names of the accused before the accused had a chance to defend themselves in court, again shows your illogical view of the judicial system. The names on the list are not accused of any crime under the law by the territory. The publishing of these names was not a furtherance of any accusation towards them. Rather, Ada filed the complaint. Ada named these individuals as illegal voters, potentially, actually, or whatever Van de Veld says these days. In either case, the list became a public document. Its more accurate to say that Ada "accused" these individuals in a public court document without the "accused" having a chance to defend themseleves in any manner - to Ada himself or in court."

It's ironic that Cruz accuses me of having an "illogical" view of the judicial system, and yet doesn't understand that system himself. The court ordered Ada to turn over a list of ineligible voters to the 98 lawyers as part of the pre-trial discovery process, and Ada complied with that court order. He did not put this list in the media or take it out of the court system.

And to say it is "more accurate to say that Ada "accused" these individuals in a public court document without the "accused" having a chance to defend themseleves in any manner"? What is Cruz thinking? The only place it is proper to publicly accuse someone of wrongdoing is in court (not in the media). It is here that the accused has a chance to defend himself before a judge or jury, with arguments and evidence presented in a way governed by laws. This is what Ada did, and it is proper and legal. What the 98 camp did was publish that list in the media, where the accused have no chance of defending themselves before the public, or presenting arguments or evidence.

Further, Cruz says: "The names on the list are not accused of any crime under the law by the territory. The publishing of these names was not a furtherance of any accusation towards them." And yet in the 98 camp's newspaper ads themselves, the 98 folks go to great lengths to point out that to vote while ineligible is a CRIME, even though Ada doesn't say this in his complaint. Remember, this is a civil trial, not a criminal trial, but the 98 folks want to make sure everyone knows these people are being accused of voting illegally.

Next. I said, "If the 98 lawyers can prove they need more time to properly research the list, then they should ask for an extension in court. If it's a justifiable extension, the court will grant it. If not, the court will not grant the extension and the entire argument will be proven untrue."

And Cruz responds: "Granting or not granting an extension is not the basis in which decisions regarding the truthness of arguments are made. Other factors are analyzed - most having little or nothing to do with the validity of the arguments made. Most have to do with efficiency of the judicial process."

Cruz again seems to misunderstand what I said. I was saying that if the 98 camp legitimately needs more time to properly research the list before trial, the court would grant an extension -- and this is true. Cruz seems to think that I'm saying if the court doesn't grant the extension, the 98 camp's arguments are invalid. I said nothing of the kind -- what I was talking about was Kelley's argument that the 98 camp wouldn't have time to research the list would be invalid, because if it was valid then the court would grant an extension. Let me restate, so I won't be misunderstood: If the 98 lawyers actually needed more time to research the list, the court would grant an extension. If they didn't really need the extra time, the court wouldn't grant the extension. Judges understand how much time is actually needed to research evidence, and are usually reasonable about this.

Cruz goes on: "First, you argued that it was not 98's responsibility to decipher who on the list was a legal or illegal voter. Now, your saying 98 should have asked for more time to discover who was legal and illegal."

He talks at length about these sentences, but Cruz is wrong. I didn't argue that it's "not 98's responsibility to decipher who on the list was a legal or illegal voter." I said the 98 camp should research the list before trial, but shouldn't publish it for political gain.

Cruz wraps up: "98's publishing of the list was important - A complaint which listed illegal voters in a number coincidentally close to the number of votes Ada lost - is dwindling to a point where the complaint will not be able to stand. You see, a Court's function is to decide issues of fact and law. You seem to view it as a system which would subject it to a circus atmosphere. The Court is going to happy that the 98 camp quickly resolved many of the negligent allegations put forth by Ada. A waste of subpoenas and court time is not to their liking."

I see. A court's function is to decide issues of fact and law. And how has the publication of the list helped that in any way? Without publication of the list, the court would have heard arguments and evidence anyway, and would have decided on the eligibility of each voter based on fact and law. The publication of the list doesn't change that, but it does change the reputations of the people whose names were published by the 98 camp in the newspaper. Cruz's argument here is irrelevant, as it doesn't say anything about the publication of the list.

To sum up Cruz's "answers" to my questions and arguments: (a) He provided no support for saying my questions regarding taxpayer money were "silly" or "paranoia"; (b) Cruz misrepresents my arguments and attacks those misrepresentations (straw man attack); (c) His only real argument was that publication of the list was the most efficient was of disproving Ada's claims, but he doesn't acknowledge that the most efficient way of doing this is often the most unethical, and that good lawyers actually research their cases; (d) He says Ada actually accused these people of crimes without giving them a chance to respond, but doesn't understand that Ada was complying with a court order, and was making the accusations in the proper forum, the court, unlike the 98 camp.

In conclusion, Cruz has failed to refute my arguments, and therefore they stand waiting for an answer from Kelley. I'm patient.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), January 07, 1999.

wow. Who else in here does Hannah Gutierrez ($45,000/yr) make more than? Katherine Aguon, convicted felon and co-author of "The Man From My Dagun" feeds us some BS line about one-year probation at $39,000 (and $6,000 raise right before the freeze). Nonsense. The talk-shows seem to have bought that line so much they don't entertain calls on it because "Katherine Aguon explained that." Carl's sister Evelynn makes $65,000/yr at Gov's Office. We all know about Ralph and Roy Gutierrez ("The Tiyan Bandits") not doing crap. Firing teachers, all-time high in unemployment. Great timing, Carl. We better stop being paranoid and whining about taxpayer dollars, huh?

-- (obviousfugazi@realtime.net), January 07, 1999.

What the f*ck is Hannah qualified to do other than some things that may not be suitable to post on this message board? Show me some credentials. Nepotism at its finest.

-- (abc86@usa.net), January 08, 1999.

This trial is soooo juicy. Do you think Carl has been cheating since he was a senator? Also, why hasn't Tyrone Taitano come out to refute the allegation that a 98-t-shirt clad person went around the hospital with ballots unattended, holding people's hands to vote? Randy Cunliffe says the Election Commission had someone there, but Van De Veld says the Election Commission didn't have enough people to send someone to the hospital. Remember when Ty Taitano tried to keep Angel Santos out of the hospital? Guess all ya need is the right attire (red and yellow of course!).

Also, you guys don't think Mayor San Miguel would help Carl cheat, do you? Van De Veld alleges she used her office to recurit illegal voters. Maybe that's why Carl got her a seat on the Election Commission Board.

When the heck is Bob Kelly going to address our concerns? Guess us taxpayer's don;t matter to the administration.

-- (fugazi@realtime.com), January 08, 1999.

An Asian Man walked into a Bank in America. He wanted to change 2,000.00 yen into American dollars.

When he approached the teller and gave him 2,000 yen, the teller gave him $72.00 back.

The next day, the Asian man goes back to the bank, hands the teller 2,000 yen, and the teller gives him back $62.00.

The Asian man says to the teller "I was in here yesterday, and I changed the same amount of yen into 72 American dollars, and today I got only $62.00, can you explain why?" The teller responded "Fluctuations"

The Asian man got upset and stormed out the bank yelling " Fluc you Americans too"! This guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, you've got to help me! My penis is turning orange!" The doctor says," Well, what do you do for a living?" The man replies, "I'm unemployed. I just sit at home all day eating Cheetos and watching pornos."

THE BLONDE KIDNAPPER

A Blonde was down on her luck. In order to raise some money, she decided to kidnap a kid and hold him for ransom.

She went to the playground, grabbed a kid, took him behind a tree, and told him, "I've kidnapped you."

She then wrote a note saying, "I've kidnapped your kid. Tomorrow morning, put $10,000 in a paper bag and put it under the pecan tree next to the slide on the north side of the playground. Signed, A Blonde."

The Blonde then pinned the note to the kid's shirt and sent him home to show it to his parents.

The next morning the blonde checked, and sure enough, a paper bag was sitting beneath the pecan tree. The Blonde opened the bag and found the $10,000 with a note that said, "How could you do this to a fellow Blonde?"

PUBLIC WORKS

A blonde who had been unemployed for several months got a job with the Public Works. She was to paint lines down the center of a rural road. The supervisor told her that she was on probation and that she must stay at or above the set average of 2 miles per day to remain employed.

The blonde agreed to the conditions and started right away.

The supervisor checking up at the end of the day, found that the blonde had completed 4 miles on her first day, double the average! "Great," he told her, "I think you're really going to work out."

The next day, however, he was disappointed to find that the blonde only accomplished 2 miles. The supervisor thought, "Well she's still at the average and I don't want to discourage her, so I'll just keep quiet."

The third day however the blonde only did one mile and the boss thought, "I need to talk to her before this gets any worse."

The boss pulled the new employee in and says, "You were doing so great.The first day you did 4 miles, the second day 2 miles, but yesterday you only did one mile. Why? Is there a problem? An injury, equipment failure? What's keeping you from meeting the 2 mile minimum?"

The blonde replied, "Well, each day I keep getting farther and farther away from the bucket."

THE TIME, PLEASE?

"Excuse me, could you tell me the time?" asked the blonde to a man on the street corner.

"Sure....it's three fifteen," he replied with a smile.

"Thanks," she said, a puzzled look crossing her face. "You know, it's the weirdest thing-I've been asking that question all day long, and each time I get a different answer."

BLONDE WITH A GUN

A blonde suspects her boyfriend of cheating on her.

She goes out and buys a gun. She goes to his apartment unexpectedly and sure enough, she opens the door and finds him in the arms of a redhead.

Well, now she's angry!

She opens her purse to take out the gun but as she does so, she is overcome with grief. She takes the gun and points to her head.

The boyfriend yells, "No, honey, don't do it!!"

"Shut up," she says, "you're next."

THE BET

A blonde and a redhead met in a bar after work for a drink and were watching the 6 o'clock news on TV. A man was shown threatening to jump from the Brooklyn Bridge.

The blonde bet the redhead $50 that he wouldn't jump, and the redhead replied, "I'll take that bet!"

Anyway, sure enough, he jumped, so the blonde gave the redhead the $50.

The redhead said, "I can't take this, you're my friend." The blonde said, "No, a bet's a bet".

So the redhead said, "Listen, I have to admit, I saw this on TV on the 5 o'clock news, so I can't take your money."

"Well, so did I, but I never thought he'd jump again!"

GOING TO THE DOCTOR

A brunette goes into a doctor's office and says, "Doctor, I don't know what's wrong with me."

The doctor says, "Well, tell me your symptoms."

"Well, everything hurts. When I touch my nose it hurts (touching nose), when I touch my leg it hurts (touching leg), when I touch my arm it hurts (touching arm), it just hurts everywhere!" she said.

The doctor, after looking at her for a second, said, "Did you used to be a blonde?"

The brunette said, "Why yes!"

The doctor said, "Your finger's broken."

DRINKING FOR TWO

This guy enters a bar and orders two shots of vodka. He drinks the first and dumps the second on his right hand.

He then orders a second round of shots, drinks the first and again dumps the second on his right hand.

The bartender sees this and becomes curious as the guy orders a third round and does the exact same thing.

So the bartender asks the guy, "Hey man I hope you don't mind me asking, but why the waste of good drinks?"

The man says, "I have to get my date drunk!"

-- The Jokemaster (jokemaster@ite.net), January 11, 1999.

"If the Ada-Camacho attorney lacks integrity, it is indicative of the whole bunch."

- Bob Kelly, Governor's Special Assistant for Cliff Hotel Affairs

Can we same the same about various GovGuam Agenciy directors?

Ok, couldn't resist. Here's my imitation of Bob Kellie:

!!!Cannot stop using exclamation point!!!! !!!Cannot stop using exclamation point!!!!

What a big mullard. They send all these families to the Cliff Hotel (owned by a big 98 supporter and in the home village of our Gov) crying about how the wind changed direction. Then the canisters get lost (?) then the test results show the air is harmless.

How about the Navy bringing out its own scientists to tell the residents of Mong Mong there's nothing unusual about the PCB levels in the village. "You'd have to eat a ton of fish before anything would happen," one of the Navy people said. I'd look for second opinion. History is full of examples of the Government lying about how safe things are (Waste-To-Energy). US EPA is trying to get human sewage and industrial waste sludge (politically-correct title: biosolids) fertilizers under the "Organic" label.

There needs to be a dissenting view point, hence this forum. We've got Jon Andersen (sat on Vision 2001 board, accepted free trip from Gutierrez to Clinton's inauguration), Mike Powel (emceed a 98 fundraiser at a posh hotel) with big-time media slots. KUAM ran a seven-minute pro-incinerator story with no opposing viewpoint (and Eddie Pepsi ahs legislative oversight of the dump and any possible incinerator project .. gee Thanks republicans!). PDN columnists are cool ... need some company though.

-- (fugazi@na'anmo.kadadia), January 14, 1999.

Geez, I'm sure everyone who own's a television on guam saw the news last night about the election commission. And uughh, angel Santos, that man needs to get a haircut. He looked so how would you say.....Ga ga', yeah tha'ts the term......and to think, 5,000 plus people wanted him governor......maybe if he "looked" more professional, I think people will take him more seriously...don't ya think???

So, some advice to angel, "GET A REAL JOB, AND A HAIRCUT"...

-- call me "Beautician" (hairsunlimited@gatput ulu.com), January 26, 1999.

Now, now children. Go outside to the playground and smoke a joint...it's OK...no one will hurt you...

-- deep inhalation (gulp98@hotmail.com), January 28, 1999.

Accoutant Doug Moylan is right on the money 4,128 mystery votes...come on Mr. Judge lets have a rerun election. Judge Manibusan can you please we need Joe Ada to be governor of Guam.

-- Ada Boy (Election@guam.yes), January 29, 1999.