King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al

Filing 96

Supplemental Memorandum Opposing re 92 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoenas filed by Plaintiffs Willis Brown, Miles Curtiss, Paul Gregory, King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, League of Young Voters/Columbus, Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy, Matthew Segal & Harvey Wasserman. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix OEC Complaint & Exhibits, # 2 Appendix OEC 11-1 Hearing Transcript, # 3 Appendix OEC Hearing Exhibits 1-5, # 4 Exhibit 1 Cit for Strg OH contributions, # 5 Exhibit 2 Ptr for OH's Future contibutors, # 6 Exhibit 3 Arnebeck to Smith Doc Hold Ltr, # 7 Exhibit 4 Rove on Face the Nation, # 8 Exhibit 5 Tobacco Coup of 1994, # 9 Exhibit 6 Coalition for Legal Reform, # 10 Exhibit 7 Analysis of Ltr to FBI on Connell death, # 11 Exhibit 8 Analysis of Connell crash site, # 12 Exhibit 9 Cyber Map of 2004 OH election, # 13 Exhibit 10 Cyber Map of 2006 OH election, # 14 Exhibit 11 Smartech targets Obama) (Arnebeck, Clifford)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

King Lincoln Brownsville
Neighborhood Association, et al.
Case No. 2:06-CV-00745
Plaintiffs,
v.

Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, et al.

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM, ATTACHMENTS,
AND EXHIBITS INSTANTER, TO THEIR MEMORANDUM CONTRA
OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND PARTNERSHIP FOR OHIO’S FUTURE
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
At the invitation of Magistrate Judge Kemp to the parties at a telephone conference on November
2, 2010, this supplements plaintiffs’ memorandum contra filed on November 2, 2010.
Relevance of the subpoenas to the King Lincoln case
In both their original and amended complaint the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
on the basis of an alleged ongoing conspiracy against their voting rights. Indeed, Judge Marbley
informally intervened on election day November 2006 to assure that the Secretary of State’s office
corrected the widespread illegal practice of compelling voters to vote provisionally if the address on
their drivers’ licenses was different from their address listed on their voter registrations. The primary
relief sought was prospective.

In the 2010 election cycle one of the primary methods of election fraud was the swamping of
1

the airwaves with advertising in support of Republican candidates or against Democratic Party
candidates by the Chamber of Commerce directly and/or through various front groups. This
spending was illegal because it had been requested by, and coordinated with, Karl Rove acting
in the defacto capacity as head of the national coordinated Republican campaign for 2010.

Mr. Rove has been accused of many things. Being a political independent has never been one
of them.

Basis for the Karl Rove deposition and Chamber of Commerce subpoenas upon the
November 2008 deposition of Michael Connell
On July 17, 2008, plaintiffs’ trial attorney filed a motion to lift the stay of the King Lincoln case
for the purpose of conducting limited discovery to facilitate the possible settlement and progress
of the case, issued document hold notices to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in connection with
a prospective racketeering claim under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act and document hold
notices to the Attorney General of the United States in regard to White House e-mails of Karl
Rove in connection with the same prospective claim. Stephen Spoonamore, a prominent
Republican cyber security expert participated by telephone in the news conference at which
these actions were described and discussed. Plaintiffs’ trial attorney described Karl Rove as the
principal perpetrator in a racketeering conspiracy under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, and
described Michael Connell as the key witness to the full scope of activity within this criminal
conspiracy, inasmuch as he could link the election activities of Karl Rove and the front group
activities of the Chamber of Commerce.

2

Within days of this news conference and these actions, an anonymous caller to an advertised
reward telephone line for information leading to the successful prosecution of persons engaged
in election fraud, reported that Karl Rove through an intermediary with the first name, Jeff, had
conveyed a threat against Michael Connell’s wife if Michael Connell did not “take the fall” for
the theft of the 2004 election in Ohio. Stephen Spoonamore conducted his own inquiries in
regard to this information and advised plaintiffs’ counsel that he believed the threat was
credible. On the basis of that professional opinion plaintiffs’ counsel informed authorities of
this reported threat. Later, in subsequent calls by the same anonymous informant to the reward
telephone tip line, the informant stated that Mike Connell was in danger from Karl Rove.

Plaintiffs’ trial counsel obtained the agreement of the Secretary of State to lift the stay for the
purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to take the deposition of Michael Connell and other
depositions by agreement based upon the deposition of Mike Connell. Plaintiffs’ counsel
issued subpoenas for the deposition of Mike Connell, obtained service with the cooperation of
Mike Connell, and took the deposition of Mike Connell pursuant to an order of the U.S. District
Court in Cleveland on November 3rd, the day before the 2008 election.

There were two vital conclusions plaintiffs’ counsel drew from the deposition of Mike Connell:
1) that when asked appropriate follow-up questions, Mike Connell would provide truthful
answers and 2) that Michael Connell was a first rate professional who would not take
responsibility for criminal conduct in which he had not engaged. Plaintiff’s trial counsel arrived
at those conclusions based upon the cross examination of Mike Connell concerning the only two
3

deposition exhibits – the architecture maps for the 2004 and 2006 Ohio elections. These maps,
attached hereto as Ex. 9 and Ex. 10, connected the dots between Ohio’s elections and Karl
Rove’s political, governmental, and business operations through Smartech of Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Connell admitted that Smartech had probably become involved with the counting
of Ohio’s votes under Connell’s contract with Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Mike
Connell was the preeminent expert in the world in the design of the faces and interfaces of this
network of Rove’s connections.

When plaintiffs’ trial attorney received a telephone call during the early evening of Friday,
December 19, 2008 advising him that Michael Connell had been killed in an airplane crash
upon his return trip to his home Akron-Canton Airport from a trip to Washington, D.C.,
Plaintiffs’ trial attorney believed that he had been assassinated because of the danger he
represented to Karl Rove as a witness in the plaintiffs’ case.

The following attachments and exhibits document plaintiffs’ search for the truth concerning the
conspiracy of Karl Rove, Tom Donohue and their accomplices to interfere with the plaintiffs’
voting rights under the constitutions and laws of the United States and Ohio:

Attachment 1: Arnebeck v. Partnership for Ohio’s Future with the Ohio Elections Commission
(OEC) Complaint Exhibits A-H.
Ex. A is a screen-shot of the Partnership for Ohio’s Future television advertisement for
Republican Supreme Court candidates O’Connor and Lanzinger. is indicative of the fraudulent
coordination of chamber’s ads with candidate campaign.
4

Ex. B is the report to the Ohio Secretary of State’s office of expenditures made by
Partnership for Ohio’s Future on behalf of the Republican O’Connor and Lanzinger campaigns
for the Ohio Supreme Court.
Ex. C is the September 11, 2001 Wall Street Journal article by Jim VandeHei regarding
the Chamber’s “Targeting ‘Unfriendly’ Judges” in the 2000 candidate campaigns. Of particular
note is the report that “Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Daimler Chrysler AG, Home Depot Inc. and the
American Council of Life Insurers all kicked in $1 million each for one of the chamber’s special
projects: a TV and direct mail advertising campaign aimed at helping elect business-friendly
judges.”

Home Depot and Wal-Mart Corporation profit substantially from the sale of their products
manufactured in China and are in that respect foreign-influenced corporations. Daimler
Chrysler Aerospace AG is the principal shareholder of EADS, the European Aeronautic Defense
and Space Company which is currently competing with Boeing Corp. for an air tanker contract
with the Air Force worth between $35-100 billion. EADS has committed to building the
assembly plant for the air tanker planes in Mobile, Alabama at which plant they, like their
German steel-making Alabama neighbor ThyssenKrupp AG, would use nonunion labor. United
Aircraft Corporation created by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2006 acquired a 5% share
of EADS in 2007, according to Wikipedia.

Ex. D is an NPR report on “A Web of GOP Influence” shows fraudulent coordination
of chamber’s ads with candidate campaigns.
5

Ex. E is a New York Times report on “Pro-G.O.P. Groups Plan Final Push” shows
fraudulent coordination of chamber’s ads with candidate campaigns.

Ex. F is another NYT report published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer shows fraudulent
coordination of chamber’s ads with candidate campaigns, and includes at page 2 a report of
major contributions from “Goldman Sachs, Chevron and Aegon, a multinational insurance
company based in the Netherlands.”

At page 4 the article describes the 2003 published tax

returns of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform and indicate that
the Starr Foundation made a $17 million contribution to the Institute for Legal Reform and that
Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the CEO of AIG and the Starr Foundation took a position on the
board of the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Ex. G is a Free Press article by Bob Fitrakis shows grounding of the Rove deposition
subpoena and the Chamber document subpoenas upon the deposition of Mike Connell.

Ex. H is plaintiffs’ trial attorney’s copy of the September 2009 “Mark Felt” letter to the
Cleveland FBI reporting on the assassination of Michael Connell as a national security threat.

Attachment 2 is the OEC November 1, 2010, hearing transcript of the Arnebeck v. Partnership
for Ohio’s Future complaint

6

Attachment 3 consists of the five complainant’s exhibits offered to the OEC probable cause
panel at the November 1, 2010 hearing:
Ex. 1 shows fraudulent coordination of chamber’s ads with candidate campaigns, with
the Partnership for Ohio’s Future spending approximately the same amount on the campaigns
of the Republican candidates as the Republican candidates and 1.5 times the amount of the
Democratic candidates.
Ex. 2 shows fraudulent coordination of chamber’s ads with candidate campaigns with
the effect on the Ohio Supreme Court candidates’ polling numbers proportionate with the level
of campaign spending. The pre-election written poll conducted under the auspices of the
Columbus Dispatch showing the probable result within the margin of error of 2.3 points in the
Ohio Supreme Court election.
Ex. 3 shows the personal service of the plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena upon Karl Rove.
Ex. 4 shows the coordination between the Chamber of Commerce and the convicted
Federal RICO defendant Phillip Morris Management Corp.

Tom Donohue offered to the

tobacco industry the use of the Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. as the vehicle for continued
and expanded tobacco company influence and control in the political process.
Ex. 5, paragraph 1) shows the coordination fraudulent coordination of the Republican
Party with the Ohio Chamber of Commerce in regard to the Ohio Supreme Court elections.
This internal tobacco industry memo of 2000 documents Governor Bob Taft directing fundraising calls by Speaker-elect Larry Householder to the Citizens for a Strong Ohio, the front
group for the Ohio Chamber to gain Republican control over the Ohio Supreme Court.

7

The additional exhibits being filed with this supplemental memo, to document the relevance of
the plaintiff’s subpoenas to the King Lincoln case and/or their grounding upon the deposition
of Michael Connell, are as follows:
1.

The Chamber’s Citizens for a Strong Ohio disclosure, pursuant to court order and

sanction of $25,000/day, of contributions in 2005. The list of contributors to Citizens for a
Strong Ohio, the front group for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce in the 2000 election cycle was
produced by Citizens for a Strong Ohio after five years of litigation before the OEC, and
through two cycles in both the state and federal courts of the state of Ohio.
2. The Chamber’s Partnership for Ohio’s Future disclosure of contributions in 2010. The list
of contributors to Partnership for Ohio’s Future provided by Partnership for Ohio’s Future by
e-mail in the afternoon of November 2 on recommendation of counsel for the Ohio Chamber
in the context of the conference with Magistrate Judge Kemp on that day. The absence of data
as to the amount of contributions begs the question whether the substantial majority of the
funding is still concealed by the contributions through the Ohio Chamber and the U.S. Chamber
as conduits or launderers for contributions from foreign manufacturing and non-union Southern
manufacturing sources like EADS, DaimlerChysler AG, and tainted financial institutions like
AIG, Hank Greenberg’s new version of AIG and other institutions which are adverse to
government oversight and regulation of their corrupt but profitable predatory activities.
3.

Arnebeck April 30, 2010 letter to Brad Smith explaining the basis for the continuation

of plaintiffs’ trial counsel’s document hold notice in this matter.
4.

Transcript of Karl Rove interview with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation after receipt of

the King Lincoln deposition subpoena (Attachment 3, Ex. 3). In his interview with CBS’s Bob
8

Schieffer Karl Rove is described by Shieffer, without contradiction from Rove, as “now a key
fundraiser,” “as one of the key players and fundraisers in this election.” Page 1.
5.

“Tobaccoup Road,” an article by Delta.doc describing the Republican takeover of

Congressional power in 1994 as a function of dominant tobacco industry spending on their
behalf. This is a compendium of public official statements and internal tobacco industry
documents from the library created out of the state and federal RICO litigation against the
tobacco industry (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu).
6.

List of 2000 clients of Mike Connell related to Chamber’s ILR Coalition for Legal

Reform.

This listing is derived from the Legacy Tobacco archive, and the listing of the

Connell astroturf clients or web hosting clients, has been provided to trial counsel by the author
of the published article Tobaccoup Road, the author of which is personally known by plaintiffs’
trial counsel, and known by plaintiffs’ trial counsel to be a highly reliable researcher with a PhD
in a scientific field.
7.

An analysis of the “Mark Felt” letter to the Cleveland Office of the FBI Attachment 1,

Ex. H hereto, by intelligence reporter Wayne Madsen supporting the view that Michael Connell
had been assassinated as a purported national security threat.
8.

Private Investigative Report of the Fatal Crash of Michael Connell’s airplane revealing,

at page 2, the presence of Ohio Civil Air Patrol personnel in military uniforms climbing through
the wreckage, “tasked by HQ in Huntsville, Alabama,” and at pages 5-7 a “lockdown” on
information about the flight that denied first responders timely information about the number
of persons on the flight. Kyle Hence, an investigator for Raw Story visited the crash site,
interviewed police, fire, airport, and other persons familiar with the crash and prepared a report
9

of his observations.
9. The cyber architecture map of the Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell’s office in
the 2004 general election. This and the comparable map for 2006 were the only exhibits in the
plaintiffs’ deposition of Michael Connell on November 3, 2008. These exhibits show the
connection between and among the GovTech computers of Michael Connell in the Secretary
of State’s office with the Smartech servers in Chattanooga, Tennessee which is interconnected
with the entire Republican and Chamber of Commerce front groups, as well and as Karl Rove’s
computer in the White House via the fiber-optic national defense communications system.
10. The comparable architecture map for the 2006 general election.
11. Excerpt from an Email from Delta.doc to Plaintiffs’ trial counsel on November 11, 2010
reporting the apparent registration on October 27, 2010 of domain names for “obamasnext” by
SmartechCorp.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
__________________________
Clifford O.Arnebeck, Jr. (0033391)
Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs
1021 E. Broad St
Columbus, OH 432 05
614- 224-8771
[e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served upon counsel for the parties and respondents
through the court’s electronic filing system, this 13th day of November 2010.
/s/ Clifford O. Arnebeck, Jr.
___________________________
Clifford O.ArnebeckJr. (0033391)
10