I'M WE'RE JUST SAYIN': Suspicious Minds

Daily Kos has posted a rather lengthy diary entry from "Major Tom" in which Tom argues that "actionable fraud" did indeed occur in our recent presidential election. Here's an excerpt:

What is the Legal Concept of "Reasonable Suspicion"?

...In brief, it's a standard that law enforcement authorities need to meet in order to stop and search a citizen, a car and so on; and it can be the valid basis of an eventual arrest. Indeed, it is less than a "probable cause" or "more likely than not" legal standard. Thus, a twenty or thirty percent likelihood of a given event or fact would meet the "reasonable suspicion standard."

Furthermore, hearsay can be the basis of a "reasonable suspicion" threshold finding, while an actual warrant issued by a judge or magistrate is not necessarily required. Certainly, it is a much less stringent minimal bench mark than "actual proof." Unquestionably, if actual proof were always required, there would be very few legitimate searches conducted across the country on the part of law enforcement authorities.

The point that should be garnered from the brief recital of law set forth in the previous paragraph is that absolute guarantees of proof are never required in the law before a search of anything can be conducted. Furthermore, under our legal system, this basal or minimum standard of "reasonable suspicion" is quite sufficient in the criminal law arena where rights are more greatly coveted and protected than in the civil law arena in which considerations of recounts would more generally apply. Therefore, a suspicion legitimately based upon any facts and inferences, including hearsay, are enough to base a civil or quasi-civil case (which a recount case is), even if those facts represent only a small percent of actual likelihood or probability, so long and on the condition that it is made in good faith.

Do We Have Sufficient Grounds?

So to all those who are screaming "where is the indisputable facts or truth, because I haven't heard any yet," I say to them, "that at this point in the proceedings, indisputable proof is not required whatsoever."

In fact, because we are not suggesting that a criminal action be brought, the standard of proof is even less than "a reasonable suspicion." Don't we at least have some of that from what we have thus far heard? OF COURSE, WE DO. Just think about what we now know to have occurred in Volusia County, Florida; or what has occurred in South Carolina; or what has occurred in Ohio, and so on and so on. Even the enormous improbabilities regarding the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual poll results should raise within all reasonable people a "reasonable suspicion" that something is definitely awry concerning many of the 2004 poll results. Wasn't the odds 250,000,000 to 1?

Actually, with regard to some of the reports we have been hearing from here and there, I would respectfully suggest that the criminal law, "reasonable suspicion standard" has also been met concerning some of the activities that we have been informed about - destroying original polling tapes. At least, that is my view. Again, however, we are not suggesting that someone bring a criminal action at this point in the continuing controversy. We're talking about a "quasi-civil action" here.