BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR KELLEY ALBRECHT...Talk to her, she has no plans, no information and no idea what she is talking about! But talk to her and find out for yourself I DID!!!!

I attended the meeting at JI CASE. I admired all the guests except Kelley the other guests all gave their ideas and suggestions on how they could help Racine county and our state. everu time Kelley had to answer a question she tried her darndest to slander robin vos--no plans, no suggestions, just trash as I have also seen in her ads. Is that what you want to represent your future?

On page 4 of 9 of Investigator Rosanne Gordon's report pertaining to Incident Report # 12-033434, in regards to registration fraud, she admits that "the voter registration forms would have to be checked." But there's no follow up indicating that all the new voter registration forms were in fact checked by anyone. And that was the end of the investigation into those claims. Apparently, the logistics of personally checking thousands of registration forms, and personally visiting the addresses listed on those forms to verify if the elector actually lives where they claimed to live is beyond the financial resources of the department. And let's not forget that over 300 of the new registration verification post cards were returned as not deliverable as addressed in the City of Racine.

On page 5 of 9, she admits to not being able to properly investigate for voter fraud because "[i]f a person votes under a different name, there is no way to verify that they had done so, with the current Wisconsin Act 23, Voter Photo ID Law on hold."

Bottom line - no one knows if voter fraud is occurring or not because 1) it's easy to commit and go undetected, and 2) there's never been a properly conducted full scale investigation into voter fraud.

And with liberal cheerleaders making comments like this, there's probably plenty of it happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpTKkk

Don't you hold Schultz in high regards? You may want to rethink that!

It's comical how you attack Vos as an extreme right-winger while citing allegations from extreme left-wing groups!

As far as Assemblyman Vos is concerned, we're quite happy with him in the 63rd district, thank you very much. Vos has proven himself to be a competent and bold leader who's not afraid to tackle the tough issues.

Albrecht is apparently a LIAR, claiming that "[Vos] has handed over our tax funds to his cronies and denied citizens their right to access to their government and participation." Nothing could be further from the truth - Vos is a taxpayer's champion and is super accessible, as Hoffa speaks with him regularly.

Hoffa also notices how the only kind of platform that Albrecht offered was to trash Vos - it takes a little more than merely trashing your opponent to win over an informed electorate! Perhaps Albrecht should try coming up with some material of her own if she's a serious candidate - just a little hint.

Vos will dominate in the debate and will win on November 6th!

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON/VOS 2012!!!

@Watching the stupidity -

Apparently, you forgot to proofread your own comment for stupidity before you posted it!

Redistricting usually ends up in the courts, irregardless of what party has majority control when it's implemented. And the court upheld all the new districts with the exception of one - that's actually pretty good considering the history of redistricting battles.

And the use of outside counsel is not that unusual - Doyle used outside counsel many times over the course of his administration, but I bet you didn't ever complain about that, did you?

Vos took a beer on the head by an unhinged blue fister nut job, lest you forget.

Vos has proven himself to be a leader and will easily win both the upcoming debate and election. Just don't go crying to your momma when we re-elect Assemblyman Vos - the taxpayer's champion!

@Karen -

Check your facts again - the DA's office has NOT acted on the complaint. Just because the blue fister nut job Retrum lodged a complain with the DA doesn't mean that the DA has taken on the case.

No, Samantha is not under investigation at this time.

You, HRG, Retrum, and other blue fisters really need to check the election laws before you go spewing your lies on a public forum. Wisconsin's election laws are premised on domicile.

gab.wi.gov/voters/residency

"Your voting residence is defined as the place where you live, without any present intent to move, and where you intend to return when you are away."

Statement from Samantha Vos' attorney:

"It was agreed that you would go back home to Idaho and stay with your family while trying to figure out what to do with your relationship. You kept your personal property in your Burlington home, kept your bank accounts in Wisconsin, kept your driver’s license and registration in Wisconsin, and always intended to return to Wisconsin as your permanent residence. In fact, you also applied to UWM in March of 2012 and were accepted for a program this fall. You have not taken any job in Idaho, leased any property in Idaho, or voted in Idaho."

Clearly, Samantha Vos' domicile is Wisconsin, thus it is completely legal for her to vote in our elections while she is temporarily in Idaho.

Retrum's complaint with the Racine County DA will be appropriately referred to the circular file without investigation.

"The other exception being women on the bucketload of dating sites he belongs to and uses during all of his marriages."

Please back up your allegation by posting links to Vos' profile on these dating websites.

@Karen Caserat -

Under Retrum's, HRG's, your, and blue fist logic, that means that anyone who gets married in Vegas, or in any other state for that matter, but lives in Wisconsin, is guilty of voter fraud, because when those people sign the marriage license, they're legally declaring residency in the other state.

So, are you, Retrum, HRG, and other blue fisters going to start filings complaint at DA offices throughout the state, alleging voter fraud, if married couples living in the state weren't married here?

Come on, you guys have to at least be consistent with your stupid logic ;-)

I actually agree to a certain extent. There was too much I was trying to write about all in one piece and kind of ran out of room. I could have done better at highlighting Kelley's attributes and should have made that an entirely separate article. Write and learn I suppose. I will try harder next time.

Also I did not ever say that Mrs. Vos WAS guilty of voter fraud. I was more pointing out the irony of the situation and the fact that the right would be all over this if the ballot was on the other foot.

I have been attempting to keep a promise to myself and not respond to comments on my articles. It is just healthier for me that way. Sometimes I feel compelled despite that promise. This has been one of those times. So please do not think I am ever ignoring any one particular commenter or question. It just best for me not to get into the back and forth when I can see it getting ugly.

Take care all and thanks for reading!!

@Watching the stupidity -

Hopelessly misinformed - Hoffa thinks not.

You may actually want to look in the mirror.

No, Hoffa is not a felon.

1 district having to be redrawn to suit a racial quota - that's not saying very much! And the original point had to do with the expenses involved of going to court - whether it's because of impasse or challenged constitutionality, it costs the same, so what's your point in regards to the original context? Hoffa realize that you libs love to shift the subject or take things out of context, but Alinsky doesn't work on Hoffa. You'll have to do better than that!

Depends upon how one defines the word 'investigation.' Hoffa used to work in the Racine County DA's office under Bob Flancher, but not anymore and not for a while. However, Hoffa knows the current DA, Rich Chiapete very well, and Hoffa can tell you that at the most, Rich will just confirm everything that Samantha Vos' attorney stated in the letter - if it's all true, then there's no case and the complaint goes into the circular file, where it belongs!

As far as Nevada marriage law is concerned, you are correct - there is no residency requirement, however other states do have a residency requirement, and Hoffa's analogy would apply to such situations. The point is what's important here - not the specifics! Hoffa was merely attempting to explain the legal concept of domicile vs residency - ya dig?

Call Hoffa whatever you like - it's not going to hurt his feelings!