Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 1-24-08: Now posting - New Hampshire ... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7545
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 9 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 12:31 am: | 
|
We have collected over 20 hours of video taken by six different people. It will tell much of the story of the New Hampshire recount.
After some thought, I think the best way to do this is with as little editing as possible, to allow viewers to reach their own conclusions based on what they see. I will organize clips into uniform topics and will keep them short, with a few captions to provide context.
Links will appear on the Black Box Voting home page. For those of you who receive automatic e-mails, I'll post an announcement with a link when each new video goes up.
While Sec. State Bill Gardner may win the prize for the most circuitous and nonresponsive answers, ballot guy David Scanlan will win the award for belligerence.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY SHAM
I posted this one first because I was so haunted by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner's demeanor and the expression on his face on the night he chose not to put the ballots in the vault. This 6-minute video contains three related clips: Frank Mevers, who holds a key to the ballot vaults, describing that the white tape seals the boxes; Sec. State Bill Gardner along with Frank Mevers, Brian Burford and Karen Ladd, as he is questioned about the decision not to use the vault; and a demonstration of the sham seal.
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
PARTICIPANTS
The first voice you hear, questioning Mevers about the seal, is that of Paddy Shaffer of the Ohio Election Justice Project.
The voice questioning Bill Gardner over the decision not to use the vault is mine. The voice telling him he did not answer the question is Sally Castleman of Election Defense Alliance.
Susan Pynchon (Florida Fair Elections Coalition) and I chased the ballot van on Jan. 17; on Jan. 22, Vickie Karp (Vote Rescue) and I chased the van, and on Jan. 23, due to speeding and evasive maneuvers by the ballot van, two teams followed the van with video cameras: Team one, Vickie Karp and Jeannie Dean (Sarasota, Florida); Team Two, me and Kathy Greenwell (Bullitt County, Kentucky.)
HOW WE CAME TO FIND BALLOT BOXES AND A SUPPLY BOX"
We returned to the archive building to wait for Butch and Hoppy to return the ballots they'd picked up. We were shocked to see that the building appeared to be deserted, but was unlocked, and the counting room was unlocked, and contained empty ballot boxes and a supply box with seals, tape etc.
When we left, a small car literally ran us out of the parking lot all the way to the road. It was not a security professional, but one of the workers in the archive building. About 15 minutes after we left, Butch and Hoppy arrived to deliver the ballots. No citizen witnesses were present, nor was the candidate notified so he could have his own witnesses.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE POLICE
In order to determine whether there were ballots in the boxes or not, I gently nudged the boxes with my shoe. The light weight indicated the ballot boxes were empty. At least one ballot box, for the town of Plaistow, contained the original sham seal signed by the moderator and selectmen. It was empty.
It was my decision to demonstrate the sham seals on videotape. I will be happy to reimburse the state of New Hampshire for the $1 or so cost for the sham "seal", since I used a blank seal on an empty box. Of course, as you will see in the video above, these seals are reusable, worthless, and fraudulent.
I would not have performed the demonstration had the state of New Hampshire complied with my requests to show me whether the seals adhere. I requested this of Deputy Sec. State Anthony Stevens, of Assistant Sec. State Dave Scanlan, and of Sec. State Bill Gardner. They each declined to demonstrate the removability of the seal, but did claim that the removable paper "sealed" the ballot boxes and amazingly, used the fraudulent "seal" to secure the DOOR TO THE ROOM WHERE BALLOTS WERE STORED OVERNIGHT. My demonstration was the only way to achieve the exposure of their lies, and clearly in the public interest.
The police interrogated Vickie Karp and Jeannie Dean today about this. They were present, at least for part of the demo. They were not involved in the decision or the act of testing the seal. The decision to demonstrate the "seal" fraud was mine and only mine.
I have so far been unable to find out who ordered these seals, since not a soul at the New Hampshire secretary of state's office claims to know who's responsible for the fraudulent seals.
UPCOMING VIDEO CLIPS
As I say, stay tuned for the video clips. They show employees for the state of New Hampshire breaking the law, and also will show you tips for how to investigate chain of custody yourselves.
Check back often over the next three days for new video installments. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 6:27 am: |
|
Thank you for documenting the insecure building, the empty box labeled Plaistow, NH, and the resealable nonpermanent labels that do not fit the definition of "seals" that were not secured and inventoried in a way demonstrating chain of custody and logged as to user/date/purpose.
Other questions: What was the date and time of finding the counting room empty, building apparently deserted and unlocked, and open box of labels on the counting room floor, and empty box labeled Plaistow, NH? At that time, had ballots from Plaistow been reported transported? Counted?
I am not clear if the seal was over the Plaistow box as if there were ballots in it, or if the seal, broken, allowed you to identify the apparent source of the ballot box.
(I see from Bev's previous posts that these labels are used to re-label boxes to indicate they have been counted. That explains why one would find the box of labels in the counting room, and not why one would find them unattended and kept loose in a cardboard box.
What is also clear is there is no chain of custody on the supposedly official labels, and no regular protocol for securing the room when counting is not going on.
Back to your original observation of ballot shipment in the SOS white van by two stock clerks followed by a police car with one police officer: you said the van rendezvoused with a Green Jeep driven by or owned by Carl Rowell, Jr. Have you identified that location geographically? Is there an alternate route to Concord from the turnoff Carl Rowell's jeep took? Length of time to get there? Was anyone observing the loading dock at the Concord counting site during these hours?
If a delivery were made and placed in the vault during the hours when you were observing ballot transport and subsequent to the green jeep rendezvous with the (apparently) NH SOS white van and stock clerks, would any observer been in a position indoors or out to note that event?
This info is relevant in reviewing the order of events leading to the change in storage of the ballots in the room/not the vault that evening.
Very helpful reports - thanks. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 6:49 am: |
|
The operating question I ask myself when I read these reports is: "How would I feel about that procedure or explanation coming from my bank?" |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7546
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 7:25 am: |
|
Christine,
quote:What was the date and time of finding the counting room empty, building apparently deserted and unlocked, and open box of labels on the counting room floor, and empty box labeled Plaistow, NH?
Jan. 23, about 4:50 pm. We left around 5:00 or 5:15. The ballot van arrived somewhere around 5:20 to 5:30. We know this because we called Walter Reddy, a citizen, who drove over to the area to watch incoming traffic. He arrived just as the policeman was pulling out to leave after ballots were taken inside.
quote:At that time, had ballots from Plaistow been reported transported?
On Jan. 22, I had called the Plaistow town clerk, I believe it was around 11 am. She said they had just been picked up. I identified the box because it said "Plaistow" on it.
quote:Counted?
I believe Rep. Kucinich called off the recount around 2 pm on Jan. 22. Thus, these were probably counted ballots. That doesn't explain why the box is marked "counted ballots" but contains no ballots, nor why the box containing the original signed label from the moderator and selectmen was (apparently) going to be discarded.
Another interesting point: When we arrived the next morning, the supply box with the labels was still there but none of the empty ballot boxes were there.
Securing the room: Actually, the room doors are locked when counting is not going on. They kick everyone out at lunch time and lock the doors; when you arrive in the morning they don't unlock the doors until around 9 am. The doors are opened by a single ordinary key. Leaving the room unlocked was a deviation from normal protocol during the recount. Since Rep. Kucinich had terminated his recount, Republican candidate Albert Howard (and the citizens of New Hampshire) were the ones victimized by this unsupervised room and private delivery of the ballots.
The bin full of supplies is a very poor idea in an unlocked room. In effect, this provides extra "seals" for anyone who wanders in. The "seals" are not numbered.
quote:Back to your original observation of ballot shipment in the SOS white van by two stock clerks followed by a police car with one police officer: you said the van rendezvoused with a Green Jeep driven by or owned by Carl Rowell, Jr. Have you identified that location geographically? Is there an alternate route to Concord from the turnoff Carl Rowell's jeep took? Length of time to get there?
I have not yet, but was thinking along the same lines. The location was near Center Road and Rte 31, near Lyndeborough. Interesting points, due to some snafu with local politics, I have been told that Lyndeborough has no police department. After the green jeep met Hoppy and Butch, the jeep drove north on 31, Hoppy and Butch drove south.
quote: Was anyone observing the loading dock at the Concord counting site during these hours?
No. This is one of my concerns - no one is ever observing the loading dock unless by happenstance. Boxes are delivered in the loading dock doors while counting is going on. The loading dock leads directly into warehouse area containing the ballot vault. I am not alleging anything, just reporting the situation. It's wide open for back room substitution, even while counting is going on. The warehouse area is not open to observers and is in a windowless area of the building. |
Justin Maxwell
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Justin_maxwell
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 7:27 am: |
|
Was there any scope for anyone to have been somewhere behind the so-called 'sealed' door with access to the ballots that hadn't been put in the 'vault' overnight?
Again, using a working assumption of fraud for the purposes of developing and testing hypothesis, the feeling I got if I applied this assumption while watching the video was that there was already somebody on the other side of the door we saw being 'sealed'. I'm curious as to whether that is possible (side rooms, storage areas etc, not electronically protected)
--J |
Justin Maxwell
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Justin_maxwell
Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 7:34 am: |
|
Lots of people will see this video on Youtube, can I encourage a link to this thread
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71572.html?1201272570
gets added to the video comments over there to provide the context from the top of this thread. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7547
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 7:49 am: |
|
Justin, I'll add that.
There are a number of office, and areas both upstairs and downstairs, from which the non-keycarded counting room can be accessed. There was no one left in the room that was 'sealed' -- but the people you see in the video were waiting and waiting in the room. It became obvious after an hour or so that we were not going to leave that room with them still in it. At this point the charade of leaving and 'sealing' it took place.
Here is the layout:
======front entrance============
======room entrances (2) =======
=========door at back of room where video taken======
stairs to 2nd floor (offices)
a bldg exit
stairs to lower floor (what's there?)
........................==keycarded door to warehouse==
WAREHOUSE
loading bay
loading bay
.....................==door to ballot vault==
Warehouse.......more warehouse.......more warehouse |
Bill Bowen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bbowen8
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 7:58 am: |
|
I know Bev that you are not an attorney, but what does a concerned citizen do with the evidence you've collected as far as challenging any violations of laws that have/appear to have been broken?
Is the protocol to wait for the candidates to file charges? If so, specific to New Hampshire, what looks like to be the best and most significant case(s) that can be made for election infractions in NH in your opinion?
I'm just trying to get the big picture view of what is actually required to make the smallest gains in the election integrity fight at least as far as New Hampshire is concerned. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 8:06 am: |
|
Would a justice of the peace leave their seal on the counter, walk out and leave the door unlocked while in the midst of an important transaction? Just a point of comparison. The actions do not suggest the seals or boxes are regarded as control-worthy or something of value -- but merely a replicable office supply.
Let's backtrack for a moment and recall that when Bev asked about slits in the boxes, she was reassured by state officials who told her they didn't matter because "the only seal that matters is the SOS seal on top". Someone who knew the "seals" were post-its made that statement with a straight face. Process that.
Where do the boxes of ballots (with completely removable and resealable labels) go after counting? Are they returned to municipalities or sequestered by the SOS?
In my opinion, it would be problematic to have ballots in insecure boxes sequestered anywhere, especially without a documented chain of custody. The ballots in insecure boxes unfortunately have the potential to be as recycled as the boxes they came in. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 118
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 8:07 am: |
|
quote:At that time, had ballots from Plaistow been reported transported?
The SoS web page for the Rockingham County D recount had Plaistow (pronounced PLAS-toww, BTW) recount numbers as of Jan 23 1:17 pm. They had 3 miscounts out of 1377 ballots. The SoS page says the Kucinich count stopped on the morning of Jan. 23.
Maybe the empty box contained some slip of paper that they forgot the first time, and they wanted to follow protocol. Was the box positively empty? |
Bill Bowen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bbowen8
Post Number: 48
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 8:29 am: |
|
Just a general question for anyone...
Howard expressly stated in his recount request letter to Gardner (posted in another forum on this site) that he wanted a documented chain of custody. If Howard isn't happy with the chain of custody in NH (and Kucinich certainly wasn't and mentioned it in his letter to Gardner posted here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5598#more-5598), does it make sense for Howard to go ahead with the recount, or to address the chain of custody issues both in the press, and through possible litigation first?
Howard seems well aware that without a valid chain of custody, a recount is moot. What is the "better" way for Howard to proceed with his recount?
Nanci Tobi's prophecy that the more we let the state's recount without a proper chain of custody, the more validity we give to the process, certainly appears to be coming true. And Gardner appears to be spinning it that way (See "http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5602#more-5602" AFTER reading the letter from Kucinich above!).
So how do we get the candidate(s)--Howard--to halt the recount(s) until they/we are satisfied that the chain of custody is authentic? Should we be approaching the recount with this way of thinking? Yes, major problems with the recount itself are being found, but halting the recount due to chain of custody concerns just seems "to me" to be the best recourse. The general public/media right now is really only concerned with "the recount" (i.e. the ballot totals). How do we change that culture and get them to focus on the chain of custody? What IS the best plan? Try and document the CoC and recount, and then try and address both knowing they conflict, or focus solely on the Chain of Custody until it becomes the bigger concern (than the recount) that it deserves to be?
(Message edited by bbowen8 on January 25, 2008)
(Message edited by bbowen8 on January 25, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7548
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 8:31 am: |
|
The Plaistow box wasn't delivered until around 4 pm on Jan 22 (I'll be receiving the log on that shortly). They shut down counting for the day shortly afterward. The time they stopped counting on Jan. 22 is of interest, then. They didn't resume counting until around 9 or 9:30 on Jan. 23. If the recount was shut down in the morning, there is a somewhat small window for Plaistow counting, but perhaps they chose a small location for morning counting, thinking the recount would soon end.
There were five or six empty ballot boxes; Plaistow was just the one I could easily see the label on. I did not want to displace the boxes to examine the other labels. I did nudge each box underneath the top one, to make sure they weren't full of ballots (which would make them heavier). |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 8:52 am: |
|
Keeping "what does a well run chain of custody look like?" ever present as we watch this unfold, here's reprise from John Howard's explanation in another thread of how labels intended to seal are treated in Canada:
Quote
In Canadian Federal elections, the box seals are individually numbered and must be signed for and accounted for, even if the extras are unused. The numbers of the seals placed on the top AND bottom of the boxes, are recorded on the equivalent of the precinct summary report, and become part of the record of the election. Numbered seals are not removed, but are instead cut, so that if a box needs to be resealed for some legitimate reason (which must also be documented) there is a record of every seal placed on the box, to whom the numbered seal was issued, and by whom the replacement numbered seal was affixed.
Keep in mind also, that the consistently sized, numbered seals are made specifically for the consistently sized boxes that are used for the transport of the marked ballots. The supposedly 'frugal' use of inconsistent recycled boxes from heaven-knows-where simply isn't an option.
End Quote |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 119
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 9:15 am: |
|
I called the Plaistow Town Clerk. The short story is that they sent a total of 6 boxes. Machine counted ballots were sealed into boxes first. Some were sealed into boxes mid-day because the AV-OS box filled up. At night when they were done tallying the write-ins, those ballots were placed in a new box.
There were 32 R write-ins according to the SoS web page, and probably not many D ones. Maybe the weight of those was hard to detect. I think that is all that's going on here.
About boxes: some of the boxes they used were ones that the ballots arrived in from the printer. One question I didn't think to ask is if they normally store ballots in lockable containers. Although they SHOULD, it occurs to me that a town where the only voting location is the Town Hall might fail to see the point, since ballots can be whisked in and out of the vault immediately.
(Message edited by Mike_LaBonte on January 25, 2008) |
Justin Maxwell
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Justin_maxwell
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 10:02 am: |
|
The video is now on the first YouTube page when you go to :
News | Top Favorites | Today
News | Top Rated | Today
#71 - Top Favorites (Today)
#12 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
#71 - Top Rated (Today)
#20 - Top Rated (Today) - News & Politics |
Karen Nelson
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kankan
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:28 am: |
|
Bev et al -- Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for being there to bring light to this. Pictures really do help, not just as evidence, but are more compelling than words. Thanks. |
Neal Dias
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Roman
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 3:51 pm: |
|
First post.
Greetings all.
Thanks to bev et al for your time and dedication.
What struck me most about the video was not just their lack of a plausible reason for the change in procedures, but their demeanor and resistance to your questions.
Frankly, had I been them, even seeing the number of boxes there were there, I would have stopped and said, you know, you're right, lets take a few more minutes and get these moved into the vault. They may have been tired, or late for something, but someone like the SoS should have enough realization of his civic duty to protect the public trust that the extra effort would be more than founded.
Anyway, that didn't really add anything to the discussion, just my $.02.
One thought, maybe mentioned elsewhere. As the labels are provided by the SoS, shouldn't we be able to identify the funding for the labels, and find when/where they were ordered and what was stipulated in the order? Would be interesting if they just ordered standard printed labels or if they paid for tamper-proof labels and got these, or what have you.
Things like this usually get more interesting once you start following the $$. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4510
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 5:44 pm: |
|
quote:What struck me most about the video was not just their lack of a plausible reason for the change in procedures, but their demeanor and resistance to your questions.
Hi Neal, that was my reaction, too. A picture really is worth a thousand words. It is hard to imagine someone with ethical intentions responding in the way that is seen on this video. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7550
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 10:02 pm: |
|
As an FYI to the YouTube commentary - The YouTube video is being spammed with hundreds of posts claiming YouTube is involved in a conspiracy to suppress reporting of the views and post count. I have been deleted those posts at YouTube, because they hijack real discussion of the issues.
I am posting this notice here so that YouTube users can see that it is not a pseudo-blackboxvoting that is deleting the posts. As participants in the Black Box Voting forums know, we moderate discussions to keep them issue oriented and on topic. It helps reduce trolling. |
John R
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Onehand
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Hello Bev.
Your stance on this is hypocritical. You advocate the practice of fair, checked and balanced voting and the will of the people, however you censor the voice of the very people who view your videos and question abnormalities (you investigate abnormalities, right?)
The point is:
The view count abnormality is just that; an abnormality. YouTube is not something brand new to all of it's users. People are going to notice when something is not functioning as it normally should. If this sort of view count behavior was normal within the web site, people would not be so alarmed by it; taking screenshots every few minutes for hours and hours, refreshing the page over and over, and posting about it on other websites and discussions.
Besides, if or when the view count starts functioning properly again, normal discussion pertaining to the content of the video will undoubtedly be more prevalent.
Your efforts to "protect" your material are only hurting yourself and your own credibility. |
Joe Roth
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jtroth
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I disagree. The deletion of posts may or may not be occurring, and I'd argue that it's importance is unnecessary at this time. In situations like these, you need to pick your battles, and this isn't one that's easily won. By asserting that youtube censors posts (while still not removing the video, mind you), the original goal of getting to the bottom of this apparent voting fraud is undermined.
Cheers to you Bev, and thank you for all the time you spend investigating this injustice. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7551
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 10:54 pm: |
|
John R: Before posting again, follow the rules here, which require real first and last name. The YouTube video discussion had been completely hijacked into an irrelevant conspiracy theory. As soon as I deleted all that nonsense -- and that's exactly what it was -- the discussion there returned to the level of discourse that is needed to take this issue seriously.
We have had extensive experience here with trolls, disruptors and disinformation specialists. The YouTube conspiracy theory was being used to deflect from the very serious issues exposed in the video. That has to be nipped in the bud. I noticed that as soon as I stopped that, the old-style disinfo trolls appeared. Sorry, I've seen this before and I will moderate aggressively to keep trolls from diverting the message. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7552
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Thanks, Joe Roth, and welcome to Black Box Voting! You nailed it. |
John Reddit
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Onehand
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Bev.
Perhaps you missed my point.
As I said before, normal discussion based purely on the video content and the NH ballots will undoubtedly resume once the view counting has resumed. So you see, it is pointless to delete posts about this phenomenon since they will be eventually left behind anyway. In this case, you only furthered the spawning of conspiracy theories by rampantly deleting comments forcing you to make a public statement on your website (which did not relate to the video content either). Besides, without a view count, who is going to see your video anyway? If anything, the view count "conspiracy" actually helped your cause. You deleted literally hundreds and hundreds of comments. Those people wanted to be heard. Why do you expect to be heard by the people when you are the one that shuts them out?
Your hypocrisy is prevalent here as you are attempting to discount the people's voice just as the powers that be are attempting to discount the NH ballots. If you truly advocate democracy, you will not advocate censorship. It is as simple as that.
(Message edited by onehand on January 25, 2008)
(Message edited by onehand on January 25, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7553
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Nope, this is one area where I know what I'm doing, John. We all learned the hard way here that trolls and disinformation specialists exploit the concept of complete democracy in posts. That video had been completely hijacked, and because I get emailed the posts, my inbox was being spammed, to the tune of hundreds of nonsense posts. All trolls need to do, if you don't delete their stuff, is post more profusely than anyone else. Then people lose interest in rational discussion -- can't even conduct it, as we saw at YouTube where every sensible post was drowned out by 10 nonsense posts.
The only way to kill off the trolling is to stop it quickly and consistently. There is no doubt that some of what was going on at YouTube was distraction and disinformation -- a classic sign of which is the repeating of disinformation even after it has been corrected with credible information.
This is the end of the discussion here, too, John. If you wish to go into this further, post in our General Discussion forum, don't divert this thread with it. Thanks for your cooperation on this. |
Mac Hathaway
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mac_hathaway
Post Number: 85
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 6:46 am: |
|
Hi Bev,
Nice work. Couple of thoughts: Gardner looks like a deer in the headlights... Or a man who is seeing his career flash before his eyes... Clearly, something is up.
Whatever happened in the primary, Gardner et. al. would look very bad if it was demonstrated to be screwed-up, whatever the reason. Plenty of reason to "make sure" the recount is "fine". Probably everyone has already thought of that. In fact, the book "Runoff" shows that plenty of folks can have their finger in the pie at the same time.
That said, what is the quickest way to make sure the number come out right in the recount? Replace all the ballots. In the van. Throught the slit. You can't be counting the ballots to make "adjustments", it has to be wholesale replacement, or it takes too long... In the interest of discretion, I will send the rest of this in an email.
Keep up the good work!
Mac
Maynard, MA |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 7:51 am: |
|
Mac,
Don't forget -- the SOS's David Scanlon has said that "the only tape that matters is the tape on the top of the box" meaning the white peel-off post-it type label.
I wonder if local officials of New Hampshire who have signed peel-off labels and sent their uncount votes out of their control to a central location in NH to be counted have considered spending their own money on tamper evident tape and tamper evident labels and protecting their good name?
The sad truth is that by signing a peel-off label that can then be affixed to ANYTHING ELSE without detection (or peeled off, contents tampered with, and resealed), it's similar to signing a "I swear that I have witnessed this signature" page and mailing it off to a lawyer to use as he/she sees fit on any legal document he/she wants, including one that says something you don't agree with.
Pure and Simple: Unattached from the ballots officials are swearing to be true and accurate, their signature can be used by others to create a patina of legitimacy. I myself would not want to risk being used in that way, no matter how much I trusted the people I could SEE who are involved, you just don't know the whole chain of people involved.
I guess it would be possible to insist on accompanying the ballots and accounting for their whereabouts through the recount.
Frankly, I would never sign off on a label such as this which can be peeled off.
However, because the labels do peel off, it would be interesting to know if any of the towns have considered peeling off the labels, opening up those boxes of machine ballots, counting them in a witnessed way, writing up their results/comparing to their tapes count those uncounted machine ballots, "resealing" the boxes, send em on down to Concord, and see if the two results match.
Is there any law against witnessed opening of the boxes? Is there any law against towns recounting their own ballots as a double check?
The odd thing is, there's no way the SOS office could detect either legitimate recounting or illegitimate tampering locally, because recycled boxes are being used and the witnessed labels peel right off.
The devil in me hopes that some towns will do such a witnessed recount and keep it a secret. The knowledge that someone may have done this might help discourage anyone tempted to tamper with a completely tamperable system, given the opportunity. |
matthew buckman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Matthew_buckman
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Dear Bev,
I live in manchester NH and would love to help in any way. I am 25 and full of vigor. lol
I will do anything... to futher the cause. I am glad you are trying to keep the conversation constructive and i would do the same.
As a poster you have all the right to get rid of negative posts on youtube. And that is cool in my book. This is my first post and I cannot express my ABSOLUTE GRATITUDE for what you ladies have done. Please let me know how i can help you. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 126
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Hi Matthew;
I am sure Bev will reply with some good ideas - she has been doing just that for many years. One of them will be the broad-brush reference to her publications (downloadable on this site) on how to be a volunteer.
One of the most effective things that I have done (in my own opinion) was assisting in the formation of a local citizens-study-action group. Folks who care, sit around the table once a month (or whenever) and agree on problem-definitions then what to do about them. Our own local group quickly came to be a multi-partisan one, with amazing success in keeping all wings cordial to each other and at the table. That cohesion has made a notable impact in our city.
One of the places we had success was with our elected Elections Administrator. The multi-partisan approach we used, helped gradually cut through the all-too-common resistance to change, that happens when partisan advocates compete for the attention of the officials. We united on a very few common issues and goals, and it made a difference.
So I'd say (and this applies in any city or town) find and unite with a few people on the other side of your political spectrum. Start perhaps, with the universal goal of accurate and trustworthy elections. Jointly define a few other basic values, and stick to them.
Be happy with progress being slow - it takes time (caused by trial-and-success) to build trusting relationships across the aisle.
Among the actions we took were hosting Public Forums on topics, and even crafting and publishing a "White-Paper" on an uncertain case, fairly expressing all points of view.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Karl E. Falster
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zag
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 7:34 am: |
|
Bev, you are right, absolutely right, I couldn’t agree with you more. Not only us tourist but indeed the whole world is watching the events that you are monitoring there in New Hampshire. I have communications from friends in Denmark, Britain and Africa that are looking to see what level of integrity or lack there of is the REAL American Political System.
They, and thousands, if not millions of others are looking at the facts on the only unbiased source of the truth - your activities.
Hang in there; we are waiting for the results of your investigations.
What citizens in other political sub-divisions can do about voter fraud? Well, I firmly believe we will be able to hold our local politicos accountable if we can have a pattern to work on, you are that pattern; and we are looking at you.
Best Wishes -- Zag_USMC |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4519
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hi Karl and welcome.
I hope that everything that comes to light here will give people right around the world ideas about how to improve their local elections.
It has certainly educated me in relation to the Irish election system. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 8:34 am: |
|
One criticism of the Gardner/ security tape video:
I read one fellow's complaint on Bradblog about the shall we say, gentle(?) attempt at securing the tape on the cardboard box toward the end of that video.
I must admit that when I saw it, I thought exactly the same thing. Maybe it's because I work with photo mounting adhesives on a regular basis. There are many adhesives on the market with dual adhesion characteristics.
The main consumer-available photo mounting adhesive is one such. If you press it down lightly, it is completely movable at will. Once you press it much harder, it breaks tiny glass bubbles in the adhesive and make contact with the more permament adhesive underneath, one so sticky it will always ruin the print if you try to move it.
The property that is at work here is called "initial tack". There are adhesives with low initial tack that end up quite permanent when proper pressure is applied.
I wondered to myself why there was not more pressure applied in the video. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:14 am: |
|
Let's come at it another way, Kurt. Assume you're viewing low initial tack. Is low initial tack a characteristic of a high quality security seal? Low quality? Of a security seal?
Here's a quote from a sales pitch from a company offering security seals for shipping product:
There is a good chance that the entry issue has nothing to do with short-shipping but more to do with a poorly designed seal being manipulated. A driver, employee, or any third party may be opening the seal, stealing a few boxes, and then re-sealing without leaving evidence. This is extremely easy to do with lesser grade and poorly designed seals and is very common. The perpetrators know that taking just a few items i snot enough to cause concern and keeps their activities under the radar. Why not take our better seal = better security challenge? Try our VL seal which cannot be manipulated or defeated and see if your problem does not go away. (END QUOTE)
Source:http://www.actseals.com/en/faq/#main
I did take a look at a few tamper evident seal supplier sites where the tape is described as "impossible to reseal". I found some with descriptions of initial tack, and none of them said "low". One said "good" - what does "good" mean?
So to me, given that Bev Harris may not have pushed as hard on the tape as necessary to convince viewers that she was using the force necessary to close a box with the seal, it raises the question, "are we looking at an item that has the type of specifications that the NH SOS, charged with the responsibility for specifying a 'seal', would be likely to encounter if he asked for something appropriate for securing ballots?"
This label does not deter entry to the boxes, and in the video and photos has been demonstrated to be resealable. The photos of Bev peeling and resealing a label on a "live" ballot transport box are imho closer to the test you're looking for, Kurt. |
Francisco Hernandez
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Francisco_hernandez
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:16 am: |
|
Mr. Bellman, if it a special "low initial tack" adhesive, then why hasn't the SOS or any other official stated this and shown the receipt for the custom order? If it was ILT adhesive, then where is the written protocols on how to properly affix them? That kind of transparency would have cleared up a lot of speculation a long time ago, but instead they are stonewalling on the source of "seals."
IMO the "REPOSITIONABLE seals" are so deficient in their duties, especially when "extras" are left unattended in open boxes, that it belies premeditation of making the election results or recounts "adjustable."
These "repositionable seals" were a custom order.
A quick internet search (5 min) for comparisons sake reveals many companies specializing in labels, with a whole sections focused on security labels and seals. The features that are possible include, high tack adhesive that will leave a residue, barcodes or other numbering, microprinting, holograms, and other tamper-evident materials.
I watch the video, and like Bev, want to know WHO ordered and WHO manufactured those repositionable labels, because they got some explaining to do. |
Neal Dias
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Roman
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:21 am: |
|
Kurt,
I noticed that as well, but then I've handled "tamper-proof" tape. The type that I've handled in the past had extremely high initial tack. You have to assume that whoever uses the tape may not apply enough force for a low initial tack adhesive to adhere. In fact, I hated dealing with the stuff 'cuz it was so darned annoying to handle. Just touch the stuff and it's gonna stick to you.
That said, I do wish that more force had been applied during that test to clear up any doubt. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:28 am: |
|
Okay Christine, I'll bite at the premise of your post.
If I were "supplying" or "specifying" a security tape (let's assume I am the SoS, not the vendor), the amount of initial tack I would want is dependent on whether I am strictly rationing supply or I am not.
If I am strictly rationing the supply, then I must prevent, to the extent possible, spoiled tape. In that circumstance I want a low initial tack tape, which then must be "pressured in" with harder pressure once the placement of the seal is desirable, to make it permanent.
On the other hand, if the supply is not tight, and I am supplying these in quantity to towns, then I want a high initial tack tape, because if someone screws up a placement, then all they need to do is replace it with a new one.
Before I can answer your question fully, I need to know whether the tape seals themselves are in tight supply and availability or not. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:50 am: |
|
Neal, I quite agree with you.
I have also handled tamper-evident tape, and almost all of it had high initial tack.
At one point, I'm going to guess it was 2003, a supplier came to me (as Chairman of the PA HAVA State Plan Board) with a variety of products INCLUDING one security seal material that was highly repositionable until it was heated with a candle or match flame or hair dryer.
I remember imagining sending hair dryers out to precincts (not fondly). So I am sure such products do exist, but I also agree that if this is a dual adhesive seal, it is imcumbent on the SoS to so state and document.
I was immediately suspicious of the video precisely because dual adhesive is the norm of what I deal with daily now. When I was in elections, not so much. |
Neal Dias
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Roman
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 11:16 am: |
|
Kurt,
You raise the same point I did above (until the convo got hijacked for the youtube issue) that we really need to trace back and see what was spec'd, ordered and what was actually delivered by the vendor and who accepted it by the State.
I think this will get even more interesting, as I said above, it usually does once you start following the money.
Just another note regarding the tack of the "seals." I knew there was a problem as soon as the backing was removed. I could see the low tack properties as it was being handled before they applied it to the top of the box.
As I noted above, the tape/seals I've dealt with in the past were a PITA to deal with due to the high tack. I noticed Mrs. Harris touched the adhesive back with her fingers and was able to easily pull her fingers away. The tape/seals I dealt with could not have been handled like that without probably damaging the seal just getting it off your fingers. Notice she has the label pinched between her fingers with her thumb (i think) pressing against the adhesive side. |
Peter Duffield
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mousepd
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Ladies. Thankyou for your courageous battle to save democracy.
We're havinge some problems of our own down here with the recent Louisiana Caucus. The local GOP is in a crack. They've pretty much have been caught red handed trying to alter the vote which from most indications would have given Ron Paul the win.
Question:
Let's suppose those guys in New Hampshire allowed someone to add or subtract vote ballots. Here in Louisiana you have to sign in before voting. If the total amount of votes counted doesn't equally match the number of signatures wouldn't that be proof alone that something is amiss?
So how does anyone get away with removing or adding to the vote count? And how are the ballots collected? Is there a different ballot box for each candidate or does each box have them all mixed together? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4527
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 2:29 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
These are great questions. To find out more about LA Caucus procedure you might have to talk to the relevant officials in the main parties and also your state election office. Download the Citizens' Tool Kit (link is on BBV home page) and see if that gives you any place to start.
If you read more of the primary/caucus threads here you'll see that relatively little attention has been paid to primary/caucus procedures, leaving lots of loopholes.
The more you can do to document what you and others observe or discover, the more helpful you will be. Lots of eyes and ears on the ground from all parties are needed. |
Bill Bowen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bbowen8
Post Number: 49
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Peter,
Much like the full box of new seals Bev and her team found in the unlocked vault, one could easily have a full box of new, unused ballots in the vault as well. If that were the case, then if the boxes from the wards being brought in did not match the tally, subtracting ballots is easy by just taking them out of the boxes. Adding ballots for the choices you need to match is as simple as taking blank ballots from a box of blank ballots, filling them in appropriately, and adding them to the boxes until the ward totals match what was reported by the machines on election night. It's especially easier when you have just two people placing the ballots in the vault without allowing the public or press to view and or witness the chain of custody procedures of the ballots.
I'm not suggesting at all that this is what happened, but this is just one way for someone to get away with removing or adding to the vote count. A box of blank ballots could also easily be in, for instance, the Butch and Hoppy van (in NH's case) and the vote totals changed in route, rather than in the vault.
But the onus should be on NH to prove election fraud did not occur, not on the public or BBV or anyone else to prove that it did. And with boxes with slits so big you can reach your whole hand into, and the chain of custody in NH so clearly broken, it only lends itself to this type of conjecture and questioning.
(Message edited by bbowen8 on January 29, 2008) |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Bill, small item here, the open box of seals was said to be in the unlocked recount counting room rather than in an unlocked vault.
The vault used for ballot storage was not dedicated, apparently -- photos show that several uniform lidded cardboard storage boxes were in the vault, as well.
The SOS Archives apparently have their own cardboard storage boxes and do not practice frugality in house, but did not provide uniform boxes for ballot security. |
Bill Bowen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bbowen8
Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Thanks for that clarification Christine.
And if I can add to your implication, the idea of non-uniform, non-dedicated boxes makes it even easier to keep/hide a box of empty ballots in the same room with the cast ballots if someone wanted to.
In an ideal election, if the issue of non-uniformed boxes and non-election dedicated (unknown content?) boxes are even in the same room with the boxes of ballots, we have a breach of chain of custody. That should be the end of the discussion--election tainted, results invalid. Unfortunately not yet in New Hampshire. Not...yet. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 72
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 5:59 am: |
|
Actually, my only implication on the uniform boxes was as stated.
I think it's a good question as to whether a vault with other items in it makes a controlled storage place for ballots. I don't know what an auditor would say. As a citizen, I say if ballots only are allowed, then any key access is about ballots.
Changing key code access does not eliminate claims access was for other purposes by those with access.
The issue of unused ballots. From ordering onward, they must be controlled: at the printers, en route to the SOS, quantities logged on arrival, stored in controlled storage, quantities sent to precincts logged (and on the receiving end, ballots signed for when received and counted, I believe). They're like blank checks. During the election, controlled and any extras created by photocopying logged and initialed/marked to indicate they're legit (appears to be a NH rule, that last). After the election, officials must reconcile originally received ballots, number of voters, spoiled ballots, cast ballots, newly minted ballots due to running out and unused ballots. NH law I think says the uncast ballots to be included in the "containers provided by the SOS" with the cast ballots. All of this is meaningless if the public can't see the records.
On recycled boxes: I think nonuniform boxes have the following issues: 1)if you want to secure ballots, some standard non-random means of securing them should be used. With various materials that are not specified -- various surfaces of cardboard, old tape or labels, or metal boxes or plastic boxes -- there is no assurance that a security seal or any other seal would consistently and reliably adhere so as not to be removable. In order to verify that a seal does its job, one would have to test it on all the boxing materials used. For chain of custody purposes in criminal investigations, the textbook I read says you test the seal on the container being sealed to make sure it works.
A seal that doesn't seal, placed over old tape or new tape, now REALLY doesn't stick well. if there are various kinds of tape or layers of tape, cutting and retaping will not occur as unusual.
Nonstandard taping/sealing protocols mean that you might be seeing something unusual, or might not. with no standard, consistent method of packing ballots, objections about slits, bad taping, or insecure boxes can be waved aside not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of interpretation. Now we see officials discredit the observer instead of holding themselves to a uniform, high, above-reproach standard in which any citizen can feel confident.
NH and any state, really, would benefit from a uniform boxing system, and tested materials (tamper evident) for sealing the box top, bottom, sides and edges against undetected insertion, removal, or deconstruction of the box to access ballots.
there is a certain integrity to a box with a polling book, used and unused and spoiled ballots, a reconciliation sheet, a vote count, all sealed up together and guaranteed in writing with a seal to be a true and accurate record of an election.
When the combined "artifacts" of an election are taken apart and separated, you no longer have what, together, provides the ability to reconstruct the election.
Does separating and and counting only used ballots, and leaving out the rest of the reconciliation, recreate and verify the election in the best possible way to assuage any doubts?
Once this sealed record is taken apart and presented piecemeal, what really do you have?
The gold standard could be: election recount processes that work to build voter confidence.
Another standard, not so shiny, could be: election recount processes that limp along requiring explanation, reassurance, and discrediting anyone who questions them.
I know which one I want my state to have. |
christine c reid
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 6:04 am: |
|
Oh, and Bill, at least in my state, it appears there is a very big awareness of the cost of recount. In my state, it appears that they REALLY do not want to do one unless there is no other option.
Others with lots of experience in this practical arena of the conditions under which an election might be overturned or thrown out may stop by and add their 2 cents' worth as to what actually happens. |
Del Argenti
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Live discussion on internet site of NH situation and BBV video
7-9 PM ET Jan. 30: 2-Hour Voice of the Voters Special, 7-9 PM EST. First, reports from across the country, including Susan Pynchon of the Florida Fair Elections Coalition, Paddy Shaffer of the Ohio Election Justice Campaign, Brad Friedman of the BradBlog.com, and John Gideon of Voters Unite...
http://www.voiceofthevoters.org/
http://duxpond.com/wnjc/listen.html |
Nancy Tobi
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ntobi
Post Number: 169
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 6:59 am: |
|
matthew buckman: if you are still interested in helping with the recount, please contact me at: ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com |
|
|
