Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 4-7-09: BREAKING - Front Lines Report... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10433
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 4 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 9:47 am: | 
|
by Jim March
RTA Hand Count Sitrep as of 3 pm Monday April 6
aka: The Official Chronicles Of The Bored To Tears
The total hand count of what are alleged to be the 2006 Pima County Regional Transportation Authority bond measure ballots are being counted right now in Maricopa County, Arizona. Eight teams of three people each (all Maricopa Elections Division employees) are doing the "sort and stack" method to pile ballots into three piles for each question.
It's impossible to state how tight the information flow is here. The process is non-transparent.
In broad strokes, the preliminary counts are being reported to match the official final totals from 2006. Ballot forensics are going to be a factor here, and the chain of custody of these ballots (read: are they even the original ballots?) is open to question.
BACKGROUND
For those just tuning in: This May 2006 bond measure involved $2 billion in transportation contracts, which in turn affected housing boom issues. There has been a ton of fraud in the now-gasping-for-air real estate boom; the question now is, was there fraud in the supports for that boom -- supports like transportation bonds?
A number of things about the RTA race raise eyebrows. The audit logs look funky, similar measures failed repeatedly in years past, records show that elections officials had cheat-peeked at absentee ballot totals a week before the polls closed, the head system operator was spotted referring to a Microsoft Access advanced programmer's manual while using the Microsoft Access-based Diebold central tabulator (1), and ballot chain of custody is as muddy as the Nueces River.
AZ Attorney General Terry Goddard finally took a serious role into investigating this election, resulting in the current hand-count. But the way he handled it violated every standard possible in election transparency, and continues to do so.
Goddard will tell you that he doesn't need to be transparent at all, because this isn't an election-related hand count. He's partially right: This hand count is connected to a criminal investigation aimed at the people who run elections in Pima County. But the problem is, Goddard's methodology in this investigation caused him to take personal control over the very public engine of Democracy.
No one person can ever be allowed to take that control with zero oversight or observation. It leads to dark places. When a single government official takes control over election information, even as part of an investigation, it's a step that imperils our right to self-government.
WHAT STEPS HAS ATTORNEY GENERAL GODDARD TAKEN?
1) Over a month ago Goddard seized control over the ballots, storing them with zero oversight from political parties or citizen observers and, as far as we know, no oversight from any other government body. We still don't know where the RTA ballots vacationed while awaiting this hand count.
2) The ballots are now being counted by the Maricopa elections office in conditions designed to prevent observation – most particularly preventing any independent counts of the vote totals.
OBSERVATION [NOT] RULES INCLUDE:
a) The AG's office told political parties to offer up three names for prospective observers to the hand count. From this pool of three possible candidates, the AG's office would select one participant per party. These Pima County observers would be required to travel each day for one week to Maricopa County -- over 120 miles away.
Democrats chose a retiree in his '70s over a younger lawyer with elections law experience. Fortunately the retiree is a very competent gent, though he's not a lawyer. The Libertarians submitted just one name (mine). The AG's office rejected me on "security" grounds citing the 2005 wrongful arrest I was subjected to in San Diego County Calif. -– never mind that those charges were dropped and changes to protect and improve observation procedures were instituted statewide in response to the wrongful arrest incident. In the AG's observer lottery, "may the most experienced observers lose."
b) The observers in the room aren't allowed pens, pencils, or any electronic note-taking gear. Mind you, this is a 100% hand count – electronic manipulation of computer results is not possible.
c) Even barred from the main counting area, I was not allowed to peer through the window until I was stripped of my cellular modem. Can't have those modems tapping into hand counter's brains now, can we? It seems they don't want live blogging going on.
d) We brought zoom lenses and spotting scopes. If we need to pack telescopes to invoke our right to self-government, I guess that's what we'll do. But then they aligned the counting tables sideways, in such a way that it was impossible for us to collect accurate documentation of the tallies.
THE MICROSCOPE FIASCO
I have with me a good lab-grade microscope. I've previously proven that 2006-era paper ballots (printed on offset printers) can be distinguished from more recent 1200 dpi laser printed ballots under a microscope. The bureaucrat running this thing (Arizona AG's office criminal division counsel Donald Conrad) told me he would not discuss forensics of ballots at all, or allow the microscope to be used in any fashion by anyone.
Ballot forensics will matter because the chain of custody was not tight enough to prevent forged fake ballots from being inserted into the stack post-election. In fact, the Pima County Democrats have now gone on record requesting public forensics on these three-year-old, well-traveled ballots.
The good news is that we have e-mails between Pima Elections and the ballot printing shop asking that extra (blank) RTA ballots be destroyed. These e-mails take place shortly after the election, before significant controversy erupted. Blank ballots present a risk in recounts, because one way to cheat a recount is by substituting newly filled-in blank ballots. The e-mails indicate that the blank ballots should have been destroyed; if the actions in the e-mails were carried through, it would be unlikely that either Pima Elections or ballot-printer Runbeck Election Services would have stashed away the 24,000ish blank ballots needed to swing the election.
No problem, though: Fake ballot generation is a piece of cake with the high-end Okidata "Ballot on demand" laser printer.(2) Pima and Maricopa elections offices know they can build inside ballot printing stations small enough to fit in a closet for a bit over $6k, or for an even smaller rental fee, or maybe just a wink and a returned courtesy.
Fake ballots leave a trail of bread crumbs: A genuine 2006-era RTA ballot would be offset-printed. Ballot-on-Demand laser printers scatter microscopic toner particles around their target printing areas. The effect can be seen with a good scope.
So, one wonders, will Goddard's office do any real ballot forensics, along with other obvious checks such as measuring the age of the inks?
There's no way to know – Goddard has taken sole control over the investigation, requiring us to transfer our self-governing powers, in the form of public oversight, to him.
And that's a problem.
(1) Diebold's election databases look secure, but once you open them in MS-Access all security vanishes. This is a known issue and MS-Access is NOT a certified election system product anywhere in the US.
(2) Easy enough: while the computer Runbeck supplies controls access to ballots, it can be disconnected and the printer run independently from any PC with the ballot image .PDF files on it.
Jim March is a member of the Board of Directors of Black Box Voting, and a member of the Arizona Libertarian Party election integrity committee. |
Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx
Post Number: 380
Registered: 7-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 6:28 pm: |
|
In Arizona (and everywhere else the process is not fully transparent, of course) it is also necessary to distinguish between a "sort and stack" and a "hack and stack."
http://www.iefd.org/articles/sleuthing_stolen_election.php |
Ellen H. Brodsky
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ehbrod
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 8:36 pm: |
|
What changes to protect and improve observation procedures were instituted in CA as a result of your 2005 wrongful arrest? |
Jim March
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 180
Registered: 5-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 8:15 am: |
|
California SecState Bowen now mandates that all central tabulator computers have their video output split off to a bank of secondary monitors viewable by the public - which means no more than a few inches on the other side of the glass.
As opposed to at least 12 feet (plus people's heads in the way) in San Diego at the time of my arrest.
Earlier that day, I had offered to go down to Fry's Electronics and buy (for loan to them) a video signal splitter for this purpose. That was refused. I asked them to move the monitors closer to the window. That was also refused. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10440
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 4:07 pm: |
|
For those new to the issue, Ellen Brodsky, who posted above, has good reason to ask Jim about the reforms resulting from his wrongful arrest for attempting to watch the counting process.
Ellen, a candidate for Supervisor of Elections in Broward County Florida, was wrongfully arrested for attempting to watch a canvassing meeting related to her own election; charges were dropped on that one also, I think -- if you're around again Ellen, please fill us in on the details. Something about the Broward officials grumbling "well she has to follow the law" when you DID follow the law. Question is, did THEY follow the law. |
kerry lewis mccarthy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: 008klm
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Can a class-action lawsuit (or?) be made to the extent that a non-transparent, non-verifiable election is not an election at all and is void as if it never was? |
John Marolich
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: John_from_cincinnati
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2009
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Why don't you take all this Voter Fraud goings on to the Alex Jones Radio Show at InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com and PrisonPlanet.tv He has millions of daily if not constant listeners and I'm sure he would welcome you and your work, and the public needs to know what the New World Order has planned and how they aim to accomplish it. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10439
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Kerry -- It's difficult for voters to get standing to sue on such issues. "Standing" is a legal concept which leads to many a dismissal of citizen-based elections lawsuits.
John -- regarding the New World Order, what went on in Arizona looks to me like the Old World Order, or perhaps the Good Ol' Boy World Order; nothing new about it. I know Alex, he has been gracious enough to have me on his show many times, as have National Public Radio, Urban Radio, and literally hundreds of other networks, stations and shows of all political points of view. Jim March also does tons of radio; it's a great way to educate and inform the public.
Thanks to all for participating in these very interesting discussions. |
Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx
Post Number: 381
Registered: 7-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Kerry, I suggest you read my (unfortunately somewhat dated) essay, "Consensual Political Intercourse"
http://noinnovember.ning.com/forum/topics/2142198:Topic:761
A stolen election is comparable to a rape or a murder. Sometimes it can be proven and the perpetrator(s) punished, but there is no way to undo a rape or bring a murder victim back to life.
The damage from fraudulent elections is done during the time that the fraudulently elected officials are in office. There is no way to remove them from office, even if you can prove that the election was totally fraudulent, because the Constitution does not allow voters to remove anyone in the White House or Congress from office directly. At most, we are allowed to petition them to remove themselves, something they don't seem willing to do.
Those who rig elections know that it doesn't have to be foolproof or undetectable. All they have to do is stall investigations as long as possible and then draw out any ensuing litigation until after the damage has been done and cannot be undone. By that time there will have been several other rigged elections and the election integrity community is unlikely to have the time, money, and manpower to pursue them all.
Even if a case could be made that a non-transparent non-verifiable election was not an election, it would have to go before the Supreme Court, the people who nullified the election in 2000, and who happen to be an unelected body, some of whom were appointed by a fraudulently elected President, and because their very existence as set out in the Constitution is incompatible with democracy (they aren't elected and there is no appeal from their decisions, so the people have no power over them), they cannot be relied upon to make decisions that might disadvantage themselves and their cronies. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2924
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 9, 2009 - 10:38 am: |
|
For the Good of the Order:
From wikipedia on Legal Standing (I have bolded especially germane areas that make litigation regarding elections especially difficult):
===================================
Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Prudential limitations
Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially-created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:
Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next-friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract.
Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest
Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.
Zone of Interests - The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.
=================================
==========================================
Sometimes, every once in a while, the real reason "your side" lost an election is because more people really DID vote for the "other guy", hard as that may be to fathom.
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 245
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:38 am: |
|
jim march has counted the boxes from pima,knows how many ballots the boxes hold and says they r between 10,000 and 20,000 ballots short
the big question is were the ballots ever there? or did the tech guy for pima just electronically add the ballots to the report? or did a few boxes get shredded while they were stored at iron mountain?? |
Russell Novkov
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rnovkov
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 8:44 pm: |
|
What are they thinking?
Russell J. Novkov
|
Jim March
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 8:54 pm: |
|
The problem is, right now the courts think that election fraud doesn't "harm" the citizenry. So we don't have "standing" to sue, because we have no individual right to a fair election.
Swear to God, this is what they're saying.
Only candidates who get hosed have standing to sue...and then only within strict time limits post-election, in AZ's case five days. Which isn't enough time with electronic voting to sort out what happened. Even Humboldt-style scanning and rapid publication of ballot images won't help inside a five-day window... |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 246
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 11:14 am: |
|
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
i think this shows the framers expected the counting to be accurate(what nut job would expect that counting should NOT be accurate)?
a 2bill dollar tax increase spread amongst less than 500,ooo registered voters is over 4 grand a piece so it is
concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract.
2 bill tax raise spread among the 120,000 that supposedly voted is just ovr 16 grand so even more palpable
curt's last quote
Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
what i want to point out is the process of acquiring the funding is the grievance as it does not "count the votes" |
Tony Tonic
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tony
Post Number: 40
Registered: 6-2011
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 1, 2011 - 2:47 am: |
|
Kurt is not a lawyer. Be careful taking legal advice from someone who is quoting from wiki.
You need someone who knows this area of law and practices in the state to get accurate legal advice. |
|
|
