Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Fatally Flawed to Play at Crossroads Theatres, Tucson


In 2006, "Hacking Democracy" demonstrated how an election outcome can be altered. What happens in a community when its citizens discover their election was stolen? Fatally Flawed is a true detective story about a two billion dollar bond transportation measure passed under suspicious circumstances in Pima County, Arizona.
An encore screening of "Fatally Flawed" will take place in Tucson's

CROSSROADS 6 GRAND CINEMAS
Monday, November 16th
4811 E. Grant Road
7:00 PM Admission $3.00

Monday, September 28, 2009

More Huckelberry Propaganda

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said on Arizona Illustrated Friday Roundtable newsmaker:


“Our point is enough is enough. We recounted this election um…basically innumerable times electronically, physically and recounted it once by the Attorney General, the answer is the same…”


Well, if we take the man's word: we recounted this election um… basically innumerable times electronically, physically We’re only aware of 1 time the RTA election was recounted legally; and that was done in a completely nontransparent investigation by the attorney general office.


How many times is innumerable times”?Electronically?Physically?


Run time: 02:10 - 9/25/09

video

Sunday, September 20, 2009

"FATALLY FLAWED" PREMIERE SHOWING AND DISCUSSIONS

We had a Great Showing / Attendance for "Fatally Flawed" at the Loft Cinema in Tucson on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 and below are video link of discussions following premiere.




Attorney Bill Risner Is Presented A Surprise Award For His Work For Election Integrity.

Jody Gibbs, from Voices of Opposition, join by Pima County Democrat Donna Branch-Gilby in presenting a plaque provided by the election integrity groups in Pima County, Arizona.

Video of Full Discussion after Tucson Premiere Showing of "Fatally Flawed"

Attending the Q&A session after the movie were Attorney Bill Risner, John Brakey, Jim March, Mickey Duniho and director J.T. Waldron.

Also the day of the Tucson Premiere Showing of "Fatally Flawed" Ellen Theisen of VotersUnited.org released a Preliminary report on Pima County Election, May 16, 2006: Regional Transportation Authority Question 2.

Tilted: Significant Discrepancies Between the County's Canvass and the Attorney General's Hand Count Require Futher Investigation.
For the complete report: Click Here

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Bill Risner Discusses Judge Harrington's Decision on the John C. Scott Show

John C. Scott interviews Bill Risner after Judge Harrington's decision that courts cannot offer prospective relief when an election is rigged. The rational is that the executive and legislative branches offer adequate remedy- even if the elections placing candidates in the executive and legislative positions are rigged.



Thursday, September 3, 2009

Jim March Interview on KFNX news in Phoenix 9/3/09

Good recap of Pima County Elections for the Phoenix audience.





Clarifying some facts Jim mentioned, here's some additional information from the Attorney General (AG) hand count of the RTA ballots.

Looking at the numbers in the AG Excel spread sheet we can see that:

• 4 precincts are missing. Was this a mistake, or were the numbers so messy they needed burying forever? Why didn't the AG's report these facts?

• 285 out of 409 precincts are out of balance; this comes to 69.68% with the RTA official Canvas report.

• Under Federal Guide lines the accuracy is expected to be 1 mark in 10 million.

However we didn’t expect to see an error rate of:

• 159 precincts are missing 1541 ballots
• 126 precincts have 389 ballots to many
• 1,152 ballots are missing

The AG press conference (Video) April 21, 2008 and their PowerPoint presentation, last page states:

“Pima County official canvass ballot count: 120,821”
“Ballots counted in examination: 120,888”
“Difference: 67”

How is it possible to have 67 extra ballots when you're at least missing 1,152 ballots in the precincts count?

Vote by Mail "Early Ballots" are clearly marked "Early Ballots on each ballot.

Additionally, there are unresolved questions about why would one box hold 1,200 ballots and another exact same size box hold as much as 1,600 ballots. Are there two types of ballot thicknesses?

Do to the error rate being so high, wouldn’t it have been prudent to use the poll tapes and also check the ballots forensically to verify that these were the original RTA ballots?

From Tuesday, September 1, 2009, see what else the AG is up to: Evidence that Attorney General Goddard Ignored and Why the RTA Case Still Matters"

More information coming soon.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Evidence that Attorney General Goddard Ignored, and Why the RTA Case Still Matters

By Dan Ashby, Director, Election Defense Alliance and John Brakey, Co-Coordinator Investigation for Election Defense Alliance

September 1, 2009

http://electiondefensealliance.org/prospective-relief-hearing-Pima-RTA


In its completely nontransparent investigation into the RTA election -- which included a hand-recount of what are purported to have been the actual RTA ballots, but under conditions precluding meaningful public observation -- the Arizona attorney general’s office declined to examine the poll tapes and certification evidence.


The attorney general's investigation also removed the poll tapes and certifications beyond the reach of election integrity investigators, who were pursuing those records in court when the attorney general intervened.


Legal action to get access to those records will continue, but at present, the RTA poll tapes and certification reports are boxed along with the RTA ballots and are at risk for destruction, depending on Judge Herrington's decision.


Poll tapes are records of the precinct election results printed out by the voting machines at the close of polls and signed by the pollworkers. End-of-day certification reports are statements also signed by the pollworkers attesting that the poll tape vote totals reconciled with the number of voters who cast ballots in the precinct.


Reconciling ballots with the signed poll tapes is standard auditing procedure that helps verify that votes being recounted are the same that were cast on election day. Conducting a "recount" without reconciling ballots, poll tapes, and certification reports, is a rubberstamping endorsement of unverified election results.


The suspect Pima County Elections Department owns a ballot printing machine. It is known as the “ballot on demand” system. That machine can immediately print any ballot for any precinct in the RTA election, or in last fall's primary or general election, or in any other recent election. It can do so because the “GEMS” election computer database retains the printing instructions known as “ballot definition files.”


The original ballots were printed on an offset press by the Runbeck Company in Glendale, Arizona.


The unused RTA ballots were reportedly destroyed by Runbeck in June of 2006. If Pima County wanted to print new ballots, they could most easily print them using their own ballot printing machine. Pima County's machine uses a laser printer. That printer is simply a computer with GEMS instructions connected to an Okidata laser printer.


In a personal experiment, Jim March used a microscope and noted that the offset printed ballots from Runbeck had “clean” margins on the printed material while laser-printed material had observable “toner spray” on the margins. He showed, therefore, that by simply putting a ballot under a microscope one can determine if it was printed on an offset press or a laser printer.


Jim March photographed samples of each type of printed ballot and sent copies of the photographs to the attorney general's office with a description of what to look for. He requested that they look at the ballots as he had demonstrated. Jim brought a microscope with him to Phoenix and kept it available for such an examination in the observation room on the other side of the glass window to the counting area.

Bill Risner, attorney for the Democratic Party, also sent a written request asking the attorney general's investigators to either conduct a forensic examination of the ballots themselves, or permit the citizen observers to do so.

In a highly unusual and significant vote, the entire executive committee of the Pima County Democratic Party requested the attorney general's office to conduct such an examination, or permit citizen observers to inspect the ballots under a microscope.

These requests were all denied by the attorney general's officers in charge of the recount.

Was the attorney general's recount a cover-up of insider election fraud? That question can only be answered through direct public access to the actual RTA ballots, poll tapes, and certification reports.

***

Monday, August 31, 2009

Attorney Bill Risner Reaffirms the Need for the Courts to Provide Prospective Relief

Run Time 12:52 - August 28, 2009


The Democratic Party through their attorney Bill Risner, and the Libertarian Party through their attorney Ralph E. Ellinwood, will ask the judge to "stay" his order until we appeal his earlier decision where he claimed that Arizona courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider allegations of fraud in any election. Basically, the only issue that will be of interest is the decision on the stay question. The legal issue is extremely important but would be moot if the ballots were destroyed.


What’s At Stake

The real issue is whether our courts have any role in guaranteeing honest elections. Judge Harrington ruled that he is unable to consider that an election was rigged. The procedural ruling said that the court did not have jurisdiction of the very subject. It was assumed for the decision that the election was fraudulent and the result "rigged" to give a false result. Nonetheless, the Judge said Arizona's courts could not hear or consider such a case. He said that a voter has five days only to challenge an election after the election canvass is approved. It is impossible to challenge an election within five days because a challenge must allege specifics that prove the outcome was actually different. Such evidence can never be obtained.


If proof is obtained, like for instance a sworn statement that the computer operator had been ordered to rig the election and did so, the court is nonetheless powerless to consider it. That is an unacceptable situation in a democracy, whether in Arizona or anywhere in the world. We want to appeal. An appellate court needs to rule on this issue. We think it is clearly wrong. If correct, we want it in writing from an appellate court that our courts are powerless to consider fraudulent elections. That is the issue. If the ballots are burned then a court of appeals could not consider the case.


We are seeking “prospective relief” so they cannot cheat in the future. However, history tells us there are many ways to cheat and if more ways are found we need to have the courthouse doors open to right the wrong. This case is as fundamental as it gets.


Add to this all the other problems previously exposed, documented and yet not answered leaves the public questioning whether our votes are being secured and accurately counted in Pima County. The previous case in Judge Miller’s court room proved that Pima Count’s voting system is “Fatally Flawed”. When counting and processing of the ballots is concealed from the public, the only solution is transparency, transparency and more transparency at all times, not Election Theater.


Treasurer of Pima County Neutral in RTA Issue?

You decide.

Run Time 01:18 - August 28, 2009

"Why not get to the bottom of it?" the judge asked. In answer, the Pima Treasurer's attorney offers a bewildering rationale why it would be better to destroy the ballots than examine them -- while professing neutrality on the question.

---------------------------------

Two-Fold PR Campaign Emerges in Recent Court Arguments

Run Time 09:18 - August 28, 2009


The Complete Court hearing of Friday August 28, 2009, Pima County Superior Court heard a motion from the Republican Party to allow the Pima County Treasurer to destroy the RTA ballots.

Total run time 35:30 - August 28, 2009

AZ Superior Courts Deliberate: Can the Courts Intervene When No Adequate Remedy is Provided for Elections?

Attorney Bill Risner argues that the statutory 5-day period to contest an election, enacted in 1912 during an era of publicly-counted paper ballots, is no longer adequate for verifying elections counted by computer, and that the right to contest a suspect election is thereby effectively denied. Given the evidence of probable election fraud presented in the RTA database lawsuits, Attorney Risner calls on Judge Herrington to stay Pima County's motion to destroy the RTA ballots.

Another reason for a stay of an order to destroy ballots is to resolve a previously filed public records case requesting copies of the election poll tapes (precinct election results on a paper tape) and the pollworkers end of day certified report, both generated election night at the precincts and signed by the pollworkers. These documents are public records boxed with RTA ballots subject to a destruction order. This critical evidence was ignored in the Attorney General’s hand count of RTA ballots. Reconciling ballots with the signed poll tapes is always standard procedure in hand auditing of ballots to verify that the ballots being counted are the same that were cast at the precinct.

****