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
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Treasurer of Pima County Neutral in RTA Issue?
You decide.
"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.
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.
****
