THE LIE IS FINAL....BAD VOTE COUNTING/TABULATION/ AVERAGING/PROJECTING WINNERS WITH 40% of VOTE COUNT ONLY IN NOTWITHSTANDING

Registrar certifies election results

James Rufus Koren, Staff Writer

Posted: 06/27/2010 08:31:33 PM PDT

Updated: 06/27/2010 09:16:14 PM PDT

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters has certified the results of the June 8 primary election.

Other counties have yet to certify their election results, so final and official results are not available in all races, but results for county races are now final.

Voters can call for a recount but must do so by 5 p.m. Tuesday. A ballot recount is done at the expense of the person making the request. For information about requesting a recount, call 909-387-8300 or visit www.sbcrov.com.

At least one candidate, district attorney hopeful Robert Conaway, has said he wants a recount. He said he believes the county registrar's computer system was either hacked or tilted.

He requested that District Attorney Michael A. Ramos ask the county Superior Court to order a recount.

Registrar Kari Verjil said Conaway is free to request a recount but that the county's vote-counting procedures are aboveboard.

---

VOTE 2010

PRIMARY RESULTS

The following are highlights of final results from the June 8 primary election. The winners of each race appear in bold, with an asterisk indicating the incumbent(s) in that race.

San Bernardino County

District attorney

Ramos* 54.0%

Guzman 19.2%

Conaway 26.8%

Sheriff/coroner

Schrader 21.5%

Averbeck 11.6%

Hoops* 66.9%

Superintendent of schools

Thomas* 60.1%

Ramirez-Dean 17.2%

Delgado 22.1%

Assessor/recorder

Draeger* 73.4%

Palazzo 26.6%

Auditor/controller

Mason 29.1%

Walker* 70.9%

Superior Court, Office 11

Hosking 66.0%

Lemkau* 34.0%

Superior Court, Office 29

Stull 57.5%

Montgomery 42.5%

Central committees

61st District Democratic

Boudreaux 11.7%

Sanders 15.2%

Wall 10.6%

Weilein 9.8%

Avila 12.1%

Rangel-Ortega 11.1%

Crowe 5.8%

Curry 11.8%

Kelly 11.9%

62nd District Democratic

Baca 15.1%

Navarro 10.2%

J. Sandoval 5.6%

M. Sandoval 4.8%

Zambrano 4.8%

Velasquez 4.4%

Alvarez 6.3%

Garcia 6.7%

Givens 6.9%

Chavez 7.3%

V. Marquez 5.4%

C. Marquez 5.8%

Montes 4.5%

P. Mengler 7.5%

J. Mengler 5.4%

........................................................................................................................................................................

Blogger commentary to article:

P.S.

(1) Complaints have not been responded to by either County Board of Supervisors, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Sheriff's Office, District Attorney or Grand Jury--in fact no explanation was provided of why a computer that is supposed to be doing an ongoing count and tabulate was declaring winners with roughly 40% of the vote in and why the percentage of change for county wide races stayed the same (plus or minus 1% over the course of the night)--wow!!

(2) To throw down the gauntlet of pay for your own recount is the height of institutional arrogance; only a wealthy man can pay for a recount and they know I was a grass rooter (less than $5,000 raised and spent and I came within 4 percentage points of being in a runoff against a well-funded political hammer); contributors (and other candidates) were scared away by Ramos and his backers (one of which just put a gun to his chest in Vegas) from the gitgo; conservatives that agreed there were irregularities are scared by the establishment "republicans" (Jerry Lewis, Brad Mitzelfelt, Gary Miller, Biane, Ovitt, Josie Gonzales, Joe Baca)

(3) Rufus will someday get a quote from this blogger right--the request was made to the County Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors to direct Mike Ramos to Petition the Superior Court for a manual recount; I requested nothing of the DA and the basis of the request was the California (state) Election Code. Nothing will change in this county with such shoddy and reprehensible newspaper reporting. Who needs a political consultant when you have the San Bernardino Suc?

COPIES of the ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINTS & RELATED PROOF OF ELECTION FRAUD

evidence of election fraud in san bernardino county 2010.pdf (you can left click to open the link or can right click to save it--its a PDF of almost 4 megs--the attachments to the 2 complaints are the specific pages referred to in the letters and not the full report sent to the Board of Supervisors and Grand Jury); the most remarkable admission to date is Natasha Lindstrom's article in the June 18, 2010 Daily Press in which she states: "But more than 200,000 mail-in, provisional and damaged ballots that may have included residents within the 59th District remained uncounted after the primary election day" (an article on Donnelly's lead in the 59th Assembly District Republican primary). In the electronic version of the article Lindstrom on the 17th of June says "San Bernardino County finished counting mail-in ballots last week, but has 5,700 provisional ballots to count and 8,400 damaged ballots to verify or throw out, said Kathy Jackson, Registrar spokeswoman. San Bernardino County will release updated tallies at 8 p.m. today" (http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/county-19959-angeles-votes.html--which is it??). What makes the later story remarkable, is that with approximately 159,000 (approximate) votes tallied (counted) by the time the registrar (through its software) and the Daily Press declared the "winner" at 10:32 pm, there should be potentially another 200,000 votes ---hmm, wonder where they are.

Meanwhile the Registrar only reports as of Last Updated: June 18, 2010 11:36 AM

Registration & Turnout

801,272 Voters

	Vote Count	Percent
Vote By Mail Turnout	119,544	14.92%
Precinct Turnout	92,924	11.60%
Total	212,468	26.52%

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

1406/1406 100.00%

	Vote Count	Percent
MICHAEL A. RAMOS	96,885	54.16%
FRANK H. GUZMAN	34,240	19.14%
BOB CONAWAY	47,755	26.70%
Total	178,880	100.00%

33,588 votes missing on what the Registrar reports (between total votes cast and votes counted in the DA race) and 182,000 between the uncounted ballots and what was reported (based on the news stories)--an awful lot of invalidated damaged ballots and provisionals!

P.S. Anyone note, the vote percentage as of 10:32 pm for Ramos was 54.9% with 66,767 of the vote counted on June 8, 2010 and with 178,880 of the vote counted through 6/18/10, the percentage for Ramos was 54.16% or again less than a percentage point difference after counting over 112,000 more votes (which by the way is a little over half of the 200,000 uncounted ballots mail-in, provisional and damaged ballots that were not counted on election day win the software and the local media declared the "winner"); the only changes in the June 18, 2010 report being between the two challengers (how convenient)--the software it seems maintained the margin of victory. One wonders if the 88,000 ballots that were apparently NOT counted or disregarded, were cast for Guzman or Conaway--if so, it would be a clever way maintain Ramos' percentage and margin (and who do you think controls that?? the politically appointed registrar and her loyal minions!!)

Wierd day continues....a bust (of sorts) to report and maybe election crimes involving Mike Ramos' buds??

...
Two more people I do not recall ever talking to, called me today expressing some interest in the election validity issues and offering some additional information (and it seems moral support)--names for purposes of this note are not relevant. The calls would seem typical for the issues being discussed, but both asked me at some point in the conversation if I had the money to demand a recount (even though the recount I am demanding is under an Election Code provision that makes the County responsible for the cost). I continue to hope the County can order the recount and show they are capable of taking responsible and appropriate action without having other agencies getting involved, which could prove embarressing to all involved in the denial.

......................................................................................................................................................................

Did you see the State Fair Political Practices Commission, after receiving a complaint of election fraud in a 2008 Community College District race, prosecuting one of the winning candidates, John Futch and fined his campaign $6000. Go to the following link:

http://www.highlandnews.net/articles/2010/06/07/news/doc4c0d6243986b4852554648.txt

The June 7, 2010 Highland News article in part states: " Ross Johnson, FPPC Chairman, agreed with the complaint by Boyle, ruling that Futch violated the law “since none of the required statements were filed before the election, there was no information whatsoever regarding the funding received or expenditures made by the committee (Friends of Futch) available to the public prior to the date of the election.” The "Teachers for a Change" group disagreed with the ruling “no evidence was found to indicate the lack of disclosure was anything more than negligent.” Boyle in the website, www.teachersforachange.com, disclosed that in a 2008 televised debate Futch admitted that he knew of the violations of election law. This was confirmed to Boyle on Monday by Zachery Norton, Senior FPPC Counsel and another complaint will soon be filed with the United States Attorney for violations of the RICO Act which outlaws racketeering. Boyle did tell Norton he did in fact contact California Attorney General Jerry Brown last year about the laundering of money from the Mexican Mafia through the Indian gaming casinos, that led to planned mob style executions orchestrated at the San Manuel Tribal land. However Boyle told Norton that since the San Manuel and other Indian casinos have funneled large sums of money to both Brown and District Attorney Michael Ramos, it was doubtful any real investigation of election fraud would be conducted. James Ramos, the Tribal Chair, according to the documents revealed, bankrolled Futch, who then voted for Ramos as president of the Board of Trustees. Boyle told Norton on Monday that Futch told a debate audience at San Bernardino Valley College in 2008 his Friends of Futch raised $100,000 for full color district wide mailers, but that money was never reported".

Comment: Money laundering allegations as an aside, I wonder if the $100,000 (or whatever amount was involved) was reported to the IRS and FTB and if taxes were paid?? I wonder if a Major Contributor report was filed by the Tribe with the FPPC?

...........................................................................................................................................................................

Heh, someone I know penned a line I thought was pretty thought provoking:

"We are entombed in the failure of all major systems in America ~ economics, healthcare, religion, political parties, sports etc. This implosion is brought to you by Greed, Fear, Apathy, Loathing, Wars, Greed again, People like all of U.S. and the letter "I" (the Internet)." Brad Parker

Wierd day after filing the demand for a recount

After going to the Registrar of Voters where some sort of public showing of support for an investigation was being organized by ET Snell and one of the 9-12 groups [and ET was the only one there waiting for Keri Virjil], I bought a Sun [and as I suspected the reporter Korn (1) did not cover the computer picking the winner argument supported from the code printed off the Registrar's own computer display, nor (2) did he report the recount was being requested for ALL races county-wide due to the code and the uniform percentages of the 1402 precincts reporting county wide], went over the the Board of Supervisors, was called 4 times by a reporter from the Los Angeles Daily Journal (Jason) who in one conversation (after he talked with Virjil) passed on that Virjil was preparing some report for the Board of Supervisors, that I could pay for a recount (per Virjil's suggestion to him) and asked whether I intended to do that. Wow..it seems that the Registrar, that does not per Korn of the Sun know anything about the counting and tabulation software, is now going to put together a report to the Board of Supervisors. I guess from the "tip" couriered through Jason of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, I guess we know what the County is going to be told to do, without regard to the lack of expertise of the Registrar, the clear record of the software with less than half the votes counting picking/designating a winner in the ALL the county wide races. At the Board of Supervisor's meeting saw Sheriff-elect Hoops and gave him a copy of the complaint filed with the County. Was called by some smaller papers' reporters and faxed over copies of the complaint. The sad part of the adverse feedback is that no one seems to get that the integrity of the system and public confidence is at risk. Another pick-up through the day was that Ron Zook (Mitzelfelt's staffer, former employee of the Sun as I recall) was stationed at the Board of Supervisor's behind some speakers/potential speakers and after talking with him, the 9-12 Patriot group member, who apparently was going to talk at the Board of Supervisor's meeting, left--the same person who was going to show at the registrar's office with dozens of others to voice a protest for the vote handling. It seems that the republican leadership is succeeding at keeping things quiet and "not causing a stir" (Eric Stone's words, the primary opponent to Jerry Lewis).

Here lies the Sun's latest lie.......

James Koren of the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper did not accurately report the substance of the partial interview with me in his article found at http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_15295471; (1) the problem is that the election was called by the computer at 10:32 pm on election night with less than half the ballots counted--the html code printout shows Ramos was declared (as were other county-wide candidates--most of which were appointees of the board of supervisors, endorsed by one of more of the current supervisors and who hired Virgil) "winner" in the software (which mirrors the race being called as over in the Daily Press article as early as 8:48 pm on election night see http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/strong-19763-bernardino-takes.html or go to: Ramos takes strong lead in DA race | strong, bernardino, takes - Local News - Victorville Daily Press); (2) James Koren did not bother to share what the Registrar (Virjil) did tell him--Virgil claims to not know much about the software or how it works. which if true is frightening, which I am sure the reporter shield law will be used to not talk about if Koren was ever questioned (if it is true) and (3) Koren did not ask Virgil (who "he's gotten to know") if there was a security protocol in place to control access to the code and if accessed, by whom and when and for what purpose. The interview with James Koren was littered with "don't you think.....", "Isn't it true..." or "don't you think...." questions--all rigged to categorically deny the very allegations made, which needless to say ended the interview. If the County does not answer the question of how, why and when was the determination made to insert a "winner" conclusion in the partial vote cast record at 10:32 pm, if the insertion of the word "winner" was more than just a gratuitous (and in poor taste) label (e.g. was it a command to the computer to crunch the results according to pre-set percentage parameters) and why was the vote within a percentage point of being the same throughout 1402 county precincts for both Vote-by-Mail and precinct voting for each of the County-wide races, we will not have met the constitutional mandate that EVERY vote must be counted. This is not about a race won or lost (and by the way Koren the Klown--no one is officially "defeated" as none of the races are official nor final yet), but its about the integrity of the process, a process that had taken a big time hit with the code showing the computer declared winners with less than half the ballots having been counted. The Registrar and the County owes us more than a Fox News or CNN projection and the Sun needs to start doing some investigative journalism--if it doesn't, I urge everyone to boycott them as being little more than a colored ink Pennysaver.

The Voting Machine or the software?? Ramos was winner with 16% of the vote counted??

I will pass something on everyone should be looking at. Ramos per the County Registrar's records with roughly 16% of the vote counted is listed on their records as the "winner". There are html documents under San Bernardino_Registrar of Voters_Current Elections_Election Result_files (a saved version of the Registrar's Election Result web page) that shows that as of 10:32 pm on election night with what looks like 235 precincts out of 1,406, "MICHAEL A. RAMOS" is named the winner. There is no way he could be the winner with that many ballots out there as of 10:32 pm on election night. Weird stuff. The registrar of course (as usual) did not return my call today -- I was asking about the software being used so I could research if the problem was something other jurisdictions were encountering.

Policing the election process....what you can do

Any election violations seen?? Here are some helpful links:

Some common violations:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/fraud-complaints/pdfs/common-elections-fraud-violations.pdf

Below is an online form that can be filled out to make a complaint for violations of the Election Code to the State should you feel making a complaint to your registrar of voters may be a waste of time or its tailored to serve the wealthy only:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/fraud-complaints/pdfs/english-voter-fraud-complaint-form.pdf

Other potential election code based violations are found at California Election Code § 15610, 15620-15634, 15640-15642, 16400-16404, 16420-16421, 16440-16444, 18560-18578--some with very tight time lines (5 days after canvassing is complete for recount requests), the DA can petition the superior court for a recount where there are errors (whether electronic or mechanical) in tallying votes (there are numerous other grounds under Election Code § 15640(a)(1)-(2)--when request by the County Board of Supervisors or Grand Jury makes the request and causes the petition to be filed within 25 days of the election. Contesting elections are also allowed under §16400-16444. If you think you have some right of action under one or more of the election code sections, lawyer up. Retain qualified counsel ASAP.

More Early election results round-up | results, tuesday, early - Top Story - Victorville Daily Press

Another identical set of results reported--no change from the initial report and final report. The interesting label on this article acknowledges it is an "early election result"--so why is it the same at 3:53 am on June 9, 2010??

Early election results round-up | results, tuesday, early - Top Story - Victorville Daily Press

So what do you think the numbers are as of 12:57 am on June 9, 2010:
53.72% Ramos
27.37% Conaway
18.97% Guzman

How did the Daily Press know what the final results would be on the DA's race an hour BEFORE the 1st Results were put up??

Since holding Ramos' feet to the fire has been a problem, I decided to start archiving some of his few quotes appearing in the media (since Ellis was his mouth piece during the campaign):

Ramos takes strong lead in DA race | strong, bernardino, takes - Local News - Victorville Daily Press

But........in the process I noticed some of the same odd conduct I have seen since 1996 (the year of the Gingrich contract on America).

Results reported almost suggest that election margins might be predetermined (in certain races?); as of 8:48 pm on June 8, 2010, the Victorville Daily Press is claiming to have received a report that Ramos had 54% of the vote, Conaway 27% of the vote and Guzman 19% of the vote with 100% of the precincts counted when in fact less than 20% of the precincts had been counted--was the Daily Press getting advance notice on the numbers consistent with a pre-determined fix??

At 12:57 on June 9, 2010, the Daily Press reports: 53.72% for Ramos, 27.37% for Conaway and 18.97% for Guzman, which totals 100.6% of the votes--hmm (obviously an error)--but putting aside the .6 error, the percentage spread is the same? How likely?

In the 7 hours of results that followed the closing of the polls and the Daily Press' first report, the percentages did not change--as of the Registrar's update on June 9, 2010 at 3:53 am, the count was again 53.72% for Ramos, 27.31% for Conaway and 18.97% for Guzman. Its almost like the winner's percentage (and maybe the winner itself) was pre-determined!

It is statistically impossible to have the exact percentage spread between three candidates down to the 100ths of a percentage point unless 100% of the vote was counted by 8:48 p on June 8, 2010--which other reports from the registrar contradict. A rough sampling shows the same phenomenon repeated in other races which suggests a deliberate hand in the data manipulation process!

How did the Daily Press know by 8:48 pm on June 8, 2010 that when 100% of the vote would be counted, the percentages of vote cast per candidate would be the same at each and every reporting benchmark? Or were they and the Registrar projecting the votes or reporting the computer's pre-final count tally based on programming?

Additionally, since the initial vote cont that came out was VBM (votes by mail) and that was 72,132 and the precinct turnout was 86,522 for a total votes cast of 158,654, and the total vote count for the DA race was 134,737, there is a vote drop off of 23,927. Were there votes cast but not counted or is it a true drop off?

I called to ask the registrar about the software used by the counter (a Sequoia 400-C), the tabulator and compiler so I can check to see if there have been reported problems in other parts of the country. Do you think I have been called by the registrar? Nah

The corruption drum beats on??

Update on lethal injection rules.........

The state's latest rules for executing by lethal injection hit a new snag, sending it back to correctional officials for more work.

The California Office of Administrative Law, the state body responsible for approving regulations proposed by agencies such as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, issued a detailed 21-page response explaining why the lethal injection procedure still wasn't legal.

The source article is found in Recordnet.com @:

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100609%2FA_NEWS%2F100609824.

The 21 page opinion is found @:

http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/disapproval_decisions/2010/2010-0429-04S.pdf

It ain't over for the citizens of San Bernardino County

With the polls being monitored by the feds in Riverside County, incumbent DA Pacheco loses. Mmh--coincidence? If you want a comparison, consider this--in the Ramos-Conaway-Guzman race for DA in San Bernardino, as groups of precincts were reported throughout the night, the percentage of spread never changed more than 1 percent--what is the likelihood that the vote-by-mail (VBM) percentages would also be the percentage spread throughout the night for all the precincts reporting in-person-at-the-polls voting in a demographically diverse county such as ours? Historically in the rest of the state, the republican incumbents lose ground at the polls and when they win, it is because of the margin built up with the banked-up VBM votes. In the Ramos-Conaway-Guzman race against Ramos, the incalculable damage from two elected democrats (Baca & Gonzales) endorsing the republican incumbent may have been a factor (heh Joe and Josie, is it true the only reason you endorsed Ramos is because he was hispanic??), the slate mailers to democrats listing Ramos with democrats endorsed state-wide confused democratic voters (I had supporters calling expressing confusion even though they knew I was the candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party Central Committee in San Bernardino County) and the slate mailers to republicans listing him with state-wide endorsed republicans (when he was not endorsed by the County Republican Central Committee) may have been factors as was the inexplicable under performance of Guzman (he dropped 5 percentage points from his 2000 election run against Ramos, a differential that meant the difference between a June 8 win for Ramos and a run-off between Ramos and Conaway--maybe the result of the "Um" lawsuit filed by an alleged long time ally of Ramos??). The election of 2010 will go down as the fruits of another example of Ramos' willingness to deceive or deliberately mislead public for votes--you know the guy we call our top cop--wow--am I the only person bothered by that personality streak?? The saddest part of the effort, is that the campaign was loaded with substantive issues about case backlogs, poor conviction rates, the DA's office being over budget, and questions about misuse of power for political purposes, the death penalty policies in light of budgetary problems facing the County--the press consistently recapped this contest as being about Ramos' alleged affairs--the result, the press narrowed the campaign dialogue to what Ramos quickly denied (the improper sexual contact with County workers, a conclusion facilitated by a report the current Board of Supervisors paid $140,000 of taxpayer money to prepare in advance of the election--hmm, should that $140,000 be reported as a campaign contribution to Ramos?) and by that, sterilized the race, denied voters the dialogue they were entitled to hear and gave Ramos the election. I did my part to create the dialogue. I could not overcome the headwinds of corruption, media bias, potential ethnic bias and abuse leading up to June 8, 2010. Stay tuned. It ain't over (the election is, but regrettably, not the corrupt leadership nor the effort to hold accountable those running amuk).

Election Day Status Report

As the good luck messages roll in (and thank you all for them--it helps take the edge off the terrible waiting election day represents), I heard that Ramos was running some TV ads--remarkable! When is the last time a DA candidate ran a TV ad in San Bernardino County? Mikey and King must hear foot steps. A voting official told a poll worker to tell me to take campaign signs off my house's fence last night [I had Palazzo (for Assessor), Schrader (for Sheriff), Montgomery (for Judge) and my signs on my fence] because it was (due to an addition made to a senior center which moved the entrance to the polls closer to my property line-- probably in violation of the County's set back rules, by the way) now (for this election) too close to the entrance to the poll. So it seems private property rights took a beating at the hands of the Registrar. This County was never big on the first amendment--just ask Bob Nelson. Stay tuned.

A Good Campaign........Now Pray for an Accurate Count!!

The election is tomorrow for my run for San Bernardino County District Attorney; I've done all I can do as a grass roots activist (other than a last minute radio interview, which I just finished, answered a few Facebook questions and fielded a few wishing-you-well messages). My day was chopped up by working on a volunteer committee to restore services to a senior center (that I believe was politically retaliated against by the County because of my and my wife's involvement) & taking one of my Yorkies to a vet to get a fox tail out of her eye (ouchie). I ran a good campaign & have raised awareness on issues a DA impacts/influences and have made proposals on what can be done to improve the DA's office. I have met good people (Paul Schrader for Sheriff, Al Palazzo for Assessor and Ed Montgomery for Judge--all of which got my vote). Good campaign. I would say may the best person win, but I have personally seen far too many opened ballot boxes that should have had seals on them, counting machines jamb, people denied provisional ballots by "trained" volunteers at precincts, refusal to give observers a reasonable position from which to observe ballot handling and counting, unprocessed death certificates/notices of the passing of a voter and jambing Sequoia voter counters to be confident that will happen. The people involved in the ballot gathering and count and the unprocessed death certificates, are appointed by the current County Board of Supervisors who have too much incentive to put people in place that will perpetuate their existing leadership (Hoops and Virjl). We should pray for an accurate count and that those who would taint the system feel constrained.

IF TRUE, THERE MAY BE MORE TO THE UN - GUZMAN MATTER

As it sometimes happens when running for office, one gets information from a variety of sources, the reliability of which obviously will either be validated (or not). The below is an excerpt from what was supposedly submitted as a recent letter to the editor concerning the Jane Un v Frank Guzman lawsuit:

"THIS WHAT I SENT THE NEWSPAPERS....LUCIANO SARTORESI...H.I..A

To the Editor,

We went to Frank Guzman’s office and asked Frank if he would defend Jane Un. Frank was really excited to take on San Bernardino since he was running against Ramos, while “enraged” that they had sent her to prison without a conviction. Keith and I took Jane to Guzman’s office where she dropped off a large bundle of documents concerning her case, and more documents on follow-up appointments. One night, at about 9:30 pm, we went to Grand Terrace to Guzman’s house to deliver some money, as she called him from her cell, while we sat in his driveway, but she did not give it to him there, because he said to give it to him at his office. I had accompanied Jane to his office numerous times. Guzman has also been to her house as a guest.

Sometime after the election, we also networked with “Friends of Frank Guzman” in hopes of securing a Judgeship. I went to Congressman Baca, despite their bad-blood, to request him to assist Guzman by introducing him to Sharon Davis, when she attended one of the Congressman’s events. Congressman Baca was gracious enough, with all humility, to introduce Guzman to Sharon Davis [while the First Lady of California]. Keith and I also took Frank Guzman to Sharon Davis on his behalf, at the event, since we had a relationship with her family. Governor Davis offered the Judgeship to Guzman, but he turned it down for whatever reason. My letter is simply to reveal the truth, since I am on the side of truth, since Keith and I are not enemies of either sides in this matter.

Sincerely,

Luciano Sartoresi"

SAVE THE BUDGET & JOBS, FIRE MIKE RAMOS

THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DA's OFFICE CUTS POSITIONS & PROGRAMS-WHY?

The "cold case" & "gang injunction" units, both which Ramos' political mailers said were success stories (which as to the "cold case" unit has yet to result in a single conviction and the "gang injunction" success facts have been to date elusive), were not just cut, but eliminated--so much for telling the voting public the truth. Those programs could have been saved, if they were successes and did not violate the law, by making other budget calls. Why weren't the private jet & chopper grounded? How about Ramos' travel budget? Does Ramos need a press secretary? Why aren't we moving some of the 20,000 case misdemeanor backlog and generating some fine revenue for the county? Why aren't we talking about reducing budget strains and stresses by stopping the targeting of medically authorized medical marijuana use or looking at the cost savings that could be derived from opting for life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentencing in the stead of seeking the death penalty? Why aren't we asking the DA's office and the union to allow interns from local law schools to come in and stretch the support staff function better? Why aren't the union negotiators coming in with workable alternatives (if they haven't)?

COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC DEFENDER CUTS:

Since the management of juvenile cases will be heavily hit by the proposed elimination of 39 positions, we all know what a false economy that is for the County; since the juveniles and indigents will still be entitled to counsel, the county will spend more money on appointing conflict or outside counsel. As a practical matter, the involvement of outside counsel may well slow the case disposition down and create an even greater backlog! Why aren't we asking the PD's office and the union to allow interns from local law schools to come in and stretch the support staff function better? Who are these decision-makers?

THE DA's OFFICE's BUDGET & HOW TO SAVE JOBS

THE DA's OFFICE's BUDGET & HOW TO SAVE JOBS: (1) Disclosure is needed--This is the time for full and complete disclosure of what is being protected. Travel vouchers to Sacramento? Training programs that can be taken virtually or remotely vs traveling to the seminar site? Actual vs virtual participation in parole board hearings? Death penalty case budgeting needs to be reviewed --would justice be done and millions saved by opting for a life-without-the-possibility-of-parole case decision? Use of County vehicles--could it be curbed? (2) Legacy costs need to be reviewed--how the medical retirements, pensions and health care benefits are being administered and costed out needs to be reviewed--can we reduce administrative costs and maintain the benefit levels?? (this will require union support); (3) Is $140,000 of this money money spent for Ramo's personal problem with one former employee included in the budget figures?--Who is going to lose their job because of that expense?--is Ramos being asked to pay that back to the County from his mid six figure campaign account? If not, why not? (4) Can money be saved by better use of existing space--e.g. consolidation? (5) Are there leases that can be terminated for office space being underutilized or about to be due to dropping funding for the special programs? (6) Can conversion to LED lighting save as is projected several million dollars per year in energy costs? (7) Can we use roof top solar and wind units to save more money in power? (8) Would a two degree drop in thermostats throughout the county save the jobs? Job cuts are the way to avoid making the smart decisions.

What a Campaign Brings........

Elections are unique in what you get and experience--emails from volunteers complaining about not getting some gas money help who don't want to give you their address to mail a check to, getting calls from businesses about signs being put on their property without their permission by supposedly my volunteers that meant well but did not follow instructions about only putting up a sign with the owner's permission (obviously the sign was removed--I am not even sure it was one of my volunteers as when the sign was put up, I had no volunteer crews out putting up signs!), calls from code enforcement about their prior restraint "permit" ordinances for placement of signs on even private property, calls from people trying to drag you into "protesting" something they believe would help your campaign and of course, the pre-election piece from the newspaper that misquotes you--all this in a five to six hour period today. Yesterday, spoke with an advocacy group, picked up a half dozen callers, some interesting information and confirmed a radio appearance date. I met with a supporter that has emailed all of his friends and backers reminding them to vote and who took a few signs to put up in places where my signs, on private property, put up with the permission of the owners, were taken down not once, but two previous times. Busy.

Ramos is being investigated by the Fair Political Practices Commission

....Ramos who threatened to scrutinize Dennis Stout's campaign accounts if he ran for DA, is now getting scrutinized by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. The link below is the letter dated May 18, 2010:

http://iepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/FPPC-Letter-Ramos-.jpg

.....According to the blogger at iePolitics, the slush funds for his wild lifestyle showing up in his campaign account is the likely problem. [go to http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/05/24/iepolitics-ramos-under-investigation-by-the-fppc-%E2%80%93-again/ for the details].

.....We really do need a change. All this is more specifics of why I felt the need to run. I run a grass roots campaign, don't party except to have a quiet beer with a burger or a glass of wine with a meal. Ramos' excesses send the wrong message.

A Good Article of Why We Can't Get Killer's Convicted

Put focus on catching killers

Reader Input (in auburnjournal.com)

"The best way to deter murderers is to catch the people who commit murder.

The clearance rate for homicides in California is hovering just above 50 percent. Homicide detectives can’t work during the critical first stages of investigation because they are not allowed overtime.

Cases sit for weeks before investigations begin. Rape kits pile up because forensic labs are closing and technicians are losing their jobs. Police presence is being reduced by furlough days.

The backlog of DNA fingerprints grows every day because the Department of Justice can’t pay technicians the same wages as private industry.

In the meantime, California blithely spends $140 million a year on a death penalty system that Ronald George, Chief Supreme Court Justice, says is totally dysfunctional.

Five hundred chiefs of police across the nation were asked their opinion of the death penalty.

Many said they liked it but overwhelmingly they said it is not a good use of resources to deter crime.

We need to switch to permanent imprisonment and do a better job of catching murderers.

We spend millions pursuing executions while too many families never receive the justice of the apprehension of the killer of their loved one.

PAUL W. COMISKEY, Newcastle"

Bob's comment: Great letter to the editor. More people are talking about the budget train wreck and what we need to do to make sure our communities are safe.

I see dead people (Voting)??.

Was given some information that one of the ways the existing political machine may be holding on to their seats is by what, if true, is at best a morose practice. When people die, the Coronor's office generates a death certificate (you know the Coronor's office that Penrod took over and now that Hoops runs); those death certificates are supposed to be used to populate a purge list that the Kari Virjl Registrar of Voters runs so that obviously the dead folks don't get sent ballots. The death certificates have been "held" for up to four years. Why would that order be given? Sounds like some one needs to produce a list, see if dead people are getting ballots and "voting".

A weekend of campaigning for DA

Weekend campaigning before an election is something I enjoy. While you have places you need to go to (or try to), letting it be a little random is fun. Not only can you see the frustration in the eyes of the PI's/unmarks that sometimes follow you, you meet people who are legitimately impressed that someone would be personally introducing themselves and appealing for their vote. You meet people that have concerns, issues and anxieties. You get to learn more about the community and along the way, you help educate the electorate. On one day, I was called by a radio talk show host (Barb Stanton) that said one of my signs was spotted on Cima Road near the entrance to the Mojave National Preserve (she was on the way to the location of the recently stolen memorial cross), talked with someone else that wanted me to talk to a group involved in health care issues and be a guest on another talk show--all this while in route to a meeting in San Bernardino (where Senator Boxer was going to say a few words). After that, a trek to the Orange Show and meet-and-greets (the Orange Show was very festive, colorful and seemed well run for the entertainment/vendors/etc there). I met with and worked the passing crowds with Al Palazzo who is running for Assessor. Honest and plain spoken--would make us all proud and would clean up the reminants of the Postmus politization of the San Bernardino County Assessor's office. Checking in with volunteers and thanking them also fun. Thanks Luciano, Mike & Carole!