(1) San Bernardino County Grand Jury sends letter dated July 30, 2010 (not sent until August 3, 2010 per the postal meter) saying in relevant part: "[i]t has been determined that your complaint is not within the jurisdiction if the Grand Jury and no further action will be taken at this time. No further correspondence will be sent to you by this Grand Jury."
Comment on (1) Interesting comment by the Foreman (who signed the July 30, 2010 letter to this blogger) when the statute (Election Code 15640 et seq) specifically says the grand jury of the county has the power to petition the court for a manual recount; also of interest is the changed reference to "no further correspondence will be sent to you by "this Grand Jury" (someone else looking)?
(2) California Department of Justice State Public Inquiry Unit sends a letter to this blogger dated June 22, 2010 (mailed June 25, 2010) says in relevant part "the Secretary of State's Office has primary responsibility to investigate cases of alleged criminal misconduct and to determine if a violation has occurred."
Comment on (2) Passing the buck (sorta); the Secretary of State was sent a copy at the same time as was the Attorney General/DOJ and to date nothing has been said to this blogger; I won't hold my breath--the last time I reported irregularities [previously in re the Sequoia counters], without checking with observers that documented jambing, multiple ballot feeds, refeeds without resetting or adjusting for the partially counted ballots, the Secretary of State gave the County of San Bernardino her blessing that all was well and ok. Also the date of mailing was done so that the letter would not be received until AFTER the registrar would certify the election!!
(3) San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors - has never acknowledged receipt of the complaint, much less advise re any action and or disposition
Comment on (3) Actually maybe there was a bit of retaliation by the Board of Supervisors; I live next to a County Senior Center that we give some support to, attend lunches or breakfasts at, etc; the Hinkley Senior Center recently "lost" their "meal" contract over a technicality (that Mitzelfelt forgave the Pinion Hills Senior Center for) and are being forced to accept Barstow's Senior Center's meal service, which has taken away the independence and autonomy of the senior center, the related ability to fully service its area seniors with local people and have the added benefits resulting therefrom; also a playground was forced upon the senior center's land; input was given, after other locations where most of the children live in the service area were proposed by numerous community leaders, but was illogically rejected. The County was asked to place its playground to the North of the Senior Center building so as to not disrupt the senior center's operations; a vote was taken and all center members supported locating the playground to the north end, if it must be put on senior center property at all; the plans came back from the county and they want to locate the playground guess where--to the South end of the senior center, which will interfere with the center's operations and be guess what, is also next to my fenced parcel where I live---nothing like moving to the country for peace and quiet and having a playground located next door to you. I of course voiced my objection to placing the playground there before the plans were drawn (when the seniors all voted to put it on the North end)--I guess that was as good as assuring it would be placed on the South end. That the County appears to want to retaliate against this blogger for making a complaint, well, you get the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment