Kari Verjil's June 18, 2010 Response...........the public be d*mned.

1. (in response to "Election Night Percentages" in Registrar Verjil's June 18, 2010 letter - link to PDF letter), the letter admits there is an unexplained pattern of non-deviation from the percentages in past elections (from beginning to end on election night) which is not only statistically unlikely in one race in a demographically diverse county such as San Bernardino, but in all county-wide races? 1400 plus precincts times the number of county wide races times over the last 10 years? The chances are better winning the lotto.

2. (in response to the use of the term "winner" referenced in Verjil's letter of June 18, 2010), Registrar Verjil's letter talks about "technological errors with the voting equipment" and then gives no basis for the conclusion "no results were either intentionally or negligently manipulated and no winners were picked by this office" (after telling the Sun's reporter, Joe Nelson, that she had no idea how the software worked) but does not deny the computer labeled the eventual winners in the county wide races with less than 40% of the vote in, nor does she suggest any changes could be made to purge the appearance of a race being called nor even an appropriate explanation to the public if an innocent phenomenon was being captured);

3. Its not "winner on the website" as referenced in Registrar Verjil's letter--the pages copies showed the coded instruction pages consistent with picking a winner.

4. While software for counting and tabulation (and the scanners) can be approved, the State does not approve voter dilution.

I could go on for hours--I won't because I really don't think anyone much cares about the integrity of the count, tabulation and reporting of what is put in the ballot box. The problem is bigger than one race and goes to confidence in the system.

The corruption machine rolls on.

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.