All's Not Well (?) # 5

(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.

All's Not Well (?) # 4

San Bernardino County Grand Jury prepares a letter (sent to this blogger) acknowledging they received my complaint (about the election counts and the software) and said they will look into it the next session of the Grand Jury (which starts in July??) when they have time, then dates their letter June 18, 2010 (within the time the grand jury had to direct the DA to file papers to order a recount or some other appropriate remedy) but holds and mails the letter on July 27, 2010. What's up doc?

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