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?

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.

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".