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).

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??