ERD News: Nevada Stunner-Meet the New Boss II; Mexico; Collins at BradBlo

[autorank]

Note: Michael Collins (me) is BRAD-BLOGGING here http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3374
Come by for some green tea;)

We get a lousy court decision from a gambling capitol (The House
Speaker now rules on primary races too!!!)

Photo: tigior dano (CC)

…and Mexico gets a candidate who is comfortable among the people
and who fights election fraud to the very end…

Photo: Erasmo Lopez (CC)

Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News September 4, 2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

1. NEVADA: “Meet the New Boss” – Nevada does a Califonria – Denny Reigns Supr

Here we go, they’re applying the CA 50th decision, you know Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House, is the judge of all American elections – Hastert is now deciding a primary in Nevada….”the Horror.” You guys think they’re going to give up later this year, now way. It’s all about stopping investigations!!!

Associated Press/Reno: 09.02.06
Judge denies Angle's request

SANDRA CHEREB ([e-mail])
http://tinyurl.com/pyr42

A judge Friday denied Assemblywoman Sharron Angle's petition for a new Republican primary in Nevada's 2nd Congressional House District seat.

After a daylong hearing, District Judge Bill Maddox said the state court lacks jurisdiction in congressional election contests because such authority is held solely by the U.S. House of Representatives under the U.S. Constitution.

He further ruled there was no evidence election officials in Washoe County committed malfeasance when some voting locations opened late because polling workers didn't show up.

Snip

"Whether I win or lose is not the question," she said.


Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

2. NV: A Reader Gives Us the Real Low Down on this Story

This gal or guy has it right. Amazing!

Something really smells about this whole thing. Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:53 am

If Sharron Angle really felt there was a problem with the election, the proper course of action would be a recount. But that costs money and, with Dean Heller being Secretary of State, the election result would surely not change. I know - our voting machines have voter verified paper trails. Unfortunately, all this provides is a false sense of security for the voter. Once the electronic vote tallies are sent to the main tabulator, anything can happen. And nobody would dare steal an election. It has never before happen I am sure. Those pesky exit polls are never wrong – except since 2000 when exit polls never match the results from those electronic vote stealers. But I digress.

Getting back to the lawsuit – even I can read the Nevada Revised Statutes. Clearly a big time lawyer could easily turn to NRS 293.407, which states that the election for Senator and Congressperson cannot be contested. What is really scary is Judge Bill Maddox’s ruling. The only pertinent entry in our Constitution regarding this matter is Article 1 Section 2. Basically. A House member is ‘chosen every second Year by the People’. Nowhere in our Constitution does it state how an election is conducted nor how to contest an election nor does it state that the House of Representatives has jurisdiction on these matters. Furthermore, our 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This advances the fact that indeed a judge does have jurisdiction. However, as previously stated, the only proper ruling from this judge is to state NRS 293.407 – you cannot contest an election involving the Senate and House race.

I wonder if this ruling has something to do with the Busby-Bilbray congressional election in California. Basically a judge stated that even though the election results were not certified (thus the true winner is therefore unknown) the so-called winner was sworn in by the Republican Speaker of the House. The judge cannot do anything about it. So lets look at the possibilities of this one. On election night, before the pools close, an election official states casually, ‘looks like so-and-so is winning’. That person flies to Washington and sworn in. Yes, welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

Finally, what Sharron Angle could have done was cite NRS 293.465. Paraphrasing, if an election is prevented in a precinct due to loss of ballots or any other reason, a new election in those precincts must be conducted. What people do not understand is that it is very easy to do statistical analysis to see how people vote, when, and how to subtle enable an election to be changed. Yes, all that information is stored, and yes, 400+ votes are easy to analyze. It would be my opinion that the Washoe County Registrar of Voters actions where highly negligent. When an appointed person is responsibly for insuring free and transparent elections, and when polling places do not open on time, we need to get someone else into that position you can get the job done correctly. There are no excuses for a polling place to not open.

Maybe this all deals with our elections in November...?

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

3. NEVADA: The Prelude – Lapsley’s Role in California’s Recount Case

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00338.htm
(Permission to quote extensively granted by the author.)

Election Nullification 2: Speaker's Special Source

Monday, 28 August 2006, 5:55 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

Election Nullification II: Speaker of House had Special Source for Election “Certification”
California Assistant Secretary of State for Elections Tells House Clerk, it’s all good!

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent Media
Washington, DC

What would you think if you heard that a Member of Congress was sworn in prior to the official certification of his hotly contested and controversial election?
Would it matter to which political party the Member of Congress belonged?

On August 25, 2006, "Scoop" revealed that there was something very wrong with Brian Bilbray’s swearing in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Bilbray allegedly defeated Francine Busby in a close and controversial special election in California’s 50th Congressional District. There were immediate cries of foul and demands for both an investigation and a recount. The problems were well publicized before the swearing in.

Nevertheless, this sequence emerged:

June 6 - unofficial results announced with Bilbray over Busby by a few thousand votes, followed by immediate public protests;
June 13 - Speaker Hastert swears in Republican Bilbray on the House floor and Bilbray becomes a Member of Congress; and,
June 30, 2006 - 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County, officially completed the audit of election results required for certification, and officially certifies the election of Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 total votes.

The problem with the sequence is simple to spot. The swearing in of Bilbray occurred a full 17 days before the election became official as a result of the San Diego Registrar’s certification of results. The question raised in the previous article was, how could Speaker Hastert swear in Bilbray without notification that the election results were official? We have an answer.

Speaker Hastert’s Special Source on “Certification”

The swearing in ceremony for Republican Brian Bilbray, alleged winner of the California 50th District special election on June 6, 2006, was tucked in between actions to commend Canada for its renewed commitment to the war on terror. The Congressional Digest for that day contains a remarkable revelation; the source that the Speaker of the House used to justify the official induction of Bilbray.

”Oath of Office--Fiftieth Congressional District of California: Representative-elect Brian P. Bilbray presented himself in the well of the House and was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker. Earlier the Clerk of the House transmitted a facsimile copy of the unofficial returns of the Special Election held on June 6, 2006 from Ms. Susan Lapsley, Assistant Secretary of State for Elections, California Secretary of State Office, indicating that the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray was elected Representative in Congress for the Fiftieth Congressional District of California.”

http://electionfraudnews.com/SpecialContentPages/Oath.htm">Here (statement only)or here (full record)
Bilbray, it would now seem, was not sworn in without forethought, as though there were no issues involved. Somehow, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives received notification from Republican Bruce McPherson’s Assistant Secretary that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.”

Snip

Now we find out that that swearing in was based on the confirmation provided by a state government official. This strongly implies that the Congress actually recognized state authority to determine that the election outcome was official.

A careful look at the statement in the Congressional Digest reveals some interesting assumptions and perhaps careful planning. The Speaker, Hastert, administered the oath based on word from California’s Assistant Secretary of State for Elections that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Several assumptions are embedded in this statement. First, Hastert knew that he needed an authority to justify the election as official. Second, he relied on state authority, Susan Lapsley specifically. Third, Hastert knew that there were only “unofficial results,” because those are clearly referenced yet he accepted the word of the Clerk that Lapsley had made the call that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Finally, Lapsley, who has no official status in San Diego County where the election was held, used “unofficial results” to convey to the court that Bilbray was elected.


Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

4. NEVADA: More on Lapsley’s Role in California’s Recount Case

From:
Democracy Denied: Meet the New Boss

Thursday, 31 August 2006, 10:28 am
Opinion: Michael Collins

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00372.htm
If this official (Susan Lapsley) did in fact provide such confirmation, a key question must be answered. On what basis was an official stamp of approval given to the election by McPherson’s office since results were not made official until June 30? Does the California Secretary of State now have the ultimate power to deem elections final, regardless of the status of those elections? To be more precise, does the Secretary of State now have the power to override citizen protests, challenges and strongly expressed concerns for purely partisan benefit? McPherson is a Republican appointed to this office by the current Governor of California.

[autorank]

5. Mexico: Alternative Government Planned by Democracy Proponents

Let’s start with the VOA. Bet they’re the best of the MSM on this issue. Let’s see…

VOA News 09.03.06
Mexican Leftist Says He Plans Alternative Government

http://tinyurl.com/ljkbk

Mexico's leftist opposition leader said Sunday he will never recognize his conservative rival as president, and promised to set up an alternative government.

Manuel Andres Lopez Obrador called on his supporters to sustain their resistance to an election process that appears ready to name Felipe Calderon the president-elect of Mexico.

Lopez Obrador said he and his supporters will never recognize a president-elect who is illegitimate. He said he is going for deep change, to transform Mexico into a new country that is fair and honorable.

Last week Mexico's top electoral court threw out Lopez Obrador's allegations of massive vote fraud in July's presidential election, handing almost certain victory to Calderon.

The court will declare the winner of the election by September 6.

On Friday, leftist lawmakers protesting the vote count prevented President Vicente Fox from delivering his state of the nation speech to Congress. Mr. Fox delivered the message instead on national television.

[autorank]

6. Obrador: “…we wil decide…the basic plan for the transoformation of Mexico"

The Scottsman.com. 09.03.06
Mexican leftist says will never accept rival's win

http://tinyurl.com/pafw9

Calderon led Lopez Obrador in the official vote count by less than 0.6 percent.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

If Calderon is declared president-elect, leftist deputies could repeat that tactic on December 1 when he would have to enter Congress to don the presidential sash and give an acceptance speech to start his six-year term.

Lopez Obrador said he and his supporters would draw up a plan for a new nation at a convention in the Zocalo on September 16, Mexico's independence day.

"We will not only decide on our form of government ... but something very important will also be defined: the basic plan for the transformation of Mexico," said Lopez Obrador, of the Party of the Democratic Revolution.

Calderon, a former energy minister favored by business leaders for his free-market policies, says the election was fair and fully expects to be declared president-elect.

[autorank]

7. COMPLICIT CORPORATE MEDIA (CCM) Time on Mexico Election

Well, Time’s much worse than Voice of America. Look at how snarky this guy is, disrespectful of courageous people. Corporate lackey to the hilt. These clowns are still mad folks from my ‘hood screwed them on a big business deal (AOL). they’re just bitter they have to keep working. So do the rest of us! thanks to your stead fast support of the boy king *. So sorry…..

Time: 09.03.06
Why Mexico Keeps Burning

With a new President finally set to take office,
a seething opposition is putting democracy to the test
By TIM PADGETT / MEXICO CITY
http://tinyurl.com/nl3xc

At this point, though, Cruz is more likely to witness the second coming of Montezuma than to see López Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City, declared President. There is little compelling evidence that victory was stolen from him. To many observers, including prominent Mexican leftists, his refusal to accept the fact that he did lose--if only by 243,000 votes out of 41 million cast--is no longer democratic protest but demagogic petulance. Polls show that Mexicans are exasperated by the massive political street fair, complete with mariachi bands and the aromas of regional cooking. But the most hotly contested election in the nation's history has exposed more glaringly than ever the potentially violent social divide in Mexico. Addressing this split in a constructive way will be crucial to Calderón's ability to defuse the growing turbulence. And that, in turn, could have a beneficial impact on Washington's efforts to curb illegal immigration, which may not be successful until its southern neighbor builds more reliable government institutions and a more equitable economy.

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

24. DUer "grasswire" Explains the Time Attitude for US

This guy Padgett is sucking up. Read what follows. A guy who used to run a wingnut foundation is now editor of Time. What total garbage. BOYCOTT forever. I'm sick of these media outlets who have moderate to liberal audiences loading up with right wingers, highly partisan ones. Time to say good bye forever to these people

grasswire Donating Mon Sep-04-06 03:02 AM
Original message
the ugly right-wing background of the new editor of TIME magazine
greaswire's thread http://tinyurl.com/o2lok

Richard Stengel, the new editor of TIME magazine, was previously the head of an organization called the National Constitution Center.

The National Constitution Center is mostly funded by the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation -- $12 million between 2000-2004.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?fund...

Some highlights:

Richard DeVos is co-founder of Amway Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic (2004), and served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. He ranks in the Forbes 400 and is, according to Forbes, amoung the world's richest people, with an estimated worth of $1.7 billion in 2003122.

DeVos attended the Christian Calvin College, and he has been associated with numerous other Christian and conservative organizatons, such as the Council for National Policy, the Chairman's Council of the Conservative Caucus, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. His foundation's grantmaking reflects these conservative Christian te3ndencies and affiliations. In fact, Helen DeVos told the Grand Rapids Press that "our biggest priority is to give back to Christian causes.123" The foundation ranks eighth in the top 50 U.S. foundations awarding grants for religion, circa 2000, as published by the Foundation Center.

Among the top 20 foundations studied, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation ranks fifth in total conservative policy giving, providing $12,159,101 between 1999 and 2001 to groups such as Focus on the Family, the State Policy Network, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and other nationally influential public policy organizations in the fields of education, advocacy, research, religion, media and law. The foundation also provides grants to local (for instance, western Michigan and central Florida) churches, arts groups, ministries, and Christian Schools. For example, the foundation contributed $4 million to the Grand Rapids Christian School Association in 2000. The foundation also established and continues to fund the Urban Leadership Initiative, a national program designed to "identify and train emerging youth ministry leaders in local urgban communities.125" However, DeVos cautions that the foundation's social service grantmaking is intended to help people move out of poverty, not to "make 'em too comfortable there."126" Almost all of the grants are unrestricted.

[autorank]

8. COMPLICIT CORPORATE MEDIA II – It’s Tony’s boys, the BBC on Mexico

Oh boy, Tony Blair had a reason to get rid of that BBC head he pushed out. Now he gets uber clowns. Look at the insulting language he uses. These CCM types talk like trolls…amazing. I’m going to check out his track record and add it under this post later. Who is the bigger ass, this guy, Duncan Kennedy, or Time’s very own Tim Padgett? I’m liking Tim. He reminds me of the infamous Dana Milbank. You remember Dana: the Washington Post WH Correspondent who served with Jeff Gannon for a year or so without reporting that Jeff was “a ringer.” Oh, who am I, a mere citizen , to say such things about the Mandarins working so hard to keep the incompetent elites in power. Shame on me…

BBC: 09.03
What next for divided Mexico?

After left-wing lawmakers protesting at alleged election fraud forced outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox to abandon a key speech, the BBC's Duncan Kennedy asks just how far the protests could go.

Protesting deputies in Congress
The protest shocked and amazed many Mexicans

Will they or won't they? It had been the hot political gossip of the week in Mexico City, a place that has turned speculation and rumour almost into a science.

Everyone was talking about whether the left-wing MPs would try to disrupt President Fox's last state of the nation speech or whether they would just sit in irreverent silence.

In the end they could not resist the opportunity.

On national television they decided their moment had come - the chance to secure some sort of leftist victory, however short-lived, over right wingers.

As stunts go, it was pretty impressive and quite well organized. (Ed. Comment. This guy reeks!)

Armed with photos and banners they took the high ground that was the podium and fired off salvos of abuse against the still absent President Fox.

"A traitor" they called him. It was an extraordinary sight - a kind of tactical victory after weeks of strategic retreat.

"I beg you to return to your seats,"came the forlorn cry from the speaker of the House. The chanting continued.

"Vote by vote," the deputies shouted, the now familiar mantra of their long-running campaign to get all the votes in the recent presidential election recounted.

[autorank]

9. Mexico: Now for the Real News from Al Giordano – The Narco News Bulletin

They happen to be there, they read and speak fluent Spanish, they talk to everyone they can…in other words they’re just the opposite of the phlegmatic coverage we’re getting form the NYT, Washington Post, Time and the Blair version of the BBC (remember, he forced out the head of BBC a couple of years ago)..

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

10. Part I: 2.5 Million “Missing” Votes Reappear in Mexico…Margin Narrows

In Mexico, 2.5 Million Missing Votes Reappear: López Obrador Reduces Calderón’s Official Margin to 0.6 percent
IFE’s Claim that 98.5 Percent of Votes Had Been Counted Was False: Authorities Now Oppose Recount

By Al Giordano
Part I of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1962.html

July 5, 2006

Today, in Mexico, begins a “recount” of votes cast in Sunday’s presidential election… in which the umpires are refusing to recount the votes.

Election authorities of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) closed ranks on Tuesday with the National Action Party (PAN) of President Vicente Fox and candidate Felipe Calderón to oppose the actual recounting the votes. This, on the heels of Tuesday’s “discovery” of 2.5 million votes hidden by IFE since Sunday’s election, added to a growing body of evidence – and corresponding public distrust in the institutions – that a gargantuan electoral fraud has been perpetrated.

The partial “recount” began at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, in Mexico’s 300 election districts – each with an average of 400 polling places and 140,000 votes to tabulate – and sparks are already flying over the struggle to conduct an authentic count in the sunlight of public scrutiny. Attorneys and party bosses of the PAN – whose triumphalism has turned to visible panic in recent hours – have orders from headquarters to universally oppose the reopening of any ballot boxes and subsequent public accounting of the actual number of votes cast for each candidate. On the other side, representatives of the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) of candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador and many outraged citizens armed with video cameras have besieged the 300 recount locales demanding an actual ballot-by-ballot recount.

This first stage of the process is likely to take days: Results from more than 11,000 precincts (the ones hidden by IFE – in most of them, López Obrador won the vote) that must be recounted, vote-by-vote, in accordance with Mexican electoral law. That is an average of almost 40 polling places per district. And with two well-organized sides battling over whether the votes will be counted aloud, combined with the stonewalling incompetence that has been IFE’s trademark, an already fragile process is coming apart at the seams.



Police cordon a Nezahuacoyotl garbage dump where ballots and ballot-boxes from three precincts won by López Obrador were discovered on Tuesday.Photo: D.R. 2006 El Universal

[autorank]

11. Part II: Full Recount Would Show that Obrador Won by 1.0 Million Plus

A Full Recount Would Show that López Obrador Won Mexico’s Presidency by More than One Million Votes

The Tip of the Iceberg of the Crimes Committed by Mexican Electoral Authorities Is the Fraudulent Vote Count of 2006
By Al Giordano
Part II of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

July 8, 2006
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

Commercial Media organizations are reporting that Felipe Calderòn won Sunday’s presidential election by 0.58 percent of the vote and will govern Mexico for the next six years, beginning on December 1.

It would not be the first time that the Commercial Media has been wrong.
Many of those reports have claimed that Wednesday’s first official count of precinct results in Mexico – 130,000 pieces of paper that claim to represent the vote tallies – was a “recount.”

It would not be the first time that lazy “pack journalism” got a major international story wrong.

The truth: No recount occurred on Wednesday, or before, or since. What occurred – we repeat – was only the first official count of precinct tallies.

A Narco News investigation has found that in the small sample of precincts – less than one percent – where a recount was allowed, the shift in numbers away from Calderón was so drastic that, if recounts of all the ballots followed the same trend, the official results would invert and Andrés Manuel López Obrador would become the clear winner of the presidency by more than one million votes:

[autorank]

12. Part III: Mexico’s Election Fraud is Coming Undone

Death by Video: Mexico’s Election Fraud Is Coming Undone
Video and Audio Evidence, an Outraged Citizenry, and Panic from the White House Are Converging to Make López Obrador the Next Mexican President

By Al Giordano
Part III of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1972.html
July 11, 2006

At six p.m. last night, Monday, July 10, neighbors of the office of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) in Comalcalco, Tabasco, witnessed a crime against democracy. They didn’t just stand there. They did something about it. And this one small example of the fighting spirit of the Mexican people explains why the historic presidential election fraud of July 2, 2006 will not stand.

Nine days after the fact, neither the IFE, nor President Vicente Fox, nor his National Action Party (PAN), nor their candidate Felipe Calderón, nor the Commercial Media at their service, have been able to reassert control over the juggernaut of facts, audio and video evidence, and public outrage that today tramples their anti-democratic gambit. The Fraud of 2006, and those who attempted it, are drowning under an authentically democratic tide. Take, for example, what just occurred in the Tabasco town of Comalcalco.

A picture saves 70,000 votes: Monday night in Comalcalco, Tabasco.
Photo: D.R. 2006 La Jornada

Study this photograph from today’s La Jornada. A campaign truck covered with PAN party logos, slogans, and the faces of three of their candidates – the one in the middle is Calderón – is parked in front of a building. From the balcony of the colonial-style structure shines an illuminated sign with three large letters: I… F… E. Citizens have arrived by foot and by bicycle and have blocked the entrances to the IFE building and the PAN truck. Not all of them appear in the photo, but there are 500 of them and they are hopping mad. Trapped inside are at least ten IFE officials who, according to eyewitnesses, illegally entered the building, brought sealed ballot boxes out into the patio, and began to open them, breaking the official seals. They were seen revising anew the “actas” with the vote tallies and recounting the ballots, without, as the law requires, the presence of representatives from all the political parties. The neighbors sounded the alarm and the electoral delinquents have been caught in the act.

[autorank]

14. Part IV: Mexico’s Court Orders Partial Recount (9% )

Mexico's Electoral Tribunal Orders Partial Recount to Begin on Wednesday

By Al Giordano,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2006/8/5/142225/7442
Posted on Sat Aug 5th, 2006 at 02:22:25 PM EST
In a Solomonic decision, the seven justices of Mexico’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal (known as the Trife) cut the baby of democracy in half.

In doing so, they added more uncertainty and drama to an already tense crisis. The court’s decision to allow a recount in only half of Mexico’s 300 electoral districts could still result in an historic reversal of official tallies that gave a razor-thin advantage to National Action Party (PAN) candidate Felipe Calderón (who the Federal Elections Commission, know as IFE, claims won by .58 percent or 240,000 votes), making former Mexico City governor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) the comeback kid of this year’s cloudy election process.

Alternately, it could narrow the margin between the two candidates to an extent that makes evident the need for a full recount.

The judges rejected appeals for a full recount in the country’s 130,000 precincts (where the official tally gives Calderón the advantage by less than two votes per precinct), instead opting to limit the recount to 11,839, about nine percent of the ballots cast. Attorneys for López Obrador supplied documentation of electoral fraud in 72,000 of the country’s 130,000 precincts. In a recount of that many districts, a change of only three votes per precinct would likely reverse the official tally making López Obrador the winner. However, the court has opted for a recount in only 11,839. That means that to reverse the national tally, a difference of 21 votes per precinct toward López Obrador would be required.

The messiest scenario will come if this sample of 11,000 precincts shows a shift averaging more than two or three votes per precinct toward López Obrador. If so, the national clamor for a full recount will boil over into a national rebellion. The court will have to either reconsider the matter of a full or larger recount or the post-electoral conflict will move from the courts to the streets and highways of Mexico.

The partial recount ordered by the court will begin Wednesday, August 9, and last for one week (in which regional judges will count ballots in public sessions, including over next weekend) and the results must be submitted by August 16. The clock will then be ticking with just 15 days left until the court’s August 31 deadline to conduct recounts and its September 6 deadline to declare a presidential victor or, alternately, annul the election, bringing forward an even muddier scenario in which the federal Congress will have to choose an interim president to attempt to govern a divided populace.

[autorank]

15. Part V: Partial Recount Confirms Massive & Systematic Election in Mexico

Mexico’s Partial Vote Recount Confirms Massive and Systematic Election Fraud
With Less than 9 Percent of Precincts Recounted, More than 126,000 Votes Are Found to Have Been Disappeared or Illegally Fabricated

By Al Giordano
Part V of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article2010.html

August 14, 2006

Finally, the hard numbers are starting to come in. In the “partial recount” of paper ballots from the July 2 presidential election in Mexico, ordered by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (known as the Trife), the recount has been completed in 10,679 precincts of the 11,839 ordered by the court (about 9 percent of Mexico’s 130,000 precincts). From these precincts, Narco News has obtained the following preliminary numbers that confirm the massive and systematic electoral fraud inflicted on the Mexican people:

* In 3,074 precincts (29 percent of those recounted), 45,890 illegal votes, above the number of voters who cast ballots in each polling place, were found stuffed inside the ballot boxes (an average of 15 for each of these precincts, primarily in strongholds of the National Action Party, known as the PAN, of President Vicente Fox and his candidate, Felipe Calderón).

* In 4,368 precincts (41 percent of those recounted), 80,392 ballots of citizens who did vote are missing (an average of 18 votes in each of these precincts).

* Together, these 7,442 precincts contain about 70 percent of the ballots recounted. The total amount of ballots either stolen or forged adds up to 126,282 votes altered.

* If the recount results of these 10,679 precincts (8.2 percent of the nation’s 130,000 polling places) are projected nationwide, it would mean that more than 1.5 million votes were either stolen or stuffed in an election that the first official count claimed was won by Calderon by only 243,000 votes.

* Among the findings of this very limited partial recount are that in 3,079 precincts where the PAN party is strong and where, in many cases, the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) of candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador did not count with election night poll watchers, one or more of three things occurred: Either the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) illegally provided more ballots than there are voters in those precincts, or the PAN party stole those extra ballots, or ballots were forged.

[shifting_sands]

13. Of the People

I caught you on Brad Blog and thought the article was fantastic. What did Galbraith mean that Obrador was down 129,000 on election night? Wonder how far he will get with setting up his own government. That would be fantastic. How many people are standing with him? Do you know? it looks like thousands. By the way, there was no green tea at Brad Blog. I used to know a little guy "Guido" and he pretty much slurped up whatever he could find, made me think about that tonight. Pretty funny, well at least to me, but you would have to know Guido. Sorry, inside joke.

Obrador is going to need a lot of help and I would love to know the percentage of people supporting him as well as the percentage of politicians.

[autorank]

22. Public Opinion...

It's hard to gage that. Angus Reid Consultants have the most polls. I don't know enough to really speak to the credibility or bias there. Early on, Reid had Calderon ahead in public opinion since the people thought he'd been elected. Then it shifted to preference for a recount. The 9% recount may have shifted things back in Calderon's favor, since Reid talks about a high percentage of Mexicans preferring that the resistance stop. Still Obrador is supported strongly by his party; the second largest in Mexico. Things will shift more.

This http://tinyurl.com/s4ru2 is actually an intelligent commentary from the LA Times (must have slipped by the editor;). it points out that Obrador looks very good for his leadership strength compared to Fox who is leaving with some popularity (he was the first to oust the PRI which sat on Mexico politics for decades).

The people at the Obrador campaign are, no doubt, under great pressure, yet they move foreword. There needs to be a deal, a recognition of the wrong that was done since the election really "stunk up the place" as some relatives used to say. Part of the deal would be power sharing and another would be a TRULY independent election structure, e.g., one where a candidates' brother-in-law was not programming the voting software for that institute. Good grief!!!

Welcome to DU!!!

[Richard Steele]

16. I said it before- the CA 50th decision means Repubs never 'lose' again.

It's a simple formula, and one just SLEAZY enough
for the corrupt & desperate Repubs to use:

A: On Election Night, all sitting repubs (and probably Joe Lieberman)
and all REPUB CANDIDATES assemble in D.C.

B: The MOMENT the polls close, they begin 'swearing in' every
Repub candidate.

C: There is no "C". A&B are it; it's OVER. Game/Set/Match.

Every Repub candidate is sworn in before midnight EST,
so don't even bother counting the votes: they have a Court decision
that says the "Swearing-In" trumps EVERYTHING.

So the 'official tally' (the next day) says the repub in your State LOST
the election by 2 million votes?
It doesn't matter; he was sworn in 12 hours ago,
and the CA50 decision says THAT is what really counts.

[autorank]

29. dicksteele...You've got the concept - retain power at all costs. n/t

[autorank]

17. AZ: "SEND ME YOUR BALLOT, I'LL SEND YOU $10"

OpEdNews. 09.03.06
Election Reform or Something Else Entirely? No Easy Answers Here

by Michael Shelby
http://tinyurl.com/lc33k

http://www.opednews.com

SEND ME YOUR BALLOT, I'LL SEND YOU $10 – VOTE NO ON PROP. 205

There's a new front on the battle for election integrity. Proposition 205, the so-called "Your Right to Vote by Mail Act" presents me with a distinct and confounding problem. While I don't a priori oppose voting by mail, having done so in the past, I cannot support this proposition in its current form. I cannot support this proposition in its current form because our elections processes are all too fragile to impose another dose of problems on them. My biggest concern is that Prop. 205 is really just another smoke screen under which a particular class of voters will be disenfranchised, their votes tossed out, or being barred from voting altogether.

Prop. 205 affords more problems than it provides conveniences. I am no fan of Prop. 200 either or the draconian, redundant, and discriminatory identification requirements it imposes on everyone; but will most likely disenfranchise elderly widows more than the poor and brown people it was targeted for. Prop. 205 practically nullifies Prop. 200 by allowing someone, once registered, to mail in their ballot with nothing but a signature comparison for ID verification. The tedious work of signature verification will need to be elevated to some level of high-tech scanning device or a whole bunch more eyeballs will need to be hired to look at all those signatures. And how will they handle those changes in signature characteristics from aging, injury, or disease? Will a ballot signed by someone with a broken hand be discarded? How about a voter with Parkinson's disease, will their vote not be counted? But those are just managerial problems.

Send me your ballot, I'll send you $10!

The real problem is found when we consider that stealing American elections is not illegal in Mexico or Canada. Arizona's own Nathan Sproul, campaign manager for Arizona gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil and former State RNC Chair, was caught red-handed in Oregon and Nevada working for the RNC in 2004 registering only Republican voters and actively destroying the registration forms of Democrats. You haven't heard about this because, just as in the LD 20 primary debacle, the United States Justice Department took over the investigation and it too went down the memory hole. And Sproul is up to his dirty tricks again but I'll leave that for another time. With 'burglars' and 'paid assassins' like Sproul getting away with electoral fraud, and Karl Rove still out there, how hard is it to surmise that some other enterprising thieves could conspire to buy ballots safely out of reach of US law by setting up operations across the borders. Sadly, in the divisive political climate we find ourselves in today, an election can be determined by a difference of as little as one or two votes per precinct!

[autorank]

18. OH: New Blackwell Spokesperson, Same Message

OpEdNews.Com: 09.02.06
Ohio Election – Blackwell's Spokesperson has
Changed from LoParo to Lee but the Lies Remain the Same

by Steven Leser
http://tinyurl.com/fjwbe

http://www.opednews.com

Steven Leser

In the aftermath of Ohio's disputed 2004 election, I had a phone interview with Carlo LoParo, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's erstwhile spokesperson (see http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41bdf9f1ad056.html ) in which Mr. LoParo gave a series of statements bolstering the idea that the election was conducted fairly. In subsequent interviews with the Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties, those statements were exposed as falsehoods. In particular, LoParo "stressed that each county in Ohio has an election board consisting of two Republicans and two Democrats and that each board 'unanimously voted to certify their election results on December 6th.'". The implied idea is that since local counties are in charge and some of them have Democrats as chair people or members, Blackwell, a Republican, could neither be involved in any fraud or rigging of the results nor could he in any way affect the outcome.

This is remarkably similar to an August 21, 2006 statement to the Associated Press made by Blackwell's current spokesperson James Lee who said "Anyone who is objectively looking at the election system in Ohio knows that we have a bipartisan voting system that is run primarily at the county level, that bipartisan boards determined whether to place individual voting machines ... It's amazing that there are still those conspiracy theorists out there who refuse to accept the facts." There is good reason why there are continuing 'theories' of malfeasance with regard to the conduct of Ohio's elections. Blackwell and his people do not seem to know how to play it straight when asked simple questions.

What I discovered nearly two years ago is that local county election boards are completely under the control of Ohio's Secretary of State, in this case still Mr. Kenneth Blackwell. In a December 20, 2004 interview with William A. Anthony (see http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41c754d14d6d9.html ), then chair of Ohio's Franklin County Board of Elections, Mr. Anthony made it clear when he said "Even though county board members are chosen by their party ... Blackwell has the power to remove any board member of any county elections board if they fail to carry out the law or any of his directives."

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

19. WI: Oh boy! Massive Reform & Centralized Voter Registration Databases

Wisconsin sounds like a great state to watch election night. They’ve really loaded up there. Must be that “Cheese Head” efficiency at work. Party on folks. We’ll be watching and we’ll be voting too.

The Chippewa Falls Online/AP: 09/02
Big changes for voters in primary

By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press
http://tinyurl.com/mnlpx

MADISON — Republicans are worried about voter fraud. The League of Women Voters fears a “de facto disenfranchisement.” And municipal clerks are concerned about following all the new state and federal elections mandates.

The Sept. 12 partisan primary election will feature the most sweeping elections reforms in the state in decades.

The changes include a statewide voter registration system being used in hundreds of municipalities for the first time, new standards for registering to vote on election day and a number of new state and federal laws. Some worry the changes will confuse voters and poll workers across the state.

“My biggest concern is that people will feel discouraged from voting,” said Andrea Kaminski, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. “It could be a de facto disenfranchisement.”

[rodeodance]

21. Red Cheezeheads aer Skinky cheeze. I stay away from them.

[cal04]

20. Candidate: Mexico Needs New Constitution

wow! Thanks :)autorank

Candidate: Mexico Needs New Constitution
Leftist candidate, contesting election, says Mexico needs new constitution, radical change
Mexico's leftist presidential candidate, who is contesting his rival's election victory, told followers Sunday the country needs a "radical transformation" and he plans to draft a new constitution.

(snip)
He has called supporters to a mass meeting in Mexico City's central plaza to plot strategy on Sept. 16 _ the same day and place Mexico's army stages an annual Independence Day parade.

The former Mexico City mayor, who portrays himself as the savior of the poor, also plans to hold a "democratic convention" that day in which he will declare his parallel government.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/04/ap/world/mainD8JTORD00.shtml

:kick:

[freedomfries]

23. K & R

thanks for yet another inspiring news commentary, auto!

[msedano]

25. more images from last year, though

check out the undercover narc in the dolphins jersey. tan undercover, he sure fooled me.
these are from chapultepec parque, a small AMLO demonstration protesting the government's first attempt: to booth Lopez Obrador out of office, "desafuero"


a few other images at
http://readraza.com/desa/index.htm

oh, i recommend this for greatest thread.

[autorank]

27. Thanks for the Pics - the real deal...

That guy does look like he's a bit out of place, like by about 2000 miles. Where's the damn game?

:hi:

[autorank]

26. New DU Election Forum Mascot

I introduced HAVA the Easter Bunny some time ago to everyone's consernation (or you simply didn't pay attention). It was a vision from Donny Darko renamed HAVA the Easter Bunny. Wall HAVA is in rehab.

I've found an appropriate substitute. I have no idea of the name of this critter, but it's the Obrador/PRD symbol for a
Clean Sweep of Fraud. Suitable for framing:

[msedano]

28. it's a red ant. myrmidon. hormiga.

don't know its name, but definitely an hormiga. and it looks red. and its hands look like match heads.

a couple of leads for you. On 8/23, an AMLO portavoz says:
14:59 La coalición Por el Bien de Todos afirmó hoy que hubo un "fraude planeado y orquestado de manera hormiga", en contra de su candidato presidencial, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

"The coalition for the well-being of everyone asserted today there was a 'fraud, planned and orchestrated to run like an anthill" meaning the poll workers were infiltrated across the land and stole the election piece by piece.

otoh, achilles' warriors were the swarming myrmidon. but then, we all know about achilleus' heel. let's hope AMLO's truculence refusing the join the debates, doesn't reach out and bite him on the ass like some ass-crawling ant.

finally, pre-columbian food features ant egg cases, like sushi, or caviar. Look up escamoles.

then again, i'm probably totally wrong. equivocado, as the americans from south of the us border will say, now and again.

[autorank]

30. Entymological etymology...THANK YOU!!! for the ALMO quote...

That's perfect. I'll go with that. It's a cute little guy/thing and it's headed for a
clean sweep of the fraud bugs...

I love creative commons photographic material, which all of this is. It's just out there
and it's excellent.

Keep us posted on your research;) :think:

[kpete]

31. site looks GREAT

Tons of good info:
http://www.electionfraudnews.com/

[FogerRox]

32. Knr... Auto great work on the ERD

[autorank]

34. Notice I'm using theFogerRox title "ERD News"

Short and sweet and it leaves room for content.

Keep up the good work rabble rousing; a most honorable profession!!!

[Algorem]

33. Aviel Rubin guest on Diane Rehm Wednesday

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/09/06.php#11126

Wednesday September 6, 2006

Join the show: 1-800-433-8850 ([e-mail])

Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting

10:00Aviel Rubin: "Brave New Ballot" (Morgan Road Books)

Guests

Aviel Rubin, professor, computer science, Johns Hopkins University and author of a forthcoming book, "Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting"



http://www.bravenewballot.org/

http://www.bravenewballot.org/resources/

Book Description

In 2003, Computer Science Professor Avi Rubin touched off a national debate when he revealed that security glitches in the Diebold electronic voting machines could make it easier for election results to be compromised. Rubin himself became the center of the uproar: Diebold initiated a campaign to ruin his career; election officials in localities that had invested in the system dismissed his findings; and the media, misinterpreting his objections to specific weaknesses, cast him as a Luddite.

In Brave New Ballot, Rubin tells the story of his role as a whistle-blower (including the toll it took on his career and family) and recounts his observations as an election judge in Baltimore County, which gave him a full picture of electronic voting in action. Addressing both technical and legal problems, he shows how easy it is to rig an election. He describes the vulnerability of computerized systems to tampering, not only by insiders like poll workers but also by outsiders able to breach the system without detection.

The election process for millions of voters is being transformed as electronic voting machines replace older mechanical systems throughout the country and Internet voting becomes a reality. Brave New Ballot is the first book to describe the systemic imperfections that may have affected past elections and to spell out what must be done to assure fair elections in the future.