Here's yet another indication that election officials commited fraud in the November election.
Dean Logan admitted in his deposition on Monday that he knew that provisional ballots went into the Accuvote machine before he certified the election. Never mind the astonishing breach of public trust for covering this up for weeks. If he submitted to the canvassing board information that he knew to be incorrect and then signed off on the certification, that would appear to be a criminal act. In his defense, he asserted that the law requires the canvassing board to certify on an exact date. Not true. It requires the board to certify only "if [the returns] can be ascertained with reasonable certainty". That same law requires the board to tell the truth about what it does certify.
This file contains the main documents that were presented to the canvassing board. See in particular page 14 -- the "Provisional Ballot Summary Report" -- and page 18 -- The "Certification of the Canvassing Board". In the minutes from the certification meeting (transcript from audiotape still in progress), Bill Huennekens read from the Provisional Ballot Summary Report immediately before the board certified the results, with the statement:
The undersigned officers designated by law as constituting the Canvassing Board for the County of King, State of Washington, herby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the Abstract of Votes cast at the State General Election heled on November 2, 2004.I'm no lawyer, so perhaps a lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong to suggest that certifying an election on the basis of information you know to be incorrect is a Class C felony ? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 22, 2005 10:42 AM | Email This
As usual great work my friend.Now if you
could only see how corrupt the king county
republican party is.Never in my life have
I seen a group so hell bent on doing whatever
they have to keep power.
What they are doing to steve hammond is
unbelieveable.They are systematically
stacking the deck against him in these
upcoming caucuses.They are freezing out
those that would support steve.
Because there so in the tank for reagan
dunn.Its unfortunate that these people
cannot see what they are doing is killing
the gop in king county.If things don't
change soon I am afraid we won't able to turn
things around here.
It's just so obvious, there was no way given the shoddy procedures followed that Logan could honestly say that the results were certifiable within the incredibly close margin of victory. Yet in a highly partisan move, he went ahead and certified anyway.
If Logan was truly the unbiased advocate of truth and honesty that he claims to be, he would have stopped the certification of the election back in November and demanded closer scrutiny of all of the documentumentation to pertaining to the election until he could be sure of an accurate result.
Any 8th grader in a basic sceince class (ok, well maybe not an 8th grader attending Seattle public schools) can see that it's impossible to measure the result of this past gubernatorial race with certainty given the lack of procedures in recordkeeping. King County Elections has no way of generating an accurate result and all evidence points to many ballots that were improperly introduced into the universe of cast ballots.
I'm now willing to place some money on the odds of Gregoire leaving the governor's mansion soon.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 22, 2005 10:57 AMLet me give you a little clue -- they never do.
How many times do you have to understand the word "loser?"
Posted by: Nelson on April 22, 2005 11:02 AMIt is easy to understand the word 'loser' when you keep posting your illogical cr@p here all the time. You remind us what a 'loser' is quite frequently.
Phil Spackman,
Okay, Phil, we KNOW your opinion of the KCRP already! If you want to fix it, run for office. If not, why not keep to the subject of the original thread?
GREAT WORK STEFAN!
Posted by: Larry on April 22, 2005 11:05 AMAnyone see the connection between this and Kennedy's brother in law? Hint: People talk about corrupt politicians, but the republicans were never the party of mass corruption. I mean, even Watergate pales in comparison with this. Nixon may have stolen documents, but he never committed vote fraud. He certainly never slashed tires on the day of the elections or shot at democrat offices from a car.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 22, 2005 11:33 AMLogan will try every avenue possible to rationalize:
1) Knowingly presenting falsified documents to the Canvassing Board.
2) Failure to disclose known errors to the Canvassing Board.
3) Voting to certify based on false reports.
The time for Logan to present all these lame-ass excuses was BEFORE HE CERTIFIED!! To do it after he was forced to testify under oath is transparent. The other thing that will come into play in his prosecution are all his public comments pre- and post-election. I believe the known facts contradicted his cover-up efforts on many, many issues. Tapes of all his comments, including the Sims press conference and appearances before the County Council will be evidence used against him. Did Logan knowingly lie repeatedly? Why?
Frankly, I'm more interested in hearing whatinfluence Sims, through Sims' henchman, tried to put on Logan. In fact, I'd go along with immunity for Logan and Huennekens if they have anything valuable in this regard. Hold Don Ron Sims King accountable folks....and the Gregoire geeks. Logan is a pawn...a willing patsy??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 22, 2005 11:36 AMI confess I did not know this provision was in the code, so I take back my comment last week that willful violation of the elections code is purely a tort; the legislature has invoked the criminal code. That the prosecutor's office is not investigating seems to me to be professional negligence (and likely politically motivated) - and that may well change . . . .
Posted by: srogers on April 22, 2005 11:40 AMViola!! We get ... Nlosen.
Hmmm - "lose" may just be a character mixup at Nelsons core. As if we didn't already know.
YAWN.
Posted by: Mike J on April 22, 2005 11:43 AMAs far as the KC party is concerned, I have to agree. I remember being at the recount center and seeing Dan Brady sitting in the corner office strategizing and "bigshotting" with his feet up on the desk while many of us volunteers were throwing a fit over what was going on downstairs. Our pockets got picked directly under his watch. Not only did they steal the governor's mansion, but all of the money that has been spent to uncover and fight these crimes.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on April 22, 2005 11:44 AMSo if Sim's and crew could keep the coverup intact. The election would be valid, and Empress Gregoire attointed and dressed in new clothes.
It's only fraud because someone had the tenacity to go up against city hall and start uncovering inrregularities.
Ergo:
It's Sharks fault King Co. has a fraudulent election.
Pure Genius, Brilliant.
Posted by: JCM on April 22, 2005 11:48 AMLogan admits he knew when he certified the election that the number of ballots counted included ballots cast in violation of the elections code. Whether or not they were cast accidently is irrelevant - he knew they had been cast. He certified the election anyway and lied about it, and continues to lie about it, is THAT is what consitutes the felony.
Get it?
Posted by: srogers on April 22, 2005 11:48 AM("windmills tip over".... sheesh!)
Posted by: chuck Miller on April 22, 2005 11:49 AMThese people have got to be going nuts. And the ones that haven't shown up yet are probably in a fetal position in their jammies sucking their thumbs and mumbling.
Let's welcome the trolls. The very fact that they are hanging out shows that they are healing and working through their inner conflicts of Marxism. Their posts here are mostly written to themselves as an attempt to justify their beliefs. Give them time - some of the best conservatives started out the same way before their epiphanies.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on April 22, 2005 12:06 PMNo, lucy we don't. Why don't you enlighten us? What are the real reasons for this fraud? Just how deep does the corruption go? Why do the democrats have to resort to fraud to keep winning elections in this state? Is this state really a majority Republican? Are we really supposed to have a house and senate controlled by republicans? Have King Sims and his cohorts been winning all of their elections in King Co by fraud this past decade?
Tell me, Lucy, what are the real reasons? Why did they commit fraud?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 22, 2005 12:14 PMWho wants to sue KC for violating the WAC?
Do we need more proff than an admission under oath?
Yes he is a big fish, but he isn’t the ‘brains of the operation.’
I firmly believe that he was put in to implement measures designed to facilitate ‘distributed vote fraud.’ (Distributed vote fraud, for those of you from Rio Linda, is a deliberate and systematic rigging of the process in such a way as to allow those with a proclivity to cast ‘other than lawful’ votes every oportunity to do so. It also includes ancillary activity, such as holding registration drives that target people who are not legally qualified to vote)
This scheme has been part of the modus operandi of Big City Democrat Political machines and up till now they have been able to escape behind a veil of plausible deniability afforded elections 'officials' by the illusion that there is a certain degree of uncertainty in any ‘human’ endeavor. The problem they have here is that EVERYTHING in one certain county ‘broke one way,’ in other counties there were ‘irregularities’ too, but they did not all break one way.
What happened is that the scam was not properly implemented so as to allow an illusion of ‘sloppiness’ that would allow old Deano to skirt criminality. He is caught, IMHO he isn’t going to ‘fry’ for this. His attorney is probably advising him to start distancing himself from Sims & Co and to start remembering every little thing that can be used to show that he was acting on someone’s ‘orders.’ That is the only chance he has to save his own skin, the Pierce/King/Washington Democrat Political Machine is headed up by a bunch of coldblooded (however amateurish) SOBs who would have no compunction throwing him to the wolves, if they thought that in doing so they could save their own sorry a$$es, his only shot is to be just as ruthless towards them.
Posted by: JDH on April 22, 2005 12:26 PMProof that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"(Thank you Michael Savage)
I think you've had enough of that Jesus Juice girl, put the cork back in. And yes, the end is near.
Posted by: RedState on April 22, 2005 12:34 PMCount the vote - Rossi wins! Darn, count it again.
Count the vote - Gregoire wins! Quick, slap a certification on it. Don't worry if we counted it correctly, we know we didn't. Just certify it and it's done and over with.
Not so fast, pilgrim....
You may not feel that anything was wrong with this last election, which is fine. But why don't you want to see what comes out to know that it was fair? Why aren't you chomping at the bit to have the republicans proven wrong because it was a fair election?
I must be missing something.
Posted by: Fred on April 22, 2005 01:06 PMa) there are a disturbing number of reports where dems only were handling the ballots in KCEs' control. Not just the blank ones goin' out the door.
b) the dems argument has always tried to focus upon "counting the votes", not on the handling of the ballots or the sources of the ballots...or even matching ballots to voters. And heaven forbid someone mention accountability.
Anytime a party to a lawsuit makes a concerted effort to focus the attention on simple math errors, rather than the real points of contention, it is the legal equivalent of a magician using misdirection, for the purpose of hiding the real manipulation.
Posted by: scott158 on April 22, 2005 01:07 PMGuess what, there is nothing left of the DEMOCRAT BASE nothing but a bunch of disaffected self-mutilators and burnt out old 60's rejects.
I understand your rage, I would be PO-d too if I saw that my worldview had been totally discredited and that there was no vital young blood to carry my vision into the future. Ya know what else? I know what has you more upset than anything, the FACT that the largest clubs on MOST college campuses are the COLLEG REPUBLICANS.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you miserable self-loathing loser.
Congratulations, you are an idiot!
Left wingers - better get your application for Canada in now, there is going to be a rush.
Posted by: VCRW on April 22, 2005 01:37 PMTwo more whoppers:
1.) "Poll workers are trained to ensure that every ballot is retrieved from the side bin of the base unit at the end of the night. I did this training personally with each of the polling place inspectors in advance of the general election." Really? So how come they found these "extra ballots"?" Hmmm....
2.) After Election Day and before certification of the election crews attempt to go to polling locations and double-check each base unit. We were unable to gain access to all the locations and all units are not able to be checked." Whaddya mean you could not gain access? I thought you were "The Man"! Now where did all those extra ballots come from...
Stefan, thatnks for this document. It blew me away.
December 20th - Determination of Voter intent on 1627 ballots. Whaddya mean, we need more Gregoire votes?
Wow, eye opening.
NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 22, 2005 01:46 PMExactly and what you just described is the essence of Goldy's argument over at HA. Baiscally, na, na, na, na, na, the elections over, too late to go back and find flaws, try again next time.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 22, 2005 02:20 PMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 22, 2005 03:12 PMThe canvassing board was supposed to certify that the election returns were a "full, true and correct representation of the votes cast."
Instead, read what they actually "certified": “The undersigned officers...hereby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the Abstract of Votes cast....”
Also, check out Logan's "oath." He didn't swear that the abstract was accurate. He only swore to this statement: “I solemnly swear that the returns of the State General Election held on November 2, 2004, in King County, State of Washington, have been in no way altered by additions or erasures and that they are the same as when they were deposited in my office.”
Logan's oath takes the most limited, literal interpretation of the statute and uses it to say that the information he handed to the canvassing board might be garbage, but he didn't make any "additions or erasures" to change that garbage.
The statute uses the word "authenticity" to describe what Logan is supposed to certify. "Authenticity" can be read to mean only that he is forwarding exactly what he was handed -- not that he believes it is a full, true and correct representation of the legitimate votes cast. And, of course, that seems to be the meaning used for "authenticity" in Logan's oath.
Did they intentionally make it appear that they were saying something meaningful in the oath and certification, while in fact they were only saying "garbage in, garbage out"?
If Logan and the canvassing board weren't responsible for determining whether the returns were a "full, true and correct representation of votes cast," who was?
Do other counties use these same meaningless (but at first glance meaningful) oaths and certifications?
Posted by: Micajah on April 22, 2005 03:32 PMAnd then we can all get back to our SUV's and Plasma t.v. while complaining about the creep, no, the leap of government.
Meanwhile, "Do you want to watch Braveheart again tonight honey?" (Aside to audience: I love living vicariously.)
We are close to taking this state back????
For what?
The last porn free 7-11 in my community was recently bought by Arab ethnics and is now offering up porn with the Slushies and Big Bites. Five 7-11's in my town. Four are Arab or Pakistani owned, one Caucasion owed. All porn sellers now. This is not an America in which I want to live.
Beam me up Jesus.
Posted by: Jericho on April 22, 2005 03:47 PMWith hatred,
The Lord of the Flies.
Oh wait... wrong party. Doesn't work here.
Posted by: Ken on April 22, 2005 04:04 PM
Nuff Said.
Can Logan *legally* alter the wording on the statute and oath? This seems to be the theme among Democrats here in this state - they take a law, statute, oath, etc...and *spin* it to suit their immediate need - instead of interpreting it in the spirit in which it was written.
If Logan altered the wording of his oath and purposely misinterpreted the statute.....this contest will be over on May 2nd...and the Governors race will be thrown out.
Now that King County is looking at the potential of thousands of illegitimate ballots counted...I'm wondering if the other races held in November should also have a relook? We are getting into enough invalid ballots now to have had consequences in other races in the state...
Posted by: Deborah on April 22, 2005 08:38 PMYou are calling us dickweeds? You mean DOL gave you a license too? Well as long as we are ahead of you on I-5 we're happy.
My NUFF SAID is my moniker. You can't even create your own identity. Find another. You are MAD, BAD, SAD. Everytime you type on your keyboard, you prove to us the windtunnel is fully operational upon your neck. I bet when your friends look in your eyes, they see a Neon sign flashing "Vacancy" or "Space Available Here". Enough of the puns for te day.
Headless, when you think of something you call pithy, take out your crayons and write it out. Edit it, and then type it out. If it is pertinent to the Dino Rossi challenge, please type it here and we'll read it for clarity, correctness, topical forthrightness, and last but not least originality. So far for the last few weeks as Stefan has found out more KCEC funny pages your topical forthrightness and originality scores are failing grades.
NUFF SAID!!!!
Posted by: Puddybud on April 23, 2005 07:27 AMMoreover, we ALL know that the former lobbyist fo rthe AFL-CIO, under the direction of the socialist King County Executive, working to install the extremist liberal former attorney general will never suffer criminal or civil sanction. They have succeeded in packing the whole corrupt government with fellow travelers that will NOT act in the interest of the people. It's all about maintaining the self sustaining ability to inflict their views on others, and there is no vice in extremism to accomplish it, in their minds.
They want a government superior to the citizens, and have largely got it now. Just look at the output of this year's legislature. Taxes, regulations, costs, and even more takings to 'make things fair' for those who can't pay the outrageous results.
I remain disgusted with them, but am becoming quite disgusted at the large number of people that cannot seem to equate the actions of these people with the miseries visited upon them, and choose to remain sheep like in the face of daily outrage.
Sadly, it's such a pretty day out, and I am already disguested. Let's put the state into receivership, clean it up, and have happy days again.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 23, 2005 08:01 AMWhile the word probably should be spelled fraudulently,
I think you get the message, but choose to be childish and idiotic
and off topic in your postings. Your rhetoric has increased since the
Democrats are starting to look like the losers and cheaters that they are.
Thanks for being such a shining example of the lunatic liberal left.
Your personal attacks make it clear that the left has no real message,
so all it can do is attack the messenger.
You are giving drugs and liberalism a bad name.
Keep up the good work; you help the conservative cause every time
you reveal the vacuum of liberal ideology.
Book him!
Posted by: Cluka on April 23, 2005 10:46 AMYou described the file of "pdf" document images as "the main documents that were presented to the canvassing board."
Did you receive from King County a copy of the canvassing board's Nov. 17 certification of the county's election returns?
Page 18 in that "pdf" file doesn't appear to be the certification of the election returns -- because it isn't even a certification of the election returns.
See the comment I posted above at April 22, 2005 03:32 PM.
Page 18 is nothing more than a statement that the attached copy of the auditor's abstract of votes is a true and correct copy of the auditor's abstract of votes.
It is not the statement required by law -- that is, a statement certifying that the canvassing board has found the auditor's abstract of votes to be a "full, true and correct representation of the votes cast."
Surely, in the state's finest county, which has an elections office run by the state's finest experts and professionals, they must have complied with the law's requirement to certify the auditor's abstract as a "full, true and correct representation of the votes cast."
Did you overlook something in the documents they provided to you?
Likewise, the "oath" of Logan in that pdf file of images isn't the required oath.
It is nothing more than a sworn statement from Logan that the returns certified by the canvassing board and deposited in Logan's office haven't been changed since the time they were approved by the board. In other words, he was simply certifying that the attached copy of the certified returns was a true copy.
That isn't the oath the auditor/chief elections officer is required to take prior to the canvassing board's certification of the returns.
Posted by: Micajah on April 23, 2005 01:43 PMThe SecState is supposed to be sent a "certified copy" of the part of the auditor's abstract of votes that contains the returns for "state measures or for candidates for federal and statewide office or for state legislative and judicial offices whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county."
I wondered about that when I realized that the "oath" of Logan and "certification" of the board really are nothing more than statements that the auditor's abstract of votes is a true copy of itself. It's really clumsy, but it sort of fits with the idea of sending a certified copy to the SecState.
But, even if the document posted as page 18 in the pdf file is the transmittal of that certified copy, it still isn't complete. WAC 434-262-080 says:
"...the county auditor shall send a certified copy of that part of the auditor's abstract of votes covering those issues and offices to the secretary of state. This copy must be no larger than eleven inches by fourteen inches and have a certificate identical to that accompanying the official county canvass report, bearing the county seal and original signatures of the officers required to sign that document attached or affixed thereto."
The canvassing board's certification that the auditor's abstract is a "full, true and correct representation of the votes cast" is missing.
The document at page 18 doesn't say the abstract is a true representation of the votes cast. It says "this is a full, true and correct copy of the Abstract of Votes cast...."
In other words, the document at page 18 is neither the required canvassing board certification of the county's election returns nor the required certificate which must accompany the certified copy transmitted to the SecState.
If this document is all there is, then it seems to be more evidence of the accuracy of my first rule in dealing with all bureaucrats: "The least reliable source of information about the laws which govern a bureaucrat's job is the bureaucrat whose job is governed by those laws."
Logan and the board shouldn't have signed it, and Reed's bureaucrats shouldn't have failed to notice its apparent defects -- unless, of course, they are bureaucrats who fit my first rule.
Posted by: Micajah on April 23, 2005 03:58 PMThis was portrayed as the documents presented to the KC Board, is that identical to what was submitted to the SoS?
Posted by: Al on April 23, 2005 07:15 PMIf Stefan doesn't have some other document that contains an official canvass report with the required oath and certification, then I suppose one place to ask is the SecState's office. What the SecState received should have "a certificate identical to that accompanying the official county canvass report" according to the WAC.
If, on the other hand, the certification is as depicted on page 18 of that pdf file, then it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the canvassing board's duty. They are supposed to verify that the auditor's abstract is a "full, true and correct representation of the votes cast," and then certify that they found it to be so. Their certificate on that page 18 document indicates they may not have known what their legal duty was.
If the bureaucrats in King County don't know what their job is, chances are very good that they have lots of company in the other counties. Bureaucrats rarely know the laws that govern their jobs, but they love to mimic what they see their colleagues do. Monkey see, monkey do is so much easier than picking up a book and reading the rules.
Kinda makes me wonder about John Kerry coming here to raise money....Hmmm....Why would this guy - who had ambitions for the Whitehouse..be running to the aid of Washington state sleaze-bag Democrats at such a precarious time? I would think any *honest* member of that party (and we know there are a few..) would avoid our state like the plague! UNLESS....what's being uncovered here has national party implications......?
Hmmmmmm.........I wonder.......?
Posted by: Deborah on April 24, 2005 12:27 AMIs page 18 of the pdf file you referred to in this entry the only document released to you which purports to be the King County canvassing board's certification of their election returns?
Is there nothing else which is somewhat similar to page 18?
Page 18 is not, repeat not, a certification of the election returns.
Posted by: Micajah on April 24, 2005 12:37 PM