A reader posted an intriguing comment yesterday that argued with some credibility that King County Mail Ballot Supervisor Nicole Way must have perjured herself when she testified in the Chelan County trial last month. [see the comments at this post by "Susan B. Anthony" June 14, 2005 05:55 PM]
Way asserted several times during her testimony that she did not know that the number she fabricated on the Mail Ballot Report was inaccurate and that the fabricated number was the best number she had. [Way's testimony on May 25 is available from TVW at this audio link. I present some of her exact words in the extended entry]
The Democrats, the mainstream media and apparently Judge Bridges relied on Way's statements as "proof" she didn't commit fraud. But as "Susan B. Anthony" points out, the Mail Ballot Report was actually even more inaccurate than has been previously reported anywhere (including on this blog) or as was discussed in the lawsuit. I followed up on "S.B.Anthony"'s suggestion and I confirm -- Other documents and Way's other testimony would indicate that she had to have been aware of the larger inaccuracies. It stretches credulity to suggest that she wasn't lying under oath, presumably in order to protect herself and her colleagues.
Take a careful look at the 2004 Mail Ballot Report and compare it to the other Mail Ballot Reports prepared for the King County canvassing board in recent years. These reports are of identical form except for one detail. In every general election going back to 2000, the reports had a line item accounting for "No ballot in the envelope" -- except for the 2004 report. [click on the year in the left hand column to see the complete report]
| 2000 |  |
| 2001 |  |
| 2002 |  |
| 2003 |  |
| 2004 |  |
The batch slips all have a spot to record the number of envelopes in the batch where there was no ballot in the envelope. See the slip for Batch 783. It's an example of a batch where there was 1 no-ballot envelope.
The Republicans presented into evidence this spreadsheet, which aggregates the data on all of the batch slips. The spreadsheet shows that there were a total of 69 "no ballot" envelopes found in the various batches. Way testified that she looked at the spreadsheet during the election "to see how many ballots we processed daily" and to resolve discrepancies.
Clearly, the Mail Ballot Report was inaccurate as it did not include the "no ballot" number. [As an aside, this also implies that the known net surplus of tabulated ballots over credited voters now rises by 69 to 944]. The question remains why would Way omit the "no ballot" number and not just take it into account when she calculated the phony "total number of ballots returned"? My theory recalls her testimony that she handcounted the other categories of rejected ballots to get those totals. There would have to be physical piles of "wrong election" ballots and "multiple ballots" set aside somewhere that someone could count. Not so with "no ballots". I believe the only evidence of "no ballots" would be the numbers on the batch slips. There were so many discrepancies revealed on the batch slips that Way and Fell (and their management) wouldn't want to use those as the source for the reconciliation, lest they had to admit to more discrepancies than they cared to. So they fudged the numbers and knowingly left out the "no ballot" number on the way to calculate the other bogus number.
How could Way not know that 2004 Mail Ballot Report did not include a "No ballot in the envelope" field and was inherently inaccurate? How could she not know that she was lying when she said under oath that she did not know that the report was inaccurate?
If this isn't probable cause for a criminal investigation into perjury, what is? And what else does Way know that she hasn't told us? and who else would she implicate? This isn't over yet. At least it shouldn't be.
--- Details of Way's testimony follow. Timing notes reference this audio link
1:12:00 Korrell asks Way to explain batch slip in detail
1:14:10 Korrell asks her to explain the "No Ballots" field
1:26:10 Korrell starts asking about the batch slip summary spreadsheet.
1:30:30, Way admits that she looked at the spreadsheet during the election "I looked at it to see how many ballots we processed daily". The spreadsheet has a column corresponding to the "No Ballots" field on the batch slips, showing a total of 69 "No Ballots"
2:29:15 Durkan: "So the only thing your method didn't account for is if somewhere in the process, ballots weren't handled according to your instructions and established procedures, correct?"
Way: Correct.
3:27:22 Bridges: other than that 95 ballots that you found subsequently, is this number right? or was it right to the best of your knowledge as of November 2nd?
3:27:34 Way: when we filled out this report, to the best of my knowledge, that number was right.
3:36:00 Durkan: so you used the best number you could, is that right?
Way: yes.
Durkan: and you used it using numbers you thought were the best numbers you had?
Way: yes.
3:36:36 Even: am I correct in understanding your testimony that you did not know that that line 2 was inaccurate until the discovery of the 95 ballots?
Way: correct
3:38: 45 Durkan: Mr Even asked you whether before discovering those ballots you knew that that second number was inaccurate and you said NO.
Way: right
Durkan: is that because in your mind while you didn't have an accurate report to compare something against, you used the best number you had and you didn't know it was inaccurate?
Way: Before the 95 were found I did not know that this number was inaccurate
Korrell quotes from Way's deposition p. 48 #22."We discussed how to fill out this report, because we didn't have an accurate number of ballots returned."
Durkan asks Way to explain --
3:41:20 Way: I was concerned because we didn't have anything to check against. When we filled out this report with the information that we had, it was as accurate as it could be. I was concerned it was wrong, but I didn't know that there was ballots unaccounted for in this report until the 95 were found.
I am assuming like you that the person that mailed in the envelop without the ballot was credited with voting. I would love to see the breakdown on what precints had the most accredited voters with this issue.
Another smoking gun I hope the Feds investigate. Maybe we can see a little more than the tip of the iceberg of KC Fraud. Fraud through ommission. Posted by: David Anfinrud on June 15, 2005 12:25 PM
Posted by: Jeremy on June 15, 2005 12:34 PM
It would be great to see Way go to jail because at this point, there's nothing preventing the Dems from doing this again. When totals and numbers don't mean anything, every close election can be whatever they want it to be.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 15, 2005 01:04 PMAll of the moonbats that thought the scrutiny was over with the judge's ruling are dead wrong. And all of the KC employees that thought "That was a close one" had better not get too comfortable. Playing the incompetent card only works for so long.
If Way did commit perjury, she would be in a perfect position to be presented with an immunity deal to testify against those higher up the KC org chart.
The truth will eventually come out on this.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on June 15, 2005 01:39 PMSo, as I have said, if you really belive this to be true, start protesting the Republican Prosecuting Attorney, or the Republican Attorney General. I would love to see this case tried to a jury. When I see the soundpolitics group protesting at either office, I will know that this is not just sour grapes.
But we know that it isn't.
I will also point out to all of you who insist that Ms. Way "fabricated" or "fraudulently" created the report, as Mr. Sharkansky nicely points out, all of her testimony was that she used the best number available, and that she thought it was accurate.
Heck, even Dale Foreman wasn't willing to try to convince the judge that this was fraud.
But, it is a open system. So have at it, get the AG or PA to file charges. Surely, if your case is so strong, they will. I expect at least to see a post of their response to Mr. Sharkansky's email demanding an explanation of why they are not prosecuting Ms. Way in the next few days. Surely Mr. Sharkansky holds these Republican office holders to the same standards he holds democrats.
Posted by: JDB on June 15, 2005 02:29 PM"The only way for him not to have been perjuring himself was if he were a genuine idiot," doesn't exactly sound like beating around the bush regarding Mr. Huennekens' credibility on the stand. Unless, of course, one subscibes to the notion that Huennekens IS a genuine idiot.
As for Mr. Fell, I would have to agree that he seems to have escaped the microscope of the MSM, the County, the blogs, etc. thus far. He certainly was sitting beside Way, fully aware that she was cooking up wrong numbers.
Fell did testify that he knew the numbers were wrong. But Fell also testified that he notified Mr. Huennekens of such. It may be that Fell's assumption was that Mr. Huennekens was going to disclose the flawed methodology to the canvass board, which, if that had been done, would have changed the entire complexion of the situation.
The report still would have had flawed numbers, but the problem would have been fully disclosed, and thus, taken it out of the realm of fraud.
The other distinction between Fell and Way is that Way had been participating in the creation of that report for nearly six years, or to put a finer point on it, 32 elections.
Fell was new to his job, and truly may not have understood how misleading the numbers Way fabricated were. But Nicole knew. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 15, 2005 03:47 PMYou assert-
I will also point out to all of you who insist that Ms. Way "fabricated" or "fraudulently" created the report, as Mr. Sharkansky nicely points out, all of her testimony was that she used the best number available, and that she thought it was accurate.
That's exactly the point. She testified that she thought the report was accurate, when she knew it wasn't. Funny thing, in court, they call that "perjury."
She testified that she used the best number available, when, in fact, she knew that she was omitting an entire category of uncountable ballots from the report - a category that she knew to exist and which she had included for every other election in which she assisted in preparing this report.
She also knew the importance of this report, as, in past years, she had been one of the staff hunting down batches and rebalancing ballots to resolve discrepancies; She knew that the reconciliation of this report was the fail-safe to the process, ensuring that all mail ballots were accounted for.
She submitted a report the SHE KNEW had unaccounted for ballots, and she did so to hide the fact that the ballot counts at MBOS were grossly out of balance, by hundreds of ballots. She may have even known why the numbers were grossly out of balance. People who were physically present, unlike you, observed this happening.
It is hardly a witch hunt to ask for the truth about the situation at KCE to be brought forward so that true solutions for the problems that we, the voters and taxpayers, endured in 2004, can be found.
There are an awful lot of us voters out here who are not Republicans, but who are grateful for the efforts of Mr. Sharkansky and others in rooting out the problems, with a hope that real reform can come of it.
Why do you continue to defend the indefensible?
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 15, 2005 04:09 PMAs I have said, if you actually believe that, take it to the AG or the King Co. Prosecuting Attorney. I would love to see this tried in court.
You are reading in a lot of things that are not there. You will forgive me, since I don't have the time to memorize everything Ms. Way said, but was she ever asked about the change in the report? Do we know if the change matters?
You want to see conspiracies and lies, so you see it. But my point remains the same, she said she used the best number she had, and she thought it was accurate. Looking back from six months, it is easy to say she shouldn't have, but she thought she was correct at the time.
But, again, if you feel so strong about your case, take it to the Repulican AG or PA. Dale Foreman didn't think it was perjury. The Judge doesn't think it was perjury. If you can't convince them, could it be possible that you are wrong?
Of course, posting on Soundpolitics means never having to say you are sorry....,
Posted by: JDB on June 15, 2005 04:22 PMThen I look at the Daily Total Report. I see numbers that make sense. I am assuming that a total of 571284 ballots were recieved. But 11,573 ballots where listed a Check. I wonder if they found that many ballots. Interesting that on the thursday after the election 9,143 ballots are mysteriously added. THe check to me means found votes that were never in the first count. or did they say that 11573 reject ballots where acceptable even though they were rejected in the beginning. I really cant tell for sure but so many new ballots on thursday after the election makes you wonder.
Here's an easy variation:
"We discussed how to fill out this report, because we didn't have an accurate number of the balance in that account."
JDB:
If an auditor for Arthur Andersen said this, what would your reaction be? Would you think he had done his job correctly? Or would you be expecting a lawsuit?
Give this gal immunity and let’s get the truth out.
Her testimony is evidence of a crime. Enforce the law!
Seems to me you're forgiving of everyone but Ms. Way. You obviously have your reasons, that much is clear. However, since Ms. Way has Email documentation telling her superiors that this was/is a problem, she shouldn't be the only one being hung here. As you also point out, Mr. Fell may have been under the assumption that Mr. Huennekens would do the right thing and point out the issues to the canvassing board. How do we know that he didn't share that assumption with Ms. Way? There is a lot of information we don't and probably won't ever have. Bottom line is that KCE has a lot of work to do to restore public trust and correct procedures. In this voters opinion, going after a 4th tier worker who disclosed this mess in the first place isn't going to accomplish the goal. Moving Mr. Huennekens to a newly created position at pretty much the same salary isn't going to do it, either. Posted by: JudyJane on June 15, 2005 04:57 PM
For you, posting on SoundPolitics means never having to come to grips with your own idiocy. Please, please stop embarrassing yourself. You are still, really, not that bright. Whoever has told you otherwise was uncommonly cruel.
Posted by: Danny on June 15, 2005 06:53 PMNow--look at this "work product." No excuse. What will Ms. Way have to "eat?" Nothing. What a travesty. No pride. No integrity. Voters: mark this well...fix this or be banished to a Tent City forever!
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 15, 2005 08:51 PMDon't you think it would have been better to have stayed silent and be thought a fool, versus posting and prove yourself one?
Posted by: JDB on June 16, 2005 09:18 AMExplain what you mean by, "to have stayed silent and be thought a fool, versus posting and prove yourself one"?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 16, 2005 10:53 AMNicole Way lied under oath, but she did not commit perjury.
Bill Clinton did not have sex with Monica -- just a B.J., Ted Kennedy has the moral standing to lecture about morality, and the check is in the mail.
Ask JDB, he will explain it all for you. Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 16, 2005 10:57 AM
I think you have just given a great demonstration of what I meant.
And, as I have said, go and petition the Republican AG or PA with your case. I look forward to you or the minnow posting their responses. If you are right, surely they will file charges before the end of this week.
I also expect to see the GOP file a legal malpractice suit to recover the four million dollars they spent on lawyers that didn't even point this out. I assume you and the minnow will post Chris Vance's reply to your letters demanding this malpractice suit.
Posted by: JDB on June 16, 2005 11:03 AMMost children grow up and get beyond adolescent resentment of rational thought and common sense.
What's your excuse?
Posted by: Amused by liberal pseudo intellectuals on June 16, 2005 01:41 PMFor a person that claims to be amused, why are you always so angry and bitter? And why do you never actually address an arguement that is made? Did your mother ignore you as a child? Were you a fat kid who was made fun of, so you decided to become a bully?
Please post the reply you get from Norm Maleng's office when you write them with your theories as to why they should prosecute Ms. Way. If you don't have the cajones to do so, well that would explain why you can only insult.
Posted by: JDB on June 16, 2005 01:47 PMRattled your little cage there huh Sunny Jim? It appears that in your model I am the big meanie and you are the poor little abused twerp. Seems to fit.
As someone who spends time squawking like a magpie from the sidelines while demonstrating the singular belief that muttering incoherent liberal dogma is somehow useful or praiseworthy, I find you amusing. Overtly self-absorbed people (liberals) who have no other point often are.
Thanks for the insightful and thought provoking diagnosis, and the fascinating challenge.
Next time just send money.
Posted by: Amused by liberal twerps on June 16, 2005 04:43 PMSo I did hit close to the bone. It must have been hard always being picked on. I'm sorry that you have not found a constructive way to deal with your pain.
I do note that you still note that you have yet to add any substative to this conversation. Heck, you haven't even fired off a good insult. If you wish, I'm sure you can find a web page that might give you some ideas. We don't want you to tax yourself.
While you are trying to abuse me, I am not abused. Unlike many Republicans, I don't play the victim. I will give you props if you come up with something creative, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I again await you posting Norm Maleng's reply to your post asking him to prosecute Ms. Way. If you can't put up, well you know what to do.
Beyond that, I would suggest couseling for your problems. Just because you were made fun of as a youth doesn't mean that you can't find comfort in polite society. There is still hope for you yet.
Posted by: JDB on June 16, 2005 06:06 PMNice try (that you know of). Only a classic weak minded liberal would believe that they can be abused by comments.
You are a hopeless victim of the left who has absolutely no point and you prove it every time you comment here.
The only person who is fooled by your silly attempts at insults and empty vitriol is yourself.
Thanks for the kind offer of *couseling*, but again -- I would prefer money.
I take it from your inability to actually stay on topic that you have a learning disorder too? I'm sorry, no wonder you get teased so much.
You do have my pitty. I hope you seek counseling for both your anger management problem and for you learning disorder. You man not be as stupid as your posts make you out to be.
Again, though, do you have anything to say on topic? It is not that hard. Perhaps you can find a grown up to help you?
Posted by: JDB on June 17, 2005 10:47 AMPosted by: Amused by liberal twerps on June 17, 2005 01:06 PM
I take it from your responses, other than having a learning disorder, that you have nothing to add to this thread? You are then in agreement that the minnow should not have slandered Ms. Way.
I await your next non sequitur. However, if you actually have the courage of your convictions (assuming you have any convictions), I await the posting of Maleng's and/or McKenna's response to your letter/email demanding the prosecution of Ms. Way.
Posted by: JDB on June 17, 2005 01:55 PMNicole Way lied under oath or she didn’t; if she lied under oath, she is guilty of perjury. I suppose you believe that knowingly telling a falsehood is not a lie?
Conviction is not necessary to prove a fact, only to punish someone who is found guilty. Everyone knows that she will not be punished because she is a liberal and the ends justify the means. The fact that you believe otherwise is no novelty – liberals like you will believe anything, and conveniently ignore anything else – so long as neither are associated in any way with facts, or relevant to anything substantive.
All you have left is silly insults, but that clearly suits you well. Go ahead on, or run away -- who cares?
Thanks once again for the amusing exchange — moron.
See, that wasn't that hard. Did your mom help you?
"Nicole Way lied under oath or she didn’t;"
Most intellegent thing you have said. Note, this is true for any witness, but I think you have the beginings of an arguement.
" if she lied under oath, she is guilty of perjury."
Not exactly, but you are trying. She would have to intentionally told a mistruth, and it would have to be material to the case. If they asked her her weight, and she says she is 115, and she weighs 125, even if she knows that is a lie, it is not perjury.
But again, I see what you are trying to say. Note: You forgot the other possibility, she could be telling the truth . Strange that you don't even think of that possibility.
"I suppose you believe that knowingly telling a falsehood is not a lie?"
No, I agree that it is a lie. Again, it is not necessarily perjury. I believe that you think someone should have some proof that a person is lying before calling the person a lier? Not to much to ask, no?
"Conviction is not necessary to prove a fact, only to punish someone who is found guilty."
Again, not exactly, but in general true. You have to prove facts to gain a conviction.
However, if the "fact" that you are trying to prove is that someone committed a crime such as, oh, perjury, it might not be necessary, but it is awfully useful. If you are going to accuse someone of comitting a crime, you better be able to prove it, or you have slandered that person.
" Everyone knows that she will not be punished Nicole Way lied under oath or she didn’t; if she lied under oath, she is guilty of perjury. I suppose you believe that knowingly telling a falsehood is not a lie?
"Everyone knows that she will not be punished because she is a liberal and the ends justify the means. "
How does everyone know that? Any of that? Everything you say is pure propaganda.
How do you know whe will not be punished? Again, I point out that the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of King is a Republican, Norm Maleng. Is he part of the great Democratic Conspiracy?
But even if he has been corrupted by working in Seattle, to many lattes, to much chardonay, you seem to have forgotten that the Attorney General of the State of Washington is a Republican, Rob McKenna? Heck, he is as deep in the BIAW's pocket as Rossi, why the heck would he not want to clean out the corrupt King County Elections office be getting this easy conviction? Now you are just being silly.
Do you know she is a liberal? She probably is, but do you know that? And, give that the people who would prosecute her are Republicans, how does that help?
And are you saying that only liberals do what they do because the "ends justify the means?" Perhaps you should sit down and read The Prince. And what do you call the only surviving justification for the war: "We got rid of Sadam?"
Plus your logic implies that Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna are happy with the ends here. Strange theory.
" The fact that you believe otherwise is no novelty – liberals like you will believe anything, and conveniently ignore anything else – so long as neither are associated in any way with facts, or relevant to anything substantive."
All right, I have to admit you lost me here. If both the things I believe and the things I ignore are not "associated in any way with facts, or relevant to anything substantive," what does it matter? Better yet, what the hell do you mean.
If you mean I'll believe things but ignore facts that are contrary, say so. However, just saying that doesn't make it true. This is why you should be able to put forward some facts. Something that to this point you have not. Heck, you haven't even had the courage of your convictions to take your "facts" to the sympathetic ears of Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna. Strangely enough, I'm starting to think you have no facts.
But, since I'm guessing at what you are saying, I could be wrong. Maybe you should take a breath and think before you post.
"All you have left is silly insults, but that clearly suits you well. Go ahead on, or run away -- who cares?"
I have no reason to run away. You are hardly scary or theatening. At best, ammusing, at worse, someone to show pitty to because you have let your hate destroy rational thought. To you, all who disagree are evil. It must be hard living in a world where they are all out to get you. That is the difference between you and me, I don't think you are out to destroy me. You are just a bit misguided.
I have insulted you after you insulted me. At least mine have been witty. I have taken your above attempt seriously, and have shown you your errors. I hope that you have the compacity to show me the same courtesy. I do not expect it though.
"Thanks once again for the amusing exchange — moron."
Not really a good close when you say the person you are arguing with has only "silly insults."
And it would be amusing if it wasn't sad that you are so serious about me being evil. It is possible to disagree and be civil. You don't have to believe the other side, but you should listen to it. I can do both, and will respond in kind. The currency of this little board tends to be hyperbole, slander, paranoia and statements without facts ("we all know)".
I know it is hard to be taught a lesson, but this is a lesson you need to learn.
So, let us see what you have learned. Explain to me:
1) Why if you believe Ms. Way committed perjury, you have not demand that Norm Maleng or Rob McKenna to prosecute?
2) Why you think that Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna will not prosecute?
3) Why Dale Foreman or any of the other lawyers that the GOP payed four-million dollars for didn't raise this issue?
4) Why Chris Vance is not raising this issue?
5) Why Chris Vance is not suing Davis Wright for malpractice for missing such an obvious slam dunk?
If you cannot explain these five things, is it not, perhaps, possible that you are wrong?
I await your wisdom.
Good work. I have certainly met my match here. Amazing analysis combined with your typical clarity, witty reparte, and commensurate creative spelling.
It is clear that you honestly and sincerely believe that you have a point and that you believe it is a good one, and I whimsically applaud your effort. However, you might reconsider the *logic* of some of your propositions. Your spell-bounding rhetorical unassailability is so full of silly nonsense that I wouldn’t demean you by failing to allow it to speak for itself as a testament to your shrewdness as another fire-breathing ambassador of your brilliant ideology.
As it is clear that you believe that you have achieved some decisive coup with this contribution – I salute you appropriatly for the instance according you all of the reverence you deserve.
You really are that smart. Thanks for the amusing comments.
Babe! You had your chance, it was right in front of you. You could have stepped up and actually made an arguement, if there was one, in favor of your side. But, sadly, no. You just go back to insults.
It is a sad thing to be blindly ideological. To have no thought behind that. To have nothing but insults, and not very good ones at that...., sigh, it surely makes the angels weep with pity.
If I look smart, it is just because my posts are juxaposed with yours.
Decisive coup? Showing that you have no arguement, no logic, and have problems writing a simple paragraph? Lets face it, you did that on your own.
I will say, there are thoughtful voices on this board. Perhaps you should just read for a bit and learn. I haven't given up hope for you yet. I will gladly try to help you any chance I get.
Well, here's the truth for you. No one gets prosecuted for perjury. They don't care because if people were prosecuted for perjury that could no longer get bribes. If you think they are not getting bribes then tell me why the justice system in Seattle is so corrupt. Over 4000 complaints against judges in over 25 years and only 118 have been investigated with hardley any punishment.
Your argument is the reason there is so much corruption. Well, I personally don't buy it. I won't stop until people are prosecuted for the number one felony in America and that is perjury. I have absolute proof of my allegations. Not to the bribery but what else could it be if it's not about money?
You are not psychologists so stop acting like one. Even psychologists are wrong most of the time but get paid for it anyway. Try a little love, as it goes a lot further for your cause.
Either the woman lied or she didn't. The facts are all there. Make a logical decision.
Posted by: Nancy Sack on November 16, 2005 09:52 AM