Monday, August 27, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson Affirms His Own Ruling and Pushes Case Back to the Appellate Court

AUDITAZ
John Brakey

"The day we see truth and do not speak is the day we begin to die"
     - Martin Luther King

Pima County officials/employees tapped to support
Yes! 1 and 2 RTA initiative in 2006
Well the status quo in Pima County wants this case - and the truth - to die. The case in question is “We the People” attempt at court-ordered reforms seeking “prospective relief” so they cannot cheat in the future.  Facts are, Pima County election process – a process involving election software the county has already admitted and situated in early cases (we won) as “fatally flawed” in a county that produced one of the most visibly hacked elections the country has ever seen.

As more evidence continues to surface demonstrating with the highest degree of statistical probability that the 2006 RTA election was rigged, Judge Kyle Bryson upheld his previous decision to grant Pima County's motion to dismiss.  "This is groundhog day moving us once again" as Bill Risner stated to Judge Kyle Bryson in the hearing that occurred on August 13th of this year.  This is an accurate statement as the Libertarian Party is now forced to make the same appeal over the same arguments to the same appellate court.

Citizens Against Rigged Elections
“The goal of this lawsuit is to protect the “purity of elections” in the future, starting with the 2012 elections.  Years of public records suits have shown us what's wrong with this county's elections process, computer systems and managers…  …The most important legal and factual building block of this lawsuit is the agreed upon fact that it is very easy to cheat with our election computer software. The ease of cheating may be counterintuitive, especially among those least familiar with computers, but it is a fact. The ease of cheating may be a surprise even to those who are familiar with computers but whose familiarity was derived from securely developed programs. Our election computer system has quite simply been built to cheat and, at least for that goal, it has succeeded.” - Attorney Bill Risner, excerpt from statement of facts filed 1/12/12.


From the perspective of election transparency, here are the facts:
 1) Pima County Agrees It Is Easy To Cheat: page 7; 
 2) The Arizona Attorney General Agrees It Is Easy To Cheat: page 8; 
 3) The Arizona Secretary of State Agrees It Is Easy To Cheat and State Law Prohibits The SOS From Checking County Computers To Find Out If   Counties Are Cheating: page 9; 
 4) Multiple Expert Examinations Confirm The Irredeemable Flaws In Our Election    Computer Software: page 12”;
             (Excerpt from statement of facts filed 1/12/12: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling)

Since 2006 we’ve won 3 major cases so far revealing how the process in Pima County works despite the county spending over a million dollars to block public records access alone.  We filed this case several years ago to actually fix the problems found in that public records trial.   In 2009 Pima County judge Harrington threw the “reform case” out but both the state appellate and supreme courts said otherwise – that we have a right to prove that the election process in Pima County is broken and ask the court for mandated reforms even if they are above and beyond state law – because under the AZ Constitution we have a civil right to fair elections and if state law is inadequate to achieve that, the courts can step in.

Before any court orders affecting election procedures are issued, the hearing needs to complete the fundamental tasks ignored by Attorney General Terry Goddard.  The court must allow for the actual audit of the ballots and a forensic examination of the ballots.  In fact, if the audit and forensic exam do not turn up evidence of foul play, the court does not have sufficient cause to issue orders for prospective relief.  That outcome would end the case.

So what are they afraid of?  Why is Pima County the primary obstacle to this investigation?

We marvel at this remarkable moment in time.  The inescapably simple resolution that Pima County avoids leaves everyone endowed with basic cognitive skills with the uncomfortable realization that Pima County has been caught cheating and they are staving off the inevitable with taxpayer's dollars.  You may hear complaints by Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry about the costs of litigation and the time it is taking to resolve this issue, but responsibility for the costs of litigation rests squarely with him.  Under his supervision, Pima County spent at least 1.3 million dollars in litigation in their failed attempt at resisting disclosure of public records.  They even presented legal arguments trying to block a court order protecting the ballots while at Iron Mountain's storage facility (once it was discovered that those ballots had no real protection since 2006).  It's important to keep in mind that Huckelberry is merely the figurehead working on behalf of the corporate interests while preserving the tertiary image of public service.  His departure would ultimately bear little significance if the overarching structure of Pima County remains in tact.

We fail to see the logic behind Pima County's refusal to resolve this issue in an expedient and efficient manner.  Regardless of the severity of the crime, it's time to clean up the elections department.  Pima County reserves for itself the privilege to cheat in elections and those who dare to call for sufficient election transparency are punished.   Pima County is solely responsible for all the legal foot-dragging, but the courts whose budgets are overseen by Chuck Huckelberry still make the plaintiff (who where victors in the last three rulings)  pay for the storage costs of the ballots at Iron Mountain's facility.
Bill Risner was stiffed court fees despite finally obtaining access to the poll tapes after Pima County dragged their feet in a year's worth of litigation.  This war of cost and attrition hurts election integrity, but it is Pima County that's looking desperate regardless of the size of their public relations team.

Spreading the Pain Around

After prevailing in both AZ Court of Appeals and Supreme Court by late 2011, we were assigned a second local judge (Kyle Bryson) following those wins, but he threw us out on the same basis as the Harrington in 2009 decision by claiming he didn't have the ability to create the reforms we were asking for...in complete and highly unusual rebellion against three appellate court judges and five state supreme court judges.  After judges allow for a little tarnish to their reputations on behalf of the growth industry, they pass the buck to another fresh, less-tainted judge.  In this case, Judge Kyle Bryson is being very generous to his fellow judges by the extent to which he allows his reputation to be trashed fighting this constitutional issue involving elections.
 
This is now turned into an outrage.  ‘We the people’ have a right to our day in court and fair elections, and a corrupt county is blocking those rights at all branches of government.

Sadly, it’s what we expected from a court system that works to protect the status quo in Pima County because that court system is Pima County.



For more information go to: www.RiggedNoMore.com
 
Hope, Peace and Democracy,

John R Brakey, co-founder of AUDIT-AZ (Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections, Arizona) Sites with Arizona Election Integrity News
www.audit-az.blogspot.com  and SEEKING JUSTICE www.seekingjusticeauditaz.blogspot.com  and http://www.fatallyflawedthemovie.com/ Tucson, AZ, 85706 
My e-mail is:  AUDITAZ@cox.net


[i] Link to our last appeal[i]: “Opening Brief to Arizona State Court Of Appeals Div 2. Seeking Prospective Relief to Protect the Purity of Future Election Results?: http://seekingjusticeauditaz.blogspot.com/2010/04/test.html





[1]

Thursday, August 9, 2012; Arizona Election Fraud: Is Stealing Two Billion in Taxes a Crime Too Big to Prosecute? : http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/2012/08/arizona-election-fraud-is-stealing-two.html
[1] Link to Judge Kyle Bryson ruling[1]: http://tinyurl.com/98gbpjh
[1]  ARIZONA ELECTION FRAUD: PIMA COUNTY COURT HEARING 08.13.12 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL  :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKym1AlwFnE&feature=colike

[1]

Attorney Bill Risner, initial disclosure statement which is a mind blowing comprehensive statement of facts collected over many years of investigations and litigation of Pima County:   http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling
[1] (Excerpt from statement of facts filed 1/12/12: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling)

[1]

Summary of the Four Pima County Cases 09/06/10 by Bill Risner updated 7/16/11 by Jim March and John Brakey: http://tinyurl.com/5wda8gl 
[1] The Ellen Theisen report on the many Significant Discrepancies in the AZ AG office hand count: http://www.votersunite.org/info/SignificantDiscrepanciesInComparisonOfRTAResults.pdf

[1] Fraud Flyer with 10 points:  http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf

[1] Pima County’s Manger “Chuck Huckelberry” created a monster PR Staff, AZ Daily Star: Josh Brodesky: County's new PR force: Good use of tax funds? Sunday, October 9, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/6p5qhtl

[1]

When It Comes To Election Integrity In Arizona There’s Nothing Like Having An “Elephant in the Room” Or At Least A "Big Donkey" August 8, 2010: http://www.audit-az.blogspot.com/2010/08/when-it-comes-to-election-integrity-in.html
[1] Link to our last appeal[1]: “Opening Brief to Arizona State Court Of Appeals Div 2. Seeking Prospective Relief to Protect the Purity of Future Election Results?: http://seekingjusticeauditaz.blogspot.com/2010/04/test.html


Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: "In the Spirit of Cooperation, Let's Not Look Into the Past"

J.T. Waldron

By "taking the matter under advisement", Judge Kyle Bryson kicked the can a little farther down the road last Monday and further postponed the hearing granted to the Libertarian Party by the appellate courts for prospective relief in rigged elections.  Litigation was prompted by the discovery of suspicious activity surrounding the 2-billion dollar 2006  RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) bond election.

In his earlier hearing, Judge Kyle Bryson, winner of the latest round of musical chairs for superior court justices presiding over the latest six years of litigation, waited three months before issuing a decision and failed to notify the plaintiff once the decision was made.

Bryson's predecessor, Judge Charles Harrington, errantly ruled that the courts do not have jurisdiction to issue court orders that affect the process of elections, even if the legislative and executive branches fail to ensure fair elections. Arguments presented by Pima County in their motion to dismiss asserted that the courts were asked to 'challenge an election' or 'conduct a criminal investigation'.

Instructions provided by the appellate court over its decision to grant the Libertarian Party a hearing for prospective relief addressed both these concerns:

Not an election challenge

"That remedy is wholly prospective in nature and relates only to future elections: it is not directed at completed elections like the 2006 Special Elections. Because granting injunctive relief would not require annulling or setting aside the RTA election results, the Libertarian Party's claim is not an election contest and thus not subject to the five-day filing period. The trial court erred in concluding, pursuant to 16-673, that the counterclaim was filed untimely."

Not a criminal investigation

"...therefore, even though the Libertarian Party may allege and then produce evidence of conduct that may well amount to a criminal violation, this does not convert its claim for injunctive relief into an impermissible 'investigation into criminal conduct.' Rather, it is simply a necessary part of establishing its  claim for injunctive relief. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the counterclaim on this basis."

One person who must be very concerned about the mounting evidence of criminality surrounding the RTA election is Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, who has, according to what Attorney Bill Risner has discovered in the last six years of litigation, "systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections." As a result, Pima County's legal team is using every means necessary to delay this proceeding, which would ultimately move the Pima County Elections process to a more transparent and accountable system.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson's last decision took 90 days and was so bizarre, it forced attorneys Bill Risner and Ralph Ellinwood to file a motion for a new trial. Instead of allowing the usual developments in a case to proceed, Kyle chose a new tactic of guessing what the plaintiffs would ask for, then denied the court's jurisdiction in this matter in direct contradiction to the appellate court decision. Last Monday, Pima County had Bryson preside over the hearing that was prompted by Bryson's decision in the first place. Adding to this circular logic, Pima County has begun alluding to the amount of time that has transpired to resolve this issue in their latest arguments.

Ronna Fickbohm: "They can't come to you and say everything is the same as it was in 2006 because it simply isn't. They don't tell us how their arguments today fit in the Rule 59 framework." Fickbohm is attempting to distract us from one of the intended functions of the hearing itself: to determine what is still needed to protect election integrity within Pima County's elections division while taking into account any changes that have transpired since the RTA election. Despite public statements alluding to tighter security, self-published report cards and a hand-picked Election Integrity Commission, nothing can distract the public from the fact that Pima County has the same people operating within the elections division with impunity.

To make a claim that the plaintiffs "Can't come to you and say everything is the same as it was in 2006" when Pima County is the sole entity to blame for blocking efforts to resolve this issue in 2006 is offensive. Almost as offensive as the repeated requests by Huckelberry's IT man, John Moffatt, "to go forward in the spirit of cooperation, but not look into the past". Below is Jim March (blackboxvoting.org) as he recalls his experience with Moffatt.

Pima County's lawyer Ronna Fickbohm burns up a great deal of time arguing over the court's inability to intervene in various bureaucratic processes, hoping people forget that the courts are the third major branch in the separation of powers. U.S. and Arizona State constitutions act as the hot knife through Fickbohm's soft butter arguments about any inconvenience various bureaucracies might encounter over court orders.

Efforts to stop proceedings and further discovery have become so transparently awkward that the Pima County legal team continues to put forth this peculiar notion that courts shouldn't allow for the process of fact finding and discovery. Emasculated under the umbrella of Pima County, Judge Kyle Bryson followed suit by second guessing the plaintiff and circumventing their efforts at getting to the truth.

Some may have a difficult time believing that such a third world style battle is taking place in our court systems today. The following video not not only documents this latest exchange, but provides additional footage for the audience to decide if past statements by Pima County were 'paraded in front of us out of context'.   Finally, all are rewarded by witnessing Bill Risner's rebuttal at the end. He used his time wisely.





Tuesday, August 14, 2012

RTA election fraud suit under advisement

Arizona Daily Independent
Lori Hunnicutt

Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson has taken under advisement the matter of whether Pima County’s alleged voter fraud in the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election on May 16, 2006 will be heard in Court. The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a previous decision by Judge Harrington that his court did not have jurisdiction and remanded the case. Judge Bryson was assigned the case late last year.

A packed courtroom listened as attorney Bill Risner respectfully told the Judge Bryson that the previous judge had made a mistake, and “now is your chance to fix it.” The judge will most likely decide whether to fix the mistake or not within the next 30 days. Plaintiffs do not expect a ruling before the current Primary Election is over.

At the time of the RTA bond election, questions arose regarding the election results almost immediately. They persist in this lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court.

County races, including large bond elections are currently exempted from a hand count of the votes, which increases the concern about election fraud.

The stated goal of a lawsuit filed in Arizona Superior Court by Tucson attorney Bill Risner on behalf of the Libertarian Party is “to protect the “purity of elections” in the future, starting with the 2012 elections. According to attorney Bill Risner, the lawsuit is based on two facts; “At the present time it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge a rigged election.”

The lawsuit alleges that “Pima County, through the direction and control of its county administrator C.H. “Chuck” Huckleberry, has systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections. The elimination of those controls has permitted county management to take advantage of the ability to cheat presented by defects in our computerized election system.”

The central allegation in the suit is that “county management fraudulently rigged the Regional Transportation Authority election.”

The Pima County Democratic Party had previously taken on the issue. It was through the Discovery process in that effort, that the current suit bases its allegations. In papers filed with the court, lawyers claim that from “three other lawsuits involving the Pima County Democratic Party and Pima County,” a path was provided “for future discovery that must be followed in this lawsuit.”

The Libertarian Party argues that “The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of challenging any specific election requires court intervention in order to protect the purity of elections and ensure that we will have free elections.” They cite three Arizona Constitution sections as the basis of their claim, including Arizona Constitution Art. 2 § 21, which requires all elections to be “free and equal.”

Plaintiffs say that the most important legal and factual building block of this lawsuit is the agreed upon fact that it is very easy to cheat with our election computer software. In the suit, it is alleged that “the ease of cheating may be counterintuitive, especially among those least familiar with computers, but it is a fact. The ease of cheating may be a surprise even to those who are familiar with computers but whose familiarity was derived from securely developed programs. Our election computer system has quite simply been built to cheat and, at least for that goal, it has succeeded.”

Both conservative and liberal activists hold that the goal of the lawsuit is to make elections a transparent process by removing Pima County’s ability to cheat undetected. They have fought for over six years of litigation for the courts to decide they indeed have jurisdiction to ensure clean elections.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Is Stealing Two Billion in Taxes a Crime Too Big to Prosecute?


J.T. Waldron

GOLIATH: Pima County
Administrator
Chuck Huckelberry
How far will he go to
block election
transparency?
After Arizona's appellate courts ruled in favor of the Libertarian argument for prospective relief for rigged elections, serious efforts were initiated to ensure that justice remained an unobtainable dream.  The goal of the lawsuit, of course, is to make elections a transparent process by removing Pima County's ability to cheat undetected.  Over six years of litigation was required for the courts to decide they indeed have jurisdiction to ensure clean elections, especially after the legislative and executive branches failed to provide that remedy.  Discovery of criminal activity in the elections division is an ancillary outcome that is part of the process for the hearing to provide prospective relief against rigged elections in Pima County.

To preserve the critically flawed nature of Pima County's elections system, Administrator Chuck Huckelberry continues to resist a forensic exam of the ballots now residing at Iron Mountain's storage facility.  Huckelberry is now willing to contradict past statements of how he would be vindicated by the scrutiny he pretends to welcome as justice looms on the distant horizon.  Justice, unfortunately, is still a vague unobtainable outcome lost in the gears of Pima County's political machine. 

Huckelberry can no longer lean on Attorney General Terry Goddard's investigation because it was proven to be woefully inadequate.  So inadequate that it represents the failure of the executive branch to provide sufficient remedy in a rigged election and was part of the argument for winning the initial appeal for prospective relief.  

Once the appellate courts ruled in favor of the election integrity advocates, Pima County's legal staff were passed over for pricier corporate lawyers.  These expenses add to the 1.3 million dollars wasted in a vain attempt at resisting election transparency and subsequent revelations of criminal activity. 

The guiding figure behind this activity was aptly named by Attorney Bill Risner:

“…Pima County, through the direction and control of its county administrator C.H. “Chuck” Huckelberry, has systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections. The elimination of those controls has permitted county management to take advantage of the ability to cheat presented by defects in our computerized election system. As a result, county management fraudulently rigged the Regional Transportation Authority election on May 16, 2006 and has the ability to manipulate the outcome of any Pima County election, including not only bond elections, but the elections of members of the Board of Supervisors, themselves.” 

The appellate court decision also marks the the beginning of a battle in the public arena with the inception of a PR machine that rivals most media outlets in Pima County.  Taxpayer's money is now being used to soak up employment slack as local media outlets shed their workforce in a failing local economy.  Pima County's influence over the pool of journalists succeeds through exploitation of increased economic scarcity in print and television media.  Taxpayers are inadvertently subsidizing a final path for job security as a pool of at least ten local professional journalists have enlisted with Pima County's public relations team.  Fear of retaliation and lost opportunity will continue to undermine local critical coverage of the 2006 RTA election.

One can only guess how much money is being spent to conceal the theft of two billion dollars from local taxpayers.  

From industries awash in contracts, other local radio outlets like John C. Scott and Bill Buckmaster line up at the trough of advertising dollars from those funding the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), the organization that emerged from the suspicious 2006 RTA election.  

Pima County's political machinery has placed local media coverage in a state of paralysis over recent evidence and cover-up of the 2006 RTA election. 

The size and scope of Pima County's bureaucracy itself is a force to be reckoned with.  Few administrators could boast controlling so many functions including its own public defenders, its own prosecutors, its own elections division, its own treasurer's office, its own court vault, its own law enforcement and its own judiciary.  Heads of all these departments have their salaries set by Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, the CEO or chief administrator deeply entrenched in this bureaucracy.  

Unfortunately, those following the hard fought battles won on behalf of election integrity are learning the consequences of pursuing justice in a court system that falls squarely under the umbrella of the organization that was caught cheating in the first place.  Previous highlights like Judge Harrington's "wash your hands" incident and Judge Borek's refusal of the courts to grant attorney's fees for previous court victories suggests that the appearance of impartiality is starting to whither.  

Recently, attorneys Bill Risner and Ralph Ellinwood have been forced to file a motion for a new trial based on erroneous judgement made by Kyle Bryson, the judge assigned to the case after appellate court ruled in favor of Risner and Ellinwood. Imagine having a judge speculate about what you might ask for in the courts and proceed with a ruling based on what he's guessing you're going to say.  Then imagine that same judge erroneously denying the legality of your request in direct contradiction to what the appellate court had already allowed.

Litigation over the 2006 RTA election is unique because of the sheer volume of evidence that has surfaced to implicate Pima County's elections division for fraud.  Bill Risner's initial disclosure statement provides a comprehensive statement of facts collected over many years of investigations and litigation of Pima County.

Two minutes into the following video shows Harri Hursti using a crop scanner to program the memory card before voting so that it would print the results he wanted as opposed to the actual votes.  The purpose of the report was to warn county election departments of this potential mechanism of fraud, now famously referred to as the “Hursti hack.”  The report came out July 4, 2005. By August 3, 2005, Pima County had purchased the same device.



DAVID:  Attorney Bill Risner Explains How Election Fraud
Works in Pima County.


Such shenanigans take more than just a hacking tool.  Taxpayer-funded studies were commissioned by Chuck Huckelberry for a precinct by precinct analysis of past bond elections.  This information is key to understanding what precisely could be done on a precinct by precinct basis to avoid grossly exaggerated numbers when changing the outcome of an election.  Truthfully, there is not much else this information would have to offer and is difficult to justify for $75,000 of taxpayer's funding.  The real headaches arrived once the attempt was made at applying this knowledge on election night.  Huge numbers of precinct memory cards on RTA's election night needed to be re-uploaded as it proved far more complicated to actually hack the cards with the crop scanner so that it corresponded to the same net aggregate of the precinct totals examined in the study.  

As indicated in Risner's initial disclosure statement:

"Tucson resident Zbigniew Osmolski swore in an affidavit that he had spoken with Pima County’s election computer operator Bryan Crane on January 27, 2008 and Mr. Crane told him that he “fixed” the RTA election on the instruction of his bosses and he did what he was told to do. Mr. Crane expressed his concern about being indicted."  

Weekly and daily printed news publications echoed Pima County's efforts to discredit the whistleblower as a disgruntled employee.  The Tucson Weekly stopped just short of accusing Mr. Osmolski of perjury. 

It's difficult to understand the rationale of having Judge Kyle Bryson hear the motion for a new trial after his errant ruling was what prompted the motion in the first place, but that is what's taking place on the following date: 

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 2:30 PM
Judge Kyle Bryson’s Courtroom
Fifth Floor, Pima Superior Court:
110 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ

The future of this country may very well rest on the numbers that attend this hearing.  Why?

1.  Information acquired within the past six years includes specific ways to identify red flags in electronic records that are sufficient to challenge elections.

2.  Testimony is on record from officials all over the country confirming that electronic voting machines and their software are insecure and unreliable. 

3.  Despite the stall tactics used by Pima County's giant bureaucracy, this litigation will set a precedent to help others throughout the country pursue and achieve election integrity.

4.  Similarly flawed electronic voting machines and software are currently in use throughout the country.

5.  Prospective relief through this precedent-setting court case could provide a tangible, timely means to improve election transparency nationwide.


Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Attorney Bill Risner Explains How Election Fraud Works in Pima County (Tucson) Arizona


John Brakey

Here is a video Clip of Attorney Bill Risner Explaining How Election Fraud Works in Pima County, (Tucson) Arizona: http://youtu.be/JE0kOvFjn_0




We've said nothing about the media blackout they done on this story. Maybe several millions spent on suppressing all of this? We know that an attorney fees Pima County has spent $1.3 million.

Pima County’s Manger “Chuck Huckelberry” has created a monster PR Staff, AZ Daily Star: Sunday, October 9, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/6p5qhtl 


Quick, how many Pima County communications staffers does it take to put out a press release?
---
Answer JB
10 and Maricopa County PR office has 3 media people. 

Please help us with media if you can to end the blackout.

Best regards, John Roberts Brakey

----
PLEASE SHARE WITH OTHERS AND BE WITH US IN COURT MONDAY, AUGUST 13, AT 2:30PM 

Your presence is needed to send a message that elections matter and they must be verifiable.

Fact: “At the present time it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge a rigged election. The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of challenging any specific election requires court intervention in order to protect the purity of elections and ensure that we will have free elections.” Attorney Bill Risner

New Motion filed Aug 6th: The county ‘WE ONLY CHEATED ONCE’ ARGUMENT: http://tinyurl.com/cp928z7 

Judge Kyle Bryson's decision of May 4, 2012 was contrary to law. This court should correct its ruling and erroneous judgment and require the county to file its answer to the counterclaim filed on October 3, 2008.

BACKGROUND: AUDIT-AZ, the Pima County Libertarian Party and other interested citizens of multiple parties since 2002 have been investigating election processes in Pima County. In previous actions, the Democratic Party took the lead in winning public records lawsuits and revealing the extent of the problems, including poor security practices on "designed to cheat systems”, election results that consistently did not add up, missing or falsified paper, and election officials and staff who continuously disobey the law. We know this because of the county's testimony in 3 previous lawsuits that we won. This case is about presenting the evidences. 

The Democratic and Libertarian Parties jointly filed suit years ago to ask a court to order reforms to the process. One local judge decided that his court was unable to do so no matter how obvious the problems might be. After that, the Democratic Party dropped out. The Libertarian Party did not: they appealed and won. Pima County appealed that decision to the AZ Supreme Court and lost. The courts have now ruled that if it can be proven that elections are being handled poorly, a local judge can indeed order Pima County to institute reforms.

The important bit is this: at this stage of the game, the court has to accept as TRUE that Pima County rigged an election. Judge Bryson is saying that even if that's the case, there's still nothing he can do - in open defiance of three appellate judges and five Supreme Court judges above him.

We're asking Judge Kyle Bryson's to reconsider, as he's not allowed to guess what our arguments will be before they're even made and throw us out on that basis.

Come to court with us and show that we the people of this county are paying attention: 

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 2:30 PM
Judge Kyle Bryson’s Courtroom
Fifth Floor, Pima Superior Court:
110 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ

Also List of VIP links and documents: 

1) Bill Risner Reply to Pima County BOS Opposition to Motion for a new trial filed Aug 6th: we only cheated once argument: http://tinyurl.com/cp928z7 

2) LP's Motion for a New Trial filed 07.12.12.pdf: http://tinyurl.com/7m6dbmg ; Hearing set for Aug 13: http://tinyurl.com/7tkzx2l ; Scan able copy of Motion w/o exhibits. pdf: http://tinyurl.com/7bbdrp3 

3) June 10, 2012, Arizona Election Fraud: Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson Rules in Direct Opposition to the Appellate Courts: http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/2012/06/arizona-election-fraud-pima-county.html 


5) “V.P.” Link to Bill Risner initial disclosure statement which is a mind blowing comprehensive statement of facts collected over many years of investigations and litigation of Pima County: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling

6) The Ellen Theisen report on the many Significant Discrepancies in the AZ AG office hand count: http://www.votersunite.org/info/SignificantDiscrepanciesInComparisonOfRTAResults.pdf

7) Bill Risner's resolution to State Democratic Party, with backup documents: http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/ArizonaDemResolution2010.pdf

8) Summary of the Four Pima County Cases 09/06/10 by Bill Risner updated 7/16/11 by Jim March and John Brakey: http://tinyurl.com/5wda8gl

9) When It Comes To Election Integrity In Arizona There’s Nothing Like Having An “Elephant in the Room” Or At Least A "Big Donkey" August 8, 2010:


11) Pima County’s Manger “Chuck Huckelberry” created a monster PR Staff, AZ Daily Star: Josh Brodesky: County's new PR force: Good use of tax funds? Sunday, October 9, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/6p5qhtl 

12) Maricopa County no better (Phoenix) 4th largest county in USA, “These Points “Interlock” To Make A Complete Election Fraud Recipe”: http://audit-az.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-monday-08162010-emergency-lawsuit.html

John R Brakey
AUDITAZ@cox.net