Flashback: 2008's False Arrest of John Brakey Unearths a Myriad of Hand Count Audit Deficiencies

J.T. Waldron

Seven years later, Pima County is still being choked by the stranglehold of a majority of supervisors who have overstayed their welcome.   They remain thanks to an entrenched bureaucratic structure that could easily reward their compliance with additional reelections.  Elections are still run in this county by the same bureaucrats, the same elections director and the same operatives posing as political party officials.  Ultimately, we discovered how their activities run in concert with a national top down agenda that is predetermined and realized through the vendors.  Those cancerous black-box industry cartels manage to glom onto key functions in every municipal elections division.  That outcome of this forced agenda has a peculiar likeness to the green mask of United Nations' Agenda 21, the feel good way for a bankrupt nation to forfeit its sovereignty. 

El Rio Deal Culminates Into a Culprit Hearing for the City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin

Last Friday, Judge Christopher Staring presided over a culprit hearing for Tucson's failure to disclose public records concerning the potential sale of  El Rio golf course to Grand Canyon University.   A culprit hearing allows a trial court to determine whether a party (The City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin), as opposed to that party’s counsel (now Michael McCrory), is responsible for a disclosure or discovery violations.  The following summary was provided by Scott Egan, who also interviewed Plaintiff Cecilia Cruz and and Attorney Bill Risner after the hearing in the videos below: 

Not sure if my debut as a newscaster will win me any awards, but it was fun!

On the Albert Elias deposition on the GCU/El Rio Scam

In the lawsuit against the City of Tucson over access to public records regarding the sale of the El Rio public property to Grand Canyon University, a deposition was taken of Albert Elias, a long-term, top echelon entrenched bureaucrat in the City, who is supposedly being considered for appointment as the new city manager. His testimony, taken on October 14, 2014 and recorded by AuditAz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9YgBxDMZw) reveals many disturbing factors swirling around Mr. Elias.

To begin with, Mr. Elias clearly takes credit for being the lead person on the GCU/El Rio deal. He states [57:34] that he and Chris Kaselemis “were the main people responsible” in the attempted sale. When attorney Bill Risner reponds “but you are above him” (Kaselemis) he answers “Yes.”

This attempt of a giant rip-off of public resources alone should disqualify him from any important position in public service, but as we have learned, in the City of Tucson such behavior is not only tolerated but awarded. In fact it seems that every bureaucrat that was involved in this corrupt deal has been either promoted or received a salary increase by the Mayor and Council.

Besides two years of blatant attempts by the City to ignore and violate Arizona state public document laws by illegally withholding public information (from both the public, the press, and the courts), another aspect of highly questionable legality concerns the phony appraisal the City had conducted in order to sell the property at below market value -- a violation of Arizona’s Gift Clause. Mr. Elias, by his own testimony, was directly responsible and “concurred” with the appraisal [38:34] which directed the appraiser to value the 100+ acres -- with hundreds beautiful trees covered in lush grass, with water and irrigation service, sewer and electric systems, a club house with a restaurant and a brand new center (built by the Conquistors for a kids program) and owned by the people of Tucson and maintained by their taxes -- this parcel the City wanted to value as a “vacant” lot to sell on the cheap. A great deal for the developers. Not so good for every other taxpayer in Tucson.

Although Mr. Elias admits that he was in charge of the City Real Estate Division and this project in particular, he claims he did not give direct instructions to low-ball the value of the land (we may never know who did), but he testifies that he was “aware” that the appraisal was based on a “hypothetical” assumption that the land was vacant. He states that he supported the appraisal because it was based on “the highest and best use of the subject property as if vacant, for future development and mixed use.” [49:48]

To which Risner says: “Of course, it wasn’t vacant.”

“Correct.” responds Elias.

Besides these troubling statements, and the numerous attempts of the city attorney representative to prevent further questioning of how the phony appraisal was initiated, Mr. Elias also (if he is telling the truth in the deposition) has extreme ignorance of the basic rules on public records and the responsibilities public service workers have to the public they are supposed to serve. Or perhaps he is just lying.

For example, Risner asks Elias [103:10] if he is “aware that when there is a request, or a lawsuit relating to records, that a legal hold is placed on those records?”

Answer: “NO.”

Riser: “So you are not familiar with the public records rule in Arizona law that if there is a litigation, while that litigation is pending the records sought would be held and not destroyed.”

Answer: “No I’m not aware of that.”

In fact, Mr. Elias, who has worked for the City for many years and held many high positions in the organization, does not seem to be aware that any records should be preserved when an employee leaves their employment with the city. (Let us hope that when Mr. Elias does eventually retire, he destroys all of “his” city-owned files in an environmentally friendly way).

Finally, Mr. Elias’ comments go even past the point of feigned or legitimate ignorance when asked about any notes that he or his staff may have taken in their meetings here in Tucson or in Phoenix with officials from G.C.U. If one is to believe him, City of Tucson staff never take any notes.

As Risner asks [1:23] “Isn’t it common for staff to take notes at meetings?”

“No,” says Elias. “That is not common.”

That must save a lot of paper. (Of course, if they never use paper they also must be on the lookout for burglars that surreptitiously enter locked council offices and steal council members computers without setting off alarms or any trace of forceable entry).

There are certainly other amazing aspects of this fascinating interview, (like the fact that the City Parks Department, who have responsibility for El Rio, were never even consulted on the deal) and I would encourage anyone who has an hour and half to spend to actually watch the whole episode.  That may seem like a long time, but if Albert Elias is selected as our new City Manager life is going to be a long, slow, and very ugly period for Tucson -- no matter how long he may survive in the position.

There is my two cents, and then some.

Scott D. Egan Chief Correspondent for ... uh, what’s the name again?

Video courtesy of John Brakey

Scott Egan's interview with Bill Risner

Scott Egan's interview with Ceci Cruz

Here is the full video of last Friday's culprit hearing:

A Technicality May Bar Oro Valley Citizens from Voting on Purchase of El Conquistador Resort

KGun 9 actually covered the story:

John Brakey and Chuck Aubrey conduct an interview with Bill Risner.

And with plaintiff Debra Arret

And plaintiff Shirley Lamonna

Southern Arizona powers-that-be don’t want you to know Bill Risner

L. Hunnicut
Arizona Daily Independent

                                       Video by John Brakey

On Friday 13, 2014, an ideologically diverse group of Tucsonans gathered to honor their friend; attorney Bill Risner. The event was years overdue.

Over the years, Risner has exposed and fought the powers-that-be in the community on behalf of the members of the community. And because of that effort, the powers-that-be have worked hard to keep community in the dark about the man who fought to shed so much light on their behalf.

From his days challenging the Viet Nam War as student body president at the University of Arizona, to just this past May when he sued City of Tucson for public records, Risner has been under the scrutiny of the powers-that-be because the powers-that-be don’t like people who bring scrutiny to them and their friends.

Over the years, despite his best efforts and those of so many others, little has changed in Southern Arizona, which is a microcosm of America’s ills. The only real change in our little world is that secret government agents have been replaced by computers that gather every shred of metadata possible in order to keep the powers-that-be and their cronies in cash and control.

Risner, a democrat, has taken on all the power brokers, in and out of his own political party. He took on Attorney General Terry Goddard and fought tooth and nail for the truth behind Pima County elections and specifically the fraudulent RTA bond election. The powers-that-be-good in the Party didn’t appreciate Risner much, but he won the admiration and loyalty of the grassroots.

That fight, Risner’s role in it, and the vastness of the County corruption earned little air time or column space. We don’t air our dirty laundry when the boys’ boxers are in the hamper.

In 1975, when investigative reporting still existed, Fred Allison of KGUN 9 News did a story about Risner and the secret agent from the Pima County Sheriff’s Office who was assigned to shadow him. It is hard to gauge the impact the report had on viewers at the time. It aired once. No relics of a follow-up can be found.

(Today, in Tucson, it would not be covered by the mainstream media, or even the tragically hip tabloids. They all crawled into bed together sometime back in the 1980’s but the citizens were the only ones who got screwed.) `

The following is an account from Risner to one of Tucson other tireless transparency advocates; John Brakey:

In the fall of 1975 on Channel 9 News had press coverage over allegations by someone that the Pima County Sheriff had wanted deputies to be on the lookout for Pima County supervisor Ron Asta in order that they might catch him in a compromising condition and stop him for a DU. Asta, an urban sprawl foe, who had earned of the wrath of developers, had not supported a larger budget for the Sheriff’s Office.

Risner ran into a television reporter while visiting the Pima County supervisor’s office. The reporter asked Risner if he knew about the Sheriff’s Office targeting anyone for political reasons. Risner said he had been targeted. The reporter asked Risner if he would agree to an interview. Risner, who is more sophisticated than the average bear, refused but suggested that he interview “his agent” who had worked for the Sheriff’s Office while targeting Risner.

Risner gave the reporter the agent’s name and telephone number. The reporter called him and the agent agreed to be interviewed for TV but only with a camera on the back of his head. Bill Risner then agreed to be interviewed for the segment.

(Back then, as it is now, if you tell a story that exposes their corruption, you will be crushed if you are the only one telling the truth. Even if you aren’t the only one telling the truth, if no one else has the nerve to tell it publically; you are toast. You can count on the cronies of the powers-that-be to line up to lie about you and marginalize you in every manner available. It’s the Tucson way.)

Bill Risner first learned that he had a “personal” agent one evening while he was visiting the Pima County Jail to see a client. A person standing behind the desk asked Risner if he recognized him. Risner said no, he did not. The man told Risner that he should he had been “his agent.” Risner said “let’s talk.”

Risner asked as they walked outside, “What do you mean?”

Risner’s agent told him that he went anywhere he thought Risner would be or where he could hear who Risner was talking to and what Risner was saying. If, for example, Risner spoke to a college class, the agent would be there pretending to be a student with a spiral notebook to take notes.

The agent then wrote weekly reports that were distributed to the Sheriff’s Office, the FBI, the State Police, the Tucson Police, and military intelligence.

Fred Allison reported it all. Both men shared their stories and Tucson continued slouching toward 1984.

In 2014, Risner is now trying to expose what many believe was a deal to sell off valuable public property at illegal below-market prices to the cronies of the powers-that-be. He represented concerned citizens who wanted to see the records of the negotiations that they, as citizens, are legally permitted to view.

Although the number of developers have dwindled, in the 8th poorest metropolitan area in the country, guys like Don Diamond still pull the strings of the elected officials on every level of government in Arizona.

A Pima County Superior court judge ruled against the City, for its failure to comply with public records requirements and awarded plaintiffs $15,800.00. The judge found, “COT’s slipshod approach to Ms. Cruz’s request, unreasonably expanded and delayed the resolution of this matter….”

That is it in a nutshell.

The powers-that-be have unreasonably delayed so many possible resolutions to so many of our community’s problems in an effort to maintain the status quo. Guys like Bill Risner don’t divide and conquer; they uncover. And given the all the information, people of good will can make the right decisions and resolutions.

Communication is key to Pima County’s economy

"Good Article. This firms up what Bill Risner, others and I know about our local media and its getting worse."   

          --John Brakey, AUDITAZ

Arizona Daily Independent

When government becomes one of the largest employers in an area, the desire by the unemployed or underemployed populace to maintain and grow its size grows as well.

Pima County is not shy about expanding, and the desperate are happy to help it.

Last week, officials announced that Dave Hatfield, soon to be former editor of the failing Inside Tucson Business magazine, would be joining Pima County’s public relations team. Hatfield will be replaced at Inside Tucson Business with Mark B. Evans, editor of the failing TucsonCitizen.com, an online “community of bloggers.”

Hatfield joins a Pima County government communications team headed up by former small advertising business owner, Jeff Nordensson. Nordensson replaced Sam Negri in January of this year.
Prior to being hired by Pima County, Nordensson’s firm had previously held the contract for Pima County’s media buys.

According to Nordensson, the Communications department consists of “3 writers here. We had one, but she decided that Barcelona was more fun than Tucson. Her departure opened the job sometime in mid to late May. We have 2 1/2 graphic designers, 3 1/2 videographers, and 2 ½ art directors, 1 social media editor/creative director.”

Including Nordesson, Pima County Communications Department employs 9 ½ full-time and part-time employees, yet still has the cash and apparent need to farm out media buys to the Bolchalk Frey Marketing Agency.

Hatfield’s base salary will be $55K.

According to Nordesson, the writers spend “a lot of time trying to figure out what is going on at different departments and also make what Pima County is doing more transparent.” Nordesson offered an example of the thought process behind the writers’ work. As an example, he explained that one of his writers, Diane Luber, did not mention in a press release issued last week that the Pima County Board of Supervisors gave $10K to the Borderlands Theater Group because it would not be “of general interest to the public.” On the other hand, she did mention that the County would be able to keep its lease with the Tucson Padres for a little bit more time until the team leaves town for good.

“Lots of things go on that before I took this job that I was not aware of. We determine whether something is note worthy, by whether it is in the general interest. It’s all available online, but it doesn’t generate a lot of interest. It is not a matter of trying not to bring something up. I don’t know if we would bring up the Raytheon lawsuit; that would depend on the issue at the time. We have tried to publicize the Michigan left turn because we know people have to change behaviors. It may not be controversial but it is something people need to know about.”

Nordensson said that despite being a government entity, they were making “subjective decisions about general interest, and we depend on media to take a look at what they think is of interest. There is a difference between what is available to the public and what we think is important for wider distribution.”

Luckily for the County, local media is shrinking, and few writers want to “expose” the corruption of what might be their only future chance for employment in Southern Arizona.
Evans has overseen the slow death of the Citizen after it went out of print. Hatfield, not known for his accuracy, has overseen Inside Tucson through its steady decline in readership and relevancy. According to insiders, Hatfield was anticipating a turnaround by Inside’s owners, Wick Communications.

According to the TucsonSentinel.com, “Top executives at Gannett Inc. don’t have a contingency plan for Evans leaving. Evans described the Citizen as an “orphan” despite being part of “the largest media company in the world.”

The Sentinel reported that Evans’ last day working for Gannett is Sept. 20; he starts with the Wick Communications-owned ITB three days later.

According to Nordesson, he hopes Hatfield will begin working for the County by October 1.
From the communication department’s webpage:

“The Communications Office proactively supports Pima County’s mission and strategic objectives. The Office provides creative services including editorial support, graphic and web design, logos,
photography, publicity, and media relations for all departments. Our communications products enhance the County’s visibility, image, reputation throughout the state, U.S. and internationally.
Videos, brochures, press releases, maps, and bike helmet stickers for kids — if it has words, pictures, or graphics, we create it for the County.
Check out some our recent work below and use the tabs to discover how we promote the County’s identity, people, and programs.”

In one of his most ironic opinion pieces at Inside Tucson Business, Hatfield wrote in July of this year, “By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth…” and advised his handful of readers that “more of us should question what we’re being told.”

The Pima County taxpayers can at least say Dave warned them.

• Email

Would You Fight Arizona Computer Vote Fraud for 7 Years?

Arizona Election Fraud: East Side Republicans Club host Democrat Bill Risner on election integrity

Arizona Daily Independent

Republican Lori Oien, head of the East Side Republican Club, invited democrat attorney Bill Risner to discuss election integrity in Pima County. The Election Division, under Brad nelson, has come under scrutiny since the RTA Bond election in 2006.

Oien, a former candidate for Tucson City Council, introduced Risner, Republican Election official Benny White, Democrat Election official Mickey Donohue, and a documentary film crew that has been following her and documenting her life for the past 11 months. She told the multi-partisan group, that she had heard Bill Risner on the radio and because election integrity is “not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a fairness issue,” she invited Risner to address the packed house.

Risner, White, and Donahue presented pending lawsuits, current practices, and continuing concerns. Risner explained that “the problem for people who care about democracy and whether your vote actually counts is that we using computers, and they are computers that are privatized and suing their software, and computers do what they are told.” It is exactly what the Pima County computers were told which is at the heart of the continuing legal battle between Risner and the Pima County government.

Pima County officials exempted County races from hand count audits, and have denied access to the ballots cast in the 2006 election, as well as refusing to use optical scanners in the County’s possession to account for all ballots cast in election subsequent to 2006.

Aside from the concerns about the computers’ accuracy and security is the manner in which early ballots are handled by the County. Currently, early ballots are tabulated over a week before General Election Day, which has triggered speculation in past races that the results were known to political operatives who used that information for unfair political advantage.

White, who is a staunch defender of Pima County’s system, conceded that in the past there was fraud, but he said that there is none now.

“It’s our contention base on facts and past history that by the morning of the 30th of October with approximately 25,000 plus vote counted they will know who’s winning and losing and if they need to HACK or STUFF any county races, they will have 7 days to do it, said John Brakey of Americans United for Democracy Intergrity and Transperency in election Arizona, (AUDIT-AZ).

U.S. Election Officials "Reserving the Right to Cheat"

Brief history of Pima County’s election reform struggle

Arizona Daily Independent 

Bill Risner

Bill Risner

This timeline is designed to give people new to the issue an understanding of why we think there’s problems, what we’ve done about it so far and why we need to keep going after eight years of hard effort. A few items refer to happenings outside of Pima County but directly related to the issues here.

I’ve attempted to set out a time line and story from my viewpoint. Several persons have been key to a joint effort to achieve an honest count of votes. The effort has been long, costly and difficult. It was initially centered in the Pima County (Tucson) Democratic Party. Eventually heavy pressure from major contributors and the party’s candidate for governor caused the Democratic Party to drop out of the struggle.

November 1996. At this election part of the ballots in Pima County were counted on optical scanners using GEMS software and another part of the county used punch cards. The data from the different systems needed to be “merged” so the company sent an expert to Tucson to teach the county computer operator how to use Microsoft Access to accomplish that task outside the constraints of the software. Thus, the county learned that data could be manipulated outside the software constraints and re-inserted without leaving any fingerprints. All the “fingerprints” could be simply erased before re-insertion.

This “off-line” work could be done on any computer that used Microsoft Access, a common program. Testimony established that Pima County’s election computer operator regularly took home with him copies of election data where such data manipulation could easily be accomplished.

First Phase: Study, Reform and Cooperation

November 2000. The Florida ballot counting highlighted the necessity of looking for cheating. Bill Risner had obtained a complete recount of punch card ballots in a City of Tucson election 1990 and offered his experience and help to Gore’s lawyers in Florida. The offer was among many and was not accepted.

Bill Risner, a Tucson personal injury lawyer, had handled various election cases on and off throughout the previous thirty years. He had twice been hired by the county government as a special election lawyer. He was functionally the county Democratic Party lawyer in election law matters.

Bill asked to be appointed as the Democratic Party’s observer at the next election. He knew the party historically had not looked for cheating and wanted to observe the entire ballot handling process to see where one could cheat. Everything looked good at the 2002 election up until the actual tabulation where all that could be seen was a couple of blinking lights in a black box containing a computer. Bill knew nothing about election software or computers.

2003: Pima County Democratic Party chair Paul Eckerstrom at the request of a concerned Democrat created an election integrity committee and appointed Bill Risner and Tom Ryan to the committee.

Dr. Tom Ryan, Ph.D., was at or near retirement from a career as a computer specialist. He knew computers and was interested in the role they played in the election process. Tom lead the investigation of the computer system and wrote a report on the vulnerabilities of our computerized system. The County Democratic Party adopted his report as its policy.

2004: Tom Ryan identified the “early ballot” processing as a critical point because it constituted one-half of the ballots and had no auditing of accuracy at any point.

October 2004: Tom Ryan and Bill Risner, on behalf of the Democratic Party, met with Pima County’s Election Director Brad Nelson to ask for changes in the early ballot vote counting so as to have auditable results. Nelson later reported that the software “doesn’t permit it.”

November 2004: John Brakey worked at Precinct 324 as a poll observer. John suspected cheating among a couple of poll workers and conducted a personal investigation that proved it. After official disinterest in his proof, he started a group called AuditAZ. He has remained a driving force in pushing for fair and honest elections.

November 2005: Bill Risner and Tom Ryan obtained the City of Tucson’s agreement to audit its early ballot counting at the city election. The same auditing that Brad Nelson said couldn’t be done. The city and county use the same software.

May 16, 2006: A Special Election was held in Pima County to approve a one-half cent sales tax to generate $2 billion to pay for a 20 year road plan favored by “growth lobby” business interests and the county board of supervisors. The same sales tax had been defeated in four prior elections. The four prior losses were by a 60% – 40% margin. This victory was reported as a 60% – 40% approval. None of the election activists claimed the election was fraudulent.

But, they did object to the lack of monitoring and the questionable use of a Microsoft Access manual by the election operator during counting, as it violated election procedures. Local Democratic activists consulted by telephone with Jim March of Black Box Voting during the count that evening. Pima County refused to permit any political party to monitor that bond election.

Later, the county party brought Jim March from California to Tucson for expert consulting. He eventually joined the local election activist team. Jim is a Libertarian and a board member of Black Box Voting. He is applying his computer skills full time to election computer issues and was an invaluable addition to the citizen team. Jim consults with election activists nationwide.

Summer 2006: The Democratic Party election team was joined by Michael Duniho (“Mickey”), a retired National Security Agency (NSA) master programmer who had been a Republican Party election monitor for many years in Maryland before retiring to Tucson. Mickey became the local Democratic Party point person in recommending and achieving many procedural and equipment security changes for the fall general election.

November 2006: At this point the Democratic Party “team” included four people with extensive computer election expertise: Tom Ryan, Michael Duniho, Jim March and John Brakey and one lawyer with election law expertise. After the general election they used Arizona’s public record laws to request computer audit logs from the election. The county provided the audit logs that revealed that the county illegally printed summaries showing actual vote counts of “early ballots” more than a week before election day.

A public record request was made for the entire county electronic database of past elections. The county refused to provide that database. The citizen computer experts knew there was not a valid reason for the refusal and the county gave none.

Second Phase – Lawsuits and Discovery that a major election had been rigged.

January 2007: The Pima County bi-annual organizing convention of the Pima County Democratic Party unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Democratic dominated county board of supervisors to turn over the database and not force their own political party to sue them.

The board of supervisors still refused.

Bill Risner, hoping to avoid a more complicated lawsuit over the database, sued the county board on behalf of the Democratic Party to obtain the illegally printed vote summaries made before election day and videotaped discovery depositions of the county election director and computer operator.

April 17, 2007: The “summary report” lawsuit depositions revealed further illegalities and a lawsuit was then filed by the Democratic Party against the county board seeking the entire electronic database.

The County furiously defended that lawsuit. Its lawyers initially sought a “stay” in the lawsuit discovery because they claimed no one in the election department could testify because they all might assert their Fifth Amendment Right to avoid self-incrimination.

This “Database” lawsuit was defended by the County using all their resources. I estimate that the county spent more than $1 million in defending that public record request.

That lawsuit represented a new phase in the struggle, because it was abundantly clear that the County was hiding something very big and it could only be that it had fraudulently rigged the May 16, 2006 RTA election. The depositions and other discovery solidified our conclusion.

During the pendency of that case, the initial lawsuit was concluded when the county agreed to open the ballot boxes from the November 2006 general election where they claimed all the “summary reports” could be located. The subsequent examination confirmed the illegal printing as alleged by the Democratic Party.

At the four-day Superior Court trial in the database case, the county’s defense was that the Democratic Party could print fake results in the future if they learned the font and page layout used by the GEMS software and thus could create “chaos and mayhem” by “spoofing” the actual results. That absurd claim and thus lack of any defense re-confirmed that the county would fight to the last taxpayer dollar to prevent discovery of its election secrets.

January 27, 2008: Tucson Resident Zbigniew Osmolski went with friends to the Boondock’s Lounge where he had a candid conversation with Bryan Crane, who confessed that he “fixed” the RTA election on the instruction of his bosses and he did what he was told to do. Crane expressed his concern about being indicted and said he’d like to talk but couldn’t trust anyone. Affidavit of Zbigniew Osmolski: http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/Osmolski_Affidavit.pdf

May 23, 2008: The court ordered the County to turn over its database and to pay $234,347.20 to the Democratic Party’s lawyer as fees and costs.

An additional $19,161.05 in fees and costs was ordered to be paid by the county for the “summary report” case.

July 24, 2008 – Meanwhile, the ballots from the RTA election were in storage under the control of the Pima County Treasurer. The ballots are the definitive evidence of the fraudulent RTA election. The County wanted to destroy the ballots. A lawsuit was filed by the Pima County Treasurer for “guidance” by the court as to whether she was required to destroy the ballots.

The Libertarian Party and the Democratic Party filed a counterclaim alleging that substantial evidence existed to show that the RTA election was fraudulent and, therefore, the court should take control of the ballots and have them examined. That evidence included a confession by the county computer operator that he had rigged the election at the instruction of his bosses.

December 23, 2008: The optical scanners used at precincts print a “results tape showing the votes cast at each precinct at the closing of the polls on election day. Those scanners can be programmed by a machine called a “cropscanner” to print fake results. Pima County purchased such a machine two weeks after being alerted by a Black Box Voting Organization national alert on July 4, 2005. Invoice for the cropscanner Pima County Elections: 

http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/crop_scanner_invoice.pdf

Strong evidence was uncovered that Pima County may have used its newly purchased hack tool to rig the RTA results. The Democratic Party filed a third lawsuit – a public record lawsuit requesting to examine the poll tapes because the tapes might have clues showing they had been fraudulently programmed. After lengthy litigation, the tapes were produced and some 44% of the poll tapes were found to be “missing” or didn’t match the final database.

January 27, 2009: Superior Court Judge Charles Harrington ruled that the Arizona Courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider evidence of a fraudulent election for the purpose of an injunction to prevent cheating in the future. He dismissed the case without requiring the County to answer the allegations because he found the Democratic and the Libertarian parties did not state a claim.

November 17, 2009: The Libertarian Party filed an appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals of that ruling. The Democratic Party was pressured by Democratic elected officials and contributors to not appeal as the case could embarrass its candidates. The Libertarian Party asked Bill Risner to join its lawyer in continuing the case the Democratic Party now wanted killed.

October 28, 2010: In a Memorandum Decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed Judge Harrington and ruled that the Libertarian Party had stated a claim and that they could pursue their claim that the RTA was fraudulent and obtain injunctive relief.

November 12, 2010: Pima County requested the appellate court to reconsider its ruling, claiming the Libertarian Party had alleged nothing more than “a discrete incident of past wrongdoing.” Its request was denied.

November 29, 2010: Pima County petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. Review was denied. The case was sent back to Pima County.

May 4, 2012: The County Board of Supervisors requested that the case again be dismissed because they claimed they had not cheated in any subsequent election after the $2 billion road plan and tax increase and that the Libertarian Party had not specifically alleged they had a “good faith belief” that they would cheat again. Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson dismissed the Libertarian case a second time, claiming that the most the court could do would be to issue an order that Pima County just “obey the law” and that it could not consider actual procedural changes. Therefore, he ruled that the Libertarian Party had not stated a claim that any court could consider.

July 11, 2012: The Libertarian Party requested Judge Bryson to reconsider his ruling.

August 13, 2012: Judge Bryson confirmed his ruling.

September 10, 2012: Libertarian Party filed its notice of appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The local election activists fully understand that the stolen election in 2006 will not be reversed. That is not the issue. Their goal is to prevent cheating in the future. There are many steps the court could order to prevent cheating. Court intervention is needed because the county administration will not agree to changes that would prevent them from cheating. However, the county court won’t permit evidence to be presented.

We recognize that the same system used here is used in thousands of jurisdictions across the nation. Our goal is to help protect democracy at our home and hope that it helps others in our state and country.

The following are some additional links to related information: http://www.alternet.org/story/92366/arizona_activists_outline_evidence_of_2006_electronic_vote_theft

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.

Precedent-Setting Court Case Could Affect 2012 Elections

Click here to follow court documents for this case.

Enter this Case Number: C20085016

Possible RTA election fraud focus of lawsuit

Arizona Daily Independent

This week Pima County administrator Chuck Huckleberry claimed that a law forward by State Representative Terry Proud and signed by the Governor, HB2408, was retaliatory. The law calls for an audit of the Pima County Bonding disbursements. Huckleberry and an editorial in the newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, argued that if Proud wanted the information, all she had to do was ask for it.

However, for over 4 years, various interests have asked Huckleberry for information regarding the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election on May 16, 2006. At the time of the election, questions arose regarding the election results almost immediately. They persist in the form of a lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court.

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. 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” 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.”

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

Lawsuit highlights:

It Is Easy To Cheat With Pima County’s Computerized Election System

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.

Battle Over Ballots

Tucson Weekly
Mari Herreras

Almost five years after the RTA election, a group of activists keeps fighting for election integrity

Bill Risner: "We want an order to keep them from cheating
in the future. This court does have jurisdiction to see
that the Constitution is followed in Arizona."

Tucson attorney Bill Risner stood before a Pima County Superior Court judge earlier this month and asked the court to take another look at the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election.

Risner said there was enough apparent foul play involved for the court to change how ballots are counted in the county.

Yes, folks: The election-integrity battle rages on.

In the May 2006 RTA election, voters approved a 20-year, $2.1 billion transportation plan funded by a half-cent increase in the sales tax, with 60 percent of voters supporting the plan, and 58 percent supporting the half-cent sales tax.

Risner and other critics questioned the results when the plan passed, citing conflicting polls and precinct reports, and pointing out that the growth lobby had a lot to gain in a $2.1 billion plan to pay for roads and improvements.

Among other things, activists asked the state Attorney General's Office to look at anomalies detected in computer software that the county used to track votes. The anomalies issue led to a successful public-records lawsuit in 2010 that gave the Pima County Democratic Party access to the computer database for the RTA election.

The next legal challenge: asking the court to allow the public to look at the RTA ballots and other elections materials still in storage. Before that hearing ended, then-Attorney General Terry Goddard had the ballots inspected and counted, and determined there was no foul play. Critics, however, contended that a forensic analysis of the ballots should be done, and that key election reports were missing.

Arizona Election Fraud: Attorney Bill Risner's Argument Reaffirms the Need for Election Integrity

In Tucson, Arizona, today's hearing had two remarkable features.  First, the lack of substance  behind Pima County's motion to dismiss and, second, Bill Risner's argument reaffirming the purpose and significance this court case has for future elections.   Here's is Bill Risner's argument on behalf of the trial itself:



The whole point of the appeal won by the Libertarian party was that courts do have jurisdiction to issue orders to ensure fair, transparent elections when the legislative branch and the executive branch fail to do so. In an obvious stall tactic, Pima County decided to make the same arguments that were lost in the appellate court decision.

"You don't have subject matter jurisdiction for that" argued Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm in reference to ballot scans, a remedy proposed by the Libertarian party. Currently practiced in Humbolt County, California, ballot scanning is the measure making optical scans of the ballots available for public perusal.  Fickbohm continued to argue against the appellate court decision by insisting that proposed remedies can only be handled by the legislature.  The Libertarian party already established the failure of the legislative branch to offer a timely remedy and won the appeal based on that argument.

Additional points made by Pima County seemed to involve technicalities where none really existed.  Ronna Fickbohm  makes the argument that the plaintiff doesn't "say there's an ongoing problem of election fraud in the future." The judge may not appreciate this argument given the fact that removing Pima County's ability to cheat was the basic, implicit underpinning of the case for prospective relief.

Finally, Pima County attempted to rewrite recent history by suggesting that previous statements recorded in their last records trial are taken out of context and never meant to indicate that their software system was a security issue.

Here is Pima County Attorney Chris Straub (replaced by the pricier private counsel, Ronna Fickbohm) clearly making the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. You can decide whether it's taken out of context:



Here is today's entire hearing:



Video shot and edited by John Brakey

Arizona Election Fraud: Access Tucson Breaks Media Blackout

Dear Citizens Against Rigged Elections:

PLEASE, be in court with us, we need a big presence to show that this is a critical case and “we the people” are paying attention and we expect the judge to do the same.

Monday March 5th- 11:00 AM
Judge Kyle Bryson’s Courtroom, Fifth Floor,
Pima Superior Court: 110 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ

For those who can’t make it, we will be video recording and will upload to our AUDITAZ’s YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/AUDITAZ/featured

Last Friday we did Stewart Thomas TV show (above) called World Harmony: Can It Happen? (a program that tries to bring more peace and human harmony into our world)


Tonight's Topic - ELECTION INTEGRITY: AN UPDATE WITH NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS!

Our guests:

- Bill Risner, Attorney

- Jim March, Board Member of Black Box Voting

- John Brakey, Election Integrity Activist with AUDIT AZ stands for “American United for Democracy Integrity and Transparency in elections Arizona


PROTECTING THE PURITY OF ELECTIONS
THE INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY BILL RISNER ON 1/12/12 IS A GREAT COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF FACTS: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling

Arizona Election Fraud: Pima County's Desperate Arguments Against the Court's Protection of Evidence

 J.T. Waldron

Whether they are denying statements made in a hearing four days ago or they are claiming that the Libertarian party's motivation for prospective relief  is to "make a movie", Pima County appears to be in a state of panic.   After the Arizona Libertarian Party won their appeal for prospective relief for rigged elections, last week's initial hearings were prolonged by the county's absurd arguments against rudimentary measures to protect evidence and to learn how evidence was previously handled.

The evidence in question rests in cardboard boxes at an Iron Mountain storage facility, which is holding poll tapes, summary reports, ballots and other paperwork involving the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election.

Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm claimed last Friday, "Pima County has never said, 'we object to simply asking Beth Ford to get a certified statement from Iron Mountain listing who's accessed the records since the day they came to them and show it to you.'"   Fickbohm contradicts her own testimony from the previous Monday.   Bill Risner, an attorney working with the Libertarian party,  promptly reminded Judge Kyle Bryson last Friday, "At the last hearing, where we were talking about deposing Iron Mountain and Ronna Fickbohm was arguing, Pima County was arguing against that.   Her argument  talked about how 'in front of Judge Borek, she was successfully able on behalf of Pima County to prevent us from obtaining information about what happened to those boxes. '"

Pima County's other private lawyer assigned to represent Treasurer Beth Ford, John Richardson, introduced a procedure making Beth Ford an inextricable part of the process designed  to protect the ballots.  Rather than making ballot custody an impartial process by removing all parties and leaving any orders to the judge, both Richardson and Fickbohm presented arguments about how such a court order could potentially implicate Beth Ford by suggesting there is good cause to protect the ballots. 

As Bill Risner states last Friday, "The good cause is that it's important evidence that needs to be protected. That's the good cause...it was stunning what was done with this court's vault, which simply heightens the need for it to be clear to Iron Mountain...much better than a complicated order that relies on Ford's communication ... They repeatedly say that 'Gee, Ford's done this really great job', but if she did such a great job, how come Iron Mountain says 'No one ever told us'."

On May 18th, 2007, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry (who sets the county treasurer's budget) issued a memorandum instructing his legal team about the need to secure all evidence involving the 2006 RTA election.   Later testimony confirmed, however, that no actual action or enforcement was implemented.  According to testimony by an Iron Mountain employee, no specific instructions concerning the handling of the ballots were delivered to Iron Mountain.   Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm goes to great lengths to dispute Bill Risner's reference to the memo as a press release.  She says, "It wasn't a press release.  It wasn't directed to Mr. Risner somehow Mr. Risner got a hold of it.  It doesn't matter.  It wasn't a big secret." 

Fickbohm is correct in stating that it wasn't a big secret because that 'memo' was released to the local press at the end of the day.  Reading the memo, the public's last impression comes from the final sentence, "We need to take action to ensure that all documentation, ballots, electronic files and other information sources  are secured so they cannot be altered, tampered with or destroyed as I am sure an accurate independent review of this material will verify that the allegations made by Mr. Risner are absolutely untrue."  This document can formally be labelled a memo, but it was clearly an exercise in public relations. 

Initially, Pima County's refusal to disclose electronic public records for the RTA election sparked a lawsuit by the Democratic party.  Pima County spent over one million dollars in their failed attempt to prevent public disclosure of election data, which eventually was released to the Democratic party. 

This release, however, was marred by Pima County employee John Moffatt's violation of the court order requesting the transfer of the data to both parties at the same time.  Moffatt managed to gain possession of the data from the county vault prior to the Democratic party finding out about the order.   This acquisition occurred with no signature or paper trail. 

In the following trial for prospective relief, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard grabbed the boxes of ballots the moment it was established that the Democratic party would gain access to the poll tapes that are included in the boxes.  The Democratic party had experts ready to examine them for fraud.  In addition to grabbing the poll tapes, Goddard's apparent purpose was to count the ballots in an attempt to vindicate Pima County. At this point, the Democratic Party abandoned their legal pursuit of prospective relief, but continued to fight for access to the poll tapes.

The Libertarian Party remained and succeeded in obtaining a precedent-setting ruling on behalf of prospective relief for elections so the court can intervene once there is a failure of existing laws and law enforcement (Goddard's investigation) to protect election integrity.   

In the previous records case, Pima County admitted that software security is so bad, altering the outcome of an election is easy.  In fact, the county is estopped from arguing otherwise in this current case for prospective relief.  The county may eventually find itself in a similar position if they continue to make statements inferring that the RTA election was not rigged.

The Libertarian party intends to get a forensic examination of the RTA ballots to determine whether the cardboard boxes have been 'stuffed' with ballots generated by an ink-jet ballot-on-demand printer owned by Pima County.  Terry Goddard refused such an examination despite the fact he was aware of the incident with John Moffatt and the Pima County vault.  Another peculiar omission in Goddard's very public recount of the ballots behind glass was his refusal to incorporate basic auditing procedures.  No sufficient audit took place because there was no comparison of the ballot totals to the precinct totals or poll tapes.

The Democratic party battled on for another year of litigation to gain access to the poll tapes.  Over one third of the tapes were missing.  Another 10% of the the poll tapes do not match the precincts they were supposed to match.   The missing and errant poll tapes correspond to the precincts that had problems with memory card uploads.  Problems with memory card uploads indicate attempts to reprogram the cards using an industrial farmer's crop scanner, a device that the Pima County Elections Division possessed during the RTA election. 

"What this is really about, Judge, is the creation of new film footage for their commercial enterprise." said Ronna Fickbohm to Judge Bryson last Friday,   "If you go online and Google fatallyflawedthemovie.com you will see a documentary that Mr. Brakey had asked you to film today put together starring Mr. Risner that was commercially available over the internet for twenty bucks a pop and it was even screened at the Loft."

John Brakey of CARE and AUDITAZ was operating the camera for the press pool footage of last Friday's hearing embedded at the end of this article. 

Edited together with no narration or talking head interviews, the completed documentary, "Fatally Flawed"  enables its audience to relive the experience of those who cared about the integrity of elections in Pima County.   It has proven to be an important tool for the public interest to help educate viewers about what transpired between Pima County and election integrity advocates in pursuit of election transparency.   It also contains important video evidence, like the footage of John Moffatt's county court shenanigans.   This type of documentation makes the revision of past events much more difficult.

In addition to what's in the movie, there is footage of an array of tables behind glass at Goddard's recount.

Continuous running footage of one table's entire process of counting the RTA ballots shows identically sized cardboard boxes filled to the top edge with approximately 1600 ballots.  Additional footage shows another table's complete count filling the same-sized box to the same level with approximately 1000 ballots.   One of the crucial specifications in any print job is the paper thickness, especially when ballots are involved.  This could be a troublesome dilemma for any last minute attempts at 'correcting the situation' by accessing the boxes a second time and replacing ballots for the purpose of passing a forensic exam.   A successful switch would require ballots of the same quantity of different sizes to fit in the same number of equal sized boxes in exactly the same way they were filmed during Goddard's recount.

Referring to the boxes of evidence, Bill Risner tells Judge Bryson, "Whatever's in them needs to be protected.  We certainly can't trust Pima County.  The games in terms of that sort of stuff need to stop... It's hard to have faith, really, in any storage in view of what Pima County did to the vault of this court.  That is out of my comprehension that someone can simply walk in and walk out, but they did it and that was a demonstration of incredible authority and power within the system.  Demonstration of who's in control.  Phenomenal. "

Pima County's desperate measures will not distract from the Libertarian party's primary goal behind this litigation - to ensure fair transparent elections for the future and prevent cheating by Pima County in upcoming elections.  This case for prospective relief through the courts is a major milestone that could help with election transparency across the nation.  Hopefully, Pima County will abandon or exhaust all delaying tactics and approach a timely outcome within this election year.  There is far too much at stake.

Arizona Election Fraud: Pima County Loses Bid to Stop Ballot Custody Depositions

J.T. Waldron

Citizen's Agains Rigged Elections
Left to Right:  John Kromko, Gayle Hart, Dick Kaiser, Gigi Nitka, Ralph Ellinwood Esq,
two dudes. Sherry Mann, John R Brakey, Mary DeCamp,  Arlene Leaf, Ben Love,
Bill Risner Esq., New member, "the connect The Dots Lady"  Andrea Witte,  New member,
Raymond Graap, Jim March, Radio show host Jack Fitzgerald
Photo by Lee Stanley

The Libertarian party may depose employees at the Iron Mountain storage facility in an effort to determine who in Pima County had access to the ballots for the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election since 2006.

Previous depositions indicate that Pima County employees were able to access the RTA ballots since they were delivered after the election in 2006. The depositions were part of the hearings that ultimately led to the Libertarian party's successful pursuit of  prospective relief for rigged elections. This court case was first triggered by the Pima County Treasurer's pursuit of a declaratory judgement over the ballots for the 2006 RTA election. 

Originally, Pima County attorneys advised County Treasurer Beth Ford to sue the political parties (those charged with monitoring elections in Arizona) to "get a decision on what to do with the RTA ballots". The original idea was to provide an opportunity for Pima County to destroy the ballots before true auditing or a forensic examination of the ballots could take place. This idea backfired when the Libertarian party made a successful counterclaim for prospective relief from the courts.

A favorable ruling for prospective relief means the courts can intervene when there is a failure of existing laws as well as a failure to enforce existing laws designed to keep elections transparent and accurate.

Fighting Tooth and Nail over Rudimentary Disclosure

Pima County has taken elaborate, evasive measures that exceed what is legally customary when requests are made for public records, discovery, depositions and other seemingly innocuous items that could provide a clearer picture of election security.




RTA Ballot Custody Still a Major Concern

The county's most recent efforts at blocking disclosure involved the request by the Libertarian party to depose employees of Iron Mountain, the storage facility that held the ballots since 2006. 

What reason did the county provide?  Concern over the costs of the depositions.  An ironic position given the exorbitant private attorneys hired by Pima County to litigate the case initiated by their Treasurer's office.  Previously, Pima County attorneys handled the electronic records lawsuit over the RTA's database files.  In addition to cost, Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fichbohm claims that the Libertarian party hasn't shown good cause for the need to find out what happened to the ballots.

Pima County employee John Moffatt, however, was all the cause needed to justify this line of inquiry.  During the RTA records hearing, Moffatt had managed to take possession of a box in the county vault that had a court order specifically instructing that both parties be present when the box is released.  This box contained two hard drives: one intended for the county and the other for the Democratic party.  In violation of the court order, John Moffatt obtained possession of both hard drives before the Democratic party was aware they were available. 

The Democratic party had publicly announced its intention of using software developed to pick up certain anomalies in the electronic database files soon to be released through a court ruling.  Apparently, the county wanted a little 'extra lead time' with both hard drives while they were still in the process of developing their own software aimed at detecting what the Democratic party might detect.

The following clip shows the precise moment when John Moffatt was caught with his hand in the evidence cookie jar.  Notice the free pass provided by AZ Daily Star's obedient reporter, Erica Meltzer:

Unfortunately, it's not just the county that disrupts the chain of custody of crucial evidence.  The very same RTA ballots were removed from Iron Mountain's facility in February of 2009 by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard for his criminal investigation of the RTA election.   While his appearance of upholding the law was initially appreciated, Terry Goddard played the unfortunate role of demonstrating why prospective relief is needed through the courts. In addition to the refusal to conduct a proper audit or a forensic investigation of the ballots, the chain of custody seems to be completely unaccounted for during the ballots' 5-6 week hiatus with Goddard's staff. 

 John Brakey, Co-founder of AUDIT-AZ and CARE (Citizens Against Rigged Elections) was on location at Maricopa's Elections Division as the ballots were rolled out in a cart to be counted.

" The boxes were an absolute mess, Boxes were already opened, tape looked like it was removed and reused.  I kept asking myself and others 'How could the Attorney General take evidence without securing it?'"

Around this time, John Brakey gained notoriety for being falsely arrested through the request of Pima Elections Director Brad Nelson.  Brakey discovered mislabeling of ballots earmarked for a hand-count audit and was promptly arrested when he brought the discrepancy to the attention of the Pima Elections Division.  Charges were dismissed once it was made clear in the courts that Brakey did not disrupt the process.

This court case is set to continue this Friday, because Pima County is delaying the hearing to determine if the courts should obtain custody of the ballots during the case.  Those familiar with this case know the answer to that question.  The following initial disclosure statement is a great comprehensive statement of facts: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling

All are invited to attend this historic hearing.

Friday, January 20th, 2012- 11:00 AM
Judge Kyle Bryson’s Courtroom
Fifth Floor, Pima Superior Court: 110 W. Congress
Tucson, Arizona USA