Court Hearing about People’s Right to Verified Elections and “How the Sausage is Made”

By John R Brakey of AUDIT-AZ 5/11/2017 5:30PM

Pima County, Tucson, AZ:   I’m so glad that we at AUDIT-AZ film everything! The Defendant Pima county’s attorney, county attorney Daniel Jurkowitz was really working hard to miss lead the judge by making arguments that were misleading by painting a picture that everything is fine and we the people don’t need to see “how the sausage is made.”: https://youtu.be/T95z8zkH1zU

  

Such as the secretary of state oversees every election, checks the databases, and Pima county does 4% audit on the election. Unbelievable.   As to the 4% audit of elections in Pima county, its 4% on the votes cast on election day on a very few races at a precinct in which no county elections are checked, See ARS 16-602. It was 2% however, because they had me falsely arrested over the hand count audit in 2008 and it went to 4%. Back then about 75% of the vote was cast at a precinct.   However, NOW Vote by Mail is about 85% of the vote and they do a useless 1% audit. Video – Verify that Vote by Mail is Not Hacked! Duniho & Brakey at PCBOS: https://youtu.be/4y2wBXZ9R8c

Fact is County elections are exempt from any audits required by law in AZ. See ARS 16-602. In addition, here is a video of former Representative Ted Downing Ph.D. who was one of the two authors, Downing testifying in court that if county races were included that they Election directors from Pima and Maricopa county who headed the 15-county association would kill the bill that became ARS 16-602. See video: https://youtu.be/Gd3VPQ3kwNE

For our democracy to work “we the people” must know that elections are real and publicly verified. If you want to get more people to vote? (only 55.3% of eligible voters voted in 2016 in AZ) Then prove that elections are real by not letting County government be the sole verifier of its own secret electronic elections!

I’ve known Daniel Jurkowitz for about 10 years, he knows about all the other cases over the years and he was somewhat involved in several of them, if not his co-council Karen Friar was, who I’ve known longer knows the facts.

On April 11, 2008, Bill Risner attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party took part in a deposition asked for by the attorney for the Pima Board of Supervisors of the Office of the Secretary of State. This was during the “database lawsuit” the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State was deposed pursuant to Rule 30 (b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

“The Arizona Secretary of State Agrees It Is Easy To Cheat and State Law Prohibits Them from Checking County Computers To Find Out If Counties Are Cheating.”

The Secretary of State chose Joseph Kanefield, the “State Election Director,” to testify under oath on behalf of the Office concerning some fourteen topics and to provide official answers on behalf of the Secretary of State. Mr. Kanefield is an attorney who previously handled election matters within the Attorney General’s office.

Mr. Kanefield was asked by Mr. Risner:

Q…. First, can we clearly establish that your office never has gone in and examined a database to see if there’s been any fraud or manipulation?

A.. Our office doesn’t have the authority, under law, to do such an examination..

  1. Are you aware of any county in Arizona that has ever conducted a post-election examination of the database for evidence of fraud or manipulation?
  2. I am not aware, other than what’s occurred in Pima County. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. It’s just that I’m not aware.
  3. Okay. So the result, then, is that the Secretary of State, because it has no authority to, does not examine and has never examined an election database after an election in any county in Arizona, correct?
  4. That is correct.

The reference to “what’s occurred in Pima County” was to the lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party that resulted in his deposition. In other words, neither the Secretary of State nor any County Board of Supervisors had ever examined any computer database in Arizona.

The most surprising part of the answer is the official position of the Office of the Arizona Secretary that it “has no authority” of law to examine any computer election database in Arizona. That lack of authority was the asserted reason why they had never looked. The law does not allow them to look.

The Pima County Democratic Party requested, prior to the 2006 general election, for Pima County to make numerous changes in the physical security of its election computer.

Those physical changes have made it impossible for the election computer to be hacked into by “outsiders” and collectively constitute major security improvements. Since then, however, the major security risk has consistently been identified by election security analysts as coming from “insiders,” such as vendors and election department personnel: the physical protection of the computer is only part of the necessary security for any election.

Another surprising point of testimony from the Secretary of State’s office was that it had “no responsibility” to examine even the elemental issue of the physical security of election computers. In other words, when the Secretary of State sends a representative to each county for the so-called logic and accuracy test before elections, they are unable to examine the actual physical security of the election computers. They are unable to do so because the Secretary of State claims it is not one of their legislatively required tasks.

  1. By Mr. Risner: Does the Secretary of State, county by county, examine the physical security of its election computers?
  2. Mr. Kanefield: Well, we’re not tasked with that responsibility of actually physically examining and auditing the security . . . .

The State Election Director confirmed that the insecurity of election software “is no secret” and is known all over the country. (Deposition Transcript, 79:16-21) End of excerpt.

The information above is from our Tucson Attorney Bill Risner, he has been practicing law for 49 years and in this Statement of Facts filed in the RTA case in January 2012 which was a $2 Billon 20 year ½ cent sale tax increase that was rigged. Filed in Pima County Superior court about our 4th case proving Elections Fraud: 1.12.2012: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling

Trustworthy Elections are Basic to De-Corrupting Our Democracy.

Furthermore, that’s on top of the county trying to influence the judge my back dooring the AZ legislators and getting a strike all Bill passed to support their point of view, just outrageous! The bill was run as a striker, an innocuous housekeeping bill that could make it more difficult legally to release publicly ballot images. Link to Senate striker bill SB1094 and status: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68730

The final text of the bill is strikingly similar to defendant’s use in court filing and orally argued in court. Link to Video of 2nd Court Hearing Oct 14th, 2016: https://youtu.be/g4HoUMP-fzI

Basically, this is the language the defendant used in court filing and orally argued in court. This language is also found on link 08 Defendant (Pima County) reply Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on December 7, 2016. Excerpt from page 3 line 20:  “The Court should order that, until ballot image retention is expressly addressed by the Arizona Legislature, the Secretary of State by way of regulation, or the Arizona Department of Library, Archives, and Records by retention schedule, the ballot images should be treated the same as voted ballots, and the copies should be placed in ballot boxes to remain unopened and unaltered pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-624”: Link to court filing: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2TKmkSNAkCfaDRMWURBOXRLYWc

To further emphasize my point on how corruption works in Arizona, after we won the 1st phase of our case after filing a “TRO” protecting the ballot images from being destroyed in Pima county. Arizona legislature passed a striker bill, SB1094, that will become a new law (ARS 16-625) sometime in early August.

The passage of SB 1094 will become ARS 16-625 in Early August. The bill reads: “THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF ELECTIONS SHALL ENSURE THAT ELECTRONIC DATA FROM AND ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL IMAGES OF BALLOTS ARE PROTECTED FROM PHYSICAL AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS, INCLUDING UNAUTHORIZED COPYING OR TRANSFER, AND THAT ALL SECURITY MEASURES ARE AT LEAST AS PROTECTIVE AS THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR PAPER BALLOTS.”

As you can see the final text of the bill is strikingly similar to defendant’s use in court filing and orally argued in court. Link to Video of 2nd Court Hearing Oct 14th, 2016: https://youtu.be/g4HoUMP-fzI

Basically, this is the language the defendant used in court filing and orally argued in court. This language is also found on link 08 Defendant (Pima County) reply Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on December 7, 2016. Excerpt from page 3 line 20: “The Court should order that, until ballot image retention is expressly addressed by the Arizona Legislature, the Secretary of State by way of regulation, or the Arizona Department of Library, Archives, and Records by retention schedule, the ballot images should be treated the same as voted ballots, and the copies should be placed in ballot boxes to remain unopened and unaltered pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-624”: Link to that court filing: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2TKmkSNAkCfaDRMWURBOXRLYWc

Attorney for 49 years, member of AUDIT-AZ, Bill Risner in September of 2016 wrote: “all records are public records. The legislature created A.R.S. 39-121, which clearly defines what is public record and has remained unchanged since statehood. There is no question that those images are public records. The only argument relates to whether there is a legal basis for not disclosing them despite the fact that they are public records. The county must either find a statute that prevents disclosure, or make an argument under the “Carlson Case” which would presume that the board could not carry out their job if the public obtained copies of the images. If they have such an argument, they should fork it over.”

Pima County lost its case to destroy ballot images, so the only way they could prevail was to create new legislation to support their position. The legislature passed SB1094 and we knew nothing of this until late Friday afternoon before it passed on Thursday March 23rd.

We believe that legislators were manipulated with this striker bill SB1094 and didn’t understand what impact this will have on our litigation and ultimately on the trustworthiness of the vote.

Arizona ballots are a public record, but it requires a court order based on ability to “show cause” to examine original ballots.

The bill was signed by Governor Doug Ducey on 03/29/2017 which now becomes ARS 16-625, ninety days are the legislative session ends. Link to doc that explains the scam of SB1094 opens as a PDF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2TKmkSNAkCfeEY3Z2k3OWZ1RlE

As to the people’s rights to “know how sausage is made” when it comes to elections our Arizona Constitution is very clear, WE DO!! Excerpt below from Risner’s Statement of Facts, page 5 and 6: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling


History teaches us that elections without public accountability are nothing more than vote-counting in the dark, controlled by a county government, in the act of choosing itself and its cronies, while picking our pockets. 

Our message is simple: “We the People”, must have elections that are 100% Transparent, Trackable and Publicly Verified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *