Saturday, July 31, 2010

An Arizona Morgue Grows Crowded

New York Times

TUCSON — Dr. Bruce Parks unzips a white body bag on a steel gurney and gingerly lifts out a human skull and mandible, turning them over in his hands and examining the few teeth still in their sockets.

Joshua Lott for The New York Times

Dr. Bruce Parks, the chief medical examiner for Pima County, looked over an unidentified skull.

The body bag, coated with dust, also contains a broken pelvis, a femur and a few smaller bones found in the desert in June, along with a pair of white sneakers.

“These are people who are probably not going to be identified,” said Dr. Parks, the chief medical examiner for Pima County. There are eight other body bags crowded on the gurney.

The Pima County morgue is running out of space as the number of Latin American immigrants found dead in the deserts around Tucson has soared this year during a heat wave.

The rise in deaths comes as Arizona is embroiled in a bitter legal battle over a new law intended to discourage illegal immigrants from settling here by making it a state crime for them to live or seek work.

But the law has not kept the immigrants from trying to cross hundreds of miles of desert on foot in record-breaking heat. The bodies of 57 border crossers have been brought in during July so far, putting it on track to be the worst month for such deaths in the last five years.

Since the first of the year, more than 150 people suspected of being illegal immigrants have been found dead, well above the 107 discovered during the same period in each of the last two years. The sudden spike in deaths has overwhelmed investigators and pathologists at the Pima County Medical Examiner’s Office. Two weeks ago, Dr. Parks was forced to bring in a refrigerated truck to store the remains of two dozen people because the building’s two units were full.

Full Article

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

CIA, Mossad and Soros behind Wikileaks

From the Wayne Madsen Report in Pakistan Daily, July 29, 2010:

WMR has learned from Asian intelligence sources that there is a strong belief in some Asian countries, particularly China and Thailand, that the website Wikileaks, which purports to publish classified and sensitive documents while guaranteeing anonymity to the providers, is linked to U.S. cyber-warfare and computer espionage operations, as well as to Mossad’s own cyber-warfare activities...

Our Asian intelligence sources report the following: “Wikileaks is running a disinformation campaign, crying persecution by U.S. intelligence -- when it is U.S. intelligence itself. Its [Wikileaks'] activities in Iceland are totally suspect.” Wikileaks claims it is the victim of a new COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] operation directed by the Pentagon and various U.S. intelligence agencies. WMR’s sources believe that it is Wikileaks that is part and parcel of a cyber-COINTELPRO campaign, such as that proposed by President Obama’s “information czar,” Dr. Cass Sunstein...

See also Kev Boyle's blog entry of July 27, 2010 - WIKILEAKS/WIKIPEDIA: TRUTH serving LIES (with CIA/MOSSAD oversight) in which he writes:

All this ‘whistleblowing’ does little other than serve the interests of the US possibly expanding their war. No establishment figure is seriously compromised by these ‘leaks’, nor is policy undermined in any new way. The war is wicked? The people who care already know that and this ‘new’ information makes little difference to that perception one way or the other.

Btw, in January 2007, John Young, who runs, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front.

You don't say?

Monday, July 26, 2010

More Details Emerge About Missing RTA Poll Tapes

Note: Read AUDIT AZ's Statement about early ballot counting here.

Not only did Pima County employees have access to the RTA ballot boxes, it appears that the Democratic party was mislead by Pima County about the records being protected. In the Democratic Party's most recent Motion for Deposition of Iron Mountain Company, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry is quoted as follows:

In addition, we need to protect, secure and seal any information related to Division of Elections actions regarding not only the November 2006 election, but also the May 2006 RTA election. Even thought the ballots/returns for the RTA election are eleigible for destruction puruant to A.R.S. 16.-624, please ensure that all ballot and election returns for this election now stored at our contract records management facility are retained, with specific instructions not to destroy these documents. Further, since the allegations are against an official of the Division of Elections, it would be appropriate to ensure that there are very specific instructions approved by the County Attorney to the contract records management firm that Division of Elections personnel, including you as the Director, and myself as your immediate supervisor, are not granted any independent access to said records without independent oversight and supervision. This will ensure that County Administration and the Division of Elections cannot be accused of having independent access to the ballots and altering same.

Mr. Huckleberry concluded:

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 and independent review of this material will verify that the allegations are made by Mr. Risner are absolutely untrue.

As Bill Risner puts it:

In spite of Pima county's strong statement that "all documentation" and "other information sources" would be secured and Iron Mountain would be so instructed based upon "specific instructions approved by the County Attorney" the Iron Mountain manager testified that such instructions were never made.

At the moment that Terry Goddard and his men took possession of the ballots and poll tapes, workers at the Iron Mountain facility could have been asked about who had access to the boxes containing the RTA election materials. What they would have learned at this moment should have been enough to inform them of the need to forensically check the ballots to determine if they are genuine.

AZ Attorney General Terry Goddard's actions surrounding the poll tapes involves Bill Risner's letter to Terry Goddard informing him of the Democratic Party's pending agreement to obtain the poll tapes from the RTA election. In this letter, Bill Risner informed Terry Goddard that the poll tapes would be inspected by an expert who can easily detect a specific type of foul play. This form of cheating involves the reprogramming of flash memory cards. Each precinct recorded their specific result onto their own flash memory card. The Pima County Elections Division is suspected of reprogramming a portion of the cards to create results that reflect something different than actual results of their corresponding precinct's vote totals. When this form of cheating is successful, poll workers would simply print out the corresponding poll tape and sign the tape for verification without suspecting any foul play. An expert with a hand lens, however, can detect imperfections attributable to a reprogrammed flash memory card. Once the poll workers have finished, the flash memory card is then delivered to the main elections office for the central tabulator. At this point, it's important to note that even when the flash card reprogramming is unsuccessful, end of day poll tapes would still be generated at the precincts.

Remember, the Pima County Elections division is suspected of reprogramming these flash memory cards for three main reasons (out of at least 20):

1. Electronic data won by the records lawsuit indicate that many flash memory cards had to be re-uploaded numerous times at the central tabulator's office. Reprogramming a flash memory card can be difficult and the typical errors that occur involve problems in uploading to the central tabulator. It is estimated that up to 140 cards had to be re-uploaded to the central tabulator and a large portion were re-uploaded repeatedly. These problems are symptomatic of poorly programmed flash memory cards and provide stark contrast to 2004's election in which only 4 cards were re-uploaded. When such a massive number of failures occurred in the 2006 RTA election, the Pima County Elections Division chose not to inform their vendor of these issues.

2. During the 2006 RTA election, Pima County was found to be in possession of the precise, obscure tool used to reprogram the very type of flash memory cards used in Pima County's election machines. The excuse by the County for having such contraband was that the computer technician wanted to find out whether such reprogramming of flash memory cards was possible with that specific device. This explanation contradicts Pima County's contention that security threats can only come from outside of the elections division.

3. A whistleblower has come forward with a sworn affidavit testifying that Bryan Crane told him privately while at the Boondocks Lounge that he had “fixed” the RTA election under direction from his bosses. Two additional people signed affidavits placing Bryan Crane at the Boondocks Lounge at the time of this confession, despite Crane telling the Arizona Daily Star that he'd never heard of the Boondocks Lounge.

Attorney General Terry Goddard's decision to take the poll tapes with the ballots appears to have been made after it became clear to him that the Democratic Party was close to obtaining the poll tapes and that an expert could detect foul play by looking at those poll tapes. This is logical behavior for somebody wishing to prevent the discovery of foul play through the poll tapes.

Another new piece to this puzzle is evidence that Terry Goddard's office was made aware of the legal struggle that the Democratic Party would be forced to endure if the Attorney General's office did not inspect the poll tapes and/or made them inaccessible again by putting the poll tapes back in the ballot boxes. Terry Goddard had the specific choice to examine the poll tapes or to participate with the Democratic Party and allow their experts to inspect the poll tapes. His choice was to keep interested parties from inspecting the poll tapes, to prevent access to the poll tapes, and to saddle the Democratic Party with another year of litigation to obtain access to the poll tapes. Again, this is logical behavior for somebody wishing to prevent the discovery of foul play through the poll tapes.

There is very strong circumstantial evidence that Terry Goddard is an accessory to the crimes likely committed by Pima County's elections division during the 2006 RTA election. Terry Goddard clearly had a choice to follow the straight and narrow in his investigation and examine all of the evidence. Instead, he opted to perform an exercise in public relations by presenting the illusion of an investigation. Why else would a seasoned white collar crime investigator go to the trouble of counting ballots behind glass and announcing his "findings" to the public yet leave so many stones left unturned?

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Goddard Cohort in RTA Debacle Appointed Senior Advisor at the U.S. Attorney's Office

Ironically, Evan's Appointment Became Official Days After Missing Poll Tape Story Broke

As John Brakey, founder of Audit AZ puts it, "What are we going to do? Have John Evans investigate John Evans? He worked for Goddard during the first cover up and the second one, too."

It's been suggested by those protecting Gubernatorial Candidate Terry Goddard that critics of the RTA election debacle should file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney for Arizona. Election Integrity Activists believe this position is naive and those seeking remedy in this matter should have a grasp of the thorny roadblocks presented in bringing to justice individuals who are high up on the state's power structure. The U.S. Attorney for Arizona is Dennis K. Burke, whose senior adviser is now John Evans. Evan's previous job was Assistant to Arizona's Attorney General Terry Goddard and he was a key player in the questionable RTA investigation.

Burke is quoted in his press release:

"'John Evans has had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and as a key member of the law enforcement community,' said Burke. 'He brings a wealth of legal and trial experience to the office and he will play a critical role in Southwest border issues and strategies. I look forward to working with him to address the border problems and their complexities.' "

The press release further states:

"Evans will work closely with U.S. Attorney, Dennis K. Burke, and will advise him on a variety issues, including crimes occurring on Arizona’s border with Mexico such as alien smuggling and drug related crime, violent crime, financial and fraud crimes, weapons offenses, civil rights, and public corruption."

Election integrity groups are concerned about the potential influence Evans may have should further action need to be taken over Terry Goddard, since the U.S. Attorney for Arizona is the next step in seeking justice in this matter.

The following excerpt of a letter from Bill Risner to Terry Goddard demonstrates Evan's peculiar behavior when it came to investigating the RTA election debacle:

Dear Mr. Goddard:

I sent you a short letter on July 9th, 2008, together with Mr. Zbigniew Osmolski’s Affidavit. I will be out of the County from July 15 through the end of the month. Accompanying this letter are various materials that may help you to better understand the nature of the allegations and more fully understand the past investigation by your office staff.

At the beginning of the database lawsuit, the Pima County Democratic Party, and I personally, had confidence in your Office’s integrity. Additionally, I was sensitive to political currents. That is why I informally told Jim Walsh what we were finding out in our lawsuit against the Pima County Board of Supervisors. It was a “heads up” conversation relating to him that we were acquiring evidence suggestive of criminal activity but not enough in my opinion at that point for your office to open an investigation and none was requested.

Later, attorneys for the Board of Supervisors forcefully suggested that I was obligated to make a criminal complaint if I believed crimes had occurred. At that point, I made an appointment with John Evans of your Office who agreed to open an investigation. The “suspects” were listed on your office form as the “Pima County Election Division.”

The Pima County Democratic Party offered technical expertise. Your office chose not to accept our technical expertise and we did not complain then nor do we complain now about that decision as your office can investigate in the manner that you choose.

I subsequently had a conversation with Mr. Evans in which I asked him what our role was in the investigation. He said it was a “one way street in which he could not give me information but he could receive information from us.” I then gave him the names of two witnesses including Robbie Evans, Jr., who for four years was the computer assistant to Bryan Crane. I explained that Mr. Evans, Jr. would testify that Mr. Crane regularly printed unofficial tallies or summary reports of actual votes before election day. Your Office investigators chose not to interview that witness, even though they knew his testimony would contradict Mr. Cranes’ prior testimony. Instead your investigators accepted Mr. Crane’s fourth different under oath story without comparison with the prior explanations nor did they question any contradictory witnesses.

During a subsequent conversation with Mr. Evans, I learned that your offices’ report from iBeta would be provided to the suspects, but a copy would not be provided to the Democratic Party, although Mr. Evans concluded the report would be a public record, he said he would require us to retain a copy from the County suspects. I have attached several of the letters that I subsequently sent to John Evans.

I am sure you are now aware that your office joined with the suspects in a joint study, permitted the suspects to direct the investigation and gave them a copy of the investigative report before conducting any interviews. Before commenting on the iBeta report, I would like to review the background of the decision to proceed in that manner. Mr. Evans had initially contacted Michael Shamos, a nationally known voting systems expert at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Evans and Mr. Shamos’ e-mails are attached. Mr. Shamos immediately recommended the ballots themselves be examined as he said: “Ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the ballots.” “My
suggestion would be to re-tabulate from the original records.8 This should tell us very quickly whether the GEMS results were fudged. What is the difficulty with this approach?” Indeed!
Mr. Evans response was:

“As for the white wash, I would agree with you but the
party to the civil law suit that discovered this problem
is very much on board. They want the data base to be
looked at and they have approved the scope of the project.
The most vocal local naysayers have bought into this process.”

Mr. Evans was completely wrong. We had not “bought into this process.” He insisted on this process. Nevertheless, Michael Duniho, on behalf of the Democratic Party, strongly suggested that the ballots he examined. Mr. Duniho recalls a heated exchange with Mr. Evans.

Our deference to your office’s integrity at that point should not be characterized as being “on board” Mr. Evans’ flawed process.

Mr. Evans’ e-mail also contained this important reference to the “issue to be investigated.”

“Regarding your questions, the initial issue is about the
absentee ballots that were run before the joint summary
report. The next question is whether after the summary
report there was a flip of the fields. So the accuracy of
the absentee ballots is questioned and the accuracy of
the subsequent ballots may be an issue.”

The evidence to resolve that key question was already available to the Attorney General. A.R.S. § 16-445 required Pima County to send “at least ten days before the date of the “RTA election” a copy of the ballot layout. In other words, the position of how the computer would read “yes” and “no” votes was on file. If the computer had later been instructed to read those votes reversed or “flipped” so that “no” votes would count as “yes” votes the computer data could easily have been compared with the data on file with the Secretary of State.

In other words, the entire purpose of that data was for it to be examined in a fraud investigation by the Attorney General. Your office did conduct a fraud investigation where that evidence would have provided the answer, but it was neither used nor requested by your office.

Furthermore, your office actively attempted to obstruct the Democratic Party’s attempt to find that evidence, when the Democratic Party scheduled a deposition of the Secretary of State’s office. Your office filed a Motion for a Protective Order asking the trial court judge to prevent us from learning the whereabouts of that evidence. We ultimately prevailed over your office’s objection and learned it had been mailed back to Pima County where Brad Nelson personally handed the critical evidence to Bryan Crane, and it has not been seen since. The Arizona State Election Director, Joseph Kanefield, testified that the Secretary of State’s office was aware of the criminal investigation having been informed by your office.

The full letter with footnotes is available here.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Recovery of Poll Tapes from RTA Election Cost the County $150,000

Poll tapes from the most recent election? $14.20

Poll tapes from the RTA election? $150,000.00

Watching big money's scramble
manifest in the most absurd display of
party politics to squelch election integrity? Priceless

Bill Risner on the John C. Scott Show, AM 1330, Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Blog For Arizona Makes False Accusations of Libel Over Terry Goddard, Censors Rebuttal

Under the pseudonym "AZ Blue Meanie", a self-proclaimed litigator tried to intimidate writer Alissa Johnson by making the claim she had committed libel in referring to Terry Goddard's investigation of the 2006 RTA election.

When one brings up the relevant topic of election integrity in a story entitled "Elections Matter" and refers to the most recent breaking story effecting the state of Pima County elections, you normally wouldn't expect this level of defensiveness.

The following excerpt from the comment thread includes Alissa's (Liss's) rebuttal:

Liss said...

Elections should matter. So should election integrity. If the plan is any threat to the status quo how else can the Democrats then go ahead and "fix" the economy the way you describe?

That's why it's essential to report and get to the bottom of the missing poll tapes in the RTA election. How much confidence could you have in the Pima County Elections Division? The Tucson Weekly has covered this issue, shouldn't this be an important issue to the Democrats, regardless of who may be involved with sweeping it under the rug?

AZ BlueMeanie said in reply to Liss...

Liss or Interceptmedia at I have read the articles at the Tucson Citizen and Tucson Weekly. I am also intimately familiar with this case and the election integrity advocates pushing this story. If Bill Risner believes he has actual evidence of election fraud and/or vote tampering, he has an obligation to take that evidence to the U.S. Attorney for Arizona and to the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation. I have not received word that he has done so, which suggests to me that he is not as confident in the evidence as you speculate. As I would tell any attorney in a case I am litigating, if you think you have a case, "prove it." You, however, are not going to litigate this case in comments left on this blog. Write about it on your own blog. Do I make myself clear?

Liss said...

Yes, your emotion is clearly heard and noted. A responsible attorney would await the outcome of a court case in which culpability is at issue before filing a complaint with the US Attorney's Office or DoJ. No sensible officer of the court proceeds without a court ruling backing him up, especially in such a politically sensitive case. As you know, being intimately familiar with the case and all, this litigation is ongoing. Bill Risner is now deposing Iron Mountain staff to find out who had access to the ballot boxes. The problem with bringing the guilty parties to justice in this lengthy litigation is that our own AG, Terry Goddard, stands in the way. He obstructs justice by making the fact-finding process more onerous. This, from an attorney general sworn to support the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. You may be a litigator, god help us all, but you do not seem to have a grasp of the thorny roadblocks presented in bringing to justice individuals who are high up on the state's power structure. Risner has previous experience with bringing in the Feds with another case of election fraud in Arizona and justice did not prevail when it should have. I am amused by the image of you telling opposing counsel to "prove it". What a pleasure you must be to litigate with and against. You read a lot into Risner's discretion in not immediately rushing forth with complaints about criminal activity. Am I right? Or are you just another party loyalist?

My name is Alissa Johnson. The Weekly Intercept is a product of blogs like yours and the Tucson Weekly who, for apparent political reasons, fail to tell the truth on these important issues.

AZ BlueMeanie said in reply to Liss...

Who is being emotional, Alissa? Read your rant. I am well aware of the status of this case. I did not suggest the timing of the complaint to the Feds. But in any event it would not be unusual for evidence discovered during the course of litigation to be referred to the Feds where warranted, it does not require any court order as you believe. It is you who wants to rush to judgment with incomplete evidence with your comments here. "Obstruction of justice" is a criminal allegation, and is defamation if false. Terry Goddard is a public figure, which requires the Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard. Your comments certainly exhibit malice.

The AG has prosecutorial discretion - a far different animal from obstruction of justice. Just because you disagree does not make it obstruction. The wheels of justice turn slowly as Mr. Risner knows well. I am waiting for the evidence in his case to resolve before I write about it. I want to see what develops. That's my right of editorial discretion, and professional judgment. But you have your panties in a twist because I will not write the post that you want me to write when you want me to write it. So you turn to personal insults about me and my practice, about which you know nothing. I have allowed your little temper tantrum to temporarily hijack this blog, so you have accomplished your goal of ranting about Terry Goddard. But this will be the last exchange on this subject I will allow due to your bad behavior.

Liss said in reply to AZ BlueMeanie...

Editor's Note: You have hijacked the comments long enough. Give it a rest lady.

As you see, AZ BlueMeanie removed Liss's last reply, preventing Liss from rebutting his allegations of defamation (libel, because it is written).

And this is the post that AZ Blue Meanie would prefer their viewers didn't see:

I wrote that comment with a smile on my face and joy in my heart. But since you are attacking me, I will respond with a few pertinent points.

You state "it would not be unusual for evidence discovered during the course of litigation to be referred to the Feds where warranted, it does not require any court order as you believe."

I did not say it requires a court order. I said that it would be sensible for an officer of the court to have a judgment to back up a complaint to the feds in a politically sensitive case.

Now here comes the legal:

First of all, as you know, "a plaintiff is 'libel-proof' when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications." Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985).

Much has already been published on blogs and such about Terry Goddard and his failure to bring justice in this case of election fraud. Could be that he is "libel-proof". But even so...

You said to me "Your comments certainly exhibit malice." Really, counselor?

Courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either knowing it was false, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth, and a public figure must do so by a "clear and convincing" standard. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342; Hepps, 475 U.S. at 773.

The actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. The actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work.

I have followed this case closely for more than two years, reading the motions, finding out everything I can and my reasonable conclusion is that Terry Goddard at the very least has obstructed justice, and is possibly guilty of worse.

Btw, as you surely know, Mr. Litigator, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Only in a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.

And then we come to the insurmountable obstacle in your libel case against me:

The plaintiff must prove that the overall substance of the statement can be proven false before a claim for defamation can arise. Public figure plaintiffs may have to prove falsity by "clear and convincing evidence" as protected under New York Times v. Sullivan. Sharon v. Time, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 538, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Firestone v. Time Inc., 460 F.2d 712, 722 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 875 (Bell, J., specially concurring).

In other words, the truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.

Somehow I doubt anyone will sue me. That's a dog that won't hunt and, if you are indeed an attorney, you know it.

I don't see how my behavior on this blog has been "bad".

Does Michael Bryan sign on to your response? If he agrees with you, I would like to hear from him. With those kind of journalistic standards, people would be kept groping around in the dark forever.

Alissa's remarks:

You see in this exchange a fascinating dynamic of control and censorship.

Note, once AZ Blue Meanie knows I am a woman (and not just an avatar for frequent commenter J.T. Waldron) he first calls me "emotional" and that what I had to say was a "rant": the classic bullying tactic of the lesser-endowed male. In this table-turning move we see the style of argument developed and practiced by seven-year-olds in schoolyards worldwide - 'I know you are but what am I?' It's refreshing to see that old chestnut dusted off and used in adult conversation. How fun if we would see more of it in our congressional debates!

AZ Blue Meanie then attempts to bust out the law without seeming to understand that the legal term, actual malice, is not the Webster definition which is "the desire to see another experience pain". Clearly my posting doesn't exhibit legal malice and I don't think it exhibits garden-variety colloquial malice, either.

Too bad this guy feels he must hide behind the 'AZ Blue Meanie' moniker. I welcome debate with him anytime, anywhere, as long as it is not censored.

Free copy of the movie, "Fatally Flawed: The Pursuit of Justice in a Suspicious Election" for the first person to come up with the true identity of "AZ Blue Meanie".

(Note: Thanks to all who responded. Free copy has already been claimed.)

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Tucson Weekly Finally Covers Missing Poll Tape Story

Authored by yours truly (with a little help from Liss Johnson).

Frequent commenter J.T. Waldron has this to say about the poll tapes from the RTA election:

The Tucson Weekly has afforded me this opportunity to post on The Range about the missing RTA poll tapes. What are poll tapes and why do they matter? Poll tapes are receipts that are printed in each precinct at the end of the election night. They contain the vote totals that indicate the results for that particular precinct. Once printed, election workers verify the authenticity of the poll tape and its totals by signing the bottom of each poll tape. For this reason, poll tapes could serve an important auditing function, especially in conjunction with examining the ballots.

Read the rest at the Tucson Weekly

Saturday, July 10, 2010

"Second Saturdays" Demand that Terry Goddard Posters be Removed

This is one dumb city. People watch politicians' serious slow motion gaze as they cryptically state, "I'm 'so-and-so' and I approved this message". They drive past billboards with big, colorful names of politicians that they are expected to remember when it's magic marker time. They'll watch the same hackneyed media figures force intrigue into every candidate line-up with flimsy interpretations of candidate motives. So the public allows themselves to be inundated with these political messages without question or analysis. Given all the effort placed on convincing the public that politicians and pundits understand the prevailing public opinion, you would think the public would have at least a passing interest in the integrity of their electoral process. Unfortunately, it's more important to create the illusion that public opinion is being influenced than than to actually change public opinion. People seem content buying into the biggest lie in Pima County: that we can rely on our current elections division to provide a result that will truly reflect what the people actually wanted.

Here is a laughable encounter with those in Tucson who benefit from perpetuating this myth:

In the mid 90's, Downtown Saturday Nights used to be an open market with anybody involved being able to sell their wares or exchange ideas. Not so with Second Saturdays. These days, the wealth of the city tends to create merchant driven events on public property placing restrictions that should legally hold water only on private property. The rationale is that moneyed interests flipping the bill for advertising, security, and any other public service soak-fests get to commandeer the public sidewalks and streets for an evening of benign, Disneyesque interaction. It seems that anybody who doesn't play ball or have brick and mortar must answer to the Izod police.

Dave Ewoldt, my favorite candidate for state Senator, District 28, is opening up headquarters for his AZ Senate campaign and is presenting my film, "Sweet Remedy" as part of the line-up to attract like-minded folks to the location. They thought that "Maybe we could have a booth at this upcoming Second Saturdays!" "Great!" I said. "I can be Mister Merchant Guy!" I can use my business as an excuse to pass these flyers out on behalf of a politician I believe in. My work, however, makes me suspicious to "the man". I actually had to provide a film clip just to be judged acceptable to this merchant circus. It all began with my question over the confusing statement in the "Second Saturdays" website that says there shall be 'no proselytizing'. What? Every merchant selling their wares does precisely that. What do they mean, 'no proselytizing'?

Out of fairness, here is the coordinating spokeswoman's reply to my question, "What do you mean 'no proselytizing?'", which must have been summoned from deep within their nonprofit charter:

This is an event coordinated by downtown merchants to promote the independent artistic & creative sector in Tucson & local businesses downtown. It is also a family friendly event and proselytizing isn't welcome of any nature, be it someone aggressively pushing their salsa for sale or ideology. Any vendor wanting to have a booth space, whether it is an organization or a sole proprietor must sell handcrafted, locally made wares/merchandise or artwork to participate.

I'm an independent filmmaker with movies that were shot all across the country and edited in Tucson so I explained how this fits the bill with their description. The newest movie in my inventory is 'Fatally Flawed', which was the result of discovering the RTA trying to sneak their initiative past the most adversely effected people in Tucson. I didn't get into production until I watched the trial involving Pima County's battle to obtain the RTA database files. That's when I was convinced that the 2006 RTA election was suspect.

In light of the recent discovery of the missing poll tapes in the RTA election (which we saw coming a mile away), I made the last minute decision to emphasize 'Fatally Flawed' at my Second Saturdays display to inform the public of the missing poll tapes.

My A-Frame sign declared that the poll tapes were missing in the RTA election and suggested that this is why Terry Goddard refused to count them. As I mentioned before, the Merchant Politbureau must have seen me coming because I wound up jumping through all kinds of hoops to get the most remote vendor space tucked away on Stone Avenue at the edge of Tucson's Saturday night universe. Despite the journey, people wound up passing the sign and, yes, some Foothillsian sportsters in their late 50's scowled in disapproval. I'm still wondering if they were drawn to the area by the overtly proselytizing christian rappers at the corner of Stone and Broadway.

Within a half hour, the first staff member came by to tell me to remove the sign. "Why?" I asked.

"Because it's political."

"How is it political?"

She just rolled her eyes. "This is a family event."

I guess I couldn't respond to her. This reply seemed to suggest that the population wants to keep their children pig ignorant about any threats to the democratic process and I can't help but think, "what's the point of pumping kids with ritalin if their minds are already wiped clean?"

Next came along the same staff member that I had emailed back and forth about my local merchantness. I felt like she was rooting for me in the first place to get past all the hoops, especially when she told me about all the folks who complained. They were Democrats that didn't like seeing Terry Goddard's face on the poster. "That's what makes it political." Ahah! They just don't want to know that their only chosen alternative to Jan Brewer was Terry Goddard: He Who Wouldn't Count the Poll Tapes. Maybe this is why it is fruitless to even try to remind the Democrats that Goddard had already demonstrated early in the election season that he could not be trusted.

My friend the facilitator had some helpful hints for me. The Izod police have not yet been instructed to crack down on people visiting the vendors. "Floaters" without special merchant passes may hand out flyers or petitions to whomever they want. That soon led to taping the 4'x3' poster on the the back of my visiting friend, Ann-Rose. Thanks to Chet for the snapshot.

To date, no other media outlet in Tucson has bothered to inform the public about the missing RTA poll tapes. Not even to falsely reassure the public that the poll tape issue lacks significance. It's as if the establishment has not yet figured out how this story can fit into their illusion of democracy.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Attorney Bill Risner Interviewed by Brad Friedman on on the Mike Malloy Show over Missing RTA Polltapes

Brad Friedman breaks RTA Missing Polltape Story on the Mike Malloy Show. Interviews Bill Risner and provides great coverage of the RTA saga:

Watch for more coverage on

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Poll Tapes Missing In RTA Election


Remember the hurried press conference by AZ Attorney General Terry Goddard in April of last year? That’s the one where he paraded out all of his assistants and formally declared that after counting the 2006 RTA Ballots, they had found no evidence of foul play for rigging the elections? A few puny voices on the side of the room opposite the mainstream media asked questions. The first, did you count or examine the POLL TAPES in any way? The answer was no. Second, did you do a precinct by precinct audit against the statements of votes cast? No. We would have had to account for one or two adjustments and we don’t know how to do that. Third, did you perform any forensic checks to verify the authenticity of the ballots? The answer? Don’t be silly.

The poll tapes garnered interest right away from Terry Goddard, because Terry wasn’t going to examine anything until he was informed of the Democratic Party’s plans to look at the poll tapes. Then, like a hawk flying out of the sky after a field mouse, Goddard snatched the ballots from Pima County’s Iron Mountain storage facility. How was the Democratic party informed? Through secondhand chatter from the Democratic Party’s opposing legal team while the ballots were being transferred up to some unknown location in Maricopa County. The recount behind glass would take place one month later.

During this process, the Democratic Party had requested repeatedly that Terry Goddard examine the poll tapes, because they provide a valuable “precinct snapshot”- a perfect auditing function. In addition, they can easily be identified if they are fake or regenerated. During this process, the Democratic Party had requested repeatedly that Terry Goddard examine the poll tapes, because they provide a valuable “precinct snapshot” - a perfect auditing function. In addition, they can easily be identified if they are fake or regenerated. During this exchange, the Democrats were assured that Goddard’s investigation would include the poll tapes and the Attorney General’s press spokesperson confirmed that poll tapes would be examined.

Only at that brisk press conference last year did the public discover that the Attorney General refused to examine the poll tapes. The reason? Well, Attorney General Terry Goddard was reduced to feigning ignorance about the importance of examining the poll tapes at that very same press conference, so we weren’t given a reason unless you want to believe Goddard’s act about being ignorant.

So Terry Goddard finished his debut with the RTA ballots and passed them back to the Iron Mountain Storage facility in the custody of Treasurer Beth Ford. The poll tapes are included in the ballot boxes.

This move stuck the Democratic party with another year of litigation involving ridiculous legal arguments from Pima County and the Treasurer's office over costs, process, and, get this, the idea that the poll tapes are “ballots”. Despite the best efforts of Terry Goddard, Pima County and the legal teams intertwined with growth lobby interests, the Democratic party has inspected the poll tapes and examined them.

What was found?:

* Now we know why Terry Goddard refused to look at the poll tapes. Out of 368 precincts, there are 112 poll tapes missing (representing 122 precincts). 102 of the yellow sheets are missing. The corresponding paperwork serving a vital auditing function at the precinct level is missing.

* 50 of the polltapes that were found do not match the final canvas. In all cases ballots were added to the count and many of the yellow sheets indicate that the precincts' optical scanners were not counting all ballots. Somehow, additional ballots were added to the precinct results by percentage. This is consistent with original complaints of electronic vote tampering.

A significant portion of missing poll tapes had corresponding anomalies in the electronic data records. It’s naive to think that electronic records would be manipulated without some measure to cover tracks by either creating a new paper trail or removing the one that exists.

It took the public one additional year of litigation at taxpayer's expense to discover these missing poll tapes - thanks to Goddard’s “dog and pony” show.

Cause to Celebrate: A&E Petition Hits 10,000 This 4th of July

Lehigh Valley, PA - On Saturday, July 3, 2010, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, which demands Congress start a new and independent investigation into 9/11, hit the 10,000 signers mark.

Such an historic milestone for liberty could not have occured at a more fitting time than the 4th of July, a time when Americans take pause to celebrate their liberty and reflect on the form of government that guarantees such freedom.

A perfect time to raise an eyebrow at the 9/11 investigation that continually tells us, even to this day, that we must fight more wars and give up more personal liberties.

And, Lehigh Valley locals are, indeed, beginning to speak out about it.

Meet petition signer Lori McFerran, who says she lives "in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania with [her] husband." Mrs. McFerran writes of herself in her personal description statement, "I am an editor at a daily newspaper in Allentown, Pa., and have almost 30 years' experience as a journalist and writer."

Mrs. McFerran isn't so sure the 9/11 Commission got it right, stating in her petition, "After hearing the evidence presented by Richard Gage (I listened to the youtube video and heard him speak on Coast to Coast on Tuesday, June 10), I am sufficiently suspicious of the account that was presented by the media about what happened at the World Trade Center in 2001. I fully support a complete and UNBIASED investigation into the events and a thorough scientific evaluation of the evidence at the site."

The emphasis by Mrs. McFerran that the new 9/11 investigation needs to be unbiased was shared by another local, a Mr. Larry A. Hill of Northampton.

Mr. Hill stated in his petition:
"I have a Bachelor of Arts in History from Penn State University, graduated with highest distinction (top 2%) with a GPA of 3.88. I am a self-taught database programmer by profession. In my studies of History, I reject most, if not all popular conspiracy theories.

I accepted the government explanation of the WTC towers for years. When I saw the AE911Truth video, I was convinced that we were NOT told anywhere near the entire truth about this event.

A truly complete and INDEPENDENT investigation must be done. No one with direct ties to the US government should be involved. Until this happens, trust in our government and the ability of representative democracy to protect us is eroded and undermined."

One avenue of investigation not pursued by the 9/11 Commission was the possible use of explosives in bringing down any or all of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01. Bethlehem resident Robert D. Grim writes in his petition statement that evidence of controlled demolitions is opening his eyes, stating:

"Though not an architect or engineer, I am a physics buff. I have a solid understanding of the laws that govern the physical universe, and am also well versed in construction methods.

I was a senior in high school when the towers collapsed. I didn't question anything at first, but I did see the resemblance between the WTC and controlled demolitions. I began questioning the event when a friend who had seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" told me about the theory of controlled demolition. Since then, nearly every piece of evidence that I've seen has supported that theory. I want truth!!!!"

On this 4th of July, with now 10,000 signatures officially on the A&E petition, there is truly hope that such a new and impartial investigation might be acheived, the need of which having been attested to locally on the A&E petition by Lehigh Valley petition signers such as McFerran, Hill, and Grim.

The 10,000 figure was reached by adding together the official figures given on the A&E website on Saturday, July 3rd. An official figure of 1218 was given for "architects and engineers," and an official figure of 8,787 for "other supporters" on the same day. Thus, as of July 3rd, there were 10,005 total signers, according to figures posted at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's official website.

Lehigh Valley residents are reminded that the A&E petition "is open to everyone," according to the A&E official website. Therefore, a person need not be either an architect or an engineer in order to sign the petition. And, indeed, everyone is encouraged to sign.

For more information about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, readers are referred to the official website,

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Iara Lee: We witnessed Outrageous Brutality by Israeli Commandos

Intifada Voice of Palestine

In the pre-dawn hours of Monday, May 31, showing a terrifying disregard for human life, Israeli naval forces surrounded and boarded ships sailing to bring humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip. On the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, Israeli commandos opened fire on civilian passengers, killing at least 9 passengers and wounding dozens more. Others are still missing. The final death toll is yet to be determined.

Cultures of Resistance director Iara Lee was aboard the besieged ship and has since returned home safely. Despite the Israeli government’s thorough efforts to confiscate all footage taken during the attack, Iara Lee and Director of Photography Srdjan Stojiljkovic were able to retain some of the video they captured. Below is the unedited footage from the moments leading up to and during the Israeli commandos’ assault on the Mavi Marmara. Iara Lee recently gave this exclusive phone interview to Intifada Palestine’s Elias F. Harb .


By Elias Harb – Editor Intifada Palestine

EH: Were people aboard the Mavi Marmara who had been shot by the gunboats already being medically treated as the helicopter assault began?

IL: It’s hard to say exactly when these things happened, everything just happened so fast, that is why an international inquiry needs to investigate the events of the Flotilla Raid. Shots were fired, maybe it was mixed rubber bullets and live ammunition. I saw people who had been shot, and were bleeding to death. We never expected they were going to attack and kill. We weren’t prepared and didn’t have the necessary medical equipment to treat so many passengers who were shot, and some died bleeding to death.

EH: The Israeli attack on May 31 in the dead heat of the night must have been has been a terrible experience of those in the free Gaza flotilla. Please tell us what happened that day

IL: The Flotilla was on a humanitarian mission, these were war commandos, and they came to kill. We were unprepared for this attack. We knew that the Israelis would deter us, but never expected the Israeli commandos to open fire on civilian passengers. And what we witnessed was outrageous brutal force. Few of the Israeli Commandos were subdued and one of our doctors treated one of the Commandos. We showed restraint and gave medical aid to Israeli soldiers. Autopsy reports indicated that the activists killed were shot in the back of the head at close range. This was a criminal act by the Israel Defense forces.

EH: Israel declared that there were terrorists among the activists, how do you respond to that? Can you give us a makeup of the passengers?

IL: In their defense of the indefensible, the Israeli government has attempted to slander the character of the victims and other flotilla participants by drawing false links to terrorism, and portraying us as a lynch mob of anti-Semitic Muslim fanatics. The passengers were people from all walks of life, secular and religious, Muslim, Christian, atheistic, male and female, young and old. Prior to the raid they are talking, sleeping, praying or working on their computers We were human rights activists from all over the world, ranging from 1 year old to a 88 years Catholic Bishop. None of the passengers was dangerous; they were committed human right activist, bringing hope to the people of Gaza. The media acts irresponsible and with impunity, when it reports the lies that Israel says, and when it is proved it’s untrue, the media never reports it. The Israelis twist around everything.

EH: Israel declares that it had the legal right to confront the flotilla from reaching Gaza. What is your position on that?

IL: Israel had no legal right, we were in international waters, and there action was illegal and worse than the Somalia Pirates. It was a criminal action. Fortunately, we were able to smuggle some footage of the Israeli assault off the ship and safely back to the US, and which I was able to screen at the United Nations. It paints a picture in stark contrast to Israeli claims of a violent mob looking for a fight. I encourage everyone to view this footage.

EH: How were you and other activist treated by the Israeli Authorities after you were detained?

IL: We were incommunicado with outside world. The men were treated very brutally. The women were treated better, but many complained they were treated disrespectfully. All passengers were videotaped through the time they were detained. We were incommunicado for a few days, but it felt like a month.

EH: Israel seized all cameras and communication machinery .Do you have a plan for getting your personal possessions back from Israel? Do you know how others are doing in this same respect?

IL: When the IDF commandos entered shooting, the first thing they did was jam the ships communications. They confiscated our cameras, cam-recorders, laptops, and footage. They re-edit the footage to show a different story than what really happened to Passengers from the flotilla. several countries are urging their governments to demand that Israel release the property illegally seized from the passengers in international waters on 31 May, in particular the many cameras, camcorders, mobile phones etc. that contain evidence of at least the beginning of the shooting of civilians by Israeli soldiers. This demand is for property only and is independent of the many legal briefs already being worked on due to death and wounding of the passengers.

EH: Israel has announced that there has been an “easing of the blockade” Some say this is P.R. stunt or Israeli propaganda. What is your position on Israel’s easing of blockade restrictions?

IL: I am cautiously optimistic about Israel’s announced plan of “easing” the Gaza blockade. Easing, after all, is not the same as “complete lifting,” and it is yet to be determined what the nature of this easing process will be. Still, I am encouraged by the fact that this small step resulted in the first place from the Freedom Flotilla’s nonviolent act of civil disobedience. What is need is a total lift of the Siege, and freedom of movement of people to live normal lives.

EH: Israel says there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. How do you respond to that?

IL: There is a humanitarian crisis, Israel lies, and the media reports what Israel wants.

EH: Israel has refused an independent international Inquiry on the Flotilla raid, and has assembled an internal inquiry ”Turkey Committee” to investigate the raid. How do you feel about that?

IL: We need an inquiry that is truly impartial, transparent, and which satisfies international standards. Despite the fact that the youngest of Israel’s victims on the flotilla — 19-year old Furkan Dogan — was an American citizen, we cannot rely on our American leaders in this pursuit of justice. And so it is our moral obligation to speak out even as our government remains silent. The same courage, creativity, and determination which were applied to exposing the illegality and cruelty of the Gaza blockade must also be applied to ensuring that Israel, as well as every other nation in the world, can no longer brutalize civilian populations with impunity, and will act in accordance with international law.

Thank you, Iara

More Info