Friday, August 20, 2010

Huckelberry Uses Affidavits from Those Accused in an Attempt to Discredit Robbie Evan's Testimony

In a bizarre turn of events involving recent exchanges between election integrity activists and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, Kathryn E. Cuvelier, the Town Clerk of Oro Valley, Arizona, constructed a recent affidavit (two days ago) reiterating her deposition testimony that she did not recall her exchange with Pima County Elections worker Robbie Evans:

"I was also asked, 'Do you recall on one occasion when Mr. Evans refused to print a tally report for you and you went to Brad Nelson to complain to him that Robbie wouldn't print the report for you?' my answer was 'No, I don't recall that.'"

On the very same day, Chuck Huckelberry obtained another affidavit from his employee, Brad Nelson, the Elections Director, in which Nelson declares that, "no vote tallies were released prior to 8 Pm on election night, May 21, 2002."

"It's difficult to get people to admit to felonies, especially election officials," says Bill Risner, the attorney for the Democratic Party who recently revealed that 30% of the poll tapes in the 2006 RTA election are missing. Risner compares the people who are creating affidavits now to Robbie Evans, the election worker for Pima County who provided testimony in the electronic records trial. Robbie Evans distinguishes himself by having a clear recollection of this incident in his deposition and in the trial. "Cuvelier's testimony is that she doesn't recall the specific incident." Her affidavit also comes with a blanket declaration that she has never received summary reports before 8:01 in the evening. According to Risner, Evans has no axe to grind and puts his position at risk by providing such testimony at trial.

Huckelberry's characterization of Evans' statements as "completely inaccurate" is also a misleading stretch of the truth. If that were the case, you would think those County lawyers would have raked him over the coals at trial. That didn't happen.

This raises another question. If Evan's testimony is false, why were there no repercussions or challenges of Evan's account?

So who are we supposed to believe? Two people who have been prompted or pressured to sign affidavits in which they deny that they have committed felonies, or an elections worker who provided his recollection of an incident, despite potential risks to his employment?

And what about Brad Nelson? Who would accuse an elections director of lying, especially about summary reports? Oh yeah, Attorney Bill Risner would - and to his face:

Here is Robbie Evan's testimony:

Huckelberry complains about how such recollections of the past affect the credibility of the elections department. He shouldn't rely on the bliss of ignorance to allay suspicion. That's the sort of support he has come to expect at the Tucson Weekly and the Arizona Daily Star. Not here.

1 comment:

  1. Oh dear. Now we get into the "your word versus mine" defense. Which may work on people ignorant of the facts of the case, but I can see what Mr. Risner got angry because this is really infuriating. John Moffat has been caught doing illegal things with election materials, and even if you throw out Robbie Evans' testimony for no reason and the testimony of other members of his staff as well as the missing records and other illegalities and improprieties of the Pima County Elections Division in the RTA election, Brad Nelson seems to continue to sandbag and manipulate. And yet this public hearing had Brad Nelson reading off the names of the audience and John Moffat is part of the election integrity board?! Is there a reason why this is? Is the reason Chuck Huckleberry? No reason to get personal, but has there ever been even a professional disciplinary action against these three for what has been uncovered by Mr. Risner and John Brakey, Jim March, Micky Duniho, JT, and the other election integrity investigators?