After Arizona’s appellate courts ruled in favor of the Libertarian argument for prospective relief for rigged elections, serious efforts were initiated to ensure that justice remained an unobtainable dream. The goal of the lawsuit, of course, is to make elections a transparent process by removing Pima County’s ability to cheat undetected. Over six years of litigation was required for the courts to decide they indeed have jurisdiction to ensure clean elections, especially after the legislative and executive branches failed to provide that remedy. Discovery of criminal activity in the elections division is an ancillary outcome that is part of the process for the hearing to provide prospective relief against rigged elections in Pima County.
To preserve the critically flawed nature of Pima County’s elections system, Administrator Chuck Huckelberry continues to resist a forensic exam of the ballots now residing at Iron Mountain’s storage facility. Huckelberry is now willing to contradict past statements of how he would be vindicated by the scrutiny he pretends to welcome as justice looms on the distant horizon. Justice, unfortunately, is still a vague unobtainable outcome lost in the gears of Pima County’s political machine.
Once the appellate courts ruled in favor of the election integrity advocates, Pima County’s legal staff were passed over for pricier corporate lawyers. These expenses add to the 1.3 million dollars wasted in a vain attempt at resisting election transparency and subsequent revelations of criminal activity.
“…Pima County, through the direction and control of its county administrator C.H. “Chuck” Huckelberry, has systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections. The elimination of those controls has permitted county management to take advantage of the ability to cheat presented by defects in our computerized election system. As a result, county management fraudulently rigged the Regional Transportation Authority election on May 16, 2006 and has the ability to manipulate the outcome of any Pima County election, including not only bond elections, but the elections of members of the Board of Supervisors, themselves.”
The appellate court decision also marks the the beginning of a battle in the public arena with the inception of a PR machine that rivals most media outlets in Pima County. Taxpayer’s money is now being used to soak up employment slack as local media outlets shed their workforce in a failing local economy. Pima County’s influence over the pool of journalists succeeds through exploitation of increased economic scarcity in print and television media. Taxpayers are inadvertently subsidizing a final path for job security as a pool of at least ten local professional journalists have enlisted with Pima County’s public relations team. Fear of retaliation and lost opportunity will continue to undermine local critical coverage of the 2006 RTA election.
One can only guess how much money is being spent to conceal the theft of two billion dollars from local taxpayers.
From industries awash in contracts, other local radio outlets like John C. Scott and Bill Buckmaster line up at the trough of advertising dollars from those funding the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), the organization that emerged from the suspicious 2006 RTA election.
Pima County’s political machinery has placed local media coverage in a state of paralysis over recent evidence and cover-up of the 2006 RTA election.
The size and scope of Pima County’s bureaucracy itself is a force to be reckoned with. Few administrators could boast controlling so many functions including its own public defenders, its own prosecutors, its own elections division, its own treasurer’s office, its own court vault, its own law enforcement and its own judiciary. Heads of all these departments have their salaries set by Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, the CEO or chief administrator deeply entrenched in this bureaucracy.
Recently, attorneys Bill Risner and Ralph Ellinwood have been forced to file a motion for a new trial based on erroneous judgement made by Kyle Bryson, the judge assigned to the case after appellate court ruled in favor of Risner and Ellinwood. Imagine having a judge speculate about what you might ask for in the courts and proceed with a ruling based on what he’s guessing you’re going to say. Then imagine that same judge erroneously denying the legality of your request in direct contradiction to what the appellate court had already allowed.
Two minutes into the following video shows Harri Hursti using a crop scanner to program the memory card before voting so that it would print the results he wanted as opposed to the actual votes. The purpose of the report was to warn county election departments of this potential mechanism of fraud, now famously referred to as the “Hursti hack.” The report came out July 4, 2005. By August 3, 2005, Pima County had purchased the same device.
DAVID: Attorney Bill Risner Explains How Election Fraud
Works in Pima County.
Such shenanigans take more than just a hacking tool. Taxpayer-funded studies were commissioned by Chuck Huckelberry for a precinct by precinct analysis of past bond elections. This information is key to understanding what precisely could be done on a precinct by precinct basis to avoid grossly exaggerated numbers when changing the outcome of an election. Truthfully, there is not much else this information would have to offer and is difficult to justify for $75,000 of taxpayer’s funding. The real headaches arrived once the attempt was made at applying this knowledge on election night. Huge numbers of precinct memory cards on RTA’s election night needed to be re-uploaded as it proved far more complicated to actually hack the cards with the crop scanner so that it corresponded to the same net aggregate of the precinct totals examined in the study.
As indicated in Risner’s initial disclosure statement:
“Tucson resident Zbigniew Osmolski swore in an affidavit that he had spoken with Pima County’s election computer operator Bryan Crane on January 27, 2008 and Mr. Crane told him that he “fixed” the RTA election on the instruction of his bosses and he did what he was told to do. Mr. Crane expressed his concern about being indicted.”
Weekly and daily printed news publications echoed Pima County’s efforts to discredit the whistleblower as a disgruntled employee. The Tucson Weekly stopped just short of accusing Mr. Osmolski of perjury.
It’s difficult to understand the rationale of having Judge Kyle Bryson hear the motion for a new trial after his errant ruling was what prompted the motion in the first place, but that is what’s taking place on the following date:
Monday, August 13, 2012 – 2:30 PM
Judge Kyle Bryson’s Courtroom
Fifth Floor, Pima Superior Court:
110 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ
The future of this country may very well rest on the numbers that attend this hearing. Why?
1. Information acquired within the past six years includes specific ways to identify red flags in electronic records that are sufficient to challenge elections.
2. Testimony is on record from officials all over the country confirming that electronic voting machines and their software are insecure and unreliable.
3. Despite the stall tactics used by Pima County’s giant bureaucracy, this litigation will set a precedent to help others throughout the country pursue and achieve election integrity.
4. Similarly flawed electronic voting machines and software are currently in use throughout the country.
5. Prospective relief through this precedent-setting court case could provide a tangible, timely means to improve election transparency nationwide.