Photocopies from Ohio BOE Show Questionable Pre-Challenges

[dzika]

These photocopies were collected by investigators and recount volunteers in Greene County Ohio.

Included in the documentation is a pre-challenge letter from Blackwell. Pre-challenged voters had their names removed from the list of registered voters.

Voters who had their names removed from the list of registered voters had to show up for a hearing at the BOE on the day before the election. Based on the timeframes on these photo copies, I don't see how a pre-challenged voter could have gotten a registered letter in time to know to come to the hearing.

Pre-challenged voters that had their names removed from the list of register voters and didn't show up for the hearing on the day before the election would be forced to used a provisional ballot.

I have had these documents for a few days but I just don't have a lot of experience and I'm having a hard time understanding them. I was wondering if some of the DUer's would be kind enough to take a look and try to make some sense out of these.

Also, I thought that it might be interesting to note that Greene County is the county where TRIAD GSI is located. These documents have nothing to do with TRIAD that I can tell.

Here is a link to a PDF file containing the documents:
http://www.edwardsdavid.com/BushVideos/GC1.pdf

[melwoods]

1. kick

:)

[dzika]

2. kick.

[berniew1]

3. It was clear scam like the one that removed 90,000 eligible in 2000 in Fla

This isn't the only case. There is documentation that thousands of eligible voters in minority precinct such as Cleveland and Columbus were removed because they were minorities likely to vote for Kerry, and without having received notice that they were being removed. And thousands of provisional ballots were rejected for this bogus scam excuse. Free Press has the documentation. See their web site.

[dzika]

5. OK Thanks.

I'll check there.

[roseBudd]

4. If you are in that area you could canvass the people whose names

are on that list to see what their stories are. I think you could then dtermine how many of those voters did go to the polls and how many had their provisioanl ballots count. I would start with whitepages.com

[Igel]

19. I suspect p. 1-2 is a list of people that

voted (provisional? absentee?) in the wrong precincts.

It might be people whose ballots were "counted" in the wrong precinct (see p. 18), but I can't get the precinct numbers to match up. (Left column: stub #, then the two precincts, presumably the one they voted in and the one they should have voted in--or vice-versa--then their personal info.)

These people weren't challenged; they voted.

Have no evidence or suspicion about pg. 5-6. Maybe names challenged, maybe names removed from the voter lists, maybe something else. (One possibility: names removed, but the info kept in case they voted provisional. But I have no evidence either way, and it might be a list of people that were mailed absentee ballots. A header would be nice.)

[insane_cratic_gal]

6. What about page 13

Votes Moved from 1 precinct to another?? it goes on to list which.

Ex. From 351(precinct) To 36(precinct)

? wth is that all about and is it legit?

[Igel]

18. Check page 61.

"AV" must stand for absentee vote. There are instances marked on the forms where it says an AV was counted in the wrong precinct and had to be moved. These correspond to the notations on p. 13.

Legit, yes: they're correcting their mistakes.

[insane_cratic_gal]

7. kick n/t

[KaliTracy]

8. am I seeing something in this that's not there?

How come, starting on page 25 (I only look at a few pages after that until 28 or so)

the computer count is higher than the ballots used? (upper Left corner verses Line 1: Number of counted sigs in Poll book and Line 2: Number of ballots in Box)

From Page 25

Upper left corner: Computer Count 391 /391

Top Middle of page Number of ballots issued 500
*states to Balance Lines 1 and 2 must match

Left side of page
# of spoiled ballots 1
Last ballot number used 371
Number of provisional ballots 5

Right side of page
Line 1
Number of Counted signatures in poll book 365
Line 2 Voted Ballots in Ballot Box 365 (26 is written underneath (absentee)
Provisional Ballots listed lower is 3

Do Provisional and absentee ballots go INTO the machine? Or are they hand counted? Is that why there is a difference in the Computer number as opposed to the ballots issued number?

[insane_cratic_gal]

11. Saw that too

also look at the number of voters signed on the book and the number of ballots in the box.

Interesting

Is it just me or is the handwriting the same through out the whole thing as well? I'm guess it's recount from Greene. someone counting the votes in the box. compared to the sigs on the books.

I have tallied up the difference still mulling it over.

[Igel]

17. A hunch.

Offhand, the upper left hand corner "computer count" number usually matches the # of ballots in the box plus the number written under it. The other number is usually the # of absentee ballots shown lower on the form.

[Sydnie]

9. Didn't the challenges come from the repubs and

weren't they all thrown out? Are these the same ones that were because of the undelivered registered mails that the judge threw out because the people were showing up for court stating that they existed, they just didn't want to accept any mail from the gop?

[IndyOp]

15. I think the challenges were only thrown out in some counties...

like Summit County, Ohio.

Scroll down this page to I. C. Challenges to New Registrants on Insufficient Grounds for more about Summit County...
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x218162>

:kick:

[roseBudd]

21. The court case was appealed by Blackwell and there were 3,500

GOP challengers in OH on Nov. 2. We countered with Election Protection volunteers to watch the GOP challengers.

BTW GOP challengers were paid $100 each.

[dzika]

22. Do you know where Blackwell got the names for the pre-challenges? n/t

[rdmccur]

23. Don't know but here's

an excerpt from Madsens' latest article (letter?) that may shed some light:

"Before Datamaxx was formed, its contracts were about to go to Seisint, a Tampa company allegedly tied to mob money. It operates Accurint, and was recently bought out by Lexis.

Interesting note is that Datamaxx uses Accurint for its database. Datamaxx has made a killing in law enforcement/homeland security contracts after 911.

-- Now people will wonder what this has to do with the election fraud. Here it is in a nutshell. These people, along with ChoicePoint of Dallas, TX, are personal data miners. And Datamaxx is tied to Ohio law enforcement data bases and communications.

Where did the Katherine Harris get the info to throw all those African American voters off the rolls in 2000 in Florida? Public and commercial database records, everything from DMV files to education and insurance records. They red lined poor African American and working class white districts just like credit card and mortgage companies do. And how did they know where to put only 2 voting machines in polling places in Ohio for use by over 3000 voters? Same process. They red lined those districts and knew where to put the Election Day squeeze on. "

[dzika]

24. OK... It's starting to come back to me now.

Your post jarred my memory a little. I remembered this from the DemocracyNOW! broadcast on 11/3.

AMY GOODMAN: Greg Palast, your expose last week about a so called caging list in Florida that was sent to instead of the georgewbush.com website, well, you got your hands on it.

GREG PALAST: Right, we got our hands on it. And what that was this turned out to be what was obviously a list of voters that they wanted to challenge in Florida, the Republicans. This was, they went to the head of the Bush campaign in Florida yesterday during, while the polls were open, I got 12 more of these lists. We're talking 25,000- 30,000 people, almost all African American voters they intended to challenge, but after we broke the story on BBC, the democrats went to court, pushed against the Republicans, sent out letters to supervisors warning about this stuff, and they backed down in Florida. However, they didn't back down in Ohio, where unlike the secret lists of Florida, they were up front causing massive problems as Barbara was speaking about in particular, just holding up the lines, making challenges against basically African American voters. You know this is against the law....

Do you think that the source of Blackwell's list pre-challenges is the same source as the Florida challenge list that Greg Palast had?

It's kind of interesting that they dropped the challenges in Florida so fast. It's clear that B* was a lot more worried about Ohio for some reason.

[IStriker]

10. Wasn't all this discussed and fought out in the courts pre-election?

[insane_cratic_gal]

12. Only the begining of the docs

are from the pre election,

the rest looks like a report from the recount.

[LiberalHeart]

13. In Lucas County, it was....

There was a long list of people whose registration was questioned and they were told to attend a hearing to prove their registration was valid -- but I don't know how they were told to attend, other than by seeing their names in the local paper, because I think the BOE had been unable to reach them by mail. However, there was some last minute court action that made it unnecessary for these people to attend the hearing. I don't know if the ruling would have applied to the whole state or just to Lucas County. I also can't remember how the rights of those voters were protected -- i.e. whether they were allowed to cast regular or provisional ballots. I tried doing a search but couldn't find the info. Do you recall how the courts handled this?

[IStriker]

16. It looks like the copy of the letter from Blackwell on here...

is what the courts decided beforehand about all of this. If the people couldn't be notified because there wasn't enough time to reach them, when they came to vote, they were to vote provisional and the challenge would be taken up after the election (if anybody challenged their vote.) If the challenge was thrown out or not challenged, then the provisional ballot would count. I don't get the point of whatever this post is. The last 139 pages would take me 3 days to pull up and try to read sideways, so I didn't plow through them. The first stuff looks like somebody's notes about what I don't know. If somebody has figured it out, please clew me in.

[dzika]

20. Yes, there is more...

It's not just about the pre-challenges... there are other strange things in there.

I guess the point of the post was to get the documents out there. I have my fingers crossed that someone will help to dig the evidence out of these.


Here is my take one the documents in the file:

There are a lot of ledger style documents that are sideways. There is importance in all of these documents or they would not have been collected. They have been explained to me in the broadest of terms.

The first few pages are the names of voters who casted provisional ballots that did not count because they voted at the wrong table in the right county. Some of these voters were probably disqualified due to a pre-challenge.

On page 3, starts a memo from Blackwell containing instructions for dealing with pre-challenges. The BOE got the memo on 10/26. Here I'll OCR a few paragraphs...

-snip-

In an effort to bring consistency to the handling of these pre-challenges, I am directing the boards to follow the below procedure for handling any voter removed from the voter registration list. Again, the determination of the removal of any voter from the voter registration list is made by the members of the boards of elections based on the individual circumstances of each voter.

-snip-

Any tie-vote of a board of elections on the removal of a voter from the voter registration list shall be determined by this office to be a non-decision by the board. In this situation the board should instruct poll workers to provide these voters with undetermined registrations a provisional ballot if they appear at the polls. This will then allow the board of elections to make a determination of the validity of these voter registrations after the election as the board considers the provisional ballot of each voter.

-snip-

Also, our office has been asked if during the hearing process the board can consolidate like cases in to one motion. If any pre-challenged voters do not appear before the hearing, our advice is that boards may consolidate these types of cases instead of voting on each individual challenge...

Then there is a list of pre-challenged voters that Blackwell's office sent with the memo. Where did these names come from? I don't know. Blackwell's memo basically tells the BOE to disqualify all of these voters "in one motion". Meaning that they got the list from Blackwell and disqualified all of the pre-challenges because there was not time to hold individual hearings.

And what was the chance that pre-qualified voter would have gotten a registered letter in time to attend the hearing? I'm also told that there are about 3000 black students that were registered and many of them were disqualified or had to cast a provisional ballot because the campus box number was not on the voter rolls. I don't think that these documents show that but I may have others that do.

The first set of "ledger sheets" start on page 9, titled "ISSUE RESULTS BY PRECINCT". Dated 12/15/04. A few of the precincts with odd counts have been underlined.

On page 14, the BOE Minutes from 11/19 mentioned that Triad employees Dwayne Rapp, Mitch Larson and Beth Williams attended the meeting. Here is an interesting snip:

Mr. Hall state that he feels that if my the 2006 Gubernatorial Election we have gone to electronic voting we need to acquire additional punch card equipment possibly by checking with other counties that have already made the change to electronic voting. He went on to say that the Secretary of State of State needs to update legislation on the Challenge-Witness section of the ORC. Due process should always be followed. The accuser should always be present to show cause for the challenge. The instructions to the Boards should be consistent a tie vote should always mean the same thing.

I have know idea why the correspondence between Mr. Robert Fitrakis and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro are included.

Then there are some Kerry-Edwards campaign documents showing the expected turnout in each precinct. Some lines have been underlined.

The Ballot Accounting Charts start on page 25. The number on these confuse the hell out of me. Some of them aren't signed. All of the form have a note that says "TO BALANCE-LINE 1 AND 2 MUST MATCH" but they almost never match.


I have another set almost ready to be released spanning about 800 ledger pages. It's actually two reports: "Absentee Voter Ledger Report by Precinct" from 11/12 and "Absentee Voter Ledger Report by Precinct from 12/20. That would be before and after the recount. My understanding that the tallies at the end of each report is where I need to be looking.

My brain really is not geared to do this type of analysis. The people that worked so hard to collect this information and the evidence itself desrves a public vetting. I feel that there is a coherent story to be told here. I just can't get the pieces together in my head.

I'm sure that this is a busy time for everyone but we really need some assistance in the analysis of these documents.

They keep telling me... "There is a story in here. There is a story in here." It only a small part of a much bigger tale. Understanding this information can't hurt and it might be a pointer to some bigger things going on in this county. ;)

[BreakForNews]

14. Very interesting n/t

k...ick