Help Make Our Elections Worthy of Our Trust! A Brilliant, New, Inexpensive Way to Create Trackable, Publicly Verifiable Elections Results!

I have recently had the pleasure hosting a visit from Arizona election activist John Brakey at length. His youtube describing how we can save ballot images is presented above. We will need to issue many temporary restraining orders in swing states to be able to do effective recounts if there are questionable election results. We need to issue these TRO’s because registrars all over the country routinely destroy these images after the election and make the ballots themselves unable to be accessed until the election results are certified. In this article we talk about why registrars may feel motivated to destroy ballot images and how they could be much more popular with the county residents they serve if they preserved these ballot images and made them available to citizens to do recounts. For more details, read on!

The New Scanning Systems

Both ES&S and the newer Dominion Voting Systems (formerly Diebold) can take photos of ballots. (Pictured above is the ES&S 850.) Two ES&S (Election Systems & Software) scanners which have excellent audit capabilities have been installed in thousands of precincts throughout the U.S. They are the ES&S DS850, a high speed scanner used for absentee/vote-by-mail and the ES&S DS200, which is used in precincts. Additionally, Dominion Voting Systems’ newer scanners have ballot images as well. They are ImageCast Central and ImageCast Precinct, which have ballot images. Even most DRE’s (Direct Recording Electronic) create ballot images as well. And, they too can be studied to verify election results!

Bev Harris has been studying how votes are fractionalized. She call it “Fraction Magic” When adding up votes, the tabulator can fractionalize the votes if it is programmed that way. She has been working with John Brakey on how to PRESERVE BALLOT IMAGES. Bev Harris has happily discovered that images of the ballots CANNOT BE FRACTIONALIZED. That is why they must be preserved. Please read more by clicking on the following link: http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-part-6/

Below is a picture of Bev Harris, the “godmother of election integrity”



In any election where scanners are used, these systems could create a higher level of transparency and reliability if we prevent the ballot images from being destroyed and prevent the audit file system called Cast Vote Record (CVR) from being disconnected. Many states currently have these systems, now capable of capturing ballot images and numbering ballots. This leaves an opening for easier verification of election results. States that have these ES&S scanners in some of their counties include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and others. California has some Dominion scanners that take ballot images.These scanners are also approved of by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

To find out what type of voting equipment your county is using, click on “The Verifier” and find your county: https://www.verifiedvoting.org/ Please note, that information is over a year old. To be certain of the machines used in our own back yard, call your election department to find out what machines are being used in this election cycle.

Why was ballot imaging and audit files developed by ES&S, a large voting machine company?

ES&S and Dominion were modeled after the Trachtenberg system in Humboldt County, California, which was featured by the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity (TrustVote.org) back in 2010. Please check under “Voting Systems” on the TrustVote.org website for more details. The Trachtenberg system is comprised of a high speed scanner that takes pictures of ballots and assigns a number to them.In this video, produced by TrustVote.org, Mitch Trachtenberg, the developer of the Trachtenberg Election Verification System, talks about how it was created and how it works to protect us from election fraud: https://youtu.be/e0IEb04Dk5Y

Apparently, ES&S realized this was likely a future trend in voting machine software. The company developed its own system based on concepts from software programmers and election integrity activists Harry Hursti, Bev Harris, Mitch Trachtenberg and Larry Moore. Moore developed a voting system called “Clear Ballot,” which is a refined approach to verifying elections using ballot images. Here is a short Video on how the Clear Ballot system works: http://youtu.be/q3a4xmnfwCM

The Politics of Destroying Ballot Images all over the United States

It is very interesting to learn that audit files appear to be being disconnected and verifiable ballot images appear to be being destroyed all over the United States. You might ask yourself why is this? ES&S has cut short their advertising of this feature which they put in DS850 and DS200. The company introduced it as a feature that would help the company sell more scanners but received significant negative feedback from election departments. ES&S then drastically reduced their advertising of this imaging feature, but still kept it in the machines that were also certified by the EAC. (The U.S. Election Assistance Commission)

Why would registrars (election directors) dislike this feature? There are several potential reasons:

1. The, hopefully, rare occasion of malicious intent on the part of the registrar or their supervisor. The ballot images could be destroyed so that the hacked computer vote totals would be the only evidence of who won an election.

2. Recounts can be very stressful for registrars. The pressures for fast results come from the media, concerned and often upset citizens and the candidates. Despite the pressures, recounts usually take several days, which includes valuable staff time at the registrar’s office.

3. A registrar might fear repercussions when a substantial difference shows up in their county. Registrars might be concerned that others will perceive that they were not doing their job. Additionally, the discrepancy might affect a future promotion for them or a much worse outcome. They might end up in court trying to explain the differences in the vote totals.

Pima County Arizona: A place where ballot images were destroyed regularly

Many registrars/election directors in Arizona have objected to the audit file and have disabled that function. They actually destroy the ballot images. Pima County, Arizona kept it a secret from their own Election Integrity Commission (PCEIC) for three elections over eight months. Here is a link to a short video clip documenting when PCEIC members found out their eight months of deliberation were over the predicament of ballot images already destroyed: https://youtu.be/itlU2JnMdHo

The following five-minute clip lays out how the ballot images that Pima County destroyed are good for auditing and election.

Link to YouTube: https://youtu.be/WElcRziVmlA

The Happy Story of Humboldt County California and Its Highly Popular Registrar

In Humboldt County, California, Carolyn Crnch was the Registrar when the Trachtenberg system was originally invented. No recounts were requested during her terms of office! In fact Carolyn Crnch was for years voted the most appreciated and popular elected official in Humboldt County because she supported election transparency. People would stop her on the streets and share with her for years how happy they were that she was their registrar! What a wonderful life she got to live as an elected political official!



Left to right: Tom Stanionis, Lori Grace, Carolyn Crnich, Mitch Trachtenberg and Kevin Collins, champions of election transparency!

In 2010, the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity awarded Carolyn Crnich for her leading role in supporting transparency in elections. Local Humboldt activist Kevin Collins, Tom Stanionis from Yolo County, and Mitch Trachtenberg were also given awards for their roles in creating this transparent system of vote counting. Kelly Sanders followed Crnich’s tradition after her service as registrar. I have found that elected registrars are more attentive to their electorate with respect to vote counts. It is the hope of election integrity activists that elected registrars could become the norm in our country. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. Here is a Vimeo about the Trachtenberg System from TrustVote.org. https://vimeo.com/35785956.

For those of you who prefer to learn about this ballot capturing scanner, please watch Wisconsin election integrity activists perform a precinct-based recount using the ES&S DS200 scanner and clickers. In this training session for election integrity activists, you can see once again how pleased people are to be included in recounting a vote, even if it’s only a training program! Again, it is a shame that other counties in Wisconsin do not protect the vote. Maybe Scott Walker would not have been re-elected if voters had been able to use a transparent system. (The last five minutes are particularly important). https://youtu.be/SUmOrTt2DvQ

Some stories that would not have to have been written had ballot images been able to be examined by concerned voters:

The article asserts that “Shameless DNC Election Rigging – Approximately 15% Of Bernie’s Votes Were Flipped To Clinton In California.

http://usapoliticsnow.com/shameless-dnc-election-rigging-approximately-15-bernies-votes-flipped-

Also here is the analysis by John Brakey of AUDIT-AZ of How the California Presidential Primary was Stacked, Stripped and Flipped: http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564

WHAT CAN VOTERS DO TO RECTIFY THESE PROBLEMS:

Election activist John Brakey and attorney William Risner assert that destroying ballot images is against Federal law: Federal law 52 U.S.C § 20701 requiring retention of federal election materials, provides a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and one year in jail for premature destruction of that material (was formerly 42 U.S.C § 1974).

For the November elections, Brakey and Risner recommend the following strategy:

File a public record request (ASAP) asking for ballot images for the last and the next election. The request should include other critical documents like the Cast Vote Record (CVR). We can provide a draft of what to request.

If ballot images are or have been destroyed then file a special action Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is usually easy to request.

If they refuse your public records request for “ballot images,” then file another special action in the form of a Mandamus Act. When you win they have to pay all expenses and legal fees.

Additional efforts that may be necessary and are suggested by AUDIT-AZ member Mickey Duniho, a retired former NSA Cryptologist for 37 years. His recommendations are being added to our TRO.

Do not transfer results from the DS850 to the central count computer until election day;

Print the cast vote record serial number on each ballot so that an audit can link back to the original ballot as per how the system was federal certified by EAC;

Mark every storage box containing ballots with the range of serial numbers contained in the box, so that an audit can easily find the box containing a ballot of interest.

There is a lot of reliable evidence if ballot images are not destroyed and if recounts are initiated using the ES&S audit file. With respect to this election, there are many of these scanners in the swing states.

In the interest of fair and transparent elections, it is our hope that citizens and interested attorneys will call upon their states to retain the ballot images and invite citizens and interested election officials to do recounts when they are concerned about their results.

With hope for a democracy we can trust!

THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR INTEREST and YOUR SUPPORT!

Still Another Way of Rigging an Election Has Been Discovered! Fractionalizing Votes! One Person, One Vote is True Only Some of The Time!

During the conference, Take Back The Vote, that we co-sponsored with the California Election Integrity Coalition, I was introduced to a new very disturbing discovery that is described beautifully in the article from Jon Rappoport below. What is true is that votes are not necessarily weighted evenly in our elections if you are voting on Dominion (Diebold) or possibly with voting machines created by ES&S, systems that cover most of the country. Click here for more details.

A second article will be posted on the solution to the problem. Stay tuned during the next two days.

With much concern for our democracy! Lori

Here is The Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity fellow, attorney Bob Fitrakis, PhD, JD, talking with Lee Camp about how large corporations control our elections and manage our exit polls with no transparency or accountability.

Video Streaming Event October 8, 2016



Come Learn How to Help Create Elections You Can Trust

The Election Experts panel consisted of Ralph Lopez, Election Justice Massachusetts; Bob Fitrakis, PhD, JD of TrustVote.org and FreePress.org; Lori Grace, director of TrustVote.org; Naomi Anderson, TrustVote.org; John Roberts Brakey, Audit-AZ (Arizona); Paul Thomas, Election Justice USA; Kelly Mordecai, Election Justice USA.



Was your vote counted? Are you frustrated with the results of the California primary? Was your group’s efforts to observe the ballot count process suppressed by your county’s election office (aka Registrar of Voters)? Maybe your experience was great.

The Latest Update on Our California exit polls September 28, 2016

Here is what Robert Fitrakis writes about the lawsuit against Edison Media Research.

In the case of Johnson v. Edison Media Research (EMR), plaintiff, Pete Johnson and his counsel, Robert Fitrakis filed a motion on September 20, 2016 to keep the case from being dismissed.

The legal filing notes that, “Edison Research is the exclusive provider of election exit polls to the National Election Pool consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC and the Associated Press….” Johnson points out, “The results of the ‘exit polls’ that EMR conducted on March 15, 2016 during the Presidential Primary Elections in the State of Ohio did not match the actual election outcomes when the votes were counted.

Johnson’s Reply Brief goes into great detail to establish the cozy relationship between the Ohio Secretary of State and the monopoly exit poll provider for the media consortium. Edison admitted that “The information is delivered through a secure web application on Election Day.”

Lori’s note: A secure web application means an information feed that is not available to the public. In other words a secret information feed.

The Brief states: “The Ohio Secretary of State regularly provides EMR with detailed records of voter demographics and actual election outcomes after the votes are counted, and allows EMR to conduct ‘exit polls’ near polling places.”

Johnson v. Edison is all about the secret collusion between a government official, a monopoly entity that adjusts election results to match the official outcome without transparency, and a giant media consortium, that could also be called a cartel. The crux of the complaint against Edison is in page four of the Brief: “After the Ohio Secretary of State provided EMR with those voter demographics and actual election outcomes, EMR adjusted the results of its ‘exit polls’ to match them.”

The Brief argues that, “The information gathered and disseminated in ‘exit polls’ goes to the heart of the democratic process, the process of obtaining the information in ‘exit polls’ requires a significant discussion between pollster and voter, and “exit polls” provide a valued source of data about voter behavior.”

Many of the same concerns about exit polling were raised by U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr. in a January 20, 2005 open letter to Edison Media Research. Conyers pointed out that the adjusted exit poll numbers provided by Edison in the 2004 presidential election were “virtually impossible as a statistical matter.” Conyers issued Edison a “…request to receive the actual raw exit poll data that you obtained.” Edison refused to cooperate with the Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Johnson v. Edison is another attempt to end the non-transparency in the U.S. voting process, one that allows private for-profit companies to secretly program the voting machines and tabulators with proprietary software, but also allows Edison to secretly adjust exit polls numbers to support the statistically impossible.

Bob Fitrakis, the attorney for Johson, argues that: “Edison needs to come clean and become transparent. These Democratic primary exit polls, had they occurred in another country, would have caused at least 12 of the 26 Democratic primary elections to be invalidated.”

Below are the three PDFs of the lawsuit. The first one is the original lawsuit against Edison Media Research by Bob Fitrakis, the second PDF is Edison Media Research’s response to our lawsuit. The third one below is our response to Baker and Hostetler’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit.

The California Election Integrity Coalition and

The Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity

present

Was your vote counted? Are you frustrated with the results of the California primary? Was your group’s efforts to observe the ballot count process suppressed by your county’s election office (aka Registrar of Voters)?

Maybe your experience was great. Either way, we want you to join us for our upcoming Take Back the Vote: An Emergency Conference to Prepare for Upcoming Election(s), happening October 8th and 9th, in Richmond, California.

Among many other election related topics, we will be training poll workers and precinct monitors on irregularities to watch out for, on Election Day. Our mission is to ensure every ballot is counted as cast. Let’s do the work to create a real Democracy!

The goals of this conference are the following:

1) Build a broader base of individuals who are aware of election issues

2) Train the next generation of poll workers and monitors

3) Encourage concerned citizens to organize statewide (to do 1 & 2)

4) Educate voters about their voting rights

The focus of the conference has recently been expanded to include issues around election integrity across the country which will possibly impact the outcome of both the 2016 Presidential election and senatorial and congressional election results for both parties across the United States.

If you can’t attend, please donate to sponsor the event and/or an individual’s participation.

WHEN

Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 9:30 AM – Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 5:00 PM (PDT) –

WHERE

Grace Lutheran Church – 2369 Barrett Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804

Update on Our California exit polls September 7, 2016

A little movie of our California exit pollers… Sorry about the size…

Hi Everyone,

I would like to share with all of you the results of the exit poll that we did at the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity (ADEI). And, I also want to THANK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE at TrustVote.org who donated to the Institute for the exit poll. Your donations definitely helped us pay our cost over-runs. The Institute and Election Justice USA decided to jointly sponsor an exit poll because Edison Media Research decided to cancel exit polls for the rest of the USA after Attorney Cliff Arnebeck wrote a letter to Edison Research Media asking to see the unadjusted data. There was also an article by Tim Robbins questioning the exit polls that were showing dramatic differences between the exit poll totals and the election night results. At about that time, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was showing a very distinct lead against Clinton in 12 states which disappeared shortly after the polls closed. This suggested that electronic manipulation of the polls was taking place. We at the Institute decided to run an exit poll close to our area in California to try to give voters a better picture of the true election results for at least three counties in California.

ADEI conducted exit polls during the 2016 California presidential primary in three counties at 12 precincts. This was organized and managed, initially, by Josh and Sarah Mittel. The polls were randomized and representative of the demographic data in the precinct area. The counties were Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties and four polling places were chosen in each county. The sample size was 3, 321. This is an impressive number of people,by the way, as Edison Research Media will often poll only 1200 people in a national presidential election. Lori Grace of the Institute managed the followup which included a week of filing the 3,321 exit poll results into an Excel spread sheet. After that Tina Kimmel PhD, MPH, MSW and Josh Mittel PhD analyzed the data. Both people have an extensive background in statistics.

With respect to the Democratic primary, the results were the following: The official vote for these three counties show Sanders winning over Clinton 49.2% to 46.1%, a 3.1% margin. By official, I mean what was reported at the Secretary of State’s office. The exit polls conducted by the Institute showed Sanders winning over Clinton in a unadjusted exit poll 52.6% to Clinton’s 43.8%. Then we adjusted the results for demographic data and the difference became 51.9% for Sanders and Clinton 44.4%-still a fairly large Sanders victory of 7.5% . You might ask what kind of demographic data did we adjust for. The exit pollers found that older white men did not often agree to fill out the exit poll. They tended to be Trump, Johnson and occasionally Clinton supporters. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate. So for the people who did not participate in the exit poll, many of which were older white men, we added some votes for Trump, Johnson and Clinton proportionally to the exit poll results that we already had.

The Institute used the Senate race as a “benchmark” against the presidential race. This is done in all good polling where you pair a vote you are interested in, like the presidential candidate with the senatorial candidate. The ADEI exit poll results for both candidates Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez matched the official voting tally within the 2 percent margin of error. A 2 percent difference in the margin of error is common in most exit polls and is not considered a fraction of election irregularities or fraud.

One thing that I, Lori of the Institute would like to share is that the people who were helping us with the exit poll were very enthusiastic. This shows me that ordinary citizens can get very excited about ensuring the integrity of the vote. Another thing that I learned from organizing this exit poll is that it was quite expensive. Our total costs, shared between the Institute and Election Justice USA were about $25,000. Also,as you might expect, I learned that exit polling is a great job for people who are very detail-oriented.

Another thing that I would like to acknowledge is that we received many small donations to help us financially with the exit polls. THANK YOU AGAIN, Trust Vote People, you really care about democracy and accurate election results. We at the Institute SO APPRECIATE YOU! We are sad that Bernie decided to give in. He and his staff did not seriously consider the outstanding poll analyses done by Lulu Fries’dat of Election Justice USA together with Anselmo Sampietro and Fritz Scheuren, President of the American Statistical Association. http://www.hollerbackfilm.com/electoral-system-in-crisis/ This habit of not considering electronic manipulation and the strange statistical results that can appear has been a longstanding pattern in American culture. Also, at this point, I have seen three presidential candidates refuse to fight for their right to the presidency based upon evidence of serious electronic fraud. I sat with with a small group of people together Al Gore one day in 2006 as a Climate Project trainee and asked him why he did not push for being president since he felt that the election was stolen. He said to us that he would have caused a revolution and just did not have the stamina to survive what would ensue.I was part of Audit the Vote in 2004. We watched Kerry be evasive and back out of fighting for what was rightfully his. Finally, we have watched Bernie Sanders this year give in in spite of excellent statistics and an army of supporters and make a choice to promote Clinton for president. I am hoping that we can change the system so that presidential candidates will one day be able to stand up for what appears to be very rightfully theirs. – Lori Grace

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Good news from California! The lawsuit against Registrar Michael Vu received a ruling from the judge that will support having fair recounts in California. Thank you to those of you who emailed the Institute ( TrustVote.org ) with your complaints about the California elections, and also to the lawyers who wrote in to help. Your doing so helped us help others, including Ray Lutz and the Citizen’s Oversight Committee in San Diego. One of the lawyers who wrote us became the main lawyer in the lawsuit against Michael Vu, sponsored by Ray Lutz’ Citizen’s Oversight Committee. (Thank you Alan Geraci for writing to us offering your services so we could network you with Ray Lutz.) We also helped with Bill Simpich’s expenses; he is the attorney who helped Ray Lutz and the Citizen’s Oversight Committee. He has presented with us twice here in Corte Madera, California on election integrity issues. Bill also spoke, along with Robert Fitrakis and Lori Grace, on Dennis Bernstein’s radio show. (See TrustVote.tv ) Thank you Bill! And THANK YOU to all of you who generously donated to the Institute. You and your donations have also helped make this positive ruling happen! What is significant about this court ruling is that counting votes for a 1% random manual tally is NOT a RANDOM tally if you are doing the tally and choosing to leave out a certain percentage of votes. In the case of San Diego registrar Michael Vu, it was over one-third of San Diego voters! Michael Vu and a number of other registrars in California chose not to count provisional ballots before doing a 1% manual tally. Many of the provisional voters were NPP (i.e., No Party Preference) — voters who wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders. Interestingly enough, Michael Vu was asked to resign as registrar in 2006 in Ohio after he manipulated provisional ballots (including shredding some of them) in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election. As of now, no registrar in California will be able to legally conduct the 1% manual tally without counting all of the votes first. Neither will they be able to choose the precincts ahead of time before the election, as they do in Fresno, California. Eliminating any number of votes distorts a recount! Rather than writing a whole article myself about this ruling, I am including in this update a copy of Ray Lutz’ press conference announcement, so you can get a lively sense about what happened, and the pdf of the ruling from the judge so that you can see how such a ruling is worded.

This pdf is of the lively press release that went out from Citizen’s Oversight Committee about the favorable court ruling. It also contains a clear chart that shows the impact of assessing percentages for candidates in an election if some of the votes are not counted. Very interesting.

Click on this pdf if you interested in seeing the actual wording of the court ruling.This is useful for those interested in the more strictly legal aspects of the case. Click here: Ruling on Injunction

This link contains an article about the San Diego lawsuit against Michael Vu. It is written by Bill Simpich, one of the attorneys involved. If you click on it, you will see once more a picture of the shredding truck, a short YouTube on whiting out ballots and Bill’s writing about the lawsuit ruling, its meaning and its impact. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38373-focus-california-court-upholds-a-method-to-detect-election-fraud

With respect to the future, there are two other lawsuits that are going to be submitted in California. Please make sure you are on our TrustVote mailing list, so that you can get our announcements hot off the press! We will be asking for your donations for these lawsuits later in August! Thanks for being people who care SO MUCH about democracy and election integrity!

Updated August 8, 2016

Report from Philadelphia and the Progressive Democratic Convention

A group of us, Bill Simpich, Bob Fitrakis, Steve Enzer (TrustVote.TV) and Naomi Anderson went to Philadelphia to present along with Andrea Miller of People Demanding Action on creating a more trustworthy, more democratic election system. We also filmed some of the demonstrations that were occurring around the Democratic convention. We noted that the theme of election fraud was very prominent in the signs carried by protestors. We were glad to see that this topic has now become widely acknowledged. (Picture- Lori Grace)

In the presentation below, Andrea Miller Of PDA talks about voter suppression Southern style with Voter ID laws and continued disenfranchisement of former felons. Lori follows with reaching out to people for support in changing this and many other election integrity issues through joining the mailing list of TrustVote.org (aka The Institute of American Democracy and Election Integrity). Bill Simpich talks about the California lawsuits and making Michael Vu and Secretary of State Padilla accountable for how they manipulated California primary results. Lori follows with talking about how TrustVote.org is going to hold some seminars on new contributions to election integrity such as open source election auditing, reintroducing the Trachtenberg system, and hand counting paper ballots on a precinct level in a number of pilot projects in our upcoming November election.

Movie of the presentation that we did in Philadelphia…

There are three main areas in which the Institute hopes to make an additional contribution this year. One is dealing with the lawsuit against Edison Media Research. Another is dealing with the California lawsuits and the third area is on highlighting solutions to create more integrity in our election systems. We will seek to introduce possible solutions to our election system by introducing an open source election audit system called Democracy Counts and reintroducing the Trachtenberg system. We hope also to introduce some pilot projects of precinct base hand counting which we feel stimulates citizen participation in our democracy, creates more accuracy than electronic systems and has shown itself to be very time-efficient in the past. With respect to the lawsuits, we hope to follow up by communicating about and fundraising for those lawsuits and other actions in California and in Ohio that will bring the issue of election manipulation forward to the American public and hold accountable election officials that have not been supporting this.

In this update here, we will talk about the Ohio Election Integrity lawsuit. During the primary, it appears to be the case that Edison Research edited exit poll results, taking votes from Bernie Sanders and giving them to Hilary Clinton, so that the election results would match the electronic vote totals. Currently Bob Fitrakis has sued Edison Media Research to release unadjusted exit polls for 12 states in the primary. Edison Media Research has told Bob Fitrakis now to communicate with their lawyers. This response is basically a carefully worded refusal. Their law firm is BakerHostetler, a global law firm that reported earnings of over 600 million dollars in 2015. It will be very difficult for Bob Fitrakis to get the unadjusted exit poll results from Edison Media Research for the primary. The Media consortium and the DNC clearly favored Hillary Clinton getting the DNC nomination throughout the time that Bernie was campaigning. When looking at the nature of the law firm used by Edison Media Research, we can see clearly how much power lies in our country in the hands of extremely large corporations and the legal firms associated with them.

Of course, when Bernie was running the Washington Post called people wondering about the hacking of the primary results ” conspiracy theorists”. This term, originated by Karl Rove in 2004 has been used to discredit people who have been concerned about hacking all the time. The issue is that the mainstream media is being biased in its reporting in that it did not support people concerned about the hacking of the primary, but would very much be concerned about the hacking of the November election where Hillary is concerned.

Hopefully, 2016 will be the final year where people concerned about hacking and exit poll manipulation will be labeled “conspiracy theorists”. In developing and promoting the term “conspiracy theorists” to defend the stealing in 2004, Karl Rove did a serious disservice to American Democracy. We at the Institute would deeply appreciate some contributions so that we can possibly go ahead with the lawsuit to demand the raw data of the primary or at least to publicize widely the Edison Media Research’s refusal to release the data. DONATE TODAY

With Guccifer 2.0 possibly cooperating with the Russians in hacking the DNC website,people have become much more aware that foreign country or person could hack our national elections this year. A call for more transparency, for releasing unadjusted data of exit polls becomes critical. In contrast with the primary, the hacking of the November election is very important to the media.

Edison Media Research has been unwilling to release raw exit data that would have shown that Bernie Sanders won in these twelve states. They may change their policy very quickly if the electronic voting machines are hacked by a foreign country. Of course that has to be proven first. If a foreign country like Russia or Israel hacks the US elections and gives votes to Trump, they may release their raw data if it shows conflicting results. The mainstream media will definitely change how they report about hacking as well. Click Here for the article talking about hacking that the Washington Post has just released.

The BIG ISSUE is that the Mainstream Media is acting like a corporate person with favorites and with lots of autonomy and choices as to what they will reveal. So the question is: Is this fair in a democracy or should the media report fairly and equally on all issues? I would answer yes to this question.

Update below July 19, 2016



We are also seeking to raise funds to cover the expenses of the California lawsuits and declarations discussed below. Before looking at the lawsuits (see PDF links at the bottom of this article), I recommend looking at the the Youtube movies, or some of them below, so that you can understand the situations that generated them. I would like to give you the movie and background behind them. We showed the movie UNCOUNTED: The True Story of the California Primary about two weeks ago but it is featured below for those of you who have missed it. One of the lawsuits challenges the poor training of pollworkers as organized by California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla who was also holding fundraisers for Hillary Clinton. Another lawsuit challenges Michael Vu, San Diego’s Registrar of Voters. Other lawsuits are being formulated for other counties. As the press conference video shows below, these lawsuits will involve about 60% of the total number of voters in California. A Northern California lawsuit filed by Bill Simpich will challenge the guidelines that election officials gave vote-counting observers. These guidelines were not consistent in any way with the California elections manual says about how one observes.

A personal note from Lori: I love Youtubes when I can find them on any issue that I care about because it gives me an emotional feeling for what I care about.

These Youtube movies will outline for you some of the reasons why election integrity lawsuits have been submitted:

The videos below will show you how the election process was corrupted in San Diego. It was corrupted in other places as well. Young people were profiled within the Democratic party using the Minivan system and were challenged with obstacles to voting such as the one mentioned by the Ballot Monitors where their votes was thrown away if they were part of a university and did not put down their dorm room number.

In the video below, you will see how choices for president were being whited-out before counting the ballots. This was by order of the California Democratic party. Citizen election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with, with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the video, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. She says the box she witnessed contained about 300 ballots, and that it was only one of many counting stations she could not witness.

This is how people were treated when they wanted to observe ballots being counted. The distance restrictions mentioned by the election officials and the prohibition against videotaping are not listed in the Secretary of State’s manual on observing, although election officials told these observers that those were the rules. You can also see in this youtube how defensive the election officials are.

A shredding truck was parked outside the Registrar’s office during the firstpress conference. In a staff inquiry later, the shredding of ballots was mentioned, although no shredding should be occurring at this time. We do not know as of yet which ballots were shredded. The presence of a shredding truck creates suspicion in voters. Trust in our voting system is essential for it to work. Michael Vu who worked formerly in Ohio had shredded provisional ballots in 2004 before he was told to resign from his post there in 2006. He was then hired by the city of San Diego as the Registrar of Voters. Michael Vu’s behavior in no way supports public trust and engagement in our electoral process.

Lawsuit Budget

Here are expenses for the lawsuits that we are seeking to raise money for. Ray Lutz has also been raising money down in San Diego. As you can see, these lawsuits are being conducted entirely by volunteers. We will be extremely grateful for whatever you can donate!

Per diem is an inaccurate phrase for Netra and Dwana. $50 per day for Netra and Dwana is the accurate per diem.



________________________________

First Ohio Election Integrity Lawsuit filed…

I am thrilled to announce that Bob Fitrakis the lawyer and board member and writer of the Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism, has filed the first Ohio Election Integrity Lawsuit against Edison Media Research to release the raw data which shows such dramatic differences on exit polls and electronic vote totals in eleven states in the presidential primaries throughout the US. The file number and details of this lawsuit as transmitted to me are as follows:

Although I have presented the file number of the lawsuit at this time, as you may find out the contents are not available for viewing at this time. Nonetheless since so many of you wanted the file number, I am including it in this announcement for you. I will let all of you know as soon as the details of the lawsuit will become available. The biggest opportunity in informing you in detail about this lawsuit is the education that goes with informing you about our election systems.

The following transaction was entered by Fitrakis, Robert on 7/11/2016 at 5:03 PM EDT and filed on 7/11/2016

Case Name: Johnson v. Edison Media Research, Inc

Case Number: 2:16-cv-00670-EAS-TPK

Filer: Peter M Johnson Document Number: 2

Docket Text: COMPLAINT with civil cover sheet against Edison Media Research, Inc, filed by Peter M Johnson. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet) (Fitrakis, Robert)

The exit polls have been adjusted to fit electronic vote totals since 2004 when they appeared to show Kerry winning against Bush. Explanations were developed at that time to explain the differences between the exit polls and the vote totals which was that exit polls are generally unreliable. This assessment of exit poll reliability was developed by Karl Rove who was an assistant to George Bush. In order to keep the Media Consortium business money coming in, Edison Media Research has always edited, or “cleaned” as they put it their data since that time. The raw data exit polls are stored at the University of Connecticut. No one has ever requested them. We are requesting it for the first time.

People who want to see raw data are often labeled “conspiracy theorists”. We want to make sure you know that we will be described as such. Actually, we are just people wanting to see unedited exit polls and to learn what really happened during our primary elections. As you may know, the exit polls and the electronic vote totals are very different in eleven states. The Media Consortium and Edison Media Research canceled the exit polls for California, New Jersey, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and Puerto Rico, after receiving a letter from Cliff Arnebeck, the other lawyer who works with Bob Fitrakis asking the Edison Research to put a hold on the raw data.

We are expecting the Edison Media Research to file a motion to dismiss. They have up to sixty days to do this. During this time, we need to spread the word about this lawsuit to as many people as possible. We also need to raise funds to address further legal costs. If you feel inspired to support us, please donate to this lawsuit on the Ohio Election Integrity lawsuit button on Trustvote.org. We really appreciate your help however large or small. Thank you!! Our costs are going to rise significantly now. If we raise money beyond our legal costs, we will be able to direct some of this money towards alternative media education so that many people in the US begin to know about the kind of election editing that goes on.

If we are successful with this lawsuit, we will then file another lawsuit to look at the paper ballots. Everyone will be educated throughout this process about the real role of Edison Media Research and the Media Consortium in presenting news about our elections. The Media Consortium consists of CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News and the Associated Press (AP). Our examining the ballots will show us who really won the Democratic presidential primary. Although Bernie may have already conceded by that time or before then, at least he will know what the truth was about how many votes he really garnered. He can do with that what he wants. Additionally, voters will know the truth about the Democratic presidential primary and how votes were handled.

The results of looking at these ballots has substantial consequences for American people. Americans will have been educated about what really happens when large corporations with partisan interests who are part of the 1% count our ballots with proprietary software that no one is allowed to look at to see if the vote totals have changed. This process in our country makes our elections extremely vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. As a large group of people, perhaps millions of people, learn about the unfortunate nature of our election process, that same large group will have a chance to begin to demand and create a much more transparent system, a system that is run by the people and for the people. A system that is hopefully not run by private partisan corporations. This is also the deep heartfelt wish of both the Institute of American Democracy and Election Integrity and the Institute of Contemporary Journalism. It is a wish which members of both Institutes feel will require the support of millions of people to effect a change.

Come join us in manifesting this change. It will take time, but it will be extremely satisfying!

Bob Fitrakis, Lori Grace, and Bill Simpich were on KPFA radio July 12th.

KPFA Flashpoints with Bob Fitrakis, Lori Grace and Bill Simpich… Click Here for the video.

Click here to see the video from the Saturday July 2, 2016 meeting at Sunrise Center about this issue.