The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

a reply to: Boadicea

Thankyou for summarizing the positive effect the Cyber Ninja forensic audit had for bringing more election transparency to Arizona citizens. It probably did pave the way for what will be Kari's success in court.

The plot thickens:

🚨Missing in Action?🚨

After whistleblowers from the signature verification process in Maricopa County came forward saying they were pressured to approve bad signatures, A deposition was put out for Assistant Elections Director Celia Nabor.

Ms. Nabor is nowhere to be found.

Kari's Twitter

"When Busch tried to depose her, she was informed that Nabor was no longer an employee of the county."

Sounds completely above board. 🙄

Also Kari's Twitter

I'm assuming they mean a subpoena for a deposition was put out for Ms. Nabor, not a "deposition" itself.

Given the circumstances, her disappearance is more than a little suspect.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Just FYI -- it's about 7:00 here, I'm not seeing any updates on the hearing today, and I'm beat so I'm calling it a night. I will allow myself to hope for the best and dream about great victory...

... and then in the morning we'll see what the real world has for us!

Goodnight all!

The Arizona Court of Appeals was supposed to have a closed session meeting yesterday (aka a "conference").

Per: statesuniteddemocracy.org...

Maybe they did, but have not reached a decision on what to do, or not do.

originally posted by: carewemust

The Arizona Court of Appeals was supposed to have a closed session meeting yesterday (aka a "conference").

Per: statesuniteddemocracy.org...

Maybe they did, but have not reached a decision on what to do, or not do.

That's probably it. Although it seems to me that the judges would already have a pretty good idea of how they're going to rule based on the filings and knowledge of the law. But I also suppose they need time to write something up, cross all their Ts and dot all their Is...

I'm expecting a fairly quick ruling though. If not today, then tomorrow.

Then we're off to the Supreme Court!

Hmmmm....

Why did the woman in charge of the signature verification process in Maricopa mysteriously leave its employ, immediately after being deposed over whistleblower allegations she was passing through bad signatures?

Why won't the County comply with FOIA requests?

This is a coverup.

Kari's Twitter

So apparently the Elections Director was deposed before she disappeared...

Tweet from AZ House Rep Jacqueline Parker:

The county lobbyist testified yesterday that signature verifiers look up your voting history & identify your party affiliation before they “verify” your signature. Now I have even LESS confidence in elections than I did before. What a corrupt, clearly partisan, biased process!

I wonder who she means by "signature verifiers"... Runbeck employees? County employees? Who exactly??

ETA: I believe she is referring to testimony in the AZ Senate a couple days ago, NOT the appeals court hearing yesterday.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I wonder who she means by "signature verifiers"... Runbeck employees? County employees? Who exactly??

It might not be a person, it could be AI.

In my State at the polls, we have electronic sign-in pads. The voter signs the pad, an electronic signature comes up on the election workers computer screen, then the election worker is suppose to check the signature against the signature on the person's ID.

In my state we have to sign the envelope of our absentee ballots. Those signatures are supposed to be compared to the signatures in the State's database.

Election workers are not handwriting experts, and I don't think anyone expects them to be.
We were told that if the voter's signature didn't match, to have to voter resign their name in a way that better matches the signature on their ID.

Based on everything that we have learned over the last couple of years, I worry that election manipulation techniques are being used by the government as a secret tool, selectively and systematically.

The reasoning being that if you had a secret powerful tool, you might choose to only use it selectively, like where it's use will be of the most value, as a way to maintain it's secrecy.

The allies did this after they found a way to crack the Enigma encryption during WWII. If they acted on every message that they decrypted, the Nazi's would have figured out that their encryption was broken. Instead they only acted on the information that could be of the most value, while making up excesses for how they figured certain things out.

Being able to control the outcomes of elections would be a highly valuable tool, but that value decreases the more people become aware of how it can be accomplished.

It really got me thinking after I learned that, some election software can not only add, delete, and change votes via adjudication, but they can also do so in a way that looks like a human filled in the bubble.

Update from Kari:

🚨UPDATE🚨 Here’s an update on our Election Case currently in the Arizona Appellate Court. The three-judge panel overseeing the appeal held a private conference Wednesday, Feb 1, where the judges met to discuss the case and the briefs.
1/3

The panel could issue a ruling, or if they have questions, they could ask for supplemental briefing or bring in attorneys for oral argument.
2/3

Our expectation is the panel will move this case quickly.

As soon as I have more information—you’ll be the first to know.

I will never stop fighting for you Arizona!
3/3

So there it is. Not much. Better than nothing.

With the Senate hearing taking place so recently, with so many implications for this lawsuit, which is going to be appealed again no matter who loses, and the whole world watching, these judges are in one helluva spot. I don't envy them.

But I damn sure wish they would hurry up and rule!

a reply to: IndieA

I definitely think that's part of their plan, but I think because elections are primarily governed by the state, there's still only so much the Feds can do. Hence why they want so much to nationalize the election process. Not just legislatively, but also with national organizations like ERIC that supposedly monitors and keeps track of voter rolls for most states.

As long as states remain in control, the Feds are limited.

That's a good thing!

a reply to: Boadicea

Despite elections still being under the control of the states, and despite the federal government not passing federal centralizing reforms, US elections have still become a matter of national security and are under the control and oversight of the DHS.

www.oig.dhs.gov...

So we have a perception that out states have authority over our elections, and that is the law, but it would seem that the DHS, or other folks within the Federal government can use "national security" reasons to override that authority whenever they see fit. That at least has been my perception of our current reality. Just one example would be the fact that Jovan Hutton Pulitzer's Kinematic Artifact Detection Report, that was part of the 2020 Maricopa county full forensic audit, was suppressed. The findings once revealed, were beyond shocking and deserving of further investigation. Or what about the shredded ballots and other evidence that Staci Burk had, that even State Senator Sonny Borrelli tried to get his hand on? Or what about the 1,000 plus pieces of evidence summited to Congress on January 6th from Arizona, or all the evidence that would have been submitting by 5 other contesting States? Oh, and the complete failure of nun-chucks boy to do any form of serious investigating.

Let's be honest. We could probably put together an entire thread documenting election evidence cover-ups and easily come up with dozen of pages, but I doubt that it would serve any good at this point.

a reply to: IndieA

Your point is well taken. I have long assumed that the Feds took over some/many aspects of investigations from states and counties, quite likely getting secret gag orders in the guise of "national security", or at least intimidating local officials from speaking. I don't even question it any more. I have no proof, and accept I may one day be proven wrong, but this is my working premise for now.

So all the more important to fight on the state level, where only state laws are involved, especially as pertaining to the Constitutional mandate for state legislators to establish state election laws. The Founding Fathers knowingly and intentionally gave that power to the states to keep the Feds from interfering. It's still effective to a great extent -- much to their chagrin! -- and we cannot discount that. For now, it's where our greatest power lies. We have to continue to make the best and the most of it.

Okay. Here's the scoop on the deposition and the missing Asst Elections Director, via testimony given at the AZ Senate Election hearing a few days ago:

Busch: So the next thing that I wanted to present is we are currently undergoing a Special Action with Maricopa County. We have reached out to them on multiple occasions in regard to information as we’ve gone through this process, and they failed to fully comply or cooperate with the FOIA requests we had put in regarding their signature verification. And so, we did have the special action. It was filed by a legal team, and witnesses stated that they were pressured to approve signatures. And Maricopa County Assistant Election Director Celia Nabor supervised the last three elections of signature verification. So, we did request, back in December, the ability to have her deposed by the legal team. And when a motion was put forth in the special action to enforce that, we were informed that she is no longer employed with Maricopa County. So, we would like the ability to try and depose somebody in the management level that can provide the information to us that we need to confirm our findings and the reports of election workers.

Rogers: I’m curious. When was the deposition launched against Ms. Nabor?

Busch: The request was made to County Attorney Liddy by our attorney, in person, and the formal request was put in. I don’t have that exact date for you, but it was right around mid-December, I believe.

Rogers: When did she leave?

Busch: She left the day after our attorney followed up on the deposition request.

WTH? Maricopa County Assistant Election Director Disappeared After Deposition Request Regarding Fraudulent Signature Verification – Special Action Filing Included (VIDEO)

So yes, a deposition was requested.

But no, a deposition was not given.

a reply to: Boadicea

All this talk about possible abuses of the nation security apparatus reminded me of what happened in Mesa county Colorado with Tina Peters, so I decided to check in on her.

She's actively posting on Twitter and posted this article from TGP yesterday:

BREAKING: Board of Supervisors in Shasta County, California Votes to Terminate Its Contract with Dominion Voting Systems and End its Use in Elections

A split Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted to terminate the county’s contract with Dominion Voting Systems after next month’s special election in the city of Shasta Lake. Shasta will be the first of 40 California counties that used Dominion in the November 2022 election to drop the voting system, Shasta County Clerk/Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen told the Record Searchlight after Tuesday’s meeting…

She also seems to be posting several evidence exhibits from other states like Georgia and Arizona, including exhibits from Maricopa county.

Here's a blog with information about Tina's situation:

Tina’s criminal trial over her multiple felony charges related to election tampering (Case No. D392022CR371) starts March 9 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9, before Judge Matthew Barrett, and is scheduled to run through March 14. To watch this trial online, visit the same page as noted above, with the link to the Colorado Judicial Branch WebEx judge information, choose Courtroom 9, Judge Barrett’s Courtroom. Follow the prompts to join the proceeding as a guest.

Some Twitter observers say it's significant that Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has lost her "Blue Checkmark" status over the past week.

Post and Discussions: truthsocial.com...

I don't have a Twitter account. Apparently, a Blue Checkmark signifies something important.

a reply to: carewemust

I just checked out Katie's Twitter accounts -- plural. Her "Katie Hobbs" account has a blue checkmark. Her "Governor Katie Hobbs" account does NOT have a blue checkmark.

As I understand it, the blue checkmark indicates the identity of the account holder has been verified.

I don't know if Katie's "gov" account had a blue checkmark before, but it sure doesn't have one now! And it does suggest that her identity as governor has not been verified...

Katie Hobbs Twitter

Governor Katie Hobbs Twitter

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: carewemust

I just checked out Katie's Twitter accounts -- plural. Her "Katie Hobbs" account has a blue checkmark. Her "Governor Katie Hobbs" account does NOT have a blue checkmark.

As I understand it, the blue checkmark indicates the identity of the account holder has been verified.

I don't know if Katie's "gov" account had a blue checkmark before, but it sure doesn't have one now! And it does suggest that her identity as governor has not been verified...

Katie Hobbs Twitter

Governor Katie Hobbs Twitter

Curiouser and curiouser!

Just a little FYI re the excessive number of adjudicated ballots in Maricopa County to put it in perspective:

The normal rate of ballot adjudication is no greater than 4%

Over the last 2 years in Maricopa county, that percentage has risen to 11.9% in 2020, then 14.36% in 2022.

Nearly 15% of the time in 2022 election officials decided who folks voted for.

Are you comfortable with that?

Kari's Twitter

I am not comfortable with that. I am not comfortable with any adjudicated ballots. There is no place for adjudicated ballots in an election system, because there is too much room for abuse (not to mention human error).

If that means some ballots cannot be counted, so be it. If that number is deemed excessive, then we have a new election.

In fact, I think there should be recourse within the written law for new elections automatically when certain circumstances make the outcome uncertain or unreliable.

It would be better if all adjudicated ballots were kept outside the count.

However, I suspect the reason for the high adjudication rate is because the fake printed ballots came off of poor quality printers. Tesla Labs' Kinematic Report suggests as much.

cdn.locals.com...

In that event, most of the adjudicated ballots probably were for Biden, since they were fake to begin with.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I'm pretty sure the high number of adjudicated ballots are by design -- SharpieGate in 2020 and incorrect size printers in 2022. Both times in high Republican voter precincts, both events creating ballots that could not be read and printed properly. All of these ballots were "spoiled" and sent to adjudication.

With more Republicans and more Independents than Democrats in Arizona, I suspect the only way to get Katie over the top was to reduce Republican votes -- via adjudication switching Republican voters to Democrat votes. The 25,000 additional ballots that came out of nowhere were probably created by Runbeck employees "for" voters who had not voted, because they still needed that many votes to get a Democrat "win".

Hence why it took so long to count the ballots. It takes time to manufacture all those ballots with all the right votes!