Friday, November 10, 2006

Direct Material Proof of Massive Election Fraud in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election (Report Version)

Friends,


I'm adding this report as a supplement to my We Count power point that I've been told is hard to understand. The numbers may not exactly match the later (and more accurate power point below) but they're good enough to make the point!

Best,

Ron



July 29, 2006.

2006 Copyright by Ron Baiman

Preliminary results from three weeks of election data collection in Ohio provide direct material proof of massive vote corruption in Miami County Ohio, and highly suspect illegal record keeping in another. These are only our most obvious findings. We have not yet been able to review most of the data that we have collected.

For the record, I have also included pictures taken in Darke County Ohio, of 2004 ballot boxes labeled “Destroy: 09-03-06”. In many counties we were told that 2004 ballots would be destroyed on Sept. 3, 2006.

In Miami County Ohio we found that:

Poll book and absentee Ballot Audit Records reveal that Miami County Official Vote Totals have little to no relation to the voters who voted in the County.

At least 8% of precincts have an at least 5% discrepancy between the number of voters who voted and the officially certified number of votes.

These seven precincts account for 4,230, or 8.3%, of the county’s vote total.

Three of these precincts are off by more than 100 votes.

In at least 15% of precincts, there is at least a 5 vote difference between the officially certified vote and the number of voters who are recorded (with name and address) as having voted in these precincts.

Specifically:

Precinct 54 (Concord South East)

Poll Book: 654 Regular voter signatures

24 Provisional voter signatures

Total Precinct Ballots Cast: 654 + 24 = 678

Minimal number of absentee votes in this precinct: 131

Minimum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 678 + 131 = 809

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 678

Minimal number of disenfranchised voters in this precinct: 809 – 678 = 131

Precinct 55 (Concord South West):

Total Precinct Ballots Cast: 461

Maximal number of absentee votes in this precinct based on total absentee ballot requests: 91

Maximum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 461 + 91 = 552

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 679

Minimum number of phantom ballots for this precinct: 679 – 552 = 127

Precinct 41 (Tipp City F):

Certified Total Precinct Ballots Cast: 399

Maximal number of absentee votes in this precinct: 44

Minimum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 399 + 44 = 443

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 550

Minimal number of “phantom ballots” in this precinct: 550 - 443 = 107

Precinct 30 (Troy 3_E)

Poll Book: 546 Regular voter signatures

47 Provisional voter signatures

Total Precinct Ballots Cast: 546 + 47 = 593

Maximal number of absentee votes in this precinct based on total absentee ballot requests: 24

Maximum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 593 + 24 = 617

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 675

Minimum number of phantom ballots for this precinct: 675 – 617 = 58

At least 58 fake ballots were produced for a hand recount of this precinct.

Precinct 32 (Troy 3-G)

Poll Book: 571 Regular voter signatures

25 Provisional voter signatures

Total Precinct Ballots Cast: 571 + 25 = 596

Maximal number of absentee votes in this precinct: 92

Maximum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 596 + 92 = 688

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 732

Minimum number of phantom ballots for this precinct: 732 – 688 = 44

Precinct 37 (Troy 4-F)

Poll Book: certified total precinct ballots cast: 495

Minimal number of absentee votes in this precinct: 37

Minimum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 495 + 37 = 532

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 490

Minimal number of disenfranchised voters in this precinct: 532 – 490 = 42

Precinct 35 (Troy 4-C)

Poll Book: certified total precinct ballots cast: 414

Minimal number of absentee votes in this precinct: 101

Minimum number of voters who voted in this precinct: 414 + 101 = 515

Long Form Certified Result for this precinct: 477

Minimal number of disenfranchised voters in this precinct: 515 – 477 = 38

In Claremont County Ohio:

On July 27, 2006, in a random pull of one ballot per precinct we found numerous ballots marked “duplicate” for which no “originals” could be produced and in Precinct 50 (Miami Township B) we found 36 ballots marked “duplicate” in a row. County official could not produce any “original” ballots for any of the duplicates that we found. We have a video of a Claremont County election official counting the 36 consecutive duplicates as we were not allowed to touch the ballots.

Duplicates are sometime necessary if a ballot is spoiled or defaced, or if a voter makes a mistake. However, “originals” with a serial number or some other mark so that it can be compared with a similarly marked duplicate, are generally preserved so that there is proof that the duplicates replicate the intent of the voter as marked on the original ballots, or in the rare case of a voter error, that some explanation is available for the changes from “original” to “duplicate”. A string of 36 “duplicates” in one precinct without any “original” back-ups is highly unlikely and would appear to be blatantly illegal as there is no way to determine the intent of the voter as indicated on the “original” ballots.

Two of the County election board officials that we were working with had worked on the 2004 elections. We asked them if they had an explanation for this. They did not have a definite explanation. One opined that there might have been a bar code malfunction preventing the scanner from reading the original ballots. They also claimed that marking the duplicates so that they could be compared to “original ballots” would compromise the confidentiality of the voter. It is exceedingly hard to understand why county officials could not offer a better explanation for this highly unusual occurrence, and why they would attempt to rationalize the absence of comparable originals in such a nonsensical manner.

They also had no explanation for why they could not find the “original ballots” for any of the “duplicates”. The one box of spoiled and defaced ballots that they found had very few to no non-absentee “originals”. But all ballots were marked if they were absentees and most of the duplicates that we found (including the string of 36) were non-absentee ballots.

This incident strongly suggests that the vote count in Claremont County is also corrupted. However, extensive further investigation of the ballots is necessary to see how many of these ballots are “duplicates” without original back-ups, and what role they might have played in changing official vote outcomes.

Finally, the pictures below taken on July 18, 2006 in the storage area of the Darke County Board of Elections provide direct and concrete evidence that the November 2, 2004 ballots will be destroyed at the end of their required 22 month retention period on Sept. 3, 2006, unless legal of other action is immediately taken to preserve them. These pictures document what we heard from numerous County Board of Elections and storage facility managers in Ohio.

Notes:

Research teams included: Ron Baiman, Jeremy Baiman, Rachel Baiman, and Sydney Baiman.

Generous financial and legal assistance for this project was provided by Peter Peckarsky and Robert Fitrakis.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Official States Electronic Voting System Added Votes Never Cast in 2004 Presidential Election; Audit Log Missing

Friends:

This is the first time a Republican Director of a Board of Elections in Ohio has, after being confronted with massive evidence of electronic tabulation miscount, remarked "that the counting machines must have added votes to reach the certified totals". This just released report, which reflect months of painstaking investigation and interviews, should be the final "nail in the coffin" of the "debate" over whether the 2004 Ohio results were corrupted. It cites piles of hard evidence, from machine tabulation records, of Op-Scan counting mis-tabulation in Miami County Ohio, and why other elections counted with similar equipment can, and probably have been, and will, be corrupted through machine mistabulation in the future.

See: http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/2209.pdf


For democracy,

Ron