BERNIE VS. THE DNC AND ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS & MEDIA
Bernie needs to file a federal lawsuit IMMEDIATELY in U.S. District court against the Democratic National Committee, DNC Chairman Tom Perez, Iowa and New Hampshire state Democrat Party Chairs and personnel, seeking the court’s intervention and oversight of the Democrat Party primary process. Bernie needs to immediately file a federal lawsuit in Nevada and California, due to the high probability of election fraud and negligence. The evidence exists and I have provided some of the evidence on this webpage.
Why file? For several reasons, not the least of which is to COUNT THE DAMN VOTES RIGHT! In Iowa and New Hampshire, there exists plenty of evidence to sustain a federal investigation. In Iowa, the court could make certain caucus operations and tabulations were performed correctly; in New Hampshire the Accuvote optical scanners should be examined and tested by federal investigators.
The Sanders’ campaign needs to ask the court to intervene in the states where primaries/caucuses have not yet occurred. A Plaintiff has the right to seek court intervention and correction BEFORE the violation occurs. There exists sufficient evidence of potential election fraud, tampering and negligence in Nevada and California. Bernie needs to provide this evidence to the court as basis for court intervention.
The DNC is a shady private corporation whose shamelessness knows no boundaries. In 2016 DNC INC. was sued by Democrat Party donors for misleading donors and misdirecting funds intended for Bernie Sanders’ campaign to Bernie’s opponents. The court ruled that the DNC is a private corporation, and as such, has no need to follow its own rules and can make up rules as they go.
I believe Bernie needs to challenge this ruling because this ruling should not apply to the Democrat Party primary process. I believe a candidate enjoys a constitutional right to a federal fair process – free of election fraud harming Plaintiff. A U.S. Presidential Election is not a game of Three-Card Monty or a backroom poker game; but is arguably the most important national event in America every four years.
I contend sufficient evidence of election fraud and negligence exists in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and California:
Vote tabulation issues; Caucus operations & management; caucus app software; intentional lack of testing and training of caucus app;
It’s not too late for Bernie to file, but had Bernie filed the next morning after the Iowa caucus Bernie could have asked the court to not only to legally intervene but to stop the release of any partial count and ask the court to confiscate all documents, devices and evidence in this matter and interview and depose defendants, witnesses/participants and state and party officials. Bernie should not have trusted the failed Iowa Democrat Party and the DNC to execute any recanvassing, but petition the court to intervene and determine the proper tabulations, final results and outcome.
(1) New Hampshire Accuvote Optical Scanners: in the counties where paper ballots were used, the results matched the exit polls. In counties where Accuvote machines were used, Buttigieg’s final results were 12 POINTS HIGHER THAN BUTTIGIEG’S EXIT POLLS!
Buttigieg and Co. are guilty of felony election fraud; I contend Buttigieg & associates used these SAME EXACT ACCUVOTE machines IN THE SAME MANNER as George W. Bush used these SAME EXACT ACCUVOTE machines to steal the election by pre-programming these optical scanners to register an opposition vote instead of the true original vote on the ballot card.
These Accuvote optical scanners have been discussed and detailed in Bev Harris’ HBO election fraud special as well as written about in several books.
Yes, George W. Bush stole two election using these SAME EXACT OPTICAL SCANNERS and now in 2020 PETE BUTTIGIEG HAS USED THESE SAME EXACT SCANNERS TO STEAL VOTES FROM BERNIE SANDERS.
THE CONCORD MONITOR
Experienced New Hampshire voters will see something quite familiar when they cast their primary ballots Tuesday: A vote-counting machine that hasn’t changed in more than two decades.
The AccuVote optical reader has been part of Granite State elections since the early 1990s, when it was first accepted by the Secretary of State’s office.
It’s a 14-pound box that looks like an oversized laptop computer sitting on top of a collection bin. As each voter leaves the polling place, poll workers slip their ballot into the AccuVote
slot and the machine bounces light off the paper. Sensors tally filled-in circles next to candidates’ names and then the ballot falls into the bin below the reader.
After polls close, the reader prints out the results, with all the paper ballots available for a recount.
Other technologies have come and gone over the years but AccuVote has remained, and today is still the state’s only legal ballot-counting technology. On primary day it will be used in 118
towns and 73 city wards, leaving the other 100 or so towns in the state, including several in the Concord area, to count ballots on election night by hand.
In 2008 election, New Hampshire had more “problems” with their Accuvote optical scanners making opposition votes:
CALIFORNIA: An L.A. poll worker was interviewed on 15 February, 2020 by the Convo Couch and here’s what he said about the training he had just received that day:
California defines a “new voter” as a first time voter or anyone who has changed their voter registration. You must bring an ID that exactly matches your registration information or you will be given a provisional ballot.
There was a very hostile environment with the trainers. When I brought up the subject how this could affect millions of voters. But this information is nowhere on your website. The voter has no way of knowing they have to bring their ID to the polls. There’s about 30 different IDs you can show, but it must match the name and address on your registration exactly.
The computer decides who gets which ballot. There are two buttons: one says ID PROVIDED or NO ID PROVIDED. If you do not provide an ID, there’s a big red bar that goes across the screen that says “provisional.” When your ballot is printed, at the voter check in, it’s the same ballot for everyone, except there’s a little QR code up in the corner.
When you check in it will be blank with no QR code in the corner; once you check in, the poll worker will put the blank ballot into their printer and will print this QR code; this QR code will tell the ballot-marking device – WHICH IS A SEPARATE COMPUTER THAT YOU VOTE ON – whether or not it is a regular ballot or a provisional ballot.
THROUGH THIS QR CODE, THEY CAN IDENTIFY WHO THE VOTER IS.
They admitted that back at the county clerk office, they can identify the voter with the QR code. There are two QR codes that go on this ballot: the first QR code identifies the type of ballot and links that to the specific voter; the second code is printed on the ballot underneath; with how you voted. You put in your selections, you put your ballot into the computer – it prints another QR code. Through this they are able to identify both the voter and how they voted.
The voter will be told there will be a provisional ballot and you will have to fill out the pink envelope to put the ballot in. When they try to vote, that vote at the ballot-marking device, the machine will reject that ballot at the end and you will be forced to vote provisionally. There’s another problem with the ballot-marking devices: they are very fragile.
We were instructed that you must put the ballot into the slot WITH BOTH HANDS – to make sure that it doesn’t jam. The voters will be the ones handling the ballots. The poll workers will not be handling the ballots. So the voter who has no training on these machines, will have to carefully put these ballots into this device and they are very prone to jamming. We had one out of three poll workers jam the machines at our training.
It’s technically illegal. The maximum allowed is one jam out of 500 insertions; these jam at a 1 to 103 rate.
They will be counted by the machine that does the QR code. Each machine will hold 200 ballots. It will need to be emptied and changed at every 200 ballots, but it will jam far before it counts 200 ballots. Throughout the process, whether it’s opening the poll center, whether it’s midday checks, whether it’s closing or whether it’s jamming and resetting the machines, you need to scan bar codes, security codes for change of custody so there’s no tampering with the machines or ballots. The problem with this is, the poll workers are not trained on how to use the scanners; only the lead receives training. When the question was brought up about we had not received training on to use the scanner itself, the response was, “Are you a lead? If you’re not a lead you don’t need to use it.”
The votes will be put into a cardboard box and taken to a tally station.
There are three types of poll centers: large, medium and small; large center will haves 50 machines; a medium center will have 30 machines and a small center will have 10 machines.
Depending on which center you are at, will determine how many poll workers will be there. Jamming could cause long delays and more problems.
The whole system is designed for human error. It feels as if the system was intentionally designed for error. I have more concerns now than when I walked in the door this morning.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ashley: NH In 2016 I was doing a lot of phone banking to California. I can’t tell you how many people told me that their ballot did *not* include the presidential primary and as such were not able to vote for Bernie. I called an election integrity hotline and they could barely talk to me — they said their phones had been ringing off the hook about this.
In the end, I talked to hundreds of people — many of which were berners who ultimately were unable to vote for Bernie.
Using the same procedures as used with vote-by-mail envelopes, the county elections official compares the signature for the provisional ballot with the signature on that voter’s affidavit of registration. (Elections Code, § 3019.) If the signature does not match, the county elections official must follow specified procedures to notify the voter and allow the voter an opportunity to verify his or her signature before certification of the election.
If the signature matches, the county elections official checks the voter registration database to verify whether the voter is properly registered to vote. Once the signature on the envelope has been verified and the voter’s registration is confirmed, the ballot is separated from the envelope and counted as a regular ballot.
Only the votes for contests for which the voter is eligible to vote are counted. If the voter’s registration cannot be confirmed, the ballot is not counted, and the reason for not counting the ballot is recorded; however, beginning in 2019, by virtue of completing a provisional ballot envelope, voters may be registered for future elections. (Elec. Code, § 2160.)
Similar to HAVA, California law also requires the establishment of a Free Access System so the voter can find out if his or her provisional ballot has been counted. (Elec. Code, § 14310(d).) Information about how to access each county’s Free Access System can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status.
Goldstein Investigation: Officials Warn Of ‘Vulnerabilities’ With E-Voting Machines Ahead Of March 3 Primary
February 4, 2020 at 11:00 pm – Filed Under: David Goldstein Investigates, David Goldstein Investigation, New Voting Machines