Devvy Kidd
August 30, 2000
Sheppard Smith, FOX News, February 23, 2000 during the Michigan primary:
"While we were backstage I kept looking at the exit polls. I thought it would be a lot closer based on the exit polling, but all of a sudden McCain pulls out in front and wins." He had the most perplexed expression on his face. Gee, I wonder why....
At the conclusion of this article is the way for all candidates to audit their election this November. This is critical in catching vote fraud and exposing the injustice done to the American people.
I just returned from attending the first and historical vote fraud conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. This conference was sponsored by Jim Condit, Jr. who heads up Citizens for a Fair Vote Count. There are some really outstanding organizations in this country who are really hitting hard at the core of the problem. One, of course, is The Wallace Institute. Others include:
Citizens for a Fair Vote Count is the entity attacking vote fraud and their web site is:
http://www.votefraud.org - (513) 389-7700
J.A.I.L. For Judges is an organization targeting judges all across the country and their work is paramount to restoring our freedoms. I highly recommend you visit their web site at:
If you want to know about the UN, please visit Joan Veon's site at:
http://www.ninehundred.net/~jveon/
For a full understanding of the overall picture about how Americans are being herded into this totalitarian world order, please visit Jeri Ball's web site at:
http://www.americanfreedompress.com/
Immigration is a horrendous plague destroying this country and reducing our standard of living to the level of third world nations. I highly recommend you visit FAIR's web site at:
The vote fraud conference in Cincy August 25-27, 2000 was an outstanding success and I was honored to be part of it. The following individuals were speakers:
Yours truly
Ron Keller, who exposed the Shoup machines before all 3 Houston TV news teams in 1964. If not the first, among the first vote fraud investigators in the machine/computer age.
Dick Murphy, campaign manager for former Congressman John Schmitz
Wayne Roques, retired DEA agent under Reagan who spoke on "Dawn of the Brave New World"
Tom Lingenfelter, expert on historical documents and vote fraud investigator from Philly and a current candidate in the upcoming November "election."
Terry Hayfield, former union organizer and adviser to missing Congressman Larry McDonald who is presumed dead as he was a passenger on KAL Flight 007 which was shot down by the Ruskies. If you would like to read more on this, please visit:
https://devvy.com/kal007_19991120.html
https://devvy.com/kal_19991214.html
Tom Valentine, host of Radio Free America
Brent Beleskey, leader of the Canadian based International Voters Coalition who traces the international network pushing to bring the entire world Internet and mail-in voting--two totally unverifiable methods of voting for the citizens
Larry Becraft, General Counsel for The Wallace Institute
Charles Collins, presidential candidate and truly one fine southern gentleman
Chris Schaper, witness who helped uncover the vote fraud against Pat Buchanan in Dubuque, Iowa in the 1996 Iowa Caucuses
Phylis & Nicky Collier, widow and daughter of the late James Collier, author of VoteScam: The Stealing of America
Dan Guenkauf - The Law & Your Vote
A Freedom Award was presented to Donato Dalrymple, "The Fisherman" who pulled Elian Gonzales out of the Atlantic ocean. I sat across from Donato during the banquet dinner on Saturday night and spoke with him again on Sunday. He is the nicest young man you ever want to meet and his telling of how he and his cousin found Elian and saved his life proves that miracles do happen.
Jim held a "Friday Night at The Movies" and I can tell you, it was a real eye-opener. One piece of news film we viewed was Clinton's campaign headquarters on "election" day, 1992, the time was 12:15 pm EST. You could see George Stephanopoulous celebrating with everyone because they had just been notified by the media that Mr. Clinton had "won" the 1992 presidential election at 12:15 - lunchtime. Folks, that's 9:15 in the morning here in California - one hr and 15 minutes after our polls open. Just how in the hell did they count tens ofmillions of votes in 15 or 20 states for the electoral college delegates to determine where to throw their vote by lunch time on election day? Hmmm? The comment made on this news clip was that the media doesn't tell the people at the same time 'cause it's their policy. Oh, good.
One thing that is critical in understanding this travesty is learning about the hoax called entrance and exit polls. Jim Condit has the skinny on this and you need to visit his web site and get up to speed.
Other film included:
CBS News' anchor, Dan Rather, gives his five minute report which aired on Election Eve, 1988;
Footage of actual ballot tampering with little tweezers in Miami and Cincinnati, as reported by the late Ken & Jim Collier, co-authors of Votescam; an excellent five minute report by Mary Krutko and Nick Clooney (actor George Clooney's father) which aired on WKRC-TV in Cincinnati about The Wiretapper, 1987, who gave sworn court testimony that he was involved in fixing an election through wiretapping;
Votefraud TV commercials run by candidate Jim Condit Jr. in the 1980's; the TV ad which ran during the Republican Convention in 1996 in San Diego and Ted Koppel's attempt to refute this CFVC spot a month and a half later on Nightline!
Senator Bob Smith relating how all four networks called his election wrong based on their Voter News Service exit polls. Boy, did the shysters have egg on their face! I guess they got their preprogramming of the machines wrong and had to eat it publicly.
Jim Condit deserves more than an 'atta boy for this conference, he deserves our profound thanks because all of it has been preserved on videos which Jim will make available to the public. He wants you to take your copy and copy it, hand it out, get it out--there's no copyright on the film.
I will tell you that on election day for the 2000 primary, I voted in the afternoon. I signed the voter book. When my husband, whose registered Republican, went to vote in the evening. My name, under his, was typed by the computer but the space where I was forced to sign in pencil --it was now blank. They also tried to give my husband an "independent ballot" instead of a "Republican ballot." Excuse me, but what difference does it make which ballot you're given? Hmm? How come we all get different ballots for different parties? If the candidates are the same, i.e. one for the Republicans, one for the Democrats, one for independents, and we're all voting for the same ballot measures, etc., how come you are given a different card just because you're a this or that? Better think about that one, folks.
I would like to present the numbers I used during my speech. I ran for Congress in the '94 general election as an independent; I had been registered all my life as a Republican but had to get on the ballot for my first run and get to the general election. I ran again as a Republican in the 1996 primary. After this travesty of a primary and the fact that every elected Republican I contacted turned their back on me, I quit the "grand old party" and have been registered independent ever since. All the numbers below were obtained from the California Secretary of State's office. California has 52 seats for the House of Representatives, U.S. Congress. The media in California called the winners/losers within a minute or two after our polls closed each time. With no votes counted, only precincts "reporting." See what you think.
November 1994 General Election - Open
Devvy (Ind) Herger (Rep) (Jacobs)(Dem)
Secretary of State
Certified
15,619 7.27%
62,055 64.16%
55,959 26.04%
Newspaper next day
with 33% of the
precincts reporting
4,095 5.90%
46,264 67% 1
7,063 24.70%
Enterprise-Record
next day with 40%
of precincts reporting
6.70% 65.70%
25.40%
Registered AIP in '94: 7,361
Please note that Herger always beats his opponent by a margin of about 2:1:
'94: 64/26 - 7.27% (me) + 26.04% (Democrat opponent) = 33.31%
'96: 61/34
'98: 63/35
2000 primary: 65/26
If you add my alleged total of 7.27% + the democrat (Jacobs') 26.04%, the total vote of Herger's opponents is 33.31--right in keeping with what he always beats an opponent by whether it's one or two candidates he runs against. Very creative.
Secretary of State's Voter Registration for 1994:
Republicans: 143,879
Democrats: 140,760
All Other : 13,736
Decline to state: 34,380
Total: 332,755
Voted - Sec of State only
counted Rep, Dem, AIP
and Libertarian
214,860
Difference: 117,895
Votes not cast:
8,355
Difference: 109,540 -
Where are those votes? Did 109,540 people in the Second Congressional District all walk into the voting booth and simply did not vote for a congressional seat in Congress? Hard to believe.
1996 Closed Primary
Devvy (Rep) Herger (Rep) Braden (Dem)
Secretary of State
Certified
13,107 15.50%
71,452 84.49%
52,082 100%
Web site at
4:13 am
100.59%
of
precincts reporting
12,408 15.41%
68,108 85.59%
49,888 1 00%
Other candidates in that race: Todd (write-in Republican) - 10 votes; Brunner (Lib) -547; Votes not cast: Dem: 27.90%, Rep. 5.32% Lib. 25.68%
I have all the books from the '94, '96, '98 primaries, general election and 2000 primary. If you just go down the counties for these incumbents, you will see over and over and over that the same people vote the same way, election after election. Regardless of how many people move out of the district, how many pass away, how many want an incumbent out, they always win and you can forget "one out of three would vote for a third party."
Not to mention the fact that in Herger's case, when the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in Herger's district (he's a Republican), the Democrats appear to vote for him because he always beats his Democratic opponent by a margin of two to one or very close to that. The DNC has a real problem with party loyalty and visa versa in other districts. You see, you have to know these incumbents and their voting records to see which ones vote to further the agenda of the globalists --they are the ones who always get "reelected" or they are controlled neutralizers like many of the phony Republicans who serve in Congress.
Registered voters and Winners/Losers - 1998 General Election
Rep. Dem. Winner Loser
Herger
132,216 135,365
128,372 (62%)(R) 70,837 (35%)
(Rep)
Cunningham
169,769
102,120
126,229 (61%)(R) 71,706 (35%)
(Rep)
Matsui
95,512
65,059
130,714 (72%)(D) 47,307 (26%)
(Dem)
Doolittle
182,179
41,792
155,306 (63%) (R) 85,394 (34%)
(Rep)
Waxman
81,878
184,412
131,561 (74%) (D) 40,282 (23%)
(Dem)
At random, let's look at these numbers. All are incumbents who ran for Congress and "won":
Herger's Race:
Total registered voters: 267,581
Votes cast for Republicans &
Democrats: 199,209
Votes cast for other parties: 6,158
Not cast in race: 10,185
Total registered: 267,581
Total votes all parties: 205,367
Difference: 62,000
Not cast: 10,185
Left over votes: 51,815 - Where are they? All these people went into the voting booth and skipped voting for a member to serve in Congress?
Cunningham's Race:
Total registered voters: 271,889
Votes cast for Republicans &
Democrats: 197,935
Votes cast for other parties: 8,943
Not cast in race: 15,616
Total Registered: 271,889
Total votes for all parties: 206,878
Difference: 65,011
Didn't vote: 15,616
Difference: 49,395 - Where are those votes? All these people went into the voting booth and skipped voting for a member to serve in Congress?
Matsui's Race:
Total registered voters: 264,387
Votes cast for Republicans &
Democrats: 178,021
Votes cast for other parties: 3,816
Not cast in race: 9,856
Total registered: 264,387
Total votes for all parties: 181,817
Difference: 82,570
Not voted: 9,856
Difference: 72,714 - Where are those votes? All these people went into the voting booth and skipped voting for a member to serve in Congress?
Dootlittle's Race:
Total registered voters: 323,971
Votes cast for Republicans &
Democrats: 240,700
Votes cast for other parties: 7,524
Not cast in race: 15,715
Total registered: 323,971
Total votes for all parties: 248,224
Difference: 75,747
Not voted: 15,715
Difference: 60,032 - Where are those votes? All these people went into the voting booth and skipped voting for a member to serve in Congress?
Waxman's Race:
Total registered voters: 266,290
Votes cast for Republicans &
Democrats: 171,843
Votes cast for other parties: 6,251
Not cast in race: 11,809
Total registered: 266,290
Total votes for all parties: 178,094
Difference: 88,196
Not voted: 11,809
Difference: 76,387 - Where are those votes? All these people went into the voting booth and skipped voting for a member to serve in Congress?
I would like to direct your attention to a report done in 1996 by a woman named Bonnie Kibbee out of San Diego, CA. She ran in the 1996 primary and experienced what you see above. Bonnie prepared a very detailed report to the phony Republican Secretary of State here in California, Bill Jones. The same Bill Jones that told me that if I didn't like the election returns I could just go sue the state. In any event, Bonnie's meticulous research shows that in her primary, between several candidates the lost vote count was 272,508 votes! No one could ever account for them.
Her eye-opening report, based on actual, official documents was ignored and it is a travesty against the people of this nation that this kind of chicanery is going on and right in front of everyone's face. What's even more disgusting is that when you contact the elected officials in your own party, they thumb their nose at you if you're not the anointed one.
How about these numbers for 11 congressional seats in California, March 26, 1996 primary - winner/loser by percentage. Wish I would have had money on these numbers. All incumbents were winners. Everyone in 11 districts all voted the same. My, my.
Herger 84%
McKeon 84%
Kidd 16%
Starr 15%
Fazio 81%
Berman 83%
McAffee 18%
Gibson 16%
Garstecki 15%
Paul 12%
Hughes 85%
Rogan 87%
Dellums 85%
Boatner 18%
Stewart 14%
Stepanek 81%
Baker 81%
Cunningham 86%
Williams 18%
Pardo 13%
Brink 85%
Muller 14%
You see, California is a big state, just like Texas, Florida, Michigan and others. On election night, people are watching local news coverage. If it's a presidential election year, you'll get that coverage, otherwise, most people are watching their house seat, the mayor's race, supervisor and others in their area. A person in Placerville, CA (40 miles east of Sacramento) isn't watching the results of a house seat in Chula Vista (near San Diego and about 500 miles away) unless they have a relative running in that district.
Los Angeles carries a huge number of house seats. Who in Happy Camp, CA (just below the Oregon border) is watching a the returns of a house seat in Santa Barbara, CA., hundreds of miles away? Yet, when you get all the election material from the Secty of State's office, then you can see the incredible story for yourself. Not too easy to accomplish in Connecticut or Rhode Island but the big states are a cake walk.
No one wins with vote fraud. A great deal of this material and more is contained in my Blind Loyalty booklet: https://devvy.com/beginning.html
How about all the rhetoric about how people want change? Here in California the voters want change so bad, the same incumbents keep getting elected. We have 52 house seats. Guess how many incumbents were "voted back" in recent elections? In '94: 46. In '96: 46. In '98: 48 and the 2000 primary - 48. Some change.
Let's continue with some more numbers. I want you to see how these incumbents seem to always end up with similar totals. Sometimes it's in 94 & 96, then in 98 & 2000, those two times match very closely. It's just remarkable. * indicates incumbent.
Elections - Winner/Loser
94 96 98 2000 Primary
Riggs* 53/47 48/43 62/33 64/29
Herger* 64/26 61/34 63/35 65/26
Fazio* 50/46 54/41 52/45 (Ose) 61/35
Doolittle* 61/35 61/36 63/34 66/27
Matsui* 68/28 71/26 72/26 71/24
Woolsey* 58/38 62/34 68/30 66/28
Miller* 70/27 72/22 77/23 75/23
Pelosi* 82/18 84/12 86/12 86/11
Dellums* 72/23 77/19 83/13 ( Lee) 85/10
Tauscher* 59/39 49/47 53/43 54/18
Pombo* 62/35 54/36 61/36 61/35
Lantos* 67/33 72/24 74/21 74/11
Stark* 65/30 65/30 71/27 68/20
Eschoo* 61/39 65/31 69/28 70/26
Campbell* 60/40 59/35 61/38 ??
Lofgren* 65/35 66/30 73/23 72/24
Farr* 52/45 59/38 65/33 56/14
Condit* 66/32 66/32 87/13 65/29
Radnovich* 60/40 67/28 79/21 67/21
Dooley* 57/43 57/39 61/39 52/46
Thomas* 68/28 66/27 79/21 73/22
Capps* 11/47 49/44 55/43 55/38
Gallegley* 66/27 60/35 60/40 63/25
Sherman 49/48 50/43 57/39 66/30
McKeon (became inc.) 65/31 62/33 75/25 63/27
Harman* 63/32 66/29 82/10 85/11
Rogan* 53/42 50/43 51/46 47/48?
Drier* 67/30 61/37 58/39 63/34
Waxman* 68/28 68/25 74/23 76/19
Becerra* 66/28 72/19 81/19 84/11
Martinez* 59/41 68/28 70/23 62/11
Dixon* 78/18 82/12 87/11 77/12
Roybal-Allard* 81/19 82/14 87/13 85/12
Torres* 62/34 69/27 68/29 ( new) 70/24
Mad Max Waters* 78/22 86/12 89/11 85/12
Harman* 48/48 53/44 49/47 (new) 41/43?
McDonald 77/22 85/15 85/15 82/11
Horn* 58/37 53/43 53/44 51/15
Royce* 66/29 63/32 63/34 68/27
Lewis* 71/29 65/29 65/32 84/9
Kim* -crook 62/38 59/33 53/41 (new) 59/31
Brown* 51/49 51/50 55/40 56/32
Calvert* 55/38 55/38 56/38 58/8
Bono* 56/38 58/37 60/36 57/14
Rohrbacher* 69/31 61/33 59/37 62/26
Sanchez/Dornan* (D) 57/37 (S)* 47/46 56/39 58/25
Cox* 72/25 66/29 68/30 69/10
Packard* 74/22 66/27 77/13 25/11
Bilbray* 49/46 53/42 49/47 51/46
Filner* 57/35 62/33 99/.77 67/2
Cunningham* 57/28 61/29 61/35 68/27
Hunter* 64/31 66/30 76/14 71/25
1996 Presidential Election - Secretary of State's Figures from two sources:
(1) Statement of Vote complied by Secretary of State Bill Jones and signed off December 14, 1996 - Certified
(2) 1996 General Election Returns, December 18, 1996 from Ca Secretary of State-Vote96-Returns- U.S. Congress/Internet - after certification of the vote. How come they don't match? The general election was more than a month before the cert. Plenty of time to "count" the votes. I wonder how many different lists of "votes" were used to calculate percentages? Oh, I know! It's just a bureaucratic glitch!
(1) (2)
Riggs* 49.70% 49.63%
Herger* 60.90% 60.80%
Fazio* 53.60% 53.52%
Doolittle* 60.50% 60.46%
Matsui* 7 0.50% 70.44%
Woolsey* 61.90% 61.83%
Miller* 71.90% 71.81%
Pelosi* 84.40% 75.67%
Dellums* 77.10% 77.03%
Tauscher* 48.70% 46.83%
Pombo* 59.40% 59.35%
Lantos* 71.70% 71.69%
Stark* 65.20% 65.18%
Eschoo* 64.90% 64.87%
Campbell* 58.60% 58.50%
Lofgren* 65.70% 65.65%
Farr* 58.90% 58.87%
Condit* 65.80% 65.72%
Radnovich* 66.60% 66.58%
Dooley* 56.60% 56.51%
Thomas* 65.90% 65.81%
Capps* 48.50% 48.45%
Gallegley* 59.60% 59.59%
Sherman 49.50% 49.43%
McKeon (became inc.) 62.40% 62.40%
Berman* 65.90% 65.87%
Rogan* 50.20% 50.18%
Drier* 60.70% 60.67%
Waxman* 67.70% 67.63%
Becerra* 72.40% 72.32%
Martinez* 67.50% 67.47%
Dixon* 82.40% 82.36%
Roybal-Allard* 82.20% 82.10%
Torres 68.50% 68.43%
Mad Max Waters* 85.60% 85.50%
Harman* 52.50% 52.46%
McDonald 85.00% 85.00%
Horn* 52.60% 52.57%
Royce* 62.90% 62.80%
Lewis* 65.00% 64.90%
Kim* -crook 58.50% 58.46%
Brown* 50.50% 50.48%
Calvert* 54.80% 54.72%
Bono* 57.80% 57.74%
Rohrbacher* 61.00% 60.98%
Sanchez* 46.90% 46.80%
Cox* 65.70% 65.87%
Packard* 65.90% 65.86%
Bilbray* 52.70% 52.62%
Filner* 61.90% 61.86%
Cunningham* 65.10% 65.07%
Hunter* 65.50% 65.47%
Notice how all these incumbents seem to win by the same general numbers regardless of voter registration, turn out, anger or apathy. All California voters vote the same election after election. It never changes and it's just as consistent for third parties. Always. Go get the evidence from the Secretary of State's office - don't just take my word for it.
CANDIDATES - AUDIT THE VOTE
What you've seen is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are a candidate, support a candidate or are just a concerned voter, this November let's audit that vote in every state of the union and I'm going to tell you how to do it cheap and in a way to catch these thieves.
First, a candidate must hold back a few thousand dollars from your campaign account. This is what you're going to do:
1. If you are a constitutionalist or third party, count on losing. Sorry but this is what history shows.
2. Before the election, you should already have purchased the names and addresses of the registered voters in your party in your district. If you haven't, you must buy them for the precincts you're going to target. Get them.
3. There are in excess of 165,500 precincts in the U.S. Brokaw, Jennings & Rather announce within minutes of the polls closing across the country that they "project," based on "exit polls" that so and so is the winner with no votes counted, only "precincts reporting." This is a monumental hoax and I hope you'll read my Blind Loyalty booklet to get a full understanding of this or contact Jim Condit at Citizens for a Fair Vote Count.
I also want to say something here: Jim Condit, his father and brother have all been busting their backs for years on this vote fraud issue. It has personally cost Jim a lot of money out of his own pocket and run him ragged, just like yours truly. I know there are people reading this with money and I hope you can find it in your heart to help support Citizens for a Fair Vote Count with a donation.
Otherwise, we may end up with another Battle of Athens, which no one wants:
I always ask people this question:
Who makes our laws? Congress, your state legislatures, county supervisors. Who enforces those laws? Your sheriffs and the courts. Where do these people get the authority to do this? On election day--it all starts at the ballot box and if the ballot box has been compromised, America loses and we can see the utter and complete meltdown right in front of our faces by the actions of Congress, the courts, the governors and state legislatures. It must stop and we can stop it.
Anyway, what you are going to do is audit three or four precincts in your district. You tell only one or two of your most trusted advisers. Let's say there are 30 precincts in your district and they're spread out. I know all this from running for Congress twice but it applies to all elections - the "voting" is done in the precincts. What you are going to do is pick three, four, preferably six and tell no one which precincts they are - that way, the presetting of the machines can't be done because the thieves won't know which precincts you're going to target.
4. For a pittance you can have a two-part post card printed up--two parts means it's perforated for detachment. One post card says:
Dear Voter (- and these cards go to the registered voter in your district in your party)
In an effort to ensure fair and impartial elections for everyone, we're asking you to take a moment to fill out this postage paid card and return it to us as quickly as possible. We are going to audit the vote against these responses and must do it before the vote is certified.
The recipient detaches the card and answers only one question:
I did/did not vote for John Smith on November 6, 2000. I will swear that this is true or something to that effect. Then provide two lines - one for a signature as used on their voter registration card and one for them to clearly print their name.
Let's say you have targeted four precincts in your district. Each precinct has 25 voters for a total of 100 voters. Let's say voter registration for those precincts shows 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. You're a Republican so you're going to send out 55 of these cards to all registered 55 Republicans in those four precincts. Now, the county clerks have a record of the "vote" by precinct. Let's say you get back 50 of these cards. Now you compare them to the results recorded by the county clerk:
Your 50 cards returned show 46 votes for you in those four precincts. The county clerk, however, shows you only received 29 votes and the Democrat won. A clear discrepancy and you immediately go to a superior court judge (or district judge) in your area and ask for an injunction to stop certification of the vote and ask the state to pay for a hand re-count.
I guarantee you will catch these bums in the act. Expenses are the labels of registered voters, the post cards and all candidates use bulk mail. Secrecy of the audit targets is critical. You must have the registered voters in your party for the entire district. If you only purchased the registered voters for the precincts you're targeting, well, the cat would be out of the bag. See what I mean? If your campaign has limited funds, don't pick the three smallest precincts to audit--the bad guys can figure that one out.
One of the problems for non-annointed candidates of the two main parties is the money for a re- count. In my district it would have run close to ten grand. The system is designed to curtail accountability and that's why auditing the precincts is a cheap and effective way to catch vote fraud. You have the element of surprise and if it becomes common knowledge all across the country (by the Internet and not the NY Times) that candidates will be doing these surprise audits, it will cause big time pucker factor back there in NY at Voter News Service.
It's good to have precinct watchers with video cameras. But it's the counting of the votes that ultimately matter. Here in California we have no right, according to the California Supreme Court, to have any paper trail or accountability with these electronic machines. What a joke.
Do you think your absentee ballot counts? These need to be restricted for their original purpose: for military and those folks who might be in the hospital or verifiably disabled in some way. Now everyone uses them for convenience, but folks, we don't need fast food elections, we need accountability. You would be astounded to find out how many absentee ballots aren't even counted in an election unless it's "close." Horse feathers. These little carefully orchestrated events are a horse and pony show meant for public consumption to fool the cattle into thinking they have some say in their future by showing a "close race."
Go read the election code and statutes in your state. You will be amazed at what you'll find. Concerned citizens in Arizona did just that and guess what they found in the Arizona Revised Statutes - absolutely contrary to what they are told by bureaucrats?
Article 10. Tally & Returns (16-594) Elections and Electors, Title 16
16-601. Tally of Vote
As soon as the polls are closed and the last ballot has been deposited in the ballot box, the election board or the tally board shall immediately count the votes cast. The count shall be public, in the presence of bystanders, and shall be continued without adjournment until completed and the result determined and declared.
I would rather have waited a week to find out the results of an honest election than get screwed one minute after the polls closed with a phony vote count. There always has to be a winner and loser in any race. It's not sour grapes, it's honesty, integrity and fairness we're talking about. There were several excellent hand-outs given to attendees at the conference. One was titled Are Those Machines Rigged? How to Prevent Fraud on Election Day by Hall Lyons, candidate for Governor, The American Party of Louisiana and What You Should Know About the Rigging of Voting Machines, written by William H. Cooper out of Baton Rouge, LA. Of course, Mr. Cooper must be a right-wing, anti-government wacko with the following to his credit: WWII, U.S. Navy Combat Veteran, Holder of the Presidential Citation, 10 yrs as a City Police Officer.
Those orchestrating this one world government can only continue to see their agenda carried out by ensuring the outcome of the elections to keep their dummies and traitors in office. Please, please-- this November get out and audit those precincts and let's catch these people in the act. After election day I want to hear from any candidate and the results of their surprise audit. Let's make Audit the Vote! the biggest and loudest campaign slogan of 2000. Order my Blind Loyalty booklet and hand it out where you legally can at the precincts as people come out of the voting area. Let the voters know about vote fraud so when they receive your card for the audit, they have some understanding of what's going on.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.