June 21, 2012
To: Hillsborough
State Attorney 13th Judicial Circuit., The Hillsborough County
Sheriff’s Department; the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
To whom it may concern:
This is to provide you with an official complaint/allegation
of violation to FS 119.07, our open public records laws, as I feel were committed
by the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections, and/or its officers, and/or legal
representative(s) acting in his office’s behalf, with regard to this citizen’s records
requests concerning the Nov. 2, 2010 general election.
Background
The official story: the Hillsborough County election of Nov.
2, 2010 resulted in a glitch of one machine which coded 12 memory cards which
were sent out to capture the early vote. Because the memory cards allegedly “could
not upload their data”, according to the SOE, workers were forced by necessity
to drive these ballots to the Falkenburg Road office on election night and
there rescan 38,00 ballots in four to six hours. If the ballots were 17 inches
long, the length of the task was 10 miles. It stretches credulity to think that
under these conditions workers ever had, or could maintain, any assurances of
where the ballots came from, or who prepared/voted them; this as they themselves were in the process of
affecting actual vote totals with their actions. No county commissioner signed
off on the canvassing board for this election certification, it should be noted.
These ballots allegedly came from several areas of
Hillsborough, including Temple Terrace and USF environs, which are largely
democratic.
I have asked repeatedly for information regarding this election.
I have noted the similarity between this glitch, and a glitch in 2008 under the
supervision of SOE Buddy Johnson. During which, again, thousands of votes were
“recanned” in this fashion.
In 2009, 440 voted ballots from the 2008 election were found
in a warehouse. It is my belief an attempted “hack” of the vote took place
during one or both elections. In the
first case, in 2008, the voted ballots above and apart from those counted in
the race, represented evidence of a ballot swap-out, in my opinion. There was
no investigation that I have been made aware of in this case.
The difference between Rick Scott and Alex Sink’s vote
totals in the 2010 general election, is just over 1.29 percent. Were 38,000
votes added to Sink’s total, the difference would be narrowed to .44 percent.
Florida law provides for a recount in cases where differences between top
contenders is less than .5 percent.
Since July of 2011 I have been seeking information regarding
the general election of 2010 as handled in your county. (Information to follow
in each alleged violation).
During which time, nothing the Hillsborough SOE has done
with regard to my requests indicates a fair election took place Nov. 2, 2010
which is the basis of my inquiry. Quite
the contrary. Falsehood, obfuscation, denial of public records, non-answers to specific questions, deferment
of information have been the responses to my inquiry. Overall bureaucratic
indifference and evasion.
I believe I am correct in stating, I have it on good
authority, that Florida Law provides a 22 month window for review of records
pertaining to an election. When that window closes, the records may legally be
disposed of, removing any proof as may exist for an election that was either fixed
rigged or tampered, or otherwise improperly conducted.
First violation of FS 119.07 alleged:
It is my position
that the Hillsborough Supervisor of elections, having first deferred, dismissed,
or evaded a verbal request for any documentation regarding this election, then
repeatedly defrayed response to requests for said documentation which I made by
eliciting the help of county
commissioner Mark Sharpe. It is my position that Earl Lennard in his capacity
of top elections official and/or his officers, attempted to “run out the clock”
in his/their foot dragging for seven months to provide me any documentation at
all. This constitutes in my opinion the first offense, covered under 119.07 (1)
(a) regarding “reasonable time””reasonable conditions” and refusing to comply
with said request “knowingly” in an effort to run out the clock.
“Every person who
has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and
copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under
reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public
records.”
Facts
1. Here is a record of my first
contact with the Hillsborough SOE posted in my blog Rick Scott Watch. The date
of the post is July 21, 2011 http://rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/2011/07/meeting-with-hillsborough-elections.html At that time I asked was there and might I
obtain or review “any written report” concerning the glitched vote. I was told
a report was forthcoming from Dominion voting (voting machine company) but it was not available
yet. However, the written documentation I was searching for was available
within the form of an incident report, found here (click on the first document)
called the “conduct of election report” I
didn’t know these magic words at the time I made the request.
http://rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/2012/03/hillsborough-is-now-democracys-achilles.html Not only was the report available since Nov.
14, 2010 (I asked about it in July 2011) but it took until Feb 28, 2012 to
finally produce this report. Seven months. Denying someone “any record
relative/an incident report of some kind” based on he or she not specifically
saying the words “conduct of election report” is contrary to the spirit and
intent of our open public records laws.
I emailed County Commissioner Mark Sharpe in January,
followed up with a visit to the county commission (videos below) wherein
Commissioner Sharpe assured me a report was available and would be sent to me
and ready yet it wasn’t given to me until Feb 28 after another and then a third
visit to the commission, and finally pressure was applied by myself and activists
with Occupy Rigged Elections. See this article
http://rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/2012/03/dominion-voting-accepts-blame-for.html.
This one document required three appearances before the commission AND an email
barrage campaign. This is not “reasonable” conditions for the production of any
public document. Especially considering I drove across the state each time to
attempt in vain to get it.
(Here can be found
three videos documenting my repeated appearances before the Hillsborough County
Commission seeking help in getting this one document. Video evidence of my
repeated attempts to gain any documentation whatsoever.)
Three minutes for democracy part 1
Three minutes part 3
As said the behavior of the Supervisor of Elections in this
goes well beyond allowing a reasonable time and in my opinion constitutes a
“knowing” violation of our open public records laws for the purpose of running
out of the clock with a view toward the destruction of the records of this
election.
Second violation of FS 119.07,
alleged: It is my position the Hillsborough Supervisor of Elections
and the Deputy County Attorney violated
the statutes under subsections (1) e or (f), depending on which applies,
relative to providing no reason for failure to produce a public record upon
request.
“(e) If the person who has custody of a public record contends that all or
part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state
the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record,
including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by
statute.”
And/or
FS 119.07 (1)(f.)
“(f) If requested by the person seeking to inspect or
copy the record, the custodian of public records shall state in writing and
with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or
confidential.
Facts
1. Furnished with documentation regarding the election
glitch of Nov. 2, 2010 wherein the machine company admits error in the one
machine which caused the glitch (machine #499), I made a formal public records
request for the Audit Log of the Optical Scan Machine 499, dated March 20, 2012
http://rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/from-david-kearns-mailto.html
3. Their response to me was to direct me to ask the private
corporation, Dominion, for such documentation. As evidenced by this email from
Hillsborough’s Deputy Attorney Farris, dated April 17, 2012
http://rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/2012/04/attorneywe-arent-legally-obligated-to.html
As we know a corporation is not bound by any open public records law. Thus,
their pivot, and mention of the machine company is in fact a flat denial of
request without reason. A violation.
Here the supervisor of elections and the deputy county
attorney clearly refuse to provide a document without specifying why they won’t
provide it. Covered under FS 119.07 (1)
(e).
Conclusion
As I have shared with you, I have been attempting to file
this formal complaint. Each agency, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department, and the State Attorney’s office
for Hillsborough County, has directed me to one or the other agency in this
matter. Confident that I at least have the triangle of parties nailed down as
to whom should receive it, I send it to all three parties.
I will both “walk the complaint in” and endeavor to mail it
to proper parties. I have provided this information with a clear conscience. I
come to these conclusions honestly. I do this because I believe democracy is
being perverted by the use of these machines – the “flaws” therein as cover or
camouflage for acts of rigging -and Hillsborough unfortunately is a prime
example as to their misuse in my honest opinion.
When elections are stolen evil prevails.
Sincerely
David A. Kearns
668 Dunbarton Circle Ne
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
(321)525-0117 cell
DavidAnthonyKearns@Gmail.com
