Friday, June 22, 2012

Formal Complaint to FDLE v Hillsborough SOE

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.
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.
This event represents a manual rescanning of more than half the early voted ballots in the last three days of early voting. Tampa Bay Tribune, Nov. 3, 2010 Christian Wade reporting
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.”
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   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.  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 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.

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
2. The audit log for OSX #499 was not provided as I indicated in this follow up email to them dated April 2, 2012
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 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).

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.

David A. Kearns
668 Dunbarton Circle Ne
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
(321)525-0117 cell

No comments:

Post a Comment