Monday, April 25, 2011

Voter Insecurity In Southern California Video Here

"It is not who votes that counts...It is who counts the votes" Josef Stalin

Emmy Award winning Full Disclosure Network® presents a 5 MINUTE VIDEO HERE , a preview of a series covering Election Integrity. Featuring voters in Orange County who offered to volunteer to help review the election counting process to verify the integrity of the vote count. A Public Records Act Request was submitted to the Registrar Neal Kelly asking for access to the Precinct Voter Rosters that are the official documentation of the election. Those Rosters contain a "Certified" county of the ballots issued and counted and reconciled along with signatures of the voters who actually cast ballots. However, Registrar Kelly refused access to Full Disclosure and the Citizens who wanted to count the number of signatures to see if it matched the "reconciled" ballot count on the outside of the Rosters. This is a 5 minute preview of a two part series that includes a one on one interview with Neal Kelley and reaction from the citizen volunteers who were denied access to the public records in order to verify the integrity of the election count. The entire series is to be released soon with links to election documents from Santa Monica that demonstrate techniques used by government officials to manipulate election outcomes.

Segment #1 Voters Outraged At Election Count Process
Watch the volunteers who were denied access to voting records. Neal Kelly OC Registrar of Voters informs Full Disclosure Network television program that the public records of the election are private. The denial of access prevented verification of election integrity and analysis of why there is such a low voter turn-out. OC Citizens express their dismay.

Segment #2 Investigation of Election Integrity Blocked by County Official
Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelly explains how election canvass that is open to the public but the public "rarely" attends. He claims the public can come and look during the canvass, but most people don't even know about when and where it happens.

Segment #3 Who Is Counting the Votes & What Are They Hiding? Full Disclosure Network and the OC volunteers were stopped from counting the signatures on the public records of the last election they learned that the person in charge was related to the county public employees union,. Serious serious questions were raised at to who is counting and checking the voting procedures.

Segment #4 No Checks & Balances In Vote Procedures? A study of the Precinct Packets was blocked when the voter signatures on the Roster could not be counted. The public's right to know was prevented when the Voting Officials protected their records from scrutiny by the media and OC Citizens. By claiming "voter privacy" concerns, the public records remain secret.

Segment #5 Washington Dictate: Electronic Vote Machines
Election poll worker Ruth Gibbs expresses her disappointment when the voting records were not provided. Electronic voting machines have heightened concerns about the accuracy of the vote count. Even professional Campaign Consultant William Ross relates to the problems he experienced back in 1992 in L A County.

Segment #6 Why Are Vote Records Kept Secret?
Neal Kelly OC Registrar says counting the signatures inside the voting rosters is not necessary to know the vote is accurate. Volunteers counter with their concerns about secrecy of records. Download this 10 page Report of a 1991 "Wild Cat" election held in Santa Monica. Use it as a guide to investigate your own local elections. VOTER FRAUD INVESTIGATION GUIDE HERE

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

D A Deputy Ipsen Launches Reform Campaign: "Reform First" Stop Felony Releases.....(watch video 8 min)

Deputy District Attorney Steve Ipsen is launching a campaign for "Reform First" that will prevent early felony releases by prioritizing public safety, that will delay sentencing for first-time and small-drug-sale offenders who agree to work a legitimate job for one year. In a seven minute video, Ipsen describes how the offenders' sentences could be delayed and reduced to a misdemeanor offense from a "felony" to avoid the stigma of a felony record. That way,he says, this will reduce jail overcrowding and "early releases" so that Hard Core Felons and Murderers will stay in jail.


In this 8 minute video Ipsen describes how many offenders who are jobless and desperate get caught in a "small-time" drug sale that could label them as Felons for the rest of their lives. Ipsen believes that these offenders deserve a chance to avoid the felon label by proving they are not drug dealers. By serving their initial time in jail then proving they worked at a regular job for at least a year, their sentence will be delayed and reduced to a misdemeanor. This, Ipsen says, will help with the jail overcrowding problem to keep hard-core felons and murderers in jail longer. Viewers are asked to participate in an online opinion survey at the end of the video.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Should Judges Be Prosecuted In Order To Reform The California Judicial System? Online Video Segments Here

Segment #1 Why Disqualified Judges Orders Are Null & Void Void Court Orders and judgments result when a Judge does not have jurisdiction to be able to enter the order. In Superior Court Judge David Yaffe's case it was to due to taking $850,000 in payments from the County of Los Angeles, a party to the case. Under CCP Section 473 (d) a motion can be brought at any time to set aside the void judgment or order. So far four other Judges have been disqualified from sitting on Fine's Motion to Null and Void Judge Yaffe's Orders. They are Judges Ann Jones, Robert O'Brien, Elihu Berle, and Carolyn B. Kuhl.

Segment #2 Senate Bill SBX2 11 Cannot Protect the Judges From Criminal Prosecution Three Reasons why SBX211 cannot protect the Judges from criminal prosecution. California Senate Bill SBX 2 11 was passed as emergency legislation as part of the 2009-2010 Budget Bill to give retroactive criminal immunity to the Judges for taking money from county governments:

  1. Richard fine contends that giving Judges personal criminal immunity is not part of funding or running overnment and therefore should not have been considered in the emergency budget session without public hearing or discussion.

  2. The Single Subject Rule of the Constitution states that every statute can only have one subject and SBX 211 was enacted to give the Judges money from the county as of July 11, 2008 under the same prior terms and conditions, This is a separate subject so the issue of retroactive criminal immunity for judges cannot stand.

  3. The issue of Judicial Discipline. The Commission on Judicial Performance has the responsibility of disciplining the Judges. So by stating that the Judges were to be immune from disciplinary action for taking the money, SBX2 11 was in effect trying to amend the Constitution which can only be amended with a vote of the people. He points out that the Federal Law 18USC 1346 which provides for the intangible right to honest services whereby every judge could be prosecuted under this law most recently applied in the 2010 case of Skilling vs The United States.

Segment #3 Lawyers, Judges & Malpractice Insurance To Cover Court Crimes? Richard Fine points out that lawyers have a responsibility to protect their clients. In the instance of County government making payments to the Judges who sit on cases involving the county clients should be protected. Government has failed to monitor Lawyers as well as the Judges who have been raiding the treasury. According to Richard Fine it is up to the people to file motions in Court to null and void the bogus orders made by Judges who sat on cases where the County government is a party to their individual cases.

Former Political Prisoner Richard I. Fine

Former U S Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. was an anti-trust attorney with the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. He wrote this 23-page Indictment naming more than a dozen California Judges seeking Federal and State Grand jury investigations of those judges. The document was dated September 3, 2010. Strangely, he was released from jail only two weeks later, on September 17, 2010, after Judge David Yaffe issued two Orders reversing himself.The Order stated "Richard Fine was incarcerated for 18 months to serve as a deterrent to others". Never charged or convicted of a crime, Fine had been held in solitary "coercive confinement" in civil contempt of court after he attempted to remove Yaffe from sitting on the case. Yaffe resigned from office leaving before his term of office expired and following Fine's release.

Related Links

Calif. Judicial Obstruction of Justice Full Disclosure Network Report California Judges Targeted PR Newswire, September 7, 2010