Ackshully…this is a sternly worded letter. 1 step up in super duper serialness.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/lien-law/lie-sect-20.html
If you are interested, I’d read all the sections. A lot will seem irrelevant. But some of this might be of interest.
FYI, posting bonds can be a bad idea in some places. There are some states that consider action on a bond to be an “insurance” type of suit. And insurance suits often provide for attorney fees if you prevail in forcing the insurance to pay.
Edit: just to clarify, a bond is not what I was talking about in prior response. Cash deposit is what I was suggesting.
I don't know either. Never bothered to look. And I am unsure that there is a statute requiring them to list this on their website either. There are so many statutes in that section that encompass a broad range of topics, it is difficult to navigate. And I am also not sure there is a statute that precludes an on the spot vote of the board.
I know they list on their website that they use the precinct register signature roster to compare signatures on early ballots, which is in direct contravention to the statute. The statute specifically requires the elector's registration record. Of which, the precinct signature roster is not. That signature roster is for in person voting, not early voting.
Last I recall, they still operate on the 2019 elections manual because Brnovich rejected the changes to the 2021 manual. But at least as far as it relates to signature verification for early ballots in the 2019 manual, Brnovich approved a procedure in direct contravention of the express language of the relevant statutes. Although I don't really know how advantageous to fraud it is to be able to use the signature roster. Odds that the same person signs the same way for the same fraudulent vote are slim to none.
I have spent a lot more time reading the procedures manual and the statutes than I ever thought I would on this topic. It would appear that beyond the statute I cited, nothing seems to cover this area. There is no mention in the procedures manual. And I can find no such statute governing the process for how the board determines where to tabulate and under what circumstances/timeline can that be altered.
If you are ok with sharing your state, I can check for the statute on the process and link it. No biggie if not.
Because the entire point is to make them figure out how to foreclose on the collateral. When they don't do it, you get the money back. If the do, then they'll only recover what the lien was for, not the excess. Courts will make you deposit more than the amount to collateralize. Perhaps to cover court costs in the event you lose the proceeding.
I am unaware of the law that is claimed here. Missing any citation to the law leaves only guesswork as to what the author is referencing.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00450.htm
16-450. Location and acquisition of vote tabulating devices
The vote tabulating device may be located at any place within the state approved by the board of supervisors of the county or the governing board of other political subdivisions using the device. The same device may be jointly owned, borrowed, leased or used by two or more counties, cities or other political subdivisions to tabulate ballots cast in any election.
So this hinges on whether alternate sites were approved by the board of supervisors. Not some member of the board. But the board itself. I do not know whether this occurred or not.
Most states have a way of collateralizing liens. Make a cash payment to the local court of 115% or so of the amount of the lien and it is now not encumbering your property. It is then up to the lien holder to figure out how to foreclose on the collateral. Which nobody seems to understand. And the timelines to do so are much shorter in this regard. Where I used to live, you got 2 years to do it or it goes away. Doesn’t mean you can’t still file suit over the money; just that you do not have any security interest in property while you do it. Some asshole contractor tried that shit on me. He never figured out how to get the money lol
Edit: forgot to add, after the 2 years is up with no action you get your collateral back
This is a dud of an antitrust suit. What is alleged in here is a stretch to violate section 2 of the Sherman Act. They are not talking about anticompetitive behavior; this is fraud. Be mindful of the fact the FTC approved these acquisitions. It is going to be hard to allege that google acquired this for anticompetitive reasons when the FTC said its all good.
They cherry pick the relevant market. This is why so many antitrust suits fail. The relevant market is much larger than the government claims in the suit. I’ve also never heard of building a monopoly by paying your customer more than the other guy. That seems to be out competing the other guy to me.
If advertising costs didnt pencil out, they wouldn’t run the ads. It is difficult to argue that this harms consumers when consumers don’t buy ads. And the technology is still very new, and constantly evolving. Google didnt march in and commandeer this market; they pretty much created it. There was a high barrier to entry in this market before google ever got involved. Not many businesses out there are large enough to afford the costs to get started.
I smell something else afoot here. Look at the states involved that joined the DOJ. “ Today, the Justice Department, along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.” TN & VA are an odd pair with the rest.
I have believed for a long time that bots manipulate the advertising market with fake clicks. Google may or may not actually own these bots. But they do have fake engagement numbers that artificially drive prices up. This is fraud. Or at least reckless mismanagement. They should know the problems with bots they have; they should take steps to prevent this. they don’t. Facebook and other similar platforms have this same issue.
Is something coming down the pike to expose this? An antitrust suit like this one seem designed to cover this up in lieu of the worse charges of advertising fraud. Google could settle this case with a large cash fine, and some type of agreement altering the current framework to be more “competitive” in the eyes of DOJ. In the process, they potentially avoid fraud issues by some kind of spinoff of this business to someone else. All while making money on the back end.
This some kind of bizarre fake news psyop? Who is gonna fall for that? I don't even think people on their 182nd booster would fall for it.
You want me to check the weather, Clarence?
It is clear that the right side is the actual registration form because it contains the declaration, which would NOT be on an early ballot affidavit. It clearly states "declaration" above the signature box. The left side contains no such citizenship question because it is not the declaration, but the affidavit found on the back side of the early ballot envelopes. If you zoom in, you can see "ballot will not be counted without your signature."
The voter’s registration record is not the the original voter application. It is the entire record of the voter including a copy of the signature from each election voted in.
No. Couldn't be more clear in the statute. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00161.htm
16-161. Official record of registration; federal form; reporting
A. When the registration form is filled out, signed by the elector and received by the county recorder, it shall constitute an official public record of the registration of the elector.
What you describe is the precinct register. Which is not the same as the elector's registration record. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00168.htm
16-168. Precinct registers; date of preparation; contents; copies; reports; statewide database; violation; classification
-
Voting history for all elections in the prior four years and any other information regarding registered voters that the county recorder or city or town clerk maintains electronically and that is public information.
-
All data relating to early voters, including ballot requests and ballot returns.
Yes, there is a precinct register signature roster. No, that is not what the statute requires for comparison to the ballot affidavit. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550.htm
16-550. Receipt of voter's ballot; cure period
A. Except for early ballots tabulated as prescribed in section 16-579.02, on receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector's registration record. If the signature is inconsistent with the elector's signature on the elector's registration record, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall allow signatures to be corrected not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election. If the signature is missing, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the elector, advise the elector of the missing signature and allow the elector to add the elector's signature not later than 7:00 p.m. on election day. If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.
Signature rosters from the precinct register are not permissible to use as a comparison for purposes of verifying ballots. But they can be used for this: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00169.htm
16-169. Disposition and use of precinct registers; signature roster; form
A. Upon completion of the precinct registers, the county recorder shall certify to their completeness and correctness and shall transmit them to the election boards. A copy shall be retained by the county recorder in either print or electronic media for verification purposes on election day, and then that copy shall be delivered by the recorder to the early election boards. The board of election shall use the original of the precinct register, which shall be known as the "signature roster", **for identifying the electors qualified to vote in the precinct **and may use the remaining copies to process voters or may place them in a convenient place outside the poll limits for use by the electors.
The bold above relates to this: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00170.htm
16-170. Transmittal of signature roster to county recorder; comparison of names by recorder
Upon return of the signature rosters to the board of supervisors after the election, the board shall immediately return them to the county recorder, who may compare the names and signatures with the names and signatures in corresponding precincts in the general county register, and if the recorder discovers that any person has voted in violation of any provision of this title he shall report the violation to the county attorney.
Basically, the recorder may (but not "shall") use it to see if anyone unlawfully voted, and then prosecute that person. Nothing to do with the validity of the ballot they cast.
Strangely, it would appear some provisional ballots are compared to the precinct register. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00584.htm
Voter registration forms have a "declaration" that is signed: https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/voter_registration_form_092222-standard.pdf
Early ballots have a voter affidavit. Which is not the same as a declaration. And is prescribed by a statute that must be strictly complied with. Notice zero mention in the statute about citizenship: https://azleg.gov/ars/16/00547.htm
Compare that to the proper registration statute. Note the citizenship requirements: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00121-01.htm
The voter application, provisional ballot, absentee or mail-in voter declaration is identical on all forms. The image is comparing the signature of the declaration on the mailed envelope to the voter’s on file signature from the last election they voted in. I’m just saying…no cover up or anything nefarious here, she is showing the images that were just presented in the current case re: the 2022 election.
Not at all accurate. There is no question about citizenship on the early ballot affidavit. The affidavit is saying that the person has not already voted, and will not vote more than once in this election under penalty of perjury. Also that they are a registered voter that filled this ballot out, unless assisted. Which has a separate section of the affidavit for the assistant to sign. It must be in strict compliance with the statute. They are not identical at all and governed by different statutes.
So bottom line is that left side is for sure the early ballot affidavit from 2020. Right side is the voter registration form because it has a declaration that would NOT be present on an early ballot envelope. There is no 2022 data here.
As I close in on nearly 2 decades as an aviator, I can tell you with certainty that one cannot tell from the ground how high a plane is with any reliable accuracy. Pattern altitude is typically 1,000 feet AGL for most general aviation airports. In downtown austin, there are buildings that approach 1,000 ft, and I think there is one under construction that will exceed that.
You fly that low, and supersonic, and you're leaving a trail of broken shit everywhere. Shattered windows, stuff falling off walls...its not just a loud noise...
there is a missing ™
Also, AZ statutes expressly state that the signature comparison be done with the voter registration card. Interestingly enough, it also appears to require "reasonable" efforts to contact the voter for curing, even if ultimately they decide to accept the signature. Guarantee they did not contact the tens of thousands or more with this issue to come cure. They just stamped it "approved."
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00161.htm
16-161. Official record of registration; federal form; reporting
A. When the registration form is filled out, signed by the elector and received by the county recorder, it shall constitute an official public record of the registration of the elector.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00162.htm
16-162. Retention of registration forms and record of cancellation
The county recorder shall provide a means of retaining registration forms and records of cancellation of registration. The records shall be retained as prescribed by sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00171.htm
16-171. Preservation of signature rosters as permanent records
The signature roster of a precinct register shall be retained permanently, and transfer shall be pursuant to sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19. Signature rosters may be retained pursuant to this section in an electronic format.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00171.htm
16-171. Preservation of signature rosters as permanent records
The signature roster of a precinct register shall be retained permanently, and transfer shall be pursuant to sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19. Signature rosters may be retained pursuant to this section in an electronic format.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550.htm
16-550. Receipt of voter's ballot; cure period
A. Except for early ballots tabulated as prescribed in section 16-579.02, on receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections **shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector's registration record. If the signature is inconsistent with the elector's signature on the elector's registration record, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. **The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall allow signatures to be corrected not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election. If the signature is missing, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the elector, advise the elector of the missing signature and allow the elector to add the elector's signature not later than 7:00 p.m. on election day. If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.
Hard to argue with this.
One of the more baffling things to me has to be states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida. Why have none of them booted machine voting out? They got the governor and they got the legislature to do it. Yet...crickets?
Correct.
Seems like the entire process is deliberately designed to be unable to reach a hard conclusion on the true outcome. The best you can hope for is that there were so many bogus ballots we don't know what the true outcome was.
I never said she claimed it was from 2022. I am saying that she is being deliberately ambiguous. We are all here still debating whether or not it is from 2022, and the presumption is that it was, or else why would she be touting it? It certainly doesn't help her. Because she wasn't on the 2020 ballot. It will only assist her in the court of public opinion.
Ya, but look at the registration form I linked. Its basically the same thing as the right side comparison.
But what is the end game? Certainly not to cause people to think voter fraud is a "baseless conspiracy theory." Fund raising? Maybe. But what kinda money can you get that is worth causing deep skepticism of the rigging apparatus? That doesn't seem like a worthy price to pay for the people in control of the rig.
Pointing out instances of obvious fraud is not going to "debunk" fraud allegations...it causes more people to believe its fraud. If she wasn't trying to win, why did she do a pretty solid job at her hearing with the information she had available at the time to utilize?
I dunno...something stinks here. I just don't know how to make it rational. Everything is rational when you know the end game. I am not spotting the connectors.
Eh, the desantis train are a minority over there. But there are some serious trolls/shills/morons there that seem to be multiplying. Fairly concerning. Something glows about this trend...
Its damning in a public relations type of way. And it will make the public more likely to believe that the same issues were present in 2022. She doesn't have a lot of ammo she can fire here. Needs to utilize whatever ammo she can come up with. That it is not admissible in a court doesn't mean that judges don't read the news or check out her tweets.
Highly likely those are from different years. It would appear that in virtually all states, so long as you continue voting, your voter registration stays active and is not removed. No need to re-apply.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00161.htm
16-161. Official record of registration; federal form; reporting
A. When the registration form is filled out, signed by the elector and received by the county recorder, it shall constitute an official public record of the registration of the elector.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00162.htm
16-162. Retention of registration forms and record of cancellation
The county recorder shall provide a means of retaining registration forms and records of cancellation of registration. The records shall be retained as prescribed by sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00171.htm
16-171. Preservation of signature rosters as permanent records
The signature roster of a precinct register shall be retained permanently, and transfer shall be pursuant to sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19. Signature rosters may be retained pursuant to this section in an electronic format.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00171.htm
16-171. Preservation of signature rosters as permanent records
The signature roster of a precinct register shall be retained permanently, and transfer shall be pursuant to sections 41-151.15 and 41-151.19. Signature rosters may be retained pursuant to this section in an electronic format.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550.htm
16-550. Receipt of voter's ballot; cure period
A. Except for early ballots tabulated as prescribed in section 16-579.02, on receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector's registration record. If the signature is inconsistent with the elector's signature on the elector's registration record, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall allow signatures to be corrected not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election. If the signature is missing, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the elector, advise the elector of the missing signature and allow the elector to add the elector's signature not later than 7:00 p.m. on election day. If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.
It would appear that ONLY the voter registration record is permissible for voter verification. Interestingly, every single voter with questionable/rejected signature status must have "reasonable" methods attempted to contact them and notify them of the problem. Even if eventually the county accepts the signature.
Pretty clear at this point that we have 2020 ballots being compared to voter registration records. Nothing to do with 2022.
Why do you need this when you can just use dominion?
Looks like the ballot envelope compared to registration card. One is for sure the envelope but the other looks to not be a ballot or envelope.
Using 2020 signatures to verify 2022 is one thing, but I am pretty sure these are not 2022 ballots. I would be floored if anyone except Katie Hobbs has the ballot envelope images from 2022. My comment is with that assumption. So, with that in mind, I stand by what I said. No matter how fucked up the 2020 signatures were, that isn’t going to be admissible to prove 2022 was as fucked up or worse. Can they take those sigs and compare them to 2022? Sure. But I don’t think anyone is doing that. It took the AZ Senate like a year to extract those envelopes to give to Dr. Shiva. No way they have the 2022 ones already.
It is gonna be difficult to prevent leaks out of the court clerk’s office. When they file something, you know they got a mole in the office. Even if sealed, the clerk still handles it.