Pima Election Lawsuit Update March 18, 2008 by Associated Press March 18th, 2008 @ 5:17am County attorneys will ask Judge Michael Miller Tuesday morning to prohibit the Democrat's attorney Bill Risner from deposing additional witnesses to buttress local Democrat's contentions that the county is overstating concerns that release of electronic databases [1] from past elections would pose a risk to the security of future elections. . . . [ AP story continues below video ].
EDA Invesitgations Co-coordinator John Brakey writes:
"Mainstream media in Tucson get it! They see the seriousness of the problem in the fight for election transparency, just not in Pima County but nationwide! This story is hitting the AP wire.
Today's Top Breaking News Headlines for Phoenix and the Nation
County, Democrats Spar Over Witness Testimony in Election Lawsuit
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) --Pima County attorneys are asking a judge to bar additional testimony in a lawsuit by the Pima County Democratic Party.
The party wants access to all county electronic voting records going back to the late 1990s.
Must See Video: "Will Your Vote Count?" by Tucson Citizen reporter Daniel Buckley [2]
Click here to open video: Will your vote count? [3]
This video link opens to the Tucson Citizen website. It is WORTH it to go there to view this hands-on demonstration of insider election rigging techniques.
At a 3/11/08 Tucson Citizen editorial board meeting, EDA investigators John Brakey and Jim March show reporters how computerized votes are tabulated and demonstrate several ways the vote count can be tampered with, and how easy it is to do. Voting machines across the country can be just as easily rigged as these machines used in Pima County.
NOTE: The video opens with screenshots of not much happening. Stay with it-- soon the scenes switch to Brakey and March doing a walk-through of GEMS database hacking. In the intro section, Attorney Bill Risner explains the difference between external security measures --sealing the voting machines off from outside attack--and internal security risks, which are all about insider access to the machines. This is the heart of the Pima election lawsuit and the investigation that brought these insider attacks to court.
[AP story continues]
In their year-old lawsuit against the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Democrats have maintained that much more is potentially at stake in the lawsuit than local political parties access to local electronic election records.
They suggest security [4] flaws and potential hacking involving the same Diebold-GEMS elections system used in the county that was also used in numerous jurisdictions nationwide.
In December 2007, the judge ruled the county must turn over some of the databases sought by the Democrats, but not all.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors in January expanded on Miller's order to release databases from the 2006 primary and general elections to also include the electronic records of the May 16 Regional Transportation Authority election held that year.
Risner has since asked the judge to amend that ruling and compel the county to release all the electronic election databases in its possession or to allow a new trial over the issue. The judge is to rule on Risner's request for an amended decision or new trial at an April 21 court session.
Risner said he wants depositions taken against new witnesses before that hearing. In his ruling in December 2007, Miller cited security concerns raised by county attorneys as part of his reason for not releasing all the county's electronic elections databases.
The lawsuit seeking those databases was filed by the Pima County Democratic Party to gain access to county elections records to check for signs of tampering with the county's Diebold-GEMS vote system, or through software used to tabulate ballots cast in those elections.
Information from: Tucson Citizen, http://www.tucsoncitizen.com [5]
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
By Jim March and John R Brakey
The election integrity community is about to get something unique: access to the raw "electronic debris" from the three major elections of 2006. The files in question are created by the Diebold central tabulator system and were used to control how the elections operated and take in the data on votes.
What's unique is that for each of the three elections, we're going to get ALL such files, not just the "final result" file.
Each election contains up to 40 or more files. They can be viewed as "time slices" of the progress of the election: the initial setup, the intake of the mail-in vote day by day, the election-day processing and the post-election provisionals and final canvass.
We can finally do a real audit.
Better yet: we can design an automated software tool that does comparisons and tracks trends over time, reporting on such issues as timestamps, "Did the parts that aren't supposed to change get hacked?", "Do the multiple copies of vote totals in each file always match?" and much, much more.
Any "funny business" in there could reveal itself in any number of ways. To take just one example: The candidate IDs aren't supposed to be tampered with once the vote intake begins. Were they? Do the internal timestamps within the files show any changes once the election began? We've never had the ability to analyze this stuff, until now.
Once the tool is built, it will report changes that seem "wrong" once loaded with the file set for any election. Human eyeballs will have to follow up to determine if there was a real issue, but the key is that in AZ election challenges must follow within five days of the canvass.
An automated, open-source software tool usable by anyone can be used to chew through the volume of data needed and where necessary, trigger challenges by ANY candidate or party within the legal limits for filing.
This is a win for every party, every candidate, and every voter nationally. Once the tool is built and the need for analysis becomes obvious, access to these records in other states and soon, other voting system vendors, will turn into a standard method of ciitizen election oversight nationwide.
And anyone with a penchant for cheating will have to worry that "we the people" will be watching.
[7]
Download the Judge Miller Advisement Ruling here [9]
The following text and video dispatches are from John Brakey, co-founder of AUDIT-AZ and the EDA Co-coordinator for Investigations, introducing a groundbreaking investigation and lawsuit to compel release of the public election data (VOTES) stored inside the Diebold electronic voting system for Pima County, Arizona.
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/pima_election_integrity_trial_vid... [10]
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/pima_county_appeals_decision [11]
News article from front page of the Tucson Citizen, 12/6/07:
Tape may confirm whether results were altered
GARRY DUFFY and BLAKE MORLOCK
Tucson Citizen
Potentially important evidence is missing in the Pima County Democrats' lawsuit against the county Elections Division regarding how votes were handled in a 2006 election.
No one seems to know what happened to a computer tape record of the May 16, 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election.
The tape was sent to the the Arizona Secretary of State's Office after the election last year and reportedly was returned to the county.
MORE: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/70793.php
-----------------------------------
by blogger Michael Bryan: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5399#more-5399
Voting Counts by Dave Devine 11/29/2007
Democrats' accusations of security breaches by the Pima County Elections Division go to trial next week.
"At a trial beginning Tuesday, Dec. 4, attorney Bill Risner is expected to paint an extremely unflattering portrait of internal security within Pima County's Elections Division.
Risner--representing the local Democratic Party--hopes to secure outside oversight of vote-counting procedures, and is asking Judge Michael Miller to order the county to provide copies of its election databases to all major political parties."
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A103686 [13]
_____________________
Voting GEMS by Mari Herreras 11/29/2007
A lawsuit regarding election procedures has raised tensions at Pima County headquarters:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A103687 [14]
______________________
The Pima County Election Integrity Blues by Michael Bryan of BlogForArizona.com 11/15/2007
A very well-written, comprehensive review of the case
http://arizona.typepad.com:80/blog/2007/11/pima-county-ele.html [15]
_____________________
_____________________
Click here [16] for radio interview with John Brakey and Jim March describing their investigation and court case (60 minutes, recorded on the weekly Election Defense Radio program, 11/30/07.
Podcast Archive: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/election_defense_radio [17]
____________________
ALSO SEE:
Advisement Ruling Ordering Disclosure of 2006 Election Data:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Pima_Court_Ruling.pdf [18]
Forensic Report on GEMS Unsuitability:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/iBeta_Election_Forensic_Rep... [19]
"The GEMS software exhibits fundamental security flaws that make definitive validation of data impossible . . ."
Report to Pima County Supervisors Recommending Election Security Overhaul:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Pima_Election_Security_Repo... [20]
How the 2004 Election was Stolen on Optical Scanners: John Brakey and the "Hack and Stack"
http://electiondefensealliance.org/2004_AZ_manual_hack [21]
Exclusive Advance Preview: David Griscom: Election Fraud in Arizona, A Microcosm of National Election Theft [22]
Chapter from forthcoming book, "Loser Take All" edited by Mark Crispin Miller
The right of We THE PEOPLE to access a computer database is pivotal to the upcoming three-day trial, December 4-6, Pima County Democratic Party vs. the Board of Supervisors.
Our elections must rest on verification, NOT blind trust.
Until now, no one has been asking questions or holding the election department accountable.
Public access to information reduces temptations for insiders to cheat during high stakes elections.
If WE THE PEOPLE prevails in this important case, the decision will set an important precedent that it is vital for WE THE PEOPLE to be able to analyze the electronic debris left over from high-tech voting going all the way back to the year 2000.
William Bill Risner Esq., the Pima County Democratic Party, its Election Integrity Committee (PCDP-EIC), and AUDIT-AZ are fighting for the peoples' right to see that elections are conducted transparently and fairly so that we can lay to rest doubt about anyone's motives or actions.
Margaret Mead was right: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Be a committed citizen and stand with us and Bill Risner in court:
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Pima County Superior Court
Judge Michael Miller 6th Floor
110 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona
Hope, Peace and Democracy,
John R Brakey
AUDITAZ@cox.net [23]
520-578-5678
Cell 520-250-2360
Case Update 12/28/07: County Appeals Court Order for Disclosure
[12.28.07] Posted with the Tucson Citizen, Tucson Weekly, and the Arizona Star.
Fellow Tucsonans, we're back where we started with Chuck Huckleberry's Pima County Board of Supervisors.
The County has appealed Judge Miller's decision ordering them to turn over the election data files.
[See downloadable PDF files Notice of Appeal [24] and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal [25]].
Facts are: [Pima County Administrator] Chuck Huckleberry has known about the "backdoor" into the GEMS voting system since 1996. That was when Huckleberry authorized Bryan Crane to use that backdoor to merge the two databases together. What Crane figured how to do, is not something described in the official user manual.
In 1996 Pima County used punch cards at precincts and vote by mail ballots were counted on optical scanners made by Global Election Systems (the firm that later became Diebold Election Systems in 2002).
How do you think Huckleberry became the most powerful bureaucrat in the state? "By being the man behind the curtain. Now it's time to pull the curtain back," as Supervisor Ray Carroll said in an interview for Arizona Illustrated several months ago.
From my reading of the request for a stay to Judge Miller's decision, as filed by attorneys for the board of supervisors, their plan is clear:
(1) Tie this case up in court;
(2) draw it out past the November '08 elections;
(3) get the current board of supervisors re-elected for 4 more years; and
(4) hope that we still live in the land of amnesia.
Excerpt from the Stay filed on December 21 2007:
"The County respectfully submits that such a stay is appropriate in light of the sensitive nature of the computer files that constitute the subject-mater of this case, as well as the fact that the County's desire to protect those computer files from disclosure would be prejudiced irreparably in the event such release were to occur prior to the conclusion of the County's appeal in the matter."
It's clear that if the databases were to be released that at least 3 out of 5 Supervisors would be prejudiced irreparably by the databases that very well could show election fraud. What other reason could there be? We've heard all the rest of the diversions over the last year and in Court. You would think that the supervisors would want to protect their integrity and give us the transparency that would end the debate. That's why we went to court and had a four-day trial.
Please write the Board of Supervisors, call them, and be there at the BOS meeting January 8th.
They had their day in court!
Tell them the "Mayhem and Chaos" defense lost and to "Get over it"!
Tell the BoS it's over!
Tell them, "We the People" all seem to agree that elections should be free, fair, accurate, trustworthy, and transparent!
I've yet to meet anybody who admits to being opposed to free, fair, accurate, and trustworthy, transparent elections.
At least till now!
Ray Carroll is the only supervisor who has consistently demonstrated that he truly stands for honest, transparent government and elections.
We might be able to persuade Supervisor Ann Day to support the stand of a fellow Republican supervisor.
Let's see how Board Chair Richard Elias decides to vote. He has always voted with us when we were on the losing side. But this time when his vote would be critical to upholding Judge Miller's order to allow the Democratic party to access the database, will he stand up for transparency, or obey the head cheese, King Huckleberry of Pima County?
Call or write the BOS. Let's hold them accountable. Join with us January 8th.
What we do does make a difference, especially if we maintain our civility.
Be the media and tell others.
--John R Brakey
AUDITAZ[at]cox[dot]net [26]
Testimony of Bryan Crane on the RTA and iBeta Report -- 17 minutes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809 [27]
Link to the iBeta report on Pima election system vulnerabilities -- which doesn't quite say what county technology officer Bryan Crane claims it does.
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/iBeta_Election_Forensic_Rep... [28]
The testimony of Jim Barry illustrates that the Pima County government had a deep, vested interest in the outcome of the RTA election. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359 [29]
Testimony of County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry, the bureaucratic head cheese in Pima government.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4175279576759012912
Pima County Election Integrity Trial Videos
Plaintiff Opening Statement by Attorney Bill Risner
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1489723674229394965 [30]
Testimony of Dr. Tom Ryan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1218426879119486209 [31]
Trial Testimony of John R. Brakey
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2429578955622955799 [32]
Testimony Expert Dr. Chris Gniady
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2624937678137221831 [33]
Trial Testimony of Robbie Evans
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3065842076090526996 [34]
Trial Testimony of Isabel Araiza
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5509349780776531096 [35]
Trial Testimony of Brad R. Nelson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6207109568642429330 [36]
Trial Testimony of Chuck Huckleberry
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4175279576759012912 [37]
Trial Testimony of Bryan Crane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809 [38]
Trial Testimony of James Barry
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359 [39]
Trial Testimony of Merle King Coming Soon. . .
Pima County
Election Integrity Trial
Item numbers correspond to order of testimony in
the trial.
The trial took place during the week of December 4
to 8, 2007.
News accounts are easy to find on the Internet with
these key words: Pima County Election Integrity Trial
30_Mini_Clip_Testimony_of_Bryan_Crane_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
01_Opening_Statement_by_Bill_Risner_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
02 Def Opening Statement by Pima County Attorney Chris
Straub Election Trial
03 Testimony_of_Dr_Tom_Ryan
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
04
Arizona Election Wars Election Integrity Trial Testimony of Michael Duniho
05 Testimony_of_Isabel_Araiza
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
06 Testimony_of_Robbie_Evans Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
07 Testimony of Chester
Crowley_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
09 Testimony_of_Brad_R_Nelson
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial Arizona
10_Testimony
_Mary_Martinson_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
11 Testimony of James Barry Pima County Election Integrity
Trial Arizona
12 Testimony_Chuck_Huckelberry
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial Arizona
13_Testimony_of_Bryan_Crane_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
14 Testimony_Expert_Dr_Chris_Gniady
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
15 Testimony_of_Paul_Eckerstrom_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
16
Plaintiff offers additional Depositions and reports
17 Def Motion_for_Summary_by_County_Attorney Chris Straub
Pima County Election
18 Plaintiff_Argument_Against_Def_Motion_by Bill Risner Pima
County Election Tri
19 Judge_Miller_Denies_Motion_for_Summary
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
20 Testimony Gila Elections_Dir_Dixie_Munday
Pima_County_Election_Integrity
21 Testimony_Prof_Merle_King
Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
23 Testimony_of_Dr_John_Moffatt Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial
Arizona
24_Tad_Dinker_Closing_Argument_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
25 Bill Risner Closing Argument Pima County Election
Integrity Trial Arizona
26_Tad_Dinker_Rebuttal_Close_Pima_County_Election_Integrity_Trial_Arizona
31 Mini Clip THE FOOTBALL Moffatt & Dinker Pima County
Election Integrity Trial
Jim March, a longtime associate and current boardmember of BlackBoxVoting.org, has been working pro bono with EDA investigator John Brakey for most of 2007, examining suspicious elections in Pima and Maricopa counties. The Pima trial is a direct result of their investigative findings.
The RTA Election Of 2006: Suspicions Outlined
by Jim March
1. The county ran the election and had a strong interest in the outcome, going so far as to pay consultant James Berry at least $75,000 in support of the bond measure. Berry also took money ($13,000) from the "official" pro-RTA bond people (basically developers).
Here's a link to the video of James Barry's court testimony, demonstrating that the Pima County government had a deep, vested, and motivated interest in the outcome of the RTA election.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359 [40]
2. The bond measure had failed four times previously and was losing in the pre-election polls. (There was no exit poll.)
3. On the evening of the election (5/16/06) Dr. Ted Downing (a legislator at the time) noted Bryan Crane reviewing an open MS-Access manual on the table next to the central tabulator station. John Brakey found op-scans breaking down at precincts and called Downing.
4. In the weeks that followed, in meetings with (among others) the Pima County Democratic Party chair (Donna Branch-Gilby), Brad Nelson refused to allow even basic oversight -- such as a visual inspection to make sure that additional PC stations weren't wired into the central tabulator via the network cable clearly visible snaking under a locked door. This refusal was interpreted at the time as Nelson's practical declaration that he had an unfettered right to manipulate elections, and nothing he's done since has alleviated that apparent stance. (It's true that since that event, John Moffatt has managed to push through some transparency measures -- but all the while Nelson and Crane have systematically sabotaged Moffatt's efforts.)
5. The actions of Bryan Crane on the morning of 5/11/06 have been rehashed ad nauseum. Yet the fact remains that the official story (at least the version in court on the witness stand) has Crane making two mistakes rapid-fire on the morning of the 11th: He over-writes the previous day's backup file (ignoring GEMS' warning about same) and then prints TWO copies of the summary report within 10 minutes of each other -- and again, for each summary report he has to confirm his selections manually. Either mistake would be remarkable. Both happening within minutes? It looks like hacking. Period. The appearance is that bad data from outside the shop was brought in, uploaded, then an over-write of the previous day's good data with the bad occurred. And then two summary reports were printed moments later -- to confirm a successful hack and/or in order to prove to parties unknown that the hack had occurred? In his court testimony, Crane lied about how he performs backups.
Testimony of Bryan Crane on the RTA and iBeta report (17 minutes): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809 [41]
6. There is still a timestamp anomaly. Granted, the file "creation" and "last accessed" timestamps would have been re-written by the exchange of file servers in June of 2006 due to how Windows handles those timestamps. But our tests show that the "modified" time/date-stamp would not change due to a simple file copy operation. According to the iBeta report and associated E-mail traffic behind it (public records after the fact) the "early day 1" filename has a "last modified" date of 9:56 a.m. on the morning of May 11th, 2006. But according to E-mail traffic back and forth to John Moffatt, the timestamp was 10:56 a.m.
In December of 2006 the Democratic Party obtained a complete directory listing of both current servers. We show a timestamp for that file of 9:56 a.m. -- which in turn matches the time and date that the GEMS audit log says the "overwrite" of the morning of 5/11/06 happened.
We have confirmed that if a file is created and has a "last modified" date of, say, 3:00 p.m., and the file is shipped across time zones by ANY means, the timestamp doesn't "auto-correct" for the new time zone. Such functionality just isn't there -- the Windows file system has literally no place to record the timezone in which a file was created. So iBeta's Colorado location wouldn't have adjusted the file "last modified" time by an hour.
The implication is that somebody adjusted the file before it got to iBeta.
7. The "five files" situation. According to iBeta, they were unable to read any data off of the original pair of GEMS systems (the ones actually used on the RTA just before their retirement). From the other newer pair of systems they extracted five identical copies of the "early day 1" RTA file involved in the over-write of 5/11/06.
Our copy of the directory listings of Dec. '06 shows only two copies.
This bolsters the possibility that the RTA data files were modified prior to being shipped to iBeta. At a minimum, we can state that the files were being looked at and duplicated between Dec. '06 and their duplication for iBeta around June '07.
CONCLUSIONS:
The court has already been provided with a schedule of tests we believe should be performed on the complete data set for any given election -- most definitely including the RTA '06 Special Election. We feel that some of these tests would be particularly beneficial in this case, such as checking the internal timestamps on the MS-Access tables and looking at the "vote totals flow" throughout the mail-in vote processing.
ADDENDUM:
In April of 2007 the court wisely agreed to sequester copies of the MDB/GBF files at issue in this case in the court's vault. To that end the plaintiffs purchased a brand new external hard disk (Seagate FreeAgent 250gig) from Best Buy and brought it to county elections HQ in it's factory shrinkwrap. County staff unwrapped it, plugged it in, created two directories (one for each GEMS main and backup server) and copied all MDB and GBF files to it.
But they also grabbed something else.
At the plaintiffs' request, they created new copies of the file directory listings as .TXT files, similar to what was obtained in December of 2006 and already understood by the county elections office to be a public record. Those also went onto that Seagate disk and are in the court's vault right now.
We would dearly love to compare that directory listing to the Dec. '06 listing we have now. That alone may show a difference in the RTA-related files if somebody was doing "cleanup" after this situation began to publicly implode. We would then like to compare that listing to what iBeta received. We suspect the data sent to iBeta was already falsified, rendering their results null and void.
We don't know for sure if this directory listing analysis will flush out fraud. It might prove our theory that iBeta received the famous "garbage in" that led to "garbage out".
We would ask that our hard disk be plugged into a computer owned by the court, and the two .TXT directory listing files be copied to at least three CDs -- one for us, one for the court, one for the defense.
John Brakey [42] is co-founder of AUDIT-AZ (Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections, Arizona) and Co-Coordinator of Investigations for Election Defense Alliance
5947 S Placita Picacho El Diablo
Tucson, AZ 85706
Ph: 520-578-5678
Cell: 520-250-2360
AUDITAZ[at]cox[dot]net [43]
The Mission of AUDIT-AZ and EDA: To restore public ownership and oversight of elections, work to ensure the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote, and to have each vote counted as intended in a secure, transparent, impartial, and independently audited election process.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
Election Defense Alliance is a program of International Humanities Center, a nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.
Fair Use Policy | Original Site created by Jenni Simonis
Links:
[1] http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0318az-lawsuit18-on.html
[2] mailto:dbuckley@tucsoncitizen.com
[3] javascript:void(x=open(' http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/video/player.php?file=031408vote', 'media', 'toolbar=no,location=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,width=600,height=550')); x.focus();
[4] http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0318az-lawsuit18-on.html
[5] http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/
[6] http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/pima.html
[7] http://electiondefensealliance.org/tell_pima_supervisors_full_disclosure_voting_data
[8] http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/pima-county--19.html
[9] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Pima_Court_Ruling.pdf
[10] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/pima_election_integrity_trial_videos
[11] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/pima_county_appeals_decision
[12] http://electiondefensealliance.org/pima_az_lawsuit_seeks_release_raw_vote_data
[13] http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:103686
[14] http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:103687
[15] http://arizona.typepad.com:80/blog/2007/11/pima-county-ele.html
[16] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/
[17] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/election_defense_radio
[18] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Pima_Court_Ruling.pdf
[19] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/iBeta_Election_Forensic_Report_Pima_Co.pdf
[20] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Pima_Election_Security_Report_101907.pdf
[21] http://electiondefensealliance.org/2004_AZ_manual_hack
[22] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Griscom_Election Fraud in Arizona_Loser Take All.pdf
[23] mailto:AUDITAZ@cox.net
[24] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Notice_of_Appeal.pdf
[25] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/
[26] mailto: AUDITAZ[at]cox[dot]net
[27] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809
[28] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/iBeta_Election_Forensic_Report_Pima_Co.pdf
[29] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359
[30] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1489723674229394965
[31] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1218426879119486209
[32] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2429578955622955799
[33] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2624937678137221831
[34] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3065842076090526996
[35] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5509349780776531096
[36] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6207109568642429330
[37] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4175279576759012912
[38] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809
[39] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359
[40] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1282511168148207359
[41] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304338799617243809
[42] http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/about_john_brakey
[43] mailto: AUDITAZ@cox.net