It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher Threatens To Jail Media For Filming

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Title X: Florida Statute 119, Section 07 (119.07)

(1)(a) 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. 

... 

(5) When ballots are produced under this section for inspection or examination, no persons other than the supervisor of elections or the supervisor’s employees shall touch the ballots. If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period in s. 102.168, the supervisor of elections shall make a reasonable effort to notify all candidates by telephone or otherwise of the time and place of the inspection or examination. All such candidates, or their representatives, shall be allowed to be present during the inspection or examination.


That's the law.


Here is the judge ruling they are violating that law and granting an emergency petition for relief.



Even after the judge ordered the SOE to provide access to external observation and inspection, the SOE refused to comply.

You said, "Good for Snipes"

You still say no laws were broken.

Explain.


While counting the votes, is not considered a reasonable time. A reasonable time is any time after the election has been certified. They also did hand over 205 votes pursuant to the court order.




posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Title X: Florida Statute 119, Section 07 (119.07)

(1)(a) 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. 

... 

(5) When ballots are produced under this section for inspection or examination, no persons other than the supervisor of elections or the supervisor’s employees shall touch the ballots. If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period in s. 102.168, the supervisor of elections shall make a reasonable effort to notify all candidates by telephone or otherwise of the time and place of the inspection or examination. All such candidates, or their representatives, shall be allowed to be present during the inspection or examination.


That's the law.


Here is the judge ruling they are violating that law and granting an emergency petition for relief.



Even after the judge ordered the SOE to provide access to external observation and inspection, the SOE refused to comply.

You said, "Good for Snipes"

You still say no laws were broken.

Explain.


While counting the votes, is not considered a reasonable time. A reasonable time is any time after the election has been certified. They also did hand over 205 votes pursuant to the court order.


Yes, it is. That's why the statute provides for inspection during the count which is before the end of the contest period as I bolded.



If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period


That argument was anticipated and rejected by the writers of the statute. That's why the judge ruled them in violation and ordered them to comply. The judge interpreted the statute. The lawyers for the SOE and DNC both .ade the same argument you are presenting, and the judge rejected it. She ordered them to immediately comply. She obviously feels the request is reasonable and falls under the statute. Presumably you believe you are the sole interpretive authority and the judge has no jurisdiction
edit on 12-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical



They also did hand over 205 votes pursuant to the court order.


Article I read yesterday (cant find at the moment at the hospital) said she could not identify the 205, and that they had been counted, to not disenfranchise the voter.

Can you link the article saying they were found and turned over please?



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

No. He 's just going to continue to brazenly lie.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
palm Beach Post


Bucher’s ban on filming the ballot-counting process is a break from usual media access to canvassing board meetings. Bucher held a recount in August for a Boca Raton City Council race and imposed no such ban.

In 2000, during the infamous George Bush-Al Gore recount, newspapers published countless images of the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board reviewing ballots.

A frustrated Bucher imposed the new rule one day after Scott, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, filed suit accusing her of refusing to allow his campaign officials to personally witness the duplication and processing of ballots.



Nothing to see here.

Heard NBC, Fox, and others won their request for an injunction.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical


They have already been proven wrong. All provisional ballots are removed from the boxes when polling is completed at each site. They then fill the boxes with election supplies and leave for pickup.


I'm not following... So you've told me the established proper protocol, but that doesn't ensure it was followed.

When/where/how were they proven wrong? What exactly was proven wrong? That no boxes with those markings were found? That there were no ballots inside? That the Democrat wasn't the last to drive the vehicle? That the proper place to leave them for "pickup" is in the rental car after it's returned to the airport.

What exactly was proven wrong? By who? And how? When?


There have been no reports of ballots being inside those boxes that were found. Not a one. Ill patiently wait while you show me that proof.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


I would not see an issue either as long as actual votes are not shown that associate a name. This still leaves an opening for fraud. There has to be some level of trust or proper audit.


Seems since they have failed in many ways the trust is gone and an audit needs to happen. The level of failure seems ridiculous as we are now 6 days past the election.


Either way you spin it, whether outright voter fraud or extreme incompetence, Brenda Snipes and Susan Bucher have placed the legitimacy of a United States Senate seat in doubt because of their disastrous actions.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical


There have been no reports of ballots being inside those boxes that were found. Not a one. Ill patiently wait while you show me that proof.


You seem to be defending something, and I'm not sure what though. In the end you need to at least agree that extreme incompetence is going on here which opens the door for fraud.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical


There have been no reports of ballots being inside those boxes that were found. Not a one. Ill patiently wait while you show me that proof.


So you cannot answer very clear and direct questions to clarify what your comment... You presume that because you haven't heard what was in the boxes that it cannot be ballots... And then demand I prove what cannot be proven and which I never claimed to know.

So just games. Gotcha.

And FYI I don't take my marching orders from you. If you really wanted the truth, you would have already tracked it down for yourself, and shared it here in the spirit of discussion.

But you didn't.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join