Nearly Two-Thirds of Georgia Counties Fail to Produce Chain of Custody Documents

a reply to: neutronflux

Certification of a national election is not comparable to tax audits.

Blatta blatta blah. You want to talk about me, not the issue.

Facts are facts.

a reply to: Vector99

Nope, not illiterate as you obviously know. You're not attempting to debate, you want to insult and be right.

As you say, I'll break it down for you one more time as simply as possible, and then I will ignore you if you are unable to accept reality.

The Georgia Star News has published multiple articles in December claiming that they sent FOIA requests for "chain of custody forms" for ballots picked up by sworn Elections personnel from the dropboxes to the various counties in Georgia.

Are you with me?

If anyone has ever filed an FOIA request, you know that bureaucrats hate any extra work and therefore will find ANY REASON to deny or ignore such requests, like making the demand for all examples of a "chain of custody" form rather than a "ballot transfer form." They thrive on such minor mistakes.

I pointed that out. I pointed out that there is absolutely nothing in any rule, procedure or law in Georgia that refers to a "chain of custody" form. Another member pointed out, correctly, that there is such a form for voting equipment, and I certainly acknowledged that.

I have stated the obvious facts, and have backed up my claims from Georgia law.

If Georgia Star News has a case of non-compliance with FOIIA requests, then they should take that to court. To my knowledge they have not done so.

However, the claim by GSN that the lack of response means that there are no ballot transfer forms for 500,000 ballots or whatever their ridiculous assertion is ... is not borne out by the facts we have.

Clear?

So, if you visit the Georgia Star News website, and I am not damning the source by saying this, you find as we noted earlier in the thread that there is a network of similarly structured websites in 7 or 8 States. All of them are running these articles on "chain of custody forms" and apparently began on December 4, 2020.

Here's a search on the GSN site for "chain of custody."

You can see that the first article shows up on December 4 and that since that time there have been 9 or 10 articles based on the same "information" that are apparently, disseminated across their network to get advertising clicks.

Not a bad strategy or an uncommon one.

Take a look at the articles for yourself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neutronflux

Certification of a national election is not comparable to tax audits.

Blatta blatta blah. You want to talk about me, not the issue.

Facts are facts.

I guess not. At least tax returns are audited and verified.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny you cite opinion, Vector99 cited actual code you ignore.

Your willful ignorance and twisting of code to ignore that DEMOCRATS broke the election process in Georgia is simple awe inspiring biased stupidity.

Your dogging people that want transparency and accountability while you defend moves to open the US election process to fraud.

Democrats extra busy attempting to deflect and "re-prove" their own proven lies 😃

Lots of claim jumping too referring to Democrat "new" policies that are already in progress and working 😃

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny you cite opinion, Vector99 cited actual code you ignore.

Your willful ignorance and twisting of code to ignore that DEMOCRATS broke the election process in Georgia is simple awe inspiring biased stupidity.

Your dogging people that want transparency and accountability while you defend moves to open the US election process to fraud.

Raffensperger is a Democrat?

You should let him know; I'm sure he'll be surprised.

PS: As I told you earlier, I've posted the information from the Georgia Rules about 3 times in the thread. In detail.

Really, read the thread before you make silly pronouncements.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny you cite opinion, Vector99 cited actual code you ignore.

Your willful ignorance and twisting of code to ignore that DEMOCRATS broke the election process in Georgia is simple awe inspiring biased stupidity.

Your dogging people that want transparency and accountability while you defend moves to open the US election process to fraud.

Raffensperger is a Democrat?

You should let him know; I'm sure he'll be surprised.

PS: As I told you earlier, I've posted the information from the Georgia Rules about 3 times in the thread. In detail.

Really, read the thread before you make silly pronouncements.

What changes to voting laws and procedures did Raffensperger sign into law?

So exactly what changes to the Georgia voting system were legal by the way?

You

PS: As I told you earlier, I've posted the information from the Georgia Rules about 3 times in the thread. In detail.

soo? Your point is what?

Now please quote what is false by Vector99 from a reposting of Vector’s post.

———————————
originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99
there is only one form signed in the transition of the ballots from a drop box, and that is a sworn statement from the Elections employee that the drop box was empty when they pulled the votes after 7 PM on Election night.

Are you illiterate? I'm genuinely asking, because you keep repeating this. This is completely false. There is a form filled out at the time of collection. That form is later passed on along with the ballots. This is all clearly spelled out. I'll link it for you again just in case you missed it.

(10) Prior to the second Monday before Election Day, the county registrars must arrange for collection of the ballots from each drop box at least once every 72 hours. Beginning on the second Monday before Election Day and up until 7:00 p.m. on Election Day, the county registrars must arrange for collection of the ballots from each drop box location at least once every 24 hours. On Election Day, every drop box shall be closed and ballots collected at 7:00 p.m. Collection of ballots from a drop box must be made by a team of at least two people. Any person collecting ballots from a drop box must have sworn an oath in the same form as the oath for poll officers set forth in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-95. The collection team shall complete and sign a ballot transfer form upon removing the ballots from the drop box, which shall include the date, time, location and number of ballots. After emptying the drop box on 7:00 p.m. on Election Day, the collection team shall close the drop box and indicate on the ballot transfer form that the drop box was emptied and closed. The ballots from the drop box shall be immediately transported to the county registrar and processed and stored in the same manner as absentee ballots returned by mail are processed and stored. The county registrar or a designee thereof shall sign the ballot transfer form upon receipt of the ballots from the collection team

I highlighted the important part, if you can read please do so.
———————-

a reply to: neutronflux

I've summarized my statements multiple times.

Scrolling the forum isn't going to make a difference.

In short, Georgia Star News asserted that 500,000 + ballot transfer forms haven't been provided to them and therfore don't exist. They have no backup for that claim, I wondered if the problem is with their FOIA requests.

That's the topic here, not whatever you're trying to divert to. And I've made myself excruciatingly clear.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neutronflux

I've summarized my statements multiple times.

Scrolling the forum isn't going to make a difference.

In short, Georgia Star News asserted that 500,000 + ballot transfer forms haven't been provided to them and therfore don't exist. They have no backup for that claim, I wondered if the problem is with their FOIA requests.

That's the topic here, not whatever you're trying to divert to. And I've made myself excruciatingly clear.

I asked you a question. Quote from Vector99 post what was false.

So Vector99 was correct, and your position is false.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again....

My argument as a whole.


I am not being absurd.

The burden of proof is that only eligible voters cast each one legal vote.

Is that false.

To meet the above burden of proof:

What safe guards and audits were in place to ensure the proof and accountability that each ballot was legal and not stuffed. And that each ballot is tied to one eligible voter in accordance to the law.

It is not the law every ballot warrants counting. It is the law that each ballot is legal and tied to a single eligible voter. And the source of the cast ballot known.



——Then you used false and authority to change to “certification”. So I argued this.

Still doesn’t mean the count was accurate or illegal ballots were not counted.

Then it should be easy for you to cite the audit that verified only legal ballots were counted where political machines were in control. And the back up means / audit to verify that dominion voting machines purchased by municipalities controlled by political machines counted accurately.

Was the vote “certified” in the same way Russian disinformation was used to issue fraudulent/illegal FISA warrants? Certified doesn’t mean correct. And with no means of an audit, there is no credibility to the certification. The certifiers have no fear of accountability.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would anyone need FOIA to have proof the law was carried out, and only legal ballots properly accounted for with documentation they originated from eligible voters was counted?

Is the system that F’d up?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would anyone need FOIA to have proof the law was carried out, and only legal ballots properly accounted for with documentation they originated from eligible voters was counted?

Is the system that F’d up?

Again, read the thread.

This discussion is about a claim from an online "newspaper" regarding response to their FOIA requests Open Records requests.

So ... I've been refering to these as FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.

Technically that is incorrect. In Georgia the State law is called the Open Records Act:

The Georgia Open Records Act, § 50-18-70, et seq, outlines the process for how members of the public can request and inspect governmental records. According to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 (b)(2), the term "public record" includes "all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, computer based or generated information, data, data fields, or similar material prepared and maintained or received by an agency or by a private person or entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency or when such documents have been transferred to a private person or entity by an agency for storage or future governmental use."

Not all governmental records are public records. No public officer or agency must prepare a new report, summary, or compilation if no such record exists when a member of the public submits an Open Records Request. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71 (j). Even if a record exists at the time of the request, state law may treat some or all of the information contained in such record as exempt from disclosure or confidential. The Georgia Open Records Act outlines applicable exemptions in O.C.G. A. § 50-18-72, and there are numerous confidentiality statutes in federal and state law which may be applicable to an Open Records Request.

georgia.gov

FOIA is the Federal version. I was mistaken. The points remain the same though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, the FOIA is the model act. Every state has an act modeled after it...the provisions and exemptions are not all the same though.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, the FOIA is the model act. Every state has an act modeled after it...the provisions and exemptions are not all the same though.

Indeed. I was mistaken in several references throughout the thread.

Georgia apparently gives the government even more wiggle room than the FOIA does, suggesting even more strongly to me that the various counties are stonewalling because they don't want to do the work. My opinion only, of course.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I asked you a question. Quote from Vector99 post what was false.

So Vector99 was correct, and your position is false.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Democrats extra busy attempting to deflect and "re-prove" their own proven lies 😃

Lots of claim jumping too referring to Democrat "new" policies that are already in progress and working 😃

Did you have any evidence about the actual topic?

The claim from the Georgia Star News regarding ballot transfer forms?

I'd love to see it if you do; I'm getting bored with pointless banter.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
Democrats extra busy attempting to deflect and "re-prove" their own proven lies 😃

Lots of claim jumping too referring to Democrat "new" policies that are already in progress and working 😃

Did you have any evidence about the actual topic?

The claim from the Georgia Star News regarding ballot transfer forms?

I'd love to see it if you do; I'm getting bored with pointless banter.

Sad you cannot admit Vector99 posts prove that individual is correct, and your are wrong.

Vector99 created a credible argument, and your trying to reinvent the wheel.

GEORGIA continues allowing multiple scams for the Senate Run-off elections.

1 Example exposed today: twitter.com...