Lawsuit Filed As Bernie Sanders Wins California By Landslide
A
historic lawsuit has been filed in California after a widespread
cover-up of Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory at the primary
election earlier in the week.
10
June, 2016
The
lawsuit will require the counting of all the provisional ballots,
which Sanders says gives him a landslide win in the state.
Justicegazette.org reports:
The
theft of California hasn’t deterred Sanders from his course. He has
promised to fight on while noting it is a steep uphill climb. Given
all the states where vote fraud in favor of Hillary Clinton has been
allowed to swing primaries from Sanders to Clinton, it is in fact a
steep uphill climb to restore democracy and force the now
undemocratic Democratic Party to nominate the man the vast majority
of American voters have voted for or tried to vote for.
It
has been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were
supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were
told they would have to vote provisional ballots. There were two
irregularities leading to the forced use of provisional ballots
instead of regular ballots. The first was that previously registered
voters’ names had been removed from the rolls. The second was that
someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as vote by
mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly,
virtually all of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote
provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.
The
next oddity is even more curious. Poll workers in Los Angeles and
Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their
precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the result of
the vote count. The contrast between this and the outcome is
indicative of vote-flipping. Also the outcome.. outcome does not
match what anyone who has conducted polling in this state knows:
Below the election night video is a video about black box voting
(Hacking Democracy) , The Democratic Party has essentially endorsed
this video, showing it at various conventions and another video of a
computer programmer confessing to creating a vote-flipping program.
If
you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to
vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up
with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California. The
primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.
As
for provisional ballots, acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election
fraud expert Greg Palast calls them “placebo ballots.” Greg is
the reporter who exposed the voter fraud in Florida in 2000.
Nightline used his footage in covering the story. Here is from Greg’s
article, “How
California is being stolen from Sanders right now.”
“As
I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo”
ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t.
Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”
The
Justice Gazette has conducted considerable polling and the official
results reflect the opposite of how people said they were going to
vote. At the California Democratic Convention most of the elected
delegates were “Bernie or Bust.” Ask yourself, when Sanders gets
enthusiastic crowds of thousands in California (sixty thousand
according to police in Oakland alone) compared to laid- back crowds
of hundreds for Clinton, who voted for Clinton? Ask your neighbors,
co-workers and fellow students if they voted for her and then start
asking how she supposedly won the election without the support of the
voters. Or just look at Alameda County (Berkeley, Oakland), where
Sanders was greeted by a hundred thousand active supporters, where
Clinton is very unpopular and where Clinton’s percentage and
Sanders percentage appear to be the exact reversal of what the
residents of that county know to be the case. If you walked into any
store or group setting, other than a Clinton gathering, and asked who
was going to vote for Clinton, you would find that nobody or maybe
one or two people would be considering voting for her. Almost all the
rest would be planning to vote for Bernie Sanders. We know. At the
Justice Gazette, reporters did just that.
Poll
workers in Orange and Los Angeles County have reported that Bernie
won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1
margin. So how does this translate into a victory for Clinton? Ask
yourself why an excited crowd of thousands came to the election night
event of a loser when this kind of crowd has never come to the event
of a primary loser in California’s history. Perhaps this is because
Sanders didn’t lose. Votes can be flipped in less than a minute by
someone walking into the Registrars office. Watch Bev Harris’s
documentary Hacking Democracy and the video of a confession on the
creator of a program designed to do just that below.
Prior
to going into the California primary, it was known that Sanders was
going to insist that the Democratic National Convention nominate the
winner of the California primary. Clinton is very unpopular in
California and it would have been impossible for her to acquire the
votes to win legitimately. There was only one way for Clinton to win
and that was to rig the election. Those running the Democratic Party
have made it clear, following the known rigging of elections in other
states, that they either consider election fraud and rigging a proper
way to win a nomination or don’t care if a candidate wins this way.
Back
to forcing the majority of Sanders voters to vote uncounted
provisional ballots. You may ask, how Hillary knew who to
disenfranchise? There are multiple ways. First, new voters were
overwhelmingly planning to vote for Bernie. Second, of the NPP (no
party preference) voters, the vast majority were Sanders supporters.
But it may also be the Sanders campaign that owes the voters an
apology for letting Clinton know which voters to disenfranchise.
Last
December the relationship between NGP Van and Clinton and that Van’s
apparent willingness to engage in unethical conduct on behalf of the
Clinton campaign was widely exposed. Yet, the primary applications
the Sanders campaign uses for canvassing were obtained from NGP Van.
One of the main application programs the Sanders campaign used for
canvassing is called Minivan. It is well known that many many, if not
most, manufacturers leave a backdoor allowing them to re-access
programs.
In
Arizona, Sanders poll workers were told on the last day before the
election that it was known that their MiniVan program had been hacked
and that on that pre-election day, people would be using paper
canvassing sheets. This was just for the last minute stuff. Almost
all the canvassing had been done already in Arizona. What did the
Sanders volunteers tell MiniVan (and possibly the Clinton campaign)
about the voters they canvassed or called? They marked if the person
was: “Strong Sanders,” “Leaning Sanders,” “Strong
Clinton,””Leaning Clinton,” or “Undecided,” among other
things. If you were Clinton and you wanted to disenfranchise millions
of voters, wouldn’t it be nice to know who is supporting your
opponent? For the record, reporters for the Justice Gazette did bring
their concerns about MiniVan to the attention of the Sanders campaign
following Arizona. However, the campaign went back to using this in
state after state.
While
the public is mostly loyal to Sanders, some question the loyalty of
some of his staffers. Canvassers were given wildly inaccurate
precinct phone and walking lists that left off most of the voters who
were planning to support Sanders. Canvassers were supposed to skip
about 20 or more houses for every one they hit. Usually the one
selected had the wrong occupant while the new occupants of the
selected houses as well as people who were supposed to be passed over
in the other 20, often said they were registered and planning to vote
for Bernie to canvassers who chose to speak to them anyway. It was
pointed out to the campaign that it would have been easier and more
productive to go door to door to all the houses than to search around
for the one inaccurate address on a street a mile from the last
address.
Another
key alert as to possible infiltrators was the odd treatment of the
press.
While Correct the Record and reporters/hackers from other
organizations and media groups promoting Clinton were treated like
royalty, members of the press who had gone on record supporting
Sanders were often treated with contempt by certain members of the
team running logistics at the rallies. Correct the Record (the PAC
paying a million dollars to hackers who put child pornography on
Sanders facebook pages and then got them closed down) was given the
best filming location in San Pedro after that same prime filming
location had been denied to news teams favorable to Sanders. On
election night, several reporters favorable to Sanders commented on
how rudely they were being treated. Reginald Hubbard and Jesse
Cornett who reportedly threatened some of the mild-mannered, more
loyal press with loss of equipment, removal or confiscation of their
press credentials (which they had brought with them) and removal of
the actual reporters from the event in response to polite questions
about the sound arrangements. Most of the pro-Sanders reporters were
placed on a riser near distorted speakers and denied access to the
event’s sound boxes they had been promised and which were provided
for other media. One reporter, a very sweet woman, who had been
traveling on a bus following the candidate, seemed to disappear from
the event after she reported that she had been rudely treated by
these same staff people prior to the speech.
The
fix was in before the primary. An instructional video for poll
workers told them to give provisional ballots to NPP voters, official
conduct that would have been illegal in California. AP joined in the
effort to try to fix the election by calling the nomination for
Clinton the night before the election when AP knew or should have
known that Clinton did not have enough pledged delegates and would
not have enough on June 7th to be the nominee. This appears to have
been part of the overall attempt to suppress the vote. As Sanders has
repeatedly pointed out,
“If
there is a large turnout we will win. If there is a very large
turnout we will win huge. If there is a low turnout, we will lose.”
In
spite of AP’s false call, the actual turnout was very large and,
but for the suppression, the evidence supports the theory that
Sanders would have won by a very wide margin.
Overall,
it was a tough night for Sanders supporters. The average American is
not about to support Hillary Clinton. Nobody at the election night
event believed there was any accuracy in the results. Despite the
officials results (which left off half or more of the voters), the
Sanders supporters were optimistic as they knew in their hearts that
Sanders had won California. With the election rigging and theft so
obvious, the bulk of the public does not believe that Clinton is a
legitimate nominee. The bulk of the Democratic voters will never
accept Clinton or vote for her in the general election. Some are
calling the theft of the nomination a “coup d’ etat,” “treason”
and “sedition” on Clinton’s part.
As
for the voters who weren’t allowed to vote, the buck stop with two
people: California Secretary of State and Clinton supporter Alex
Padilla and Hillary Clinton, herself, the candidate who benefited
from the voter suppression. Almost everyone in American knows or is
related to one of Clinton’s victims. Clinton’s apparent crimes
are against the American people and this matters more than whether a
clown is running as a nominee the other party. America has survived
racist clown Presidents in the past but is not about to endure a
President who has committed crimes that have destroyed the right to
vote of people they know.
The
crowd at the Sanders rally is not going to give up. In fact they are
energized and angry and most of them have as their top goal,
defeating Hillary Clinton in all elections. If Bernie were to endorse
her, his supporters would be saddened and many would feel betrayed,
but the Sanders voters have made it clear that they will not follow
Bernie to Clinton.
In
view of the information from polling place workers about Sanders
winning by more than a 2 to 1 margin and in view of the removal of
2/3 or more of his votes from the official results, the Justice
Gazette declares Bernie Sanders the landslide winner of the 2016
California Primary Election.
After disenfranchising independent voters,including young people voting for the first time- and 2.5 million votes being uncounted they turn round and blame young people for not turning out.
Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ enthusiastic legion of young, independent and
progressive supporters turned out to be way better at jamming rallies
and concerts than they were at actually voting.
There are more than 2.5 million uncounted ballots left from Tuesday's statewide primary
More
than 2.5 million ballots were left uncounted on election day across
California, a process that could take several days or longer and
leave close races in limbo.
Secretary
of State Alex Padilla posted a report late Thursday on
unprocessed ballots. Most of that total -- about 1.8 million -- were
mailed to voters but returned only on Tuesday.
Six
million ballots have already been counted from the statewide
primary. The uncounted tally would push total voter turnout to about
8.5 million, or around 47% of all registered voters.
Los
Angeles County had more unprocessed ballots than anywhere, about
616,000. San Diego County reported 285,000 uncounted ballots.
A
portion of the unprocessed total are provisional ballots --
designated for voters whose registration status can't be
immediately verified on election day. If a provisional ballot is
later found to have been cast mistakenly, it may not be counted.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.