New Spring Election Details – Prosser's Delafield Mission

Ironically this post was being composed as the news of the GAB that NO criminal action was found against Kathy Nickolaus …REALLY?

Suspicious events of April 6 – 7

On the Wednesday April 6, the morning after the April 5 Supreme Court Election, Kloppenburg was ahead of Prosser by some 200 votes. The press was calling her the winner, and she even made her victory speech. The people of Wisconsin who went to bed that early morning with the belief that JoAnne Kloppenburg had won the election, would find out on the following Thursday April 7 that Kathy Nickolaus, County Clerk of Waukesha had found 14.000 votes in the city of Brookfield that would put Prosser comfortably in the lead.

Some very suspicious meetings, and announcements were afoot on the day after the election.

Prosser retreated to Delafield (Waukesha County) as the election returns were coming in,

“…to find out what the hell was going on”.

We can only speculate who he met with or what possibilities were discussed. We only know that he returned to Madison and met with Walker.

The allegation that Prosser met with Walker in his office on June 6 was included in the Kloppenburg complaint which triggered the recount. When questioned about this meeting on three different occasions, Prosser responded with three different recollections:
1) There was never such a meeting
2) I might have met him outside his office
3) I don’t think I was at the Capitol that day.

The press conference called by Walker would have been after the alleged meeting with Prosser but before Kathy Nickolaus would “discover ballots out of the blue” in the City of Brookfield in Waukesha County.

We can safely assume that Walker knew of the “found vote” at the time he made his “votes out of the blue statement” from the Item A report below.

Item A A Report submitted to on-going investigation of a recount operative for Kloppenburg In a private conversation, a poll worker shared with recount workers that Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus discovered that she had forgotten to include Brookfield’s votes much earlier than publicly reported, and did tell county officials immediately. But she was told to hold off on notifying the G.A.B. In fact, the G.A.B. was not notified until 3 pm on Thursday that the canvass of votes had been completed, and the error of the Brookfield votes had been discovered. Meanwhile reports of the error and new totals were heard on right-wing radio on as early as Wednesday evening. In failing to tell the G.A.B. of such a significant error, one that clearly changed the outcome of the election, the worker said, “It’s just like when she was in the Senate…. She was just doing what she was told to do.” This incident confirmed to recount workers that firstly, things were being covered up with regard to the reporting of the ‘forgotten’ Brookfield votes; and secondly, that Kathy Nickolaus was not acting alone.

Why would Kathy Nickolaus be instructed to delay the “found vote” to the public?

The instructions to Kathy Nickolaus to delay releasing the “found vote” information, came at the time Prosser (her former boss) was in Delafield “to find out what the hell was going on”. This was the same time window when the Waukesha Patch and other right wing blogs got wind of the “found vote”. The press and public would not be informed until the following day.

WHY?

Since delaying the announcement would only serve to draw suspicion from the public and press, it suggests even though the window of time of the delay would be suspect, that this consideration of heightened suspicion was out weighed by another more pressing need…What?

This is What Election Fraud Looks Like

Why was the Wednesday April 6 through Thursday April 7 window of time necessary? Because the 14,000 votes had been flipped electronically, but there was the other problem of the paper trail. It took time to make the actual physical ballots correspond to the flipped vote. Vote bags had to be stuffed with Prosser votes and unloaded with Kloppenburg votes for the ballot total to match the machine poll tape counts.

Is it even possible to flip votes or hack the electronic voting machines in current use in Wisconsin elections? Don’t take may word for it. The short video below features the public testimony of Curtis before a Congressional Committee in 2004 and Republican Representative Pridemore’s recent statement in the Assembly Committee for Campaign and Election Reform this past Summer.

So, alleging and assuming that the vote had already been electronically flipped by Wednesday, more time was necessary to adjust the ballots in the vote bags to match that electronic flip. Was that done? Is there any evidence to support the tampering of ballots in vote bags? OH yes.

The most blatant and obvious examples of such ballot bag tampering came out of (Waukesha County) Genesse and (say it with me) Delafield.

For Genesse ballot bag tampering (break in the chain of custody) evidence see NEW Proof of Waukesha Election Fraud

But we are talking about Prosser’s destination to “find out what the hell is going on” Delafield. Turns out, that is a very good question”

What the hell is going on in Delafield?

An extra bag of votes shows up not marked, not accounted for, and counted anyway!

Item B Waukesha County SC Recount: Anomalies in Town of Delafield Thursday, 4/28 Town of Delafield Wards 1, 2, 5 & 6 Shortly after sharing our concerns with Susan Crawford Thursday morning, 4/28, relative to what we should do when/if presented with another ballot bag that appeared to be improperly bagged, sealed, witnessed, or recorded on the Inspector’s Statement duly signed and witnessed on election night, the BoC proceeded to put three ballot bags on the counting table. We immediately noted that the Inspectors’ Statement made no note of Bag #3. Once again, the Town of Delafield representative offered an excuse: the poll workers had only prepared two bags in advance, realized they needed a third, bagged the votes, sealed the bag and ‘forgot’ to write the seal# on the inspectors’ Statement. Atty Bill Hotz immediately objected to opening the bag; Mawdsley said he would call the GAB. The bag was opened, over our objections. But Mawdsley did agree to count the 288 ballots contained in that bag separately.

That’s not all folks, in fact, this pattern of open, winged, and improperly marked bags became a disturbing merry-go-round, time after time, in the Waukesha recount. Each time the an objection came around retired Judge Mawdsley (the replacement County Clerk for recused Nickolaus) gave the brass ring to Prosser and ordered the votes to be counted.

Item C Friday 4/29 Town of Delafield Wards 3 & 4 2 Ballot bags were placed on the ballot counting table. Bag 1 of 2 was closed, tagged and labeled on the inspector’s Statement with seal #3167633. Bag 2 of 2 was closed, tagged and labeled with seal #3164850. Seal #3165447 was originally listed on the inspectors’ Statement. See picture. The Chief Inspector who signed the document, testified that she “just wrote the ‘wrong number’ down on the Inspectors’ Statement” and then corrected it. We objected to the ballots in bag #2 being counted; the BoC determined that the Chief Inspector had given sufficient enough explanation for the overwrite and proceeded to open and unpack the ballots. Our objections were noted and the report was entered into the record as an exhibit.

Saving the best Delafield example for last. The Bag Within A Bag story.

Item D Town of Delafield Wards 7 & 8 When this bag was placed on the ballot counting table, it was immediately apparent that the original seal number – #3166588 – had been crossed out on the label. The new tag seal #3165444 closing the bag matched the new number on the label, initialed by Town of Delafield municipal clerk Mary Elsner. However, the Inspectors’ Statement originally showed Seal tag #3167090 (not # 3166588) crossed off and replaced with #3165444. The Municipal Clerk offered the following written explanation: “When the Chief Inspector delivered the ballot bags to the Town Hall on the evening of 4/5/11, it was discovered that the weight of the ballots caused a slight tear in the bag. We [she and her deputy town clerk] replaced the seal, crossed out the original seal number, initialed the cross out and entered the new number on the ballot bag and resealed it with the new number.” She submitted a written statement to that effect, for the record. But that statement, made no sense for two reasons: 1)it did not explain why the original seal #’s were 3166588 on the bag, but 3167090 on the Inspectors’ Statement, and 2) it did not explain how or why the actual ballots were found in a clean ‘extra’ ballot bag inside the original ballot bag. So the JK recount team asked the Town Clerk to explain how that could happen. Upon further questioning, she settled on the following story: A ballot bag was prepared, filled and sealed at the polling place on election night. When it was delivered to the Town Hall, the Municipal Clerk decided that it had been improperly sealed (the edges had not been folded under.) So she cut off the tag, folded the bag properly, and attached a new seal. Before she could write the second seal # on the label and the Inspectors’ Statement, she decided the bag was too heavy. So she clipped the second tag seal, took out all the ballots, repackaged them into a clean, unused ballot bag and placed that back into the first (original, supposedly torn) ballot bag. She then sealed and put a new, third seal tag on the original bag, duly noting the number on the label and the Inspectors’ Statement.

So, Prosser’s “what the hell is going on in Delafield” begins to take the shape of a tampered ballot bag

Through all tragi/comedy of bag errors – ballots appear to be stuffed. What does all this Delafield stuffing have to do with the 14,000 votes “found” in the City of Brookfield? You know the old adage about a skunk does not scent it’s own hole? It would be too obvious to ransack the bags in the ward where the votes were “found”, but it might serve as a diversion for all the the activity in Genesse and Delafeild.

The investigation keeps going, and going, and going…
Perhaps the scenario above, is where the evidence leads. The investigation has been on going since the votes were “found” all of nearly a half of a year. The attorney assigned to the investigation has submitted his report and recommendations. Now we wait, yet again, for the Government Accountability Board to initiate further action, when it is really quite simple. The record of vote flipping is easily discovered through the forensic examination of the programing cards used in the machines. It really would have been much easier to that in the first place, and make the whole time consuming and expensive recount process unnecessary.

Now is the time to forensically examine Kathy Nickolaus’ lap top computer, and all the the electronic programing used in the Spring Supreme Court Election.

Advertisements