A Look At Reality

As it turns out, it’s not such a wonderful life after all. Bedford falls turned into Pottersville and there’s no Clarence to save George Bailly. Mr. Potter is in complete control and he’s stuffing his pocket with the tax payer’s money. Because you will NEVER beat Mr. Potter at the polls because he cheats, the only hope is a city wide recall campaign and gets rid of Mr. Potter and all his friends. Otherwise, say good-bye to little Signal Hill and say hello to great big Long Beach. Signal Hill is now bankrupt.      

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Introduction

Signal Hill only covers 2.2 square miles with a population of about 11,00 people, and about half the population is registered to vote. However, usually less then 900 residence vote in Signal Hill elections. When reading these reports, you should keep in mind that a dozen or so votes ahead can be a strong lead with such a low voter turn out.

 For re-typed copies of the Election Documents obtained at City Hall, including the Resolution and Canvass documents for the 2007 election, Please link or log on at www.cityalerted.wordpress.com. The document were typed in their entirety.    

Because of technical difficulties, all original documents obtained at City Hall can only be attach by Email, or by the FaceBook message link. You can contact us under our pin name “Billy Bob” on FB or by Email at fraud3607@yahoo.com or ef3607@yahoo.com and we will send all the information as so as possible. Your Email address is strictly confidential and will be deleted immediately after wards. We have no interest in your Email address.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Past Election Fraud In the City of Signal Hill Ca.

 The present corruption in Signal Hill began over two decades ago when the big land developers attempted a take over of City Hall. The proposed new residential development had the potential of over a billion dollars in new housing. The big land owner in Signal Hill, Craig Barto, who owns Signal Hill Petroleum, and the construction contractor, Southwest Diversified Inc, planed to cover the hill in giant 4 story condo compounds. Among many problems, the giant buildings would completely destroy the existing residential views on the hill and property value would take a huge drop. This created a political battle between the high density developers and the City Council. To battle the Council, the developers spent huge sum of money to  Finance  their own candidates. It’s unknown how much money was actually spent by the developers. In the campaigns of Sara Hanlon and George Papadakis, the developers donated at least $17,000 in two elections. In the 1980’s, an average campaign cost about $1,000.

In the 1980’s, the City Council was completely replaced by a Council to battle the developers and defend residential rights of the people.

In 1982, Louis Dare and Gerard Goodhart were elected to the Council and with runner up Richard Ceccia, took 60% of the vote over 5 other candidates. Dare defeated real estate broker and present Councilman, Mike Noll with 307 votes.

In 1984, Richard Ceccia and Jessie Blacksmith were elected and Councilman Dave Bellis was re-elected. It was Dave Bellis who led the fight against the developers. These 3 candidates received 60% of the vote over several there candidates. In this election, the developers donated $12,139 in support of George Papadakis and two other candidates according to records.

In 1986, Sara Hanlon defeated Councilman Dare after $5,000 was donated to Hanlon campaign by the developers. About a year later, in 1987, Dare was re-elected in a special election after Councilman Bellis resigned.

In the 1988 election, Ceccia, blacksmith and Dare were re-elected with 67.2% of the vote over 4 other candidates.

In 1990, single challenger, Carol Churchill and Councilman Goodheart received 70.4% of the vote over Sara Hanlon.

The Council was overwhelmingly supported by the voters and the developers were left holding an empty sack. This started a campaign of corruption that has continues to this day. To date, we have found 5 elections that show conclusive signs of election fraud.

In 1992, present Councilman Noll, Hanlon and Papadakis ran for City Council against Ceccia, Blacksmith and Dare. Present Councilman, Larry Forester was the President of the newly Founded Political group, “The Concerned Citizens of Signal Hill” and present Council members, Ellen Ward and Mike Noll were high ranking members. According to records, Southwest Dinersified donated $27,500 to a Political Caucus in support of the 3 challengers. The Political Caucus donated $10,000 to the CCSH and Barto donated $4,000 to CCSH according to records. Obviously, the CCSH was only a front for the developers. Forester denied any connection with Brato or Southwest, but reported spending $17,245 in support of the 3 challengers. This left over $10,000 in donations that were unaccounted for and with hundreds of Millions of dollars to be made, Noll and Hanlon defeated Blacksmith and Dare through obvious election fraud. Ceccia was barely re-elected after losing a huge lead over Papadakis.

                                                1992 Election                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       In 90% of the Polling Vote Cast from Precincts 1,2,3,4 and 6, the majority of voters supported the Council.

Precincts 1,2,3,4,6     [{C’s Lead}        {B’s Lead}          {D’s Lead}]

Ceccia; 550 = 18.8%             0                              0                                0

Black ; 495 = 16.9%             55                             0                                0

Dare  ; 479 = 16.3%             71                             16                               0

Noll   ; 461 = 15.7%           {89}                        {34}                         {18}

Hanl  ; 428 = 14.6%         {122}                       {67}                          {51}

Papa  ; 353 = 12.0%        {197}                      {142}                        {126}

Miller(159 =  5.4%)        391                           336                             320   

         2,925 = 90% of the Polling Vote

In 90% of the polling vote and 64.8% of the entire vote, the Council took 1,488 votes with 52.1% of the vote. The top 3 challengers took 1,242 votes with 42.4% of the vote. The Council was leading by 10% with 246 votes over the top 3 challengers.

In the remaining 10% of the Polling Vote Cast from Precinct 5, we found massive Fraud.

Precinct 5                   [{N’s Lead             {H’s Lead}              P’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 25 =  7.8%       {60}                         {58}                          {38}

Black :  17 =  5.3%        {68}                         {66}                          {46}

Dare  :  15 =   4.7%       {70}                         {68}                          {48}

Noll  85 = 26.7%            0                                0                                 0  

Hanl :    83 = 26.1%            2                                0                                 0

Papa :   63 = 19.8%            22                              20                               0

Miller : 30 =   9.4%          55                              53                               33

           318 =  10% of the Polling Vote

In precinct 5, the Council only took 57 votes with 17.9% of the vote and the top 3 challengers took 231 votes with 72.6% of the vote. The top 3 challengers were leading by 54.7% with 174 votes over the Council. The Council’s average dropped 34.2% and the 3 challenger’s average increased 30.2%. Precinct 5 only produced 7% of the entire vote and the only residence was the brand new Willow Ridge condominium. Prior to 1992, this precinct was completely industrial and no votes were ever recorded in precinct 5. The vote for precinct 5 points directly at Voter Registration Fraud.

In 28.1% of the vote cast by absentee, we found massive fraud.

Absentee Vote                  [{N’s Lead          {H’s Lead}           P’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 132 = 10.3%             {168}                    {174}                     {134}

Black : 102  =  8.0%             {198}                    {204}                     {164}

Dare : 99 =   7.7%                {201}                    {207}                      {167}                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Noll  :  300 = 23.6%                    6                               0                             0

Hanl :  306 = 24.0%                   0                                0                             0

Papd : 266 = 20.9%                  36                               40                           0                                                                                                                                                          Miller:  65 =   5.1%                  241                             235                        201

       1,270 = 28.1% of entire Vote

In the absentee vote, the Council took 333 votes with 26.6% of the vote and the top 3 challengers took 872 votes with 68.6%. The 3 challengers were leading by 42% with 539 absentee votes over the Council in only 28% of the vote. In the 1988 election when the 3 Council members last ran for re-election, only 8.4% of the vote was cast by absentee.

The 1992 election produced nearly twice as many absentee votes as the last three elections combined. That’s, 1,270 absentee votes in 1992, and a total of 652 absentee votes in the 1990, 1988 and 1986 elections combined. This is massive Voter Registration Fraud.

If a candidate takes 20% of the polling vote, that candidate well take about 20% of the absentee vote. The polling and absentee vote is collected through out the city and there is no difference between polling voters and absentee voters. Miller’s  vote shows no sign of tampering with only a two percent difference between his over all polling vote and his absentee vote.

In 90% of the polling vote, the voters clearly supported the Council. This vote shows no sign of tampering. By using the candidate’s average from 5 out of the 6 precincts, we can estimate the candidate’s final tallies. This is only a measuring tool and is not met to be exact.

                                                         Calculated Tally

Candidate’s average in 90% of the Polling Vote. {4,513 Votes Total}

  Preduced Tally                [{C’s Lead}           {B’s Lead}           {D’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 18.8% =   {848}               0                                0                              0

Black ;    16.9% = {762}              86                               0                              0

Dare   ;   16.3% = {735}             113                               27                            0

Noll    : 15.7% = {708}            [140]                          [56]                       [27]

Hanlo :14.6% = {658}            [190]                        [104]                       [77]

Papa  : 12.0% = {541}            [307]                        [221]                     [184]

Miller: {5.4%} = {243}             605                             519                         492

.                             4,495 = 99.6% of the Entire Vote    

PREDICTION: Miller, With a total of 4,513 votes, times {5.4%} equals 243.7 votes, using the % key on a calculator.

The prediction clearly shows the majority of voter re-elected the Council.                                                                                                                                                                                                   Predicted Tally               Official Tally               Prediction Results

Ceccia :     {848}    Minus    {707}    Equals      [141 Missing Votes]

Black  :      {762}     Minus    {614}    Equals      [148 Missing Votes]

Dare   :      {735}      Minus   {593}    Equals      [142 Missing Votes]    Total:                            2,345     Minus     1,914      Equals     431 Missing Votes

Official Tally                  Predicted Tally             Prediction Results

Noll    :      {846}     Minus      {708}     Equals      [138 Extra Votes]

Hanl  :      {817}      Minus     {658}      Equals      [159 Extra Votes]

Papd :      {682}      Minus      {541}      Equals      [141 Extra Votes]                      Total:      2,345       Minus      1,907      Equals      438  Extra Votes

Miller:     {254}      Minus       {243}     Equals    {[11 Extra Votes]} 

           4,513 Total Votes

      Mathematics can not lie, two apples plus two apples always equals four apples, it never equals five apples.

The prediction clearly shows this election was fixed. The prediction is not exact, however, it’s proves to be extremely accurate. Out of a calculation of 4,513 votes, Miller’s prediction is only off by 11 votes and two tenths of one percent. There was no reason to sabotage Miller’s vote. According to the prediction, there were 438 extra votes and 431 missing votes with a difference of 7 Votes. However, the numbers may match exactly. Obviously,  ballots were pillaged from the Council and illegal ballots were added for the 3 leading challengers through voter registration fraud. There is no question the ballots were tampered with.  After Ceccia was leading Papadakis with 197 votes in nearly 2/3 of the entire vote, Papadakis took 172 votes over Ceccia in the remaining vote. Ceccia defeated Papadakis with only 25 votes. This is not only ridiculous, this is obvious fraud, The fixed absentee results were released first to cover up the polling fraud. When the absentee results were made public that evening, the top 3 challengers already had a huge lead over the Council. This is how the saboteurs cover up such an obvious case of fraud. In State and Federal elections, the polling vote is always counted first for this very reason.

Four years earlier, the Council ran against former Council members, Bob Randle, Nick Mikis, Marion “Buzz” McMallen and new comer, Linda Jackson.

1988 Election

Precincts 1 Through 3                Precincts 4 and 6                Polling Totals

Ceccia     : 367 = {22.2%}   Plus   255 = {25.6%}   Equals   622 = {23.5%}

Dare        : 343 = {20.8%}   Plus    243 = {24.3%}   Equals   586 = {22.1%}

Blacksm.: 316 = {19.1%}   Plus    232 = {23.2%}   Equals   548 = {20.7%}

Randle    : 180 = {10.9%}   Plus      84 =   {8.4%}    Equals   264 = {9.9%}

Mikis       : 178 = {10.7%}   Plus      81 =   {8.1%}     Equals   259 = {9.7%}

Jackson   : 135 =  {8.1%}   Plus      66 =   {6.6%}     Equals   201 = {7.5%}

McCallen:   86 =  {5.2%}    Plus      35 =   {3.5%}     Equals   121 = {4.5%}               .                1,649 = 57.0%                    996 = 34.4%                     2,645 = 95.2%

The polling average for all seven candidates remained consistent with little change in all 5 precincts.  Precinct 5 was completely industrial and no votes were recorded in precinct 5.

  Absentee Vote                                Polling Totals                   Official Tally

Ceccia       : 50 = {20.5%}   Plus   622 = {23.5%}    Equals    672 = {23.2%}

Dare          : 56 = {23 .0%}   Plus    586 = {22.1%}    Equals    642 = {22.2%}

Blacksm.  : 50 = {20.5%}   Plus    548 = {20.7%}   Equals     598 = {20.7%}

Randle     : 29 = {11.9%}    Plus      264 = {9.9%}    Equals      293 = {10.1%}

Mikis        : 33 = {13.5%}    Plus      259 = {9.7%}    Equals       292 = {10.0%}

Jackson   : 12 =   {4.9%}    Plus      201 = {7.5%}     Equals       213 = {7.3%}

McCallen: 13 =   {5.3%}    Plus       121 = {4.5%}     Equals       134 =  {4.6%}         .                  243 =   8.4%                    2,645 = 91.6%                       2,888 = 100%

   All seven candidates show less then a 4.6 % change in their average between the their vote in all 5 precincts and the absentee. The voter support for each candidate remained consistent through out the city. The 1988 election shows no sign of fraud.

The $14,000 donated to the CCSH financed a huge slander campaign with misleading phone calls to the voters and false propaganda flyers. One flyer claimed the new residential view ordinance would only protect Councilman Dare’s view and no body else. Dare signed the ordinance into Law when he was Mayor in 1990. Before the ordinance was signed, Dare stated in public, “There is no ordinance protecting my view.” Dare’s statement was twisted into this outrages lie. This is a prime example of the vicious slander that was distributed by Forester, CCSH and the Signal Tribune who played a major roll in this slander. A copy of the flyer is available by Emial. There can be no doubt this election was fixed and the 3 challengers were bought and paid for by the developers. In fact, Barto bought Hanlon a new house.

According to information obtained at City Hall in 2009, Hanlon resigned in 1996 at the end of her 4 year term in office and Forester was appointed to the Council in 1998. This is false information. According to the press, Hanlon resigned in 1992 about 6 months after she was elected and Forester was then appointed to Hanlon’s seat on the Council.  This was intentional, Hanlon had already made plans to leave the State before she ran for Council. Obviously, after all these years, City Hall is trying to hide this fact.

In 1994, Tina Hansen defeated Churchill after a huge sum of money was donated to Hansen campaign by the developers. The CCSH conducted the same slander campaign with phone calls and propaganda flyers. This election shows no obvious signs of tampering, however, Noll, Forester and Hansen took control of the majority vote on the Council. In fact, no Council member has been defeated since 1994.  City Clerk Cathy Pacheco was also elected in 1994. Among others, it was Pacheco who committed fraud in the 2007 election which is documented.

In 1996, there was no election, the Council voted their self an extra year in office after Southwest left Signal Hill and Barto hired the new contractor, ComStock Inc.

In 1997, Goodhart resigned in mid term and Forester was appointed to Goodhart’s seat. Only Cessia and Noll ran on the ballot in 1997 and Ed Wilson was elected to the Council. This election shows no obvious signs of tampering, however, Forester avoided election for two more years.

The 1999 election was obvious fixed when Forester had to run for City Council. In  60% of the polling vote, challenger Bob Mendoza was leading Forester with 23 votes.

60% of the Polling Vote        

Precincts 1,2,3,4                   H’s Lead               M’s Lead                  F’s Lead

Hansen     : 267 = 39,0%                 0                               0                                 0

Mendoza : 187 = 27.3%            80                               0                                0

Forester  : 164 = 23.9%           103                           (23)                             0

Pallares    :  66  =  9.6%                201                             121                             98

                  684 = 60% of the Polling Vote / 34.9% of the Entire Vote

In the remaining polling vote, Forester took 34 votes over Mendoza. Forester over came a 23 vote deficit with an 11 lead in the remaining 40% of the polling vote. This is rediculous. Mendoza’s average dropped 5.3% and Forester’s average increased 5.3%. Obviously,  ballots were taken from Mendoza and replaced with the same number of illegal ballots given to Forester. The number of ballots must match the number of the polling voters that signed the precinct index before voting.

468 = 40% of Polling Vote     

Precincts 5,6                     H’s Led                F’s Lead                    M’s Lead

Hansen   :  202 = 43.1%            0                             0                                   0

Mandoza:  103 = 22.0%          99                        (34)                                0

Forester:  137 = 29.2%        65                            0                                  0

Pallares  :    26 =  5.5%             176                         111                                77

                  468 = 40% of Polling Vote / 30% of the Entire Vote     

In the remaining 26% of the vote cast by absentee, Mendoza’s average dropped 11.1% and Forester’s average jumped 10.5%. Forester took over twice as many absentee votes as Mendoza. Forester defeated Mendoza with 85 votes in which 74 votes were cast by absentee.

Absentee Vote {25.9% of the Entire Vote}

Absentee Vote                  H’s Lead                  F’s Lead                    M’s Lead

Hansen    :     189 = 46.5%            0                                  0                                   0 

Mandoza : 66 = {16.2%}       121                              (74)                               0                                                                                                                                                  Forester : 140 = {34.4%}       49                                  0                                   0

Pallares   :     11 =  2.7%             178                               129                                 55              

                   406 = 26% of Entire Vote

This is conclusive Voter Registration Fraud, 87% of Forester’s lead over Mandoza was cast from 26% of the vote. This election produced a total of 1,558 votes.

In 2001, Ceccia resigned and Ellen Ward was elected to the Council. This election shows no obvious sign of tampering.

In 2003, Forester and Hansen ran unopposed for re-election. No official announcement was made for the up coming election until after the dead line to file papers for candidacy. This should have been head line news in the Signal Tribune by at least the beginning of November. The official announcement was found in the Signal Tribune in February, buried in the legal notice section in small print. The election was held on March 2, and no campaign signs were up until just before the election. The Signal Tribune is controlled by City Hall and the paper has never announced an up coming election on the front page.

After about 1/3 of the polling vote is cast, the candidate’s average is already establish in an honest election. The candidate’s average would remain consistent thought out the election. The small town of Signal Hill is only 2.2 square miles with a population of about 11 thousand people. The voters are mainly middle class home owners. There is no reason why the voters on one side of town would vote any different then the voters on the other side of town.

In 2005, Nancy Long, Carol Churchill and Louis Dare ran for City Council against Noll, Ward and Wilson.

2005 Election                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        In nearly 1/3 or 31.6% of the Polling Vote  

Precincts: 1Through 3        Wi’s Lead              N’s Lead              Wa’s Lead

Wilson; 101 = 19.9%                         0                               0                              0

Noll     ;  88 = 17.3%                       13                              0                              0

Ward   ;  88 = 17.3%                      13                              0                               0

Long   ;   88 = 17.3%                      13                            [0]                           [0]

Church;  78 = 15,4%                     [23]                         [10]                         [10]

Dare    ;  63 = 12.4%                       38                             25                             25

              501 = 31.6% of the[ Polling Vote  

In the first three precincts in nearly 1/3 of the polling vote, it’s certain Wilson will win and Dare will probably lose. However, we have a very close race between the four other candidates.

In just over 2/3 or 68.4% of Polling Vote, we found massive fraud. 

Precincts 4 Through 6      Wi’s Lead              N’s Lead             Wa’s Lead

Wilson  : 255 = 23.3%                      0                              0                                0

Noll      : 240 = 21.9%                      15                             0                                0

Ward   : 234 = 21.4%                       21                             6                                0

Long    : 155 = 14.1%                  [100]                     { [85]}                     {[79]}

Church: 126 = 11.5%                  [129]                     {[114]}                   {[108]}

Dare    :   83 = 7.5%                      172                           157                          151

           1,093 = 68.4% of Polling Vote 

In the first 3 precincts, the Council was leading the challengers with only 48 votes with a 9% lead. In the last 3 precincts, the Council was leading the challengers with 365 votes with a 33.2% lead. The Council’s lead over the challengers doubled 7.6 times in just over twice the vote. The Council’s average increased 12.1% and the challenger’s average dropped 12.1%. Just like the 1999 election,  ballots were taken from the challengers and replaced with the same number of illegal ballots given to the Council. In nearly 1/3 of the polling vote, Long, Noll and Ward were tied with 88 votes, Churchill was only trailing by 10 vote. In just over 2/3 of the polling vote, Noll took 85 votes over Long and Ward took 79 votes over Long. Wilson’s lead over Churchill doubled over 5 times with 129 votes. Ward’s lead over Churchill doubled nearly 11 times with 108 votes and Noll’s lead over Churchill doubled over 11 times with 114 votes. This is conclusive fraud through massive ballot tampering.  If a candidate’s lead goes from 10 votes to 114 votes in just over 2/3 of the vote, you can bet your life the ballots were tampered with. According to the Law of averages, Noll and Ward’s lead over Churchill would only increase to about 30 sum odd votes. Wilson, Noll and Ward’s lead over Long, Churchill and Dare is just plain ridiculous.

Absentee Vote        {42.4% of the Entire Vote}    

Absentee Vote              N’s Lead                Wi’s Lead                Wa’s Lead   

Noll    : 265 = 22.4%            0                                 0                                  0

Wilson: 234 = 19.8%             31                                0                                  0

Ward  : 232 = 19.6%             33                                2                                 0

Long  : 173 = 14.6%             92                              61                               59

Chur : 163 = 13.8%           102                              71                              69     

Dare : 111 =  9.4%              154                           123                             121

        1,178 = 42.4% of Entire Vote

     In the absentee, the Council took 731 votes with 62.1% of the vote. The 3 challengers took 447 votes with 37.9% of the vote. The Council was leading the challengers with 284 votes with a 24.2% lead. When compared to the vote from precincts 1 through 3, the Council’s lead over the challengers increased 53.1%. We can only conclude the absentee vote was also tampered with through voter registration fraud.

The absentee results were release first to cover up the polling fraud. In the absentee, Ward started with a 59 vote lead over Long and Noll started with a 92 vote lead over Long before the results for the polling vote was released.

The Council’s increase in their lead over the challengers is completely astronomical and out right ridiculous. In the first 3 precincts, the election was a tight race with the exception of Wilson and Dare. It’s probable all 3 Council members would have been re-elected any way, however, the officials were making sure with complete over kill. There is no doubt the officials intentionally made an example of old rivals. For many years, Churchill and Dare have spoke out in public against the Council and the corruption at City Hall.

During the campaign, the City planted flat out lied in the Signal Tribune. In a letter to the Editor, titled,  ”Integrity of information in question” City Commissioner, Tom Benson, wrote a well written letter with big fancy words attacking the challenger’s character. Benson claiming Dare was both a liar and a hypocrite! When Dare spoke of view protection during the campaign, Benson claimed the Council had never changed the view ordinance as Dare stated in public. In the mid 90s, the ordinance was altered and many people lost their views as a result. In fact, after Dare signed his own “personal view protection plan,” according to Forester and the CCSH, Dare lost 95% of his ocean view to new housing. Benson didn’t mention this fact. Instead, Benson claimed Dare supported the giant condos when he was on the Council and  cared nothing of view protection in the past. When Dare spoke of the City’s financial stability establish in the 1980s, Benson gave the credit to the present Council. Benson promoted the Council and claimed the challengers would only create chaos if given the power of office. Benson’s letter was nothing more then well written trash. The only truth in Benson’s letter is the title and it points directly at Benson and the City Council.

City Commissoner and Associate Publisher of the Signal Tribune, Steve Strichart, published an article referring to “Shady Candidates and Corruption in the Past.” This slander was directed at Churchill and Dare. Unlike the present Council, Churchill and Dare wouldn’t sell out to the developers which cost them their seats on the Council. Now you know the corruption in the past is sitting in the City Council chambers. Since the 80s, the Signal Tribune has served as a propaganda platform to mislead the pubic in which Strichart’s article is a prime example. Back in the early 90s, the Signal Tribune worked side by side with Forester and the CCSH. Furthermore, if not for the financial support by the City, the Signal Tribune would have gone bankrupt long ago. It’s widely known the city controls the Signal Tribune. Both Benson and Strichart were appointed by the City Council to City commissions in Signal Hill and they received a pay check from the City. The fact that both Strichart and Benson were employed by the city was never mentioned. Strichart’s article was signed,” Associate Publisher” and Benson letter was signed,” Resident of Signal Hill.” Be aware of what you read in the local press.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the City Council supported the people who put them in office. It was this Council that laid down the financial foundation that the present Council takes credit for. The City gets most it’s in come through sells tax with in the city. In the early 80s, the City Treasury was nearly empty. It was the previous Council that brought in the Auto Mall, the Home Depot, the Price Club which is now Costco and numerous other businesses in the 1980s. These companies supply the bulk for city’s income. The present Council also takes credit for the single family housing. In the mid 90s, condos lost their popularity and the Council simply followed the money. The three things the present Council can take credit for is the two strip joint in Signal Hill, the new garbage recycling center and the fact that they are incredible liars. Credit should go where credit is due.

All 5 elections fixed in the past show the exact same pattern. The tampering is always found in the last precincts and the absentee vote. In all elections that show no  signs of tampering, the candidate’s average or voter support remained consistent in each precinct. Their absentee vote was also consistent with their polling vote. In the 4 election in question, we find the exact opposite. The vote in the first precincts is like night and day compared to the vote in the last precincts and the absentee vote.

So far, we have covered some of the election fraud in Signal Hill. This is an example of the corruption behind the fraud. When you build a new house in Signal Hill, you must pay the city an Environmental Impact Fee, if you don’t meet the city’s dead line for completion. This has nothing to do with the fee. The fee pays for city services for the increase in the city’s population. After ComStock built about 1,400 new homes in Signal Hill, the City Council waved all of the impact fees. This completely stinks to high Heaven with kick back money. The developers save Millions on Millions of dollars and the city lost Millions on Millions of dollars. Regardless of the Council’s excuse, waving the fee was given before they ever broke ground. This is why the Council installed their fee waving policy in the first place and this is why the developer’s money put the majority of Council members in office with the exception of Wilson. The public was never told how much money was actually waved. There is a multitude of corruption in Signal Hill, however, if we covered all of the corruption, this report would turn into a book.

So make no mistake, both the Council and the city paper work for special interest and not for you. The only possible reason the city officials would risk prison by fixing their own election is the TAX PAYER”S MONEY.

Copes of the election documents showing the candidate’s vote by precinct and absentee are available by Email at fraud3607@yahoo.com or ccapcsh@yahoo.com

PLEASE leave a comment and express your opinion. Good or bad, we would like to hear from you.

Written by Concerned Citizens against Political Corruption in Signal Hill

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

City Officials Commit Election Fraud In 2007

        On March 6, 2007, Council member’s Tina Hanson and Larry Forester ran for re-election against Nancy Long and Edward Villanueva. City Clerk Cathy Pacheco and City Treasurer Emerson Fersch ran unopposed for re- election.

After obtaining City election documents, we’ve found massive election fraud. The guilt points directly at the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorneys, the City Clerk, the former Deputy City Clerk and the Signal Tribune news paper. The documents completely counter dick what the City Clerk, the Deputy City Clerk and the Signal Tribune told the public.  On or about March 22, 2007, Nancy Long filed a Law suit against the City citing fraud. This matter was never resolved.

      On Election Day, 96% of the entire vote was counted from the polling and mailed absentee ballots. Hansen had 427 votes with 27.1% of the vote, Long had 416 votes with 26.4%, Forester had 407 votes with 25.9% and Villanueva had 320 votes with 20.3%. Long finished with a 9 votes lead over Forester. Forester needed 10 more votes then Long to win by a single vote.

     After the polls closed, Senior Election Official, City Clerk Cathy Pacheco, announced to the public and the press that 20 absentee ballots were handed in at the polls and 13 provisional ballots were cast with a total of 33 remaining ballots in which Long took at least 18 votes. With a maximum of 33 votes per candidate, Forester needed a minimum of 28 votes with 84.8% of the ballots  containing a vote for Forester. In 96% of the vote, about 40% to 50% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. To overcome a 9 vote deficit was impossible, and Forester had already lost. 

After Pacheco’s announcement, Forester told the press, “He needed 21 votes from the remaining 33 ballots to win.” With each ballot containing either 1 or 2 votes, the number of remaining votes was completely unknown. Any kind of prediction was completely impossible. Yet, Forester was correct, except, he forgot to add the winning vote. With 21 votes, Forester would tie with Long, he needed 22 votes to win. The question is, where did Forester get the number 21? The ballots were supposedly sealed in their envelopes and the count wasn’t announced until two days later. With that, there’s only one explanation. Forester had to know before hand,  how many votes Long would take in the remaining ballots, two days before the ballots were counted on March 8, and the evidences was found in the City’s Resolution Document.

Before Pacheco’s announcement, at least 6 absentee ballots were removed or pillaged with votes for Long. This left Long with only 12 votes in the remaining ballots. Forester added Long’s 12 remaining votes to his 9 vote deficit to get the number 21. There is no other explanation, and the document clearly shows 6 absentee ballots were missing from the count. In the remaining ballots, an unknown number of illegal ballots were also added to Forester’s tally.

On Election Day, 1,570 votes were counted from 851 ballots, only one half of one percent, separated Long and Forester’s tally. On March 8, 65 votes were counted from the remaining ballots. Forester finished in first place with 22 votes and 33.8% of the vote. Long finished in last place with 12 votes and only 18.4% of the vote with a difference of 15.4% between Long and Forester’s tally. In the remaining 4% of the entire vote, exactly 2/3 or 66.6% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. Forester over came a 20 vote deficit behind Hansen with more 3 votes then Hansen.               

Forester’s prediction of 21 votes and Pacheco’s announcement of 33 remaining ballots was reported in the Long Beach Press Telegram on March 7.

On March 8, in the weekly edition of the Signal Hill Signal Tribune, public notice was announced for the public ballot count, conducted at 9:00 am that morning. This violated of State election code 15401(2). This code requires at least a 48 hour public notice before ballots can be legally counted in public. In the same article, the paper also reported, 36 remaining ballots with no explanation for the 3 extra ballots.

When asked at City Hall on March 8, Deputy City Clerk, Vivian Munson stated, 3 provisional ballots were misplaced and she found the ballots on her desk the morning of March 7. If the ballots were found out side of the sealed, voted ballot box the day after the election, the ballots would have to be disqualified. Later, Munson completely denied her statement. However, many people heard Munson’s statement on March 8. The truth is, no ballots were misplaced, nor did Munson find ballots on her desk, Forester was 3 provisional votes short of the re-election.

Two days after the election was over, 3 more provisional ballots were added to Forester’s tally. The 3 illegal ballots were counted right after they were made public,  before an official challenge could be filed.

On the morning of March 8, City Clerk Pacheco counted 20 absentees and 16 provisional ballots in public. However, the Resolution Document states, “On March 8, 2007, at 9:00 am, the City Clerk and the sworn election canvass board counted the remaining 26 absentees and 13 provisional ballots in public.” The document shows 39 remaining ballots, that number was reduced to 33 remaining ballots and then increased to 36 remaining ballots. The document shows the official number of remaining ballots in the permanent records. This document is signed by City Clerk Pacheco with the Resolution # 2007-03- 5597 and dated March 13, the same day the ballots and election material was sealed from public inspection.

Their own document confirms they fixed the ballots and then sealed the evidence. Pacheco lied to the public and the press in a conspiracy to commit fraud and the Signal Tribune was directly involved. The Publisher of the Signal Tribune, Neena Strictart, was present in the tiny City Council Chambers when Pacheco announced loud and clear, there were only 33 remaining ballots. Note; no provisional or handed in absentee ballots were disqualified according to the city’s Canvass Document.

On March 6, 819 absentee votes were counted from 438 ballots, only two tenths of one percent, separated Long and Forester’s tally. On March 8, after 40 absentee votes were counted from 20 ballots, 75% or every 3 out of 4 ballots in the remaining 2.4% of the absentee vote contained a vote for Forester. Forester took 15 votes with 37.5% of the vote. Longs took 8 votes and only 20% with a difference of 17.5% between Long and Forester’s tally.                               

Remaining Absentee Vote                                                                   March 6

March 8                             F’s Lead     H’s Lead     L’s Lead       Absentee Tally  

Hansen :  10 = 25.0%                5                  0                    0                  223 = 27.2%

Forester : {15 = 37.5%}          0                  0                     0                218 = 26.6%

Long :      {8 = 20.0%}           {7}                 2                     0                 217 = 26.4%

Villan. :      7 = 17.5%                 8                    3                     0                  161 = 19.6%

                 40 = 2.4%                                                                                  819 = 50% .

Long was not only missing 6 votes from the 6 missing absentee ballots, City officials stuffed the ballot box for Forester. Forester took 7 more votes then Long. This left Forester 3 provisional votes short of a win, which of course, explains the 3 extra ballots.                                                                                                                                                                                             Provisional Provisional Vote                                               Final Tally for March 8

Hansen :      9 = 36%                                                        19 = 29.2%       

Forester :  {7 = 28%}                                                     22 = 33.8%       

 Villan. :      5 = 20%                                                         12 = 18.4%     

Long :       {4 = 16%}                                                       12 = 18.4%     

.                25 = 1.5%                                                      65 = 4%

    Pacheco : 15 Votes                  Fersch : 16 Votes

In the provisional vote, 25 votes were counted from 16 ballots. Long took 4 votes with 16% of the vote, Villanueva took 5 votes with 20%, Forester took 7 votes with 28% and Hansen took 9 votes with 36%.

There is no question, Forester is given 3 extra votes from the 3 illegal ballots. Forester defeats Long with a single vote.

It’s unknown if Long and Forester actually tied or if provisional ballots were also pillaged from Long. Long’s average dropped 10.4%. 

If we remove the 3 extra ballots, Hansen takes 47.3% of the vote. Pacheco and Fersch exceeded the maximum vote of 13 votes per candidate with 15 and 16 votes. All 4 incumbents received illegal votes from the 3 illegal ballots. This was an attempt to hide Forester’s ill gotten votes.

If you find all of this confusing, this should clear things up.

If this election was a horse race lasting exactly 100 seconds, after 96 seconds of the race, the horse named Larry was trailing the horse named Nancy by 9 lengths, and the horse named Larry was trailing the horse named Tina by 20 lengths. However, in the last 4 seconds of the race, Larry gained 10 lengths over Nancy, passing Nancy by 1 length and Larry gained 23 lengths over Tina, passing Tina by 3 lengths with the all time come back from be hind win in horse racing history and the last thing to see was the rear end of the horse named Larry.

In plain English and common horse sense, it was impossible to overcome a 9 vote deficit and the race was over!!! However, the fraud on March 8, was only the tip of the iceberg. We also found massive ballot tampering in the polling and mailed absentee vote as well.

The polls only had an 8% voter turn out. With only 413 polling voters, ever vote was extremely important and only a dozen or so votes ahead was a strong lead.

Community Center Polling Place       2.8% V.T.O        144 Ballots

Precincts: 1, 2, 3               L’s Lead          H’ Lead        F’ Lead     Ballot Average

Long      : 79 = 31.1%                  0                      0                  0                   54.8%

Hansen  : 68 = 26.7%                {11}                   0                   0                   47.2%

Forester : 56 = 22.0%            {23}                  12                   0                  38.8%

Villan.   : 51 = 20.0%                   28                    17                 {5}                  35.4%

            254 = 33.8% of Polling Vote

At the Community Center polling place, 144 ballots were cast from precincts 1 through 3. Long took 79 votes with 31.1% of the vote and 54.8% of the voters had cast a vote for long. Forester took 56 votes with 22% of the vote and 38.8% of the voters had cast a vote for Forester. Long was leading Forester with 23 votes and Long was leading Hansen with 11 votes. Forester was leading Villanueva with only 5 votes. This vote produced about 1/3 or 33.8% of the polling vote.

Discovery Well Park Polling Place            1.4% V. T. O.        72 Ballots 

 Precincts: 4            H’s Lead       L’s Lead          F’ Lead               Tally

Hansen : 36 = 28.3%          0                   0                      0                    104 = 27.2%

Long     : 34 = 26.7%     {2}                  0                      0                    113 = 29.6%    

Forester: 33 = 25.5%      3                  {1}                     0                    89 = 23.3%

Villan.  : 24 = 18.8%          12                  10                    {9}                   75 = 19.7%

             127 =16.9% of Polling Vote                                                381 = 50.7%

NOTE; Long only takes 1 vote over Forester, Hansen takes 2 votes over Long and Forester takes 9 votes over Villanueva.

Willow Ridge Polling Place       1.5% V.T.O.                     77 Ballots

Precinct 5                     L’s Lead           {V’s Lead}           F’s Lead               Tally

Long     : 39 = 26.8%             0                        0                          0                152 = 28.8%

Hansen : 34 = 23.4%           {5}                      {3}                      {1}             138 = 26.2%

Forester: 35 = 24.1%        {4}                       {2}                       0               124 = 23.5%

Villan.  : 37 = 25.5%              2                            0                         0               112 = 21.2%

             145 = 19.3% of Polling Vote                                                       526 = 70%

At the Discovery Well Park and Willow Ridge polling places, 272 ballots were cast from precincts 4 and 5. These two polling places produced about 1/3 or 36.2% of the polling vote. In this vote, we suspect sabotage. Long only took 5 votes over Forester and 3 votes over Hansen. Long was leading Forester with 28 votes and Long was leading Hansen with 14 votes. Forester was leading Villanueva with only 12 votes.  At this point, 70% of the polling vote and about 1/3 or 32.1% of the entire vote was cast.

With the majority of voters supporting Long, and with such a low voter turn out, it was impossible to overcome a 28 vote deficit and again, Forester had already lost. However, at this point, we found conclusive sabotage. Long never took another vote over Hansen or Forester.

ChristianCenter                         2.3% V.T.O.                  120 Ballots

Precunct 6                              H’s Lead          F’s Lead                        Tally

Hansen : 66 = 29.3%                  0                           0                           204 = 27.1%

Long     : 47 = 20.9%                {19}                    {18}                         199 = 26.4%

Forester: 65 = 28.8%                1                             0                           189 = 25.1%

Villan.  : 47 = 20.9%                    19                          18                          159 = 21.1%

            225 = 30% of Polling Vote                                                     751 = 46% of the entire vote.

At the Christian Center polling place, were the last 120 polling ballots were cast from precinct 6. Long finished in last place with 47 votes and only 20.9% of the vote. Hansen took 66 votes with 29.3% of the vote. Forester took 65 votes with 28.8%. Hansen took 19 over votes Long. Forester took 18 votes over Long. The remaining 30% of the polling vote is identical to the fraud on March 8. Compared to the Community Center, Long’s ballot average dropped 15.7% from 54.8% to 39.1%. Forester’s ballot average increased 15.3% from 38.8% to 54.1%. Long was missing a large number of votes and Forester’s lead over Villanueva nearly tripled. Hansen was now in the lead, and Forester was back in the race.          

Mailed Absentee Vote       8.5% V.T.O.         438 Voters

March 6                                 H.’Lead         F.’Lead          L.’Lead             Tally 

Hansen : 223 = 27.2%                 0                      0                        0             233 = 27.1%

Forester: 218 = 26.6%             0                       0                        0            233 = 27.1%

Long     : 217 = 26.4%              6                      {1}                       0           225 = 26.1%

Villan.  : 161 = 19.6%                 62                   {57}                     56          168 = 19.5%

.              819 = 97.6% of Absentee Vote                              859 = 50% of the entire vote.

The polls produced 46% of the entire vote and the mailed absentee produced 50% of the vote. After 1/3 of the entire vote was cast at the polls, Hansen took 32 votes over Long. Forester took 30 polling votes and 57 absentee votes over Villanueva with only a 4% difference between the polls and the mailed absentee. Obviously, the mailed absentee ballots were also fixed. In the remaining 2/3 of the entire vote, Forester’s lead over Villanueva doubled 8 times with 97 votes. This is conclusive fraud. When a candidate’s lead goes from 12 votes to 97 votes in the remaining 2/3 of the vote, you can bet the farm the ballots were tampered with. According to the Law of averages, Forester should only take about 30 some odd votes over Villanueva.

In the polling vote, 18% 0r 75 ballots contained a single vote. In the mailed absentee vote, only 7% or 57 ballots contained a single vote. There were 25 more mailed absentee ballots then polling ballots. There should be more absentee ballots with a single vote then polling ballots. It’s highly probable the officials cast illegal votes for Forester on the absentee ballots with a single vote. Long finished with 26.4% of the polling vote and 26.4% of the mailed absentee vote. Long was also missing absentee votes.

The mailed absentee results were released before the polling results to cover up the polling fraud.  Forester started in second place with a 57 vote lead over Villanueva and a one vote lead over Long before the polling results were released to the public on Election night.

 Obviously, ballots were pillaged from Long and illegal ballots were added for Forester. After the polls closed, there was plenty of time to fix the polling ballots before the election results were made public later that evening. The mailed absentee ballots were fixed on or before Election Day.

As long as the officials in charge of city election are honest, the elections are honest. In this election, all ballots were verified by Pacheco and Munson who were simply entrusted to conduct a fair, honest and impartial election. This was the only guarantee we had this election was honest. There is no big brother overseeing city election. That responsibility is past on to the voters.

The vote at the Community Center is the only vote that shows no signs of tampering. By using the candidate’s average at the Community Center, we can estimate the candidate’s final tally. In all election, after 1/3 of the polling vote is cast, a candidate’s average is well established. Their average should remain consistent through the election. This is only a measuring tool and is not met to be exact. However, only 3 votes are unaccounted for do to the decimal points.

Estimated Final Tally

Community  /  Calculated    L          H          F         Official           Prediction Center                     {Tally}     Led     Led     Led      {Tally}                  Results .

Long  : 74 = 31.1% = {508}      0         0         0   {428} = 26.1%    [80 Missing Votes]

Hansen :68 = 26.7% = {437}   {71}    0          0     {446} = 27.2%    [9 Extra Votes]

Forester:56 = 22.0% = {360}  {148}    77      0     {429} = 26.2%    [69 Extra Votes]

Villan.  : 51 = 20.0% = {327}    181     109   [{33}]  {332} = 20.3%   [5 Extra Votes]

              254 = 1/3      1,632 = 99.8%                       1,635 Votes Total                             Candidate’s average or percentage of votes taken: Long, 74 votes times 100 equals 7,400, divided by 254 votes total equals 31.1%.                                                 Calculated Tally: Long, 1,635 Votes total Times 31.1% equals 508.4 Votes using the % Key on a calculator.

The prediction shows Hansen and Villanueva’s average remained consistent with less then a one percent difference between the Community Center and their final tally. The prediction also shows  Forester should only take about 33 votes over Villanueva, not 97 votes. We can conclude about 2/3 of Forester’s vote was fraudulent. The table graph  shows conclusive fraud. Long easily defeated Hansen and Forester on Election Day. In fact, after the vote at the Community Center was cast, this election was over. Long was a run away candidate and it took everything the officials had to stop her.

After the remaining ballots were counted on March 8, the fraud was complete. However, the officials still needed to cover up the evidence from Long and the public.

Case in point, if Long called for a recount, she would gain access to all ballots and related material with State election code 15630. This would allow for a full investigation for fraud.

In a attempt to cover up the fraud, a ballot containing votes for Hansen and Forester was removed from a ballot box and planted in a container called a “precinct material tub.” This created a discrepancy in the records with one missing ballot.

      On March 8, right after Forester was declared the winner by a single vote, Pacheco called for recount overAn unexplained discrepancy in the records.” On March 12, the day of the recount, both Pacheco and Munson announced to the public,” A missing ballot was found stuck to the lid of a ballot box” and the discrepancy was resolved. Many people heard this statement on March 12.

Although fact is stranger than fiction, finding an invisible ballot, magically stuck to the lid of a ballot box was pure fiction. The city’s Canvass Document states, one missing ballot was found the day after the election by Deputy City Clerk Munson in a precinct material tub. The document also states, ”Since the ballot was not kept with the other ballots in the sealed voted ballot box, the Assistant City Attorney instructed that the ballot not be counted.” According to this document dated March 12, on March 8, Pacheco called for a recount over an unexplained discrepancy that was resolved the day before on March 7, the day after the election. Their own document proves Pacheco and Munson lied to the public about finding the missing ballot stuck to the lid of a ballot box and the recount was both illegal and a fraud.

The recount provided the time to finalize the election and seal the ballots and related material from Long and the public. Now if Long called for a recount, she must obtain a Court order from a Judge to unseal the ballots at her own expense. This would result in a lengthy and expensive Court battle between Long and the City Attorneys. The material could send the guilty straight to prison including the Attorneys.

In an election with a one vote decision and one unsecured ballot, (The missing ballot) the law would require entirely new election. The Canvass document states, Pacheco would seek direction from the court if the unsecured ballot could affect the out come of the election. Instead, right after the recount, Long was called to City Hall by City Attorney, David Aleshire. Long was met by both City Attorneys, the City Manager, the City Clerks and both Hansen and Forester. Long was told it was her responsibility to open the ballot and see if the election had ended in a tie. Long was not informed of the law and of course, the ballot contained votes for Hansen and Forester. If the officials didn’t already know this, they would never let Long open the ballot. This is an old lawyer’s trick; never ask a question unless you already know the answer. Long opened the ballot and the City was no longer obligated to hold another election. The officials intentionally manipulated and lied to Long in discourage her from calling a recount or taken further action. If this is not illegal, it damn well should be.

The ballots and election material are public record and anyone may examine the material on request until it’s sealed. This is a civil right. On March 9, and March 12, Nancy Long and former Council members, Nick Mekis and Carol Churchill submitted written requests for information and inspection of the material. City officials denied their requests in direct violation of their civil rights. Obviously, the officials were hiding incriminating evidence.

Long requested examination of the remaining 36 ballots. Nick Mekis was seeking a list of the names and addresses of 36 voters whose ballots were counted on March 8, to check voter registration records.

Carol Churchill, Attorney at Law, hand delivered a 9 page document to City Manager Ken Farfsing. The document contained 6 legal challenges to the election with numerous State election code violations. Challenge #6 showed voters were registered to vote using the address “2201 Cherry Ave” as their Signal Hill residence. This is a commercial building across the street from City Hall. This is strictly illegal and voter registration fraud. Churchill’s document also contained several requests to examine most of the material. The material was sealed the next day on March 13, in violation of the Law. Long still had 5 more days to call for a recount before the ballots are legally sealed.

Not one Council Member or the City Manager addressed Churchill’s document in public. Instead, Assistant City Attorney, Doug Haubert, intentionally mislead the public with false information. On March 29, in the Signal Tribune, Haubert cited an irrelevant election code and stated the election was conducted in line with the law. However, they broke about every law in the book. This statement referred to the absentee ballots delivered to the polls. The absentee ballots delivered to the polls were collected illegally in violation of State election code 3017. Election code 3017(d), clearly states, it was illegal to count these ballots. (explanation included) Pacheco counted the ballots any way knowing full well she was breaking the law. In the same article, Haubert also stated, no voter request was made to examine the election material. Both Churchill and Mekis voted in this election and this is irrelevant. Any one may examine the material. In fact, Haubert sent letters to Long, Churchill and Mekis denying their requests. Haubert lied to the public and the Press by twisting the facts with flat out lies.

On or about March 22, Long filed a law suit against the City citing fraud. Long was not suing for money, she wanted to expose the corruption at City Hall and bring out the truth. Because the City Attorneys would drag the case out for years until Long was bankrupt, Long dismissed the case with prejudice in October of 2007.

Right after Long dropped her law suit, Deputy City Clerk Munson left Signal Hill to become the City Clerk at the City of Lake Elsinore. Munson was involved  up to her elbows in fraud, and in Munson’s parting statement, she said, seeing Forester win by a single vote decision, was the most memorable time of her 23 year career with the city.  On April 10, 2008, Munson was arrested for embezzlement, grand theft and a public officer charge. Munson spent thousands dollars on herself using Signal Hill money. Because of the recent election fraud trial and a City credit card paper trail, City Manager Farfsing had no choice but to call the District Attorney’s Office. City officials cover up the crime until the story broke in the press about 7 months later. On October 30, 2008, Munson pleaded guilty to the public officer charge and the two other felonies were dropped. Munson received probation, thanks to Assistant District Attorney, Council member Tina Hansen.

NOW, Munson didn’t risk prison for nothing, the question is, was this money paid to Munson for her part in the election fraud. Munson is an authority in election code Law and there no question she played a huge part in the election fraud.

Besides, how could Munson embezzle thousands of dollars with out the city knowledge? Every penny of city’s money is accounted for by City Treasurer Fersch and City accountants. Of course all city officials claimed they had no knowledge of Munson’s thievery, or have we found the reason why the officials fix their own elections, that is the embezzlement of city money? In fact, this is the only thing that makes any sense.

For many years, we have suspected ballot tampering in Signal Hill election. No Council member has been defeated in 17 years. Thanks to Nancy Long’s popularity with the voters, your suspicions are confirmed. When the City Council is confronted with these charges, they will have nothing but denial with more lies on top of lies. No matter what they say, their own documents confirm their guilt.

(After we went public with our charges of election fraud in Jan. 2011, the city hasn’t made one single comment in their own defense so not to draw attention to the facts, their own documents confirm their guilt.)

The people of Signal Hill need to get up and vote. With 5,108 registered voters in the city at the time in 2007, 4,221 registered voters did not vote. With such a low voter turn out, it was simple and quick to fix the ballots. So Please Vote and if we start a recall,  we can finally get rid of these Political Prostitutes. There is only one possible reason these officials would risk prison by fixing their own elections to remain in power, MONEY.

State Election Code Section 3017
Only the registered absentee voter may return their ballot to the polls with one rare exception. On March 9, 2007, during an investigation conduced by Churchill, Deputy City Clerk Munson stated, Senior Election Official Pacheco did not knew if the individuals who delivered the absentee ballots to the polls, were the registered absentee voters, nor did the members of the precinct board. No records were kept. Churchill then spoke with poll watcher, Mary Justus, who observed absentee ballots delivered to the polls. Justus stated the absentee ballots were deposited directly into the ballot box and no attempt was made to verify the individual’s identity. This was done intentionally to hide the identity of individuals delivering illegal ballots for Forester. Because the precinct workers are not allowed to ask for the voter’s identification, the city used this as an excuse to stuffing the ballot box. The precinct workers are allowed to ask for the voter’s name, address and signature. This would have kept a record of the individual’s identity. Keeping records of all voters is required by Law.

California Election Code Section 3017 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
3017(a) All absentee ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the absent voter shall do either of the following:    (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the Election Official from whom it came or    (2) return the ballot in person to any member of a precinct board at any polling place within the jurisdiction.

However, an absent voter who, because of illness or other physical disability, is unable to return the ballot, may designate his or her spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister or a person residing in the same household as the absent voter to return the ballot. The ballot must, however, be received by either the election official or the precinct board before the polls close on Election day.
3017(d) The provisions of this section are mandatory, not directory, and no ballot shall be counted if it is not delivered in compliance with this section.

The ballots were not received by either the Election official or members of the Precinct Board as required by Law. There is NO question the ballots were counted illegally. There is no question, the City Officials stuffed the ballot box for Forester.

Copes of the election documents are available by Email at fraud3607@yahoo.com or ccapcsh@yahoo.com.

PLEASE leave a comment and express your opinion. Good or bad, we would like to hear from you.

CCAPCSH

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

March 1, 2011, Signal Hill City Election for City Council

 After examining the statistics and doing the math, we found some very interesting facts on the 2011 Signal Hill election. This election had the lowest voter turn out at the polls in the history of Signal Hill elections with the exception when Hansen and Forester ran unopposed in 2003. There’s a difference of 21 polling votes. However, this election had the largest voter turn out in the absentee since 1992 where we found massive vote registration fraud. In 376 polling ballots, Forester had taken 25 votes over Simmons. In 610 absentee ballots, Forester had taken 115 votes over Simmons. In every 15 votes cast at the polls, Forester took one vote over Simmons. In every 5 and a half votes cast by absentee, Forester took one vote over Simmons. Nearly three times as many absentee ballots had cast a vote for Forester then polling ballots and 82% of Forester’s lead over Simmons was cast by absentee. In the 2009 election, there were a total of 416 polling ballots and a total of 495 absentee ballots. In the 2007 election, there were a total of 413 polling ballots and a total of 458 absentee ballots. In 2011, with considerably less polling ballots then the last two elections, there were 115 more absentee ballots in 2011, then the 2009 election and 152 more absentee ballots then the 2007 election. We also found about 150 new registered voters in Signal Hill that are unaccounted for in the city’s population. The 2011 election raises hard question and this election definitely needs to be investigated.

The 376 Polling Ballots produced 38.1% of the vote with a 6.7% Voter Turn Out. The 610 Absentee Ballots produced 61.9% of the vote with a 10.9% Voter Turn Out. There were 986 Ballots Total with a 17.6% Voter Turn Out over all.      

 The polling Vote for Precincts 1 and 2, was cast at the Community Center Polling Place from 89 ballots with a 1.6% voter turn out and 8.8% of the entire vote.

Polling Vote                           [H’s Lead]              [S’s Lead]
                                                                                                                                                                                      Hansen    : 59 = 40.4%                0                                  0

Simmons : 47 = 32.1%               12                                 0

Forester  : 40 = 27.3%               19                                [7]

                   146 = 23.5% of the Polling Vote                     .

At the Community Center, Simmons is leading Forester with 7 votes. This polling place shows no sign of ballot tampering.

In the absentee vote for precincts 1 and 2, 162 ballots were cast with a 2.9% voter turn out with 15.2% of the entire vote.

Absentee Vote                       [H’s Lead]                  [F’s Lead]

Hansen     : 101 = 40.0%              0                                     0

Forester   : 90 = 35.7%                11                                   0

Simmoms : 61 = 24.2%                40                               [29]

Total:         252 = 24.3% of the Absentee Vote                   .

At this point, Hansen has 160 votes, Forester has 130 votes and Simmons has 108 votes in 24% of the total vote.

In 89 polling ballots, Simmons is leading Forester with 7 votes. In 162 absentee ballots, Forester takes 29 votes over Simmons. Forester is now leading Simmons by 22 votes. For every 20.8 votes cast at the polls, Simmons took one vote over Forester. In every 8.6 votes cast by absentee, Forester took one vote over Simmons. Well over twice as many absentee ballots were casting votes for Forester then polling ballots. This is absolutely ridiculous, there is no reason the absentee voters would vote any difference then polling voters from the same neighborhoods. 

                                                             Ballot Average

          Percentage of ballots casting votes for a particular candidate

                                       Polling                         Absentee                       Plus or Minus

Hansen    :                   66.2%                             62.3%                             Minus 3.8% 

Forester  :                [{44.9%}]                      [{55.5%}]                        [Plus 10.6%] 

Simmons :               [{52.8%}]                       [{37.6%}]                     [Minus 15.2%] 

   The plus or minus compares the polling vote to the absentee vote which would remain consistent with each other regardless of the number of ballots cast. This is evident in Hansen’s average. However, in Forester and Simmons’ average, we find the exact opposite. Forester did extremely well in the absentee and Simmons did extremely poor. This points directly at ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

The Polling Vote for Precincts 3,4 and 6,  cast at the First Family Church Polling Place, produced 179 ballots with a 3.2% voter turn out and 17.8% of the entire vote. 

  Polling Vote                          [H’s Lead]                [F’s Lead]

Hansen : 116 = 39.3%                  0                                    0

Forester : 100 = 33.8%               16                                   0

Simmons : 79 = 26.7%                37                             [{21}]

                     295 = 47.5% of the Polling Vote                     .

At this polling place, Hansen’s polling average dropped 1.1% or about 3 missing votes, Forester’s polling average increased 6.5% or about 19 extra votes and Simmons’s polling average dropped 5.4% or about 16 missing votes. With the exception of Hansen, these are huge numbers with such a low voter turn out. This points at ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

The Absentee Vote for Precincts 3,4 and 6, produced 284 ballots with a 5% voter turn out and 29.8% of the entire vote. 

Absentee Vote                     [H’s Lead]                    [F’s Lead]

Hansen : 200 = 40.4%              0                                      0

Forester : 162 = 32.7%           38                                     0

Simmons : 133 = 26.8%          67                                 {29}

                      495 = 47.7% of the Absentee Vote .             .

At this point, Hansen has 476 votes, Forester has 392 votes and Simmons has 320 votes in 71.6% of the total vote. Hansen is leading Forester with a 84 votes. Forester is leading Simmons with 72 votes.

In the absentee for precincts 3, 4 and 6, Hansen’s absentee average increased four tenth of one percent, Forester’s average dropped 3% and Simmons’s average increased 2.6%. We find little change in the absentee for the first five precincts. However, Forester is now leading Simmons with 14 polling votes and 58 absentee votes. Forester has taken FOUR times as many absentee votes over Simmons as polling votes in 268 polling ballots and 446 absentee ballots all cast from the same neighborhoods.

At the Willow Ridge polling place for precinct 5, 108 polling ballots were cast with a 1.9% voter turn out with 10.8% of the entire vote.

Polling Vote                              [H’s Lead]               [F’s Lead]

Hansen   : 69 = 38.3%                     0                                  0

Forester  : 61 = 33.8%                     8                                  0                                                                                                                                                                         Simmons:  50 = 27.7%                   19                             {11}

                    180 = 28.9% of Polling Vote                               .

Forester finished with a total of 25 polling votes over Simmons.

In the absentee vote for precinct 5, 164 ballots were cast with a 2.9% voter turn out and the remaining 9.8% of the entire vote.

Absentee vote                             F’s Lead                  H’s Lead

Hansen :  115 = 39.6%                   [1]                                0

Forester : 116 = 40.0%                    0                                  0

Simmons :  59 = 20.3%                [57]                              56 

                      290 = 27.9% of Absentee Vote                        .

Hansen finished with 660 votes, Forester finished with 569 votes and Simmons finished with 429 votes. Hansen was leading Forester with 91 votes. Forester was leading Simmons with 140 votes.

In the polling vote for precinct 5, 56.4% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. Forester takes 11 votes over Simmons in 108 ballots. In the absentee vote for precinct 5, 70.7% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. Forester took 57 votes over Simmons in 164 ballots. Forester took FIVE times as many absentee votes over Simmons as polling votes with only a 56 ballots difference between the polls and the absentee. In 72% of the absentee vote, Forester is leading Simmons with 58 votes. In the remaining 28% of the absentee vote cast at precinct 5, Forester’s lead over Simmons doubled to 115 vote. This is obvious fraud do to Voter Registration Fraud and it’s also obvious that polling ballots are missing from the count. In fact, Signal Hill has a history of  ballots missing from the count. A 2007 election document, shows 6 absentee ballots were missing from the count. This accounts for the extremely low voter turn out at the polls. However, this election was literally bombarded with absentee ballots for Forester, which accounts for the huge voter turn out in the absentee.

    In 2010, according to the California Dept. of Finance, the population in Signal Hill increased by 76 people. In 2009, the population increased by 224 people. This is exactly 300 more people in Signal Hill in this two year period. According to City Election Documents, the number of registered voters in Signal Hill increased by exactly 300 people after the 2009 election in March until the 2011 election in March. Only 48.6% of the population in Signal Hill is registered to vote. This leaves about 150 new registered voters that are unaccounted for in the city’s population and this points directly at voter registration fraud.

However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, at the end of 2010, the population in Signal Hill was only 11,016 people. According to the California Dept. of Finance, at the end of 2010, the population in Signal Hill was 11,465 people. This shows a difference of 449 extra or missing people. The U.S. Census Bureau counts the population every 10 years. The California Dept. of Finance counts the population every year. The city’s web site first displayed the number, 11,465 for population but then change the number to 11,016 for population a few mouths after the election, so take your pick.
                                                                                                                                                             The polling vote cast at the Community Center is the only vote that shows no sign of fraud. By using the candidates average at the Center, we can estimate the candidate’s finial tally according to the Law of averages. This is only a measuring tool and is not met to be exact. Example: Hansen, 1,658 votes total, times 40.4% equals 669 votes, using the % key on a calculator.

Community Center         Predicted Tally        [H’s lead]       [S’s lead]      
                                                                                                                                                                                          Hansen   : 59 = 40.4%   = {669 Votes}                      0                         0
                                                                                                                                                                                        Simmons :47 = 32.1%  = {532 Votes}                    137                       0
                                                                                                                                                     Forester : 40 = 27.3%   =  {452 Votes}                     217                  [{80}]

                   146 Vote             1,653 = 99.7% of the Finial Vote                        .

Predicted Tally          Official Tally                   Prediction Results

Hansen : 669     Minus     660     Equals               9 Missing Votes

Simmons : 532  Minus     429     Equals          103 Missing Votes

Forester : 569    Minus     452     Equals          117 Extra Votes

.                                              1,658 Votes Total

Because Hansen’s average remained consistent through out the election and shows no sign of tampering, Hansen’s prediction is accurate with in 9 votes. However, Simmons and Forester’s prediction show a huge discrepancy. There is no doubt this election was fixed through ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

By all right, Simmons should have easily won this election in first place. During Simmons campaign, he uncovered numerous hidden facts from the public and Hansen and Forester were caught telling lie after lie to cover their ass. In the end, both Hansen and Forester ended up smelling like fish. As a result, Simmons gained huge support from the voter and hundreds of visitor logged on to his campaign blog every day to stay informed and express their opinions. Matt Simmons knocked on every door in the city, and according to Simmons, not one person had any thing nice to say about Forester, Hansen didn’t do much better. 

PLEASE leave a comment and express your opinion. Good or bad, we would like to hear from you.

A cope of the election document showing the candidate’s vote by precinct and absentee are available by Email at fraud3607@yahoo.com or ccapcsh@yahoo.com

Get Rid of the Problum

Signal Hill is a tiny town infested with big city corruption. With only 2.2 square miles of land and a population of just over 11,000, only several hundred register voters actually vote in city elections. This creates the perfect set up for election fraud. With such a low voter turn out, it’s simple and quick to fix the ballots.

When times where good in the 1990’s, there where huge profits to be made in the new housing development. During the 1990′s, 1,400 new homes were built in the city.  The average cost for a new home on the hill was $750,000 dollars according to the real-estate industry. If we only put the cost at $650,000 dollars for 1,400 new homes, that’s $910,000,000 million dollars in new housing. This created the perfect motive to remain in office through election fraud and this is exactly what’s happening in Signal Hill. The City Council was working for the developers, and everybody was making money. This was confirmed when the Council waived all of the Environmental impact fees for the developers. The developers saved Millions on Millions dollars and the city lost Millions on Millions dollars. This completely stinks to high Heaven with kick back money. Regardless of the Council’s excuse, waving the fee was given before they ever broke ground. This is why the Council installed their fee waving policy in the first place and this is why the developer’s money put the majority of Council members in office.     

 Right now the city is barely hanging on by it’s fingernails but will soon fall into bankruptcy. If the city cuts payroll, pensions and lays off a large number of city employees to dramatically cut overhead, this will only be a solution for bankruptcy. The people of Signal Hill need to resolve the real problem which is the present administration at City Hall, who lie, cheat and steal to maintain control of the city which started back in 1992. It was the City Council who created this mess in the first place and the Council is still spending city money like water and the top city officials are still making outrages salaries.                                                                         

     That this city needs is lot more people in the city that are willing to stand up and be counted. We are not powerless, and there is a solution, if the people of Signal Hill would untie and organize, and because we will never beat them at the polls because they cheat, we need to recall all seven elected officials, which are, the five Council members, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer, and then demand the resignation of the City Attorney and both City Managers. We could then start over with a clean slate and elect the people we want in office with a full time City Attorney and only one City Manager both paid reasonable salaries.

All the top ten city officials are at least dirty but nearly all are filthy dirty. They have pulled every dirty trick in the book of politics and only the people of Signal Hill can do anything about it, otherwise, kiss Signal Hill goodbye and say hello to Long Beach.

 





         

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment