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 or

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


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s