Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Secretary of State Sam Reed let the dead, felons and mystery voters to steal Governership
Martin Ringhoffer | January 12, 2005 | Martin Ringhoffer

Posted on 01/13/2005 9:43:23 AM PST by ethical

January 12, 2005

Petition to Recall Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State

In accordance with RCW 29A.56.110, Initiating proceedings -- Statement -- Contents -- Verification - Definitions, the undersigned legal registered voters of the state of Washington demand the recall and discharge of Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution.

We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters in the state of Washington charge Sam Reed, of the herein stated acts of malfeasance, and acts of misfeasance while in office, and violating his oath of office, guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall.

For the purposes of this recall, as provided by state law:

(1) "Misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;

(a) Additionally, "misfeasance" in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and

(b) Additionally, "malfeasance" in office means the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.

This Petition for the Recall of Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, to the Honorable Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, is filed in accordance with RCW 29A.72.140 .

We, citizens and legal voters of the state of Washington, respectfully direct that a special election be called to determine whether or not Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, should be recalled and discharged from his office, for and on account of having committed the act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or having violated his oath of office, in the following particulars:

1. RCW 29A.04.610 Rules by secretary of state

(4) The examination and testing of voting systems for certification;

(9) Standards and procedures to ensure the accurate tabulation and canvassing of ballots;

(10) Consistency among the counties of the state in the preparation of ballots, the operation of vote tallying systems, and the canvassing of primaries and elections;

(15) Voter registration applications and records;

(19) Procedures to receive and distribute voter registration applications by mail;

(22) Procedures for canceling dual voter registration records and for maintaining records of persons whose voter registrations have been canceled;

(31) The testing, approval, and certification of voting systems;

(33) Standards and procedures to prevent fraud and to facilitate the accurate processing and canvassing of absentee ballots and mail ballots;

(35) Uniformity among the counties of the state in the conduct of absentee voting and mail ballot elections;

(36) Standards and procedures to accommodate out-of-state voters, overseas voters, and service voters;

(40) Procedures for conducting a statutory recount;

and each of us for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a legal voter of the State of Washington in the precinct and city (or town) and county written after my name, and my residence address is correctly stated, and to my knowledge, have signed this petition only once.

We, citizens and legal voters of the state of Washington, understand that Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, was elected by 1,369,421 voters, which RCW 29A.56.180 requires 25% of who voted for Sam Reed, or 342,356 signatures, to sign a petition that would be submitted to recall him from his office by state law.

In addition to violating his prescribed office duties and obligations, we, the citizens signing and filing this petition, charge Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State, with violation of the following:

RCW 42.20.100 Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor

Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.

RCW 42.20.040 False report

Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 42.20.050 Public officer making false certificate

Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

The specific violations Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, is guilty of, in accordance with RCW 43.07.030 (6) [Certification to the legislature the election returns for all officers required by the Constitution to be so certified, and certify to the governor the names of all other persons who have received at any election the highest number of votes for any office the incumbent of which is to be commissioned by the governor] are as follows:

1) King County alone counted 3,539 more votes than the number of people who actually voted.

2) King County "discovered" additional ballots 9 different times (as of 01/10/2005);

3) King County disenfranchised 300+ soldiers in Iraq who never received their ballot in time to return by the deadline;

4) Poll workers fed provisional ballots directly into counting machines, commingling them with legal ballots and circumventing the process of keeping them out of the count if they proved to be illegal.

5) Elections workers "enhanced" more than 55,000 ballots, and contrary to state law, they permanently obscured the original marks on many, preventing a review of their decisions;

6) There are at least 557 names in the Jan. 7 file for people who supposedly voted on Nov. 2, but who weren't listed in the Nov. 1 file. Only 94 of the 557 are in the Dec. 29 file. There are a number of pre-2004 registration dates among the 557, but many of these aren't in the June file. 280 of the 557 are shown to have registered on dates between Jun 7, 2004 and Oct. 2, 2004, yet did not appear in any of the earlier versions of the King County voter databases.

7) Seattle's Precinct 1823 counted 343 ballots, which is 71 more ballots than the 272 voters who cast them. This is the single largest discrepancy between ballots and voters in all of King County. Nearly all of the discrepancy is due to "provisional ballots".

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: giveitupguys; petition; reed; remove; sam; sorelosermangop; sorelosers; stealingelections; themostcorruptstate; to; votefraud; washingtonstate; youlost
To: Washington State freepers: Would like to set up a "recallsamreed.wa" or some such thing to post this petition, can anybody help? Rossi court date changed from this Friday to next Thursday...we need to take action.
1 posted on 01/13/2005 9:43:24 AM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ethical

Seattle's Precinct 1823 counted 343 ballots, which is 71 more ballots than the 272 voters who cast them....
Just the libs' normal modus operandi -- just keep stuffing the ballot box until we win...invent voters, dead voters especially, multiple voting by individuals, etc, etc...more votes counted than registered voters...

Nothing new. Lib state, lib crime.

2 posted on 01/13/2005 9:49:36 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ethical
I agree.

The Olympian says that we need 660,000 valid signatures. Ain't it funny how "validity" doesn't seem to matter when it comes to counting ('rat) votes!

"Reed, who was sworn in for a second term Wednesday, said through a spokeswoman that he is not worried by the recall threat. "He is simply upholding his oath of office," spokeswoman Trova Hutchins said late Wednesday, defending Reed's handling of the governor's election."

In other words, "As long as I control the vote count, I control the outcome"
3 posted on 01/13/2005 9:53:04 AM PST by rockrr (Revote or Revolt! It's up to you Washington!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ethical

What the CRATS don't realize that if this voter fraud continues, it will soon be the start of a civil war. The majority of Americans see this as a threat to our very freedom. Don't take this lightly.

4 posted on 01/13/2005 10:06:44 AM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; HairOfTheDog; Ramius; Scott from the Left Coast

So using King County rules, we can just count 660,000 signatures, while only having 500,000 on paper. Just claim that the missing signatures are people that 'forgot' to sign. And dead people and felons can sign. And if someone wants to sign twice, no problem.

If it's no big deal to Dean Logan that these things happen in every election, it should be good enough for a recall petition too.

5 posted on 01/13/2005 10:09:23 AM PST by ecurbh (.. .-.. --- ...- . .... .- .. .-. --- ..-. - .... . -.. --- --.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ethical

we cannot allow Democrats to steal elections. We must fight them every time. If we are silent and surrender to them, it will only be a matter of time before our Constitution is completely destroyed and we become just another socialist nation.

6 posted on 01/13/2005 10:12:13 AM PST by OldCorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh

Au contraire - NOW that he understands how much we'd like to have every signature examined for it's validity, the SoS office could do no less than to insure that each person who signed the petition is legitimate.

Where do I sign up?

7 posted on 01/13/2005 10:20:15 AM PST by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ethical

Looks to me like the Dims went too far, too publicly in Washington State. They may actually turn a blue state red.

8 posted on 01/13/2005 10:25:24 AM PST by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ethical

Is Ringhofer a some-times-candidate, activist, Boeing employee? Is there a link to this writing?

9 posted on 01/13/2005 10:27:57 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

yes that is the martin. he does not have a web site and has not been active for a few years.

10 posted on 01/13/2005 10:32:46 AM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ethical

I lived in the "Peoples Republic of King County" for 17 years and was set up as a permanaent absentee voter. When I moved back home to Texas six years ago my business interests in Washington required me to keep a mail forwarding address in Seattle. It took me three years to get the King County election officials to stop sending me ballotts for elections. I thought at the time how easy it would have been to set up a fradulent voter scheme. I guess I was not the only one to figure it out.

11 posted on 01/13/2005 10:36:23 AM PST by BubbaBobTX (I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ethical; All

Rossi v. Gregoire: How Elections Are Stolen
various FR links & stories | 01-13-05 | the heavy equipment guy

12 posted on 01/13/2005 10:47:46 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh; Scott from the Left Coast

I'm not sure that this isn't being a bit unfair to Sam Reed. I think he likely had little choice but to do what the law said he had to do. He's not the one that gets to say whether an election is flawed, even when it might be manifestly so, as is this one.

In fact, he had to certify the election *in order* for a contest to be the next step.


13 posted on 01/13/2005 5:26:11 PM PST by Ramius (Gregoirovich Nyet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ethical

The Sam Reed Recall effort is headed up by Linda Jordan of Seattle.

The Recall Effort has a website:

14 posted on 01/16/2005 10:42:16 AM PST by martin_ringhofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ethical
To all Washington state freepers. This complaint and petition has almost been finalized after review of the RCW's. The petition and complaint on this post were drafts. The blog, '' will have the finalized version posted by Sunday night and the complaint will be served on Tuesday, however, until the Attorney General approves the language on the petition we can not gather any signatures.
We have an email now, ''.
15 posted on 01/16/2005 10:42:44 AM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Sam Reed took an oath of office.

What is unfair about expecting Sam Reed to keep his word?

16 posted on 01/16/2005 10:43:43 AM PST by martin_ringhofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Exactly my sentiments. How futile to lay the blame at Reed's doorstep. The Judge won't give any creedance to a frivolous recall. The ABC of recall is written so that a reasonable person can understand it. Being reasonable, there is an issue that can't be skirted. Mixing apples and oranges doesn't spell recall. In any recall effort, mixing of past tense with present tense will get you fruit salad without the proper dressing. Any proper initiating portion of a recall petition to be properly filed is actually filed during the present elected official's actual seated term that has not expired and the charges listed coincide with the term the actual action or actions are alledged to have taken place. Case in question, a 2005 recall of Reed falls after the fact, after Reed's four year term has expired. First grade stuff folks!

17 posted on 01/27/2005 3:12:10 PM PST by Sherwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Forget counting the number of signatures needed for a recall of Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed. Take account of which year is which term. Be it not criminal, what Sam Reed did in his prior term has no bearing whatsoever on what Sam Reed has done in his newly elected term. Based on the theory behind this recall we can recall backwards so let us see how far back we can go. Ten years sounds like a good number. Gee, maybe we can even go back further if they are still seated. The recall petition to remove Sam Reed is sorry thing. The petition is badly wanting. Nothing like wanting to beat a dead horse.

18 posted on 01/27/2005 3:54:58 PM PST by Sherwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherwood

I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds good ;'}

19 posted on 01/27/2005 4:27:26 PM PST by rockrr (Revote or Revolt! It's up to you Washington!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: not_apathetic_anymore

You have posed a very good question that brings up the subject of how can a web based recall happen. I can't. There will not be a signing of the Reed recall petition by internet. There are some very astringent regulations for Washington State recalls. First comes the question of the recall's validity. One report said that not even Tim Eyman could not do it with all his money. Sounds about right. Law and Order rules. I am not a betting man but I wager this Reed recall to have been declared dead upon arrival. They are just waiting to bury it.

20 posted on 01/27/2005 4:37:41 PM PST by Sherwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Some simpler language maybe. Washington's present Secretary of State is not subject to recall after less than a month in office when the election mishaps as charged occured last year. Last year's term is dead and gone bye bye. A recall is not designed for a prior term in office that has already expired. A recall is designed to remove an elected official during an existing term of office. The legal issue places the recall barking up the wrong tree.

21 posted on 01/27/2005 5:00:55 PM PST by Sherwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherwood

Thanx for the clarification.

I agree.

I believe that we're stuck with Mr. Reed for awhile....

22 posted on 01/27/2005 5:17:09 PM PST by rockrr (Revote or Revolt! It's up to you Washington!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Forlorn as many are over election results in general, a smoking gun may not be enough when the big guns have the machine gun behind them called the press and that root of all evil named Demon Mucho Grande Moola. I am refering to government holding hands with big brother corporate, turbins and old money. Nine times out of ten, voters throw people in government and throw them out only to find the one they threw in they are not any more happy with than the one they threw out. The beat still goes on. Looking into King County election records to discover the evils lurking there is a cake walk compared to trying to get discovery of evils at the Big White House where millions are being spent on building an expansion, a city like underground bomb shelter for Pres. (W) and his Merry Men. I recall growing up when all the rich had a bomg shelter during the war. Why all the terror afoot, why can't we all have one. We are somebody too. Maybe Bush can squeeze that in his budget so we all could feel as safe as (W). We are a free nation. I treasure that freedom and hold it close to my heart but freedom never comes without it's price. Many die for it. Freedom of information does not come so easily as it should. Do not assume that America's heads of state do not control their own form of propaganda as all other countries do. Evil lurks where evil lurks and that is everywhere. While people are busy checking the King Co. and other voter rolls to uncover the felons, the deceased, the chads and the provision ballots, one after another evil is being born daily here as well as abroad. While the election results may not have been a bed of roses, it beats the hell out of being born in Iraq.

23 posted on 01/27/2005 9:34:51 PM PST by Sherwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Tossof vs. Havealot

Take a small town in Eastern Washington.

1,000 residents. 800 US citizens; 100 immigrants with green card; 100 illegal aliens w/o green card.

Of the 800 residents, who are US citizens, 400 register to vote; the other 400 don't register to vote for reasons of their own.

Of the 100 immigrants with a green card, 50 register to vote and sign the oath that they are a citizens. Likewise, 50 of the illegal aliens register to vote because they are not required to provide proof of citizenship.

In this example, 500 people are registered to vote. An election is held and 300 turn out to vote. The 300 are made up of the following:

[1] 150 are US citizens registered to vote
[2] 50 are provisional voters who never registered to vote; nobody knows who they are
[3] 25 are dead people who were registered at the time they died
[4] 25 are felons or convicts who where registered before they became a felon or a convict; they served their time and never had their privilege to vote reinstated
[5] 25 are immigrants with a green card, who registered to vote
[6] 25 are illegal aliens who registered to vote

Candidates in this scenario require 151 votes to prevail and win the election.

Candidates who receive 149 votes lose.

In this example, there are two candidates for Mayor: There is Dee Dee Tossof and Tina Havealot.

Tina Havealot gets 155 votes.

Dee Dee Tossof gets 145 votes.

Question #1: Who wins the election?
Question #2: How many people should have been "entitled" to vote? Why?
Question #3: Should each vote cast be worth 1/300th?
Question #4: Was anyone's vote stolen? If yes or no, why?
Question #5: Should every vote count? If yes or no, why?
Question #6: Who should win this election and why?
Question #7: What should happen with the outcome of the election, and why.

24 posted on 03/20/2005 10:26:12 AM PST by martin_ringhofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson