What examiners found that caused the Director of Elections to close the June 3rd election records to the public . . .

Note: As you may already know, Director of Elections Germaine Wong has blocked access to the investigators who found numerous suspect signatures in the voting records.

Here is the statement of Doug Comstock as to what he and others found before access to the election records was closed by the Director of Elections:

"On June 10th, at the Department of Elections, former Housing Authority Commission President Barbara Meskunas discovered approximately 20 signatures in one precinct that seemed to be from two similar hands, including several she knew not to be genuine. Upon examination (comparing with signatures on original registrations) Director Wong conceded that ten did not seem to match.

During this comparison phase it was discovered that original registrations had also been signed by the same hand. Further, the signatures of the official clerk was obviously signed differently in three places on the same document. All this occurred in a cursory examination of one precinct within about an hour's time.

Subsequently, access to voter documents was sharply curtailed, to the point of mere pretense. Newly instituted "guidelines" made viewing original registration signatures, comparing them against signatures on rosters of voters, impossible. In a parody of open-access, 12 precincts were "investigated." Seven clerks sat before computer screens displaying four signatures simultaneously; only four observers were allowed.

Rushing pell-mell through rosters, elections staff made note of signatures that were questionable forgeries. Two to four pages of suspect signatures were documented per precinct. (Twenty to forty names each.) These were recorded on notes which were surrendered to officials.

These notations were obviously thrown in the waste bin, because after a few hours, Director Germaine Wong told reporters that "only six or seven questionable signatures had been found," which merited further investigation.

Our committee was assured, at that time, as previously, however that we would be allowed access to any precincts we wished to investigate. That makes the current reversal doubly suspect. We must ask again: if there is nothing to hide, why the cover-up?"

Editor's note: Hard to believe? Yes, but here's the correspondence. This is happening in San Francisco. Believe it or not.

To receive regular e-mail updates, write us.
We won't share your address with anyone else and you can remove yourself from the list easily any time.