Using Math to prove the 2022 Recall Gascon Petition gathered enough Valid Signatures.

Judicial Watch has pulled the scab off of a very serious situation involving Registrars who do not keep their voter rolls current. It becomes increasingly difficult to remove an elected official through a recall petition drive because the 10% Petition signature threshold fraudulently inflates as the number of no longer valid voters kept on the voter rolls keeps rising.

A 2017 Judical watch lawsuit results in over 1.2 million voters being removed from the 2023 L.A. registrar voter rolls.  

However, the 1.2 million L.A. voters being removed opens up a Pandora's box of issues related to what is the correct number of valid signatures needed for a Recall Petition campaign.

According to the LA Times, To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July (2022); the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

When the L.A. Registrar's office attempted to quantify how many total signatures the Recall Gascon Petition needed to gather, what L.A. Voter roll total were they using? Was the L.A. Registrar's office using a 2020 voters roll that had minimally removed voters from their voter's rolls going back a decade or longer, or were they using an updated 2020 voters roll that included subtracting a significant percentage of the 1.2 million voters that were recently removed from the LA voters roll?

When the LA Registrar gave the Recall Gascon Committee a signature goal of 566,857 signatures they needed to collect, how many of the 1.2 million no longer valid voters were still being counted to inaccurately inflate the Petition Signature Requirement? 

The difference in Recall signatures needed to remove an elected official before and after 1.2 million voters has been removed is statistically astounding. 5,668,570 total L.A. voters requires 10%, or 566,857 valid petition signatures for the recall to be approved. However, since we know that 600,000 L.A. voters had not voted in 10 years or longer as of 2022, we can at the very least remove 60,000 petition signatures from the total needed for the Gascon recall to have had enough signatures.

The properly updated number of petition signatures needed to qualify would have been at the most 10% of 5,068,570, or 506,857. The Gascon Recall Committee produced 520,000 valid signatures, also known as 13,143 signatures MORE than what should have been the 2020 Gascon Recall Petition minimum needed to qualify. 

The 600,000 L.A. voter roll reduction is a VERY CONSERVATIVE AMOUNT. As of 2020 when Gascon ran for office, the actual number of L.A. voters who should have been removed from the L.A. voter's rolls was probably closer to 650,000 to 750,000, which would have meant 65,000 to 75,000 less valid petition signatures than the L.A. Registrar's office had mandated.

The question that a court needs to decide is what is a fair estimate of the total L.A. voters roll as of 2020 when Gascon was elected. I doubt any court would claim the increasing numbers of L.A. voters who were no longer eligible in 2020 was zero, nor would the court agree that all 1.2 million voters should be subtracted from the L.A. Voters roll in 2020. Clearly a number in the middle would be a fair result, and if that number is 400,000 or higher out of 1.2 million, the Gascon Petition recall already has enough valid signatures. Considering that 600,000 voters had not voted since 2012, 650,000 to 750,000 sure seems like a conservative estimate, which is well above the 400,000 threshold needed for the Recall Gascon Petition to have been accepted, AS IS.

No matter how one slices it, it looks like the Gascon Recall petition already has enough Valid signatures with at the very least, 13,143 petition signatures to spare. 

This is the follow up article to the 1.2 million voters removed from the L.A. Voters Roll could reverse the failed 2022 George Gascon recall.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The 1.2 million voters removed from Los Angeles County Voter Rolls could reverse the failed George Gascon Recall.

The George Gascon recall drive may have been thwarted by bloated Los Angeles voter rolls that most likely inaccurately raised the recall signature threshold needed to recall George Gascon.

The recent removal of over 1 million, 2 hundred thousand voters from the LA voter Rolls may, or may not, have inflated the number of petition signatures required for the George Gascon recall vote. And, even if the argument is made that that was then, this is now, we would then have to ask how long was the voter roll reduction stalled before it came to be. 

Voter Roll Removal could become a quid pro quo in which LA Officials were stalling before the voters were removed from the voter rolls, thus inflating the number of signatures needed to recall George Gascon. 

Stay tuned as Daily Puma attempts a calculation to see how many less signatures the George Gascon recall actually needed.

 

Update: This excerpt is from the LA Times...To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July; the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

  

On first glance this would mean the recent removal of 1.2 million voters from the rolls has no standing in regards to the Gascon recall. However, lets backwards engineer the numbers. From a claimed 5.67 million LA voters, the new numbers reflect a drop of 1.2 million voters, meaning there are now 4.47 million voters. This would mean only 447,000 votes would now be needed to recall George Gascon. 

 

Is it fair to just suddenly jettison 1.2 million voters and claim it had no effect on recent recall attempts? DailyPUMA believes the 1.2 million votes that were removed would have to be charted on a graph as if the voter rolls were actually being cleaned up every year. Just because 1.2 million voters were removed from the voter rolls does not mean they all "rolled off" this year. A calculation would have to be made going back at least 10 years and the 1.2 million removed voters could be calculated at 120,000 per year.

2012 to 2020 equals 8 years x 120,000 per year voter attrition. That would mean 960,000 thousand more voters were on the roll in 2020 than actually existed. Instead of 5.67 million voters, the argument can be made that when Gascon was elected, there were only approximately 4.71 million voters. This in turn means the Gascon recall only needed 471,000 votes to qualify, NOT the mandated 567,000.

This also raises the issue that by not updating voter rolls, local Governments are engaging in a power grab in which voters ability to recall an official diminishes the more bloated the voter rolls actually are. This also means vote percentage totals have been significantly inaccurate, which in turn can demoralize voters into thinking their city is apathetic because of inaccurately lower voting percentage totals.

 

If I were involved in the Gascon Recall effort, I would be in court demanding the petition total required to recall Gason was based on voter rolls that were not in compliance with FEDERAL LAWS, and that a new calculation needs to be retroactively applied that would instantly make the Gascon recall valid. 

Please see the follow up to this article, "Using Math to Prove the 2022 Gascon Recall had the necessary valid signatures to be approved".

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

What is the exact difference between Russian invading Ukraine and the U.S. possibly invading Mexico to curtail the Drug Cartel's influence?

What is the exact difference between Russian invading Ukraine and the U.S. possibly invading Mexico to curtail the Drug Cartel's influence? Daily PUMA has no answer. 

Comparing Russia invading Ukraine for reasons I don't know, with the U.S. invading Mexico to reduce the footprint of the Mexican Drug Cartels are two scenarios that perplex Daily PUMA no end because maybe they have equivalence? If one is not allowed, then why allow the other one?

DailyPUMA wonders how deeply Russia is embroiled in both Central America and Mexico. By attacking Ukraine and having several nations oppose the move, did Russia also make it more difficult for the U.S. to go into at the very least, Northern Mexico to tamp down the drug cartel?

Besides the over one hundred local political candidates who are assassinated every election cycle in Mexico, apparently Avocado farmers have to have Police escorts to get their Avocado crops to market. Donald Trump had proposed the possibility of having to go into Mexico to stop the Cartel's undocumented safe passage charges, tamp down the fentanyl trade, and make it safe for Mexican citizens to run for local political office without being assassinated.

But if the U.S. were to intercede into Mexico, it would most likely be without support from Mexican Political leaders who would have no choice but to oppose such an intervention or risk being assassinated themselves.

What I don't understand about Russia's incursion is Russia is already the largest country on the planet by a 2 to 1 margin over the next largest country. Russia also had two budget surpluses in as row and were probably headed for a record high and third in a row budget surplus. Seems like Russia was already set up well with or without Ukraine under its control. Meanwhile, Europe is pretty much built out, there is not that much room left to grow. Ukraine makes an excellent buffer between Russia and Europe. Putin's unflinching willingness to destroy cities that have nothing to do with the military is pretty much proves Ukraine is needed as a bumper between Russia and Europe. 

The Mexican Drug Cartel constant warring among each other is probably causing the smaller Cartels to try and take out the number one Cartel by growing laterally into other regions. The result is ever increasing U.S. fentanyl drug deaths and ever increasing Undocumented crossing into the U.S. who have to pay a hefty fee for safe passage through Cartel controlled land, and an ever increasing encroachment into the farming industry.

Is our entire Political Structure influenced by the Mexican Drug Cartel? I think in California, some politicians, possibly even our Governor and those around him, are influenced by the Drug Cartel. I have yet to hear Gavin Newsom ever call out the Cartels on any issue. 

It makes one wonder if both the FBI and the CIA are freaked out about a second Trump Presidency because Donald Trump may actually pull the scab off of Mexico's Drug Cartel and their lethal influence on Americans through the Fentanyl trade and the Undocumented corridor they profit from. Maybe the FBI and CIA, are either compromised by the Mexican Drug Cartel, or have determined pulling the scab off is worse than letting things stay as they are.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Hunter Biden and his laptop and Los Angeles City council members caught on tape, both attempt to search out their whistleblowers and either charge them with a crime or sue them!

When I was a lifetime Democrat, I always felt that it was Democrats who supported Whistle blowers. Apparently new age Democrat Politicians only believe in whistle blowing when the whistle blows against Republican politicians or Republican allies.  

But now a new issue emerges involving those who try and evade their own crimes or misdeeds while being enriched by Government wages and access. Laws have been passed throughout the U.S. in which any alleged suspecgt who then harms others while trying to escape from their own crime scene, can be charged with additional crimes.

So just what is Hunter Biden and a small cluster of Los Angeles City Council members thinking?  both Biden and Los Angeles City council members want to sue or criminalize whistle blowers for exposing their private acts that were not in accordance with U.S. Laws and Regulations.

The irony is both Hunter Biden and three Los Angeles City Council members were Politically immersed and were either receiving enrichment or poised to be enriched because of their outside of the law activities. So while a search warrant is needed to search a person's home, why should whistleblowers be "brought to justice" by Politically driven litigants for copying data that exposes plans, agendas or deeds for personal enrichment?

This would be like a suspect who is trying to evade a crime scene suing anyone who tried to stop them or causes them not to get away with their illicit activities!

Of course, it's just not as simple as I am claiming it is. The elephant in the room is why not just record Politicians and family members of Politicians at all times. If they have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about, and if they have done something wrong, then they deserve what they have coming to them. The problem with that rationalization is the snooper has no reason to NOT document or copy data of a second party as long as the party being snooped is a celebrity or politician.

Digging deeper there is a distinction with a difference when comparing Hunter Biden and the Los Angeles City Council trio with other snooping scenarios. In the case of Hunter Biden, Hunter left his lap top at the store for quite a while. Eventually the store owner has a right to copy the data just to protect themselves against any accusation that might suddenly transpire because time has lapsed. Biden could claim the store owner purposely held onto the lap top, and without any evidence of what was done, the store owner could be put in a bad situation. As for the City Council members, they were on city property conducting city business and the people have a right to know how they think behind closed doors.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

If Tucker Carlson's video segment about Richard Nixon and the CIA is preposterous, why can DailyPUMA only find the responses to the video segment, but not the original segment?

I found Tucker Carlson's screed about Richard Nixon and the CIA intriguing. I found not being able to find the original Fox News segment by doing a google search beguiling. When I did a google search for Tucker Carlson's commentary about Nixon and the CIA, other entities talking and mocking Tucker Carlson's segment appeared, but not the original that aired on Fox News.

How is it possible that a Tucker Carlson video segment about Richard Nixon and the CIA cannot be found via a google search, but pundits mocking the Tucker Carlson video segment about Richard Nixon and the CIA can be  found via a google search? 

When do the rich conservatives get in the act and follow Elon Musk's lead. NOT by starting new social media platforms, but by fighting for the ones that got here first and are still the go to for the majority of Americans.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Freedom of Speech ends when it is an adult interacting with a minor without Parental or Guardian Consent, this includes Drag Queen Shows.

All I had to do was read the title of this commentary about Drag Queens and Freedom of Speech to know it was disrespecting Parents and Guardians of Minors. 

 

The article headline is Drag Shows are Free Speech. Not when it is an adult interacting with a minor without Parental or Guardian consent.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

2023 Republican House of Representative Majority should reopen January 6th Investigation.

Would like to see the 2023 House Republicans reconvene the January 6th hearings and put into the record all the evidence that was purposely left out by the unselect committee.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Judge allows strange interpretation of misprinted Arizona ballots in the Kari Lake / Katie Hobbs 2022 Governor's Race...

Quoting Forbes magazine...Thompson allowed two of her (Kari Lake) claims to stand: that officials did not follow the proper chain of custody requirements for hundreds of thousands of ballots in Maricopa County and that officials intentionally caused ballot printers to malfunction in order to skew the election results. end Forbes article quote.

The "intentionally caused ballot printers to malfunction in order to skew election results" ruling is somewhat perplexing.  The fact that Secretary of State Katie Hobbs had jurisdiction over Katie Hobbs the Gubernatorial candidate seems to have been ignored by the Judge. Why does it matter if the mistakes were "intentional" or not? 

It seems to DailyPUMA that it is quite possible to make an intentional error look like an accident, and therefore proving the errors were intentional seems like too high of a bar to have created.

There were misprinted ballots that wreaked havoc and ballot vote delays that apparently would have affected Kari Lake voters moreso than Katie Hobbs voters due to the location where the ballot counting mishap locations were occurring.

Did anyone take responsibility for the misprinted ballot errors?

As for not following the proper chain of custody regarding the ballots, how can such a claim be proven when no one has impartial standing to ensure that chain of custody is not broken?

But getting back to the ballots that were printed in the wrong size causing the ballot machines to reject them, this is such a big deal I can't fathom the judge eventually ruling the discrepancy did not influence a contest that was won by only a .67% margin, especially when one of the Gubernatorial candidates was actually in charge of the ballot and could personally benefit from such a mishap.

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.