Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, of Marina del Rey, also known as “Anika,” entered a plea to one count of paying another person to register to vote, a federal charge that carries a penalty of up to five years behind bars.

Sentencing was scheduled for Aug. 31.

According to her plea agreement, for nearly 20 years, Armstrong periodically worked as a “petition circulator.” In that role, she was paid by coordinators to collect voter signatures on official petitions that qualify initiatives, referendums and recalls for California state ballots. Prosecutors said Armstrong drove around the Los Angeles area to find registered voters to sign the petitions.

After gathering enough signatures, Armstrong returned the petitions to her coordinators, who then paid her a set amount for each registered voter’s signature. The amount she was paid varied depending on the specific ballot initiative. Because her coordinators only paid for signatures attributable to registered voters, Armstrong endeavored to ensure the people who signed her petitions were registered voters, court papers show.

Armstrong admitted soliciting signatures in Skid Row, a convenient place for the defendant to collect signatures because of its high concentration of people in a relatively small area who were willing to sign petitions in exchange for cash.

Armstrong regularly paid amounts between $2 and $3 to induce people to sign her petitions, officials said.

Prosecutors said some homeless people did not have an address to put on the forms, so on occasion, Armstrong provided her own former address in Los Angeles to write on the registration form. Such registration forms simultaneously registered an individual to vote in California elections and in federal elections.

“This is not an allegation, this is not a theory, this is an example of admitted voter fraud,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said when Armstrong was charged. “We’re going to aggressively prosecute voter fraud.”

A video shot by conservative media figure James O’Keefe and reposted by an account called “Real America’s Voice” showed a woman handing cash to a homeless person. In a post on social media, O’Keefe said his video led to Armstrong being charged.

Essayli said on June 5 that his office has “multiple” probes underway into alleged voting fraud. While declining to provide any specifics, he pointed to the Armstrong case as an example of the sort of thing he is investigating.

“Yes, there is evidence of election fraud in California,” he said.

You don’t say.

Nithya Raman is the Zohran Mamdani of Los Angeles. She is an extremely wealthy champagne socialist who wants Los Angeles to become even more “progressive” than it has under current Democratic Mayor Karen Bass.

She was a solid 8 points behind Republican reality star Spencer Pratt on Election Day.

As many people anticipated, over the last week, the distant 3rd-place Raman has managed to overcome her deficit despite her dismal polling and debate performance.

You can see how Raman SURGED in the mail-in count:

This “DEMOCRACY IN ACTION” is a statistical impossibility. Theoretically, the math is possible, but it has never happened in history. The odds are so unlikely that the human mind is incapable of comprehending it.

Snip.

California’s list of “registered voters” includes numerous fake and deceased individuals. Millions of fake, illegal, and dead people could be voting for specific, targeted candidates, and no one has audited the rolls to make sure it isn’t all a scam….

In May, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 73, a law that bans election observers from challenging signatures on ballot envelopes. Voters are also not required to sign their own ballots. A witness can do that for them.

There is now no mechanism to challenge these ballot dumps.

I would imagine the Democrat advantage must be D+40% or greater within the confines of the City of Los Angeles itself. Yes, there are millions of zombies in the Golden State that are unwilling to associate its tremendous decline with Democrat “leadership” or change their voting patterns to replicate those found in successful large states, such as Texas or Florida; and then there is the massive cheating, which keeps California blue against insurgents or in red wave years.

All of those things made it unlikely Pratt could prevail against Bass in November; however, the risk was too great and stood to disrupt the future California’s elite planners have envisioned. He had to go down now:

Pratt has garnered a lot of attention in recent weeks with masterfully produced, Artificial Intelligence-driven advertisements showing him mocking the elites, solving problems, and enjoying a healthy Los Angeles with a diverse coalition of voters. When you think about it, it’s a brilliant idea. Even the most skilled professionals and busy people in the world readily admit screen addiction is a problem as they are unable to estimate how often they unlock their phones to take a peek at the latest notifications, updates, and news stories. I’ve tried to convince Rachel that putting signs out at every intersection is a colossal waste of time that moves precisely zero votes, and a large reason I believe that is because people are now addicted to devices and more likely to click a viral advertisement than they are to scan the signs at the intersection or dig through the pile of mail on the countertop to review candidate policy positions.

Pratt knows the statistics are against him, but they were against Arnold Schwarzenegger too, and 17 years before California truly figured out how to rig elections. Arnold won L.A. County and didn’t win it with any sort of GOP registration advantage or party infrastructure. In fact, today’s LAGOP is still run by people who are too afraid to offend their captors by calling the uncontrolled mail-in voting system the fraudulent system that it is. In order to capture the attention of hundreds of thousands of non-Republicans he needs to win, something different has to occur.

Pratt’s marketing campaign must be replicated by urban Republicans who are crashing against the rocks trying to focus on social issues and boardroom conservatism when they could attract voters in great numbers by solving issues of crime, homelessness, and urban malaise. Those ideas are brought to life in the minds of younger voters by using technology to our advantage rather than doing things “the way we’ve always done it.” The California Democrat machine knew it couldn’t deal with another five months of relentless mockery (Alinsky’s fifth rule for radicals) by Pratt and keep its fragile coalition in one piece.

(Hat tip: Director Blue.)

Federal prosecutors have accused California of denying them access to voter registration records, as a larger legal battle over voter roll maintenance unfolds in federal court.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli announced Saturday that his office was partnering with the FBI on multiple election fraud investigations.

In a social media post on Sunday, he said that California was refusing to comply with a federal request for voter registration records, which the DOJ said was needed to audit the state’s vote.

“We also have serious concerns about how California maintains its voter rolls. There are open questions about whether the state is promptly removing deceased voters, people who have moved, and individuals convicted of disqualifying felonies,” he wrote on X, asking, “What are they afraid of?”

Essayli said that California’s voting system allows voters to register using ID that “most Americans find surprising,” such as gym membership cards, employer ID cards, credit/debit cards, prescription drug labels, and insurance cards, noting that California provides free health coverage to undocumented immigrants.

California also allows third parties to collect and submit ballots on the voters’ behalf, making it “difficult to track who actually received, completed, and submitted each ballot,” Essayli said.

The dispute comes from a lawsuit filed by the DOJ against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Essayli said that the lawsuit to force the hand-over of the state’s voter registration rolls was now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He also said the Justice Department has been trying to audit California’s voter rolls for more than a year and that federal law gives the U.S. attorney general authority to review voter files and confirm that only eligible U.S. citizens were voting in federal elections.

Federal officials have argued that they have authority to review state voter registration records according to the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act.

(Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)

here are some facts about California. some of this is hard to believe.

first of all, it’s important to understand the concept of “ballot harvesting,” which is perfectly legal in CA. this refers to a situation where someone completely unaffiliated with the voter can collect and submit their ballot for them.

this flow is completely legal:

– a homeless person arrives in LA, where they are eligible for cash assistance, SSI, food stamps, healthcare through medical, and an array of other taxpayer-funded services
– they are registered to vote by an NGO (many such NGOs exist and explicitly do this).
– they do not have to provide a residential address or any proof of residency to vote. they only have to provide a mailing address, which can be anywhere (church, NGO HQ, homeless shelter). their home address can be “a park” or “an underpass”.
– their ballot is mailed to the homeless shelter (or whatever address the NGO elects for them)
– the only verification done for the mail-in ballot is “signature verification” and uniqueness (only one vote per person is counted theoretically).
– the signature can be an X. if they register with an X, they can sign with an X. that is sufficient to pass verification. signature verification is also deliberately loose. the signature does not have to be a perfect match.

now consider the hypothetical scenario, which is fraudulent, but virtually impossible to detect:

– a homeless person cycles through the LA system. they get registered with their mailing address listed as the NGO HQ or homeless shelter
– they “sign” their registration with an X or nondescript, easily replicable signature
– they disappear. never seen again. or they exist, but it doesn’t matter. they don’t get purged from the voter rolls for 4-8 years typically.
– the address where they registered receives their ballot for several cycles
– operatives are aware that they have X amount of votes to make up. they fill in X many thousand mail-in ballots themselves. the ballots are manually postmarked (permitted). they forge the signature to match whatever signature (could be an X) was submitted upon registration
– ballots can be accepted even if they are postmarked at 11.59 pm. polls closed at 8 pm. (you would need an accomplice who is a USPS employee)
– the only fraud checks are de-duplication (if the homeless person through some miracle voted in person, only one of their ballots would be counted) and signature verification
– because very few of the homeless people in question would have voted in person, this gives NGO operatives tens of thousands of possible mail-in ballots to submit unilaterally.

the big problem is that there is NO way to detect this type of fraud. NGOs that register homeless people to vote exist. that isn’t a secret. ballot harvesting is fully legal. voting by mail is encouraged. signature verification is as loose as possible. de-duplication doesn’t solve anything, since few homeless people vote in person. and no one in power locally is going to spend political capital on rooting out such fraud, since they are all wholeheartedly committed to “voting rights”.

in a situation where fraud is undetectable, the absence of hard proof of fraud is not evidence that no fraud exists.

Raman has gained around 20k votes since election night. She is around 3k votes ahead of Pratt now.

there are over 72 thousand homeless people in LA county.

(Hat tip: Mickey Kaus.)

(Hat tip: The Other McCain.)