The Detectors Featuring Dean Hartwell on 911 Hidden Factors 07/30 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

The Detectors Featuring Dean Hartwell on 911 Hidden Factors 07/30 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

The Detectors Hosted By DAnne Burley On Homeless 07/24 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

The Detectors Hosted By DAnne Burley On Homeless 07/24 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

Were the REAL News Begins Online Radio by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

Were the REAL News Begins Online Radio by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

Read this and understand why we are failing in the US

Read this and understand why we are failing in the US

The Detectors Hosted By DAnne Burley 04/26 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

The Detectors Hosted By DAnne Burley 04/26 by DAnne Burley Show | Blog Talk Radio

Chicago Election Fraud Chicago Mayoral Gate Coverups within the 2011 Election

The Hidden List of the Write in Candidates given out by the Latino Newspaper

Please note that I was the very first name on the write in, and this information was not posted shared nor did anyone bother to give instructions to those who were elections judges to know how to handle this votes that were made.

These votes were never counted, the media refused equal rights to time on the air which was against the rules set by the FCC and there is no one within any law enforcement agency involved in enforcing the law.

I was told I could not come on when they allowed Carol Mosley Brown on the air, on radio, I was refused equal time within debates and there was no so-called media outlets available to me and others.

The Women League of Voters refused me access to the forms they had on TV which again against FFC Rule to equal access to these open air programs which were all only allowing THE TOP PICKS THE ONES THAT THEY CHOSE THERE FOR THIS IS AGAIN “ CHICAGO MAYORAL GATE “

Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising

Click here

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.

(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:

(1) Bona fide newscast;

(2) Bona fide news interview;

(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or

(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)

(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]

GOTO this site click here

Another issue of implied FRAUD and CORRUPTION

goto Click here

Is the Election Board ignoring possible fraud in Treasurer's race?

• December 17th, 2010 12:48 am CT

Frank Medina

• Chicago Elections 2010 Examiner

SubscribeSponsor an Examiner

In a not so distant future, archaeologists will find the ruins of the once great metropolis of Chicago and based on media they will find, might come to the false assumption that in 2011, only a race for mayor was held here. Although we are still in the early stages of this election cycle, for the most part, the aldermanic races have been ignored by the media as have been the ones for Clerk and Treasurer. And if a Daley appointee has her way, she’d very much like to keep it that way.

Unlike the mayoral, clerk and most aldermanic races, the Treasurer’s race only has two candidates running for the position, Elida Cruz and the incumbent, Stephanie Neely, a Daley appointee who many consider to be just as guilty as the mayor for having allowed passage of the highly unpopular parking meter lease.

As is customary in Chicago politics, objections were filed against the petitions of most candidates and the Treasurer’s race was no different. Elida Cruz and a private citizen, Sally Johnson, both filed objections against Neely’s petitions. In turn, Paul Stewart, who according to the Chicago Sun-Times is a spokesman for Stephanie Neely, filed an objection to Cruz’s petitions as well. A hearing officer was appointed to hear all three objections.

In a Sun-Times article dated December 7, 2010, staff reporter Tim Novak claimed that 725 of 2,331 petition pages submitted by Neely contained forged notary stamps and signatures. By law, those petition pages should automatically be removed from Neely’s petitions due to the fraud. However, the petition officer never allowed them to be withdrawn from the count. As Neely submitted over 30,000 signatures on her petitions, removing the approximately 10,500 signatures on the sheets would still leave her with just over 20,000 signatures. She only needs 12,500 valid signatures to stay on the ballot.

The apparent fraud doesn’t end there though. While conducting a records examination of Neely’s petitions, it was found that approximately 620 more petition pages were found to have been stamped with the notary stamp belonging to a notary we’ll call Notary X, a registered notary in Illinois. On those pages however, it appears that Notary X’ name was signed using three distinct signatures. If that is the case, according to election rules, all the pages bearing Notary X’ stamp should also be removed due to fraud. Doing so would effectively remove approximately 1400 or 60 percent of Neely’s 2331 petition pages effectively forcing her off the ballot due to a lack of valid signatures.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2010, Cruz and her team presented the hearing officer with their evidence. To their dismay, the hearing officer brushed aside the newly presented evidence and in fact, quashed all the objections against Stephanie Neely thereby ensuring that she would remain on February’s ballot. Worse yet, the hearing officer conceded that the evidence was compelling but stated that since the original objection filings did not make mention of the alleged fraud re: Notary X, she could not consider the evidence.

If it is proven that the signatures by Notary X were in fact forged, it would demonstrate an unnecessary risk taken by the Neely campaign. According to the Index of Electoral Board Decisions, “Even a failure of the notary to sign at all…”is not “…deemed the type of error to cause invalidation.”

So why did Neely’s campaign make so many mistakes with their petitions? This is my theory. On the first day to file petitions, approximately 160 candidates for Mayor, Treasurer, Clerk and Alderman packed the basement of the building housing the Election Board in order to try to be placed first on the ballot. Of those candidates, Neely was second in line. Because she wanted to be first on the ballot for Treasurer, her campaign was forced to complete all the petitions by 9 a.m. on November 15. The last minute rush may have forced her campaign workers to try to cut corners in order to meet their deadlines.

No evidence suggesting that Neely personally participated in or knew about fraudulent acts concerning her petitions for Treasurer has been introduced. However, the conduct of those on her campaign team does show a pattern of the same old Chicago style politics that have hurt the residents of the city. It further suggests that the people Neely trusts with running her campaign are not trustworthy citizens. That in itself speaks volumes about her own ability to lead. Finally, it demonstrates that Neely has yet to learn from her own prior mistakes. Under her administration, the city has fallen into the biggest debt it’s ever had, valuable municipal resources were leased without so much as a peep of objection from her office, the city’s bond rating has worsened and the only thing the people of Chicago have to look forward to is an increase in parking meter rates in a few weeks and at least 72 more rate increases until the current lease is up. If Neely becomes the next Treasurer, Chicagoans can expect more of the same from Neely.

You be the Hearing Officer. Below, you'll find links to the various objections filed throughout the Treasurer's race as well as the Index of Electoral Decisions. Should the board of elections ignore any evidence of fraud presented by any candidate for any office? Conduct your own review of the information presented and share your conclusion in the comments area.

Elida Cruz's objection against Neely's petitions

Sally Johnson's objections against Neely's petitions

Paul Stewart's objections

Index of Electoral Decisions

THE D'ANNE BURLEY SHOW
TELLS IT LET IT IS

MON-FRI 6P-7P CENTRAL TIME AND ON SAT FROM 8P-10P
CALLER 1-718-508-9513 CALL HER DIRECT 1-888-774-1432
EMAIL DANNE.BURLEY@GMAIL.COM

click here to listen to

CHICAGO MAYORAL GATE

Veteran Witnesses to War Crimes: Dennis Kyne and Darrell And