Orange County, CA produced a bogus “Grand Jury” report to claim its 2024 Election results were certifiable. The report makes the results even more suspect.
We learned two months ago in early January that Orange County, California produced a bizarre Grand Jury report to claim that the 2024 Election in the county was valid. This was a pathetic attempt to try and claim the results were somehow certifiable, but they were not, and the fact that it was created highlighted this fact.
At that time of its release, an article posted in the Orange County Register promoted the results in the “Grand Jury” report claiming the 2024 election results were virtually perfect and the County Elections team were near saints in their work surrounding the certification of the 2024 election in the county.
The Register’s article started by belittling those who had questions and desire election integrity:
This just in: When your candidate loses an election, it means your candidate has lost an election! It’s not proof of fraud, but may, in fact, be proof that you’re a crybaby.
The Orange County grand jury didn’t say it quite that way, but it dropped a surprise early report on Tuesday examining the myriad processes in the Orange County Registrar of Voters’ office. Why? Because of complaints about dead people voting, forged signatures and non-citizens casting ballots. The grand jury concluded that there was no evidence of fraud or election interference in November; that voting was fair, secure and transparent; and went so far as to heap copious praise on the registrar’s office for its stellar work.
The article went on to praise the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV) and it noted that the Republican Party in Orange County also praised the ROV and were quoted chastising “false claims of voter fraud” in the 2024 election. The Orange County Register concluded:
The grand jury found a squeaky clean operation: voter registration logs and voter rolls that were accurate and current; official Ballot Drop Boxes that were secure; a paper trail that could verify every vote cast; and election misinformation that was swiftly addressed via newsletters, press releases and an open-door policy inviting folks in to see for themselves.
The Registrar even installed overhead cameras so (skeptical) observers could see (up close and magnified) exactly what the hands of staffers were doing. Many election activities were live-streamed as well.
So, in summary, complaints spread online were found to be without merit, and the Orange County Registrar of Voters “not only met but exceeded the recommended practices for ensuring voting integrity,” the grand jury said. “Its proactive approach provided major protection against any fraud.”
Our response in January included this:
In California overall the results should never have been certified. Millions of non-citizens are on the voter rolls. Ballot harvesting is pervasive with drop boxes in place. Laws to prevent confirming a voter’s identity were passed. Signatures were not checked as laws were passed to prevent the challenging of signatures during the verification process.
Unfortunately, the more you look at the election process and results and the Grand Jury report in Orange County, the more you see that the report was a cover-up for a broken process that resulted in uncertifiable results.
A cursory review of the “Grand Jury” report indicates it is a novice report missing information that would customarily be included in a report of this nature. This unprofessional report leaves a non-biased professional with the perception that the report was manufactured to push an agenda.
The report claims to be from the Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) but who exactly is this bizarre outfit?
The make-up of this entity is unknown. This is absurd. The reader has no idea if the OCGJ has any background or expertise in audit, law, election processes and controls. It could be a group of 4th graders based on what the report is not telling us.
Also, based on a cursory review, it becomes clear that the members of the OCGJ likely didn’t draft the report, some other group of individuals did. Who were these people?
People are great in their professions but why would you invite a baker, butcher or bus driver to examine a complex process like elections and not bring in expert auditors?
The “as of date”, “scope”, “period covered” and “procedures” are not well defined or unknown and very weak.
The report says it “examined the local voting system”. What does this mean? Later it implies that the scope covers the 2024 general election. This could be a period beginning in January 2024. The dates of such a review or audit are customarily defined.
The work performed was to “review” procedures, policies, regulations, and laws to make its determination. This was done through interviews, observation and visits of various voting locations.
Note that no reconciliations, verifications, system audits, etc… were performed by professional auditors in the entire process.
Later in the report, it is shared that the OCGJ observed the “Transfer of 1.8 million vote-by-mail ballots to the USPS for mailing.” It is unlikely that the OCGJ observed all ballots delivered to the USPS and it is also unlikely that the OCGJ obtained any records from the USPS validating the number of ballots mailed and received. Observing ballots delivered to the USPS is a weak activity that leaves open so many holes for fraud.
The report indicates a far-left bias.
Starting with a quote from deceased Democrat representative John Lewis, the report is linked to far-left individuals and groups.
The first publication reviewed by the OCGJ was a book by the Far-Left Brennan Center. This group was notorious for its involvement in the “Stolen” 2020 Election.
The second publication includes a group of far-left individuals which includes Liz Howard from the Brennan Center. Howard is a proponent of the Risk Limiting audits that are not sound audits and appear to be designed to cover-up fraud.
Conclusion of report
The OCGJ report ends with no recommendations, yet the total number of voters reported in the election (1,376,950) don’t agree with the final number of ballots counted by the county (1,417,397). For starters, maybe this should be explained.
Here is the Orange County Grand Jury Report –
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Report by Joe Ho on Scribd
To sum it up, it looks like the OC ROV drafted the OCGJ report and it was intended to paint a picture that the 2024 Election in Orange County was certifiable. This is not the case.
Joe great reporting, please keep on it! Those seats should be recalled and a special election held if necessary, if it is beyond a valid audit. You would know! Page 10 duplicate ballots is really telling as 3 of the 4 bullet points describe ballots that have lipstick, highlighters, and maybe a person selecting two candidate blah, blah, blah as they can all be in one category. The report clearly exaggerates the categories to make it appear it is more important and reasonable; they can all be in one category. How many categories are needed to describe all the ways a ballot can be damaged. Those can be represented by actual numbers if it was the case. Like how many ballots had lipstick, etc.
As you are a numbers guy with a AUDIT background, the report looks bogus for sure! When a real auditor with a focus on numbers speaks, we should all listen! We are listening Joe! We demand answers!
Ms. Matthews-Gallo:
During the 2024 Presidential General Election, the Registrar of Voters duplicated 44,558 ballots before scanning them. The Common Causes document the Grand Jury included in its report was not provided by the Registrar of Voters. Of the ballots that required duplication, we keep track of the total but do not track how many for individual reasons.
Bob Page
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
Joe great reporting, please keep on it! Those seats should be recalled and a special election held if necessary, if it is beyond a valid audit. You would know! Page 10 duplicate ballots is really telling as 3 of the 4 bullet points describe ballots that have lipstick, highlighters, and maybe a person selecting two candidate blah, blah, blah as they can all be in one category. The report clearly exaggerates the categories to make it appear it is more important and reasonable; they can all be in one category. How many categories are needed to describe all the ways a ballot can be damaged. Those can be represented by actual numbers if it was the case. Like how many ballots had lipstick, etc.
As you are a numbers guy with a AUDIT background, the report looks bogus for sure! When a real auditor with a focus on numbers speaks, we should all listen! We are listening Joe! We demand answers!
Ms. Matthews-Gallo:
During the 2024 Presidential General Election, the Registrar of Voters duplicated 44,558 ballots before scanning them. The Common Causes document the Grand Jury included in its report was not provided by the Registrar of Voters. Of the ballots that required duplication, we keep track of the total but do not track how many for individual reasons.
Bob Page
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
Google pay 500$ per hour my last pay check was $19840 working 10 hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 22k for months now and he works about 24 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
Just Open This Website……… http://Www.WorksProfit7.Com
Google pay 500$ per hour my last pay check was $19840 working 10 hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 22k for months now and he works about 24 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
Just Open This Website……… http://Www.WorksProfit7.Com
Joe:
Regarding your request for an explanation:
“The OCGJ report ends with no recommendations, yet the total number of voters reported in the election (1,376,950) don’t agree with the final number of ballots counted by the county (1,417,397). For starters, maybe this should be explained.”
The day after I certified the results of the 2024 Presidential General Election, the Grand Jury requested various statistics about the election, including the total number of ballots cast in the election as well as a breakdown of participating voters by political party preference.
The Registrar of Voters provided the total number of ballots cast (1,417,397) from the voting system to the Grand Jury.
As the ballots cast in the election did not identify the political party preference of the voter who cast the ballot, the party breakdown was pulled from the voter registration database in the separate election management system and provided to the Grand Jury without a total. The report of voter participation by party and voting method does not include voters who cast a provisional ballot or voters who cast an Orange County ballot in jail or by dropping it off in another county.
The Grand Jury chose to only publish the party breakdown numbers that did not include all voters and did not publish the total number of ballots cast in its report.
Bob Page
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
Joe:
Regarding your request for an explanation:
“The OCGJ report ends with no recommendations, yet the total number of voters reported in the election (1,376,950) don’t agree with the final number of ballots counted by the county (1,417,397). For starters, maybe this should be explained.”
The day after I certified the results of the 2024 Presidential General Election, the Grand Jury requested various statistics about the election, including the total number of ballots cast in the election as well as a breakdown of participating voters by political party preference.
The Registrar of Voters provided the total number of ballots cast (1,417,397) from the voting system to the Grand Jury.
As the ballots cast in the election did not identify the political party preference of the voter who cast the ballot, the party breakdown was pulled from the voter registration database in the separate election management system and provided to the Grand Jury without a total. The report of voter participation by party and voting method does not include voters who cast a provisional ballot or voters who cast an Orange County ballot in jail or by dropping it off in another county.
The Grand Jury chose to only publish the party breakdown numbers that did not include all voters and did not publish the total number of ballots cast in its report.
Bob Page
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
We don’t have to show you any of the evidence because a jury said the election was transparent.
Yeah! That’s the ticket!
We don’t have to show you any of the evidence because a jury said the election was transparent.
Yeah! That’s the ticket!
Definitely believe that that you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the
easiest factor to keep in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get
irked while people consider worries that they plainly don’t recognize about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and also outlined out the whole thing with no need side effect ,
other folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more.
Thank you
my web-site – nordvpn coupons inspiresensation
Definitely believe that that you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the
easiest factor to keep in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get
irked while people consider worries that they plainly don’t recognize about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and also outlined out the whole thing with no need side effect ,
other folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more.
Thank you
my web-site – nordvpn coupons inspiresensation