PUSH COMES TO SHOVE: CASCOS TO ORTIZ, ARE YOU GOING TO DELIVER?

(The Cameron County Commissioner Court will hold a special meeting to find out why [or why not]  elections administrator Roger Ortiz has not delivered on the pledge he made to County Judge Carlos Cascos and a half-dozen other participants in a meeting held more than a month ago to address voter-fraud concerns resulting from the May 29 and July 31 primary runoff elections. We reprint the article below to give our three readers a context of the special meeting called by Cascos to be held 9 a.m. Thursday at the Dancy Building on Madison Street. Questions as to Ortiz's recalcitrance abound. Has someone pressured him to drag his heels on the judge's requests?)

By Juan Montoya
When Cameron County Carlos Cascos invited some Internet critics and antivoter-abuse activists Aug. 17 to discuss the way the elections are being conducted in the county leading to charges of massive voter fraud, Elections Administrator Roger Ortiz promised publicly that he would put together a video presentation to advise local adult daycare facilities on how to prevent the abuse of their clients by the candidates and their paid politiqueras.
He also publicly promised (three times) to answer questions put forward by Citizens Against Voter Abuse activist Mary Helen Flores and her group regarding the training and assignments of elections office personnel and how precinct judges were appointed.
Ortiz told Cascos he would produce the video presentation in time to make the rounds of the 51-odd adult daycare centers and other multiple dwelling retirement complexes in Cameron County.
Up until today, all those promises Ortiz made to Cascos and the assembled group have never materialized.
At the time, Cascos instructed Ortiz to take CAVA's list of typed questions so that he could have time to answer them and not take up the time devoted to the meeting. He instructed him then to respond to the questions and Ortiz said he would.
Instead of sticking to his word to the judge and to those assembled on the preparation of the video and the responses to CAVA's queries, Ortiz has so far reneged on his promises.
Under the pretext that there was litigation envisioned concerning the runoff election where some of these abuses took place, he instead elicited a letter from court counsel Dylbia Jeffries Vega explaining that the county was anticipating a lawsuit (by Yolanda Begum against Erin Hernandez Garcia) and therefore Ortiz did not have to answer the questions posed by CAVA. Jefferies graciously suggested that CAVA go instead to the Texas Secretary of State for their answers. Her answer – giving Ortiz an out – is as follows:
"Ms. Flores,
I wanted to let you know that I have advised Mr. Ortiz not to respond to the list of questions that you gave him on August 17^th. The Public Information Act requires a governmental entity to provide access to“public information” in the possession of the governmental entity. “Public information” is defined as information collected, assembled, or maintained by a governmental entity. A governmental entity is not obligated to answer questions under the Public Information Act. Also, since there is pending litigation regarding the primary and runoff elections, it would be inappropriate for Mr. Ortiz to answer these questions. The answers to some of your questions can be found at the Secretary of State’s website, www.sos.state.tx.us. "
Dylbia Jefferies Vega
After the 2012 primary runoff election, CAVA issued a report where gross violations of the elderly and mentally disabled by a "network of manipulation" to perpetuate voter fraud and swing the elections to a candidate by paid operatives occurred on a massive scale.
"In the 2012 election cycle, CAVA has once again encountered an organized network of manipulation and theft of the mail-in ballot vote.
"Witnesses and voters have also reported a system of coercion of the elderly and mentally disabled who are driven to the early voting polling places from adult daycare centers, assisted living facilities and nursing homes and then are forced to vote inside the vans as they are instructed and assisted by the van drivers. Through interviews of those who voted by mail and those who voted curbside, CAVA has encountered an organized network of manipulation and theft of the mail-in ballot vote and of the curbside vote..."
The way the mail-in vote was manipulated was described in detail in the report. It states that:
a. mail-in applications and ballot carrier envelopes were signed by people who could not be identified by the voter.
b. the voters, in these interviews, name a third party whose name does not appear on the mail-in application or on the mail-in ballot carrier envelope as the one who assisted and mailed out their application and ballot for them
c. voters who could not be located whose mail-in ballot applications are signed by an assistant requesting that the mail-in ballot be sent to the assistant’s home address.
d. voters who are illiterate or mentally incapacitated by illness who have been coerced and or robbed of their vote via the unauthorized use of their information and a forged signature.
e. people who voted by mail and had no idea that they had voted.

Curbside voting by trucked-in elderly and mentally-disabled that resulted in coercion and vote theft is also described in detail:
a. elderly and mentally incapacitated people were herded into vans at their respective assisted living centers, nursing homes and adult daycare centers and driven to the early voting polling locations to vote inside the vehicles in which they were driven.
b. those that requested to exit the vehicles and to enter the polling places were denied that right by the drivers of the vans.
c. van occupants were instructed who to vote for and coerced by the van drivers.
d. assistant oaths were not administered to the van drivers who forced people to vote according to a pre-marked sample ballot and by verbal instruction.
e. van drivers voted on behalf of the voters who were held in the vans.

And, examples of the negligence of Ortiz's office (responsible for the placement and training of election judges and clerks) and the Democratic Party of turning a blind eye and in outright complicity is also given in detail in CAVA's report.
a. in many instances, election judges and clerks did not question curbside voters about the assistance preference of each voter.
b. in many instances, election workers did not provide assistance to curbside voters or supervise the assistance given to curbside voters.
c. in many instances, sworn oaths were not administered to assistants of curbside voters.
d. in many instances, assistants did not sign the combination forms indicating that the voter had been assisted.
e. in many instances, voters who did not qualify for, require or request assistance were assisted to vote curbside.
f. in many instances, van drivers voted on behalf of the van occupants and were given as many ballots as they requested by the election judge and clerks
Ortiz cannot claim ignorance of these findings since they happened right out of his office and in front of his and his personnel's eyes. What he can do is what he has been allowed to do from the get-go: Feign ignorance and pretend that nothing happened.
Because of recent contested elections results and because no local action has been forthcoming, CAVA "has asked (Cascos) to submit this plea for immediate intervention to the offices of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General.
"CAVA believes that a complete and thorough assessment of the elections system in Cameron County is necessary to ensure the integrity of any future elections held in our area. We are requesting a forensic audit of the Cameron County Elections Department to be conducted by the appropriate state authorities. We believe that this action is our only option to achieve transparency, accountability and authenticity in and of our electoral process."
After getting no response from Ortiz on the questions they posed, CAVA then contatced Cascos again inquiring why no naswers were forthcoming.

"This is the response I received from Dylbia Jefferies after calling Roger Ortiz last Friday to inquire about the status of the answers to the questions we submitted (above in italics). I have on record that you instructed Roger Ortiz to answer these questions three times during the meeting we had in your office. Can you please get him to follow your orders?

I know what the SOS website offers and what the election code says but these questions are specifically for our very own Roger Ortiz. One of the goals of the questions presented at the meeting was to gauge Roger's grasp of how his own office runs. Now that he's had plenty of time to formulate answers, there shouldn't be a problem."

So, Ortiz does not deliver on the promises he made to the county judge, the voter abuse watchdog group, the Internet commenters or the public. Where's the adult daycare video he promised? Where are the answers to the questions? Who, if anyone, does he answer to?