PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (sentinel.ht) – Liste d’émargement. Said, the List of Signatures, is the document that gives a pwosevebal, verbal process (PV), the tally sheet used to tabulate votes, its legitimacy. The Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) of Pierre Louis Opont is blocking the inspection of these lists for they would uncover fraud on a massive scale, enough to implicate the United Nations, European Union, United States and many others in an international crime of global political proportions.
|Brazil||Jose Luis Machado E. Costa|
|Canada||Paula Caldwell St-Onge|
|European Union||Javier Niño|
|France||Elisabeth Beton Delègue|
|Spain||Manuel Lorenzo García-Ormaechea|
|United States||Peter F. Mulrean|
In France, the liste d’émargement is described as a copy of the voter list that allows the polling station to ensure that a single voter is duly registered to vote at that station and not multiple times. The voter is expected to sign their signature on the document and their national identification number is recorded.
When the National Bureau of Electoral Disputes (BCEN) tribunal allowed for the political party, Fanmi Lavalas, to visit the tabulation center to verify votes, it had made an unintended mistake. It allowed the party and observing organizations to review not only the PVs but the liste d’émargement that accompany them.
In reviewing the liste d’émargement for 78 PVs that the BCEN allowed the investigators to randomly select from more than 13,000 PVs, they found all to have contained fraud or irregularities and gross irregularities, enough to invalidate their inclusion. The tribunal admitted the existence of these inconsistencies and sent the 78 back to the CTV to be removed.
For allegations of massive fraud that were once just allegations, there now exists proof. From sound scientific extrapolation, it can be assumed that the rest of the, some, 13,000 PVs, are 100% fraudulent. In essence, Haiti did not have an election, but international interests are superseding those of the Haitian population, hence the rejection of an investigation into the election results and implementation of measures to cover it up.
For example of the fraud uncovered, lists included names and identification numbers that did not correspond to those actually assigned to the voter. In fact, it was discovered that signatures of polling station managers that are needed to finalize the documents, were forged, not existent or not in correspondence to the person assigned to the station.
For an example of an irregularity, one list, instead of showing signatures, had 150-200 signatures that were at all signatures but check marks. It was witness that the check marks were made in the same form and through many PVs from that district. Voters are allowed to sign with a check mark if they cannot read or write, but it was difficult for investigators to believe all voters for a certain district could be illiterate enough to not sign their name.
The Cover Up
The ruling totalitarian regime of Michel Martelly issued a note through its political party, Parti Haitien Tet Kale (PHTK) on November 12, 2015, a week after results were announced. In this note, the party told persons contesting the election results that they could only do so with PVs. This note was issued in the wake of a series of discoveries of election ballots and PVs found insecure, destroyed and in the hands of non-election officials.
Pierre Louis Opont followed up that declaration in a press conference the day after on November 13, 2015. In this press conference he also declared that challenges could only be made with PVs. This means, if someone has a problem with the count, they can check how it was tabulated at the Vote Tabulation Center (CTV) but they would not be able to verify the actual votes.
Not being able to verify whom the actual votes went to because so many ballots had been destroyed, found to be false, or missing is one step of the cover up. But still, with the PVs receipts, essentially, the list d’émargement, some hints can be derived, especially in the case of a vast and massive electoral fraud operation.
In order to undertake such a criminal enterprise in a national vote, major logistical assistance would be needed. This implicates the United Nations mission in Haiti, particularly, its agency, UNOPS, which handled election logistics. Deputy-elect, A. Rodon Bien-Aime, who ran under the banner of the ruling party accused Sylvain Coté, director of UNOPS of having committed the crimes.
The United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary General, Sandra Honoré, rapidly rejected the accusations without even an attempt to investigate. The haste she exhibited did seem odd as allegations of fraud were being launched and her organization and a group of diplomats calling themselves the Core Group had never attempted to look in to but support. A group of university leaders, artists, writers and other intellectuals wrote an open letter to Honoré to express their distrust of her denial and the denial of her organization in the scandal.
The BCEN made a mistake in the plan to cover up. It, under the pressure of the streets, accepted the Fanmi Lalavas complaint without it having specific PVs to challenge. Instead, the tribunal said the party could randomly select 68 from the batch of about 13,350. Simple enough, but as one FL investigator stated it, “they didn’t expect us to request to check the list d’émargements”. Furthermore, they didn’t expect FL to check the ones in zones which the party’s candidate has won.
Correction: An earlier version of this article say 50 PVs were randomly selected and 49 had been found fraudulent. It was 78 and all were fraudulent according to the BCEN tribunal.