Q What does fatally pended mean in this context?
A That means that technically those people on the face of their registration form had not -- were not properly registered to vote. Lacking the signature on the oath on the registration form, they should not have been -- they should not have completed the registration process.

Q. Exhibit 48 on page 8, it says that the "Fatal pend for a missing signature cannot be corrected without a signature attesting to the oath on a voter registration application."
A. Right.
...
Q. So, it would not be sufficient to simply call up a person, ask them whether they are a registered voter, and count their ballot if they had not submitted a signature with the oath?
A. That's correct.
...
Q. The person would have to submit new registration information and sign a document under oath?
A. Correct.

[An extract of relevant pages from Exhibit 48 is posted here: http://soundpolitics.com/DIMSNetProvisionalGuide.pdf ]


Lisa Moore (May 18, 2005), posted here: http://soundpolitics.com/MooreLisaDep.pdf
See p. 48 - 49
Moore's testimony is the strongest documentation I've found yet that there was a discussion about the processing of the fatal pend provisional ballots. (And the lawyers who conducted the deposition tell me now that they didn't follow up and ask more questions about the fatal pend discussion because they weren't aware of its significance at the time). I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask Ms. Moore if she still has any recollection of that discussion.

I would imagine that Lisa Moore is the "ELECTIONS\lmoore" who appears in the Login column of the Provisional Ballot Transactions table as the employee responsible for processing some of these provisional ballot envelopes, e.g.:
Jonathan Anderson: http://usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/vt.cgi?v=990637091
Katie Anderson: http://www.usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/vt.cgi?v=990638721
It might also be interesting to determine who logged in as ELECTIONS\tester02 to accept several of the others, e.g.
Jennielyn Baradi: http://usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/vt.cgi?v=990599280
Ruby Woodworth: http://usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/vt.cgi?v=990688452

Finally, one other piece of information which I think is very significant circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that the acceptance of the fatal pend provisionals was something other than a handful of random errors. While about 170 provisionals were wrongly accepted from voters who hadn't signed the oaths on their registration forms, I've found only 2 provisional ballots that were properly rejected from that category of voters. (I examined all of the rejected provisional ballot envelopes in late 2005/early 2006. This week I thought to compare my notes and photographs from that inspection against subsequently released database records. I was able to identify only 2 such ballots which were rejected)  About 20 other provisional ballots were properly rejected for invalid address or missing birthdate. But it's remarkable that nearly all of the extant "fatal pend for missing signature" ballots were tabulated, when principals testified that they should not have been.

Please confirm that you've received this email and let me know if you have any questions

regards
Stefan Sharkansky

Detective Christopher Johnson

King County Sheriff's Office

Fraud & Computer Investigtions

"Make sure to put on your to do list to provide the crew a list of the fatal pends that were activated so that they can do quality control work."

To: Stefan Sharkansky

Cc: "Hobbs, Stephen" <Stephen.Hobbs@metrokc.gov>, "Davis, Steven" <Steven.Davis@metrokc.gov>

 

 

To:Stefan Sharkansky

Cc: "Harris, Susie" <Susie-Pros-Atty.Harris@metrokc.gov>, "Hobbs, Stephen" <Stephen.Hobbs@metrokc.gov>