Handel Scandel $1000 Challenge

HANDEL SCANDAL UPDATE:

Last Saturday several of us passed out Handel Scandal summaries at a Fulton County Breakfast where Karen Handel and Paul Broun were speaking. Karen had another opportunity to confront our facts but instead her staff started stealing our flyers from the tables to prevent her supporters from knowing the truth about her tenure as Secretary of State. Therefore, we are offering her staff, her supporters and any other Georgia voter one more opportunity to disprove any of our facts.

THE HANDEL SCANDAL $1,000 CHALLENGE:

For the first person who can prove that one of the seven scandals defined in the Handel Scandal summary is substantially untrue, that individual  can qualify for a $1000 reward.

Here is how:

  1. Read the one page summary of facts involving voting machine scandals here:  http://www.decidingthevote.com/docs/Handel-Handout.pdf
  2. Get more details about the scandals if needed here: http://decidingthevote.com/the-handel-scandals
  3.  Post your proof and contact information at the bottom of the article here: http://decidingthevote.com/the-handel-scandals/#comments

If a person can prove that one of the scandals is substantially untrue, I will make any necessary correction and arrange for the reward.  Please allow 48 hours for a response. This offer is good for seven calendar days beginning today May 14, 2014.

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044 CL

Garland Favorito About Garland Favorito

Garland is an IT professional with more than 25 years of experience. He is co-founder of VoterGA, established to restore the integrity of Georgia elections. He is also the author of "Our Nation Betrayed: From Impeachment to Infinite War," which is in its second edition and the first published book to question the government's version of events that occurred on 9/11.

Comments

  1. Garland Favorito says:

    Hello Anne,
    Thank you for responding to the recent challenge to prove that one of the seven “Handel Scandal” summary points is substantially untrue. As you know, the HR1714 Impeachment resolution contains charges brought by a State Representative against Shawn LaGrua, who had previously been hired by Karen Handel to fill the newly created Inspector General position at the office of the Secretary of State. Many of the impeachment charges involve the conduct of LaGrua’s investigations for Secretary Handel. The resolution title, “LaGrua, Shawn; bring impeachment charges” and opening clause, “Bringing charges of impeachment against Shawn LaGrua;…” confirm that charges were brought.

    It is true that the Judiciary Committee did not initiate a hearing even after Chairman Wendell Willard was presented with notices from people who agreed to testify. Therefore, the charges were not brought by the full House of Representatives. However, the statement you challenged does not make that claim. The statement contends that charges were brought in the House of Representatives and that is exactly what Rep. Franklin did as confirmed in the HR1714 resolution title and opening clause. Therefore, after careful consideration, I believe that your challenge is more legally semantic in nature while the original statement you challenged is still substantially true. I agree though that it could be interpreted as you did and we have adjusted the phrase accordingly.

    You mentioned a great cause and I am still inclined to make a donation, but unfortunately, a detractor could then falsely claim that the original statement was substantially untrue. Nevertheless, I am distributing links to your challenge and my response to see what replies we get. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to engage in a substantive discussion about these serious matters. In conclusion, I would have to say that I feel somewhat honored by your challenge since I have always respected your elections knowledge. For a General Counsel of the Republican Party to review these summary claims and find only a technically semantic difference makes me feel vindicated from any criticism that I may receive for having the courage to make this information more publically available.

  2. I appreciate this discussion and the tone in which it is discussed! The condition of the country has become desperate and we have to vigorously vet candidates.

  3. Garland Favorito says:

    OK Anne, so just to simplify and recap the challenge: “Shawn LaGrua, … was eventually charged … in the House of Representatives” The irrefutable facts are that: In the 2009-2010 session Rep. Bobby Franklin was IN the House of Representatives. During that time he submitted HR1714 which is entitled, “LaGrua, Shawn; bring impeachment charges” and its opening clause states: “Bringing charges of impeachment against Shawn LaGrua;…”. Therefore, the statement is substantively and even technically true. The statement never claimed that charges were brought BY the House. I still like your cause though. Let’s get a few more comments.

  4. Garland Favorito says:

    Hi Anne,
    Sorry for the delay in responding, but now that time has expired I think I have a decision that will please all of us and especially those who represent your cause. We agree on the facts, however, as I already explained, I feel that your argument misinterprets the original statement with language that is not present in it. Therefore, I personally do not believe that the challenge rises to the required level of proving that the words or the intent of the original statement are substantially untrue. While I fully understand your point about the House vote, even the language of the resolution states that Rep. Franklin brought charges in the House of Representatives and that is all that the statement asserts.

    Nevertheless, you identified a good cause and I am willing to participate. Since you understand contracts and words very well, I simply ask you to acknowledge that in legal and commonly accepted terms the statement is substantially true as I have explained. For your consideration, I agree to match any contribution(s) that you were probably going to make anyway to the hospital this year up to the $1000 offered. Just post your acknowledgement and give me a couple of days advance notice as to when you want us to make the donations. That way the St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital will get $2000 instead of $1000. Thank you for your comments. I respect your knowledge and admire your logic.

  5. Michael Opitz says:

    This has been an excellent dialogue and discovery of facts and truth; we are so much better informed because of our understanding of the facts and rhetorical nuisances often found in a court of law, but this is not a court of law; it is a court of public opinion. We clearly see an abuse of public trust, and that is so often the case leading to public cynicism toward many politicians. Our voting machine processes are unverifiable and no politician has acted to fix the problem. Karen when running for Secretary of State, promised to fix the problem for the public good. However, she did not, and an innocent voting machine technician was charged when she had done nothing wrong. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is to be applauded when he investigated the charges referred by Shawn LaGrua, and he found there was no wrong doing by the voting machine technician, and subsequently, all charges were dropped. But the legal action by LaGrua sent a chilling message to other voting machine clerks. If they were to step forward and disclose any voting machine irregularities, they might have to pay a high price. Those are the facts, and now we know how it played out in Court and in the Georgia Legislature. Many accolades to the late Rep. Bobby Franklin. He did his job when others refused to do theirs. Many thanks to Garland Favorito for his continued dedicated work to provide Georgia with an honest verifiable voting process.

Speak Your Mind

*