IEBC chairman Chebukati files case at SCORK seeking interpretation of his role on verification of forms 34As
— Philip Etale (@EtalePhilip) October 5, 2017
The sod didn't know his job? Went are we paying him? This smacks of the mortician...
That is very strange. Usually the head of an independent body such as IEBC interprets what their role is and other people go to court to challenge it. Chebukati is a man under siege at the IEBC and he needs to stop acting as if everything was fine. He needs to make a lot of noise and let the chips fall where they may. He needs to tell us why he changed his mind about firing Chiloba. Who visited him to cause him to change his mind. If he refuses to be truthful with the people of Kenya then he will end up dead from "natural causes" and nobody will ever know why.The sod didn't know his job? Went are we paying him? This smacks of the mortician...
IEBC chairman Chebukati files case at SCORK seeking interpretation of his role on verification of forms 34As
— Philip Etale (@EtalePhilip) October 5, 2017
IEBC chairman Chebukati files case at SCORK seeking interpretation of his role on verification of forms 34As
— Philip Etale (@EtalePhilip) October 5, 2017
Whatever his role is, I am sure IEBC(CTC, NTC) cannot make a valid call without almost all 34As in place. I hope he is not in doubt about this bit.
Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.
What if for any reason he doesn't some few? But he has form 34b which is the final aggregate results? I am glad the SCOK will get another chance to tie itself further in the knot. Obviously parliament need to resolve this by ammending the laws. Elections SHOULD SIMPLE. Not complicated.Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.
What if for any reason he doesn't some few? But he has form 34b which is the final aggregate results? I am glad the SCOK will get another chance to tie itself further in the knot. Obviously parliament need to resolve this by ammending the laws. Elections SHOULD SIMPLE. Not complicated.Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.
It's a judgement call. He can estimate if the votes left in the missing ones can change the outcome or not. Close to 10,000 is definitely too many.
That is not in dispute and it’s a tad obvious. IEBC is represented at polling station by PO and Constituency by ROs. Why are 34As any necessary and not ballot boxes at NTC?IEBC chairman Chebukati files case at SCORK seeking interpretation of his role on verification of forms 34As
— Philip Etale (@EtalePhilip) October 5, 2017
Whatever his role is, I am sure IEBC(CTC, NTC) cannot make a valid call without almost all 34As in place. I hope he is not in doubt about this bit.
Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.But Kiai case did just that by stopping him from verification.
That is not in dispute and it’s a tad obvious. IEBC is represented at polling station by PO and Constituency by ROs. Why are 34As any necessary and not ballot boxes at NTC?IEBC chairman Chebukati files case at SCORK seeking interpretation of his role on verification of forms 34As
— Philip Etale (@EtalePhilip) October 5, 2017
Whatever his role is, I am sure IEBC(CTC, NTC) cannot make a valid call without almost all 34As in place. I hope he is not in doubt about this bit.
I don't have his pleadings. Do you? Share them if you do.I don’t have them but I’ll share as soon as I get them.
While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As.
Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.But Kiai case did just that by stopping him from verification.
They basically said that verification at polling station and Constituency tallying center suffices.
SCOK are going to tread delicately because they have already made it clear that the chairman needs to verify,and he can’t verify without these forms.
[289]…It has been established that at the time the 2nd respondent(Chairperson) declared the final results for the election of the President on 11th August, 2017, not all results as tabulated in Forms 34A, had been electronically and simultaneously transmitted from the polling stations, to the National Tallying Centres. The 2nd respondent cannot therefore be said to have verified the results before declaring them.
[290] The said verification could only have been possible if, before declaring the results, the 2nd respondent had checked the aggregated tallies in Forms 34B against the scanned Forms 34A as transmitted in accordance with Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act. Given the fact that all Forms 34 B were generated from the aggregates of Forms 34A, there can be no logical explanation as to why, in tallying the Forms 34B into the Form 34C, this primary document (Form 34A), was completely disregarded.
Yet Kiai Case was clear;
“…If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.”
But the worst error was SCOK failure to acknowledge Kiai Case forbade verification. How could they miss it?
stop misleading yourself for propaganda purposes. You and those peddling this propaganda know that the Kiai case never intended the Chairman to be a potted plant. Besides, the Chairman's password seems to have been very busy after the voting. The password was used 10,000 times to enter the server to download, delete and upload forms. That does not sound like a man whose hands is tied by the Maina Kiai case which only barred him from changing the 34a's but nowhere in the ruling barred him from taking a look at them to see if the numbers tallied to what he had on 34B and 34C.We agreed you be pasting your responses under for ease of follow up
Exactly. Chebukati should be the one insisting that he needs to have all the 34A's before he signs anything or announces anybody the winner. One in his position should seek to expand his authority and not limit it. If anybody thinks that Chebukati do not need to see all the 34a's then let that SOB/MWU go to court.But Kiai case did just that by stopping him from verification.
They basically said that verification at polling station and Constituency tallying center suffices.
They specified the type of verification the person(chairman as opposed to IEBC) can do at NTC. They did not forbid it. We have to make the distinction between what is expected of Chebukati(the bad hombre) and IEBC(the institution). Chebukati is at the top of the institution that as a whole is responsible for ensuring that there are enough 34As to support the outcome.No sir,
I don't have his pleadings. Do you? Share them if you do.I don’t have them but I’ll share as soon as I get them.
While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As.
So you don’t need ballot boxes because you have a form telling you their contents but you need 34As yet you have a form telling you their contents?
You are intentionally missing the point.I don't have his pleadings. Do you? Share them if you do.I don’t have them but I’ll share as soon as I get them.
While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As.
So you don’t need ballot boxes because you have a form telling you their contents but you need 34As yet you have a form telling you their contents?
Without a 34A, the ballots might as well be good for wiping kamwana's itchy ass. There is nothing telling you that they are the same thing, no signatures, no record. You can be shown millions of currency bills, but if it's not recorded on your bank statement, that is not going to help you much.
SCOK want to eat their cake and have it so much that they declared results unaccompanied by 34A at NTC as unverifiable.
I can’t believe SCOK said that. To me that’s worse that fudging with scrutiny
They specified the type of verification the person(chairman as opposed to IEBC) can do at NTC. They did not forbid it. We have to make the distinction between what is expected of Chebukati(the bad hombre) and IEBC(the institution). Chebukati is at the top of the institution that as a whole is responsible for ensuring that there are enough 34As to support the outcome.No sir,
Stop splitting hairs
They went to great lengths to define verification before ruling it out. To buttress their point, they distinguished between Chebu and IEBC before concluding that verification at lower levels sufficed as it was exhaustive and carried out by IEBC hence denying Chebu’s prayers to verify was no infraction on electoral constitutional principle of verifiable
You are intentionally missing the point.I don't have his pleadings. Do you? Share them if you do.I don’t have them but I’ll share as soon as I get them.
While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As.
So you don’t need ballot boxes because you have a form telling you their contents but you need 34As yet you have a form telling you their contents?
Without a 34A, the ballots might as well be good for wiping kamwana's itchy ass. There is nothing telling you that they are the same thing, no signatures, no record. You can be shown millions of currency bills, but if it's not recorded on your bank statement, that is not going to help you much.
Ballot boxes need not accompany 34As because you trust 34As on their own without source ballot boxes, yet you won’t trust 34Bs on their own without the source 34As. Why?
We covered this for many pages on another thread in greater detail. The election was annulled, because IEBC(as a whole, not Chebukati) did not have(or was unable for some reason to share) the 34As on the material day to support the outcome that was declared. That is why I think the ruling even cuts the guy himself some slack.No sir,
I agree there is some confusion. Just not about why 34As must be in place.
Vooke,[259] We were at pains to understand how the Court of Appeal decision in that case, could have provided a judicial justification for the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents.....
The SCOK judgement is totally crazy. It can ony be due to really compromised bench. I am glad Chebukati is going back. They clear need to tell us what they want.
Vooke tough luck arguing with people who are seeing ghosts everywhere. What exactly is to verify? Does having all 34As verify anything? Or you need to examine the contents of the form? And what happen if they are discrepancies? What should the chairman do?
The guy cannot alter or vary or correct shiet.
Maybe he can issue a SCOK like SCRUTINY report - of CAVEATS. :D before declaring the winner?
1) 100 form 34As were not signed
2) 20 form 34Bs were not stamped?
100) - list of "verification" errors.
And finally say my hands are tied because the results declared by POs and ROs are final and so with heavy heart I hereby declare Uhuru Kenyatta elected with errors, discrepancies and illegalities.
Or well maybe he can be given powers to annul the election :)
My view - Chebukati should be allowed to verify or not. If he cannot verify- he should simply tally final form 34B - he doesn't need to see shiet he has no powers to do anything about them. The court should verify in case of petition that maths were correct, all forms correct and the impact of any errors.
If he is allowed to verify - he should be alowed to alter or correct results - and make that clear & in public view of agents & observers.
BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record. He cannot change the numbers on 34a but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B. 2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc. One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes. These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.
BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record. He cannot change the numbers on 34a but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B. 2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc. One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes. These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.
You need to read the judgement, it’s only 42 pages
IEBC sought to verify WITHOUT altering and varying
Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.
But the court of appeal ruled;
It is, in our view fallacious and flies in the face of the clear principles and values of the Constitution to claim that the chairperson of the appellant can alone, at the national tallying centre or wherever, purport to confirm, vary or verify the results arrived at through an open, transparent and participatory process as we have already set out.
To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy.
PS
Note the court presumes the chairperson has results from CTC so verifying if the results came from CTC does not count. So stop splitting hairs and just admit that the ruling was asinine and totally counterintuitive. Just as the chairperson can’t open ballot boxes before accepting 34A,he can’t and shouldn’t second guess 34B
BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record. He cannot change the numbers on 34a but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B. 2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc. One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes. These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.
You need to read the judgement, it’s only 42 pages
IEBC sought to verify WITHOUT altering and varying
Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.
But the court of appeal ruled;
It is, in our view fallacious and flies in the face of the clear principles and values of the Constitution to claim that the chairperson of the appellant can alone, at the national tallying centre or wherever, purport to confirm, vary or verify the results arrived at through an open, transparent and participatory process as we have already set out.
To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy.
PS
Note the court presumes the chairperson has results from CTC so verifying if the results came from CTC does not count. So stop splitting hairs and just admit that the ruling was asinine and totally counterintuitive. Just as the chairperson can’t open ballot boxes before accepting 34A,he can’t and shouldn’t second guess 34B
Correct this lay man if you can... I thought the very basic meaning of verify/verification is to check the validity of something? There is no way verification also includes adjustment. In my view if Chebukati is presented with a stack of dodgy 34Bs, dodgy as in lacking the proper serial numbers, security features and even his own Returning/Presiding officers' signature, then the next logical step is to reject said 34Bs as they will have failed verification on the face of it. If he further checks the figures on them and ascertains that they do not match the transmitted results from the polling centre......the outcome is still reject reject reject. What's so difficult to understand here?
"verify
?v?r?f??/
verb
verb: verify; 3rd person present: verifies; past tense: verified; past participle: verified; gerund or present participle: verifying
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
"his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"
synonyms: substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify, accredit, ratify, warrant, vouch for, bear out, bear witness to, give credence to, give force to, give/lend weight to, justify, vindicate; More
make sure, make certain, check;
informalpin down;
informalsuss out
"reports of the massacre could not be verified"
antonyms: refute
Law
swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit."
"verification
?v?r?f??ke??(?)n/
noun
noun: verification; plural noun: verifications
the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
"the verification of official documents"
synonyms: confirmation, substantiation, corroboration, attestation, affirmation, validation, authentication, endorsement, accreditation, ratification, establishment, certification; More
evidence, proof, support, witness, testament, documentation
"the banking software has an array of functions including signature verification"
Philosophy
the establishment by empirical means of the validity of a proposition.
"the verification principle"
the process of ensuring that procedures laid down in weapons limitation agreements are followed."
You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
You are willfully ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without 34Bs but 34As.You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county). I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case. In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible. SCOK material finding was correct.
You are ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without 34Bs but 34As.You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county). I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case. In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible. SCOK material finding was correct.
You are ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without 34Bs but 34As.You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county). I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case. In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible. SCOK material finding was correct.
Guilty as charged. Maybe you have the evidence. The ruling states that this fact was not denied.
You are ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without 34Bs but 34As.You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county). I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case. In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible. SCOK material finding was correct.
Guilty as charged. Maybe you have the evidence. The ruling states that this fact was not denied.
Quote the relevant part of the judgement
You are ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without 34Bs but 34As.You seem to be more confused after reading it.There is no legal novelty in Kiai case thet a layman can’t comprehend nor is there anything confusing; it was clear that no verification whatsoever could be had at NTC
Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county). I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case. In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible. SCOK material finding was correct.
Guilty as charged. Maybe you have the evidence. The ruling states that this fact was not denied.
Quote the relevant part of the judgement
I will when I get a chance. If you spent less time on Njoki's useless dissent and read the actual court ruling, you would have seen it.
[248] In an affidavit sworn by Koitamet Ole Kina, in support of the petition, there is telling correspondence which we had referred to earlier but which we reproduce in the present context. On the 10th of August 2017, the deponent, acting on behalf of the petitioners, wrote to the 2nd respondent in the following words:Paragraph 248 starts at the end of page 103 of the ruling.
“Your brief on the above subject at Bomas on 10th August, 2017 at around 9.00 pm refers. You informed Kenyans and the world at large that IEBC had received over 40000, Forms 34 A and about 170 Forms 34B. We have requested IEBC for all these forms for purposes of verification. Members of your secretariat have informed us that they can only avail 29000 Forms 34A as at 11pm of 10th August 2017. We kindly request the Commission expedite (sic) release of the remaining Forms 34A &B to enable us complete the verification exercise.”
[249] Again on 14th August 2017, the deponent wrote:In this part, the claim is made that 187 34Bs are missing in action. That only 108 34B are available.
“This is a follow up on our letter dated 10th August 2017. Until now, IEBC has only furnished NASA with 29000 forms 34 A and 108 forms 34B. We urgently require the unsupplied ten thousand (10000) forms 34A and one hundred and eighty seven (187) forms 34B to complete the list of documents the Commission was supposed to release to all the candidates in the just concluded general elections. Attached please find a list of the outstanding 187 constituencies for your immediate action.”
[250] On 14th August 2017, the Secretary and CEO of the 1st respondent wrote;Chiloba's response, 3 days after the declaration.
“Reference is made to your letter dated 14th August 2017 requesting to be supplied with the remaining forms that were not supplied earlier. The Commission is in a position to provide all the required form 34Bs immediately. We are however not able to supply form 34As at the moment but the same shall be availed to you as soon as possible.”
[251] It is a fact that the correspondence quoted above did take place, and the contents of the said correspondence were never controverted. On this basis, a number of questions arise:Where the court says this information was not denied.
Yes, they never denied making the corrrespondence, but they clearly denied declaring without all forms 34B. Don’t humor me thst you can’t tell the difference.Quote[248] In an affidavit sworn by Koitamet Ole Kina, in support of the petition, there is telling correspondence which we had referred to earlier but which we reproduce in the present context. On the 10th of August 2017, the deponent, acting on behalf of the petitioners, wrote to the 2nd respondent in the following words:Paragraph 248 starts at the end of page 103 of the ruling.
“Your brief on the above subject at Bomas on 10th August, 2017 at around 9.00 pm refers. You informed Kenyans and the world at large that IEBC had received over 40000, Forms 34 A and about 170 Forms 34B. We have requested IEBC for all these forms for purposes of verification. Members of your secretariat have informed us that they can only avail 29000 Forms 34A as at 11pm of 10th August 2017. We kindly request the Commission expedite (sic) release of the remaining Forms 34A &B to enable us complete the verification exercise.”Quote[249] Again on 14th August 2017, the deponent wrote:In this part, the claim is made that 187 34Bs are missing in action. That only 108 34B are available.
“This is a follow up on our letter dated 10th August 2017. Until now, IEBC has only furnished NASA with 29000 forms 34 A and 108 forms 34B. We urgently require the unsupplied ten thousand (10000) forms 34A and one hundred and eighty seven (187) forms 34B to complete the list of documents the Commission was supposed to release to all the candidates in the just concluded general elections. Attached please find a list of the outstanding 187 constituencies for your immediate action.”Quote[250] On 14th August 2017, the Secretary and CEO of the 1st respondent wrote;Chiloba's response, 3 days after the declaration.
“Reference is made to your letter dated 14th August 2017 requesting to be supplied with the remaining forms that were not supplied earlier. The Commission is in a position to provide all the required form 34Bs immediately. We are however not able to supply form 34As at the moment but the same shall be availed to you as soon as possible.”Quote[251] It is a fact that the correspondence quoted above did take place, and the contents of the said correspondence were never controverted. On this basis, a number of questions arise:Where the court says this information was not denied.
http://www.judiciary.go.ke/portal/assets/filemanager_uploads/A%20-%20Decisions/Majority%20Full%20Judgment.pdf
Contents of the correspondence is not the same as the correspondence. The court clearly found the documentary evidence superior to the opposing affidavit.If they did,It clearly escaped the Judgement because it is not mentioned nowhere, yet they indicate the biggest non-compliance was missing forms 34A at the point of declaration.
Contents of the correspondence is not the same as the correspondence. The court clearly found the documentary evidence superior to the opposing affidavit.If they did,It clearly escaped the Judgement because it is not mentioned nowhere, yet they indicate the biggest non-compliance was missing forms 34A at the point of declaration.
[238] By far, the most critical and persistently claimed non-compliance with the law, was that the 1st respondent announced results on the basis of Forms 34B before receiving all Forms 34A. It was also alleged that the results announced in Forms 34B were different from those displayed on the 1st respondents’ Public Web Portal.
That’s a slot reserved for the missing 34As not 34Bs, but the judges being sensible enough stuck with what was NOT contested; missing 34As,and not 34Bs as NASWA alleged
Contents of the correspondence is not the same as the correspondence. The court clearly found the documentary evidence superior to the opposing affidavit.If they did,It clearly escaped the Judgement because it is not mentioned nowhere, yet they indicate the biggest non-compliance was missing forms 34A at the point of declaration.
[238] By far, the most critical and persistently claimed non-compliance with the law, was that the 1st respondent announced results on the basis of Forms 34B before receiving all Forms 34A. It was also alleged that the results announced in Forms 34B were different from those displayed on the 1st respondents’ Public Web Portal.
That’s a slot reserved for the missing 34As not 34Bs, but the judges being sensible enough stuck with what was NOT contested; missing 34As,and not 34Bs as NASWA alleged
They did, and they should have. Because Chebukati claims they had all 34Bs while Chiloba is promising to supply 34Bs 3 days after the event. That simply means Chebukati is caught lying about 34Bs. It's not a statement on the importance of 34Bs.
Correct this lay man if you can... I thought the very basic meaning of verify/verification is to check the validity of something? There is no way verification also includes adjustment. In my view if Chebukati is presented with a stack of dodgy 34Bs, dodgy as in lacking the proper serial numbers, security features and even his own Returning/Presiding officers' signature, then the next logical step is to reject said 34Bs as they will have failed verification on the face of it. If he further checks the figures on them and ascertains that they do not match the transmitted results from the polling centre......the outcome is still reject reject reject. What's so difficult to understand here?
"verify
?v?r?f??/
verb
verb: verify; 3rd person present: verifies; past tense: verified; past participle: verified; gerund or present participle: verifying
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
"his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"
synonyms: substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify, accredit, ratify, warrant, vouch for, bear out, bear witness to, give credence to, give force to, give/lend weight to, justify, vindicate; More
make sure, make certain, check;
informalpin down;
informalsuss out
"reports of the massacre could not be verified"
antonyms: refute
Law
swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit."
"verification
?v?r?f??ke??(?)n/
noun
noun: verification; plural noun: verifications
the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
"the verification of official documents"
synonyms: confirmation, substantiation, corroboration, attestation, affirmation, validation, authentication, endorsement, accreditation, ratification, establishment, certification; More
evidence, proof, support, witness, testament, documentation
"the banking software has an array of functions including signature verification"
Philosophy
the establishment by empirical means of the validity of a proposition.
"the verification principle"
the process of ensuring that procedures laid down in weapons limitation agreements are followed."
I’m a layman too but I took a keen interest in Kiai case and I can tell you for free SCOK never read or never understood anything out of the 42 pages. You will find out shortly as they navigate Chebu’s Petition.
Before Kiai Case, NTC used to verify and change (amend,correct,adjust...) results from both Constituency and polling stations. This means any result declared at these lower levels were not final as they could change at NTC. They called them provisional results,and final results was the product of NTC.
Kiai Case trashed all that, and if you read at the various excepts i shared, they forbade ANY form of verification.
Chebu argued like you thet he should at least be allowed to ‘verify’ without alteration,and that verification did not necessarily include alteration. Look at his understanding;
Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.
This feeble and watered down verification was thrown out.
So it’s no shortage of definition that Chebu confronted, but summary ban of whatever definition he conjured.
34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
The Kiai decision was made to stop the alterations along the way to and at the ntc. No alterations should ever take place. That requirement is simple and informed by our history of rigged elections.Correct.
34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
That NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Point remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Point remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Sure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
Sure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
I know and that’s why I know I will wait indefinitelySure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
Keep waiting. As long you understand you don't get to manufacture facts out of thin air.
I know and that’s why I know I will wait indefinitelySure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
Keep waiting. As long you understand you don't get to manufacture facts out of thin air.
If Chebukati was in control, he would have read the decision and interpreted it a long time ago. Its the in fighting and insubordination by Jubilee moles in the commission who are undermining him and causing him to seek the courts opinion. It would be much better if the commissioners are declared partisans appointed by political parties and therefore we do not have people claiming that they are neutral and yet they are controlled like dummies by WSR.The courts contradicted themselves.I know and that’s why I know I will wait indefinitelySure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
Keep waiting. As long you understand you don't get to manufacture facts out of thin air.
If Chebukati was in control, he would have read the decision and interpreted it a long time ago. Its the in fighting and insubordination by Jubilee moles in the commission who are undermining him and causing him to seek the courts opinion. It would be much better if the commissioners are declared partisans appointed by political parties and therefore we do not have people claiming that they are neutral and yet they are controlled like dummies by WSR.I know and that’s why I know I will wait indefinitelySure, still waiting for thst section of the judgement that touches on this, you may write your own judgement and pas it as SCOK’s just to get a final wordPoint remains, it was unproven as much as was rigging claimsThat NEITHER of that made it to the final judgement is clear34As are the currency of this election. Not 34B.
None of that changes the fact that 34Bs was all there.
The import of 34As and 34Bs will be determined by Chebu petition. IEBC can work with either or even a concoction of both as SCOK directs
That they were all there is a lie debunked by Chiloba’s letter and caught by SCOK. Repeating it here does not change that fact.
Yes. And yet a lie remains a lie.
Debunked yes. By Chiloba's letter. Don't fight facts. You lose every time.
Keep waiting. As long you understand you don't get to manufacture facts out of thin air.
I think there might be some areas of uncertainty with respect to what he is supposed to do with 34As and 34Bs. What is not uncertain is that without those forms, whatever he is supposed to do with them remains impossible. The jubilant will of course want to use this uncertainty to taint the material finding that the election was a farce.
To Kichwa et al
On the commissioners thing, besides that vettings and the entire process would be required, what would be the point in replacing them? The thrust in your argument is their lack of independence or neutrality. Seeing they are months-old, would fresh faces not simply be corrupted and become Ruto's marionettes too? The appointment process is the same unless you do a somersault and demand changes to the IEBC Act. IPPG.
I'm still lost as to why the Jubilidiot thinks there's room for ambiguity in the Kiai decision when all it was serving was to ensure that results as read at the polling station were final as indeed they should be.
Why (in the absence of rigging) would anyone want to change the results from what's declared at the polling station. Heck all they need to count is a max of 700 votes minus any no shows etc.
This "confusion" is a sideshow not worth the bandwidth being wasted on it..
I'm still lost as to why the Jubilidiot thinks there's room for ambiguity in the Kiai decision when all it was serving was to ensure that results as read at the polling station were final as indeed they should be.
Why (in the absence of rigging) would anyone want to change the results from what's declared at the polling station. Heck all they need to count is a max of 700 votes minus any no shows etc.
This "confusion" is a sideshow not worth the bandwidth being wasted on it..
Again, Chebu is as competent as any SCOK Judge yet when he followed Kiss case to the letter, SCOK faulted him.
Chebu is no Jubilee by any stretch if imagination.
The question is which between 34A and 34B should be used to generate the final results?
Chebukati's hurried declaration of the loser the winner is what led to the scok decision. There has to be a responsibility on his part to check, and verify that the declaration was correct before making it. A highly qualified individual such as this does not need the law to direct his behaviour.
The obvious conclusion drawn from jubilee tears is that chebukati was cajoled into announcing uhuru the winner, falsely believing that the declaration was irreversible regardless of the major fraud underpinning it.
Common sense says that the aggregate of forms 34As is the primary document due to its proximity to the ballots. In a sterile environment, aggregate forms 34A=Aggregate forms 34B=form 34 C. Simples.
I think self examination is key here.
vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
It was not bogus, just lacked security features which I think are redundant given the next to nil likelihood of forging it. I mean it is prepared last,and by a very small team so....vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
What do you make of the bogus 34C?
vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?
The only unpleasant fact is missing 34Bs never made it to the judgementvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?
I think he gets it but it’s an incovenient, maybe even unpleasant, fact.
SCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
SCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
And they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
And they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
The only unpleasant fact is missing 34Bs never made it to the judgementvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?
I think he gets it but it’s an incovenient, maybe even unpleasant, fact.
Still waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
Still waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
That Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
That Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
To save your skinThat Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
I always think of bits in terms the little ones that make a byte.
Why would I want to provide you with that bit?
To save your skinThat Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
I always think of bits in terms the little ones that make a byte.
Why would I want to provide you with that bit?
It was not bogus, just lacked security features which I think are redundant given the next to nil likelihood of forging it. I mean it is prepared last,and by a very small team so....vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
What do you make of the bogus 34C?
It was not bogus, just lacked security features which I think are redundant given the next to nil likelihood of forging it. I mean it is prepared last,and by a very small team so....vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
What do you make of the bogus 34C?
I save mine by factsTo save your skinThat Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
I always think of bits in terms the little ones that make a byte.
Why would I want to provide you with that bit?
Is that how you save yours? Interesting. I rather prefer Vaseline. Petroleum jelly.
That was a minor pointIt was not bogus, just lacked security features which I think are redundant given the next to nil likelihood of forging it. I mean it is prepared last,and by a very small team so....vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
What do you make of the bogus 34C?It was not bogus, just lacked security features which I think are redundant given the next to nil likelihood of forging it. I mean it is prepared last,and by a very small team so....vooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. :o :o A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
What do you make of the bogus 34C?
This is where you fail miserably. The forms had anti tamper qualities. Anything that doesn't have these features is a forgery... Or bogus as Robina says... No hairs to split here
I save mine by factsTo save your skinThat Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
I always think of bits in terms the little ones that make a byte.
Why would I want to provide you with that bit?
Is that how you save yours? Interesting. I rather prefer Vaseline. Petroleum jelly.
Where?I save mine by factsTo save your skinThat Chebu had no forms 34BsStill waiting for you to get time to share the relevant bitAnd they forgot to mention itSCOK must be made of morons if they was convinced 34Bs and 34As was missing yet they ran with missing 34Asvooke doesn't get that even the 34B were not all in. The singular 34C had no watermark or serial number. A fake 34C... or was it botched by NASA too?Robina,
Missing 34Bs is totally inexcusable but it was just a claim/allegation that Chebu disputed,and NASWA never pursued further. Only missing 34As expressly directed SCOK because IEBC agreed/accepted to these charges.
And the sky is not blue because Chebukati disputed it.
Either Chiloba’s letter is fake or Chebukati is lying in his affidavit. What does either of them have to gain by lying? Chiloba nada. Chebukat todo.
OR they are smart and know that if the primary document is missing or invalid, they need not bother with the derivatives.
OR they remembered not to mention it.
What is a relevant bit?
I always think of bits in terms the little ones that make a byte.
Why would I want to provide you with that bit?
Is that how you save yours? Interesting. I rather prefer Vaseline. Petroleum jelly.
I forgot to mention. The petroleum jelly is fragrance free. Vaseline.
Otherwise it's remarkable, if somewhat confusing, how you save yours.
Why don't you start a skin care thread that way we can keep Omollo's thread focused on the subject matter.