Posted on

Robredo is on Atty. Glenn Chong’s Tail Prior to Election Hearing

election





By: Elena Grace Flores

A public hearing happens on September 13, 2018. It is a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Automated Election System (JCOC-AES) event at the Senate Session Hall, 2nd Floor, Senate of the Philippines at 10:00 AM which is open to the public. Prior to this, the camp of Vice President Leni Robredo asks the Supreme Court’s Presidential Electoral Tribunal to investigate how the audit logs from Camarines Sur came into possession of lawyer Glenn Chong.




Youtube video by News5Everywhere

[VIDEO]: Gustong malaman ng kampo ni VP Robredo kung paano nakakuha ng kopya ng audit logs ng Camarines Sur si Atty. Chong.




Disturbed by Chong

Atty. Macalintal finds it disturbing for Chong being able to get a copy of the audit logs from Ragay. He claims to have no connection to the parties involved. However, on his Facebook page back on March 9, he posted a portion of the audit logs. Furthermore, he even presented them to the Senate committee on a hearing. Moreover, Chong consistently denies being a representative of Marcos. Senator Drilon, however, confronts him for having two authorization letters from the Marcos’ camp.



Origin of the Audit Logs

Chong testified under oath that h hot the audit logs from SET. However, Macalintal is saying that Ragay was not covered by the election protest filed by Francis Tolentino before the SET. Consequently, the Commission on Elections did not submit the audit logs to SET. Both Marcos’ and Robredo’s camps were able to obtain soft copies of the decrypted ballot images and audit logs from Ragay, according to Macalintal.


Macalintal’s Challenging Threats

Macalintal is informing the PET that despite claiming to not be a representative of Marcos, Chong still possesses copies of the resolutions of PET and pleadings that were submitted by the parties. Chong was also present during the closure activities of Comelec which Macalintal challenges because only the representatives of the parties were allowed to observe. Furthermore, Chong was even one of the witnesses in the first cause of action of Marcos. Macalintal is accusing Chong of attempting to preempt any resolution of the PET by swaying public opinion through the discussion of the merits of the case on his Facebook.



Chong’s Counter Challenge for the Election

Chong is saying that the first few pages of their 35-page manifesto clearly shows them trying to fool the Supreme Court. They use only select parts of the transcript to make their version believable. This move, Chong believes, is because Robredo’s camp can’t destroy him so they’re trying their chances on the Supreme Court. He is challenging them to bring out all they can on the September 13 hearing.




Desperate Move to Silence Chong

Robredo’s camp is desperate  to prove that he is a representative of Marcos so that he will be under the gag order as well, according to Chong. He is saying that they could not fight the knowledge of the fraud in the elections spreading. They may have paid the mainstream media, but they cannot handle the social media, according to Chong. Consequently, they are trying to silence him.



Posted on

Bongbong Marcos: Why Does Robredo Demands Ballot Soft Copies WITHOUT Paying Liability?

Liability





welcome By: Elena Grace Flores

Bongbong Marcos has opposed to Robredo’s Motion that she be allowed to secure soft copies of the printed ballot images. This from the ongoing Decryption activity of the COMELEC for Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Marcos cannot figure out why Robredo suddenly wants them when she’s been opposing it ever since. She even did not help in paying the liability requirement.





Video by; News ThatMatter

[VIDEO]: Bongbong  Marcos said that election fraud can be verified in the technical examination.




No Liability Payment from Robredo

It will be recalled that the ongoing decryption activity was initiated solely by Marcos. He had to shoulder the decryption fee of Php 2.9M including an additional Php 2M for the initial supplies required by the COMELEC. Robredo did not join him in this undertaking. In fact, actively opposed the same as early as June 2017.




No Right to Demand

According to Marcos, since “Robredo did not contribute any share in the expenses and supplies, she should not be allowed by PET to obtain soft and even hard copies of the decrypted images of the ballots, election returns, audit logs and other relevant documents for all the protested clustered precincts of the pilot provinces.”



Just Shameless

Marcos has accused Robredo of cheating her way to the second highest office in the land. He lost to Robredo by a slim margin of about 260,000 votes in the 2016 national elections. Lawyer and I.T. expert Glenn Chong who has been involved in scrutinizing Smartmatic’s performance just refer to Robredo as a big liar.









Pointing Fingers

Recently, Robredo’s camp released a media propaganda accusing Marcos of forging the list of 8,000 election fraud witnesses mostly in his pilot areas.  The accusation boomeranged to her. ALDUB or Alyansang Du30-Bongbong or ALDUB members stood as witnesses to various incidents of election fraud in Basilan, Lamitan.



http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/11/15/1759195/marcos-argues-against-robredos-bid-ballot-soft-copies

ALDUB Testified against Robredo’s Accusation that Bongbong Marcos Forged Election Witnesses List




Posted on

Estafa and Qualified Theft Explained


welcome
By: Elena Grace Flores

Fraud #12
Fraud #12 (Photo credit: McBeth)

As investment scams are becoming rampant, the legal terms estafa and qualified theft are also becoming popular. What’s the difference between these two cases? It is wise to know the rule of law so that you know what to do if fraud or theft happens to you. Watch this video:

[NewsLife] – Rule of Law: Difference of estafa and qualified theft

Posted at Youtube by: PTV PH


Briefly, estafa is committed when there’s a misappropriation with arrangements made thus resulting to the possession of money or property – whereas it’s qualified theft when the property was possessed without the owner’s consent. It’s also good to know that there’s also a way of recovering some of the lost finances due to estafa. Hope this helps.

Enhanced by Zemanta