Request For Comments On Revised Call Report; Ncua Form - Ncua: Fill & Download for Free

Well we have four incidents in Pennsylvania where Republicans have been charged with voter fraud as they were caught trying to cast fraudulent votes for ‘ol fat Donny. And four men in Texas were indicted on voter fraud charges trying to cast 150 fraudulent votes for Donny.Please read on….The Washington PostBy Rosalind S. Helderman, Jon SwaineThe tiny number of incidents further undercuts Trump’s barrage of false allegations that there was widespread manipulation of the vote — claims that continue to be echoed by many Republican officials, including some who acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory but assert that fraud was prevalent.White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Monday wrote in a tweet that there was “mounting evidence of voter fraud” and members of Congress were preparing to “fight back” against it.In fact, such allegations have been rejected by dozens of judges across the country, a number of whom noted in their decisions that Trump and his allies failed to put forward evidence to support such claims.The minimal number of criminal investigations that have so far come out of the November vote further reinforce the absence of sweeping vote fraud schemes.Officials note that the full picture is not yet known — as is routine, many states conduct exhaustive audits in the months after an election, which sometimes identify cases of double voting or ballots cast by ineligible voters.Still, they said such cases in the past have been sporadic and in such small numbers that they have not come close to altering the results — and they see no indications that this year’s election will be any different.The potential cases of fraud under investigation this year do not support the wild claims by Trump and his allies, who have spun tales of shadowy conspiracies involving thousands of shifted votes, vulnerable voting machines and foreign interference, but failed to produce firsthand evidence or even to name the individuals they believe pulled off such audacious schemes.Instead, the alleged voter fraud cases, mostly spotted by astute local election officials, were identified as a result of the kinds of safeguards in place in states and counties across the nation specifically designed to catch problems.Most of those so far charged with illegally voting in the presidential race sought to cast one or two additional ballots and appear to have been driven less by a desire to actually swing the election than to cut corners on behalf of a friend or relative or, even, merely to test the system — an illegal act that had been encouraged before Election Day by Trump himself.In Pennsylvania, where Biden won by more than 80,500 votes, three voters have been charged with voting illegally this year — all Republicans.Police have alleged that Ralph H. Thurman, 71, voted in Chester County on Election Day — then returned to his polling place wearing sunglasses and attempted to cast a second ballot in the name of his son. He faces four charges, including repeat voting, a felony.In Wilkes-Barre, Robert R. Lynn, 67, has been charged with requesting an absentee ballot in the name of his mother, who died in 2015, and then attempting to vote in her name by forging her signature. He is charged with forgery and interference with an election, both felonies.Jeff Oster, a lawyer for Thurman, said in an email that he was “a war hero, philanthropist, family man, and one of the most kind-hearted, honest people that anyone could know — a long-standing pillar of the community.”Oster said Thurman, who uses a hearing aid, “merely misheard and/or otherwise relied upon what the mask-wearing poll worker told him through a thick plexiglass barrier in a large, noisy gymnasium where voter check-in was taking place.”“I can firmly state that Mr. Thurman did not break the law on November 3, 2020,” he added.A lawyer for Lynn did not respond to a request for comment.Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) said the two cases were “out of a Benny Hill skit,” referring to the slapstick comedian.“It perfectly illustrates how rare and difficult it is to commit voter fraud,” he said in an interview.Election officials from the Allegheny County Elections Division look for a ballot bin at the elections warehouse in Pittsburgh on Nov. 4. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)Fetterman cited the cases in response to a call-out on Twitter by his Texas counterpart, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who offered a $1 million reward for anyone who brought forward a valid complaint of fraud, part of an effort by GOP officials to put a spotlight on alleged irregularities.Fetterman requested that his reward money be paid in gift cards to Sheetz gas stations. Patrick, he said, has so far “stiffed” him on the offer.Sherry Sylvester, a spokeswoman for Patrick, said the offer was for tips that lead to an arrest and conviction. “Fetterman should actually read Lt. Governor Patrick’s offer before calling reporters,” she said in a statement.A third case in Pennsylvania surfaced Monday, when the district attorney of Delaware County, outside Philadelphia, announced a 70-year-old man had been charged with requesting and casting a ballot in the name of his mother, who died in 2008. In a statement, District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said the man has admitted voting in his mother’s name — for Trump.Officials in Pennsylvania’s two largest cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — where Trump’s team alleged without evidence that widespread corruption tipped the state to Biden — said that no one has been charged with voter fraud in connection with this year’s election.In Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh, Police Superintendent Coleman McDonough said in an email that of the 10 cases his office reviewed, one remains open and a second was referred to another county for further review.The other eight, all now closed, included “alleged ‘suspicious’ interactions between election workers that were found to be normal elections processes,” misunderstandings of election law, and allegations based on Facebook posts which “were found to be fake,” he said.The situation is similar in Nevada, another state where Trump and his backers claimed that the election results were distorted by a virtual kitchen sink of fraudulent behavior, including ballot-box stuffing, illegal out-of-state voting and double voting.But officials in Clark County, the state’s most populous, said a week after Election Day that they had referred just three cases to the secretary of state for investigation.In one case, it appeared that a woman had used her deceased father’s absentee ballot instead of her own, Clark County spokesman Dan Kulin said. In another, a deceased woman’s ballot was cast with a signature that matched hers, suggesting someone had forged it.And in a third, a woman named Jill Stokke claimed someone had stolen her vote by forging her signature on a mail ballot.Republicans featured Stokke as a star plaintiff in one of their unsuccessful lawsuits over ballot-counting in Clark County. But it turned out that she had been offered a chance to vote with a new ballot if she signed a statement swearing that the mail-ballot signature was not hers. She refused to do so.A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske declined to comment on the three cases last week, as did a spokesman for Attorney General Aaron Ford, who also declined to comment on the existence or status of ongoing investigations.This month, Cegavske published a fact sheet that said although her office is “pursuing action in a number of isolated cases,” she has not been presented with evidence of widespread fraud.One man in Nevada is scheduled to go on trial in February for allegedly voting twice — in the 2016 election.In Michigan, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office said there are fewer than a dozen ongoing investigations involving allegations of voter fraud or misinformation that are still being reviewed.Two people have been charged in the state with voter fraud: a 57-year-old woman accused of forging the name of her daughter on an application to request a ballot and a 47-year old man charged with forging his daughter's signature on a ballot itself.Election officials said developing genuine fraud cases takes time and noted that states have established protocols to flag potential problems.In Wisconsin, for instance, careful audits will be conducted early next year, comparing lists of everyone who voted to lists of felons who were ineligible to vote and consulting lists maintained by a consortium of 30 states and the District to ensure no one voted in Wisconsin who also cast a ballot in another state.A similar audit following the 2018 general election found 14 possible instances of people who had improperly voted twice or who voted despite being ineligible to do so — out of a total of more than 2.65 million ballots cast.“There’s no reason to believe this year will be any different than the past,” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said in an interview. “We have a lot of safeguards in the system.”So far, Kaul said he was aware of only one voter fraud investigation in Wisconsin. In that case, court records show, a city clerk in the town of Cedarburg called the police after her staff tried to process an absentee ballot that had been cast in the name of a woman who had died in July.According to court records, Christine Daikawa, 48, the woman’s partner, has been charged with election fraud and making a false statement to get a ballot, accused of casting the ballot on her deceased partner’s behalf. She has pleaded not guilty.Her attorney, Michael F. Hart, declined to comment on Daikawa’s case, but said based on his experience working election-related cases that such instances are rare.“The idea that there’s a whole swath of people on either side of the aisle who are trying to alter the outcome of an election by systematic fraud, is, in my experience, laughable and not accurate,” he said.Despite claims from Trump allies that the increased use of mail-in balloting during the coronavirus pandemic would lead to more fraud, a Washington Post analysis of data collected by the consortium, the nonprofit Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), found that in 2016 and 2018, three states that conduct their elections entirely by mail had small numbers of potential fraud.The analysis found that officials had identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, where all voters proactively receive ballots in the mail for every election.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html?itid=lk_readmore_manual_76Local officials have complained that they have fielded more false complaints of fraud that must be chased down as a result of the rhetoric from the president and his supporters. Trump’s claims encouraged people to report routine procedures they simply did not understand as possible problems, contributing to an atmosphere of suspicion, they said.An official in the office of Arizona’s Republican attorney general said a state tip line was flooded with about 2,000 complaints in the days after the vote — but 1,100 were quickly found to be made by people expressing a general fear there might have been problems with votes cast using Sharpie pens, a rumor that spread online and has been debunked. The official said the state continues to review several hundred complaints related to the election.“A lot of people don’t understand the process. They’re looking at things that are perfectly normal,” Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system implementation manager, said in an interview.State officials in Georgia had initially said they were probing 250 complaints of possible voting problems, but have since revised that figure downward, since it included issues related to the primary. Sterling said that as of mid-December, the secretary of state’s 23 investigators were examining around 150 complaints related to the November vote in a state where Biden beat Trump by nearly 12,000 votes.The claims under investigation span a wide range of issues, Sterling said, including allegations of illegal campaigning outside the polling place, miscellaneous issues with the printing of ballots, alleged voter registration fraud, identity theft, compliance issues with American Disability Act requirements, complaints about poll watchers, alleged theft of absentee ballots, issues with poll pads and allegations of vote buying.There was no evidence of widespread illegal activity, he said.“We can tell by the nature and volume of what we’re looking at that there is not a systemic, widespread, conspiratorial thing that will flip 12,000 ballots potentially right now,” Sterling said, referring to Biden’s margin in victory in Georgia. “All the procedures were followed.”“Overall,” he said, “the guardrails that are there stop a lot of this stuff.”Emma Brown and David A. Fahrenthold contributed to this report.Updated January 7, 2021Election 2020: Biden defeats TrumpThe latest: Congress affirms Biden’s presidential win following riot at U.S. CapitolGraphic: How members of Congress voted on counting the electoral college voteLive updates: Trump pledges ‘orderly transition’ after Biden is declared winner at the end of a violent day25th Amendment: Senior officials have discussed removing Trump. Here’s how that could work.Election results under attack: Here are the factshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/?itid=lb_election-2020-biden-defeats-trump_62.9k CommentsToday’s HeadlinesThe most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy PolicyMOST READ POLITICS1Birx tells CNN most U.S. covid deaths ‘could have been mitigated’ after first 100,0002Trump helped the GOP raise $2 billion. Now former aides and allies are jockeying to tap into his fundraising power.3Michigan GOP leader calls top Democrats ‘witches,’ jokes about assassination of Republicans4AnalysisBiden is betting on bigger government. The pandemic may be helping him.5Asian American official condemns anti-Asian violence by removing shirt, showing his military scars: ‘Is this patriot enough?’

Firstly, one should know the procedure prevailing in a judicial institution before drawing any conclusions. It is not a transfer of judge in the Bombay High Court for hearing the Sohrabuddin case. It is a change in the Sitting List. The change in Sitting List affects almost all of the 264316 cases (or so) pending in Bombay High Court and NOT an individual case such as that of Sohrabuddin.Let me explain the procedure that is followed in Bombay High Court. I have practiced in Bombay High Court as an advocate for about 7-8 years, due to which I have the requisite knowledge to comment on this issue.Bombay High Court has a system of Sitting Lists. At any given time, following five types of Sitting Lists are operative in the High Court:Original side of main bench at Mumbai.Appellate side of main bench at Mumbai.Nagpur bench.Aurangabad bench.Panaji bench (Goa).Now, what is a Sitting List? A Sitting List is basically the distribution of work among judges on the basis of categories of cases. Instead of distributing individual cases before individual benches / judges, categories of cases are distributed before benches / judges by way of the Sitting List. The cases falling in a specific category would be listed before the bench to whom such category may be marked in the Sitting List. That is the general rule, subject to the power of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster.For example, see the current Sitting List for Appellate Side of main bench at Mumbai. As an illustration, I may reproduce from this Sitting List that the bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court will hear the following categories of cases (w.e.f. 26 Feb 2018):“For admission, hearing and order matters therein :­(A) Criminal Confirmation Cases with connected Appeals.(B) All Conviction Appeals through Jail irrespective ofyears and Applications therein.(C) Writ Petitions relating to furlough, Parole, Remissionand Commutation of Sentence.(D) Writ Petitions against order of Central AdministrativeTribunal and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.ANDORIGINAL SIDE MATTERS [Note: this will be as per a separate Sitting List]”Likewise, for various other benches / single judges, categories of cases are laid down in the Sitting List which they would be handling.This system is better than the system that prevailed in the Supreme Court where all individual cases were generally being allocated by the Chief Justice of India even though there was supposed to be a random computer generated system (though, recently, the Chief Justice of India has also issued a Sitting List for the first time, in view of criticism by 4 senior-most judges).Now, it is pertinent to note that the Sitting List is generally changed 4-5 times a year in Bombay High Court. It is generally changed after every 2-3 months. During the period following the winter vacation and before the summer vacation, it is generally changed once sometime in February / March. This is done primarily with a view to ensure that all judges are given work of different types by rotation, to ensure a fair distribution of work. This practice is going on for ages.This system of Sitting List has generally worked reasonably well, though sometimes, some advocates try to do what is called bench-hunting. They wait for the next sitting list with the expectation of getting a so-called favourable bench, and they try to get adjournments till that time or try to not file the case till that time, etc., as the case may be. But, these are exceptional cases. In any case, no system can perhaps be perfect in a country like India. Given that even in the Supreme Court, the 4 senior-most judges made allegations of improper allocation of cases amongst various benches, this system of Sitting List is much better than the system that was followed in the Supreme Court.Now, what was done recently (which created controversy) in Bombay High Court was that new Sitting Lists were issued by the Acting Chief Justice, as per routine. Due to this, the categories of cases that were being handled by Justice REVATI MOHITE ­DERE got changed, as per routine. She got another categories of cases. While the categories of cases that were being heard by her, perhaps got allocated to another Judge, Justice NITIN W. SAMBRE. Moreover, it is not only these two judges who were affected. The categories of cases handled by various other benches / single judges were also generally changed.Let me point out with full emphasis that it is NOT correct to suggest that any single / specific case has been transferred from one judge to another, or that a Judge has been transferred in a single case. It is the categories of cases that have been assigned to new benches. During such shuffling of categories of cases, it so happens that one of the thousands of cases being heard by Justice REVATI MOHITE­ DERE will also now be heard by Justice NITIN W. SAMBRE along with those other thousands of cases.Please keep in mind that as on 31st March 2017, as per the Court News publication of the Supreme Court, as many as 264316 cases were pending in Bombay High Court. No further latest figures are available, but the current pending position would be more or less similar.So, generally speaking, the hearing of all these 264316 cases would go before different benches in the high court with the change in the Sitting List. The Sohrabuddin case is NOT the only case which was pending in the High Court and this is NOT the only case the hearing of which has gone to another bench.And, Sitting List system exists in Bombay High Court for ages. At least I have seen this system since 1999 when I started practicing as an advocate. So, a periodical change in Sitting List is an age-old practice.Moreover, also note that it is always open to the parties in a case to make a request to the Chief Justice to make a special order of continuing the hearing a part-heard case before an earlier bench notwithstanding change in the Sitting Lists. This is made clear in the Sitting List itself: for example, see para 10 (towards the end of the List) of this latest Sitting List:“Part-­heard matters cease to be part­-heard with change of assignment unless where a proposal for continuation of the matters is sent by the concerned Bench at the request of the parties and the same is approved by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.”So, nobody has stopped the parties in Sohrabuddin case to request the Acting Chief Justice to continue the case with the same judge, i.e., Justice REVATI MOHITE­ DERE, if this case was marked as a part-heard case by the judge.It is also pertinent to point out that the BJP President Amit Shah was discharged from the Sohrabuddin case, and at present, there is no appeal/revision pending in the high court against the discharge of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin case, and in fact, a petition has been filed to direct CBI to file appeal against his discharge and this petition is yet to be decided.It is also pertinent to mention that being a politically sensitive case, all efforts are made in media to make a mountain out of a molehill.In my own considered opinion, the initial case against Amit Shah itself was a political vendetta. He was wrongly roped in the case to (next) target Narendra Modi, but those efforts failed. Now, no effort is being spared to create controversy out of nothing. The persons making present allegations about the transfer of Judge in Bombay High Court are the same (such as Bombay Lawyers Association, which is not a prominent association of lawyers in Bombay High Court) who are raising the Judge Loya case in Supreme Court (and earlier in Bombay High Court). Many of these people are basically politically motivated people.The whole controversy is, therefore, required to be seen in the proper context.Last but NOT the least: the change in the Sitting List is made by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, and NOT by the BJP or the BJP Government in Centre or Maharashtra.Update (6 March 2018): Yesterday (on 5 March 2018), the Supreme Court echoed the same opinion about the change of Judge hearing Sohrabuddin case in Bombay High Court, as has been expressed by me in the above paragraphs. This is what the Supreme Court observed:[1]“On an argument by the petitioner, the Bombay Lawyers' Association, that there was a deliberate attempt to remove Justice Revati Mohite-Dere of the Bombay high court from hearing appeals in the Sohrabuddin case, the apex court said questions should not be raised as the change in the roster was a "routine" affair which is in accordance with the established tradition there, according to a PTI report."It is a routine affair in the Bombay high court which is part of its established tradition there. Every 8-10 weeks the roster changes and no judges are allowed to hear a part-heard matter," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, the report said.”Footnotes[1] Will order probe in Loya's death on slightest suspicion: SC - Times of India

Standards are set by various bodies and depend upon what is being standardized. There are typically four different techniques for standardizationSimplification or variety controlCodificationValue engineeringStatistical process controlThe types of standardization process varies and can be defined as :Emergence as de facto standard: tradition, market domination, etc.Written by a Standards organization:in a closed consensus process: Restricted membership and often having formal procedures for due-process among voting membersin a full consensus process: usually open to all interested and qualified parties and with formal procedures for due-process considerations.Written by a government or regulatory bodyWritten by a corporation, union, trade association, etc.For RSS for example the standards adoption body is the W3C (Page on W3) - the world wide web consortium headed by Tim Berners Lee; the scientist who devised the standards for the world wide web (About W3C) in the early 1990s while at the CERN (CERN | Accelerating science) - a sub atomic/particle research laboratory.The W3C develops these technical specifications and guidelines through a process designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community. details are here (Standards - W3C) but this is only for the web.If you dig deeper and look for example at the standards that define the Internet - TCP/IP for example that is a whole new body called the IETF (About the IETF) the internet engineering task force and their standards process is defined here (The IETF Standards Process) and starts with something known as a request for comment - RFC. In their words " a specification undergoes a period of development and several iterations of review by the Internet community and revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body and is published. In practice, the process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the Internet community."For telecommunications there is a separate body of the United Nations the ITU (ITU: Committed to connecting the world) that coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards.But these by no means are the only bodies and there are national standards setting and coordination bodies which have an umbrella organization under a United Nations charter called the ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Founded 23rd February 1947, the organization promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It was one of the first organizations granted general consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. This is a very broad standardization organization that standardizes things from geometrical product specifications (ISO1:2002); textiles (Designation of the direction of twist in yarns and related products under ISO 2:1973) to risk management vocabulary (ISO Guide 73:2009) including Arabic and Persian language transliteration (ISO 233-2:1993 and ISO 233-3:1999) but not everything as DIN standards will show for example.DIN stands for "Deutsches Institut für Normung", meaning "German institute for standardization" One of the earliest, and probably the most well-known, is DIN 476 — the standard that introduced the A-series paper sizes in 1922 — adopted in 1975 as International Standard ISO 216. Common examples in modern technology include DIN and mini-DIN connectors. DIN is a member organization of the ISO.