Author Topic: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?  (Read 2643 times)

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #180 on: October 12, 2017, 07:05:00 PM »

Yes, there are court rulings and all.  Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied.  That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.

What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC.  They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time).  If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.

NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.

That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.

Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?

What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?

You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai.  Throw it out.  Pretend it never existed.  Then look afresh at the laws.  NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances.  The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits.  The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.

Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify

You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!

That partly explains your problem with the whole question.  Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication.  Ignorantia juris non excusat.
He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’
The court found him, correctly, guilty of that.  His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it.  That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.
Kiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai Case

Fixed that for ya.
Kiai: don’t verify
Maraga: you never verified

Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
CTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart mean

Yes.  It is final.  In concert with means together with.
And your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signing

Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination.  Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the laws

Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs.  His lack of imagination does.  The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
What are 32Bs?

A typo.  It should say Kiai does  forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs

Correct. He’s forbidden from verification;
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. 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.

Quote
NTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As.  Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc.  If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.  Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally.  This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.

Morbid nonsense. Chebu generates 34B and then sends them to CTC to declare before sending them back.

He does that in your limited imagination

Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc.  If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.
Every iteration tends to more idiocy. Let’s test this
1. NTC and CTC receive 34As simultaneously
2. NTC resends their 34As to NTC for Chebu to ‘compare for differences,existence etc’
3. If they ‘check out’ (why would they not?), CTC generates 34B and declares
4. CTC forwards to NTC the declared 34Bs.

how would NTC ensure CTC used the ‘verified’ and certified 34As? Check again the 34Bs against the previously sent 34As,right?

Go slow on glue and weed
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #181 on: October 12, 2017, 07:33:51 PM »

Yes, there are court rulings and all.  Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied.  That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.

What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC.  They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time).  If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.

NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.

That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.

Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?

What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?

You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai.  Throw it out.  Pretend it never existed.  Then look afresh at the laws.  NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances.  The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits.  The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.

Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify

You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!

That partly explains your problem with the whole question.  Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication.  Ignorantia juris non excusat.
He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’
The court found him, correctly, guilty of that.  His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it.  That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.
Kiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai Case

Fixed that for ya.
Kiai: don’t verify
Maraga: you never verified

Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
CTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart mean

Yes.  It is final.  In concert with means together with.
And your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signing

Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination.  Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the laws

Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs.  His lack of imagination does.  The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
What are 32Bs?

A typo.  It should say Kiai does  forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs

Correct. He’s forbidden from verification;
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. 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.

Quote
NTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As.  Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc.  If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.  Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally.  This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.

Morbid nonsense. Chebu generates 34B and then sends them to CTC to declare before sending them back.

He does that in your limited imagination

Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc.  If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.
Every iteration tends to more idiocy. Let’s test this
1. NTC and CTC receive 34As simultaneously
2. NTC resends their 34As to NTC for Chebu to ‘compare for differences,existence etc’
3. If they ‘check out’ (why would they not?), CTC generates 34B and declares
4. CTC forwards to NTC the declared 34Bs.

how would NTC ensure CTC used the ‘verified’ and certified 34As? Check again the 34Bs against the previously sent 34As,right?

Go slow on glue and weed

You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #182 on: October 12, 2017, 08:50:58 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #183 on: October 12, 2017, 10:02:49 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:

A slight error.  I meant 39(1c).  It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.

Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #184 on: October 12, 2017, 10:23:57 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:

A slight error.  I meant 39(1c).  It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.

Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :D

If you can’t get a translator, learn English and start from page 1of this thread
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #185 on: October 12, 2017, 10:28:44 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:

A slight error.  I meant 39(1c).  It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.

Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :D

But the Kiai case forbids him from doing 34A type verification after transmission of 34Bs.  It does not prevent him from doing it before the 34B is created.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #186 on: October 12, 2017, 10:31:05 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:

A slight error.  I meant 39(1c).  It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.

Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :D

But the Kiai case forbids him from doing 34A type verification after transmission of 34Bs.  It does not prevent him from doing it before the 34B is created.
Because you can’t verify a 34B that has YET to be generated
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #187 on: October 12, 2017, 10:42:55 PM »
You are getting there.  Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard.  Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC.  After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification.  Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.  The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC.  He does not.
You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.

...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......

...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....



Digest that

After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause

And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:

A slight error.  I meant 39(1c).  It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK.  Easily.

Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :D

But the Kiai case forbids him from doing 34A type verification after transmission of 34Bs.  It does not prevent him from doing it before the 34B is created.
Because you can’t verify a 34B that has YET to be generated

Contrived.  The purpose of verification is to ensure a correct 34B.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #188 on: October 12, 2017, 10:45:36 PM »
Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.

1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.

 Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #189 on: October 12, 2017, 10:52:46 PM »
Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.

1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.

 Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?

The specific workflow is not important for the point I am making.  What is important is what is permitted.  Even then, Constituency ROs are employees of IEBC.  They are basically doing Chebukati's bidding at the constituency level.  If they verify and tally 34As, then he(Chebukati) has done his job.  NTC has a bigger picture view of what is going on and can therefore determine certain things like whether a given constituency would not make a difference in the overall outcome.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #190 on: October 12, 2017, 11:06:20 PM »
Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.

1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.

 Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?

The specific workflow is not important for the point I am making. 
Your suggestion makes zero sense and you must have seen that hence you shy away from it...it is impractical if not outright stupid.

Nothing so far you have suggested is worth even entertaining.

Quote
What is important is what is permitted.
Yes, this is what I aksd for and you can’t apply it to a practical example.

Quote
  Even then, Constituency ROs are employees of IEBC.  They are basically doing Chebukati's bidding at the constituency level.  If they verify and tally 34As, then he(Chebukati) has done his job. 
This is exactly why Kiai Case took away Chebu’s verification and vested it with ROs. They read the regulations and laws of the process right from after voting to CTC and said it was so thorough that only some deranged moron would entertain second guessing the process.

They said if a Chebu can’t for some reasons trust the guys he has assigned the job then he should hire and train competent dudes.

But you don’t want that, you want him to hire morons and then REPEAT the exact job he has assigned them just to be sure it ‘checks out’. You may as well suggest each station live streams the counting to NTC for supervision so as to have some ‘live’ or real time verification

Quote
NTC has a bigger picture view of what is going on and can therefore determine certain things like whether a given constituency would not make a difference in the overall outcome.
NTC has representatives at CTC and polling station known as ROs and POs. They are given a job, a script all under the glare of agents,Observers,monitors bla de bla,and Chebu trusts them to do just that.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #191 on: October 12, 2017, 11:21:39 PM »
Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.

1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.

 Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?

The specific workflow is not important for the point I am making. 
Your suggestion makes zero sense and you must have seen that hence you shy away from it...it is impractical if not outright stupid.

Nothing so far you have suggested is worth even entertaining.

Quote
What is important is what is permitted.
Yes, this is what I aksd for and you can’t apply it to a practical example.

Quote
  Even then, Constituency ROs are employees of IEBC.  They are basically doing Chebukati's bidding at the constituency level.  If they verify and tally 34As, then he(Chebukati) has done his job. 
This is exactly why Kiai Case took away Chebu’s verification and vested it with ROs. They read the regulations and laws of the process right from after voting to CTC and said it was so thorough that only some deranged moron would entertain second guessing the process.

They said if a Chebu can’t for some reasons trust the guys he has assigned the job then he should hire and train competent dudes.

But you don’t want that, you want him to hire morons and then REPEAT the exact job he has assigned them just to be sure it ‘checks out’. You may as well suggest each station live streams the counting to NTC for supervision so as to have some ‘live’ or real time verification

Quote
NTC has a bigger picture view of what is going on and can therefore determine certain things like whether a given constituency would not make a difference in the overall outcome.
NTC has representatives at CTC and polling station known as ROs and POs. They are given a job, a script all under the glare of agents,Observers,monitors bla de bla,and Chebu trusts them to do just that.


Chebukati's inability to verify 34Bs against 34As is totally made up.  If you can't figure that out, you probably have the same hangups on how things used to be done.  I have asked you for one law that prevents him completely from doing this and you failed to find one.

I'll leave these quotes with the relevant laws and ruling here for your benefit.  Because it cannot be the case just because someone says so or even strongly feels so.  Perhaps you might spot which one supports the claim of Chebukati's impotence to verify in the face of the law.

Constitution:
Quote
138. (1) If only one candidate for President is nominated, that candidate shall be declared elected.
(2) If two or more candidates for President are nominated, an election shall be held in each constituency.
(3) In a presidential election—
(a) all persons registered as voters for the purposes of parliamentary elections are entitled to vote;
(b) the poll shall be taken by secret ballot on the day specified in Article 101 (1) at the time, in the places and in the manner prescribed under an Act of Parliament; and
(c) after counting the votes in the polling stations, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall tally and verify the count and declare the result.

Statute:
Quote
Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act
“For purposes of a presidential election, the Commission shall-

(a) Electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the President from a polling station to the constituency tallying centre and to the national tallying centre;
(b) Tally and verify the results received at the national tallying centre ; and
(c) Publish the polling result forms on an online public portal maintained by the Commission.

The Kiai decision which protects 34Bs after they have been generated:
Quote
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. 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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:08:25 AM by Vintage Windy City Assassin »
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #192 on: October 13, 2017, 06:19:18 AM »
Termie,
You ask a question and answer it yourself.

I asked you to read all I have taught you and then Kiai case. But if I must repeat to tickle you I will

1. Note katiba talks of Commission not Chebu. The case emphasized on this distinction.

2. Commission is well represented boh at polling station and CTC meaning whatever goes down there is performed by the commission

3. Th constitutional duty to verify was held be fully executed  by processes in the polling station and CTC hence no further verification is anticipated at NTC other than that what is in bold and in red.

4. While Elections Act speak of the chairperson tallying and verifying, the amended Regulations amplify/give life to section 39 (1C) by explaining that the verification entails comparing 34Bs against 34As. The case held that these amendments to the regulations were circumventing matters before the case by reenacting the very same exercise (confirmation,verification) Chebu was forbidden from doing.

So what laws says Chebu can't verify? Decision of High Court and Court of Appeals aka Kiai Case

2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #193 on: October 13, 2017, 04:04:18 PM »
Termie,
You ask a question and answer it yourself.

I asked you to read all I have taught you and then Kiai case. But if I must repeat to tickle you I will

1. Note katiba talks of Commission not Chebu. The case emphasized on this distinction.

2. Commission is well represented boh at polling station and CTC meaning whatever goes down there is performed by the commission

3. Th constitutional duty to verify was held be fully executed  by processes in the polling station and CTC hence no further verification is anticipated at NTC other than that what is in bold and in red.

4. While Elections Act speak of the chairperson tallying and verifying, the amended Regulations amplify/give life to section 39 (1C) by explaining that the verification entails comparing 34Bs against 34As. The case held that these amendments to the regulations were circumventing matters before the case by reenacting the very same exercise (confirmation,verification) Chebu was forbidden from doing.

So what laws says Chebu can't verify? Decision of High Court and Court of Appeals aka Kiai Case



It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #194 on: October 13, 2017, 04:32:26 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #195 on: October 13, 2017, 04:37:09 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?

I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation.   Consider that possibility.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #196 on: October 13, 2017, 04:55:39 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?

I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation.   Consider that possibility.

I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.

Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations

Give it another shot

Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #197 on: October 13, 2017, 04:59:01 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?

I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation.   Consider that possibility.

I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.

Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations

Give it another shot

Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/

There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs.  He can do it if he chooses.  After 34Bs, his hands are tied.  Your whine boils down to not liking that fact.  It's not an argument.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 3912
  • zen: 7001
  • vooke
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #198 on: October 13, 2017, 05:03:31 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?

I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation.   Consider that possibility.

I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.

Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations

Give it another shot

Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/

There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs.  He can do it if he chooses.  After 34Bs, his hands are tied.  Your whine boils down to not liking that fact.  It's not an argument.
Bleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.

FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.

What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Vintage Windy City Assassin

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • k.count: 4772
  • zen: 14246
  • Vintage Windy City Assassin
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?
« Reply #199 on: October 13, 2017, 05:08:10 PM »
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him.  I don't see it.  Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.
If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.

From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?

I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation.   Consider that possibility.

I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.

Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations

Give it another shot

Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/

There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs.  He can do it if he chooses.  After 34Bs, his hands are tied.  Your whine boils down to not liking that fact.  It's not an argument.
Bleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.

FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.

What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?

That is why you should first find the law, then bleat. 

Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid.  That they meet certain requirements.  Then you include them in the tally.  Otherwise you don't include them.
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman