Page 89 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

sheet for precinct number 3234 was read (by Secretary Tomlinson) as if it only recorded
five votes for the UNADE and none for ADO, while the truth of the matter is that it
recorded 69 votes for the UNADE and 103 for ADO; something similar happened in
the case of the tally sheet for precinct number 3237; and the tally sheet for precinct
3455 was read as if the Panameñista Party had received 131 votes and the Authentic
Panameñista Party only seven when, in fact, the figures were reversed… On the fact of
opposition protests, Quintero announced before the other two justices that if opposition
parties could submit precinct tally sheets verifying the figures they claimed as true,
such tally sheets would be considered. But, although a few tally sheets were filed that
same day, the Tribunal failed to correct any figures. The incorrect review of the San
Miguelito precincts by the Electoral Tribunal represented a loss of at least 940 votes”
31 for Arias, 940 votes stolen from ADO right under the justices’ noses. How many
more were stolen by equally corrupt officials during the course of the other 39 circuit
reviews? If we add these 940 votes to the ADO total, the margin of Barletta’s alleged
victory is reduced to barely 773 votes!

Having solved all challenges by the simple expedient of dismissing all of them
on “procedural grounds”, and having called into being the “judicial limbo” previously
noted; not having done anything at all in connection with that 6.45 per cent of all
electors whose votes were contemptuously ignored and having stolen at least 940 votes
from the opposition in San Miguelito, the Electoral Tribunal, in its resolution number
235, dated May 10, 1984, proclaimed Barletta president elect of the Republic of
Panama. Quintero abstained from voting, thus casting a shadow over Barletta’s victory
celebration. Of course, he could have ruined them altogether, perhaps even prevented
them, if he had refused to sign that spurious resolution. But César Quintero bent his
knee and signed it. Again, he did not compromise his vote; his good name, however,
had been permanently besmirched.

The reasons that led Quintero to vote against proclaiming Barletta the winner
was the same he had invoked earlier when refusing to vote along with his fellow
justices. The presiding justice explained that “irregularities have been reported [in the
32
Chiriquí Indian region] which should they prove to be true, could affect the results of
the presidential elections. Therefore, I reiterate my previous abstention. I must point
out to those unfamiliar with judicial procedures that I am bound under the law to sign
and abide by the Tribunal’s majority decision. Therefore, it is my duty to sign this

31
Op. Cit., May 20, 1982, page 1A.
32
Further –and unexpected– evidence of the charges of fraud in Circuit 4-4 appears on page 20A of
the July 29, 1984, issue of La Prensa. It is a letter to President Illueca, signed by a DIGEDECOM
employee, referring to “a young man by the name of Jiménez, who stole Circuit 4-4 ballot boxes”. This
letter is pathetic evidence of the ruthless manipulation civil servants were subjected to by the
government during the electoral campaign. Its full text is reproduced in exhibit 26.