Page 91 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

margin of 1,713 votes. Therefore, the motion asked that Barletta’s proclamation be set
aside and that all votes be counted. If this had been done, Barletta’s spurious and
tenuous lead would have vanished. Of course, this was exactly the reason why this
motion did not prosper.
On the other hand, the motion filed by José Salvador Muñoz, Esq., of the
Authentic Panameñista Party, listed the large number of errors in and tampering with
diverse circuit tally sheets. Under the Electoral Code, these errors and tampering
rendered Barletta’s proclamation null and void and, therefore, he demanded that Arias
be pronounced the winner.

As was to be expected, both motions were dismissed. It is interesting that the
Electoral Tribunal, in an unsurpassed display of cynicism, should have based its rulings
on both appeals on the provisions of Article 342 of the Electoral Code, which reads:
“The parties must act with loyalty and probity during the process and the Tribunal,
or the competent officials shall avail itself of its powers to reject any request or act
implying a manifest and inefficacious delay”. (Our bolding). What moral authority
could the Electoral Tribunal claim in using expressions such as “act with loyalty and
probity” when most of its acts had, for a long time, been plagued by arbitrariness and
dishonesty?
For the benefit of those interested in law and history, we have included in
exhibit 29 through 34 the aforementioned motions to reject, the Electoral Tribunal’s
replies thereto and their respective reconsiderations. It is worth noticing how the
Electoral Tribunal, in its reply to Lima, for instance, lies unashamedly in connection
with the integrity of circuit tally sheets and totally avoids the essence of the appeal
which was –and continues to be– “how about counting those 44,000 votes that were
left out!”.
Before closing this section, mention should be made of two other points that
seriously affect the Electoral Tribunal’s credibility and the legitimacy of Barletta’s
alleged victory. They are included here less to support our arguments –for we believe
that at this point the fraud (or rather, the frauds) has been amply documented– than to
provide a reasonably complete account of the facts.

On Wednesday, May 16, ABC, one of the major U.S. television networks,
interviewed an Electoral Tribunal official. The man, who was wearing a hood to protect
his identity, revealed that 13,000 Barletta votes had been manufactured in the
Tribunal’s own headquarters and that 4,000 Arias votes had been destroyed. (See
exhibit 35). This report created a sensation in the country. Who was this mysterious
hooded man? To what fraudulent operations was he referring?

The identity of this Panamanian “Deep Throat” remains a secret. Pro-
government newspapers, as could be expected, accused the opposition and, more
particularly, the Christian Democratic Party, of having staged the interview. The fact
remains, however, that the identity of the mysterious hooded man has never been
established. On the other hand, it is worth remembering that American networks are