BluntCrazeMan:
LP claimed that they don't have all the polling unit results in all the polling units..
INEC helped them establish the fact by saying that there are 176,000+plus polling units, but LP provided only about 130,000 polling agents.

So,, LP demanded that the INEC provide the EC8A-Results..
INEC provided them.
But amongst the results,, there are 18,088 blurred results which the INEC brought to the court and claimed they were the results in their custody..

If LP showed that 18,088 polling unit results were blurred; and then, INEC claimed that there are supposed to be “Originals” to those blurred results,,...
So then, who is by Law supposed to provide the “Originals”??


(He who asserts must prove his assertion)


INEC were the ones who said that the LP doesn't have the copies of the results, because they don't have enough party agents deployed in the election..
They provided blurred results,, and still went ahead to say that there should be “Originals”.


The blurred 18,088 had already been established in court..
What is not established yet is that INEC claimed that they still have the “Original” versions of all those blurred copies, and that they don't want to bring it.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOW ON THE INEC TO PROVIDE THOSE ACCLAIMED “ORIGINALS”, AND USE THEM TO COUNTER THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED 18,088 BLURRED COPIES..

You are expecting EYE-NECK to bring evidence against herself?.... Right?

You go explain tire.... No exhibit; No case!

The plaintiff will have to prove his claims, fact and figures beyond every reasonable doubt in the court of law. There're no two ways about it.

BluntCrazeMan:
Let the Supreme Court decide whether IREV is mandatory or not..



I am asking you again....
Is the CTCs of the so-called “hard copy results signed at every polling unit” not also a legitimately accepted source of truth??

The apex court in oyetola vs adeleke established the supremacy of the inec copies

tinsel:
Op, there is something you guys are mixing. The blurred copies are ones printed from IREV by INEC. There are still hard copies and originals. INEC doesn't tally results based on what the corpers snapped and forwarded to IREV.

The Copy that was given to the APC Witness during hearing was not an IREV-Printed document..


It was supposed to be a CTC of the original hard-copy.

garfield1:


The apex court in oyetola vs adeleke established the supremacy of the inec copies

So,, why did the APC-Witness after he was shown the CTCs (ie, the photocopies) of the original EC8A-results,, he said that he couldn't see anything on the copies??

(Which even made INEC Counsels to blame the photocopying-machine,,, and wrote in their response that the toner in the photocopying-machine might had finished during the photocopying, which made the copies to be blurred. -- or didn't you read that part.??)

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

The fact that party agents sign election results in polling unit, that doesn't mean that that election is credible, because election rigging can happen at the ward level and at the LG level without the knowledge of party agents, and also INEC staff can change polling unit election results before uploading it to the INEC irev portal

BluntCrazeMan:
The Copy that was given to the APC Witness during hearing was not an IREV-Printed document..


It was supposed to be a CTC of the original hard-copy.

We are talking about where the blurred 18000 plus labour party presented to the court?
Where are they from? From IREV or not?

BluntCrazeMan:
So,, why did the APC-Witness after he was shown the CTCs (ie, the photocopies) of the original EC8A-results,, he said that he couldn't see anything on the copies??

(Which even made INEC Counsels to blame the photocopying-machine,,, and wrote in their response that the toner in the photocopying-machine might had finished during the photocopying, which made the copies to be blurred. -- or didn't you read that part.??)

It is irrelevant.

waice6571:



You are expecting EYE-NECK to bring evidence against herself?.... Right?

You go explain tire.... No exhibit; No case!

The plaintiff will have to prove his claims, fact and figures beyond every reasonable doubt in the court of law. There're no two ways about it.

I want you to find the Electoral-Act-2022...
Go to 1st-Schedule; Paragraph-12(2) and read it..
After that,,
Then read: 1st-Schedule; Paragraph-44...


It's like you think it is only the Petitioner who has to prove things beyond every reasonable doubts??


THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF 18,088 BLURRED CTCS OF THE ORIGINAL RESULTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.

It is now the turn of INEC to prove it otherwise beyond all reasonable doubts..

garfield1:


It is irrelevant.

I am not really understanding you.




What exactly is irrelevant??


CTCs.??
CTCs of documents are irrelevant??

I don't get it.

BluntCrazeMan:
I am not really understanding you.




What exactly is irrelevant??


CTCs.??

The most relevant is the top copy or original copies from the polling unit and evidences clearly adduced by obi

BluntCrazeMan:



I want you to find the Electoral-Act-2022...
Go to 1st-Schedule; Paragraph-12(2) and read it..
After that,,
Then read: 1st-Schedule; Paragraph-44...


It's like you think it is only the Petitioner who has to prove things beyond every reasonable doubts??


THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF 18,088 BLURRED CTCS OF THE ORIGINAL RESULTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.

It is now the turn of INEC to prove it otherwise beyond all reasonable doubts..

You will prove it by comparing it with other units and providing the disputed polling units

tinsel:

We are talking about where the blurred 18000 plus labour party presented to the court?
Where are they from? From IREV or not?

18,088 were seen and tabulated from the IREV by the professor..




INEC then brought CTCs of Original EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds to the court..
And it happened that the so-called original EC8As had numerous blurred copies too.
Running into thousands too

garfield1:


The most relevant is the top copy or original copies from the polling unit and evidences clearly adduced by obi

CTCs of those original Top-copies were brought to the court..

Did you agree on this too??

BluntCrazeMan:
They are “Blurred Copies”..

Nobody knows who signed which, and who didn't sign whatever..


Nobody knew which scores are there in those blurred papers..

They are Blurred and totally unreadable..

So, nobody said that anything were correct or wrong.
It's only when you could even read it, then you can say whether it is right or wrong.

But nothing was even readable..


And nobody said IREV here.

INEC were told to bring the CTCs of the original EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds and so on, which they used on the election day.

And that was what they supposedly brought to the court..
And inside the tonnes of documents that were supposed to be the CTCs of EC8As; it happened that 18,088 of them were totally blurred and unreadable..

So tell me. Where did IREV come in here??

Or are you saying that CTCs of original copies are not acceptable too?

If the Labour Party were not happy their agents wouldn't have signed them
In the first place
They should get the copies of their agents

BluntCrazeMan:
CTCs of those original Top-copies were brought to the court..

Did you agree on this too??

What obi tendered and made use of is the irev copies.all the original obi brought were not used by him but simply dumped on the court

BluntCrazeMan:
18,088 were seen and tabulated from the IREV by the professor..




INEC then brought CTCs of Original EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds to the court..
And it happened that the so-called original EC8As had numerous blurred copies too.
Running into thousands too

Not true,the original were never blurred just the photocopy from irev

BluntCrazeMan:
18,088 were seen and tabulated from the IREV by the professor..




INEC then brought CTCs of Original EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds to the court..
And it happened that the so-called original EC8As had numerous blurred copies too.
Running into thousands too

Please, the burred copies are only from the 18000 printed from IREV which i attributed to wrong snapping at the polling booths. There are still originals and party agents also should have their own copies. The truth of the matter is labor party did not have agents.

garfield1:


You will prove it by comparing it with other units and providing the disputed polling units

Comparing what and what??

The LP wanted to compare the Polling-units that were seen as Blurred inside the IREV, with whatever the INEC would supply at the court as the CTCS OF THE ORIGINAL RESULTS..

But ALASS..!!
Those same supposedly blurred polling-units in the IREV are not also available in the so-called pile of CTCs of Original Results..

And then,, there are blurred and blank results in the original results, running in thousands.

tinsel:

Please, the burred copies are only from the 18000 printed from IREV which attribute to wrong snapping at the polling booths. We still have originals and party agents also should have their own copies. The truth of the matter is labor party did not have agents.

The truth of the matter is that INEC supplied Blurred Copies as the CTCs of the Original Top-Copies of the Results..

BluntCrazeMan:



Comparing what and what??

The LP wanted to compare the Polling-units that were seen as Blurred inside the IREV, with whatever the INEC would supply at the court as the CTCS OF THE ORIGINAL RESULTS..

But ALASS..!!
Those same supposedly blurred polling-units in the IREV are not also available in the so-called pile of CTCs of Original Results..

And then,, there are blurred and blank results in the original results, running in thousands.

That is not what happened in court sir.prof ofoedu the statistician clearly said he only analyzed the irev copies alone and never saw other copies.nothibg different was in obi final address.obi is bound by this submission

BluntCrazeMan:




The truth of the matter is that INEC supplied Blurred Copies as the CTCs of the Original Top-Copies of the Results..

Obi should identify the units involved for the courts to decide

garfield1:


That is not what happened in court sir.prof ofoedu the statistician clearly said he only analyzed the irev copies alone and never saw other copies.nothibg different was in obi final address.obi is bound by this submission

garfield1:


Not true,the original were never blurred just the photocopy from irev

In the Reply of LP..

The counsel said that the Blurred Copies which was given to the APC witness is the supposed CTCs of top-copies of EC8As.

BluntCrazeMan:




The truth of the matter is that INEC supplied Blurred Copies as the CTCs of the Original Top-Copies of the Results.

Those copies were from IREV because the labor party requested them as they wanted to prove that the nonuse of IReV is against the electoral act.

garfield1:


Not true,the original were never blurred just the photocopy from irev

If the Original were unreadable why would the Labour Party Polling Agents sign then off

tinsel:

Those copies were from IREV because the labor party requested them as they wanted to prove that the nonuse of IReV is against the electoral act.

LP requested for a lot of things..
Including the original polling unit results; and collated results in all the Wards, LGAs, States, and The final collation..

That was why the INEC started telling them to apply to all the States.. WHICH THEY DID..

BluntCrazeMan:
LP requested for a lot of things..
Including the original polling unit results; and collated results in all the Wards, LGAs, States, and The final collation..

That was why the INEC started telling them to apply to all the States.. WHICH THEY DID..

There agents don't have their own copies? And you are still dodging from where those 18000 blurred copies came? Are they from IREV?

BluntCrazeMan:
They are “Blurred Copies”..

Nobody knows who signed which, and who didn't sign whatever..


Nobody knew which scores are there in those blurred papers..

They are Blurred and totally unreadable..

So, nobody said that anything were correct or wrong.
It's only when you could even read it, then you can say whether it is right or wrong.

But nothing was even readable..


And nobody said IREV here.

INEC were told to bring the CTCs of the original EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds and so on, which they used on the election day.

And that was what they supposedly brought to the court..
And inside the tonnes of documents that were supposed to be the CTCs of EC8As; it happened that 18,088 of them were totally blurred and unreadable..

So tell me. Where did IREV come in here??

Or are you saying that CTCs of original copies are not acceptable too?

LP said they win and they will prove it, that means they have done all their calculation and everything with evidence to prove. BLURRED RESULTS ARE PRINT OUT COPIES FROM IREV LP AGENTS SUPPOSED HAVE EACH POLLING UNITS RESULTS THAT GOOD.

Mohamid:



LP said they win and they will prove it, that means they have done all their calculation and everything with evidence to prove. BLURRED RESULTS ARE PRINT OUT COPIES FROM IREV LP AGENTS SUPPOSED HAVE EACH POLLING UNITS RESULTS THAT GOOD.

When LP applied for Investigations of the BVAS,, INEC refused, and the Tribunal accepted such refusal..


The proof of Peter-Obi’s victory is inside the BVAS-Machines..
But the Tribunal truncated the BVAS investigations by themselves..


So,, Peter still had something else to prove.
And that is,, that the whole election is a shammm.!!

tinsel:

Those copies were from IREV because the labor party requested them as they wanted to prove that the nonuse of IReV is against the electoral act.

What is the meaning of CTC? And what does it implies?

BluntCrazeMan:
LP claimed that they don't have all the polling unit results in all the polling units..
INEC helped them establish the fact by saying that there are 176,000+plus polling units, but LP provided only about 130,000 polling agents.

So,, LP demanded that the INEC provide the EC8A-Results..
INEC provided them.
But amongst the results,, there are 18,088 blurred results which the INEC brought to the court and claimed they were the results in their custody..

If LP showed that 18,088 polling unit results were blurred; and then, INEC claimed that there are supposed to be “Originals” to those blurred results,,...
So then, who is by Law supposed to provide the “Originals”??


(He who asserts must prove his assertion)


INEC were the ones who said that the LP doesn't have the copies of the results, because they don't have enough party agents deployed in the election..
They provided blurred results,, and still went ahead to say that there should be “Originals”.


The blurred 18,088 had already been established in court..
What is not established yet is that INEC claimed that they still have the “Original” versions of all those blurred copies, and that they don't want to bring it.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOW ON THE INEC TO PROVIDE THOSE ACCLAIMED “ORIGINALS”, AND USE THEM TO COUNTER THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED 18,088 BLURRED COPIES..

so inec should bring 18000 results to court for the judges to sort? Did LP demand that INEC produce those results?