Update: Mexican Electoral Fraud

The re-counting of the votes in 9% of Mexico's voting stations is in the 5th and final day, as ordered by Mexico's electoral court. Mexico's La Jornada, tells us how it's going in this self translated account I've included on the jump.

The article is an analysis by Antonio Gershenson. It is titled THE SECOND SHAVING:

Open ballot boxes, tally sheets and other documents without official seals or without signatures (required by law for every ballot box, ballot envelope, and tally sheet), are the fingerprints of a second vote-shaving of results for Manuel Lopez Obrador, also including sometimes increasing the votes for the right. It involves hiding the fact that the recount would not show the same results as the "official truth", which gave the right victory by less than 1% of the vote. In practice, it would be necessary to reproduce in the ballot boxes what had been done in the results of the first vote-shaving. For the purpose of this second vote-shaving, the local fraudsters intervened, but it was already something quite complicated, and the results were disastrous. This was done on occasion with utmost stupidity, although we cannot deny that PRI members at the service of PAN were able to do a skilled job not possible to discern, that is ex-PRI members well versed over decades of voter-fraud -- stupid to the extent that in some cases the ballot boxes were opened, and their official seals violated. Moreover, there have been cases where the list of voters were missing, where the official certification of votes and results were missing, where all of the ballots were missing, and in others where everything was missing. There have also been cases of more ballots found than announced in the official results, which indicates ballot stuffing in favor of Calderon, while outside the public view; or the absence of ballots in comparison to the official results, which indicate that there were Lopez Obrador ballots removed from the boxes, some of which have reappeared in trash dumps.

I want to give you a very clear example. In the first day of recounts, in the 5th District of Mexico City, it turned out that in the first polling places where results were recounted, "they were cleared". The ballots recounted were exactly the same as the official results. This was a rarity, because in other polling places there were differences, if only minor. But it was also published that "Deputy Maria Luisa Contreras (PRD) announced that the three ballot boxes that have been examined so far lack the signatures of the polling judges, or of the party poll watchers". Stated differently, the original ballot packages had been swapped with brand new ones, without the obligatory signatures, and with the ballots already adjusted to verify the official count.    

It is thus clear that the thousands of additional votes that have been "recovered" for Lopez Obrador are only those that have survived this second vote-shaving. They are few in relation to the 240,000 vote lead that Calderon officially has over Lopez Obrador. But they are also few in relation to those that would result if the votes were annuled in the voting places where the irregularities that have been seen make it impossible to determine how many votes each party actually received. For example, the violation of the official seals make it impossible to determine how many votes were stuffed or removed from the ballot boxes by the electoral criminals. Where we find, for example, 40 more votes than were officially received, it is impossible to determine how many votes were actually cast for each of the parties, and on and on successively.

This makes it important to annul the vote count from polling places that show anomolies, and they are many. By means of photographs on various occasions, and even videotape, we are seeing voter fraud of a type handed down from the most primitive of times. The PANistas were counting only on generalized fraud, that which is computerized. They were not counting on having to use the fraud of local bosses or similar -- the stuffing of ballot boxes, after the vote count, with pro-Calderon ballots, the removal of Pro-Lopez Obrador ballots, etcetera. Thus we have the second vote-shaving, uneven because it did not happen in all places, that of entering warehouses, violation of seals, etcetera, that of wanting to "fix" things: But in many cases because they did not even give this effort a modicum of care to hide the attempt, they left things half done, and plenty of tracks to see their work.

Now the choice is: They apply the law, nullify the violated polling boxes giving the scare of a lifetime to the candidate and leaders of PAN, or else they allow the violation of the law in a very evident manner, "ligitimating" this most public fraud and accelerating the deterioration of this situation in the country. This may be the last opportunity to provide the situation with an institutional result.

I can see now why the PAN is so adamantly against a polling-place-by-polling-place vote-by-vote recount. The PAN couldn't possibly launder so many boxes. Even 9% seems to be tough. I hope you enjoy this blast of fresh air journalism, free from the bias of the American media.

•  Tip Jar.

  Any spare change for an unemployed translator?

  by chuco35 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 05:33:15 PM PDT

•  Annulment Only Way Out

  Great job, Chuco.

  This election should have been annulled on July 3.

  Why?

  Mexican law prohibits presidentidal involvement in the race.  Yet, only a Bush acolyte would argue that Fox did not interfere.

  Mexican law prohibits 3rd parties from buying ad time on behalf of or against candidates.  Yet, only a Bush acolyte would argue that the CCE (RightWing Biz Group) Million dollar ad buy (to continue the Dick Morris Swiftboat campaign against AMLO) during the last week of the election did not influence the final results.  (if advertising isn't effective, then why is the US ad market about US$ 250B a year?)

  Speaking of Dick Morris, Mexican law prohibits foreign nationals from interfering in an election.  Yet, last I heard, Dick Morris hasn't been called to account for his anti-AMLO SwiftBoat campaign orchestrated from the Four Seasons.

  Given all this, only a true RED KoolAid drinker would believe that the less than 0.6% margin of "victory" should stand.

  by PatriciaVa on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 05:54:22 PM PDT

  •  Who Got More Votes, though?

    Do you really believe AMLO's allegations of ballot-stuffing?

    I think it's a bit drastic to annul an election because an advertisement or speech by Vicente Fox might have crossed the line toward endorsement.  (That should have been resolved BEFORE the election.)

    by nhc1978 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:46:52 PM PDT

    •  Clear Reasons for Annulment

      NHC, the election should be annulled b/c of the margin of "victory" and the trangressions before the election.

      AMLO, from the very beginning of the campaign, asked the IFE to have FOX refrain from campaigning on behalf of the RightWing candidate.  The IFE did nothing.

      Then, with a week left in the campaign, the CCE (a RightWing Biz group) sponsored a MULTIMILLION dollar ad buy againt AMLO, in clear violation of Mexican electoral law.

      Again, AMLO asked IFE to pull the ads on the first day of airing.  The IFE did nothing.

      Can you honestly say that the fact that Calderon served as a witness at Ugalde's (president of the IFE) did not ifluence his decision??

      Only a RightWing Calderon Sycophant would argue this.

      Again, the purported margin of "victory" is only 0.6%.

      On July 2, Centrists and Progressives opted for AMLO; the regressive and uneducated elements of Mexicans society opted for Reactionary Calderon.

      by PatriciaVa on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

      •  IFE and the swift boat ads

        You are right about the IFE not doing anything about the attack ads on AMLO. The Electoral Tribunal ordered PAN to remove the one that was most damaging. From Global Exchange's one of the presidential observer groups - pre-election report.

        Mexican citizens who criticized the quantity of spending on television and radio commercials noted two concerns: that publicly provided funds should be devoted to other campaign activities and that political commercials have displayed personal attacks and a negative tone that is relatively new to Mexican politics. The political parties have presented several official complaints to the electoral authorities about negative commercials that they believe violate election laws. In response, on both April 21 and May 22, the IFE ordered the PAN to cease airing certain commercials regarding Andrés Manual López Obrador. Although the IFE allowed the PAN to continue using a commercial that described López Obrador as "a danger for Mexico," the Electoral Tribunal ordered the PAN to remove it.

        by XicanoPwr on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:54:55 PM PDT

        •  One thing about Mexican TV

          The government retains a certain percentage of the advertising time on tv by law, I don't recall the exact percentage, but it is quite high, so Mexican tv is always full of government spots. Some of it is public service dealing with benign stuff like nutrition or family size, but most of it is blatant back patting by the current regime..there's one on right now that boasts about how many new homes the government of Fox has provided during his reign, for example. It is clearly pro PAN propaganda.

          by mariachi mama on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 07:11:49 AM PDT

    •  You Don't Believe Ballot Stuffing Occured?

      What do you make of the evidence of same presented by the Jornada article? I guess you can believe the "explanations" from the right that the lack if ballots in some boxes were simply voters who took their ballots home with them instead of depositing them in the boxes, and that the additional ballots in some of the voting places were simply ballots from other polling places. But what about the violated ballot box seals? And the missing signatures? What about polling places where nothing was found -- empty boxes with seals broken and no boxes, envelopes, tally sheets, or signatures of officials? And this is only where fraud was sloppily executed, and in only a small fraction of voting places examined.

      by chuco35 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:17:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure

      we'll ever know who got more votes, because the TRIFEL refused to order a vote-by-vote recount.

      There's enough alleged irregularities in this election that Calderon's legitimacy is already seriously weakened.  The only fair outcome is to do the election over, preferably Calderon vs. AMLO head to head in a runoff.

      by litho on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:33:28 PM PDT

•  good job..

  Wish we had ballots...At least those can be counted again where republicans know diebold cannot be counted again....I bet if we have voter purges, diebold fraud etc. like we had the last two elections there will be riots ...We have had enough..

  by bayside on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 05:57:44 PM PDT

•  good one

  Nice analysis- nice to see that they don't seem to be getting away with it.  The media in Australia don't even mention it anymore - just mentioned a tight win for Calderon weeks ago - move along nothing to see... then again our media is mostly involved with entertainment it seems- mel gibson etc...sigh

  Hopefully the courts will make the correct decision to annul

  by shiobhan on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:06:08 PM PDT

•  Heritage Foundation Central Casting

  On an earlier diary, El Cid asked about "Generous Kindness of Calderon Supporters", as evidenced by the vicious comments by RightWing Calderon Sycophants on a Washington Post message board, regarding Mexican's poor.

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  Here's my response.

  El Cid, this shouldn't surprise you.

  My parents hail from Nuevo Leon, so I know exactly how many of these regressive, uneducated Mexicans think.  

  I recall going to Monterrey as a young girl, and asking about the poverty.  My relatives retorted that there isn't any poverty, just laziness.  Since then, I've convinced them of how wrong they are (it took two degrees from two top US universities to convince them that Center-Left is the way to go), but most Regios still believe this, as evidenced by your post.  These people are straight out of Heritage Foundation central casting.

  They have no idea how clueless they are.  They actually think that Stanford and Harvard grads are on their side, that they believe in laissez-faire economics.  When I put forth evidence to the contrary, they were genuinely surprised.

  Anyway, that's Nuevo Leon, and that's a typical RightWing PRDista for you.  Here's an excerpt from a PANista equating the lazy with the poor, stated shortly after July 2.

  ---------------------------------
  Agenda Ciudadana: ¿¡se acabó el ‘primero los huevones’!?

  13 de Julio del 2006

  Lorenzo Meyer

  Analista político

  http://www.diario.com.mx/...

  La anónima diputada (¿qué diputado mexicano, finalmente, no es anónimo?), arropada por los suyos en ese momento de euforia, dijo lo que bien pudiera ser un resumen de la posición y del sentimiento de superioridad moral de quienes conforma la derecha mexicana: ignorancia o renuencia a reconocer la naturaleza del problema social mexicano más insensibilidad y dureza hacia aquellos que ya consideran, una vez más, los vencidos. Sin duda hay excepciones a esta generalización, pero la posición de la derecha no la moldean las excepciones.

  Contrargumentos. La afirmación de la diputada panista significa, en primer lugar, que los pobres son naturalmente reacios a trabajar (de aquí en adelante se usará este término u otros similares en vez del empleado por la legisladora: “huevones”). Y el argumento implícito es claro: la causa de la pobreza es el gusto de los pobres por la holganza. Por tanto, si los panistas y sus simpatizantes se concentran en la zona de los ingresos medios y altos --y así lo confirman los datos de las encuestas de salida tras la última jornada electoral (Reforma, 3 de julio)--, tales ingresos están económica y moralmente justificados por ser precisamente ellos, los sectores medios y altos, el mejor ejemplo de “la cultura del esfuerzo”; nadie tiene derecho a suponer que los intereses de una masa de indolentes pueda estar por encima de los de ellos, los realmente productivos.

  -------------------------------------

  by PatriciaVa on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:42:07 PM PDT

•  PRD Sounds Undemocratic

  Either the entire election needs to be annulled with a revote, or they need to accept the results.  But Lopez Obrador's demands to "annul" certain precincts with heavy PAN margins is undemocratic and indefensible.

  Thousands of legal voters voted in those precincts, and you can't just throw out their votes because you suspect there MIGHT be some fraud in those precincts.

  How would we feel if the Republicans demanded that they just annul all the votes from the city of Philadelphia, for example, because the margin was so heavily Democratic compared to the rest of Pennsylvania and they suspected fraud?

  A missing tally sheet or two is not justification for throwing out millions of votes, as AMLO is demanding.

  So far all these AMLO allegations seem pretty flimsy to me, and his remedies sound undemocratic.

  by nhc1978 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:45:05 PM PDT

  •  lots of judgement calls

    Proportionately speaking, there have actually been striking results within the 11,839 polling stations recounted.  Not just a missing tally sheet or two, but hundreds of vote error at a single station, or all of the ballots missing.

    On the other hand, the Electoral Court is a fairly autonomous entity with a huge degree of freedom, although it looks like they have closed off from ordering a general recount.

    Part of this depends on whether or not the fraud allegations are true (obviously unknowable without a complete investigation);  part depends on the results of the partial recount;  part depends on a wide swath of the public's belief in the reliability of electoral institutions;  and part depends on what legal strategies seem to be left open.

    Don't forget, the judges themselves complained that the main factor in recounting these 12,000 polling stations was that they recorded more VOTES than they recorded VOTERS -- and the judges didn't understand why, with such an obvious, obvious error, the electoral count officials didn't go ahead and recount on the spot that night, because they had full authority.

    And you don't refuse to recount when something is so obviously wrong and expect not to sow doubt and suspicion.

    by el cid on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:56:05 PM PDT

  •  What Else Can You Do?

    The seals on the boxes were broken, showing that someone probably broke into the box when they shouldn't have. The box had more ballots than people that voted, meaning that something was done with the contents of the box after the seal was broken when it wasn't allowed by law to do so. The tally sheets that purported to be the vote count by the election official did not have the signature of the official and the poll watchers, casting doubt on the tally sheet verifying the ballots in the box with the broken seal, containing more ballots than people that voted. Is it democratic to accept these results, especially when they appear to not reflect the thousands of people who did vote, and whose votes appear to have been compromised and substituted for? There were many polling places that had similar problems of the fraction that were examined.

    This is not the case of a missing tally sheet or two. That's why I translated the article, so that it would be clear to non-Spanish readers on this site that the American media account of "a missing tally sheet or two" is deceitful spin. This is serious shit, only too obvious to any Mexican with his/her eyes open. AMLO has a legitimate point. His people are right. The PAN is seeking to steal the election. The American media is complicit in this theft because, best case scenario, of their lazyness, or because, worst case scenario, they're biased against the Mexican left.

    by chuco35 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:37:53 PM PDT

    •  What I find amusing

      What I find amusing is how people on the left cherry pick the articles to blast la raza. These are the same people who will cry out on the mountain tops saying that the MSM is a tool of the corporatist and they lie about anything. But when it comes to minorities and la raza from South of border, they take what the MSM says as the gospel truth. What is worse, no matter what WE say, will always be looked at as questionable. And if we espeak Espanish berry well, pues forget, its not good enough, we must not know what we are talking about.

      Great job translating, 'mano.

      by XicanoPwr on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 08:13:24 PM PDT

      •  Exactamente

        Cállate, menso. ¿Tú qué sabes?

        "Hey, I read all about it in the New York Times."

        We see it over and over again. Too bad I only had one recommend to give you, because what you said deserves a whole ballot box full.

        by moiv on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 08:52:38 PM PDT

      •  True leftists

        dont fit your model.

        Don't shit on those who really love you.

        mikolo

        by mikolo on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 08:56:15 PM PDT

        •  what is a true leftist?

          How do you define a true leftist? Moreover, how do I know your definition will match mine and mine yours? And how do you know what my model is?

          While overt racism and discrimination may not be present, there is still obvious inequalities. So by apply an abstract type arguement is nothing more than trying to ignore the "problem." The truth is, research continues to show by ignoring it, it will only lead to even more inequalities by trying justifying it in some way through language of liberalism.

          by XicanoPwr on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 05:33:24 AM PDT

          •  I'd probably change that to 'some'

            It's certainly right to say about "some" leftists and "some" liberals.

            It was really to see throughout the 1980s in which almost all of the mainstream liberals would fiercely argue against Ronald Reagan's domestic policies, and would in general oppose his foreign policies, but who mostly agreed that the US had a right to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, that it had a right to assist the El Salvadoran dictatorship to fight rebels, and that the US had a right to fund & direct the Guatemalan genocidalists.

            On the other hand, 'many' of those on the American left not only supported resistance to US policies, but put their livelihoods and even their lives on the line in solidarity.

            by el cid on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 05:44:23 AM PDT

            •  You are correct it should be 'some', but

              You are correct it should be changed to some, but it is becoming harder to start separating "friendly" from "foe".

              So yes, some may think this is just angst talk, hypersensitivity, but I am not alone in this mind set either. The latest findings from the Pew Hispanic Center 2006 National Survey of Latinos that was conducted between June 5 to July 3, 2006:
              54% - native-born Hispanics say they have seen an increase in discrimination as a result of the immigration policy debate.
              82% - say that discrimination is a problem that prevents Latinos in general from succeeding in the US. The intensity of that attitude, however, has increased: 58% of Hispanics now say discrimination is a "major" problem, compared with 44% in the 2002 National Survey of Latinos. Both the native and foreign born see greater problems with discrimination.

              Breaking it down further on the same survey item. Among
              foreign born - 51%
              second generation - 47%
              third-plus generations - 60%

              Political Repercussions
              When it comes to which party has more concern for Hispanics/Latinos
              Democratic Party - 37%
              Republican Party - 9%
              No difference - 37%

              This has gone by 7 points since the 1999 WP/KFF/Harvard Latino Survey.

              Yes, I should have said "some" and not lump all, but there is a lot of work on our side that still needs to be done to convince the 82% who are also "hypersensitive." Especially come this Nov when it was found that 75% said that the immigration debate has empowered many more Latinos to vote in November.

              by XicanoPwr on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 07:34:19 AM PDT

              •  I only have anecdotes

                I'm a dual US/Mex citizen who has returned to Mexico to live..I don't anticipate ever living in the US again, in fact I haven't been back for years. But I have family and in particular grown up kids who live in the states. We talk all the time.

                Now, my oldest son is talking about returning to Mexico. Since both his parents were native born Mexicans, I think he is entitled to citizenship here, I'm looking into it for him (well as soon as the Oaxacan stikers let us go about our business.

                He says it has gotten so bad that anonymous people are telling him to go back to Mexico, someone in the grocery store called his wife (white) a race traitor, people in stores acting like he is there to steal, and his perception is that it is getting much worse lately. And he lives in Oregon, a very blue area of Oregon. He's a teacher and a part time mariachi, US born.

                by mariachi mama on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 07:58:51 AM PDT

                •  Amazing

                  I knew this day was going to come to those of us born here in the US. I remember when I was in HS during the 80's getting picked on and beaten up almost every other month, because I was Hispanic/Latino/Xicano. The two question I would get asked where was I born and where was my green card. When I said Laredo, this was before Laredo grew, it didn't matter to them.

                  That was over 20 years ago and look at us now, nothing has changed.

                  by XicanoPwr on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 10:23:03 AM PDT

                  •  Laredo?

                    Well, well, well. That's where I'm from xicano. Actually, part time Laredo, part time San francisco, although I have a home and office in Laredo. I went to HS in the 60's though.

                    Keep up the good fight Bato. But I disagree, much has changed, some for the good and some for the bad. Who would have thought that millions of us would hit the streets? We just need to keep fighting and make this a better place for our Chicano grandkids.

                    by chuco35 on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 12:35:50 PM PDT

                    •  Small world, ain't it

                      It would really be a small world if you actually went to HS with my parents, they went to Martin.

                      by XicanoPwr on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 01:29:10 PM PDT

      •  dailykos has occasional rightwing trolls no doubt

        coming in and polluting the place.  

        its pretty obvious the election was stolen.  the outraged people of mexico have more democracy in their blood then the lazy americans that allowed two elections in a row to be stolen.  as long as diebold is counting the votes, im skeptical the dems will win as many seats as they could have unless they make paper ballots a high priority.  and even then, as mexico is showing, someone has to watch the vote counters.

        by windwardguy46 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 09:02:53 PM PDT

•  Election Integrity

  Thanks for posting this diary.

  Added the "Election Integrity" tag.

  Folks interested in this topic are pooling information at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/...
  and dkosopedia on Voting_Rights for further resources.

  Please think about volunteering to be a poll worker in your local precinct
  Serving_as_an_election_official

  by gmoke on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 06:47:26 PM PDT

  •  Also the Mexico News Roundup here on kos

    Keep an eye out for the Mexico News Roundup diaries that appear here 2 or more times a week. There is a small group of kossacks working to raise the profile of  Mexican issues here on dkos.

    It would be good to see more La Raza coverage here too.

    by joel3000 on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 09:21:40 PM PDT

•  Send Diebold executives

  They will fix it for Calderon. They did great in Ohio and Florida... Experience counts.

  by GUGA on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:21:49 PM PDT

  •  paper ballots

    though I'm sure next time there will be no record.

    by el cid on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:23:45 PM PDT

•  Re-election is the only sensible answer

  The announced result was that out of 41.5 million votes cast Calderon won by 240,000 votes. That's less than 0.6%. In a nation where there were 130,000 ballot boxes, a total vote of 41.5 million votes means that the average number of votes per ballot box (the average vote count) was 319. We don't know how the vote count was distributed over the 130,000 boxes though.

  But if all boxes had exactly 319-320 votes, cheaters would only have to attack about 0.6% of the boxes, 780 boxes, changing all votes to Calderon to throw the election and achieve the margin that occurred.

  If the cities had ballot boxes with higher vote counts, the election could have been stolen by focusing on the high vote count boxes, thus involving many fewer boxes and requiring a smaller number of conspirators.

  Now, after all the posturing by the Calderon campaign, and the many anecdotal eye-witness stories of irregularities, no one is going to believe any recount, nor should they. The only answer that makes any sense is to hold a new election under the scrutiny of international poll watchers.

  by lobdillj on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 04:07:14 AM PDT

•  Right now not betting on institutional victory

  Right now I'm feeling somewhat pessimistic again, thinking that pretty much the federal institutions of the vote and the courts are simply not going to do any major action on the election -- it will be certified, Calderon will be pronounced the winner, but the TEPJF will probably recommend some sort of 'commission' studying how to make things better the next time.

  Whatever his strategy is, I think it's crucial that AMLO and more importantly the grassroots which has been turning out begin to consider a post-electoral role.

  Meaning, that they can't leave themselves with only one goal to try and literally "block" Calderon.  Personally I don't think they can win that particular battle, particularly since there simply is a divided public.

  So to me the question is, what do you do if all the forces of the state and some large percentage of the population go along with installing Calderon?

  Do you give up and go home?  Do you do nothing but keep protesting Calderon and calling him illegitimate?

  Or is it possible that AMLO and some -- and I mean only some, not necessarily most -- of the current grassroots leaders might be imagining that they could use all this energy on the streets for some sort of nationwide movement?

  A sort of combination popular movement, Zapatista-style "Otra Campan~a", and maybe even new political party / coalition?  Is that what is meant by the call for the National Democracy Convention on 16 September?

  Right now AMLO and the demonstrators have a lot of attention;  in my view they better strike while the iron is hot and -- I know it's easy to say from my comfortable perspective far away -- do something creative and yet appropriate for an activated minority.

  by el cid on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 05:39:45 AM PDT

  •  Another great post , el cid.

    I unfortunbately share your pessimism.

    by mariachi mama on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 07:02:59 AM PDT

•  Very nice, thank

  you very much. Couldn't read original, so this is really great to see.

  by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 08:28:08 PM PDT