amlo civil case against imposition final

7/31/2019 AMLO Civil Case Against Imposition FINAL

1/19

1


2/19

2

If the TRIFE doesnt respect our Constitution, who will?


3/19

3

Prologue

What is in play in these elections?

The unwillingness of the Progresista Movement in Mexico to accept the supposedresults of the July 1st 2012 presidential elections goes far beyond questioning the countcarried out by the PREPand District Computation or debating if the votes were countedcorrectly or not.

Today Mexican citizens will witness the resolution of the TRIFE , a decision that will markthe future of Mexico. This historic moment will confirm whether the magistrates willrespect the spirit of our constitution or will simply opt for form over substance and fornot making waves, turning over a new page instead of defending our countrysdemocracy.

It is ridiculous to think that a candidate to the Presidency of Mexico representing anyparty, in this case the PRI, could appear on the record as having won by a majority votewhen he has trodden upon the very spirit and essence of Mexican law and the MagnaCharta.

1. The campaign expense ceiling was surpassed by more than four billion pesos andno one has questioned where these resources came from.

2. The poverty of many Mexicans was exploited to buy and coerce votes.3. Resources of unknown origins were channeled through financial institutions

(Monex/gora Case)4. Tendentious polls in favor of Pea Nieto were published and aired across the

media spectrum.5. The PRIgovernors put their states in debt in a scandalous and shocking manner in

order to finance the PRIcampaign.

The candidate of the Movimiento Progresista, being Mexican, has the right to demandthat democracy be upheld and to fight through legal channels to ensure the spirit of thelaw is upheld, both in form and substance.

As Mexicans, it is our duty to demand clean elections from the TRIFE , NOT BOUGHT ORMANIPULATED ELECTIONS, regardless of political party. If theTRIFE does not respectour Constitution, who will?


4/19

4

Introduction

A PERVERTED ELECTION

One of the questions that people ask the members of the Movimiento Progresista Coalition andAndrs Manuel Lpez Obrador most often is: How many votes of difference are needed toaccept and not contest an election? At the same time, they point out that the more than threemillion vote difference between first and second place in the recent presidential elections arean indisputable fact.

The answer is that the difference is not measured only and exclusively by the number of votes,but also by the quality and the way in which they were obtained. When elections are fair,transparent and legitimate, one vote of difference is enough to provide a result. However,when elections are defined by a disparity in resources, obscene tactics and the coercion or

pressuring of a large group of voters, the difference in votes is not the indicator of theconclusive victory of the candidate with the greatest number, but rather the scope of theinjustices committed.

If equity is the central theme in modern democracy, then inequity is the quid of the long andunfinished transition to democracy in Mexico.

The 19th century democracy was the stimulus that led to universal suffrage and in the 20thcentury to respect and strengthen human rights. Now it seeks the equality of circumstances inthe configuration of public power as the way to achieve equality in other facets of collective life

like the economy, society and culture. Political reforms in this country over recent decadeshave focused on the guarantee of competitive parity as a critical issue, but the actors havealways found a way to ridicule and violate those resolutions. For this reason, our democracy isfor the most part unfinished and imperfect because in every election there are new forms andexpressions of injustice or ways to take illegal or a dishonest advantage of adversaries.

The recent presidential election was far from democratically impartial. The unfettered moneyflow, from unknown sources and far beyond any regulation, became on this occasion theparticle of fraud and electoral abuse. We estimate the electoral expenses of the PRIcandidateat 4.6 billion MXN when the set legal limit is 366 million MXN, that is to say, 14 times more thanthe permitted limit up to the moment that we presented the lawsuit; and this includes onlywhat we could document at that point in time, because day after day more and more evidenceof squandering of funds comes to light; and the misappropriation of those funds is characterizedby waste. The imperial air fleet made up of private airplanes and helicopters at the service of the PRIcandidate; the spectacular billboards and massive public advertisement campaign; thedistribution of millions of articles, from the classic tee shirt and baseball cap to millions of prepaid telephone cards and farm animals in rural zones and in an unheard of strategy, the


5/19

5

massive use of MONEX and SORIANASupermarket electronic debit cards. This campaign wascharacterized by opulence cash and outrageous expenses.

Using an Olympic metaphor, the PRIpresidential candidate, Enrique Pea Nieto, ran his raceunder the influence of a drug that was expressly prohibited by the electoral legislation, currency

in cash and in kind. His overdose affected the nature, the design and the very running of thepolitical race. As such, the race should be invalidated and repeated under the conditions andnorms established by the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico and the electorallegislation. This is the essence of the appeal that the Movimiento Progresista Coalition haspresented before the electoral authorities demanding the invalidation of the last presidentialelection based on the abuses committed against the constitutional principles for free andtransparent elections.

This publication, The Black Book, 2012 Elections, seeks to put in the hands of the citizens theproofs and arguments that sustain our challenge. We call our appeal The Citizens Trial becausethe citizens of our country are the principal source of the evidence we are presenting, andbecause we believe that the citizens should act as the eighth Electoral Magistrate of theSupreme Court during the current evaluation process of the presidential election.

Some believe that the sum total of the violations presented in our lawsuit do not merit theinvalidation of the election. That at the most, the constitutional damage could be compensatedwith a monetary fine. This affirmation reflects a lack of conscience and memory. Forgotten arethe aggravating circumstances behind what is a relapse into crime. In 2000, the PRIstole 500million pesos from PEMEX through the Petroleum Workers Union to use in the presidentialcampaign of that year. The fine was double that of the theft, one billion MXN, but this sanctiondid not inhibit in any way their repeating the same illegal practice twelve years later, going way

above the spending limit. In this sense, to fix a fine for spending more than the campaign limitsin 2012, far from preventing this abuse from being repeated, is like putting a price on thepresidential office for 2018. It is well known in legal and social sciences that recurring behaviorsare not inhibited or detained by economic fines, however high they might be, but rather byexemplary sanctions; in this case, a corrective sanction would be the invalidation of the electionthat would not just stop the PRIbut also other political actors from injecting dirty money into agame that should be transparent. Now, the fact that the PRIonce again used illegal money in itscampaigns may not surprise many. One might say that it is part of its political genetic makeup.What is truly unacceptable is that the electoral authorities let this flagrant violation to theconstitution, to electoral legislation and to common sense, sail right by them. It would only add

to the degradation and decomposition of the country because the gene to combat impunity ispart of the institutional genetic makeup of the IFE and the TEPJE .

In a country like ours, where the patrimonial and corporative vision of public life is latent,money is used to buy positions and obtain personal and group benefits. History shows us thatwhoever buys the presidency ends up selling the country. A bought presidency is a presidencythat is turned over to unspeakable economic pacts. An auctioned off presidency is a presidency


6/19

6

that is notarized over to private interests. A mortgaged presidency will never be a presidency atthe service of the greater interests of the nation.

A bought election violates the moral constitution of a country that seeks to establishmoderation and balance in public life. It is worthless to a social ethic that seeks solidarity and

deliberation among the citizens in a country that is historically inequitable, and it is an affront tothe patriotism of a new generation of citizens that sees in political money the origin of thecorruption that is scourging and humiliating the country.

In politics, whatever can be bought by money is cheap (Carlos Hank). This is the essence of aperverted election. It is also the vision of a political group that began giving out boxes of foodto the most impoverished during the last century and continues to do so, but now throughelectronic debit cards.

This was a perverted election that should no longer exist in our country if we really hope fortrue democracy, as defined by the cons titution not just a legal structure and a political regimenbut also a way of life founded on the ongoing economic, social and cultural advancement of thepeople.


7/19

7

CITIZENS TRIAL AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF THMEXICAN PRESIDENT

WHY SHOULD THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF JULY 1, 2012 BEINVALIDATED?

On July 12 of this year, the Progressive Coalition Movement presented for judicial review, thecase of the presidential election, requesting the invalidation of the election by the ElectoralTribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) (Art. 99 of the Constitution). We did this,based on the evidence in our possession that demonstrate that the election did not adhere tothe Constitution, for which reason our petition requests that a new extraordinary election beconvoked to be carried out under conditions of legality and equity.

It is important to keep in mind that the election has not yet been declared so there is nopresident-elect to date; this responsibility rests upon the Electoral Tribunal. The IFE is onlyresponsible for the computation of the election; it does not issue proof of the majority vote nordoes it have the authority to declare an elected candidate or his legitimacy. This is theresponsibility the Electoral Tribunal, which has until September 6, 2012 to do so.

MEXICO DID NOT HAVE FREE OR LEGITIMATE ELECTION

In concrete terms, the results published by the IFE relating to the presidential elections of theUnited States of Mexico violated those very constitutional principles that govern elections, inorder to ensure that they deemed valid (Art. 41): Certainty, legality, impartiality andobjectivity. At the same time, the Magna Charta stipulates that elections be free, legitimate and

regular, the vote universal, free, secret and direct; that the participation of the parties in theelections be under equality of conditions; that there be a guarantee of political pluralism andfair conditions (public financing: access to radio and television; prohibition against parties,individuals and corporations contracting publicity on the television and radio; limits to thedonations by the parties in the electoral pre-campaign and electoral campaigns); that the originand destination of the resources and application of sanctions be supervised; and that there beno slander against individuals in political or electoral publicity.

Electoral process in violation of the constitution Resources Judicial Review Declaration of Results by the IFE (Federal Electoral Institute)

September 6 th, 2012


8/19

8

In general, these conditions were not met in these presidential elections.

INVALIDATION OR NULLITY?

There are two causes that can lead to nullification in a presidential election: one is thenullification of the voting for the reasons expressly established in Article 75 of the General Law

of the System of Means for Refutation in Electoral Matters; and the other, the nullification of the election given a violation of the principles that govern elections. Our suit covers bothkinds of nullity.

That is to say, although there were infractions and elements that meet the requirements for thenullification of the voting carried out in the voting booths, our appeal goes further than this. Itpoints out the unconstitutionality of the process as a whole, because of a series of violationsof the law, which can only be resolved with a new election.

The above is vouched for in the Judicial Review through documented proofs , photographs andvideos; personal declarations and annotations by citizens who were witnesses or actors in thepurchase of votes; company invoices, many of which were fictitious or illusionary that were partof that purchase; in addition to the use of resources during the campaign and even before, thatshould have obligated the intervention of the electoral authority in anticipation of illegal actionsthat were clearly in the making. And if this were not enough, thanks to the support of thecitizens, we continue to strengthen our lawsuit with new proofs of the violations in which thePRI participated , which we are presenting before the Tribunal and, if so required, before otherlegally authorized authorities.

WHAT ARE THOSE VIOLATIONS?

The basis of the case:

I. Inequity in the use of times and spaces on the radio and television , and the bias in themedia favoring Enrique Pea Nieto

II. Utilization of polls in the media to produce pro-Pea Nieto publicity.

There are Judgments of nullity which we re presented in the electoraldistricts, for this election we opted for invalidity.

Nullity: The irregularities occurred in 25% of the booths y the TRIFE mustresolve that if there was a nullity on that 25%.

Invalidity: Serious violations to the Constitution as: the excessive campaignexpenditure, utilization of polls with electoral purpose, the purchase andcoercion of votes.


9/19

9

III. Excessive expenditure on publicity and on mobilization during the campaign activitiesof Pea Nieto, which very possibly implicates the utilization of money from illicit sources.

IV. The purchase and coercion of votes through the distribution of various kinds of debitcards: prepaid, discount and telephone; but also the dispensing of cash, provisions,construction materials, fertilizers and food the epitome of trafficking with the poverty

of the people.V. The activities to promote Pea Nietos interests by PRI state governments , particularlythe documented case of Zacatecas.

VI. The administration of the State of Mexico government account by Luis Videgaray Caso,Enrique Pea Nietos campaign coordinator.

And finally, but not least serious, we confront the negligent attitude of the electoral authorityto in the midst of all this, especially considering the issue of fiscalization and the fact thatfrom the beginning of the campaigns, we called the attention of the IFE to these issues throughappeals and accusations, to which the institution has not responded to date. From the veryonset of the past campaign, we called the attention of the IFE to these matters through bothappeals and accusations, to which that institution has still not responded. It is absolutelyunconscionable that the Presidential Council of the IFE has declared that there is no rush thatits resolution will be provided in January 2013!!

MASS MEDIA

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF OUR EVIDENCE?

The importance of this trial is rooted in the fact that it was the citizens as a group who broughtus this evidence and continue to do so, more than fifty boxes and counting, providing thedocumentation for these allegations.

THANKS TO THIS, OUR LAWSUIT INCORPORATES EVIDENCE OF ALL KINDS:

I. In order to demonstrate the bias of the media toward Enrique Pea, we not only turnedover newspaper clippings and recordings of radio and television programs, but alsopresented as proof various tracking procedures and reports, including those of the IFE itself, as well as a study by the UNAM of the monitoring process carried out during thecampaign, which show clearly that the distribution of television and radio times and spotswas not equitable.

The favoritism toward Enrique Pea Nieto (EPN) was particularly apparent in certainmedia groups and especially Televisa . EPN had been making deals with these media groupsas part of his overall strategy from the time of his campaign for governor of the State of Mexico. This was very apparent in the hidden purchase of radio and television airtime aswell as magazine coverage that was manifested in favorable news coverage and promotion


10/19

10

of EPN his political activities and government. The strategy also included concealinginformation (as was the case in the event at the Iberoamerican University on May 11 of thisyear) and systematic attacks on his political adversaries while a presidential candidate.

The most conspicuous evidence is found in the contracts with the publicity firms belonging

to Alejandro Quintero Iiguez, Televisa s commercial vice president; theacknowledgement by Carlos Loret de Mola of the agreement between Televisa and EPN,which was actually an exercise in the commercialization of the news ; the coverage of Televisa of the international tours of EPN; bills from Televisa for COMMENTS BY JOAQUNLPEZ DORIGA TRANSMITTED DURING HIS NEWCAST LPEZ DORIGA AND DURING TNEWSCAST OF OSCAR MARIO BETETA for $1,150,000.00 MXNand Publicity and propaganda in the electronic media, disseminating information about messages and governmental activities for $87,678,347.84 MXN, in 2010 fromTelevisa, TV Azteca, MilenioTV , Grupo Imagen and Telefrmula, report that is now in the possession of the IFE , whichwas not audited for expenses in the 5 th governmental report.

The strategy that the PRI put into practice was simple: Utilize the media and indeed allforms of publicity to introduce EPN to the market in order to make him a national figureand then present him as the inevitable next president of Mexico .

This is particularly serious if we add to it the fact that the IFE , by means of a simpleexercise of legal interpretation, gave the PRI-PVEM the most radio and television spacesfrom December 18, 2011 on in a proportion of almost 3 to 1.

In the study carried out by sgresearchanalytics, which Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador(AMLO) handed over toTelevisa in the program Tercer Grado included in our lawsuit, the

difference in the treatment of EPN and of AMLO is apparent. The only channel thatcriticized EPN is the program El maanero on channel 5 with coverage in metropolitanMexico, proving the concealment of news unfavorable to EPN was withheld.

II. A study was provided to prove the manipulation of polls in favor of Pea Nieto.

Distortion and manipulation of polls Milenio18.4% Grupo Formula17.7% El Universal 16% Exclsior 16% Parametra 15.1%

*Predicted difference

Repeated and almost permanently calling a winner of the election prior to ElectionDay.


11/19

11

This study shows how a daily poll published by Milenio , of GEA-ISA, contributed togeneralizing the idea that Enrique Pea Nietos victory was inevitable knowing full wellthat it was a lie. This perception was promoted by several commentators and opinionleaders, who took it upon themselves to sustain the seriousness of these trackingmechanisms. This includes the opinions of Ciro Gmez Leyva, Jos Crdenas and others.

Pollsters like Televisa-CNIRT-Mitofsky , BCG-Exclsior , Parametra and Ulises Beltrn ,among others, offered the same kind of erroneous information, which further aggravatedthe damage to the electoral process by promoting incessantly the idea that there was awinner in the election before Election Day. This leads one to think that as pro-equity spotsare now prohibited; polls are fixed so as to buy more time in television, radio and in theprinted media, thereby favoring a candidacy. One fact worthy of note is that those pollsthat reflect a result closer to the actual result that of Bermen for example, was largelyignored by the media.

One determining factor in measuring the impact of the polls on voters is examining howthe results were transmitted to the population at large. Take for example the case of thegreatest presence, that of GEA-ISA. In addition to appearing on a daily basis in the Milenio chain newspapers, it was carried on the cable channel of the same group belonging to theMultimedios Group, with 13 television channels and 37 radio stations. That of ConsultaMitofsky was presented during the news cast of Joaqun Lpez Driga and in Telefrmula and referred to in several political opinion programs within the Televisa firm in programssuch as Third Degree. The poll held by Parametra had ample coverage through thenewspaper chain OEM, 70 dailies across the country, 24 radio stations, a television channeland 43 Internet pages. Ulises Beltrns poll was also carried by Exclsior on its programs andin the newscasts of the group Imagen Multimedia, specifically Channel 28-Chain Three. An

important aside: this pollster has been an advisor for at least the last 10 years to the PVEM and a member of its strategy room.

Even Ciro Gmez Leyva recognized the deception in the polls, as evidenced in this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWVg7RHRUA&feature=related

III. In order to illustrate the Pea Nietos excessive spending on publicity and on campaignactivities, we present documentation and proof that from April 26, almost at the beginningof the campaign onward, we were already warning that the campaign expense limitsestablished by law had been exceeded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWVg7RHRUA&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWVg7RHRUA&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWVg7RHRUA&feature=related


12/19

12

Our lawsuit includes a conservative evaluation based on our information, but which is bornout by the monitoring activities of the IFE . Of course it does not include expenses that wecannot quantify like commissioned articles, internet contracts etc. Indeed, we arerequesting that the IFE investigate such spending, as is indicated by law.

What we can demonstrate is that the legal spending limits of the campaign weresurpassed significantly by the PRI . While the law sets the limit at 336 million pesos, PeaNieto spent 4.6 billion pesos on his campaign, that is to say, 4.2 billion pesos over the limit.

We included the rest of the expenses like the gora operative, the activities during theMexican soccer match in the Estadio Azteca, and the Soriana and telephone cards.

IV. Proof of the use of Soriana Supermarket cards for buying votes is in the file, including thephysical evidence of the cards themselves, seven types of cards, and notarized testimoniesof citizens who declared that they received them in return for voting for Pea Nieto.

Excess campaign expenditures

Campaign limit: $336,112,084PRItotal expenses: $4.599,947,834Surplus campaign expenses: $4.263,835,750

After presented the trial, we have received more information of excesses in the PRI campaignexpenses, so the permitted amount far exceeds by billions MXN

Campaign expenses by Enrique Pea Nieto, Compromiso por Mxicos Coalition PresidentialCandidate

Estimated EPN s campaign expenses (though April 20, 2012) Estimated EPNs campaign expenses (April 21 June 2, 2012) Estimated EPNs campaign expenses (June 3 June 27, 2012) EPNs campaign total quantified expenses Campaign cost limit authorized by IFE s General Council Excess expenses limit

gora Monex OperativeSoccer Match in the Estadio Azteca, June 8Soriana Supermarket Gift CardsPrepaid Telephone Cards (4 million cards of 50, 100 and 200 pesos)


13/19

13

There are more than four thousands of these cards registered , although to date thenumber, the total resources expended, and their origin is not known. There are also a fewmillion-peso agreements made by PRI governors with the Soriana Group. The file alsoincludes at least one ticket from a store in the chain with the heading PRI benefit.

The following are links with live testimonies:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLFVNDXvHY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlOxgUssXg&feature=related

In order to substantiate our suspicion that the PRI campaign received illicit funds, we havealso submitted as proof, among other elements, the case of the operation that distributedthousands of Monex bank cash cards. We provide examples of the cards themselves, in thiscase three types of cards, as well as a copy of the contract of this firm with the Pea Nietoteam, which involved a little over 56 million dollars offered to the Financial Group Monex inorder to position the image of the PRI candidate. We also included a package of 37 invoicesand three lists including details from the mentioned invoices for a total of 240 millionpesos listed as a corporate charge reimbursements for prepaid credit.

The Monex Financial Group issued 100,000 electronic cash cards benefiting PRI operatives. The cards themselves, their digital fiscal vouchers and the lists of those representativesregistered with the electoral authority, provide the proof. The legality of this operative was

questionable but the use of parallel financing structures like Monex and Soriana meant thatit need not be reported to the electoral authority as political parties normally must dorelating to fundraising activities.

Several business associations appear as donors of the money used to buy votes and thereare indications of money laundering. The origin of these resources, whether illicit or not,should be investigated by the corresponding authorities because in the end the publictreasury will end up paying off those who invested in the purchase of the presidency. Thatis to say, the people will end up paying not only the 4,600 million pesos for the PRI campaign but also for the benefits that go with the investment.

In essence, pro-PRIvotes across the country were bought with cash and with thousands, if not millions, of credit cards used to purchase merchandise and prepaid credit as well asprovisions, construction materials, fertilizers and other gifts that require significantresources. The sum and the magnitude of these funds lead one to believe that they comefrom illicit means. PRI leaders, principally in Tabasco, State of Mexico and Veracruzamong other states, may have been involved in the crime of money laundering by drawingon this kind of resource.

Grupo Comercial Inizzio Comercializadora EfraMonex Soriana5 million of votes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLFVNDXvHY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlOxgUssXg&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlOxgUssXg&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLFVNDXvHY&feature=related


14/19

14

Furthermore the PRI presumably received campaign resources from abroad, as seen inaccounts from Business Capital Group S.C. and Global Net Services S.A. de C.V. inBanamex .Here we found a double accounting procedure not reported to the IFE , as well as unusualand unexplained money flows in the private accounts of public officials, which should be

investigated and clarified immediately.

V. In order to prove that the purchase and distribution of telephone cards was part of the PeaNieto publicity campaign, we provide several samples of them as well as the testimony of many citizens who received them with the condition that they vote for this presidentialcandidate.

In order to demonstrate the activities of the PRI governments in favor of Pea Nietocampaign, we present several documents and testimonies.

The operation was launched in June when Pea Nieto realized that his political popularitywas actually falling, contrary to the misleading polls that the campaign was promoting.

On June 12 in Toluca, in the official residence of the Governor of the State of Mexico, 16PRI governors met with Enrique Pea and his campaign team. At that meeting, the

presidential candidate ordered the governors of his party to produce votes for him. Thegovernors then singled out certain collaborators close to the municipal and districtgovernments and provided them with money to buy votes. In turn, the functionaries thencharged the vote-buying responsibility to their subordinates, who in turn handed outprovisions, gifts and construction materials and provided services, housing credits andscholarships. They even offered discounts and complete pardoning on state taxes.

Thanks to the case of the state of Zacatecas, we were able to reconstruct how theoperation worked. Accounts in Banorte and Inbursa were opened with money from anunknown source in the name of Victor Manuel Rentera Lpez, Personal Secretary of the

Chief Administrative Officer of the State Government to run the Second District. Theseaccounts were used to pay the companies supplying the materials that were used toinfluence the voters and the political operators responsible for getting the votes. Theseoperators handed out provisions, materials and cards and had access to the resources of arange of state dependencies ( CEAPA, the Heath Sector, SEDIF , SEPLADER, etc.), which theyalso gave to the voters they recruited.

Case of Zacatecas state: The purchase and coercion of votes //Misuse of public incomesEPN and 16 PRI Governors reunion // Eruviel Avilas house

Misuse of public incomesJune 12, 2012


15/19

15

The vote-coercion operative was housed in the Casas Amigas. Their staff members,trained by the IFE as PRI observers, each with a list of names in hand, made sure thatthe citizens who had received support voted for the PRI . This phase was called Bingo.

The evidence of the Zacatecas case appear in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPMdnBF7B8

We are talking of 108 million in one state

But it was not only the case in Zacatecas state. We have evidence of this same operative inthe State of Mexico, Michoacn, Colima, Jalisco, Guanajuato, and across the republic.

VI. In order to corroborate the suspicious handling of an account of government of the State of Mexico by the Pea Nieto campaign coordinator, Luis Videgaray, we have provided a copyof bank statements and online consultations of Scotiabank, all denied by the PRI , inaddition to the testimony of an employee of the bank itself. The PRI alleges that theScotiabank account was not used to pay anyone, only to transfer money momentarily atnight in order to earn interest; however, a copy of an electronic SPEIreceipt (interbankelectronic funds transfer) of the Bank of Mexico provides proof of a deposit for 50 millionpesos by an individual very early in the morning.

This is the audio of the call that proves that Videgaray is the holder of the governmentaccount of the State of Mexico to date:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L2VSZoUCPU

We prove the purchase of votes across the country with concrete physical evidence. In

the file is the evidence of the providing of provisions, blenders, grills, and all kinds of utensils. In addition, the file includes notarized testimonies of how the PRImembersprovided cash, construction materials, fertilizers, and food like roasted chicken, pork, beef.This shows how the PRIcynically exploited by poverty of the population.

It is also worth mentioning that in addition to the telephone cards, pre-paid cash cards anddiscount and credit cards in Pea Nietos name, there were similar cards given out in thename of local candidates for the posts of governor, senator, state representative etc. if they joined the operative in their state or municipality. These were also used to get out thevote for Pea Nieto in the presidential election.

Examplesof this were, among others: La Choca in Tabasco; the Tarjeta de Todos (Card forEveryone) in Coahuila; La Jalisciense in Jalisco; La Benefactora (the Benefactor) in

To proof the purchase and the distribution of phone cards as propaganda of Pea Nieto, we contribute with several types, as well as many citizenstestimonies proving buying their ballot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPMdnBF7B8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L2VSZoUCPUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L2VSZoUCPUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPMdnBF7B8


16/19

16

Guanajuato; La Tamaulipeca in Tamaulipas and the Premia Platin (Platinum Prize)distributed by the PVEMacross the country.

The buying of votes and trafficking with poverty in the rural sector was, without a doubt, themost immoral aspect of this election. Pea Nieto got the votes because he bought loyalty bytaking advantage of the need and the hunger of the people.

For example, the three districts with the greatest rural population in the Yucatan registered anaverage participation of 86 percent. In Chiapas, voter participation, increased 118 percentcompared to the 2006 election, and the PRI obtained 506,000 votes more in 2012 than six yearsearlier.

Because of those and other efforts Pea beat AMLO in rural areas, which account for the35% of the total, by 2,801,042 votes.

This is a video about the buying of votes:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ziknF9lOLlQ

A CYNIC MIGHT ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF VOTE AND EVEN LESS POSSIBLE TO PUT IT INTO NUMBERS, BUT HERE IS THE EVIDENCE,hundreds of testimonies, images, videos and thousands of cards of all types and from various institutions.And we might add another variable: the use of USBs to pay for the vote in Guanajuato, amongother places.

The evidence and testimonies we have to date prove that approximately 5 million votes werebought. In the states of Mexico, Veracruz and Chiapas alone, around two million votes werebought.

Novel ways in which thePRI operated: the little falcons and the USB bracelet.

There is also a significant number of evaluations by national and foreign observers that pointout several anomalies. The most comprehensive document was presented by Alianza Cvica (Civil Alliance), which concludes that 30% of the votes in 21% of the voting booths it watchedover were the product of the purchase and coercion of votes. There are also reports of the

Vote in rural regions 2.5% Rural population growth 2.5 % Decrease in rural population Voter registration in rural regions on the rise 78% Urban 22% Rural Population 67% Urban 33% Rural Electoral register
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ziknF9lOLlQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ziknF9lOLlQ


17/19

17

violation of the secret ballot and that 18% of the citizens who were interviewed wereapparently pressured to vote in a certain way.

THE MOST SERIOUS FACT IS THAT THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITY DID NOT ADDRESSVIOLATIONS TO THE PROCESS, WHICH WE DENOUNCED AT A TIME WHEN THEY COULD

BE AVOIDED.

THE NEGLIGENT AND COMPLICIT ROLE OF THE IFE

In fact, throughout the pre-campaign and the actual campaign, we presented several appealsdenouncing the exceeding of the campaign expense ceiling, campaign use of public resourcesand programs, the intervention of authorities outside the electoral process, and even severalviolations of the law. However, we received only evasion, and procrastination, if not direct

refusal to fulfill its legal obligation, from the IFE.

On April 26 and June 5 of 2012, the representatives of the PRD, PT and MC presented a formalcomplaint and evidence of the violation of the campaign-spending ceiling by Enrique PeaNieto. Proofs of the acquisition of time on the radio and television are also in the possession of the IFE .

As relates to vote buying, there is evidence of the authorization of illicit and hidden financing asthere is a paper trail in the financial system that makes it easy for the IFE to follow and verifywithout violating banking and fiduciary secrecy. There are credits of almost 300 million pesos,without counting the large amounts of cash that did not go into bank accounts. Nothing hasbeen done to address these serious problems to date.

We should also mention that on February 8, 2012, while still a pre-candidate to the presidencyof the republic, Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador requested that the General Council of the IFE adopt a series of measures to prevent the buying of the vote, the surpassing of the campaignfund ceiling and the utilization of public resources in favor of a candidate etc. But the IFE refused to act.

However, without a doubt the worst offense by the IFE was its assertion that the fiscalizationprocess should come only after the electoral process is closed. The IFE has insisted on keeping

to a schedule by which the parties will present their campaign reports in October and the IFE will announce its judgments on January 1, 2013, a month after the presidential inauguration. This schedule ignores the fact that they have a preliminary report of campaign expenses as of May 30, and the necessary powers to carry out an extraordinary fiscalization procedure. Underthe circumstances we have outlined, the IFE should be required to do exactly that, if not bythe court, then by the people. This is essential to the health of the Republic.


18/19

18

Indeed, on June 27, 2012, the four presidential candidates convened at the headquarters of theFederal Electoral Institute (IFE ), which convoked the meeting in which they signed a Pact of Civility. In this pact, they all acknowledged that the vote was free and secret and claimed a nenergetic rejection of the use of public resources and social programs to coerce the vote. Inspite of that pact, as of July 2 there was still an infinite number of anomalies we feel duty bound

to record. No, the Pact was not violated by us. On the contrary, we are the ones who aremaking its abuses public.

In addition to the chain of fraud already described, there were many acts of voter pressure andcoercion by the Priistas. These include telephone calls and cellphone messages through callcent ers. Which took the form of a dirty war principally against our candidate: slanderoustexts and messages to frighten those who would vote for him. In a ddition, brigades of Priistas were place in the voting stations to monitor their operation. One of their tactics wasto distribute f cellphones (in our suit we include several of them) so the voters couldphotograph their ballots and thus prove for whom they had voted. Another was novel coercivetactic observed in the voting stations: so- called little falcons, boys who mixed with thevoters to verify that their vote was for the PRI .

There were also many ballots marked in favor of Pea Nieto put into the voting boxes, someeven without being folded which meant they were in the boxes before the voting started and others marked before being printed (both cases documented in the State of Veracruz).Furthermore, two days before the elections, ballots were found in Tabasco, as well as in otherstates.

And even so, our challenge is being denounced as antidemocratic and uncivilized. We seeit as a rebellion in the face of unmitigated fraud. It was enough to go out into the street to

see what was happening in the nation between November 2011 and July 2012 and muchearlier, to recognize the truth of what we are claiming. There is even talk of appealing to thePact between the presidential candidates in order to further tie our hands.

THE PATH OF THE SUIT AND THE ROLE OF THE TRIBUNAL

The magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation ( TEPJF ) arenow analyzing our suit. Currently it is in the instruction stage, where evidence is gathered anddue diligence carried out in order to put the case together and develop a provisional award,

which should then be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The legal limit for presenting this award is August 31, after which the seven electoralmagistrates will make a pronouncement about its assessment of the presidential election bySeptember 6 at the latest. In this sentence, the TEPJF can confirm the calculation made by theIFE or revoke it, which would imply the need to hold extraordinary elections.


19/19

19

The magistrates have a great responsibility before the Mexicans of today and tomorrow. Theresponsibility for the law is in their hands, as is the credibility of our democracy. To allow theirregularities described here to pass without notice and to allow the buying of the Presidency of the Republic, would violate our democratic aspirations and harm the dignity of Mexico.

We will not accept that fraud and corrupt practices be considered normal. We will not bequiet in the face of the facts as the Priistas , the IFE and some media and those who nowdiscredit us by declaring that this suit is a personal whim or the obsession of a group of fanatics incapable of accepting their defeat.

The worst defeat would be to stay silent and let this robbery go by, because we cannot permitthat poverty, ignorance, the ridicule of the law and cynicism become the basis of our society.

It is true that the future of Mexico has no price. The task of saving it and defendingdemocracy is not the task of one man or a few political parties. It is the task of all the citizens.And as Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador states, only the people can save the people.

amlo civil case against imposition final

Documents