Showing posts with label election theft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election theft. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The poor French. Like the average American they can't believe their elections are rigged (see my preceding post - it's short). Macron, like Trump in the U.S, is using his high place in France to ship French workers jobs elsewere ...while personally pocketing some of the loot. Who needs "democracies" whose "gardians" are cleptocrats? Wake up France, and wake up America!



Macron: An American Trojan horse in the Elysee Palace


Wayne MADSEN
| 17.05.2017 | WORLD

The new French president, Emmanuel Macron, who was thrust into the French presidential race as a pro-European Union counterweight to prevent the election of National Front leader Marine Le Pen, appears to have more than a casual relationship with the United States. While he worked within the Ministry of the Economy as both a special inspector and as minister, Macron oversaw the virtual theft of strategic French industries by American firms having strong links to the U.S. Intelligence Community.

The hacking of the computers of Macron’s «En Marche!» campaign movement by unknown parties yielded some interesting material. Defenders of Macron contend that the computer files released were either «fake» or extraneous information. However, one set of files dealing with the virtual theft of France’s top information technology giant by individuals connected to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is exactly the type of files one would expect the Macron campaign would keep. Macron’s first job in the French government was to protect the interests of French companies from foreign competition and, most of all, acquisition.

The move by the American intelligence services to acquire French smart card technology leader Gemplus International began in 2001 and the operation was largely complete by 2004, the year Macron became an Inspector of Finances in the French Ministry of Economy. French industry has long been a target for surveillance and/or acquisition by American companies and the CIA has played an important role in such «economic warfare» operations. For example, the French electronics firm Thomson-CSF was long a top target for U.S. National Security Agency and CIA surveillance.

Documents concerning the successful takeover of Gemplus, along with its main factory in Gemenos, Bouches-du-Rhône, France, by an American firm called Texas Pacific Group (TPG) are included in the tranche of files lifted from the «En Marche!» computers. TPG first acquired Gemplus shares in February 2000. In 2006, Gemplus merged with Axalto to form Gemalto and the effective U.S. control of the firm was complete.

In September 2002, Alex Mandl, an American native of Vienna, Austria, and a former President of AT&T, chairman and CEO of Teligent, board member of the CIA's venture capital firm IN-Q-TEL, and member of the board of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, was named CEO of Gemplus International. He continues as the executive chairman of Gemalto.

As a result of the disclosures of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it is now known that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), working with the NSA, successfully penetrated the SIM cards used by Gemalto. The GCHQ/NSA successfully intercepted mobile communications using encryption-enabled Gemalto SIM cards in Afghanistan, Yemen, India, Serbia, Iran, Iceland, Somalia, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The GCHQ-NSA attack also targeted Gemalto SIM card personalization centers in Japan, Colombia. and Italy. The NSA and GCHQ hack of Gemalto's SIM chips by their joint Mobile Handset Exploitation Team (MHET) represents perhaps the largest NSA interception operation in history, one that saw billions of mobile calls and text messages successfully intercepted and decoded by NSA and its Bitish partner. More sinister is the inclusion of Gemalto SIM card identification data in the CIA's database of cell phones targeted in U.S. drone strikes.

«En Marche!» internal documents point to four French government agencies having conducted investigations into the Gemplus takeover. They are the «Renseignements généraux» (RG) (General Intelligence), «Direction de la sûreté du territoire» (DST), the Industry Ministry, and Macron's Economy Ministry.

The French corporate press, which lavished Macron with praise, a former Rothschild banker, describes the Gemplus documents as having nothing to do with Macron. The French media argues that Macron was a mere student at the elitist French civil service academy, the École nationale d'administration (ENA) until he graduated in 2004. However, as the leaked documents clearly indicate, the Gemplus takeover was still being investigated by the French government when Macron became an Inspector within the Economy Ministry in 2004. Since Macron's role was to ensure that French companies were free of foreign attempts to stymie French economic growth, his performance, as seen in the loss of French jobs to foreign interests, was abysmal.

It is very likely that En Marche's files on the Gemplus takeover were to have backup information at the ready in the event Macron's role in covering up details of the American takeover of Gemplus were to become public. Any political party must be prepared to confront revelations exposed by «opposition research» into their candidates. It is also noteworthy that one of En Marche's few published policy planks stated it was Macron’s policy to «monitor» but not prevent foreign ownership of strategic French industries and businesses.

In 2008, Macron left government to join the Rothschild & Cie Banque. He also became a leader in the neoconservative-heavy French-American Foundation, which counts among its alum Hillary Clinton, General Wesley Clark, and former World Bank president Robert Zoellick.

The operative question about Macron is: what did he know about the Gemplus takeover and when did he know it? «En Marche’s» Gemplus files, contained in a folder labeled «Macron» and dealing with the American takeover, read like a John LeCarré spy novel.

One file, marked «Confidential», and sent to Stefan Quandt of the billionaire Quandt family of BMW and Daimler fame in Germany, deals with Gemplus’s plummeting stock value in 2001 amid «extremely tense relationship and clashes between the main people at the top echelons, and breakdown of communication with the personnel. As a result, the bulk of them is completely unmotivated today».

As an inspector within the Economy Ministry, it is astounding that Macron would not have been aware of the violation of French law that occurred with the American takeover of Gemplus. This is also described in another Gemplus file from his campaign, which points to the situation regarding Gemplus’s post-U.S. takeover: «Irresponsible statements, often followed by reversals on site closures and firing of personnel, even before consulting with their representatives (as the law and common sense requires)».

The Quandts are very publicity-shy and there is a good reason for it. Guenther Quandt manufactured Mauser firearms and anti-aircraft rockets for the Third Reich. He divorced his first wife, Magde Quandt, after they had one child, Harald Quandt. Magde then married Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Stefan Quandt, who was involved in the takeover of Gemplus, is the son of Harald Quandt's half-brother Herbert Quandt.

The negative information on Gemplus resulted in a January 24, 2002 report from Goldman Sachs that urged the company to continue with its American-directed restructuring to maintain market health. Although he was a student at the ENA at the time, there is scant information on what projects to which Macron was assigned from 2001 to 2003 by his civil service professors.

Other Gemplus-related files in the «En Marche!» folder include those related to one of the principals of Gemplus, Ziad Takieddine, a French-Lebanese Druze arms broker and graduate of the CIA-linked American University of Beirut. Takieddine helped engineer the American takeover with the help of Herr Quandt. Takieddine has helped conclude major French arms deals with Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Accused of money laundering in the British Virgin Islands by his ex-wife, Takieddine is also the uncle of Amal Alamuddin, the wife of actor George Clooney. Takieddine is also a bitter political foe of former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who lost out in the presidential race in 2017 to rival conservative François Fillon. Macron edged out Fillon in the first round of the presidential election, coming in second ahead of Fillon's third place finish.

Takieddine, Quandt, and a suspected CIA-linked firm, Texas Pacific Group (TPG), were all clearly part of a conspiracy to get rid of Gemini’s French co-founder Marc Lassus and the firm’s French executives. The decision to fire Lassus and his French colleagues was made at a Gemplus board meeting held in Washington, DC, not in France, on December 15, 2001. Another principal in the American takeover of Gemplus was Lee Kheng Nam, a Singapore business executive and a recipient of an M.S. degree in Operations Research and System Analysis from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The co-founder of TPG, David Bonderman of Fort Worth, Texas was also heavily involved in the hostile takeover of Gemplus. TPG's acquisition of Gemplus shares was conducted through a virtually unknown shell company registered in Gibraltar that was called «Zensus». Bonderman, who is Jewish, created a political stir in 2012 in Egypt when he met with Khairat El-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and a member of the Mohamed Morsi government. Bonderman said he was looking for «investment opportunities» in Egypt.

In an undated Word document found in the «En Marche!» computers, Lassus is quoted as saying, «I am convinced that the investment TPG had some kind of agreement with its government to move the head office to California. They tried again in January 2002». The Gemplus workers' unions predicted the firm's production would move from France to Poland. The largest French union, «Confédération générale du travail» (CGT), said the takeover of Gemplus was to strip France of its smart card technology leadership. Gemplus employed 7000 French workers before its takeover by the Americans. The undated Word document also refers to French government agencies having «launched inquiries» and sought «internal informers». Did Macron play a role in either the investigations by the Economy Ministry or ratting out Gemplus «internal informers» to his American friends?

When the U.S. firm General Electric took over the French turbine and nuclear technology company Alstom, then-Economy Minister Macron said he approved of such takeovers because «state intervention in industry only happens in Venezuela». That came as music to the ears of the billionaires in the Donald Trump administration.
Tags: France  Macron

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT KARL ROVE ACTUALLY FAILED TO DELIVER OHIO TO ROMNEY BECAUSE OF *ANONYMOUS*? I THINK SO ...AND I SURE HOPE SO!

THE MOVIE "V" IS UPLIFTING ...UNTIL WE BEGIN TO ADMIT THAT IT IS JUST A FAIRY TAIL AND CAN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.  BUT ANONYMOUS CERTAINLY HAS HAPPENED!

By David L Griscom

Back on November 8th, I was convinced that Karl Rove failed to deliver Ohio to Romney because his original vote-flipping software failed to account for an unexpectedly high percentage of Obama voters in Ohio, and his televised late-night insistence that Romney would still win would have lead to wide-spread suspicion if he had rigged it. 

However, it turns out that the election system in Ohio on Election Night 2012 crashed just one minute before it had crashed there on Election Night 2004. And it eventually came to light that during the 2004 crash the Ohio Election results were redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers at a web-hosting firm associated with Karl Rove called SMARTech Corp. in Chattanooga, TN, where the final 2004 Ohio Election results were evidently determined by "the man in the middle" and sent back to pro-Bush Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. 

In the runup to the 2008 Election, the computer guru in charge of this 2004 operation, Michael Connell, and his wife were threatened by Karl Rove if he didn't "'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio

Connell  was compelled to appear in federal court on Monday, November 3, just 24 hours before Election Day 2008 to be questioned about his role in processing Ohio's 2004 election data, but he gave evasive testimony due to those threats

Then on Friday, December 19, 2008, Connell, an expert pilot, supposedly died in the crash of his personal aircraft in clear weather while attempting to land at the Akron, Ohio, airport. (The blogger believes that the crash was faked and that Connell is now happily passing his time, perhaps in Tahiti or the Swiss Alps, in a reverse witness protection program.)  Learn more here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane 

With all of the above as background, it seems plausible that Anonymous (rather than Rove chickening out) was responsible for nullifying Rove's plan for Ohio in this month's election. If so, kudos to Anonymous!!! 

http://youtu.be/REn1BnJE3do

Thom Hartmann is a consistently objective reporter. So what do you think?  Anonymous won one for the home team?

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

KARL ROVE'S ELECTION-STEALING WEB EXPOSED AT NATIONAL PRESS CLUB CONFERENCE!

BLOGGER'S NOTE: I MET CLIFF ARNEBECK AT THE NATIONAL ELECTION REFORM CONFERENCE IN NASHVILLE EARLY IN 2005, AND I FIRST MET JIM MARCH WHEN HE WAS WORKING WITH JOHN BRAKEY IN TUCSON IN THAT TIME PERIOD. I MET JIM AND JOHN AGAIN LAST WEEK AT A COURT HEARING WHEREIN JIM AND ELEVEN OTHER CITIZENS REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF U.S. POLITICAL PARTIES WERE DEMANDING THE RIGHT TO AUDIT TODAY'S ELECTION IN PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. THOUGH NOT NOTED IN THE TEXT BELOW, JILL SIMPSON -- WHO YOU WILL MEET IN THE VIDEO -- WAS A FORMER ROVE OPERATIVE. OTHERWISE APROPOS, I HAVE LONG AGO ADDED TO MY BLOG (RIGHT HAND COLUMN) A PARDON-DON-SIEGELMAN WIDGET (PLEASE SIGN IT).




National Press Club main press conference

http://youtu.be/pikI5xrdE8c

Published on Oct 28, 2012 by Jim March 

This press release covers issues related to election fraud and the political misuse of our so-called "justice" system. The issues are intertwined! In the Don Siegelman case, he was subjected to election fraud by Rove's operation and when that wasn't enough to make him quit politics they falsely jailed him. This presentation includes a complete guide to the internetworked companies, people and organizations that make up Karl Rove's empire of election fraud. 

The "road map" to Rove's empire is a PDF file available here: 

http://tinyurl.com/roveroadmap 

The press release for this event is a one-page technical introduction to the core issues: 

http://tinyurl.com/rovepressrelease 

The link to the petition to free Don Seigelman via a pardon by Obama is located at: 

http://free-don.org 

There is also a selection of exit-poll related statistics at: 

http://richardcharnin.com

NOTE: the main camera had issues. This was recorded with a head-mounted Looxie2 camera from the audience that we used as backup. There are brief audio glitches caused by unknown interference at the press club, probably a sat uplink somewhere. 

Sunday, November 04, 2012

WITH OUR DEMOCRACY AT STAKE, THOSE OF US WITH FACT-FREE OPINIONS CALL THOSE OF US WHO STUDY THE FACTS "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS."












Headlined to H1 11/3/12


Calling Out the Left-Wing Election Rigging Denialists

By (about the author)     Permalink
OpEdNews Op Eds

opednews.com

TO LEFT-WING JOURNALISTS: YES, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE

This article responds to the damaging attempts by left-wing journalists to deny the possibility of right-wing electronic vote tampering - or any e-vote tampering - particularly in the 2012 election.
 
In the past week, Chuck Todd at MSNBC News has Tweeted that concerns about electronic voting machines are "conspiracy theory that belong in the same category as the Trump birther garbage."
 
ThinkProgress, the left-wing advocacy and news site, posted an article with the same blanket "conspiracy theory" dismissal.
 
And finally, Steven Rosenfeld wrote a similar opinion piece - posted by Alternet (as "news" no less) and then picked up by Salon and Snopes - to further "debunk" concerns about stolen elections.  
 
What are these journalists railing against? A flood of recent stories warning of the potential for massive computerized election fraud in the 2012 elections. 
 
In particular, the breaking news of the Romney family's financial ties to voting machine company Hart Intercivic, exposed by the FreePress.org, is so alarming that it's been picked up by many online news sources, and even Forbes Magazine.

My 7000 word cover story in this month's Harper's Magazine, "How to Rig an Election" exposes the fundamental security flaws in our current voting system, including the right-wing partisan ownership of major voting machine companies. I also discuss many suspicious "surprise upset" elections that have helped tipped the balance of power in America toward the far-right. The piece has been positively reviewed in The Atlantic, Esquire, the Daily Kos and elsewhere. 

Radio interview requests are coming to me now from Canada to New Zealand. Why? Because the results of American elections, particularly in 2012, have life-or-death global implications, from war in the Middle East, to climate change negotiations. The whole world is watching with great concern, even as international election observers are being blocked from entering polls in Ohio and other states.

Meanwhile, Brad Friedman at the Brad Blog.org continues his 24/7 exposure of not just the insidious threat of computerized election fraud, but the GOP's ongoing attempts to disenfranchise millions of "likely Democratic voters" through voter suppression, polling place Photo ID restrictions, voter roll purges, and other dirty tricks. 

Combined with electronic control of the vote count, this kind of coordinated assault worked brilliantly on behalf of the George W. Bush campaign in Ohio in 2004 (as I described in Harper's), and could work this time for Mitt Romney, or any other Republican favored candidate and ballot issue. Hart Intercivic tabulates votes in key counties in Ohio, as well as some 12 other states.

This is why exposure of these activities and conflicts of interests is vital right now to dissuade criminal activity on November 6th by shining a long overdue spotlight into the darkness of our now-privatized voting system. We might very well prevent massive fraud in this election, while drafting more American voters into the non-partisan election integrity movement where they can take action.



That our privately-controlled electronic voting machines are prone to constant malfunction, and vulnerable to insider rigging and outsider hacking, is a national crisis, and no longer open to debate.  The evidence is overwhelming and comes from a mountain of independent voter reports, academic and technical studies, government studies, whistleblower affidavits, ongoing lawsuits, and arrests and convictions of election officials - some who were sentenced last year to 156 years in federal prison for gaming elections, in part by secretly manipulating computerized voting machines!

Yet, despite this deluge of evidence, the most aggressive critics of election integrity investigators are not found in the right-wing corporate press, as you might expect. Instead, for many years, our enemies have lunged from the shadows of left-wing flagships.
Clearly nothing is different in this election cycle, when the stakes for American progressives could not be higher.

As NYU Media Professor Mark Crispin Miller eloquently states, "There is no more exquisite method of silencing dissent, or shutting down inconvenient inquiry, than to charge someone with conspiracy theory." 
 
That's why it's time to call out these left-wing denialists who seem intent on running interference for right-wing controlled voting machine companies at the expense of American voters, and democracy itself. 
 
ROSENFELD: WHERE ARE THE FACTS?
 
I must take particular issue with Steven Rosenfeld's  Alternet  piece, which goes whole hog, smearing the election integrity movement as a whole, my article in Harper's in particular, Harper's itself, the Free Press, the New York Times, Truthout, The BRAD BLOG, and Forbes Magazine - tarring us all with the same brush as the hysterical "lefty press." (Forbes is lefty? Who knew?).

Rosenfeld's headline boldly declares that he will state "5 Reasons Why Karl Rove Is NOT Going to Electronically Steal this Election."

Great news! Except that there are no reasons listed. It turns out Rosenfeld has no idea whether Rove, or any other inside operative might creatively tinker with our secretly-programmed voting systems. Yet, he tells the American people to "stop worrying" and ignore the bad people who are just trying to "scare" them. What hubris!

Rosenfeld's other 100% fact-free opinions include the following:

* Romney's financial connections to Hart Intercivic are "hands-off" (he has no idea whether they are or not, and offers no proof either way.)

* Concerns of electronic rigging are "far-fetched" (no, they are proven.)

* Any major discrepancies between electronic vote results and polling results will immediately spur thorough audits of paper ballots. (This has never happened in the past.  The polls have been "corrected" instead.)

* Taking a post-election vote-rigging lawsuit to the courts is acceptable recourse for candidates who suspect fraud. (Sure, for those who have the money to afford it, and can endure the "conspiracy theorist" slings and arrows sure to come during the nightmare of legal stonewalling)

Rosenfeld's beliefs are heartening, though sadly generated entirely from some democratic wonderland in his head. Here are some actual facts about our less pleasant reality:

* There is no way for public, pre-election "logic and accuracy" tests to detect internal malicious coding (rigging), or prevent outside hacking.

* Discrepancies in the vote count and polling data do not automatically generate audits of the machine count.

* In many places there are no paper ballots to audit at all.

* Where there are ballots, state laws vary as to whether an audit it even possible (in Florida, for example, audits are possible only after the results are certified, rendering them functionally useless.)

* Where there are ballots, they may sit for weeks before an audit, vulnerable to tampering. (As Rosenfeld knows, since he once offered excellent work in Ohio on the 2004 election, where two officials were sentenced to the maximum in prison for rigging a partial recount in Ohio's largest county, and where 56 of 88 counties destroyed some or all of their ballots in defiance of a federal court order.)

* State election rules prevent any meaningful recourse for voters who fear their votes were lost or stolen.

* The corporate entities who enjoy legal protection for their voting systems proprietary hardware receive great preference in courts, usually keeping an independent investigation of the vote counting system off limits to litigants.

* Legal action means years in the courts, and then no guarantee of a non-partisan judgment.

Case in point: how well did that post-election audit work out for Al Gore?

Meanwhile, what if candidates refuse to take action and fight for a recount, as John Kerry did in 2004? These decisions are made for internal political reasons far more than any objective sense of justice or duty to voters.

Rosenfeld also offered this remarkable description of my Harper's article:

Will millions of votes disappear on paperless machines? That's the thesis of Harper's November cover story. It posits that voting machines that rely on computer touch screens and memory cards in key swing states like Pennsylvania and Virginia might massively fail- losing big blocks of votes.
I can only assure readers that this is not - in that place called Reality - remotely the actual thesis of my article. (I think it would have been nice of Rosenfeld to at least read it before he dismissed it as faulty).
 
Some days ago I found myself on a nationally syndicated radio show, NPR's To the Point with Rosenfeld as a fellow guest. He continued voicing what seems to be his driving complaint: "There are other more serious problems to worry about in our voting system."

Let's be clear. No one in the election integrity community, has ever claimed that computerized vote rigging is the only threat to our elections. But to claim e-vote rigging is not a threat? The only way you can do that is to willfully ignore the rumbling, fire-spitting Vesuvius (or is it more like Mordor's Mount Doom?) of evidence that has been building up over the past few decades.
Brad Friedman's independent BradBlog.com alone has ten year's worth of archived reports on election fraud; I plowed through them for 6 months while researching my article for Harper's. We're talking literally thousands of election-fraud related documents and links, plus the stories, films and books produced by Black Box Voting, Votescam.org, the Free Press, OpedNews.comMark Crispin Miller, Greg Palast (who is offering his latest NYT best-selling book, "Billionaires and Ballot Bandits" for free through election day), Richard Charnin (his new book on implausible polling discrepancies "Matrix of Deceit"), the Election Defense Alliance (their new book is "Code Red: Computerized Elections and the New American Century"), The Center for Hand Counted Paper Ballots (Dr. Sheila Parks' new book is "While We Still Have Time: The Perils of Electronic Voting and Democracy's Solution") and many more investigators and civic groups.

I have a data hub on my website for researchers interested in this issue, and I'm happy to help people navigate the waters: http://www.votescam.org/the_evidence
Citing a few cherry-picked reports, Rosenfeld writes:

Finally, consider this counterpoint at CountingVotes.org. This summer, three respected voting rights organizations, Common Cause, the Verified Voting Foundation and Rutgers University School of Law/Newark issued a report grading states on their readiness for the 2012 election. It's notable that Ohio was among the six states earning its top rating. Florida was in the second-best tier. 

This "go back to sleep, children" might comfort the uninitiated, but it doesn't begin to pass the smell test for veteran election integrity advocates in these trenches for decades.

The truth is that we've never had a shortage of academics who publicly support (often served with a big dollop of "expert" condescension) the continued use of concealed electronic ballot counting, with minimal safeguards, like 3% random "spot-checks" (when we're lucky) and the useless Touchscreen paper "receipts" that have proven insufficient to truly protect our votes.

On the radio, Rosenfeld specifically mentioned academics as the elite class voters should rely upon to determine what is appropriate for our voting system.

I couldn't disagree more.

Keep in mind that there are also plenty of "expert academics" who will publicly deny that climate change is real.  In my Harper's article, I also cite numerous academics - those who have proven the extreme vulnerability of our voting machines, including reports from Princeton, Yale, the Brennan Center for Justice, Johns Hopkins, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Argonne National Laboratory, among many others.

But I believe that what really matters is not what any academics or "experts" say - what matters is whether voters know that their voice is being heard, and their ballots are being counted, and counted accurately. The only way that can happen is if we end concealed electronic ballot counting - not by blithely assuring voters there's nothing to worry about. We are not children, and the facts clearly state otherwise.

Facts matter.

Elections should not be "faith based," and whether our votes are counted is not a matter of opinion.
And on that note I'm going to end with Brad Friedman's brilliant smack-down and call-out of Chuck Todd at MSNBC . You know, "Mr. Conspiracy Theory Garbage"?

Read the following list (which is just a drop in the e-vote-fraud bucket) and decide for yourself whether American voters have anything to worry about.

BRAD FRIEDMAN CALLS CHUCK TODD TO THE MAT!
 
Friedman writes:

To misinform your 272,035 Twitter followers, not to mention your millions of viewers on television, that concerns about oft-failed, easily-manipulated electronic voting and tabulation systems are little more than "conspiracies' which "belong in the same category as the Trump birther garbage' is an extraordinary disservice to your readers, your viewers and the U.S. electorate as a whole.

They deserve a much better understanding of our electoral system from someone such as yourself, who is relied upon by so many as an expert in these matters.

Again, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you on your Daily Rundown show on MSNBC any time. If, in fact, you are correct, that these concerns are little more than 'conspiracy garbage', you will do the electorate a great service by having me on, and putting me in my place once and for all by explaining why."

[Friedman requests that Todd answer the following questions]

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when paper ballot optical-scan tabulators made by Sequoia Voting Systems in Palm Beach County declared incorrect results of three different races last March , including declaring two losing candidates to be the "winners"?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when the Canadian firm, Dominion Voting, which now owns Sequoia Voting Systems  admitted the failure in Palm Beach was caused by a bug in all versions of its central tabulation software  which will be used to tabulate the Presidential Election (and many others) on November 6th this year in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when, despite using Dominion/Sequoia's recommended "fix", the same problem occurred  yet again  in Palm Beach County's August primary elections, as their  Supervisor of Elections recently explained to me on air ?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when  16,632 votes were found unaccounted for  when those same machines were first used in Palm Beach County back in 2008?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when eight (8) top election officials --- including the County Clerk, a Circuit Court Judge and the School Superintendent --- in Clay County, KY were  sentenced last year to 156 years in federal prison  for gaming elections, including changing the votes of voters on ES&S electronic touch-screen voting machines?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when the President of Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (by then renamed Premier Election Systems, which is now owned by the Canadian firm Dominion Voting) admitted in 2008 that the company's GEMS central tabulation software, used in some 34 states,  does not tabulate votes correctly  and routinely drops thousands of them when they are uploaded to the central server?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when Diebold/Premier's spokesman admitted to the CA Secretary of State during a 2009 hearing that the supposedly permanent "audit logs" in all versions of its GEMS central tabulation system  fail to record the deletion of ballots , after it was discovered that their electronic tabulator had  failed to tabulate hundreds of paper ballots in a Humboldt County election  (or to even notify system administrators that it had  deleted those ballots )?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when the CA Sec. of State  decertified federally-certified electronic voting and tabulation systems made by Diebold, Sequoia and Hart Intercivic  in 2007 after a state-commissioned team of computer science and security experts from the University of California, Livermore National Laboratories and elsewhere "demonstrated that the physical and technological security mechanisms" for all of the state's electronic voting systems (also used across the rest of the country) "were inadequate to ensure accuracy and integrity of the elections results and of the systems that provide those results" and that their "independent teams of analysts were  able to bypass both physical and software security measures in every system tested "?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when the 2007 landmark study commissioned by OH's then Democratic Sec. of State,  found  "Ohio's electronic voting systems have 'critical security failures' which could impact the integrity of elections in the Buckeye State" and when she (unsuccessfully) recommended, along with the then Republican Speaker of the Senate, who is now the state's Republican Sec. of State, that all touch-screen systems in the state be decertified due to concerns of, as  she told The BRAD BLOG , "viruses that can be inserted into [Ohio's e-voting and tabulation] system through something as simple as a PDA [Personal Digital Assistant] and a magnet and then the cards are passed from machine to machine almost like Typhoid Mary" so that "If there is malicious software, like a virus put into the system, it can not only affect the machines at the polling places, it can affect the tabulation that occurs at the server and it can also affect future elections if it's not detected"?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when the  New York Daily News discovered in 2012 that  hundreds of paper ballots at just one precinct in the Bronx went uncounted  in 2010 during the September primary (failure rate of 70%) and the November general election (failure rate of 54%) on their brand new ES&S DS200 paper ballot optical-scanners, which are also used in OH, AZ, MI and elsewhere?

" Was it 'conspiracy' garbage when the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released a warning in 2011 from a "Formal Investigation Report" that those same systems  failed to count paper ballots correctly , on the heels of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH's previous finding that  10% of those machines failed during pre-election testing in 2010 ?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when Oakland County, MI wrote a letter of concern to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), seeking advice in 2008 after finding their ES&S M-100 optical scanners  "yielded different results each time" the "same ballots were run through the same machines"  during pre-election testing?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when Princeton University discovered in 2006 that they could, in seconds time, implant a virus onto Diebold touch-screen systems used in dozens of states which could then spread itself from machine to machine and result in  an entire county's election being flipped with little chance of detection ?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when a computer security expert hacked a memory card on a Diebold paper ballot optical-scan system and flipped the results of a mock election (see the hack and its results as captured in HBO's Emmy-nominated 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy here ) in such a way that only a hand-count of the paper ballots in the election could reveal the true results?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when a  CIA cybersecurity expert testified to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission(EAC) in 2009 that e-voting was not secure, "that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results" and that "wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that's an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to...make bad things happen"?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' that the Vulnerability Assessment Team (which also monitors nuclear facilities) at Argonne National Laboratory (the non-profit research lab operated by the University of Chicago for the Dept. of Energy) released a report earlier this year finding that Diebold's touch-screen systems and, according to the team's lead scientist, "pretty much every electronic voting machine", can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education , or just $26 if you want to do it remotely?

" Was it 'conspiracy garbage' when, in Volusia County, FL's 2000 Presidential Election a paper-based optical-scan tabulator made by Global Elections Management Systems (GEMS, thereafter purchased by Diebold to become Diebold Election Systems, Inc.)  tallied negative 16,022 votes for Al Gore  thanks to a supposed "software flaw" which has  never  been explained by anyone, and which Leon County (Tallahassee), FL's Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho --- the man, so well respected by both major parties, that he was placed in charge of the aborted 2000 Presidential Election recount in Florida --- believes was a purposeful hack of the electronic tabulation system which is now used in hundreds of counties in dozens of states? 

So what do you think, readers? Do you think we have something to worry about? Or should we all "trust the machines" and get back to our shopping?

Join the discussion on Facebook at the best online organizing hub for election integrity: Occupy Rigged Elections.

Despite the name, it's actually non-partisan, totally focused, and a great place to educate yourself and others.

Steven Rosenfeld and Chuck Todd, we hope to see you there.

....

www.votescam.org

I am the Editor of www.votescam.org, home of Votescam: The Stealing of America, the book that chronicles my family's investigation -- beginning in 1970 -- into how elections are stolen in America.

Saturday, June 09, 2012

RICHARD CHARNIN EXPLAINS THAT THE U.S. EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS ADJUSTED (FORCED) TO MATCH THE OFFICIAL TALLY BY THE END OF ELECTION DAY, AT WHICH TIME THE ACTUAL EXIT POLL RESULTS DISAPPEAR. HOWEVER, DURING THE 2004 ELECTION THE ACTUAL DATA WERE FOUND ON THE INTERNET ALL DAY LONG AND 22 MINUTES INTO THE NEXT DAY, AT WHICH POINT KERRY WAS LEADING BUSH BY 51-47%. THE UNADJUSTED 2004 EXIT POLLS WERE FINALLY RELEASED A YEAR AGO, REVEALING THAT KERRY HAD ACTUALLY WON BY 51.7% TO 47.0% WITH 13660 RESPONDENTS (MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE). THEN AS NOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABETED THE CRIME BY INSISTING ALL DAY LONG THAT "THE RACE IS TOO CLOSE TO CALL."


 facebook                                                                            Richard Charnin's page

The exit pollster's MO never changes. In the recall, the pundits said it was "too close to call". I’m quite sure that Barrett was winning, but the media knew the fix was in so they had to keep it close. They knew the actual exit poll numbers would not see the light of day. But they sure called it quickly for Walker, didn't they?

The pollster’s have had plenty of experience in adjusting exit polls to match the vote count.

In 2004, preliminary state exit poll numbers were downloaded from the CNN website by Jonathan Simon. Kerry led by 50-48%. The state polls were already in the process of being matched to the recorded vote. But Bush was winning the vote count - a massive divergence from the exit polls.

We later learned that Kerry led the National Exit Poll from 4pm to midnight. At 4pm (8349 respondents) he led by 51-48%. At 730 pm (11027 respondents) by 51-48%. At 1222am (13047) by 51-47%. But we didn’t see these numbers. They were not for public view.

The next day, the CNN and NYT websites showed that Bush won the National Exit Poll (13660) by 51-48% - matching the recorded vote. How did the final 613 National Exit Poll respondents enable Bush to flip the vote? The exit pollsters never could answer that one. After all, the flip was mathematically impossible.

The unadjusted 2004 exit polls (state and national) were not released until about a year ago, long after the damage was done. And guess what? Kerry actually won the 13660 respondents! He had 7064 (51.7%), Bush 6414 (47.0%), Other 182 (1.3%).

Someday, probably in 2022, we’ll get to see the unadjusted recall exit poll numbers. In the meantime, here's the 2004 National Exit Poll Timeline that was “not meant for public viewing”.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/
Blogger's Note: See preceding post for Richard Charnin's credentials and further information on the recent results of recalling Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Thursday, March 08, 2012

MORE EVIDENCE THAT RON PAUL'S VOTES ARE BEING STOLEN



SUPER TUESDAY: CNN Televised VOTE FRAUD against Ron Paul?

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=18127


Why MORE evidence? Go here.  And Wolf Blitzer doesn't even remark on the strange turnaround.
Is this a great country, or what?

Sunday, February 26, 2012

BERNIE ELLIS, AMERICAN PATRIOT, SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY

Blogger's Note: Bernie Ellis organized the National Election Reform Conference held at the Jefferson Street Missionary Baptist Church in Nashville, TN, April 8-10, 2005. It was attended by individuals from all across the United States who perceived -- and more commonly PROVED -- massive fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election, flipping millions of votes from Kerry to Bush. Forty of these individuals (including me) were allotted speaking spots. On the last day a number of topical discussion groups were held; the picture at the left shows Bernie (in white shirt, left) paying a visit to the group that I had joined. Ironically (given that the venue was a black church) most speakers were white. What may seen to be an even greater irony, Bernie was tapped to be the keynote speaker at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Martin Luther King Day last month. But if you watch the video below, and I hope you all will, you will see that it was no irony at all... It literally had me in tears.






Martin Luther King Day Keynote Address at US Dept of Energy - Oak Ridge, TN

http://youtu.be/_X-e0F96bTA


Uploaded by BernieEllis1 on Feb 23, 2012

Protecting the Promise of America

This presentation was the keynote address at the 2012 Martin Luther King Day celebration held at the US Department of Energy/Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, TN, one of the most secure facilities in this country. At the recommendation of the TN chapter of the NAACP, Bernie Ellis, the organizer of the Tennessee-based grassroots election integrity organization, Gathering To Save Our Democracy, was asked to address the large USDOE audience on past and present efforts to protect, defend and extend voting rights in Tennessee and the nation; and on the serious threats to our franchise that are underway today.

Bernie Ellis, MA, MPH
Organizer, Gathering To Save Our Democracy
Contact at tracevu at gmaildotcom

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

RON PAUL, IF HE RUNS, WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE ONLY 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PROMISING TO REPUDIATE THE BUSH/OBAMA POLICIES OF ENDLESS WARS AND CONTINUED BAILING OUT (AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE) OF THE VERY SAME BANKSTERS WHO HAVE CRASHED OUR ECONOMY. TOO BAD HE WON'T BE ON A MAJOR PARTY TICKET.

Blogger's Note: As is well known to those who have been following stolen elections in the U.S., Ron Paul was the winner of the GOP 2008 Iowa straw poll, according to a professionally run exit poll. In fact, the pollsters predicted the vote shares 8 of the 11 candidates on the ticket to within 3% of the TOTAL OFFICIAL COUNT. But when the official count was finally released after an many-hours-long delay (due to "a computer glitch"), it appeared that the pollsters had "underrated" Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney by 8 and 23% of the TOTAL VOTES CAST, respectively, and had "overrated" Ron Paul's popularity by 28%! Any statistician would tell you that discrepancies of these magnitudes are NOT statistical errors.


Restore America, Paul vs Obama

Rys2sense

Friday, April 29, 2011

WISCONSIN'S SUPREME COURT ELECTION WAS VERY LIKELY RIGGED ELECTRONICALLY. NOW IT APPEARS THEY ARE RIGGING THE HAND RECOUNT. IF WE CAN NO LONGER "THROW THE BUMS OUT" WE WILL BE LIVING IN A DICTATORSHIP.



RECOUNT ALERT! SERIOUS BREAK IN CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN WAUKESHA COUNTY!

Thursday, 28 April 2011 18:14 Citizen Journalist

Breaking News Out of Waukesha County Wisconsin -- This being reported from witnesses on the ground in Waukesha

"At around 2:15pm, we were ready to open the bags for Delafield. There were three bags total. Bags 1 & 2 were fine. The numbers all matched up. When we got to bag 3, we found out that the bag # was NOT RECORDED ON THE INSPECTOR'S statement...! The Republican canvass person said we could assume that the clerk forgot to write the # down on the inspector's statement and we could proceed. Of course, this is a break in the chain of custody!..."

So Bill (volunteer lawyer) objected. I got my phone out and went to call the campaign. The sheriff wouldn't let me out the back door (even though I went out that door to use the restroom earlier) but made me go around everyone to the front door (front door is for reps, back door is for public). I had to get past the guy sitting out front wanting to know if I was leaving for the day, what my name was...

I called the campaign and they said to tell Bill to tell the judge that we are considering making an objection and want to have legal counsel. They said DO NOT open the bag. I raced back into the room and found Bill. He said the bag had already been opened..."

"He said he objected and asked the judge to open the other bags first, and not # 3, but the judge said NO. Bill said it's in the minutes and we have a record of it. BUT...they started counting the ballots in bag 3 first. By this time the ......media started pouring in.

Darcy said that with this big a municipality ...that we're talking thousands of votes (I think she said 10,000). I don't know how many votes we're talking here, but this is very suspicious. Why couldn't the judge wait? Why did they open # 3 first? Darcy said the judge was in the hall talking to Kevin Kennedy about it. I had to leave, I was too upset."

UPDATE: From Wxow.com

Prosser explains why he couldn't have been meeting with Walker that day. Find the story here.

"Prosser told WKOW27 News the closest time to the April 5 election when he spoke even casually with Walker was April 1, when both Walker and Prosser attended a republican party event in Waukesha County.

Prosser said his driver recalls taking Prosser to his Madison condominium, not the state capitol, on the day after the election. Prosser said they traveled from Delafield."

Ladies and gentlemen SHARE THIS story..when is it going to end?

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 April 2011 21:59

UPDATE ON RAMPANT ELECTION THIEVERY IN THE U.S.


THE INVISIBLE HAND: A CASE STUDY IN STRIPPING AWAY ELECTION RIGHTS

By Bev Harris

Permission to reprint or excerpt granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org
You can discuss this article here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/81673.html

As Colorado election officials battle the public over right to examine ballots, new questions on public right to authenticate ballots have surfaced in New Hampshire, where the powerful First-In-The-Nation presidential primary will take place in 2012. If New Hampshire is to have its thumb on the scale in presidential politics, election transparency needs to be an absolute requirement. In a bizarre chain of events, nontransparency was entered surreptitiously into a New Hampshire statute in 2003.

NEW HAMPSHIRE IS GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN

Ballots are an open record under Colorado law though clerks are fighting the public on this. Marilyn Marks, supported by Black Box Voting, is litigating over wrongful denial of public right to inspect Colorado ballots. This is currently in the Colo. Supreme Court now (Looking good so far ... more on that below).

In Wisconsin where a hot political recount is taking place, the public can opt to examine ballots with or without a recount. In Michigan, the public can even take pictures of ballots. In Florida, a consortium of news organizations examined ALL the ballots from the 2000 presidential election. In California, two counties (Humboldt and Yolo) make photocopies of all the ballots available to the public for examination.

But in 2003, New Hampshire ballots were ever-so-quietly EXCLUDED from public right to know. How could this happen?

THE INVESTIGATION INTO NEW HAMPSHIRE'S REMOVAL OF BALLOTS FROM RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW

Black Box Voting director Bev Harris, board member Nancy Tobi, and an extraordinary New Hampshire citizen named Deborah Sumner conducted an investigation this month into New Hampshire's action to exempt ballots from its Right-to-Know law. What we found was shocking.

From: Deborah Sumner
Subject: The mystery of why ballots are exempted from NH Right to Know Law

"Still trying to track down more info on why ballots were exempted from NH right to know law. It seems to me, if there was any discussion, it was removed from the official record or took place behind closed doors."

Sumner learned that in 2003 the New Hampshire State Senate sneaked an extraneous amendment into an unrelated bill, HB 627, pertaining to defining domicile to comply with a Help America Vote requirement.

In other words, in a bill about residency requirements for voter registration, suddenly, magically, and out of thin air, an amendment appeared to exclude ballots from New Hampshire right to know law.

"No evidence the amendment had a public hearing," Sumner writes. "Original bill did in the House."

TO PASS A LAW IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Both the New Hampshire House and Senate must pass the bill, and it must be identical in form.

In the case of 2003 House Bill 627, the house passed a bill which had nothing to do with excluding ballots from public right to know.

The senate got the bill, went into committee, had a hearing and obtained a detailed opinion from the attorney general, all pertaining to a bill that had NO LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER about removing ballots from public oversight.

TIMELINE FOR THE MYSTERY AMENDMENT

I traveled to New Hampshire and examined the file on this bill, requesting all notes, minutes, committee actions and testimony. Here is the curious timeline:

MARCH 2003: The House Elections Committee had a hearing and invited several officials to discuss the bill, which had NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.

MARCH 2003: The House passed the bill, which included NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.

APRIL 30, 2003: The Senate Internal Affairs Committee had a hearing on HB 627. At this time there was NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.

APRIL 30, 2003: Bud Fitch from the Attorney General's office provided a legal analysis on the bill which contained NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.

MAY 9, 2003: Suddenly, magically, and with no notes, testimony, hearing, legal analysis, or any visible explanation or discussion, an amendment appeared in the Senate bill to exclude ballots from right to know. This amendment was passed by the Senate.

JUNE 2003: The House saw what the Senate did to the bill. They REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE the version of the bill containing an exclusion of ballots from right to know law.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE CANNOT AGREE?

JUNE 2003: When the House refuses to concur with the Senate, a "Committee of Conference" is called to see if they can get together on the language. The Committee of Conference REMOVED the offending language about excluding ballots from public right to know.

JUNE 24, 2003: The bill, with the offensive language removed, was then passed by both House and Senate.

SO HOW WERE PUBLIC RIGHTS ULTIMATELY VIOLATED?

JUNE 30, 2003 a murky little amendment posing as a "technical amendment" was passed. This amendment is both improperly vague in its wording and illegal in its implementation.

TECHNICALITIES ONLY: THE "ENROLLED BILLS" COMMITTEE"

After both houses pass a bill, it is sent to the "Enrolled Bills Committee" which checks the bill for typos, spelling errors, and other minor problems. The Enrolled Bills Committee has no right to alter content in a passed bill. But they did.

The Enrolled Bills Committee added several paragraphs to the bill, then hid them with an opaque phrase. They incorporated content that had been explicitly removed in the version passed by House and Senate, hiding the changed content behind one vague and illicit sentence: "restore original language."

This language was weirdly vague. What "original language"? The "original language" in the house bill (WITHOUT the rights-stripping amendment); or the amended language from the Senate bill (WITH the rights-stripping amendment)?

WHO WAS THE INVISIBLE HAND?

Here's what I found:

- All notes and minutes from the Senate committee pertaining to creation of the right-stripping amendment are now absent from the file on HB 627 at the archives.

- All notes and minutes from the joint "Committee of Conference" are absent from the file.

- A note in the Senate Journal indicates that one senator, Sylvia Larsen, was removed midstream from the Committee of Conference, replaced with Senator Flanders who was formerly State Treasurer, reputedly a very tight-lipped guy. One would surmise that Larsen refused to play ball with the boys.

Even after booting out Larsen they could not reach concurrence with the House.

- No notes exist in the file from the Enrolled Bills Committee.

- No notes exist from the Office of Legislative Services (the research arm for the Enrolled Bills Committee).

- The file contains not a whisper about the ballot exclusion from the Secretary of State or the attorney general's office.

- In fact, all notes, minutes, research, testimony, or records of any kind which reference the offending amendment are missing from the file, and it is never mentioned in discussion on either the House or Senate floor.

All we can find was that on June 30 after the technical check for spelling and punctuation, exclusion of ballots from right to know arose like a wraith to appear in a bill which had already been passed by both houses without the exclusion.

JUNE 30, 2003: One obtuse line, "revert to original language" was put into a technical amendment and passed by house and senate.

WHO WAS ON THE ENROLLED BILLS COMMITTEE?

Senators Eaton, Green, Clegg, D'Allesandro and Larsen. Though there are no notes from this committee, not even the customary form indicating who approved and disapproved of the final form, a minimum of three of the above-mentioned senators were clearly complicit.

It was a ballsy move. It seems unlikely they would have inserted this change in content, violating protocol for the Enrolled Bills Committee, without encouragement from an invisible hand.

- The Office of Legislative Services coordinates with the Enrolled Bills Committee. I called them to inquire how this happened. They told me they cannot make changes in content, and limit themselves to suggesting spelling or punctuation changes along with a review to make sure the language doesn't violate existing law.

The Enrolled Bills Committee would have known that Sec. State Bill Gardner and Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch would sign off on it before sending the bill to the governor.

Bud Fitch has since left the attorney general's office to take a position with former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (now a U.S. Senator). Bill Gardner and/or his key operations guy, David Scanlan, will run the 2012 New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

While removing ballots from public right to know might make it easier to control a presidential primary, it certainly doesn't offer transparency and it violates the public right to self-government, the very cornerstone of both the New Hampshire and the US Constitution. And it goes against trend: Our right to examine ballots is receiving more attention, and more formal recognition:

AN UPBEAT WORD ON THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT CASE

Will appeals court free Aspen ballots?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/carroll/2011/04/25/will-appeals-court-free-aspen-ballots/47/

By Vincent Carroll

As I pointed out in my Saturday column
http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_17910900 -- Colorado elections aren't nearly as transparent as they should be because election officials insist that the constitutional mandate for "secrecy in voting" means that voted ballots must be kept under wraps.

But maybe that highly convenient reading of the law - convenient for city and county clerks, that is - is on its last legs. At least that's the sense I got at a hearing Monday at the state court of appeals involving a case pitting Aspen against an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who is seeking to view digital copies of ballots from the 2009 election.

Marilyn Marks' bid for the digital images was rejected by a district court, but the three-judge appeals panel appeared somewhat more sympathetic to her goal - as it should be.

Judge Arthur P. Roy seemed most skeptical of arguments that providing the images to Marks might somehow compromise ballot secrecy. And he was not reassured when the special counsel for Aspen, James True, suggested that an election judge who accidentally left a chocolate smudge on a voter's ballot might later recognize that ballot if it became a public document and thus discover the voter's choices.

Honestly. This far-fetched hypothetical was offered with a straight face as an argument for barring even carefully regulated public access to ballots.

True's other main argument was that voters who wrote in a candidate might be identified - not only by their handwriting but also, in a small
community, by the pattern of their votes. Yet both of these possibilities of a secrecy breach are almost as highly speculative as the chocolate smudge. Are these really the best arguments available for opponents of transparency?

Voted ballots are anonymous by law. And it's high time that Colorado courts told the clerks that they should stopping saying otherwise.

* * * * *

To support litigation on public right to see the ballots, note your donation "Colorado Project":
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html

Black Box Voting,  Inc. | 330 SW 43rd St Suite K - PMB 547 | Renton, WA 98057