Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 7-26-2005: BBV Board Member Arrested ... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 975
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 13 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:25 pm: | 
|
VIEWING THE DIEBOLD VOTE-TALLYING SCREEN PROHIBITED
Update - Tabulation results appear odd for July 26 election
Jim March, a member of the Black Box Voting board of directors, was arrested Tuesday evening for trying to observe the Diebold central tabulator (vote tallying machine) as the votes were being counted in San Diego's mayoral election (July 26).
According to Jim Hamilton, an elections integrity advocate from San Diego, he and March visited the office of the registrar of elections earlier in the day. During this visit, March made two requests, which were refused by Mikel Haas, the San Diego Registrar of elections.
1) March asked that the central tabulator, the computer that tallies up the votes from all the precincts, be positioned so that citizens could observe it. According to Hamilton, this would have required simply moving a table a few feet.
2) March also asked for a copy of the ".gbf" files -- the vote tally files collected during the course of tabulation – to be provided for examination after the election.
During the tallying of the election, the Diebold computer was positioned too far away for citizens to read the screen. Citizens could not watch error messages, or even perceive significant anomalies or malfunctions.
Unable to see the screen, March went into the office where the tabulator was housed. Two deputies followed him and escorted him out.
According to Hamilton: "He was not belligerent, not at all. After he went inside the tabulator room he came [was escorted] out and he said learly 'I’m not resisting.' They handcuffed
him, took him out of the building. They put him in a squad car. They’re going to take him to the police station, book him and take him to jail," said Hamilton. "He’s getting charged with a felony, 'interfering with an election official.'"
March's actions are the culmination of two years of increasing frustration with the refusal of election officials to respond to security deficiencies in the voting machines. The software that tallies the votes in San Diego is made by Diebold Election Systems, a company that has already paid the state of California $2.8 million for making false claims, due to a lawsuit filed by March and Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris.
On July 4, a report was released by European computer security expert Harri Hursti, revealing that the Diebold voting system contains profound architectural flaws. "It is open for business," says Hursti, who demonstrated the flaws on Leon County, Florida Diebold machines. He penetrated the voting system in less than five minutes, manipulating vote reports in a way that was undetectable.
Despite the critical security alert issued by Hursti, San Diego County sent 713 voting machines home with poll workers, increasing the risk that the "memory cards" housed in the machines could be hacked, and removing the argument that "inside access" was carefully
safeguarded.
The arrest of Jim March underlines a fundamental problem facing Americans today as, increasingly, they lose the ability to monitor, verify, or watch any part of the counting process.
The San Diego registrar of elections knew of the security flaws in the voting system. Diebold has never denied the vulnerability identified in Hursti's report, found at http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreport.pdf.
Despite knowledge of the increased risks, Haas made the decision to create additional vulnerability by sending the machines home with hundreds of poll workers.
While San Diego officials will no doubt point to a small seal on the compartment housing the memory card (the component exploited in Hursti’s study), Black Box Voting has interviewed a former San Diego poll worker, who reported that all that is necessary to dislodge and then reaffix the seal is a small pair of pliers.
IN A NUTSHELL:
- The machines have been demonstrated to be vulnerable to undetected tampering
- The San Diego registrar of voters chose not to take appropriate precautions
- The main tally machine was placed in a location that was impossible for citizens to observe
- Many voting integrity advocates have come to believe that voting machine reform now rivals the urgency of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
Jim March acted on those beliefs.
* * * * *
If you share the feelings that Jim March has expressed about voting system secrecy, please forward this message to your lists and to online blogs as appropriate. Permission granted to reprint, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org.
* * * *
Update: Background on San Diego -- Mayoral candidate Donna Frye won on WRITE IN votes in November, but was disqualified due to technicalities in California law. She was polling at 48 percent before the election. She needed a hair over 50 percent to win without a runoff. Frye is an outspoken advocate on behalf of election integrity.
Here is what is odd about the results: Monitoring incoming tabulator results, the percentages for all candidates -- even those with just one or two percent of the vote -- remained steady throughout the evening. It is typical for elections results to fluctuate as various demographic areas come in. However, the results -- as posted on the web page of the registrar of elections -- did not appear to fluctuate at all for any candidate. It seemed as though there was a fixed "set point" for the spread.
More study needs to be done. We need the printed GEMS summary reports, each iteration throughout the night. We need to examine the memory cards. We need to examine the chips.
Frye had about 42 percent of the votes, with the next closest candidate at about 26 percent. It will go to a runoff.
Secret vote-counting -- ain't it grand?
|
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 996
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Odd results: In all iterations, the percentage of results for candidates did not change. The winner needed to achieve over 50 percent. However, as you'll note, the percentages per candidate remained fixed in each iteration throughout the evening -- which is not typical for incoming election returns. The race goes to a runoff.
|
pat_vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: pat_vesely
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Keep us posted! Good luck Jim. |
linda_franz
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: linda_franz
Post Number: 147
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Maybe there are two catagories of election officials-
The real deal, who care about democracy and citizen participation...
Those who only patronize the citizens of our country by "allowing" them to vote, then telling them to run along now, the counting of the votes is none of your business.
Would that type more appropriately be called an Election Czar?
Would that type also tell us that we could not observe a hand recount? Or that we could observe the recount but not the tallying of the votes recounted?
We are reminded again of Stalin, who knew full well that it matters not who voted or how- what matters is who counts the votes.
Take vote counting away from the people and you have a sham. Voting becomes a sideshow.
People have been slowly weaned off participation. The idea that they want to take back their rights is apparently threatening to some.
Let us know how to help, Jim. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 999
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
I have not heard from Jim yet this morning. About eight hours ago, according to Jim Hamilton, they said they were taking him to jail and he'd be held for about eight hours -- then they'd decide whether to release him on his own recognizance or set bail. We stand ready to help, of course.
In the mean time: The reason Jim did this is not just a problem in San Diego -- what happenened there represents a systemic problem, obstructiveness of election officials and opaque vote-counting procedures, and it is happening all over the U.S.
The best thing we can do in the interim is to make Jim's courage COUNT -- he did this to make the American people aware of how secret elections have become.
LET THE SECRET OUT OF THE BAG. E-mail this story to the media, to reform groups, to civil rights organizations. Get the word out!
-- Bev |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
This just in: Jim Hamilton, who is in San Diego, is arranging the $10,000 bail for Jim. Thanks very much to staunch citizens like Hamilton!
Black Box Voting will make arrangements with Hamilton for this. Right now the objective is to get Jim out of jail, and we very much appreciate the fact that Hamilton has Jim's back on this.
-- Bev |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
BBV admin
What happened with the .gbf file request? That's big.
Mr. March inspired me to take the time to send the announcement to the LA Times and NY Times. Most online newspapers have a citydesk email contact -- took 2 minutes for each. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
The .gbf files have already been released in other jurisdictions. However, it remains to be seen whether San Diego will part with theirs.
This is getting more interesting. Black Box Voting very much needs the original "summary reports" -- EVERY iteration, which they were running every five minutes. The pattern on the summary reports appears not to conform with what would normally be expected, but we need the original data to confirm this. |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
also sent story to the NZ independent news and the San Jose Mercury news....
Is Jim March from the Seattle area?
Jim March is from Sacramento. |
citizen_sane
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: citizen_sane
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Well, we very much are in an activist mode--like the 60s. It's time to protest and cause our civil servants (they are paid with our tax dollars!) some uncomfortable-ness. Might I suggest picketing outside the registrars' home? Let's embarass this person in front of his neighbors. Let's confront his wife at the hair dresser why her husband isn't allowing the will of the people to be verified. Let's make any public appearance by this individual a constant confrontation (but a nice one).
When you are servant of the people, you need to serve THEM! |
mymarkx
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: mymarkx
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
I'm in San Diego and was also concerned about how the votes never fluctuated.
What was needed was to keep Frye below 50%, but not close enough to warrant a recount.
I hope Bev and Jim win a few more millions from San Diego on this one. As bad as this city's financial problems are, they won't be solved until we get honest elections and can elect honest candidates. |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 83
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
May I suggest requesting both the gbf files AND the mdb files?
The gbf files are compacted to remove any entries marked for deletion, while the mdb files still have the entries marked for deletion.
HG |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 39
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
But Donna Frye didn't really "win"} yet:
SAN DIEGO - Voters Tuesday determined that Councilwoman Donna Frye, a Democrat, environmental activist and surf shop owner, will face former Police Chief Jerry Sanders in a mayoral runoff election this fall.
With all the votes counted in the special election, Frye had 43% of the votes, and Sanders was second with 27%, ahead of business owner Steve Francis with 24%.
Because she received less than 50% of the votes, Frye must now face Sanders in a Nov. 8 runoff.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sdmayor27jul27,0,564557.story?page=1&col l=la-home-headlines
I sent her a copy of your story, as well as to the LA Times, the UCSD Guardian, SD Union Tribune, SD News, and several other San Diego rags.
If anyone lives in the San Diego area, please contact your representative and tell them this an affront to every citizen's right to watch the votes get counted. Legislators ignore anyone who does not live in their district.
Assembly Member Lori Saldaña
76th Assembly District
1557 Columbia Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 645-3090
Assembly Member George A. Plescia
75th Assembly District
District Address
9909 Mira Mesa Boulevard Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 689-6290
Sen Bill Morrow
Carlsbad
2755 Jefferson St., #101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 434-7930
Fax: (760) 434-8223
San Juan Capistrano
27126-A Paseo Espada, #1621
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92765
Phone: (949) 489-9838
Fax: (949) 489-8354
Even if you don't live in San Diego, bring your concerns to your own representatives. Send your Senator, Assemblyperson, the Secretary of State and the CA Attorney General a letter or a fax with a copy of Bev's article about Jim's arrest and let them know you think it's outrageous. Send them a copy of the BBV Press Release about the BBV Technical Report and tell them you are concerned with the security and integrity of electronic voting systems.
The Voters Fraud Handbook* states:
Q: I don't trust computers. Never have, and never will. I would like to watch how ballots get counted on election night to see with my own eyes how it works. Is this process open to the public?
A: Yes, the entire process, from the opening of absentee ballot envelopes to the counting of ballots on election night is open to the public. (EC §15004, 15104) Contact your local election official for more information on observing the process on election night. Additionally, to test the accuracy of the counting machines, prior to the official certification of election results, each county election official must conduct a public manual recount of the ballots cast in one percent of the precincts, the ballots counted are chosen at random by each election official. (EC §15360)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/shelleyvfph2003.pdf
The Secretary of State's Official Canvas of the Vote page states:
"The California Elections Code requires that the official canvass begin no later than the Thursday following the election, that it be open to the public, and that it continue daily (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted) for not less than six hours each day until completed."
The Election Code sections pertaining to watching the vote count say:
15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any ballot container. Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections official.
15272. The count shall be public and shall be continued without adjournment until completed and the result is declared. During the reading and tallying, the ballot read and the tally sheet kept shall be within the clear view of watchers.
This language is contradictory, ambiguous, and is against the spirit of the California Constitution laws protecting voters' rights, given that:
1) Electronic voting systems are most at risk for election fraud at the point in which the votes are tabulated
2) Electronic voting systems use electronic data processing equipment to tabulate the votes
3) There are no standards or reasons for access restriction and the vague wording means any Election Official can restrict everyone's access to any area with a computer, a PDA, or someone playing with their GameBoy with no explanation
4) Election officials who restrict access are effectively denying the public's right to view the vote count, making the voting process less secure, creating public mistrust, and bringing the integrity of the election in that district, along with the integrity of precinct board and their own personal integrity, into question.
5) The felony arrest of voting rights advocate, Jim March, for attempting to exercise his rights under Election Code 15204 and 15272 proves that the California Secretary of State's current Election Codes no longer protects the public's right to view vote counts done on voting systems proven to be insecure and open to vote manipulations. Incredibly, it has, by conferring the power to restrict public access to election officials, created felony class violations designed to intimidate, thwart, mute, discourage and criminally label any law-abiding California citizen who attempts to do so.
Tell your representatives you are planning on watching the vote counts in the next election and you want their personal assurances that you will not be arrested, charged with a felony, strip-searched, forced to submit your DNA like a dangerous criminal, and put at risk of losing your job, your reputation and, ironically, your right to vote until released from Dept. of Corrections supervision, merely for exercising your constitutional right to watch the votes get counted. Then ask them to let you know what steps they plan to take in order to protect your rights and secure your vote in the coming California (or your state's) election. Send a copy to your local newspaper.
Get the names and contact info for California legislators at:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/updatemap.htm
Get the names and contact info for your representatives in any state by inputting your zip code at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L
Instantly send letters to local media by inputting your zip code at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
First, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Now, voting rights and election integrity advocate, Jim March. Apparently anyone interested in ensuring honest elections in California is a target of those benefiting from ensuring they are open to election fraud.
We may be facing an uphill battle, but if we don't object to this alarming and fore-telling event, it will definitely be all downhill from this point forward.
Karla
*The Election Code citations in the excerpt taken from the Voter Fraud Handbook, don't really pertain to public viewing of election night vote counts. 15004 deals with Party-Affiliated Computer Specialists and 15104 deals with viewing absentee vote counts, which are done up to a week in advance.
15004. The county central committee of each qualified political party may employ, and may have present at the central counting place or places, not more than two qualified data processing specialists or engineers to check and review the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the
specialists or engineers in attendance at any or all phases of the election.
15104. (a) The processing of absentee ballot return envelopes, and the processing and counting of absentee ballots shall be open to the public, both prior to and after the election. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 40
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Geez! Sorry, I've been working on my post for a couple hours and now I see, I'm way behind the times and Donna Frye's run-off scoop is old news. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
re: "I'm in San Diego and was also concerned about how the votes never fluctuated. What was needed was to keep Frye below 50%, but not close enough to warrant a recount."
Thank you. I'm talking to others who noticed the same thing, who said it stuck out like a sore thumb. We really, REALLY need to get the opportunity to bring in an independent expert on this. -- Bev |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 77
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
I have gone exhaustively thru the CA Election Code AND the CA Code of Regulations and the ONLY reference to 'interference with an election official' is this:
18577. Any person having charge of a completed absent voter ballot
who willfully interferes or causes interference with its return to the local elections official having jurisdiction over the election is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both.
Kathleen and Bev -via email- know what other actions I have taken. This is outrageous, especially given that election workers opened the door for Jim.
What is the charge exactly? $10K seems real high for something that is neither in the Elections Code or CCR's. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 78
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
I've now gone through the San Diego Municipal Code and also find nothing specifically about 'interfering with an election official'.
The only thing I find is an EXEMPTION FROM Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(2) "Where their application would result in an interference with or inhibition of peaceful picketing directed toward the business establishment, lawful labor activities, or peaceful political activities" |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 79
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Channel 10 news in SD last night interviewed the third place finisher before the full results were in (Steve Francis) and he stated he was 'waiting for the returns from the more conservative districts' before writing off his chances to come in second. He TOO was expecting a demographic change to show up. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Just spoke with the formidable Jody Holder, an outstanding researcher. Seven days before the election, an "election observation plan" is supposed to be filed with the secretary of state. We need that document. -- Bev |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 41
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
18501. Any public official who knowingly iolates any of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby aids in any way the illegal casting or attempting to cast a vote, or who connives to nullify any of the provisions of this chapter in order that fraud may be perpetrated, shall forever be disqualified from holding office in
this state and upon conviction shall be sentenced to a state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters
lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years. |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
I hope that San Diego's "King" Stahlman bail bonds can come through for Mr. March.
Questions:
Who, precisely, is Mikel Haas, the registrar?
Who ordered the arrest?
I'm in San Diego.
Free Jim March! |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 80
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
This may be what Jim is charged under:
18564. Any person is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for two, three, or four years who, before or
during an election:
(a) Tampers with, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with,the correct operation of, or willfully damages in order to prevent the use of, any voting machine, voting device, voting system, vote tabulating device, or ballot tally software program source codes.
(b) Interferes or attempts to interfere with the secrecy of voting or ballot tally software program source codes.
(c) Knowingly, and without authorization, makes or has in his or her possession a key to a voting machine that has been adopted and
will be used in elections in this state.
(d) Willfully substitutes or attempts to substitute forged or counterfeit ballot tally software program source codes.
Tough to get a conviction under (a)if the intent was simply to turn the machine so that the screen could be seen. It's the 'attempts to interfere with' that's problematical;given Jim's request and lack of response, it sounds like he got set up. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 465
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
I gathered his intent was to see the screen--not to touch it himself. We'll have to hear more about this.
Seems to me that under the regs 18501 & 18502 that Karla quoted above it's the election official(s) who should be arrested. |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
The charge was under 18502
http://www.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=5132612
Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass,... as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
Interference with an election official is not in and of itself a crime unless it prevents the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted. Otherwise there would be no need in law to have the clarificaton included in the statute.
The question that needs to be asked is 'In what manner did Mr. March's actions prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted?
My understanding is that his actions were likely intended to ensure the election was being fairly held and lawfully conducted, not to prevent it.
I wonder if they can they spell 'wrongful arrest' or trumped-up charge?
I guess I shoulda been a lawyer.
HG
(Message edited by harmonyguy on July 27, 2005) |
rigel99
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: rigel99
Post Number: 13
Registered: 02-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
What can we do Bev? Jim is a good guy, we all want to help get him out of jail... how can we help??? is it time to get a rally outside his jail.... what??? I'll hop a plane to help Jim, you say when, Bev.. I'm getting damn sick of this..... they're starting to put us in jail and that pisses me off!!! Let us know how we can help.....
Make the media aware of this. Make as many citizens as possible aware of this. We are already receiving reports from around the country, from others who were prohibited from watching the tabulator. What Jim March did is shine sunlight on a systemic problem that is occurring nationwide. -- Thanks, Bev |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
ARREST REPORT:
WHO IS IN JAIL - INMATE DETAIL
Information is current as of last update: 07/27/2005 10:59:46 AM
PERSONAL
Last: MARCH
First: JAMES
Middle:
Sex: M
Date of Birth: 04/01/1966
Age: 39
Height: 6' 04"
Weight: 280 lbs.
Race: W
Eyes: HAZ
Hair: BRO
ARRESTS: 1
Arrest Nbr: 1
Agency: San Diego Sheriff Office
Location:
Hold Codes:
Bail Amount: $10,000.00
Facility: San Diego Central Jail
Area/HU/Cell: 8/C/06
Booking Date: 07/27/2005
Booking Time: 01:03:00
Booking Nbr: 5132612
CHARGES
Arrest Charge Nbr Bail Flag Bail Amount Description Code Statute
1 1 Y $10,000.00 INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTION OFF 18502 EL
COURT (Court Names and Addresses)
Appearance Destination Court Date Time
1 SDF 08/03/2005 13:30:00
http://www.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=5132612 |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 81
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Given that Jim was let into the room by election(ROV) workers, this really is just a power play by Haas.
"Now county election officials have mounted their latest lobbying effort - to overturn Shelley's mandate for a voter-verified paper trail. There is something troubling about county election officials having a lobbying agenda focused on elections policy rather than operations efficiency. They are supposed to implement the laws, not decide which ones to ignore."
from http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2281 |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 85
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
In order for a conviction on this charge, (and for that matter, in order for there to be sufficient belief or suspicion to lay the charge,) doesn't that by its very definition mean that the profferor of the charge has reasonable belief or suspicion that the election was unfairly held and unlawfully conducted?
If the charge was laid by the police/prosecutor/county attorney then the police/prosecutor/county attorney must reasonably suspect that the election was unfairly held and unlawfully conducted?
Of course, they will need to investigate what caused the election to be unfairly held and unlawfully conducted, which means that all the documents, disks, programs and files etc relating to the election will need to be preserved and protected as evidence. Any erasing of memory cards, compacting of original files, etc would be destruction of evidence.
If, on the otherhand, the election is declared to be fairly and lawfully conducted, then Mr. March simply cannot be convicted of causing otherwise. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
There is no way -- NO WAY -- that this will be allowed to enter any phase that brings it remotely close to anything resembling discovery.
As they have done with many other arrests of activists, they will probably dismiss the charges.
Note that he will have a court appearance on Aug. 3. If the state does not dismiss the charges, this may be an advantage in that we can then obtain a number of informative documents while a defense is prepared.
-- Bev |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
... this may be an advantage in that we can then obtain a number of informative documents while a defense is prepared.
You read my mind. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 82
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
From the 'Procedures' document associated with the certification of the AccuVote-OS firmware 1.96:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/procedures_items_5c.pdf
1.2.42.1 Logic and Accuracy Tests
Logic and Accuracy (L&A) tests verify that the vote tallying hardware, firmware and election
definitions are operating correctly. Logic and Accuracy testing consists of entering a known
number of ballots with a known number of voted response positions into the AccuVote-OS.
Logic and Accuracy tests must be run before processing official ballots for an election. The “testdeck” ballots have predetermined totals for all contests on the ballot.
Each candidate in the contest is assigned a vote count total.
The output from the logic and accuracy test can be in the form of a press release bulletin, signed
by the Logic and Accuracy Board and the Election Official or her/his designees prior to
certification and submission of vote tally programs and files to the Secretary of State not less than seven days before the election.
1.2.42.2 System Proofing
System proofing verifies that all materials, files, and programs for an election are correctly
prepared. This proofing is normally done in approximately two weeks, during the period from 60
(sixty) days to 7 (seven) days prior to Election Day. L&A tests are included in system proofing, as
they verify ballot printing, ballot ID’s and races/candidates against the information loaded onto the Memory Card profiles.
When used in an election, the accumulation and reporting components of GEMS software are
considered as an integral part of the overall system, and are subject to testing of the summary
totals accumulation process via serial and modem connections, reporting systems, export
Page
July 23, 2004
11
programs for Secretary of State reporting, as is required to ensure that all major areas of the
system are functional and tested for accuracy.
2.5 Retention of Test Materials and Results
The successful logic and accuracy tests, conducted at the time of certification (or recertification, if necessary) to the Secretary of State, storage logs or records, if any, and balancing reports, if any,shall be retained as long as the ballots are kept for the election. The official logic test ballot cards used for balancing prior to and upon completion of processing official ballots shall also be kept for as long as the ballots are kept. Back-up decks and other test decks may be destroyed or used to train operators for other elections. Memory Cards need not be retained.
2.6 Logic and Accuracy Board
The Election Official shall establish a Logic and Accuracy Board to complete certification of
testing. Not later than seven days before each statewide election, the Secretary of State must
receive a copy of the Logic and Accuracy Board’s certification. For local and district elections, the Logic and Accuracy Board members shall submit their copy of the Logic and Accuracy Board’s
certification to the local Election Official conducting the election.
7.6.3 After the memory card is installed, the security bar for the slot shall be placed over the
card in its slot and fastened with a numbered wire seal such as those used to secure the
ballot box. The number of the seal shall be recorded in the security log.
8.3 Election Observer Panel
All procedures prescribed in this Manual shall be carried out in full view of the public insofar as
feasible. In addition, the responsible elections official shall devise a plan, subject to the approval of the Voting Systems Panel, whereby all critical procedures of the vote tallying process described in this Manual are open to observation by an Election Observer Panel. Representatives of the qualified political parties and representatives of the news media shall be among those invited to serve on this Panel and shall be given the opportunity to observe that the correct procedures have been followed in the receiving, processing, and tallying of all the voted ballots. The Election Official shall appoint an Election Observer Panel; failure of any or all invited parties to participate on the Panel shall not stop procedures from continuing as otherwise required by law.
I asked the head of the SD Democratic Party Committee to let me be the 'observer' for them and was referred to a person who heads a subcommittee of the 'Committee' who worried about 'duplication of election reform effort'
Anyway, it would be good to know who the LandA panel consisted of and whether the tests were actually run(might be cause of lack of precinct 'diversity'). And I never saw any public notice of the results. BUT ,since this was a local,special election, it looks like all that was required is to sign a statement to Haas that such had been done.
Of course, the effective date for the procedures is null on the document.
And given that the election was 'local,special' the 'rules of the game' are different than for Statewide or Federal elections. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 42
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
9) (A) You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections process.
(B) You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer. However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to questions.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&fil e=2300
From the Voter Fraud Handbook:
Q: With all those computer hackers out there breaking into the Pentagon, how can I be sure that no one is tinkering with the computer programs that count the ballots on election night?
A: The Secretary of State certifies all voting systems. Each county, before and after counting ballots, must run a number of pre-marked ballots, or “test deck”, through the computer as part of a legally required test, known as the “Logic and Accuracy” check. The test deck has a known number of votes for candidates, and the computer output must match that exactly. In addition, each county must file their Logic and Accuracy tapes with the Secretary of State, as well as escrow a copy of their software. These safeguards were designed to test the system before the actual counting of the real ballots on Election Day.
Q: I wanted to stay after the polls closed at 8:00 p.m. to see for myself that the ballot box was sealed and there was no funny business going on at my precinct. However, one of the poll workers told me that I had to leave when the polling place closed. I thought I could stay and watch the process of reconciling the votes. Can I?
A: Yes, you can stay after the polls close to watch the reconciliation process. In most counties, the raw number of ballots cast is counted at the precinct. The actual votes cast are counted at a central receiving area, usually the county election office. You are welcome to watch ballot counting at either location.
15000. No later than seven days prior to any election conducted pursuant to this code, the elections official shall conduct a test or series of tests to ensure that every device used to tabulate ballots accurately records each vote. The exact methods employed in this test shall conform to the voting procedures for the specific voting systems, as adopted by the Secretary of State.
15001. (a) A copy of each election computer vote count program for a statewide election or state special election to fill vacancies shall be deposited with the Secretary of State. The copy of the election computer vote count program shall be received by the Secretary of State no later than 5 p.m. on the seventh day before the election.
(b) If the election computer vote count program is modified or altered after the submission specified in subdivision (a), the elections official immediately shall deposit the subsequent program no later than 12 p.m. on the day of the election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall hold the deposited programs for a period of not less than six months, at which time the program shall be returned to the elections official.
(1) The elections official shall preserve the returned program for a period of 16 months.
(2) The programs deposited in accordance with this section shall be used only for a recanvass of the vote, an official recount, court action, or for logic and accuracy tests required by the Secretary of State.
(3) Any tape, diskette, cartridge, or other magnetic or electronic storage medium containing the vote count program submitted pursuant to this section shall be maintained by the Secretary of State in a secure location when not in use for an official purpose specified in paragraph (2).
(d) The Secretary of State may, by mandamus or other appropriate proceeding, require and compel the county elections officials to submit the computer vote count program specified in subdivision (a). Venue for a proceeding under this section shall be exclusively in Sacramento County.
15003. Elections officials shall adopt semifinal official and official canvass procedures to conform to the applicable voting system procedures that have been approved by the Secretary of State. These procedures shall be available for public inspection no later than 29 days before each election.
15004. The county central committee of each qualified political party may employ, and may have present at the central counting place or places, not more than two qualified data processing specialists or engineers to check and review the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the specialists or engineers in attendance at any or all phases of the election.
(Why can’t “the public interest” have representatives in attendance, too?)
15620. Following completion of the official canvass, any voter may, within five days thereafter, file with the elections official responsible for conducting an election in the county wherein the recount is sought a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office, for slates of presidential electors, or for or against any measure, provided the office, slate, or measure is not voted on statewide. The request shall specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed.
If an election is conducted in more than one county, the request for the recount may be filed with the elections official of, and the recount conducted within, any or all of the affected counties.
For the purposes of this section "completion of the canvass" shall be presumed to be that time when the elections official signs the certified statement of the results of the election except that, in the case of a city election, if a city council canvasses the returns itself and does not order the elections official to conduct the canvass as permitted by Section 10263, "completion of the canvass" shall be presumed to be that time when the governing body declares the persons elected or the measures approved or defeated.
Read the rest of this document at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=15001-16000&fil e=15620-15634
Karla |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 83
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Hi Karla; please note the difference between the procedures associated with the 'certification' and the Election Code. The procedures for the 'cert':"Representatives of the qualified political parties and representatives of the news media shall be among those invited to serve on this Panel and shall be given the opportunity to observe that the correct procedures have been followed in the receiving, processing, and tallying of all the voted ballots."
My guess is that by 'among' it is meant a friend of a County Supervisor as that's what happened in 2001 when SD County redistricted.
Also note that most of the EC pertains to STATEWIDE or Federal Elections. Local or District elections have different rules.
Personally, I think it's the fault of the major political parties that the Registrars are given so much free hand. AND, you 'got to know the rules' before you can challenge them. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 85
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Given all the San Diego people who have been posting here, why don't we all meet up and co-ordinate/leverage ourselves? I can be reached at urrightto@cox.net. |
brneyedgurl
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: brneyedgurl
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
I was at the registrars office when the incident with Jim took place. Those of us present were, to say the least, a little surprised that Jim would attempt rushing the door of the ROV central tabulator room.
However, what we had witnessed in the election process leading up to this incident had all of us at a high-level of frustration.
The breaking point started as we suddenly began seeing several scanners/card readers being brought into the central tabulation machine room.
The man who had been working the central tabulator machine station got up and began plugging in and hooking up these machines into the CTM. He then began receiving precinct card envelopes from another worker and running the enclosed cards through these machines.
We watched as the first machine that was hooked up caused the precinct list on the CTM screen to disappear then reload. Please note that no one ever bothered to come out to explain what was going on, though I'm certain that it was obvious to everyone working inside the room that those of us outside were getting very agitated.
We were left to watch and take notes as at least seven of these unknown machines were switched out. Each machine in turn was hooked up to the CTM. Cards were inserted and removed, marked with a black marker then placed back into the envelopes and removed from the room.
At approximately the third machine a young man with a "non-election/contractor" type badge entered the room and appeared to be verbally assisting the other operators with these machines and cards. We could only "assume" he was with Diebold. I read off the name on his badge to the Hamiltons; I believe they wrote it down.
FYI--The only way I was able to see the computer screens and badges was with a pair of binoculars I had brought with me which I used to tell others what I could see. (Thanks for the helpful tip, Bev!)
Also of note during this time approximately 5-7 grand jury members were allowed into the room. We noted a couple of additional disturbing instances:
One was when an elderly male GJ member actually sat down in the then vacant chair in front of the CTM. He was able to sit there for a few minutes before an ROV official finally noticed him there and asked him to move.
Another instance was when 3-4 GJ members were allowed within the CTMs immediate area to watch a computer screen located directly across from and within hands reach of it.
BTW--This screen was faced away from the observation window the entire night so that we could not see it. At one point, later in the evening, an ROV official at our request turned the monitor around briefly--literally a few seconds--so that we could see the screen showing their live Internet election site.
Again it was a couple minutes before these GJ members were noticed and were directed to step away from the CTM. Not only was this aggravating to watch, but also blocked our view of the CTM.
Also several times the CTM screen would go dark. It was obvious the operator now working the unknown machines had not bothered to turn off the CTMs sleep option. One of us knocked on the window and pointed at the screen. Another official in the room moved the mouse to wake the CTM and walked away only to leave us watching the password screen.
Back to Jim:
It was into about the fifth unknown machine that Jim returned from perhaps observing other parts of the operation. We apprised Jim of what we had and were observing and it was only moments later when he attempted to enter the room, was wrestled out and arrested.
Approximately 15 minutes later the same CTM operator came out to copy and hand out basic election updates. Another observer, Eric Angle, was able to ask him as he attempted to rush back into his room what we had just witnessed with the unknown machines and cards. The curt, walk-by answer was these were either problematic machines that they were attempting to repair or problematic cards that they were attempting to upload without losing precinct information.
Granted this scrap of information was of small relief to those of us left observing, but we were still feeling confused and with many more unanswered questions and concerns.
We left shortly thereafter without any of the previously requested documents and with a sense of helplessness--not to mention saddened by Jim's arrest.
He was wrong to attempt to enter the room, but I hope this insight serves to explain the stress and strain all of us were feeling. In a short time, Jim has witnessed and fought against more abuses by election officials than most of us will in our lifetimes.
Though I'm 43 years old, this was my first experience watching our so-called election process up close. Between what I experienced last night at the ROV office and other events earlier in the day as a volunteer poll watcher, I must admit I found myself feeling powerless and working to fight back strong urges to do something...anything!
Instead, after my experience I have vowed to never allow another election to happen without bearing witness and being involved in any way necessary to help in cleaning up this most valuable process of our democracy. It's so important that everyone take the time to do all they can to help fix this ongoing Blackbox (and Blackroom) voting fiasco.
Thank you so much Jim, Bev and the Hamiltons for sharing the truth and your passions for the truth! |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 43
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Ubetchaiam:
Are you saying that election officials don't have to follow the election codes in city and county elections?? That their own rules pre-empt state rules in local-only elections?
But, wait, he was arrested for an election code I posted about half way up this page, and I got that from the SoS site. Shoot, I wasted my whole morning going through the election codes.
Karla
Thanks!
Karla |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 44
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Brneyedgurl:
I want to thank YOU for being there and following Bev's advice with the binoculars. And for the detailed report, although it's worse than I had thought.
There's always going to be a "problem" with these machines, and there's always going to be a team of "technicians" who happen to be standing by in crucial elections with "spare parts".
Lord, please help me channel this sickening feeling in my stomach into motivation before I drive up to Sacramento and puke in the Secretary of State's shoes! That's right..IN them, not on them!
Karla |
scottie
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: scottie
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Has anybody emailed the Govenators office about this. I am a California Native but no longer live there. governor@governor.ca.gov
Scottie |
mpankey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: mpankey
Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
brneyedgurl wrote "... after my experience I have vowed to never allow another election to happen without bearing witness and being involved in any way necessary to help in cleaning up this most valuable process of our democracy. It's so important that everyone take the time to do all they can to help fix this ongoing Blackbox (and Blackroom) voting fiasco."
Certainly nothing is going to change through more rhetoric nor more observations nor people getting arrested nor
people filing civil suits. Been there done all that---including threatened with arrest numerous times, but I finally learned none of my collection of evidence nor permitting them to try to intimidate me, etc. was accomplishing anything.
As I tried to awaken Bev AGAIN just a couple of nights ago the only solution and the one everyone should have been helping with (instead of treating it as a non solution)ARE requests for federal special grand jury investigations. Those who refuse to be part of the solution ARE part of the problem and the way I see it USA voters have allowed themselves to be steered into patterns that are insuring there will not be free and fair elections 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 or ???. I anticipate CONgress will any day eliminate the power of the people to even make federal special grand jury investigation requests; as all the sheeple babble on wondering what to do, having refused to help with a real solution.
If Paul Revere made his midnight ride today I suspect someone would appoint a committee to tell the rest of the people they should hold a meeting sometime in the future to discuss his message AFTER more evidence was gathered! The USA has virtually perished as a free nation due to the privatization of our elections yet people are choosing to refuse to help with a real solution.
brneyedgurl, I made a similar vow to your own back in the 1990s, but now I've had to accept reality that all people are willing to do is gather evidence, talk about it, and allow themselves to be steered into doing nothing to actually stop vote fraud. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 89
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
'Cleanbean' wrote:
"Are you saying that election officials don't have to follow the election codes in city and county elections?? That their own rules pre-empt state rules in local-only elections?"
I say what I mean and mean what I say; I did not say what you are implying I said. What I did say was that the rules of the game are different for local/special elections than for Statewide or Federal elections.
"But, wait, he was arrested for an election code I posted about half way up this page, and I got that from the SoS site. Shoot, I wasted my whole morning going through the election codes."
Like you were the only one? And the Election Codes are where such distinctions are brought out.
And why do think there were Grand Jury members there? Do you suppose it could be related to my Grand Jury complaint about the systems?
AND it was Bev posting the 'watch' procedures to me that I passed on that resulted in the binoculars.
So ,please, let your ego go.
Karla |
brneyedgurl
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: brneyedgurl
Post Number: 2
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
mpankey it really saddens me to think that you gathered from my post that I was only going to be "steered into doing nothing." Quite the contrary! While it is seriously important that we continue to gather information about what is happening, it more importantly serves to know the problem and then find solutions. How do we attack a foe that we cannot clearly see and define? The Republicans have been formulating their plan of attack for 20 years.
We are guilty of complacency. We are guilty of "accepting" a "reality" that someone else has created for us. And you my friend it appears are guilty of giving up. Where are your e-mails calling for action? Where is your petition? I'm a foot soldier. What do you need me to do to help with your solution? I will be there, just write me!
I truly believe that we all serve a purpose attempting to get to the same end. We need evidence, we need to talk about it, and yes, some of us need to get arrested. Let's not forget that Ghandi and men and women of India were beaten over the head with sticks and not fighting back just to draw attention to their plight. Would you say they accomplished nothing?
I too tuned out for way too long. But I'm back and I'll never refuse to help with any real solution. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 467
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
ubetcha,
Can you clarify what you mean about "the rules of the game are different for local/special elections?" How are they different, and where does one find out what/which are the rules for this special election?
I find it confusing trying to understand which rules explicitly apply, which (if any) apply by "default", and which explicitly don't apply.
(Just a little synopsis of how to work this out, please. For us non-legal-eagles.)
Thanks loads for all the info! |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 90
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
brneyedgurl, thank you for your efforts and observations.
Let me point out that two instances you cited appear to be in contradiction to the 'procedures' associated with the 'certification' of the Diebold AccuVote-OS,firmware 1.96:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/procedures_items_5c.pdf
You wrote:"BTW--This screen was faced away from the observation window the entire night so that we could not see it. At one point, later in the evening, an ROV official at our request turned the monitor around briefly--literally a few seconds--so that we could see the screen showing their live Internet election site."
If this was the monitor attached to the GEMS Central Tabulator, then a violation of the procedures occurred,namely "7.4.7 The GEMS server should not be connected to any network that has an external Internet connection. All network connections shall be local.
7.4.8 The GEMS server computer and communications systems must be used for election purposes only.
You also wrote:"At approximately the third machine a young man with a "non-election/contractor" type badge entered the room and appeared to be verbally assisting the other operators with these machines and cards. We could only "assume" he was with Diebold. I read off the name on his badge to the Hamiltons; I believe they wrote it down. "
Again,per the referenced procedures "7.4.1 Security of GEMS server
7.4.2 Election Officials shall maintain the GEMS Server is in a controlled, preferably locked
area with access limited to authorized staff.
7.4.3 Election Officials shall verify and submit a statement to the Secretary of State that no
DOA capable program has been installed or resides on GEMS server. DAO programs
include but are not limited to MS EXCEL, MS ACCESS, and other Visual Basic programs
designed to work with Direct Access Objects.
7.4.10 Whenever software and/or files are received from any external entity, this material must
be tested for unauthorized software on a stand-alone non-production machine before it is
used on the GEMS server system. If a virus, worm, or Trojan horse is present, the
damage will be restricted to the involved machine.
"
Given the 'and/or files' and 'ANY external entity',it doesn't sound like anyone did any checking before hooking up the precinct Accu'Vote-OS machines to the serial port of the GEMS Central Tabulator. Another violation. And Internet Explorer via 'ActiveX' uses such 'DAO's'.
The 'bad' part is there is not an effective date on the 'Procedures'. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 45
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Ubetchaiam:
I apologize for not being clear and if my thanks came out sounding sarcastically. What I meant was thanks for setting me straight so I didn't waste my afternoon, too. This has all got my head scrabbled, I guess.
I learn a lot from your posts and appreciate your comments on mine, especially because I work with the Clean Money Campaign also.
Friends?
Karla |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 91
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Hi Catherine;
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=01001-02000&fil e=1300-1304
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=01001-02000&fil e=1400-1415
Chapter 3 of Division 9 (MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS)of the Election Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=elec&codebody=&hits=20
addresses MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS and below is entitled 'Public Examinations'
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&fil e=9295
Division 10 (LOCAL, SPECIAL, VACANCY, AND CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS) of the Elections Code
speaks to GENERAL PROVISIONS,MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS,EMERGENCY ELECTIONS IN CITIES and other
sorts of elections. Part 1 is 'Voters and Procedures' http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&fil e=10000-10004
Part 2 is MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS which has 'General provisions'(Chapter 1) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=10001-11000&fil e=10100-10104
and Chapter 2 is REGULATIONS GOVERNING ELECTIONS IN CITIES
The 'General' provisions are here:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=10001-11000&fil e=10200-10202
there is also differentiation regarding 'CONTESTS' of elections between general and primary elections
as well as 'Contests other than recounts'.
There is also differentiation for STATE AND LOCAL REAPPORTIONMENT and cities that are 'charter'
(like San Diego) and 'General Law Cities'.
There are differentiations, though I cannot explain why.
Hope this is helpful. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 92
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Yes, Karla,definitely friends !! I support the 'Clean Elections' campaign here (tho I haven't been 'active' like I was in AZ when it passed there).
I'm also still a bit sensitive to 'sarcasm' given my efforts to share with the lead person for the Democratic Party Central Committee's Election Reform Strategy Committee who directed me to ,I guess, his 'tech guru' who responded to me very sarcastically when I asked for an understanding of how the 'parallel monitoring' of the election machines he had written a document on(with many caveats and exceptions) would prevent vote manipulation and fraud.
What I've come to see as a real problem is a whole lot of people who have grown up with technology that believe that all problems can be solved with technology.(Technocrats?) All I know after 25 years of being in the computer industry is 'It just ain't so Joe !!' |
mpankey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: mpankey
Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Information regarding the federal special grand jury solution has been on the forums and at http://www.votescamissouri.blogspot.comvirtually all year and the petition has been in the BBV forums since June. I haven't screamed about it every day nor every month due to being silenced for months per doctor's orders after a woman backed into my car repeatedly. But, those who set out to stop the effort were obviously well funded, well organized and time was on the side of those choosing to talk and gather more info. versus being part of the solution.
The few of us who have researched and investigated vote fraud and solutions for over a decade can see clearly what the problem is, can define it, and from the 2004 election on there has been enough evidence to make the presentations as part of the real solution.
By the way, I have been beaten over the head and back by Bush the First people with my own protest sign as police helped them shove me aside. Why was there a Bush the First? VOTE FRAUD---Same privatization of the counting process---they have just gotten more sophisticated as to methods, yet more blatant as to flaunting various means of fraud as well.
I don't plan to make any further posts in this thread and I rarely read the forums. Thus if you or anyone wishes further discussion you will need to contact me directly. mpankey2005@yahoo.com |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 93
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
I got intrigued by mpankey's post about Federal Special Grand Juries and posts so I searched the BBV site for such words and came up with two instances:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6702.html
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/153/1911.html
One of the threads DID gave a republithug loitering(encountered it before somewhere else).
BUT,well, you read and make your own mind up:
It shall be the duty of each [special] grand jury ... to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation.
18 U.S.C. § 3332(a).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=dc/955357a.html basically shows that one must have a lawyer present whatever evidence is associated with the request of the Grand Jury to investigate/prosecute.
And this link: http://www.gulfwarvets.com/koltz.htm
basically had the attorneys going directly to the Judge and requesting a Grand Jury investigation because of suspicions that the U.S. Attorney was prejudiced/biased or had been part of the problem.
Here http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=18§ion=3332 states that "There are no CFR(Code of Federal Regulations) parts for which 18 USC 3332 provides authority.
And here is the DOJ take on 18 U.S.C. §§ 3332(a):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=18§ion=3332
Note the key is 'organized criminal activity'; proving conspiracy is TOUGH, REAL TOUGH. However, it also mentions 'Nonfeasance in office', defined here:
http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/nonfeasance.htm
So one could request of a Federal Grand Jury an investigation into public officals 'nonfeasance'.
BUT "The grand jury is, therefore, a constitutionally-protected institution in fewer than half the states and in the District of Columbia." from http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm
which is an excellent source for general understanding of Grand Juries and their history.
The 18 U.S.C. §§ 3332(a) seems to be more related to Racketeering' than public official misconduct so it would be a hard 'play'. And given what is said from the University of Dayton url, "the federal system is not constitutionally obligated to employ grand juries as an investigative agency and has responded by almost eliminating the grand jury's investigative role. The only federal grand jury that is statutorily authorized to investigate is the special federal grand jury which, unlike its state counterparts, can only investigate criminal activity." it doesn't appear that the misconduct in Missouri will properly be addressed by a Federal Special Grand Jury.
But this should probably be looked at:
Barry J. Stern, Revealing Misconduct by Public Officials Through Grand Jury Reports, 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 73, 84 (1987).
Bottomline: Don't go off on your own and spin your wheels. consult with a good attorney familiar with Federal law; use Martindale's to get a rating on the attorney. Otherwise, use your State/County Grand Jury and request that their report be published. |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
"Arright. There’s been a LOT of discussion of this and it’s time I spoke up for myself...The CORE reason for doing this is to establish our civil right to observe elections.
Right now a lot of county election officials in California and across America don’t believe in that right; they are dead set on taking it away from us piece by piece as elections become electronic and increasingly “automated” – and you can take that last term as meaning “in the control of the vendors”...
San Diego's election officials picked this fight, not me. You don’t trample my civil rights without consequences.
The real trick will be to try and make those consequences happen before November, establishing the principle of open access to this stuff statewide.
The real story behind this:
First point: NO FUNDRAISING IS INVOLVED HERE. I don’t need a “legal defense fund”. I’m not asking for money. Jim Hamilton helped out BIGTIME by loaning me $10k to make bail with (no bail bondsman, that’s the total amount) and then I’m paying him back tomorrow out of the $76k of Diebold money. After that you can bet I’ll make all court appearances and fight this tooth and nail.
Second point: felony charges are an interesting twist. Unexpected but not something I’m sweating. The extreme short form here is that they violated my basic civil right to observe the election (California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A)) and in response I stopped “begging” to be allowed to observe the election and did so directly, by going through a “security door” to get closer. At which point I was (expectedly) grabbed, stuffed and cuffed.
We’ll get into details there later. For now I’ll be clear that I was unarmed (not even my usual pocketknife) and there was no violence planned or happened.
Third: this has been portrayed by some as a “publicity stunt”. Its damned well is NOT. Granted, media were present so yeah, once it became clear that MLKJr-style civil disobedience was going to be necessary, I made two reporters aware of what was going to happen. But the CORE reason for doing this is to establish our civil right to observe elections. Right now a lot of county election officials in California and across America don’t believe in that right; they are dead set on taking it away from us piece by piece as elections become electronic and increasingly “automated” – and you can take that last term as meaning “in the control of the vendors”.
I would have done the same thing with no reports present and this action can and will be a success even with no media coverage whatsoever (which isn’t what’s happening and PR *is* a nice side benefit).
OK, let’s go over the details.
First, last year I observed elections in San Joaquin County (’04 primaries) in which the right to observe the election was completely violated. There is a whole chapter on what happened there in this report to the California SecState’s office:
http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments6.pdf
As of two weeks ago, this is what I expected to see happen in San Diego. In preparation for a visit and possible protest against that sort of crime, I had the following two documents hand-delivered to the San Diego registrar’s office:
http://www.equalccw.com/openlettertosandiegoregistrar.pdf
http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments8.pdf
Then last week, the registrar (Haas) and his assistant (McNamara) tried to make it clear to local activists like Jim and Sher Hamilton that the process in San Diego would be much more open – that the monitors showing the central tabulator and it’s backup (both Diebold GEMS) would be visible “behind glass” to the viewing public doing observation.
Thus, I was pretty well convinced coming down from Sacramento that no “arrest protest” was going to be necessary. In fact, Tuesday AM I paid for my Amtrak tickets ROUND TRIP, return date Wednesday the 27th…not something I’d do if I planned to go down there to get jailed. (God, I hope I can get the date on those reset, otherwise I’m out $60, sigh.)
On the day of the election at 3:00pm, Jim Hamilton and I met with McNamara to discuss logistics of the night’s activities starting around 7:00pm and running pretty late into the night. First stop was to the “public viewing areas” and the “GEMS behind glass” observation post.
Houston, we have a problem.
The monitor was 8ft behind the glass.
Now we didn’t absolutely know for sure we had a problem – the screens weren’t showing active working displays and to the county’s credit they were 19” monitors. Much would depend first on the resolution they were set to (800x600 makes for a perfectly usable GEMS screen and probably could be read at that distance) and where the console operator’s head was gonna be (and for that matter how tall the guy was, how often he’d be there, where he stuck his head, etc.)
Jim Hamilton, McNamara and I then went to a cubicle.
We discussed the demand to have the GEMS screen viewable, and I explained that I didn’t care how it was made viewable – moving the screen closer to the window would do and at least establish the principle that they were trying. Using a projector to send the signal through the window to the wall behind would be better if they had a projector lying around; I also offered to make a run to Fry’s Electronics a couple miles away and purchase a video signal splitter to allow use of a second monitor up closer to the window.
All of these proposals to improve compliance with Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) were flatly rejected. McNamara tried to characterize these requests as “coming on the day of the election” when in truth his boss Haas had had them for almost two weeks.
I then made a second request: an official (if hand-written at the scene) California Public Records Act Request for “snapshots” of the GEMS database taken shortly after poll close and another near midnight.
It’s not often I say good things about Diebold products. One of the few features I like is the ability to do “instant backups” of the database to the included CD-ROM burner without interfering with the election processing in any other way. It’s standard procedure for counties to do this throughout election night just for backup purposes in case something dies. Cutting extra backups (each of which fits easily on a CD-ROM would cost a few keystrokes time and about 20 cents a disk (and we brought a few blanks).
More “snapshots” would have been nicer but the two requested would at least have been a good start. And we don’t consider these just “public records” – access to those files in a timely fashion (too quick to allow hand tampering) would allow monitoring of the election on my own laptop. This request is therefore an integrated component of the right to observe elections.
By 7:00pm, that request too had been flatly refused.
Make NO mistake folks, if any ONE of these requests had been honored in the slightest, I would have accepted that as precedent and dealt with the rest later.
As it was, with even a shifting of the table being refused as “inconvenient”, the stage was set for a confrontation not of my making, but theirs.
Once the election started up, it was clear that our concerns re: table location were valid and then some. The screen resolution was set to a miniscule 1280x1024 pixels, for ridiculously small text unreadable by any normal human at 8 feet.
Much else happened by the time it became clear that “refusing to go to the back of the bus” was going to be necessary. A set of unidentified “mystery terminals” were systematically plugged in one at a time to the GEMS box – optical scan units that were in unusual luggage were used to upload memory cards separate from the four units otherwise dedicated to that – combined with a lot of frantic typing and manipulation of GEMS. These “mystery terminals” were used one at a time as if to test them, and we have no idea what that was about.
We learned one REALLY interesting thing:
The GEMS box was connected to the Internet.
Oh, not directly! They had a set of “one way firewalls” allowing data to come out of GEMS onto the county LAN where it was served up on web pages. But get this. They didn’t set up these firewalls themselves. Rather, they paid SAIC to do it for them. For those not following along in extreme detail, SAIC is a software development and computer consulting house that does almost exclusively government contracts; their ties to military contracting are very well known…I’ll let others discuss that connection.
But in any case, San Diego has in my opinion turned it’s entire election security over to TWO different “black box vendors” – Diebold and SAIC. A security failure (accidental or deliberate) by either could leave their election integrity under threat.
------------------------
Now let’s talk legalities.
California Elections Code 15204 requires county election officials to make “all proceedings” “open to the view of the public”.
---
15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting
places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no
person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the
elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any
ballot container.
---
Nowhere are the terms “view” or “observe” defined in this or any other law connected to the subject. But do note that this law is originally much older than electronic voting in general. It was later updated with:
---
Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections official.
---
San Diego and other counties appear to believe that the latter section SUPERCEDES and eliminates the former. Not hardly! It just means that if they go all-electronic, they have to use electronics to maintain viewing accessability! And this won’t cost much – a video signal splitter/booster is about $200, plus the use of an extra monitor for the night. Video projectors are another possibility; they’re expensive but the county probably has them laying around anyways and can press them into service for the night.
Now, this sort of thing where a government body is required to do something and doesn’t is common. You can take them to court of course, and depending on the IQ of the judge you may or may not get anywhere. Since it isn’t civil rights in question, a lawyer who tries to help out on the cheap will have to fight to get his fees back at a minimum and it’s not guaranteed. It’s a long, bitter mess.
BUT EC15204 has a companion piece: California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) gives us a basic civil right to observe elections:
---
2300(9)(A) You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections process.
---
Now we’re no longer talking about “ho hum government requirements that often get ignored”. Now we’re talking about civil rights. And we’re in a whole ‘nuther realm of law. Violations of civil rights are punishable against bad government actors. Penalties can apply; in many cases lawyers can get triple attorney fees back on a win.
More: when this cross-connects with criminal law, one of the times when arresting you becomes a real problem is when it happens IN CONJUNCTION with a violation of your civil rights. Not only that: when you’re fighting a criminal charge, one of the arguments that a court cannot block is that you did a particular action in support of your civil rights.
And this, folks, is why their “felony charges” don’t scare me! The felony thing was decided upon by Haas and McNamara by the way, the cops initially thought this would be a “no big deal” infraction or misdemeanor bust until McNamara told ‘em to “go long”. I don’t know if they factored this in or not but the WORST thing they’re threatening me with is the lifetime loss of my firearms ownership rights…I’m a “gun nut”, remember?
Their probable plan is to try and plea me down to some nuisance charge to avoid the felony, but once I do that I can’t argue in any court (criminal or civil!) that they violated my civil rights. I go home with my tail between my legs, they get to keep running secret elections.
I don't scare easily.
They’ve charged me with Elections Code 18502:
---
18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
---
Let’s get real: anybody here think that charge will stick? Remember that the GEMS server screen was 8 feet in past the doors or a hair over (the door was offset 3ft from the observation window), I made no attempt to touch any piece of gear whatsoever, I stopped on my own 4ft in, and I ended up “pausing the action in there” *maybe* a total of 2 or 3 seconds.
“Oh, but he distracted the officials!” Oooohhh, bad gun nut!”
Except that in other circumstances, I’m specifically ALLOWED to and did for up to five or ten minutes at a time asking questions pursuant to:
---
Elections Code 2300(B) You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and
election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an
answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer.
However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their
duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to
questions.
---
So…distract ‘em for 3 seconds tops in one room, it’s a felony…minutes at a time on the other side of the door, it’s a civil right?
Ah. Yeah. Let’s see what a SAN DIEGO jury makes of this, when they’re dealing with a guy who wants to monitor elections as per his civil right in a city where the last mayor was in office ONE DAY before being convicted of crimes, where the 2004 primaries were a total disaster, where the pension fund is basically a toxic superfund sight, where two city councilmen have been convicted and a third wasn’t only because he died first…need I go on?
No. I don't think so. There will be consequences.
The real trick will be to try and make those consequences happen before November, establishing the principle of open access to this stuff statewide. And that’s one area where criminal law helps: by not “waiving time” I can make “step one” (the criminal jury trial) happen in 45 days or less. An aquittal there will sting ‘em pretty good and at least help; after that comes the civil court fight and I’ll save a discussion of that for later.
Jim March
* * * * *
From admin: Permission to reprint granted, with link. Feel free to send to blogs, lists, and media. Send public officials a message: we will no longer go to the back of the bus! |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Jim, we honor you and luv ya! This thread is getting long -- I know the links have been sent to some folks, but I'm also going to repost your portion of the thread as the new lead story -- Bev |
linda_franz
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: linda_franz
Post Number: 150
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
"....the only solution and the one everyone should have been helping with (instead of treating it as a non solution)ARE requests for federal special grand jury investigations."
Mpankey-
You've obviously been at this a while and I appreciate your commitment to winning back our democracy. But I'd like a little more insight as to why you think a Federal Grand Jury is going to provide the only solution?
In this climate, who is going to call for it?
(Or rather, who is going to allow one?)
What is the time frame for this process?
At what point does a Federal Grand Jury represent the will of the people?
(Since at that point, the process will be out of the hands of citizens handing "damage control" over to those who are part of the problem)
I'm open to all options and I think all options should be used. Pushing for a Federal Grand Jury is one of them.
But I'm also not prone to putting all eggs into one basket.
If you can point to any of our elected officials who would seriously consider and support the Federal Grand Jury option, I'd like to know who they are. I think the support of at least a few of our congressional types would help jump start the process.
FYI, over a year ago, I outlined and requested to a bunch of congress types a congressional investigation into the whole voting/Election Center mess. It appears to have RICO all over it and HAVA looks to be part of that.
I think I got maybe two, blanket responses back talking about how wonderful HAVA is. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
To our friend from Missouri: I removed your message because we will not engage in name-calling on this message board.
I am the one who sets the tone for this discussion board.
- We've had a policy prohibiting nasty fights from the beginning.
- We had a section called "Soap Opera of the Day" for awhile for the gossipy stuff, but I got tired of moderating that and ditched it a few months ago.
- On the Fourth of July, I implemented much stricter editorial control here. I put people on notice that I was doing so, and our members have been GREAT about it! The guidelines are simple: Frame things in terms of ISSUES, not PEOPLE.
The only exceptions are misbehaving public officials, election industry lobbyists and vendors. At no time will we permit attacks on any participant at Black Box Voting.
Black Box Voting provides the most prolific ammunition for election reform activists anywhere on the Web, and we have, in my opinion, the highest quality and most robust discussions of the issue anywhere. Our site is growing very rapidly right now, and with good reason.
You can repost your point, but clean it up in accordance with these guidelines. -- Bev Harris |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Sorry Ms. Missouri. Upon your second infraction, we've had to put you into "Time Out." Check back in a month if you can be polite. |
brneyedgurl
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: brneyedgurl
Post Number: 3
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Jim, thank you for your clarification for those that were not present at the ROV offices and don't know what they're talking about. Also I'd like to sincerely thank you for all you work and assistance.
FYI--I was the woman there with the binoculars that informed you along with Shar, Jim and Eric of what had occured when you had stepped away.
During the time of the incident, I made it a point to continue monitoring the ROV workers and machines per Bev's instructions regarding staying focused during any disturbance that may be used to divert attention away from the process.
Let me say flat out I know you were not doing this to divert our attention. Regardless, I followed her instructions and kept a close eye on the crew and machines.
To tell you the truth, they barely flinched. In fact I was so focused on watching the processes and workers "behind the glass" from my area of view I didn't realize what had happened. I thought someone had fallen in the hallway. It wasn't until I saw the officers wrestling you into the room on the opposite side of the hallway in which we were standing that I realized what was happening and made sure to keep my eye on things going on behind the glass.
So what I'm trying to say here, granted not very well, is that your entrance into the room did not in any way affect the workings inside the CTM room. I didn't notice any change in the workers operations. It was only several minutes later they started commenting to each other (I could tell by their gestures) on what had happened and it ended quickly.
Now regarding the Grand Jury Members. That was a joke. The only machine I saw them really interested in was the machine connected to the Internet showing the ROV live election results site. They didn't even appear to notice the outside machines being brought in! IMHO they had no idea what they were looking at or what to be looking for. They obviously weren't provided basic rules and procedures regarding what to look for and where they could conduct their observations. This is pointly shown by the incident of the elderly gent sitting right at the CTM station for several minutes before any one noticed him and the 3-4 others who also entered the CTMs immediate area which I described in my original post.
As far as what machines were connected to what: from our viewpoint it was impossible to see the connections, period. Without being inside the room there was no way anyone could tell if any outside lines were connected to the CTM. We had a couple of computer gurus with us and even they couldn't tell.
There was also an active computer on the far side of the room (back wall) which was quite impossible to see. We could see it was on, but that's about it.
Here is a small portion of a post I made to another election-watch group I belong to:
Allow let me step back to our experiences earlier in the day so you can see that in addition to what we witnessed at the ROV everything was not fine. I'd like to expand upon just one incident we encountered during our poll watching.
We were charged with watching six different polling stations. At each station we asked standard questions to see if all their "t"s were crossed and all the "i"s dotted which for the most part were, though there was still a lot of room for improvement. Until, however, I asked if anyone had touched the machines.
In each and EVERY polling station an outside "person" had come in--sometimes once sometimes twice--and checked the machines. Yet, not one person in any of the polling stations could tell me the name or affiliation of that person. Oh wait, I take that back: One worker said she "[thought] the guy's name was Steve" and that he was "wearing a red, white and blue badge."
There was even one precinct we went to in which a machine [that the poll worker was bringing in from his home] was tested the night before and found to be inoperative. The next morning "some guy" came in and swapped out the machine. Not one single poll worker there could tell me the man's name nor who he worked for! They couldn't even tell me if he was wearing a badge! All they knew was that "a guy showed up a little before 7am and swapped out the machines."
This example, as well as the incidents listed above, although inconclusive, do go to the real heart of the matter. There are still serious problems with our system and it needs to be fixed or changed completely.
Jacqueline LaMerand |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Oh my, my my. Jacqueline, you are a treasure. "Some guy" came in and swapped the machine at the polling place! Oh, and another guy must have been okay -- after all, he was wearing a red white and blue badge.
LOL. Or Oh my Goodness. Or "Gaaah." Pick your adjective, any one will do.
Thank you so much for your detailed observations!
Bev |
brneyedgurl
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: brneyedgurl
Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
You're very welcome, Bev.
Our reaction after getting these explanations consisted of nervous giggling and head shaking. You know, the kind you do when you hear something you just can't quite believe.
I decided that this would be a good additional question to ask even though it wasn't on our Observer's Check Sheet. Why it wasn't included? I don't know.
Foolishly I thought the training for poll workers would by now have incorporated this simple check. At the very least some sort of log that they would keep on hand.
Silly me!
Jacqueline
Jacqueline LaMerand
|
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 100
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
I,also, thank you for your observations brneyedgurl.
And for your posting the comments here.
Don't be surprised to be called by the Grand Jury to provide your experience and knowledge. As you know, I'd already made the comment about them being sheep.
Honorable citizens but look at the roster and they are not a generation that grew up with technology as 'natural' as it might be to you or I. And,yes, in that environment someone 'should' have been giving them some guidance such as you had. I'll take the blame for that -partially-as I didn't understand that I could continue providing the Grand Jury documentation associated with my complaint until today. But they will be given the guidelines -sans caveats- now, and they ARE smart enough and old enough to recognize how they didn't get the whole story and will need to go and investigate some more. And now that I know I can keep providing information on the case, well, they'll be getting.
What you saw with the poll workers is a violation of the election code. So that will be cited as well.
Again,thanks. |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 5
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Jacqueline,
You did perfect. In fact, what you just wrote jibes perfectly with their not being able to meet the second element of the 18502 charge: the first is "interfering with an elections official" (or voter but that doesn't apply here) and SECOND that the interference causes problems with the election.
EMail me your contact info, phone and your EMail addy to: jmarch@prodigy.net
THANK YOU!!!
Now as to the "grand jury": I would be VERY surprised if they get involved in my "felony charges" at all...and it'll be difficult to get them to pay attention to the misconduct we saw that night.
A brief history lesson: the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to force states to honor the Bill Of Rights (first 10 amendments) via the "due process clause". Between 1872 and 1900, the US Supreme Court gutted the entire 14th Amendment and reduced every clause to the status of scrap paper - this was the era that produced the infamous "Plessy v. Fergusen" that legalized "separate but equal" segregationist decision and many other evils (mostly of a racist nature). Starting in the early 20th century the court realized it had gone too far and began applying various "bits" of the Bill Of Rights to the states via a process they made up called "selective incorporation" via a bent reading of the 14th's "due process clause". Starting with the First Amendment right to free speech, they declared portions of the BoR "important enough to incorporate back to the states because it affects people's due process", forcing the states to honor those rights one at a time as the court saw fit. This process has continued piecemeal through today; three pieces of the Bill Of Rights remain UNincorporated and hence can be violated by the states:
* The third amendment re: quartering of troops in people's homes (kinda outdated).
* The second amendment, which we need not discuss HERE...but of particular interest to me  and why I know this stuff.
* A key portion of the 5th Amendment:
------
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
------
(For details see the 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" by Yale law professor (and noted Liberal) Akhil Reed Amar. Yes, I'm serious, at this point these are the ONLY bits of the Bill Of Rights states can completely ignore.)
In other words, California doesn't need to use grand juries AT ALL. And our state constitution has little to say about them. California grand juries are therefore particularly "weak" - they are seldom used for any level of case, and this being about the lowest possible level of "felony" the odds of it going to a grand jury are basically nill.
Continuing "selective incorporation" to it's logical end ("incorporating" the whole BoR) would result in stronger and more vigorous grand juries, esp. in California. It would also one day s**tcan at least half of California's gun control laws, the moment the USSC got up enough guts to take a fresh look at the 2nd Amendment...:D |
brneyedgurl
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: brneyedgurl
Post Number: 5
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Jim~
Information sent. Anything I can do to help...
Jacqueline LaMerand
|
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
I've finally gotten around to reading the massive posts on DU about this, and I'm going to briefly lay out two important points:
1) This was UNPLANNED. Arright? Local San Diego activists were told by the ROV's office that the public would be allowed to see the central tabulator screen over a week before the election. They relayed that to me. I therefore basically said to myself "well scratch that idea...I'll go down and watch, but buy round-trip train tickets to save $14..."
Then when we saw what the room layout was at around 3:15pm the day of the election, it was like "oh, waitasec, this may be "game on" after all". But we STILL didn't know for sure until we saw the screen resolution at 1280x1024 at around 7:15pm when they briefly fired up the GEMS box.
So the various comments about "why didn't he bring lawyers" (or other complaints about planning issues) are a bad joke.
And yes, Bev really did write the first article posted on this stuff late Tuesday after learning I was arrested. At least one person has said it looked "prepared ahead of time" - that's simply an accidental compliment of Bev's writing skills under deadline, a compliment I heartily share.
2) The ONLY type of court action that can be finished and done with before the November elections would be a criminal trial! By refusing to "waive time" I can make it happen in 45 days. Any other action, whether it's a lawsuit for public records, a lawsuit under EC2300, whatever, we'd be damned lucky to get anywhere before June '06, never mind November.
As it is, if I completely walk on this it'll REALLY set the registrars on notice that we DO NOT have to be "polite" watching the November elections. And that's a GOOD thing. Then if I can at least survive preliminary dismissal motions on a civil suit for violations of civil rights, false arrest, false charges, etc. before November, which is possible, then they'd REALLY have a threat hanging over their heads.
----------
Finally, and it's certainly not "important", various DUers don't seem to like me very much. They really love calling me a "gun nut" in disdainful terms. Yawn. The fact is, the current head of the Democratic National Committee has an NRA "A" rating and is as strong on the gun issue as I am. It's also noteworthy that what I'm best known for in the "gun rights world" is gathering and publishing hard facts on the racist and corrupt trends in gun control in California; if that makes me a "right winger" of some sort in some people's eyes, so be it. For the record though:
http://www.equalccw.com/CCWDATA2003.html
http://www.equalccw.com/fresnobee.html
http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html
http://www.equalccw.com/oaklandzen.html - this last is simply dead funny... |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Sorry, one more thing: somebody on DU said I was charged with resisting arrest. NOT true at all - the sole charge is Elections Code 18502 as discussed. The cops were quite professional about not making it look like I was resisting, not tacking on more charges, etc.
(I'm aware of a bunch of cases where cops deliberately made people look like they were resisting by applying a "pain grip" to key points on the victim's arm or whatever. Make somebody wiggle around in pain while a couple of cops "hold him down" and even if there's cameras right there they won't catch this trick. This is the main reason I said in a calm voice "I'm not resisting" when they grabbed me. Again: the deputies applied NO dirty tricks whatsoever, in fact the main thing they grabbed to drag me back out was my belt, a perfectly humane and professional touch. Later, when it was clear an old shoulder injury (rotator cuff about 15 years ago) was bothering me, they "double cuffed" to allow a bit more slack on it.) |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 104
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Hi Jim; just an fyi; there were a couple of posters in bbv forums that were pointing out about the secondary phrase of 18502 not just Jacqueline.
It terms of an 'easy' read of the history of Grand Juries and current situation, let me suggest:
http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm
Lastly, my complaint to the San Diego Grand Jury has to do with the malfeasance/nonfeasance of County Officials regarding the voting machines and procedures. It is NOT a 'criminal' Grand Jury(and the webpage for the SD Grand jury makes such very clear); if they determine that any prosecution for criminal matters is needed, they will notify the County District Attorney(not the City DA).
Additionally, I'd let forum participants know that it is the 14th Amendment misinterpretation by which 'corporate personhood'(the idea that corporations have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as a living .breathing person)came into being and which has plagued the Republic since(despite President's speaking out against such an idea).
DU is nothing but a forum where people can rant and think they are 'involved'. Why anybody bothers with it, I don't know. What has 'it' accomplished? How has 'it' helped? I've a friend who was banned fom it because she kept posting about a possible 9/11 cover up(see David Ray Griffin).
I've a friend(ret. Naval Lt. Cmdr.) who also is a 'gun nut'; point he rightfully makes is that the laws on the books already are not enforced when it comes to felons acquiring guns,etc.(Seems the 'game' Legislators play is to just keep passing laws whether or not a 'good' law addressing the subject is already on the 'books') Point he can't rebut to me is that guns are not going to make a difference when the government has chem, bio, and mind warfare machines to attack the populace with.
And it's happening as I write this. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 47
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Coming to a protest near you:
Israel May Use Sound Weapon on Settlers
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 10, 9:40 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_
JERUSALEM - Israel is considering using an unusual new weapon against Jewish settlers who resist this summer's Gaza Strip evacuation — a device that emits penetrating bursts of sound that leaves targets reeling with dizziness and nausea.
The army employed the new device, which it dubbed "The Scream," at a recent violent demonstration by Palestinians and Jewish sympathizers against Israel's West Bank separation barrier.
Protesters covered their ears and grabbed their heads, overcome by dizziness and nausea, after the vehicle-mounted device began sending out bursts of audible, but not loud, sound at intervals of about 10 seconds. An Associated Press photographer at the scene said that even after he covered his ears, he continued to hear the sound ringing in his head.
A military official said the device emits a special frequency that targets the inner ear. Exposure for several minutes at close range could cause auditory damage, but the noise is too intolerable for people to remain in the area for that long, he said.
Though the military refused to comment, Pike said the device probably sends its sound waves out in a specific direction, protecting the soldiers behind it.
John Pike, director of the GlobalSecurity.org think tank in Alexandria, Va., said he believed last Friday's demonstration was the first case of such technology making it out of the laboratory and into the field. He said the U.S. and possibly China and Russia are developing acoustic weapons. |
|
|
