|
On
the Issues Voter Fraud Stop access to voting machines by computer code alterations and right wind manufacturing sources Note the following information and/or links are not endorsed by the Board of Directors of the Democratic Party of Evanston nor do they necessarily represent the views of the Board or the organization. Links:
FROM THE votefraud.org ARCHIVES The
Greatest Cover-Up Of All: You're running in your first election for City Council in a crowded field of 26 candidates. Nine will be elected. The No. 1 local anchorman comes on TV at about 9:15 PM and announces that you're going to do very well for a first time candidate, then flashes on the screen that you're running 12th; only three places from victory. Such a finish would give hope to all who were daring to "fight city hall." Earlier in the evening, a liberal-leftist home-town university professor who was analyzing early returns for another local TV station had projected that your arch-rival, and his ally the sweetheart of the anti-God portion of the establishment was headed towards defeat. But HO-L-L-L-D EVERYTHING ! ! ! At approximately 9:45 PM, the same anchorman announces that there has been a computer breakdown. 45 minutes later when the computers come back up, a massive switch has occurred. You and 7 other feisty challengers have fallen to the very bottom of the heap. The establishment sweetheart has jumped into a winning position against all odds. Despite unprecedented public dissatisfaction, the same old faces are elected once again. Many conclude that "you just can't fight city hall." Things have worked out just great for all those entrenched politicians who seemed to be the object of such public dissatisfaction right up to election day. The next morning, you scan the papers in vain for any mention of the computer breakdown: no record for posterity. The above scenario is my story, but it was happening in dozens of places all across the nation. It was 1979 and a new day had quietly dawned in America - UNVERIFIABLE, RIGGABLE computerized vote tabulation.
Ballots for Bullets When I was small I remember my Dad saying how in other countries they would shoot each other to decide the transfer of power. In our country it was done by the ballot at election time. Millions of American soldiers have fought and bled and died to protect your right to free and fair elections; to protect your right to an orderly, peaceful transfer of power when the people so will.
How Your Parents' Votes Were Counted Once upon a time, Americans voted by Paper Ballot. At the end of the day after the polls had closed, neighborhood people, Democrats and Republicans, worked together to count the votes in the precinct (polling place) BEFORE the votes left that precinct. The count was then posted at the precinct polling place for all to see. This is the only way to insure a verifiable election. Variations of method are possible, but the elements of physical ballots which are counted and posted at the precinct before the ballots leave each precinct are essential to insure a fair and honest count. To rig an election with the above safeguards built in, one would have to bribe many hundreds of neighborhood people, including key Democrats and Republicans in each precinct you hoped to rig. Finally, the group of people bribed at each precinct would only have access to a tiny fraction of the vote.
The Greatest Coverup Begins About 1974 a sinister development was in full swing all over the United States. In many areas, especially high populations regions, the votes were no longer being counted in the precincts by neighborhood people. The switch was on to computer vote counting systems. Typical was Cincinnati, Ohio where votes were bundled up immediately after the polls closed and sent to a mysterious central computer room to be counted by secret computer codes. To add insult to injury, the votes were counted away from the watchful eye of the entire electorate and the press. Despite the brutal cover up that has been conducted for going on three decades by the news media and the major parties to prevent you from hearing about this issue, some major media news items have appeared. In a rare but superb news story on the eve of the 1988 Presidential election, Dan Rather (CBS Evening News) engaged in this exchange with computer expert Howard J. Strauss of Princeton University: Rather: "Realistically, could the fix be put on in a national election?" Strauss: "Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. (ed: Strauss was referring to the most common computer program in use) Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?"
"A House Without Doors" In an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Howard J. Strauss dropped this bombshell: "When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks, it's a house without doors." The most succinct introductory summary to this mind-blowing subject is found in Votescam: The Stealing of America by James & Kenneth Collier. The chapter begins by quoting the first words spoken by President-elect, George Bush in his Nov. 8, 1988 victory speech in Houston, Texas. Bush said: "We can now speak the most majestic words a democracy can offer: "The people have spoken. . . " The Colliers comment: "It was not "the People" of the United States who did 'the speaking' on that election day, although most of them believed it was, and still believe it. In fact, the People did not speak at all. The voices most of us really heard that day were the voices of computers strong, loud, authoritative, unquestioned in their electronic finality....
Trade Secrets The computers that spoke in November 1988 held in their inner workings small boxes that contained secret codes that only the sellers of the computers could read. The programs, or "source codes," were regarded as "trade secrets." The sellers of the vote-counting software zealously guarded their programs from the public, from election officials, from everyone on the dubious grounds that competitors could steal their ideas if the source codes were open to inspection.... You may ask: What "ideas" does it require to count something as simple as ballots? Can the "ideas" be much more complex than, let's say, a supermarket computerized cash register or an automatic bank teller machine? The computer voting machines do not have to do anything complicated at all; they simply must be able to register votes for the correct candidate or party or proposal, tabulate them, count them up, and deliver arithmetically correct additions.... People with no formal training, even children, used to do it all the time. So why can't the public know what those secret source codes instruct the computers to do? It only makes common sense that every gear, every mechanism, every nook and cranny of every part of the voting process ought to be in the sunlight, wide open to public view. How else can the public be reasonably assured that they are participating in an unrigged election where their vote actually means something? Yet one of the most mysterious, low-profile, covert, shadowy, questionable mechanisms of American democracy is the American vote count.... Computers in voting machines are effectively immune from checking and rechecking. If they are fixed, you cannot know it, and you cannot be sure at all of an honest tally." If you understand the above quoted paragraphs, you understand the problem.
Crash, Cover-up, Lawsuit, Fix Among the many struggles which have taken place all over the USA in the last few decades over this issue, I can speak about only one from first hand experience: Cincinnati, Ohio (covered on page 242-247 in the Collier book.) Fortunately, the Cincinnati case illustrates as well as any other instance how the establishment media and both major parties coalesce to thwart any attempt to get rid of their precious, riggable computer vote counting systems. "How Elections Are Stolen" in American Opinion magazine written in 1977 by Dr. Susan L.M. Huck alerted me to the dangers of computerized vote counting systems. When we actually witnessed our very own computer crash in 1979 (described on Page 1) during which everything worked out perfectly for the "in-crowd" I knew something big and bad was up. When the Cincinnati newspapers failed to mention the computer crash the next morning and the accompanying candidate position shake up this was our first taste of the media blackout that dozens of other concerned citizens were experiencing all over the nation. After due research and preparation, we filed suit against our local Board of Elections in 1981, and after 4 years of public service litigation conducted by my Father, James J. Condit Sr., our side won a decisive victory. Judge Richard Niehaus ruled: "There is no adequate and proper safeguard against the computers being programmed to distort the election results." What the Judge's ruling means, is that thousands of your votes can be switched in the blink of an eye and no one would ever be the wiser! Judge Niehaus also issued a court order allowing us and our chosen experts "to observe all phases of the election process" on election night 1985 with a view that we bring evidence back to his court so that the situation could be properly remedied. Shortly before this court ruling, my mother-in-law had providentially alerted me to a series called Votescam by the Collier brothers being carried in the Washington DC-based weekly newspaper, The Spotlight. Thanks to this tip, I was able to ask the Colliers to serve as two of our court-approved experts. As reported in their book, the Colliers had already video-filmed women punching votes out of voters' ballots at the Board of Elections on election night 1982 in Miami, Florida. And to my surprise (but not to theirs), the Colliers also caught women on camera plucking votes out of punchcard ballots in Cincinnati, this time using household tweezers. Disappointingly, Judge Niehaus (in his tennis shoes) was summoned down to the Board of Elections at about 7:30 PM on that 1985 election night by the heads of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Judge, in a highly unusual move, modified his court order on the spot insisting that observing "all phases of the election process" did not include videotaping! The audio portion of the confrontation between Ken Collier on the one hand, and the Judge and both local Party heads on the other, is captured on a video camera which was pointed at the floor during the tense exchange. The Colliers were told to quit videotaping under threat of arrest. The next morning we appeared on the Jan Mickelson Show on WCKY Talk Radio. Mickelson, who is one of the top Talk Show Hosts in the country, was skeptical when Ken Collier asserted that we had video-film of women pulling votes out of ballots with common household tweezers. He shot a quick glance my way as if he were having second thoughts about having let us on the air at all. But then our credibility shot sky-high when no one from the Board of Elections was willing to come on the air against us. Back to election night: While the Colliers' videotaping efforts were causing such consternation to the Election officials, our other court-approved expert, Mr. Robert Strunk, was moving quietly through the system with my Father. Mr. Strunk, a highly respected computer analyst who once headed the Xavier University computer department, issued a magnificent report to the Court detailing why the computer vote counting system was NOT verifiable. Mr. Strunk said that to believe the published results under this computer system was "an act of faith." Please observe that the conclusions of Mr. Strauss and Mr. Strunk, as well as the conclusions of dozens of other honest computer experts, agree completely on the unverifiability of these computer vote counting systems. As far as we know, there is not one computer expert in the nation who has gone on record in an attempt to refute these scholarly individuals. Despite his previous fine decisions, Judge Niehaus, perhaps feeling the heat from the local power structure, excused himself from taking any action to remedy the riggable computer system by announcing that he was a "pacifist" judge whatever that means. We appealed, and two years later in 1987 our deplorable Court of Appeals dismissed the six year-old case stating absurdly that the county judge did not have any jurisdiction over the county computer vote counting system.
Whistle-blowers Emerge In the meantime, something momentous happened. Two whistle-blowers had come forth from Cincinnati Bell. One of them eventually testified in convincing detail during court proceedings connected with our lawsuit that he had been involved in causing a computer crash while helping to alter the local 1979 election by wiretapping into our computer vote counting system. (The reader will recall that this was the very year we had been stunned by the candidate shake-up which occurred seemingly during the computer shutdown.). The key whistle-blower had already watched for several years as a Congressman, the FBI, and all the press stonewalled his evidence. On election eve 1986, Cincinnatus Political Action Committee, our local political vehicle, had issued a press release asking the media how they could ignore Judge Niehaus's finding and continue to report local elections as business as usual when the same riggable computer system was still counting the votes. Only Channel 12 responded and took a brief statement from me, but the spot they aired right after Monday Night Football caught the attention of the key whistle-blower, and he contacted us the next day, election day '86. After another year of being stonewalled, we convinced the frustrated whistle-blowers that the only way to break through the media censorship was to utilize a little known law which forces TV and radio stations to accept a candidate's political ads provided no obscenity is involved. Days before our TV ad featuring the whistle-blowers was to air, Judge Niehaus again played a key role when he ruled favorably on my Father's request to allow the key whistle-blower to enter his sworn testimony about wiretapping the computer on election nights as well as causing that crash in 1979 into our suit against the Board of Elections, which had not yet been thrown out by the Court of Appeals. Together the TV ad and the sworn testimony combined to spark the only two significant local major media reports that have ever appeared. Anchor Nick Clooney and reporter Mary Krutko of Channel 12 aired an excellent, in-depth local TV segment, and twenty minutes later during the same newscast our TV ad featuring the whistle-blowers ran. The next morning (Oct. 30, 1987), reporter Randy Ludlow wrote an outstanding article in the Cincinnati Post. But these two reports alerted the Media Moguls and the media curtain of censorship was slammed down. Eventually a cornucopia of press coverage did ensue but it focused on other aspects of the story, while maintaining the brutal cover-up of the vote fraud issue. All the rest of the coverage was devoted to relative trivia such as which millionaires and organizations had been allegedly phone tapped, speculation as to why, etc. etc. etc. By time the smoke had cleared in the wiretapping story, 5 policemen had resigned in disgrace and Cincinnati Bell admitted one of its trucks had been used in wiretapping activities. The Wall Street Journal had mentioned the story, local Cincinnati newspapers, TV, and radio stations combined to carry over 400 reports and 60 Minutes aired a segment on the Cincinnati wiretapping story. The chief computer man at the local Board of Elections admitted under oath that if someone had the relevant codes he would have a 100% chance to alter the election results. But omitted from all major media press coverage, with the two already noted exceptions, was any intelligible reporting on the votefraud aspect of the story. (Several highly explosive radio shows featuring the Colliers, the whistle-blowers, and myself are preserved on audiotape. Our TV commercial featuring the whistle-blowers and the local Channel 12 spot is preserved on videotape as is an hour interview which I conducted with one of the whistle-blowers early on just in case we had not been able to break through the media curtain.)
New Yorker Magazine, Dan Rather, and the U.S. Department of Commerce Even though 99% of the investigative reporting on votescam has been done by private citizens and non-establishment investigators (for instance, while the "respectable" New York Times has done only 3 stories on the subject, the "persona non grata" Spotlight weekly was carrying over 300 stories), there have been enough establishment sponsored stories to demonstrate that the major news media has what some call "guilty knowledge." On the eve of the Bush-Dukakis election, Ronnie Dugger broke the almost total silence in the major media on votescam when his article "The Dangers of Computerized Voting" appeared as a cover story in the Nov. 7, 1988 issue of New Yorker magazine (This dynamite article is available in most libraries). Dugger, who visited me for a week in Cincinnati during the wiretapping uproar, exerted his journalistic skills to present this issue in an undeniably credible manner. He documented the activities of many and varied citizens, candidates, and experts generally unknown to each other who have been working on votescam in virtually every region of the country from the early 70's to the present day. Within days of the appearance of the New Yorker cover story, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather carried the only report to date to appear on a major TV network, featuring computer expert Dr. Howard J. Strauss. We have also preserved this excellent 5 minute report on videotape. In August of 1988, the U.S. Bureau of Commerce published a comprehensive study under the auspices of the National Bureau of Standards by Roy G. Saltman, Special Publication 500-158 entitled "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying." This is probably the most comprehensive compilation of all the lawsuits and other aspects which surround the issue of computerized voting published thus far. This government study supports Dugger's article, as well as supplies mountains of evidence documenting the problems with computer vote-counting systems. The fact that Saltman failed to pick up our Cincinnati case -- which featured both the most decisive judicial ruling and the only whistle-blower to come forth to date -- demonstrates the difficulty faced by even a well-funded government agency in compiling a comprehensive list of all the efforts that have been conducted to expose the dangers of computerized vote tabulating. The thus-far successful suppression of the votescam issue from widespread public notice is a chilling demonstration of major media censorship in America.
Why Does the Board Of Elections Exist? The Boards of Election exist for one reason: to guarantee that the results published on election night are in fact the will of the people; to insure in a way that can be verified that what the people voted in the thousands of neighborhood pollings places is what shows up as the final results. It doesn't matter how many pieces of literature are distributed, or how many TV campaign commercials run, or how much shouting goes on, or how many debates are televised. If the computer programs which "count" our votes are poised to switch key votes in the blink of an eye, the rest just doesn't matter. As computer whiz Howard J. Strauss said at the end of that lone 1988 CBS Evening News report: "Should we make it voluntary that we have safe elections or should we demand safe elections?" VoteFraud.org:
Archive Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, PO Box 11339, FROM
THE votefraud.org ARCHIVES The following is the written testimony submitted by computer expert Robert Strunk to Judge Richard Niehaus after the Judge had ruled in 1985 that the Cincinnatus PAC's suit against the Hamilton County Board of Elections was correct. The Judge had stated in his ruling that: "There is no adequate and proper safeguard to prevent the computers from being programmed to distort the election results." This is one of the most superb statements ever issued by any computer expert since computers began to be used to count votes in the United States circa 1974. The
system Strunk is warning against is the CES IBM punch card system
which is still being used in much of the nation in 1996. Despite
Strunk's devastating expose of the weaknesses of the system, the
Judge failed to provide a remedy to the wrong he had diagnosed,
and the system is still used in Cincinnati as of this writing in
May of 1996. - Jim Condit Jr. I am Robert C. Strunk, an adult resident of [omitted from internet] Kentucky, and being first duly sworn say that this Affidavit is given voluntarily on my past and I am not related by blood or marriage to any of the parties to this litigation and first came to know the Plaintiff and his counsel in connection with this action in October, 1985. Further, I give this Affidavit to assist this Court with the computer science and related technical aspects which are before the Court in this case. Further,
I state in this Affidavit: 2. That I have been engaged by the Plaintiff as an expert in computer-related matters including, especially, the programming of computers. My Curriculum Vitae and credentials are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Briefly, for the past 20 years, and thus for my entire occupational career, I have been directly and entirely involved in the fields of Computer Science and Data Processing. 3. That, pursuant to this Court's order certified on November 4, 1985, I have had access to all phases of the procedure used by the Hamilton County Board of Elections (hereinafter referred to as the "BOE") to arrive at and certify the vote count in the recent general election of November 5, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "election"). My observations began with the preliminary test of the computer vote counting process on October 31, 1985. I personally observed the voting process at a specific precinct, at the BOE office on Sycamore Street, and at the Regional Computer Center (hereinafter referred to as the "RCC") several blocks away in the Temple Bar Building at Court and Main Streets. I also personally observed the procedures for transmitting the ballots and other election materials necessary for the vote count among these various locations. 4. That the opinions I am expressing are based solely on these personal observations and the inquiries which I made at the time of various staff persons employed at the sites. In no way are any of these opinions based on the opinions, observations, or representations of any other expert witnesses or others involved in this case. 5. That I have been provided with a copy of this Court's "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law". Some of these findings fall within my area of competence and expertise and I, therefore, initially observe that my findings are consistent with the Court's in the following areas: a. That the entity which actually carried out the computerized vote count in Hamilton County is the RCC. The RCC is both the lessee of the computer equipment and the employer of all of the people involved in the actual counting of the ballots cast in the election. b.
That the RCC was not to my observation supervised in the election
either by the BOE or by the office of the Ohio Secretary of State.
Although the BOE had two witnesses at the RCC the night o the election,
they could undoubtedly only testify to the fact that the ballot
tapes were received from the appointed messengers. In my opinion,
these witnesses would have to exercise their faith in order to be
able to testify that the ballot tapes they received were actually
used in the vote counting process at the RCC. Do not construe this
remark to mean that these witnesses were foolish people - that would
be untrue. The idea that I am trying to convey is that it is probably
impossible for an observer to tell what is going on inside of a
computer system; it would take a highly-trained technician quite
a length of time to certify that there was no interference with
the proposed processes. For example, it is very easy to make a computer
program seemingly read the data on a reel of tape, then completely
ignore that data and print out some pre-arranged answers. The BOE
witnesses could not possibly have detected any vote fraud at this
level. By c. That Cincinnati City Council candidates' votes were among those votes which were counted by the RCC in this election. d. That no one on either the BOE or RCC staff was involved in the planning or writing of the computer program that actually counted the ballots in the election. The program was provided, I am told, by an unaffiliated entity known as Computer Election Systems (hereinafter referred to as "CES") headquartered in San Francisco, California. I examined a printed copy of the Cobol Source statements for this program and found it to be written in a style that is very difficult to understand. I do not claim to have an understanding of this program from my reading of it. In fact, I found no one who was willing to say that he understood the internal operations of this program. While I hesitate to say that it is essential to have someone understand how the program was written in order to make use of the program, I can say that it would probably be difficult to find any hidden traps that a clever programmer might plant in a program as confusing as this one. Good programming today calls for "Structured Programming" techniques that make programs relatively easy to read and understand. This program is not a structured program. e.
That, because the RCC computer system has many terminals attached
to it, the vote counting system is open to alteration by parties
unseen and unknown to any observers. These terminals are both local
(usually within the same building) and remote (accessed by modem
over both private lines and the switched network). The staff at
the RCC seemed sensitive to this possibility and seemed to take
the necessary steps to prevent any type of fraud by this means.
The point, however, is that it would require an extraordinary type
of observer from the BOE to detect system access or alteration through
any terminal that he could not actually see. g. That the BOE is directly involved only in the part of this computerized system that initially reads the ballot cards onto the computer tapes. This portion of the process is a rather simple part of the process. However, I would like to point out that there is another computer program involved in this process. While I take it that this is a relatively uncomplicated program, it seems worthwhile to point out that no one seems to even have a printed copy of this program. This program was provided by CES, the same company that provided the program that counts the votes at the RCC. Using each of these programs to validate the vote count of the other is a little like sending the fox out to watch the chickens. 6.
That it would require an act of faith for the members of the BOE
to "certify" that the vote count generated by this computerized
system is a true and accurate county. While I cannot comment on
the legality of what I have observed, it does seem to me that the
BOE has delegated its responsibility over the computerized vote
counting process to (a single staff member of) the RCC. This delegation
may seem entirely appropriate to some because similar decisions
are made every day in the routine use of millions of computers across
the country. There is one tremendous difference, however, in this
particular instance. That difference could be characterized by the
word "accountability". Computers (and their programmers)
that perform accounting tasks are held accountable by the principles
of accounting. Computers that keep track of inventories are held
accountable by a rotating scheme of actual physical counting performed
by real human beings. Computers that do word processing are held
accountable by the people striking the keys on the In summary, therefore, I conclude my opinions with the following observations: 1.
There is no understanding of the program governing the computer
operations at the BOE on Sycamore Street, by any of the BOE staff.
The BOE staff is therefore utilizing a "black box" at
its site. By "black box" I mean the BOE staff is relegated
to putting information in the "black box" (computer) and
later accepting data from this "black box" (computer)
with no understanding or control over what goes on inside the box
(computer). The BOE is therefore out of understanding and ability
to supervise th computer phase which occurs at its own site on Sycamore
Street, at the hands of its own staff. The BOE is completely dependent,
therefore, on others, in this case RCC and CES, and, therefore is
operating on what I will call "blind faith". 2.
Similarly, moving one step out of the BOE to the RCC staff, the
RCC staff is accepting the CES program and is also exercising "blind
faith" in a program prepared by another entity (CES). Therefore,
again, this produces the "black box" reality also at the
RCC, i.e. RCC staff is relegated to putting information in the "black
box" (computer) and accepting data from the "black box"
(computer) with no understanding or control over what goes on inside
the "black box" (computer). 3.
It follows therefore that the "certification" by the BOE
of the accuracy of the election vote count (BOE certifications as
to this election are attached hereto as Exhibit B), is even more
an exercise "in blind faith". That is to say that the
certifications contained in Exhibit B are based upon the Board's
own act of faith as described above in 1, and, upon the RCC's act
of faith described in 2 above. I am therefore able to support this
Court's finding number 7 that "There
is no adequate and proper safeguard against the computers being
programmed to distort the election results." 4. It is necessary to reemphasize that my opinions here sound in the vulnerability of the existing system and do not allege wrongdoing. Indeed, vote count manipulation has occurred, the probability of it not being detected in the present system is very high. 5.
I therefore also conclude that the existing system, as it is in
place in Hamilton County, is not verifiable absent a complete hand
count. Therefore, we all indulge in "blind faith" when
we defer to the present computerized vote count system relied upon
by the BOE. Nor does it encourage me to state that there is actually
no way that I or any other individual can guarantee the accuracy
of a computer vote count unless I have personally and directly controlled
the systems throughout. If I am not involved in some aspect of the
procedure, I cannot certify to its accuracy. Respectfully
submitted, PERSONAL
SKILLS SUMMARY Operating
Systems: DOS, EDOS, DOS/VSE/MVT, RSTS, VMS, AMOS/L, CP/M Languages:
Four diferent ASSEMBLERS. (Best) Systems
Designer: 18+ years experience Systems:
Payroll, AR, AP, GL, inventory, Academic Administrative Systems, Have
had extensive involvement with the installation of both hardware
and Computer
Repair: Personnel
Management: Project
Management: Managed
the installation of two IBM 360 Model 30 computer systems, an IBM
360 Managed
the installation of over twenty Alpha-Micro timesharing computer
Teaching:
Seven years experience teaching Mathematics and Computer programming
at the college level. Communications
Skills: Was
elected to public office. Wrote
15 editions of "Edgewood Recorder". Music:
Play the Accodion and Drums Miscellaneous
Skills: STATE OF OHIO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT AT THE RECOUNTS HELD ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY NOVEMBER 25TH AND 26TH AND MONDAY DECEMBER 2ND, 1985, INT HE COUNTY OF HAMILTON, THE VOTES CAST FOR THE CANDIDATES, WERE AS FOLLOWS AND APPEARS FROM THE RETURNS FOR ALL THE SELECTEC VOTING PRECINCTS DULY RETURNED TO, OPENED AND CANVASSES, AND NOW REMAINING ON ILEI N THE OICE OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS. WITNESS OUR OFFICIAL SIGNATURES AT INCINNATI, OHIO, THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985 EXHIBIT B (PAGE 1 OF 2) GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 COUNTY OF HAMILTON ss. STATE OF OHIO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 5, 1985 IN THE COUNTY OF HAMILTON, THE VOTES CAST FOR THE CANDIDATES, QUESTIONS AND ISSUES, WERE AS FOLLOWS AND APPEARS ROM THE RETURNS FOR ALL THE VOTING PRECINCTS WITHIN HAMILTON COUNTY, DULY RETURNED TO, OPENED AND CANVASSES, AND NOW REMAINING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS. WITNESS OUR OFFICIAL SIGNATURES AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985 11/16/2002 Entry: "VOTE SCAM ARCHIVE" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOTE
SCAM ARCHIVE It's a dream come true for the New World Order tyrants - Election Machines owned and operated by the New World Order itself. And a sheeplike populous conditioned after years of conditioning to easily believe that anyone questioning this dark force is a loony "Conspiracy Theorist Nut." This dark force has spent decades destroying the critical capabilities of Americans for just this purpose - so that their movements go unnoticed. And now the machines are in place. It's called Tyranny. So here goes - And this is not a conspiracy: This is YOUR REALITY
The reason why these several lines of computer code are designed to look like an error is in the unlikely event that this scheme is discovered - an eventuality that is highly unlikely. It is not expected that these completely legal "errors" (all errors are legal) will ever have to face the light of scrutiny for several reasons. The first reason being that there is ZERO public oversight of these machines. We simply have no mechanism to sequester and verify the integrity of these machines. They are top secret. We are not allowed to have independent scrutiny. Why? Secondly even in the unlikely event that we could examine one of these machines, the first thing that would have to be done would be to unplug the machine. Unplugging the machine zeros out the volitile ram memory and with it, the glitch. (requiring a re-boot) Then the system is rebooted, an operating system is reloaded from a non volatile memory (Rom) which does not contain the error. The machine can then be examined with full confidence by it's Conservative Republican designers that no irregularities will ever be discovered. Here's how it's done. A capacitor can sit up stream from a dormant volatile ram register. A capacitor which could hold a sufficient enough charge for one operating system to initialized on, possibly with the help of the tech support of the election machine group. That charge could run out, zeroing the malicious code from ram. it could be in the next register up on the same initial ram. Upon re-boot you could easily have the new system (minus that tiny little "glitch" I mentioned before load from a rom that is in fact without the glitch. This capacitor can be charged with the help on an administrator during the preparation of the machine... The capaciter releases it's charge over a 24 or seventy two hour period - malicious code vanishes - end of story. The
malicious code can even be in a flash memory segment which can refresh
itself at a preprogrammed time, say, the close of the poll. If the
machine is sequestered for examination it is presumed that it will
be seized after such time as the election polls have closed. The
memory flashes with no need for human intervention - purely by the
clock which all of the machines have - end of story. That "glitch"
register toggles the main program and overrides it during the actual
election, until the set time, at the close of the election. When
the memory flashes, it kills the glitch, and toggles the main register
back on which is the one that is unblemished. You could re-boot
it a thousand times and get a good and valid program, but that doesn't
that was the program that actually tabulated the results. This code
is not rocket science there Grasshopper it's pretty simple stuff.
I expect a bit too simple because these amatures fucked it up. Using
some simplistic sets of integers to derive a predetirmined error
of a set percentage, these fuckers didn't test it. I imagine that
there is a ratio of integers in that machine that tabulated the
funky repetitive numbers. That malicious GLITCH revealed itself
in all the victorious Republican Candidates throughout the country
who got 18,181 votes. OOOPS. You won't see that happen again in
the next revision of the "Glitch", Or maybe you will because
the illuminati intelligence agencies posing as news channels such
as CNN ABC CBS AND NBC will never inform you of this strange anomalies.
YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. YES FOLKS, THANKS TO THE COMPLETELY OBLITERATED CRITICAL CAPABILITY OF EVEN OUR SO CALLED EDUCATED CLASS, THESE AND OTHER ATROCITIES OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE ILLUMINATI WILL GO UNNOTICED. WE WILL FALL INTO DEEP OPPRESSION. YOU WILL SEE DEATH SQUADS IN AMERICA SOON.
But if we allow these machines to be installed throughout the nation then we will get everything we deserve. The republicans will sweep the nation and the world will surely suffer a nuclear holocaust. Here's an archive of this chilling development. ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE SCAM
"The
concept is clear, simple, and it works.
- Joseph Stalin "I
think it is safe to say at this point that the election of 2002
lacks any credibility at this point. Too
Vote
of No Confidence - Everything you need to know about stealing elections For all its apparent benefits, touch-screen voting is not a panacea, according to several nationally recognized computer experts. There are no documented cases of electronic vote-rigging occurring anywhere in the country, but only because it's nearly impossible to prove> http://www.kioskcom.com/article_detail.php?ident=1021 The
elephant in the room is vote theft on a massive scale http://www.votefraud.org/Intro/index.html The Greatest Cover-Up Of All: Vote Fraud In Americahttp://www.votefraud.org/Archive/Write/greatest.htm CalTech and M.I.T. Computer Experts -- Hacking the Machines http://pub103.ezboard.com/fsoldiervoicefrm4.showMessage?topicID=24.topic Why
One Tech Maven Fears Computer Rebecca Mercuri loves computers. But when it comes to counting votes in an election, she favors plain old paper. Computers, she says, just can't be trusted with our democracy. http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB985032601926471110.htm Voting Machine Technology - It's Not Secure - Have elections in America been rigged to slowly, but surely shift power to the right? In the secretive world of voting machines, anything is possible. http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm\ Right-wing,
radical political activists financed Who
are Diebold? The corporate officers are When
it comes to elections in America...assume Thirty-one
city newspapers have documented Computer
Vote Counts are Why
we need to know who owns voting machine Republican
Controlled Voting Machines Hand Suprise Voter
News Service sitting on Election Day data "Congress
could force these companies to submit The
Real Rage
Against the Machine- Machines don't have Voting
Machine Companies owned by conservative Repository
for Voter Republicans
dominate the voting machine Elections
In America Florida
2002: Sluggish Systems, Vanishing http://pub103.ezboard.com/fsoldiervoicefrm4.showMessage?topicID=25.topic Broward
vote total off in reporting Arkansas
Republicans went to court to keep votes A
statewide recount in Alabama's gubernatorial election demanded by
Problems
in Texas with touchscreen Kansas
provisional ballots caused South
Carolina's voting equipment "The
likely truth is that the "invalid numbers" were showing
the Nebraska's
election New
Jersey's tally delayed by computer MASSIVE POLLING FRAUD IN FLORIDA http://www.voxnyc.com/archives/00000043.htm Michigan
ballot shortages and polling San
Francisco ballot Proprietary
Republican
Manufactured Voting Machines Ivolved in Election ON
SCRAPPING THE EXIT Massive
voter fraud High-tech
voting system working fine "I'll
tell you right now, this election Flyers
were being left on cars in black Background
Stories Chip
Glitch hands Great
Bartcop article on Voting Machine Fraud, Execs GOP Fraudulent
automated Vote
Fraud Texas There's
only one Voting
Problems In Orlando, South Voting
Machines' Manufacturers
Admit Voting Machines Unreliable How ES&S The
Nightmare Scenario Dr. Rebecca Voting
into the void - Touch-screen voting machines may look spiffy, experts
say they How
VNS helped to rig Nov. 5 Election Why
did VNS bow out Voter
News Service Meltdown - "Voter
News Service (VNS) is a
More
Magic: winning vote totals VNS
- CIA link? VNS, the guys who are deep Battelle
was also under investigation during the Rothschilds
are part owners of voting Think
the November 5, 2002 US General Election Viewer Commentary: 22 comments
Greeting from the Banana Republic of Florida. My take on the so-called "elections" is below: http://www.falloutshelternews.com/VotingInTheMagicKingdom.html By Carol Schiffler Just
after the September primaries, the St. Petersburg Times ran two
photos, side by side, of the Florida gubernatorial candidates, Jeb
Bush and Bill McBride. I cannot remember which one was on the left
and which one was on the right, but in the end, it really did not
matter. The resemblance of one to the other was striking, so much
so that I remarked to my husband that Florida’s “choice”
boiled down to which beefy, middle-aged white guy we preferred.
The election, it seemed, would have been more appropriately resolved
in a pie-eating contest than a voting booth, and based on reports
of widespread voting irregularities, the results may have been more
accurate had the final outcome been based on the ability to consume
pastry. But in the wake of the highly unlikely outcome of Florida’s mid-terms, the much-hyped monitors were largely silent. Having observed, quite accurately, that no African-American voters were actually executed while standing in line to vote, the observers apparently decided to just have a Marguerita, buy a rubber alligator for the kids and call it a day. To date, only one comprehensive report appears to have been issued on the subject, and the mainstream media is not exactly climbing all over each other to print the results of the study. This is probably because the conclusion of the report, issued by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, states, without equivocation, “The election seemed at best sloppy, so much so that even elections BHHRG has monitored in ‘pariah’ states of the ex-Communist bloc compared favorably in terms of order and cleanliness.” In other words, the fix was in. But we knew that. The BHHRG report was thorough and covered everything from the questionable pre-election redistricting, (which left some precincts with less than 10 registered voters, and carved up minority neighborhoods in such a way that they were virtually annexed onto the stomping grounds of wealthy Republican voters), to the interesting fact that the law firm of Jeb’s “opponent,” Bill McBride, had donated $100,000 to the Bush campaign. The report really should be read in its entirety, but we’ll attempt to summarize some of the highlights below.
The report also gave extensive treatment to the new touch-screen voting machines which, as almost any computer-literate person could tell you, represent one of the greatest threats to democracy in the world today, (outside of George Bush, himself, of course). Space prohibits me from an in-depth discussion on the technological ins and outs of screwing with a computerized vote. Suffice it to say that I have been a computer professional for the last twenty years, and one does not have to be particularly clever to write the kind of code that would skew the vote count. A post-Election 2000 piece written by Ronnie Dugger, (“How Safe are our Voting Machines?” The New Republic, November 22, 2000), cites an example where a programmer demonstrated this feat to the author in all of two minutes. And in case there is anyone out there who is aware of the issue, but thinks that fraud allegations of this nature could be easily investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, let me raise your consciousness. Even if the programmer who committed the dirty deed was sloppy in covering his tracks, voting machine computer code is proprietary – meaning that no one is allowed to see it except the company who created it. And so, if the accusations start flying, the fox enters the henhouse and proclaims it free of foxes. Case closed. The BHHRG report does point out one interesting thing about the voting machines, and that is the schizophrenic attitude of the public toward the new technology. While on the one hand, most people who were asked, said they did not trust the machines to accurately count their vote, on the other hand, they inexplicably were enamored with the convenience and ease of use. Enamored, it would seem, to the point of enthusiastic burbling and cooing that led to the overwhelming impression that the machines were positively received. “We don’t care if they count our votes properly! These new machines are just GOBS of fun to use!” seemed to be the bottom line. Need I hammer home the Disney analogy again? And this is not the only example of an apparent epidemic of voter schizophrenia in Florida. The BHHRG report also makes note of the fact that while urban areas, especially those with an exceptionally diverse population, tend to vote largely Democratic, not so Miami-Dade, which handed an “overwhelming” victory to Jeb Bush in what should have been, at the very least, a close race. Not noted in the report, but equally as peculiar, was the Florida electorate’s strong approval of some decidedly left-leaning amendments, including one which forces the state to limit public school class sizes, and another which outlaws the inhumane treatment of pregnant pigs. Yet somehow, these same voters, when faced with choosing a governor to oversee these new amendments, selected a man who vocally and publicly opposed them. Researchers in the field of vote fraud have pointed out that it is not necessary to do “big stuff” in order to change the outcome of an election. It is only necessary to do little things – lots of them – in key, hotly contested races where the vote is likely to be close. In a society where fragmented and incomplete media coverage of current events has caused a disconnect between reality and perception, vote fraud has become a mere parlor trick. Anyone with a black hat and a magic wand can do it. One need only conjure images of Jim Baker during the Florida recounts of Election 2000, intoning, “They counted and they re-counted…you are getting sleepy…and they re-counted again…VERRRRY sleepy…” in order to understand how this works. Meanwhile, the year is 2002, and Floridians have thrown away their “I Voted” stickers and their “I love Jeb! ™” lawn signs, and returned to their daily lives as if nothing has happened. And they will sleepwalk until 2004 when the brightly colored cars will come for them and take them back to “Mickey and Minnie’s Voting Adventure Land.” Never mind the man behind the curtain. Posted by Carol @ 11/16/2002 03:14 PM EST
Pulls
no punches: Excerpt: Posted by British Helsinki Human Rights Group Report @ 11/16/2002 03:19 PM EST
I am aware of the issue. My bottom line lies with my distaste for pork-pie lies. In keeping with the current thought, I've even displayed my digust to the relevant authorities, but an old "duck(?)" like me might not be reading the repies too well these days, (don't know, don't read too much?) and it seems that no matter where you turn there's more lies. I'm sick of asking the questions, my throat is sore, but even when they see my pain, it's still just "another sympton of getting old"(!). HUH?! If I'm going to get nothing but lies in return then I shant even bother, better off going for a walk, but you can't say where, cause that's just a set-up waiting to happen. No sir-ee, not this little black "DUCK". Posted by Robert Duck @ 11/17/2002 04:07 AM EST
How can I help Vox?? Posted by Rob @ 11/17/2002 09:54 AM EST
I
am fairly new to this site.My interest in the U.S greatly increased
after the events of Sept 11th.I wasn´t conviced by the official
line.Since Bush has been in it has been one disaster after another
and things negative seem to be gathering momentum with the U.K http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/content.html Posted by Rob @ 11/17/2002 10:41 AM EST
I
am here today to announce my cadidacy for President. You may call
me a Demlican, Republicrat, Commutarian, Libunist, or anything you
want. My point here is it that it doesn't matter, ALL of them are
cowardly thieving assholes, only interested in keeping their cushy
jobs. So, instead of the usual spoonfed bullshit we constantly are
bieng fed, here is my stand on the issues. Posted by A REAL American @ 11/17/2002 11:48 AM EST
The RAM has to get it's information somewhere. When you plug out the machine, sure the RAM will be cleared since it has to be dynamically refreshed thousands of times per second. But when you plug the machine back in, and the operating system loads, the information has to be put back in the RAM. It has to come from some chip so the best thing to do is logically it's in the ROM that holds the operating system, a function to scam the user input from volatile memory. I want a real reply to this Vox, prove me wrong. Don't just remove my comment (again). First of all, wise man said, "You do not come into the master's classroom and make demands such as you have, Master doesn't need Ignorant student's bullshit. You bad student- you know nothing. You bluffer - You look up and get last minute definition of RAM on Internet and come to forum and bullshit. Your comment about Ram needing to be refreshed a thousand times a second give you away. That is first thing you see when you look up, "Ram for idiots." Don't try to bluff me or draw me ou or I will cut you off. I breadboarded complex VLSI circuits for a major Aerospace company 20 years ago. Don't try to bul |