Paul Lehto just put out a new piece about how the government has no right to ask us for our trust. Very well done...

http://tinyurl.com/m79qw

Officials say "Trust Us" When Very Basis of American System is Distrust!!

By Paul Lehto

2/21/06

According to Montesquieu:

Political liberty is to be found only in moderate governments.... It is present only when power is not abused, but it has eternally been observed that any man who has power is led to abuse it; he continues until he finds limits. Who would think it: Even virtue has need of limits. So that one cannot abuse power, power must check power by the arrangement of things.

--MONTESQUIEU, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS, bk. XI, ch. 4, at 155 (Anne M. Cohler et al. trans., Cambridge Univ. Press 1989); id. ch. 6, at 157

And, another observant quote for elections officials seemingly shocked at the notion of inside jobs as a primary threat to elections:

"Do not neglect during a period of administration by the virtuous to provide against succession by the incompetent or corrupt, for that time will come. Wise and just magistrates encourage us to relax our vigilance, but that is when it is most important to exercise strict safeguards."

— Jon Roland

Those of you too polite to tell the truth to elections officials (namely, that they have NO BUSINESS even asking for "trust" which is inappropriate in a system of checks and balances) you can use the quote above to flatter the current officials while still preparing for the possibility if not the overwhelming likelihood of future corruption given the temptation. And if these officials don't think the temptation is enormous, they **must not love their country enough** to realize how valuable and coveted controlling it would be.

Speaking of being "offended" by not being trusted: Imagine Congress getting all bent out of shape because the courts reserve the power to check the Congress's unconstitutional exercise of power with judicial review, by whiningly protesting: "But we in Congress would NEVER EVER EVER deign to pass an unconstitutional bill!! You should trust us!" When, Congressional history is replete with unconstitutional acts of Congress, some of which sit on the books still unreversed by the Courts, given the Courts' requirement for a proper "case or controversy" to be before the Courts before an issue can be ruled on.

When there is no power checking power, the Framers thought fraud and abuse inevitable, if not already present.

If the Framers had to choose between what are today being called tinfoil hatters and the Pollyanna election officials described in other previous posts, there's no doubt the Founders would fling off those Pilgrim hats and don the tinfoil, in a heartbeat, if that's what it really took (the "tinfoil" label is a gross distortion, however).

And here's the reason why they'd prefer the tinfoil, in an excerpted quote from a much longer law review article that I think is accessible and shows that the idea that trust has no part in our government has an enormous Constitutional validity and American resonance, and indeed the author below calls the Constitutional convention itself "a feast of distrust":

CARDOZO LAW REVIEW

REPRESENTATION AND NONDELEGATION:

BACK TO BASICS

Marci A. Hamilton*

The Framers assumed that every individual exercising power would be tempted to misuse that power either by underutilizing it or by using it overly aggressively. At the same time, they expressed hope that their project of effecting a system of government would preserve liberty. This is what I have called elsewhere the Calvinist paradox of distrust and hope.

Much, or even most, of what was said at the Constitutional Convention was couched in terms of distrust — distrust of the legislature, of the Executive, of the people, of power in general, of religion, of the states, of the large states, and of the small states. It was a feast of distrust. Frankly, one can point to precious little in the intervening centuries that would prove their assumptions wrong.

Given that they trusted nobody and no particular social institution but still believed that they might craft a government geared toward liberty, the Framers’ debates focused on finding the appropriate balance of power. The Framers believed that a balance of power was effected by pitting one social entity against another and by assigning different jobs to different branches. Their theory was that you could not trust either one alone but you might be able to trust both if they were working toward the common good in different and potentially conflicting ways.

The Framers had come to fear the “excesses of democracy” The two branches might then check each other and thus render the balance necessary to forestall tyranny.

END QUOTE ____________________________

Are our elections officials, in asking for trust or objecting to the implication that they should not be trusted or are not trusted, really the defenders of democracy, the "sentinels of democracy"? A real sentinel will rise to defend at the instant of a possible threat and summon reinforcements at the moment of a probable threat. In contrast, some elections officials seem to wish to be left alone with the *actual* threat and ability to modify an electronic election, unmolested by any power checking power.

If one is truly defending democracy, one does not wish to be ALONE at a point of technological election vulnerability (or election "opportunity") one wants company! And Lots of it!

Think of Paul Revere, if you like, have fun, feast on distrust as did the Framers, and defend democracy.

Lawsuits are the answer. Congress is too interested in CYA because of HAVA.

If the states lose in court, they won't appeal, because that would be too obvious and too costly for the taxpayers. I guarantee you Ken Blackwell and Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and Linda Lamone and Bruce McPherson and the rest of these phonies don't want the publicity that would come with this going to an appeals court.

RLM #4

Agreed.

However there is a tactical problem. Bev Harris was moved to post on this BLOG recently that we should forget lawsuits as a remedy.

I can understand her frustration of having to deal with lawyers, who have their own egos, weaknesses strengths, and high costs, courts that have busy schedules and little else, and defendants who ignore the court injunction by trying every trick to wiggle out of it.

They defendants so far have tended, in election lawsuits, to use public money.

But this year is a congressional election and we have a constitutional right to vote. Therefore lawsuits under 42 USC 1983 are personal lawsuits against individuals, not against the government.

They are personally liable for actions that deprive us of our constitutional right to vote.

That is why I have proposed, on this BLOG, that we form another litigation BLOG to help each other in our lawsuits. Help draft pleadings and strategy.

We can file a whole host of pro se lawsuits which will not be fettered with the fears lawyers have of hurting their business or their perceived reputation, and therefore not performing at optimum. There are many benefits to this type of movement.

The lawsuits would be directed toward individuals who do things to deprive us of our right to vote for congress members without the toyish problems they have allowed to be put into what should be the most serious of machines.

Again, if anyone else is interested, let me know.

Word is that Diebold's Elections Division is for sale for a mere $31.5 million.

Additionally, I like Dredd's idea. I think lawsuits are a great idea, if you have a case.

Anyone telling you that you shouldn't file one, might be trying to ensure that you don't cut into the proceeds of lawsuits they might be filing.

Don't steal their thunder or their proceeds.

Maybe not, but it has happened before.

Isn't Velvet Revolution planning some serious action?
So you might not have to re-invent the wheel.

Dear Brad,

Wow. All those links, and not a single Ian Hoffman screed in the bunch? I'm disappointed.

As always,
Wally

More negative news from Maryland

I'd like to read this and other articles that are posted on this site, but the color scheme hurts my eyes so much so that when I'm taken here by a link I immediately return or close the window. Really, your web page is gruesome!

I must agree with BB#7. This color scheme is really really hard on the eyes. It's completely disorganized and scattered... and that's after having read here for months.
How about a less oppressive background for starters?
(or at least set your Google ads so they're not so harsh in contrast)

The CONTENT of this site, however, is remarkable and I thank you for it!

If Diebold's election systems division is for sale for a mere 431.5 million, a liberal group of investors should buy it. I imagine that when Democrats start winning elections, the people who have been shouting,"conspiracy theorist" and,"you lost, get over it", will suddenly take a keen interest in verifyable elections. JMHO

Not just lawsuits, but criminal convictions, shutting down the offices....and subpoenas are the answer.

Vote Trust

There's already movements going on in Arizona and elsewhere....the offices are being shut down WILL BE shut down and further, everyone especially those in california continue to barrage the Senate Rules Committee. This is the time to force them under oath, the ITA examiners themselves.

Doug E.

In addition to the diebold woes above, It has just been noticed that the Diebold machines powered by windows CE have IRDA ports - infra-red communication without wires or even close proximity. Allows Input and output of data with no one the wiser. Now, Why would you want that kind of feature on a voting machine....?

You know, I really appreciate, and admire, all the people for their hard work being pursued across the nation to stop these fraud-ridden machines from being used – but at some point reality has to set in. We are what, less than nine months away from elections? Let me offer a word of "hard truth" to the debate:

Any attorney worth his salt can delay ANY kind of court case way beyond the time remaining before elections, and the failure to recognize this fact is beneficial to Republicans (who understand this, e.g., Scooter Libby) and absolutely detrimental to Democrats who, despite their legions of trial attorneys, seem unable to grasp this. The Cavalry isn't going to arrive in time.

Please people, use the paper ballots every state already has to cast a vote that can't be tampered with and vote absentee. Machines are easily rigged, but the fine people working at Registrar's offices across the country are friends, neighbors, family, coworkers, and fellow citizens who are by far and away one thing: honest! Trust people, not machines, and Vote Absentee!

Thanks again Brad for even more dirt on Diebold.
I have gone to Skippy's site and sent emails to the senators listed there. I sent the followng message to all but Debra. To her I sent a word of thanks and the pledge to vote for her as S.O.S. in Nov.

"I wish to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the certification of these faulty machines.
They have been shown to be totally untrustworthy and easily hackable. Example here!
They also contain compiler code which is illegal. Explanation here!

Please stop the use of these machines and preserve our right to a fair verifiable election."

Bill We don't care about 2006....if there's stealing in 2006 it will be caught. What our people care about (that is, all the independents Im working with) is ending the voting machines once and for all for either party.

Therefore no more playing games.....the court cases will be here to end them permanently. If more whistleblowers come out, it will all be over before 2006 elections. If not it will be over for Diebold only..

Doug E.

Bill Arnett #12 - I've offered you information before on absentee voting - for some reason you aren't getting it...

Absentee ballot voting is not safe --- it is a myth. Diebold GEMS Tabulators count most absentees and their program has stripped out the zero tape capabilities in the absentee count. Plus it is infinitely hackable, as we know.

Some well intentioned people have been spreading this myth that absentee voting is safer. It is not. Besides the above, many absentees have gone missing, been found uncounted or tossed out. It's an issue that really needs to be clarified before the repubs go on the ALL absentee recommend campaign for Nov. In counties that are not Diebolded.

So Bill Arnett, #12, "there you go again."

Your "push" for absentee ballots didn't work with kossacks - they weren't buying - so now you're pushing the old absentee from blog to blog? You were given full access to substantiated info corroborating WHY absentee ballots are hackable.

I'm no longer suspicious - you have an agenda Bill.

For Walden O'Dell

"We don't know anything about Infra-Red ports and our machines do not have connectivity.-Walden O'Dell(Diebold)"

Explain this then Mr. O'Dell..

"Jeffrey Dean: "I was trying to get the connection --- I was installing computer hardware, printing hardware, and trying to get the computer or the internet connections between a number of California counties and the server in Mountlake Terrace [Dean's Washington offices] operational.

Full story here

:blush:So how come WE THE PEOPLE don't use these easily hackable voting machines to manipulate the upcoming elections to suit ourselves? If it's possible , then let's do it!

Dear friends,

DOUG ELDRITCH #17 - Put the crack pipe down and consider the source of your information for a second.

DOUG #19 - Occam's Razor suggests that the reason these "easily hackable voting machines" aren't being hacked by "WE THE PEOPLE" is because they're not actually "easily hackable" at all. Of course it's possible that WE THE PEOPLE just aren't good with the computers and such.

Congenially yours,
Wally

I'd like to read this and other articles that are posted on this site, but the color scheme hurts my eyes so much so that when I'm taken here by a link I immediately return or close the window. Really, your web page is gruesome!

"DOUG ELDRITCH #17 - Put the crack pipe down and consider the source of your information for a second."

Hey Walden O'Dell, and I suppose the fact the twin towers were brought down by bombs on NINE ELEVEN is just a conspiracy-theory also?

From twin towers to wars, neocons always lie

In short: Shut Up!

You lose, and we have PDF files all over the place to prove it.

Doug E.

Re: 15 & 16 above:

You know, it must be nice to arrogate yourselves to the position that you "speak" for all Kossacks. Yes, I have an agenda – fair elections on secure paper ballots that can't be tampered with. Do you really think that in these times people won't be calling for hand recounts if necessary? And no legal action is going to eliminate all machines or change their programming within the next nine months, as any competent attorney can stall such endeavors beyond November.

I do not presume to question your motives, and you are certainly free to proceed as you please, but I think you need to remember that while machines are easily rigged, the people staffing Registrar Offices are our neighbors, friends, family, coworkers and fellow citizens who overwhelmingly are honest. I am therefore confident that the more hands and eyes of honest citizens involved in counting, handling, storing, recounting and just looking at tamperproof ballots the better. However, why you have a problem with paper ballots eludes me completely. And, while you are certainly able to make recommendations, I do not take marching orders from anyone and would never assume that anyone possesses the "Holy Grail" of all the answers that you say are absolutely true, and use that as a basis to say everyone who disagrees or has a different approach is wrong.

This is still America. You have and are entitled to your opinion, which I would never condemn. Am I not entitled to the same courtesy?

Mr. Arnett This isn't about "fixing" everything for your 2006 elections. This is about fixing the entire voting system and getting rid of the machines....

That is what I'm doing and many others are doing. You say absentee ballots are more secure, and I just have to very easily disagree. All the ballots are counted using the same system. What matters is the tabulators which total the ballots, not the ballots themselves- which includes machine counts.

Doug

I HAVE TO AGREE (with comments #7 and #21) ON THE COLOR SCHEME.

IT IS VERY PAINFUL TO READ YOUR BLOG FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME.

(Yes, I am SCREAMING!)

The information you post is so valuable. Please, PLEASE make the color scheme more readable!

Pran

I have to agree it is hard on my eyes, also I have to copy and paste then email it to my friends on dialup because of the unbearably long load times.

That said here is frightful information.

http://www.xopl.com/blog.../25/ohiovotingfraud.html

So what is so significant about negative 25 million votes for Kerry that I would sit here are claim to you, at risk of looking like a totally nuts conspiracy theorist, that this piece of information finally cements for me that the 2004 election was fraudulent?

It's pretty simple really: I'm a computer scientist, and every time I've talked to a fellow geek I've said that if the electronic voting machines can be hacked/rigged that some white hat ("good" hacker) out there would only have to register some ridiculous number of votes – say a number greater than the population of the USA or the population of the planet – in order to bring the issue to the table for the media and every America. That kind of move would be an obvious sign of tampering, as compared to somebody who wanted to actually sway the election results who would simply only change a few thousand or hundred votes here and there.

Well, it happened. And, instead of a really, really big number they chose a number that would be equally suspicious: a negative number.

Sorry to go off topic but just want to give an 'atta-boy' on the colour scheme of this site......I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it's the easiest to read of any blog site I have visited to date.

BlindCynic #11

DESI (Diebold Election Systems, Inc.) lost a case in California, and by injunction was ordered not to use wireless.

1) The judgment of the court says "the the entry of the ... Permanent Injunction" (page 6, emphasis added).

2) "On or before January 14, 2005, counsel for the Qui Tams shall submit to counsel for Diebold a request for payment of the Qui Tams' expenses, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Government Code §12652(g)(8) and supporting materials." (page 3)

3) "Amount of Payment: DESI will pay a total of TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,600,000)" (p. 6).

4) Paragraph after paragraph states "DESI shall not ..."

5) One of the shall nots says:

"DESI shall not transmit, cause any county customer or county employee to transmit or assist any county customer or county employee in transmitting official election results by wireless electronic communication." (page 29, par. 't').
(link here).

Clearly Diebold lost the case, paid almost 3 million dollars, including attorney fees to the winners, and was ordered by permanent injunction to do and not to do many things.