Category Archives: Election 2009

US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams, Citizen Wells open thread, July 8, 2010

US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams

We now have multiple confirmations that the US Justice Department is corrupt and racially biased. J Christian Adams and others are speaking out. For well over a year Citizen Wells has been questioning the Justice Dept. and their actions.

Who in the US Justice Dept. made these decisions?

Wait until December 2008, after the elections, to arrest Rod Blagojevich.

Omit the following from the Indictment. The following statement was in the Criminal Complaint. “The Planning Board was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”

Focus the prosecution of Blagojevich on the selling of the senate seat.

Indicate the trial will end much earlier than expected (month and a half vs three to four months).

And

Why did Judge James Zagel speak out and say that Tony Rezko would be a bad witness?

Was he laying the groundwork for prosecutors not calling Rezko?

Stuart Levine was the main witness in the Rezko trial. Not only was Levine heavily enmeshed in crime and corruption, he was a long time drug user. Criminals and corruption figures are routinely used as witnesses.

February 18 2010, Citizen Wells open thread

The Citizen Wells blog is open to sincere discussions on a wide variety of topics. This open thread for today, February 18, 2010 is for “off topic” discussions. The “on topic” discussion thus far today is the Philip J Berg update so anything related to Obama eligibilty will be appropriate on that post. Sporadic personal comments are allowed as long as they do not attack commenters here.

To further elaborate, comments about Obama, Congress on a post like Berg’s would normally be appropriate. This is not a hard and fast rule and is intended to guide reasonable people.

Regarding 9/11 and various theories. I have an opinion, which I will refrain from expressing. I am not saying that this is not important. I have various priorities which I must adhere to. I would prefer that these comments be placed on an open thread.

Thanks and God bless.

Grassroots in Nebraska update, February 10 2010, Meeting February 11, Sovereignty Resolution, Open thread, Larry Sinclair, Government control of health care, Rezko, Blagojevich, John Brennan, MN senate race, Al Franken

Lest we forget.

There is much going on, we are on the road to saving this country from collapse and we must continue to fight to save it. There are many unfinished stories to write and to stay on top of. Here are just a few of them.

John Brennan’s controversial handing of terrorists, his controvesial past and his very suspicious ties to Obama.

The Rod Blagojevich trial, Tony Rezko sentencing and what potentially will be revealed about Obama.

The suspicious MN senate race and seat that Al Franken obtained.

The continuing struggle of Larry Sinclair to keep his story alive and the efforts to silence him.

Aside from the Tony Rezko trial and subsequent indictments of Obama associates such as Rod Blagojevich, Larry Sinclair and his story may have been the single biggest catalyst for many to begin questioning Obama early in 2008. He has not backed down. As many of you know, from the moment that Sinclair came out with his Youtube video in January 2008, he has constantly been attacked and no expense has been spared to shut him down. This is part of a much larger story of the MSM being complicit in hiding Obama’s past. We were not going to let that happen then and now.

I want to thank everybody for their efforts last night to help Larry Sinclair. We are all connected as Americans and as voyagers on this planet. We need each other and I believe one of the lessons of this life is awareness of the plight of others. Mother Teresa certainly exemplified that. Our efforts to save this country also bear this out as well as our efforts to look out for each other. Thanks to all who responded to my plea last night. It is not just about money. Caring, praying for and just doing what you can are what it is all about.

There is a new story that has developed out of the Larry Sinclair struggle. This story reveals what can happen when the government has control of our lives, in this case, Social Security. I have first hand knowledge of this. Just as I was writing this article, I received an email.

“Citizen Wells,  What do you think about a mass petition to US Senators
from Florida with everything that has happened to Larry and demand that his Social Security be reinstated.  I have had a battle royal with them myself, they have stopped and started mine three different due to letters being sent to them from my enemies.  If we could get a petition together including the facts from the beginning and have it hand delivered, I really believe it might make a difference.  They all know this SOB is illegal but want to push it from someone else’s proof.  this might work, especially through the Republican side.  Who Knows???  After all, with Larry’s illness, Obama with his dirty tricks is denying him medical care that will save his life.  Just A thought.  I can’t donate, but I can help push a petition and information of whats going on.”

Anyone out there think that we need to give the US Government control over our health care? 

Our friends in Nebraska have been doing their best to fight the bribery of Ben Nelson and prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful. From Grassroots in Nebraska.

Meeting Thursday Feb. 11th at IHop + BIG News on Sovereignty *All Hands on Deck*
InboxX

 Reply grassrootsne.com to Wendy
show details 4:16 AM (6 hours ago)
A Message from Grassroots in Nebraska
The email system improvement seems to be working!

As noted in a message from last week, we are having a meeting this Thursday night.
Here are the details:
Day / Date: Thursday, February 11
Time:           7:00 – 8:30pm
Location:     IHop Restaurant
                    4501 N. 27th
                    Lincoln

Click HERE for a map
Agenda:
Brief review of last quarter
Overview of “Watchdog” program, announcement about a coalition, and recruitment of volunteers
Status update on Sovereignty Resolution, Hearing, and related events now in the works
Status on OK State Representative Charles Key’s travel to Lincoln for Sovereignty testimony & a public event
Upcoming events: Sunday 2/14 Webinar with Laura Ebke, Social Media Training, A New America Premiere, April Tea Party, more
PLEASE RSVP IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND We are at about half of capacity at this time. With the developments on Sovereignty, we anticipate additional interest in the meeting.
If you would like to have dinner prior to the meeting, Wendy secured the room beginning at 6:00pm.

SOVEREIGNTY
Senator Tony Fulton’s Sovereignty Resolution has been scheduled for a hearing before the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, Friday, February 19 at 1:30pm.
It is currently the first item scheduded to be heard.
**WE NEED AS MANY BODIES AS WE CAN GET AT THAT HEARING –
THINK OF IT AS THE BIGGEST TEA PARTY WE’VE EVER PUT ON**

Linda Rohman and I had a meeting with Senator Fulton on February 1, prior to the hearing being scheduled, to offer what ever support we could in helping the bill to pass. We had a follow-up meeting yesterday to give a progress report on our plans.

Linda has had prior successful experience in coordinating legislative advocacy with the Nebraska Home Educators’ Association. A very restrictive homeschooling bill had been proposed which went no further because NCHEA coordinated testimony and rallied up HUGE attendance at the Education Committee hearing. 1200 homeschoolers descended on the Capitol that day.
*We need THAT kind of support for the Sovereignty Resolution*
Come to the meeting Thursday evening to hear about the effort underway to ensure the passage of the bill.
I will be putting out further details on Friday.

One aspect of these plans is now likely to involve testimony by Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key. Representative Key was the author of the Oklahoma Sovereignty Resolution, which was successfully passed over the OK Governor’s veto in 2009. He is considered a leader in the Sovereignty movement; his bill has been used as a “template” by other states. He has testified before other state’s legislatures, including most recently, Kansas in January.
We will have received additional information about Rep. Key’s ability to come to Lincoln by the Thursday.

In addition to the effort to get people to the hearing, we are planning associated events and we will need many volunteers.
We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. If you are not able to attend but would like to help with the effort, please let us know!
Thank you,
Shelli

Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes

Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
“From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification

Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009

“John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified

On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses

“We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
New York voting machines had viruses

The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.

From CBS News, October 17, 2007.
“Niki Tsongas Wins U.S. House Race”
“Tsongas said Wednesday that she expected to be sworn in on Thursday, and was eager to participate in the House vote scheduled for that day to override President Bush’s veto of expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance program.”

Read more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/politics/main3376886.shtml?source=related_story
From Fox News, October 18, 2007.
“Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas Sworn In as Congresswoman”
“Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort failed by 13 votes.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303180,00.html

Here is a recent letter addressed to John Kerry, Niki Tsongas and Paul Kirk.

“Are Massachusetts Democrats planning to obstruct the voice of the people?

To:
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Sen. Paul Kirk

January 9, 2010

I read in today’s Boston Herald that the Massachusetts Democrat organization is now planning to delay the certification of the January 19th election to keep Scott Brown out of the Senate until a health reform bill can be rushed through Congress.

This is unacceptable and I hope that you will take a strong stand AGAINST it.

When Sen Brown wins the election, the people will have spoken, and their voice must be heard, not stifled underneath layers of obstruction.

Rep Tsongas was voting in Washington ONE DAY after winning her special election.

So why is Massachusetts Sec. of State Galvin’s office saying that they will not certify the Jan 19 election for 10 days because that is the rule for ALL special elections?

This is CLEARLY NOT TRUE.”

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4500181596

From the Massachusetts Election Statutes

“PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS”

“CHAPTER 50. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES AND ELECTIONS
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
Chapter 50: Section 2. Results of election; determination
Section 2. In elections, the person receiving the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed and declared to be elected to such office; and if two or more are to be elected to the same office, the several persons, to the number to be chosen to such office, receiving the highest number of votes, shall be deemed and declared to be elected; but persons receiving the same number of votes shall not be deemed to be elected if thereby a greater number would be elected than are to be chosen. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all nominations and elections by ballot at primaries or caucuses. Nothing herein shall derogate from the provisions of chapter fifty-four A.”

“CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS
PENALTIES ON OFFICERS FOR OFFENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES, CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 56: Section 12. Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties
Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.”

Election Day Legal Summary by William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth

“Counting Votes
The process of counting the ballots differs depending on the type of voting equipment used. However, the basic requirements are the same. The clerk must record the final register number on the ballot box. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). A count must be made of the voters on both the check in and check out lists, and the voting lists must thereafter be sealed in an envelope. Id.; see also G. L. c. 54, § 107 (1998 ed.) (procedure for sealing voting lists and ballots; applicable to all of the materials required to be sealed as indicated below). The escrow ballots must be counted, placed in an envelope, the number placed on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must then be sealed. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).
The election officers shall canvass and count the ballots if paper ballots are used, and otherwise, the election officers shall read the vote totals from the counting device after the polls close, either by a printer mechanism or otherwise. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The ballots not able to be read by the machines must be hand counted. Id. Election officers may not hold a pen or any other kind of marking device during the counting of the ballots, except for the person actually recorded the votes. G. L. c. 54, § 80 (1998 ed.). Furthermore, such election officials may only use red pencils or red ink to record or tabulate votes. Id. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of a state election, city election, or a town election where official ballots are used, or of question submitted to the voters, the election officials must use the blank forms and apparatus provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. G. L. c. 54, § 104 (1998 ed.).
The unused and spoiled ballots must also be counted, placed in a container under seal, and the clerk must record the numbers. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The counted ballots are placed into a designated container, which is then sealed a certificate is affixed thereto stating that only ballots cast and no other ballots are contained therein. Id. The total tally sheets are placed in an envelope, sealed, and the warden and clerk also sign the outside of the envelope. Id. In communities using a central tabulation facility, the ballots will then be transported thereto, and then transmitted to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, § 105A (1998 ed.). In all other communities, the sealed envelopes and containers will be returned directly to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).”

http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_BComm/ELECTIONSummary.pdf

From the MA State Ethics Committee

“Section 23 contains standards of conduct applicable to all public employees.” 
 
“Political Activity
Section 23(b)(2) provides that a public employee may not use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value for himself or others.  This prohibition has been applied by the Commission to restrict a number of political activities involving, for example, campaign use of public resources, campaigning on the job, and certain types of solicitation and fundraising.”

“Section 23(b)(3)  Appearances of a Conflict of Interest”
“Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person.
For example, issues may arise under this section if a matter involving a non-immediate family relative, a close friend or business associate, or a civic organization in which a public employee is a member comes before the public employee in his official capacity, even if the public employee is not otherwise required to abstain under G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 or 19.  The public employee’s private relationship with such an individual or organization creates an impression that he could be biased in his official actions as a result of the private relationship.”

“Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.”
“Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.”
“(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;”

 http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ethhomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Ieth
William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, is responsible for elections

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elespeif/senatorincongressma.htm

Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time. 

Doug Hoffman, NY 23 election, New York Election Statutes, NY Law, Impossible numbers certified, Richard Hayes Phillips PhD, St. Lawrence County Board of Elections, Negative numbers, Phantom voters, Computerized voting

****  Important update below  ****

**** Correction by John Charlton, November 27, 2:30 PM ET ****

From The Gouverneur Times.

“Impossible Numbers Certified in NY-23

Written by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.   
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 15:32”

“The election results certified by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional District contain some numbers that are mathematically impossible.  These numbers were requested in person and transmitted by e-mail just hours before certification on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009.

For six election districts in St. Lawrence County (the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th districts in Canton, the 14th district in Massena, and the 2nd district in Oswegatchie) negative numbers appear in the column for “blank” ballots, known in other states as “undervotes.”

Blank vote counts are ballots in which the voter did not choose any candidate in a given election and are determined by subtracting the total number of votes cast for the candidates from the number of voters who completed ballots.  The remaining number would be those voters who didn’t cast a vote for that election.

In Canton’s 7th district, the certified results show a total of 148 ballots cast. The results of those votes were counted as 88 votes for Owens, 11 votes for Scozzafava, and 80 votes for Hoffman.  The problem is that these numbers add up to 179 votes counted for the candidates, and there were only 148 ballots cast;  St. Lawrence County certified these numbers to the state as accurate with the number of ‘blank’ ballots reported as -31.

The Board of Elections stated repeatedly that their numbers add up, and strictly speaking, they do.  But negative numbers should not be required to make this happen. 

Election analysts refer to this phenomenon as “phantom voters,” because they are apparitions.  They do not actually exist.  There can never be more votes counted for any office than the number of actual voters who cast ballots.  There could be one or two, if on occasion an actual voter forgot to sign the poll book, but never 31.”

“Fundamentally, the fault does not lie with the Board of Elections, although perhaps they should have noticed the negative numbers before certifying them.  The fault lies with computerized vote counting and our willingness to trust it.
It has already been reported that zero votes were incorrectly reported in numerous precincts in Jefferson, Madison, and Oswego Counties for one of the Congressional candidates, and that voting machine failures occurred in dozens of polling places in at least three different counties.
In St. Lawrence County, ballots from eight polling places had to be hand counted due to voting machine failure.  Machines in Louisville, Waddington, Clare, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on Election Day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time”.  Machines in Hermon, Lawrence, Colton’s 2nd district, and Massena’s 1st and 2nd districts failed to print the results. Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impoundment of malfunctioning machines but released the order on November 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House health bill on November 7th.
Electronic vote counting is much too vulnerable to failure and/or manipulation.  If a mechanical (lever-style) machine breaks down, the failure is visible, and only the one machine is affected.  With electronic vote counting, one person can change the outcome of an election and not leave a trace.  This has been shown over and over again in scientific studies, including those commissioned by the Secretaries of State in California and Ohio.
But more than that, how can we have a democracy if we cannot know if the vote count is accurate?  If election officials cannot know, and if the candidates cannot know, and if the voters cannot know that the official results are true and correct, why even have an election?  Why go through the motions?”

Read more:

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8425:impossible-numbers-certified-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175

Several days ago, as I am prone to do, I read the New York State Election statutes. Before the election in 2008 I read almost half of the 50 states election laws. Here are some of those statutes regarding voting irregularities. Read them and decide if any of them apply to the chicanery that has taken place.
” §  17-106.  Misconduct  of election officers. Any election officer who
  wilfully refuses to accord to any duly  accredited  watcher  or  to  any
  voter  or candidate any right given him by this chapter, or who wilfully
  violates any provision of the election law relative to the  registration
  of  electors or to the taking, recording, counting, canvassing, tallying
  or certifying of votes, or who wilfully neglects or refuses  to  perform
  any  duty  imposed  on  him  by  law,  or  is guilty of any fraud in the
  execution of the duties of his office,  or  connives  in  any  electoral
  fraud, or knowingly permits any such fraud to be practiced, is guilty of
  a felony.

§  17-108.  False  affidavits;  mutilation,  destruction  or  loss  of
  registry list or affidavits. 1. Any person who wilfully  loses,  alters,
  destroys or mutilates the list of voters or registration poll ledgers in
  any  election  district,  or  a  certified  copy thereof, is guilty of a
  misdemeanor.
    2. An applicant for registration who shall make, incorporate or  cause
  to  be  incorporated  a  material  false statement in an application for
  registration, or in any challenge or other  affidavit  required  for  or
  made  or filed in connection with registration or voting, and any person
  who knowingly takes a  false  oath  before  a  board  of  inspectors  of
  election,  and  any  person  who  makes  a material false statement in a
  medical  certificate  or  an  affidavit  filed  in  connection  with  an
  application for registration, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    3. A person who shall wilfully suppress, mutilate or alter, or, except
  as  authorized  by  this chapter, shall destroy, any signed challenge or
  other affidavit required  for  or  made  or  filed  in  connection  with
  registration or voting, and any person who, except as authorized by this
  chapter,  shall  remove such an affidavit from the place of registration
  or polling place, is guilty of a felony.
    4. A person other than the applicant who, prior to the filing  of  the
  application,  shall  willfully suppress, mutilate, materially alter, or,
  except as authorized by this chapter, destroy a signed  application  for
  registration by mail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-120.  Misconduct  in  relation  to certificate of nomination and
  official ballot. A person who:
    1. Falsely makes or makes oath to, or fraudulently defaces or destroys
  a certificate of nomination or any part thereof; or,
    2. Files or receives for filing a certifiate  of  nomination,  knowing
  that any part thereof was falsely made; or,
    3.  Suppresses  a certificate of nomination which has been duly filed,
  or any part thereof; or,
    4. Forges or falsely makes the official indorsement of any ballot; or,
    5. Having charge of official ballots, destroys, conceals or suppresses
  them, except as provided by the law. is guilty of a felony.

§  17-124.  Failure  to  deliver  official ballots. Any person who has
  undertaken to deliver official ballots to  any  city,  town  or  village
  clerk,  or  inspector  as  authorized  by  this chapter, and neglects or
  refuses to do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-128. Violations of election law by public officer or employee. A
  public officer or employee who knowingly and wilfully omits, refuses  or
  neglects  to  perform  any  act  required  of him by this chapter or who
  knowingly and wilfully refuses to permit the doing of any act authorized
  by this chapter or who knowingly  and  wilfully  hinders  or  delays  or
  attempts  to  hinder  or delay the performance of such an act is, if not
  otherwise provided by law, guilty of a felony.

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:
    1.  Acts  as  an  inspector  of election or as a clerk at an election,
  without being able to read or write the  English  language,  or  without
  being otherwise qualified to hold such office; or,
    2.  Being  an inspector of election, knowingly and wilfully permits or
  suffers any person to vote who is not entitled to vote thereat; or,
    3. Wilfully and unlawfully obstructs, hinders or delays,  or  aids  or
  assists  in  obstructing  or  delaying  any  elector  on  his  way  to a
  registration or polling place, or while he is attempting to register  or
  vote; or,
    4.  Electioneers on election day or on days of registration within one
  hundred feet, as defined herein, from a polling place. Said  prohibition
  shall  not  apply  to  a  building  or room that has been maintained for
  political purposes at  least  six  months  prior  to  said  election  or
  registration  days,  except  that  no  political  displays,  placards or
  posters shall be exhibited therefrom. For the purposes of this  section,
  the  one  hundred feet distance shall be deemed to include a one hundred
  foot radial measured from the entrances, designated by the inspectors of
  elections, to a building where the election  or  registration  is  being
  held.
    5. Removes any official ballot from a polling place before the closing
  of the polls; or,
    6.  Unlawfully  goes  within  the  guard-rail  of any polling place or
  unlawfully remains within such guard-rail after having been commanded to
  remove therefrom by any inspector of election; or,
    7. Enters a voting booth with any voter or remains in a  voting  booth
  while  it  is occupied by any voter, or opens the door of a voting booth
  when the same is occupied by a voter, with the intent to  watch  such  a
  voter  while  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  his  ballot,  except as
  authorized by this chapter; or,
    8. Being or claiming to be a voter, permits any other person to be  in
  a  voting booth with him while engaged in the preparation of his ballot,
  except as authorized by this chapter, without openly protesting  against
  and asking that such person be ejected; or,
    9.  Having  lawfully  entered  a  voting booth with a voter, requests,
  persuades or induces such voter to vote any particular ballot or for any
  particular candidate, or makes  or  keeps  any  memorandum  of  anything
  occurring  within  the  booth,  or  directly  or  indirectly, reveals to
  another the name of any candidate voted for by such voter; or,
    10. Shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so
  as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same; or,
    11. Places any mark  upon  his  ballot,  or  does  any  other  act  in
  connection  with his ballot with the intent that it may be identified as
  the one voted by him; or,
    12. Places any mark upon, or does any other act in connection  with  a
  ballot  or  paster  ballot,  with  the  intent that it may afterwards be
  identified as having been voted by any particular person; or,
    13. Receives an official ballot from any person other than one of  the
  clerks or inspectors having charge of the ballots; or,
    14.  Not being an inspector of election or clerk, delivers an official
  ballot to a voter; or,
    15. Not being an inspector of election,  receives  from  any  voter  a
  ballot prepared for voting; or,
    16.  Fails to return to the inspectors of election, before leaving the
  polling place or going outside the guard-rail, each ballot not voted  by
  him; or,
    17.  Wilfully  defaces,  injures,  mutilates, destroys or secretes any
  voting maching which belongs to any municipality or board  of  elections
  for use at elections, and any person who commits or attempts to commit a
  fraud in the use of any such voting machine during election; or,
    18.  Not  being  lawfully authorized, makes or has in his possession a
  key to a voting maching which has been  adopted  and  will  be  used  in
  elections; or,
    19.  Not  being  an inspector or clerk of election, handles a voted or
  unvoted ballot or stub thereof,  during  the  canvass  of  votes  at  an
  election; or,
    20.  Intentionally  opens an absentee voter’s envelope or examines the
  contents thereof after the receipt of  the  envelope  by  the  board  of
  elections and before the close of the polls at the election; or,
    21.  Wilfully  disobeys any lawful command of the board of inspectors,
  or any member thereof; or
    22. Induces or attempts to induce any poll clerk, election  inspector,
  election  coordinator,  or  officer,  clerk  or employee of the board of
  elections discharging any duty or performing any act  required  or  made
  necessary by the election law, to do any act in violation of his duty or
  in violation of the election law; or,
    23.  Not  having  been appointed or named an inspector of elections or
  clerk and not having taken the  oath  for  such  office  shall  wear  or
  display  any  button,  badge  or  emblem  identifying  or  purporting to
  identify such person as an inspector of election or clerk, is guilty  of
  a misdemeanor.

§   17-136.  False  returns;  unlawful  acts  respecting  returns.  An
  inspector or clerk of an election who intentionally makes,  or  attempts
  to  make,  a  false  canvass  of  the ballots cast thereat, or any false
  statement of the result of a canvass, though not signed by a majority of
  the inspectors, or any person who induces or attempts to induce any such
  inspector or clerk to do so, is guilty of a felony.

§  17-148.  Bribery  or intimidation of elector in military service of
  United States. Any person  who,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  bribery,
  menace  or  any other corrupt means, controls, or attempts to control an
  elector of this state enlisted in the military  service  of  the  United
  States, in the exercise of his rights under the election law, or annoys,
  injures or punishes him for the manner in which he exercises such right,
  is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 §  17-166.  Penalty.  Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under this
  article shall for a first offense be punished by  imprisonment  for  not
  more  than  one  year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars
  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  both  such  fine   and
  imprisonment.  Any  person  who,  having been convicted of a misdemeanor
  under this article, shall thereafter be convicted of another misdemeanor
  under this article, shall be guilty of a felony.

 § 17-168. Crimes against the elective franchise not otherwise provided
  for.  Any  person  who  knowingly and wilfully violates any provision of
  this chapter, which violation is not specifically covered by any of  the
  previous sections of this article, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-170.  Destroying  or  delaying  election  returns.  A  messenger
  appointed by authority of law to receive and carry a report, certificate
  or certified copy of  any  statement  relating  to  the  result  of  any
  election,   who  wilfully  mutilates,  tears,  defaces,  obliterates  or
  destroys the same, or does any other act which prevents the delivery  of
  it  as  required by law; and a person who takes away from such messenger
  any such report, certificate or certified copy, with intent  to  prevent
  its  delivery,  or  who  wilfully  does  any injury or other act in this
  section specified, is guilty of a felony.

 NY State Election Statutes:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

****  Update  ****

John Charlton of The Post & Email has provided some important facts.

“15,620 Missing Votes are disturbing

Let’s take a look at each race, considering simply the total votes counted, and comparing this to the total votes in the Congressional race on the same ballot:

For the State Supreme Court race:  39, 969 votes

For the NY-23 Special Election: . . . . 24, 349 votes

For County Coroner: . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 664 votes

District Attorney: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 541 votes

These are the races which all used the same 102 voting machines.  Since the entire county voted for each race you’d expect nearly identical numbers, if there were identical interest in the different races.  And while that nearly never happens, the Owen-Hoffman-Scozzafava race was surely the most followed in the national and local press.

That 15,620 more votes were cast in the State Supreme Court Race than in the Congressional Race, seems simply unbelievable. That means that nearly 40% of the voters who voted, cast no vote in the Congressional Race! Unbelievable!”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/election-irregularities-in-ny-23rd-too-great-to-be-ignored/

 

**** Correction by John Charlton, November 27, 2:30 PM ET ****

“4,200 Votes in the NY-23 race are questionable
Let’s take a look at each county-wide race, in St. Lawrence Country, considering simply the total votes counted, and comparing this to the total votes in the Congressional race on the same ballot:
For the NY-23 Special Election: . . . . . 24, 349 votes
For the State Supreme Court race:  39, 969 votes or potentially 19,986 votes*
District Attorney: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 541 votes
For County Coroner: . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 664 votes or potentially 14,832 votes*

These are the races which all used the same 102 voting machines.  Since the entire county voted for each race you’d expect nearly identical numbers, if there were identical interest in the different races.  And while that nearly never happens, the Owen-Hoffman-Scozzafava race was surely the most followed in the national and local press.”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/election-irregularities-in-ny-23rd-too-great-to-be-ignored/

 

Doug Hoffman, No recount, Election over, Sequoia voting machines, Count errors, Voter fraud, Nancy Pelosi, NY district 23, Bill Owens broke 4 campaign promises

Doug Hoffman, who narrowly lost the congressional race in NY District 23 to Bill Owens, has declared that the election is over and there will be no recount. This comes after numerous errors were committed election night, Nancy Pelosi certifying Bill Owens the winner, before he was certified by the state of New York, in time to vote for the Health Care Bill, and known software bugs or tampering with of the controversial Sequoia voting machines.

Doug Hoffman, on one level this was your decision to make. However, we are in different times. This is not the country your parents knew.

We have entered a new world, a post Nazi takeover, Orwellian world where being polite or naively playing the gentleman card as Nevile Chamberlain did with the Germans, will result in catastrophe. On a higher level, Mr. Hoffman, this is the decision of New York residents and ultimately the American people. Regardless of your actions or your next move, this serious breach of the public trust, must be investigated. As I and others have stated, Barack Obama, the Obama camp and Obama thugs, including, but not limited to ACORN and SEIU, stole the Democratic primaries and caucuses through election fraud and intimidation. With warnings issued early in 2008 about voting machines and possible control of them by Chavez’s Venezuela or muslim countries, and now the evidence from the NY District 23 election, God only knows the extent that voting machines altered vote counts in 2008. We must protect our elections going forward.

We must have an investigation. 

  

Dear Friends,
Today, Tuesday, November 24, 2009, it is with a heavy heart that we declare this election over.  We will formally end this election and not ask for a recount.  This was a difficult choice to make because so many people have put their faith, hope and aspirations into our campaign.
 Yes, there seem to have been many vote counting problems, missed vote counts and, as was recently reported by the Gouvernour Times, software problems in the computerized voting machines. Despite these incidents, I do not believe the voters of NY-23, or New Yorkers in general, would be well-served by a disruptive and costly recount that would most likely not change the election outcome.
 I know many are disappointed and even angry. To those I say now is not the time to look back, but to focus on the future and ensure that next year we win back this district decidedly. Know this decision was not an easy one. I did not want to let down those who worked so hard, donated so much and shared their enthusiasm for retaking our country with common-sense conservative values.
And rest assured, our energies are now directed toward 2010. This election, in which a third party candidate narrowly lost, showed that principles do matter.  Special interests do have an Achilles’ heel, the American people. Main-street conservatism’s voice is now echoing through the government chambers and boardrooms that shape America. By most measures, this campaign was a success and I have you all to thank for this. And all of us have to thank the Conservative Party of New York State for nominating a candidacy like ours.
We take away lessons from this year’s campaign that will make us stronger and more competitive in the future. Next time we will be better prepared. Many people forget that our campaign only began in earnest three months ago. Most campaigns of this stature take at least a year to prepare. In three months, we almost toppled an entrenched political system and successfully defied the conventional thinking of the elite political punditry. Citizen government is making a comeback in America.
I thank everyone who participated in this campaign and urge each one of you to stand with me in the future. We have a calling that we must answer. My opponent in this race quickly abandoned the promises he made to his voters. Within the first hour of being sworn in by Nancy Pelosi, Bill Owens broke 4 campaign promises — so much for change in Washington. We must resoundingly defeat him next year and, with your help, I promise to help restore our nation’s faith in elected officials when we win.
But there is more to do than just win back NY-23 in 2010. We must work to help other like-minded citizen candidates win across the country.  We need to make time to help other candidates who are working for the principles we hold dear — other fiscal, common-sense conservatives.  Together we can successfully take back our great nation, one legislator and one member at a time. We need more than one common-sense conservative voice in the echo chamber of liberal, spend thrift cacophony if we are to redirect our great country.
I would also like to commend those election commission officials who worked tirelessly and may have taken offense to an unfortunate and poorly worded fundraising email that was sent out toward the end of our campaign.  As we tried to make sense of the false vote counts and stories of software viruses in the voting machines, we never intended to imply the election commissioners had somehow acted improperly. This was never our intention and, on the contrary, the election commissioners went above and beyond to uphold their duty to ensure a fair election took place. I owe them a debt of gratitude for all they have done.
So where to now? Full speed ahead to 2010. This gives us time to carefully articulate and communicate thoughtful positions on issues that impact the great people of our district and ensure that our campaign promises are NOT broken.  Best of all, it allows me to work hand-in-hand with the many supporters who shared their ideas, their concerns and their dreams with me.
We need to continue to stand united because we cannot spend our way out of recession or tax our way to prosperity. We must continue to fight to protect our liberties and protect those who are yet to be born.  We must protect our country against terrorists and protect the sanctity of marriage. We must fix our corrupt tax code, our immigration policy and our educational system.  Most of all, we must defend the free enterprise system that made America the greatest and most prosperous country in the world.  Although I’m conceding an election today, I do it with the certainty that we will win back this seat a year from now.  I am certain of this because our mission is too big, the country’s problems too dire and the American people are too smart.
Thank you for all you have done and will continue to do. “We the people” are retaking America.

Doug Hoffman, this is bigger than you or the election in NY. We are at a crucial point in the history of this country. The actions we take now will determine the security and pursuit of life, liberty and happiness that our descendants and ultimately the entire world will enjoy.

Mr. Hoffman, you have chosen to end the election. I urge you to not end the cause.

Wells

Doug Hoffman race, Sequoia voting machine, Election fraud?, NY District 23, Beta test, Pilot program, Leftists fraud, Princeton University study, Voting machine fraud

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

Early in the 2008 election cycle there was widespread concern about voter fraud and intimidation. It is believed by many, including myself, that Obama and his thugs stole the Democratic primaries and caucuses. There has been much discussion about the 2010 elections and continued voter fraud and suspect voting machines. Earlier today the Citizen Wells blog reported on more suspicion about the NY District 23 congressional race, narrowly lost by Doug Hoffman.

“We in the 23rd were the subject of a ‘beta test, pilot program’, in the midst of a very important election. There were many problems as a result of this ‘test’. The integrity, credibility and voter confidence in this election is severely challenged as a result. A manual hand count needs to be accomplished in order to assure the voters that the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines worked and worked accurately. Not doing so will forever taint the results of this ‘beta test’ election as well as future elections.

It is not a matter of who won or who lost… it is a matter of our constitutional right to a fair, open and honest election process without vendors protecting their interests (Sequoia), or a State covering their collective <actions>… at the expense of the voting process itself.”
Sequoia voting machines suspect

From American Thinker, August 16, 2009.

“Do you really believe that the next elections in 2010 and particularly 2012 will be the solution to the current socialist infestation?  Do you think that people who are as addicted to power as Obama, Emmanuel, and Axelrod will passively accept their ouster in a fair general election?  After fighting the good fight, will they gracefully withdraw from power?”

“Leftists do not see election fraud or other dirty tactics as illegal, immoral, or unethical.  This is because the socialist agenda is for the good of the nation, a noble cause to promote and protect at any cost.  In other words, the ends justify the means.  In the final analysis, it is difficult to predict what they are capable of.  The rules don’t apply to them.  We can only study the actions of other socialist leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez, and make assumptions.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/beware_the_counterrevolution.html

Voting machine fraud was not my highest priority early in 2008, but it was a concern. From some email exchanges:

Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM

“Have you investigated the companies and software engineers that
provide voting machines and support in this country?
Wells”

Response.
Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Haven’t taken a look at them, truthfully… I am worried that the companies tend not to open source their software, though, as scrutiny should drive out bugs in software and demonstrate transparency and honesty in the system.

From another person.

Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM

“and that several of the voting machine companies have very deep Muslim and Venezuelan ties.”

Notice how well informed and ahead of the curve these great CW commenters are:

Submitted on 2009/07/23 at 10:28am   Nancy

“The electronic voting machines are ‘Sequoia’. They are used in NJ. Princeton Univ. did some tests & found they could be easily hacked into within a few minutes to change voting results.”

Submitted on 2009/11/03 at 9:43am   Linda from NY

“Coming Elections: At least 20 states will be using electronic Sequoia voting systems (A Venezuelan company with strong ties to Hugo Chavez) at polling stations”

Submitted on 2009/11/05 at 9:12am   Truth Now

“C.W.
Please investigate
http://www.repubx.com
2 articles on Sequoia software,Venz.company,Hugo Chavez connections.
In 8 states now more to come,used in many New York voting machines
Can alter votes in 5 minutes.
Is this why Hoffman lost?
Used also in Last yrs.Presidential elections
Needs to be exposed
All COPY AND PRINT ARTICLES AND NEEDS INVESTIGATING ASAP”

Submitted on 2009/11/16 at 10:33am   Patriot Dreamer

“I do not have a Facebook account (and have no interest in getting one), but the following excert was posted on Doug

Hoffman’s Facebook page:

“Our Campaign Is Not Over Yet!

So many people have written hoping we continue the fight, count every ballot and make sure no one steals this election.

Acorn and the unions did their best to try and say that the conservative movement was a sham. Rest assured they will not succeed. On Election Night the information we received was far different from what we received this week. They will not silence our voice that easily!

There is also the fact that NY is using the Sequoia Voting Systems machines. Princeton University

(http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/) cited them as having been susceptible to voter fraud in the past. There’s a reason why the State of California BANNED them. Yet we must now prepare for this possibility as well.

We are working to get the message out that this election is far from over! Our campaign and the New York Conservative Party is watching this recount and preparing for our next course of action. On Friday Doug appeared on Cavuto on FoxNews and will appear on Glen Beck’s radio show on Monday. It is a call-to-arms for conservatives. Help however you can; post blogs, comment on websites and donate to help us mount a challenge if need be!”

h/t:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2387250/posts

Submitted on 2009/11/16 at 1:01pm   bob strauss
“Glennmcgahee, I read a story a while back about the voting machines in Honduras. They were preloaded with enough votes to guarantee Zelaya’s victory.
The voting machines were Sequoia software also, and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela company designed that software.”

Submitted on 2009/11/19 at 7:01pm   John Charlton

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/virus-introduced-into-sequoia-voting-machines-in-ny-23/

“Virus in voting machines: analysis of salient facts points to Dominion/Sequoia”

Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

“Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the
Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine

by Andrew W. Appel1, Maia Ginsburg1, Harri Hursti,
Brian W. Kernighan1, Christopher D. Richards1, and Gang Tan2.
1Princeton University     2Lehigh University

The AVC Advantage voting machine is made by Sequoia Voting Systems and has been used in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other states. Pursuant to a Court Order in New Jersey Superior Court, we examined this voting machine as well as its computer program code. On October 17, 2008 the Court permitted us to release to the public a redacted version of our report.

Public Report: Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine (click here)
This report was originally submitted to the Court on September 2 in the form of an expert-witness report by Andrew W. Appel. The Court has released this redacted version to the public. The version we release here, linked in boldface above, is the same as the Court’s redacted version, but with a few introductory paragraphs about the court case, Gusciora v. Corzine.

Videos: click here. We can now release the 90-minute evidentiary video that we submitted to the Court on September 2nd. We are seeking the Court’s permission to release a much shorter video which demonstrates the most important points much more succinctly.

Frequently Asked Questions (“Why are you releasing this just 3 weeks before the election?” etc.)

What you need to know:

The AVC Advantage contains a computer. If someone installs a different computer program for that computer to run, it can deliberately add up the votes wrong. It’s easy to make a computer program that steals votes from one party’s candidates, and gives them to another, while taking care to make the total number of votes come out right. It’s easy to make this program take care to cheat only on election day when hundreds of ballots are cast, and not cheat when the machine is being tested for accuracy. This kind of fraudulent computer program can modify every electronic “audit trail” in the computer. Without voter-verified paper ballots, it’s extremely hard to know whether a voting machine (such as the AVC Advantage) is running the right program.

It takes about 7 minutes, using simple tools, to replace the computer program in the AVC Advantage with a fraudulent program that cheats. We demonstrate this on the video.

Even when it’s not hacked to deliberately steal votes, the AVC Advantage has a few user-interface flaws. Therefore, sometimes the AVC Advantage does not properly record the intent of the voter. All known voting technologies have imperfect user interfaces, although some are worse than others. The public should beware of the argument that some people make, that “we should not replace the AVC Advantage with voting method X, because X is imperfect.” The AVC Advantage’s susceptibility to installation of a fraudulent vote-counting program is far more than an imperfection: it is a fatal flaw.

What should be done? Most technology experts who study the security of voting methods recommend precinct-count optical-scan voting, with by-hand audits of the optical-scan ballots from randomly selected precincts. We agree with this consensus. In fact, most states are moving in the right direction: 32 states now vote with voter-verified paper ballots (mostly optical-scan, some with DRE+VVPAT). Only a minority of states are still using paperless DRE voting machines such as the AVC Advantage. We recommend that those states adopt precinct-count optical scan.

Executive Summary of the Report

I. The AVC Advantage 9.00 is easily “hacked,” by the installation of fraudulent firmware. This is done by prying just one ROM chip from its socket and pushing a new one in, or by replacement of the Z80 processor chip. We have demonstrated that this “hack” takes just 7 minutes to perform.

The fraudulent firmware can steal votes during an election, just as its criminal designer programs it to do. The fraud cannot practically be detected. There is no paper audit trail on this machine; all electronic records of the votes are under control of the firmware, which can manipulate them all simultaneously.

II. Without even touching a single AVC Advantage, an attacker can install fraudulent firmware into many AVC Advantage machines by viral propagation through audio-ballot cartridges. The virus can steal the votes of blind voters, can cause AVC Advantages in targeted precincts to fail to operate; or can cause WinEDS software to tally votes inaccurately. (WinEDS is the program, sold by Sequoia, that each County’s Board of Elections uses to add up votes from all the different precincts.)

III. Design flaws in the user interface of the AVC Advantage disenfranchise voters, or violate voter privacy, by causing votes not to be counted, and by allowing pollworkers to commit fraud.

IV. AVC Advantage Results Cartridges can be easily manipulated to change votes, after the polls are closed but before results from different precincts are cumulated together.

V. Sequoia’s sloppy software practices can lead to error and insecurity. Wyle’s ITA reports are not rigorous, and are inadequate to detect security vulnerabilities. Programming errors that slip through these processes can miscount votes and permit fraud.

VI. Anomalies noticed by County Clerks in the New Jersey 2008 Presidential Primary were caused by two different programming errors on the part of Sequoia, and had the effect of disenfranchising voters.

VII. The AVC Advantage has been produced in many versions. The fact that one version may have been examined for certification does not give grounds for confidence in the security and accuracy of a different version. New Jersey should not use any version of the AVC Advantage that it has not actually examined with the assistance of skilled computer-security experts.

VIII. The AVC Advantage is too insecure to use in New Jersey. New Jersey should immediately implement the 2005 law passed by the Legislature, requiring an individual voter-verified record of each vote cast, by adopting precinct-count optical-scan voting equipment.”

Read more:

http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/

Doug Hoffman, NY district 23 election, Update, November 23, 2009, Voting machine failure, Virus, Ghost in the Machine, Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast voting machines, pilot program

The spectre of voting machine failure and voter fraud still lingers over the NY District 23 election between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens.

The Gouverneur Times is reporting today, November 23, 2009.

“Ghost in the Machine”

“John Conklin, Communications Director for the New York State Board of Elections issued a statement Friday evening alleging that an article published by our on-line newspaper, The Gouverneur Times, was factually incorrect. This statement was reported Friday in the Watertown Daily Times.

Mr. Conklin’s rebuke is a very misleading press release issued on the behalf of the NY SBoE.”

“Below is a brief review of the November 3rd, 2009 elections…

In Lewis, Schuyler and Seneca Counties, ImageCast ballot scanners failed.

In Broome County, hand counts revealed the ImageCast ballot scanners in five voting districts had miscounted votes. In some cases the machines rejected valid ballots.

In Cayuga County, again ImageCast ballot scanners crashed. Some rejected valid ballots that other machines accepted.

In Fulton County, ImageCast ballot scanners were impounded after it was found they were not working properly.

In Steuben County, the ImageCast ballot scanner in the first ward malfunctioned.

In Oneida County, at the Vernon polling place, none of the three ImageCast optical scanners would operate.

In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that “human error” resulted in their “mistakenly” entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though a recanvas of the computer counts showed that Hoffman was actually leading.

In St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on Election Day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time”. Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impound of malfunctioning machines but released the order on Nov. 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House Health bill on November 7th.

Jude Seymour, a reporter for the Watertown Daily Times, declared the Gouverneur Times story on the ‘virus’ issue a ‘Hoax’. He referred  to a prior article he had authored on the 13th of November, where he quotes Anna E. Svizzero, the state’s Elections Operation Director in her claims that the state’s pilot program “was very successful.”

The State elections on November 3rd, using the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines were a ‘pilot program’.

Mr.Lipari states that the corrective action applied was modification of the configuration file; but according to a technician for Dominion, the owners of the ImageCast system, “the insertion of a line of code, into the source code of the machines” was the corrective action taken.

Regarding what was done to correct the ‘memory’ problem just days immediately prior to the elections; pursuant to State Election Law 7-202.2, “When any change is made in the operation or material of any feature or component of any machine or system which has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this section, such machine or system must be submitted for re-examination and re-approval pursuant to the provisions of subdivision one of this section”

Subdivision one states that… “The state board of elections shall cause the machine or system to be examined and a report of the examination to be made and filed in the office of the state board. Such examination shall include a determination as to whether the machine or system meets the requirements of section 7-202 of this title and a thorough review and testing of any electronic or computerized features of the machine or system…. Any form of voting machine or system not so approved, cannot be used in any election.”

“Given the now known number of machine failures that occurred on election day, due in part to the ‘known bug’ in the software, it is apparent that a thorough review and testing of the ImageCast machines utilized throughout the 23rd congressional district and other districts throughout the State of New York was not accomplished according to the explicit requirements of New York State Election Law.”

We in the 23rd were the subject of a ‘beta test, pilot program’, in the midst of a very important election. There were many problems as a result of this ‘test’. The integrity, credibility and voter confidence in this election is severely challenged as a result. A manual hand count needs to be accomplished in order to assure the voters that the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines worked and worked accurately. Not doing so will forever taint the results of this ‘beta test’ election as well as future elections.

It is not a matter of who won or who lost… it is a matter of our constitutional right to a fair, open and honest election process without vendors protecting their interests (Sequoia), or a State covering their collective <actions>… at the expense of the voting process itself.

“We the people…”;

One person, One vote.”

Read more:

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8311:ghost-in-the-machine&catid=98:publishers-corner&Itemid=206

John Charlton of the Post & Email provides some background on the voting machines.

“COMPANY WITH TIES TO CHAVEZ UPDATED SOFTWARE DAYS BEFORE ELECTION TO “FIX” THE PROBLEM”
 “Nathan Barker of The Gouverner Times has reported a series of facts which seemingly support Dough Hoffman’s allegations that there was massive Election fraud in the special election for the NY-23 House seat:

1. The software used in the voting machines is made by a company controlled by the Venezuelan dictator, Chavez;

2. A virus was found in the machines used in one district, only days before the election;

3. Other districts were not informed of the existence of the virus;

4. The voting machines lack security for introduction of multiple ballots at a time,

5. And election officials lack expertise to determine whether the company’s fix of the problems was done in a manner which returned the voting machines’ capacity to tally impartially election-night results.”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/virus-introduced-into-sequoia-voting-machines-in-ny-23/

I have been getting warnings about these voting machines, software and the ties to Chavez and Venezuela for at least a year.

We must demand an investigation.

Doug Hoffman, Virus in the voting machines, New York District 23, Congressional race, Bill Owens, Nancy Pelosi, Votes should be recounted

We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23”

“GOUVERNEUR, NY – The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus – tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the “virus” was fixed by a Technical Support representative from Dominion, the manufacturer.  The Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems representative “reprogrammed” their machines in time for them to use in the Nov. 3rd Special Election. None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the “reprogramming” that occurred in Hamilton County.

Republican Commissioner Judith Peck refused to speculate on whether the code that governs the counts could have been tampered with.  She indicated that “as far as I know, the machine in question was not functioning properly and was repaired” by the technician.

Commissioners in other counties have stated that they were not made aware of the virus issue in Hamilton County.  In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that “human error” resulted in their “mistakenly” entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though the recanvas of the computer counts now show that Hoffman is leading.  Jefferson County has not conducted a manual paper ballot recount. 

 

 

 St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on election day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time,” and that they experienced several paper jams as well.  The voted ballots that could not be scanned were placed in an Emergency Lock Box and re-scanned later at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections.  Election officials in St. Lawrence County were given no advance knowledge of a potential virus in the system.

At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it’s possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the ‘virus’ but only a few malfunctioned as a result.  The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to “the virus” discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute “reprogramming” by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves.  A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.”

Read more:

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8144:virus-in-the-voting-machines-tainted-results-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175

Thanks to commenter Greg Goss.

Doug Hoffman, Acorn voter fraud, Democrats and unions tampered with votes, New York 23rd Congressional District, Nancy Pelosi, Votes not certified

It does not take a rocket scientist to question the validity of the vote counts and procedural handling of the New York 23rd Congressional District race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens. Nancy Pelosi conveniently certified Owens as the winner and then Owens voted for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Now Hoffman is accusing ACORN, the Democrats and unions of tampering with the vote counts.

“Hoffman: ACORN, unions, Dems tampered with NY-23 election”

“With his prospect of winning the 23rd Congressional District race now almost zero, Conservative Party candidate Douglas L. Hoffman suggested Wednesday in a letter that “ACORN, the unions and the Democratic Party” “tampered” with results to deny him victory.

Mr. Hoffman provided no evidence to support his claims, but asked fellow conservatives to send donations his way to “ensure every vote is counted.”

Jerry O. Eaton, Jefferson County Republican elections commissioner, called Mr. Hoffman’s assertion “absolutely false.”

“No one has touched those ballots or has access to those ballots except board of elections staff – and in a bipartisan manner,” he said.

Mr. Hoffman trails Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, by 2,832 votes after 42.6 percent of absentee ballots districtwide were reported Wednesday. Officials are expected to count the 4,262 ballots remaining by Monday.

Mr. Hoffman told conservatives he was “forced to concede” on election night after learning he trailed by 5,335 votes and that he “barely won” his “stronghold in Oswego County.”

Oswego County did not have full results on election night because of what William W. Scriber, a Democratic elections commissioner there, called a “perfect storm” of problems. He said the elections board had assigned staffers to take results for specific districts, but the phone system redirected poll workers’ calls to the wrong people.

Mr. Scriber said the board decided to close its public reporting system early – with nine districts still unreported – as a safeguard.”

“Mr. Hoffman lead Oswego County by 500 votes when elections officials stopped taking results. When elections officials recanvassed the machine vote, the candidate’s lead was upgraded to 1,748.

Mr. Hoffman said the “phone system foul-up” and “inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results” “sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook.””

Read more:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091118/BLOGS09/911189972