Tag Archives: Election Fraud

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/

Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz et al, Connecticut, Secretary of State, November 2, 2008, Motion for writ of mandamus, Election Fraud

Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:

“Connecticut Supreme Court

 

 

 

Cort Wrotnowski                             ,

                     Plaintiff,

          vs.

Ms. Bysiewicz  et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,

                     Defendant
 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
 Case No.:

 

 

 

Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
 

Dated this 2nd of November 2008

________________________

 

 

 

 

“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”

 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 

FACTS
 

The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events.  During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S.  In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama.  (Exhibit X).    Table 1 gives the basic chronology.

 

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
 

TABLE 1

DATE
 EVENT
 
June 2008
 Image posted asserting Barack Obama was a natural born citizen
 
July 2008
 Analyses produced by three computer document experts asserting forgery of official state document.
 
August 2008
 FactCheck.org issues rebuttal that addresses only 5-6 of the nearly 100 artifacts.  They remain silent on the rest.
 
August 2008
 Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
 
September 2008
 Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
 
October 16, 2008
 Plaintiff learns of  new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
 
October 24, 2008
 Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court.  Denied pursuant to 9-323.
 
Oct. 27-31, 2008
 Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
 

 

 

Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the  birth certificate useful in answering the question.

 

See exhibits V,W,X.Y

Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.

 

Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting. 

 

Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that this “Certification” document was proof  that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”

 

The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team.  The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.

 

That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.

         

LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?

 

The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:

 “…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”

She also asserts: 

“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States.  Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”

 

Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!

 

Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.

 

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;

 

2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?

 

Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994))  provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.

 

From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice

“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232).  Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”

 

Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut  may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.

 

 

 

HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.) 

 

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College. 
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

  

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.

 

Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up.  That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest.  Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing.  If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.

 

States do not have the right to promote on the ballot  presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero.  She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.

 

 

CONCLUSION:  PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY

 

I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records.  If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
 

This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Cort Wrotnowski                            

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

425-698-7084

VERIFICATION

I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”