Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

community_studios - [Community_studios] Re: Appeal to Entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is Filed

community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>
  • To: SusanMarieWeber <susanmarieweber AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: Community Studios <community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Community_studios] Re: Appeal to Entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is Filed
  • Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:12 -0000

Hi, Susan Marie Weber: I'm concerned that this case has not attracted
legal representation. In fact, I'm outraged at this point, unless, of
course, you are so weird, no attorney can work with you. :) HUMOR!
http://www.electionguardians.org/

In Nevada, this post represents the latest activity:
http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/perls_log/archives/000096.html#000096
THE GUINN-HELLER-BURK Voting System . . . .

You've used this quote, I am sure:
"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which
all other rights are protected. To take this right away, is to reduce a
man to slavery . . . ."
from Thomas Paine, Dissertation On The Principles Of Government, 1795.

If the right to vote is taken away, our form of government is
overthrown, and those responsible are guilty of nothing less than
treason. If, in addition, the public is not permitted to be informed by
the media of such activity, those responsible are not only guilty of
treason, but also of censorship. If a judge fails to acknowledge that
our form of government is being threatened, he becomes directly
responsible as a participant in the overthrow of our government.

The existence of Open Source electronic voting systems in Australia,
precludes the argument that we have no alternatives at this point to
replace the flawed punch card ballot systems.

The only argument against returning to paper and pen ballots that I've
heard, is that such a backward move would impede a speedy election
result. That, of course, is a red herring, and has no basis in truth.

So, Susan Marie, can you figure out why no attorney has stepped forward,
given the ease with which this case might be presented, and the
inevitable conclusion that proprietary machines are being used by those
who would literally remove our right to vote?

I look forward to hearing from you.
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 08:38, SusanMarieWeber wrote:
>
> ********************************
>
> PRESS RELEASE
>
> For Immediate Release 2003.11.15
>
> For More Information, contact: Susan Marie Weber --- 760.340.2213
> E-mail: susanmarieweber AT earthlink.net
>
> ****Begin****
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Palm Desert Resident Continues to Fight Paperless Voting Machines
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - Susan Marie Weber has asked the entire Ninth
> Circuit Court of Appeals to review her challenge of Riverside County's
> "touchscreen" voting machines after a three-judge panel of that court
> sustained a dismissal of her lawsuit by a Federal District Court.
>
> "This is a case of exceptional national importance," Weber said in her
> appeal, which argued that both the 3-judge panel and the District Court
> judge were misled by claims made by corporations that manufacture
> electronic voting machines, claims that are contradicted by a majority of
> the nation's computer science experts.
>
> An accountant, Weber argued that without a voter-verified paper ballot that
> could be used for an independent audit trail, voters could never know for
> sure that their vote had been recorded as they intended. Manipulation of
> the votes, either intentionally or by a "glitch," is totally undetectable.
> Weber asked the court to order defendants to add printers to the
> touchscreen systems to produce the voter verified paper ballot of record.
>
> The suit was originally brought by Susan Marie Weber, a Palm Desert
> resident, against California Secretary of State Bill Jones (now succeeded
> by Kevin Shelley), and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Mischelle
> Townsend, in August 2001.
>
> Since August 2001, the electronic voting scene has changed dramatically.
> Professor David Dill of Stanford University created an Internet Petition to
> protest the touchscreen voting machines that do not provide a
> voter-verifiable paper ballot. Thousands of computer science professors and
> experts, nationwide, have stepped forward to express their concerns by
> signing it. (http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html). Again and again from
> all over the country we are seeing reports of electronic voting systems
> with inherent flaws, lack of programming security, and last-minute
> "patches" being installed by voting machine corporations with no government
> re-certification as required by law.
>
> In the En Banc Ninth Circuit Court Appeal, Weber once again stated that the
> Secretary of State's position is un-American, for it violates our nation's
> basic assumptions about human nature and the need for "checks and balances"
> to guard against the temptation and corrupting influence of power. When
> politicians routinely raise war chests of tens of millions of dollars, we
> must consider the ease with which these paperless voting systems can be
> manipulated. We need the "check" of voter verified ballots and the
> "balance" of an external audit of those ballots in order to have a truly
> transparent election.
>
> In the District Court Ms. Weber brought three well-known experts in
> computer voting, including: 1) Kim Alexander, a member of the Internet
> Voting Task Force assembled by then Secretary of State Defendant Bill
> Jones, 2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a computer expert who testified before the
> U.S. House of Representatives in their 2001 hearings on Voting Technology,
> submitted testimony in the Bush vs. Gore Florida 2000 hearings,
>
>
>
> and was cited in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, and 3) Dr. Peter
> Neumann, Principal Scientist at SRI Laboratories. All three experts agreed
> that the Secretary of State cannot fulfill his statutory obligation to
> ensure that the "touchscreen" voting machines are "safe from fraud or
> manipulation" (California Elections Code ยง19205) without an independently
> auditable "paper trail."
>
> The judge hearing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson,
> disagreed, concluding that the State's interest in easy, attractive voting
> machines which might increase voter turnout outweighed the voters' interest
> in verifiable results.
>
> On October 28 the three appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit supported
> Judge Wilson's ruling and again refused to allow the testimony of computer
> experts.
>
> Weber, who filed her complaint as a Pro Se, said voters could not know
> whether the electronic machine counted the vote or created the vote, and
> she is now looking for an attorney to advise her in the event the case is
> remanded to the lower court, or appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Westberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964), the Court testified to the
> fundamental character of the right to vote: "No right is more precious in a
> free country than that of having a choice in the election of those who make
> the laws under which, as good citizens, they must live. Other rights, even
> the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."
>
> Constitutional Scholar Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law School
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Experts in Weber vs. Jones
>
> Voting Expert Rebecca Mercuri's website
> (http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html)
>
> Peter Neumann -- SRI International Computer Laboratories in Palo Alto, CA,
> (http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/neumann.html)
>
> California Voter Foundation, Kim Alexander, President and Founder
> (http://www.calvoter.org)
>
> Professor David Dill, (http://www.verifiedvoting.org)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Case, the Opinions and all Briefs/Motions can be seen on the webpage of
> Election Guardians, a California PAC: www.electionguardians.org
>
> *****************
>
>
>





  • [Community_studios] Re: Appeal to Entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is Filed, tom poe, 11/15/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page