Reply #8: Our local "MSM" caves, and will publish Friday! [View All]

[Land Shark]

www.heraldnet.com Olympia reporter/political reporter Jerry Cornfield

Our lawsuit against the restructuring of our voting system in favor of secret unverifiable voting has been filed in King County Superior Court on Thursday April 7. (My attorney is Randy Gordon of Bellevue, WA) You can also read a brief blog article about it and download a copy of the lawsuit here: http://washblog.typepad.com/

My co-plaintiff Jack Wells is a veteran of WWII, and descendent of one of the early state legislators in WA state as well as the descendent of a Revolutionary War soldier.

You might say I “ran into” this Sequoia contract when trying to obtain additional information to supplement the Lehto/Hoffman study on irregularities in the Nov. 2004 election in Snohomish County, which has quite a bit of evidence, but our Auditor stated the only smoking gun he would accept as a clear problem would be evidence that a ballot was not counted as cast. Problem: unless you invade the secrecy of the ballot and track voters and videotape their pressing on the machine, that evidence is impossible to obtain because it doesn't exist.

Not one to chase after wild gooses that don't even exist for too long, and realizing that everyone has a point at which they sober up and start to take things seriously, I sued (i.e. "launched a land shark" of my own)

We’re seeking to void the purchase contract for Sequoia DREs and return the money (around $5 million) to Snohomish County government taxpayers.

The various claims are basically all different way or reasons to reach this same result, but the claims include violations of the constitutional underpinnings of the strongest public policies in the state of Washington, like that of the Open Meetings Act quoted here:

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

Certainly, it’s “good for the people to know” whether the power they are transferring from themselves to the government, as well as the tax money, is being legitimately transferred or not.

Even if it weren’t for the requirement of checks and balances, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to trust any person or government to investigate itself, test itself, count the votes in secret itself, and blow the whistle on itself (unless it absolutely has to).

But the worst kind of secret vote counting system is the kind that does work, or seems to work, *perfectly*, because in that case then people tend to let it slip by and an easily corruptible form of voting becomes the new institution.

This is not about hypothetical concerns about accuracy, both because there’s lots of evidence, but also because there’s nothing “hypothetical” about the fact that an entirely new system of nontraditional nontransparent and non-democratic elections ALREADY HAS BEEN SET UP. Thus, this new system has to be checked and balanced now before it gets the authority of “tradition” behind it.

I’m just glad the Founders didn’t have people running around saying “conspiracy theory” when they were discussing checks and balances, if you know what I mean.

The Lehto/Hoffman Study: www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf

A very simple one page summary of the study in the form of a press release is here: http://www.votersunite.org/takeaction/mediaSnohomishCounty.htm