NEW Grand Theft Election OHIO: "Way Out West", California's SOS

[McCamy Taylor]

Ohio isnt the only trouble state in the US. California is a hot bed of GOP election fraud, too, thanks to the machination's that replaced an elected Democratic SOS with a GOP SOS who is doiung everything in his power to keep Diebold in place, with all its hackability and backdoors.

Read all about it in "Way out West" at

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/060102.htm

Everything at:

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/index.htm

Election 2006 is just 10 months away. Dont let this become Selection 2006. Alert the media. Write letters to the editor. Find out what your community will be voting on this spring and fall, register as many Dems as possible.

:headbang:

[Helga Scow Stern]

1. Thanks for putting that up. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

2. That's a nifty cartoon about California, and so right on!

The thing that got me was when Shelley was accused of "misusing HAVA funds" (the federal $4 billion boondoggle that Tom Delay made sure was in Sec's of States' hands to purchase voting machines from Bushite corporations prior to '04)--and it turned out that the "misuse" was Shelley's refusal to release funds to the counties for the purchase of Diebold's notoriously insecure, uncertified, hackable touchscreen voting machines.

"Misuse of HAVA funds"--in Tom Delay's eyes, I guess.

That's how flimsy the charges against Shelley were. The CA Attorney General has cleared him of all charges, by the way. He is completely innocent (which some of us knew all along), and was driven from office because he had no personal funds (tells you something about Shelley), and no legal fund to defend himself with--and the Fed (read Bush) voting commission (the EAC) was threatening a fishing expedition and witchhunt. Also, the new Dem leadership in the legislature (the old guard having retired recently), with a 2 to 1 Dem edge, failed to watch Shelley's back, out of cowardice or corruption, and abandoned him to the Bush Cartel wolves.

Re: the second link. More great cartoons. But the page has a map of "red" and "blue" states. PLEASE, everybody, do NOT presume to know how any state voted, in these extremely non-transparent election conditions. Don't slander "red" states until you know for sure that they deserve it. And we DON'T KNOW. We really don't.

------------

Some resources:

www.votersunite.org
www.verfiedvoting.org
www.UScountvotes.org
www.TruthIsAll.net
www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml

Also of interest:
www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340
and
Sign the petition. http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

[Wilms]

7. Peace, your post may mis-lead some of our fellow DUers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the CA AG found no substance to allegations that Shelley was improperly involved with Julie Lee sticking a lot of money into Shelley's campaign coffer.

Great to hear. But that has nothing much to do with the HAVA fund issue.

There, a state audit, and now the EAC are weighing in, saying there was trouble. Is it blown out of proportion? A lot of people think so. Fine. But that's quite different from the impression your post(s) may leave one with.

Did you see the thread where, in a few posts from papau, explains that it's possible that someone way down in Shelley's office screwed up, and that (while it's a drag) someone making a stink about it creates a situation where the best thing for an exec to do is "fall on the sword"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407080

If that's more the case, why not go with it. It makes Shelley out to be the victim (of a staff member and whomever was gunning for the audit), and an honorable guy (by bowing out as, apparently, morally prescribed).


And correct me if I'm wrong, here. Is it true that Shelley used something like 3 million of his own money to campaign for the SoS position? And if so, was that bad financing considering he was out begging for money for atty fees a couple of years later?

[msongs]

3. CA SoS nearly unanimously approved by CA dems legislators

who could have blocked his appointment but willingly failed to do so.

the machinations are the doings of DEMS.

Don't blame arnold or the repubs for this one.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[autorank]

4. Truer words were never spoken! Shine a very bright light on them.

Demand that your election officials explain what the hell they're doing and with whom.

Article (send it around out there):

---------------
California Activists Call the Cops on Diebold:
The Campaign to Unite California Election Reformers

Movement for legal action against officials who allowed unauthorized software changes to voting machines starts in Northern California. Strong local support.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00246.htm

-----------------
California activists, I love you. I'm from there! Grew up there! It's the most beautiful place in the world.

You have a gloden opportunity. Read the above article and start writing the Boards of Elections -- why was state law violated??? Why has nothing been done about it. Ask questions, write letters. Scare them into honesty!!!

It's your time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The statement that 17 CA counties had unauthorized modifications to their voting machines in 2004...as in against the CA Code.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/diebold_report_april20_final.pdf

he VSPP initiated an audit of all
17 California counties using Diebold voting systems. The audit discovered
that Diebold had, in fact, installed uncertified software in all its client
counties without notifying the Secretary of State as required by law, and
that the software was not federally qualified in three client counties.
Diebold eventually acknowledged that it had failed to notify the Secretary
of State of its proposed system modifications, and that its failure to
obtain certification for those modifications violated state law. (p.3)

<[b>It's your government, read the code yourself and see if fooling around with the software of the Diebold machines is legal. If you think it isn't, write your BoE's and law enforcement officials. ASK WHY nothing was done about this and what will be done to prevent it in the future. cc, your state Assemblyperson and Senator. Just ask for answers.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=19001-20000&file=19200-19215

19201. (a) No voting system, in whole or in part, shall be used
unless it has received the approval of the Secretary of State prior
to any election at which it is to be first used.
(b) No jurisdiction may purchase or contract for a voting system,
in whole or in part, unless it has received the approval of the
Secretary of State.

19213. When a voting system or a part of a voting system has been
approved by the Secretary of State, it shall not be changed or
modified until the Secretary of State has been notified in writing
and determined that the change or modification does not impair its
accuracy and efficiency sufficient to require a reexamination and
reapproval pursuant to this article. The Secretary of State may
adopt rules and regulations governing the procedures to be followed
in making his or her determination as to whether the change or
modification impairs accuracy or efficiency.

19214. The Secretary of State may seek injunctive and
administrative relief when a voting system has been compromised by
the addition or deletion of hardware, software, or firmware without
prior approval.

19214.5. (a) The Secretary of State may seek all of the following
relief for an unauthorized change in hardware, software, or firmware
to any voting system certified or conditionally certified in
California:
(1) Monetary damages from the offending party or parties, not to
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation. For purposes of
this subdivision, each voting machine found to contain the
unauthorized hardware, software, or firmware shall be considered a
separate violation. Damages imposed pursuant to this subdivision
shall be apportioned 50 percent to the county in which the violation
occurred, if applicable, and 50 percent to the Office of the
Secretary of State for purposes of bolstering voting systems security
efforts.
(2) Immediate commencement of decertification proceedings for the
voting system in question.
(3) Prohibiting the manufacturer or vendor of a voting system from
doing any elections-related business in the state for one, two, or
three years.
(4) Refund of all moneys paid by a locality for a compromised
voting system, whether or not the voting system has been used in an
election.
(5) Any other remedial actions authorized by law to prevent unjust
enrichment of the offending party.
(b) Prior to seeking any measure of relief under this section, the
Secretary of State shall hold a public hearing. The Secretary of
State shall give notice of the hearing in the manner prescribed by
Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general
circulation published in Sacramento County. The Secretary of State
also shall transmit written notice of the hearing, at least 30 days
prior to the hearing, to each county elections official, the
offending party or parties, any person that the Secretary of State
believes will be interested in the hearing, and any person who
requests, in writing, notice of the hearing.
(c) The decision of the Secretary of State, to seek any relief
under this section, shall be in writing and state the findings of the
secretary. The decision shall be open to public inspection

[GuvWurld]

5. 1/1/06 Radio Interview on Key Points of the CA Unity Campaign

Listen.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. I think there are some cultural differences between Calfornia

and the rest of the country that were exploited, and maybe this was why no one seemed to do much when they went after Shelley. Watching from Texas, where our Democratic legislators fled to New Mexico for months to stall Tom Delay's redistricting, I couldnt figure out what was going on in California.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. I don't think people appreciate that being apprised

of ANY voting figures (other than a series of meaningless 0000) by the neocons was by way of an ex-gratia gift. Even committing so much time and effort to allow the public to go through the motions of voting was really "pro bono" work on the part of the Neocon Republicans' myrmidons. Faith-based elections do not require any kind of "quid pro quo" to be given by them to the public, in return for the tax money they appropriate from them. Such "uppity", if futile activities by Joe Public as even going through the motions of voting are prone to give him ideas, and are to be discouraged at every level.

This not some kind of joke. I mean it is sarcastic. But it is also the only perfectly logical inference.