This is just one reason why a “smoking gun” can’t ever be found.

[kster]

An oldie but a great read.

COMPUTERIZED ELECTION FRAUD
IN McHENRY COUNTY
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

http://www.votefraud.org/mchenry_county_report_1994.htm

[Wilms]

1. That's a great document. kster. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

2. Many of the problems with electronic voting, laid out in this report on

McHenry Country in 1994, are still with us, and have been magnified by the "Help America Vote Act" $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle. The kind of hog bed that people like Delay, Abramoff, Ney and Dodd like to wallow around in.

Wheee-uuuw! Stinko-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!

[nicknameless]

3. Look at those dates.

This has been going on for nearly two decades? Or longer? Explains a lot, actually.

[freedomfries]

4. k&r: A Must Read!

thanks for sharing kster!

[mopinko]

5. wow, k & r

when i insisted that kerry republicans had their votes stolen in illinois, everyone said, well, he won illinois, yawn.
i will point out that melissa bean, phony democrat, now represents phil cranes old district. hmmm.

[autorank]

6. Kster, you're a bibliofile! And that's a good thing. Exerpt from report:

1994 See main post for link:

"Everyone involved with this project in McHenry County and similar projects elsewhere across the country has at first experienced disbelief that there was such opportunity and probability that we are not governed by elected officials. When personally learning the facts, they were shocked. The facts presented herein are true and are based on verifiable election observations and statements of State and County election officials!

Americans have no constitutionally protected right to the accurate counting of votes. There are no federal laws requiring votes be accurately counted. There are no federally mandated minimum requirements for vote tabulating accuracy. Election procedures are determined by the states."

I'm sure that the authors of this report were very excited, thought they were doing ground breaking work, were ready for a ton of inquiries. Not. It's too typical but this is a great resource, wonderful."

And while you're at it, check this out from 1988, National Bureau of Standards (US Gov)

http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY IN COMPUTERIZED VOTE-TALLYING

Roy G. Saltman

"Recommendations are provided to promote accuracy, integrity, and security in computerized vote-tallying, and to improve confidence in the results produced. The recommendations respond to identified problems, and concern software, hardware, operational procedures, and institutional changes.

It is proposed that the concept of internal control, almost universally used to protect operations that produce priced goods or services, be adapted to vote-tallying, a non-priced service. For software, recommendations concern certification, assurance of logical correctness, and protection against contamination by hidden code. For hardware, recommendations concern accuracy of ballot reading, and design and certification of vote-tallying systems that do not use ballots. Improved pre-election testing and partial manual recounting of ballots are recommended operational procedures.

Some recent significant events concerning computerized vote-tallying are reported. These events include development of performance specifications, publication of a series of New York Times articles, and activities in Texas leading to passage of a revised statute on electronic voting systems. Relative vulnerabilities of different types of vote-tallying systems, i.e., punch card, mark-sense, and direct recording electronic, are discussed. Certain recent elections in which difficulties occurred are reviewed, and categories of failures are highlighted."

[pat_k]

7. We don't need a smoking gun. The burden of proof is NOT on us. . .

. . .And it is critical that we absolutely reject the notion that it is.

We have fallen into the a fascist view of the law with an Anti-American "presumption of accurate results."

If an election is wide open to fraud, it is up to the state to prove no fraud occurred. If they cannot, we must reject the results.

Any argument that resorts to legal technicality to make the case that the nation must accept the results of a suspect election, surrenders our most fundemental right as soveriegns; the right to have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials.

For more on this, see and Burden of Proof in an Election and Restoring Sanity Point by Point

We KNOW Kerry Won in 2004.

---
pat_k
january6th.org

[liam_laddie]

8. On earlier electronic election rigging...

For a decent history of election "irregularties" in the US (1787-2004) I can recommend
Andrew Gumbel's "Steal This Vote" (2005). He does not treat electronic fraud sufficiently,
but overall, it's a worthwhile read.

More to this thread's point is the book "Votescam" by James M. and Kenneth F. Collier, two
brothers who got involved in politics in Florida about 1970. This era had the classic election
rigging strategies, but in the early 1980's, as computing systems grew more sophisticated,
those who wished to secure permanent power began to utilize the new tools. The book covers
the era from about 1970-1992. There may be some points that remain allegations, but I believe
the vast majority of their journalism is accurate.

Bush41's CIA Directorship gave him knowledge of the most advanced systems useful in
election rigging, and by the mid-80's, the development process was well underway. His
1988 New Hampshire primary victory over Bob Dole may have been the prototype of all
the following exploits which have fatally damaged our country. Polls had Dole up by 8 pts.;
Bush won by 9 pts., a 17-point "swing." Andrew Kohut, then CEO of Gallup "was dismayed."
I'm not sure how widespread DRE's were in NH in 1988, but Manchester used Shouptronics.
Wide open to outside manipulation.

There's a reference to then appelate court judge Tony Scalia's writing a memo in 1986 (before
he was nominated to the SCOTUS) which helped dismiss an election fraud case brought by
the Collier brothers in a District Court. They claim that this action was one of Scalia's favors to
the RNC which led to his nomination. Definitely an eye-opening segment!

A book is mentioned in "Votescam" which I have not seen: "Conspiracies, Cover-ups & Crimes"
by Jonathan Vankin; I'm gonna find it! "Votescam" was issued as a paperback by the daughter
of one of the Colliers in 1993. ISBN 0-9634163-0-8 Check <www.votescam.com>
Thanks for sticking with my ramble...

[Wilms]

9. kick