Los Angeles, October 26 - Some of the US top computer and civil rights experts have repeatedly objected to electronic voting machines, as currently implemented, for being insecure and prone to voting fraud. [i]
In Schulz et al v State of New York et al (07-cv-00943), the plaintiffs (representing themselves) alleged that electronic voting machines that are not open, verifiable and transparent violate their voting rights.
The case, which was dismissed on July 7, 2011, purportedly for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction”, was commenced in 2007 by plaintiffs from all 50 states against the election of commissions of all states. In 2008, US Judge Kahn dismissed the complaints against all states but New York, concluding, “each of the Plaintiffs’ standing is limited so as to only have standing against the Individual Defendants in the Plaintiff’s own state.”
In the July 2011, Judge Kahn also dismissed the remaining complaint by the New York plaintiffs against the New York defendants “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”, stating that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable injury in this case, the Court finds that they lack standing to bring this case.” [ii]
However, review of the litigation record raises serious concerns that the case as a whole was conducted by the court and defendants’ attorneys as simulated litigation: [iii]
- The litigation was commenced with invalid summons, bearing no seal of the court, [iv] and a civil cover sheet that failed to adequately list the plaintiffs and defendants. [v]
- Numerous papers were filed by the defendants in an invalid manner, as “Letter Motion”, or “Letter Brief”, and resulted in “Order[s] on Letter Motion[s]”;
- No minutes were entered in the entire litigation, invalid notes were listed in the docket instead, with no corresponding minute records;
- The July 2011 “Judgment” was signed by neither the judge, nor by an authorized deputy-clerk, and is not listed in the Judgment Index of the court, either.
Moreover, according to Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), there is no way for the public to verify the validity of any of the records displayed in the online record systems. Ever since the implementation of the electronic record systems, the US courts have been hiding the clerk’s electronic authentication records (NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing) from the public, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. [vii]
In recent years evidence has been amassed of fraud in the US courts from coast to coast through the practice of simulated litigation, enabled by the electronic record systems of the US courts. “It’s a common charade. Any case in the US courts, involving banks or civil rights, is a suspect,” says Dr Zernik. [viii]
The fundamental problem is the same in the electronic voting machines and the electronic record systems of the courts. Paper systems, which were not infallible, but have evolved over centuries as open, verifiable and transparent, were replaced by obscure, unverified and nontransparent electronic systems.
“The tools are out there for creating open, verified and transparent systems for both the electronic voting machines and the electronic systems of the courts,” says Dr Zernik, “However, the US government has chosen to implement systems that fail to meet basic integrity standards in these two critical areas. Moreover, in both cases, the US government persists in its refusal to fix these systems, even in the face of indisputable evidence of large-scale fraud on the People.”
_______
LINKS [i] [1] 10-08-28 Common Cause: Voting Machines Report - Malfunction and Malfeasancehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[2] 10-04-19 Brennan Center for Justice Notice in Re: Unprecleared Voting Machines - violation of the voting acthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[3] 05-00-00 Validating Voting Machine Softwarehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[4] 05-05-19 MIT-Caltech: Auditing Technology for Electronic Votinghttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[5] 10-10-06 US Electronic Voting Machines - Made to Defraud - Wired Magazinehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[ii] July 7, 2011 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt #383); in 11-10-26 Schulz et al v State of NY et al (07-cv-00943) in the US Court, Northern District of New York compiled litigation recordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
[iii] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
- Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
- (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
- (2) cause another to:
- (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
- (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
- (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
[2] 11-08-01 Zernik, J: Fraud and corruption in the US courts is tightly linked to failing banking regulation and the financial crisis, 16th World Criminology Congress presentation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[3] 11-07-06 Request filed by Windsor and Zernik with US Attorney General Eric Holder for Review of Integrity of Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[4] 10-10-11 Linzer, D. “In GITMO Opinion, Two Versions of Reality,” The National Law Journal, October 11, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[vii] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[2] 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajick
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[3] 11-02-05 Request No 2 for Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner v Amex (1:10-cv-02228) s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[5] 10-12-07 Request for Investigation and if Appropriate - Impeachment Proceedings - against TERRY NAFISI - Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[6] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[7] 10-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District Court, Washington DC in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impeachable Misconduct by US Judge John D Bates
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[8] 10-12-30 Lewis et al v Gleason et al (1:10-cv-01850) in the US District Court, Colorado Opinion Regarding PACER Docket and Court Records in a Civil Rights Matter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[9] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC master of the “Leave to file denied”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[10] 11-06-20 Requests for Investigation and Impeachment of Judge John Walter, Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Clerk Terry Nafisi, and others in the US District Court, Central District of California, in re: Fine v State Bar (2:10-cv-00048) http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[11] 11-07-02 Request for Impeachments US Judge O’Tool, Clerk Thornton, Both of the US District Court, Massachusetts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[12] 10-12-06 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (2:04-cv-08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Evidence of Another Pretense Litigation by Judge Virginia Phillips
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
[13] 11-07-02 Request for Impeachments US Judge O’Tool, Clerk Thornton, Both of the US District Court, Massachusetts shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/