Letter to Cambria County Elections Supervisor, Fred Smith

Letter to Pennsylvania State Commissioner of Elections, Harry VanSickle

Presentation to Cambria County Commissioners

Diebold's Response to Allegheny County



"The one pervading evil of democracy
is the tyranny of the majority,
or rather, of that party, not always the majority,
that succeeds by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
Lord Acton (1907)
 
December 26, 2005

Mr. Fred R. Smith
Supervisor of Elections, Cambria Co.
200 S. Center St.  P.O. Box 269
Ebensburg, PA    15931

SUBJECT:  Request for verification that the precautions against election fraud as noted below have been taken to assure a valid vote count in subsequent elections in Cambria County
 
Dear Mr. Smith,
 
    There is no more sacred or important responsibility in a Democracy than assurance that elections reflect the will of the voters, and have not been subject to malicious, incompetent, or inadvertent manipulation.  I'm sure that you agree.  However, a recent article in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, by Sandra Reabuck, has raised questions for me about the adequacy of fraud prevention for Cambria County elections.  In the face of this concern, compelling evidence exists that the right wing administration of George W. Bush has come to, and remained in power as the result of systematic election fraud in Ohio and other states by use of a stunning array of fraudulent practices and corrupted voting devices to which Pennsylvania and Cambria County remain vulnerable. 
   
    Evidence:   http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm
     Even more stunning than this evidence is the absence of coverage and follow-up by the corporate controlled press and media, and the absence of concern in the Democratic National Committee, and their candidates.  They have failed to take strong action to prevent the election fraud that has already cost them two national elections and the loss of congressional offices.   
    In the past two national elections, fraud was possible when machines and protocols have been negligently or maliciously designed to permit manipulation of the vote.  As documented in detail by the above reference, election fraud has already installed advocates of extremist right wing ideology to public office.  Under current political pressures, the political right will almost certainly be compelled to continue to corrupt the vote in their favor in order to stay in power.  They will especially expand their efforts toward that end in 2006-2008.  Pennsylvania is a target state. A high probability exists that key election officials in swing vote counties, and at the state level, will feel heavy right wing pressure to participate in winking at (by accepting vulnerable machines and protocols,) facilitating, and/or committing outright voter fraud, if not for ideology, then for money or other inducements.  I trust that you will report any such pressure to third party oversight bodies, and the press and media.  Growing voter frustration from corrupted elections will eventually lead to widespread social violence and insurrection that serves nobody's benefit.  
    I note that the argument that each voter should have a paper copy of their vote introduces an unnecessary confusion.  A paper record of each individual voter's vote is no more necessary than a Xerox copy of a paper ballot has been necessary in prior elections using paper ballots.  Likewise, for those who are concerned about voting machine fraud, for you to refocus them on the issue of voter privacy is a diversion from their far more relevant and urgent fraud concerns.  This is because none of the fraud protections offered below compromise voter privacy. However, among other precautions, a tamper proof paper trail must be produced from each voting machine's complete pattern of vote counts to facilitate a recount if desired or required. While this precaution is necessary, it is not sufficient.
 
 
    I have learned that to certify the validity of any election using electronic voting, and to prevent the success of any malicious or inadvertent intrusion into electronic voting or associated protocols, all of the following fundamental controls and constraints must be in place:
    I understand that the iVotronic machine is about to be selected for Cambria and other Pennsylvania counties.  Following are documented examples of the scale of iVotronic vulnerability, and outright fraud perpetrated by the Diebold voting systems, to which the iVotronic machine is related by a common designer.  Note the 17 step validation protocol in the link below.
Source: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/73/15587.html
    Note the documented contribution of voting errors to iVotronic machines by county election personnel as quoted below:
"Infamous for the hanging-chad controversy in the disputed 2000 presidential election, Miami-Dade now uses touch-screen technology from Omaha-based Election Systems & Software Inc. that were installed in 2002 to replace its punch-card machines. But coding errors by county personnel caused the iVotronic systems to undercount votes in five local elections, with a boiling point reached in a countrywide March 8 special election."
 
Source: http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2005/0,4814,101146,00.html
    Following is an article showing that political pressure put on Diebold by precincts in North Carolina caused Diebold to withdraw from North Carolina when they were required to seal their operating system and put their programming code in escrow prior to an election.  That would permit third party inspection in event of possible irregularities in the pattern of votes, e.g., a statistically significant discrepancy between exit poll results and the machine counts of the vote.

Source:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601518.html?referrer=email

    Both the Diebold's and ES&S systems have related design parameters per the 16th item on a proposed validation test protocol:

"16) Do the security checks for the Hursti defect and the Thompson defect [pass] on both the Diebold and ES&S (iVotronic) systems?   Both were originally designed by the same pair of brothers; Bob and Todd Urosevich.  A common code base and common design base means there is a chance of shared defects between the systems."

Source: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/73/15587.html

    In view of this evidence, it is unclear to me from the Reabuck article that you have taken all of the essential precautions.   The following URL is a comprehensive presentation (57 slides) that incorporates all aspects of what is needed to design and operate a secure precinct and county level protocol for ensuring the validity of any election outcome:

Source [Allow PDF file time to load]: http://www.bbvdocs.org/presentations/attacks-public.pdf

    
    As the above information suggests, federal and state certification of a particular machine does not, by itself, guarantee a fraud free election. Accordingly, I am asking to know the steps you have taken to certify that the election process in Cambria County is valid and secure from malicious or inadvertent tampering or mismanagement (including validation of both machine and precinct protocols.) The span of certification should include all factors between pre-election preparation through final certification of the validity of the vote.  They should account for each of the following as noted above:

    As I have shown through the above links, the election process, which is sacred to the healthy future of our Democracy, is under serious attack in this nation.  Our young men and women are risking and giving their lives to allegedly prevent attacks on our way of life by a foreign threat.  But you, Mr. Smith, and your counterparts across the country, are the only sentries charged with responsibility to guard the most vulnerable, dangerous, and real threat ever to our 230 year old Democracy, potent conspiracies to corrupt our elections.   Corruption of our national decision making processes, and our freedoms, that have already been abridged by the current administration due to voting fraud must end.  I pray that you and your counterparts are equal to the task.  I trust you will also agree that any election official who is found complicit in aiding or abetting corrupt election practices should be criminally indicted. 
 
    Please write or e-mail me the above requested assurances by listing the steps you have/are taking to guarantee secure elections in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.  Those who have risen to power by election fraud, public indifference, negligent reporting by a non-vigilant or culpable media and press, and/or election official neglect or culpability, dare not be permitted to continue to benefit from their initial fraudulent achievements. 
 
    Best wishes for success in carrying out your demanding and crucial responsibilities.   I look forward to receiving your response.   Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

 Thomas E. Harries, Ph.D.

E-Book: http://www.ot-mp.net

 
CC    Selected BCC recipients potentially interested in the issue, addresses suppressed to protect privacy; plus:

Sandra Reabuck, Staff Writer, Johnstown Tribune-Democrat
Chip Minemyer, Editor, Johnstown Tribune-Democrat
Bruce Wissinger, Editorial Page Editor, Johnstown Tribune-Democrat
Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation

[Return to Smith jump point in vote fraud page]




February 28, 2006                                                                                                                      by email; hard copy follows

Honorable Harry VanSickle, Commissioner
Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Department of State: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Subject: Response to your letter of February 16, 2006 re vulnerability of PA voting precincts to vote fraud by manipulation of electronic voting devices and precinct protocols.

Dear Commissioner VanSickle,

    Thank you for your February 16, 2006, two page response to my December 26, 2005 letter of concern that I wrote to Cambria County Election Supervisor, Fred Smith, a copy of which was forwarded to you by US Representative John Murtha who serves that county.   Unfortunately, your letter amplifies my concerns rather than diminishes them. 

1. Re the 17 step security protocol I enumerated, you state:  “Most are being followed.” This is a vague and unconvincing statement. Which ones are being followed?  Why not all.  Is there a directive?  Is there an accountability system to assure compliance? 

2. You mentioned your reliance on organizations called an Independent Testing Authority (ITA) You did not name them.  Why not?    That you failed to name these entities turned on my radar.   The entity, SysTest, Inc., that I was able to find cannot be evaluated by the sources I could find before sending this letter.  I continue to work on it.  But this much is known.  There are a large number of corporate controlled businesses created to serve as right wing front organizations.  They exist to do the bidding of their corporate masters, like the ones who defrauded the electorate in 2004.  What assurances can you provide that the ITAs you have paid are not subject to malicious corporate control?  Complicit ITAs were culpable in empowering the widespread fraud in Ohio, California, Florida and elsewhere as I have documented below.  Corporate control equals privatizing the vote as managed by entities that only serve corporate interests, and which are hostile to any conflicting public interests.

3. You mention that, in addition to the ITAs, you depend on consultants.  You state that your agency,“...utilizes the services of two nationally recognized voting system consultants.”  You did not name these consultants.  I found, by examining the PA Code noted in your letter, that one of them is Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., JD.  It appears that you withheld the names for good cause, at least  in the case of Dr. Shamos.  He is indeed nationally recognized, but not positively.  I found an unflattering professional critique of his work on Black Box Voting (BBV.) You can review this critique in full at the following site: .
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/15688.html?1136067478

For your convenience, please note Enclosure 1 [below] where I have provided you a portion of the BBV’s critique that cannot reflect favorably on those who choose to employ Dr Shamos.

I request to know the names of all consultant and ITA’s that have directed the creation of your PA Election Code affecting voting devices and precinct protocols?

4. Secrecy requirement: You say that the current state of art of electronic voting devices does not permit a paper trail that protects voter privacy.  My homework on this claim suggests that it the secrecy requirement is a straw issue that serves the convenience of allowing our voting precincts to be made vulnerable to serious manipulation by malicious corporate operatives from the extreme right wing in the United States

This is not a hysterical claim. There are ways to provide a useful and accurate paper trail of a electronic voting machine counts without compromising voter privacy. In addition to the evidence provided by BBV, the validity of my claim is also defended by the variety of credible sources documenting widespread election fraud in 2004 which can be found on this site:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html    And on this site:
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm

What good does it do to dismiss effective precinct and central monitoring of votes to allegedly “protect voter privacy” when the entire array of rights and freedoms in the United States stand on the brink of a precipitous decent into irreversible despotic corporate rule,  thanks to fraudulent voting devices and compromised precinct management and voting protocols.  

5. Because election fraud has already twice disenfranchised the electorate, the two party system has thus been made defunct by election fraud in 2000 and 2004.  Now there are only two elections left for any inroad to be made in correcting this desperate situation before the situation becomes irrecoverable.  In principle, we face the same desperate situation with its dilemma and costs that our “greatest generation” troops faced on Omaha Beach, in WW II, and may eventually include even the spilling of blood. We, the electorate, must be equal to their courage and determination and confront and stop vote fraud.  “We” includes you and your associates in every voting precinct in America, Mr. VanSickle.


    Permit me to conclude by communicating the conditions that energize my involvement with the issue of voting fraud in Pennsylvania, which conditions I trust are relevant to your responsibilities. 
        The career I have followed for over three decades has focused on understanding complex theories of human systems dynamics that has been applied to understand how human communication and the extensions of personal power flow through a variety of complex societal  systems.  I studied how individuals use bureaucracies to gain and exercise personal control over those systems directly, and how they use them to subsequently control adjacent systems and other target systems. The example that is relevant here is how individuals apply corporate power to influence the outcome of elections and to control the elements of government independent of influences by the electorate through the ballot box.
    For more than a decade I have focused my studies on the nature and dynamics of politics in America.  To go directly to the bottom line, I have concluded, and can defend my claim, that the two party political system in the United states has been overwhelmed and been made impotent by the concentration of unregulated and unaccountable corporate power over Congress and our government.  This renders obsolete any meaningful expectation that either major party, both of which are now completely under corporate control, will faithfully respond to the desires of the electorate. Ample evidence already exists to justify that fear as I provide below.  Further this condition rules out the capacity of any alternative third party to acquire sufficient power through the ballot to exercise meaningful influence, let alone control, over the decision making apparatus throughout government.  
    I have made a convincing case that our nation now stands on the brink of a precipitous descent into a corporate owned and operated,  hostile, despotic control over all our peoples and our institutions dedicated to serving the public need.  But there is not space here to present that case.  You can find that case presented in the three part introductory dialogue, and several position papers and notes in my e-book, Outrageous Truth: A Mystical Paradigm. http://www.ot-mp.net

For the convenience of your staff to check my fraud related claims, I have placed this letter and attachment, along with other related correspondence and documentation, on the following URL:
http://www.ot-mp.net/vote-fraud.html

I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions as noted in the above text.  The future of our entire way of life and our democratic institutions are at stake in the next two elections.  The ballot box must be purified from even the suspicion of corporate or extremist control.  That is what you and you colleagues receive our tax payer dollars to assure.

Sincerely,

Thomas E. Harries, Ph.D.


Attachment 1
CRITIQUE OF MICHAEL IAN SHAMOS, PH.D., JD.
Selected Portion
Bev Harris, Black Box Voting
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/15688.html?1136067478

“Unfortunately, Pennsylvania voters have been hurled from the frying pan into the fire by their voting system examiner, Michael Shamos – a legendary promoter of unauditable paperless DREs who is involved in at least 12 states. This leaves Pennsylvania fighting AGAINST a voter verified paper trail. Because of Shamos'  involvement in other states, the risk of unauditable elections may spread.

Shamos correctly noted that both ES&S and Diebold designed their paper trails improperly. His bizarre solution was to disallow the paper trail, taking the swing state of Pennsylvania back to paperless, unauditable DREs.

Diebold analysis by Shamos:

http://www.hava.state.pa.us/hava/lib/hava/votingsystemexamination/diebold_report _122205.pdf

[NOTE:  THIS SITE HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NOT REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, THUS DENYING THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.  UPDATES:  ON 3-16-06 THE ORIGINAL URL WAS FOUND REPLACED, BUT CHANGES IN DOCUMENT CONTENT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED]

ES&S analysis by Shamos:

http://www.hava.state.pa.us/hava/lib/hava/votingsystemexamination/es&s_report_12 2205.pdf

[NOTE:  THIS SITE HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NOT REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, THUS DENYING THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. UPDATES:   ON 3-16-06 THE ORIGINAL URL WAS FOUND REPLACED, BUT CHANGES IN DOCUMENT CONTENT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED]

While he pretends to be tough on defects, Shamos inexplicably ignores flaws with both the ES&S central count program and the Diebold GEMS central tabulator program.

The ES&S central count defect was documented in Broward County (FL) in 2004. Public records obtained by the Florida Fair Elections Coalition show that this defect also occurred in Orange County in 2004. The issue is noted in records from Florida Voting Systems Examiner Paul Craft as “ unresolved.”

The Diebold GEMS defect has been thoroughly documented, first by Bev Harris in mid-2003, then by the Aug. 18, 2004 Compuware Report commissioned by Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (hidden from the public by Blackwell until after the 2004 election); also by Dr. Herbert Thompson using a Visual Basic script. Even Diebold has now admitted this flaw exists. Shamos’s recommendation of GEMS seems to defy any rational explanation.

Diebold:

Shamos did a few things right before submitting his bias–riddled conclusions:

1) He found reliability flaws with Diebold’s entire optical scan product line – the precinct-based scanners and the standard-speed central count for absentee processing.

2) He noted that Harri Hursti’s demonstrated attacks against the optical scan systems in Florida revealed significant security issues with precinct optical scan.

3) He rejected certification on Diebold’s entire optical scan product line. This move will probably prevent use of Diebold touch-screens in Pennsylvania because counties will be unable to process absentee ballots.

4) He noticed that GEMS doesn’t exactly print “ballot images” the way Diebold has always claimed. He found that it often truncates candidate or race names. This indicates that it’s not storing a “ballot image” at all, but is instead regurgitating the “images” from the data. So printing the “ballot images” in order to hand-recount them is an exercise in digital silliness.

5) He pointed out a serious flaw in the way Diebold and ES&S do Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (“VVPATs”). Another voting machine vendor, Sequoia, pioneered the flawed “toilet paper roll” style VVPAT. The paper comes off of a fairly narrow cash-register-like tape with tiny hard-to-read print. The order of the vote is stored sequentially on a take-up roll, removing voter privacy.

This applies to Sequoia as well: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/2398.html

6) Shamos also notes the security problems with post-election modem transfer of results, and banned them based on a technical reading of PA law. If California had thought of this they might have disallowed the concept.

What Shamos got wrong:

1) He ignores the GEMS central tabulator defects altogether.

2) Like all the other state examinations to date, Shamos did no “red team attacks” (test probes of system security) on Diebold. This is inexcusable given that all previous such testing have found significant problems (RABA report for Maryland, the Ohio Compuware report and Black Box Voting’s Hursti project).

3) His answer to the problems with Diebold’s improperly designed paper trail method is to disallow the paper trail but NOT the touch-screens. Yes, you heard right: He has actually allowed paperless touch-screens, something he has long been promoting.

4) He ignored data from California state examiner Steve Freeman suggesting that Diebold’s touch-screen systems are also vulnerable to the Hursti hack (altering memory cards). Freeman’s report is here:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/consultant_report.pdf - the part that matters starts on page seven, item 13.

[THIS SITE WAS TAKEN DOWN BUT FOUND RESTORED, 3-16-2006]

5) He notes that all Diebold touch-screens share a total of four keys. Nationwide. All he does is wag a finger at Diebold, hoping they’ll improve this some day.

ES&S:

We can glean some interesting data from this report.

1) This is yet another MS-Windows-based tabulator system (WinXP).

2) Shamos notes that ES&S’s form of VVPAT violates voter secrecy. His solution is mind-boggling: just disable the paper trail.

3) He shows some concern regarding the DRE removable media (ES&S calls them “PEBs”) being “field insertable.” Not enough for Shamos to do anything about it, other than issue a procedural recommendation to the counties. As pointed out before at Black Box Voting, it is improper security to rely on a perimeter defense (people and procedures) to compensate for poor system design.

4) Shamos claims to have done minor security probing at the central tabulator data files, and says he finds it difficult to significantly alter the data. However, he completely omits an evaluation of the problem noted in the central count in Broward and Orange Counties (FL).

The upshot of all this is:

Shamos's selective blindness is inexcusable. He is an excellent example of what’s wrong with the current election system oversight process, and he needs to be removed from the Pennsylvania voting system. Michael Shamos reports to the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth, who should be held accountable as well.” [emphasis added]

[Return to VanSickle jump point in vote fraud page]


STATEMENT TO CAMBRIA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING

March 17, 2006

P.J. Stevens, President
Commissioner		Milan Gjurich
Commissioner		William Harris
Commissioner

NEED TO REPLACE ELECTRONIC VOTING DEVICES WITH PAPER BALLOTS
Regarding the web page:    http://www.ot-mp.net/vote-fraud.html
Context:
1.     The traditional labels of Republican, Democrat, conservative, and liberal have been made meaningless and irrelevant by the current realities in the political landscape of the US.

2.    There is clear and convincing evidence that a slow motion coup d'etat has been unfolding in the United States, by which our government's focus on the rights and needs of the American public is steadily being replaced by overpowering and unaccountable corporate control made possible and assured by election fraud using touch screen electronic voting machines.

3    THIS PROBLEM TRANSCENDS TRADITIONAL POLITICS BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH A THREAT THAT IS BECOMING A STAKE IN THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

4.    The corporate controlled media, both national and local, have been mute.  The public hasn’t a clue.  Efforts to inform and involve the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat have been ignored.

5.    There is explicit, incontrovertible and documented evidence on the above site that shows:
    •    the policies, practices, and trends of the Bush-Cheney administration conform to 14 out of 14 indicators of a fascistic state when compared with the regimes of: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet
    •    the policies, practices, and programs of the Bush-Cheney administration have compiled 1,300+ documented attacks on 18 categories of public needs and rights, and on Democracy itself.
   
6.    To counter expected  public outrage by the electorate who cannot verbalize what has been happening to them, the Bush-Cheney administration has used the corporate controlled Congress to pass HAVA 2002 in order to privatize the vote using electronic touch screen devices controlled by hard core Republican corporations to ensure victory in 2006-2008.

7.    Corporations maintain proprietary control over the inner workings of these devices and refuse to permit inspections of their code both prior to and subsequent to elections. 

8.    Thorough and credible documentation now exists that maliciously corrupted electronic voting machines have cost the Democrats in the 2004 election in Florida and Ohio.  Pennsylvania is a target state for 2006, and election fraud WILL be attempted in this state.


Evidence of Questionable Actions by Election Officials in Pennsylvania and Elsewhere

1.    Based on a December article in the Tribune-Democrat about electronic voting being on the horizon for Cambria County, but which failed to even mention the critical issues of fraud vulnerability that surround these machines, I wrote to Cambria County Elections Supervisor Fred Smith.  I asked a series of questions that would assure me that adequate protections were to be in place.  The letter was not even acknowledged.  A follow-up letter was ignored.

2.    When I copied that letter to US Congressman John Murtha, he replied that he had forwarded my letter to the PA Commissioner of BCEL, Harry VanSickle.  I note that a copy of the Smith letter by me to State Senator John P. Wozniak was also ignored.

 3.    Commissioner VanSickle replied with a two page letter, but his answers raised more concerns than before.  I wrote a reply in answer to his letter and challenged the following areas:
    •    He mentioned that some of my 17 factors required to assure valid vote counts were in place, but he did not say which, and he did not say why not all.
    •    He mentioned ITAs, (Independent Testing Agencies) but did not name them.  Most of them are owned and directed by the corporations for whom they test to insure desired results as occurred in the 2004 election.
    •    He mentioned using national consultants but did not name them.   I found from two pages on the PA government web site that one of them is Michael Ian Shamos. Ph.D., JD., and two reports he wrote.  I read a critique of those reports by Bev Harris, a genuine expert in electronic voting devices. She had serious criticisms of Shamos’ competence, and itemized the deficiencies in his recommendations.  [portion struck out]
    •    VanSickle invoked the “secrecy” requirement for disallowing verifiable paper trails on electronic devices.  This is a real red flag signifying bad faith to me.
   
4.    There is substantial detailed documentation of vote fraud in Ohio, Florida, California and elsewhere, and there is equivalent substantial evidence of stonewalling by election officials in response to the public’s inquiries into defective devices and precinct voting protocols.

5.    The above web page, vote-fraud.html, is a point source of information and links that validate the claims made in this outline, provides the letters I wrote,  provides the means for this county and the state to ensure that no vote will be lost, to ensure that all votes will be counted correctly, and to ensure that no false votes will be added. 
THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT NOW EXIST IN PENNSYLVANIA.

6.  THERE IS INSUFFICIENT TIME BEFORE THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER TO PROPERLY VALIDATE THE TOUCH SCREEN MACHINES.  THEREFORE, UNTIL A PROVED CONDITION OF  SCIENTIFIC  RELIABILITY CAN BE REACHED, PAPER BALLOTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE CERTAIN THE VOTES IN CAMBRIA COUNTRY CORRECTLY REFLECT THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE.

Thank You.
Please visit the above web page to find documentation of all claims stated in this outline.


NOTE:  One brief visit was made from a county computer, but no further review was evident, nor was there even one visit evident to show these letters were reviewed.   Nor as there any follow up from the County Election Supervisor,  whose office is in the same building, subsequent to my presentation.

 Return to jump point in the vote-fraud page.



From: Jones, Charles (Buck) [bjones@dieboldes.com]  Diebold Regional Sales Manager
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:21 AM
To: [recipient list suppressed to protect privacy]
Subject: Response to Allegheny County Motion Against Diebold

Response to Allegheny County Motion Against Diebold

The following bold type represents Diebold’s Response

Buck Jones – Regional Sales Manager – Diebold

February 27, 2006


MOTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF COUNCIL OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

Urging the Board of Elections not to consider electronic voting systems manufactured by Diebold, Inc. as viable alternatives for Allegheny County's move to a HAVA-compliant voting system.

        WHEREAS, the Help America Vote act requires the replacement of Allegheny County's lever voting machines in time for the May 2006 Primary Election; and

        WHEREAS, Allegheny County has been advised by the Department of Administrative Services to acquire approximately 5,600 Diebold TSX voting machines, and the Board of Elections, which is vested with authority over purchasing new voting machines under the Pennsylvania Election Code at 25 P.S. §2642(c),  is currently considering this purchase; and

        WHEREAS, the voters of Allegheny County who have commented upon the acquisition of Diebold machines have overwhelmingly voiced their distrust of both the manufacturer and its product; and

An internet war of allegations has been waged against Diebold in the effort to stop the use of all electronic voting of any kind which fosters an environment for promoting books and internet sites. Our two lead critics have books they are promoting about this alleged potential for election fraud. In fact, one of them was a book promoter before apparently discovering that she would do better promoting and selling her own books. Most of these internet sites are always asking for money. Some are non-profit but most are for profit. This war has been picked up by activist and supported by our competition. Unfortunately, the urban legend of election fraud has entered the mainstream. These people promoting books and internet sites have made these charges of the potential for voter fraud where no evidence exist just theories and allegations. They typically use Diebold as the main target for attacking electronic voting as a whole.  

Diebold is an honest company that has been trusted to secure people’s property for almost 150 years. Diebold is a company with a well known name making it an easy target and once had a CEO with poor judgment when it came to his personal life. Do you think that Allegheny County should be held responsible for allegations against its prior leadership for things they did in their personal life? He never suggested that he would influence the election in Ohio. He wouldn’t have, couldn’t have, and he didn’t. How long do you think that Diebold employees should be punished for this former CEO’s poor judgment?          

        WHEREAS, comments made by the voters have highlighted a promise made by the then Chief Executive Officer of Diebold, Walden O'Dell, that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to" one party's candidate in the 2004 general election, as evidence of Diebold's partiality; and

This is evidence that Diebold once had a CEO that was partisan. It is not evidence that Diebold is partisan. The main point is that he is the former CEO. He did not run the election division and could have probable only told you the names of 3 or 4 people in the election division. Again, he is no longer a part of Diebold.

The employees of Diebold represent the full spectrum of America. We are not an ivory tower white collar company. What kind of people do you think built safes, ATMs, voting systems, security systems and drive our vans around the country to maintain them? Some of our employees may have voted for you in the past. About 50 of our people live in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania and cheer for the same teams that you cheer for. They are good trustworthy hard working people. Diebold does its manufacturing in the US. ES&S does its manufacturing in the Philippines. Diebold is US owned and Sequoia is Venezuelan owned. Does being American made and owned no longer mean anything in Allegheny County?      

The Allegheny County Council and the Board of Elections are 2 to 1 of one party. Your County Executive works hard doing fund raisers for members of his party and to help them get elected. I would not be surprised to learn that he has at some point said that he is commented to helping someone win. He is your CEO. He also serves on the Board of Elections. Does this make your election department partisan? Is this evidence that Allegheny County runs elections to assure that a single party’s candidates win more often? No, I believe Allegheny County runs accurate fair fraud free elections. So does Diebold. Diebold only had equipment in 2 of the 88 counties in Ohio and the larger one voted for your CEO’s candidate. Did anyone bother to call any counties in Ohio to ask about this? The systems were controlled by the counties not Diebold. Diebold is still the only company that has a corporate policy against political contributions.  Does Allegheny County have a policy against personnel involved in elections making or accepting political contributions? None of our competitors have a policy against making them.

        WHEREAS, these comments have also highlighted Mr. O'Dell's federally designated status as a fundraising Pioneer, a designation that is only made when an individual has raised at least $100,000 for the campaign activities of a specific party, as indicative of Diebold's established and longstanding partisan political activities; and

Again, Odell is the former CEO. Diebold was not a Pioneer. I can assure you that he is not representative of Diebold. I hear no protest about the fact that ES&S is owned by a partisan newspaper, the Omaha World Herald. I hear no protest about the former President of ES&S, Chuck Hagel, that was elected in Nebraska on the ES&S system. Republican Senator Hagel is planning to run for President in 2008.  Who do you think the Omaha World Herald does fund raisers for? I hear no concern about the fact that Sequoia has had three different owners in the past five years with two of them being foreign. I have heard no protest about the talk that Sequoia is partly owned by the Venezuelan Government. I heave heard no protest about the allegation that Smartmatic, their current owner, got into the election business in order to hand the recall election to Hugo Chavez.

I have heard no protest of the fact that Sequoia gave $100,000 and ES&S gave $50,000 to a CA SOS (D) Kevin Shelley campaign. Again, Odell is gone and Diebold has a policy against political activity with the exception of voting. I would be happy to share a copy of this policy from the Diebold employee handbook. No other company has this type of policy.     

        WHEREAS, comments have also centered upon the decertification of Diebold's TSX machines in California in 2004, which was occasioned in part by allegations that Diebold installed uncertified software on its machines on the eve of California's March 2004 primary, an action which could constitute a violation of both federal and California election law; and

Diebold is the only company to receive certification in CA under the new standards. The new standards are the most rigorous in the nation. Neither ES&S nor Sequoia has earned this certification on their end-to-end system as Diebold has. ES&S has not even applied to begin the process and Sequoia is not seeking certification of their 1988 vintage Advantage full face that Allegheny County is considering. This information is available on the CA SOS website.     

An audit done by the former CA (D) SOS Kevin Shelley, who resigned due to allegations that he mishandled campaign funds and HAVA money (some of which was paid to consultants to write speeches against Diebold), found that every company was running uncertified software and hardware in California including both ES&S and Sequoia. That document is available on the CA SOS website. Did you have your staff investigate this?      

        WHEREAS, in the course of the California decertification hearings, Marc Carrel, the then Assistant Secretary of State for Policy and Planning, stated that he was "disgusted by the actions of this company, and I think we should forward our recommendations to the Attorney General, because I can't believe that a lot of the statements made...were accurate;" and

I found no protest of the fact that Sequoia gave $100,000 and ES&S gave $50,000 to a campaign for Kevin Shelley. This is public information. I find no protest of the fact that Sequoia and other vendors received special treatment from SOS Kevin Shelley, this is from testimony given by the then President of the election officials association in California. I can provide you with a copy of the transcript.

I find no protest of the fact that Bill Jones, the CA SOS just prior to Shelley worked for Sequoia as a liaison (lobbyist-consultant) while he was a Republican Senatorial candidate. He received $60,000 for six months of consulting making himself available to take calls as he said. I find no concern about Alfie Charles the former press secretary for that SOS leaving his job with the SOS to do public relations for Sequoia.

        WHEREAS, Mark Kyle, the chair of the panel conducting the California decertification hearings, characterized Diebold's testimony before the panel as "ludicrous and offensive," and noted that "[t]here's contradictory testimony here, folks, and it sounds like someone's not being truthful.  Quite frankly, the panel is sick of it;" and

Mark Kyle is another member of the former CA SOS Kevin Shelley staff. I found no protest of the fact that Sequoia gave $100,000 and that ES&S gave $50,000 to a campaign for Kevin Shelley. I find no protest of the fact that Sequoia and other vendors received special treatment from the CA SOS, this is from testimony given by the then President of the election officials association in California. Transcripts are easily available.

I find no protest of the fact that Lou Didier left his role in the CA SOS heading up certifications for the state and went to work for ES&S or that former Florida Secretary of State Sandra Mortham scored a $172,000 bonus from ES&S after helping them win a $17 million contract from Broward County, Fla. She also earned undisclosed amounts from sales of electronic voting systems to Miami-Dade and 10 other counties.    

        WHEREAS, the State of California ultimately filed suit against Diebold, with the company finally agreeing to pay a $2.6 million settlement; and

This is an unfortunate fact. This was a suit that was taken over by the state that was filed by Bev Harris, author and voting activist and Jim March her sidekick. They both received money in this settlement. I found no protest of the fact that ES&S also had a settlement in Indiana and I find no protest for the current suits against Sequoia in Washington and New Mexico.

I heard your County Executive say in an Election Board meeting that suits are a fact of life. That anyone can file a suit. Has Allegheny County ever had to settle a suit no matter how unfair the situation may have been for the greater good of the county?         

        WHEREAS, Rob Behler, an engineer hired to prepare Diebold's electronic voting machines for the 2002 gubernatorial election in Georgia, has also alleged that Diebold installed uncertified software on its machines in violation of federal and Georgia election law; and

Rob Behler was a disgruntled temporary employee making Allegations with no basis in fact. There are numerous allegations about Sequoia and ES&S made by former employees that are not protested here. I can point you to documented cases of employees who quit their jobs because they were being forced to lie about the status of certification with other companies.

However, I think that you probable have situations in which former employees have made allegations against Allegheny County that are baseless. Should you be held responsible for those allegations?  

        WHEREAS, in 2005, Diebold refused to sell its voting machines in North Carolina, because state officials insisted upon being given detailed information about all software used in electronic voting machines, a step which Diebold is unwilling or unable to take, even though this decision is directly contrary to the concept of free access to source code that computer scientists have uniformly insisted in their comments to the Board of Elections is essential to verifiable elections;

This statement is false and slanderous. Diebold was willing to provide source code to North Carolina as well as to Allegheny County.  The issue was and is that North Carolina also required that the vendor provide source code for all third party software, such as Windows. NC also required a complete list of programmers that had ever worked on any of this software, including third party software like Windows, and an affidavit signed by the CEO assuring that this was all complete and accurate information and that the source code is all of the source code including all third party source code that was used in the operation of the system. There is a $100,000 fine for each violation or omission.

Diebold did an Open Record request in NC and found that the information that was filed by ES&S in North Carolina did not appear to include third party source code like Windows (regardless of what ES&S and Sequoia tell you their systems use Windows). It did not appear to include a list of programmers for any of the software including their own. It did not include an affidavit signed by their CEO. It was not even signed by an officer of the corporation. It was signed by a Vice President who we have found has made political contributions before. Diebold also has questions about the enforceability of the performance bond provided to North Carolina. Diebold has evidence that ES&S provided a defective performance bond in another state. Diebold is confident that no company can satisfy the black letter of the law in North Carolina and only time will tell if ES&S can.

Suits have been filed against Sequoia for not disclosing source code in other states. However, Sequoia could not sell in North Carolina due to the fact that they do not have federal certification and therefore could not get state certification. Sound familiar? You are being told that because the third largest county in PA uses this system you can have confidence that the system will be certified. Montgomery County is using this system because their previous system lost its certification. Three other counties had to buy new electronic systems because their systems lost certification. I doubt that Dr. Shamos or the Department of State will guarantee continued certification simple because a non HAVA compliant version of the equipment is now certified.            

  
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MOVED, AND IT IS THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, that the legitimacy and validity of any election are only as strong as the voters' confidence that their ballots were correctly and impartially tabulated, and that any erosion of this confidence, whether due to real or perceived factors, runs directly contrary to the core values of equal and unfettered exercise of the fundamental right to vote.  Because of the number of comments that have been expressed both to the Board of Elections and to Council by the voters of Allegheny County against acquiring Diebold voting systems, because of the significance of the voters' allegations of Diebold's partiality, untruthfulness, and willingness to circumvent both state and federal election laws, and because of Diebold's refusal to permit free access to its source code, Council finds that it is impossible to conclude that the voters of Allegheny County currently have or will ever have the necessary confidence in any election conducted using a Diebold voting system.  Council accordingly urges the Board of Elections to follow the clearly and consistently expressed will of the voters of Allegheny County and not consider the purchase of any voting system manufactured by Diebold.


While Diebold personnel were available on numerous occasions and placed numerous calls to the office of the County Executive, Allegheny County Council, and the Board of Elections no questions were ever asked about these allegations. Numerous emails were also sent each of which contained contact information. I understand that we were told that it would not be necessary to talk with Diebold when we offered to speak with the chairman of the Board of Elections. I understand that he in fact stated that he knew that the allegations were most likely false but it is the perception that he was concerned about. It is a sad day for American run government when the seriousness of the charge is more important than the nature of the evidence.

It appears that many of you have been contacted by people that saw something on the internet or read something in the press (that was probable on the internet first). I understand that some on you had phone calls from Howard Dean about this. What makes Howard Dean an expert on elections in Allegheny County? You also had approximately 12 hours of public meetings. Because of this you are willing to ignore the 6 months of careful thoughtful unbiased study done by your Search Committee.

Your Allegheny County Search Committee had contact with all of the vendors and examined the companies and their solutions for 6 months. They were fully aware of the allegations that you recount here. They recommended Diebold as the best choice for the future of Allegheny County.

Your Search Committee did not base their recommendations on allegations but investigation and examination. In their recommendation they demonstrated fiscal responsibility, courage, judgment, fairness, wisdom, patriotism and true concern for the future of Allegheny County.

     
If the Allegheny County Council, Board of Elections, and County Executive office had taken this same approach rather than base their actions on allegations and fear of the relatively small, yet loud, number of people that raised these concerns they would have reached the same conclusion as your capable Search Committee. 


[Visit Source Site]
[Return to Jump Point in vote-fraud.html page]