This should be filed in every state and with FEC, to stop voting by electronic machines as well as use of electronic ballot counting scanners, which can be easily rigged
Posted on | September 4, 2011 | 10 Comments
Archive Spam Delete Move to
Labels
More
2 of 35422
Citizen Files Complaint Against NY Board of Elections for Misstating Presidential Birth Requirement| The Post & Email
InboxX
Reply |Creg Maroney to fknapp, ehaight, vperry, cbaiano, lpatricola, jshort, cdurland, jpagones, aforman, dutchesselecti., sheriff
show details 10:58 AM (21 minutes ago)
To The Dutchess County Board of Elections,
I have yet to receive an answer from the NYSBOE. I am contacting those responsible to answer election questions, that are in charge of transparent lawful elections within Dutchess County. Who else would I ask to get needed answers regarding elections other then the NYSBOE or THE DUTCHESS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS being a resident in Dutchess County New York?
Please answer all of my questions about elections in full, and please find out [[ WHY ]] the New York State Board of Elections are not answering my questions.
My questions are within this article Published by The Post & Email here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/20/citizen-files-complaint-against-ny-board-of-elections-for-misstating-presidential-birth-requirement/
I also read this article and lawsuit about corruption in The NY State voting system itself dated August 27, 2011:
August 27, 2011
“SHAME ON NEW YORK STATE”
Lawsuit to Ban All Vote-Counting Machines
Exposing Betrayal of the State and Judiciary
Editor’s note: These were the first five words of the LEGAL BRIEF we filed yesterday in our case against the New York State Board of Elections, in which we are seeking a total ban against the further use electronic vote counting systems. What follows is the entire text of our brief, followed in turn by links to the string of previous filings that preceded this one.
This Reply brief is the final pleading in WTP’s Motion for Reconsideration petitioning the U.S. District Court in Albany to reverse its prior (erroneous) Order dismissing the WTP NCEL lawsuit on a judicial theory of “lack of standing” because all voters are injured equally. The Motion to Dismiss is the State of New York’s second attempt to terminate this historic lawsuit which is essential to protecting the integrity of all elections, which in turn, are the cornerstone of our form of representative government.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1:07-CV-0943 ( LEK-DRH ) RETURNABLE: Sept 2, 2011
ROBERT L. SCHULZ and JOHN P. LIGGETT, Plaintiffs,
-against-
DOUGLAS KELLNER, Individually and as
Commissioner Of the New York State Board of Elections;
EVELYN AQUILA, Individually and as Commissioner
Of the New York State Board of Elections;
HELENA MOSES DONAHUE, Individually;
JAMES A. WALSH, As Commissioner of the New York State Board
of Elections; and GREGORY P. PETERSON,
as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Elections,
Defendants. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Shame on the State of New York.
Governments are instituted among Men to secure the Rights of the People. Declaration of Independence, 2nd paragraph.
Defendants (hereinafter “State”) demonstrate they are clearly more interested in denying Plaintiffs’ (hereinafter “Voters”) Rights than in safeguarding those Rights.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Voters demonstrated the Court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of constitutional standing and mootness was without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence and erroneous as a matter of law. Voters persuaded by argument and evidence.
The State was obligated to intelligently and rationally confront and refute Voters’ arguments and evidence, offering their own, or to stand down. Instead, the State ignored the substance of Voters’ arguments and evidence, choosing to manufacture a distracting claim, accusing Voters of not quoting case law accurately. The claim is false. The State’s opposition paper is an apparent attempt to prevent the Court from focusing on the arguments and the evidence provided in support of the People’s Voting Rights. See Part B, below.
A. IN EFFECT, VOTER’S ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE FOR RECONSIDERATION STAND UNOPPOSED BY THE STATE
The Court based its decision on an erroneous view of the law – i.e., the Constitution, itself.
Voters’ case rests on the fundamental, and self-evident principle that the public nature of elections must be resolutely protected as it is the very cornerstone of the form of representative government mandated by We the People via the Constitution for the United States of America.
To avoid constitutional injury, Voters must be able to comprehend and verify the crucial, procedural steps in conducting their elections, reliably and without any special prior technical knowledge.
To avoid constitutional injury, the elections, particularly the counting of votes, must be implemented before Voters’ eyes. Only then is it possible to guarantee the integrity of an election and ensure the trust of the sovereign Voters in the Congress and the Presidency being composed in a manner corresponding to the bona fide will of the voters.
An election procedure in which Voters cannot reliably comprehend whether their vote is accurately recorded and included in the tabulation of the election result, and how the total votes cast are assigned and counted, excludes central elements of the election procedure from public monitoring, and hence fails to comply with the principle of the public nature of elections arising and emerging, self-evidently, from the Constitution, including Article I, Sections 2 and 4 and the Seventeenth Amendment.
Frivolously, the State asserts Plaintiffs’ “assume the existence of a constitutional right known only to the Plaintiffs.” Opp. 2.
No, the Right is not known only to Plaintiffs. The specific Right of Voters to public monitoring of central elements of the election procedure has been thoroughly documented through Plaintiffs’ pleadings and is, therefore, known to the State and the Court. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain whether the State has remained within the limited boundaries of latitude granted to them by the Constitution, or whether they have violated a valid and fundamental constitutional election principle by overstepping these boundaries. [1]
[Footnote 1] As Plaintiffs have argued, said Right is also now known throughout the nation of Germany, whose high Court, in 2009, banned the further use of all electronic vote counting systems in Germany, necessitating the return to hand counted paper ballots. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss.
The State asserts, “Movants …have simply not made an argument upon controlling precedent which this Court might have overlooked.” Opp. 2.
Not true. In fact, Plaintiffs have argued the Court overlooked the fact that the Right of Voters to public monitoring as central elements of the election procedure (such as the vote counting element) lies within the circumference of the principles of law laid down in the cases cited by Plaintiffs, including but limited to United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 388 (1944); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915), Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23,
Alternatively, as pro-se Plaintiffs implicitly argued, the Court overlooked the fact that the Right lies within the ambit of the controlling “precedent” of the Ninth Amendment.
The State asserts, “Plaintiffs have failed to cite any case, arising under the Constitution which supports their often repeated claim that voting procedures that are not open, verifiable and transparent and machine and computer free, with paper ballots that are hand marked and hand counted, abridge the right to cast an effective vote. This argument is the lynch-pin of Plaintiffs’ case and the only case offered in support of it is Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23.” Opp. 2.
Not true. In fact, the oft-repeated lynch-pin of Voters’ case is the Principle of the Public Nature of Elections emerging from our Constitution that is inclusive of the Right to know their votes are being accurately counted, through voting systems that are open, verifiable and transparent. This constitutional requirement is currently being violated by the State’s voting systems that utilize electronic and mechanical vote counting machines. However, the essential principle of public elections is a constitutional requirement that can be readily satisfied by an election process (i.e., “voting system”) that utilizes hand-counted paper ballots.
Again, to clarify, Plaintiffs have squarely argued that counting of votes, in secret, by machines, is a clear deprivation of a protected fundamental Right by the State. The Court has so concurred in their Order to Dismiss. The cited procedure of publicly counting hand-marked paper ballots is a suggested SOLUTION, and specific form of RELIEF requested by Plaintiffs. That little or no judicial precedent may exist that specifically addresses this specific point may be accurate, the Court would be remiss in ignoring the natural and obvious implications if it fails to grant standing to Plaintiffs, and instead relies on a limited interpretation of the judicial doctrine of standing which not only directly thwarts both the intent of the Constitution and essence of valid public elections upon which the Republic stands, but flies in the face of the principle of law laid down in Public Citizen, Akin and American Canoe.
Indeed, a failure by this Court to recognize standing of the Voters in this case based on a dismissive theory that “equal injuries” are suffered by ALL voters, would be tantamount to establishing a judicial precedent likely barring any future election-related litigation against this State by its Citizens – no matter the specific facts, circumstances or Constitutional injuries.
The lengthy, intense discovery process in this case has provided ample proof of the constitutional harm induced by the current, electronic, in-secret, vote counting system, and the constitutional compliance of the available, manual, in-public, vote counting system. Voters requested and were granted a jury trial. Voters were well on their way to proving their claim as they prepared for the trial.
B. PLAINTIFFS CORRECTLY QUOTED CASE LAW
The State wrote, “Plaintiffs refer the court to page 30 of [Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23]and a reading of that page reveals that the words, “open, verifiable, transparent and machine and computer free, with paper ballots that are hand marked and hand counted”, nowhere appear. Those words do not appear anywhere within the entire opinion of Williams. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Reconsideration, pp. 4-5).”
Voters have never said those words appear in Williams, as the State would induce the Court to believe. In their Amended Complaint, Voters simply wrote:
Voting procedures that are not open, verifiable, transparent and machine and computer free, with paper ballots that are hand marked and hand counted, abridge the right to cast an effective vote. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968). (Amended Complaint, paragraph 253)
There were no quote marks around any of the words, thereby placing the words. “open, verifiable, transparent and machine and computer free, with paper ballots that are hand marked and hand counted” in the category of Voters’ opinion of the meaning of the principle of law reinforced in Williams — the individual Right to cast an effective vote.
On page 3-4 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (not 4-5 as the State wrote), Plaintiffs wrote:
In fact, the Amended Complaint explicitly states: “Voting procedures that are not open, verifiable, transparent and machine and computer free, with paper ballots that are hand marked and hand counted, abridge the right to cast an effective vote. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968).” (emphasis added by Voters).
Here, the quote marks were added due to the fact that, as stated, Plaintiffs were quoting what they wrote in their Amended Complaint.
The State also wrote, “Similarly, in their Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs purport to quote, on page 8 of their Memorandum of Law, from the Supreme Court’s decision in Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 US 11 but inserted language within such quote which does not appear in the Decision, to wit: ‘including the constitutional principle of the public nature of elections”, without advising this Court that such language is an editorial comment of Plaintiffs.’” Opp. 3.
Not true. In fact, here is what Plaintiffs wrote:
In point of fact, the Akins Court held, “Often the fact that an interest is abstract and the fact that it is widely shared go hand in hand. But their association is not invariable, and where a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found ‘injury in fact.’ See Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 449-450 … Thus the fact that a political forum may be more readily available where an injury is widely shared … does not, by itself, automatically disqualify an interest for Article III purposes. Such an interest, where sufficiently concrete, may count as an ‘injury in fact.’ This conclusion seems particularly obvious where (to use a hypothetical example) … large numbers of voters suffer interference with voting rights conferred by law [including the constitutional principle of the public nature of elections] (internal citations and quotations omitted).We conclude that similarly, the informational injury at issue here, directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete and specific such that the fact that it is widely shared does not deprive Congress of constitutional power to authorize its vindication in the federal courts.” Cf. Fed. Election Comm’n v.Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24-25 (1998).
Said language was bracketed by pro-se Plaintiffs, thereby demonstrating Plaintiffs’ intent to show the Court that it was not part of the original decision.
The State has unfairly and insincerely attempted to lead the Court into believing Plaintiffs have deliberately or otherwise misquoted the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
Justice demands this case be allowed to go forward.
Plaintiffs petitioned the Court for a remedy of a Grievance. In sum they had three claims: 1) the electronic voting systems they were being forced to use in 2008 and beyond violated the self-evident, fundamental principles of public elections emerging from the Constitution for the United States of America and the Right to know their votes were being accurately counted; 2) there was a voting system that was readily available, successfully vetted and utilized for many years by all people in Canada in all federal elections, used by the people in half of the voting precincts in New Hampshire, and all the people in most of the countries in the western hemisphere, that would synchronize and protect the fundamental, Constitutional Principle of the Public Nature of Elections and their essential Voting Right to know their votes were being cast effectively; and 3) the electronic vote counting machines violate the contract Plaintiffs entered into when they registered to vote.
Having survived an earlier Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, Discovery got underway by Order of this Court. After a lengthy, intense and costly exchange of documents, it was likely very clear to the State that Plaintiffs have obtained enough evidence to readily prove points 1 and 2 above to a jury of New York citizens. Suddenly, the State filed a second motion to dismiss, which the Court granted, in error.
As Plaintiffs argued in their Motion for Reconsideration, the Court:
· deleted/refused to recognize Plaintiffs claim that the constitutional principle of the public elections that emerges from our Constitution requires all essential steps of voting systems be “open, verifiable and transparent,” and
· overlooked the essential, on-point principle of law laid down in Public Citizen, 491 U.S. 449-450, Fed. Election Comm’n v.Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24-25 (1998), and American Canoe Association v City of Louisa, 389 F.3d 536-546.
Rather than respond to Plaintiff’s compelling arguments, the State instead chose to concentrate its efforts in misleading the Court into believing Plaintiffs misquoted Supreme Court decisions.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be erroneous and manifestly unjust, not only to the Plaintiff Voters, but all the People of New York, if this Court dismissed this case for lack of constitutional standing or mootness.
“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—-who will count the votes, and how.” Attributed to Joseph Stalin, circa 1923, as quoted in The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary (reprinted 1992) by Boris Bazhanov [Saint Petersburg]
Dated: August 25, 2011
(signatures, Plaintiffs Schulz and Ligget)
———————–
Creg Maroney
Pleasant Valley, NY
Comments
10 Responses to “This should be filed in every state and with FEC, to stop voting by electronic machines as well as use of electronic ballot counting scanners, which can be easily rigged”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 4th, 2011 @ 3:17 pm
The FEC does not regulate the manner of voting. It only monitors campaign finance.
Each state determines, for itself, what kind of voting machines and ballots will be used.
September 4th, 2011 @ 5:10 pm
The Justice Department sued N.Y. state in 2006 and threatened to take away federal money set aside for any costs associated with the transition to new technology IF THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “Help America vote act of 2002.” This convoluted name “HAVA” replaced traditional voting booths(LEVER MACHINES ARE JUST AS UNWORTHY) with electronic machines.
The Federal Government pushed the use of these unconstitution back room voting machines nationwide that have been proven to manipulate the votes.
For Constitutional truthful fair and just elections there must be hand marked ballots that do NOT LEAVE OUR EYESIGHT, AND THOSE BALLOTS MUST BE COUNTED IN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC AT EVERY POLLING PRECINCT NATIONWIDE AS WITNESSES OF THE VOTE COUNTING.
September 4th, 2011 @ 6:27 pm
The lawsuit against Westchester County, NY had nothing to do with voting machines. Westchester County failed to make available in Spanish the same election-related information it makes available to its voters in English, as required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. Also, the county failed to post information on voters’ rights and responsibilities that HAVA mandates be publicly displayed at all polling places.
Read the actual lawsuit before posting false info, okay Reloaded?
September 4th, 2011 @ 6:37 pm
I am in contact with Mr. Schulz for over 2 years and all of this time he fought to ban electronic voting machines and electronic scanners.
Mr. Schulz partially sponsored my participation in the continental congress 2009
September 4th, 2011 @ 7:40 pm
Former af jag,”the Weschester lawsuit”??????
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that all states and localities upgrade many aspects of their election procedures,including their voting machines.
The new electronic fraudulant voting machines were approved by the state and purchased so the state would be in [[ COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATE.]]
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, [[MANDATED THAT THE OLD LEVER-BASE FRAUDULANT VOTING MACHINES BE REPLACED WITH NEW FRUDULANT VOTING MACHINES.]]
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has decided that electronic voting machines do not meet the requirements of the German constitution and may not be used. Transparancy in voting is a basic principle and the German court ruled that electronic voting machines will not be allowed.
September 4th, 2011 @ 9:12 pm
The Federal government forced the States, WITH SMOKESCREEN “HAVA” into implementing electronic voting fraudulant systems that have been proven to manipulate the votes
September 6th, 2011 @ 12:12 am
There are no machines in Oregon. Every registered voter is mailed their ballot ahead of voting day. In the privacy of your home, you fill out your ballot, place it in a privacy envelope (included), insert it in the return envelope, which must be signed by you on the back. (That signature is compared with your registration card signature before your vote is counted). Then you have the choice of putting a stamp on it and mailing it back, or, there are drop boxes, similar to outside mail boxes, in convenient locations, where you can return your ballot. In my case, I drive a few blocks to the City Hall/Police Station, drive up alongside the box, roll down the window, deposit my ballot and go on my way. No machines, no Black Panthers, no intimidation by anybody.
September 6th, 2011 @ 10:05 am
There is no doubt that the counting of votes in this day and age is a daunting task, and I used to believe that some sort of mechanized counting system was essential to get the results n a timely manner.
At one time, I’m sure it was basically mechanized, with HARDWIRED machines counting pencil blobs or holes in paper.
Nowadays, it has evolved into an UNNECESSARILY COMPLEX system, in the name of “instant results”. Perhaps, Henry Ford’s approach to breaking a complex problem down into a series of simple steps is the RIGHT approach.
Insteed of CENTRALIZED counting (when has ANYTHING that was “centralized” resulted in an improvement for us?), perhaps we should take a step backwards for this FUNDAMENTAL activity in a free country.
Let’s consider performing the vote count at the precinct level after the polls close. The number of voters in a given precinct should be a manageable number even for totally manual counting of ballots, by use of hardwired, simple machines located in each precinct.
With local voters monitoring the process, perhaps we can restore some honesty to the process.
September 6th, 2011 @ 2:37 pm
Florence Stone, who are counting the votes in Oregon? Are they counted behind closed doors? Is the public allowed to be a witness?
Do you know for FACT your vote was counted and further more counted the way you voted? If you do not know for FACT that it was, then the voting system is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CORRUPT.
As U.S. citizens we have a fundamental Right to know our votes are counted.
There should be a sealed transparent bin that the hand marked ballots go into at every local polling precinct. After the vote is taken the seal is broken on video with the public present. then the votes tallied in front of the public.
September 6th, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
Right on, right on, right on Reloaded!
The sealed transparent bin has my vote!