HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Does OHIO Sec of State ha...

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:34 PM

Does OHIO Sec of State have a plan to give Ohio to Rmoney?? Will we have another Selection 2000?

Yesterday I posted about the Ohio Attorney General having untested software installed on equipment used to transmit vote counts to SoS's office. It is against OHIO law to install untested software on machincs that tabulate or transmit voting information. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101646975

I called the Ohio Sec of State's office a couple of hours ago and the young woman on the phone said the judge ruled that the software was okay(!). She may have been bullshitting me, since the law is clear - software cannot be installed without first being tested (I assume by qualified people). [font size="3"] But it could have been a Republican judge which means partisanship rules over legal, ethical or constitutional considerations.[/font]

Here is an excerpt from the FreePress article I posted yesterday:
(all emphases my own)

Ohio election law does not allow software or hardware to be used in election until it has been tested or certified by the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners unless it is experimental. The confidential internal memos indicate that this software was never tested because of claims that it is not involved with the tabulation or communication of votes. Reporting election results from county tabulation systems to the secretary of state's office, which is the purpose of this software as explained by McClellan, is in fact communication of votes.

The potential federal illegality of this software has been hidden from public scrutiny by the Secretary of State's Election Counsel Brandi Seske. In a September 29 memo, Seske wrote, "Please see the attached letter from Matt Masterson regarding de minimis changes - one submitted by ES&S and one by Dominion Voting Systems. He has reviewed and approved the changes." "De minimis" is a legal term for minute. Federal election regulations have a very specific definition of de minimis. This definition was clarified to all state level agencies in a federal Elections Assistance Commission memo dated February 8, 2012 entitled "Software and Firmware modifications are not de minimis changes."

Ohio election law provides for experimental equipment only in a limited number of precincts per county. Installing uncertified and untested software on central tabulation equipment essential affects every single precinct in a given county. Nowhere in the memos circulated by Seske, nor in the contract, is the software called "experimental."

The Secretary of State's office has given one questionable justification to its own Board of Voting Machine Examiners and another to the public.

Here is the latest I could find on this as of today: Ohio faces controversy over voting machines

In Ohio, a lawsuit alleges that Secretary of State Jon Husted and Election Systems & Software, an Omaha, Neb., company that makes electronic voting systems used in the state, improperly approved the use of untested, non-state certified software in voting machines to help tally results.

The suit -- filed Monday in federal district court by Robert Fitrakis, a Columbus, Ohio, college professor, voting rights activist and congressional candidate representing the Green Party -- claims that the software could erroneously alter election results or even lead to election fraud. According to the complaint, the suit alleges that the software could introduce mistakes into the vote count, or allow third parties to manipulate the results.

A hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order on using the software is scheduled today at 9 a.m. in federal district court. (UPDATE: After an hour of oral arguments, U.S. District Court Judge Greg Frost said he would issue a ruling while Ohio polls are open.)*

"Our position is we don't know what's in [the software], but it seems to violate state law and federal law," Fitrakis said. "Under Ohio law, it's supposed to be tested by the Ohio board of voting machine standards."

* this indicates to me that the judge intends to let the SoS go ahead with his 'trick' software. Personally, I think the vote count in Ohio should be 'frozen' until the untested software is removed.

I called the Dept of Justice ((800) 253-3931) (civil rights division) and left a complaint about this 'trick' software. The woman who took my complaint, asked for the source of my information and said an attorney might get back to me if he needed more information. THey take these complaints about disinfranchisement of citizens seriously.

Anyone who feels inclined can call the same number. I figure, the more who call, the more impetus to check out this situation. I think this is most likely an attempt to throw OHIO into Rmoney's column and hope Obama will pull an 'Al Gore' on us, and just throw up his hands and forsake democracy to the wolves of totalitarianism.

I hope others will call the DoJ number (800 253-3931) with this complaint. Remember Selection 2000. We don't need to see democracy raped again.

7 replies, 1864 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does OHIO Sec of State have a plan to give Ohio to Rmoney?? Will we have another Selection 2000? (Original post)
Bill USA Nov 2012 OP
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #1
Bill USA Nov 2012 #2
Bill USA Nov 2012 #3
Bill USA Nov 2012 #4
demgrrrll Nov 2012 #5
Bill USA Nov 2012 #6
demwing Nov 2012 #7

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:39 PM

1. I fear that is what is going to happen

Too many things in play here that will make it easy for Husted to play with the numbers.

The patch that he put on the machines late last week will bring the whole election into question and they can use it either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to liberal N proud (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:43 PM

2. that's exactly why we need a boatload of calls to the DoJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:50 PM

3. UPDATE: judge rules against Fitrakis. Here we go, Selection 2012.


Breaking News: Results of today’s hearing in state court on the uncertified and untested software
by Free Press staff
November 6, 2012

Bob Fitrakis returned from state Common Pleas Court, reporting that Judge Serrott ruled against him regarding his request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to remove the uncertified, untested software from some Ohio voting machines. However, the judge left open the possibility that the case could be heard after the election, if there is evidence of election tampering. The judge declined to interfere in an on-going election, but indicated that he would consider taking action as the case continues after the election if it was needed. So, in conclusion, in both the federal and state cases, expert witness Michael Duniho who worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) spelled out in great detail the threat to Ohio’s voting system by the secret, uncertified, and untested software.

MUST READING! Read Michael Duniho affidavit here:
NSA expert Michael Duniho affidavit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:59 PM

4. IF you want to help OHIO Dems fight the GOP theft of the Ohio vote a link and address and phone:

Ohio could swing the entire election.

Contributions on-line

Donate by Mail:

Ohio Democratic Party
340 East Fulton St.
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Donate by Phone:

To make your donation by phone,
please call:
Valarie Johnson
614-221-6563 ext. 116
1-877-OHIO-DEM (toll-free)


If you have questions or problems with your contribution, please call 1-614-221-6563 ext.148 or email us at contribute@ohiodems.org.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:27 PM

5. Judge said he would re hear the case again if there are any suspicious outcomes. Left the door open

and I would say fired a salvo over Husted letting him know that there would be actions taken if the vote looks suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to demgrrrll (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:31 PM

6. I don't know anything about Ohio equipment. Is there a paper trail to check against data on vote

counts sent by machines in question? In other words will it be possible to prove squirrely vote counts sent by machines in question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:27 AM



I said it was a nowhere issue before the election, and explained why in detail, then a federal judge dismissed the case, then Obama won Ohio. How many ways do you folks.have to be wrong before you stop spreading this bullshit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread