Sequoia lawsuit gets interesting; your input possible & needed

[Land Shark]

Now it starts to get interesting.

Our first move will be to serve discovery requests, focusing especially on requests for admission. Sequoia will have to admit things are true, or else else pay the expert witness fees of our experts when we prove it at trial.

It's the full employment act for voting machine experts. (Though Sequoia may slow-pay, they will pay...)

So what would you like Sequoia to admit/ it can't be a pure legal conclusion, but it can involve facts applied to law, so long as 'ultimate' issues are not reached: e.g. in an auto accident case 'Admit that your speeding 30 miles an hour over the speed limit was negligent' (assuming negligence is the ultimate claim in the case)

Basically we could use two types of admissions; (1) little rock solid facts that can be backed up and will force potentially embarrassing admissions, and (2) larger factual issues that may well be denied but tees up an army of experts.

Pretend you were the expert, what would you want Sequoia to deny, just so you could prove it and make them pay for their denial?

Maybe you have a friend or acquaintance that has the candlepower to intellectually bomb Sequoia arguments about its technology and software back to the stone age? But you don't even need a friend, just post or PM what you think Sequoia would either be forced to admit based on records available, or what they will likely deny but which we can with the help of various experts, prove in court.

This is brainstorming, so your suggestions don't have to be perfect to be posted. They all start with the form "ADMIT THAT...." and it's usually good to identify a time and place like the November 2004 election for clarity's sake.

Let's hear 'em.

[Amaryllis]

1. kick. No time for more now; back at ya later

[Melissa G]

2. Kickin for later, in the pm hours..

[Land Shark]

3. Are we Sunday-go-to-church types here, or what? n/t

[Amaryllis]

5. Not your traditional church!

[Melissa G]

6. Moms w/ kids and yoga classes.. religious school was earlier in the day

[suziedemocrat]

4. Code not absolutely frozen after acceptance.

This is VERY important. I'm willing to bet, the voting authorities had some sort of acceptance testing before they signed off on this. If they didn't - at least some sort of internal QA department would have had to sign off on the final version of the code. If the code was not securely LOCKED DOWN - there is a very real possibility that the software changed AFTER acceptance testing.

I'm in IT - and this is very common. I worked on a project where we told the customer the code had been in lock down for over a month - when we were still fixing bugs - and planned on continuing to fix things for another few weeks. It was easy for a programmer to see the code was still being changed, but we knew the users were not savvy enough to catch this. If the users had known we were still changing the code, they would have wanted to re-test the final version - which would have made us miss our production date. So we lied. (And when I made a face when finding out about the lie - I was threatened!) I'm telling you after 14 years in IT - I think IT is full of liars! And not just the programmers either.

Also - you want the test plans and test results. Very often testing is done so poorly that it wouldn't catch much of anything. That should raise a red flag.

So - I'd ask for:
- verification of every time the software changed - (with code changes if possible - some shops require difference listings on code changes after a certain point)
- the security procedures to ensure the code could not be changed after acceptance,
- and the test plans and test results as well as the names of the actual testers.

Also - what security was in place to ensure the executable version of the code loaded onto the machines was not overwritten?

Any software company worth it's salt has substantial security measures in place - if they don't - why not? I worked at this election and I did not know where the voting location was - so the night before I drove there to make sure I didn't get lost at 5 o'clock the next morning. I walked in the unlocked location and saw four voting machines sitting there - out in the open. This was in a veteran's home - so there were people around elsewhere in the building - but it was surprising.

[Melissa G]

13. Confirm Maintenance contract folks did not have ability to reprogram

computers after purchase..Lists of names and actions of all maintenance personnel who had anything to do with the computers after purchase..admit that there was noway to remotely access the computers after purchase...

This is all very rough but comes from my memory of some of the Ohio dramas..Not sure if I am being clear in my concerns..ask me to clarify if a point seems muddy.
mg

[davidgmills]

7. Damn I like that expert witness rule and Discovery ideas

Wish we had expert witness rule here. In Tn, we adopted the federal rules. The best we can do is get discretionary costs if we win and then only the testimony is reimbursable. All examinations and work product of experts are not reimbursable. Tx. doesn't even have discretionary rule. (I'm licensed in TN and Texas and considering Ark.)

Admit or deny:

Persons involved. Everyone you know of or can think of in the negotiation process and in the manufacturing process (especialy software) and as a corporate officer or director.

To known corporate officers, directors and shareholders.

To backgound checks on personnel on Sequoia.

To see if County required background checks on corporate personnel.

To loyalty oaths of corporate officials.

Is corporation public or private?

If private, to number of shareholders, i.e less than ten, less than fifty, less than 100, etc.

To offshore ownership.

Percent of stock held by non US citizens.

Relationships. To Persons in ES&S and Diebold or subsidiary relationships.

Standards. Maybe HAVA and regs will prove useful here.

Source code.

Wireless capability.

Modem capability (phone or cable).

Training of government officials. Dates, times, courses, cost;(Seek to prove here officials are totally dependent on Sequoia and that Seqioia has usurped a governmental function)

Central tabulation. How, where, who.

Hackability.

Comparison with banking and financial security.

Cost of paper backup. Cost analysis been done?

Paper backup offered as an option?

Maybe this short list will get some of the brainiacs thinking.

[Land Shark]

8. thanks Davidgmills, please pm me if you want to talk on the phone

about litigation matters.

[Amaryllis]

10. Add to list:

to conflicts of interest with political party or candidates or any other financial conflicts of interest not covered in David's list

Haven't been able to get info on this one, but is there criminal backgound with their software designers like with Diebold? If so,get them to admit to it. And, if so, did county require any background checks on software designers in particular?

[RedEagle]

9. Two Questions Come to Mind

1. Sequoia had a partnership with Vote Here.
Was Sequia installing and/or using any Vote Here programs or products? That would have been done without notification to the FEC or any of the counties using their machines, to my knowledge.

a. Does Sequoia have any code designed to access/interface with Vote Here's product in it's DRE? (This would be the first step. Actual Vote Here product many not be in the machine, but was the heirarchy being set up for its implementation?)

2. When the demo to the CA legislature for the voter verified paper printer/record was done, the machine recorded something different on the paper record than was input on the machine. Of course, the Sequoia person (Alfie Charles, I believe, who is former spokesman for SOS Bill Jones) said that was a fault of the printer and the CA legislature let it go. I believe that was of a spanish language vote.
(Need a double check on that)

a. Printers don't create what they print- they print what the PROGRAM tells them to.

b. Prove that the error that occured was an error of the printer and not the program.
(i) Prove that the program, which generated the information for
the printer, recorded the vote correctly.


If the printed version does not comply with what was input to the DRE, it is VERY unlikely that the printed version was incorrect in terms of what the PROGRAM told it to do.

Voter verified paper records/ballots function very well to determine if the DRE is or is not recording voter intent correctly. That's why the battle to keep them off the machines. Instant proof that the system is not recording voter intent correctly. It's intentionally misleading of vendors to make claims that the paper ballot will cause a problem if it does not match the machine. Quite the contrary, it's the machine/program that is not correctly documenting voter intent.

It's a red herring to make noise about paper ballots not matching the machines. That's not a problem- it's an alarm system.

"Warning, your vote was not recorded correctly by this machine."

Printers print what they are told to by the program.

It's possible that down the road they might create two streams in the programming, so that the paper ballot printed is accurate, but the machine total is something else. Which, of course, is also why there is a great battle over auditing elections.

[Bill Bored]

17. Let the RedEagle sore! (Would prefer Blue though.) nt

[Bill Bored]

19. I mean soar! nt

[RedEagle]

21. Red vs. Blue Eagle

All Red Eagle is about concerns one of the most awesome sights I ever witnessed.

Technically, it was a Golden Eagle but with the lighting that day, it looked more red than gold or brown.

Swooped down in front of my car from the rocky hills headed for the orchards.

I get to witness bald eagles rather frequently and they are a wonderful sight.

But that day with that bird in the sunlight with that wing span.....

[Amaryllis]

11. YOu probably have this, but here's some good dirt on them on

political and financial conflicts of interest:

http://www.publicaccountability.org/election.html

SEQUOIA
Sequoia machines are in use in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

· Sequoia is owned by a company which recently won a major contract from the Bush administration. The UK-based De La Rue, a commercial security printer and cash software provider, was contracted to print Iraq's new currency in July 2003. Its stock surged 9% on news of the deal.10 De La Rue reported that profits were much higher than expected last year on the strength of the Iraq contract.11 The company had hired The Livingston Group, the lobbying firm of former Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, to help them secure the contract.12

· Madison Dearborn, a Chicago investment firm with major ties to George W. Bush and the Carlyle Group, is a part owner of Sequoia. According to Texans for Public Justice, Madison Dearborn's chairman and CEO, John A. Canning, raised over $100,000 in bundled contributions for Bush-Cheney 2004, qualifying him as a Bush Pioneer. The firm has teamed up with the Carlyle Group, a major defense contractor which employed George H. W. Bush, on a number of bids, including the billion dollar purchase of Williams Energy.13 In 2002, CBS exposed the energy company as conspiring to fake the California energy crisis.14 Madison Dearborn inherited its 15% share in Sequoia from Jefferson Smurfit, an Irish firm that had retained a stake after selling the company to De La Rue in 2002.15

· Sequoia was involved in a major corruption scandal in Louisiana. Louisiana's state election commissioner, Jerry Fowler, was found guilty of accepting $9 million in bribes to purchase voting machine equipment from Sequoia. Sequoia employee Phil Foster was indicted by a grand jury in 2001 for conspiracy to commit money laundering and malfeasance. Foster continued to work for Sequoia, was promoted to regional manager, and sold a number of voting machine systems to election officials in Florida counties, who Sequoia failed to notify of the indictment.16 The charges against Foster were dropped when prosecutors promised him immunity in return for testimony against Fowler.17

· Sequoia has hired a number of state officials in California. Bill Jones, California's former Secretary of State, was employed as a consultant. Jones is currently contesting Barbara Boxer's Senate seat. Alfie Charles, Jones' press secretary, is a public affairs director for Sequoia.18 The top election official for Nevada's largest county, who had brought electronic voting to Nevada by purchasing EVM's for her county, became a Vice President at Sequoia (she now works at Hart Intercivic).19

[Land Shark]

20. Except that they're not owned by de la rue any more

yet madison dearborn remains the same as 15%

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill Bored]

15. Well the 2002 spec allows up to 1 in 500,000 (from that other thread).

Link to EAC Voting System Standards/Guidelines:
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill Bored]

14. I will PM thanks. nt

[garybeck]

18. how about..

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not positive I'm understanding your question.

But would it be benefitial to simply get them to admit that they are counting the votes in secret?

If I understand the lawsuit, it seems that it simply seeks to a) prove that there is secret vote counting, and b) prove that secret vote counting is illegal. If you can accomplish these two things, isn't that all that needs to be done?

If the "Keep it Simple" rule applies here at all, I would try to get them to admit that what they're doing is illegal.

I'm sure that's already what you're focusing on, so I guess I'm not sure why anything else is needed. Maybe you're asking for the specifics, on how it is secret. If that's the case, can you cite specific times that you or others have asked them, in writing, to view the source code of the DRE machines? If they replied "no" I would think that it proves they are keeping it a secret. Then the other half is proving that secret vote counting is illegal.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious. I'll try to give it more thought. There is nothing I'd like to do more than help out with this suit in any way possible.

Gary