Sequoia lawsuit update, appearances from both defendants

[Land Shark]

received, as well as a long article in Real Change, a local newspaper distributed in significant part by local homeless. Here are some excerpts, with the original to appear in a couple days on the web at www.realchangenews.org

Go there and subscribe to their email updates! Great newspaper.

------------------

From Real Change News:

April 28, 2005

In many ways, last year’s doomsayers were right: In the November election, electronic voting machines across the nation added votes, lost votes, broke down and switched votes.

And that’s just what’s documented. But, given that Congress failed to investigate and counties are still buying the equipment, it’s a dead issue, right?

Wrong. Across the country, candidates and voters are petitioning or suing county election officials over voting machines. But none in quite the way that Everett attorney Paul Lehto and his lawyer, Randy Gordon, are going after Snohomish County and its electronic voting vendor, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., in a lawsuit filed in April.

In what’s being hailed as a simple but brilliant argument that could serve as a national model for legal action…. <…>

the Sequoia contract will go down in infamy as an “unholy alliance between government and a private corporation.”

<…>

“A contract between two parties can’t take away the rights of a third party, and that’s what’s happened in this case” and across the nation, says Ellen Theisen, executive director of Port Ludlow-based Voters Unite <…>

<…>

“How do you know your votes are counted anywhere in the world?” <…> “We do multiple testing before, during and after the election to ensure the machines are running properly.”

(81 different machines were recalibrated, out of under 950 used)

County Auditor Terwilliger says Lehto and Hoffman are wrong about voting trends in Snohomish County. A late Republican surge, he says, did overcome the absentee count. He also says Sequoia’s systems are accurate.

<…> That’s the beauty of a lawsuit . You can allege anything you want, but it doesn’t make it true.”

========================

Land Shark responds: That’s the beauty of electronic voting. You can report any vote total you want, and it’s unquestionably true. Right?

[bleever]

1. Thanks, Land Shark. They can allege that * won the election,

but that doesn't make it true.

:thumbsup:

[kster]

2. Kick.nt

[MontageOfFreedom]

3. This is the beauty of democracy.....

We can choose to throw corruption out, and kick them out on their buts. But that doesn't make it true, does it?

To the corrupt, corruption is righteous.

[Melissa G]

4. Wrong! when there is our Landshark to keep Sequoia in check!

Land Shark responds: That’s the beauty of electronic voting. You can report any vote total you want, and it’s unquestionably true. Right?
Keep letting them know how wrong it is!!!:loveya:

[Amaryllis]

5. Did you send this to Thom Hartmann?

[Amaryllis]

6. "A late Republican surge, he says, did overcome the absentee count."

And all the late Repubs voted on machines...but all the Dems voted absentee, right? That's why there were so many more Dem votes on paper. Ah, that explains it. Dems like paper, Repubs like machines.

[Land Shark]

7. The auditor is all conclusoins, zero facts

Q; how do you know when an elections official is telling a lie?
A: when they express confidence in a process they neither see nor understand nor verify, but still sign their name 'auditor'.

[davidgmills]

11. I really do like the argument

That two parties can not contract to take away the rights of third parties.

I've been trying to think of a legal angle for some time now.

As a third party, I should have the right to have my vote be one that can be recounted if necessary. All paperless ballot systems deprive voters of this right.

On edit.

Maybe I should file my own action pro se here in Memphis. Half the ballots cast in Tennessee are paperless.

Did you file in Federal Court or State?

Could you fax a copy of the Complaint to me at 901-818-1997?

If we could get a 100 or so of these suits going around the country in the big metro areas, who knows what might happen?

[Land Shark]

12. you can download at www.votersunite.org then click on Sequoia

Snohomish lawsuit link. You will get the lawsuit, the study, the contract and other goodies.

A key concern is always standing: how you've been hurt and therefore can have a lawsuit. Vote dilution can work for everyone to some extent, but in any case you will need to think about your own circumstances as much as you can to make sure you don't get a dismissal on procedural standing grounds. See Lynn Landes's site for a start on standing, she's dealing with that issue.

[davidgmills]

13. Standing

I would argue that I have standing because I have had to vote on these touchtone screens ever since I came to Memphis from Texas ten years ago.

It is my own personal right to have my vote recounted if necessary which had been lost by these paperless machines. Of course probably everyone in this county of one million has probably lost their right as well.

[Land Shark]

14. standing 'concrete and particularized'

A bad case called lujan v. defenders of wildlife set out a 'concrete and particularized" standard for standing. Particularized in particular was starting to be read in effect as "an injury to all is an injury to none." but a case called FEC v. Akins and related cases seem to restore the idea that so long as an injury is concrete, it can be widely shared among the public and still have the plaintiff have standing....

Your injury would be concrete (though the other side would try to say it is 'abstract') so should afford standing. But be sure to plead your injury in detail and especially how, if at all, you might have a special interest, since state law standing may be teh most directly applicable.

[davidgmills]

17. Do you have the cites on those cases?

I'm a PI lawyer and rarely (never) have a standing issue.

Also, I had wondered on another thread about the concept of ultra vires acts of the government being unenforceable.

Also the possiblity of 1983 violations.

Also, I see you did not ask for attorney's fees. Some reason?

Magnuson-Moss. Was this a state codification of the federal law or did you just plead the federal law and if so, why state court? I've forgotten now. Is Magnussum part of anti-trust law or are these tying violations analagous to anti-trust? I"m thinking anti-trust treble damages, is why.

Keep up the good work.

Contract law is so far removed from what I do. I tend to think of everything from a tortious aspect. I'm interested in doing the same thing but I don't think it would help the cause to make a fool of myself.

[Land Shark]

22. Standing cases

FEC v. akins 524 U.S. 11, 141 L. Ed. 2d 10, 118 S. Ct. 1777, (1998)

that case will get you the Lujan cite and discussion of problems of lujan, but it also is based on a strong express grant of standing by congress in the FEC context. also interesting is a later opinion on environmental standing called laidlaw. here's a rule paragraph on federal standing, but even this rule paragraph could be quibbled with especially when it cites lujan (state standing is another matter, and often easier, so you need to know if you will plead state claims or federal):

"Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III. To satisfy Article III, a plaintiff "must show that (1) it has suffered an 'injury in <**11> fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Sys. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 145 L. Ed. 2d 610, 120 S. Ct. 693 (2000). If a plaintiff lacks Article III standing, Congress may not confer standing on that plaintiff by statute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 576-77, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992). A suit brought by a plaintiff without Article III standing is not a "case or controversy," and an Article III federal court there-fore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998). In that event, the suit should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). See Steel Co. at 109-10; Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003); Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002)"

[garybeck]

8. Land Shark, you define patriotism

the action you are taking is one of the only rays of hope in this huge assault on our democracy.

are you sure that's not a "Candygram" you're delivering?

[Land Shark]

10. Great pics, only this shark is attempting to eat Sequoia

then fertilize the government with $5 million to start the process over again

[ray of light]

9. The best way to get election reform

Is from the bottom up! Start locally at your local offices and work your way up. Make calls, write letters, involve friends and neighbors, and most importantly work from day one to get your ideal candidate elected (be it a progressive Republican or a Moderate Democrat or a Liberal Democrat) it's important to work to get the facts out and to get the BEST choice elected.

And once anyone is in office it's important to hold them accountable.

[rigel99]

15. welcome RayOfLight, but check your assumptions

your post implies that "CAMPAIGNING AND CHOOSING CANDIDATES" is a given option to the citizen base.... sad to say it is not..... What If I told you Electronic voting controlled by a very few chooses who gets into office, then why is getting candidates elected important to you? Unelected officials put in office artificially by computer tallies that are fraudelent, will never vote themselves out of office... NEVER>>>>>>>...

what trumps voting new candidates into office, or silly get out the vote efforts is SHUTTING DOWN ELECTRONIC VOTING machines as counting our votes...

if this isn't clear to the populace, we need to make it clear...

all other democratic activities must be subservient to the election fraud struggle, going after anything else is a waste of time....

I wonder how long before the population get this basic point...

it's real frustrating from my vantage point in GA , where in 2002 they stole all the democratic majorities in both houses and the UNELECTED OFFICIALS reduced from 17 down to 4 the # of identifications accpeted for voting.... wow, isn't that cool, unelected folks get to stay in office indefinitely and pass really crazy laws that don't respresent not even 10% of their constiutuency...

keep up the idealism, but check your premises, read landshark's lawsuit and start working now from a world of all the rules are broken, what do we do now????

[ray of light]

20. You have a good point

The decision to use specific machines does sometimes come from higher up the food chain. However, I'd like for you to consider this: some of the actual "processes" (administrative duties) do derive at the local level. Think of the butterfly ballot lady in Florida (sorry I'm tired and can't remember her name...Teresa Lapore is it?). At any rate, she clearly was not really capable of understanding the ramifications of HOW a ballot is built. What if somebody competent had made the ballot?

Also, think of this, in Washington, it was discovered that there were missing votes not tallied and ballots that were discarded for no logical reason. Is that person competent?

And one last thing my feeble mind can consider, is the actual tracking of registrations, addresses, and provisional ballots, that also requires locals to handle the administrative level extremely well and without "partisanship".

But before you get upset with me, I'll tell you I absolutely agree with you about the fraud and computer theft and this is something we will have to show up at meetings, protest, and demand accountability as well. Clearly, Bush has sat on this for 5 years already, and as a Republican just told me, "Bush clearly stole the last two elections through fraud..." but I still take my idealist little heart and say, "I'm NOT gonna let you." @@@;-)

I suppose that's why I use the themes from Les Miserable and the idea of the French Revolution to remind people that even then, they were FIGHTING for democracy and that's what we must do too. You can join us too, at the Democracy Cell Project or even just through any activist site. Just get active. :)

(Thanks for reading this whole thing. And I'm not sure if I come across as mean or sarcastic, so just so that you know, I don't intend to sound that way. Actually, I'm in a nice cheery mood--and happy go lucky--since hearing that hardcore Republican admit 1. FRAUD and 2. EMBARRASSMENT and 3. DISGUST. So I hope you don't take anything I said in a hurtful way.)

Thanks.

[rigel99]

21. more and more republicans

who are DISGUSTED are coming out of the woodwork and breaking ranks (voinovich on the Bolton nomination) and others..

it's going to be snake eating snake soon, there will be nationwide gnashing so loud we'll all hear it... I've always thought we must only let Republicans out greed themselves...

thanks for your post...... keep up the activism...

[rigel99]

16. my addition to the shark pictures....

[New Earth]

18. lol

[Land Shark]

19. rigel99 in lead on creativity contest, thanks for the jaws pic! nt