Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News 1/7/06

[livvy]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.



Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.



Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[livvy]

1. Susan Ralston Knows Everything

1/5/06: SUSAN RALSTON, ASSISTANT TO JACK ABRAMOFF, KARL ROVE AND GEORGE BUSH, KNOWS EVERYTHING


If someone were to ask who the key to the Republican corruption vault is, Susan Ralston's name would be at the top of many lists. She has been the personal assistant to serial briber Jack Abramoff and serial leaker Karl Rove. She is also a special assistant to George Bush. According to RawStory, Mrs. Ralston has been repeatedly called to testify before the grand jury investigating Mr. Rove. It appears that she also been called to testify before the Abramoff grand jury because she was in charge of his skybox giveaways.
However, there is one event on which she has not yet testified -- the 2004 presidential election. In the accompanying photo, on November 2, 2004, Mrs. Ralston sits next to Karl Rove keeping track of the election results as they came in. We would like to know if there is any truth to the reports that Rove was told that GW was losing the election and so he went to the WH war room to maniulate the votes in a half dozen swing states. Our curiosity is strong because of Mrs. Ralston's duties at the time as White House Liaison to the Bush-Cheney ’04 (BC’04) campaign. "I work on the coordination of all activities between the campaign and the White House, including the Republican National Convention," she toldAsian Fortune. Indeed, since it appears that she has a Forrest Gump-like history of being at the heart of the most scandalous political crimes of the Bush Administration, the odds are that she is the Rosetta Stone for all information about crimes committed around the election.
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

[livvy]

2. Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Diebold

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060106005625&newsLang=en

January 06, 2006 06:08 PM US Eastern Timezone

Milberg Weiss Announces The Filing Of A Class Action Suit Against Diebold, Inc. And Certain Of Its Officers and Directors On Behalf of Investors

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 6, 2006--The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on January 6, 2005, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold" or the "Company") (NYSE: DBD) between October 22, 2003 and September 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, against defendants Diebold, Walden W. O'Dell (former CEO, Chairman), Eric C. Evans (former President and COO) and Gregory T. Geswein (former CFO). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss's website at: http://www.milbergweiss.com
If you bought the securities of Diebold between October 22, 2003 and September 20, 2005, inclusive, and sustained damages, you may, no later than February 13, 2006, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

[Wilms]

9. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408124

[livvy]

3. Commentary by Tom Elias "Hanging Chads Were Better Than This"

Commentary: Hanging chads were better than this
California Focus By columnist Tom Elias

There's no longer any doubt about it: Hanging chads were far, far better than what could ensue if California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson this spring certifies the two most common brands of electronic voting machines for use in this year's elections and many more to come. >snip
In the changeover to more sophisticated machines, two brands became dominant, both through marketing and competitive bidding. Those brands are Diebold, whose machines are now used in 17 California counties - even though the Diebold TSx, one of the firm's most popular and cost-effective models, still awaits California's certification - and Elections Systems & Software (ES&S).
One positive note is that McPherson has not buckled under pressure to certify quickly from election officers in the many counties which bought Diebold hardware and the software to run it. That pressure comes because federal law requires new machines in place well before the June primary. Election officials don't want to be forced to return to their respective county boards and report they've wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on unreliable voting machines. But McPherson punted the Diebold certification issue to federal testing officials and no one knows how long their tests will take or how thorough they will be. >more

http://www.ridgecrestca.com/articles/2006/01/06/news/columnists/colo01.prt

[Wilms]

20. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408189

[livvy]

4. Clean Money Campaign: California Assembly Bill 583

fundshttp://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/13572389.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/13572389.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

After the most expensive election in California history and a national influence-peddling scandal that threatens congressional leaders, proponents of publicly financed campaigns say voters want fundamental change.
At a town hall meeting Saturday in Oakland and in a Sacramento legislative hearing next week, advocates will tout the benefits of Assembly Bill 583, the so-called "Clean Money Campaign" system.
Modeled after similar systems in Arizona and Maine, it awards willing candidates a predetermined amount of public dollars per campaign if they refuse to collect outside contributions or tap into personal wealth.
The bill does not specify how the state would pay the $134 million annual cost, but advocates have cited numerous sources, including one that Arizona uses, a surcharge on criminal and civil fines.>more

[Wilms]

5. PA: Lawsuit leveled at electronic voting/Group wants machines on ballot

Lawsuit leveled at electronic voting
Group wants voting machines on ballot

Saturday, January 07, 2006
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

State Sen. Jim Ferlo has joined a group of voting rights activists in a lawsuit aimed at forcing Westmoreland County to seek more public input before it purchases a new generation of touch-screen voting machines for the upcoming May primary election.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday, could have statewide implications. It argues that, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, all 67 counties must let voters pick their preferred model of electronic machines through ballot questions.

"This goes to the issue of having fair and accurate elections," said Mr. Ferlo, D-Highland Park, whose district covers a portion of Westmoreland County. "I really think there are serious concerns about this technology."

But Mark Gesalman, county solicitor, said a four-year-old federal law takes precedence over the state Constitution.

snip

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06007/634104.stm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408142

[Wilms]

6. PA: Machine Suit Filed

Machine Suit Filed

By Paul Peirce
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Saturday, January 7, 2006

Ten Westmoreland County residents and state Sen. Jim Ferlo filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the county's recent purchase of 750 computerized voting machines.

The lawsuit, the first in Pennsylvania, alleges county commissioners and the board of elections violated the state constitution by approving the $3 million purchase of the touch-screen machines without first receiving approval from county voters via referendum to switch from the current manual, levered-voting system.

The lawsuit claims the elections board was required by state law to "submit a question to the voters at any primary or election asking shall an electronic voting system be used in the (county or municipality), and that such a question be approved by voters, prior to the use of said electronic voting system by the board of elections and the county."

"Therefore, to commit public funds to the purchase of electronic voting system machines, and/or to enter a contract to do so, prior to approval of the same by the voters is in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Election Code," the lawsuit states.

snip

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/westmoreland/s_411247.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=408142&mesg_id=408149

[livvy]

7. The Best Voting System in the Nation

This is from a thread posted yesterday by Demeter. The thread can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=183320

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_prof__ro_060104_oregon_s_all_mail_vo.htm

January 4, 2006

Oregon's All-Mail Voting:
The Best Voting System in the Nation!
by Prof. Robert D. Fischer


Oregon, with slightly more than two million registered voters, is the
only state with all-mail voting. All elections in Oregon are vote by
mail. The only reason that we Oregonians have this system is that
voters here insisted upon it, and took the initiative to make it
happen.

Why we love it so

The reasons for the Oregon system's popularity with the voters are not
difficult to understand. It is far more convenient to vote at your own
kitchen table than to go to a local precinct and stand in line to vote.
Everyone can fit voting into their schedule no matter how busy they
are. Voters have at least two weeks to vote, and that allows plenty of
time to study the voters' pamphlet, and to research and discuss the
issues. Another big advantage to voters is that they do not have to be
physically present on that one day designated as Election Day. The
study cited above showed that women with small children, the disabled,
young people on the go, and retirees, are all more likely to vote by
mail than at a precinct.

Election supervisors like it because mail in voting actually improves
voter turnout. In the 2004 election, almost 87% of Oregon's registered
voters cast ballots. The study cited above also showed that neither of
the two major parties gained an advantage from mail in voting.
Mail-in balloting allows for centralized supervision and control of
ballot processing in county elections offices, and permits election
officials to maintain uniformity of standards, and strict compliance
with law throughout the state.

Taxpayers have good reason to like the system, too. The cost of
conducting all-mail elections is one-third to one-half the cost of
polling place elections. For example, the May 1994 polling place
election cost Oregon taxpayers $4.33 per ballot. The May 1995 vote by
mail election cost only $1.24 per ballot. The reason is
obvious: Oregon does not have to recruit, hire, train, and supervise
thousands of precinct workers.

In addition to being more convenient for the voters, advantageous to
election officials, and much cheaper for the taxpayers, mail in voting
offers greater security over ballots, and guarantees the integrity of
the ballot count. Oregon does not suffer from the hassles of
understaffed, relocated, or closed precincts, or battles over
provisional ballots, recalcitrant, too few, or missing voting machines.
Best of all, with mail in balloting, massive voter fraud is virtually
impossible. There are no easily hacked touch screen voting machines,
and there is a permanent paper trail.


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

Robert D. Fischer, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus from California State
University - Fresno, where he was the Director of the Peace and
Conflict Studies Program. He is active with the Bandon Bill of Rights
Defense Committee, and the Oregon Coast Peace Wave. [e-mail] .

edit to fix link

[Wilms]

10. Corrected Link

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_prof__ro_060104_oregon_s_all_mail_vo.htm

[Wilms]

8. CT: Secretary of state says voting machine company misled her

Secretary of state says voting machine company misled her

By Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer

01/05/2006

snip

"It took some very pointed questions from my staff" during contract negotiations just before Christmas to learn Danaher Controls hadn't yet filed an application with the federal Election Assistance Commission, Bysiewicz said.

Specifically, the company still hadn't sought federal approval for a key function of its machine: the ability to produce a paper receipt showing all ballot selections made by any individual voter.

snip

Both in paperwork given her office last spring shortly after the workshop, and later through comments made to her staff, Danaher Controls indicated it had applied for federal certification for the paper receipt function within its machines, Bysiewicz said.

"They misled us," she said. "We did not have any information about these misrepresentations until we sat down at the negotiating table" on Dec. 21.

snip

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15875939&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408089

[Wilms]

11. (Some) OPINION: Don't Strangle E-Voting With Paper

OPINION
Don't Strangle E-Voting With Paper

By Sonia Arrisona, TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute and co-author of "Upgrading America's Ballot Box: The Rise of E-voting."

TechNewsWorld

01/06/06

snip

While popular, e-voting is at risk of being stymied by nervous Nellies and the anti-property lobby.

snip

In California and other states, the march to make e-voting machines perfect using legislative dictates is in vogue. For instance, even after California passed a law to force all e-voting machines to have a voter-verified paper audit trail, state Senator Debra Bowen introduced yet more legislation for paper. At this rate, one might expect to find a paper-covered computer in the voting booth.
Outdated Methods

Bowen's legislation increased the state's commitment to slow, old and inefficient paper voting methods by specifying that "manual recounts of votes" requires that "the paper record copies or the voter verified paper audit trail of the electronically recorded vote are counted manually." In a press release on this issue, she echoed worn out anti-property rhetoric that will ring strange to freedom-loving Californians considering her run for Secretary of State.

snip

According to a 2004 Winston Group survey, voters using e-voting machines are just as likely to trust their voting technology as voters using lever machines and optical scanners. The survey further revealed that seven out of ten voters were not concerned with the security Free Trial: Eliminate IM compliance and security threats with policy and enforcement. of e-voting equipment, and that an overwhelming majority of voters who have used e-voting systems agreed that DRE devices are helpful in reducing electoral maladies, such as accidental over- or under-voting. In short, e-voting is pretty popular, but sure to touch off discussion as the next election day draws near.

snip

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48152.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408102

[livvy]

12. N.C. Board Chooses ESS For County

http://www.bladenjournal.com/articles/2006/01/07/news/news02.txt

Board chooses new voting machines

By JEFFERSON WEAVER, Staff Writer
Bladen County voters will use paper ballots and an optical reader in the May primaries.
Elections Supervisor Larry Hammond said the Bladen County Board of Elections Thursday recommended the Elections Systems and Software voting machine for purchase by the county. The total cost of upgrading the county’s machines to meet state and federal law is not known, but Hammond said will be around $220,000 to $250,000.>snip
The N.C. legislature passed Senate Bill 223 earlier this year to require paper records of all votes cast in the state before the May 2006 primaries. Federal voting authorities have also ordered all states to come into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities/Help America Vote Act, which require handicapped-accessible voting machines at every polling place.>snip
ESS of Omaha, Nebraska, and Diebold Systems presented two prototype systems last week in Elizabethtown and across the state. Voters got the chance to examine the machines and submit questions about the systems before the Board of Elections made their final choice.
The ESS system uses a paper ballot, Hammond said, which is read by an optical scanning device similar to a photocopier or computer scanner. The ballots will be counted and read by machine. Hammond said voting officials want to avoid “hiccups” like those in Carteret County last year and Florida during the 2000 elections.>more

[livvy]

13. Alameda County, California Proposal: Mail In the Ballots

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/13572385.htm

Posted on Sat, Jan. 07, 2006
Mailboxes may be only vote venue
By Guy Ashley
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
OAKLAND - With controversy and technical problems dogging electronic voting equipment, Alameda County's chief elections official has proposed an unprecedented option: eliminating most polling places for next June's statewide primary and asking county voters to mail in their ballots instead.
"With all the concerns about equipment -- even certified equipment -- it seems to me that to spend millions of dollars on new equipment at this point might not be very wise," said Elaine Ginnold, the county's acting registrar of voters. "Luckily, there's another alternative: a mail ballot election where you don't have to buy all this equipment." >snip
Under this scenario, the county would ask most voters to mail in their ballots, while a small number of machines would be purchased and made available to disabled voters. This route, she said, would greatly reduce the cost of providing machines in polling places across the county.
An election by mail would follow Alameda County's voting trends anyway, Ginnold said. The number of county voters currently signed up to vote by mail stands at 37 percent; 47 percent of voters chose to vote by mail in Alameda County in November's election, she said.>more

[zalinda]

14. What if class action lawsuits were filed on every

voting machine company? Unless these companies can PROVE that their machine is as accurate as pencil and paper, with paper trail and can't be hacked, cover them in lawsuits. Either they'll conform or go out of business. Is this possible?

zalinda

[FogerRox]

15. Save the Vote From HAVA Insanity

January 7, 2006

Save the Vote From HAVA Insanity
by Mary Ann Gould, Coalition for Voting Integrity


http://www.opednews.com

Dear Fellow Concerned Citizen,

As you may know, it's very possible that we will be losing the most essential part of what it means to live in a democracy: the integrity of our vote. How this is coming about is mind-numbingly ludicrous, almost beyond comprehension. Because of one nterpretation of the, perhaps well-intentioned but very misguided, Help America Vote Act (HAVA), government officials are trying to foist electronic voting machines on us. Machines that break down, have huge security issues, can switch your vote without your realizing it, have no paper ballots to assure the accuracy of your choice, and absolutely no ability to provide recounts or audits should questions arise later about election results. They also cost millions of dollars, and won't last more than a few years. Our own Government Accountability Office even concludes there are major problems Don't you agree it is outrageous that they are even being considered? It would seem a very bad joke if it weren't so serious!

What is happening is a complete violation of our voting rights, because no one should be forced to vote on such insecure machines.

more-

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_ann_060107_save_the_vote_from_h.htm

[FogerRox]

16. Arkansas-Tim Humphries disses Automark

Election Commission chooses new touch-screen voting machines
BY DREW TERRY Northwest Arkansas Times

Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006


Touch-screen voting will become an option for future elections in Washington County.

The Election Commission on Thursday agreed to recommend installing iVotronic Touch Screen Voting System units in each polling place after learning new state regulations limiting counties’ options when choosing among Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems.

The touch-screen units eliminate the need for users to deposit their paper ballots into the storage boxes. The information instead is stored in the machine and on a printed receipt, while the commission would rather retain actual ballots. "We think having a ballot in our hands is preferable to having it stored in a computer chip or on a strip of paper," commission chairman John Logan Burrow said prior to the vote.

>snip<


Burrow and fellow commissioners Pete Loris and Tom Lundstrom had favored installing AutoMARK machines, which still require the use of individual ballots. They reluctantly abandoned hope of using that system Thursday after hearing from Tim Humphries, general counsel for the secretary of state.

Humphries told the com- missioners the AutoMARK received poor reviews during a test involving people with disabilities, some of whom found difficulty in transferring the ballots to the storage box. "There was a great deal of concern in the disabled community that the Auto-MARK doesn’t allow you to vote independently as HAVA requires," he said.

Loris asked whether voters would be acting independently when someone running a polling site still would have to transfer the results tallied by a DRE to the box containing the paper ballots.

Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels announced in November the state chose to use equipment from Election Systems & Software, which has provided election services in Arkansas for more than 20 year.

more-

http://nwanews.com/nwat/News/36117/

[MelissaB]

17. 1 Year Ago Today -- History Made WITH NO NEWS REPORTING -- Vote this up!

Thanks to FULL_METAL_HAT here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2354129

[MelissaB]

18. Another walk down the January 6th memory lane

For another walk down memory lane:

2/5/05: VIDEO: America's Illegitimate Election 2004
Never forget what happened on November 2nd, 2004... Here's a video to help...

Go here to watch: http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#020505


GDP link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2354575

[FogerRox]

19. Brad blog- NM- SoS Decides It Will Be Better To Wait For The Court

NM: Agreement Reached On Voting Machine Purchase Freeze
SoS Decides It Will Be Better To Wait For The Court To Make A Decision
Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.Org According to a January 3 article on VoteTrustUSA , Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron delayed the purchase of 800 Sequoia Edge...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon
According to a January 3 article on VoteTrustUSA, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron delayed the purchase of 800 Sequoia Edge touch screen voting machines that some New Mexico counties had chosen to meet federal accessibility requirements.

On January 5 Voter Action amplified and corrected the statements of the Secretary. In their press release, Voter Action said:

"The Secretary of State has said the reason to buy the Sequoia AVC Edge touchscreen voting machines is to make voting easier for disabled voters, as required by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). In fact, the Edge machines fail to accommodate the disabled or meet HAVA requirements, as shown in a powerful and detailed expert affidavit filed by the plaintiffs. In addition, the machines lack printers to produce voter verifiable and auditable paper ballots, as required by the New Mexico Election Code, and do not accurately record and count votes, as required by the New Mexico Constitution. To the contrary, the Sequoia Edge voting system has a record of losing thousands of votes, switching votes, and failing to record votes cast in Spanish."

NOTE: There is presently NO Sequoia voting system that meets the presently in force voting systems standards. The best that Sequoia can do is to meet standards that are 15 years old. Today this reporter called the Election Assistance Commission and I was told that Sequoia has nothing close to federal qualification at this time. This means that counties who have purchased their voting machines on the promise of being compliant by January 1, 2006 cannot meet the Help America Vote Act of 2002 accessibility mandates.





http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002244.htm

[livvy]

21. Bob Fitrakis to speak in Michigan Jan. 8 and Feb 14

Posted by meganmonkey in Michigan forum.

"Is Michigan Next?
Ohio Election Fraud and the Diebold Debacle"

Learn more about these crucial issues:

November 2004 Election Debacle in Ohio
Creation of RON and Congressman John Conyer’s Hearing in Jan. 2005 in Ohio
Petition Drives to reform Ohio elections during 2005
Oct. 2005 US Government Accounting Office (GAO) Report on Ohio Fraud
Nov. 2005 Election Debacle in Ohio
Dec. 20005 Diebold Sued in Federal District Court on Securities Fraud


Bob Fitrakis is a lawyer and award-winning journalist and Professor of
Political Science in the
Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community
College. He earned his law
degree at the Ohio State University Mortitz College of Law, and his Ph.D in
Political Science from
Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. With Harvey Wasserman he is
co-author of HOW THE GOP
STOLE AMERICA’S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available at
http://www.freepress.org and at
http://www.harveywasserman.com, and, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED
IN OHIO?, to be
published by the New Press in 2006.


Sunday January 8:

East Lansing, 1:30 - 3:30 PM, Unitarian Church Social Hall, 855
Grove Street,
East Lansing. (one block east of Abbott, about 2/3 mile north from the
intersection of East Grand
River Ave., Michigan Ave, and Abbott, on MSU's northern border of
campus. On the ground floor
-enter from the parking lot.) Contact: Bob Alexander, Email:
[e-mail] Phones:
Lansing: 517-351-0965
Cell: 517-490-3415

Ann Arbor, 7:00 - 9:00 PM, Pittsfield Township Hall, 6201 W.
Michigan Avenue
(About a mile West of US-23), Ann Arbor, MI 48108 (sponsored by Washtenaw DFA)
Contact: Mary Shindell, Email: [e-mail] Phones: 734-996-3963,
cell: 734-417-7036


Tuesday February 14

Pontiac, 7:00 – 9:00 PM, Board of Commissioners Auditorium, 1200
N. Telegraph Road,
Pontiac, MI 48341. Speaking at monthly Oakland County Democratic Party
meeting. This educational
event is open to all. Contact: Jayne Hamilton, Email:
[e-mail] Phones: 248-335-0021,
Cell: 248-909-1493

Discussion thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=159x5144

[Stevepol]

22. K&R!! n/t

[Wilms]

23. Nice work. nt