Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Mugging Democracy

William Heuisler
Mugging Democracy

How? Hiring unprincipled techs, using undependable computer systems and buying unlawful software to fabricate votes. (See A-G below: from Ford v. etc. 2008).

A) Pima County uses the Diebold “GEMS” (Global Election Management System). Computer testing company, iBeta, told Attorney General Goddard, ”During testing (Diebold) software exhibits fundamental security flaws that make definitive validation of data impossible due to ease of data and log manipulation.” (Diebold, 2011) (iBeta, 2011)

B) Arizona Secretary of State’s Election Director, Joseph Kanefield, referenced iBeta’s report: “This is no secret. These issues have been known by, not only our office, but election offices all over the country.”

C) Pima County Attorney, Chris Straub’s court testimony admits: “Because (Diebold) can be easily manipulated, the bottom line is we’re only going to catch stupid people… because one could also alter the (computer) audit logs and one could do anything.”

D) Dr. David Jefferson, computer adviser to six California Secretaries of State testified: “(Diebold) security mechanisms are…inadequate to prevent manipulation of ballot records or vote totals by anyone with even a very short period of access to the system.”

E) California’s Diebold review summary: “Our analysis shows technological controls in the Diebold software do not provide sufficient security to guarantee a trustworthy election. The software contains serious design flaws that have led directly to specific vulnerabilities that attackers could exploit to affect election outcomes.”

F) Election computer experts are unanimous on one method to cover up vote falsification: A Diebold audit log can be copied and altered off-line (at office or home) by election personnel and re-inserted through a process called “forking.” (Computer tech, Bryan Crane, testified he regularly took mail-in/absentee vote-result-log copies home on CDs.)

G) Diebold precinct memory cards can be programmed by “Crop Scanner” software to produce false results. Pima County Elections Director, Brad Nelson, testified he had authorized computer tech, Bryan Crane, to purchase a Crop Scanner. Crane testified he had practiced using Pima County’s Crop Scanner” to alter memory cards so optical scanners would print false poll tapes of the votes he programmed – and not actual votes. Crane said, “Any person with computer knowledge wouldn’t have a problem with it.” Databases after elections would show false results “confirmed” by forged poll tapes.

Above, A through G: (Ford v. etc. 2008) #C-20085016, in re: 2006 RTA election.

In 2007, Garry Duffy, of the Tucson Citizen reported: “No one seems to know what happened to a computer tape record of the May 16, 2006 (RTA) election… The county elections director (Brad Nelson) made the revelation in his testimony Wednesday in a Pima County Superior Court trial... The case goes to the heart of the democratic process – the security of voting and vote counting…” (Duffy, 2007)

Elections are, ”…the heart of the democratic process.” But, in spite of court-testified wrongdoings and admitted crimes in a Pima County election:

1) The Pima County Attorney says she has “no jurisdiction” over county elections.

2) County Superior Court Judge, Harrington, ruled his court had “no jurisdiction” over the 2006 RTA election – whether there was massive vote-theft or not.

3) Secretary of State claims “no jurisdiction” to examine election computer databases.

4) Attorney General Goddard refused to examine RTA ballots and ignored the crimes admitted in Harrington’s civil trial (Ford v. etc. 2008)

5) Attorney General Horne will not examine RTA ballots or computer databases.

6) The United States Attorney will not answer inquiries.

And our next so-called, “democratic election” is only eighteen months away…

Diebold. (2011). Diebold Elections systems. GEMS Global Election Management Systems. http://www.diebold.com/solutions/election/GEMS.htm

Duffy, G. (2007. Tucson Citizen. Record of votes in ’06 RTA election missing.


Ford v. Democratic Party of Pima County (2008). C-20085016, Judge Charles v. Harrington. Pima County Superior Court. http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-unpublished/2010/cv20100001memo.html

iBeta Quality Assurance. (2011). One of the first federal Voting System Testing Laboratories to be accredited by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to test voting systems throughout the US. http://www.ibeta.com/gov_voting_system.html


  1. If the democrats and republicans were worth a nickel, they would have junked these machines a long time ago. Bev Harris' work and this article should convince anybody.

  2. Standing for a flawed system only means that the one standing up for the system is the one benefiting from it.


  3. Search "Clinton Curtis". He was the software developer that devised the program to cook votes. He was in the employ of Tom Feeney (R) Florida. He did it at Feeney's request. The video of his testimony before a congressional committee (Conyers) is jaw dropping