Note:  Many of the documents in this article require
the free Adobe Reader software from

If you experience problems opening an Adobe .pdf document,
RIGHT-Click your mouse to open it in a new window
 or save it to your computer before attempting to read it.

August 15, 2007

WTP Takes Action Against Vote Fraud

Diebold Vote Machines Fail In Iowa

Last Thursday, two days before the August 11th presidential Iowa Straw Poll, Bob Schulz and seven other Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court in Des Moines, Iowa seeking to permanently prohibit the state of Iowa from conducting any Straw Poll, Caucus, Primary, Special or General Election unless the voting and vote counting was open, verifiable, machine-free, and computer-free. 

Upon filing the suit, the Plaintiffs formally asked the Court for emergency injunctive relief, i.e., to order state election officials to modify the voting procedures for the Iowa Straw Poll to insure the validity of the voting process.

Specifically, the desired order sought to eliminate the use of Diebold voting machines that had been officially decertified by the state of California on August 3rd, to assure that the ballots were never out of public view, to force state election officials to publicly hand-count the ballots at each voting station and to announce the results and to conduct the tabulation of the vote station subtotals under full public observation. 

Besides the Complaint and the motion for emergency protection, a Declaration by James Condit, Jr. was also filed. Condit, familiar to many advocates of constitutional government, founded Citizens For A Fair Vote Count. He resides in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Besides WTP's Schulz and Condit, the Plaintiffs include five citizens of Iowa (Jenneifer Maki, Pam Wagner, Troy Reha, Roger Leahy and Ginger Corbett) and one from Connecticut (Walter Reddy).

Click here for a copy of the Complaint and the Motion to force a change in the voting procedures.  

At 8:00 am on Friday, the District Court telephoned the parties to say Judge Gritzner had ordered a hearing at 1:30 pm that day on Plaintiffs emergency request for a change in the voting procedures. 

Shortly after 10:00 am, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.

On Friday afternoon USDC Judge Gritzner heard arguments for two hours on the motion to change the voting procedures. He then issued his decision denying the motion. He did not dismiss the case. The case for a permanent injunction against elections in Iowa that are not open, verifiable, machine-free and computer-free will continue.

Click here for a copy of the transcript of the hearing and for a copy of the Judge’s decision.

Late Friday night, Schulz filed an emergency Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in
St. Louis to issue the injunctive order.  On Saturday, the Appeals court likewise denied the request.

The Voting Machines Failed

As Plaintiffs had predicted, there were indeed significant problems counting the votes cast at Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll.

After delaying the release of the voting results an hour and a forty minutes beyond the planned 7 PM announcement time, state election officials were forced to admit repeatedly to the press that there were vote machine malfunctions and that (at least) 10% of the ballots had to be counted by hand.

By using the flawed Diebold machines and by tabulating the totals behind closed doors,
Iowa election officials have caused significant confusion, frustration and distrust of the results.

Unfortunately, because the Straw Poll has been well established as an early and influential political event in culling the field of presidential candidates, the inability of Iowa election officials to secure a constitutionally verifiable vote will leave an enduring legacy upon our entire nation.

Here is just a sampling of the news reports detailing the machine failures and vote recounts:
Des Moines Register, United Press International, Chicago Tribune, CNN 

And for your further thought, consider this:

Friday, April 13, 2007, Romney For President issued a press release announcing its Story County (Iowa) “Leadership Team.” The press release named Defendant Mary Moisman, the Story County Auditor, as part of its Leadership Team.

Mary Moisman and her staff were in charge of providing the Diebold voting equipment, as well as managing and auditing the operation and results of the Iowa Straw Poll, which was purportedly won by candidate Mitt Romney.

WTP Files Motion To Preserve The Record

To determine the truth about the Straw Poll's vote totals and the truth about the security, accuracy and reliability of computerized machine voting, and to address the confusion, frustration and mistrust (and possible fraud) directly linked to machine-based counting, it will be necessary to hand count the ballots cast in the Straw Poll and review the electronic files, documents and materials related to the machine processes. Therefore, WTP has filed a Motion to preserve those ballots, files and materials for further examination.

Today, Bob Schulz filed a notice of motion for a temporarily restraining order enjoining and prohibiting Defendants from altering, destroying or otherwise disposing of any of the ballots cast on August 11, 2007 in the Iowa Straw Poll or any of the electronic files, documents and materials related to voter checklists and voting machine inspections and operations including but not limited to printouts of vote totals.   

In addition, Schulz asked the Court for limited discovery that is necessary to determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the vote totals and machine printouts. Limited discovery is necessary to obtain copies of all ballots and machine printouts, and to determine with specificity what actually took place during and after the voting period. 

For instance, information needed includes but is not necessarily limited to: how many machines were used during the day; was each machine inspected before the voting period began and, if so, by whom; was any machine(s) tasked to print vote totals before the machines were moved from the voting stations; who moved the machines to the central room and how; when and where were the machines asked to print out their totals; which machines were opened for ballot removal at a voting station or in the central tabulation room and why; how many ballots were hand counted and why; who was in the centralized tabulation room from 6 pm to 8:30 pm; specifically, how did the County and State Auditors participate in the voting process. 

Click here for a copy of the Memo of Law supporting preservation of the documents and ballots.

Educating Others About
Vote Fraud Is Insufficient

For twenty years or more, people have been publishing articles about the dangers of computer and machine voting. Notably, comprehensive studies by Cal Tech, MIT, Princeton and most recently the UC have all concluded that the computerized machines  on the market should not be used to count votes in elections.  

Click here to access some of the reports used by the state of California in decertifying the Diebold machines.

Not withstanding these comprehensive expert studies demonizing the machines, machine and computerized voting is widespread and becoming further entrenched as the machine manufacturers respond to each study by announcing upgrades, changes or fixes to the machines which they say has improved security, accuracy, reliability and accessibility.

Despite the repeated efforts of the machine manufacturers and election officials to address the well documented security, accuracy and reliability problems inherent with machine-based voting, one fact stands bare, and until now, unaddressed by a court of Law: The voting procedures and machines currently used by virtually every state and local government in America fail constitutional muster. 

They fail to secure for the Citizens of this nation the Fundamental, constitutionally protected, Right to Vote and Right to have your vote counted legally and properly.   

Make no mistake, our election officials have effectively delegated the Right to an accurate count of the Votes to a small number of private corporations, about who little is publicly known.  

In short, the possibility of confusion, deceit, frustration and fraud will always be greater if votes are counted by a computerized machine rather than by hand in full view of the public. Only by hand-counting ballots in full public view at each voting station and wherever vote subtotals are further aggregated can election officials minimize the possibility of error and prevent fraud. 

Talking about the problem is not enough. Citizen vigilance and Civic action is absolutely necessary if we are to preserve the integrity of the vote.  This Right is the cornerstone of our democratic, constitutional Republic. 

WTP finds no upside to computerized machine voting, absolutely none. Proponents of computerized voting say the votes can be counted faster. 

However examined or weighed, the potential gains in vote counting "efficiency" cannot be used to justify placing our fundamental Right to Vote at known risk by the use of provably defective and un-secure voting machines and by tolerating election procedures, such as non-public "back-room" vote totaling, that are so obviously constitutionally deficient that their use is unconscionable as part of a "free" nation.   

Lawsuits in every State, and if necessary, civil disobedience must be the order of the day, beginning now.

Without our action, our choices in the upcoming caucuses, primaries and general election may well be adversely affected by machine error and human fraud. 

Indeed, if one ponders the problem and engineering issues deeply enough, one cannot avoid a reasonable, natural and very disturbing conclusion: The implementation of computerized-based voting is designed to facilitate systemic, automated vote fraud.

Let the lawsuit by the "Iowa Eight" be the signal that an aggressive, nation-wide campaign by the American People to halt machine-counting of votes has commenced.

It's time for our servant governments to hand-count and total our votes in public.

Its' time to start asking WHY so many appear to oppose something so simple, so secure and so fair.

And it's time We the People take whatever actions are necessary to secure our Right to Vote.

Please consider committing your financial resources to this fight.  Our organization cannot accomplish objectives such as the vote fraud project without the support of many people to help cover the costs involved in continuing the litigation our Foundation is now engaged in, as well as the significant and regular costs we incur daily to run our office, secure the technology support we need and keep the organization moving forward.  PLEASE consider a recurring donation, no matter how small, so that those of us on the front lines of the battle can continue to organize and fight and the tyrants that seek to deprive us of our Liberty.    

To make a tax-deductible donation to the WTP Foundation, please click here: Donation.  You can make a one-time or recurring donation and can also establish the dates the secure transactions are run each month.

Update Related Links

Read the research reports critical of the Diebold machines and official decertification by the state of California.

Visit the Citizens For A Fair Vote Count website 

Read the main voting machine Complaint and the Motion to force a change in the voting procedures.  

Please consider a Donation.  


  L for Liberty !

Donate and receive the full record
of the GML 2007 conference.

23 powerful speakers, 20 hours of compelling video
including banquet speakers and video of the
"V" White House protest and bonus supporting materials!
On (2) DVD-ROM discs. 
Immediate shipping...

Click here to obtain the GML 2007 record on DVD-ROM

Watch the preview  Cable connection    Dial-Up connection 

Please remember:

The Landmark Right-To-Petition
and Operations of the WTP Foundation
are Funded Solely By Your
Generous Support.