Nescience gives a great archive description in the comments section of this post.
Deborah elaborates in a comment on the necessity of “hand counted paper ballots in public view”
as the only legitimate solution to reclaim accurate elections, and how the concepts
of “paper trails” and “electronic verification” are red-herrings and frauds thrust on
the public to distract us from the real solution.
Related Posts
10-07-10 Rule of Law
Hosts play the remainder of Eddie's audio recording of his interaction with the sheriff and discuss...08-09-10 Rule of Law
ROL_2010-08-09_128k.mp3 ROL_2010-08-09_16k.mp3
Randy has the night off due to holding another RemediesInRealEstate seminar.
Deborah plays the audio [0hr05m50s–0hr09m15s] of a video of an intelligent California woman questioning her “representative”, Pete Stark (D-Mordor) about ObamaCare in light of the severe limitations on congressional power and the 13th Amendment’s prohibition on slavery (i.e., forcing someone to provide goods/services to someone else and getting nothing in return). Stark responds with smug stupidity. Deborah clarifies that we have a right to seek healthcare [“the pursuit of happiness”]. There is no right to have healthcare [“the pursuit of communism”]. She states that Stark is smug because he knows the elections are rigged and she opines that we need paper ballots that are counted in front of the people [“Hope for Change (in the Lack of Government Transparency)”].
[NOTE: I suggest an alternative—electronic ballots with randomly generated identification numbers and a receipt/carbon copy of your ballot (with embossed seal) showing how you voted and the capability to go online and verify that your vote was correctly tabulated. Just a thought.]
Eddie then relates [at 0hr19m30s] an article sent to him about U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s opinion in the Arizona SB1070 court case. The article vividly demonstrates that U.S. district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in such a case. The federal constitution at 3.2.2 specifically states that “In all Cases…in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Eddie quotes from Alex Hamilton’s May 28, 1788 Federalist Paper #81, “The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority”, which deals exclusively with the limits of power of the federal courts: “In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill-suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.” Furthermore, constitutional provision 4.4 states that “The United States [government] shall guarantee to each State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”. Obama has massively violated his oath of office. Again.
Deborah and Eddie discuss the evils of borrowed (created-out-of-thin-air) money, which is merely a tax on the people’s wealth via inflation. It is neither a direct nor an indirect (excise) tax and is unconstitutional.
A listener asks Eddie about the U.S. Supreme Court case, Berghuis v. Thompkins (heard March 1, 2010), in which Thompkins was stopped by State Troopers, questioned for nearly 3 hours during which he remained silent, and only uttered one- or two-word answers during the final 15 minutes of interrogation. The court held that Thompkin’s one- or two-word answers could be used against him in court because silence does not itself invoke the right to remain silent. The court stated that he should have demanded the presence of a lawyer and told the police [non-silently] “I wish to remain silent”.
Rob describes [at 1hr06m] the previous night’s encounter with a State Trooper as a passenger. Rob tried to get his girl friend, the driver, to ask Eddie’s Three Questions. (See ROL show dated 20100730.) She did not. She asked Rob for his ID; he did not give her any. Instead he asked her the Three Questions. She let them go.
Julie (TX) says [at 1hr14m30s] that her husband was pulled over and he asked Eddie’s Three Questions and to see the officer’s ID. This was refused. Eddie says that it is not required that the police show you their identification, but they teach you in the police academy that it is a good thing to do. Julie then asks about procuring a copy of Eddie’s Traffic Seminar material and a long discussion ensues about the ins and outs of that.
Doug (WI) is considering [at 1hr25m40s] using the Mike Mirras program in regard to certain 14th Amendment scenarios but wonders about the ramifications of raising “civil rights” issues. Deborah assures him that Mike relies only on statutory “civil rights”—that is, using federal statutes alone against them. Doug also asks whether he messed up regarding his passport oath as being a “U.S. citizen” and being a taxpayer, particularly in light of what Dave Champion said (see ROL show dated 20100719). Eddie says that Dave’s book, ‘Income Tax: Shattering the Myth” is valid information, but the main focus one should keep is the stance of being a non-taxpayer. Passport oaths and citizenship are irrelevant. Whether one is liable to any taxable income tax is the ONLY thing that is relevant.
Aaron (TX) tells [at 1hr40m45s] of a traffic incident he endured in Texas regarding his South Dakota license plates (“South Dakota is an open registration State”). Doug went into the J.P. court’s office and spoke to the clerk who said his ticket did not list a code that he had violated. He asked for his examination trial to clarify the nature and sufficiency of the charges against him so that he could prepare a proper defense. This confused the clerk. She and the judge proceeded to try to get Doug to enter a plea. Aaron, who now has Traffic Seminar material, asked if filing the Motion for Nature and Cause would be appropriate. Eddie says ‘yes’, and that he should also file another 9-10 motions from that pre-trial directory of the Traffic Seminar. Doug is going to bury these chumps.
Daniel (CA) asks [at 1hr52m30s] for Randy concerning an unlawful detainer in a foreclosure case. The federal judge continued with the trial anyway. Daniel petitioned for a writ of certiorari. Eddie notes that temporary restraining orders are almost always granted. Daniel says that this is a rogue judge who will stop at nothing.
Nescience,
Concerning elections, I’ve thought about a similar situation to the verification idea that you proposed in your comment, and actually I used to think this sort of thing was a good idea and I used to even promote things such as “paper trails” and “electronic verification” of folks individual ballots, until I researched how elections work and how important “chain of custody” is, then I realized how insidious and dangerous these “paper trails” and “electronic verifications” really are to our elections and our Republic.
I’ve done extensive research on elections and “chain of custody”, I’ve been a member of Vote Rescue (www.voterescue.org) for many years. Unfortunately what you propose and what I’ve thought of before will not work. The reason is mainly because of the basic principle of “get it right the first time”, ie, the ballots need to be counted correctly the first time, not “verified” after the fact after an election is over, thus the election would need to be challenged in court; and also mainly because of chain of custody issues. There is ZERO chain of custody with electronic counting. Chain of custody means that anyone from the public can track and view every single ballot and verify the actual counting of every ballot during the actual official counting process.
I am STRONGLY opposed to the “paper trail” idea where folks get some kind of “receipt” yet the ballots are cast and counted electronically. This will never work because there is no chain of custody of the actual ballots and the counting of the ballots. Even if folks can “login” somewhere to “verify” their ballot was “logged” or “counted” accurately, that could be an entirely separate system OTHER than the system that actually counts the ballots electronically cast, and totally separate and different from what the “official report” is of the final tabulation.
There is no way we could ever implement a system where folks could legitimately track ballots that are cast electronically because that would violate the privacy and anonymity of voting. Even if people could individually “track” their own ballots and no one else’s, there would never be a way to properly ensure that the ballots are truly being counted accurately as long as the casting and counting is done electronically as two different systems could easily be set up as described above. Chain of custody during the counting of the ballots is the only thing that matters in an election. Everyone needs to be able to track everyone else’s ballots too, not just their own, in order to ensure that the counting is publicly accurate, and this cannot be done electronically without violating the anonymity of the vote. The only way to have public accurate counting of every ballot, is to PUBLICLY count the PAPER BALLOTS THEMSELVES at the location where they are cast, in order to render the actual official results; not to electronically cast ballots that are electronically counted while giving people some kind of receipt that they could “verify” on a website somewhere. Sure, the verification may be correct, but how do we know that what we said on our ballot is actually what REALLY got counted? This is the principle of chain of custody.
Yes it’s impractical to have hundreds or thousands of people looking over someone’s shoulder in person, but a few people could look over someone’s shoulder doing the counting, and certainly a video camera could be set up that could be streamed live on the web so that anyone and everyone who wanted to would actually be able to watch the casting and counting of all the ballots, live, all day on election day.
I can promise you that the ONLY way to ensure that elections are accurate are with hand-counted paper ballots in public view, at the precinct, as I described on the show. The ACTUAL BALLOTS themselves must be publicly viewed during the counting process, there must be no loss of chain of custody which means the casting and the counting of the paper ballots must be done at the same place, ie, the precinct, and there is no way this can be done if the counting is done electronically. There is no way any electronic count can ever truly be “verified” either without everyone’s vote losing anonymity.
I’ll try to get either Vickie Karp or Karen Renick from Vote Rescue on soon to further explain this issue. This is an issue that I have done extensive research on, and after years and years of research, hand counted paper ballots in public view is the ONLY answer. Paper trails or receipts of ballots cast and counted electronically are a red-herring and a fraud to distract the public from the real solution.
In fact, these paper trails are MORE dangerous than not having them at all because people are fooled into thinking that everything is ok and people don’t fight the fight anymore to reclaim legitimate elections. EVERY ballot must be tracked publicly during the casting and counting process at the precinct in order to maintain chain of custody, and this cannot be done electronically without losing anonymity. The reason is, it’s not enough to just be able to track your own ballot. That will NOT ensure proper counting. Anyone from the public must be able to track EVERY ballot, and the only way that can happen without losing anonymity is to have hand counted paper ballots in public view at the precinct the way I described. Hope this helps.
I’ll address this issue on the air on Thursday.
Deborah
Deborah,
Thank you for taking the time to comment so eloquently, thoroughly, and correctly. I agree with everything you’ve said here. I apologize for causing you to expend so much time and effort simply because of my brevity and a couple of poorly chosen words (“alternative”, “verify”). More on this below.
Per your response—
I was not suggesting throwing out the existing paper ballot system. As you say, the chain of evidence is everything! You can never get that with a non-paper system of voting. I am partial to the IBM card ballot. I remember reading that in some States these machines are rigorously tested, with tolerances of error set as tight as one part per million. I can live with that. I cannot live with machines that are rigged, however, so hand counting at each polling station is essential. In most States, the official in charge of the polling station must count the votes and then wrap it with a seal, which he signs under penalty of perjury. The ballots are then taken to the machine that counts the ballots electronically. (I am use the word electronically somewhat loosely.) It is only then that the seals are to be broken. The end result of the electronic counting should match up very closely to those hand-counted at each polling station (were someone to add these up).
There is always going to be some degree of error between these numbers. Remember the hanging chads on the IBM card ballots in Florida in November 2000? (Who would leave chads on their ballots!?!? The machine could read the ballot one way and then another, depending on whether the chads were open or closed.) Remember the news stories of election officials REMOVING THE CHADS from the ballots? They were tampering with election evidence. These officials apparently thought they could read the minds of the voters. (Some even went further, by trying to divine the voter’s intent from a mere dimple on the ballot. How ridiculous.)
A non-rigged voting machine is the most accurate way of counting such ballots. We simply need a sufficient number of ways to check on whether or not the machine has been rigged (programmed). I mentioned one above: comparing the signed/sealed polling station numbers against the machine’s results. And I mentioned (poorly) another in my original post: “electronic ballots with randomly generated identification numbers and a receipt/carbon copy of your ballot (with embossed seal) showing how you voted and the capability to go online and verify that your vote was correctly tabulated”.
To clarify my hastily written previous post:
– By “electronic ballots” I meant something like an IBM card counted by an electronic machine. I did NOT mean a push-button screen. Those are a joke, a test to see how gullible the voters are. (I once entered a polling booth in an East Coast State to discover, to my utter amazement, that this was the only method of voting available to me. I could not believe that the citizens there put up with it.)
– By “alternative”—a real bad choice of words—I meant an additional method of preserving the chain of evidence.
– By “verify” I meant, well, verify. A particular voter could see that the official record is accurate.
I have not thought this all the way through, but I did say that randomly generated numbers would be attached. This number, on both the ballot and the carbon copy, would appear on the website. There would be no worry about privacy because no other type of identifying information would appear or be known to anyone but the individual voter. Then, if voters suspected that the game was rigged they could visit the website, and verify their votes are accurately shown. Taking it one step further, I imagine private websites would be created where people could say “Hey, here is a copy of my ballot, which is correctly counted, as shown on the official website. Please add my votes to all of the other votes there at [WatchEmLikeAHawk.Org]. I guessing that would become a popular website at election time.
The present system is obviously broken. Remember the movie, VoteScam? Remember the scene of police grabbing the signed/sealed ballots from the polling station and being followed out to their car by the camera crew? Remember the police taking the camera crew on a high speed chase through the city (and successfully ditching the camera crew)? That is a broken system. We need some fixes. All of the shenanigans surrounding the voting in Chicago 1960 still take place today. The rigged “election” of JFK was not an isolated event in American history. (And, no, I was never a Nixon devotee.)
So, right on, Deborah! I fully support the Vote Rescue mission. I’d love to hear Vickie or Karen espouse on our troubled systems of voting.
Nescience
HOUR 1 & 2
Deborah and Eddie. Traffic night.
Deborah pays July 24 audio clip of Congressman Pete Stark from California. Health care law is slavery because it compels people to provide service.
Deborah discusses accuracy and accountability in voting.
19:11
Eddie presents federal government lack of jurisdiction to sue Arizona over immigration law. The injunction against Arizona is illegal because federal government has no jurisdiction.
Article 4, Section 4 requires federal government to protect states from invasion.
Article 4, Section 4, Clause 2 says the case should only go to the Supreme Court.
28:15
Deborah discusses lead in water in D.C. that existed for three years.
32:44
Eddie discusses Arizona immigration. Suggests articles of impeachment against President for failure to uphold laws.
35:10
Eddie discusses why Social Security was implemented.
Continues Arizona immigration law discussion.
Deborah discusses inflation tax as a hidden way to pay for federal government programs.
President Wilson signed Federal Reserve Act into law. It was done during Christmas break with few Congressman present.
47:00
Eddie discusses interrogation case from Ohio that went to Supreme Court. Defendant was mostly silent.
BERGHUIS v. THOMPKINS ( No. 08-1470 )
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZD.html
Supreme Court is chipping away at Miranda warning. Ruled suspect must pro actively invoke right to be silent.
Rights exist, and should not need to be invoked.
55:50
Discussion of original purpose of Supreme Court life appointment to avoid justices needing to engage in politics.
65:54
Rob.
Describes his story of being under arrest and remaining silent. After traffic violation, he gave personal information “under duress” and the police then didn’t want the information.
Eddie says if they are asking questions (before arrest), invoke your right to be silent.
Deborah describes how the provided information could be used in Fusion Center lookups.
Eddie says police are accustomed to people giving away their rights.
74:17
Julie in Williamson County, Texas.
Traffic violation of turn without signal. Upon pulled over, asked if there was emergency, if they could help, and if they were free to go. Asked police for their ID.
Eddie says there is not a law requiring police to comply with ID request, though it is a common courtesy they are taught.
Police refused providing ID and said it would be on the citation.
Eddie says traffic seminar is a PDF on DVD. Current price is $250. Print it yourself or attend the seminar to get a printed copy. DVD includes seminar audio and sample court filings. OfficeDepot will print the PDF for $21.
Seminars are expensive to produce and there are not currently plans for another seminar this year.
85:31
Doug in Wisconsin.
14th amendment. Considering using Michael Mirras method for debts. Can civil rights be used against a tax issue?
Deborah says with Mirras’ method, they typically violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Questions swearing to be a US citizen when applying for a passport. Is this not taking a benefit from the government that could then be used against the person by the IRS?
Eddie says this is similar to invoking a jurisdiction you do not have, and why federal lawsuits will not fix the problem.
Caller is trying to disentangle himself from government licenses.
Eddie says information in Cracking The Code is valid and it is essential to recognize status as “non taxpayer”. The difference is not about citizenship, it is about where you are working, do what, for whom. Eddie has not filed tax returns since 1995. Don’t create false filings such as W9s.
http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Fascinating-Taxation-America/dp/0974393606/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282905883&sr=8-3
100:38
Erin from Texas.
Lives in Texas with South Dakota vehicle registration. Says South Dakota is “open registration state”.
Appeared at office of Justice of the Peace to clarify the traffic charges. Asks for statute he violated, and they did not provide it.
Using Traffic Seminar materials, caller is looking at clarifying “nature & cause”.
Eddie describes how to use motions in Traffic Seminar and when they should be filed.
112:24
Daniel in California.
Foreclosure unlawful detainer question. Removed to federal court. Judge continued with trial after it had been removed.
Temporary restraining order is typically granted.
Other actions: Motions to recuse and disqualify. Writ of mandamus.
118:20
James from Colorado.
Texas traffic code only applies when in commerce.