BBV: I GOT THE CERTS!!!!

[Andy_Stephenson]

They finally faxed them to me. Mr Tatum finally got off his ass and did it. I am not sure what I am looking at and I am not at howm...however as soon as I get back this afternoon I will scan and post them. I do see that version DRE4.1.11 is the one they sent the certifications on...Is this what we are looking for are are they still stalling? I won't hesitate to call again if need be.

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. Kick

:kick:

[efhmc]

2. Please tell me what BBV is.

[RedEagle]

3. BBV

Black Box Voting

Machines that count your vote in secret and do not produce an independent, physical audit trail to confirm the machine "behaved."

Also includes optical scan systems that can be rigged to count in creative ways, usually aided and abetted by laws and lack of interest in auditing elections to detect any kind of possible fraud.

Go to: www.blackboxvoting.org and read up on it.

Way to go on the certs! How do we validate them?

[efhmc]

13. My thanks to you all.

[nostamj]

4. Black Box Voting

basically, the privatization of voting, the use of electronic touch screen voting technology that has no paper trail, voter fraud, end of democracy, stuff like that.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Black Box Voting

http://blackboxvoting.org/ or blackboxvoting.com, which seems to be down right now.

[Kelvin Mace]

25. We are back up!!

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
http://www.plan9.org

[MGKrebs]

73. Regarding post #36:

This is worded pretty carefully. It implies to me that they may have more documents, but they may think they have found a way to not provide them (for some reason) based on the way the request was worded.

I'm just saying, look over specifically what was asked for, and try to rephrase the request on the next go-around so they don't have any wiggle room. (Perhaps the request was perfect, I'm just basing this on what I am reading into their response).


"In response to your request, we are providing for your inspection all appropriate documents you properly identified, in so far as they exist, at no charge. Accordingly, I am enclosing three separate documents, which after much discussion within our agency, we believe are appropriate to your request."

[DWright]

5. Tatum said they DIDN'T HAVE THEM!

WTF? Did they just make them up??? How can we tell if they are official cert docs?

[Eloriel]

7. Fabulous!

Can't wait to see them.

DRE4.1.11 -- what's that the number on, the machine, the firmware, the software? Doesn't match anything I know, but then I don't know that much, so that's not really saying anything.

Eloriel

[hedda_foil]

8. Fantastic! You da MAN gbnc!

Interesting that they didn't send anything on GEMS cert which is a big, big part of the mix.

[shirlden]

9. If that is the only cert

they sent, I think it is probably for the Accu-Vote TS firmware. That is not the only cert they need to send.

:kick:

[DWright]

10. A reminder...

Below is Cliff Tatum's response to my FOIA request:

In response to your second category, we have determined that no records
exist in the Secretary of State’s office regarding a certification
letter from the lab certifying the version of software used on Election
Day.

The request was:

2. A copy of the actual certification letter from the lab (certifying the version of the software which was used on election day) as well as any related memos, letters, etc.

[Andy_Stephenson]

11. I got a copy of the

WYLE labs letter to GA. Included with the fax. Is that what we need?

[DWright]

15. Wyle letter

"I got a copy of the WYLE labs letter to GA. Included with the fax. Is that what we need?"

Yes. We're deep into "rabbit out of a hat" land now. DemActivist, where you at??? :-)

[DEMActivist]

21. Sorry, I was at school

helping with a book fair.

OK, I'm talking from what I see on these posts and without facts or document in hand.

What I see here is this:

4.1.11 is the version of GEMS - and if so, we have documented proof that they just royally screwed up. That's not the version they used in the Georgia election and we can prove it.

If it's a letter from Wyle, that's not Georgia certification anyway. Georgia certification required Cathy Cox's signature as secretary of state.

Where are the remainder of the certifications? What about ballotstation, pollstation, everything else? I could go on and on.

It looks, indeed, like they are pulling rabbits out of hats and hoping we don't understand. It appears they have sent the ITA certification letter to GNBC and not a Georgia certification which is required by law.

GNBC, I think they were hoping you'd "fall for it."

[DWright]

22. No need to be sorry, DA!

I just knew you'd know the scoop on what we need vs. what they sent.

Sounds like they just dug that hole a bit deeper. Thanks!

[E_Zapata]

41. Then it's time for the people of GA to file a suit

To invalidate the 2002 elections - in their entirety.

GA just admitted they have no such documents.

If they do, and are lying, they can just admit that in court. If they really don't have certification, then the elections are totally invalid. And Cathy just lost her job for malfeasance and dereliction of duty.

[punpirate]

30. Ummm...

Did the Wyle letter refer back to the certification papers sent? Specifically to DRE4.1.11?

If so, it's got to be for the firmware, doesn't it? Wyle does not test the GEMS host software. That's the province of Nichols/Metamor/Ciber, yes? Wyle hasn't certified software for years now, IIRC.

Cheers.

[Eloriel]

38. GBNC -- what is the date on Wyle and

what are they certifying (by name and number)? Can you tell us?

In fact, why don't you just tell us how many pages you got and basically what they are? That would be real helpful until we can see the scans.


Thanks,

Eloriel

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. Look here Eloriel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=368343&mesg_id=371753&page=

[donsu]

12. kick

nt

[never cry wolf]

14. another kick....n/t

[RedEagle]

16. Keep this going

Kick!

[Brian Sweat]

17. I would have held out for wintergreen livesavers, personally.

Just kidding. Good Work.

[TacticalPeek]

18. Kick KKKarl.

:kick:

[LittleApple81]

19. kick, n/t

[ParanoidPat]

20. What's the certification DATE on that letter?

What election(s) does that letter cover? :shrug:
I still want to see the certs for GEMS 1-17-17! :evilgrin:

Good going GB&C! :evilgrin:

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. May 23rd, 2002.

State of Georgia

Office of Secretary of State


I, Cathy Cox, Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, do certify that the Accuvote TS R6 Voting systen, consisting of the AVTS Firmware, version 4.1.11, manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, Inc., 1611 Wilmeth Rd, McKinney, Texas 75069, has been thoroughly examined and tested and found to be in Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Georgia election Code, the rules of the Georgia Election Code, the rules of the State Elections Board and the rules of the Secretary of State, and as a result of this Inspection, it is my opinion that this kind of Direct Record Eletronic voting system and it's components can be safely used by the electors of this state in all primaries and elections as provided in Georgia election code 21-2; provided however, I hereby reserve my opinion to reexamine this Direct Record Eletronic voting system and its components at anytime so as to insure that it continues to be one that can be safely used by the voters of this state----------------------------




In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office at the Capitol city of Atlanta this 23rd day of may in the year of our lord 2003 and in the independence of the United States of America the 2wo hundredth and twenty seventh

[punpirate]

34. Yup, this is for the TS and its firmware...

... no mention of the rest of the system including the GEMS host or the GEMS software. So, either Georgia does not have the software certs, or they are withholding them, hoping you'll be satisfied with this.

I'd call `em right back and say, "uh, guys, the certifications are incomplete. Did you send everything?" and see what Tatum says.

Cheers.

[Eloriel]

37. This is huge

Edited: is this the only GA State Certification letter?

---

the Accuvote TS R6 Voting systen, consisting of the AVTS Firmware, version 4.1.11,...it is my opinion that this kind of Direct Record Eletronic voting system and it's components can be safely used

Her certification, according to this letter, is based on the firmware ONLY, and she's certifying the whole shebang based on that -- the whole "system." What about the hardware? What about the SOFTWARE? They needed to have been separately certified. It's unbelievable, IMO, to certify a whole system based on the FIRMWARE.

Unless there's something in GA law (which would also be huge mistake) which says that the firmware is all that gets certified, and I can't believe that.

And yet she and her Election Division have the AUDACITY to not only refuse to speak with us lo these many months, but to freakin' DEFEND ALL THEIR ACTIONS AND THESE MACHINES with misinformation, untruths, obfuscations, on and on.

Unbelievable.

I really like what Bev said in another thread (wildly paraphrased): these people don't have the education, training, or credentials to get anywhere near selecting let alone certifying and supervising elections using these damned machines, and shouldn't be expected to. The voting process should be made as simple as possible, without all these certifying boards (which mean so little -- or more accurately, NOTHING), and without technology that requires computer experts to oversee.

I am SO steamed.

Eloriel

[E_Zapata]

42. No matter what the GA law was at the time,

Cathy Cox has been very loose-lipped about saying "we got GA up to HAVA standards" well before the 2004 deadline; in fact, before the 2002 elections." She is on public record stating that the computer voting in GA was in compliance with HAVA. Then we should hold her to whatever the certification laws are for HAVA - irrespective of what GA laws were before HAVA.

Someone is going to sue the State of GA, right? And ask the court to invalidate the 2002 elections, right?

That's the next step. It is the next step. Please tell me yes.

[Eloriel]

53. Sure, just as soon as

some lawyer steps forward. We spent a very long time, many hours, trying to find one.

There's also the little problem of statute of limitations on overturning the election, I think. But there ARE other problems, galore.

Eloriel

[E_Zapata]

65. Statute of Limitations -

Well, if the offending party created a smokescreen where the party who is suing could not discover malfeasance, then the statute of limitations doesn't apply.

And that's the way it is.

SOL should not be a problem - particularly in light of the cat and games they have played about certification.

We need a lawyer? Well, whoever the lawyers were for Gore in Gore v. Bush - a contingency of citizens need to visit their offices and demand that they finish the job they started. And that's the way I feel about that.

[punpirate]

71. Not sure SoL works that way....

Timing for statute of limitations, in criminal cases, begins when the crime is _detected_. If an investigation cannot produce enough evidence to convince a grand jury of the need for an indictment in the specified time period in the statute, the case lapses.

In civil cases, which are largely governed by state law, which varies, one is required to file suit within a certain margin of time from the event or action in question. Once the suit is filed, the case can be continued _ad infinitum_ until resolved--i.e., if the defendant were to obscure culpability in the discovery process, the case can go on and on, ruling after ruling to produce documents--a worse process than pulling teeth one at a time, slowly. However, if informal claims are made against a potential defendant and the defendant denies those claims, but no suit is filed, indeed, the statute of limitations applies. There may be exceptions in the laws of some states, but I believe this is how it works, generally.

Cheers.

[DWright]

23. kick!

Back up there!

[BevHarris]

24. Well that's interesting if they said 4.1.11

Are you sure it doesn't say 4.0.11?

Because 4.1.11 is NOT CERTIFIED by NASED, which is required!

Also, what version of GEMS do they say, if any? The only one they can legitimately use is 1.17.17 for the Nov 2002 election.

As soon as you scan and post we'll nail them once again.

Great job -- Bev

By the way, if they are saying 4.1.11 is GEMS, that would be too strange -- GEMS has not even gotten into the 2.xx.xx series, much less the 4.xx.xx series! Are you sure the letter is legit?

[shirlden]

26. Kick

n/t :kick:

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. BBV: Cover lettter from from Kennesaw State University

This document is on Kennesaw State University stationery

May 15, 2002

Mrs. Linda Beazley, Director
Georgia Elections Division
Suite 1104, West Tower
2 Martin Luther King Drive, S.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Subject: Global Election Systems, IncAccuVote TS Voting System

Dear Mrs. Beazley:

The State has previously certified the Diebold (Global) AVTS 4.0.6 firmware for the Accu Vote TS voting station. Diebold has recommended that we change to ATVS 4.1.11 for the following reasons.

ATVS 4.1.11 allows for ADA capability. This is accomplished by attaching a keypad and headset to the voting station and creating a VTBS (sic) voter access card for the voter.

Also in this version the logo that is displayed on startup is changed from Global to Diebold.

ATVS 4.1.11 has been qualified under the FEC Standards by Wyle Laboratory, a NASED ITA, and has been reviewed by the staff at the KSU Election Center.

I recommend that we award Diebold a State Certification for ATVS 4.1.11.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call us at 770-423-6422.

Very truly yours,


Britain J. Williams, Ph.D.
Professor

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. BBV: Letter from GA Sec'y of State Elections Division

On official Secretary of State Elections Division letterhead

September 12, 2003

Mr. God_bush_n_cheney
Address etc.

Re: Open Records Request

Dear Mr. GBnC:

Our office has received your request for certification results relating to the use of DRE voting machines in the State of Georgia. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-18-70, this letter serves as a response in regard to the accessibility of the records I understand you are requesting.

In response to your request, we are providing for your inspection all appropriate documents you properly identified, in so far as they exist, at no charge. Accordingly, I am enclosing three separate documents, which after much discussion within our agency, we believe are appropriate to your request.

If you have any questions, please call [phone]).

Sincerely,

Clifford D. Tatum
Assistant Director - Legal Affairs
Elections Division

[Andy_Stephenson]

35. Bev your gonna love this!

WYLE Laboratories

March 26th 2002

Doug Lewis
12543 Westalla (SIC)
Suite 100
Houston Texas 77077-3829

Subject: NASED Assigned Control Number (Source Code)

Dear Mr Lewis,

The Diebold (Formerly Global) Election Systems Accu-Vote AVTS=RS and associated Voting Machine Firmware release 4.1.11 has been reviewed and subjected to regression testing as required. A Ietor (?) report documenting the results of the source review and the regression testing performed will be issued shortly. Due to the firmware revision, the qualification matrix entry for the AVTS-RS should be revised to reflect the following

Company
Diebold Election Systems

Model Number/ Name
Accu-Vote AVTS-RS

Type
DRE Touchscreen

Qualified Firmware
4.1.11

NASED Control Number
010702-4.1.11

If you concur with the numerical assignment, please sign the acknowledgement line provided below and return to us at your convenience.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 92560637-4411 ext 590 or by facsimilie at [phone]

Sincerely,
Wylie Laboratories
Dawn K Bates
Contracts MAnager


Concurrence of numerical assignment R DOUG LEWIS
signature affixed.

[E_Zapata]

44. Translation?

What does this mean?

[Andy_Stephenson]

45. I dunno...I am waiting for the Experts DEMA and Bev to respond

I cannot wait to see their take on this.

[Must_B_Free]

46. doesn't this mean that the version certified is not the version used?

and therefore there is wrong doing here - negligence at least.

[punpirate]

49. Don't think so...

... another letter in the certification process (by Williams, I think) says that firmware v.4.1.11 is necessary to run the add-on equipment for the blind (keypad and audio headset), and that would be the version necessary to be in compliance with HAVA for the 2002 election. If they had disabled stations in the 2002 election with 4.1.11, they would be in compliance.

However, if it turns out that in all the patches done immediately prior to the 2002 election, there was one for a different version than 4.1.11, then the voting stations would not have been in compliance. So far, from what I've read, those patches were purportedly to the operating system, not the firmware. But, that's another kettle of fish.

All that said, GBNC asked for all the certifications, and was apparently only sent the ones for actual voting machine and its firmware. There were apparently no declarations for the operating system (if it was modified by Diebold), nor for the computers which do the actual vote-counting and tabulation nor the software for doing that (GEMS).

That software certification would have had to have come from Metamor or Ciber (whichever ITA was doing those certifications at the time). The GEMS host is an integral part of the voting system, and its software is completely separate and distinct from what's on the voting machines themselves. And, from the evidence GBNC has offered, those certifications were _not_ provided.

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

54. According to NASED, all of the certification was to 1990 standards

not to the 2002 standards.

Go fish.

[RedEagle]

57. HAVA Compliant?

I don't get the HAVA compliant for 2002.

No one has to be HAVA compliant until 2004, and not even that if a waiver is applied for, then it's 2006.

On top of that, it's just a requirement for the touch screens for disabled voting and getting rid of punch cards and lever machines.

Even if the uncertified upgrade was to accomodate audio review and prompting, it still is not mandated until 2004 at the earliest.

2002 standards are not required to be met until 2006.

In fact, punch cards don't have to go, either, if the county undertakes an educational program.

[E_Zapata]

66. HAVA compliant

But Cathy Cox is touting that GA was HAVA compliant. Once they say they are online (so to speak) with HAVA, they are. The deadline to be compliant is 2004, but they can be compliant anytime before that.

Cathy Cox prides herself on making GA compliant two years early.

[RedEagle]

75. Certified 2002

No one has a machine certified by 2002 standards yet.

A few may have begun the process, but they're not done in the labs.

Did Cox predate the official time HAVA was signed into law?

If she did, how would she know for sure what the requirements would be?

(Disabled access, yes, but anything else might have been unkown)

Was this to get Georgia to buy these machines before the 2002 elections? Are her HAVA claims just a ruse to push the state into purchasing Touch screens before 2002?

What was Georgia using prior to 2002?

[Eloriel]

78. My county had optical scans (don't know the maker)

Lotta punch cards, and a general conglomeration probably around the state.

Eloriel

[BevHarris]

47. Their document doesn't match NASED documents

According to the NASED report I have, it was not certified, and certification skipped from 4.0.11 to 4.3.9

However, the internal Diebold documents give a NASED number (but no date!) to the certification of 4.1.11 --

Note, however, 4.0.6, which the letter says was certified by the State of Georgia, is not listed in NASED at all and is listed in the Diebold internal document as not certified and not assigned a NASED number.

What the hell is Georgia doing, and why are "certified" versions popping up that aren't on the official NASED documents, which are supposed to be the official version?

This is good stuff, thanks a lot GB&C!

Bev

[Andy_Stephenson]

48. Ok well then I will pester her on Monday for the GEMS certs.

and pester her till I get them.

[punpirate]

50. From the letter transcribed in #35...

... it looks as if Wyle assigned the control number upon certification, and notified Lewis at The Election Center, and asked for concurrence that they could use that control number. If it was skipped in the NASED report, it's possible it's just sloppy record-keeping by Lewis, which wouldn't surprise me.

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

55. Not kosher. Wyle doesn't get to assign the NASED # nor does Lewis

It must be assigned by the NASED certification panel.

I think you hit it on the head -- Wyle assigned the number for NASED (but actually, Wyle has its own number for this). Sorry, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, Wyle does not get to assign the NASED # and neither does Lewis.

Bev

[E_Zapata]

68. I bet NASED doesn't do anything in regard to anything.

That's my gut feeling.

One guy in the entire USA just basically told the corporations who build these machines to do whatever they want - just make it look kosher.

[MGKrebs]

27. Kick

Edge of my seat here...

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. Kick!!!

:bounce:

[laylah]

29. keeping it going! n/t

[IranianDemocrat]

33. And in English this would mean...

?

[Generic Other]

40. Busted!

:kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

43. Kick to see Bev's response

:kick:

[BevHarris]

51. Playing fast and loose with the documents? Here are NASED docs:

According to these, and I have all of the versions up through Jan 2003, the version mentioned by the Georgia documents was never certified. However, Diebold internal documents give it a NASED number and say it was certified, but list no date. Note also that NASED has three more things that have to have a number: The GEMS program, the AVTS R6 (touch screen) hardware, and the Optical scan software, which is used in Georgia for absentee votes, and none of those were provided.

Here are the official versions from NASED documents posted on the web:

dated Feb 4 2002:

Global Election Systems AccuVote AVTS-R6 DRE Touchscreen NASED#N010702-4011 Release 4011 (12/11/01)

(that would be 4.0.11, folks)

Dated 7-9-2002
DIEBOLD (FORMERLY
Global Election Systems) AccuVote AVTS-R6 DRE Touch-screen NASED#N010702-4.3.9-1990 (this means it follows the 1990 FEC standards, not the 2002 standards)
FIRMWARE REL. 4.3.9 (7-2-02)

Dated 1-3-2003:

DIEBOLD (FORMERLY
Global Election Systems) AccuVote AVTS-R6 DRE Touch-screen NASED#N010702-4.3.9-1990
FIRMWARE REL. 4.3.9 (7-2-02)

• Be sure to note the specific models which are NASED qualified. Models which are not identical are not NASED qualified.

• NASED does not issue qualifications to vendors. NASED issues qualifications to specific voting systems. Even if one product receives a “qualified” rating, do not assume the one presented to you is the one which was NASED tested.

• Make sure you know, in writing, from the vendor what has and has not been tested. Be sure to be specific -- and make the vendor be specific -- about the ver-sion and revision of software. Make them put in writing that the version they are selling you is "identical" to the version which was tested and NASED quali-fied.

• If there is no Election Management System software listed, then none has qualified for that specific vendor at this point. It is important to have the vendor’s election management software tested also to assure that votes are reported correctly.

[punpirate]

52. From this...

... it looks like 7-9-2002 and 1-3-2003 are identical specifications. Any ideas why that would be?

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

56. Yes, these are the overall reports from NASED which have ALL

the items from all the vendors. They put the report out every six months or so. This version didn't change from this vendor, but others may have.

I'm going to PM you where to go to get the originals -- I don't want them to remove them, so grab them and maybe screen shot them.

[Andy_Stephenson]

58. could I get em as well Bev? n/t

:kick:

[LittleApple81]

59. kick n/t

[punpirate]

61. Got `em...

... but they pretty much generate more questions, rather than answers.

But, if this were supposed to be done in time for the 2002 elections, it should have shown up in the July, 2002 listing, and it doesn't, as you say--4.3.9 is listed, instead.

So, the state of GA has supplied documents from the lab, Cathy Cox and Williams certifying a version never approved by the NASED, according to their listings. In effect, they've provided no certification at all.

Maybe the NASED never had a summer board meeting because everyone was on vacation....

Cheers.

[Trajan]

60. OK ... so ....

They have offered this specific document as evidence of certification of the entire voting system, ... yet it only specifically mentions the firmware by version .... (for those who do not know: firmware are the EPROM chips loaded into a motherboard or daughterboard that provides BIOS and machine level functions IE I/O functions, reading from keyboards, mouses, and other input ports, writing to CRT monitor and printers, protecting memory blocks etc .... basic machine level operations stuff ... ) ....

The firmware is only a SMALL part of the ENTIRE voting system ....

WHERE are the Application certs ? ...

What of EVERY DLL extension file ?? ... EACH are part of the overall application image and MUST be accounted for ... ANY unverified DLL can significantly alter the functions used in an application ....

Furthermore: ... didnt they incorporate program revisions on the fly on election day ? .... How can they POSSIBLY certify such revisions as non detrimental and qualifiable, given the nature of the haphazard installation of such alterations ? ...


SHEEEESH .... the evidence of firmware cert is nice and all: .. but its just one apple on the HUGE tree of elements in the system ....

This is far from complete ... not even close ...

[Eloriel]

62. Yeah, what he said

LOL -- great def. of firmware, btw. I might lift that. ;-)

That's what I was trying to say in my post -- that firmware is just part of what they needed to have certification letters on. You said it better.

In Georgia, they didn't do any patches on election day that we know of. The patches were applied AFTER so-called certification (GAWD, I can barely type that word, "certification" without LMAO at this point -- what a friggin' JOKE -- peals of rowdy laughter here). The subcontractor ("Rob" of the infamous is it a name or a verb? "rob-georgia" file) worked on the machines in the weeks/months prior to the election

It's been a while since I read that interview, so (as always) my memory is a little fuzzy. Here's the link for anyone interested:
Rob interview:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/robgeorgia.htm

Certification. Bwwwaaahahahahahaha

Eloriel

[punpirate]

64. Yeah, it's silly, isn't it?

But, now, I'm beginning to wonder.... Do ya think it's possible that, because... nah, better take this question over to bbv.org....

Cheers.

[ParanoidPat]

63. They may be the most powerful people on the planet....

.....with all the money in the world.....

but boy are they stupid! :evilgrin:

[E_Zapata]

69. When you suppress your conscience so far down,

you can't see the forest for the trees. They are so dirty, they have tunnel vision. They might have been smart at some point, but they are so deep, they just can't even allow themselves to see how reprehensible their actions are.

[juajen]

70. I sincerely hope so!

Regards to all of you hard-working BBV people. Aren't you getting bleary-eyed? This stuff is too much like Greek to me, but YOU GO great people!

[Eloriel]

76. Actually, I'm beginning to believe that stupid is a byproduct

of arrogance (or hubris).

The two always seem to go hand in hand, don't they?

Eloriel

[MrPrax]

67. Kicked

with a hardy thx

[greatauntoftriplets]

72. kick.

This is important.

[shirlden]

74. I'm good for a kick

n/t :kick:

[greatauntoftriplets]

77. And yet another kick.

:kick:

[aquart]

79. Kick

With respect and gratitude.

[phishhead]

80. Damn.. this BBV stuff looks really confusing.

Not to mention scary.

Thanks to all the folks who are spending hours and hours of their time on this subject.

Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkk. :)

[seemslikeadream]

81. This is the scariest part for me.

Theonomic Reconstructionism is a belief that the only true authority is God's, that allegiance to biblical laws trumps that of civic law and that the Kingdom of Heaven needs to be built on Earth before Jesus will come again. In addition to that, homosexuals should be put to death, women should be banned from civic office, apostates and heretics should be stoned to death and there is a great need for Christian politians.

Howard Ahmanson is a Theonomic Reconstructionist. He funded a business called American Information Systems(AIS) started by the Urosevich brothers. AIS later merged with Business Records Corporation(BRC) and became Election Systems & Solutions (ES&S). ES&S is the number one provider of touchscreen voting machines.
Todd Ursevich is now the Vice President of ES&S. Strangely enough, brother Bob moved on to head the second largest computerized vote-counting business, Global Election Systems, recently purchased by ATM and security giant Diebold. Combined these three corporations will process nearly 80% of the next nationwide election.