Holder v. McPherson in court today

[GuvWurld]

I just heard (and posted at We Do Not Consent) that the judge refused the injunction and the writ of mandate. This case was trying to get McPherson's bogus certification of Diebold tossed out in California. Read the case here(.pdf).

[GuvWurld]

1. WDNC EXCLUSIVE: First hand report from the court room

Update 1:56pm
We Do Not Consent EXCLUSIVE
First hand observations from the court room filed by Jane Allen

Judge Quidachay announced at the beginning of the hearing that he had issued a tentative ruling yesterday (Sept. 13) denying the writ of mandate and preliminary injunction because petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. He said he would hear from all parties, but, in effect, told attorneys for respondents that when you're ahead, it's a good idea to be quiet.

The judge made several comments which indicated that he was concerned about creating "excessive hardship" to counties with elections less than 60 days away. He seemed unimpressed by petitioners' arguments around the potential disenfranchisement of millions of voters and returned a few times to the hardships that an injunction would create for counties and mentioned petitioners' argument that millions of dollars have already been spent on these machines. He also offered the rationale that the machines are "not bad enough not to use if" short-term, interim fixes are accomplished.

Petitioners' counsel (I didn't catch his name) reminded the judge that there were alternate remedies (short of an immediate injunction against the machines), namely, decertification after six months to prevent continued use of "systems that raise grave doubts in the minds of the voters" and enjoining respondents from further purchases.

There were questions and answers about interpretive code, sleepovers and possibility of using paper ballots for the upcoming election.

Mr. Woods, representing Bruce McPherson, emphasized the "vigilance of the SOS" on this matter and that it is "offensive" to suggest that the SOS "should do what's already been done" as far as testing, etc. In asserting the diligence of the SOS, he cited a history of testing and sending back for more testing, characterizing that as "running it through the wringer." He stated that "long-term measures" to remedy problems are already "required to be accomplished by Diebold."

Lowell Finley, representing petitioners made a few final comments pointing out that a "crucial difference" with DREs is that "fraud can be viral" ... a "qualitatively different danger of fraud" that’s "undetectable" and the danger is not from individual voters but from “insiders in the process" ... people who work for Diebold or other manufacturers or insiders who get into elections offices. He cited the difficulty of identifying malicious code, the "danger to our democracy," the "profound and ongoing defects" of the machines and the "dishonesty of Diebold" in their "dealings so far." Mr. Finley cited Brown v. Board of Education to compare that decision regarding sweeping reform of segregated public schools (and the burden imposed on the school system) to the sweeping reform required of the current state of elections.

I thought it was an interesting comparison because what I heard from that example was: he was urging Judge Quidachay to have the courage to call a halt (regardless of the proximity of the elections and the millions and millions of dollars already spent) to a deeply flawed system.

Petitioners' arguments failed. The judge adopted his tentative ruling, saying that petitioners "failed to meet their burden on all claims."

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/09/holder-v-mcpherson-in-court-today.html

[diva77]

2. Thank you for your report

:-(

[Amaryllis]

3. interesting to note that all Kevin Shelley's Diebold docs were scrubbed

from the CA SOS website sometime this summer. There were dozens of them - a page dedicated just to them...and they were damning indictments of Diebold. THey had been up there nearly three years. Funny they would disappear with all this going on. Must be just a coincidence, you think? THey also included all SHelley's security recommendations which make McP look really negligent.

[rumpel]

4. Is that what it was...

I was wondering the other day when I was on the SOS site - that information shrunk - but I still have a few of the pdf's I downloaded then...and I think one of the universities will have them all - I forgot which one it was. Doing an extensive study of elections in general.

but in any event - what is it with these judges these days?

thanks Guv