Subject: ***J.A.I.L. Blocked By Lack of Integrity of the Voting System*** |
From: "JAIL4Judges" |
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2022 18:56:12 -0800 |
To: |
On election day, the reported outcome of the election was 89% against with 11% for. There being no reasonable explanation, many are shocked.
We are taking independent polls of the voters in
I am encouraging the seeking of both a criminal and a civil remedy, the latter being in Federal Court outside of the State of
I am currently viewing a video tape moderated by Edward Griffin, a friend and acquaintance of mine. I find this video very interesting. Inasmuch as this matter in South Dakota involves criminal acts of the entire government of South Dakota, the implications of this matter is earth shaking and beyond imagination.
A California court has approved a $2.6 million settlement between Diebold and the State of California and Alameda County. The state and county had sued Diebold for fraudulent claims about the security of its electronic voting machines.
Diebold, whose subsidiary Diebold Election Systems manufactures the voting machines at the heart of the suit, will pay the state $2.6 million, and Alameda County another $100,000.
The court ordered that $500,000 of the lump sum be used to help form a voter education and poll worker training program in California, coordinated through the University of California Institute of Governmental Studies.
Diebold has also agreed to certain technology and reporting obligations that will provide election officials with a better understanding of how to use its voting machines.
The settlement is the fruit of a suit filed in September by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who argued that Diebold was not truthful about the security and reliability of its electronic voting machines.
Lockyer, who earlier dropped a criminal probe into Diebold, claimed that Diebold provided Alameda County with software that was not certified by the government. Researchers earlier determined the machines contained dangerous flaws.
Researchers said the voting system could easily allow someone to cast multiple votes in the same election. Last April, California set stringent standards for electronic voting by ordering new security measures for e-voting machines.
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years