Another important development out of our CFVC Convention: Dan Gutenkauf, delegate from Arizona, shares some of the invaluable fruits of his labor over the last four years with regards to the case he took all the way to the US Supreme Court – all that court ignominiously refused to hear it on May 8 of this year.

Before presenting the following Action plan, I feel it necessary to call everyone’s attention of the near pervasiveness of CRIMINAL judges. In the recent Idaho case, where the Board of Elections personnel admitted UNDER OATH numerous grotesque crimes,  ---- carried in our Network America ewires of August 11 and August 23^rd, 2000 – the criminal Judge STILL found in favor of the Board of Elections, and is allowing the crooked lawyer for the Boise Board of Elections to SUE the citizens who tried to protect honest elections for legal fees. This traitor (as in treason) lawyer will try to take the homes of these patriotic citizens to satisfy his legal fees, if need be.

I leave the strategy to each area, but no judge, no lawyer, and no “law” enforcement officers should be allowed to get away with stealing the property – not even a dime – of honest citizens trying to restore honest elections. I do recommend that everyone watch the recent movie The Patriot to get an idea on how the colonists eventually resisted British tyranny EFFECTIVELY. (Hint: It wasn’t by standing in a line as an easy target for enemy guns. It did include effective use of the element of surprise.) Dan Gutenkauf, the author of the below action plan, is in touch with the citizens of Idaho to try and help them use the strategy he used to avoid counter claims by those enforcing dishonest elections.) The CLEAN group just got his with hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive judgements for trying to restore honest elections, and their slide presentation (of the CLEAN ladies being manhandled and choked for trying to discover the secret ballot count in their county) – is gone from the CLEAN website, presumably by order of the Judge. This subject will be treated at more length soon.

Chuck Geshlider of Nevada is properly adamant that we not put crusaders in the way of the punitive crimes of these dishonest judges – unless these crusaders have eyes open as to the crimes Judges are committing from one end of the nation to the other.

He suggests that once a crime is documented on the part of an election official, that a grand jury indictment be sought. This leaves the citizens out of the way of countersuits. Of course, in many cases the Sheriffs are crooked and will not call a grand jury. This subject needs full discussion, but I list these caveats with regard to filing civil suits for the information of all patriots seeking to restore honest elections.

This action plan is focused on Arizona law, but it should give an idea to all on how to proceed. I have interspersed Dan’s action plan with NA ewire comments.

“Where the Law Begins, Tyranny Ends”

Strategy/Action Plan for Clean Elections

By Dan Gutenkauf

1. Call the Secretary of State’s office and find out when the “computer logic and accuracy test” will be given in your State. (In Arizona, refer to A.R.S. 16-449) It is usually within 7 days prior to election day, and it’s open to the press and the public. Alert other concerned citizens and political party members to attend. Bring a videocamera or a tape recorder.

(NA Comment: Every state may not have an accuracy and logic test. Many may find that there is such a test, but conducted by your county. For instance, in Hamilton County, Ohio – the county hosts the “accuracy and logic” test. This is a public affair, and you can not legally be prevented from recording it on videotape or audiotape.)

2. During question and answer session, ask who programmed the source code. If the Elections Director doesn’t know or refuses to answer, then cite your State’s Public Records statute. (In Arizona, A.R.S. 39 - 121) You have a right to that information. Request a copy of the computer program counting software on disc, filed with the Secrete of State’s office. A.R.S. 16-445 D says that it shall not be disclosed, but does not give a reason for nondisclosure. In other states, the reason given is that the software is “proprietary information” or a “trade secret”. However, it should be noted that Arizona’s public records laws do not expressly provide an exemption for “trade secrets.” (Att’y Gen. Op. 179-215) Ask if the software is patented. If it is patented, it is no longer a trade secret because a patent amounts to publication. (See Sachs v. Cluett Peabody and Company. 39 N.Y.S. 853, 857.) Furthermore, trade secrets are not shown if there is evidence that the same technology could be purchased on the market from three or four other vendors. (See FMC Corp. v Cyprus Foote Mineral Co. 899 F. Supp 1477 -- W.D. NC.1995) It would be against the best interests of the state to exclude voters from knowing how their vote is counted. Public policy always resolves any doubt in favor of disclosure. If the Elections Department still refuses disclosure, you now have it documented on video or audio tape.

There is usually a state statute dealing with a special civil action against an officer for denial of access to public records.(A.R.S. 39-121.02.) There is also a State statute dealing with criminal penalties for impairing the availability of a public record. (see A.R.S. 13-2407 sec. A.4).

3. Recite aloud the “Tally of the Vote” statute for your State. (In Arizona, see A.R.S. 16-601). Point out that it requires that the count “shall be public”’ Election laws are mandatory! If your State statute does not provide for a public count of the votes after the polls close, then refer to your public records statute. Election results are public records. You can also cite the Supreme Court rulings that the right to vote also includes the right to have your vote honestly counted. (United States v. Mosley 238 US 383 at p. 384, and Reynolds v Sims. 377 US 533 at p. 534).

(NA Comment: Whoa! Back up and read that last sentence and the Supreme Court citations again