Network America News

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." attributed to Communist Tyrant Josef Stalin

[One option available to help Citizens for a Fair Vote Count fund 50 organizers to rescue America -- to restore honest elections and teach Americans how to become active and effective in the 300,000 precincts across the nation -- is to do yourself a favor by going to http://newlife.electriclife.net and see the information there]

March 26, 2001 NA (Network America) ewire
[NA] A Victory in Colorado!

This is one of those “historic” Network America e-wires that will be a keeper. It is for e-wires like this that we began our research archive at votefraud.org –

It is of tremendous value because we here produce the actual testimony which was instrumental in helping to derail a bill in Colorado -- HB 1135 -- which would have set up a pilot project to bring voting by computer networks and Internet voting to all of Colorado.

PLEASE! Print this out and send it to your state legislator, or hand it to him. Or Email it to him. You can also forward it be email to anyone in the press.

NOTE: PLEASE email us with any legislator or press person you send this to. We are going to start a list on votefraud.org of WHO has received this testimony, so recipients cannot claim ignorance. Also, coming any
day, a list of votefraud investigators and honest election crusaders on votefraud.org to facilitate communication between activists.

Before getting to the Colorado testimony, readers should know that a similar victory in killing a type of internet voting pilot project was won earlier – a few weeks ago – in Kentucky. This victory was won by the
tireless efforts of the people of Take Back Kentucky. Gary Enos Thornell, who along with other “Take Back Kentucky” members, attended our Citizens for a Fair Vote Count convention in August, 2000, --- raised education about honest elections to the ACTION LEVEL.

Based on Gary’s research and thorough reading of the election bill before the Kentucky State Legislature, “Take Back Kentucky” succeeded in persuading the Kentucky State Legislature to kill the proposed bill to authorize pilot projects in the direction of internet voting. And they – in direct combat with Kentucky Governor Patton -- also killed another very sinister bill which would have in effect “internationalized” an entire industry in Kentucky. An e-wire in the near future will explain this in detail, as the importance of what the people at Take Back Kentucky did in regard to these two issues can hardly be exaggerated. They have set an example for citizens in all 50 states. More on that soon.

But, thanks in large part to the energetic and tireless efforts of another Honest Elections crusader, Lotus, -- the worldwide Direct Democracy movement has suffered a stunning defeat in the Colorado legislature.

Several comments are necessary before reproducing Lotus’s excellent report.

a) We at Citizens for a Fair Vote Count thank Lotus for bringing the education preserved and made public on our website, votefraud.org, to the ACTION level before the Colorado state legislator. He did a masterful job in collating and bringing to the Colorado legislators a lot of information in a short presentation.

b) We are also very excited by the expert testimony of Dr. Charles Corry, reproduced below. While we have the highest respect for Dr. Corry’s restrained and measured, yet dynamic, presentations, we must note that Dr. Corry states several times that he feels some day there will be verifiable electronic voting. We at Citizens for a Fair Vote
Count do not feel such electronic voting can ever be made sufficiently safe in the REAL WORLD of a real election day. In fact, it seems to us that Dr. Corry’s testimony offers more than enough reasons why attempting to construct such a “safe” electronic system – isn’t even worth the effort. As regular readers know, we favor the Canadian / New Hampshire system as explained in our November 27, 2000 e-wire, “Machine free, Canadians swiftly hand-count their 13 million ballots.”

With the above said, Dr. Corry’s testimony is absolutely brilliant in showing in devastating detail why the current technology can in no way provide a verifiable election on the internet or with similar computer network systems.

Here is Lotus’s actual report to Network America e-wire, containing the written testimony submitted by he and Dr. Corry. Lotus, a businessman and member of the Green Party, and Dr. Charles Corry, a computer expert with great experience and an ex-marine –teamed up to do a great service for America a few days ago. Let us all resolve to build on that service.

Here is the word for word report sent to us by Lotus, in which he talks about himself in the third person:

House Bill 1135 was killed by the Colorado Senate Government, Veterans and Military Relations, and Transportation Committee on 3-22-01. HB 1135 would have set up a pilot project to bring voting by computer
networks and Internet voting to all of Colorado. The bill had already passed the Colorado House. The written testimony given at this hearing by Dr. Charles Corry and Lotus are below. The oral testimony differed some. There were other reasons why this bill was killed in addition to the testimony by Dr. Corry and Lotus. Some of the other reasons included:

1. The Secretary of State was neutral on the bill.
2. The bill was not clear as to who, or what agency, would be responsible if voters votes were lost, or distorted, during the course of the pilot project.
3. The bill said there would be no significant costs associated with it, which seemed untrue.

Apparently this bill was initiated by industry. It seems clear that the real progress on bringing vote counting computers to all of Colorado is being worked on in a blue ribbon committee under the Secretary of State. So we have a lot more work to do even though HB 1135 was killed.

Dr. Corry wore his veteran's tie. He is an ex-marine. Also, it turns out that he has worked within the military on computer security systems involving the USSR and China. So his testimony definitely had some weight with the committee members.

(Note: Lotus educated the Committee Members on how the lotus flower symbolizes the growth of the soul prior to giving his testimony.)

Dr. Corry's Testimony:

Senator Alice J. Nichol
200 E. Colfax, Room 329
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Senator Nichol,

I am writing to express my grave concerns about HB 01-1135 creating a pilot program for networked electronic election systems (NEES). My understanding is that bill is now before the Colorado Senate committee on government, veterans and military affairs, and transportation that you chair.

There is nothing more fundamental to our republic than an honest election.

Conversely, American history provides numerous examples of vote fraud, ballot box stuffing, and rigged ballot counting. We can thus be certain that such attempts will be made with any new system put in place.

It isn't how the citizen's vote, but who counts the votes that matters, a statement originally attributed to Joseph Stalin. The recent presidential election brought that axiom to the forefront and undoubtedly underlies the present actions of the Colorado General Assembly to undertake the pilot program mandated in HB 01-1135.

Electronic elections are not a step to be taken lightly or hastily as reflected in the six year trial period mandated in HB 01-1135. However, the protections stated in that bill are illusory and do not provide the safeguards I believe the legislature intends. It is those matters that require study and are the basis for my recommendation that HB 01-1135, as currently written, not be passed by the Colorado Senate.

I have used computers, large and small, since 1960 in many international and defense programs, both classified and unclassified. Additionally, I helped develop one of the first 100 Web sites in 1992, and for the past five years have earned my living as a relational database consultant, frequently developing sites similar to what will be required for computer voting.

Thus, I fully appreciate the need for a pilot program to provide the basis for electronic voting in the future, and feel that HB 01-1135 is a step in the right direction. However, in reading the details of HB 01-1135 I find the language vague, hasty, and poorly informed with regard to the bill's objectives.

The major shortcoming I see is the lack of understanding of computer technology.

It is thus my unequivocal recommendation that the Senate table the measure to provide time for more study and input from qualified, independent computer experts. As one such, I have outlined my concerns below.

Heading the list of potential problems is security.

Computer security

I would hope it is evident that with computer voting the easiest and cheapest way to win an election is to pay off the programmer. HB 01-1135 makes it a felony to do so but the technology makes the present wording meaningless and impossible to detect or prosecute.

Computer hardware and security

It is unlikely the computer hardware used will be made or assembled in the United States. However, the present legislation does not require any sort of individual testing of these machines prior to placing them in service.

The American military and similar government agencies have numerous tests they run on computers before they are used in classified applications. Testimony on such testing should be sought and appropriate acceptance procedures specified in the present legislation or revisions made to §1-5-608.5 C.R.S. to cover the requirements for such testing.

Without such control there is no hope of ensuring the computers are accurate and reliable.

Computer viruses or trojan hoses may be present on the machine when purchased or inserted later via any extant communication link or insertable media, e.g., CD-ROM, with unknowable results. Such viruses could easily go undetected and would not be likely to show in the public code.

When they first started making hand held calculators, Texas Instruments (TI) ran tests to see how far off the results could be before students complained. The sad answer was the students believed the calculator, or
computer no matter how inaccurate TI made the results. My experience as a professor showed that, for most people dealing with a computer, GIGO means

Garbage In, Gospel Out.

Voting machines must demonstrably produce accurate results. Manufacturers claims are worthless without independent and repeated testing. Such tests must also be required after any upgrades specified under § 32-1-808.5(i) in HB 01-1135.

Access to the hardware for testing by an independent authority before and after any election must also be provided for with the results made public. By this I mean each machine, not the entire NEES as spelled out
in § 32-1-808.6(a) of HB 01-1135. Also, § 1-5-608.5 C.R.S. is inadequate to provide any real protection against vote fraud.

The problem from my perspective is that the requirements presently spelled out in HB 01-1135 are too general. As a result the proposed legislation lends itself to a "black box" approach to electronic elections with no one quite sure what the magic "black box" is doing and without the legislated authority to find out.

Computer software and security

The code used in the computer to do the vote counting, whether software or firmware, must be public information if there is to be any hope of detecting fraud. Conversely, the source code for current voting machines is proprietary information. Attempts to obtain the source code for voting programs have not been supported by the courts. Thus, the requirement for public availability must be spelled out in the enabling legislation.

There is a maxim that the only way to protect the computer is to shoot the programmer. Short of that the legislation must invoke restrictions on who can program voting machines. A Colorado felony is meaningless to
a programmer in China. Also, an indentured servant here on an H1-B visa is going to be quite amenable to making some virtually undetectable changes to computer code in exchange for some cash prior to their return to India.

I would strongly recommend that the legislation require that access to the computer programs used in voting machines, and access to the machines as well, be limited to American citizens, and that all such citizens undergo background and security checks before being allowed such access.

HB 01-1135 currently makes no such restriction. The widespread use of foreign nationals for software coding and hardware configuration in the computer industry ensures such individuals will have access to the voting programs and machines without such a restriction.

Computer networks and security

It makes little difference how well the hardware is tested, or the source code for the programs controlled if the computer is on a public network such as the Internet.

It should be regarded as a given that any physical connection between the voting machine and a public network will be breached. The CIA, FBI, and military computers have all been "hacked."

In an election there is much more at stake than with those limited systems.The military, and other government bodies doing classified work have the concept of an "air gap" to avoid the direct transmittal of information
between classified and unclassified machines via an electronic network. An example with current voting machines would be to have optical scanners count paper ballots at the local precinct. When the polls closed the scanner would print out vote totals and the election officials would then phone the results to the election headquarters
where they would be entered in the voting computer. The results for the precinct entered in the machine would then be sent back to the precinct for verification.

The optical scanner itself must not have any external connection via modem or any other communication device if security is to be maintained. And once programmed and tested, such scanners must be sealed until an election is over.

For Internet voting some other variant will be necessary but the "air gap" concept must be incorporated into the legislation if public confidence in the system is to be established and maintained.

Secret ballots

The proposed legislation in HB 01-1135 includes some detail in § 32-1-808.5(a) about means of identifying an eligible voter. However, the present statement is incomplete.

To meet the requirements of § 32-1-808.5(a), (e), (f), and (m) what the computer must contain for electronic balloting is information about:

* The identity and address of the voter.

* That the voter has registered and is eligible to vote, e.g., a citizen, no felony conviction, etc.

* That the elector has not previously voted in the current election.

* What candidates and issues the citizen is eligible to vote for in the present election based on their current residence.

* That the voter has properly and correctly filled out the ballot. From these requirements it logically follows that the computer must then store information as to how the individual has voted if computer balloting is used.

This violates the concept of a secret ballot. Since eligibility to vote is dependent in part on such things as
criminal records, combined with the requirement that a voter only cast one vote in an election, computer voting will surely lead to demands for a national database.

The potential abuses of such a database totally unrelated to voting are immense.

Voting information will also be sought for purportedly innocuous information such as demographics for campaign planning, e.g., how many in a given precinct or ZIP code area voted for a particular Republican or Democratic candidate, or for or against a tax increase.The dangers of even that limited information for punitive purposes
should be obvious, but the next step of determining how individuals voted will surely soon follow.

The old adage that: "If something can be done it probably will be" is still valid. Thus, it is essential that any legislation strictly control voting information, associated databases, and provide for rigid test requirements to insure the controls are in place and enforced. Severe penalties for violating such restrictions must also be enacted.

Limitations of computer voting

I have tabulated below some more general concerns about electronic balloting. One or more of these problems will exist with any electronic election system implemented and such issues need to be addressed in the enabling legislation. However, that is not presently done in HB 01-1135.

* In an Internet, or other network or computer balloting system, the voter marks no ballot that is preserved outside the computer.

* While § 32-1-808.5(m) provides a hard copy of the elector's ballot no means are provided for using those copies to verify an election and my understanding is current law requires ballots to be recounted by the same method originally used.

* A "recount" of computer ballots is meaningless.

* HB 01-1135 § 32-1-808.5(k) requires that tabulation and audit trails be contained within the computer.

* There is no audit trail outside the computer and manual or other independent means of recounting or verifying the balloting is impossible with electronic balloting.

* Who can vote for what and whom depends on where the voter resided when they registered. That may not coincide with where they live now. This is a major problem with Internet voting that would allow ballot box
stuffing from Iraq, or anywhere else on the planet.

* Communication links may be accidentally or deliberately broken or manipulated to control balloting. HB 01-1135 §32-1-808.5(l) requires transmitting information over a secure network but, in fact, no such network has ever been proven to exist (including Sipranet).

For example, a dummy system could easily be put in place indicating a vote was properly sent and recorded that, in fact, never reached the computer. At the same time the dummy system could send a vote of its own to the computer doing the counting.

Or the communication link can be rigged to modify the vote in transit. Internet connections typically go through 15 to 20 separate machines enroute to their destination.

* For Internet voting, vote modification may be accomplished by someone in another country not subject to Colorado law.

* Adequate testing of the myriad of ballots present in general elections, and even many local elections, is impossible as a practical matter. At present the only such limitation in HB 01-1135 is associated with votes on TABOR issues. Thus, § 32-1-808.6 is well intentioned but inadequate. Further study is required.

* Computer or communication malfunctions can cause the inadvertent or deliberate loss of electronic ballots. § 32-1-808.5(g) calls for uninterrupted availability while the polls are open but makes no provision for what rules are to followed when breakdowns do occur.

* Few, if any, poll watchers can verify the accuracy of the balloting even if source code for the voting programs is available to them (not presently the case) due to lack of expertise with said programs. That issue needs to be addressed.

* It is quite easy to present one listing of the computer code for verification while the computer is actually running a different version of the same program.

That may be done either by accident or deliberately.

* A substantial percentage of the electorate, estimated at approximately 10%, will not be able to use the computer either due to computer anxiety/phobia or other handicaps.

Efforts to ease those problems as required under § 32-1-808.5(e) and (j) are certain to increase computer bugs or provide opportunities for deliberate manipulation of the vote totals.

* Inadvertent or deliberate "errors" or "bugs" in the computer code are virtually impossible to detect unless they cause gross mistakes.

A computer byword states that all nontrivial programs contain bugs. If there are no bugs in the program it is, by definition, trivial.

Voting algorithms with complex candidacies, initiatives, precincts, special districts, etc. are not a trivial programming problem.

* By the same logic it is a certainty that I have not thought of all the potential ways a NEES can be accidentally or deliberately corrupted.

* Optical scanners, or similar devices, reading hand-marked paper ballots at a local precinct are subject to errors or manipulation if they are connected to a network, e.g., through a modem, or if their software or firmware are corrupt.

If the paper ballots are recounted by simply running them through the same machine, as mandated under current Colorado law, such errors or corruption are not likely to be detected.

* Computer counts of ballots may not be accurate due to either deliberate manipulation or flaws in the software or hardware.

An example: the computer in a precinct might not recognize that a citizen was authorized to vote on a local initiative due to an oversight, or bug, in the programming.

Conversely, the voter might be presented with a computer ballot that allowed them to vote on initiatives or candidates their address or party affiliation did not make them eligible for.

* Transferring all vote counting to a central computer makes it impossible to determine local balloting errors and enhances the opportunities to manipulate the count.

* Programmers commonly leave themselves "back (or trap) doors" while developing computer code to facilitate testing and debugging.

Such features facilitate later manipulation of the code, either authorized or unauthorized.

It is my hope that the comments above will cause your committee, and the Colorado Senate to carefully consider the problems inherent in a networked electronic election system (NEES) before passing any legislation with regard to this fundamentally important issue.

HB 01-1135, as passed by the House, is not up to the demands and requirements of the issue. The bill does contain important first steps that do need to be taken and provides a considerable and essential period for testing any NEES.

That such electronic election systems will be needed and used in the future is unquestioned. But with so many imponderables and known problems at present I ask in the strongest possible terms that more time be given to studying this basic issue before hastily passing superficial legislation such as

HB 01-1135.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

cc: Senator Andy McElhany

Lotus's Testimony:

Lotus
Box 220-171
Woodland Park, CO 80866
719-687-1002

House Bill 1135
Senate Government, Veterans and Military Relations, and Transportation Committee

When computers are used to count votes, poll watchers are no longer allowed to watch the votes being counted. All the poll watchers get to see is ballots being fed into a computer and totals being fed out the other end of the computer. Votes counted by computer are a secret vote. Secret vote counting and democracy are not compatible.

I learned this fact about two years ago when I ran for Mayor of Woodland Park. Not only are poll watchers prevented from being able to see the votes being counted, they are also barred from being able to see the
software, which is what determines how the votes are being counted. No on is allowed to see the computer software in vote counting computers, not even the Secretary of State. The courts have determined that the
software is proprietary.

According to Howard Strauss, Director of Advanced Computer Applications at Princeton University, and a nationally renowned expert in the field of computer voting, “When it comes to computerized elections, there are
no safeguards. It’s not a door without locks, it’s a house without doors.” Sources Relevance Magazine.

Computer expert Peter G. Neumann, of Stanford Research Institute pointed out the ease of concealing theft by computer “without a trace,” and characterized local elections as very vulnerable to fraud.

Ohio judge Richard Niehaus in a Hamilton County vote fraud case ruled, “There is no adequate and proper safeguard against the computers being programmed to distort election results.”

Roy G. Saltman in a 1988 report for the U.S. Commerce Department, ‘Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying’, “…exhaustively documented the many instances of vote mistabulation and
the inherent vulnerability of U.S. voting systems to error and fraud.”

Author of the 32-page expose’, “Annals of Democracy Counting Votes” in the New Yorker, Ronnie Dugger, summarized the findings of his numerous interviews: “All the computer experts I have spoken with agreed that no
computer program can be made completely secure against fraud.”

Relevance Magazine editor Dr. Phillip M. O’Halloran stated, “…the computer voting system in this country is a veritable can of worms, so open to tampering that if there is no organized election fraud going on, the criminals are falling down on the job.… computer vote fraud is not only feasible but, by its very nature, undetectable.… it is hard to conceive of an organized criminal enterprise with such a favorable combination of high profit potential and low risk.”

Not only are we not allowed to watch how our votes are being counted, but the likelihood of being able to detect vote rigging if it were happening is very difficult. Eva Waskell, Director, Elections Project at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), stated, “Many court cases involving allegations of fraud were brought against vendors of electronic voting systems. There was no convictions… plaintiffs were never given access to the vote tabulating program…”

It has been pointed out that poll watchers are allowed to test vote-counting computers by inserting dozens, or even hundreds, of ballots into the computer in order to check the accuracy of the computer’s counting. This test is generally called the “logic and accuracy test.”

Howard Strauss, Princeton University, says of this test, “…turns out to be no test at all. That doesn’t prove a thing. Any system that was designed with a ‘trap door’ or a ‘Trojan horse’ or any kind of fraudulent thing in it could pass that test easily…. There are hundreds of ways you could do this… . I’ve talked to folks who’ve said ‘oh no, we’ve fed a thousand votes in and then we looked at the other side and they were counted correctly.’ I said, ‘so what? That doesn’t tell you what’s inside the box.’ ”

HB 1135 page 3, paragraph (II) states, Prohibit wrongful manipulation, fraudulent use, or any other violation of the integrity of any networked electronic election system… . Based on the research that I am familiar with to date, it is not possible to prohibit manipulation, fraudulent use or violations of the integrity of any computer voting system,
networked or otherwise, especially when the software is not even available for inspection.

The man who built the first personal computer, Adam Osborne, stated in “Running Wild”, …computers should never be used to count votes. Voting by computer is voting in the dark, is secret vote counting.

Even if the computer vote counting software were available for inspection, finding manipulation, fraud and other violations of integrity would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack.

HB 1135 is described as an act concerning the creation of a pilot program to promote voting through networked electronic election systems… . Thus this Bill assumes that it is good and wise to promote voting by computer when the opposite is the case.

HB 1135, page 3, (I) also states, Authorize special district officials to make use of electronic networks including, without limitation, the Internet… . It is impossible for me to believe anyone concerned with creating a secure method of voting would suggest voting on the Internet. The suggestion is ludicrous even to a lay person, certainly to independent computer experts.

Even Bill Kimberling, director of the Office of Elections for the Federal Elections Commission, according to CNN.COM news, June 7, 2000, stated, …Internet voting is a breeding ground for fraud and a business
driven threat to democracy.... .

I strongly urge you to kill Senate Bill 1135. This democracy can not afford to have its votes counted in secret, in the dark, by computers that can be easily rigged, and where the rigging is almost impossible to detect.

End of Lotus’s testimony before the Colorado Legislature; End of Lotus’s
report –

And end of this Network America e-wire.

Jim Condit Jr.,
Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count

All Network America e-wire messages are archived at the votefraud.org website. These archived messages can be found by going to "news", then "news by month", then choose from the titles in each month.

Many of our best e-wires can be found at votefraud.org by going to "The Full Story behind the Radio Ads" section on the home page. These e-wires give you a better overview of what's happening in America then you would get by spending 4 years in political science classes at Harvard or Yale, or another other college. Save yourself time -- read those important e-wires.

To Subscribe to our daily ewire: networkamerica-subscribe@topica.com

To Unsubscribe to our daily ewire: networkamerica-unsubscribe@topica.com

The "Ruling Elite", through their five Big TV Networks, AP wire service, and two major papers, the New York Times and Washington Post, are making peaceful change impossible at the ballot box, -- via Vote Fraud, Media Censorship, and Opinion Poll Fraud, and the flood of illegal aliens who are becoming registered voters . . .

President Kennedy talked about this:

"If you make peaceful change impossible..... you make violent revolution inevitable." President John F Kennedy

Go to www.votefraud.org to hear (or read the text) of the Radio Ads which aired in the month before the 2000 election over WLW Radio (which reaches into 38 states at night)and several other midwest stations -- exposing the easily rigged computerized elections which "elect" public officials in the USA, and also exposed the coordinated news and censorship of the 5 Big TV Networks. Thanks to Ken Lowndes for Congress, the radio stations MUST air these ads. They're tough. They're "outrageous" -- and you've never heard anyting like it on TV or Radio.

The three prongs of Big Media election manipulation are: Massive coverage of favored Candidates, and Censorship of all other candidates -- including warped Public Opinion Polls for months before the election; phony exit polls done by joint effort of the Big TV Networks on Election Day through Voter News Service, and easily rigged computerized vote counting on election day -- which make the polls and exit polls come true. (On election day, the people are barred from touching or counting their ballots, the election officials are barred from knowing what is in the software program that instructs the computers how to count the votes.)

You can go to www.votefraud.org -- and punch in your email near the topica logo -- to subscribe to this e-wire list.

www.votefraud.org for a report about the recent Citizens for a Fair Vote Count Convention which took place Aug 25-27, 2000 and Action Steps. The Citizens for a Fair Vote Count Convention was a great success in launching the beginning of a nationwide network to restore honest elections. See special report at updated and improved website. Go to: www.votefraud.org

go to votefraud.org to read archived messages from this Network America e-wire in the "news" section under "news by month"

Read "Best of" Archives at www.lewisnews.com at "Citizens for a Fair Vote Count" section accessed in left hand column of home page.

(RADIO SHOW ON LINE ALL THE TIME. Listen anytime to the 'Votefraud vs Honest Elections' crash course radio show over the internet at www.rense.com in the archives, April 3rd, 2000 show, Jeff Rense host, Jim Condit Jr. guest; there is also an hour interview on the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in the www.rense.org archives for the night of December 6, 2000.)

To contact us, reply to this message or send e-mail to: jconditjr@networkamerica.org

Asthma? Sinus? Prone to colds? Sore Neck? Back goes out and needs adjustment? You may find help in "Electric C" "VIta Matrix" and other products formulated by scientist David Elliott -- Go to: http//newlife.electriclife.net -- for a new view of health and nutrtion.

Let fellow citizens, opinion molders, pastors, public officials, and the newsmedia know -- that we do not accept "Election results" until paper ballots with citizen checks and balances are restored to the process at the local precinct level.

Our mailing address: Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, PO Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

To read all our archived messages for the Network America e-wire list since January 10, 2000 -- go to votefraud.org, red hot news, and then, under the current month -- you will find all the past archived months. When you click on a month, you can see the titles of each ewire in that month, and you can choose from those. All messages are also archived at www.topica.com in the Network America section.

We have another list for those who wish to help fund 50 or more organizers around the US to rescue America, or fund their own work. This list is the Network America Funding Team list (NAFT) and you can subscribe to it by emailing to NAfundingteam-subscribe@topica.com

To Subscribe to our daily ewire: networkamerica-subscribe@topica.com

To Unsubscribe to our daily ewire: networkamerica-unsubscribe@topica.com

____________________________________________________________

Websites:
Citizens for a Fair Vote Count - Go to: http://www.votefraud.org
Network America - go to http://www.networkamerica.org

Read "Best of" Archives on this site or at http://www.lewisnews.com at "Citizens for a Fair Vote Count" section accessed in left hand column of home page.

RADIO SHOW ON LINE ALL THE TIME. Listen anytime to the 'Votefraud vs Honest Elections' crash course radio show over the internet at www.sightings.com in the archives, April 3rd, 2000 show, Jeff Rense host, Jim Condit Jr. guest. If the transmission breaks, reconnect to sightings.com and manually move the bar to the place in the show where the audio transmission broke

To write us with information or order by educational tapes and materials by mail, write us at Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, PO Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

Please forward our messages to friends and opinion molders, and tell them about our websites and daily e-wire communications. This information, especially in election season, offers an opportunity to de-stablize the New World Order Ruling Elite and restore honest elections with citizens checks and balances, true Freedom under God, and true Free Enterprise in America.

Let fellow citizens, opinion molders, pastors, public officials, internet news outlets, and major news media outlets know -- that we will not believe the published results of elections until transparent, verifiable, honest vote counting methods are restored, i.e., paper ballots with citizen checks and balances, with the ballot counting under the control of the neighborhood registered voters in each precinct.

Receive free e-mail announcements on vital Election 2000, VoteFraud News and Big TV Manipulation of the American Mind. Enter your e-mail address below, then click "Join"!