CONCERNED CITIZEN COMPLAINT
District Attorney – [Name here] [Date]
[County Name] County Court House
[City, State, ZIP] 42 Pages Total
I am concerned with large-scale election fraud by manipulation of electronic voting machines. The
evidence provided in Attachment A & B displays this potential. For example, in 2004, California
Secretary of State Kevin Shelly banned many Diebold Corporation voting machines. This ban required
2 million Californians’ votes to be counted by hand. In addition, the Secretary of State requested the
California Attorney General to prosecute Diebold Corporation for criminal activity.
Attachment B contains an affidavit from computer programmer Clinton Curtis displaying that the
company he was working for was asked to program the electronic voting machines in favor of a
candidates’ request for a final vote in the candidate/client’s favor.
Attachment C displays other evidence and an affidavit of Edward True of Moulton, Iowa, showing
that 20 voters were added for Mitt Romney. National news reported at first that Mitt Romney won,
however after a re-count, Rick Santorum won; was this a computer “glitch?” This attachment also
includes documented reports of vote tampering during this current primary election season in New
Hampshire and South Carolina.
Attachment D displays other investigations of Diebold’s machines. Attachment E provides
additional evidence this primary election season.
I would propose that this complaint be submitted to a county grand jury for the purposes of the grand
jury issuing a subpoena upon voters for a hard copy of their vote in either:
1. A few LARGER precincts for a “sample;” or
2. All precincts in the county.
The strategy proposed is to simply have duplicate “paper ballots” returned to the grand jury for
comparison to the electronic voting machines and the state GOP reports. The confidentiality of a
grand jury investigation is clearly spelled out in state law, hence voter privacy is protected. The
instruction and “paper ballot” form of Attachment F is very simple—2 pages. When the voters enter
the precinct, they are required to fill out the paper ballot by subpoena. Although this might be slightly
inconvenient to voters, the additional assurance against vote fraud in the end may be appreciated by
Please forward this to the county grand jury to issue a subpoena for comparing the electronic votes to
the hard evidence of paper copies. The next page displays the power of the grand jury to issue a
subpoena based on suspicion, utilizing even “hearsay” evidence; including the grand jury’s power to
investigate for its own assurance that the law is not being violated.
[Your name here]
[Your city and state]
[Your phone number]
Attachments: Why we do this & Grand Jury Power Explained, Attachments A, B, C, D, E & F. Q&A’s.
Why we do this, & Grand Jury Power Explained (in brief)
“Whole-Sale ELECTION FRAUD” – Why we submit this:
1. Lou Dobbs (CNN) “Special Addition” Report – 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1IlAXeV30&feature=related (3 min. 09 seconds)
Princeton Professor Edward Felton displays how easy (in about 1 minute) it is to “hack” a Diebold
(now ES&S) election machine and insert a “virus” to change the results. Mr. Felton communicated
“This machine has been compromised…...it is not a very secure machine.” Reporter Lady
summarizes to Lou Dobbs: “The Diebold machines we tested do not have a paper trail. The record
tape on the inside of the machine can be altered by the virus. And there is no other record of how
someone voted. Once they walk away that vote can be lost or stolen.” Lou Dobbs responded, “This is
enough, I would think to worry about anyone responsible for an election.”
2. Clip from the movie, “Hacking Democracy”- Another “Hacker” displays same as above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwS4XMEr_qY&feature=related (9 min. 02 seconds)
Interview with Iain Sanchez, 17 years as a top election official in Florida, commenting
on Volusia County, Florida, “Someone consciously tried to affect the computer system
and …tried to perpetuate a fraud to steel votes.”
3. HBO Movie: “Hacking Democracy”: To get a more intensive review of this chronic problem, one
can watch a full-featured HBO movie/ documentary on this matter. The movie is entitled, “Hacking
(Or, one can go to Youtube.com & search “Hacking Democracy” for parts of the movie)
Grand Jury Power to issue a subpoena:
The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken with respect to the power of the grand jury to investigate a
potential crime: “[The grand jury] can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated,
or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” (emphasis added) (U.S. vs. Morton Salt Co.,
338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)).
Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson
Subpoena based on Hearsay:
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has written about the power of the grand jury listening to hearsay,
and issuing a subpoena based upon “hearsay”, concluding that indeed the grand jury can issue a
subpoena based on “hearsay.” (Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956), & US vs.
Dionisio 410 U.S. (1973));
Some points w/r to the grand jury issuing a subpoena based on “Hearsay.”
1. “Trial by Jury” vs. Grand Jury: In “Trial by Jury”- "Hearsay" is not allowed. In a trial court, the
goal is a conviction/acquittal, and people should not be convicted on "Hearsay." However, the grand
jury is an investigative body looking for evidence. One of the witnesses appearing on subpoena may
produce hard evidence. Once hard evidence is obtained, then the grand jury can issue an indictment.
This indictment begins the prosecution process leading to acquittal or conviction. The grand jury only
starts prosecution, and cannot convict. Conviction is accomplished by “Trial by Jury.”
2. Police using “Hearsay”: Regular police investigators go on "leads", and many of these are based
on "Hearsay." These "Hearsay" leads eventually produce solid evidence used in court convictions.
3. Specifically in Costello vs. U.S.: A gangster (Costello) disputed his conviction because the grand
jury used "hearsay" to gather evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the grand jury could do
4. Political Heat Removed from District Attorneys or Judges: Also, another advantage to a grand
jury issuing the subpoena is that "Political Heat" is taken off of the judge and the DA; that is if
something goes "South." Should a crime be discovered, the judge and the DA can take much credit,
and hence increase political points.
Power as a grand jury member: To understand your power as a sitting grand jury member, see this
website page: http://hidden4thbranch.com/?page_id=94
Or find the page, “Words of Judges & Attorneys” on www.hidden4thbranch.com
It is very important for any sitting grand jury member to understand this simple thought: “Anyone that
opposes a grand jury is communicating by action, ‘I don’t want accountability.’”
As a grand jury member, you have enormous power to hold corruption accountable. The U.S.
Supreme Court has affirmed this power many times. For example, this mandate as a “Referee”
(including “Sword Function”) is actually stated nationwide from present U.S. Supreme Court Justice
“In fact, the whole theory of its [the grand jury] function is that it belongs to no branch of the
institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the
people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61
(1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of
course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial
Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the
functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand
jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338,
343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “
Continuing in U.S. v. Williams, Justice Scalia writes:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363U.S.420, 490 (1960)
(Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), “the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the
body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described
in the first three Articles. ‘[It] is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ United States v. Chanen, 549
F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700,
712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977).
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
Attorney Denofrio (N.J.) commented on United States v. Williams: This miraculous quote says it
all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional
Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The
Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH
BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of
the government in our roles as grand jurors.” – Leo Donofrio– Attorney, N.J.
California Official Seeks Criminal Probe of e-Voting
Machines Banned in Four Counties; Ten More Counties Must Meet Conditions
(updated 4/30/2004 9:25:27 PM ET)
AP: SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The state’s top election official called for a criminal investigation of
Diebold Election Systems Inc. as he banned use of the company’s newest model touchscreen voting
machine, citing concerns about its security and reliability.
Friday’s ban will force up to 2 million voters in four counties, including San Diego, to use paper
ballots in November, marking their choices in ovals read by optical scanners.
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley asked the attorney general’s office to investigate allegations of fraud,
saying Diebold had lied to state officials. A spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said
prosecutors would review Shelley’s claims.
Diebold issued a statement saying it was confident in its systems and planned to work with election
officials in California and throughout the nation to run a smooth election this fall.
Affects 14,000 Machines
The ban immediately affects more than 14,000 AccuVote-TSx machines made by Diebold, the leading
touchscreen provider. Many were used for the first time in the March primaries and suffered failures.
In 10 other counties, Shelley decertified touchscreen machines but set 23 conditions under which they
still could be used. That order involved 4,000 older machines from Diebold and 24,000 from its three
The decision follows the recommendations of a state advisory panel, which conducted hearings earlier
Made just six months before a presidential election, the decision reflects growing concern about
paperless electronic voting.
A number of failures involving touchscreen machines in Georgia,Maryland and California have
spurred serious questioning of the technology. As currently configured, the machines lack paper
records, making recounts impossible.
“I anticipate his decision will have an immediate and widespread impact,” said Kim Alexander,
president of the California Voter Foundation and a frequent critic of the machines. “California is
turning away from e-voting equipment, and other states are sure to follow.”
Activists have been demanding paper printouts — required in California by 2006 — to guard against
fraud, hacking and malfunction.
Diebold has been a frequent target of such groups, though most California county election officials say
that problems have been overstated and that voters like the touchscreen systems first installed four
50 Million Voters
At least 50 million voters nationally were expected to use the ATM-like machines from Diebold and
other companies in November.
California counties with 6.5 million registered voters have been at the forefront of touchscreen voting,
installing more than 40 percent of the more than 100,000 machines believed to be in use nationally.
A state investigation released this month said Diebold jeopardized the outcome of the March election
in California with computer glitches, last-minute changes to its systems and installations of uncertified
software in its machines in 17 counties.
It specifically cited San Diego County, where 573 of 1,611 polling places failed to open on time
because low battery power caused machines to malfunction.
Registrars in counties that made the switch to paperless voting said Shelley’s decision to return to
paper ballots would result in chaos.
“There just isn’t time to bring this system up before November,” Kern County Registrar Ann Barnett
said. “It’s absurd.”
Diebold officials, in a 28-page report rebutting many of the accusations about its performance, said the
company had been singled out unfairly for problems with electronic voting and maintained its
machines are safe, secure and demonstrated 100 percent accuracy in the March election.
The company, a subsidiary of automatic teller machine maker Diebold, Inc., acknowledged it had
“alienated” the secretary of state’s office and promised to redouble efforts to improve relations with
counties and the state.
2007: CA Releases Results of Red-Team Investigation of
Voting Machines: All Three Systems Could Be
July 27th, 2012: California Secretary of State Debra Bowen just released the results of the state’s
unprecedented top-to-bottom review of voting systems being used in the state (read here (pdf) for an
overview of the Red Team findings). The review consisted of three parts, one of which involved a Red
Team led by UC Davis computer scientist Matthew Bishop that was tasked with examining the systems for
security vulnerabilities (see this PDFfor a description of the Red Team’s testing protocol). The team found
that it could compromise all three of the top voting systems used in the state made by Diebold Election
Systems, Hart Intercivic, and Sequoia Voting Systems, with the caveat that many, but not all, of the attacks
they were able to accomplish on the machines could be mitigated with proper physical security of the
machines, security training of staff, and contingency planning.
Test Results Diebold Machines (Majority of the machines):
1. Election Management System. The testers were able to penetrate the GEMS server system …. were
able to bypass the GEMS server to access the data directly.
2. Physical Security. The testers were able to bypass the physical controls on the
AccuVote Optical Scanner using ordinary objects. …..
3. AccuVote TSx. The testers found numerous ways to overwrite the firmware in the
AccuVote TSx. These attacks could change vote totals, among other results. …..
4. Security Keys for Cryptography. The testers discovered that a well-known static security key was used
Test Results of the Sequoia Voting System:
2. Overwriting Firmware. The testers discovered numerous ways to overwrite the firmware of the Sequoia
Edge system, ….. the attackers controlled the machine, and could manipulate the results of the election.
3. Overwriting the Boot Loader. Just as the testers could overwrite firmware on the disk, they could
overwrite the boot loader and replace it with a malicious boot loader.
This program could then corrupt anything it loaded, including previously uncorrupted firmware.
4. Detecting Election Mode. The firmware can determine whether the system is in test mode (LAT) or not.
This means malicious firmware can respond correctly to the pre-election testing and incorrectly to the
voters on Election Day.
5. Election Management System. The testers were able to bypass the Sequoia WinEDS
client controlling access to the election database, and access the database directly. …[Insert their own
program]…... and configure it to launch the above attacks when inserted into an Edge.
6. Presence of an Interpreter. A shell-like scripting language …[could]… modify the audit trail.
7. Forging materials. Both the update cartridges and voter cards could be forged.
(Affidavit of Computer Programer Clinton Curtis,
Continues on Next Page)
Source of Clinton Curtis’ Affidavit:
YouTube Video of Clinton Curtis Testifying in a Hearing:
Evidence of Vote Tampering During Current Primary Election Season
Iowa - January 19, 2012:
Affidavit of Edward True of Moulton Iowa displaying that 20 voters were added for Mitt
Romney. It should be noted that somewhere from the Caucus to the Iowa GOP that there was a 20
vote increase for one candidate. Is it possible that an electronic voting device was involved? It should
be noted that Edward True appeared on CNN to report this violation.
Also note in the CNN report that 8 precinct reports are missing in the final “official vote tally.”
New Hampshire - January 12, 2012:
How to Commit Vote Fraud in New Hampshire:
James O’Keefe and Spencer Meads record footage using undercover cameras to repeatedly
demonstrate how easy it is to pose as a deceased person in order to commit vote fraud in New
Hampshire due to the state’s policy of allowing voters to cast their ballots without providing any proof
of identification. Although the Supervisor adamantly claimed that the voter roll sheets are thoroughly
screened on a weekly basis to removed names that are no longer valid, clearly this is not so.
South Carolina - January 27, 2012:
Report: More Than 900 Dead People Voted in South Carolina Elections:
A voter fraud controversy is currently taking place in South Carolina after the Department of Motor
vehicles discovered that 953 deceased registered voters appeared to have voted in state elections. The
state’s attorney general, Alan Wilson (R), is now asking the Feds to investigate elections dating back to
before the 2008 presidential election. There is no evidence of this occurring in Saturday’s primary
election, but Wilson says it is a possibility.
According to the report, some of the voters passed away as far back as six years ago, and 37,000
deceased individuals were still on the state’s voter rolls after they died. These recent allegations come
as the Department of Justice has blocked the state’s controversial voter photo ID law, claiming
it discriminates against minorities.
Edward True’s Original list of votes from his Moulton Iowa Caucus
Independent reports of the Diebold electronic voting machines are provided below. Diebold (as
ES&S) is in Florida and South Carolin Approximately 80% of the votes (nationwide) are tallied by
Hursti I Report — Critical security flaws in the Diebold optical scan (2005):
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreport.pdf (1,118 KB)
Hursti II Report — Critical security flaws in the Diebold TSx (2006):
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreportIIunredacted.pdf (350 KB
Hursti II Supplement (2006):
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreportII-supplement-unredacted.pdf (330 KB)
Penn State University Team (2007) yields multiple failures of integrity.
Key Points from the Executive Summary:
1. Failure to effectively protect vote integrity and privacy;
2. Failure to protect election from malicious insiders;
3. Failure to validate and protect software;
4. Failure to provide trustworthy auditing;
5. Failure to follow standard software and security engineering practices
“Our ﬁndings are consistent with those of previous studies. When taken as a whole, this and previous
studies highlight a central point of concern: there is a demonstrative lack of improvement in the
security of elections conducted using the Premier system. …..
…….The ﬂaws in the Premier system place the security of an election almost entirely on
physical procedures. Our analysis suggests that when those practices are not uniformly followed, it
will be difﬁcult to know when attacks occur. Even when the attacks are identiﬁed, it is unlikely that the
resulting damage can be easily contained and the public’s belief in the accuracy and fairness of the
Note: Diebold is now named “ES&S.”
“Bob Urosevich, the first CEO of Diebold Election Systems was also the founder of ES&S, a
competing voting machine company now owned by the McCarthy Group. Together these two
companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the United States. The current vice-
president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
It is reputed that the software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr. Urosevich’s company I-
Mark and is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases; and that the
I-Mark and Microsoft software each represent a single point of failure of vote counting process, from
which 80% of votes can be compromised via the exploit of a single line of code in either subsystem.
In some states, Diebold’s new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other
words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was
legitimately put in by voters.”
See also the website: blackboxvoting.org. Founded by Bev Harris who was featured in the HBO
documentary “Hacking Democracy”.
Attachment E - Additional Evidence- this Primary Election Season
LETTER FROM RICHARD CHARNIN- MATHEMETICIAN
Richard Charnin 04/19/2012
5190 Las Verdes Circle ,
Delray Beach FL 33484
My name is Richard Charnin. I have two masters degrees in Applied
Mathematics and have devoted much effort in analyzing elections. I have
focused on the 1988-2008 presidential elections and developed computer
models using pre-election polls, unadjusted exit and final exit polls.
I have found that in a number of elections, the published exit polls utilized
mathematically impossible returning voter statistics in order to match the
recorded vote - which means that the recorded votes were also mathematically
impossible. Therefore, I developed the "True Vote Model" which uses feasible
weights. The model has closely matched the 1988-2008 unadjusted exit polls.
The Democrats won the average unadjusted presidential exit polls by 52-42%,
but only 48-46% in the recorded vote. The mathematical analysis is powerful
evidence that election fraud is systemic beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am very concerned at the lack of security with electronic scanning and
A computer data analyst reviewed election data from Anderson County South Carolina, and noted a
possible electronic switch of the votes.
[It should be noted that this was re-written for a better, more clear explanation.]
Computers are programmed machines like any other machine that produce repeatable results. There are
precinct computers and the main data tally computer. I’ll summarize the potential problems of a main
“tally computer” being programmed to favor one candidate.
First, what should an honest “tally computer” report look like graphically? Suppose for a candidate
receiving 44% of the total votes? Meaning, as votes are reported from precincts, what would this look like?
Well, at 44%, when the first 100 votes come in, the computer would report 44 votes for that specific
candidate. 1,000 come in, 440 votes, then 10,000 votes, 4,440 and so on…. Again, with 44%, this
should play-out as a straight line on a graph.
For example in Anderson County, South Carolina, the actual 2012 primary data displayed that Newt
Gingrich received 44% from small precincts to large precincts; then the final total county vote again
confirmed 44% from Anderson County. This graph displays this consistency. The bottom is total votes
cast, and the side is actual votes cast for Gingrich.
If no electronic voter fraud was embedded in the computer algorithim, we should expect these straight lines
with a minimal error. The prediction line is dashed red, and actual votes are green. The error between the
prediction line and the actual line is only 0.17%, or less than two-tenths of a percent. Santorum had a
higher error of only 2.3%
Again, 44% is 44% in smaller or larger precincts with an honest “total tally computer.”
How are the predictions made? How does the media do this? Well, smaller caucuses are done counting
early, and hence report early. The prediction lines come from the first 5,000 votes – small caucuses. From
these projections, the media makes projections; typically pretty accurate.
Now I’m going to show you something strange between Romney and Ron Paul. It should be noted that
voter fraud in small precincts is highly unlikely because the probability of getting caught is high, and the
overall election impact is low; a few votes here and there don’t make a difference, and are not worth going
to jail over. Therefore, the votes from small precincts first reporting produce an accurate prediction of the
final outcome. Said another way, small precincts reporting in early provide the first 5,000 votes for
reasonably accurate predictions.
In contrast, larger precincts are vulnerable to fraud, as accountability is low, and the impacts are high.
To compare smaller precincts to larger ones…. If a robber is going to rob, then rob big – hit a bank, or the
If voter fraud by electronic algorithim is present, we won’t see this until large numbers come in from larger
later closing precincts. Here are Romney’s projections displayed by the dashed red line based on the first
5,000 votes coming in.
Something strange happened. The actual “reported” votes in solid red display that Romney gained more
votes as larger precincts reported in. Again, these larger precincts took more time to report as more votes
to tabulate in their precincts.
Where did his real votes come from?
Looking at Ron Paul’s votes we have somewhat of a surprise. The first graph displays Ron Paul’s
predicted results in the purple dashed line. This from the actual first 5,000 votes coming in from small
The next graph displays Ron Paul’s actual votes by the solid purple line.
Could be “happenstance” one may suspect, however, when you combine these graphs a surprise comes
Romney’s actual votes become Ron Paul’s expected results. And the reverse is true, where Ron Paul’s
actual votes became Romeny’s expected lower votes.
What this looks like to me is that after about 5,000 votes, Romney and Paul’s vote count were switched.
This can be done by a specific algorithim written to switch the votes.
Allow me to explain this further. Computer code is a switch, like a light switch. After 5,000 votes, when
the computer predicted that Ron Paul would beat Romney, then “CLICK”, a switch went off changing the
votes. The voting data that was going for Ron Paul went to Romney and vice versa.
More scary is that the line of code necessary to do this need only be one line, hidden in thousands of lines
of the algorithim system; almost impossible to find.
I don’t want to accuse someone falsely, but graphs don’t lie. This linear relationship sure hints that
something fishy occurred in South Carolina. As a programmer, it is laughable that the computer
programmers didn’t hide this better, or didn’t think through this better.
Reporter Ben Swann – Fox News Cincinnati reports how many precincts were “Zeroed” by the state
GOP in the initial results. Many counties delayed from caucusing, Washington, Hancock, and Waldo
County. These were heavily Ron Paul supporting counties.
Reporter Ben Swann’s Follow-Up with the problems:
CNN was present at Alderson Precinct in Clark County Nevada for their caucus. This is a way to
produce 100% accountability with the election. Ron Paul defeated Mitt Romney 3:1. This is a special
caucus for demographics that should NOT have favored Ron Paul.
Final Results by CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_jfnNnhZE4
183 Ron Paul: Romney: 61 Gingrich: 57 Santorum: 16
Watch the Hand Count: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btN5cCoTOpM
Graph of Ron Paul Support growth from 2008 to 2012.
It should be noted that Ron Paul’s support doubled in 2012 in states prior to Nevada.
In Nevada, this is an increase of only 1.4% between 2008 & 2012. It should be noted that Ron Paul
did not campaign much in Florida, yet almost doubled his vote there. Ron Paul campaigned heavily in
Nevada, with a campaign office established.
Yet, Ron Paul won the majority of delegates from Clark County Nevada, (Las Vegas), and took over
the county chair positions of the County GOP. It should be noted that Caucuses work this way:
People show up at the precinct/caucus, and delegates are selected at the precinct/ Caucus level. These
go to a County delegate convention, then to the state delegate convention. Clark County Nevada being
so populous, typically decides the direction of the state. In order for county delegates to be elected,
people had to be physically present at the precinct/ Caucus to elect the delegates.
The GOP declared Romney the winner in Nevada, yet, Ron Paul has an incredible number of
delegates. Something doesn’t make sense here. Could it be misreporting of the actual numbers at the
state GOP level?
It should be noted that State GOP Chairman Amy Tarkanain resigned within 38 hours the next day
after the Nevada election tally.
In Iowa, after numerous discrepancies were noted, Iowa State GOP Chairman- Matt Strawn resigned.
February 13th, 2012, Bob Shultz & J.P. Liggett filed a lawsuit in federal court (N.Y.) requesting the
court to order the removal of all electronic voting machines.
In general, multiple reports yield Ron Paul supporters pack buildings, theatres, and small stadiums,
Romney may have 200- 1,000 supporters appear:
YouTube Video of Summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIP-ibpRYIY&feature=fvwrel
Pictures are provided demonstrating this:
Notice Ron Paul at the bottom left corner.
California Alone (Late in the election season when the national news indicates that Romney will be the
i. Chico, 6,000+ at a Ron Paul Rally
ii. Berkley, 4,000+ at a Ron Paul Rally
iii. UCLA, 7,000 – 10,000 at a Ron Paul Rally
Ron Paul- UCLA Mitt Romney - Detroit
Romney does not yet (04/18/2012) have the delegates necessary (1,144) needed to win the GOP
National Convention in Florida (August 27th, 2012.)
Other sources indicate that Ron Paul & Santorum Delegates combined presently indicate that Ron Paul
has more delegates than Romney.
In Washington State, Santorum directed his delegates to work with/ support Ron Paul:
In an email to Santorum supporters, [Santorum state volunteer coordinator Graden] Neal said the
presidential candidate joined a conference call with Washington state campaign leaders
"And the senator didn't mince words," Neal wrote. "In order for us to win the nomination in
Tampa in August, we must deny Romney delegates to that convention. If ... Romney receives
1,144 delegates before the national convention, it is all over for our campaign. That is the reason
why the senator himself directed us to coalition with the Ron Paul delegates to deny Romney any
Neal confirmed the message in a phone interview Friday, and acknowledged that the effort has
split Santorum's supporters here. Neal said the alliance is showing a measure of success, but
some Santorum backers are not happy with the strategy.
What’s the point? If Electronic Election Fraud may be necessary continue for Mitt Romney to get the
necessary delegates to win the GOP Election.
More Evidence – in summary by a YouTube video of many items of a “Bias” for Mitt Romney &
against Ron Paul:
For some reason, some GOP leaders of counties and districts only want Romney to win the GOP.
They do not want Ron Paul to be elected.
There is a facebook organization named “Watchthevote2012.” They are monitoring that at county and
district conventions at many locations across the country, the bias is clearly against Ron Paul.
For example, in Georgia, a “Delegate Slate”, Ron Paul’s name was missing.
Here is an example phone conversation of the Virginia GOP District Chair toward a Ron Paul
supporter. Note the fierce harsh words circled in red on page 2.
This seems harsh, but in a facebook interview by Kelly Z. Mordecia with another Virginia Ron Paul
supporter, going by the facebook name of “Skeez Jason” this conversation yielded “Skeez Jason’s”
similar conversation with Chris Woodfin, District GOP Chairman.
o Kelly, I just forwarded your info onto Chris. He will be able to fill in the blanks better than I. Thanks and GO Ron
Kelly Z. Mordecai
o Thanks, I'm try ing to get in touch with Chris. Did you call "Woodfin" as well, and get the same response?
o I mean same nasty response?
o Yep, he was arrogant and acted like he could do anything that he wanted to do regardless of the GOP's own
rules. He is declining everything now. Go figure!!!
In this video, the chairman is described how they should vote for people on a pre-determined states:
“Romney People, Gingrich People and Santorum People.” No mention of Ron Paul. He is not on the
slate. This is essentially vote rigging. Delegates at conventions are not allowed to nominate from the
floor, but only the slate that is provided ahead of time. Except if the delegates on the floor make a
motion to allow additional delegates.
These “Pre-Determined Slates” have happened in the following states: Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri,
Colorado, North Dakota, etc….
Should a subpoena be issued, then the next two pages can be provided to voters in precincts for
verifying the electronic voting machines.
Thank you for voting today. Your vote counts, and we, the grand jury of [Name of County] County
also wish to make sure your vote counts accurately.
To ensure the validity of the electronic voting machines, the county grand jury* with the assistance of
the District Attorney, and a county judge have issued a subpoena upon all people voting in this precinct
today. The judicial subpoena is posted at several locations in this precinct.
The included paper ballot was developed by the District Attorney and ordered by a judge, as directed
by the county grand jury.
Steps: Please assist this investigative effort by:
1. Voting electronically (electronic voting machine);
2. On the paper form enclosed (paper ballot), circle the name of the presidential candidate chosen
on the electronic voting machine;
3. Time of voting;
4. Your name, phone number, and;
Submission: When finished, provide the paper ballot to a grand jury member, or law enforcement
officer present at this precinct.
Required Cooperation: Although your voluntary assistance in this investigation is appreciated, you
are also under court ordered subpoena requiring your cooperation.
Results: The local news stations might be covering this should discrepancies appear. In addition, the
grand jury may publish the final tally with no names. (This press release would be allowed only under
Confidentiality: Under state law, an investigation by a grand jury is held in tight confidence. Grand
jury members face criminal charges for disclosing specific names tied to votes.
Thank you for your assistance,
Grand Jury Foreman of [Name of County] County.
*The grand jury received a complaint recently substantiating the necessity of this subpoena.
We wish to move quickly on this to ensure your vote is counted the way you elected.
DUPLICATE Paper Ballot*
Florida [State] County of _____[Name of County]_______ Precinct #: [pre-printed]
Instructions: Simply fill in all spaces below with the correct information.
Today, I voted electronically at the Republican Primary referenced above for:
(Circle the name in which vote was cast electronically**:)
Rick Santorum (Suspended his campaign)
Time Voted electronically: Voting Machine #:
*“Paper Ballot” to be used under a grand jury subpoena to investigate voter fraud; voter names
and signatures held in confidentiality per state law.
** Presidential Candidates’ names are listed alphabetically by last name.
Note: Any person that falsifies information on this ballot is committing perjury, and may be subject to
criminal prosecution. (i.e. this is intended to prevent people voting on behalf of a deceased person.)
Questions and Answers
1. Why should a grand jury get involved in the election monitoring process?
Answer: First of all, the grand jury is immune for prosecution. Should you vote a subpoena to
accomplish this, there is no recourse against a grand jury by a citizen in a “Clean Subpoena.” A
police officer can’t do this without judicial order. A lawsuit to start this in the court would grant a
subpoena, but by the time a judge issues the subpoena the election would be over. A DA might be
able to more quickly obtain a judicial order, but would not like to take the “Political Heat” from
this action. Typically, grand jury member’s names are confidential to the public. The main
reason - EXPEDIENCY!
2. This is a civil matter, why can’t the courts handle this after the election?
Answer: It takes too much time… In 2008, in St. Joseph’s County Indiana, four Democrats
forged a total of 150 signatures to get Barack Obama on the state presidential slate. Recently,
indictments were issued. That was 4 years ago.
Tuscon Arizona: 4 Years and still unresolved. In 2007, a county bond measure was passed to raise
$4 billion for infrastructure. All previous similar bond measures failed miserably. Electronic
election fraud was suspected. In 2008, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit. During this suit, a
“recount” was done, and the measure still passed. However, it was discovered that additional
ballots were printed on normal paper. Recently, a court order to “Forensically examine” the
The court process takes too much time as attorneys can delay, delay, delay. The grand jury is
quick, relatively inexpensive and the results are expedient.
3. How many precincts should be examined?
Answer: 3-7 for a sample.
4. What size of precinct should be considered?
Answer: The larger the better. The Computer Data Analyst of the Anderson County South
Carolina data discusses this well in his paper. He noted that small precincts have a high risk of
being caught, and yield little impact. Large precincts are low risk, with high reward.
5. Can a grand jury do this?
Answer: Yes, because the grand jury has special powers, the grand jury can issue a subpoena to
accomplish this, even despite influence against this by a DA or a judge. You have enormous
power as a grand jury member, and immunity.
6. The evidence for this specific county is nor really solid to issue a subpoena. Don’t we need
Answer: No! How does one obtain evidence for election fraud? The election event happens right
there that day. Every election is different, and past problems indicate that it could be happening
now. The electronic machines over many election cycles have proven to be insecure and subject to
tampering. The due to the delay in the courts, it is very easy to “get away” with this. In addition,
computer election code is volumeness, and easy to hide a malicious algorithim. THE ONLY WAY
TO REALLY KNOW THE TRUE VOTE AND IF THERE IS FRAUD IS A “DUPLICATE
VOTE” SYSTEM IN THE ACTUAL ELECTION.
In addition, the grand jury can investigate just because it wants assurance the law is not being
violated and can issue a subpoena based on “Hearsay.” You don’t need hard evidence to issue a
subpoena. If it was “Trial by Jury”, then yes. This is a grand jury, a fact finding body used to issue
an indictment. An indictment only starts the legal process for further investigation and ultimately a
conviction in “Trial by Jury.”
Subpoena based on “Suspicion”: The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken with respect to the power of
the grand jury to investigate a potential crime: “[The grand jury] can investigate merely on suspicion
that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” (emphasis added)
(U.S. vs. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)).
Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson
Subpoena based on Hearsay: In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has written about the power of the
grand jury listening to hearsay, and issuing a subpoena based upon “hearsay”, concluding that indeed
the grand jury can issue a subpoena based on “hearsay.” (Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-
362 (1956), & US vs. Dionisio 410 U.S. (1973));
7. What about voter privacy?
Answer: The DA will tell you that the information gathered is confidential, and it becomes a
criminal misdemeanor for any grand jury member to reveal this to the public.
8. Who runs the show? The DA or the grand jury?
Answer: According to U.S. vs. Williams, the grand jury is it own independent legal body. Other
court cases confirm same. Therefore, the Grand Jury Foreman can tell the district attorney,
“Please leave this chamber, we are taking over.”
9. Should we find terrible discrepancies, can the grand jury report the results to the public?
Answer: Yes and no. This presenting of facts to the public is called a “Presentment.” Working
with the judge the grand jury can release this information to the public through a “Presentment.”
The judge may require some items removed from a “Public Presentment.” So the answer is yes.
However, should the DA wish to keep the matter quiet until an indictment and arrest is made, that
would be the decision of the judge.
10. Why is this county grand jury receiving a complaint?
Answer: Someone from your county has learned of election fraud, and was concerned enough to
ask this for your county. There are 3,141 counties in this country. In a state-run election the
election fraud must take “nibbles and bites” from each county. The sum of many additional votes
from many precincts and counties will hide additional votes -undetected.
11. Should the Election Clerk know about this and be involved?
Answer: Depends upon each election clerk. Most likely, they or their staff are not committing
election fraud. They will blindly trust the electronic machines. Iain Sanchez, 17 years as a
top election official in Florida communicated after seeing the “hacking” of the
electronic vote stated something like, “Before I saw this demonstration, I would have
blindly certified the vote.” After his review of the Volusia County, Florida situation
he said this, ““Someone consciously tried to affect the computer system and …tried
to perpetuate a fraud to steel votes.”
Eventually, before election day, the Election Clerk will have to know about this for
12. What do we compare the results to?
A) The duplicate paper ballot tallies to the county electronic results
B) The duplicate paper ballot tallies to the state GOP reported levels.
13. Can’t a political party say at the state level police themselves?
Answer: Would the fox be the one to guard the “Hen-House”?
14. How will this go over with the public?
Answer: The public is quickly learning of election fraud. Gore vs. Bush, Kerry vs.
Bush, and news reports this primary election season.
The public probably feels helpless. I would suggest that the public overall will be
very pleased. Some people will object.
It makes no difference, as the grand jury is shielded from legal problems. Once a
subpoena is issued for the duplicate ballot, then the DA and Judge are required (in
most states) to follow the direction of the grand jury. The DA and Judge not
following the direction (or subpoena) of the grand jury are committing a criminal act
known as “Obstruction of Justice.” This protects their offices as well from lawsuits.
The grand jury also has no need of any “political points” for re-election. Therefore,
can offend some, and there is no recourse for the offended.
15. What about after the election? If something looks strange, like in Nevada where
more votes were cast than registered voters?
Answer: The grand jury can continue their investigation after the election and issue
a subpoena upon the paper ballots of other precincts. Then compare to the electronic
results. Courts can’t operate this fact and with the immunity provided the grand
16. What is really the objective here?
Answer: Many countries have rid their electronic election machines. The
possibilities of Electronic Election Rigging are too great in the “Chain of Command”
and the many technical channels that the votes go through. It would be very
excellent if enough evidence surfaced to rid electronic elections in all future
elections, starting with the General Election in November 2012.
17. Is there someone we can talk to if we think that the DA is not willing to do his
Answer: You can talk to the judge, and possibly issue a subpoena upon Independent
Counsel. The State of Hawaii allows “Independent Counsel.” As independent
counsel, a different attorney may provide additional information as to the power you
hold as a grand jury member.
Kelly Z. Mordecai is the author of the book The Hidden 4th Branch (avail. on
Amazon.com). This book is about the power of the grand jury. Mr. Mordecai, can
read to you several key points within U.S. Supreme Court Cases regarding the power
of the grand jury. His phone number is 530-598-9671.