Network America News

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

July 23, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire
eBallot.net, Inc. and the RP National Primary

As this e-wire will suggest, the eBallot company, which is conducting the Reform Party National Primary in 2000, seems quite comfortable with the whole internationalist “control-freak” move to turn over all voting to absolutely unverifiable methods.

The two methods being used in the Reform Party national primary conducted by eBallot.net are TOTALLY unverifiable --- i.e., mail in ballots, and internet voting.

Before we get to the question of the company eBallot.net, Inc. –let’s analyze the type of National Primary the current de facto Reform Party leadership, under Gerald Moan, has directed it to conduct.

All mail in voting to a location which hides the ballots from the public for even one minute are absolutely unverifiable. This includes all absentee balloting methods now in use. (Soon we will carry what “honest election” crusader and town board candidate Chuck Geshlider is doing in Pahrump, Nevada right now to urge the institution of a VERIFIABLE mail in ballot system for Pahrump’s absentee ballots in this election --- but eBallot.net, Inc. is NOT using such in the Reform Party National Primary.

Now, I’m looking at my own Reform Party mail in ballot. Or, I should say, ballots. One is addressed to Jim Condit, one is addressed to James Condit Jr. Both arrived at my address, and there is only one person going under the name Jim Condit who lives here, and that’s me, Jim Condit Jr. Each of my ballots have different PIN numbers, and different VRN numbers. Now, I’m told to detach the upper portion – the part that has these numbers on it -- from both ballots. I have some questions:

1. My dad, Jim Condit Sr., also called Jim Condit, lives at another address. But if I mark both my ballots and mail both in, how would the eBallot company know whether I voted twice? After all, my Dad could live with me – how would they know? Are they claiming they check every name against the US Post office master data base of 150 million addresses? If they do, how do they know how many Jim Condit’s there are, or where they live. Get the point? Incidentally, my son, whose name is James Joseph Condit III, ; lives here also, but he got a ballot under Joe Condit, as he uses his middle name as his first name, to avoid confusion in our house, per my wife’s wishes from the time he was born.

2. And, if I mark the ballots we received for my wife, my son, myself, the “mystery” Jim Condit ballot, and my daughter, Therese (oops! My daughter Therese requested a ballot but didn’t get one yet, scratch that!), -- anyway, if I voted for all of them without ever telling my other family members the ballots came, how would eBallot know?

3. And, unless the markings on the bottom of the ballot are some kind of new bar code, then how do they know that somebody didn’t find a way to duplicate 20,000 ballots and mark them for Hagelin or nobody? Or how do WE know that they, eBallot, Inc. didn’t print an extra 200,000 ballots and mark them? And how do we know that real ballots aren’t being thrown away and replaced by ballots marked by eBallot.net Inc.?

4. And if the markings on the bottom of the ballot ARE a new fangled kind of bar code, then no one’s vote is private.

I’m sure, with these questions listed, it will assist you in thinking up your own fifteen or 20 more questions – if you haven’t already done so. (To paraphrase one of our readers on another issue, -- I’d keep going myself with the questions begging for an answer from eBallot.net, Inc., -- but I don’t want to use up a lot of ram.)

Now, add to the mix that the contract between the Reform Party and eBallot.net has a provision in it that the counting process must always be kept totally secret. I site the exact reference below. (Really, folks, it doesn’t get any more absurd than this.)

And then there’s the internet voting. We are warned that if we try to vote by mail AND by internet, that our MAIL IN vote will be disqualified. Oh, really?

Now let’s see, we are told on the back of the ballot that internet votes must be done between Monday August 7, 2000 at 12:01 AM and Wednesday August 9^th, 2000 at 11:59 PM. Since all mail in ballots must be received by August 8^th, then that will give eBallot 48 hours to enter in all numbers and determine which VRNs and PINS were actually mailed back. IF these were entered in to a computer, and then all DUPLICATE INTERNET VOTES with the name PIN and VRN numbers were disqualified, I could more easily understand how they are going to avoid duplicates.

But since MAIL IN duplicates are going to be invalidated, how is this done? Where is the code on the ballot we are mailing in that tells eBallot what PIN or VRN it belongs to? And if all the mail in ballots are counted, and then at 11:59 PM Wednesday an email vote comes from someone who also submitted a mail in ballot – how does eBallot go back and find the right ballot, and disqualify the vote on that ballot? Clearly, when you look at it this way, none of these ballots are private. But I would even like to hear how this is done. Maybe it’s possible to do this accurately with such a short timespan as the “window of opportunity”, -- but I’d sure like to see how.

And then the Reform Party Presidential Primary results are going to be announced at Friday about 4:15 PM PST, 40 hours after the internet voting closes – and DURING THE CONVENTION.

Well, since $450,000 have been paid to eBallot.net, Inc. – with another $450,000 or so to be paid soon -- I guess they can hire the 400 people or so it will take so that each can process a thousand ballots or so in a sixteen hour day, and presumably the email votes can be counted automatically.

NOTE WELL: Such email votes CAN be counted automatically, but WILL they be counted accurately and honestly? OR could there be programming mistakes? Or deliberate cheating?

Again, to believe in the eBallot.net announced result – it will take a TOTAL ACT OF BLIND FAITH on your part – and mine. Maybe you like being toyed with in this way, held hostage to such a process, -- and maybe you like being TOTALLY dependent on a process you can’t see or analyze – one that by contract is TOTALLY SECRET AT ALL times --- but I, for one, do NOT like it.

New readers can go to lewisnews.com -- in the “Citizens for a Fair Vote Count” section, and review our June 23, 2000 message, “Transparent Process, Private Ballot, Light Bulb Moment” – for a much fuller treatment of this subject.

And about internet voting in general, let us remind everyone that on that same lewisnews.com in the CFVC section, you can see a full analysis of the June 7, 2000 speech by Federal Elections Commission official, Bill Kimberling against internet voting. This was our June 22, 2000 report entitled, “FEC Official Condemns Internet voting”

The actual article was entitled:”Federal Election Official Blasts Internet Voting” and was also carried on CNN’s website, but given almost no electronic media coverage, if any.

Let’s recall the most important excerpts from that article as posted on CNN’s website:

“June 7, 2000 -- Web posted at: 9:47 AM EDT (1347 GMT) -- ROCKY GAP, Md. (AP) -- A federal election official is calling Internet voting "a breeding ground for fraud" and a business-driven threat to democracy.

"The bottom line behind this push is money," said Bill Kimberling, deputy director of the Office of Elections for the Federal Elections Commission.

"The noise being made to begin Internet voting is vendor-generated because a lot of new software and hardware will be needed to make it happen."

. . . "I don't want to vote over the Internet and I don't want anyone else to either," Kimberling said Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Maryland Association of Elected Officials. . . .

Kimberling said intimidation and vote-buying would be more likely when someone votes away from a polling place. In addition, the sanctity of the secret vote would also be in danger if ballots are cast on the Internet, he said.

"The FBI finds out who has child pornography in their computer systems by looking at e-mail that your computer server keeps," he said. "Nothing is totally secure."

End of excerpts from the article from Rocky Gap, Maryland, CNN, and the AP wire service.

Now let’s compare the above words of the brave Mr. Bill Kimberling with the “happy talk” on the website of eBallot.net Inc. (found at eballot.net).

Below we carry excerpts from the website of eBallot.net under the “features section”, our Network America (NA) comments interspersed:

From eBallot website: eBallot.net™ has assembled leading Internet technologists and election administration experts to create the necessary systems and tools to lead a sensible and secure transition to online voting.

NA Comment: there is no secure online voting, as Mr. Kimberling strongly and clearly stated by saying neither he nor anyone else should be voting online on the internet. There’s certainly no protection of privacy.

From eBallot.net website: eBallot.net™ provides election administrators with the following features:

· a robust server network offering broad bandwidth and high performance scaleable to match specific constituency requirements

· a secure hardware platform, featuring cutting-edge firewall technology and encryption methods to ensure end-to-end integrity

NA Comment: We challenge this “firewall technology” which ensures “end to end integrity.” Mr. Kimberling, common sense, and every expert who has ever written on the subject say no such thing is possible. See just below.

· flexible reporting tools that deliver instant, comprehensive and thoroughly auditable election tabulations and reports

NA Comment: Nothing’s auditable by the Reform Party delegates or members if the counting process is going to be always kept totally secret, as the contract says. Furthermore we challenge that any such internet voting can be audited properly.

NA comment: the ability for the voter to verify that there ballot was counted is not possible, as the “test” could show it was counted, but the final results could in fact not count any of the ballots, but be pre-determined before any balloting begins. How does one person sitting in New Jersey or New Mexico verify that the total count reported by eBallot represents an accurate total of all the votes??? Utterly impossible – the opposite of what is represented above. We proved in Dubuque, Iowa in 1996 that only those who receive all the ballot counts, or who have access to such, have any hope of determining if the all votes were tabulated properly. (See lewisnews.com, CFVC section, “Senator Grassley Spills the Beans.”)

From eBallot.net website: eBallot.net™ is working within the existing certification process of the election industry, while collaborating closely with legislatures, regulation experts, and election industry pioneers to establish Internet voting industry standards.

NA Comment:. Most of which election industry operatives, regulation experts, and election industry pioneers should, objectively speaking and leaving motives aside for now, be put in jail for the election industry “standards” they are allowing to be passed off to the public as OK. Notice: the above passages tells us plainly that “eballot.net” “is working” to “establish” “voting industry standards.” (!!!!!!) In other words, such standards are not settled yet Remember, this is our nation’s FUTURE these avaricious private profiteers are messing with, as Mr. Kimberling of the FEC has recently warned.

From the eBallot.net website: Likewise, eBallot.net's solution not only meets but also surpasses existing Internet Standards for security, accuracy, and privacy. (End of excerpts from eBallot.net website)

NA Comment: Internet Standards for security, accuracy and privacy --- are not worth a “shucky darn-darn” – when it comes to verifiable voting. Consider this: In his recent book, Computer Related Risks, Peter Neumann explained, ‘The opportunities for rigging elections [are] child's play for vendors and knowledgeable election officials.’ . . . This is because it is easy to imagine one vote electronically being turned into thousands or even millions. This is more difficult to fathom when there are physical ballots to count.”

Back to NA Comment: So, what is to stop eBallot.net Inc (who really owns that company anyway?) from turning one anti-Buchanan electronic vote “into thousands or even millions” . . . hmmmm????? Nothing. That’s what.

How concerned is the Reform Party Old Guard leadership with making this process open to the scrutiny of Reform Party members and the participants? Let’s go to item 7 of the letter of intent signed by Reform Party Chairman Gerald Moan with eBallot.net, Inc., as displayed around June 22, 2000 on the Georgia Reform Party website:

“7. eBallot will keep all information about counting, turnout and Final Tally Result secret at all times.”

Therefore, the upcoming Reform Party USA National Primary will be completely secret, completely off limits to Reform Party voters until it is too late to check or double check anything -- remember, the results will not be announced until DURING the Long Beach Convention on Friday afternoon!!!

(Of course, such “non-transparency of the election process” is also the case in 49 states in the USA, and in Manchester, New Hampshire – at every General election. But, unlike the county and state officials at the General Election – who pretend that the process is above board and beyond question -- at least the Reform Party USA announces IN YOUR FACE that all information about the count is going to be kept totally secret at all times. It’s easier to see how absurd all these non-transparent systems are when examining the upcoming Reform National Primary. But the process is just as elitist, corrupt, bad, evil, anti-democratic and non-transparent at every General Election. But, forgive me, I digress.)

Election officials who want to count the vote in secret are by definition corrupt. I would not ask for such blind faith from my fellow Americans – and neither would you. And neither should anyone else ask it of us.

Guilt by association – isn’t always wrong. The other side of that question is expressed by the phrase: “birds of a feather flock together” and “tell me who you run with and I’ll tell you what you are.”

While I will accept correction if all the facts eventually prove otherwise, I believe at this moment that the evidence demonstrates that the eBallot.net company is enmeshed in the entire movement to take elections totally out of the hands of the public, which will make the verification of ANY election impossible. More to the point, the verification of the upcoming Reform Party national primary is going to be impossible. Quite frankly, I’m publishing this in hopes of scaring the Verney faction of the Reform party out of any thought of trying to maneuver an absurd result where “nobody” or “Hagelin” beats Buchanan. Such a result would indicate that the count was simply falsified by the eBallot.net, Inc. computers supposedly tabulating the “internet” vote and the mail in vote. The whole process is absurd in the extreme.

New readers should see lewis.com in the CFVC section and see the article, “Alert! Sinister Conference in Athens, Greece” published June 22, 2000, for a full report on how well developed and incredibly well financed the “internet voting” movement is. The longstanding war against your right to determine your future by an honest election is funded by billionaire George Soros and other New World Order proponents. .

Hopefully within the next few reports, I will be able to bring you International Voters Coalition Director Brent Beleskey’s analysis and road map to see how eballot.net links to these “Direct Democracy” schemer organizations on the internet --- and, as we have said, the “Direct Democracy” movement is trying to bring unverifiable internet voting to every nation of the world for every election.

One night recently, Brent took me through these connections on the internet, as we both surfed the net while I listened to his instructions via phone. If you want to trust my judgement for now, the connection is there. Brent will be speaking about this interconnection of so called “Direct Demoracy” groups at the upcoming CFVC convention in late August (details at votefraud.org)

Credible reports have reached me that counting the Reform Party Primary is eBallot’s VERY FIRST JOB, or at least very first major job. Can anyone help in verifying whether this is true? When did eBallot come into existence? Who owns it?

Also, credible reports have reached me from one source that one of its competitors is charging that eBallot was given the Reform Party National Primary job without proper competitive bidding. Can anyone help to confirm whether or not this is true?

And, eBallot.net is being paid the incredible sum of $950,000 of Reform Party money to perpetrate this unverifiable election. FEC official Kimberling’s comment that internet voting is a “vendor driven” affair kinda jumps out at you when you contemplate that figure.

And, as I’ve said before, heck, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count would have been willing to do the job for a mere $850,000!

Finally, there is a site on the internet called fraud.org -- which Mr. Beleskey has pointed out to me. This site wants anyone to report any attempts by anyone to perpetrate internet voting fraud on the public. Mr. Beleskey is looking into the possibility of how citizens might responsibly file fraud charges against eBallot.net, Inc. for the “goods” there are selling to the Reform Party this election season.

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"!