"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Communist Tyrant Josef Stalin
23, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire
eBallot.net, Inc. and the RP National Primary
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
two methods being used in the Reform Party national primary conducted by
eBallot.net are TOTALLY unverifiable --- i.e., mail in ballots, and internet
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.?
the markings on the bottom of the ballot ARE a new fangled kind of bar code,
then no one’s vote is private.
come some people that ordered a ballot get one, and some don’t?
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.)
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
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?
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 9th,
2000 at 11:59 PM. Since all mail in ballots must be received by August 8th,
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
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.
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.
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
WELL: Such email votes CAN be counted automatically, but WILL they be counted
accurately and honestly? OR could there be programming mistakes? Or deliberate
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.
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.
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”
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.
recall the most important excerpts from that article as posted on CNN’s
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.
bottom line behind this push is money," said Bill Kimberling, deputy
director of the Office of Elections for the Federal Elections Commission.
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. .
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.
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
of excerpts from the article from Rocky Gap, Maryland, CNN, and the AP wire
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
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:
easy-to-use tools that allow for timely and customized ballot
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.
From eBallot.net website:
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
From the eBallot.net website: eBallot.net™ provides voters with:
greater access from remote locations
a straight-forward, browser-friendly, and easy-to-navigate ballot
authenticated and secure 1-to-1 ballot assignment
the ability to verify that their ballot was counted
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.”
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.
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
eBallot will keep all information about counting, turnout and Final Tally Result
secret at all times.”
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
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,
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 --- Or --- Birds of a Feather Flock Together?
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.”
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.
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. .
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
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)
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?
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
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.
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!
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
on this topic soon.
Jim Condit Jr.
Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count
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.
To Subscribe to our daily Network America e-wire: email@example.com
To Unsubscribe to our daily Network America e-wire: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
To contact us, e-mail to: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
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"!