Letter Mark Small

8510 EVERGREEN AVENUE, SUITE 104 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46240

Members of the Press

MARK SMALL ATTORNEY AT LAW

February 19, 2017

TEL: 317.252.4800 marksmall2001@yahoo.com

Re: Blumstein, et al. v. Pence, et al. Docket Number: 16-907

I represent Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman, Petitioners in a case they filed before the United States Supreme Court. The relief they seek is a new election of the offices of President, Vice President, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives decided in November, 2016.

In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution imagined various means by which a tyrant, a foreign power, or mobs could take over our government. The Framers obviously did not cast their votes by electronic means. They could not have foreseen an additional means by which a foreign power could take over our government—hacking of computer programs. The Framers understood the concept of “invasion,” and in Article IV, Section 4, provided the government owes a duty to protect us from foreign invasion. The Constitution addresses the imperfections of human beings. In Federalist Number 51, James Madison described how the separation of powers of the branches of the government is necessary to protect us from despotism.

Today, evidence indicates the dictator of Russia illegally influenced the election of the President and the Vice President, as well as races for seats in the Congress. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch can investigate, without conflict, Russia’s cyber invasion as members of those branches benefitted from such an invasion if it occurred. Madison saw the judicial branch as the only branch able to resolve such matters.

On Friday, February 17, we filed a motion in which we ask the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master, a role created under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to investigate the 2016 elections. If the elections were stolen from the American people, the relief we would seek would include new elections of all Federal offices that were on the ballot in 2016. My clients are the people who were courageous enough to raise this challenge. Others might attempt, through peaceful means as contemplated by the Framers, other avenues to challenge the election results. No one else should be mistaken, however, for Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman as the brave people who challenged the election via this Court action.

Any inquiries may be directed to my office number or e-mail.

 

Sincerely,

/s Mark Small.

Mark Small

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

PRESS RELEASE Feb 18 2017 REVOTE2017.org

The Framers of the Constitution, in 1787, imagined, and sought in checks they created in the Constitution, to prevent various means by which a tyrant, a foreign power, or mobs could take over our government. Article IV, Section 4 provides we shall be protected from foreign invasion. framersIn 1787, neither computer technology nor the literary genre of science fiction existed. The Framers understood the concept of invasion. They also created means by which this country could adapt to the changes of time. Today, evidence indicates the dictator of Russia illegally influenced the election of the President and the Vice President, as well as races for seats in the Congress. Neither of those branches can investigate Russia’s invasion as members of those branches benefited from the invasion. James Madison saw the judicial branch as the only branch able to resolve such matters. We have asked the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master, a role created under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, to investigate the 2016 elections. If the elections were stolen from the American people, the relief we would seek would include new elections of all Federal offices that were on the ballot in 2016.

 

~Mark Small, Attorney at Law

 

Kelly Z. Sennholz MD

Kirstin Elaine Martin

Plaintiffs: Donna, Diane and Nancy

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

MOTION OF PETITIONERS FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER

Filed Feb 17 2017 Supreme Court of the United States:

rbg-supreme-court

 

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Case No. 16-907

XXXX, XXX,
and
XXXX Petitioners Pro Se

vs.

JOSEPH A. BIDEN,

President of the United States Senate

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

114TH CONGRESS

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE,

114th CONGRESS

DONALD TRUMP,

President of the United States

MIKE PENCE

Vice President of the United States

DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

MOTION OF PETITIONERS FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER

RELIEF SOUGHT:
Now come the Petitioners in the above-entitled matter and respectfully move this

Honorable Court to appoint a Special Master with the immunities, security classifications, subpoena powers, staffing and funding reasonably necessary to perform the following tasks:

1.) This Court has jurisdiction to appoint a Special Master:
a) “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a);
b) The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ. Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 339, 120 S.Ct. 2246, 2254, 147 L.Ed.2d (2000), thus the “form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is followed, Supreme Court Rule 17.1 and 17.2; and therefore F.R.Civ.P. 53.1 allows this Court to appoint a Special Master; and,
c) “In designating a Master, the Court customarily confers ‘authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent

Page -1-

Page 1

proceedings,’ as well as ‘authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be necessary and such as he may deem it necessary to call for.” Stern Robert L., Supreme Court Practice, 8th ed., 2002, p. 576; citing to Nebraska v. Iowa, 379 U.S. 996 (1965) and Illinois v. Missouri, 384 U.S. 924 (1966).

2.) Its is necessary to:
a.) Identify those officials, agencies, departments and offices of the United States Government engaged in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data pertaining to cyber intrusions, and mitigation of effects of intrusions conducted and/or facilitated within the United States by the Government of Russia and or its agents in the year 2016.
b.) Obtain from those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices, and, subject to the discretion of the Special Master, obtain from third parties, whose identities are disclosed to the Special Master, any and all summaries, analyses or reports, classified or unclassified, related to cyber intrusions, more probably than not conducted directly or indirectly by the Government of Russia, and that were determined by those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices to have been related to the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.
c.) If the Special Master determines the Government of Russia more probably than not committed one or more cyber intrusions involving the Presidential and Congressional elections in one or more precincts/districts in one or more states in the year 2016, enquire of polling organizations and the election officials in each of the affected precincts/districts/states to determine the possible impact of those intrusions.
d.) Prepare for the in camera review by the Supreme Court of a report of the findings of the Special Master conforming, to a reasonable extent, to the standards of Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 as to whether there were cyber intrusions more probably than not committed by the Government of Russia which may have impacted one or more of the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.
e.) If such intrusions probably occurred and possibly caused such impacts, the report would identify any individuals, whether agents of the Government of Russia or others who probably aided or abetted the intrusions, detail the probable type and extent of each intrusion, describe the possible impact of each intrusion or pattern of intrusions, and identify the particular relevant election races.

3.) Upon receipt of the Report of the Special Master, the Supreme Court would review in camera the Report and decide what, if any remedy to provide. Following redactions of classified information, the Report could be published by the Court for review by the parties and the public and the matter referred by the Court to a Special Prosecutor if criminal prosecution appeared warranted.

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF:

A. THE “CHECKS” ON FOREIGN INTRIGUE ANTICIPATED BY THE FRAMERS Page -2-

Page 2

EITHER ARE HISTORICALLY INEFFECTIVE OR HAVE BEEN PRE-EMPTED.
4. The Framers anticipated foreign powers might attempt to corrupt this country’s

political leaders.
5. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in regard to the means of election of the President:

“Nothing was to be more desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly in the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

The Federalist No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).
6. Hamilton foresaw the electoral college as one check because the constitutional

convention had “not made the appointment of the President to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.” Id.

7. When Hamilton noted the “business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means,” Id., Hamilton could not have anticipated the speed of computer information, such as it is in the 21 century, or the vast wealth under the control of a single foreign despot.

8. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. …” U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1.

9. The electoral college is not independently selected as The Framers had anticipated.

10. In fact, the electors are chosen, part and parcel, in the same process as that by which votes are cast for the candidates for President and Vice President.

11. An “invasion” is the “incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014, p. 952.

12. “In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison referred to the Invasion Clause as affording protection in situations wherein a state is exposed to armed hostility from another political entity. Madison stated that Article IV, § 4 serves to protect a state from ‘foreign hostility’ and ‘ambitious or vindictive enterprises’ on the part of other states or foreign nations.” State of California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 1997).

13. Cyber attacks were amongst developments unforeseen by the Framers.

14. The persons who otherwise are under a duty conferred by the Constitution to enforce the laws under which

B. UNCLASSIFIED EVIDENCE OF CYBER INTRUSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA:

14. The Addendum includes the Petition for Rulemaking to Require an Enhanced Reliability Standard to Detect, Report, Mitigate, and Remove Malware from the Bulk Power System; the Petition was filed by the Foundation for Resilient Societies, an organization comprised of experts in the fields of national defense, foreign relations, and cyber security.

15. The Addendum also includes correspondence from the Hon. Seth Moulton, a Page -3-

Page 3

Member of Congress, who documents that Congress and the Executive Branch are aware of the cyber intrusions involving the 2016 elections and neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has taken remedial steps to address either the consequences of the past electoral intrusions or prevent future intrusions.

C. BURDEN OF PERSUASION:

16. “[B]efore a federal court can responsibly order a new election, the claimants seeking this extraordinary relief must come forward with the most clear and convincing evidence that … persons… intentionally…altered the outcome of the election. A party contesting a Presidential election carries a heavy burden. Not to put too fine a point on it, this standard implies conduct of a most egregious nature, approximating criminal activity.” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp. 957, 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).

17. Given that the “evidence” of cyber intrusions in the electoral process is for the most part the subject of security classification, only the judiciary can through the exercise of its equity power assemble the evidence necessary to support the necessary adjudication.

D. RIGHTS ABRIDGED:

18. Voting enjoys constitutional protection. Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 112 S.Ct. 698 (1992); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1992).

19. Voters have a fundamental right to associate politically and to vote for candidates of their choice. Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 54-55 (2nd Cir. 1994).

20. The United States Constitution is the written manifestation of the social compact among the citizens of the United States and their government. As part of the social compact, Article IV §4 guarantees the States and their citizens “… a Republican Form of Government, and …(that the United States will) … protect each of … (the States) ….against invasions….”

21. The Constitution guarantees elections as part of the compact free of foreign intervention. (See Federalist Paper No. 68, supra., Alexander Hamilton.)

22. Post election, Article I, §9 of the Constitution forbade the President from receiving any financial benefit from a foreign power. The right to cast a vote and the right to have one’s vote counted are both constitutionally protected. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315, 61 S.Ct. 1031 (1941).

23. A person’s interest in participating in the political process through voting and having his vote counted is a right both ‘individual and personal in nature.’ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1963)” as cited in Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1072 (1st Cir. 1978).

24. “And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the fee exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 554.

25. “[W]e do not see how an election conducted under these circumstances can be said to be fair.” Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d at 1076.

D. STANDING TO REQUEST RELIEF:

26. The petitioners have a direct “stake” as citizens of the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who voted for Hillary Clinton and whose candidate lost due to electoral votes cast by electors of other states in response, in part, to the popular vote.

Page -4-

Page 4

27. The petitioners also have a direct “stake” in the Congressional races of other states because when the Republican candidates were declared to have “won” those races, the Republicans took substantial majorities in the House and Senate. Affidavits of Dianne Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman filed herewith.

28. The interests of voters are “independent” of the interests of their candidates, and the failure of a candidate to pursue relief is not material to determining whether the voters for that candidate have “standing” to contest how an election was conducted. See Tarpley v. Salerno, 803 F.2d 57, 59-60 (2nd Cir. 1986).

29. The petitioners have standing to challenge the lawfulness of the election. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 66-67, 106 S.Ct. 1697 (1986); Schulz v.Williams, 44 F.3d, supra 52-53.

30. The petitioners have a right to relief even if they did not vote for the losing candidate: “The right to participate in the choice of representatives … includes … the right to cast a ballot and to have it counted at the general election, whether for the successful candidate or not.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 318, 61 S.Ct. 1031 (1940).

31. “The Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state and well as in federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally recognized protected right to vote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.533, 554, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1377 (1964)…” as cited in Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp., supra at 966.

32. Further, the “loss of (Democratic candidates’) opportunity to compete equally from votes in an election” vested Democratic voters with standing. See generally Fulani v. League of Women Voters Educ. Fund, 883 F.2d 621, 626 (2nd Cir. 1989).

E. ABILITY OF COURT TO GRANT RELIEF:

33. “The granting of equitable relief premised directly upon the Constitution has long been a practice accepted without discussion. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 404, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (Harlan concurring, 1971)” as cited in Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp., supra at 963.

34. “The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections – particularly Presidential contests – is essential to a free and democratic society. See United States v. Classic, supra.

35. “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by … illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means…. ” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp. , supra at 967.

36. Relief for a violation of the Guarantee Clause may be provided by the Supreme Court:

Page -5-

The view that the Guarantee Clause implicates only non-judiciable political questions has its origin in Luther v. Borden …. this view has not always been accepted. In a group of cases decided before the holding of Luther was elevated into a general rule of non-justiciability, the Court addressed the merits of the

Page 5

claims founded on the Guarantee Clause without any suggestion that the claims were non-justiciable…. More recently, the Court has suggested that perhaps not all claims under the Guarantee clause present non-judiciable political questions …. Contemporary commentators have likewise suggested that courts should address the merits of such claims, at least in some circumstances.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156, 112 S.Ct. 2433 (1992) (Justice O’Connor); see also Erwin Chemerinksy, “Cases Under the Guarantee Clause Should be Justiciable”, University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 65, p. 849.

37. Other cases that have addressed the Guarantee clause can be distinguished by a critical element—they do not concern an allegation that the President, who is charged with enforcement of the body of laws in question, obtained his office through the invasion at issue. See People of Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Gonzales, 558 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1161 (D.Colo. 2007) (claim that United States failed to protect plaintiffs from invasion “implicates foreign policy and national defense issues, which are the province of the political branches of government and which courts are reluctant to address”); also State of California v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1091 (California’s allegation it had been “invaded” by immigrants and suffered fiscal losses where “the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibility of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an effective non-judicial policy decision.”).

38.

The absence of necessary parties does not preclude relief where “… equity demands that the court proceed in their absence.” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp., supra 965 citing Toney v. White, 476 F.2d 203, 207 (5th Cir.).

Willful misconduct renders misconduct justiciable. Hennings v. Grafton, 523 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 1975). “The Supreme Court has … read the criminal counterpart to the civil rights statutes as conferring federal jurisdiction over corrupt practices in state-run elections for federal office. United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 64 S.Ct. 1101 (1944)” as cited in Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d, supra at 1076. “[P]atent and fundamental unfairness” may be a violation of the due process clause. Gold v. Feinberg, 101 F.3d 796, 801 (2nd Cir. 1996) citing Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d, supra at 1077. The cyber attacks were not a “political act” of one party or a branch of the United States government but rather the intrusion of a foreign state in our democracy, and claims for violation of Article IV §4 are subject to adjudication. Compare Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) The cyber intrusions were acts of espionage and aggression by a foreign power directed against the United States and candidates seeking public office within the Legislative and Executive Branches of the United States government.

CONCLUSION:
Americans have fought and died to maintain the integrity of America’s version of

democracy. It is reasonable to infer that if the State of Russia committed these acts, it did so to have one or more “creatures of its own” elected to high office – i.e. “Manchurian Candidates.”

Page -6-

Page 6

In so doing, these “creatures” may over the term of their office have more long term impact than the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the German invasions of European countries in both World Wars, and the “cold war” with the Soviet Union.

The relief sought is non-partisan due to the knowing failure prior to the November 2016 election of both the Executive Branch headed by a Democratic President and the houses of Congress dominated by Republicans to implement the guarantees of Article IV in the Constitution. Post election, it appears that the intrusions may have benefitted candidates of one party over the other, and with both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in control of a single party, it is unrealistic to expect a meaningful inquiry and remedy afforded by either branch of government. Given the failure of politicians of both persuasions to live up to the mandate of the Constitution, only the Judiciary can afford the relief to which the voters of the United States are entitled. To do so, it is most prudent for the Supreme Court to pull back the curtain of National Security, determine the nature of the intrusions, identify the perpetrators, and fashion permanent relief thereafter.

The result would assure the citizens of the United States that the American version of democracy survived and that the members of Congress, the President and Vice President were legitimate expressions of that democracy. If material impacts were found by the Special Master to have occurred in specific races due to intrusions and the Court concludes that the integrity of specific races fell below constitutional minimums, the Court could fashion relief suitable for each race. If a new election were mandated for one or more races, the Court could frame rules regarding the retroactive effect, if any, of the invalidated elections.

If the 2016 election for President and Vice President did not meet constitutional minimums, the position of President could be filled consistent with the official order of succession pending a “revote” for the President and Vice President in the 2018 election cycle. If the election of certain Representatives and Senators did not meet constitutional minimums, the effected states could appoint replacements pursuant to state law and subject to the results of new elections conducted consistent with state law.

Page -7-

Page 7

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 236 Comments

I know, I know….. It’s YOUR TURN:

 

mlkI know, I know
If you could go back you
would walk with Jesus
You would march with King
Maybe assassinate Hitler
At least hide Jews in your basement
It would all be clear to you
But people then, just like you
were baffled, had bills
to pay and children they didn’t
understand and they too
were so desperate for normalcy
they made anything normal
Even turning everything inside out
Even killing, and killing, and it’s easy
for turning the other cheek
to be looking the other way, for walking
to be talking, and they hid
in their houses
and watched it on television, when they had television,
and wrung their hands
or didn’t, and your hands
are just like theirs. Lined, permeable,
small, and you
would follow Caesar, and quote McCarthy, and Hoover, and you would want
to make Germany great again
Because you are afraid, and your
parents are sick, and your
job pays shit and where’s your
dignity? Just a little dignity and those kids sitting down in the highway,
and chaining themselves to
buildings, what’s their fucking problem? And that kid
That’s King. And this is Selma. And Berlin. And Jerusalem. And now
is when they need you to be brave.
Now
is when we need you to go back
and forget everything you know
and give up the things you’re chained to
and make it look so easy in your
grandkids’ history books (they should still have them, kinehora)
Now
is when it will all be clear to them.
—Danny Bryck

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

UPDATE ON SCOTUS CASE TO NULLIFY ELECTION

UPDATE ON SCOTUS CASE TO NULLIFY ELECTION  Revote2017.org

gratitude-kennedy

A heartfelt thank you to all who are spreading the word this weekend and to those who have contributed. We are far behind in contributions, so that is gratefully accepted!

I want to update last 24 hours:

We have several top level lawyers conversing with us. They have said that although our writ is obviously written (poorly? 🙂 by a layperson and requires some “filling in” (to say the least!!), the argument itself is sound. We are meeting with lawyers all weekend to respectfully improve and to perfect what we have done so that the Supreme Court justices can feel confident ruling on our writ. We want to present as legible and accurate of an argument for them as we can. We are in deep respect for our justices (unlike the opinion of our “so called president” and the GOP congress) and honor the desire to have a competent and accurate argument for them. We want to follow the constitution and the will of the people.

The basis of our argument is that the federal government is tasked in our constitution with the job to keep states safe from foreign invasion. Since our election was invaded by a foreign nation, we do not ask the court to remedy this, as that is a political remedy per historical adjudication and noted to be non-judicable. What we DO ask is that they make a finding of fact that our election was tainted by foreign invasion and is therefore, nullified.

WHAT WE NEED NOW:

1. Continue to tweet and call top celebrities. We are only regular citizens and require immediate and rapid dissemination of this information. These special celebrities have the ability to maximize delivery of this information to the masses, that a revote is “LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE AND MORALLY MANDATED”. And, that this needs to happen now, through legitimate court functions. BIG PUSH for this weekend, thank you! Tweet, call, network this hard, now.

2. Know that this is a legal and permissible way to PEACEFULLY, LEGALLY and MORALLY solve our current and obvious crisis. We believe that we are dangerously close to a war or military take over of our country from which a return may be difficult or impossible. We believe the majority of the citizens want to know that the leaders of our country were legally and fairly elected, and that the Russians have not chosen our leaders. We believe that the vast majority of citizens, including those who voted for Trump, do not want to live under a rule which was suspect, at best. This election was illegitimate, and must be remedied. Our country, our democracy cannot stand the obfuscation of the vote, for it is the very foundation upon which we stand. This foundation, including a free and fair vote, repair of gerrymandering and other ‘funny games’ with our vote, and the massive amounts of dark money flowing in are the poison of our system. We cannot, as a country, go forward without repairing this crisis. A free and fair vote is the bedrock of our democracy and our future.

3. Donate what you can to https://www.gofundme.com/NewElection We have many costs far in excess of what we have brought in already and may require travel costs for plaintiffs, etc. We are grateful and humbled, beyond measure, for the support we have already received. We know this is a dangerous and expensive path that we committed to weeks ago. We are willing. We are grateful.

4. Get groups of friends to barrage organizations representing women, LGBT, minorities and other similar groups to write a “FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF”. We have legal resources for samples. We have other supporting materials in the works. What we need are LEGALLY RESPECTED organizations to join us, showing that the PUBLIC AGREES with a new vote. We recommend you target specific groups in your area with requests for Friend of Court brief. We can discuss legal strategies with them. HAVE THEM CALL US.

5. Spread the word that a revote was not only easily and quickly done in other countries where these same illicit players have done similar operations, but that it is “LEGALLY POSSIBLE, MORALLY MANDATED” that we do the same. Talk to friends, neighbors, associates. Post on FB. Let people know that WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT AN  ILLEGITIMATE ELECTION.

6. Know that our heart is filled to overflowing with the growing support we have for a fair and effective solution. We know that many have worked hard and been disappointed before. The American people must demand that this administration and ALL THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM 2016, must be reexamined with a vote, or our country and our democracy is GONE. Poof. Like that. We cannot stand by and let this happen. Join us, stay tuned, spread the word, donate, speak, write, and demand a new vote. Nothing less will do.

With warmth and hope,

K. Sennholz MD
Kirstin Elaine Martin

Revote2017.org
The rest of our team of brave and committed Americans, including our brave plaintiffs, to whom we owe endless adoration and gratitude.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 33 Comments

Denver City Leaders Refer to Trump as our “So Called President”. I agree. NEW VOTE NOW.

img_6554THOUSANDS showed up and over 10,000 online, to hear the Denver response to TrumPutin. City officials, Politicians, Police, Organizations and other interested parties spoke of their actions to rebuff Trump.

Many of the speakers who referred to Trump called him “our so called president”. They were firm and unwavering in their statement of support of those living in Denver, and unwavering in their condemnation of the administration. Even the police were loud to say they would not comply with ICE requests. The one exception is they will still notify ICE when those arrested are getting released. img_6534The crowd LOUDLY booed this and comment was made that this will set up the neighborhoods in fear of calling the police when a crime happens.

City officials state firmly we are a Sanctuary city. They say we will fight the Trump regime at every turn. That they have lawsuits ready to go if he tries to pull funding.

Interestingly, even with the strong support of city officials, it was my perception that the crowd was not willing to accept this as a strongimg_6562enough answer. The anger and frustration with the lack of action on the part of elected officials to remove Trump from office and to more aggressively deal with his behavior was loudly proclaimed from nearly every citizen speaker.

Correction: Announced last night that Muslim protest in Denver was “tomorrow”. That was incorrect. Date is Feb 4, 1:00, attend if you can:  https://www.facebook.com/events/786629944818226/?notif_t=event_transition_reminder&notif_id=1486142809943599

We MUST remove Trump from office. This was an illegitimate election. A revote is legally permissible and morally mandated. The other countries whose election was stolen by these same Russian mafiosos revoted right away. We can, too. Trump did not win the election. Additionally, the computer virus which changed votes is STILL ON OUR VOTING MACHINES. Republicans in Michigan haimg_6575ve moved to DESTROY THE MACHINES AND DESTROY THE EVIDENCE of their tampering. This virus is still on voting machines all over our nation.
If we do not revote right now, our democracy is over.

Call your congress persons and let them know: NOTHING ELSE WILL BE ENOUGH UNTIL WE REVOTE. STOP SENDING MONEY TO ANYONE UNTIL WE GET A REVOTE.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Take 3 min to read this, It will change your day and your life

I have a most wonderful, intelligent, amazing friend, James Bramble, who is an executive and an attorney. His wisdom and humble nature is apparent every day as his way of being. This short blog post he wrote is an example of his loving leadership. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

screen-shot-2017-01-24-at-8-54-31-am

Every Monday the USANA True Health Foundation Facebook page has a gratitude post. A chance to reflect on something for which we are grateful. Susie Derber asked me if I wouldn’t mind taking a turn this week. As I thought about this I had a conversation with my son Andrew Bramble about an event that happened almost 23 years ago when I was attending law school.

My desire to become a lawyer was something that I had felt since I was very young. However, life got in the way and there was a time when it did not seem possible to meet that particular dream. I had a young family at the time and we were very poor. There just didn’t seem to be a way to both attend law school and also take care of my family. Fortunately, a few things happened involving others reaching their hands down to pull me up that allowed me to complete my studies. One of those fortuitous events was receiving a scholarship. I had applied for this particular private scholarship because I saw it advertised by the school administration. I knew nothing about it other than it was available for application. It was in the name of a man I did not recognize. The John Smith scholarship (name changed for his family’s privacy). Receiving the scholarship helped make my dream possible, it wasn’t a lot of money, I think one or two thousand dollars for the year, but it paid for my books and supplies that I needed and couldn’t otherwise afford.

I don’t remember ever wondering much about who John Smith was until one day I received a request to speak at a luncheon honoring individuals who had made donations to fund scholarships for the University. I was to speak about gratitude and how receiving a scholarship helped make my education possible and I would sit at a table and eat lunch next to the donor. The day soon arrived. I remember it was December 1 because it was World AIDS day. It was the 1990s and being academia everyone was wearing red ribbons. In my mind I had been imagining my donor as some successful business tycoon who had made a ton of money and was giving back through philanthropy. I had a list of questions ready to ask him for tips on how I could be successful myself.

I was surprised when I arrived and my table guest was a sort of frumpy, kind, poorly dressed, warm smiling, middle age woman, Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith was a cashier at a local grocery store and had lived all her life in Salt Lake City. Her son, John Smith, was her pride and joy. His goal from the time he was very young, like mine, was to be a lawyer. Finances being tough for a single mother John saved religiously so when the time came he could afford law school. However, he never met his goal. He was diagnosed with cancer before he turned 20 and did not survive. Ms. Smith did not use the money to add to her meager cashier salary. Nor did she use it on funeral or medical expenses. Intent on making John’s dream come true even if he couldn’t attend himself, Ms. Smith decided to use the money to fund a small scholarship for other young students. It was difficult for me to give my gratitude speech choked with emotion as I realized I was the beneficiary of such selfless sacrifice.

Today for the weekly True Health Foundation Monday gratitude post I am grateful for Ms. Smith and all the many, many, many people who extended their hand to me to help me receive the blessings in life that I have received abundantly. I am grateful for the True Health Foundation as a vehicle to allow me to try to do the same and reach my hand down to help others. I hope this memory will help someone see how even a small donation can make a big difference in the life of someone else.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PRESS RELEASE, DENIAL, CALL TO ACTION

russian-military

 

Emergency Order to Stay the Election Fails at the Supreme Court; Campaign to Clean Voting System Continues

CALL TO ACTION!!!

A small group of concerned citizens filed complaints with Federal courts around the country to ask for a Stay and a revote on the 2016 election (Writ of Mandamus), due to a compromise on the democratic voting process. This petition reached the highest court in our land. The emergency motion to stop the inauguration failed. Deep and abiding concerns about the legitimacy of this election have become only more disconcerting since November 8.  Day after day, it becomes clearer that the citizens of this country did not choose their “elected” leaders, but a coven of Russian hackers did.  The Supreme Court was petitioned for a new vote and, unfortunately, our argument was denied. We feel this was due to a hole in our constitution, rather than a weakness in our petition or our cause.

We implore the citizens of this country to rise and demand, back, the control of our Country. It is more than clear, as evidenced by a flood of academic articles on the subject, that we now live in an oligarchy run by billionaire oil interests and Russian mobsters. We know that the executive branch (with legal ability), the entire legislative branch, all of our elected officials and, significantly, our media failed to act because they chose to deny the facts in front of them and move on. They could have taken action to stop this but they did not. This was a tainted election and they have proceeded on as if it were as normal as rain. This is not acceptable in any way. The American people deserve a free and fair election.

It is imperative that the American people do not consider the failure of our petition to be a final judgment on the validity of the concerns about this election, our voting system, the flood of dark money and evil intents directing our nation, or the lack of input of citizens into our own governance. We must stand up now, and demand return of our rightful heritage, which is governance of our nation.

Citizens of every political stripe should be concerned about these illegal and immoral acts. For it may be one side receiving it now, but be assured, until we regain control of our country, particular concerns will hold no valor, either.

An emergency state has befallen our country. Citizens, rise and have your voice heard. If your congress person turns off their phone, march to their office. Be RELENTLESS in your position. Do not stop until we have returned this nation to its rightful heirs, the citizens of our nation.

Thank you to every single voice who spoke up, shared our efforts, donated, and cheered us on. Your words of encouragement, solidarity and love have warmed our tired hearts beyond measure.

Be relentless. Resist. http://www.REvote.info

Contact Kirstin Elaine Martin 917-523-9163 or Kirstin@sparx3.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Docs 1 18 2017

In The
Supreme Court of The United States

DIANNE  NANCY  DONNA

Petitioners, Pro Se

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS)

MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS)

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS)

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)

Respondents,

Case No. __________

vs.

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND FOR A TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING FULL CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION

Diane

Donna

Nancy

INTRODUCTION
Pro Se Petitioners request that the U.S. Supreme Court deploy its powers of

judicial review, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to prevent cyber terrorists from perfecting a sinister scheme to undermine the U.S. government and its citizens. Beginning in 2015, cyber terrorists—said to be working on behalf of Russia—engaged in a yearlong criminal effort to materially determine 2016 congressional and presidential election outcomes.1

The U.S. Constitution prescribes the inaugural process that must be carried out to accomplish a peaceful transition of power. The process encompasses several official acts that include swearing in newly elected Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, ratifying electoral votes, and swearing into office the President and Vice President of the United States.

During Congressional swearing-in ceremonies, members of Congress raise their right hand and recite the Congressional Oath of Office, as required by Article VI § 3. The oath, enacted into law by Congress in 1884, reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this

1 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us- cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

3

obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In 2017, existing members of the 114th Congress were confronted with a constitutional conflict. They could either:

  1. Fulfilltheirconstitutionallymandatedtransition-of-powerdutiesand ratify electoral votes on January 6, 2017, that were materially determined by a foreign cyber invader; andSwear into office on January 3, 2017, newly elected leaders—some of whom were materially helped by a third party invader; or
  2. Refusetoperformtransition-of-powerdutiesonJanuary3and January 6 in order to uphold their oath of office pledge to protect our nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.

During that period, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies comprising the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) were reconfirming to the President of the United States and Congressional leaders their findings that Russia had intervened in the 2016 U.S. elections for the explicit purpose of determining election outcomes.

4

The IC reported that the cyber invasion began in 2015 and included multiple cyber intrusions into State election data bases, and hacking and exfiltration of emails from the Democratic and Republican National Committee members’ email accounts. Numerous states also reported cyber intrusions: Illinois reported that a third party extracted more than 200,000 records from voter registration files. The Cyber Division of the FBI reported that election data bases in at least 12 states were hacked.

Cyber security experts acknowledged they cannot know for sure the degree to which hackers partly or wholly determined U.S. presidential or congressional election outcomes (Appendix A).

America Is a Nation-State with Many Boundaries, Including a Cyber Territory

America is a sovereign nation-state that has a government, territories, and population. With the advent of computing, new territorial boundaries emerged in the form of cyber territory:

It is the sovereignty that a state enjoys over territory that gives it the right to control cyber infrastructure and cyber activities within its territory. Accordingly, cyber infrastructure situated in the land territory, internal waters, territorial sea (including its bed and subsoil), archipelagic

5

waters, or national airspace is subject to the sovereignty of the territorial state.2

New nomenclature emerged such as cyber warfare, cyber intrusions, cyberattacks, and cyber invasions—all of which are similar to terms used to characterize encroachments upon other types of U.S. territories such as air, land, and sea. While these terms are often used interchangeably, Petitioners note that the intent of a cyber invader is often very different from a cyber intruder.

The nature of cyber intrusions is spelled out in 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers,3 which also describes the damaging effects of cyber intrusions4 and the need to protect against them. A cyber invader, however, generally acts on behalf of a nation-state such as Russia that is intent on undermining the stability of a government such as the United States by harvesting trade or other secrets from its target or disrupting affairs.

Petitioners find support for their distinctions in several books written by U.S. government security experts. Richard A. Clarke, in his book titled Cyber War (May 2010) defines “cyberwarfare” as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”

2Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Walls (June 12, 2015): http://insct.syr.edu/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Tallinn-Manual-Sovereignty.pdf
3 Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
4 FBI—What We Investigate, Cyber Crimes: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

6

Some governments have made cyberwarfare an integral component of their overall military strategy.5,6 and have adopted a warfighting strategy7 for preventing cyberattacks that involves:8 1) Preventing cyberattacks against critical infrastructure; 2) Reducing national vulnerability to cyberattacks; and 3) Minimizing damage and recovery time from cyberattacks.” Nations also employ offensive national level cyber strategies in conjunction with officially declared wars and undeclared secretive operations.”

The Federal Government and States Have Long Known State Voting Systems Are Vulnerable

Voting is the bedrock of the U.S. electoral process outlined in the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment. While the right to vote for electors may not be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,9) voting is the mechanism by which citizens participate in our republic. Without the citizens’ votes, Secretaries of State would be unable to determine which party’s electors to seat for the Electoral College and, consequently, which electors are entitled to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States.

The American system of voting utilizes various methods to capture and count votes, including paper ballots, optical scan paper ballot systems, direct recording

5 Clarke, Richard A. Cyber War, HarperCollins (2010) ISBN 9780061962233
6 B Lynn, William J. III. “Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy,” Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct. 2010, pp. 97–108
7 USAF HQ, Annex 3–12 Cyberspace Ops, U.S. Air Force, 2011

9 “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”] (Bush v. Gore)

8 Clapper, James R. “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community,” Senate Armed Services Committee, 26 February 2015 p. 1

7

electronic (DRE) systems, ballot marking devices and systems, punch card voting systems, mechanical lever voting machines, and online balloting by military and overseas Americans. Some electronic voting systems create a paper audit trail and some do not.

Computer experts, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and security experts have perpetually warned states and the federal government that state election laws, policies, processes, and machines that comprise America’s voting system during a federal election are plagued by numerous vulnerabilities and irregularities that allow for voter suppression, manipulation, and invasion by third-party actors who have sinister intent.10

On multiple occasions throughout the 2016 election cycle, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Intelligence Community, warned that a third-party actor—alleged to be Russia—was invading U.S. cyberspace and intruding into election systems.11 The President of the United States acknowledged that he and Congressional leaders were briefed about the invasions throughout the 2016 election cycle. FBI Alerts12 also reveal that Secretaries of State were made aware of the widespread election system breaches.

10 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/top-bottom-review/ 12

A CBS News website article titled More State Election Databases Hacked Than Previously Thought, dated September 28, 2016, reveals that government

11 Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: (October 7, 2016): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/ joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

8

officials were growing increasingly concerned about Russian efforts to disrupt or influence the 2016 election. The report also claimed that a total of about 10 states had their systems probed or breached by hackers, similar to the election systems breaches that had already occurred in Arizona and Illinois.13

The United States Failed to Protect States Against Invasions As Required by the Guarantee Clause (Article IV § 4)

The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the United States to protect all its territories from invasion:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

While the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned today’s technological society, the United States’ obligation to protect States against invasion of all the nation’s borders today would include a state’s cyber territory.

Protection against invasion was a continuation of an established centralized foreign policy and defense under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Framers understood that protection of the

13 More State databases hacked than previously thought, CBS News (September 28, 2016): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-state-election-databases-hacked-than-previously-thought/

9

borders was essential to both the security of the people and the viability of the economy.14

U.S. leaders who were aware of ongoing cyber invasions in 2016 failed to stop the invasions into state election systems or develop stopgap measures that would have allowed for easy detection of terrorists’ intrusions.15

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioners in the present action before the U.S. Supreme Court filed their Extraordinary Petition for Writ of Mandamus on January 5, 2017, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Appendix B). The writ asserts:

  1. The hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause;
  2. The non-political remedy of permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief are available to the courts under Article IV § Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause);
  3. The United States failed to protect States from invasion during the 2016 elections as required by Article IV § Section 4;

What does Article IV, Section 4 really mean? The American View:

15 FBI/DHS Summary Report: GRIZZLY STEPPE–Russian Malicious Cyber Activity: https://www.us- cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

10

  1. The Court is required to uphold the rule of law without regard to political consequence; and
  2. Members of Congress who ratified the 2016 federal electoral votes participated de facto in a scheme orchestrated by an invader.

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus also requested the Court permanently enjoin the President of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from swearing in newly elected congressional members on January 3, ratifying electoral votes on January 6, and inaugurating Donald J. Trump President and Mike Pence Vice President on January 20, 2017. The petition also requested the Office of Personnel Management be enjoined from issuing public official performance bonds to members of Congress and the executive branch who were elected on November 8, 2016.

Almost all of the scheduled inauguration activities had been completed by January 6, 2017—the day on which the Appeals Court rendered its decision (Appendix B) dismissing Petitioners’ action.

11

ARGUMENT

Legal Standard for Granting a Stay Pending Appeal

In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court considers four factors: “1) whether stay applicants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and 4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559F.2d 841, 842- 43 & n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977); D.C. Cir. R. 8(a)(1). “The [probability of success]” element “is inversely proportional to the degree of irreparable injury evidenced.” Cuomo v. NRC 772 F.2d 972, 974(D.C. Cir. 1985) [per curriam]. “A stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury or vice versa.” Id.

In accordance with precedent, Courts judge the four criteria on a sliding scale Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). They also “balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas,” such that “[i]f the movant’s showing is particular strong in one area, [a stay] may issue even if the showing in the “other areas are rather weak,” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297, (D.C. Cir. 2006).

12

Petitioners Have a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit states

that Pro Se Petitioners introduced “novel constitutional arguments” in their original Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court also did not reject Petitioners’ argument that Article IV § 4 is justiciable as follows:

  1. TheCourthasthepowerofjudicialreviewasitrelatestotheExecutive and Legislative Branches;
  2. TheCourtcanreviewthemannerinwhichmembersoftheExecutive Branch or Legislative Branch exercise their powers; and
  3. TheCourtcanprovideinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefonthebasisof Article IV § 4 in accordance with its powers of judicial review.

Petitioners’ case, in addition to presenting a “novel constitutional issue,” purports to contribute to an area of law where precedent is almost non-existent (Court’s authority to order a special election). It also promises to unify the limited precedent that does exist as it relates to key matters pertaining to special elections:

  1. Fladellv.ElectionCanvassingCommission,statingthatarevotewas constitutionally impermissible.
  2. Donohuev.BoardofElections,inwhichtheDistrictCourtruledithadthe authority to order a new election.

13

3. PoliticalQuestiondoctrine,whichholdsthatcourtscannotdirecteitherof the co-equal branches of government to carry out a specific act.

4. Article II, Section 1, requirement [3 U.S.C. Sec 1], that the presidential election take place on a particular Tuesday in early November.

Petitioners and Their Nation Will Suffer Incalculable Long-term Harm Absent a Stay

The hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016 was unprecedented in scope. It contaminated the election process to such an extent, it is impossible to determine to what degree election outcomes for the highest offices in our Nation, i.e., President, Vice President, and Congress, were determined by the people of the United States.

There is no disputing that an “emergency stay” and a “stay pending review of petition for writ of mandamus and for a temporary administrative stay pending full consideration of this motion” will have a temporary seismic effect and significant disruption throughout the United States. But the incalculable harm to U.S citizens and our democracy of being presided over by officials selected by a foreign adversary is far weightier than our nation can bear.

14

A Ruling Granting Injunctive Relief Will Have Positive Unintended Consequences

A ruling granting the remedy sought, permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief, will have the unintended consequence of causing the President and members of the Legislative Branch—many of whom were beneficiaries of the cyber hacks—to join together, devise procedures for holding new elections, enact revote legislation, and implement measures to ensure state and federal elections are tamper-free in the future. Without such remedies, the door to undermining America’s democracy will remain wide open.

Public Interest Favors Granting a Stay

The hijacking of U.S. 2016 elections may have allowed one of the nation’s fiercest adversaries to accomplish the ultimate coup by helping to “elect” leaders at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.

Granting a stay to allow Petitioners to defend their claim of an unconstitutional election while affording them an opportunity to demonstrate the need for injunctive and declaratory relief “advances ‘broader’ public interests in the observance of law . . . .” (Upjohn, 449 U.S. 389).

A favorable granting of the relief petitioners ultimately seek will have unintended positive consequence. The 2016 elections revealed a gaping hole in our democracy, which is the inability to quickly hold new elections in the face of an

15

attack or national disaster. There exists a clear need for a Supreme Court-invoked process for holding new presidential and congressional elections.

A ruling from the High Court granting permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief will have the unintended consequences of causing the President and Legislative Branch to join together, devise procedures for holding new elections, speedily enact revote legislation with public input, and implement measures to ensure state and federal elections are tamper-free in the future. Without such remedies, the door to undermining America’s democracy will remain wide open.

CONCLUSION

During the 2016 election cycle, the United States was humiliated nationally and internationally as the world observed our voting processes undermined. The U.S. Supreme Court can help reestablish faith in our election process and our democracy by demonstrating that—like the Ukraine and Austria—this Nation will engage in extraordinary measures to protect our right to vote and preserve the strength and stability of our Union.

A stay will provide the Court an opportunity to determine if elected officials in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch exercised their vast powers in a manner that was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution in both spirit and intent and thus determine if this election rises to the intent set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

16

January 18, 2017

Respectfully Submitted:

—————————————

Diane

Donna

Nancy

17

APPENDIX A
Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios
by Brian Fox-CAVO (California Association of Voting Officials)

SCENARIO I — Hack Early, Reap Later

In this scenario, a machine has its software changed during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.

This type of attack can be carried out by an individual who shows up to vote at a precinct.

SCENARIO II— Hack and Reap

In this scenario, the election equipment is used as normal, but, at tally time, the memory card associated with the tally is modified (this can be done in seconds, but not likely by a voter). Once again, the counts are skewed, and the election results are different than they would have been. However, after this has happened, ballots are either destroyed or discarded, so that there is no record or auditable verification of the false count.

18

Because of the way our Electoral College works, in both of these scenarios, the place to attack is within states that are expected to vote about 50/50 between the two major parties. In those states, find a couple of larger precincts to hack, where you expect the vote to be overwhelmingly for the candidate that you do not want to win. Steal 10% of the votes cast there for your candidate, and you’ve not changed the precinct results, but you have changed enough votes to change the state’s results.

About the Author—Brian J. Fox

Brian J Fox is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, consultant, author, and free software advocate. He was the original author of the GNU Bash shell, which he announced as a beta in June 1989. He continued as the primary maintainer for Bash until at least early 1993.

In 1985, Fox and Richard Stallman began Stallman’s newly created Free Software Foundation. At the FSF, Fox authored GNU Bash, GNU Makeinfo, GNU Info, GNU Finger, and the readline and history libraries. He was also the maintainer of Emacs for a time, and made many contributions to the software that was created for the GNU Project between 1986 and 1994. He is founder of CAVO and pioneered the initial OS vote tabulation systems.

19

APPENDIX B
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit January 6, 2017, Decision

NO. 16-

IN THE

Supreme Court of The United States

               ______________________

DIANNE , NANCY , DONNA  Petitioners, Pro Se
v.

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), PRESIDENT- ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM),
Respondents. ______________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit ______________________

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

             ______________________

NANCY

DONNADIANEQUESTIONS PRESENTED

  1. Did the Appeals Court Err by Requiring Petitioners to Provide Legal Precedent for their “Novel Constitutional Claim” in Light of the Expert Evidence Provided?
  2. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Declaratory Finding that U.S. Officials Exercised their Powers in an Unconstitutional Manner While Performing 2016 Inauguration Duties?
  3. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a

Writ of Mandamus Prohibiting the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence Based Upon 2016 Presidential Election Outcomes?

IV. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Find that 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Under the Executive Branch of Government Concluded that Russia Invaded U.S. Cyber Territory in 2016 to Influence Election Outcomes?

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED …………………………….i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………iv JURISDICTION……………………………………………. 3 ARTICLE III STANDING ……………………………… 4 RELIEF SOUGHT ………………………………………… 4 ARGUMENT ………………………………………………….6

I. Contrary to well-settled law, injunctive relief and declaratory relief—non-political remedies—are available under Article IV § 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review…………………………………6

  1. The manner in which U.S. elected officials have exercised their powers during the 2016 Inauguration is unconstitutional………………………………8
  2. There has never been a more urgent need for the Court to issue an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus ….. 10
  3. The U.S. Supreme Court has authority to deploy its powers of judicial review to determine if a federal election rises to the standards set forth in the U.S. Constitution …………………………………. 10ii

Page

FACTS PRESENTED ………………………………….. 11 REASONS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ………………. 13 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………15 APPENDICES ……………………………………………..17

APPENDIX A: Decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit…………a1 APPENDIX B: Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios …………………………………………………a3

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ……………….. 13 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ………………….. 15 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) …………………. 8 New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2433

(1992) ………………………………………………………… 11 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992) ………………………11

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES

U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment……………….10 U.S. Constitution, Article II …………………………..10 U.S. Constitution, Article III …………………………..8 U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 4 …………………….10 18 U.S.C. § 1030 ……………………………………………..7 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ……………………………………………. 8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …………………………………………….8

OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- room/news/293636-fbi-foreign-hackers-penetrated- state-election-databases ……………………………….15 https://www.dni.gov/index.php ……………………….11 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber …………..5, 7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 …. 7 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael- morell-russia-us-elections-232495…………………..10 Richard A. Clarke, Cyber War (May 2010)…………7 The Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Wells (June 12, 2015) ……………………………………………….6

iv

IN THE

Supreme Court of The United States

              ______________________

DIANNE , NANCY , DONNA

 

v

Petitioners, Pro Se

JOSEPH A. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S. SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (114TH CONGRESS), MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (114TH CONGRESS), PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM),

Respondents

              ______________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

              ______________________

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner Seeks to Prove:

The United States had an obligation to protect the States against cyber invasions during the 2016 elections pursuant to Article IV § 4.

The United States knew that a foreign adversary was invading U.S. cyberspaces and intruding into State election systems.

1

The United States failed to take sufficient actions to prevent cyber intrusions into State election systems during the 2016 elections.

No one can identify with certainty the extent to which cyber intrusions determined election outcomes.

Congressional leaders and the President of the United States took an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

The manner in which U.S. elected officials exercised their powers during the 2016 Inauguration is in conflict with their oath-of-office pledge.

Permitting a foreign adversary to help select America’s most powerful leaders is likely to have a catastrophic consequence.

Contrary to well-settled law, the U.S. Supreme Court can provide injunctive relief and declaratory relief—non-political remedies—under Article IV § 4 pursuant to the Court’s powers of judicial review.

There has never been a more urgent need for the Court to provide injunctive and declaratory relief in order to compel the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to hold new presidential and congressional elections.

2

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction and authority to provide injunctive relief and declaratory relief under the following statutes and laws: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Petitioners were faced with overcoming longstanding, well-settled precedent in its original Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:

Is the Non-political Remedy of Permanent Injunctive Relief and [Declaratory Relief] Available to the Court Under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause)?

Petitioners argued that the hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause. Petitioners assert that the remedies they seek are judicial in nature (injunctive relief and declaratory relief) and are not within the authority of the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch to grant.

3

ARTICLE III STANDING

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit labeled Pro Se Petitioners’ case a “novel constitutional claim.”

Petitioners were registered voters in a national election held on November 8, 2016, whereby Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence were selected as President and Vice President of the United States. Several other candidates were selected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality and lawfulness of current federal officials’ exercise of power (Flast v. Cohen) in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, beginning on January 3, 2017, and culminating soon after Friday, January 20, 2017.

During the referenced timeframe, representatives of the political branches of government will have unwittingly participated in cyber terrorists’ scheme to subvert the U.S. election process and the “people’s” republican form of government.

RELIEF SOUGHT

There exists compelling evidence that operatives acting on behalf of a third party (named as the Government of Russia) illegally and repeatedly invaded U.S. election systems, extracted voter records, and engaged in other criminal acts of cyber terrorism, yet to be discerned, during the 2016 election cycle to materially influence congressional and presidential election outcomes.

4

While it cannot be ascertained—due to the nature of clandestine cyber-attacks1—the degree to which cyber invasions were or were not determinative of election results, there exists clear and convincing evidence that some elected officials who prevailed in the 2016 elections were “selected” by a foreign power rather than “elected” in accordance with states’ electoral voting processes.

Petitioners request:

The Court permanently enjoin all U.S. officials, including judges, the President of the Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons from:

1) Swearing Donald J. Trump into the Office of the U.S. President on January 20, 2017;

  1. 2)  Swearing Mike Pence into the Office of Vice President on January 20, 2017;
  2. 3)  Procuring and or issuing public servant performance bonds to President Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence; and
  3. 4)  Engaging in all other acts that would be in accordance with the peaceful transition of power as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Petitioners also seek declaratory relief and request the Court find that persons who exercised inauguration-related powers in accordance with Amendment 12 and Article II following the 2016 elections acted unconstitutionally by violating the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office.

1 FBI Cyber Crime website:https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

5

ARGUMENT

I. Did the Appeals Court Err by Requiring Petitioners to Provide Legal Precedent for Their “Novel Constitutional Claim” in Light of the Expert Testimony Provided?

Petitioners assert that the Guarantee Clause (Article IV § 4) imposes upon the United States Government an obligation to protect a State’s cyber territory against invasions.

While Petitioners were not able to identify precedent in support of its “novel constitutional claim,” Petitioners did provide fact-based evidence from cyber experts confirming a State’s right to control its cyber infrastructure and the cyber activities within its cyber territory. The publication, The Tallinn Manual Sovereignty by Martin Wells (June 12, 2015), is published by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) in collaboration with distinguished international law scholars and practitioners.

The Tallinn manual sets forth non-binding standards governing a nation-state’s sovereignty and right to exercise jurisdiction and control over its cyberspace. It states:

Although no state may claim sovereignty over cyberspace per se, states may exercise sovereign prerogatives over any cyber infrastructure located on their territory, as well as activities associated with that cyber infrastructure. . . .

6

Petitioners make a key distinction between a cyber invasion and a cyber intrusion. 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers2 describes the importance of protecting cyber boundaries and the damaging effects of cyber intrusions. The statute outlines the criminal nature of intrusions into systems under the jurisdiction and control of another party. The FBI Cyber Division investigates cybercrimes.3

A cyber invasion, however, involves a cyber act by a foreign terrorist or nation-state intent on undermining the stability of the United States or harvesting U.S. trade or other secrets. During an act of cyber terrorism, a foreign actor invades U.S. cyberspace and intrudes into systems operated by the Government or other entities. The intent of a cyber invader is often very different from the intent of a cyber intruder.

Petitioners find support for their distinctions. U.S. government security expert Richard A. Clarke, in his bookCyber War(May 2010), defines “cyberwarfare” as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”

Petitioners note that the nomenclature (cyber attacks, cyberwarfare, cyber terrorists, etc.) used to define cyber invasions is analogous to the nomenclature that would be used to characterize other hostile acts of war taken by an adversary against the United State or a U.S. territory, i.e., U.S. airspace, U.S. waters, and U.S. land territories.

2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 3 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

7

II. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Declaratory Finding that U.S. Officials Exercised Their Powers in an Unconstitutional Manner While Performing 2016 Inauguration Duties?

The hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016 was unprecedented in scope and contaminated the election process to such an extent that it is impossible to ascertain if cyber terrorists determined election outcomes for the highest offices in our nation.

Expert testimony confirms that no one except for the invader can know the degree to which the invader impacted systems, records, or outcomes, given the number of election systems deployed on Election Day in the U.S. (Appendix B).

Expert testimony also confirms the existence of multiple access points and vulnerabilities a third party can exploit in order to determine election outcomes (Appendix B).

News reports, Senate hearings, and reports from the U.S. Intelligence Community confirm that a third party invaded U.S. cyber space in 2016 and intruded into U.S. election systems.

News reports and details from press conferences confirm that the political branches of the U.S. Government knew of the cyberspace invasions, but failed to take the extraordinary precautions needed to protect State election systems from intrusion during the 2016 election cycle.

8

Associate Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center, Christopher S. Chivvis, who is also a senior political scientist, says there are ways to render attempts at cyber invasions ineffective. He states:

[T]he United States could seek simply to make such operations impossible by developing highly effective cyber-network defenses—a strategy akin to what was sometimes called active defense.

While FBI alerts4 indicate the United States took some action to prevent election cyber invasions during the 2016 elections, actions taken by the United States were not sufficient to prevent cyber terrorists from significantly influencing U.S. election outcomes.

The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a list of requirements Secretaries of State, the President of the U.S. Senate (Vice President of the United States), Members of the Congress, and Members of the Executive Branch must complete to accomplish a peaceful transition of power.

In 2016, political leaders charged with transition- of-power responsibilities were forced to make a difficult choice: Comply with Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution and ratify electoral votes significantly determined by hackers or comply with their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and thereby refuse to help perfect the criminal acts of

4 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber 9

cyber terrorists. Never has the Court’s counterbalancing influence been more needed.

III. Did the Appeals Court Err by Not Issuing a Writ of Mandamus Prohibiting the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence Based Upon 2016 Presidential Election Outcomes?

Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mark J. Morell, labeled Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election to help President-elect Donald Trump as “the political equivalent of 9/11.” The quote, which Petitioners observed Morell reiterate on CNN, was also publicized in numerous online and print publications.5

The extraordinary nature of a Writ of Mandamus renders it the perfect instrument for remedying an egregious terrorist act that threatens to obliterate the integrity of our Nation’s foundational structure. In 2016, cyber terrorists invaded U.S. cyberspace and launched a highly public, pervasive, and unprecedented attack on the U.S. voting process— the root from which all political power in this nation stems.

IV. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Find that 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Under the Executive Branch of Government All Concluded that Russia Invaded U.S.

5 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-morell-

russia-us-elections-232495
10

Cyber Territory in 2016 to Influence Election Outcomes?

The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI, which is in the Executive Branch. The intelligence agencies work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.6 The Coalition is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

On January 5, 2017, following the submission of Petitioners’ original Writ of Mandamus to the Appeals Court, DNI James Clapper reaffirmed a finding issued by the IC on October 7, 2016. Clapper stated that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia directed the election interference that occurred during the 2016 elections.

FACTS PRESENTED

Pro Se Petitioners Sought to Find a Path to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Door.

Petitioners began by filing an Extraordinary Petition for Writ of Mandamus in a Federal Court of Appeals on January 5, 2017. Petitioners argued:

1. The hacking of the 2016 elections provides a new context for examining the intent of our Founding Fathers as it relates to the Guarantee Clause;

6 Intelligence Community: https://www.dni.gov/index.php 11

  1. The non-political remedy of permanent injunctive relief is available to the courts under Article IV § 4 (The Guarantee Clause);
  2. The United States failed to protect States from invasion during the 2016 elections as required by Article IV § 4;
  3. The Court is required to uphold the rule of law without regard to political consequence; and
  4. The hacking of the 2016 election enlisted Congressional leaders who ratified the election results de facto in a scheme orchestrated by an invader.

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus also requested the Court permanently enjoin the President of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House, and other persons in the U.S. Government from:

  1. Swearing in on January 3, 2017, persons newly elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate;
  2. Ratifying on January 6, 2017, electoral votes cast by state electors and transmitted to the President of the U.S. Senate;
  3. Swearing in of Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017;
  4. Procuring and issuing performance bonds to persons elected to federal office on November 8, 2016; and12

5. All other acts commensurate to the peaceful transition of power following a valid election.

Almost all of the scheduled inauguration activities had been completed by January 6, 2017— the day on which the Appeals Court rendered its decision (Appendix B).

REASONS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

Officials overseeing the political branches of government (Legislative Branch and Executive Branch) were aware of cyber terrorists’ invasions into U.S. election systems long before November 8, 2016. Yet U.S. Government officials failed to sufficiently protect systems against invasion or implement revised voting processes to mitigate the threat. As a result, a foreign adversary invaded U.S. cyberspace and intruded into election systems to materially influence—and perhaps determine—U.S. 2016 election outcomes.

During Congressional swearing-in ceremonies, members of Congress raise their right hand and recite the Congressional Oath of Office, as required by Article VI § 3. The oath, enacted into law by Congress in 1884, reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and

13

that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In 2017, existing members of the 114th Congress were confronted with a constitutional conflict. They could either:

1) Fulfill their constitutional duties by swearing into office newly elected leaders—some of whom were materially helped by a third party invader— and ratifying electoral votes that were impacted by a foreign cyber invader;

or

2) Refuse to perform transition-of-power duties and thereby uphold their oath of office pledge to protect our nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.

At the same time, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, comprising the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), were reaffirming to the President of the United States and Congressional leaders their findings that Russia had intervened in the 2016 U.S. elections for the explicit purpose of determining election outcomes.

The IC reported that the cyber invasions began in 2015 and included multiple cyber intrusions into State election databases and the extraction of emails from the Democratic and Republican National Committee members’ email accounts. Numerous states also reported cyber intrusions. The Cyber

14

Division of the FBI reported that election databases in at least 12 states were hacked.7

Cyber security experts acknowledge they cannot know for sure the degree to which hackers partly or wholly determined U.S. presidential or congressional election outcomes (Appendix B).

While the U.S. President has responded by taking steps to retaliate against Russia for the cyber invasions, including expelling 35 Russian diplomats, the President’s acts do little to redress the impact of the hacks on states, electors, voters, and the nation as a whole.

The leaders of our government have enormous influence. They determine national and international policy, oversee military and intelligence assets, manage our economy, oversee our government’s vast resources, and chart our future. The extraordinary risks of allowing such an openly tainted election to stand are incalculable and undermine our nation’s position and image on the world stage.

CONCLUSION

Petitioners request the Court issue an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus permanently enjoining the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President and Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States.

Petitioners also request that the U.S. Supreme Court declare unconstitutional the acts of Senate

7 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/293636- fbi-foreign-hackers-penetrated-state-election-databases

15

President Joseph Biden and other officiants involved in the 2016 inauguration process, since such acts unwittingly enlists U.S. officials in cyber terrorists’ scheme to undermine the U.S. Government.

The Supreme Courts in Austria and the Ukraine ordered new elections after cyber terrorists invaded their elections. The citizens of this great nation are asking our Supreme Court to declare the 2016 election results unconstitutional in order to pave the way for a new election.

16

APPENDICES

1a

APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
————
No. 17-1029
————
IN RE: DIANE  NANCY ; DONNA,

Petitioners. ————

Before

Lynch, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.

———— JUDGMENT Entered: January 6, 2017

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for those occasions when a petitioner demonstrates a clear entitlement to relief. See In re Sterling-Suarez, 306 F.3d 1170, 1172 (1st Cir. 2002). Petitioner cites no precedent legitimately supporting her novel constitu- tional claim, and we see no basis for concluding that there is a clear entitlement to relief. See California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 1997)(“For this Court to determine that the United States has been ‘invaded’ when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibil- ity of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.”).

2a

For this reason, the motion for a stay is denied and the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

By the Court:
/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Diane Blumstein

3a

APPENDIX B

Limited Number of Election Hack Scenarios

by Brian J. Fox, CAVO (California Association of Voting Officials)

SCENARIO I — Hack Early, Reap Later
In this scenario, a machine has its software changed during the primary elections. The goal of the change is to install software that will run during the general election, and will change the way the votes are counted during that election. This type of attack often generates a sense of safety and security among the election officials, because when they hand count and otherwise audit the results of the primary election, the results match perfectly. Election officials then believe that the machines are working and have not been tampered with. When the votes are tallied for the general election, the hack is activated, and the counts are skewed.
This type of attack can be carried out by an individual, who shows up to vote at a precinct.

SCENARIO II— Hack and Reap

In this scenario, the election equipment is used as normal, but at tally time, the memory card associated with the tally is modified (this can be done in seconds, but not likely by a voter). Once again, the counts are skewed, and the election results are different than they would have been. However, after this has happened, ballots are either destroyed or discarded, so that there is no record or auditable verification of the false count.

Because of the way our Electoral College works, in both of these scenarios, the place to attack is within

4a

states that are expected to vote about 50/50 between the two major parties. In those states, find a couple of larger precincts to hack, where you expect the vote to be overwhelmingly for the candidate that you do not want to win. Steal 10% of the votes cast there for your candidate, and you’ve not changed the precinct results, but you have changed enough votes to change the state’s results.

About the Author—Brian J. Fox

Brian J. Fox is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, consultant, author, and free software advocate. He was the original author of the GNU Bash shell, which he announced as a beta in June 1989. He continued as the primary maintainer for Bash until at least early 1993.

In 1985, Fox and Richard Stallman began Stallman’s newly created Free Software Foundation. At the FSF, Fox authored GNU Bash, GNU Makeinfo, GNU Info, GNU Finger, and the readline and history libraries. He was also the maintainer of Emacs for a time, and made many contributions to the software that was created for the GNU Project between 1986 and 1994. He is founder of California Association of Voting officials (CAVO) and pioneered the initial OS vote tabulation systems.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Letter to President Obama, Jan 18

Hi all,

I’m glad things are proceeding, and as long as there is a judicial appetite for justice, we’re in good shape.

This is the next letter I wrote to the White House Comment line:

Dear Mr. President,

You are STILL President and can therefore make executive decisions which stretch far beyond what furniture to move out of the West Wing first.  I apologize for the sarcasm but I have written to you several times about perhaps the most central issue facing our country:  Our 17 intelligence agencies said that we were hacked by the Russians–all the way to its top–which had the purpose of installing Trump in the White House and giving him a Senate and House majority.  It worked. YET, you, and no member of Congress has stood up to say that the election results therefore, must be THROWN OUT, AND TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION.

Yet that’s the Elephant in the room.  It is embarrassing that smart people are ignoring this obvious next step.  If it is not done, Putin placed Trump in the White House, NOT the American People. And you are willing to hand the keys over to a Putin-appointed U.S. President?  Only John Lewis has had the conviction to speak up.  Isn’t it outrageous that our Democracy and Congress are literally in the hands of Putin?

A group of us have submitted a Motion calling for a stay to the inauguration and any forward movement of the transition to SCOTUS.   The civil unrest and unsettled feeling across the country including buyer’s remorse continues to mount.  There is still time for you to act.   A peaceful transition is a great thing when it is to a legitimately elected President.  It should be a mindlessly peaceful thing.  Thank you in advance for acting.

Next is, I ask again, as so many thousands have for decades, to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier.  It is a CRIME that he has been in jail for 40 years when the evidence is skewed and he is innocent.  That is a LIFETIME.  PLEASE pardon him immediately.

You can still do so much good in these remaining days.

Again, thank you.

Mitchell J. Rabin, M.A., L.AC.
Creative Consulting, Stress Management
Host & Producer, A Better World Radio & TV
212 420-0800

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments