2009 Sequoia Voting Systems has inadvertently released the SQL (Structured Query Language) code for its voting databases. The existence of such code appears to violate Federal voting law. Sequoia is controlling the elections from within the database itself. Since they didn’t strip this controlling SQL code out, we have the chance to study it, and since it came from a purely legal source, we can for the first time study a voting system from the inside out, in public.
Trilaterial Commission and Voting Machine Fraud
part 1 Turdblossom
Who owns Sequoia Voting?
In the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida the nation’s eyes were
riveted on punch cards being held up to the light, and no one thought to investigate
the ownership of the election companies that count America’s vote.
Sequoia Voting Systems, the election company currently embroiled in controversy over
its connection to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was owned at the time of the 2000
election by a shadowy international financier who got his big break in a sweetheart deal
with a subsidiary of Mobil Oil, Container Corp of America, at a time when the company
was controlled by the Rockefeller Family.
The Big Fix Video
Irish connection to USA voting machine company Sequoia Pacific
De La Rue PLC acquires Sequoia Voting Systems from Jefferson Smurfit Group PLC
May 29 2002 $36.00
62,000 Fraudulent Absentee Ballots in Ohio?
“When there are more votes than voters, there is a big problem” stated Dr. Werner Lange,
author of this study which would have been completed weeks earlier if Ohio Secretary of
State Kenneth Blackwell, co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign, had not unlawfully
ordered all 88 boards of elections to prevent public inspection of poll books until after certification of the vote.
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:51:24 -0800
Montgomery County Sequoia Pacific Voting Machines
The main problem is they lack a paper voting trail
Sequoia Pacific, for instance, acknowledges that one of its machines failed Nov. 7 in
Middlesex County, N.J. And Mercuri has a copy of a videotape, made on behalf of a
candidate during a post-election test in 1995 in Louisiana, that appears to show several
Sequoia Pacific machines misallocating votes to candidates on adjacent ballot lines.
Peter Neumann, whose 1995 book, Computer-Related Risks, details numerous instances
in which computer systems failed because of software or hardware errors or hidden rigging of code, calls such confidence unwarranted. Not only are mistaken or manipulated results possible, but without a paper trail, they might never be noticed.
“One of the simplest ways of rigging the election would be to hire the programmer who
is writing the code for the election software,” Neumann said. “You could pay him five
years’ salary and buy him a house somewhere, and it would still be a lot cheaper than
all the money you’d have to spend on advertising” to win an election legally.
Neumann said that oft-touted safeguards in the machines, such as electronic audit trails
and multiple memory locations, might only be confirming and preserving erroneous information.
And he scoffed at manufacturers’ notion of a “randomized audit trail,” in which the machine
stores a printable record of each “ballot,” but in random order to protect each voter’s privacy.
The Companies That Count Your Vote 2004
Much of this discussion has centered on the fact that a small and obscure clique of election
machine vendors design and service the computers which count a growing majority of our votes.
In 1993, Eva Waskell, of the Elections Project recently wrote an “Overview of Computers in Elections” in which she asked:
“Who exactly owns and runs these companies? What other business have they purchased?
Who sits on the board of directors? Are board members affiliated with any political parties?
Who are the employees? What’s their background and training like? Are they United States citizens? Have they been convicted of any felonies? The public needs to be thinking about these questions. Someone needs to be providing the answers.
Relevance has learned that by far the biggest vendor in North America is Business Records
Corporation (BRC) of Dallas, Texas.
According to the BRC internet website (www.brcp.com) “With approximately 60% of the market, BRC is the nation’s largest provider of products and services to election jurisdictions.” According to The New Yorker’s Dugger, Cronus Industries, (at that time BRC’s parent firm) was accused by its chief competitor, the R.F. Shoup firm, of attempting to create a “virtual monopoly on the entire business of supplying voting equipment…” and of selling systems which “create new and unique opportunities for fraudulent and extremely difficult-to-detect manipulation and alterations with respect to election results.” [See The New Yorker, November 7th, 1988, pg. 43].
Of course, the R.F. Shoup company was not without blemishes on its reputation. In 1979,
Ransom Shoup II, the president of the firm, was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of
justice stemming from an FBI investigation of a vote-fixing scam involving the old-fashioned level machines in Philadelphia. Mr. Shoup was fined ten thousand dollars and received a three-year suspended sentence.
Twists and Turns – Who Owns Sequoia? February 13, 2006
By Robert A. Wilson, Chairperson, Suburban Cook County Chapter, Illinois Ballot Integrity Project
Chicago and Cook County recently signed a $50.2 Million contract with Sequoia Voting Systems.
This sum is more than double the amount Venezuelan interests paid to acquire
British-based De La Rue Cash Systems’ 85% interest in Sequoia Voting Systems less than a year ago.
Why buy the product when for less money you could buy the whole company?
De La Rue, PLC, the world ‘s largest commercial security printer and papermaker, as well as a significant gambling enterprise, sold their interest in Sequoia at a loss, having acquired the company fom Ireland-based Jefferson Smurfit Group PLC, a paper and packaging company, for more than $23 million in 2002, in a deal that could have been worth as much as $35 million if Sequoia met certain sales and earnings targets.
Sequoia’s purchaser was Smartmatic Corp, a Boca Raton, Florida company incorporated in 2000.
It’s president is Antonio Mugica Rivero, who allegedly was refused a tourist visa by the
U.S. State Department when he attempted to visit his company’s headquarters last October.
The company’s vice president is Alfredo Anzola. Mugica is also president (according to Florida records of its incorporation in 2001) of the software company, Bizta Corp, which provides voting software and is 28% owned by the Venezuelan government. Venezuelan records, however, indicate that Anzola, not Mugica is president. In Caracas, Bizta shares its office with Smartmatic.
Tracking the ownership of Smartmatic is a daunting task, running through such companies as Smartmatic International Holding B.V., a Netherlands firm in which the sole shareholder is Amola Investments N.V. In turn, Amola appears to be owned by Smartmatic International Group N.V., another Netherlands Antilles corporation. From there he trail gets fainter, but the destination is clearly Caracas.
The interlocking Venezuelan ownership of Smartmatic and Bizta takes on a more interesting aspect when you consider that these two companies supplied the hardware
(converted Olivetti lottery machines) and software used in Venezuela’s hotly disputed recall election of president Hugo Chavez in 2004. Despite pre-election polls that indicated Chavez would lose the recall vote by over 55%, he coasted home the victor. Sounds a lot like Georgia in 2002 and Ohio in 2004 and 2005, doesn’t it? Of course when you own 28% of the software company that counted the votes, it might help – echoes of Senator Chuck Hagel’s “upset” of popular Ben Nelson in Nebraska when Hagel’s voting machine company counted over 80% of Nebraska’s votes.
Investor Group acquires Sequoia Voting Systems from Smartmatic through a leveraged buyout source
US – A management-led investor group, comprised of Sequoia Voting Systems (SV)
President and CEO Jack Blaine and SV Chief Financial Officer Peter McManemy,
acquired SV, a manufacturer and wholesaler of voting systems, from Smartmatic (SM),
in a leveraged buy out
Nov 08 2007 $36.00
Acquirer SIC Code: 6799 – Investors, nec
Target Ultimate Parent: Smartmatic
Target SIC Code:7373 – Computer integrated systems design
Jan 9, 2007 continuing pattern of criminality at Shoup
(one of the founding firms in the election services industry.)
Venice, FL by Daniel Hopsicker
The supreme irony here is that, as a convicted felon, Ransom Shoup wouldn’t even be
permitted to vote in many states, like Florida. But these same states apparently have
no scruples about allowing companies owned by convicted felons to count the vote
This lack of scruples extends to appearances on television chat shows as well. Shoup
appeared on CNN’s show Burden of Proof with Greta Van Sustern after the 2000 election
debacle, along with Florida Gov Jeb Bush, opining about the state of American democracy.
But… here’s the point: We’d have never heard about any of this (and neither would you)
were it not for Gary L. Greenhalgh.
What has caused this meteoric rise in computerized voting and vote counting
where proprietary secrets destroy the transparency of the election process?
A massive public relations campaign by a handful of strategically placed
individuals has peddled computer voting as the high-tech wave of the future.
About Ransom Shoup
For nearly 20 years, Shoup, based in Bryn Mawr, Pa., has held a monopoly on the
business of repairing the city’s fleet of voting machines, even though other
companies can do the same work and at least one can do it cheaper.
Clifford Wilson, Shoup’s director of marketing
The Shoup family sold the city its present machines in 1962. Every two years since
then, Shoup has been chosen to maintain the machines, a contract worth from
$400,000 to $1 million annually, depending on the number of elections and the
wear and tear on the machines.
The report reached the Pennsylvania offices of Ransom Shoup, president of
R. W. Shoup. Mr. Wilson, the company’s chief spokesman, said it arrived in
the mail in an unmarked envelope.
In 1984, for example, Shoup’s machine was selling for about $3,800, said
Mr. Wilson, the Shoup executive. Now they sell for about $6,000 apiece.
He said that whoever gets the contract would want a price increase from its bid.
New York – The contract to R. W. Shoup Company, a long-time Board of
Elections contractor with close political ties to the board.
The story of how the Board of Elections fell far behind schedule on the biggest and
most complex contract in its history provides insight into the inner workings and
questionable contracting procedures of one of New York’s most openly political
agencies, whose board members are selected by the City Council on on the
recommendation of officials of the county Republican and Democratic parties.
R. F. Shoup Corporation (Bryn Mawr, PA). Primary Class: …..
of the invention to be detailed below is sold by the Hewlett-Packard Company under Model No.
Electronic voting machine and system
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 4641240
An electronic voting system in which a programmable electronic voting machine
is personalized by the addition of a ballot sheet and a memory cartridge containing
signals output by a computer device operated by election officials in preparing for an
election. A corresponding ballot is similarly printed by the computer device. The memory
cartridge is arranged to be used to carry the final totals back to a computer at election
headquarters for totalization and outputting of the election results. Circuitry is included
within the system for insuring election security, for providing absentee
balloting and for permitting write in voting.
United States Patent 7431209
A voting apparatus, system and method may provide data redundancy in that each vote is
recorded by two or more independent and verifiable means: i.e. by recording in one or more
electronic memory devices included in the voting machine and/or system, and/or by recording in the memory of a smart card separate from the voting machine and/or system, and/or by a confirmatory printed record for each voter. The system may utilize a unique anonymous voting session identifier to maintain the anonymity of the votes and voters.
Application Vendor: 10/255348
Inventor: Chung, Kevin Kwong-tai (Princeton, NJ, US)
116 Wilson Road, Princeton, NJ 08540
Assignee: Avante International Technology, Inc. (Princeton Junction, NJ, US)
7077313 Electronic voting method for optically scanned ballot
July 18, 2008
Assignee: Avante International Technology, Inc. (Princeton Junction, NJ)
Primary Examiner: Frech; Karl D.
Attorney Or Agent: Dann, Dorfman, Herrell & Skillman, P.C.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
The detailed description of the preferred embodiments of the present invention will be
more easily and better understood when read in conjunction with the
FIGURES of the Drawing which include:
FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example ballot intended to be read
by an optical reader;
FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example format for a voter identifier (VID);
FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D are schematic diagrams illustrating a generalized example ballot
intended to be read by an optical reader;
FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example ballot including ranked and/or
cumulative voting that is intended to be read by an optical reader;
FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram of an example ballot generating apparatus;
FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram of an example voting apparatus;
FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example ballot reader for reading optically
read ballots of the sorts illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3A 3D and 4;
FIG. 8 is a schematic flow diagram of an example ballot reading process compatible
with the apparatus of FIG. 7;
FIG. 9 is a schematic flow diagram illustrating details of a portion of the ballot
reading process of FIG. 8;
FIGS. 10A, 10B, and 10C are schematic diagrams of mark spaces of a ballot marked
in a variety of ways and of details thereof;
FIG. 11 is a schematic flow diagram of an example process for generating the
ballots of FIGS. 1, 3A 3D and 4; and
FIG. 12 is a schematic flow diagram of an example voting process utilizing the
ballot of FIGS. 1, 3A 3D and 4.
MUST SEE ALL THE LAWSUITS
SimmonsCooper files lawsuit on behalf of AVANTE International Technology Corporation.
June 28, 2006
East Alton, IL
SimmonsCooper LLC has filed a lawsuit against the three largest voting machine manufacturers for infringing the AVANTE International Technology Corporation’s Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail
(VVPAT) and optical scan patents.
Named in the suit are Diebold Election Systems, Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), and Sequoia Voting Systems. The suit was filed on behalf of Kevin Chung, CEO of
Avante International Technology Corporation, Inc., the inventor of these patents.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Diebold wins one voting machine battle
Avante International Technology Corp. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 686324 (E.D. Mo.) (Magistrate’s report)
Plaintiff alleged that Diebold Election Systems, now known as Premier, and Sequoia Voting Systems, violated the Lanham Act and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act by making claims about the capabilities of their voting machines, specifically about whether their machines complied with Illinois state requirements. This occurred, plaintiff alleged, because it owns a patent that is the only way to comply with Illinois state requirements. With respect to Sequoia, plaintiff alleged in the alternative:
either Sequoia infringed its patent, or its machines don’t comply with Illinois law and thus it made false and misleading representations.
The report found plaintiff’s allegations against Sequoia too conclusory to survive a motion to dismiss.
Its allegations against Diebold/Premier were more specific: Premier represented to Illinois customers that its equipment complies with state requirements, but that’s false, and Avante therefore lost sales and royalties.
Avante International Technology Corporation and Shoup law suites
NJ 2008 voting systems
2008. New Jersey Report: Sequoia Voting …
“Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00 DRE …”
Sequoia/Smartmatic Vendors October 18, 2008
Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine
By Andrew W. Appel, Maia Ginsburg, Harri Hursti, Brian W. Kernighan, Christopher Richards,Gang Ta
Sequoia’s optical-scan machines
Voting Machine Company Agrees to Hand Over Source Code 6/8/09
Election officials in Washington, DC, are finally going to get source code for voting machines that produced ‘phantom’ votes during the district’s primary election last September.
Sequoia Voting Systems agreed on Friday, after the city threatened a lawsuit, to hand over the proprietary code. Sequoia will also give election officials documentation describing how the source code and machines were created and maintained.
AVC Advantage touch-screen machines to Princeton University computer scientist Andrew Appel and others for a lawsuit that challenged the integrity of Sequoia’s paperless touch-screen voting machines. Voting activists had sued the state to decommission the machines. It was believed to be the first time a court sided with plaintiffs against election officials withholding source code. Appel’s team found several vulnerabilities with the system.
Sequoia initially blamed the problem on election officials
for pushing the wrong buttons, but later claimed it uncovered a problem in its software that was creating the vote errors and announced that it had fixed the issue.