taking Diebold to task

["Paul Tiger" <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we are going to do anything with the AG it should be to address what
occurred in November of 2003 here in Boulder County.

I am not clear, but it appears that we have good evidence that Diebold had
software installed on the optical scanners that had not been approved by the
SoS and other agencies that govern elections.

It is possible that we have three defendants here: Diebold; the Boulder
County Clerk; & the SoS.
Diebold for installing the untested and unapproved software; the clerk for
not checking before the election; and the SoS for certifying the election
even though they were aware that it had been performed with incorrect
software.

At present the ballots are still in storage in the Boulder Clerk's office
and they could be tallied again. Either with the approved software and
hardware from Diebold, or by hand.

If there is anything that we could do to move forward on forcing a hand
count it would be this issue. I believe that it may be possible to get a
district judge to force a re-count in our county based on the information
that we have, and that the SoS has admitted to concerning the GEMS software.

Keep in mind that this would only be a political football with local
candidates who won non-partisan seats in town and city councils in the 2003
election. Since this was an odd-year election it would be possibly be the
most opportune elections to re-count.

Let the circus commence.

Paul Tiger
paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.PaulTiger.com

When you earnestly believe that you can compensate for a lack of skill,
there is no end to what you can't do.