Re: order in FL-13 election contest

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Fri Dec 29 2006 - 16:50:20 CST

I am not a lawyer. I am a scientist. This is a travesty on justice.
This judge demonstrates shocking ignorance of the methods by which
exactly the results seen in this election can be engineered
regardless of any testing procedures employed (Findings D, F).

Finding C claims that the 18,412 undervotes are alleged. This is not
true. They are in fact the allegations of the election administration
and are data reported by the tallying software. What may be alleged
is the significance of those reported undervotes.

Finding E. exhibits an Orwellian twist on the meaning of the word
audit. There is no possibility of an audit when the 18,412 undervotes
reported by the tallying software cannot be proven because ballots do
not exist.

Findings G, H, and I are unfair to say the least, because the lack of
paper ballots prepared and cast by the voters guarantees that
evidence of wrongdoing will not exist. To claim that the plaintiffs
have no case because the evidence, by design, does not exist is egregious.

I am outraged by the ignorance of this judge. I don't know whether it
is ignorance or a deliberate miscarriage of justice. Either way it is
abominable.

To anyone with experience in analysis of election data a report of
18,412 undervotes in an election of this importance would demand a
recount of paper ballots or, in this case a re-election with no
further evidence required.

This nation is falling apart if this kind of injustice can be accepted.

Jerry Lobdill

At 02:38 PM 12/29/2006, you wrote:

>
>Judge Issues Order Denying Jennings and Intervenors Permission to
>Examine Source Code in FL-13 Election Contest
>
>
>
>I have posted the judge's order
><http://electionlawblog.org/archives/ess-pdf.pdf>here. A snippet:
>"Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to demonstrate that the
>parallel testing was flawed and/or the results not valid. ...The
>testimony of Plaintiffs' experts was nothing more than conjecture
>and not supported by credible evidence."
>--
>Rick Hasen
>William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
>Loyola Law School
>919 Albany Street
>Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
>(213)736-1466
>(213)380-3769 - fax
><mailto:rick.hasen@lls.edu>rick.hasen@lls.edu
>http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
><http://electionlawblog.org>http://electionlawblog.org

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:16 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST