I am Ron Branson, founder of the organization www.jail4judges.org. I am sure you are familiar with our effort to bring judicial accountability to South Dakota, and what happened as a result.
Basically, we were ahead in the polls approximately 3 to 1 throughout the campaign, and a poll taken after being barraged with false and misleading information, four days prior to the November 7 election revealed that we remained still ahead by eleven points, i.e. 51% to 40.
On election day, the reported outcome of the election was 89% against with 11% for. There being no reasonable explanation, many are shocked.
We are taking independent polls of the voters in South Dakota, which has resulted in only a 1% change in our support base from that of the poll taken just four days prior to the election, i.e. 50%.
I am encouraging the seeking of both a criminal and a civil remedy, the latter being in Federal Court outside of the State of South Dakota.
I am currently viewing a video tape moderated by Edward Griffin, a friend and acquaintance of mine. I find this video very interesting. Inasmuch as this matter in South Dakota involves criminal acts of the entire government of South Dakota, the implications of this matter is earth shaking and beyond imagination.
Prior to the South Dakota vote, I documented all that was going on in this election on our website, www.sd-jail4judges.org. Not one word has been changed or altered in any manner on this website, which website now stands as evidence of the facts known prior to the election.
You may reach me at [email protected], or on the phone at (605) 214-1301. Bill Stegmeier in South Dakota, who sponsored Amendment E, is spearheading an effort of taking our next course of action. He may be reached at (605) 940-0354, or at his email, [email protected].
Because of the implications, I think this matter is worthy of blowing wide open this issue of manipulation of the voting process, using South Dakota Amendment E as an example. At issue here also involves the judiciary throughout this entire nation, as the Chief Justices of several of the various states have spoken out in the newspapers and media condemning our effort of bringing about judicial accountability to this nation, starting with South Dakota.
Please do get back with me on this. God bless.
A California court has approved a $2.6 million settlement between Diebold and the State of California and Alameda County. The state and county had sued Diebold for fraudulent claims about the security of its electronic voting machines.
Diebold, whose subsidiary Diebold Election Systems manufactures the voting machines at the heart of the suit, will pay the state $2.6 million, and Alameda County another $100,000.
The court ordered that $500,000 of the lump sum be used to help form a voter education and poll worker training program in California, coordinated through the University of California Institute of Governmental Studies.
Diebold has also agreed to certain technology and reporting obligations that will provide election officials with a better understanding of how to use its voting machines.
The settlement is the fruit of a suit filed in September by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who argued that Diebold was not truthful about the security and reliability of its electronic voting machines.
Lockyer, who earlier dropped a criminal probe into Diebold, claimed that Diebold provided Alameda County with software that was not certified by the government. Researchers earlier determined the machines contained dangerous flaws.
Researchers said the voting system could easily allow someone to cast multiple votes in the same election. Last April, California set stringent standards for electronic voting by ordering new security measures for e-voting machines.
Return To JNJ Library Index for All Years