Subject: ES&S and the county investigation
Honorable Peter C. Harvey,
Several ES&S election machine counting errors have been exposed in recent elections. Some came to light through hand recounts, others by inconsistent machine recounts. If even ONE of them is real this many years after the technology has been able to be perfected, their too-expensive gig needs to be over. There is no advantage of election machines so important that it should come at the expense of accuracy. If speed was one of those supposed advantages, ES&S and Dominion machine counting pauses for several hours after midnight in several elections totally debunk that as being important to the people in control of the machines. Please cut no slack to ES&S for any of their sloppiness. Purported advantages of free, fair, secure, speed, and anything else are insidious distractions to the most important need for accuracy in elections. Ballot counting accuracy is profoundly SACRED. I urge you not to be swayed by ES&S’ other distracting sales pitches for their products. It bears repeating and emphasis at the risk of sounding trite: accuracy cannot be sacrificed on the altars of any of their other sales pitches, especially that silly, shiny sales pitch of speed.
As a concerned citizen and resident of Nebraska, I hope you’ll accept my letter for your investigation of election problems. I ask you to consider the poor track record of ES&S election machine accuracy around the country. Whenever hand counts are conducted following ES&S machines counts, ES&S NEVER defends their machine accuracies. NEVER. They ALWAYS make some excuse about why their machine counts don’t match hand counts. I therefore ask you to agree with ES&S about that - their machines do not count votes accurately.
ES&S worldwide headquarters are located in Omaha, NE. For counting votes the entire state uses ES&S products and services exclusively. Although ES&S is by far the largest of the election machine companies in the entire country, they do NOT have a stellar reputation here in their home state. The people of this state, those who are informed anyway, are trying to get ES&S machines eliminated in favor of hand counting. ES&S seems to be doing their absolute best to go under the radar in silence. This kind of attraction they have to darkness indicates to us that they are dishonest and fearful of exposure. We have been observing those mysterious election night counting shutdowns followed by race reversals then squeaky tight victories by candidates who were never ahead during election day counting, and we are doggone fed up with it!
It is public knowledge that Scott County, IA is known to have proven ES&S equipment count problems in a legislative race last November. Maybe not so public is that a precinct in South Dakota caught ES&S equipment miscounting, reported here: https://robertjborer.substack.com/p/breaking-news-in-sd. These machines are legally required to achieve error rates far, far below the error rates ES&S is tacitly admitting to by their silence to defend them. Worse for ES&S would be for them to attract attention trying and failing to defend the indefensible, but PLEASE challenge them to do so anyway for the sake of accurate elections.
Besides the accuracy problems, WI investigator the Honorable Michael Gableman states in his 2020 election investigative report that ES&S machines allowed suspicious election night remote logins and vote count tampering. Nebraska's handicapped booths were caught with ES&S wifi vulnerabilities. You can be sure these incidents are but a tiny fraction of ES&S' inexcusable and apparently malevolent anomalies.
# # #
Thank you! Motivated parties, if you want to help let ES&S know they can't stay under the radar any longer, please consider sending something like this yourself.
ALSO: Emailed to Lancaster County Board of Commissioners on July 25, 2023
Dear Lancaster County Board of Commissioners,
According to Sam Lyon, this county's GOP chair, the supposed "random" audits of precincts are not random at all. Instead, the only precincts that are eligible for these audits are those that appear on their face to be totally in order. Excluded first from being chosen for audit are those precincts that have some characteristics of or are characteristic of fraud. Is this true? Sam said he knows this from his first hand presence, observation, questioning and receiving answers to this effect from election officials. If true, the very precincts disqualified from post election random audits are the ones most needing to be looked into for fraud.
Hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections.
Whenever hand counts double-checked the race results of ES&S election equipment, ES&S invariably, that means in 100% of the instances, eventually acquiesced to the results of the hand counts, thereby confirming that hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections. Whether either method gives perfection is not the point, is it? The point is which method do the people trust more. If ES&S doesn't trust their own products, they show how clueless they are gaining people's trust.
If ES&S were an honest company, they would recall their products immediately until they gleaned from every single one of those instances why the difference is there. Then, they would gain the people's trust with transparency. Instead, they let some of those hand count results stand without appearing to care why their machines report differently. In other cases they blame causes that they didn't know existed prior to some candidate drawing their attention to a miscount - a situational awareness deficiency unbecoming of an organization as large as ES&S.
Of course, ES&S is required to self report to you, or to somebody at least, their vote count failures...aren't they? Does anyone know if they are subject to self reporting rules by any authority whatsoever?
Why shouldn't election officials be more than willing to let ES&S investigate every race to any and every degree? In fact, why aren't election officials DEMANDING that, now that they prove to have a MUCH poorer track record than 1 in 10,000,000 error rate? Let me say this as loud and clear as I can - ES&S is grossly cavalier only to care about miscounts by their equipment if someone who they think highly enough of MAKES them care, rather than performing the required ongoing 100% oversight of their products and procedures that is justified because of their many times they have to acquiesce to the superiority of hand count accuracies.
"Implied-in-fact Contract" exists between each voter and their election officials and is enforceable once a ballot is surrendered properly
source - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ne-supreme-court/1669167.html accessed 07/24/2023 10:21am
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Martin V. Linscott, individually and on behalf of Shasteen, Linscott & Brock, P.C., a Nebraska professional corporation, appellant, v. Rolf Edward Shasteen and Tony J. Brock, appellees.
Decided: June 06, 2014
second paragraph of the "ANALYSIS" section contains:
"....We therefore begin our analysis by setting out the established Nebraska law on implied in fact contracts.
To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract.2 A binding mutual understanding or meeting of the minds sufficient to establish a contract requires no precise formality or express utterance from the parties about the details of the proposed agreement; it may be implied from the parties' conduct and the surrounding circumstances.3
An implied contract arises where the intention of the parties is not expressed in writing but where the circumstances are such as to show a mutual intent to contract.4 Evidence of facts and circumstances, together with the words of the parties used at the time, from which reasonable persons in conducting the ordinary affairs of business, but with special reference to the particular matter on hand, would be justified in inferring such a contract or promise, is sufficient.5 The determination of the parties' intent to make a contract is to be gathered from objective manifestations–the conduct of the parties, language used, or acts done by them, or other pertinent circumstances surrounding the transaction.6 If the parties' conduct is sufficient to show an implied contract, it is just as enforceable as an express contract.7"
I assert that many thousands of Breaches of Implied Duty exist by election officials relative to:
- implied warranty to count accurately even down to this single vote using the counting means that has been demonstrated to be most accurate
- implied warranty to prevent diluting of this vote by illicit votes overtly and publicly known and observable in excess of legitimate numbers of votes
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information within contracts with and as to the suitability of moral character of parties empowered (legally or not) to so control the reporting of race outcomes and whether said reporting is capable of deviating from truth and honesty even to the extent of exerting significant effect on whether candidates might demand hand recounts of original paper ballots. The moral character of said parties will most certainly be relevant to many if not most voters if said parties are or employ felons or ex-felons, communists, satanists, atheists, anti-American persons, etc. Do they have political bias? (WHO DOESN'T!) Or malicious intent? Considering the position of Edison Research polling company, there are so many possibilities for bad actors in these capacities maliciously to affect race outcomes and to maliciously manipulate the expectations of voters and groom them to accept planned manipulated race results. No laws prohibit any of these RELEVANT things from existing, but they are profoundly relevant to many if not most voters who vehemently oppose them being between them and the final race results.
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information that ES&S is not subject to ANY self reporting requirements for when they've acquiesced to hand counts proving their products to be inaccurate and/or untruthful.
Bcc: My Election Corruption Investigators group
ALSO: (never delivered)
In elections world wide and for all history, implied-in-fact contracts have always been formed when voters surrender their ballots to election officials. Just like any other implied-in-fact contract, it is legally enforceable. In other words, contractual duties are legally required of election officials' for the outcomes of elections to be binding upon the voters. Since this Board has some oversight or action item responsibilities related to ES&S or election officials, I'll address you as sharing in being duty-bound about this issue. You can't use your attorneys to do your thinking for you, although if they've been diligent and already told all of this, there's a good sign from them. Among election officials numerous responsibilities they must protect legitimate votes from getting watered down by illegitimate ones. Because elections have been conducted in which ES&S has ignored illegitimate numbers of votes, the ES&S-counted races in those elections must be obviated. No lesser remedy combination will be acceptable to voters. If you do not demand that ES&S reverence this your contractual requirement with voters, you are derelict in your duties.
This duty is only one of several you are allowing ES&S to make you derelict in. It is also a form of fraud if one of the parties in an implied contract attempts to renege on or alter their responsibilities by not revealing relevant information including whether any third parties like ES&S are of high enough moral character to convert uncounted and unrecorded ballot selections into proprietary electronic signals that become more authoritative at that moment of conversion than the original ballot. The implied contract is with the voter so it is the voter who will determine what information is relevant and what level of moral character they demand of ES&S. It is not illegal for ES&S to be communist or have malicious intent or be unconscionable or be atheist or be satanist, but most or all voters would agree that those things are relevant and have not been revealed prior to them forming the implied contract by their action of surrendering their completed ballot.
It's likely that the election officials also could have implied-in-law contracts with to the extent of protecting legitimate votes in other counties from getting watered down by illegitimate ones from your county on a shared ballot proposition. Your responsibility to ensure protections extends out far beyond just this county.
For example, supposing you disclosed as contractually required that ES&S handles my completed ballot unsupervised and unsupervisable, yet I as a voter am forcibly kept from information relevant to me to vet ES&S to my satisfaction. Knowing certain information about them is RELEVANT to me, but they don't publish it. I want to know if they meet higher moral standards than the law cares about or even is allowed to care about - like, are they conscionable and without malicious intent for starters. I don't want unsuperviseable handling of my ballot selections by communist, anti-american, atheist, or satanist parties at ANY level - the consciences of these types are not acceptable to me even though the law allows them to run this kind of business. I assume that your official capacity would limit you to vet to ANY of these standards that I have. The mere fact that I am not allowed to know relevant information I may ask for is grounds to obviate race outcomes. In fact, relevant information is kept undisclosed to us steadfastly, us if not illegally.
You have several other additional requirements in implied contracts that do exist with many coerced voters. Again, voters being put under duress does not nullify the existence of the implied contracts, but it does give voters standing to challenge the declared outcomes.
The contract terms that the people would never be able to examine the paper ballots in recounts is not acceptable to me, a party coerced to this implied contract involvement. Ignorance of the law by either party of any of these requirements does not nullify the existence of an implied contract, but such ignorance can certainly make the election officials and all voting bodies above them unable to legally conduct any more of those style elections PLUS obviate the results of decades of prior elections.
Those of us addressing this Lancaster County Board are very acutely aware that if we postulated a legal challenge against you, you'd feel justified in never responding to us about this except through your attorneys. So we state emphatically that we are NOT intending to take any legal action against this county. We don't need to. Legal action in any other county in Nebraska will satisfy us, and that is exactly what we hope will happen organically due to this livestream.