In the last 2 Douglas County Commissioner mtgs, I forewarned them I will serve them with a Notice Of Tort Claim that will demand our ballots be kept secret from ES&S per Nebraska Constitution Article VI section 6. I told them a LOT of their constituents agree. Connie, someone needs to join me in this that knows the number of names you have that vote in Douglas County. I'm doing the same against city, election commissioner and state. I've been going this alone, but this step I NEED THIS HELP WHEN I SERVE THEM. See timestamp 1:11:24 in this https://www.youtube.com/live/_rPDE3ZOQRQ?si=mSpZycd2_uqtWpxa&t=4284 and timestamp 1:13:43 in this https://www.youtube.com/live/7gWTFgcZ2Vc?si=fMca9eKlNSqlbW0a&t=4422
What I need is some more substantial evidence that "lots" of voters do NOT waive their right to secrecy from ES&S of their ballot. Likewise, when I serve the state in Lincoln I sure do hope I'm not alone there, either!
Her reply to me:
Could you create a simple 5 min presentation with slides to explain this and get people on board?
I'd also like to do a phone call with you, me and Larry to discuss. Would that work?
We need clear as a bell!
My reply back to her:
Such a 5 min presentation falls on deaf ears/eyes when I am a total stranger to them and not introduced by someone who they recognize. Let's do the call and get this off dead center. God bless you!
Why can't I exercise that right for my ballot to be kept secret from entities I don't trust? I don't trust anyone I haven't vetted for seeing my ballot selections and from unsupervised parties and from anyone who can exploit my ballot selections (in concert with Edison Research, for example. They make money, I'm sure from handling votes, otherwise they wouldn't do it.). That includes ES&S, knowing what I know about them.
When Rick Hill filed a lawsuit against everyone he did (see article), the gripe they had was "Attorney Patrick Guinan, who represented a bulk of the election commissioners, said most of the allegations involve the 2020 election and Hill failed to file notice of a tort claim in the counties first, as required to get in the court's front doors."
The Notice Of Tort Claim is what I'll call a Litigation Avoidance mechanism to force the government bodies to listen to the complaint. In the 5 minute public comment of the meetings, they can and do just ignore everyone. I've had quite enough of them already ignoring me and all my patriot friends.
Great question. I can only assume that when they go to reconcile records at the end of the day at the polls, and they count the number of signatures and compare that number with the number of ballots,, if equal, they assume you voted. I'll ask a friend what they think. Obviously, if the numbers don't reconcile, we have a problem. Again, great question.
As for mail-in voting, I don't do that. I think that's a terrible idea. You're obviously giving the secrecy of your vote away by voting by mail. The person opening that mail sees both your name and your vote.
Mail-in voting should be illegal for that reason, as the secrecy of your vote is not preserved, as Ken points out.
Oh - is there a "public hearing" subject to the Open Meetings Statute? Widespread and timely "Notice"? That doesn't seem to be enforced by the Co. Attorney nor AG, as stated in the statute!
Have you not heard about DC NVAP's Resolution(?) re: Election Commission procedures, .....? Where were they last Tuesday?
As for Article VI, it guarantees that YOUR VOTE will be preserved, which they do (allegedly) by keeping the ballot that it is cast on for 22 months, and that the SECRECY OF YOUR VOTE will be preserved, which they do by not connecting your name with it. The fact that they give your ballot to ES&S is beside the point, as far as I can tell. Neither ES&S nor any other person who gets it is going know which ballot is yours nor how you voted.
The hypothetical question will be posed: What prevents a company like ES&S, if allowed to violate the secrecy of my ballot, from exploiting my ballot selections in some way as to calculate a number of opposite votes needed to override mine and stop their machines counting after dark while they wait for those opposite votes to "arrive"?
Another angle on this is similar to the logic of implied-in-law contract (the other type of legally enforceable implied contract). If a third party comes along after someone else's act of saving someone and tries to make money from said act, it is called unjust enrichment if they don't compensate. Same can be considered with my ballot, I'll maintain.
Give me some time.....and a constitutional attorney
Why do they have a QR code on them if not to identify? And if they can't identify you, how can a person go into their website and find out if your vote was counted or not? That same QR code in on the envelope you sign when you turn your ballot in. It has to be used to identify you or how would they be able to tell you if your vote has been counted? I do not have any evidence of that, common sense or I just assumed that is how they know if your vote was counted, I could be all wrong, you know what assuming does😉 Happy Thanksgiving!! 🦃🦃
A friend of ours lost a daughter to a mass shooting in N. Omaha. She has filed a "Tort" for $1 million against Douglas County. It was on the "Agenda" last week, but not discussed, not a public hearing,...., so how do you think a "tort" claim would not clam everyone up?
The tort claim is supposed to get everyone to OPEN up and see if they can negotiate to prevent the case from ending up in court. I am truly sorry for you friend's loss. I know it is more than the heart can take.
" a Constitution must be interpreted in 'a broad and liberal spirit'." I'm confident this is court admissible. The logic from there: Is secrecy "only because I don't want my identity following my selections?" That not only adds words that don't exist but it adds them to make that right less broad and less liberal.
A path never traveled before doesn't mean it ends in failure. What was that Star Trek phrase? Boldly go...Where no man has gone before? Courage for such a time as this. I'm only trying to sling one little stone to add it to the others. Isn't that likewise why we think our vote matters?
No call w/o Robert J. Borer - who has "Standing" - with skin in the game , as a candidate for: (1) S of S: (2) Governor. (3) Refused records/docs/inf. from all across the State!
Ken you haven't been there much, until recently, and you don't realize that that really are not listening! I've been at them for about 6 years - every week! They don't listen, and don't care! But that seems to be common amongst our so called representatives! Not Your fault - but don't think you have more standing than Robert! The State doesn't think he has "Standing". That's the problem!
I've been calling for a "Presentation" by We the People, for long time! That's where WE get more than 5 minutes. Fremont, and Dodge County have serious problems also. All are related to the lack of proper enforcement of The Open Meetings" Statute and "Transparency", who has "standing", and wo doesn't - under both Constitutions.
By the way the Ne Constitution, and Legislature need reformatting!
See my # 54. watch the DCB video Ken refers to.. Hicory Dikory Dock, the mouse ..., He should forces with The DC NVAP, drag them down there with their "Resolution" for ....! Too long and technical for 5 minutes or less "Citizen Comments" - and they might call ....?, "out of order" send him packing! Ask us to do this for him??? No one has shown up yet with that! A "Presentation" is needed , but by Bob Borer!!!
You, I, Connie, ..., can join as "Proponents" and keep THEM at bay, for a change, as opponents of - "WE the PEOPLE!
All votes shall be by ballot or by other means authorized by the Legislature whereby the vote and the secrecy of the elector's vote will be preserved."
Given the recent spate of election fraud by computerized systems, I fiercely want my ballot selections to be kept secret from anyone I don't trust. Such sentiment makes me want to see in the above statement that I have a constitutional right to demand my ballot selections to be kept secret from them. But even before computers existed, you can easily accept that the authors of this section would envision that voters have a right to expect secrecy of their vote throughout travel from ballot box to the final step of official counting. On the other hand, I've encountered some people who instead think that "secrecy" speaks of a person's weaker right - the right to anonymity from their ballot selections. Voters are allowed to exercise their voting rights while their identity is kept secret, right? No, it's not the voter's identity that they have a right to secrecy of, it's their VOTE. How can anyone deny that voters have always wanted the prying eyes of malicious people not to see their vote before it gets counted so as to prevent, among other things, their ballot from theft by those who don't like the way their vote was cast?
Given that we the people govern ourselves, the question "What or how do WE WANT it to mean?" (still being 100% faithful to the plain wording, and to conscience, and to a lesser extent court precedent) is far and away the most compelling standard we MUST observe in reconciling this.
A secondary principle to recognize is, What is the more established and acceptable practice? (if there could be a conflict in practice)
Thirdly is a tie for 1) what the plain text says and 2) what its authors meant by it.
Looking at those three points, the simplest to address is the second one, that of whether the accepted practice over centuries precludes one or the other understandings of this right to secrecy. To me, our centuries-long established practice of how we handle votes and ballots is perfectly compatible with both understandings, so we skip that principle...EXCEPT! Except that a relatively new way of handling ballots has been introduced with the advent of computers. The problems of computerized handling of votes are becoming increasingly known, and they are not in any way trivial nor immaterial, so we'll revisit them in a later paragraph.
Now looking at the question, "How/What do WE WANT IT to mean?" Plain wording and conscience in this computerized, hackable, exploitable world both allows us and encourages us to protect our votes the greatest level of secrecy - secrecy both of authorship AND content. Does anyone have a problem with that? Election integrity groups do exist composed of people with decidedly leftist ideologies while most groups hold to conservative ideologies. The election case in Georgia is being driven by two election integrity groups composed of leftists. Of course even more than them, the political right is entirely in lock step support of the non-computerized, non-hackable, non-exploitable choice. We'll conclude that WE WANT THE SECRECY OF THE CONTENT OF OUR VOTES PROTECTED JUST AS MUCH AS WE WANT OUR ANONYMITY OF AUTHORSHIP PROTECTED.
That leaves us to grapple with what the plain text says vs. what its authors meant by it.
First however, since this point might be where we have the most difference of opinion, consider the question of our future generation's ability to change the decision we'll make today. Should we deprive them, even temporarily while they re-litigate a wrong decision by us, of their ability to increase the level of secrecy of their vote they could want if we choose to limit the word "secrecy" to "authorship"? It's obvious that outcome can later bring regret.
More importantly and speaking of regret, what regret might we have if we decide the strongest meaning of the phrase "secrecy of the elector's vote" to include secrecy of the vote's content? I SEE NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Should an enforceable court decision aligning with that meaning not be prudent because it might cause some kind of harm or consternation in society? I can't see that happening, either.
Returning to "what the plain text says vs. what its authors meant by it", until someone proves the authors meant "anonymity of authorship" instead of "secrecy of content" we're just wasting time in pointless debate.
This random but relevant question needs to be answered - We know everyone would be alarmed if election equipment got hacked into, but exactly why would they do that? More to my point, are the gray hatted software programmers who are sworn to secrecy by their secretive company warranted to be any more honest than hackers? No one has given me any reason to trust the private, partisan election company's software programmers nor the company! Let's all agree that we'll be amenable to supporting those of us, though maybe in the minority, who want our ballot selections to be KEPT SECRET FROM ES&S. God bless you!
The only Notice Of Tort Claim allowed against the state is for monetary remedy, 100% monetary. So it looks like I'll just file against Douglas County. Which means I'll keep them updated while I go through the process of writing it, which also means no more Lancaster County visits likely for a few weeks.
I'm thinking the remedy I'll state is that they schedule a public hearing some evening, quorum required, subject of which is to be ES&S's performance over the years. To be scheduled after Mike Lindell releases his report of this last election
If you continue to watch the MTG you refer to - at 1 hour 29 minutes you will see/hear me, ..... , then LEJ all on pertinent topics. But didn't you leave right away? So you didn't notice that not only were they not listening, or responding, to me or the rest of us (THE"VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO) That C. Rodgers is not even looking up - doing something else! MAB looks dumbfounded, frustrated, that we dare Waste their time! Dare you waste ours?
When the center hikes the ball - if you have already left your position - missed the ball and you can not then pick it up and run with it. If they would not talk about two items ON the Agenda, one of which is stated as a tort by ... for.... and they don't open it for discussion nor 'Citizen Comments" then they make an ASS/u/ME! - with your assistance!
Then Co. Attorney DK. followed right after me, for a "Presentation" re: ....! do you not see the difference? Why not acknowledge and assist RJB rather than an end run w/o the ball itself????
Great discussion, everyone!
Ooops. Slight problem with undetected spell check issue. I meant to say ‘veracity’. 😃
Uhhh - how 'bout "undetected smell"!
At 40 minutes into this video more detailed info on CISA.
https://m.youtube.com/live/uth4JuCfB0M?si=sV6wDgUviCXe2GCw
What part of "Putch", "coup", "Anarchy, Revolution,..." do Americans not get, nor know or care abou? Duhhhhh!
Thankfully GA is not the only state questioning the voracity of electronic voting devices. We are not alone in this endeavor!
Great post again, Bob!
I'm staying inside , as I might be mistook for the TG Turkey!
Happy Thanksgiving all, hope it is Blessed.
https://joehoft.com/receipts-cisa-and-att-pushed-connecting-elections-to-firstnet-mark-zuckerberg-paid-firstnet-bills-firstnet-infested-with-hackable-chinese-components/
Might not get to any mtg tomorrow unless I get well
May God refresh.
The state Statute is extremely VAGUE, What the hell is a ballot! In some countries it's ink on your thumb!
I just sent this out to Connie R.:
In the last 2 Douglas County Commissioner mtgs, I forewarned them I will serve them with a Notice Of Tort Claim that will demand our ballots be kept secret from ES&S per Nebraska Constitution Article VI section 6. I told them a LOT of their constituents agree. Connie, someone needs to join me in this that knows the number of names you have that vote in Douglas County. I'm doing the same against city, election commissioner and state. I've been going this alone, but this step I NEED THIS HELP WHEN I SERVE THEM. See timestamp 1:11:24 in this https://www.youtube.com/live/_rPDE3ZOQRQ?si=mSpZycd2_uqtWpxa&t=4284 and timestamp 1:13:43 in this https://www.youtube.com/live/7gWTFgcZ2Vc?si=fMca9eKlNSqlbW0a&t=4422
What I need is some more substantial evidence that "lots" of voters do NOT waive their right to secrecy from ES&S of their ballot. Likewise, when I serve the state in Lincoln I sure do hope I'm not alone there, either!
Her reply to me:
Could you create a simple 5 min presentation with slides to explain this and get people on board?
I'd also like to do a phone call with you, me and Larry to discuss. Would that work?
We need clear as a bell!
My reply back to her:
Such a 5 min presentation falls on deaf ears/eyes when I am a total stranger to them and not introduced by someone who they recognize. Let's do the call and get this off dead center. God bless you!
Ken, I don't see the argument from Article VI. Can we talk this out? Give me your thoughts as logically as you can.
Also, I don't understand the Tort Claim and the basis for it. Can you address that as well?
Thank you, Bob, for saying so. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/articles.php?article=VI-6 says
VI-6.
Votes, how cast.
All votes shall be by ballot or by other means authorized by the Legislature whereby the vote and the secrecy of the elector's vote will be preserved.
Source
Neb. Const. art. VII, sec. 6 (1875);
Transferred by Constitutional Convention, 1919-1920, art. VI, sec. 6;
Amended 1972, Laws 1971, LB 339, sec. 1.
Annotations
Secrecy as to how any elector votes is basic to electoral process. Dugan v. Vlach, 195 Neb. 81, 237 N.W.2d 104 (1975). https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1975/40114-1.html
Why can't I exercise that right for my ballot to be kept secret from entities I don't trust? I don't trust anyone I haven't vetted for seeing my ballot selections and from unsupervised parties and from anyone who can exploit my ballot selections (in concert with Edison Research, for example. They make money, I'm sure from handling votes, otherwise they wouldn't do it.). That includes ES&S, knowing what I know about them.
The Notice Of Tort is what Rick Hill failed to file/serve: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/rick-hill-state-officials-election-fraud-lawsuit/article_df5c51fe-36f2-11ee-92a0-6b96bddaadb3.html where you'll find "Attorney Patrick Guinan, who represented a bulk of the election commissioners, said most of the allegations involve the 2020 election and Hill failed to file notice of a tort claim in the counties first, as required to get in the court's front doors."
As for the Notice of Tort, I don't know how that works. Can you explain it to me??
When Rick Hill filed a lawsuit against everyone he did (see article), the gripe they had was "Attorney Patrick Guinan, who represented a bulk of the election commissioners, said most of the allegations involve the 2020 election and Hill failed to file notice of a tort claim in the counties first, as required to get in the court's front doors."
The Notice Of Tort Claim is what I'll call a Litigation Avoidance mechanism to force the government bodies to listen to the complaint. In the 5 minute public comment of the meetings, they can and do just ignore everyone. I've had quite enough of them already ignoring me and all my patriot friends.
Thank you.
I gave this response to "Free Speech" down below:
Great question. I can only assume that when they go to reconcile records at the end of the day at the polls, and they count the number of signatures and compare that number with the number of ballots,, if equal, they assume you voted. I'll ask a friend what they think. Obviously, if the numbers don't reconcile, we have a problem. Again, great question.
As for mail-in voting, I don't do that. I think that's a terrible idea. You're obviously giving the secrecy of your vote away by voting by mail. The person opening that mail sees both your name and your vote.
Mail-in voting should be illegal for that reason, as the secrecy of your vote is not preserved, as Ken points out.
Every County? /Check out Iowa"s S of S and their Election "Procedures"!
Oh - is there a "public hearing" subject to the Open Meetings Statute? Widespread and timely "Notice"? That doesn't seem to be enforced by the Co. Attorney nor AG, as stated in the statute!
Have you not heard about DC NVAP's Resolution(?) re: Election Commission procedures, .....? Where were they last Tuesday?
No.
As for Article VI, it guarantees that YOUR VOTE will be preserved, which they do (allegedly) by keeping the ballot that it is cast on for 22 months, and that the SECRECY OF YOUR VOTE will be preserved, which they do by not connecting your name with it. The fact that they give your ballot to ES&S is beside the point, as far as I can tell. Neither ES&S nor any other person who gets it is going know which ballot is yours nor how you voted.
" a Constitution must be interpreted in 'a broad and liberal spirit'."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjFyN_Eh9mCAxUykYkEHTRbAfwQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D2549207&usg=AOvVaw0sZ3ZCa4mvPhxrqI0lWkrZ&opi=89978449
The hypothetical question will be posed: What prevents a company like ES&S, if allowed to violate the secrecy of my ballot, from exploiting my ballot selections in some way as to calculate a number of opposite votes needed to override mine and stop their machines counting after dark while they wait for those opposite votes to "arrive"?
Another angle on this is similar to the logic of implied-in-law contract (the other type of legally enforceable implied contract). If a third party comes along after someone else's act of saving someone and tries to make money from said act, it is called unjust enrichment if they don't compensate. Same can be considered with my ballot, I'll maintain.
Give me some time.....and a constitutional attorney
I think that's a separate issue from the issue of preserving the secrecy of your vote.
...
That said, I'm starting to see something here. You might be opening my eyes.
VI-6 has requires two things. 1) that your vote be preserved and 2) that the secrecy of your vote be preserved.
If vote-counts are being manipulated, then your vote and my vote and everyone else's votes are NOT being preserved.
Thank you!!
If the vote-counts are secret, we must assume those vote-counts are being manipulated until proven otherwise.
Just like we must assume the tabulators are connected to the internet until proven otherwise.
Teamwork!
They all have a QR code that identifies the person though, so if your ballot is scanned they have all of that info by scanning that QR code.
How does that work?
Between the time I get my ballot, cast my votes, and turn it back in, it is never connected with my name.
Why do they have a QR code on them if not to identify? And if they can't identify you, how can a person go into their website and find out if your vote was counted or not? That same QR code in on the envelope you sign when you turn your ballot in. It has to be used to identify you or how would they be able to tell you if your vote has been counted? I do not have any evidence of that, common sense or I just assumed that is how they know if your vote was counted, I could be all wrong, you know what assuming does😉 Happy Thanksgiving!! 🦃🦃
Scan this - it goes out over the INERNET, and you are targeted with .....! What's secret or propriatory (sp) about that?
A friend of ours lost a daughter to a mass shooting in N. Omaha. She has filed a "Tort" for $1 million against Douglas County. It was on the "Agenda" last week, but not discussed, not a public hearing,...., so how do you think a "tort" claim would not clam everyone up?
The tort claim is supposed to get everyone to OPEN up and see if they can negotiate to prevent the case from ending up in court. I am truly sorry for you friend's loss. I know it is more than the heart can take.
" a Constitution must be interpreted in 'a broad and liberal spirit'." I'm confident this is court admissible. The logic from there: Is secrecy "only because I don't want my identity following my selections?" That not only adds words that don't exist but it adds them to make that right less broad and less liberal.
A path never traveled before doesn't mean it ends in failure. What was that Star Trek phrase? Boldly go...Where no man has gone before? Courage for such a time as this. I'm only trying to sling one little stone to add it to the others. Isn't that likewise why we think our vote matters?
No call w/o Robert J. Borer - who has "Standing" - with skin in the game , as a candidate for: (1) S of S: (2) Governor. (3) Refused records/docs/inf. from all across the State!
?
We ALL have skin in the game, some more than others, but each of us contributes or else we don't deserve either (freedom or safety)
But We the People need one leader, with the Divine Guidance of George Washington, ..., back to Joshua!
"God bless us all, every one!"
Ken you haven't been there much, until recently, and you don't realize that that really are not listening! I've been at them for about 6 years - every week! They don't listen, and don't care! But that seems to be common amongst our so called representatives! Not Your fault - but don't think you have more standing than Robert! The State doesn't think he has "Standing". That's the problem!
I've been calling for a "Presentation" by We the People, for long time! That's where WE get more than 5 minutes. Fremont, and Dodge County have serious problems also. All are related to the lack of proper enforcement of The Open Meetings" Statute and "Transparency", who has "standing", and wo doesn't - under both Constitutions.
By the way the Ne Constitution, and Legislature need reformatting!
1. I don't need more standing than Robert - we live in a republic.
2. You need to learn how to get them to listen - file a Notice Of Tort Claim. Let's see how it goes.
It's obvious that NONE of our "elected" people are listening.
Haven?????
See my # 54. watch the DCB video Ken refers to.. Hicory Dikory Dock, the mouse ..., He should forces with The DC NVAP, drag them down there with their "Resolution" for ....! Too long and technical for 5 minutes or less "Citizen Comments" - and they might call ....?, "out of order" send him packing! Ask us to do this for him??? No one has shown up yet with that! A "Presentation" is needed , but by Bob Borer!!!
You, I, Connie, ..., can join as "Proponents" and keep THEM at bay, for a change, as opponents of - "WE the PEOPLE!
Absolutely!
Nebraska Constitution Article VI-section 6:
Votes, how cast.
All votes shall be by ballot or by other means authorized by the Legislature whereby the vote and the secrecy of the elector's vote will be preserved."
Given the recent spate of election fraud by computerized systems, I fiercely want my ballot selections to be kept secret from anyone I don't trust. Such sentiment makes me want to see in the above statement that I have a constitutional right to demand my ballot selections to be kept secret from them. But even before computers existed, you can easily accept that the authors of this section would envision that voters have a right to expect secrecy of their vote throughout travel from ballot box to the final step of official counting. On the other hand, I've encountered some people who instead think that "secrecy" speaks of a person's weaker right - the right to anonymity from their ballot selections. Voters are allowed to exercise their voting rights while their identity is kept secret, right? No, it's not the voter's identity that they have a right to secrecy of, it's their VOTE. How can anyone deny that voters have always wanted the prying eyes of malicious people not to see their vote before it gets counted so as to prevent, among other things, their ballot from theft by those who don't like the way their vote was cast?
Given that we the people govern ourselves, the question "What or how do WE WANT it to mean?" (still being 100% faithful to the plain wording, and to conscience, and to a lesser extent court precedent) is far and away the most compelling standard we MUST observe in reconciling this.
A secondary principle to recognize is, What is the more established and acceptable practice? (if there could be a conflict in practice)
Thirdly is a tie for 1) what the plain text says and 2) what its authors meant by it.
Looking at those three points, the simplest to address is the second one, that of whether the accepted practice over centuries precludes one or the other understandings of this right to secrecy. To me, our centuries-long established practice of how we handle votes and ballots is perfectly compatible with both understandings, so we skip that principle...EXCEPT! Except that a relatively new way of handling ballots has been introduced with the advent of computers. The problems of computerized handling of votes are becoming increasingly known, and they are not in any way trivial nor immaterial, so we'll revisit them in a later paragraph.
Now looking at the question, "How/What do WE WANT IT to mean?" Plain wording and conscience in this computerized, hackable, exploitable world both allows us and encourages us to protect our votes the greatest level of secrecy - secrecy both of authorship AND content. Does anyone have a problem with that? Election integrity groups do exist composed of people with decidedly leftist ideologies while most groups hold to conservative ideologies. The election case in Georgia is being driven by two election integrity groups composed of leftists. Of course even more than them, the political right is entirely in lock step support of the non-computerized, non-hackable, non-exploitable choice. We'll conclude that WE WANT THE SECRECY OF THE CONTENT OF OUR VOTES PROTECTED JUST AS MUCH AS WE WANT OUR ANONYMITY OF AUTHORSHIP PROTECTED.
That leaves us to grapple with what the plain text says vs. what its authors meant by it.
First however, since this point might be where we have the most difference of opinion, consider the question of our future generation's ability to change the decision we'll make today. Should we deprive them, even temporarily while they re-litigate a wrong decision by us, of their ability to increase the level of secrecy of their vote they could want if we choose to limit the word "secrecy" to "authorship"? It's obvious that outcome can later bring regret.
More importantly and speaking of regret, what regret might we have if we decide the strongest meaning of the phrase "secrecy of the elector's vote" to include secrecy of the vote's content? I SEE NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Should an enforceable court decision aligning with that meaning not be prudent because it might cause some kind of harm or consternation in society? I can't see that happening, either.
Returning to "what the plain text says vs. what its authors meant by it", until someone proves the authors meant "anonymity of authorship" instead of "secrecy of content" we're just wasting time in pointless debate.
This random but relevant question needs to be answered - We know everyone would be alarmed if election equipment got hacked into, but exactly why would they do that? More to my point, are the gray hatted software programmers who are sworn to secrecy by their secretive company warranted to be any more honest than hackers? No one has given me any reason to trust the private, partisan election company's software programmers nor the company! Let's all agree that we'll be amenable to supporting those of us, though maybe in the minority, who want our ballot selections to be KEPT SECRET FROM ES&S. God bless you!
The only Notice Of Tort Claim allowed against the state is for monetary remedy, 100% monetary. So it looks like I'll just file against Douglas County. Which means I'll keep them updated while I go through the process of writing it, which also means no more Lancaster County visits likely for a few weeks.
I'm thinking the remedy I'll state is that they schedule a public hearing some evening, quorum required, subject of which is to be ES&S's performance over the years. To be scheduled after Mike Lindell releases his report of this last election
If you continue to watch the MTG you refer to - at 1 hour 29 minutes you will see/hear me, ..... , then LEJ all on pertinent topics. But didn't you leave right away? So you didn't notice that not only were they not listening, or responding, to me or the rest of us (THE"VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO) That C. Rodgers is not even looking up - doing something else! MAB looks dumbfounded, frustrated, that we dare Waste their time! Dare you waste ours?
When the center hikes the ball - if you have already left your position - missed the ball and you can not then pick it up and run with it. If they would not talk about two items ON the Agenda, one of which is stated as a tort by ... for.... and they don't open it for discussion nor 'Citizen Comments" then they make an ASS/u/ME! - with your assistance!
Then Co. Attorney DK. followed right after me, for a "Presentation" re: ....! do you not see the difference? Why not acknowledge and assist RJB rather than an end run w/o the ball itself????
You've been drinking, haven't you?
I've been treated far more treacherously than that. Enough peanut throwing, Larry.
You've only been to DC 2-3times and I didn't see or hear such as you say!
Drinking again. Stop posting while you're UTI