Letter from San Diego Jail

This word just in from Jim March who was arrested in San Diego for "interfering" in the mayoral election. For background visit here and here:

From Jim March - Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 9:30 p.m.:

Arright. There’s been a LOT of discussion of this and it’s time I spoke up for myself.

First point: NO FUNDRAISING IS INVOLVED HERE. I don’t need a “legal defense fund”. I’m not asking for money. Jim Hamilton helped out BIGTIME by loaning me $10k to make bail with (no bail bondsman, that’s the total amount) and then I’m paying him back tomorrow out of the $76k of Diebold money. After that you can bet I’ll make all court appearances and fight this tooth and nail.

Second point: felony charges are an interesting twist. Unexpected but not something I’m sweating. The extreme short form here is that they violated my basic civil right to observe the election (California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A)) and in response I stopped “begging” to be allowed to observe the election and did so directly, by going through a “security door” to get closer. At which point I was (expectedly) grabbed, stuffed and cuffed.

We’ll get into details there later. For now I’ll be clear that I was unarmed (not even my usual pocketknife) and there was no violence planned or happened.

Third: this has been portrayed by some as a “publicity stunt”. Its damned well is NOT. Granted, media were present so yeah, once it became clear that MLKJr-style civil disobedience was going to be necessary, I made two reporters aware of what was going to happen. But the CORE reason for doing this is to establish our civil right to observe elections. Right now a lot of county election officials in California and across America don’t believe in that right; they are dead set on taking it away from us piece by piece as elections become electronic and increasingly “automated” – and you can take that last term as meaning “in the control of the vendors”.

I would have done the same thing with no reports present and this action can and will be a success even with no media coverage whatsoever (which isn’t what’s happening and PR *is* a nice side benefit).

OK, let’s go over the details.

First, last year I observed elections in San Joaquin County (’04 primaries) in which the right to observe the election was completely violated. There is a whole chapter on what happened there in this report to the California SecState’s office:

http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments6.pdf

As of two weeks ago, this is what I expected to see happen in San Diego. In preparation for a visit and possible protest against that sort of crime, I had the following two documents hand-delivered to the San Diego registrar’s office:

http://www.equalccw.com/openlettertosandiego
registrar.pdf

http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments8.pdf

Then last week, the registrar (Haas) and his assistant (McNamara) tried to make it clear to local activists like Jim and Sher Hamilton that the
process in San Diego would be much more open – that the monitors showing the central tabulator and it’s backup (both Diebold GEMS) would
be visible “behind glass” to the viewing public doing observation.

Thus, I was pretty well convinced coming down from Sacramento that no “arrest protest” was going to be necessary. In fact, Tuesday AM I paid
for my Amtrak tickets ROUND TRIP, return date Wednesday the 27th…not something I’d do if I planned to go down there to get jailed. (God, I
hope I can get the date on those reset, otherwise I’m out $60, sigh.)

On the day of the election at 3:00pm, Jim Hamilton and I met with McNamara to discuss logistics of the night’s activities starting around 7:00pm and running pretty late into the night. First stop was to the “public viewing areas” and the “GEMS behind glass” observation post.

Houston, we have a problem.

The monitor was 8ft behind the glass.

Now we didn’t absolutely know for sure we had a problem – the screens weren’t showing active working displays and to the county’s credit they
were 19” monitors. Much would depend first on the resolution they were set to (800x600 makes for a perfectly usable GEMS screen and probably
could be read at that distance) and where the console operator’s head was gonna be (and for that matter how tall the guy was, how often he’d
be there, where he stuck his head, etc.)

Jim Hamilton, McNamara and I then went to a cubicle.

We discussed the demand to have the GEMS screen viewable, and I explained that I didn’t care how it was made viewable – moving the screen closer to the window would do and at least establish the principle that they were trying. Using a projector to send the signal through the window to the wall behind would be better if they had a projector lying around; I also offered to make a run to Fry’s Electronics a couple miles away and purchase a video signal splitter to allow use of a second monitor up closer to the window.

All of these proposals to improve compliance with Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) were flatly rejected. McNamara tried to characterize these requests as “coming on the day of the election” when in truth his boss Haas had had them for almost two weeks.

I then made a second request: an official (if hand-written at the scene) California Public Records Act Request for “snapshots” of the GEMS database taken shortly after poll close and another near midnight.

It’s not often I say good things about Diebold products. One of the few features I like is the ability to do “instant backups” of the database to the included CD-ROM burner without interfering with the election processing in any other way. It’s standard procedure for counties to do this throughout election night just for backup purposes in case something dies. Cutting extra backups (each of which fits easily on a CD-ROM would cost a few keystrokes time and about 20 cents a disk (and we brought a few blanks).

More “snapshots” would have been nicer but the two requested would at least have been a good start. And we don’t consider these just “public
records” – THEY ALLOW MONITORING OF THE ELECTION ON OUR OWN SEPARATE COMPUTERS SUCH AS MY LAPTOP RIGHT THERE ON ELECTION NIGHT. This request is therefore an integrated component of the right to observe elections.

By 7:00pm, that request too had been flatly refused.

Make NO mistake folks, if any ONE of these requests had been honored in the slightest, I would have accepted that as precedent and dealt with
the rest later.

As it was, with even a shifting of the table being refused as “inconvenient”, the stage was set for a confrontation not of my making, but theirs.

Once the election started up, it was clear that our concerns re: table location were valid and then some. The screen resolution was set to a
miniscule 1280x1024 pixels, for ridiculously small text unreadable by any normal human at 8 feet.

Much else happened by the time it became clear that “refusing to go to the back of the bus” was going to be necessary. A set of unidentified
“mystery terminals” were systematically plugged in one at a time to the GEMS box – optical scan units that were in unusual luggage were used to
upload memory cards separate from the four units otherwise dedicated to that – combined with a lot of frantic typing and manipulation of GEMS.
These “mystery terminals” were used one at a time as if to test them, and we have no idea what that was about.

We learned one REALLY interesting thing:

The GEMS box was connected to the Internet.

Oh, not directly! They had a set of “one way firewalls” allowing data to come out of GEMS onto the county LAN where it was served up on web pages. But get this. They didn’t set up these firewalls themselves. Rather, they paid SAIC to do it for them. For those not following along in extreme detail, SAIC is a software development and computer consulting house that does almost exclusively government contracts; their ties to military contracting are very well known…I’ll let others discuss that connection.

But in any case, San Diego has in my opinion turned it’s entire election security over to TWO different “black box vendors” – Diebold and SAIC. A security failure (accidental or deliberate) by either could leave their election integrity under threat.

------------------------

Now let’s talk legalities.

California Elections Code 15204 requires county election officials to make “all proceedings” “open to the view of the public”.

---
15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any ballot container.
---

Nowhere are the terms “view” or “observe” defined in this or any other law connected to the subject. But do note that this law is originally much older than electronic voting in general. It was later updated with:

---
Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections
official.
---

San Diego and other counties appear to believe that the latter section SUPERCEDES and eliminates the former. Not hardly! It just means that
if they go all-electronic, they have to use electronics to maintain viewing accessability! And this won’t cost much – a video signal splitter/booster is about $200, plus the use of an extra monitor for the night. Video projectors are another possibility; they’re expensive but the county probably has them laying around anyways and can press them into service for the night.

Now, this sort of thing where a government body is required to do something and doesn’t is common. You can take them to court of course,
and depending on the IQ of the judge you may or may not get anywhere. Since it isn’t civil rights in question, a lawyer who tries to help out
on the cheap will have to fight to get his fees back at a minimum and it’s not guaranteed. It’s a long, bitter mess.

BUT EC15204 has a companion piece: California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) gives us a basic civil right to observe elections:

---
2300(9)(A) You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections process.
---
Now we’re no longer talking about “ho hum government requirements that often get ignored”. Now we’re talking about civil rights. And we’re in a whole ‘nuther realm of law. Violations of civil rights are punishable against bad government actors. Penalties can apply; in many cases lawyers can get triple attorney fees back on a win.

More: when this cross-connects with criminal law, one of the times when arresting you becomes a real problem is when it happens IN CONJUNCTION with a violation of your civil rights. Not only that: when you’re fighting a criminal charge, one of the arguments that a court cannot block is that you did a particular action in support of your civil rights.

And this, folks, is why their “felony charges” don’t scare me! The felony thing was decided upon by Haas and McNamara by the way, the cops initially thought this would be a “no big deal” infraction or misdemeanor bust until McNamara told ‘em to “go long”. I don’t know if they factored this in or not but the WORST thing they’re threatening me with is the lifetime loss of my firearms ownership rights…I’m a “gun nut”, remember?

Their probable plan is to try and plea me down to some nuisance charge to avoid the felony, but once I do that I can’t argue in any court (criminal or civil!) that they violated my civil rights. I go home with my tail between my legs, they get to keep running secret elections. Well they picked the wrooooong guy to try and scare.

They’ve charged me with Elections Code 18502:

---
18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by prisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
---

Let’s get real: anybody here think that charge will stick? Remember that the GEMS server screen was 8 feet in past the doors or a hair over (the door was offset 3ft from the observation window), I made no attempt to touch any piece of gear whatsoever, I stopped on my own 4ft in, and I ended up “pausing the action in there” *maybe* a total of 2 or 3 seconds.

“Oh, but he distracted the officials!” Oooohhh, bad gun nut!” Except that in other circumstances, I’m specifically ALLOWED to and did for up to five or ten minutes at a time asking questions pursuant to:

---
Elections Code 2300(B) You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer. However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to questions.
---

So…distract ‘em for 3 seconds tops in one room, it’s a felony…minutes at a time on the other side of the door, it’s a civil right?

Ah. Yeah. Let’s see what a SAN DIEGO jury makes of this, when they’re dealing with a guy who wants to monitor elections as per his civil right in a city where the last mayor was in office ONE DAY before being convicted of crimes, where the 2004 primaries were a total disaster, where the pension fund is basically a toxic superfund sight, where two city councilmen have been convicted and a third wasn’t only because he died first…need I go on?

I’ve said it to Diebold, I’ll say it to these clowns: bring it on. You picked this fight, not me. You don’t trample my civil rights without consequences.

The real trick will be to try and make those consequences happen before November, establishing the principle of open access to this stuff statewide. And that’s one area where criminal law helps: by not “waiving time” I can make “step one” (the criminal jury trial) happen in 45 days or less. An aquittal there will sting ‘em pretty good and at least help; after that comes the civil court fight and I’ll save a discussion of that for later.

But yeah, I got ‘em right where I want ‘em .

Jim March

War, what is it good for?

War, what is it good for? Oil, of course.

I posted here in late March thoughts on the American empire's Asian oil itch:

"...the military and CIA continues its stranglehold actions on the Middle East and Central Asia.Just one example of the disturbing neocolonial trend happening very quickly these last few years is Kyrgyzstan. It's pretty clear that the goal is to establish weak, puppet-type regimes in these strategically important areas, so that they are ripe for the plundering by multinational corporations and American military takeover."

Well, now things are beginning to ramp up over in that part of the world, and it looks like between the nearly dried up Aral Sea and the Himalayan Mountains there is a revolution underway.

Post-Soviet splinter states Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have both made deals with US and Russia--as is only natural, since they are small, vulnerable and caught in the middle.

But things are looking ugly, and who will be the agent provocateur in this heated imperialist situation is anybody's guess.

Russia has just thrown down one gauntlet. They've issued the statement that they will double the troops at their military base in Kant, in northern Kyrgyzstan, not far from the United States' own carpetbagging base there, in nearby Manas.

In addition to several regional papers, Forbes has reported on it as well.

The Kyrgyz ambassador to Russia has made assurances to Russia that the US base will be withdrawn--eventually.

And the acting Kyrgyz foreign minister Roza Otunbaeva has been quoted as saying: ""All of us are part of the anti-terrorist coalition, including our country. However, there is a time limit for everybody who comes to stay somewhere."

In other words, the US is beginning to provoke that hatred we all know, of the guest who overstays his welcome.

The situation in Uzbekistan looks similar--we're the guest who is rapidly overstaying their welcome.

"The Uzbek Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the Americans were allowed to use the air base at Karshi-Khanabad "in direct connection with the military operation in northern Afghanistan" for the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. ...

Uzbekistan also said that the United States had not paid takeoff and landing fees, as well as compensation for security services, new infrastructure, ecological damage and inconvenience to the local population."

The US military is not paying its bills? Big surprise there.

But that country has serious security problems, with rioting in the streets and a veritable popular revolution underway. No doubt the US will take advantage of the unrest to assert the "necessity" of our continued and even increasing presence there.

Indeed, in a statement of which the authenticity cannot be immediately verified--since it is Russian sources reporting US statements--the United States seems to be digging in its heels, and is not about to give up without a fight its first real presence on the ground in the post-Soviet Central Asian power vacuum. The article in The Hindu reports thus:

"Washington has rejected the demands. The U.S. Embassy in Tajikistan, where the U.S. military also use air base facilities, said the U.S. military bases in the region continue to give active support to the continuing operations of the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The bases "have been set up with express consent of the governments of the receiving states and will operate till each of the countries regards the facilities as a basis for its national security," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted the U.S. Embassy in Tajikstain as saying in a statement issued on Friday."

That's quite a Rumsfeldian position, if that is what the US embassy had to say. If true, it amounts to saying "we're here, get used to it."

Whether a real statement or not, more reliable sources do indicate the US has rejected the pressure from the host countries, backed up by teeth-bearings from Russia and China, to set a timetable for withdrawal.

On the 10th, Rice was in Beijing and said that the US would not leave Afghanistan. But as reported by al-Jazeerah, it would seem that Rice's statements failed entirely to address the real issue--the call for withdrawal from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Not mentioning at all the relevant countries, Rice prattles on about Afghanistan, its "sovereignty" and our--of course--unilateral agreements with its "democratically elected government":

"“The one country that said that the United States should stay in Afghanistan was Afghanistan,” Rice said on the last day of her visit to China as part of a four-nation Asia tour.

“I think that since Afghanistan is sovereign, since Afghanistan in fact has an elected president, who was elected freely and fairly, then the relationship we have with Afghanistan is with that government.” She argued US troops were still needed in the Central Asian country.

“There is still a fight going on in Afghanistan. The United States and others are training Afghan forces. The Afghan army is coming along. Its numbers are coming along. It’s capability is coming along. We’re training them in counterterrorism matters,” Rice said.

“But there are still a lot of terrorist activities in Afghanistan ... It is our understanding that the people of Afghanistan want and need the help of US armed forces.”

But again, Condi, since you seem to have missed the point of the question, what about the bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan?

Well, we will see how things develop. Of course, most of this is being extremely underreported in the US corporate press. Typical American myopia. The distraction circus still in full swing.

I hadn't posted for awhile, although plenty has been happening the last month. But this morning some things really seemed to need some notice. Again, we'll see how things develop...