Lehto: Vendors Commonly Refuse to Promise That Their Voting Machines Work

E-voting Vendors Commonly Refuse to Promise That Their Voting Machines Work

(By contractually disclaiming “implied warranties” that are supposed to apply to all sales of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code)

By Paul R. Lehto, Attorney at Law (Washington State)
lehtolawyer@gmail.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: By their own admission in the words of their signed contracts with government agencies, voting machine vendors “disclaim” or refuse to stand behind their products. The voting machine vendors also refuse to promise that their products will work or that they will be fit even for ordinary uses or for any particular purpose that the vendor knows very well or has reason to know is the purpose for buying the machines. Because these “disclaimers of implied warranties” routinely appear in contracts to purchase voting machines, activists and government officials should not allow or approve such low standards to be brought into our election processes. This point is of sufficient strength and importance in making points concerning both the importance of elections as well as the low quality of voting machines that citizens may consider holding an “intellectual sit-in” so to speak and simply keep asking the question in different forms over and over again: How could the government agree to run our elections without obtaining a promise or warranty that the machines will work? How could the vendors think they should be allowed to present these kinds of risks to democracy if they’re not willing to stand behind their products 100%? Does this constitute recklessness? Corporate favors? What’s going on here?

Also discussed is the status when the implied warranties are disclaimed as above, but a short term limited warranty is provided in place of the implied warranties, which is still a woefully insufficient state of affairs for elections, which are supposed to be highly reliable “fail safe” events involving ballot collection and simple acts of addition. The FTC explains the implied warranty of merchantability (which vendors deny they are making when selling voting machines to our governmental officials, as follows:

“{The implied warranty of merchantability means that the goods} will do what they are supposed to do and that there is nothing significantly wrong with them. In other words, it is an implied promise that the goods are fit to be sold. The law says that merchants make this promise automatically every time they sell a product they are in business to sell.”

See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm (click “understanding warranties” link, paragraph 4 in the “understanding warranties” section)

Voting machine vendors are most definitely “merchants” under the law. The following more extended discussion explains this in more detail, and suggests how citizens can use this law to frame questions and objections to voting machine sales.

snip

.pdf http://electionfraudnews.com/LegDoc/E-Voting_Vendors_Refuse_Promise_Machines_will_Work.pdf


Source:

ELECTION FRAUD NEWS

http://electionfraudnews.com/LegDoc/legal.htm

:hi:

K&R and IOU comment

First of all, intellectual sit-in is genius.

In all seriousness, Paul, what would happen if you put together a dossier of briefs for each of the inventive legal cases you have envisioned regarding elections? Could you take such a collection of arguments to the Bar, or some other group whom I may not know, and cause them to act on the basis of some professional obligation to protect (restore) democracy and/or defend the rule of law and/or some other credo? I mean, all these arguments you bring up seem like such compelling grounds for lawsuits. Aren't there some people who simply can't say no to taking them up?

thanks for asking. I'll keep it in mind perhaps building up a file as I go along.

remember, federal standards allow for machine failure about 10%
of the time.

So, voting machine companies don't have to get better than a 90.

The standard states that the standard doesn't have to be met.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1299&Itemid=26

that would otherwise be illegal (a 3ppm mercury "limit" effecitvely makes less than 3 ppm legal) i doubt that "voluntary standards would do that or have that general kind of effect. If it doesn't proscribe, it can't by implication legalize...

(for lay readers: without such a regulation, an expert might otherwise testify that 2 ppm caused unacceptable amounts of problems...)

I've seen fake orgasms with more sincerity than these voting system standards!: http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

And the vendors never promise anything beyond what's in the standards, do they?

Counselor Lehto should send this to RFK Jr. Esq. and Mike Papantonio Esq.

They say they want to sue these companies, and there's no substitute for experience, is there?

in an undisclosed location...

Pushy NewYawkers. :spank:

:D

The facts of the case are what I'm after.

Ya got a problem with dat?

We'll dicuss it over a scrambled egg sandwich.

This product is not intended to treat, diagnose, cure or prevent any fraudulent election.

Always seek the advice of your local sales representative with any questions you may have regarding a vote count discrepancy, incorrect ballot displayed on the screen, or machine failure, and before undertaking any independent test, audit, investigation or exercise of any voting rights guaranteed under federal or state law.

The manufacturer does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free and is not responsible for any damage to the democratic process arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the product's use, or compliance with such instructions.

Design, performance, specifications and electoral outcomes subject to change with notice.

And why would vendors promise anything they aren't forced to promise.

he will blow a cork.

Add in Howard's write up on the 10 % failure rate and Dobbs
will turn red!

they are "state of the art".

You can tell if someone is an idiot if they say
these touchscreen machines are better than optical scan because
they are "state of the art".

I have some tar to sell you for your driveway too!