New York has not plunged so far. We still have judges capable of critical thought and reasoning. We have elected officials in New York who continue to strive for our highest ideals as a nation whose founding documents include the Declaration of Independence. As a citizen of New York I still have hope which I don't feel at the moment as a citizen of the United States. (I may be a little down about how court went Wednesday, but maybe, I told myself, this is just what it feels like before you get to the Court of Appeals (highest court in the New York).) And that's the point – in New York there's still the possibility that justice will be done.
New York is the last hold out: The only state to not have decided which way it will divest its citizens of their right to consent to a government of their choosing. Every other state has purchased either DREs or Optical Scan systems, both of which count the ballots in secret, preventing the people from observing the count and thus depriving us of the ability to control our own elections. I've been so busy approaching this issue as a regular citizen I had forgotten what a quarter of a century's worth of litigating has taught me is unquestionably wrong with this picture. An election, in which votes are cast or counted by computer can never be validated in a court of law. The accuracy of the vote count in any challenged election could never be proven because all that remains after a computerized election is insufficient evidence which, under the rules of evidence, would never be admissible.
When the federal government is laughing with disdain at every right of the people it was charged with securing, New York still holds promise.
Elections Counted by Computers Cannot Withstand Challenge in a Legitimate Court of Law
Rules of evidence have always required the best evidence because anything less is not sufficiently dependable to establish the truth. Thus an original document is required by the Best Evidence Rule. Hearsay evidence is rejected because of its inherent unreliability: can't be cross-examined; the demeanor of the witness can't be observed by the trier of fact. The need to be able to observe with one's own eyes (the eyes of the jurors or the judge) is considered so essential that incompetent hearsay evidence will be excluded in the interests of truth-seeking and justice.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
