In the interview with Rob, you were discussing the situation with the voting process, and private corporations tallying votes, and you mentioned what you thought about the officials who should be acting:

"'Ugh, God, they're so incompetent,' or 'Well, there they go again,' or whatever. But now I've got this burning rage and I'm like, 'Can I do a civil suit, can I do--where's my lawyer? Where's the National Lawyer's Guild?' I'm so ready with an army of citizens I now know how to mobilize, to say, 'Hold on. That is a tyrant's move. That is a bid for power that the Founders would not tolerate, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.' And so, there's so many steps, so many things, that I'm not even... like the Bailout Bill. I haven't seen the Bailout Bill...ideally, it would be at least substantially excerpted in every major newspaper in America. We've just given away $700B of our money.

We don't know what the fine print says. We don't even know what the big print says! So now, having gone through this journey, and understanding that there are vested interests trying to keep these processes opaque, I'm furious and I'm like.... I think what people experience when they read Give Me Liberty is that they see all the ways in which they're being excluded and they've got this kind of Founder's fire in them now. They're thinking, 'What can I do in my life to push back at this, what are my resources?'"

This link is a page about the convention clause--that resource above all others that the Founders wrote into the Constitution for what we face today.

I don't know how often you watch CSPAN's Washington Journal, but Sunday's show (11/16/08) had on Ambassador John Burton, head of the delegation of the European Commission to the U.S., someone called in and questioned him about his connections to groups such as the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.  I don't know if it was the first time, but the host allowed the ambassador to respond.  He said those groups are so members can meet to discuss ideas to help governance along, but that ultimately it's voting and the electoral process of the sovereign people which makes the final decision on all matters.

This would be an acceptable response, but as you and I and millions of other Americans realize, the voting process is more and more in control of private interests, so that we can no longer be sure about the final decision on all matters. Will the Obama Administration propose that we standardize and make uniform the voting process? I haven't heard a peep from it about this matter.

I also caught the preview to your documentary, The End of America.  It was moving. I think we have ample evidence there are interests which see open, accurate elections as the final obstacle to... to... to what? Whether there's any kind of conspiracy or not, is not the issue. The issue is, how do we secure the voting process from private interests? If that's not done, all else is lost, won't you agree? The Congress has had several years now since the debacle in Florida.

This past August I was out to Austin, and the Netroots Nation convention. I met and spoke with professor Lawrence Lessig from Stanford (he's been battling at the front of keeping the internet open and free), and we're scheduled to have lunch next month. What will come out of it I'm not sure, but I like what I hear from you, and I wanted to inform you about all these things.

Let me leave you with this: Do you remember the two conventions this country recently held--the Democrat convention in Colorado, and the Republican convention in Minnesota? Neither of those conventions mandated who was going to be the next president. The delegates simply built consensus about who they thought ought to be next president. View the Article V Convention in the same way: the delegates do not mandate new law, they simply build consensus about what the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should look like. I believe that amendment proposal will be about electoral reform.