Expert witness: Sure. It is not only more likely than not, it is extremely unlikely that a court capable of making binding precedent, which all courts that have ruled on this have not issued a published decision on point, would rule that trade secrets do not exist in the area of public elections, or if they did exist they were momentarily or soon thereafter destroyed as soon as put into contact with public ballots and so forth. On the other hand, if trade secrets do exist, they are a form of private property where the owner of the trade secret would be under no duty to any public entity to operate the software correctly, or at all. If the owners of the claimed trade secrets were to openly claim that they do not need to count ballots correctly by law, then there software would be truly private and commercial, but there would be an immediate outcry for the termination of such empty contracts. On the other hand, if the owners of the trade secret admit that the law applies to the operations of their trade secret, and in fact that the law of how to count ballots IS in fact the very core of their operation, then they admit the heart of their trade secrecy is public domain, and private trade secrets can’t exist in public. Because any part of the computer code could affect, and is connected to, the counting and vote-transmitting parts, then none of the computer code can truly be deemed a commercial or private trade secret.
Expert witness: I’d also add, but you didn’t ask this, that when the public property is transferred to the private sector, it’s clear that the Constitution protects us against the government, but doesn’t apply to corporations. Thus, if the transfer to the private sector was successful, then the heart of democracy has been cut out and privatized and our constitution has had its heart removed, thus reducing our Constitutional protections overall. Under what’s called the state non-delegation doctrine, government is not allowed to transfer away “core functions” of government without sufficient standards of control and management that it can still be said that the public manages and controls that core function. With trade secrecy, it’s impossible to credibly say that anyone in the government or the public can manage what they can’t ever see or gain access to. Thus, a real trade secret violates the non-delegation doctrine and thus violates the Constitution, if in fact such a trade secret exists. But, as I say, trade secrets can’t exist in the first place, not in public elections. It’s legally impossible without overruling pre-existing constitutional law and violating trade secrecy law itself.
Attorney Brunwasser: Can we have a democracy and trade secret vote counting at the very same time?
Expert witness: No, clearly not, all checks are rendered but cloaks without transparency and publicity. Only the public can check and balance the very process (elections) by which the government’s own power, composition, and checkbook is determined. It’s absurd to believe that the government can watchdog itself or audit itself, with or without its favored corporate “partner.”
Attorney Brunwasser: Then the claim of trade secrets in democratic elections constitutes nothing less than attempted murder of democracy?
Expert witness: Yes, if it’s possible to kill an idea, it would be attempted murder. The trade secrets render democracy dead, at least no one can see if it lives any more, or not. Well, strictly speaking, I can’t say that there has been an attempted murder strictly speaking, to speak more precisely I’d say democracy is presently held hostage, in an undisclosed secret location, and democracy can’t live until the heart of democracy is returned, unchained, where we can all see her.
Attorney Brunwasser: Will we ever be able to get the hostage free?
Expert witness: As soon as people understand that they are literally claimed to be trespassers on corporate private property called trade secrets, and kicked off “their” land is not the truth of the matter, but instead that the vendors are trespassing and squatting on public land, then the public will have no more hesitation kicking the vendors out than we would hesitate to kick off a squatter on our personal land. That is, Americans would never lose a battle for democracy and freedom on their own land, if they KNEW that this was what the battle was about. Consequently, the success of the vendor invasion rests entirely on the ability to conceal not only their trade secrets, but the actual nature of their claims, which are nothing less than a corporate takeover of democracy and a removal of voter control over elections. Let’s remember Jack Wells, who twice fought against land invasions of his country, in the Aleutian Islands in WWII and again against Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005. Following his example, his teaching, I don’t see how any invasion of American democracy could ever possibly succeed. We only need to see it for what it is, like Jack Wells did.
Expert witness: I’d also add, but you didn’t ask this, that when the public property is transferred to the private sector, it’s clear that the Constitution protects us against the government, but doesn’t apply to corporations. Thus, if the transfer to the private sector was successful, then the heart of democracy has been cut out and privatized and our constitution has had its heart removed, thus reducing our Constitutional protections overall. Under what’s called the state non-delegation doctrine, government is not allowed to transfer away “core functions” of government without sufficient standards of control and management that it can still be said that the public manages and controls that core function. With trade secrecy, it’s impossible to credibly say that anyone in the government or the public can manage what they can’t ever see or gain access to. Thus, a real trade secret violates the non-delegation doctrine and thus violates the Constitution, if in fact such a trade secret exists. But, as I say, trade secrets can’t exist in the first place, not in public elections. It’s legally impossible without overruling pre-existing constitutional law and violating trade secrecy law itself.
Attorney Brunwasser: Can we have a democracy and trade secret vote counting at the very same time?
Expert witness: No, clearly not, all checks are rendered but cloaks without transparency and publicity. Only the public can check and balance the very process (elections) by which the government’s own power, composition, and checkbook is determined. It’s absurd to believe that the government can watchdog itself or audit itself, with or without its favored corporate “partner.”
Expert witness: Yes, if it’s possible to kill an idea, it would be attempted murder. The trade secrets render democracy dead, at least no one can see if it lives any more, or not. Well, strictly speaking, I can’t say that there has been an attempted murder strictly speaking, to speak more precisely I’d say democracy is presently held hostage, in an undisclosed secret location, and democracy can’t live until the heart of democracy is returned, unchained, where we can all see her.
Attorney Brunwasser: Will we ever be able to get the hostage free?
Expert witness: As soon as people understand that they are literally claimed to be trespassers on corporate private property called trade secrets, and kicked off “their” land is not the truth of the matter, but instead that the vendors are trespassing and squatting on public land, then the public will have no more hesitation kicking the vendors out than we would hesitate to kick off a squatter on our personal land. That is, Americans would never lose a battle for democracy and freedom on their own land, if they KNEW that this was what the battle was about. Consequently, the success of the vendor invasion rests entirely on the ability to conceal not only their trade secrets, but the actual nature of their claims, which are nothing less than a corporate takeover of democracy and a removal of voter control over elections. Let’s remember Jack Wells, who twice fought against land invasions of his country, in the Aleutian Islands in WWII and again against Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005. Following his example, his teaching, I don’t see how any invasion of American democracy could ever possibly succeed. We only need to see it for what it is, like Jack Wells did.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
3
