In NV: Patricia Axelrod vs. Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.

[Emit]

I posted a press release about this suit the week of the elections. I thought I'd update, as I just received the links to the Complaint and Exhibits.

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE


____________________________________________________________________

Patricia Axelrod
Case No. CV06-02570
Plaintiff arguing Pro Per
Dept. No. 3

vs.

Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. (aka Sequoia)
and its parent companies, Da La Rue Holding UK
and Smartmatic International;
and Does 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT

This lawsuit alleges property demand and breech of warranty resulting from
negligence, professional and strict product liability by Defendant Sequoia Voting
Systems and their Parent Companies, Da La Rue Holding UK and Smartmatic
International. Plaintiff Patricia Axelrod arguing pro se hereby proffers a preponderance of
evidence, facts and findings in support of her pleading for relief. Plaintiff has
previously filed an insurance claim against Defendants who challenged plaintiff’s
assertions and denied her claim resulting in this action.

THE PARTIES TO THIS COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF AND HER STANDING

1) Plaintiff Patricia Axelrod resides and is registered to vote in Washoe County, Nevada. She is an award-winning professional researcher/writer expert in high-tech weapons systems analysis and the Hazard of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance as well as the Director of a not-for-profit association called The Desert Storm Think Tank and Veterans’ Advocate. She is also an activist knowledgeable of scandal and charges of vote-theft and other election improprieties surrounding the 2000 Presidential election. She therefore paid special attention to the 2004 Washoe County election and took note of lax security measures surrounding the process. Becoming aware of the unauthorized dispersal of voter cards by poll workers to unknown parties, misplaced votes, and the careless delivery of votes to the Washoe County Registrar of Voters and other county registrars, Plaintiff began an investigation into the Washoe County 2004 Presidential election outcome on November 3 – one day after the election. Her request for information and election records held by the Nevada Secretary of State in Charge of Elections was met with a lack of cooperation and outright hostility. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus and obtained access to and copies of 2004 election records and documents held in the files of the Secretary of State. Additionally she sought and obtained documents and information from other informed sources. Central to her investigation was the function of the company that provided Nevada with voting machines and other elections goods and services, Defendant Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.

A) Early in the effort she discovered that Sequoia had dropped 9,758 Washoe citizens off recorded overall precinct totals of people registered to vote, reporting 224,053 as the grand total rather than 233,811. She also uncovered Sequoia mismanagement as well as their product defect. Then she learned that Sequoia had actually failed to register or count her 2004 vote; something she considered to be her own precious and very personal private property. Becoming convinced that Sequoia mismanagement and product defect had resulted in the wrongful count and flawed outcome of the Nevada 2004 Presidential election, she sought administrative remedy for her concerns from both the Nevada Secretary of State and the Washoe County Registrar of Voters; this was to no avail.

B) Plaintiff pondered her investigative findings until the 2006 primary election when poll workers reported poor training and malfunctioning voter machines and candidates publicly and privately challenged election outcomes. Mindful of and still smarting from the loss of her vote and fearful that the 2006 Federal final election outcome would fall prey to the same Sequoia voting machine malfunctions as well as human malfeasance that affected the 2004 election, Plaintiff sought a means to rectify the wrong doing to her by Sequoia as well as a way of influencing and improving the company’s product and management performance. On September 8, 2006, Plaintiff exercised the Uniform Commercial Code to file a third party insurance claim against Sequoia with their insurers. Asserting personal injury and property damage caused by her 2004 use and reliance upon Sequoia Voting Systems and machines, she presented overwhelming documentation to support her claim. The settlement she requested, was consistent with Sequoia’s Nevada contract, warranty and insurance policies: $8,000,000.00 plus or minus per occurrence of Sequoia liability plus additional remedies to include exhaustive citizen oversight of Sequoia Nevada operations; public testing of all of Washoe County’s Sequoia Voting Systems; a fix of all machines as required; and Sequoia’s adoption of the United States Election Assistance Commission or other fair election voting machine test standards, election oversight and conflict resolution guidelines. Discussions and emails followed to and from Plaintiff and Sequoia’s insurance agents. Ultimately, USI/Burnhill determined to ignore Plaintiff’s assertions and to this day said company has neither approved nor denied her claim. Zurich denied the claim on October 8, 2006.

C.) In light of these actions Plaintiff has no alternative but to bring this suit for property damage and breech of warranty against Sequoia. She asserts timeliness and standing to sue under Nevada Revised Statue 11.190.3 (d) covering actions for relief of property damage on the grounds of fraud or mistake and the Uniform Commercial Code 2-318 (A) and (B) that serves to extends Sequoia’s Nevada express warranty “to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured by breech of warranty.” Nevada Revised Statues has adapted the spirit and intent of the UCC with NRS 104.1103 (1) as follows: “The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.” Plaintiff is a user and consumer of Sequoia Voting Systems goods and services purchased for her use by the State of Nevada. She asserts that she has suffered property damage as a consequence of Sequoia product defect, mismanagement and breech of warranty and that she is wholly justified in asking this jurisdiction and court to hear her plea for election justice.

DEFENDANTS

2) Defendant Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., Federal ID # 37-1274619 is a viable corporation conducting business throughout The United States and servicing Nevada from its offices at 7677 Oakport Street, Oakland California. As previously stated, Sequoia Voting Machines provides electronic voting machines and election apparatus to Nevada for use by Patricia Axelrod and all other voters of Washoe County and the entire State of Nevada.

3) Defendant Da La Rue Holdings UK is a parent company and alter ego of Sequoia Voting Systems. Da La Rue is an international conglomerate headquartered in the United Kingdom and has interests, subsidiaries and companies throughout the world. Da La Rue is best known for manufacturing currency as well as Automatic Transfer (Money) Machines (ATMs). Acting as Sequoia’s alter ego, Da La Rue employees assisted Sequoia with Nevada contract negotiations and insurance arrangements.

4) Defendant, Smartmatic International is an international corporation headquartered in Venezuela. This company acquired an unknown percentage of ownership and interest in Sequoia on or about March 8, 2005.

~snip~

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

7) The case at hand involves the denial of Plaintiff’s property damage claim as a consequence of Sequoia’s negligence, product defect, breech of warranty and overall general and professional liability. Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia’s insurers Zurich, Hartford, and Burnhill insurance companies failed to properly investigate Plaintiff’s claim and exercised bad faith in their denial of the claim. Plaintiff seeks to preserve her rights with this lawsuit. This suit arises from the March 19, 2004 contract between the State of Nevada and Sequoia wherein it is stipulated that Sequoia shall be bound and subject to Nevada law. Plaintiff believes this case is ripe for judicial consideration and she will not be dissuaded from bringing this matter to adjudication.

~snip~

9) On October 25, 2004, Plaintiff traveled to the Washoe County Registrar of Voters Office where she early-voted on a Sequoia AVC Edge voting machine with VeriVote Printer. Her investigation into the whereabouts of her vote has found that she had been wrongly issued three different Voter ID numbers - rather than one unique Voter ID number - and that her 2004 vote had neither been registered or counted toward the outcome of the General and Presidential election.

A) Plaintiff learned of her lost vote by review of her Sequoia voting activity stored in the Washoe County’s DEMS (Diebold Election Management System). DEMS interacts with Sequoia machine data and records voter information inclusive of voter ID numbers and party affiliation. Sequoia voting data is electronically transferred into DEMS so that voting activity is also recorded by this system. By accessing her DEMS record in February 2005, Plaintiff found an “N” for “no vote” next to the 2004 General Election column. Discussing the matter with Deputy Registrar Harry Day, Plaintiff produced evidence to prove that she had indeed voted. Day located roster sheets for the 2004 election confirming her vote. Changing her DEMS record to reflect her vote he confirmed that her vote has been lost in the 2004 election.

~snip~

10) Plaintiff further asserts that Sequoia detrimentally impacted her stake in American democracy and breeched its warranty by the company’s failure to accurately count precinct totals and the number of Washoe citizens registered to vote in the 2004. These are the facts of a vote debacle that demonstrates what can go wrong with a computerized voting system: Washoe County’s Registrar of Voters reported 233,811 registered voters at the close of voter registration, October 25, 2004. But for Election Day, November 2, Sequoia reported only 224,053 as the grand and precinct total of registered voters. Concurrent with Sequoia’s Election Day mistake – whereupon 9, 758 people were erased from Washoe County’s precinct and grand totals of registered voters - citizens across Washoe County went to their precincts only to be told they were not registered to vote. Many of these same people were turned away without benefit of even a provisional ballot.

A) Plaintiff learned of Sequoia’s wrong accounting through receipt and review of Washoe County Statement of Votes detailing election results. Sequoia corrected their error post-election and properly stated the correct precinct totals of 233,811 on a November 17, Statement of Votes for Washoe County.

~snip~

B) Adding to 2004 election woes were inadequately trained poll workers who dispursed authorized voter cards to unknown parties thereby inviting nefarious manipulation of the 2004 election including vote theft and abuse as well as the introduction of computer viruses into the AVC Edge voting machine.

B) Plaintiff therefore asserts: There can be no doubt that inadequate poll worker training coupled to malfunctioning systems and a shortage of Sequoia support personnel detrimentally affected and detracted from a fair and accurate outcome for Washoe County’s 2004 Presidential election. (Exhibit M & N).

~snip~

26) Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia provided invalid and incorrect totals of 2004 precinct and registration totals and defective voting and election machines to the State of Nevada. She contends that she has sufficiently demonstrated Sequoia’s breech of warranty. Sequoia’s malfunctioning machines and management makes the company currently unfit for their intended use of conducting and counting Nevada’s elections.

27) Plaintiff has lost her vote and been damaged by Sequoia’s breech of warranty and she is entitled to the remedy she is requesting of this honorable court

~snip~

http://www.washoecountycommission.info/04.htm


http://www.washoecountycommission.info/05.htm
Exhibits (more yet to be put online)


http://www.washoecountycommission.info
Front page of website

[texpatriot2004]

1. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm