Washburn's World

My take on the world. My wife often refers to this as the WWW (Weird World of Washburn)

My Photo
Location: Germantown, Wisconsin, United States

I am a simple country boy transplanted from the Piehl Township in northern Wisconsin to the Milwaukee metropolitan area who came down "sout" in 1980 for college and have stayed in the area since.
If this blog is something you wish to support, consider a donation.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Blegging to pay for an attorney

On November 6th, 2012 I and two other were attempting to document the little know "satelite upload process" used in the City of Milwaukee. While attempting to do so were were asked to leave the pollining location by Milwaukee election Commissions David Redeman.

As can be heard in this video the specific reason give for our removal the closing of the polling activities from publis view was *because* they election inspectors were still working. This order and reason is given at 3:13 in the YouTube video below.

Removing a polling location and the poll closing activities from public view is a form of election fraud in the state of Wisconsin. Becasue of this I have filed a complaint with the Public Integrity Unit of the Office of the Milwaukee County Distract Attorney, requesting Commissioner Redeman be prosecuted for this election fraud.

It is clear to me that Milwaukee County ADA Bruce Landgraf though has decided the best way to protect Commissioner Redeman from my crinimal complaint is to instead trump up some charges against me. Because of this prosecution I am now in need a criminial defense attorney with experience with Wisconsin election law.

For SE Wisconsin I have settled on Mike Maistelman. Unfortunately this means I need a legal defense fund in order to retain amd pay Attorney Maistelman. Would you consider a donation?

You can donate here

or go to https://www.wepay.com/donations/legal-defense-fund-for-john-washburn

Monday, February 20, 2012

Tomorrow there is a Primary ofr Germantown School Board

For an election integrity geek, you would think I would pay less attention to the process and more to the candidates. But with the open records lawsuits regarding the destruction of electronic election records entering discovery and some health issue, I must admit I let my attention on the primary for the Germantown School district lapse.

The primary is for 3 people vying for the open seat vacated by Kim Fischer. The candidates are:
  1. Sarah Larson
  2. Christina Wolf-Lang, and
  3. Lisa Laskowski
If you want the budget of the Germantown School to balloon with little or no limits, then vote for people in the reverse order listed. If you would like Act 10 tools applied to the Germantown school district budget, then vote for the candidate in the order listed.

In short:
  • Spendthrift = Laskowski
  • Act 10 Implementor = Sarah Larson
That is my opinion for what it is worth.

Where to vote tomorrow:
  • District 1: Bethlehem Ev. Lutheran School, W14290 Bel Aire Lane
  • District 2: Germantown American Legion Post, W15932 Freistadt Road
  • District 3: Life Church Student Center, N11325 Squire Drive
  • District 4: CrossWay Church, N10041 Pilgrim Road

Friday, September 09, 2011

Remembering WTC 7

A video montage to remember the collapse of WTC 7 and the sacrifices of Americans and American society because of it.

Where There's a Whip, There's a Way.

To tyrants foreign and domestic remember the Grandsons of Liberty are going to fight, all day, all day, all day through the natural progression of Liberty:
  • Dum Spiro Pugnabo
  • Dum Spiramus Pugnabimus
  • Dum Spiras pugnabis

Sunday, August 21, 2011

I wish we had peace officers in this county

but we don't. This country has replaced its peace officers with police officers and law enforcement officers; Mindless drones enforcing the dictates of the ruling upon the ruled without regard for Justice, Truth, Mercy, or even common sense.

Here are some citizen-assaulting LEO's at work this weekend in the government's capitol, Washington D.C. I count three criminal assaults by one LEO alone, but LEO's don't enforce laws against the anointed Blues, only against mundanes.

I take delight and see great hope in the fact that several random American people from American society recognize citizen-assaulting jack boots when they see them and more importantly:


It underscores the truth that: The antidote for vision 1984 is the spirit of 1776.

The "law is the law and we just enforce the law" is the same rationalization used by East German border guards as they attempt to kidnapped this woman(seen at 0:47) And history remembers East Germany Law Enforcement Officers (and Moaist, Peronista, and Bush-Obama LEOs as well) with such revernece and fondness that all mothers want their babies to grow up to be LEO's.

For the compare and contrast between peace officers and law enforcement officers though one need look no farther than the Andy Griffith show where the peace officer, Sheriff Andy, has to reign in law enforcement officer, Deputy Ferguson.I'd say out-of-control Law Enforcement Officer, but that would imply LEO's are sometimes IN control of themselves or a situation. Evidence is scant on that proposition.

I love the D.C. video because of the Freedom-loving defiance that blossoms whenever Liberty is curtailed as a once free society shuts down. As the song says: Big Brother's marching so we all stand in his way.

Resistance is not Futile because Resistance is Victory.

As Americans animated by the spirit of 1776, we have not only the opportunity to stand in Tyranny’s way, as Americans, as the Grandsons of Liberty, we have the obligation to do so.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

The Germantown School Board Holds Another illegal Meeting Tonight

The Germantown Board of Education again failed to give proper notice of the meeting of the Planning Committee held this evening, December 2, 2010. At least I think it’s was the Planning Committee. The meeting agenda at Rockfield Elementary school was on an interior wall behind locked doors. Even with the zoom lens my 48 year-old eyes had trouble reading the "public" notice. This continues the Board's 100% failure rate to hold a legal meeting of the Germantown Board of Education since they were first told of their statutory violations on June 14, 2010.

Tonight the Board violated WI Stats. 19.84(1)(b) in yet another way.

From June 14, 2010 to September 27, 2010, the board posted the "public" meeting notices in glass cases within each school building behind a minimum of 2 locked doors. The policy of the Board is that stepping foot on a property containing a school building or entering the building proper is trespassing UNLESS you have a child attending the school and you sign in at the office. Even if you overlook the trespass policy, posting meeting agendas inside a building behind at least two locked doors is not a "public notice of a meeting."

The annual meeting of the Germantown Board of Education was on September 27, 2010. The Board was anxious to not have any technicalities foul up the tax hikes it was to enact during the annual meeting. On the morning of September 27, 2010 the agendas for the annual meeting were moved from the usual places within the school buildings to the interior side of an exterior window. The agendas were visible to anyone standing outside the school building, but that pesky open meeting law, WI Stats. 19.84(3), requires a meeting notice not only be public, but that it be posted "least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting." [emphasis mine]

DOH!! So much for the tax hike being legal.

Since September 27, 2010 the Germantown School Board has recognized that no district property with a school building on it is a public place. The student safety measures (of which the above trespassing policy is a part) have removed the school buildings and the properties they rest upon from the public spaces within the community. The district rightly considers student safety more import than the unfettered public access which the "public" aspects of WI Stats. 19.84 require. In recognition that posting meeting notices anywhere on or within the 6 school buildings (while convenient for the district staff) is not public in the sense of WI Stats. 19.84, the Board has changed its official position regarding the notice requirements of WI Stats. 19.84. While the staff of the school district need do no more than go to work to see an agenda of an upcoming Board meeting, the other 18,000 residents of the Village of Germantown are required go to the distict offices, located on Donges Bay Road, and view the agenda posted on the interior side of external window near the southwest entrance. The official position of the Board of Education is that posting a meeting agenda in this single (but, admittedly public) location is sufficient (in a village of 34 square miles and 18,000 people) to apprise members of the public and the news media of time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting as required by WI Stats. 19.84(2). This position is preposterous and is in stark contrast to the opinions held by Wisconsin Attorneys General since 1977 that three public locations is the minimum. This is the Board's official position and Chairman Michael Erdman even stated during the October 25, 2010 meeting of the Board that they are "comfortable" with this policy. On that, I will let DA Cannon sort the matter out as his office works through the complaint I sent to his office under WI Stats. 19.97.

The problems with not meeting the requirements of WI Stats. 19.84 though are stiff. First there is $25 - $300 fine faced by each Board member. The fine is per meeting attended. The second is that if the meeting is not properly noticed, then the meeting is not an open meeting. If it is not an open meeting, then any actions taken during the meeting are voidable. In Wisconsin:
Every meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session. At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85. [19.83(1)]
The Planning Committee meeting was not properly noticed because the postings in the school buildings were again placed behind locked doors and on interior walls of the school building. In addition to this usual failure though, the Board also failed to send the meeting notice to all "those news media who have filed a written request for such notice as required by WI Stats. 19.84(1)(b).

Back in September 2010, I requested in writing to be notified of meetings of the Germantown School Board. But, by not sending meeting notices to the interested media (or at least me among the other media), the Board failed to meet the requirements of WI Stats. 19.84.

I am not sure there are many more ways the Village of Germantown Board of Education can violate WI Stats. 19.84. But I have faith. They will. The Board and its staff have proven positively ingenious in violating both the letter and spirit of Wisconsin's open meetings law.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Machine Rejected My Legally-Marked Ballot

I was able this evening to prove conclusively that the voting system in Village of Germantown, District 1 is programmed incorrectly. This also proves the pre-election functional testing done prior to the election (aka logic and accuracy testing) pursuant to WI Stats. §5.84, failed to detect this faulty programming. The Wisconsin State Election Board (now known as the GAB) has had since September of 2005 testing guidelines designed to aid clerks to effectively test voting machines. If the GAB had given the guidelines to the Village Clerk and she had designed her test ballots according to those guidelines, then she would have discovered this faulty programming prior to the election.

Until I get the original ballot as part an open records request, here is a sample ballot marked the same way. This ballot has a mark for Republican party preference voting and marks for other ballot lines. According to the statute on elector intent, [WI Stat. §7.50], this ballot is a legally marked ballot were the marks unambiguously designate to which candidate a vote should accrue.

The Diebold/Premier/Dominion AccuVote OS v1.96.6 infrared scanner erroneously rejected the ballot as over-voted. The chief inspector offered to hit the override button, but doing so would have switched my Democratic vote to Republican and my write-in vote to Republican as well.

The trade-secreted, vender-owned programming/configuration found on the removable memory pack erroneously rejected this ballot and that is illegal.

Here is why.
  1. In Wisconsin, marks for pre-printed candidates trump marks indicating party preference voting [WI Stat. §7.50(2)(a)]
  2. In Wisconsin, marks for write-in candidates trump marks indicating party preference voting [WI Stats. §7.50(2)(a)]
  3. In Wisconsin, marks for write-in candidates trump marks for pre-printed candidates [WI Stats §7.50(2)(d)]
My ballot was legally marked with votes for the following candidates:
  1. Scott Walker / Rebecca Kleefish,
  2. J.B. Van Hollen,
  3. David King,
  4. Kurt Schuller,
  5. John Washburn, and
  6. Todd P. Kolosso
I was not very surprised the programming/configuration within the removable memory card of the AccuVote OS v1.96.6 infrared scanner broke Wisconsin election law. I marked my ballot in such a way as most likely to discover the programming/configuration error(s) introduced by slothful, lazy, and untested programming. Sadly, I was correct.

I have been to dozens of voting system test sessions and have never seen any of this faux "testing" actually test the voting system software correctly. This is the professional opinion of a software tester testing software since 1994.

The defective programming/configuration was present during an actual election and was NOT caught by the pre-election functional testing.

WI Stats. §5.84 reads [emphasis mine]:
Where any municipality employs an electronic voting system which utilizes automatic tabulating equipment, either at the polling place or at a central counting location, the municipal clerk shall, on any day not more than 10 days prior to the election day on which the equipment is to be utilized, have the equipment tested to ascertain that it will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures. Public notice of the time and place of the test shall be given by the clerk at least 48 hours prior to the test by publication of a class 1 notice under ch. 985 in one or more newspapers published within the municipality if a newspaper is published therein, otherwise in a newspaper of general circulation therein. The test shall be open to the public. The test shall be conducted by processing a pre-audited group of ballots so marked as to record a predetermined number of valid votes for each candidate and on each referendum. The test shall include for each office one or more ballots which have votes in excess of the number allowed by law and, for a partisan primary election, one or more ballots which have votes cast for candidates of more than one recognized political party, in order to test the ability of the automatic tabulating equipment to reject such votes. If any error is detected, the municipal clerk shall ascertain the cause and correct the error. The clerk shall make an errorless count before the automatic tabulating equipment is approved by the clerk for use in the election.
Because the faulty programming/configuration found on the removable memory card used by the AccuVote OS, the machine failed (during an actual election) to correctly count the votes on a legally marked ballot for the six races shown. In a sane, law abiding world the ballots in the Village of Germantown District 1 would have to be hand counted. The presumption of correctness in WI Stats. 7.51(2)(h) is fatally pierced because an "error in the record is clearly apparent". That would inconvenience election officials though and the GAB will not allow that.

I could have made a different ballot which probably would have been accepted by the trade secreted, vendor-owned programming/configuration on the removable memory card. But, why should I change my legally marked ballot to accommodate defective voting software? Since, the pre-election, §5.84 testing clearly missed the defect whereby my legally marked ballots and the unambiguous votes thereon was erroneously rejected. What other defects the "testing" miss?

If this legally marked ballot could not be processed correctly, what confidence should I have that a second ballot marked in a way that the ballot is sucked into the front of the machine and deposited in the lock box below the machine was processed and counted my ballots correctly as traveled through the machine?

If that which I can see is clearly faulting and manifestly illegal. Why believe the hidden portions of the system are working correctly or within the Law? In a rational world the answer you shouldn't.

In Election World though the answer is you must always trust what is hidden. If the public can't see it, then it isn't a problem.

It easy to not see something if you studiously avoid looking.

P.S. This is one ballot of 2961 cast. This error rate (>1 in 3000) is very, very much higher than the maximum allowable error rate of 1 in 500,000 permitted under by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Monday, April 19, 2010

Happy Patriots' Day

Happy Patriots' Day.

To commemorate the happy day the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired I would like to submit the following reminders of how we, the Grandsons of Liberty, can honor Sam Adams, Tom Paine, Crispus Attucks and other winter partiots by guarding jealously the jewel of public liberty which they have bequeath to us, their posterity.


And since it is Monday, I submit the following for Monday Morning Music as a call to support our troops. We owe our servicemen to shield them from the Bitter Laugh.

  1. reminding them of the oath crafted so as to protect them from the "Rage of Ares" and
  2. By only sending them out for Constitutionally declared wars.
Our Patriot forefathers must look from beyond the veil and weep at how our haughty eyes, lying tongues, and prideful hearts have brought us to such low estates.