Please tell others about WashoeCountyCommission.Info
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
[Filed October 25, 2006]______________________________
______________________________ _________
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 STANDING1) 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.
5) Plaintiff does not yet know the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1-20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants under such fictitious names.
6) Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege the true names, capacities, and relevant actions of Doe Defendants when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of such fictitiously named Defendants are also responsible in some manner to some degree for causing the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff’s damages herein alleged were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of each such Defendant.
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.
8) Central to Sequoia’s product line is the AVC Edge Voting Machine with VeriVote Printer. Sequoia touts this model as capable of producing a paper trail and tally of actual votes cast per machine. The paper record recorded on the VeriVote Printer is said to replace a paper ballot and is available for election outcome verification and recount. Sequoia sold the AVC Edge with VeriVote Printers to Nevada with a promise that the machine would enhance voter confidence in computerized voting.
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.
B) Sequoia is contractually responsible for the electronic management of Washoe’s voter registration lists, voter activity and the application of unique voter ID numbers acceptable to their voting machine function. Plaintiff is uncertain as to how her vote was not counted but she holds Sequoia strictly liable for the loss. (See Exhibits A, B, C, & D).
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.
B) Sequoia sells its systems with a promise that over-votes are impossible because their voting machines and systems are configured to match precinct and voter registrations totals. Plaintiff contends that Sequoia under-recorded precinct and voter registration grand totals actually deleted specific voters from the roster. By depriving an unknown number of voters their right to vote, this mistake altered the outcome of Nevada’s 2004 election. (See Exhibit E 1)
C) Plaintiff requested Washoe Deputy Registrar, Harry Day, to explain Sequoia’s incorrect count 9,758 of Washoe County’s grand total of registered voters and precinct totals. Day expressed surprise and ignorance of Sequoia’s mistake and referred the matter to Chief Registrar of Voters, Dan Burke. Burke replied in a February 8, 2005, letter to Plaintiff that Carolyn Kelley, Sequoia’s Operations Manager, had personally made an ‘operator’ error resulting in the under recorded number of registered voters and precinct totals. “This was a mistake by the Sequoia Systems Operator…Carolyn Kelley [Operations Manager] of the Sequoia Corporation [is] the individual who made the initial incorrect listing.”
D) Registar Burke reinforced his explanation of Sequoia’s error with the attachment of Kelley’s email to him wherein Sequoia Operations Manager Kelley claimed, “The data imported from the 400C was brought in as an absentee tally category. Therefore we needed to add a mail out tally category for those registration numbers to appear in the report. Once the boxes were checked to include those registration numbers in the SOV (Statement of Vote) summary, then the registration for the mail out precincts populated the precinct totals and in turn the grand totals.”
E) Burke dismissed the Sequoia Operations Manager’s operational error as harmless error with this puzzle: “the earlier version [of the SOV] was different from the corrected official version because the official version did not list our approximately 9,300 mailing precinct voters or our Non-Fixed Resident Voters (approximately 450 voters) in the registration totals in the category of ‘Precinct Totals’ and ‘Grand Totals’ although it did in the categories of Absentee Totals and ‘Edge Early Voting Totals (233,811…this oversight was corrected by our staff.” Plaintiff challenges and invalidates the explanation offered by Burke and Kelley with Burke’s November 9, 2004, report to the Washoe Board of County Commissioners wherein Burke claims 6,644 rather than 9,758 mailing-in voters.
F) Plaintiff finds the Burke/Kelley response to the mysterious reduction of precinct and registered voter totals to be riddled with mathematical error and wholly unacceptable. She asserts Sequoia product defect and company mismanagement sufficient to result in Sequoia machine malfunction as the only cause of this egregious error and holds Sequoia strictly liable. (See Exhibits E, F, G, H, I, & J).
11) Nevada Secretary of State, Dean Heller, executed the Sequoia contract for Nevada. The immediate contract amount stated was $9,272.622.00 subject to incremental raises for additional purchases as required. In return for this sum, Sequoia contracted to “provide and implement an electronic voting system for the State [of Nevada] and all counties in Nevada that is high quality, efficient and cost effective, and that will deliver accurate, error-free and rapid results for all elections in the State; a system that will provide Nevada’s voters with enhanced confidence in the voting system”. Additionally, Sequoia promised to, “…provide project management, training and support for successful implementation in each of Nevada’s counties.” Sequoia further agreed to “…provide adequate on-site personnel, assistance and personnel, assistance and support services…that ensure that such county can conduct a successful election, regardless of monetary or human resources or financial loss or damage that Sequoia may suffer as a result.” (See Exhibit K pg. 1 #1, pg.; Exhibit L pg. 8 #12 E).
A) Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia provided inadequate support and training of Washoe County election and poll workers as is evidenced by complaints from 2004 General and 2006 Primary election and poll workers who assert they were insufficiently trained to address election day function and performance. 2004 and 2006 training was so poor as to impair voting rights when voters arriving at 7AM were turned away because poll workers couldn’t set up the voting machines and had to delay precinct opening. Poll workers have also complained of broken-down voting machines and limited Sequoia support personnel arriving late for repairs. Plaintiff knows that voting lines grew longer and people were kept waiting for longer times when unfixable machines were designated out of commission. Some of those people left those long lines and failed to vote.
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).
12) Sequoia/Nevada contract author, Secretary of State Chief Counsel, Rene Parker, contractually defined “system” to mean, “…all aspects, both collectively and individually, of the AVC Edge touch Screen Voting System, the Optical Scan Voting System and Ballot Counters and all related software, equipment, products, and services as set forth in this contract, including but not limited to all firmware, hardware, software, equipment, devices, materials, components, specifications and other items.” (See Exhibit L, pg. 1).
13) Sequoia guaranteed their machine and management performance to the citizens of Nevada by their agreement to the contractual stipulation that states…”[Sequoia] warrants that all services, deliverables, and or work products…shall be fit for ordinary use, of good quality, with no material defects…[and that products and services shall be] suitable and fit for the express, particular purposes…Contractor warrants that any information system shall not experience…invalid or incorrect results.” Plaintiff contends that Sequoia machines are rife with product defect and unfit for their intended use of conducting and counting Nevada’s elections. (Exhibit L, pg. 11, #29 (a), (b) (c) ).
14) The Sequoia purchase price included 1,935 AVC Edge touch screen voting units with VeriVote Printers, 1,446 additional VeriVote Printers, 814 Voter Card Activators, 19,725 Voter Cards, 4 Sequoia 400-C Auto-feed Absentee Counters, 33 Insight Manual Feed Optical Absentee Readers, 42 AVC Edge Cartridge Readers, 16 WinEDS Central Tabulations Systems, 142 Vote Simulation Cartridges, miscellaneous support items, 2004 and 2006 election set up and an extended warranty through December 31, 2007. Plaintiff hopes to exercise this warranty to affect a fix for Sequoia’s defective equipment.
15) Plaintiff’s home county of Washoe received a large portion of the goods and services covered by the Sequoia/Nevada contract to include 2 Sequoia 400-C Auto-feed Absentee Counters, 1 WinEDS Central Tabulation System, 10,000 Voter Cards, 425 Voter Card Activators and 1,132 AVC Edge touch screen voting units configured with VeriVote Printers.
16) The remaining 803 AVC Edge with VeriVote Printer voting machines were disbursed throughout Nevada’s 16 counties. Clark County earlier contracted with Sequoia for the receipt of 1000+ Edge Voting Machines and therefore received only 1090 VeriVote Printers from this purchase.
17) Plaintiff’s investigation into Sequoia operation in the State of Nevada has led her to a test report authored by Wyle Laboratory entitled, “Change Release Report of the [Sequoia] AVC Edge Model II DRE [Direct Recording Electronic] Voting Machine Configured With A VeriVote Printer.” This report, dated December 16, 2004, served to certify the voting machines utilized by Washoe and other Nevada County.
18) Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia’s Wyle Laboratory testing as conducted was unrealistic and inadequate for the purpose of certifying the AVC Edge with VeriVote Printer as suitable for Nevada election use and recount as is indicated by a statement found on page 9 of their report: “…the VeriVote printer was configured to suppress, (does not print out) any associated Serial number data to which the printed roll can be traced back to the specific machine from which the voter receipts were printed. Additionally, there were no provisional voter ID tags printed, just a statement denoting “provisional voter.” (See Exhibit O (1))
19) Pages 22-29 of the Wyle Report detail anomalies noted during testing of the AVC Edge with VeriVote Printer that Plaintiff voted on. These anomalies are as follows: test machines “locked up” and or “failed to operate” when subjected to electrical surge, electromagnetic radiation and electrostatic discharge; low temperature testing demonstrated interior condensation build-up [suggestive of inadequate shielding of electronic components] causing the machine to lock up; reliability testing failed at 4, 8, and 10 hours - in each instance of reliability failure the machines “locked up” the VeriVote Printers “stopped printing” but the voting machines read “Printing Ballot Selections”; 17 hours of test performance found the take up reel for the VeriVote Printer “out of alignment” and that the paper had “folded back on itself”; each of four other machines tested demonstrated paper jam to the degree that the VeriVote printer paper folded up on itself “accordion style” causing the printers to stop operating; and “ongoing review of individual printer receipts [produced during testing] revealed that a font size change had occurred on multiple occasions which in-turn caused some of the information on the printer receipt to be found missing. Additionally, it was observed that the Serial Number of the Edge DRE as it was being printed out within a barcode on the individual receipts included a (-) sign in front of the serial number when read via a barcode reader.” Product defect discovered by Wyle was made known to the Sequoia representative present during testing, Paul Terwilliger. Terwilliger’s responsibility was to analyze laboratory anomalies and correct them accordingly, thereby assuring passage of Wyle Sequoia machine testing. Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia neglected to incorporate test fixes into defective production models delivered to Nevada and other states. (Exhibit O 2 – 9)
20) By way of further evidence of Sequoia product defect Plaintiff offers a summary of her review of the very few Washoe County precinct 2004 Sequoia Edge or VeriVote Malfunction Logs made available to her. These logs enumerate multiple paper jams, machine lock ups and or failure to register votes. Absent from the logs was mention of malfunctioning voting machines designated as out of service. Nor was there word written of the broken machine Plaintiff took note of when she early-voted on October 25 at the Washoe County Registrar’s office; or that Plaintiff and other voters complained of AVC Edge touch screens failing to register votes on the first try so that repeated pokes rather than ‘one touch’ began the procedure for voting; leaving people to wonder if their votes had actually been counted.
Plaintiff has knowledge of one machine actually catching fire in 2004
and both 2004 and 2006 voters and poll workers have spoken to her of malfunctioning machines placed out of commission. Particularly telling is an account of the August 21, 06 2006, product defect discovered by Washoe Registrar Dan Burke who tested 25 AVC Edge machines with VeriVote Printers after the 2006 Primary election. Running a total of 873 simulated votes through the 25 machines – for an average of approximately 35 votes per machine – Burke reported 1 ballot partially printed due to machine malfunction. (See Exhibits 10 (1-4), 11, & 12)
21) Sequoia assured their company’s product and performance to the State of Nevada Nevada with general and professional liability insurance policies obtained from Zurich, Hartford and Burnhill insurance companies. The terms of coverage were quite simple: The State of Nevada shall be protected against “all liability arising from the Contract between the State of Nevada and Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc.” The policy expressly covered property damage, and personal injury resulting from Sequoia negligence, ongoing operations and products-completed operations hazards.
22) On September 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a thoroughly documented insurance claim against Sequoia’s General, Product and Professional Liability Insurance Zurich Policy #GL0651590012 as well as the Burnhill Professional Liability Policy #M90/47. She asserted personal injury and property damage arising from Sequoia breech of contract, negligence, and failure to exercise due diligence, poor management, and service and product defect affecting the Sequoia 400C Optical Scanner and Vote Tabulator, AVC Edge with VeriVote Voting Machine, The Automated Voter Verifiable Paper Record Readers and other ballot readers, the Sequoia WinEDs (Windows Election [Tabulator &] Data System) and other Nevada owned Sequoia machines. Zurich denied Plaintiff’s claim October 8, 2006. Zurich Sr. Claims Specialist Heather Horton wrote Plaintiff saying that after review of the documents submitted by Plaintiff and a “communication from Mr. Daniel G. Burke, Washoe County Registrar of Voters…we find no credible evidence of liability against Sequoia…should you disagree with our position…you must file a lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction to protect your statue of limitations [no later than October 25, 2006.].”
A) An email and letter followed Horton’s letter to Plaintiff from Sequoia Attorney Romei threatening sanctions in return for any lawsuit filed by plaintiff against Sequoia. Plaintiff has not been intimidated by Romei’s threats and seeks to preserve her rights to election justice via the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s claim is seeded in her investigation into the Nevada 2004 Presidential election as well as her review and understanding of the contract between Sequoia Voting Systems and The State of Nevada. (See Exhibit 13 & 14)
23) Presidential candidate George Bush Jr. won the 2004 Washoe County election by 7,704 votes. Plaintiff has identified Sequoia voter irregularities affecting no fewer than 9,759 voters.
Plaintiff asserts that Sequoia misconduct and product defect significantly undermined and impaired the accurate outcome of the 2004 Presidential election causing plaintiff personal injury and property damage.
Sequoia Voting Systems promised and failed to provide “accurate and error-free” election results. Plaintiff holds Sequoia strictly liable for this wrongdoing. The March 19, 2004 contract between Sequoia Voting Systems and the State of Nevada is still in effect and judiciable under the laws of the Nevada as is Sequoia’s extended warranty covering their goods and services
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SEQUOIA BREECH OF WARRANTY 24) Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph 1 through -- as is set forth in full with specific reiteration of specific paragraphs.
25) Sequoia’s warranty for the goods and services covered by the Sequoia/Nevada March 19, 2004 contract extends through 2007 and as such is wholly enforceable. As contractually stipulated Sequoia’s warranty is straightforward and subject to literal translation: “…[Sequoia] warrants that all services, deliverables, and or work products…shall be fit for ordinary use, of good quality, with no material defects…[and that products and services shall be] suitable and fit for the express, particular purposes…Contractor warrants that any information system shall not experience…invalid or incorrect results.”
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
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 28) Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through - - as is set forth in full.
29) Defendant Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and their Parent companies, Da La Rue Holding UK and Smartmatic International now and at all times mentioned in this complaint, in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, inspecting and selling various type of voting machines systems, including the AVC Edge with Verivote Printer, 400C Optical Scanner, WinEDS Vote Tabulator and other systems and machines purchased by the State of Nevada for use by Plaintiff and other voters.
30) Plaintiff voted in the 2004 General and Presidential Election on an AVC Edge with Verivote Printer on October 25, 2004. In the first week of February 2005 she discovered that her vote had been neither registered nor counted.
31) Defendants Sequoia and their parent companies so negligently and carelessly designed, manufactured, assembled, and inspected Sequoia Voting Systems machines that they were unfit for the intended use of election management and vote counting. Sequoia management was equally unsuited to the mission.
32) As a direct and proximate result and proximate result of the negligence and
carelessness of defendants as described above, plaintiff was deprived of her
vote; something she considers to be precious and her own personal, private property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY
33) Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph 1 through -- as set forth in full.
34) At all times mentioned in this complaint, Sequoia Voting Systems component parts were defective as to design, manufacturer, and warning causing the voting machines and attendant systems to be unfit for their intended use.
35) As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of Sequoia Voting Machines Systems machines, Plaintiff’s 2004 vote – which she considers to amongst her most valuable personal private property - was neither counted nor registered.
WHEREFORE plaintiff respectfully requests judgment.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
1) For an order requiring Sequoia Voting Machines to publicly test each of Washoe County’s voting and election machines and fix all defective machines as required; allow citizen oversight of Sequoia Nevada operation; and adoption by Sequoia of the United States Election Assistance Commission or other fair election voting machine standards, election oversight and conflict resolution guidelines;
2) For general, special and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00;
3) For costs incurred in bringing this suit, as provided by law;
4) For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated this 25th day of October 2006.
__________________________
Patricia Axelrod
Plaintiff Pro Per
Reno, Nevada 89503
VERIFICATION I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada.
Dated:_________________________
______________________________
Patricia Axelrod
EXHIBIT INDEX CLICK HERE TO SEE A SAMPLING OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – Axelrod DEMS Voter ID #157515 printout showing N for No Vote in 2004 election.
Exhibit B – Axelrod DEMS Voter ID #361042 printout showing Y for Yes vote in 2004 election.
Exhibit C – Signed Axelrod 2004 Early Voting control sheet/roster showing 2004 vote.
Exhibit D – 2004 General Election Roster Book sheet showing Axelrod Voter ID 302790 and evidence of Axelrod early-vote.
Exhibit E – Washoe County November 9, 2004, Statement of Votes showing incorrect precinct and voter registration totals for November 2, 2004.
Exhibit E-1 - Affidavit of Richard Harber submitted in case 04-01616A demonstrating 2004 registered voters turned away from polls without provisional ballot.
Exhibit F – Washoe County November 17, 2005 Statement of Vote (SOV) showing correct precinct and voter registration totals for November 2, 2004.
Exhibit G – November 9 2004 SOV showing Harry Day’s inquiry to Dan Burke regarding incorrect totals listed for November 2, 2004.
Exhibit H - Official sealed Statement of Votes for November 2, 2004 election.
Exhibit I – February 8, 2005 letter to Plaintiff Axelrod from Registrar Dan Burke explaining incorrect precinct and registration grand totals with email from Carolyn Kelley, Sequoia Operations Manager attached.
Exhibit J – October Precinct Count Details for 2004 election.
Exhibit K – Contract between Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and The State of Nevada.
Exhibit L – Sequoia Scope of Work promised to Nevada.
Exhibit M – Letter to Editor of the Reno Gazette from 2006 poll – worker entitled; “Poll worker training needs to be revised”.
Exhibit N - December 8, 2004 letter from Registrar Burke regarding unauthorized dispersal of voter cards.
Exhibit O (1-9) – Wyle Laboratories “Change Release Report Of The AVC Edge Model II DRE Voting Machine Configured With A VeriVote Printer” detailing product defect and inadequate testing of Washoe County voting machines.
Exhibit P (1-4) – 2004 Election Sequoia Edge or VeriVote Malfunctioning Logs
Exhibit Q – Affidavit of Thomas F. Pitaro submitted in Case # CV-04-02774 regarding Sequoia product defect noted with 2004 voting machines.
Exhibit R – Post election certification 2006 primary election audit of voter verifiable paper trail printers.Exhibit S – October 6, 2006, Zurich denial of Plaintiff Axelrod’s claim against Sequoia.
Exhibit T – October 17 letter to Plaintiff from Defendant’s attorney asserting Plaintiff’s claim as untrue and threatening sanctions for litigation pursued.
CLICK HERE TO SEE A SAMPLING OF EXHIBITS