Do Vermonters Also Have A Right To Investigate “Dominion Voting Systems”?


I have been a perennial losing political candidate in Vermont for many years. One year I really thought I saw election fraud. I was watching the votes coming in, and thousands of votes for me were suddenly cut in half. I wrote a blog post about it at the time which may still be wandering the internet somewhere.

I began to think that Vermont was the testing ground for vote fraud. Vermont has a very small population and if you are a losing candidate, and you are not within a certain tiny percent of the winner, then you have no grounds, no legal cause of action to complain, if for example, you came in 4th and should
have come in 3rd.

This past experience has made me wonder about the Dominion Voting Sytems used in Vermont.

I came across a statute under Vermont law that I was not previoulsy aware of, providing a sort of citizens’ right to demand facts, like a Freedom of Information Act Request, but under Vermont law.

I have spent 18 years working to legalize marijuana in Vermont, and now, hearing about all the allegations that may or may not be true against Dominion Voting Systems I am wondering if I could have moved the marijuana legalization argument along faster if I had gotten more votes in past elections.

Right now, marijuana is finally legal in Vermont, but illegal under federal laws, so there is more work to do. Why should I suffer another election season thinking I’m getting ripped off of my fair share of the votes?

under Title 1 V.S.A. Section 318
November 21, 2020

Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos;
Vermont Director of Elections Will Senning
Office of the Attorney General, The Honorable William Barr
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Gentlemen: I would like some information regarding
primary and general elections in Vermont 2020 in regards to
“Dominion” voting machines or software or services by
any company, individual or corporation by that name; please.
Will you please inform me of the ages of machines and
the model numbers of the equipment used for voting purposes,
the manufacturer of all voting machines used in Vermont,
and each and every vendor who provided software, repairs,
maintenance and updates for each and every one of the
machines used in Vermont. Please be specific as to every
detail about any voting machine or software made or leased
by Dominion which was used in Vermont. Please provide their
corporate address and legal department attorney of record.
Regarding Dominion Voting Systems Corporation products,
machines, computers, software, tabulators,
or any devices manufactured by them and used for voting
in Vermont, please inform me
of each and every way in which votes could potentially be altered,
or were actually altered,
including but not limited to trap doors, back doors,
remote internet connections, updating using thumb drives,
SD Cards or any and all other methods of inputing data
into the voting machines, or deleting votes.
If the Dominion voting machine or software did not count
all Vermont votes for the elections in Vermont,
then who hand counted those ballots not counted by machine?
Please provide me with any and all communications in which
you discussed or decided, or emailed or texted anyone about
how to use the Dominion computers or software or systems,
in any way, to adjust the outcome of votes in the 2020 Primary Election
and 2020 General Election in Vermont?
Could the vote results, using any product by Dominion, be altered
without your knowledge by anyone else, in or outside of Vermont?

Cris Ericson,
879 Church Street
Chester, Vermont 05143

Comments | 2

  • Election Integrity?

    After watching the entire 3 1/2 hour, November 25, 2020 Pennsylvania “hearing,” I had serious questions about whether there has been a media cover-up of voting fraud.

    (185) Giuliani appears at 2020 election hearing hosted by Pennsylvania Republicans – YouTube

    [Note: It was misleading to call this a “hearing,” because in fact it was not an official legislative or judiciary hearing, but rather a Republican-only publicity event. Nonetheless, what matters to me is whether credible evidence was presented.)

    The first surprise for me was that Rudy Giuliani did not come across as the buffoonish caricature which I have seen portrayed in news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, which present selective sound-bites, probably out of context (not much different from what Foxnews does). Guiliani gave a logical, coherent presentation, speaking in calm, measured tones: sounding sane and credible. The question for me was not whether Giuliani should be automatically dismissed as crazy, but whether or not he presented sound evidence.

    In the end, it was a tease. Lot’s of mouth-watering sizzle, but where is the steak?

    One formula for a factual presentation is: “Tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em. Then, tell ’em. Finish by tellin’ em’ what you have told them.” Turns out, Giuliani told us what he was going to tell us, and finished by summing up what he supposedly had told us — appetizer and dessert, but he did not serve the meat!

    Guiliani laid out what seemed to be a compelling case, promising present evidence of specific outrages, yet in the end — claiming that he was saving the evidence for court — the promised evidence ever materialized. At best, he had some affidavits alleging interference with poll watchers, which if true is outrageous, but hardly accounts for the 70,000+ spread in vote count between Biden and Trump, much less the millions of bogus votes claimed by the Trump Campaign.

    I understand Cris Ericson’s skepticism and reluctance to accept the mainstream press’s narrative. After all, most journalists just repeat the “facts” reported by other journalist without independently verifying them.

    I understand Ericson’s doubts about the integrity of elections, because even though I observed the Giuliani’s rhetorical slight-of-hand, I still could not quite let go of my feeling of: “But what if?” What if, in the context of the dog and pony show… um, I mean, “hearing”… what if there actually is evidence that has as-yet to be presented?

    By now, though, the courts (which are hardly biased against Republicans) have thrown out Giuliani’s allegations, as totally unsupported by evidence. But just knowing that through media sound-bites without details, I still felt unsatisfied.

    Then I thought of National Review, with its historic practice of unequivocal conservative advocacy, and its reputation for responsible fact-checking. What did National Review say about voter fraud and about Dominion?

    I googled, and here is some of what I found:

    Elections 2020: A Careful Voter-Fraud Review | National Review

    Trump Campaign Didn’t Request a Recount in Wisconsin Counties Using Dominion Machines | National Review

    Georgia Recount — How Can the Dominion Theory Survive the Georgia Hand Count? | National Review

    Trump Campaign’s Dominion Voting-Machine Conspiracy Theory Is Bogus | National Review

    How refreshing, how old-fashioned: Honest, dispassionate discourse.

    The National Review reporting — clearly not pro-Biden propaganda — showing the reliability of the Dominion system, and about the integrity of the presidential election results, notwithstanding doubts, should be very reassuring.

  • You heard it first on ibrattleboro!

    Citizen Journalist SK-B reported this 2 days earlier than CNN:

    National Review: This conservative outlet just crushed Donald Trump’s election claims – CNNPolitics

Leave a Reply