MEDIA INFORMATION PAGE 1 of 2

Courts of Justice ActNOTICE OF APPLICATION TO DIVISIONAL COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW TO THE RESPONDENT. A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant.

To Chuck ScarpelliManager, Records and Elections, Freedom of Information CoordinatorOffice of the City ClerkRoom 203 - 350 City Hall Square WestWindsor, Ontario N8X 4P8

1. The applicant makes application for: for order for manual recount Municipal Elections Act s.58(1) s.60(3)

2. The grounds for the application are:a) 21 issues noted on the log for election room staff for electronic vote tabulator machines, includingUS Flag on machines requested removed, wrong time, date on screen, missing password, screen pollcount error, scrutinizer request for serial number on memory card (not numbered), tabulatormalfunctions / replacement, protected count when asked is internal, tabulator wanted to cast bad ballot,poll closed by someone still there, other issues unclear in log, of 21 entries into issue log only 3 entriesfor log for troubleshooting 8, 9, 11.are signed.b) Municipal Elections Act s. 42(3) procedures for use of vote counting equipment provided tocandidates does not clearly outline manual handling and secure storage procedure for voter markedballots (sacred to democracy)c) It is proven that memory cards, and interior computer hardware components and programs can beeasily compromised, tampered with, hacked, malicious malware, without the capability of ever beingtraced, so there is no manner to verify or to adequately safeguard against such possibility renders suchmethod of vote counting dangerous to democracy. When one uses computer banking one has a recordof deposit and withdrawal, however this electronic system has no method of verification, except bymanually counting cast ballots.d) In the candidates package exists false information, provided in documentary evidence.

3. The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the application;a) Ontario Superior Court of Justice - opening letter from applicants (1 page)b) City of Windsor issue log for election room staff and issue log for poll trouble shooters (5pages)c) Municipal Elections Act, s. 42(3) procedures for use of vote counting equipment from City Clerk1cover page and 5 pages double sided.d) Newspaper article “Going electronic assault assault on democracy” 2 pagese) “Vote glitches raises concern for municipal elections” 2 pages.f) Princeton University Security Analysis of Voting Machine 24 pages

Ontario Superior Court of JusticeWe are requesting as per the Municipal Election Act s. 58(1) s. 60(3) that a manual vote recount beordered for the October 27, 2014 Windsor On. Municipal Election on the basis of numerous issues, errors, flaws, malfunctions, with electronic vote tabulating machines, and procedures proven here and other jurisdictions in having the capability of machine malfunction and the potential for both memory card and computer program tampering and fraud without detection. Continued on page 2.

MEDIA INFORMATION Page 2

The 24 page document of evidence included of an analysis from Princeton University although not of the exact same machine as may have been used in Windsor proves any such computer software, memory cards etc. can be easily subjected to undetected tampering and that such computer hacking is noted by many other experts outside of this study including in this USA government testimony in which a leading computer specialist that worked for NASA testifies how easily this can be accomplished.

Please take the time see this You Tube video titled “ Proven voting fraud! Gov’t programmer testifies voting machines are rigging elections.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

Further by employing youth 18-24 with seniors for human integration to manually count the voter ballots will promote free democracy, and build a greater socially responsible community.

Main Findings of the Princeton study are;

1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection. The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.

2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.

3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruses—computer viruses that can spreadmalicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- and post election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing ourdemonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.

4. While some of these problems can be eliminated by improving Diebold’s software, others cannot beremedied without replacing the machines’ hardware. Changes to election procedures would also be required to ensure security.

NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO DIVISIONAL COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Filed November 26, 2014

ApplicantsGene LocknickHoward WeeksSteve GavrilidisDavid Bruce Martin