9/21/15 Update -- Beth Clarkson has a lawyer and a discovery hearing

[sketchy]

link to her newsletter:
http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=aa64e1b3819716e3e24805728&id=71af0bfd72


from her post:

I have a lawyer and a discovery hearing!
http://showmethevotes.org/2015/09/22/news-on-the-lawsuit-i-have-a-lawyer-and-a-discovery-hearing-date/

I was able to discuss my case with several lawyers over the past few months. My thanks to everyone who has offered their support. Randy Rathbun of Depew Gillen Rathbun & McInteer, LC, http://www.depewgillen.com/ offered his services pro bono. He had a number of admirable qualities, but the one most important to me was his attitude that my goal of getting access to those records was attainable. He’s also a local attorney and a fellow Sedgwick County voter.


I was able to speak with the Sedgwick County Courthouse regarding scheduling of a discovery hearing. It's to be at 1:00 October 19th. My understanding is that this is a short (~15 min) hearing to determine the amount of time needed to schedule a trial. I don't know more than that, but I'm grateful to have legal counsel arranged before this occurs.
I'm scheduled to be on the Radio Sunday, Sept. 27th.

"Keep Hope Alive Radio Show with Jesse Jackson"
http://www.keephopealiveradio.com/

[randys1]

1. This is very important

to remind myself, mostly

https://boingboing.net/2015/08/10/kansas-officials-stonewall-mat.html

The voting machines that Sedgwick County uses have a paper record of the votes, known as Real Time Voting Machine Paper Tapes, which similar machines in Kansas and around the country do not have. Because the software is proprietary, even elections officials can’t examine it and postelection audits can’t be done, according to Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting Foundation, a nonprofit agency whose mission is to safeguard elections in the digital age.

Clarkson asked Sedgwick County to do a recount in 2013 but the time to file had expired. She then filed an open records request, but officials refused to provide the requested documents. She filed a lawsuit but the judge said the paper records were ballots, even though they didn’t identify the voter, and thus were not subject to the state’s open records law.