Prominent law professors praise the work of Richard Brand for his investigative reporting on Smartmatic and what the foreign company means for American elections.
The New York University Law Magazine profiles Brand, now a student at the law school.
Samuel Issacharoff, Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, an electoral process expert and one of Brand’s research advisers, says:
“Until the Florida election, we tended to think that the machinery of the elections was relatively technical and unimportant. Richard figured out that there was the possibility of using the new technology of computerized voting as a means to assure a preexisting set of results…and that the government of Hugo Chávez was neck-deep in moving into this brave new world.”
Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU and an expert in voter rights, has this to say about Brand: “The skills he uses, the investigative mind-set—really digging and uncovering facts, figuring how to get access to information—can serve someone well in his role as lawyer.”
Source:
1. http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=2755
1. What did Richard Brand find in his investigation on Smartmatic, to conclude that the company had the ability to use its technology to assure a preexisting set of results?
2. Why did NYU law experts limit themselves to simply praising Richard Brand’s investigative skills and give so little importance to the findings he made, which expose the Venezuelan government’s moves to assure predetermined election results through electronic voting machines?
3. Wouldn’t it be even more urgent now to have a thorough investigation into this case, given the possible links of Sequoia/Smartmatic with the Venezuelan government and especially Smartmatic being the company which provided electoral systems to turn the country into a permanent one-party state?
4. Given the praise for Brand’s work from eminent New York Law professors, what are some of the legal issues at stake?
Comments are closed.