Actor cast as whistle-blower and thief in Diebold case

[Judi Lynn]

Actor cast as whistle-blower and thief in Diebold case
Saturday, March 18, 2006
(03-18) 07:31 PST Los Angeles (AP) --

A 43-year-old actor has become a hero to digital rights and political activists who they claim is a whistle-blower who helped exposed a threat to the election system.

Stephen Heller, however, also is alleged to be a thief. Prosecutors in Los Angeles last month charged him with three felonies for allegedly stealing damaging documents about voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems.

"My wife would never describe me as someone on the front lines of anything, and I wouldn't either," Heller told the Los Angeles Times. "I'm not politically active except I've voted since I was 18."

Prosecutors say Heller, of Van Nuys, took more than 500 pages of Diebold-related documents, including memos from the company's lawyers at the Jones Day law firm. The memos suggested that Diebold may have broken state law by providing Alameda County with voting machines that had not been certified by the state.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/18/state/n073150S99.DTL



Stephen Heller

[Rose Siding]

1. Sounds like a social deviant, all right.

And where would we be without the occasional exceptional individual?

[cssmall]

2. He's a crim'nal lib'rul actor!

Hang'im HIGH! Now! :sarcasm:

[acmavm]

3. Hmmm. Exposing evidence of a massive fraud against the American

people is now a crime.

The original crime, it seems to me, was allowing Diebold to get its foot in the door in the American electoral process.

[acmejack]

4. He has a defense fund

PLease help him out if you can! I know every one wants $$$$! I don't have any either:( Stephen Heller Legal Defense Fund

[mackdaddy]

5. FUTURE planned crimes not covered under Atty-Client ??

I am not a legal scholar by any means, but my understanding of attorney-client privileges covered anything that had happened in the past, but NOT any future criminal activity.

For example, Ted Bundy could tell his lawyer about all of the people he had killed up till that time and all of that communication would be privileged and could not be disclosed. But, if he told his lawyer that he had to get home to finish off the latest girl he had chained in his basement, then that would be information about future criminal activity, and not only would the communication not be privileged, but the lawyer would be compelled to tell this in a timely manner, or the lawyer could be an accessory before the fact.

What Diebold had already done that was against the federal and state laws would then have been privileged information. But, as I understand it, Diebold was going to continue to defraud the state and violate election laws by their continued delivery of election devices and software products and services and other unlawful acts.

Therefore this was knowledge of future intent to violate laws. The law firm itself should have been compelled to divulge this to law enforcement agencies. Stephen Heller after becoming aware of these further intended criminal activities would also have then been compelled to come to the appropriate law enforcement agency, in this case the Secretary of State of California who enforces election laws. And this information was used by the Secretary of State to prevent Diebold from further activities against election laws.

Some questions then arise:
If Heller is being prosecuted for receiving stolen goods, then should not the Secretary of State, and Bev Harris of Black Box voting also be prosecuted for receiving them from Heller?

Since the Attorneys for Diebold were apparently aware of these intended future violations, and did not come forward did they not also commit a crime? Should they also not be prosecuted or at least be reviewed by the bar?

Since the Diebold execs were allegedly planning to violate the law and cover up other violations, should they not be prosecuted for at least conspiracy to defraud the state?


Finally I am glad that Bev Harris and BBV are contributing to Heller's defense fund since it looks like the documents Heller gave them helped them win $$ from Diebold with the Qui-Tam suit they had with the Secretary of State.

[MagickMuffin]

8. You raise some very good questions, Mackdaddy

It would seem to me that you are correct in your evaluations concerning Diebold's intent in defrauding people of California. They were intentionally trying to circumvent the laws of the state. Once they got caught they sue the person responsible for exposing their intent to violate the laws of California.

[alfredo]

6. A prisoner of conscience. Contact Amnesty International.

Not kidding.

[Mnemosyne]

7. .