Whats the status of Bev Harris' lawsuit against DU?

[Fescue4u]

Has it been filed yet and if so whats the status?

txs

[brainshrub]

1. Lawsuit against DU?

Are you sure you don't mean FL or OH?

[Fescue4u]

2. Something about copyright infringement

for "blackbox voting", or "clean up crew". Im not sure of the exact details.

I saw it listed here a couple weeks ago, but I cant find the original thread now.

[The Doctor.]

25. Bev is right - the Mods should get after anyone who does

not comply.

Usurping a trade name could wreak havoc on her efforts.

Don't do it.

[Truman01]

33. the whole thing was quite REDICULOUS

She has not trademark and the poster didn't use anything that would endanger her 501(c)3 status.

TC

[jamboi]

69. That's just the law. Sorry. No one can steal a corporate name. n/t

[RPM]

3. what, what, what?!?!?!?!?!!

why us?

[Niche]

12. PLEEASEEEE!!!

Missed that. Bev's getting shit all over the place here tonight. Hell she might kill je-zuss by morning! :puke:

[Bouncy Ball]

20. So we ask ourselves

why would anyone at DU try to shit on Bev Harris?

Hmmmmmm.......

[The Doctor.]

28. It looked like an honest mistake...

Calling something 'Clean up crew' here might have simply been an honest attempt at concert.

But it could hurt her organization.

So I have to Hmmmmmmm.... right along with you.

It's up tho the Mods'.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. No

I wasn't hmmmmming about the thread linked here. That looked like an honest mistake to me, too.

I'm hmmmming about THIS thread.

[The Doctor.]

36. That's my Hmmmm..... too n/t

[Fescue4u]

34. So I ask you..

Who at DU is trying to shit on Bev Harris?

It certainly isnt me.

[Bouncy Ball]

54. I'm not saying you are.

But this thread just seems to have stirred up another little shit storm.

Whether you meant to or not, I don't know and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But look at the result.

I just hate it when people who are working hard for us get personally attacked. She was RIGHT about using the name.

[Truman01]

42. Because I don't believe in her motives

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but I'll tell you several things that don't add up.

1. The whole thing about suing DU, none of her arguments made any sense. Nothing was threatening her status.

2. The lawsuit in Valousa (sp) county was Bogus. It had nothing to do with the Presidential election and wasn't breaking news.

3. The above mentioned lawsuit was intentionally filed a day late.

4. The stunt today, was nothing more than a stunt that will play well on her docudrama.

I am truly beginning to believe that Bev is simply trying to make money on the documentary she is filming.

Flame me if you will, nothing she is doing is progressing the vote fraud issue.

TC

[Bouncy Ball]

57. You are wrong about using the name.

She was absolutely right. Are you an attorney?

[Truman01]

68. Yes, actually I am an attorney

She is absolutely WRONG. Either she has no idea what she is talking about or she is outright pulling our legs for some reason.

I read the posts, there is nothing that infringes on her 501(c)3 or any registered trademarks. She doesn't have registered trademarks. Only the Black Box Voting name could be considered protected and something she needs to defend. The poster mentioned BBV in initials, which is not an infringement, and mentioned clean up crew, which is not a protected name.

Bev said these were actionable (lawyer speak for "we are going to sue you") and that they were protected trade names, which is just false.

TC, ESQ

[jamboi]

76. What is your area of law? It doesn't sound like UR familiar w/ Int. prop.

law.

[Truman01]

78. It doesn't sound like you know what area of law we are talking about..

This has NOTHING to do with intellectual property. She is complaining of trademark infringement. That in and of itself is wierd because a 501(c)3 is not a trademark. So please spare me your critic of what I sound like I know.

I'm very familiar with this area of law.

TC

[jamboi]

82. A corporate name certainly is intellectual property. It doesn't appear UR

familiar w/ Intellectual property law. Trademark is only one part. Service mark, copyright, corporate names, logos, goodwill, etc. are all part of I.P. it is not limited to a formal registered trademark.

[Truman01]

85. If you read the post, none of those were used.

The post used the intitials BBV and clean up crew. Those aren't protected in any way. Please stop with the fantasy that you know what you are talking about.

TC

[jamboi]

72. "Intentionally filed a day late" -- what total rubbish! n/t

[Truman01]

81. Have you read the suit?

The suit specifically states that they are one day late. See my other posts for why this is illegitimate.

TC

[jamboi]

83. One day late if they wanted to "contest" the election only. They could not

meet the evidential bar, so they couldn't have accomplished a contesting of the election anyway. They did the best they could w/ limited evidence and time. See my posts elsewhere for more on this.

[Truman01]

84. See that sounds good but it isn't the way law works....

If you are being prevented from meeting the "evidence bar" (which is not what she claimed) you file in a timely manner and seek a remedy. She claimed that she didn't file because they election officials didn't give her full disclosure. Her remedy was to file and ask for a motion to compel the full disclosure. I know to a non-lawyer this may not sound like much but to an attorney it is very telling. They didn't want this lawsuit to go anywhere. It was simply filed as proof they were doing something. Like it or not that is true.

TC

[Bouncy Ball]

4. What?

Are you just blowing smoke?

[Fescue4u]

6. no not at all

See my post above.

[New Earth]

5. here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=201&topic_id=2666&mesg_id=2666

just look for her name.

she was kind of a bitch at first, but then calmed down to explain herself.

[Maddy McCall]

7. LOL! Good question. She threatened two weeks ago, but has been...

sidetracked busting up retirement parties in sunny Florida. But I bet that just as soon as she gets back, she'll have her bevy of lawyers (pun intended) file papers soon. One must bite the hands that feeds it. :-)

[Bouncy Ball]

15. I hope you are kidding with all that.

She didn't threaten any kind of lawsuit in that thread.

[Maddy McCall]

19. Oh yes she did.

[Bouncy Ball]

23. She did what?

I just read that whole thread.....what did she do? She asked them to stop using that name because it jeopardized her organization's tax status. Everyone understood, agreed, and started a new thread with a different name.

What's the problem? She's working hard for US, let's not slam the lady for something she didn't even DO.

[Bouncy Ball]

26. She posted exactly THREE times to that thread.

I re-read every one of her words and NOWHERE did she even MENTION a lawsuit.

[Maddy McCall]

27. The thread linked above isn't the one in which she threatened to sue.

When the archives are searchable again, I'll find it.

[Bouncy Ball]

31. Well if and until I see that

I have to assume she said no such thing.

Why would y'all be trying to work against her?

[Maddy McCall]

40. Look at the thread I just started in this forum.

Entitled Proof that Bev threatened to sue DU.

I'm not working AGAINST her. I am advising people to exercise caution and to realize they can become involved in other ways than through her.

[Bouncy Ball]

52. Yeah I just read that whole nasty thing Ida posted at the bottom

of this thread. You obviously have some kind of personal vendetta against Bev Harris. I don't know why and I don't WANT to know why. Leave me out of it. It just looks really nasty to be tearing down someone who is working so hard on these election issues.

[Bouncy Ball]

75. BINGO!

We have the motivation right here.

So Maddy, what organization are YOU now working with?

You ARE working against her. I see you started a whole new thread about this.

If this isn't working against someone, I'd hate to see what you DO consider it to be.

[aquart]

39. So you have no evidence. This is simple slander?

Gosh, why would it be important to do that? Let me think.

[Maddy McCall]

43. Why don't you look at the new thread I started that is all about PROOF

Huh? Or did you reply a little too quickly here?

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. Maddy, just go away.

I've seen the whole thing and you're just causing trouble. This was resolved. DUers were wrong, Bev was right. Why can't you admit it?

[jamboi]

79. You're doing the work of the opposition, intentional or no. Wasteing

people's time over petty crap.

[brainshrub]

58. I read the thread. She did not.

She asked politely and explained her reasons. Nothing unreasonable.

She is organizing, almost singlehandedly, against an army of evil Republican lawyers bent on destroying her work. The tiniest technicality and her organization, and quite possibly democracy in the United States, might be sunk.

If Bev Harris asked me to stop using the word "cheese" in order to help make sure that her organization gets some added protection against the BFEE lawyers, I would only ask how to pronounce "Fromage."

[Must_B_Free]

8. RED HERRING - Yayhoos were accidentally squatting on her name

I thought she was totally justified... She has an organization that coulds suffer damage from people voilating it's legal requirements in her name, intentional or not.

Lame attempt to smear her. You people are scared shitless aren't you?

[Fescue4u]

10. WHAT?

Im not smearing.

Im asking a valid question. I saw a discussing of a suit a few weeks back and Im wondering..what the damn status is.

Im hardly advocating such a suit.

[Must_B_Free]

24. If you had in fact read that discussion you are referring to

you would know that there was no lawsuit, just Bev protecting her org name.

[Fescue4u]

30. Then how the frap did I learn about it?

If I didnt read it? Im not psychic.

I already said it. I read a thread, that wasnt locked that time btw, that talked about a lawsuit.

Im asking a simple damn question. I read about it, I couldnt find the followup so I inquired.

Now I've gotten an answer (and thank you for the non flame, straight answers from those that provided it)

Gheez. this is not freperville, folks ARE allowed to ask questions right?

[Bouncy Ball]

37. Might I respectfully suggest something?

From one Dem who wants to fight the BFEE to another, this thread could be potentially harmful, as in leading others to believe there IS a lawsuit. You might think about asking a mod to lock or delete it, since it has been established that there is no lawsuit and we WANT Bev to do good work!

I say all this in sincerity and with NO intention of flaming!

[Fescue4u]

59. Indeed.

Actually I alerted on it about 10 minutes ago ask for it to be locked.

txs and I didnt see your reply as flame.

[Bouncy Ball]

63. Thank you, glad you didn't!

:hi:

[Must_B_Free]

51. You did read a thread but you didn't read it carefully

In your title you refer to "the lawsuit" as if it is something that exists. It isn't and it was clarified onthat thread what was said and why it was said.

Clearly if you followed you own thread, this thread, you are aware of the details at this point. So I can only conclude that you are a scared troll playing dumb and trying to smear Bev because you know you are going to lose and quite probably your party is going to suffer unrecoverable damage. Think Watergate x 100, that's what is coming your way, troll.

[Fescue4u]

55. Oh go away

Yea, I've been here for 2 years, posted 1800 messages Just so i can piss you off.

WOW..you've discovered my grand plan.

your're a friggin genius.

[Must_B_Free]

66. you're the one referring to a "lawsuit" that doesn't exist

and referring to reading about it, when every reference to it has clearly debunked this attack.

[Fescue4u]

70. ummm.. well. thats why I asked about it

To see if it actually existed. duh.

and every debunk has occured in this thread (which I appreciate). But to flame me because of the answers is getting kinda silly doncha think?

[AmyCrat]

9. It wasn't a lawsuit

Just a cease and desist notice (regarding using the name BBV and clean up crew).

[Bouncy Ball]

11. That's what I was about to say

I just read that part of the thread and she simply asked them not to use that name for their thread. So they agreed and renamed it.

That's a far cry from a freaking lawsuit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. We have a winner.

Simple, short explanation. Thank you.

[New Earth]

13. she could have been a little nicer about it though

being that she is a member on this board and know that people respect her. that's not really the way you talk to people who are trying to help you out.

[The Doctor.]

41. She wasn't mean - she was straightforward...

The improper use of her trademarks could seriously impede her efforts.

She could have been alot less 'nice'.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. On a scale of 1 to 100, with Maddy's reaction being 100...

Bev's reaction was about a 5.

[Fescue4u]

14. txs for the straight answer /nt

[johnaries]

16. BullSh*T! I read that thread, she NEVER threatened a suit...

against DU! Someone stepped over legal limits, and Bev had to make sure she was protected, legally. She never threatened to sue anyone! This is just pure BS!

[Bouncy Ball]

17. These kinds of rumors

can end up being very hurtful.

[NVMojo]

21. right on!!! It is bs!!

pathetic behavior at a time we should keep our eyes on the prize, bringing the Bush regime down. No wonder the Dems can't get their crap together. Too much ego fighting. I really, really wonder how Rove got all the cats herding in the same direction to take this country over the way they did.

[smartvoter]

18. She wasn't out of line. And she was right.

I have had a very bad legal experience down this path and she was absolutely right. In fact, she's obligated defend the name and it's usually done with attorneys. She posted a notice but was supportive of the efforts. I see nothing wrong with that.

[The Doctor.]

22. Just reviewed the thread- Bev is 100% right...

One cannot usurp a trade name.

Doing so is working against her.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. You're too rational for this thread. :-)

Maddy is a real mudslinger. Bev is out there representing herself as a non-partisan auditor and we had some well intentioned people take on her blackboxvoting name without her permission. She had every right to be upset.

I support the clean-up crew, but they made a mistake and it was all hashed out and all was forgiven. Maddy is just stirring up something that she hasn't been able to resolve personally.

[Truman01]

48. No one usurped a trade name....

This thread drives me crazy. People are defending Bev like she can do no wrong. None of the terms she was complaining about are a trade name or are even associated with her 501(c)3. BBV is not hers, and cleaning crew has NOTHING to do with her legally. She simply went off on a poster and basically served her with a cease and desist and threatened to bring in her attorneys.

Bev is strange. She isn't doing what she perports to be doing. You will see, her actions are all about making a for profit docudramma.

TC

[Bouncy Ball]

61. Uh, yeah, ok, WHATever.

MmMmmmmmkay.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Okay, we'll wait and see. And if in the process of bringing down

the Republican party she makes a buck, I will find some way to forgive her. :eyes:

[Bouncy Ball]

65. LOL, yeah, me too!

[RedEagle]

86. Please source your information

"You will see, her actions are all about making a for profit docudramma."


To my knowledge, Bev is not producing the documentary or reaping any profits from it. The people doing it are not associated with her or the organization.

How she or the organization stands to profit from it, bears some explanation.

Maybe, ultimately, people would donate to the organization if they see it as being effective, from the film.

And if the film makers manage to make anything from their efforts, so what? They deserve it.

But don't associate them with Bev or Blackboxvoting.

They just happen to have decided to make a film about this and they are filming more than just Bev.

If you are going to make statements like this, then back them up with proof.

So far, all that Blackbox has done is try to host the video clip when their site got shut down, then Blackbox went down in the effort.

That was not to make money, but to make information available.

Or would you also object to Blackbox listing a link to the film Palast did? Would you make the same accusation of Palast? He did write a book, went on a tour, and made more money than Bev will ever see from hers.

[Truman01]

87. I will admit I have no proof, but I'll bet she is in on the making

of the docudrama. Watch what I tell you....

TC

[The Doctor.]

32. Fescue4u - Question '4u'....

Where did you get that idea?
(That she had a lawsuit pending.)

You must have a reason for saying so - who misled you?

Or is it true?

What's your source?

[Fescue4u]

44. sigh...I'll answer

I don't have a "source". Im not trying to make a statement.

Folks. This is not rocket science. I read some legalistic stuff about bev harris, DU, copyright stuff.

Im not a lawyer. When I hear lawyer(ish) talk, cease and desists etc I think lawsuits. I WAS WRONG

I suppose my "source" is here. I read a thread that contained the "legal stuff". I couldnt find it again. I just wanted to learn the followup.

SORRY FOLKS. I didnt dream I would be stirring up a shitstorm.

MODS...I got my answer. Please lock this thread.

[The Doctor.]

49. Well you sure got a whole lot of opinions!

;)

[Must_B_Free]

56. Lets get to the bottom of this

what did you read?

Because if you read the thread we are all referring to, then you didn't read whole thing, because it was all clarified at the time of that thread and you would already know the answer to your question and not have answered it.

[Fescue4u]

77. hell I don't know.

I read stuff that made me think one thing (and Im not goint to say it again ;)

I guess it wasnt clear to me. mea culpa.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. She made one knee-jerk comment and Maddy is eviscerating

her for it. Bev comes back from the field exhausted to deal with this? It wouldn't encourage me to stick around here much longer either. This is another reason why I don't want to come out to help out the Dems if Maddy is the kind of person I have to work with.

[JohnnyCougar]

71. As soon as Bev comes forward with the proof she claims to have,

I will cut her more slack. As for now, her ego seems to be getting in the way of progress, and I don't trust her motives.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IdaBriggs]

35. I think it was just a tired moment. Here's the thread ...

where things started getting out of hand -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=3300#3461 -- not one of her finest moments, but more on the "exhausted" side of life. Things calmed down pretty quickly.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. Thanks Ida.

Now the big question: Why is Maddy allowed to do this kind of thing?

[New Earth]

64. wow

that did get pretty out of hand

[liberal43110]

45. There's a Different Post from Bev

There was a later post from Bev. The subject line, I believe, was "Tortious Request," in which she did make a stronger statement. I completely see her point, so I'm not trying to say that she was out of line. I just wanted to help clarify the situation because I clearly remember Bev's post.

[catnhatnh]

67. Have asked the moderator to explore your thread...

...if innocent there's no problem but this is the second one tonight regarding history and it is invasive..

[johnaries]

73. Thank you, Cat! Very inflammatory and no substance.

n/t

[Fescue4u]

74. i alerted on it myself awhile ago.

clearly this cant be discussed without inflaming passions.

[Wonk]

80. kick, like this needs one, lol, nt