Bev Harris questions the Curtis allegations.

[Stevepol]

Bev Harris has some strong reservations about the Curtis affidavit and the Madsen article. She thinks it could be "disinformation." Her problems with the article are mainly that it would not be necessary to go to the lengths of writing a whole program to rig the machines since it's so easy to do it in other ways already and that some of the information that Curtis gives is suspect: how is he able to talk about a "Qui Tam" case, e.g., when legally such must be kept under seal, as happened to Harris CA when she brought her case against Diebold. Anyway the whole article is at her web site:

www.blackboxvoting.org

[intelle]

1. Hate to say this but

Not convinced of the credibility of either sources...BBV or Madsen. IMO, to me, this original post might be a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

Incontrovertible EVIDENCE has a way of convincing the skeptics...haven't seen any.

Arnebeck, on the other hand, may have some real evidence.

[New Earth]

4. that's what i'm talking about!

Arnebeck has my attention. I get good vibes from that guy.

[seito]

9. I wonder what Arnebeck is holding

It sure seems like there is some hard evidence there.

[New Earth]

18. he has actually used the phrase 'hard evidence'

that's a strong phrase to use, and he doesn't seem to talk out his ass.

hope i'm right.

[SueZhope]

15. Im on the Arnebeck train

seems to be the must believable at this point.
I look forward to what he brings out for the world to see.

I guess he is adding more each day to his case for he had not filed his suit yet

[bunny planet]

91. Me too. He's come right out and is going to file suit, he must have

real evidence to do that. No subterfuge, no espionage, just a plain old-fashioned right out in the open lawsuit. I'm very hopeful on the Arnebeck front, especially curious about Warren County, that's the fake FBI 'lockdown' county. Also hopeful on the Glib recount.

[lonestarnot]

142. Cliffie the Lawyer Train.

:bounce:

[propagandafreegal]

35. This is crazy! Who do you believe! I think we just have to keep

the intention and let your higher power work it out....

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[intelle]

74. Not believing is not the same as not having faith

I have faith that the truth will prevail, and, that this corrupt election will be exposed for what it is.

I do not necessarily believe the information coming from BBV or Madsen. This does not mean that I won't eventually. I am one who needs to see some proof of things when allegations are being made.

[jamboi]

95. Getting folks to fight is classic psyops !

[SomthingsGotaGive]

123. Interesting indeed..

One would think Bev has more pressing matters to attend to--like her own investigations--rather than taking the time to Debunk or question other's work.

But alas this is a story that goes against her magic bullet theory and therefor creates a threat she must neutralize.

It is interesting now that we've decided not to to argue with her anymore she's picking new fights.

[intelle]

129. Jamboi, I hope you didn't think

I was trying to get people to fight? It was certainly not my intent at all. If anything, I was simply stating my opinion.

[Razorback_Democrat]

2. Besides, it might interefere with her fund raising n/t

[MRKARNO]

3. Bev just wants the attention to turn back towards her. eom

[Broken Acorn]

5. Does anyone know Bev's party affiliation?

Could she be a Repuke? Just curious.

[New Earth]

8. i doubt it

not after watching the votergate.tv clip.

but at this point, who knows....

[mirandapriestly]

25. On her site she said that George Bush

bought her book and that we would be surprised who was on her side. I don't think she meant that Bush was on her side though

[eowyn_of_rohan]

26. What is she DOING these days for the cause? -nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. Does anyone really believe that Bush bought her book?

:shrug:

[m.standridge]

168. strugglin' to believe it

alright,
ho hum, here's another pollin' tape.
GHWB bookmarker?

[jamboi]

107. Party affiliation is irrelevant. If she uncovers fraud, she's okay by me.

[intelle]

6. Also, not real sure what this means

On her site 12/5. Not sure what this means (am I dense?), but not sure why she has to make the dem/repub distinction at all if she is REALLY non-partisan.

Maybe I am being too picky here?


"Update: SUNDAY, DEC. 5, 2004: Black Box Voting is honing in on seven investigations right now. To the surprise of some, five of the counties we are investigating are Democratic. A national investigation we are doing trends Republican. Our members just want clean elections. We want answers, not theories, statistics, or potentialities, and therefore we are concentrating on areas which have anomalies, and where we believe we can get the facts. "

[New Earth]

19. i think she's just trying to piss off the people at DU

[mostly_lurking]

23. I think she's trying to woo Free Republic members

since she can no longer post her she needs another forum to solicit funds.

[righteous1]

58. LOL, you think?....ooooh that would be insidious

[robbedvoter]

126. Yup. One spokesman posting on Malloy's board clarified this:

That means we want support from right wingers, and we want left-wingers who don't support greater voting rights to keep their mouths shut on the issue. (I skip the part where I get insulted, you can get it here)
http://mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=138511#138511

So, you see, all of THEM, and only those of us who obey.

[Roger_Otip]

7. i think this statement is very true

"Getting the facts is tedious, unexciting work, consisting of auditing and personal interviews, and it takes time. Many Americans want a magic bullet, a single shot that will blow the lid off everything at once."
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/#feeney

i'm suspicious every time someone mentions the phrase "smoking gun" - makes it all sound like conspiracy theory stuff and undermines the good solid evidence we already have.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

125. this is CYA at its finest.

Everyone must remember that Bev offers only BETA versions of her statements on her site

You must always check back for the latest "bug free" update.

What you're looking at there is v2.2 beta of that statement.

The earlier version of this statement read ....

WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN !!!!!!!

[Snivi Yllom]

10. Bev who?

[intelle]

13. LOL! n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Blue_In_AK]

92. Newbies

Don't be so hard on us Newbies here. Speaking for myself, I didn't even know this site existed until after the election. I think many of us thought that John Kerry would definitely be elected and when he wasn't, the possibility of fraud became very real. I needed to find out what happened and found my way here. I've been reading everything I can on this subject since 11/2 and I'm convinced.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[SomthingsGotaGive]

127. I like seeing newbies like you.

Here for 2 weeks and you have less than 50 posts, you take the time to read the site then start casually posting.

I read this site for six months before realizing there was even a forum. Then I lurked for another six months until I got an e-mail address other than hot mail.

I have a problem with people that don't read the site they are posting on in order to get a feel for the place.

I've seen several people rocket to 1000+ posts in less than 2 weeks and I wonder to myself how much stock should be put in peoples opinion if they don't even take the time to read all the arguments?

[bunny planet]

98. I personally joined because I was despondent about the results of the

election and was frustrated by Dailykos's non-discussion of the fraud and disenfranchisement issues. I even tried to wake them up over there the night before the election when they were acting like we had it in the bag and were not even worried about the vote being stolen again. That is why I joined in November, I think that is probably why alot of relative newbies are here now, although some I guess are suspect in their reasons for being here. Don't group all of us together like that. It's kind of insulting. Don't you want more and more new members? I'm trying to turn at least 10 people a day onto this site, all of whom are depressed about * potentially having four more years to destroy our country. Welcome them please.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[bunny planet]

118. Thank you!

;)

[Nothing Without Hope]

117. I was another.

I can give you my story of newbieness, and I'll bet it's pretty average. It's not surprising to me that there are a lot of newbies that have joined since the 2nd week in November.

I tried for some time to join the DU board, but there was an administration-set block to new membership in place. This lasted for a couple of weeks at least, though I don't know the exact length of time. When the block finally went away in the second week of November and new members were accepted again, I joined DU immediately. I imagine a lot of other people did the same thing, so that there were probably a LOT of newbies joining within a few days' period in the 2nd week of November when the block was removed.

I wanted to join because the news in general and updates on fraud in particular are freshest and most up-to-date here and I really like the sense of community. I hadn't joined in the months before because I wasn't frustrated enough yet and was generally satisfied with what I was getting with the various proressive blogs. I imagine more newbies are continuing to join because most liberal blogs still don't give much space to the election fraud issue and a lot of people don't believe "just moving on" is the way to solve the issues we face.

[indigonation]

143. Me three

I've already posted my newbie reasons for being here at least once, and echo my fellow newbies statements above.

I agree there are some suspicious new people out there, but everyone was new at one time. What a movement to bring so many people in at once. That should be a positive, not a negative. What an opportunity to pull our liberal heads together.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people don't like new "faces" and would prefer to keep this a cozy little clique. If that's true, I'm outta here -
But, I've only seen a little of that attitude.

Still, the sources illuminating DU will also bring in contrary voices as well. This is a public board. People can troll it at will without posting. So I don't see why there is concern about the opposition seeing whats being discussed. And for those real freepers who chose to post, on any progressive blog, it doesn't seem to take them very long until they loose the "act" and start posting their normal hate-spewing drivel and get kicked off. I've been around long enough to see that. Actually, watching them implode is kinda fun, ain't it?

A little trust, please.

151. "me four" nt

[Spiffarino]

156. It's hard to have a "cozy little clique"

...with over 59,000 souls.

The city I live in has close to the same population as DU.

There are all kinds of people in my town. Some are nice and some are real jerks, and that's what any reasonable person expects. I can't imagine why anybody would think it should be any different here.

Newbies, keep on posting. Put on a flamesuit if you have to, but stay in and participate. It's just like moving to a new place; you have to get a feel for the culture, but once you do it gets pretty comfy. We need you and we want you here. Make no mistake about that.

:toast:

[HeyManThatsCool]

14. Seems to me

That Bev questions everything that doesn't come out of her own mouth.


I, for one, question whether SHE is guilty of pushing disinformation

[righteous1]

16. True, but she's not the only one

Olbermann has some notable issues as well

[HeyManThatsCool]

20. What do you see

as being Olbermann's notable issues?

[righteous1]

38. check out his blog from yesterday, the first paragraph n/t

[high density]

112. What are you talking about?

Exactly one month to the day before Congress will open the votes of the Electoral College, the Secretary of State of Ohio certified the state’s vote this afternoon, that moment in time which separates the Re-Count Exhibition Season from the Re-Count Regular Season.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6533008/

What is so wrong with that?

[ParanoidPat]

133. Which "disinformation" would that be?

Let's look at what "hard" evidence we have so far. :evilgrin:

We know for a FACT that the Diebold election system is totally insecure. How do we know that? Someone found the source code on an open unprotected public server, downloaded it and invited anyone and everyone to look at it. That same someone worked with several different groups of computer professionals to examine the software and expose the security problems within it. That someone also wrote a book detailing the security issues found and when she was accused of "hyping" the problems discovered, motivated by potential book profits, she gave the book away for free on the Internet. The charges leveled in that book led to several well published studies from leading computer security experts (Avi Rubin / Johns Hopkins University, RABA, SIAC) all of which substantiated the claims of severe security issues that she published.

Are you claiming that this was all disinformation? :shrug:

Diebold claimed that it was old software and it was not being used currently but someone proved that it was indeed in use at the time using public records and FOIA requests. So we know for a FACT that Diebold lied about it's problems.

We also know for a FACT that Diebold outright lied to public officials about the certification of the software versions loaded onto machines used in California. How do we know this? Someone was given some 13,000 internal e-mails and memos from Diebold, vetted their authenticity, and then put her ass on the line to publish them! Some of those documents serve as the basis for the Qui-Tam suit that for the first time will lead to 'discovery' of facts in a case against a voting machine manufacturer. That information was solid enough that our Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, joined the suit.

Could this be the "disinformation" of which you speak? :shrug:

I know for a FACT that someone (actually several someones) made a number of trips to California to speak before public meetings of the Voting Systems Panel and subsequently came back for a private meeting with them (I was there!) in the Secretary of State's boardroom
to present evidence of an exploit so easy and virtually undetectable that the SoS enacted a list of 'safeguards' recommended by someone.
He also went as far as decertifying the Diebold TSx machines for use in the state and placing the other DRE's on a conditional certification that required that the 'recommended safeguards' be in place before the machines could be used. He also ordered that paper ballots be made available to anyone who still didn't trust the machines.

While many people spoke at these public meetings outlining their fears and concerns about the use of the machines, they all based their fears and concerns on the FACTS that someone else had already provided "hard" evidence of. Guess who that was.

How do you suppose she fooled everyone with her disinfo? :shrug:

Someone "claims" to have sent out FOIA requests to thousands of counties across the country but didn't take the time to scan and post them all as "proof" so what proof does anyone really have that she did?

Other than the FACT that the Florida courts seem to be convinced that Ms. LaPore is in violation of her duties for not turning the documents over within the specified time frame and the FACT that documents were turned over by other counties and the FACT that NBC in Palm Beach aired some of the video and apparently also believed the story isn't proof enough for some.

If it's all disinfo then my hat's off to her! :)

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of "disinformation" around here.

"Bev is making a documentary."

Nope, she'll be in one but she's NOT making it.

"Bev is going to profit from the documentary."

Nope, she has no financial ties to it.

"Bev is "making money" off donations to BBV.org."

Nope, I guess if you believe that you don't understand how a 501c(3) 'non profit' corporation works or the reporting and accounting requirements when it comes to how solicited donations are spent.

"Bev threatened DU over her ego and thinks she owns the term BBV."

Nope, Bev gained certain legal rights to the name the day her book was published. Technically the 'non profit' corporation gained certain rights to the name "Black Box Voting" just as sure as MoveOn.org and the American Civil Liberties Union have to theirs by their incorporation under those names. Bev as Executive Director of the organization has a duty to ensure that the name be protected from anything that might bring harm to the organizations reputation.
When over a dozen posts showed up here with "DU/BBV Cleanup Crew" (Cleanup Crew was also in use for some time prior on her site) it was apparent that someone could easily be led to believe that the wild speculation and unsubstantiated allegations being made in those threads was somehow related officially with the organization. Just for grins, try starting a few "DU/ACLU Research Crew" threads to 'help' them on one of their investigations and see how they react.

"Bev has not been forthcoming in providing "proof" and answering our questions! She OWES it to us!"

Please send $20.00 to the ACLU and then demand answers to all of your questions and further demand to see the PROOF of their case in a pending legal action. Let us all know what their answer is. :eyes:

"Bev can't seem to get any "main stream media" attention."

Just a quick glance at my archives shows me stories that have appeared on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, CNNI, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, Time Magazine, Vanity Fair Magazine, The NY Times, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and on and on and on. You would be hard pressed to find any media outlet anywhere that she hasn't been on or in at least once. Don't believe it? Just Google her name and the name of any media outlet.

"Bev attacked Keith Olbermann!"

Bev responded to an attack by K.O. precipitated by DUers calling and e-mailing him demanding that he have her on his show to produce what evidence she had collected so far. Bev did not ask that people do that on her behalf nor did she want to go public just yet until all the evidence that was requested had been turned over and a proper case had been built. That's the way investigations are done. K.O. lashed out at Bev under the belief that she was behind the e-mail campaign aimed at him.

I could go on but I think you get my drift. Could you be just a little more specific in what "disinformation" you believe she's spreading?
I for one can't wait to hear this.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Who cares?

[VTGold]

21. Yeah but he started in 1999 - way before Bev started. looking into....

... all the ways eVotes could be stolen.

I'm inclined to be very wary of his story but programming approach can't really debunk him.

I used to be a programmer and there are many many ways to skin a cat - some are less creative than others - maybe Mr. Curtis isn't all that imaginative in his programming or maybe it was just "early days in vote stealing".

[Justitia]

22. I am so confused as to who are the good guys & who are the bad guys

and with such an important topic, I hate feeling that way.
Ambiguity on this really sucks.

[BeFree]

29. Confused?

Really, it's quite clear.

The people who would deny the basic right to voting are the enemy. Anyone who works to establish complete voting rights is a friend.

Do some of our friends make terrible mistakes? Sure.

Who can you trust? The answer begins to reveal itself only after you question yourself: Am I completely trustworthy? Do I ever screw up and make mistakes?

[Cheswick2.0]

24. Bev should just stick to what she is doing and let others do the same

It seems like there is always some big thing about to happen and nothing ever does.
Obviously we need more than one group working on this problem.

[IAMREALITY]

27. Oh No!!!! Bev is Questioning It. The Authority On Everything Fraud

Related has said so!!

Well, I could give a rats fat ass. She may be good at what she does and helpful to our cause, but she is in no way an investigative authority on such issues. I can't help agreeing with a post above that this is just in part a way to focus the attention back on HER investigations. I am sad to say that the events of last week have tarnished my image of her to a degree. I still support what she is doing 100%, but I find it harder to TRUST her motives and words, when those words have been used for such self serving motivations in the past.

Course, she might be right, but time will tell. Madsen, Clint, Bev, all of them might lead us astray, all might save us, or any from the group. We just simply don't know yet. I will continue to proceed with cautious optimism in hopes that one, all three, or completely someone else will turn up that smoking gun we all so desperately need.

[bunny planet]

116. Bev is a card-carrying Narcissist. This is a destructive personality

disorder to have regardless of who's side she's on.

Hate to sound all new-agey because I'm not but here goes.I don't know how many of you have read a book on the creative process called 'The Artist's Way' but there is a personality outlined in that book called a 'Crazymaker'. 'Crazymakers like drama, if they can swing it, they are the star. Everyone around them functions as a supporting cast, picking up their cues, their entrances and exits, from the crazymaker's (crazy) whims. ........ The crazymaking dynamic is grounded in power, and so any group of people can function as an energy system to be exploited and drained. Crazymakers can be found in almost every setting... Fame may help to create them, but since they feed on power, any power source will do. ....Right in the nuclear family (there's a reason we use that word), a resident crazymaker may often be found pitting family member against family member, undercutting anyone's agenda but his or her own.

Here are some common 'crazymaker' modus operandi:
1. Crazymakers break deals and destroy schedules
2. Crazymakers expect special treatment
3. Crazymakers discount your reality
4. Crazymakers spend your time and money
5. Crazymakers triangulate who they deal with
6. Crazymakers are expert blamers
7. Crazymakers create dramas - but seldom where they belong
8. Crazymakers hate schedules - except their own.
9. Crazymakers hate order, their controlled chaos serves their purpose
10. Crazymakers deny they are crazymakers

Advide from the author, " If you are involved with a crazymaker, stop dancing to his/her tune."

I think Bev fits the description above to a tea. What do y'all think, any of it sound familiar? This does not discount any good work she has done or is doing. Very often these kind of people are artists or creative thinkers themselves, and can be quite successful, they are just in varying degrees, destructive to the creative or positive pursuits of others.

Thanks for indulging my wandering off into armchair psychology.

:-)

[kk897]

28. There's history here if you're new you should know

Just recently on DU there was a GIANT kerfluffle wherein Bev was "tombstoned"--kicked off DU--essentially for continually creating virtual fistfights and for threatening to sue DU and DU posters multiple times, according to a rare Administrator's post explaining the situation. That was, what, a week ago? But it goes back much further, to 2003. There's much controversy surrounding Bev (and Keith Olbermann and their interaction). Many threads were started and many verbal wrestling matches ensued.

Then someone posted that Bev had cozied up to the Libertarians. Certainly in a post she said that the Dems had at the very least rebuffed her efforts and, the implication was, at worst were in on the whole thing. So that explains why perhaps she was at pains to point out that her investigation had both parties on the list.

Sooo... I don't know what to make of it all myself. Accusations fly all over the place. Everyone's credibility is challenged.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[understandinglife]

37. I think it means DU is an attractor and that....

...it's efforts to organize, coordinate and dig deep, quickly, into systemic disenfranchisement, potentially build case support for legal action, focus efforts to convince members of both the US HR and Senate to refuse to repeat 6 Jan 2001, and truly uncover the scum that has nearly wrecked our Constitution and our franchise of democracy -- well, what do you expect to happen ;-)

The beauty of what I've observed (and I've only been here a short time) is that for those of us who are prepared to die to prevent the trashing of our democracy, by the gravest threat since Jefferson Davis walked out of the US Senate, we have a place to contribute whatever energy, thoughts and efforts we can muster to that cause.

The other beauty of the site (and, in a somewhat different way dKos, and, again, in a different but effective way, Brad Blog) is that it is so very very easy to gage effectiveness of the effort to uncover the threat and force action against it -- you just watch those who come bounding in with all kinds of silly little gestures. The only problem with that stuff is if you consume any energy responding to it. In fact, one of the ways to watch it escalate is to pay zero attention to it.

So, I'm grateful to be a part of this community and it's efforts to save our franchise of democracy and I assure you, if all of you who are committed to that goal; all of you who know when you are questioning logic, accuracy, source information -- i.e., the one's doing the much needed due diligence, I have but one small recommendation (for fun, as well as, an informative test of our effectiveness), when it appears to be a 'troll' give it zero response and watch the meter jump.

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[BeHereNow]

41. Nice try.

But I don't think so.
BHN

[intelle]

48. So, oh wise one

What DO you think?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Stand and Fight]

69. Give me a break!

You're so full of yourself that you can't see the most obvious reason for people joining. People were distraught over the election, and some of them had probably been lurking on the site for some time. I know I have been for over a year now. I finally decided to join when that bastard Bush stole the election again. Furthermore, I would not have donated to the site if I was what you are so frequently implying in regards myself and others like me were true. So, come down off of your high horse and quit making your "around-the-way" accusations. Read some of the people's posts that you are trying so hard to label, and then draw an OBJECTIVE opinion of them. Don't just post your silly assumptions about someone being somehow involved in a shadowy conspiracy to infiltrate Democratic Underground. It's a great website and provides an excellent chance at reasonable discourse, but it really turns people off to have to be put before a firing squad by people like you!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

158. Stand and Fight...I'm with you. Veiled accusations are a cheap

shot. Sorry it happened to you. In the spirit of combat on this thread, where the * did you get that avatar, OMf'ingG! Just kidding, I may not like your avatar but I will defend your right to use it with my dying breath!

See you around.

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

128. Hey BHN thanks for the reply to the PM I sent you.

What exactly do you find wrong with the post above yours?

It seems pretty reasonable.

S.

[BeHereNow]

144. WHAT PM? I didn't get a PM from you...

So what are you referring to?
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

146. sent around the time of this thread I'm referring to

I've just resent it to you.

[FogerRox]

40. I have joined in the last WEEK

After lurking for a few months--I've been Bushflash since --ummm -- March IRRC. I have also Passed the DU link on to many--Including flyers I handed out in the Essex COunty area of NJ, during the last 4 weeks.

On the other hand I didnt have to much time the last 3 weeks of the campaign cause I quit my job (NJ)to Work for Kerry in FLorida, ANyone from Miramar FL?
I was at 6317 Miramar Pkwy, Miramar FL.

[tsuki]

138. Santa Rosa Beach here.

[EFerrari]

45. Newbies on the thread

I was working in another group and saw that most of our hard information came from DU. And so, joined.

Bhn, I think in part what this means is that there are a lot of disgruntled progressives out here who aren't going to go away this time.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[UpsideDownFlag]

78. hey BHN-

get the stick out, buddy. Just because someone's new, doesn't mean they're a troll.

they joined after the election? Gosh, maybe they were mad that Bush won.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[UpsideDownFlag]

96. this is true. it's just dissapointed me to see DU swarm all over newbies

after election day.

[SharonRB]

56. I think it means

that people were looking for an outlet and for people of like mind after the election debacle. I know that's what brought me here. Once you find DU, it's hard to leave -- it become addictive. I've learned so much that I never would have known about otherwise. I already watched KO so would have heard what he had to say, but that's about it. It really helps to know there are others out there who feel the same way you do -- disappointed, depressed, angry, and sure K/E really won this election.

[NVMojo]

31. Bev, this was in 1999 ...the intention is key here ...

[goclark]

33. Can we all get along ? This issue is to important

to pick on each player.

We need everyone we can get to add their wisdom.

One thing Republicans do very well... They DO NOT air their laundry in public.

How I wish we would learn that lesson.

[DTinAZ]

34. some of Bev's questions don't make sense

For example her first Q:

"1. One of the most significant problems is that, while Clint Curtis describes a technique of writing a program, he never mentions HOW he supposedly got this program into the voting machines."

and also here:

"1. How the program got into the machine. Not "theoretically" how it got in, but how Clint Curtis says he got it in there."

Did Curtis actually state that his program ever made it into any voting machines? I don't see anything about that in the affadavit.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[DTinAZ]

43. who are "we"?

"we now know who you are"

I guess I'm one of the people you're referring to...so, for my edification, pray tell...just "who" are we?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[DTinAZ]

57. you're making assumptions...

...that are generalizations, and probably not valid. Of course there are a bunch of newbies at DU this month...the explanation for that is obvious and not devious or consipiracy-related. But the newbies are probably all over the map, in terms of motivation for being here.

So again, come right out and say what you mean..."HAPPEN"...."SAME song".....etc. Quit beating around the * ;-)

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[DTinAZ]

67. come to the point

I'm a professional singer, but I don't hear anyone "singing" here...how about dropping the metaphorical language and just say what you mean, in clear language that even all of us newbies can grok.

[BeHereNow]

68. b#

I am a pro too.
What do you know about the key of b sharp.
THAT is the point.
bhn

[DTinAZ]

75. what kind of "pro"?

I guess it's time to end this "loop" -- you're not going to grace us with anything approaching plain language, and I'm done asking.

[BeHereNow]

164. Musician too.

B# is a MUSICAL joke.
Get it yet?
BHN

[DTinAZ]

180. enharmonic with "C" -- so?

It's virtually identical with the key of "C" -- so I guess your "joke" had something to do with "C" ("see") I suppose, but you were so busy identifying many of us as newbies and being totally obtuse that I guess I'm just not in "tune" with your particular sense of humor.

BTW...Bev is flat out wrong on this one...she needs to make yet another redaction/edit of her Home page...see Bradblog's response at:

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/response-to-bev-harris-questions-on.html

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[BeHereNow]

145. Interesting...those posts were deleted BEFORE you came on.

So what ever do you mean?
Tone what down?
How do you know they were my posts?
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

147. are you being genuine ?

Because many of the posts under the deleted ones refer to you.

Please stop playing games and let people be.

[BeHereNow]

149. ABSOLUTELY

genuine.
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

150. Then how about responding to my PM

The PM I just resent regarding the link I posted below about the vreeland threat instead of picking on newbies.

[jmc777]

44. You sound like a broken record. n/t

[intelle]

51. Somebody thinks he or she is omniscient

Pretty amusing.

Like I said, we know if we are sincere...and, I pity anyone who thinks that there has to be an agenda if we question the credibility of Bev or anyone else.

:puffpiece:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[intelle]

59. LOL!!!

Getting a little ruffled, huh?

my my.

[jmc777]

62. Just because....

....you've been here longer than some, and have more posts that others, doesn't mean that your thoughts and opinions are any more valid than someone who signed up yesterday. Stop being so paranoid, not all "newbies" are out to get you. :hi:

[UpsideDownFlag]

80. if 'we' know who they are...why arent they tombstoned?

God, DU self appointed police annoy me. I used to be one, but i got a life.

[Hamoth]

82. In other words

Newbs not welcome, need not comment?

[skids]

90. The chances are actually pretty high of that.

Lots of people at BBV came to the conclusion that nothing was going to happen there at about the same time. I came to DU through BBV, as did many others. Look at my posts, when you find them. Am I up to no good?

[DTinAZ]

120. same boat

I'm also on of the BBV.org "boat people" :-)
(and signing off for the day...)

[Carolab]

50. I tend to agree with Bev

I have said I don't trust the Madsen story. It's too "Tom Clancyish". That's why I'm running with the Fisher story on the Texas Connection thread. And, if I do say so myself, I've stumbled on to QUITE a plausible theory. I tried to tack Madsen's stuff onto it but Madsen's stuff is actually not essential to the plot.

[WilliamPitt]

60. Well, I am meeting the guy tomorrow

I spoke to him on the phone yesterday and he came off like a straight shooter, but who knows. I'll have eyes-on for a while, a good conversation and a look at the actual document. When I know, you'll know.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Which one Curtis or Madsen?

Make sure you let us know about all of your conversation. Thanks.

[WilliamPitt]

65. Curtis

If Madsen is there, so much the better.

[errorbells]

130. Thank you.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[intelle]

87. Why are you being so abusive to newbies?

You don't know any of us.

I am at a loss to understand.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[intelle]

100. Ok...I understand

You are a Bev supporter.

Well...if you would read the posts, at least mine, I am not bashing Bev's past research (or anyone's here) at all...I am questioning her credibility in respect to what she is currently saying about Madsen. I also question Madsen's credibility.

I know about the BBV research, and there is no dispute about that. I do question her assessment of people. That is all.

But, to say that we are all in a conspiracy here because we joined in November, is unfair and simply not true.

Did it ever occur to you that those of us who were uninvolved with the background of BBV, but who have read the historical posts connected to BEV, KO, etc. may be in a better position to be unbiased?

Just a thought here.

[DTinAZ]

109. exactly!

Thanks for saving me the trouble...you said it very well, "intelle."

I gave money to BBV.org before coming here. I came here because Bev had seemingly abandonded her own website...especially her forums. Bev was posting here, so I joined here in order to communicate with her.

Now that she's been banned here, she's working on revamping her forums, but that revamping seems to include some very heavy-handed moderation. For example, posts that contain constructive criticism are quickly deleted...but I'm NOT here to bash her, so that's all I'll say publicly on that issue.

[intelle]

111. And, you don't sound like you are bashing her, DTinAZ...thanks! n/t

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[intelle]

135. Am reading the link

A LOT of info there...thanks!

At least I see the connection.

:hi:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

136. Some people have some explaining to do If you ask me.

However BHN has never responded to any questions I have asked him. Here or PM.

[intelle]

139. I think you might be right, SomethingsGotaGive n./t

[ParanoidPat]

140. Oh yeah, about that attempted setup of Andy and BBV.......

.......look for the name seventhson on those threads. :evilgrin:

Here's a PM I got from him on Nov. 2nd.

Re: Hi
From: seventhson
Date: Nov 02nd 2004

Bush wins faggot!!!!!!!!!!!

Go suck your AIDS riddled cocks and let Americans rule
America.

You make me fucking laugh!!!!!

God Bless the Freepers.

YOU'VE BEEN FREEPED

That certainly couldn't explain anything now could it? :shrug:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

141. Hi Pat...Finally an old timer willing to comment on that thread.

I Remember the whole seventhson saga.

What a freak.

I used to read a lot of his stuff and was rather shocked by the spirit of that email.

In the thread above Andy claims to have heard from Vreeland while he was in jail.

Was Andy duped into believing that Vreelend was indeed the person that called?

Does Andy know Vreeland, if so how?

Was an explanation offered why Andy would believe the Vreeland story, or any follow up from Andy about the tip he gave the FBI/Secret Service about the nuke attack?


Re-reading that thread Seventhson is only one of Three people pushing the Vreeland Nuke warning.

Seventhson
BeHereNow
God_Bush_cheney (Andy Stephenson of BBV.org)


If Andy was Duped he needs to apologize to DU for fear mongering on such a grand scale without checking his facts first.

If Andy actually knows Delmart 'Mike' Vreeland he should really explain this connection to a wanted fraudster that claims to be a Naval Intel agent.

[ParanoidPat]

155. Andy's "connection" was a simple phone call to Vreeland.......

.......back when he was in jail in Canada after 9/11. There were many threads here talking about what he "allegedly" knew before the 9/11 attacks. There were plenty of questions and allegations but no concrete answers. Andy did what any good investigator would do, he called the jail to ask Vreeland what evidence he had and if he could back any of it up with documentation. With no proof one way or the other of Vreeland's claims or the counter claims that Vreeland was a "con man", he dropped the issue. IOW, there is NO CONNECTION between Vreeland and Andy save that phone call seeking verification of what the press was reporting at the time.

At this point I've seen no proof that Vreeland is who he says he is or proof that he's who the Government says he is. I did take the time to read quite a bit about the mysterious telephone voice mail account at the Pentagon in Vreeland's name that the Government alleged he set up by hacking the phone system from his jail cell and other assorted details of the Canadian case that don't ring quite true. Lacking any substantial proof one way or the other I can only assume that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Vreeland called Andy out of the blue when he was arrested in Iowa* and told him about a plot to nuke the twin cities. Andy called me and asked what I thought he should do. Since we both lacked any real evidence either way about the guy and there is no denying that the Sept. 11 attacks did happen and Vreeland seemed to have some foreknowledge of those attacks, we decided that making Vreelands claims of an impending attack public was in the best public interest if there was even the slightest chance that there could be some truth to it. Andy reported the calls to the FBI and then posted the account of what was discussed in the most 'matter of fact' manner he could. He did not attempt to yell FIRE in a crowded theater nor did he give any undue weight to Vreelands voracity.

Several other posters attempted to 'hype' the story and at least one turned out to be a freeper with an agenda.

Does Andy owe DU an apology for telling the truth about the calls from Vreeland and what he had alleged? NO.

Does he owe DU an apology for the "fear mongering" done by freepers on this site who attempted to blow the story out of proportion? NO.

*If Vreeland was indeed wanted so badly by the Feds for everything they claimed he did, including hacking the Pentagons phone system and setting up an account as well as getting himself listed in their directory, how in hells name did he get out of the Canadian jail without being extradited to the US to stand trial and how did he get across the border with all of the 'heightened security' post 9/11 if everyone was looking for him? Have you seen a picture of the guy? With all those tattoos he sure stands out in a crowd.

Still too many unanswered questions in that saga for anyone to really know the whole truth based only on press accounts. Kind of like that whole LIHOP/MIHOP/PNAC deal. :)

[BeHereNow]

160. BRAVO!

I LOVE YOU for this post.
Forever and ever.
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

163. Thanks Pat

Thank you for trying to clarify this.

So if I understand you correctly, Andy called Vreeland while in a Toronto jail.

Was that the Toronto Don Jail and if so was he in a special section where prisoners were allowed phone calls?

I am actually even more concerned about this issue now that you have verified directly from Andy that he did indeed talk to the real Vreeland after his most recent arrest. Although it is a bit unclear how he knew it was him, I'll assume he recognized the voice.

Everything you say questioning Vreeland's credibility I agree with. I live in Toronto and followed the vreeland case. Thats why Andy's call from him is so disheartening.

Vreeland is most likely a fraud.

You said that Andy called you for advice before going public with the information. Had he contacted the FBI by this point and if so why didn't you advise him to wait for some clarification from them before posting here on DU where Andy knew his reputation was solid and he was well respected.

To be honest it was that thread that made me seriously doubt BBV.org.

You said Andy just told you Seventhson wasn't really a freeper ?!?!?

Sangh0 was the guy in the thread that you say blew it all out of proportion, however I think sangh0 only saw the irresponsibility of making such claims and he was trying to discredit it right there and then to alley the fears of Minnesotan DU'rs.

To claim that seventhson and Sangh0 were responsible for the fear mongering is not fair considering Andy did nothing to down play the threat even when others were pleading he show some restraint and or back up his claims with proof for any of it.

The fact that I can be so misinformed after reading the entire thread shows Andy's negligence in not clearly explaining the situation and his connection as any good investigator would.

You haven't explained how Andy was known by Vreeland well enough that he had his phone number handy when he was arrested.

If Andy believed the content of the threat he did the right thing contacting the FBI. But, he did the organization he represents a huge disservice by allowing himself to be used in such a fashion by someone who has little to no credibility.

[ParanoidPat]

169. Well that's YOUR opinion.......

.......right now I give Vreeland about as much credibility as I give my own Government, needless to say it ain't much. :)

To some here, Vreeland does have 'credibility', to others he's just a con man. To me he's an enigma wrapped in a riddle. After reading several totally different reports about the "charges" he was wanted on the basic question still remains, 'how did he escape extradition' if the charges were so serious and varied?

I don't owe you or anyone else any more explanation than I have already attempted to give for my actions or for Andy's for that matter. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT!

Ever hear of 411? Vreeland knew Andy's name and the city he lived in. I bet even YOU could get Andy's phone number if you wanted to know what the real story is. Did you ever try to do that? Apparently not.

If you want to discuss what 'disservice' anyone has done to BBV.org PM me and I'll give you my phone number so we can discuss it in person.

I notice you've backtracked slightly and now say "Vreeland is most likely a fraud. You seemed so convinced earlier. Why do you suddenly have any doubts? Did you suddenly realize that you don't have any more credible evidence to go on than we did? What prey tell would YOU have done under similar circumstances?

Just wondering. :evilgrin:

I know for a FACT what Andy has done for the 'cause', I've been there with him at times and seen the results. Do you mind telling me what YOU have done that even comes close, since you seem to think I owe YOU explanations?

[SomthingsGotaGive]

173. Again thanks and you certainly do not owe me anything.

I didn't back track at all on Vreeland.

I said he is either NIA/CIA/NSA OR a con man.

Yes the jury is still out and I agree there are many more questions than answers.

HOWEVER you and Andy decided to make yourself part of this sordid affair by passing on obviously DUBIOUS info.

That also isn't anything to do with me.

I have indeed asked Andy directly about this at the time, as I did BHN.

Neither replied to my queries.

BHN has subsequently answered my PM once resent, perhaps I will try resending the PM to Andy.

Under similar circumstances as described by you I would have passed the info onto the FBI if I was at all concerned about the veracity of the claims. Once the authorities were informed I would follow up with them until satisfied with their investigation and then reported on it.

Yes thats right I would have waited for a response from the FBI and reported the original claim along with the FBI response.

If I was in the position Andy was in I wouldn't have touched this issue with a ten foot pole.

If, like you and others say, Andy was only one of many people with media contacts called by Vreeland from jail, I would have hoped Andy would have taken a step back and considered how this story might affect BBV.org if it was in fact as unlikely a threat as it seemed.

Judging by subsequent BBV.org updates it seems like just the type of sensationalism that got Bev in trouble with some here on DU.

You finished of your response with a snide little remark about seeing first hand what Andy has done for the 'cause' then asking what I have done.

By 'cause' I assume you mean BBV or Black Box Voting, but maybe you mean Verified Voting, or again maybe you mean the fight for Democracy I'm not really sure.

However I do know one thing.

I have donated to BBV.org, I have been subjected to endless fund raising efforts here on DU from BBV.org ( the ONLY Verified Voting group to consistently solicit on DU), and I have been subjected to very public airing of dirty laundry from an org that I was supporting and referring people to.

That alone entitles me to some answers from BBV.org !!!

Today you are the only person/representative that has taken the time to address my concerns and I thank you.

I will address any further questions to you in PM

Thanks

S.

[ParanoidPat]

174. Sorry if I was short with you.

I humbly apologize I've just been having a really bad week. Too many deaths. :evilfrown:

[sangh0]

182. You left something out

If you were to re-read the original thread, Andy never claims that Vreeland told him that nukes were going to be involved in the attack. And yet, despite Andy's claim to have not said a word about nukes, several posters claim that Vreeland's warned that the attack involved nukes.

I asked Andy if he had heard Vrelland claim that nukes were involved, and his response was that he hadn't said a word about nukes. Yet, posters continued to claim that nukes were somehow involved.

So someone is not telling the truth. Either people falsely claimed that Vreeland mentioned nukes, or Andy falsely claimed that he didn't say anything about nukes.

If you go back and re-read the thread, you'll see that there is no mention of nukes until shortly after Andy and other posters exchange PM's. Then suddenly, posters start referring to nukes even though Andy, the only person who spoke to Vreeland about the threat,claims that he (Andy) never said anything about nukes.


There was another poster (IIRC, it was either ParanoidPat of ProudPatriot, I forget which) who said they had spoken to Vreeland before Vreeland spoke to Andy, they said that Vreeland did not state the warning to him but only mentioned his arrest which led him to arrange a phone call between Vreeland and Andy, which this poster witnessed, so he heard what Andy said, but not what Vreland said. I asked this poster if Vreeland made any mention of nukes, to which the response was the opaque "Someone made a reference to nukes". WHen I asked who said what, the response was "Ask Andy"

That would be a pretty cryptic response if it weren't for the fact that there was only one other person in this poster's presence at the time of the phone call....Andy.

So someone heard Vreeland mention nukes and passed that onto DUers. One of the two posters who spoke to Vreeland (Andy) claims to have said NOTHING about nukes, while the other says that "someone" mentioned nukes, but won't say who or what was said and claims that he himself did not hear Vreeland mention nukes.

So who heard Vreeland mention nukes, and why won't they say that they heard Vreeland mention nukes?

IN addition, in that thread another poster claims to have heard similar info about nukes and the Twin Cities from a source in law enforcement.

[BeHereNow]

148. The DISinformation around that thread is ASTOUNDING.

And I am sick and tired of being misquoted regarding it.
BASTA!
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

152. Sorry how did I misquote you ?

If I did I will retract most certainly.

I only want answers to help better understand the current situation you rage against in this and other threads.

[BeHereNow]

153. Check your PM

I'll be back in an hour.
peace-
bhn

[SomthingsGotaGive]

165. the original post you accused me of misquoting you has been removed....

I would like to apologize if I insinuated that you had received a threat from Vreeland. You did not. You said your "sources" confirmed a threat but not specifically Vreeland's or Andy's passing of that info.

Thanks for your quick reply to my PM

[BeHereNow]

167. Thanks, but no need to apologize.

Things are moving really fast and emotions are high.
I hope the PM shed some light on the big picture...
as far as what is going on.
BHN

[ParanoidPat]

157. I just got a call from Andy.......

.......and it seems that the seventhson PM may not be from the the actual person who posted under that name. :crazy:

Apologies to the real seventhson if that is indeed the case.

Curiouser and curiouser. :shrug:

[BeHereNow]

162. I just got off the phone with Andy too!

He is under STRICT orders from Dr. BHN to
take a bubble bath.
Poor thing, he has been through so much.
I adore Andy and his S.O. too!
bhn

[Sideways]

86. Ohhh Big Bad Alerter.....We Are Very Very Very.....LOAO

Pffftttt

[intelle]

94. Can you please be more specific?

I really want to know why you guys are lumping all newbies together in this thread.

What is going on here?

[Sideways]

102. Lumping? We Are Lumping? I'll Have To Investigate. Must Not Lump.

EOM

[intelle]

106. I guess you are supporter?

To each his own...I just wish you would allow the same without taunts and ridicule.

[Sideways]

110. A Supporter Is A Bra Or Jock Strap. I Assure I Am Neither.

I might need to lump on this for a few moments.

[intelle]

113. Not sure what you problem is

but, it seems to be getting in the way of your abilty to be civil.

You knew what I meant.

[BeHereNow]

115. Actually DU was VERY civil

Until QUITE recently, actually.
hmmm.
bhn

[Sideways]

119. No Need To Get Snippy

EOM

[BeHereNow]

114. Yes, we go now to the "lumping room" together Sideways....

Too funny.
bhn:boring:

[Junkdrawer]

83. Yes...can't have truth spoken here on the New and Improved DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2798866&mesg_id=2798866

:(

[autorank]

159. I would value your opinion of this whole matter greatly!!!

I look forward to your analysis.

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

[BlueDog2u]

63. This is wholly predictable and should not be a basis

for anyone's altering their opinion based on careful examination of the facts -- one way or the other. There are reasons for reservations about the story, but to me this is not one of them.

End of Comment.

[mdb]

71. I believe...

Feeney did come to Curtis to write a program. Curtis handed over a prototype and this is as far as Curtis's dealing with Feeney went. The use of the program may not have even been used.

[meg]

72. Did anyone else notice the notary signature stamp

did not include a PRINTED version of the notary's name?

[Catherine Vincent]

77. It doesn't have to be printed.

At least not in Texas. I used to be a notary.

[BeHereNow]

73. Kicking for those keeping track

Fairly condensed compilation on this thread.

bhn:evilgrin:

[Alizaryn]

76. I just want to know what benefit Curtis would gain from putting

this out there if it were false. He risks perjury charges, libel suits and jail time. I cannot see the benefits (publicity..reward..) as outweighing the cost he would risk. Ideas?

[Hamoth]

85. There is one thing

but people keep getting annoyed when I say it.

He wrote a book a month or two ago. Could be promoting? Then again, he isn't mentioning it...we'll see.

So far this whole thing with Madsen, Melfin?, all the splitting and fighting...all breaking out at the same time. It all stinks on ice to me.

The MAdsen and Curtis stories are only simple claims until we get some HARD PROOF and evidence from someone.

[Alizaryn]

97. Yeah I know about the (self published?) book BUT I still cannot

see the publicity outweighing the damage I mentioned in my last post IF his claims are proved false. I have been looking, trust me, I play devil's advocate with myself to an EXTREME before accepting things as realities. It just does not add up.

[mdb]

104. Here you go.

-snip-

Curtis says he first leveled charges to the CIA, the FBI and other agencies, none of whom seemed to take an interest, and in a book, published in September. None of these venues, he said, drew much concern. So when he heard of a $200,000 award being offered by the nonprofit group Justice through Music for proof of voting fraud, he bit.

"I contacted Justice through Music," Curtis says. But "I told him that I didn't want the reward because I didn't want to taint the equation."

A spokesman for Justice through Music confirmed the reward is still available.

Since then, he has found an outlet among those in the blogosphere, where his affidavit was first released on The Brad Blog. Two newspapers have begun the process of vetting his claims. The Floridian’s appearance in Washington, and the delivery of his affidavit to Congress, may signal a deeper investigation in progress.

More...
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=479

[Alizaryn]

124. Thank you that helps!

I had not heard those questions asked and answered. thanks.

[tjdee]

81. Bev knows all about Qui Tams!

That struck me as hilarious.

But as I understand it, 1)Curtis isn't saying that HE got the program into the machine. He is claiming that a US Congressman expressed extreme interest in knowing how it could be accomplished, asking Curtis' company to come up with a way to do it, which he did.

and

2)Didn't Curtis miss the filing deadline, so therefore the case isn't under seal?

I don't understand everything here (especially the programming), but sadly I'm taking both Bev *and* Curtis with the same amount of salt these days. Looking forward to WillPitt's interview with Curtis.

[intelle]

89. Thank you, tjdee

This was what I was trying to express in my first post.

:loveya:

[Imagevision]

101. I'll go with Bev on this one

[bmoney07]

108. People, people please relax

We have several different groups/people in all levels of society that are working there butts off to make sure that we get back what is rightfuly ours (democracy and votes). This issue is not about who is doing what or where you come from. This involves all people of America Repukes, democracts and indy's, what is about it to make our democracy a little more transparent. So stop making around the way accusations that can not be backed up, and remember no matter if it is Wayne Madsen, Bev Harris, Cliff Arebeck(may have spelled name wrong), or the many other thousands of people that are working around the clock to take back our democracy we can only do what we can and that is Pray, Protest, and let people do what they do best.

Peace in the middle east and god bless America.

Stay on course and the truth will reveal all.

[Moderator]

121. I'm locking this thread

We've rehashed the Bev issue plenty of times. This thread has gotten out of control.

[Moderator]

122. I'm unlocking now that I've cleaned it up

But a note to all posters: It is against DU rules to ostracize posters because of their post count, and it against DU rules to call out or otherwise insinuate a poster is a disruptor.

This will be enforced.

[Stevepol]

134. I'm the original poster and just posted by way of informing.

I hope that Madsen is onto something big, but I also agree with Harris that it wouldn't take this vast conspiracy that Madsen seems to be postulating to rig the machines. I plan to wait and see how it develops. Meanwhile, I wish both Madsen and Harris the best. They're both doing invaluable work I think. But we each as individuals can do things to make people aware of this problem of un-audited elections, particularly when programmed electronic machines are used. I've called the local election commissioner, the head of the League of Women Voters here, contacted a local newspaper writer that I happen to know (many times sending links and articles), talked to several of the profs on the university campus here (Wichita KS), as well as many of the people I know. At least this election, if it does nothing else, can serve as the catalyst that leads to widespread awareness of the problem. I'm not sure what else we can do. I'm of course sending some money to those I think are doing valuable work. I see the progressive point of view growing little by little until it becomes more powerful than these maddening wingnuts in the country today. But it's here a little, there a little, line on line, precept on precept. That's the way anything really valuable grows.

[anamandujano]

176. Repukes do a lot of research and development on cheating

techniques--variation is how they stay ahead of the game.

Requesting a prototype or two and then going a different route makes sense. Remember when we were discussing how we would react if they used the supreme court in the same way. I wonder if the kerry lawyers were preparing for the same game as 2000. Repukes always have all their bases covered. If they kept playng the same game the same way, we could have caught them by now, imho.

[ewulf]

137. I'm not sure all of her criticisms are justified.

Certainly, Madsen is a very, very poor writer but, perhaps, a decent investigator. He finds a lot of very interesting pieces of evidence, and a lot of garbage, and mixes them together with a lot of speculation. In the end, we have some very well researched historical fiction, not journalism. Perhaps if Madsen had a good editor, things would be different.

Still, there is a lot that should not be discounted about Clinton Curtis' sworn affidavit, regardless of the writing style of the guy who first brought it to our attention, and Bev doesn't do a very good job of tearing it down.

Clint never claims that his software was every used in an actual election, indeed, he implies that it could not have been used; it was just a proof of concept demonstration of a system of vote rigging that is somewhat more advanced and undetectable (from a results analysis standpoint) than simple candidate switching. When he was asked to work on a real vote switching program, he backed out.

When Feeney first began working with Clint, he was not the Speaker of the Florida House, but rather just the corporate council and lobbyist for YEI, according to the affidavit; this is fairly plausible. The Qui Tam (or QUITAM) issue may only speak to the fact that Clint is not very legally knowledgeable or well advised, by admitting to the filing, he might have been breaking the law rather than lying, or he might just be confused about the whole thing.

There is a lot of stuff in Clint's affidavit, a lot of names, events, et cetera, that do seem to cross check with reality and this at least gives his statements a veneer of plausibility.

It seems that Bev was a little quick to judge and, from her criticisms, it is not entirely clear that she read the affidavit that closely.

[peacetalksforall]

154. Another bad, bad Bev thread.

Can DU continue to be a 'central station' for all news?

Or will DU be the vehicle of choice for character assassination.

I'm reminded of the House Judiciary Committee. Have the roles been divided up? Who is Henry Hyde here? Who is playing Asa Hutchinson? Who has the Tillie role?

[Coexist]

161. Bradblog has addressed this issue - link

http://www.bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

Good read - get you grounded.

[Mr Grieves]

170. Thanks for the link! Clears things up.

[ConsAreLiars]

172. Bradblogtoo gives a very fair rebuttal.

Bev only rebuts Madsen's mis characterization of Clint Curtis's claims. Curtis claims only that he was asked to, and did, provide a prototype for election fraud. Madsen implies that this (Curtis's program) was the way the election fraud was accomplished, and Bev says other techniques were more likely. Bev is (accurately) saying that Curtis's program was neither usable nor needed in this election. Curtis claims only that he was hired to show how fraud could be done, not that his was the ONLY - or best, or preferred - technique for fudging the numbers. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that a great variety of techniques were used. ranging from restricting access via long lines to purging voter lists and counting backwards.

Bev's argument is against those who claim Curtis's program, or something similar, was used, not against his claims which are very specific to his encounter with Feeney.

And my gripe is against those who seem to think that forming cliques is more meaningful than fighting against fraudulent elections. Every soldier in this war for democracy has earned my respect, even when they are bitterly opposed to one another on some minor issue. And every fool who promotes factionalism and divisiveness has my contempt.

[ParanoidPat]

175. Thank you.

Eloquently put. :toast:

[DTinAZ]

181. but that's NOT the way she wrote it!

"Bev only rebuts Madsen's mis characterization of Clint Curtis's claims"

If that's the case, then she need to do some serious editing on her Home page, pronto. It certainly looks as if she didn't read the affidavit, or even the detailed article about the Bradblog angle...here's a link:

http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4694

I gave money to BBV.org, but I haven't "drunk the Kool-Aid" like some others who have posted on this thread (many of those posts have been removed for policy violations). I'm a bit disillusioned, but am trying to keep an open mind and listen to all sides. However, the stuff Bev posted was just way off track or poorly written, if your take on it is accurate.

[m.standridge]

166. Reservations about both sides of this

I wish I could feel better about either side in this controversy.
Harris's group has recently been criticized for the scene they made in FL recently. Some are concerned they really muddied up the waters, and may have set themselves up for failure and a host of lawsuits.
They are now saying they are non-partisan and condemn Democrats who think they won't investigate them, too; and they say they are in some counties in FL.
Meanwhile, they attack this group or story, which doesn't seem too solid given they aren't producing technical data that sounds like they are onto something.
Cliff Arneback: he has "proof" but where is it?
I keep trying to make these numbers at Professor Phillips' website add up to enough to turn the Bush margin of 119,000 over. I'm not sure he has the numbers, although he keeps asserting he does.
I just, when I do the math, it doesn't come up to enough votes so far.
It gets it closer, but it doesn't turn it around. I mean, these 92,000+ Disqualifieds: the formula for those is that only about 1/4 are valid votes, and maybe Kerry gets 54% of those 1/4 or 26% of the "Disqualifieds". That's what, 13,000 more Kerry votes, and so many thousand more Bush votes, too. How does that destroy a Bush lead of 126,000 votes over Kerry? Then 155,000 Provisionals, even 65.7% isn't going to put Kerry ahead.
Then there is this ward-by-ward discrepancy stuff: it adds up to a total of 200,000 plus votes, but not all that is going to be Kerry votes, either. Some of that goes to Bush. Is there a Kerry "trend" strong enough to overcome the Bush lead? Where?
And what if some of this stuff is Democrats? Such as: the stuff about more votes and registered voters in some precincts of heavily-Democratic Cuyahoga County, where some of the clerks may have gone ahead and let some Provisionals be cast and counted in other precincts, despite Blackwell's ruling. What then? Then Kerry may even lose some votes.
400 hundred people showed up for one rally, a dozen--some from CA--for another.
"We" get some media attention to a story, and it turns out to be a hoax. No wonder the media steers clear--it's understandable up to a point. I want this thing to turn around. How solid is this case? How much has been found? 18,000 votes, so far. And time is running out.
What about some of these other states? The Dems. have money out their ears left over this time. Why not look at the other controversial states--Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and maybe Iowa? Why not recount those, too. Look at Colorado and Arkansas, too.
Poll tapes are disappearing, and that's fishy. They disappeared in NH going into the last of Nader's "recount" there.
Why does the media see this, and just shrug it's shoulders, no story there? Like seeing King Kong hanging off a building from a distance, and just walking on home, stopping off along the way to make a joke to the local hot dog dealer.

[pointsoflight]

171. Bev is way off on this one.

I, for one, have no problem with her and greatly appreciate her work, but she has simply misread/misinterpreted the affadavit. Her key arguments are based on her mistaken view that Curtis claims to have written a program that was used to hack the vote. Thus she asks where the evidence is that the program was used, how was the program distributed, why did he do it that way, etc. None of those questions are relevant, however. Curtis never claims to have written a program that was actually used to hack the vote. He only claims to have written a prototype.

So you can throw most of Bev's arguments right out the window as being irrelevant to Curtis' claims.

[symbolman]

177. I agree pointsoflight

Once again Bev is closing the barn door after the horse escaped..

She's confusing the Madsen article with the affidavit - didn't need Bradblog to figure that one out..

It's that simple.

I find this passage most ironic: "If the mainstream media continues to be bombarded with stories that sound credible, but aren't, when the real thing comes down the pike it will be ignored."


Bwuhaahahahaha.. that is rich.

Oh, and Vreeland called me from a Mongolian prison, he said he wants his pals here to deliver a pepperoni pizza cut into the shape of Alpha Centauri as that is the next terrorist attack.. don't forget the file this time boys..

Any DU'rs from Alpha Centauri, better start shaking in your space boots..

I've worked in TWO nuthouses and NEVER seen people get as far out as the ones backing Madsen (he's NUTS, okay? Don't let false hope get in the way of Reality folks - but keep swinging anyway) and ANYTHING about Vreeland..

That's like saying you've been abducted by greys or something.. I'm glad I am not a nut, it just makes it all the more entertaining..

I know the rules say you can't attack folks on the DU (and I hope no one thinks that), but don't you call an ASSAULT on Rational thought an Attack? Ooops, I just noticed there's an ignore button here, do they work now?

I went to jail a while back (false charges) and I couldn't even CALL MY OWN WIFE from the cells -- those in the know don't buy it, at ALL...

[DTinAZ]

179. someone's got egg on their face...

"So you can throw most of Bev's arguments right out the window as being irrelevant to Curtis' claims."

Which is EXACTLY the point I made much earlier in this thread, but it was drowned out by all the "newbie bashing" (which has since been deleted by moderators for those of you coming late to the game).

[talk hard]

178. Let's not take our eye off the ball.

All this jockeying for the top of the heap is getting on my last nerve. Although it is prudent to not give 'em another "Rather-gate,"
the media couldn't possibly care less about this whole mess. The felonies need to be traced and documented and shoved in front of the camera, and I really don't care who gets credit for it. I'm getting damn sick and tired of this in-fighting over who's the best of the best investigative journalist.