Harris and Stephenson are fixin to make a visit......

[Andy_Stephenson]

Stay to tuned to see who gets a visit and why......


www.blackboxvoting.org

www.andystephenson.com

Make Donations Guys...visits aren't free...and we are working to protect your vote.

[alfredo]

1. Something is coming up on

All Things Considered.

[RedEagle]

2. This is Getting Press

And that's a GOOD thing.

Help out if you can.

Kick!

[leftchick]

3. thanks Andy and Bev...

The donation is forthcoming.... :)

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. Kick

:kick:

[hang a left]

5. Hopefully to the appeals court.

n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. Something along those lines.

but far more influential.

[ParanoidPat]

7. I can't afford to kick in but.....

......I can't help but :kick: this! :evilgrin:

RE; Your visit, The Merlot is waiting, what would you folks like for dinner? :hi:

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Pasta....

Lots of Pasta.

[ParanoidPat]

9. Will lasagna,be alright?

My wife makes the BEST lasagna from scratch. Will that be grass fed beef, pork or vegetarian? :evilgrin:
She also makes a wonderful tempeh pasta salad that's to die for. :)

:kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. My stomach is growling now...

thanks heaps...Vegetarian will be fine btw.

[ParanoidPat]

11. Give us a call when you're in the neighborhood.......

.....one spinach, garlic and herb lasagna coming right up! And for the lovely lady? :evilgrin:

OOPS! Forgot to mention, the salmon and capers is also quite good. :)

:kick:

[RedEagle]

13. Gourmet dinning and voting activism? What a deal!

You know, that could almost be a fund raiser...

Just kidding.

OK folks, we need to help pay the operating costs for lawyers and such, even if they are pro bono.

Kick!

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. What an Idea!

RedEagle...you're brilliant!

[loudsue]

12. Great work, Andy and Bev!!

Please keep us posted!!

O8)Prayers for your success and safety!! O8)

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Exgeneral]

15. you guys are the Bomb!

You made the AP wire yesterday---the one that feeds all the FOX radio networks!!LOL!

[Andy_Stephenson]

16. We are gonna make it even bigger than that.

Stay tuned for coming attractions.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

17. the bomb goes boom

Yeah, the brutal ass-kicking they got handed yesterday was all over the news. I can't wait for the next big story. :party:

JC

[hang a left]

18. ouuuuuuuuh, haven't seen you around for a while.

Nice of you to show up.......not!

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. "Brutal ass kicking"?

I would call that a minor set back.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

21. of course you would, lol

A minor setback? The "trial" barely lasted half an hour before the judge ruled it was baseless and threw it out. Diebold and the 19 other defendants weren't even required to mount a defense, and Diebold then went on to announce another $18 million sale in Ohio later that day.

A minor setback? That's how you'd characterize it when, say, one's publisher can't produce any tangible copies of one's alleged book. When one is thrown out of court so ignominiously and in record-setting time, however, I think it's fair to call it a brutal, humiliating, kicking of one's ass.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: this is nothing more than a lot of vain publicity seeking by a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

JC

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. Hmmm

I have 10 copies of the book here and I have already passed out 10. Lets see Noam Chomsky has one...Gore Vidal...Arianna Huffington...Dennis Kucinich. Several others. Oh but you haven't gotten yours yet. TFHP your a lone voice in the wilderness now. Why do you keep insisting you are winning?

Yesterday's court case was a minor setback. As for Ohio...were not done there yet either. They are gonna get a visit. Conspiracy Theorist...not really. I am a RICO Theorist.

[RedEagle]

26. Interesting

TFHP has sure been silent for a long time.

Waited for the first little bobble to come out of the closet.

One can infer from that, that up until this point, things weren't looking so good on his side of the fence.

The problem with lawsuits is, they are more complex than the first hearing or one judge.

The problem with lawsuits is, they get attention.

The problem with this lawsuit is, it's too easy for John Q public to say, "Hey, wait a minute, that's my vote they are talking about."

Damage is a two way street. The "winner" in the end may end up with the biggest loss of all. Perception is all and defending secret code and taking a position against election security....well, those could end up bum cards for the TFHP proclaimed winner.

We know TFHP to be intelligent if opportunistic. The opportunist jumped out of the closet and attacked at the first sign of a bobble.

The intelligent part of TFHP knows that the issue is complex and that "winning" in the traditional sense can just leave you all alone with your trophy, while the crowd flocks to the loser, if they happen to empathize with them.

Many ways this plays out.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

29. there's only one way this plays out

You clearly don't even know what side of the fence I'm on.

You're right on one count: perception is everything. And Bev Harris is doing nothing more than perpetuating the incorrect but growing perception that Democrats are a bunch of sore losers who can't win on the campaign trail so they challenge election after election in court. This is incredibly damaging behavior, all in the name of feeding her own massive ego. But what does she care? She's not even a Democrat anyway, by her own admission.

The actual problem with lawsuits is that they set precedents that form the basis for future judicial rulings. Bev Harris just set a terrible legal precedent for the cause, one that future judges will have to look at if there's ever another challenge. But you're right: they get attention. Which, if you'll recall, is exactly what I've said Bev Harris has been trying to do all along.

JC

[RedEagle]

48. Fence sitting allows the smugness of always being a little bit right

TFHP,

You're right, no one can tell which side of the fence you are on because you never really get off the fence. Getting off the fence requires a commitment.

Like it or not, many people on this board, including Bev, have made a commitment. Whether the actions work in your lexicon or not, at least they are actions.

You profess one thing and then engage in negative harping on another.

What have you done, other than spread vitriol laced invectives at everyone honestly trying to make a difference?

Other than criticizing every move made here to effect change, what have you personally done to insure voting integrity?

Even if we sometimes inadvertanly act at cross purposes, at least we have a purpose with a tangible goal. What is your goal, other than ceaseless slander against one individual?

Surely an intellect such as yours would be a great asset in this fight. Why not take on some of your local and state officials on the ground level? Why waste all of your talents engaged only in negativity?

If you will provide us with your state, we'll get you started with who to contact.

[Junkdrawer]

132. So if we demand auditable elections, we're dismissed as sore losers?

And I'll say that if an election isn't auditable and audited, it's not really an election but rather a tool of population control.

[BevHarris]

133. And regarding the lawsuit being about Dems who are sore losers

Perhaps he can explain why the lead plaintiff, Jim March, is a Republican-Libertarian gun lobbyist who supported Bush?

[Andy_Stephenson]

134. Look out heads are gonna start

spining...

[SaddenedDem]

24. And you would be wrong

Hate to agree with TFHP here, but he's right on this. You got your asses kicked and should give some thought to how much DAMAGE you are doing to the REAL activists on this issue.

Now, in every state, in every courtroom, Diebold lawyers will say "your honor, the California judicial system saw these conspiracy theorists for what they are, and you should too."

As someone who has worked on this issue for a VERY long time, I resent what you are doing in the name of a campaign.

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. In case you didn't read the california complaint...

there were citizens groups involved. I think that speaks volumes. Those people want the vote counted fairly. I want my votes counted fairly. Is that too much to ask? Since the legislation route does not seem to be working, lawsuits are the only way to go at this point.

[SaddenedDem]

30. Lawsuits which fail make NO sense

Have you ever given consideration to the words "legal precedent?"

Do you care?

Does it matter that you have harmed this issue in every state, in every jurisdiction, in every precinct?

And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a WASHINGTON state resident has any standing in a CALIFORNIA court?

I want my votes counted fairly as well, but you need to realize that your method is harming that objective.

You need to get over what YOU decide is the proper route and listen to others who disagree. Losing a lawsuit will never serve the purpose.

I'm unhappy to inform you that in my state, on that California decision, the attorney who was prepared to file a suit dropped us like a hot potato. Thanks to your behavior, a year of work is lost and we are back at square one because attorneys across this nation face censure for bringing a lawsuit they "know" is frivolous. Those attorneys now face the prospect of paying Diebold's legal fees simply by filing suit.

You just cost all the other states legal representation. Does that make you happy?

[hunter]

36. Game theory has killed the United States...

This is for you too, J.C. (alias TFHP, etc., and yes, I do know...)

I am so damned tired of the game.

All these political strategies are very corrosive to democracy, and the bottom is rotting out... Pretty soon now I expect to hear a huge flushing sound, and the United States as we know it will be flooding down the drains. Hang on tight.

The "black box voting" machines are only a small symptom of the problem, caused by lazy-ass election officials who thought they could make all their problems go away by signing checks to Diebold etc., (which is sort of like paying a pimp to supervise your teenaged daughter, but I digress...) and apathetic voters who have been turned off entirely by all the ugly political games.

A "black box voting" machine becomes the slot machine the political game is played on, and an easily corrupted one at that. The voter puts his nickel in, and pulls the handle, but doesn't much care if he wins or loses, because even if he wins a bucket full of nickels, it's still just a bucket of nickels, hardly worth driving out to the Casino for.

Still, as one who has made a small bit of noise about these machines, I believe we are making progress... California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley hasn't been able to ignore the problem, and I still think we can stir up the public about this issue that any "legal precedents" won't mean anything.

Looking a little into the future, what do your election officials fear most? A bunch of lawyers and fixers making back room deals, or a mob of angry voters smashing three thousand dollar voting machines with hatchets, Carrie Nation style.

I think Americans quickly forget their history. There are cycles of peace, in which the political game players wind up everything so tightly that the system breaks down, and there are riots in the street.

You say, "You just cost all the other states legal representation. Does that make you happy?"

What a bullshit argument. That's like threatening to sue the airline just before the airplane you are riding in crashes into the mountain at 500 mph.

We are heading into that mountain right now, and the pilot and copilot are fast asleep. The more people we have pounding on the cabin door to wake them up, the better.

[ParanoidPat]

38. Thank you Hunter, very well said!

I see that you've been "sent in" to help me "divert the conversation"! LOL! :evilgrin:

[ParanoidPat]

31. ROFLMFAO! "the REAL activists"?

Who pray tell would they be? :shrug: :evilgrin:

"As someone who has worked on this issue for a VERY long time, I resent what you are doing in the name of a campaign."

Care to enlighten the rest of us as to what 'work' you've been doing on this issue and when you got started?
Better yet, can you explain :wtf: "campaign" you're talking about? :)

On Edit; Here's a link to the Diebold Lawsuit PDF.
Perhaps you and Tinfoil can point out your objections. :)

[SaddenedDem]

32. The REAL activists

Yeah, those folks who have been working for more than a year to bring this issue to the forefront to bring about a solution.

Unlike the politician and "author" who have something to sell.

You know, those folks who are working their ass off because of the ISSUE and not what they stand to GAIN from it.

I'd love to see you address those issue I've discussed about precedent and the harm this brings to the issue. Are you capable of that, or do you just do personal attacks?

[ParanoidPat]

34. Personal attack???

Have you ever even seen the source code for these machines? Have you even read the lawsuit? What "personal attack"? :evilgrin:
The only thing anyone has to gain is fair and open elections.
Bev Harris et al have made the book available free online to anyone who wishes to read it. Perhaps you should do so.

Your 'issue' about "precedent" is a JOKE! Please, fill the rest of us in on this lawsuit you claim Bev and Andy have ruined. I for one can't wait. :)

ON Edit; You claim "Lawsuits which fail make NO sense", well by that theory, ALL lawsuits MAKE NO SENSE since in every lawsuit someone fails!

[SaddenedDem]

35. Anyone who has watched this issue knows the players well

And realize you get sent in when the others are losing the battle to divert the conversation.

Get this part - THERE IS NO LONGER A LAWSUIT. THE ATTORNEYS BAILED. THANKS TO THE CALIFORNIA RULING.

The plan WAS to enjoin the machines IMMEDIATELY after the polls closed on March 2. To prevent the destruction of evidence of tampering. To force SCIENTIFIC comparison of the redundant files.

Now, it's gone. The opportunity has been lost. The legal beagles who were willing to do so won't touch it with a ten foot pole because of the California precedent.

[ParanoidPat]

37. Two words.....

.....

PROVE IT!

You have leveled serious charges against other DUers!

Please offer ANY proof of your claim. There must be some paperwork that was completed in putting your suit together. POST IT!
Give us an outline of your complaint.

On what grounds were you seeking an injunction? What 'precedent' were you citing "To force SCIENTIFIC comparison of the redundant files"?

What do you mean by "redundant" files?

Just off hand, when you posted,

"And realize you get sent in when the others are losing the battle to divert the conversation."

what do you mean by "you get sent in"? By who?

What do you mean by "divert the conversation"?

What "conversation" exactly am I diverting? :evilgrin:

Have you read the complaint?
Have you read the decision?
Have you ever heard of an appeal to a higher court?
How can you call a loss in the lowest level of the judicial system a "precedent"?

[SaddenedDem]

40. Bwahahahahahahaha

Typical attack dog....divert, divert, divert.....hurry, someone caught on to the game and WE MUST CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

So, one last question which I'm sure you'll refuse to answer.....

Since a WASHINGTON state resident has NO LEGAL STANDING in a CALIFORNIA courtroom, if it wasn't a publicity stunt, why was Bev Harris' name on that lawsuit?????????

That's the issue. It was a publicity stunt to sell books and a candidate.

[Andy_Stephenson]

41. If you look at the list of plaintiffs

I was not listed. So exactly how is Bev selling a candidate? As for selling books...it's free on the net at www.blackboxvoting.org no need to sell it when it is free. As for the legal decision...it was merely an injunction. Don't get hung up on the first salvo. There are many many more to follow. Perhaps in your state soon.

[SaddenedDem]

44. So, where is Bev's name on her HOME STATE lawsuit????

You know, the one YOU filed in Washington state?????

Ummmmmm......huh!!!!!

[ParanoidPat]

54. Talk about diversions.....

......what does that lawsuit have to do with the topic at hand? :shrug:

How does it affect the "damage" to your suit as you have claimed?

Please point out the "personal attack" I've made against you, better yet alert the mods to it.

I'm waiting! :evilgrin:

[ParanoidPat]

51. "divert, divert, divert", "attack dog", "the game"???

YOU have made some claims of harm (YOU brought them up!) and I asked for more information. YOU still have not backed up one thing you have said.

YOU made a claim of a 'profit motive' and several people have patiently pointed out that the claim is false due to the free availability of the book and that Bev is not listed as a plaintive.

YOU made the claim that I was "sent in" by someone to "divert" attention from something and I asked who you believe sent me and what I am diverting attention from. You have not answered either question.

I asked if you had read the complaint, you have not responded.
I asked if you had read the response, you have not responded.
I asked if you had seen the source code, you have not responded.
I asked for any proof of your claims, you have not responded.

So much for "conversation"! LOL! :evilgrin:

Thanks for your help keeping this most important thread kicked! :hi:

[RedEagle]

42. Why did you not communicate before?

Saddened Dem, why, if you were planning this action, and it was pretty well communicated that others would be filing suits, did you not communicate those concerns so an over all plan could be detailed?

Did you let others know what you were up to?

Everyone is pulling for the same goal, but in different ways. Do you think you would have been any more successful in your suit than in the other one? If you were not successful, the outcome would be the same, by your reasoning.

Would not the Electronic Frontier Foundation take this on for you?

Rather than snipping at each other here, let's figure out how to work towards the same goal, and communicate. Many paths, each a little different, are stronger than one.

This could have been part of an overall strategy.

[SaddenedDem]

43. Because we're not looking for publicity stunts

We're looking to make a difference.

It's plain for all to see that Bev Harris is out for publicity stunts - that's not even her legal name, but her pen name. AND IT WAS USED IN THE LAWSUIT. WHY? To sell a book. Any logical person can only come to that conclusion.

We want solutions, not publicity stunts.

[Andy_Stephenson]

45. I think we are looking to make a difference as well.

Bold moves are needed now. If your attorney dropped you then I would find one with more cajones.

[SaddenedDem]

46. We would if it hadn't been made impossible

for the cost of a failed publicity stunt.

[Andy_Stephenson]

47. Impossible?

on an injunction? I think your overreacting quite frankly. Like RedEagle said...if you had really been interested in lawsuits...as soon as this one was announced you would have contacted Bev and made her aware of your pending suit. Perhaps a more coordinated effort could have been mounted.

Was QuiTam your goal? Is that why your so pissed?

[SaddenedDem]

49. Bwahahahahahhaha.....

another old Bev trick - suggest Qui Tam when you are REALLY getting your ass kicked on facts.

We don't want your coordination...your definition of coordination = publicity stunt.

What part don't you understand????? Attorneys are facing a HUGH liability thanks to the California decision - they have to reimburse Diebold's attorneys for legal fees thanks to your publicity stunt. No one will touch it!!!!!!

[Andy_Stephenson]

50. I doubt ....

seriously that "Attorneys are facing a HUGH liability thanks to the California decision "

So you were filing QuiTam eh...

[SaddenedDem]

52. Proving once again....

you are incapable of understanding simple ENGLISH.

I'll spell it out for you:

1. Qui Tam doesn't pertain.....it is simply YOUR allegation.

2. Qui Tam wasn't an option even discussed....

3. Qui Tam (to my knowledge) has no injunctive power....

4. In civil cases, in my state, filing of a frivolous lawsuit makes the opposing counsel (not the client, the ATTORNEY) liable for the legal fees of the winning party. No attorney is willing to take that gamble with the California decision on record, allowing Diebold to allege frivolous lawsuit.

It is clear enough for you now?

Now, may I ask - since I have so succinctly answered all your questions - that you answer just ONE of mine? Why isn't Bev Harris a plaintiff in the Washington state lawsuit?

[BevHarris]

73. I'll answer your questions

We discussed my being a plaintiff in the Washington suit, but there is merit to having different suits, in different venues, with different classes of plaintiffs. Because Andy is a candidate, this makes a very clean lawsuit that differs from any that have been filed before. While it is true that candidates have filed, it has always been after the fact. Andy is the first candidate to file a pre-emptive suit giving lots of time to correct the problem beforehand. That is a unique strategy, hasn't been done before. Makes no sense to add an investigative writer into a candidate's lawsuit, at least not this one.

As for Qui Tam -- a Qui Tam suit can certainly function to block the use of machines sold on fraudulent claims. In fact, Qui Tam does a noble thing, in that it gets the county, or state, their money back.

The objection I have to most Qui Tam suits is very specific: If they are filed in such a way that they require a gag on the the evidence showing the machines are unsuitable, the suit functions to remove information that is critical to the public interest. In a situation like this, we have a very short timeline.

Washington State, for example, has a legislature that goes out of session in a few days, and probably will not reconvene until January 2005. In an OPEN lawsuit, or in a Qui Tam where the parties have refused a gag order on the evidence, there is no harm and the suit can actually help, especially if funds are directed into further advocacy efforts. In a gagged Qui Tam, however, I feel that this is unethical, because it withholds evidence of critical public interest, needed for pending legislation, needed for other public lawsuits, and in the mean time, people are stuck voting on insecure systems.

My problem with most Qui Tam suits isn't that people are seeking money, it is that they are withholding information. If not one iota of information is withheld, I'm cool with the concept, because it provides restitution to the taxpayer, but the moment people start trying to line their pockets using a method that requires keeping evidence a secret, that compromises ethics rather badly.

Also, to the extent that a desire to win such a profit endeavor causes people to attack each other, seeking to discredit, that is also an inappropriate strategy. We need to be forming alliances, not looking at this like some sort of competition for who's the best activist.

Let's win this thing first.

Have your lawyer call me, or Lowell Finley if he likes to talk lawyer-to-lawyer. I'll betcha we can get him moving forward again.

Bev

[Andy_Stephenson]

98. Should have told others ahead of time

see where secrecy gets you...nowhere.

[Andy_Stephenson]

95. For your information saddem

I have nothing to gain...except for my vote to be counted correctly.

I have let my bills, business and friends go over this issue. I have sacrificed much and expect NOTHING in return. Just a fair and accurate vote count...on paper!

[JohnGideon]

20. Going To Ohio?

Andy, If you are going to Ohio you might be interested to know that Blackwell has ensured that Ohio get's their voting machines cheaper than any other state. Their contracts with Diebold, ES&S, and Hart were written to guarantee this. If they sell to any state or county for cheaper than Ohio, the vendor has to pay the state of Ohio the difference. Sequoia did not agree to this so they do not get certified in Ohio. This seems to be an unfair practice as a state that might buy more units cannot get a discount any lower than the Ohio price. I wonder how many other states are aware of this issue.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20040211/localnews/
394868.html

[RedEagle]

25. Interesting

If Sequoia just declined to submit a bid under those restrictions, that is one thing, and a damning one at that.

If they were denied certification because of it, that's a whole other ball game that probably isn't in Ohio law.

Then, the probability is that other vendors were not certified or just refused to submit bids under those restrictions.

Is this a form of extortion? Is that how states do business these days? Or is Ohio just helping the other companies set the base price so they make more money?

[dusty64]

23. Kick!

:kick:

[bobthedrummer]

28. The work of yourself and Bev is having an impact.

Governor Doyle of Wisconsin is knowledgable about BBV and we won't have any system without a verifiable paper trail here.

Thank you both!
:hi:

[Bushfire]

33. Really?

Why was I denied the chance to see the smart card when the precint closed to verify the results which were not posted just read out loud by a volunteer who didn't like my questions? I just might have to post her picture, and the cop who told me to leave.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID135/5.html

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID103/4.html

Any cheeseheads care to join me in pressuring our officials? The S.O.S. asked the Executive Director Wisconsin State Elections Board to answer some of my questions. I will hold them accountable.

[Bushfire]

142. Has Gov Doyle read the book yet?

Especially Chapter 11 with the SLO phone home section? Were there any other pollwatchers here that stayed for the close of polls on Feb 17th? Did you see the results with your own eyes? Did they post results? I was denied. WI is not BBV free yet.

[donsu]

39. kick

nt

[BevHarris]

53. OK, here's the report on the lawsuit

First -- the hearing on Wednesday was for a temporary restraining order to force Diebold to follow the law -- not to shut down the election, not to set anything aside. Simply to force the counties to follow the regulations set forth by their own secretary of state, which they were trying to refuse to do.

As those of you who were following it may already know:

1) The attorney who is handling the case had just kicked Arnold Schwarzenegger's butt, and the Sacramento power structure may find him a bit intimidating. We were not very surprised when a last-minute "change" had to be made, assigning the case to a different judge. The original judge, Loren McMasters, is the one who ruled against Schwarzenegger. They used an ambiguity in the law to argue for a change to a different department, and it took a total of two minutes to see that this case would not be going anywhere once we got in there. That is because the judge followed Diebold's lead and changed the subject. Every time our attorney (Lowell Finley) attempted to pull the argument back on point, another red herring was thrown out.

Let me give you an example. We were asking that the election security procedures be enforced, to match that ordered by the California secretary of state, to require the poll workers to push a button that says "print" and print a detailed totals report at the polling place (takes 60 seconds and is available on both Diebold touch screen and optical scan machines), to compare it with the vote totals at the county.

Diebold and the rebel counties (those who have sent notice that they intend to defy the secretary of state) argued with a total red herring: "Why do you want to stop the election?" They wasted a tremendous amount of time on this. Each time Finley attempted to put it back on track, the judge would say something like "but you REALLY want to stop the election, don't you?" No. We wanted them to hit the print button, something that takes 60 seconds and costs $0. That is not stopping the election, that is printing a report. Didn't matter.

Then the judge wasted about 15 minutes polling each county official: "Have you begun sending out absentee ballots?" This, too, was off-topic (though the judge seemed to think that by proving absentee ballots had been sent, that would show the election had started; he asked if they had started counting them, etc. and seemed to be angling to show that we were trying to interrupt an election midstream.) That didn't work, because Finley was able to show that, by California law, absentee ballots will continue to be sent out because they have to keep sending them up to a certain date, and by California law, these ballots are not allowed to be counted until the polls close. So, the judge dropped that tactic, but it did waste a lot of time.

As for why I was listed in the case, it was on behalf of BlackBoxVoting.org, which has many California members. We will be changing this to clarify that the plaintiff is the organization.

This hearing did not set a damaging precedent, because it was situation-specific. I would assume that if another lawyer dropped a case because of this one, he did not read the pleading, nor have anyone attend the hearing, nor get a transcript. One case only affects another if it can be considered pretty exactly on point, and any lawyer who would drop a case without even reading the pleading and the transcript, or at least, the decision and its rationale) must not have been very into the case to begin with.

I assume that SaddenedDem is DemActivist, and that the case they are talking about is Georgia, under James Penland. There is nothing to be gained by infighting among those of us who want clean voting. Had there been concerns, it would not be the slightest bit unusual for a professional courtesy call between lawyers; our attorney's phone number is right on the pleading, which is posted on the Web. I've been hearing about this so-called lawsuit for months, but if these people have evidence, they need to get it the hell into the public domain. Not presenting it until AFTER various state legislatures have gone home for the year forces voters to vote on unsafe systems in November.

Each voting organization has a slightly different approach. We've always been open about ours. We have gathered a number of pro bono lawyers and are coordinating a multi-state effort.

Now, the case has just begun. All that was was a TRO. The real case will proceed in perhaps a month, maybe less. The only decision made was that in THIS case the judge was not going to order rebel counties to comply with the secretary of state's directives. Any case for a TRO would have to be before the election, not after, so the entire point of SaddenedDem makes no sense at all, if they are filing after the election. How do you seek a restraining order AFTER the fact? Makes no sense.

The main body of our case will take place after the election, and is not affected by this decision.

As for the book: There is one, put out by Plan Nine and sold on the Internet, and another, put out by Talion Publishing and sold to libraries, bookstores, college classrooms, and direct. That one is wending its way through the distribution pipeline for bookstores, and I am also shipping signed copies to each person whose name appears in the book, if they e-mail me the shipping address.

As for publicity: This is not about publicity for me. It is about building public awareness for the issue, which is a very different thing. Lawsuits are a very good way to get news coverage, because it is "safe" for reporters to cover it. We are especially focusing on TV coverage of the issue right now. We have been breaking into regional TV markets -- just did CBS Miami (two 6-minute segments, very generous coverage by TV standards) and CBS San Francisco and Sacramento covered this case, as did NBC in northern California. Now, there are articles about me coming up, but most reporters who've tried will confirm: I almost always turn down the "profile" pieces, telling the reporters to focus on the issue instead. In the PR business, profile pieces are very popular, and are another way to get coverage of the issue.

We need four things to win permanently:

1. Ongoing research and investigation
2. Legislation (but that can't be achieved prior to the November election, since many state legislatures are already adjourning for the year)
3. Litigation -- best bet for November
4. Demonstrations -- For this, we need massive public awareness, best achieved through TV, but also through other media and word of mouth.

BlackBoxVoting.org is concentrating on #1, ongoing research and investigation, and #3, litigation. VerifiedVoting.org is focusing on #2, legislation. There is not a large, coordinated effort yet on #4, but in preparation for that, BlackBoxVoting.org is working on public awareness through the media. I spend about 5 hours a day on interviews, right now a combination of print, radio, wire services and TV. We've been getting a greater mix of TV in the interviews, and that will percolate up into more broadcast coverage during the next few weeks.

Bev Harris

[ParanoidPat]

55. Thanks Bev!

:toast: :evilgrin:

:kick:

[hunter]

56. County election officials in California have some say...

...unlike many other states.

Let's keep pounding on those cockpit doors.

The more noise we make the better. I'm not going to ride this plane into the side of the mountain.

[greatauntoftriplets]

57. Thanks, Bev.

I have never met you, but am good friends with Andy. I will swear on the triplets' heads that you two are trying your damndest to make a difference.

[SaddenedDem]

58. Bwahahahahahahaha! You are too funny....

Once again, making all kinds of allegations you have no proof of, nothing more than paranoia, and then you add in some conspiracy theory!!!!

Oh, wait, that's what the Judge in California said........

[hunter]

59. It is long past the point where this can be an "orderly" fight.

If anyone thinks those "pregnant chads" of Florida were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...

I look around and I see a lot of people, each in their own way, fighting very hard to difuse a potentially explosive situation.

I suspect there will not be much glory to pass around once this fight is done. There will be a lot of broken soldiers. But everyone has got to do this simply because it's the right thing to do.

[ParanoidPat]

60. Speaking of funny.....

....."Once again, making all kinds of allegations you have no proof of, nothing more than paranoia, and then you add in some conspiracy theory!!!!"

Weren't you the one up thread who seems to see a conspiracy here where people are being "called in" to act as "attack dogs to "divert attention"? :crazy:

Did you not also make the unsubstantiated claim of a "publicity stunt" to derive profit$ from a book available on line for free? :crazy:

Pot, meet Kettle! :evilgrin:

Oh, and thanks for helping keep this thread :kick:ed :)

[SaddenedDem]

61. My pleasure keeping the paranoia front and center

Hey wait.....maybe I'm your arch nemisis "Fredda" huh?

or wait.....maybe someone else.....come on....finish throwing out the accusations......we've done Qui Tam, DemActivist, Jim Penland, what's left now?

As far as "allegations" I'm sorry to say that The Bev Harris cabal is well documented for all who care to see.

[hunter]

62. Wow, missed that bullet...

The Bev Harris cabal is well documented for all who care to see.

I'm strictly freelance.

[ParanoidPat]

76. The Bev Harris Cabal?!?

I'm a member of a "cabal"? :wow:

Where's my T-shirt? Don't I at least get a membership card? Will someone PLEASE show me the secret handshake? :evilfrown:

Talk about 'paranoia' and 'conspiracy theories'! Sheesh!

O.K., You've busted us. We've managed to hoodwink hundreds of computer experts all over the country into believing these machines are a threat to democracy as well as millions of other Americans. We've deliberately destroyed peoples faith and trust in the electoral system. Now if I can just figure out why we went to all this trouble.......Oh yeah, I'm gonna get rich off of Bev's FREE book! :crazy:

:kick:

[BevHarris]

67. As Mark Twain said: Get your fact first, then you can distort 'em

The judge said nothing about "conspiracy theory."

That was Dan McMillan, attorney for Diebold, who said that to the press.

Read the brief, read the actual decision (not some dumbed-down press release) and talk facts, rather than repeating what Diebold's guy said to the press. The judge's decision was ONLY pertaining to the request for temporary restraining order, and the gist of it was that he had decided that implementing security procedures (like printing a report at the polling place) would constitute too much extra time for the counties.

This judge also called the RABA report and the SAIC report "hearsay."

We're having a little fun here, kicking around the merits of filing a libel case against Daniel McMillan. In order to prove that he did not commit libel, he'd have to prove that WE (as in the various plaintiffs in the lawsuit) are actually conspiracy theorists, and I think that would be a tough call. It might open a feast of discovery.

Bev

[SaddenedDem]

68. This judge also called the RABA report and the SAIC report "hearsay."

Which only PROVES it was all a publicity stunt.

Anyone who was serious about a restraining order would have subpoenaed witnesses to TESTIFY.

Frankly, if you walked into the courtroom WITHOUT RABA & SAIC witnesses it WAS heresay.

[BevHarris]

71. Yes, that's probably true regarding hearsay. However,

this was a hearing for a temporary restraining order to force the counties to follow the secretary of state directives -- and on this point, the secretary of state's counsel stood up and testified on behalf of the RABA report's recommended safety measures, which was the topic at hand.

Calling the litigation a "publicity stunt" disrespects all of the people involved. (And for the umpteenth time, the lawsuit is still in play.) The attorney is a respected elections law specialist who certainly would not be a party to a "publicity stunt." However, it is certainly of value to get press coverage, since we still have a long way to go to get general public awareness. We did notice that most of the press did not read the brief and mischaracterized the decision -- it was a denial of a TRO requesting security procedures, not a decision on whether to use electronic voting machines.

Next time, I'll prepare a one-sheet for the press to make sure it doesn't get misreported by hurried press members who didn't read the lawsuit.

Truly, your lawyer was foolish if he made a decision about a lawsuit based only on press reports. I find that almost unbelievable. Two things, actually -- I am surprised he didn't call Lowell Finley -- if he'd looked him up, he'd see that Finley is credible and experienced, and I very, VERY surprised that he'd drop a case based on press reports, without reading the actual decision or the TRO brief. It seems to me there's probably more to it.

I do urge you to get off this malarky about name-calling and "conspiracy theorist" and "paranoia" because you are, quite literally, just parroting Diebold's PR strategy. You will note that even the AP article that used that phrase attributed it only to Diebold's lawyer. And, if you are DemActivist (grammar, sentence structure is very nearly identical) -- you might want to write a more accurate statement on your site, too, where you claim that the AJC conjoins "Bev Harris" with "conspiracy theorist." Actually, what it says is that the Johns Hopkins report was based on material and work I did, and that my work is quoted extensively on this matter.

If we are, truly, on the same side of this issue then let's stop the name-calling and bashing. I'm sure that pleases Diebold to no end, but it does nothing to further our cause, and is also inaccurate.

A major news magazine recently assigned two fact-checkers and a lawyer to my research, and they came to the same conclusion as Salon.com: my facts check out. You'll be seeing that on the newstands in a short while.

Bev

[SaddenedDem]

72. LOL, you prove it with this post alone

conspiracy theory n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Your theories about who I am make my point for me. And, no, I've never been on your side - I'm on the side of democracy, not conspiracy and paranoia.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Sheez

:eyes:

[Cocoa]

63. why so close to the election?

To me, there's a very clear split among all the people working on voting issues, between those who are working to increase confidence in elections, and those who are doing everything they can to undermine confidence.

I'm glad for this judge not letting the court system be used to undermine confidence in the elections, so close to the voting day.

[ParanoidPat]

64. Dupe OOPS.

N/T

[Cocoa]

66. period?

what is so magical about the paper ballot?

I know for a fact that seven percent of punch card votes did NOT get counted in my county in the last pres. election.

In another state I voted in, I saw with my own eyes people go home before voting, tired of waiting because the station ran out of paper ballots. These are votes that were not counted.

[RedEagle]

69. The Magic? It's Recountable

Cocoa,

If 7% of your punch cards did not get counted, then get in there and DO something to make sure it happens. That is generally emptying the chads out.

If your county runs out of paper ballots, then DO something to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Hold your election officials accountable.

These things you mention have nothing to do with what's wrong with total computer voting, and are fixable if you care to.

And by the way, there are instances of computer votes not being counted because of memory problems- sometimes they get caught because some good election official makes a PAPER record.

Sometimes they don't get caught, and that's why the paper is crucial.

[hunter]

70. Wow, Cocoa is on this thread too...

Maybe you think your county is bad, Cocoa?

In my county mail-in ballots are misplaced all of the time, and election results hardly ever get posted to the doors of our polling places.

We don't need no stinkin' electronic voting machines here, because this county is broke, no money, and those fancy electronic machines are too damned expensive. It's cheaper to hire whores off the street to count our votes, and besides, it gives 'em some honest work.

But, hey, if we did have the money, those fancy Black Box Voting machines would certainly simplify things. All we need is some Federal grants, and we'll be all set.

[ParanoidPat]

74. Very simple really Cocoa.....

.....you ask "what is so magical about the paper ballot?"

The MAGIC of a paper ballot is that I can see with my own eyes the choice I made. That piece of paper can also be seen by others exactly the same way I saw it. There is nothing in between my original intent as marked on the ballot and the way my intent is interpreted by someone else viewing the same ballot. To keep an election fair, people from both parties can look at my original intent and agree that I have clearly indicated a choice for a given candidate via an ink filled space next to that candidates name.

The first statement you make is "I know for a fact that seven percent of punch card votes did NOT get counted in my county in the last pres. election."

That very well may be true, in fact I'd bet on it. A 'punch card' ballot may indeed be a 'paper ballot' but it's not the only form of 'paper ballot' that can be used. In fact, for the very reason you cite, they should not be used! Punch cards can easily be spoiled by a number of methods both intentionally and unintentionally. We all know about 'pregnant', 'dimpled' and 'hanging' chads caused by everything from voter mistakes to outright fraud. The cards can have the chads cut to a different depth making some chads literally fall out too easily and others too difficult to dislodge without help. The machines, as evidenced in court in the 2000 election, can suffer from lack of proper maintenance. Machines stuffed full of chads won't allow the voter to dislodge the chad at all resulting in a 'dimpled' or 'pregnant' chad. Same applies to punch tools that have been intentionally cut short to keep them from punching all the way through the card and backing strips. Machines that have old, brittle, rubber or urethane backing strips meant to help remove the chad after punching can result in 'hanging' chads. Worst of all, a large number of punch cards can be intentionally spoiled simultaneously by running a pin through your chosen candidates hole. Cards already punched for that candidate simply have the pin run through the open hole while cards punched for other candidates are spoiled as double punched and cards with no selection at all are changed the reflect a vote for your candidate.

It's not the material the ballot is made of as much as the way the intent is displayed on the original. A simple ballot requiring an ink mark could be bulletproofed by adding a very thin, clear, peel and stick laminate that you stick down after marking your ballot. Any subsequent markings to the ballot would be obvious as they would be on top of the laminate.

You also state, "In another state I voted in, I saw with my own eyes people go home before voting, tired of waiting because the station ran out of paper ballots"

While I know that what you say is true, it is nothing more that a 'straw man' argument. The same holds true for every other type of election system regardless of wheather they use paper or not. It has been well documented that many people left their polling places in 2000 and 2002 without voting after the new DRE's refused to boot up properly. People headed to work simply could not hang around and wait for the technicians to show up to fix the machines. Lack of enough ballots can not be seen as an indictment of the ballot by any reasonable person. Every polling place has a known number of registered voters assigned to it and should have a corresponding number of ballots assigned to it, as well as a ready supply of provisional ballots. Failure on the part of election officials to be adequately prepared for the election is the problem there, not the type of ballot.

:kick:

[JetJaguar]

124. A 7% solution

This was the first high turnout election where the
"straight party" ticket was not an option.

The ballot was 21 pages, with 400 candidates. The part on
retaining 77 judges was spread over multiple pages.
It was likely the largest ballot ever seen in Cook Co.






The Washington Post
December 27, 2000, Wednesday, Final Edition

...
But in no state was the pattern as pronounced as in Illinois. A Post analysis found that in many black precincts in Chicago, one of every six ballots in the presidential election was thrown out, while almost every vote was counted in some of the city's outer suburbs.

Voters in Chicago's Cook County confronted an array of balloting complications that may have led them to either accidentally "overvote" (punch for two candidates) or "undervote" (fail to make a proper punch). The November ballot was extraordinarily long and confusing. Voters used rickety punch-card machines that are hard to operate at the best of times. The machines get so out of alignment that voters sometimes can't line up the holes to be pressed, and the plastic backing under the ballot can become so brittle or filled with discarded chads that it gets hard to punch the holes properly.

This also was the first presidential election in Illinois since the elimination of the "straight party" vote, which let people punch for an entire slate. Moreover, the GOP-led state Senate prevented Cook County from using a device on its machines that notifies voters of some mistakes and gives them a second chance to cast valid ballots.
...

Illinois GOP officials justify their stance by pointing out that some other nearby Republican-inclined counties near Chicago lack this second-chance technology, so Cook County should be banned from using it too.

...

[ParanoidPat]

65. No paper ballot, no confidence that my vote gets counted as cast.

:kick:

Period!

:kick:

Thanks for the kick!

[bobbieinok]

75. confidence in elections??? without a paper trail?? a joke, right?

...

[Cocoa]

100. a paper trail would increase confidence, imo

but absent a paper trail, I think most people are confident their votes are counted. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary in the primaries, where there's been record turnout.

[Andy_Stephenson]

102. What about using "uncertified" software.

that doesn't bother you???

[Cocoa]

109. it depends what uncertified means

if it was part of the lawsuit, then no I'm not concerned because the judge didn't think it was important.

[Andy_Stephenson]

111. You were discussing the primaries.

Uncertified software has been used.

[BevHarris]

125. Now there's an ignorant answer

"If it was part of the lawsuit then no I'm not concerned because the judge didn't think it was important"

If you don't even know if it was part of the lawsuit, how in the world would you know whether the judge thought it was important?

You didn't read the lawsuit. And the lawsuit is still going, what the judge ruled on was a TRO motion, and the basis for his ruling had to do with the time needed to invoke protective measures on the March 2 election.

One thing I forgot to mention, though: One of the more bizarre aspects of this case was that the judge was saying, basically, "if we tell Diebold it has to stop violating state law, that would shut down the election."

Think about that last one real carefully.

Then think about the fact that the main part of the case takes place after the March 2 election. This one is still very much in play, folks.

Bev Harris

[Cocoa]

146. another red flag

What kind of activist calls unknowledgeable people "ignorant?"

I've known many activists, and I've been one myself, and the conventional way to answer my post, where I admitted my own ignorance, would be to simply answer the questions, what does uncertified mean, and was it part of the lawsuit.

[Andy_Stephenson]

147. Ignorant

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

[Cocoa]

148. yet another red flag

what kind of activist plays games like this? Instead of a simple answer to the two questions, an irrelevant word game.

You want people just to be scared of "uncertified" software, while playing games to avoid giving them the information to judge for themselves what this means and whether this is a serious problem. All people get is the word "uncertified." This suggests to me that "uncertified" means very little.

[BevHarris]

149. Speaking of game-playing: Cocoa, are you now saying that

using uncertified software is OK with you? Is not a problem? Is nothing to worry about?

Let's be very clear about this: If it hasn't been certified, the voter has no assurance that ANYONE other than some rogue programmer has ever looked at the commands that count their vote.

Bev Harris

[ParanoidPat]

152. Cocoa, perhaps it's because you chose to ignore.....

.....the link to the Diebold lawsuit in post #31 and again in post #138. Just click on the link and you can read it for yourself. :)

In the event you don't have the free Adobe Acrobat Reader software and are not technically competent enough to download and install it yourself, I'll try to answer your questions here.

Cocoa asked "what does uncertified mean"?

Uncertified means just what the word implies. lacking certification. All software used in electronic voting and vote tabulation systems must be submitted to an 'independent testing authority' (ITA) for certification under both Federal and State laws. The only exception is for 'commercial off the shelf' (COTS) software such as an operating system or peripheral drivers, provided they are used 'as is' with NO modifications.

Diebold not only loaded uncertified software on EVERY machine in the state of California, (as disclosed in a recent audit conducted by the California Voting Systems Panel) they also modified the Microsoft operating system and failed to disclose the modifications and submit the modified OS to the ITA for certification. Diebold is in direct violation of both Federal and State laws in that regard.

Cocoa asked, "was it part of the lawsuit"?

Most definitely YES! That IS what the lawsuit is all about. The Diebold machines are a disaster waiting to happen. A growing number of reports detailing the security issues surrounding these machines, (SAIC, RABA, Johns Hopkins, etc.) have all come to the same conclusion. Security is virtually non existent when these machines are used unless specific recommended safeguards are adopted and the certification system used as noted in all of the reports. Diebold has broken the law over and over again by ignoring the certification process and lying to State elections officials from many states. They have outright lied about the security and the accuracy of the machines. The suit asked for injunctive relief in the form of added security measures when the machines are used.

Here's the introduction to the suit.

Verified Complaint & Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition

INTRODUCTION

1. Electronic voting systems sold to California counties by defendant DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, INC., pose a grave threat to the security and integrity of the statewide elections to be held on March 2, 2004, and November 2, 2004. Numerous computer security experts have shown that the hardware and software used in the Diebold systems is highly vulnerable to vote tampering both by company insiders and outside computer hackers. The most recent independent analysis, dated January 20, 2004, was conducted for the Maryland legislature by a team at RABA Technologies LLC that included former CIA and National Security Agency computer security experts. Their report disclosed several security weaknesses in Diebold touch screen voting terminals and in "GEMS", Diebold’s central vote tabulating software, that could easily be exploited to tamper with vote results. Six California counties plan to use Diebold touch screen voting systems in the March and November elections. Including those six, nineteen California counties plan to use GEMS to tally the votes in the March and November elections.

2. Secretary of State KEVIN SHELLEY has publicly expressed serious and appropriate concern with respect to the security of electronic voting systems in general and Diebold electronic voting systems in particular. On November 21, 2003, based upon the report of his Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force, the Secretary of State issued a directive, requiring that as of July 1, 2006, all touch screen voting terminals used in the state contain a voter verified paper audit trail feature. On February 5, 2004, largely in response to the RABA Technologies LLC report, the Secretary of State issued a security directive to county elections officials on touch screen voting systems for the March 2004 election. While these are welcome steps in the right direction, the directives do not fulfill the Secretary’s duties under the Elections Code because they leave many known security vulnerabilities unaddressed. First, the directives fail to implement many immediate security actions with respect to Diebold hardware and software that the RABA team identified as both feasible before a March 2004 primary election and necessary to such an election’s security and integrity. Second, the delayed requirement for a voter verified paper audit trail and the other provisions in the Secretary’s November 2003 and March 2004 directives also fall far short of the additional, more fundamental changes found by the RABA team to be necessary before balloting in the November 2004 presidential election with Diebold hardware and software can be considered secure.

3. To make matters worse, many county elections officials are now in open revolt against even the inadequate security measures announced by the Secretary of State. On February 11, 2004, a letter signed by the chief county elections officials in 10 counties, including 4 of the 6 counties that use Diebold touch screen voting systems, was delivered to the Secretary of State. After four pages of harsh criticism, the letter’s penultimate sentence states: "As there is no authority to support these directives, we contend they are not enforceable."

4. The Secretary of State and respondent county elections officials have thus failed to perform their duties under specific provisions of the California Elections Code and the California Code of Regulations to safeguard our elections against the types of security risks posed by the three Diebold electronic voting systems in use in California and the GEMS tally software that is common to all of them. As a result, defendant DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, INC. and its parent company, defendant DIEBOLD, INC., have been allowed to engage in a pattern of dozens of serious violations of California elections and fair competition laws in marketing, installing, and servicing the voting systems.

5. Plaintiffs and petitioners bring this action to reduce the risk of vote tampering in the March and November 2004 elections without interfering with the timely conduct of the elections. They seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Diebold defendants to stop ongoing unlawful business practices that threaten election security. They seek mandamus relief to require respondent state and county elections officials to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Elections Code designed to protect voting system security.

If it will help I can start a new thread to discuss the merits of the suit. :)

[BevHarris]

153. Thanks, PP. By the way...

The TRO brief is not online -- we haven't had time to post it, and it's a moot point. The lawsuit you have is much broader than the TRO request, which was limited to requesting security measures on March 2.

But to address Cocoa's point -- the judge never said certification isn't important. He focused on how much time it would take the counties to implement security procedures, and said, basically, that requiring Diebold to follow the law would shut down the Marhc 2 election -- leaving all remedies wide open for the full lawsuit, which takes place after March 2.

Bev

[ParanoidPat]

154. If you get a chance.....

.....could you please e-mail me the TRO PDF? :)

I'm just curious. :evilgrin:

[Andy_Stephenson]

86. Cocoa...

all it takes is paper to resotre confidence. It is really rather simple.

This is a hot button issue and I am afraid you're on the losing side.

[Cocoa]

105. I'm in favor of a paper trail

but I don't see it in terms of being on sides. Framing it that way is one of many, many red flags around BBV. Makes me wonder, what kind of activist is hostile to everyone that questions them?

[loudsue]

78. I'm getting sick of the "wet blankets" on the BBV issue

coming on in force to criticize the efforts of Bev and Andy, and their co-workers and supporters.

TinFoilHatProgrammer, SaddenDem et al: if the energy, expense and efforts of the BBV group somehow challenges your desire to move forward on your own, then JUST GO HOME and eat a bucket of ice cream. All you're doing here is throwing barbs, and immature "nyaa, nyaa I told you so!" sour grapes.

Psychologists are acutely aware of a thing called "projection"... where someone hatefully accuses another of a thing that they are guilty of themselves. Bev is "all about publicity and ego"??? You seem to take anything about Bev personally....you're identifying with your own projection a little too much. Just LET GO of her, why don't you, and focus on your own business at hand.

If you were truly invested in this fight, rather than stroking your OWN ego, wouldn't you be trying to join forces and sell your brilliant ideas to gathering throngs of activists? No! You're CONVINCED the dismissal of the TRO in California has TOTALLY KILLED any possibility of this fight gaining a foothold. SO GIVE UP!! Don't bother looking for other solutions! Don't bother focusing on the war, rather than the battle! Just go ahead and freak-out, and quit pursuing whatever you were doing -- oh, and by the way, don't forget to BLAME IT ON SOMEONE ELSE!!!

I sure wouldn't want to support any group YOU'RE enlisting in your fight to secure our votes, because frankly your attitude sucks. If your efforts are colored by the attitude you show here, I can't imagine you'll be very successful, no matter HOW brilliant you think your own strategy might be. I wouldn't be surprised if you're taking on this battle of yours ALONE, or with a small, carefully selected, elite "in group".

I'm glad there's an alternative, well-organized group to associate with in this challenge. Hell! Even your own lawyer evidently doesn't want to work with you! You'd catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.

For those of you who are not convinced that there's a concerted effort on the part of voting machine corporations to "pitch" to the lowest elements in our government, with MAJOR EVIDENCE that elections are being tampered with, then just sit down and shut up.

Bev and Andy and RedEagle, and ALL the BBV supporters -- I, for one, will support you even if you fall on your butts. Because I know you'll get up again and start punching. Pretty soon, we'll have the demonstrations (OR RIOTS!) we need, because this issue ISN'T GOING AWAY UNTIL WE KNOW OUR VOTES WILL BE COUNTED ACCURATELY!!!

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[greatauntoftriplets]

79. Bravo, loudsue!

<applauding> Extremely well put.

[Andy_Stephenson]

80. Applauding as well.

let the naysayers say what they will...Their voices are far and few between. Loudsue...YOU ROCK. Nice post and well put.

[nostamj]

81. may I join you in the STANDING OVATION

nobody asked ME to join the CABAL...........

<grumble grumble>

i think 'they' piss in their own corn flakes every morning just to have something to whine about.

btw, you'r BORING. anyone familiar with your crap could write the same posts and achieve the same :kick:s

in the immortal words of Glinda the Good: you have no power here

[loudsue]

83. Thanks, all....

:pals:And keep up the good work!!:pals:

:kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

85. You're a defacto Cabal member...

Pat is as well...but yall really do need to learn the "secret handshake".

[greatauntoftriplets]

87. Huh!

:(

[Andy_Stephenson]

88. You already know the secret handshake and keeper of

the secret book of BBV...

So don't even go there. :)

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. Secret handshake???

You never taught me that!!!

;)

[Andy_Stephenson]

90. Yes I did...remember in the initiation...

When we did the freaky dance around the fire...

[greatauntoftriplets]

92. The one where we burned.....

...oh jeez, I shouldn't say that.

<clamming up>

:hi:

[Andy_Stephenson]

93. Good Girl.....

You do of course have the ashes still right? That is most important.

[greatauntoftriplets]

94. Yes, but it is almost Ash Wednesday.

Was going to slather my bod with them for the occasion. I should preserve them?

[Andy_Stephenson]

96. Yes we need them to perform the voodo ceremony

on 322

[greatauntoftriplets]

97. Hmmmm, four Mondays from now.

That day after I have to drive clear from here to hell and gone, LOL.

[ParanoidPat]

99. Bwaaaaaa.....I joined a secret cabal......

.....and all I got was ignored! :evilfrown:

No T-shirt, no membership card, no fire dances or burnin' stuff and not even taught the secret handshake. Sigh! ;-)

[Andy_Stephenson]

101. Well when we come visit for the lasagne

we can do all the formal initiations at that time. We are going to need a virgin Morrocan boar. Can you line that up? We are also going to need a magnum of cheap French champagne.

[greatauntoftriplets]

103. Well, at least you got to keep your clothes on!

It was damned cold.

Is that why you are Paranoid, Pat? (Sorry! Could not resist.)

[Andy_Stephenson]

104. Shhhhhhhh that was supposed to be a secret.

the nudist thing.



Have we officially hijacked this thread? If so...can an author hijack his own?

[greatauntoftriplets]

106. As least we are keeping it bumped.

:kick: :bounce:

[Andy_Stephenson]

108. Yes indeed...

but all this silliness. :bounce:

[greatauntoftriplets]

110. You want me to stop???

:shrug:

[Andy_Stephenson]

112. No...bounce it all night.

so everyone knows...


Bev and I are gonna make a visit soon. A big ol grand tour visit.

We are gonna have a few execs shaking in their boots.

[greatauntoftriplets]

113. So I thought.

Men! Protest so much, then want what you are doing. Jeez.

On edit: I won't be up all night.

[Andy_Stephenson]

114. Me either...but now i am off to meet

some famous person and give them a copy of BBV. Yes give, not much profit in giving the book away is there?

[greatauntoftriplets]

117. Bye!

Sent you a brief Yahoo message. Check it out.

[ParanoidPat]

118. WHAT! You guys had NAKED TIME?

I MISSED NAKED TIME?

:cry:BWWWWAAAAAAAAA!:cry:

Well aint that a :kick: in the head! :evilfrown:

[greatauntoftriplets]

119. Just a coupla pajama parties.

I exaggerated a bit. LOL.

And with whom did you miss naked time?

[ParanoidPat]

120. Who do you think?

I have a 'thing' for mature, experienced, activists! ;-) :evilgrin:

:kick:

[greatauntoftriplets]

121. "Mature"????

I think I am young beyond my years, LOL.

:evilgrin:

[ParanoidPat]

122. Of that I have no doubt dear lady......

....No doubt at all! :evilgrin: :hi:

[greatauntoftriplets]

123. Thank you, Pat.

Hauling my creaky old bones off to bed now. Just joking about creaky old bones.

:hi:

[ParanoidPat]

82. Thank you loud sue!

:toast: :thumbsup: :evilgrin:

<standingovation> :)

:kick:

[loudsue]

84. And thank you, Pat...

:pals:Keep fighting the good fight here!! Don't let anyone get you down!:pals:

[Andy_Stephenson]

91. With fighters like you in our corner loudsue...

we are sure to win the war.

[juajen]

107. Great response!

I don't know what the "detractors" stand to gain by this. But, I can come to some no-good conclusions. Frankly, listening to accusations of Bev and company grandstanding is nauseating. What in the world are they supposed to be getting out of this? They spend THEIR time, THEIR money and THEIR efforts for the benefit of all of us, and then get attacked like this.

I think they are courageous and true red, white and blue. I thank them, again, for all their efforts, and I have one big question.

DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESS THE IGNORE BUTTON, or is there some reason we are letting them hijack this thread?

[uhhuh]

115. Amen!

If these naysayers KNOW the right way to proceed, then they should get out there and DO IT!
I have senn NOTHING from them on this issue, other than attacks on how others are proceeding.
Questions have been asked of them, and they just pull out their own version of the Clenis by blaming everything on the only people making a visible fight on this issue.

Where is their work? Where is their activist organization? Why are they involved with such incompetent and ineffective representation that can't even get into court because of their chickenshit attorney?
I always learned in school to show my work. I have only seen people bitching here about other people's work, and expecting to be given credit or sympathy for how hard they've been working on this issue.
SHOW ME WHAT YOU'VE DONE, and I might appreciate your points, but to come here and attack others for trying to make a difference, when you can't point to one document, or case or appearance in the media for what you've done on your own is like crying about someone beating up your imaginary friend!

Let me make a point:

Bev's imaginary book: REAL!

Publicity to get money for said imaginary book: It is FREE!

They at least got into court, and have brought attention to this issue.
What have you got??

[yowzayowzayowza]

127. The Great BBV Schism.

Though following most of the BBV threads from square one, I still do not understand the schism that occurred, let alone why it continues.

:kick:

Thx loudsue.

[Andy_Stephenson]

128. Me either.

We are after all...on the same team.

[nostamj]

129. how many do you need to make a schism?

is it bigger than a cabal? <ducking>

[greatauntoftriplets]

130. Or bigger than a breadbox?

Great smiley.

[nostamj]

131. http://smileycentral.com/

and, they're FREE!

http://smileycentral.com/

[Generic Other]

116. I always know Bev and Andy must be doing something right

because they get such a savage response from the anklebiters!

We live in a time when the only fools are those who fail to believe there are others conspiring behind their backs.

Hurrah for the activists, skeptics and other underground voices who refuse to stand down!

[Andy_Stephenson]

126. Thanks GOThanks so much for your vote of confidence.

Thank god it wasn't counted on Diebold Election Systems equipment. Or I would have never known.

:)

[revcarol]

135. OK, you immoral naked communists...Seriously, I have a question

Read someplace, think it was press after hearing that you had asked for damages.

Was this just for the TRO
or main lawsuit
and what would be classified as damages(the non-punitive ones)
Are you saying they damaged you financially, or they damaged the taxpayers by foisting fraudulent products on them or what...

[greatauntoftriplets]

136. You forgot "GODLESS immoral naked communists"!!!!

Get with the program, revcarol, LMAO.

:hi:

[RedEagle]

137. Probably on the .org site

Lawsuit probably on the bbv site somewhere.

Better to read it then guess a lot.

I'd assume compensation for what it might cost to do an election right,or another way since the machines are so bad?

[ParanoidPat]

138. Hi revcarol, you can see for yourself what the suit says.....

.....right here! :evilgrin: :hi:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dieboldlawsuit.pdf

(Requires free Adobe Acrobat)

[BevHarris]

139. The lawsuit asks Diebold to pay restitution for tax monies spent

based on unfair and fraudulent business practices. That part was not litigated at all last week -- which is why I say this thing hasn't even gotten started yet!

Bev

[Andy_Stephenson]

140. It may wind up costing them big bank as well.

Last week was but a minor setback. California needs to stack the polling sites with observers. IMHO

[ParanoidPat]

141. Although I'm apparently already a member of your 'cabal'.....

.....as far as some are concerned, is there anything my family and I can sign and submit to offer legal proof that you speak for us as a representative of Black Box Voting.org in the state of California? I'm sure a number of California BBV activists would be more than willing to submit affidavits of support if it will help silence the 'nay sayers'. :evilgrin:

{Honestly I'd go out of my way to help ANY group who is opposed to 'closed source elections' where the methodology employed to count our votes is held as a trade secret by corporations. That includes those on this thread who feel that this suit in my state has somehow harmed them. :hi: )

This was just the first shot across the bow. Not to be a smart ass I'll just say "mistakes were made" RE: citing public record rather than calling witnesses. The fact remains that any reasonable person who reads the 36 page suit that was filed would agree that it has merit and should have been filed in some form.

Perhaps some form of underground forum on neutral cyber-turf should be negotiated as a staging ground for national legal strategy sessions.
If a coalition of every voting activist group in the country were to get together, share information and join forces, there's a very good chance we can get ahead on this issue. Is there someone squeaky clean enough to start The Voter Center.org in response to R. Doug Lewis's Election Center.org? :shrug:
We might as well have our own national lobby. :)

[Andy_Stephenson]

143. Tomorrow is the big day!

Who exactly is going to get a visit. Stay tuned and see.

[Andy_Stephenson]

144. Read the latest at.....

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[nostamj]

145. The Black Box Shuffle

:wow:
this is a real must-read for anyone who wants the facts for disputing pro-BBV talking points!

click the link above, it's on the home page

[Zinfandel]

150. Excellent 'black box' site http://www.votescam.com/

http://www.votescam.com/

[BevHarris]

151. Votescam.com : The ORIGINAL expose on voting machines

the book, by the late Collier brothers, and carried forward by daughter Victoria Collier, was the first to expose the vulnerability of electronic voting.

[Andy_Stephenson]

155. OK Everyone...we are leaving

on a jet plane...look for our first report in the AM.

[loudsue]

156. God speed!

O8) And may good fortune bless you with every step!O8)

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[ParanoidPat]

157. LOL! GMTA....

Laugh out loud(sue)! Great minds think alike! I just posted the exact same sentiments on this thread. :hi:
Could this be a secret message between cabal members? :evilgrin:

[loudsue]

159. LOL! Prolly so!!

God! I really hope all goes well with this! I can't help but cheer these guys with every step they're taking. I think it is sooooo special....this is HISTORY! It's just not history YET!

:kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

158. Loudsue

:yourock: :headbang:

[ParanoidPat]

160. Andy, about that virgin Moroccan boar for the initiation......

......my neighbor has a blind, 350 lb. sow that occasionally breaks loose and roots around in my yard, will that do? :evilgrin: