BY THE WAY, WHERE IS BEV HARRIS? I haven't seen any of her posts

[LittleApple81]

lately.

[trumad]

1. .

[LittleApple81]

2. Trumad, I do not understand your answer. n/t

[supernova]

3. Heh.

Nice graphic.

He's saying Bev burned quite a few bridges before she left.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. What exactly happened? I saw a bit of a debate going on between

folks about publishing a BBV book??

--------------------------------------------------------
An open letter to John Kerry, John Edwards, and the DNC:
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/OpenLetter.htm

[Generic Other]

4. An inaccurate picture

I believe she was standing in the middle of the bridge when the conflagration was sparked.

[Tweed]

9. What happened?

[Must_B_Free]

10. Geez, what happened?

You stop hitting refresh for 5 minutes and the whole world of DU changes on you.

Please, please summarize.

[Zomby Woof]

33. yes

She was standing in the middle of it and stupidly torching it herself with Qui Tam brand matches.

[Fovea]

5. By which you mean

She burnt her bridges behind her?

[LittleApple81]

13. I am sorry to hear that. She is a fighter for democracy. I don't know

what she did, and whatever it is I missed it.

[Hutzpa]

46. Could someone please explain what happen to her ........

enough of the rhetoric already!!! eom

[Must_B_Free]

54. it looks like she sold out and files Qui Tam

a lawsuit which will allow her to collect her to split of 30% of the recovery of 8 million + dollars.

This is something she said she would never do.

In all fairness it looks like they were tired of the grassroot route and thought that putting some money at stake would be more effective at getting this going.

If she stops electronic voting, she may well have earned her money.

I was suspicious of her motives at first because iut seemed like she came in quickly and started directing DUers to doenload private intellectual property through a security hole. This seemed nefarious to me.

Perhaps her motives were financial, perhaps noble, perhaps a mixture.

[jdj]

60. She did say whatever monies come from the qui tam

will go to a non-profit org. she has.

I don't understand why she left DU. We're all grown-ups, but anybody can go to blackboxvoting.org, or talion.com, to keep up with what she is doing.

.verifiablevoting.org is another voter verified paper ballot website.

I got the feeling that she won't post here anymore, but that is really ridiculously insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This is just a website on the internet, after all.

[ConsAreLiars]

65. That is not factual, in several ways

She opposed the "Qui Tam" lawsuits which required activists to give up the fight and shut up for the duration of the suit. And rightly so. She said that stopping BBV was more important than hitting the BBV pushers with a financial penalty after the damage was done. And she was right.

However a lawyer in CA discovered that under the laws of that state. such a whistleblower suit could be filed without the whistleblower being compelled to remain silent on the issues, and joined in. She continued her work, with the result that we now hear of the danger posed by unverifiable voting machinery on mainstream news.

The statement that she "started directing DUers to doenload private intellectual property through a security hole" is just a flat out lie, and you should trace down your source for this fiction and call them out.

(edit typo)

[Must_B_Free]

67. can we review that ?

in my recollection there was sourcecode on an FTP server.
was it password protected or anonymous login?

further questions:
how many leaks of internal company info were there?
how did the archive of emails get out?

[ParanoidPat]

72. The source code was on a PUBLIC, UN-PROTECTED server......

.....found through a Google search. The e-mails made their way to Bev from a whistle blower within Diebold. FWIW.

[Must_B_Free]

80. "made their way"?

I don't know about Diebold, but every corporate contract I have signed in the last decade has contained disclaimers about the ownership of intellectual property.

How are they going to get over that in the lawsuit?

And by the way, I can get just about any piece of software from a link found in Google. Does that mean it's legal?

When the source code to NT leaked out several months ago, was it legal to get, once it had been leaked?

Just curious.

[ConsAreLiars]

76. it was an open ftp site listed on Google

The leaks that occurred later occurred later, and how they happened is unknown. Your charge that Bev committed some crime or unethical act in accessing the ftp site or mentioning it to others was the position put forward by Diebold and their PR machine It was unfounded when they made the accusation and is unfounded now when you again parrot their lies. Where are you getting your talking points? You need to do a bit more fact-checking if you actually want to do more than sling turds. Maybe read the book. Most of the earlier history is there.

[Must_B_Free]

79. talking points? I was THERE

I was there when she came in and started directing people to download the archive and start sifting through it. It was at a time when Freepers just started their organized infiltration and I was looking out for some attempt to incriminate DUers en masse.

My guess is that someone insider knew what to put out and told someone where to look to get it.

And regarding the leaks that came later and how they happened, shouldn't this be known? Did Diebold decide to publish their corporate communications on the web for all to sift through?

[ConsAreLiars]

81. Read the damn book.

Your version of what happened is way off. Your "guess" is just silly. You have no evidence for any of your wild accusations, and you seem oblivious to the most obvious facts. Your paranoia about Freepers tricking DUers is no justification for the accusations you make.

[Must_B_Free]

84. I challenge your logic

The lawyer at the bottom says that Qui Tam relies on inside knowledge of a whistleblower. Qui Tam has been filed. So why attack me for suggesting that a whistleblower was invloved?

Why don't you summarize in a few sentences what the book said to save us all the time?

[ConsAreLiars]

90. Why do you post so much on this topic

and read so little? Here, I'll make it easy for you. Just click on this link http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ and scroll down just a little bit (it is easy) and download the book, and then (here's the hard part) READ IT! Then, once you have finished - tomorrow, next year, whatever - feel free to comment.

As for "logic," explain how your reading of that post implies in any way that the incriminating evidence at the ftp site was deliberately made public by Diebold as some sort of convoluted plot to do whatever.

[Must_B_Free]

94. Here is the danger she exposed us to

Ahh, I found it and I recall what bothered me about this

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm

"The story of how this story emerged is a great tale in itself, most of which has already been told in this report by Bev Harris <snip>

We can now reveal for the first time the location of a complete online copy of the original data set. As we anticipate attempts to prevent the distribution of this information we encourage supporters of democracy to make copies of these files and to make them available on websites and file sharing networks.

http://users.actrix.co.nz/dolly/

As many of the files are zip password protected you may need some assistance in opening them, we have found that the utility available at the following URL works well:"


Not only is she suggesting hacking into password protected files, but the after files were removed by the company, she was telling us to download copies hosted elsewhere. Not only that, but she was instructing us to distribute someone else's intellectual property - their product!

Let me put it this way (and this is a poor example): When a theater screen copy Farenheit 911 was posted on Lions Gate by hackers, some people downloaded it. Was it legal? No. (Now, Moore has stated he doesn't care about pirate copies of the film, but that's beside the point.)

Now if they took those copies and hosted them on their own site, could they claim it was legal? No. It is still illegal distribution. If you aren't licensed to have the software, you cannot have it, regardless of where you got it from.

Was anyone given legal permission to inspect the contents of Diebold's zip files just because they had successfully cracked the password? no.

Can I legally take a pie from a window sill, just because it's not locked up? No.

Another example. McAffee had full versions of their software on an FTP server and everyone under the sun knew the login and password. It was posted on google for years and for the longest time they didn't change the password. Did that make it legal to download the software, just because you found the login on Google? No.

Here's a great analogy (this case is nearly identical to the Diebold case): The source code of Windows NT was leaked on the internet. Did that make it legal to redistribute this source code? Absolutely not. What would you do if someone came on DU and suggested that your fellow community members should take part in distributing the source code to Windows NT? (After all, we might find a security hole in it?) Does that make it legal? No.

Sorry to play devils advocate here, but this is why I felt that Bev Harris invited us all into potentially criminal activity, especially in instructing us to redistribute the files that the company removed when they discovered they were available for public access. I am glad that BBV is exposed, but this particular aspect never seemed right to me.

[ConsAreLiars]

97. You quote Scoop and attribute his words to Bev????

How lame can and deluded you get?

And for the record, Scoop (althecat) is another hero in this story. Slashdot also provided links to the files. You side with Diebold, Well, that's your choice, but Diebold never succeeded in their efforts to establish that anything done with the ftp files they made public was illegal or could be suppressed. If you are simply such a coward that you feel that taking any action that might bring retaliation is unwise, well, your criticism of these activists makes sense.

Again, your allegation that any of these activists engaged in or encouraged criminal activity is a lie and a slander. Your fear of offending powerful interests is, however, well established by your own words.

[Must_B_Free]

100. Here is my retaliation

1. you make your attacks personal against me, this weakens your argument.

2. Scoop attributed his words to Bev, I included that reference at the beginning of the quote.

3. You imply unreliability in the source, Scoop, then in the next breath call him a hero.

4. You call me a coward for being wary of entrapment, when Bev herself calls the VoteHere case entrapment. Does that mean she's a coward too?

5. How is instructing others to redistribute privatized intellectual property NOT encouraging criminal activity?

6. I don't side with Diebold, as I said, neither do I support electronic voting, or any unverifiable voting.

7. My criticism forces you to strengthen your faulty reasoning and perhaps to give up your knee jerk attack. No "white chair" logic will be acceptable in this case. That makes me a supporter of the movement to end BBV.

Your best point is that no legal remedy has been acheived by Diebold thusfar. THere may be no remedy because the site was public anamous FTP and no license information was posted. The rest of your post is not convincing.

[ConsAreLiars]

103. Either you cannot read or you are deliberately deceptive

{1) Who cares?


(2) Your lie: "Scoop attributed his words to Bev, I included that reference at the beginning of the quote."

Your quote from the article: "The story of how this story emerged is a great tale in itself, most of which has already been told in this report by Bev Harris."

Then you cut out the very fact that the reference to Bev refers to ANOTHER article:

The VERY next line points to to the article by Bev that he is talking about: "SYSTEM INTEGRITY FLAW DISCOVERED AT DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00052.htm "

The article you quote is clearly written under the byline of C.D. Sludge and (anti)copyrighted by the same author.

Why such a deception on your part?

(3) You also are deceptive when you say I implied unreliability by Scoop. Again, you see things that are just not there and then claim I am being inconsistent when I praise Scoop for the work done on this issue. What the fuck is up with that?

(4) You are a coward by comparison. Recognizing a real trap is rather different from fearing to act altogether.

(5) "instructing others to redistribute privatized intellectual property NOT encouraging criminal activity? " Repeating a lie does not make it true, Faux and the neocons notwithstanding.

(6) Regurgitating bogus Diebold talking points IS siding with Diebold, whether you admit it or not.

(7) Posting nonsense and false accusations is not "criticism" and serves no useful purpose.

And lastly, the fact that Diebold's stable of big-buck lawyers could not prove the criminality you charge ought to suggest to you that your accusations are groundless. The facts were not on their side. Why you spend so much time trying to reassert that kind of slander using misinformation and deception is a bit of a puzzle. Well, the reliance on disinformation and innuendo is not a puzzle - that's all you have. But the "why" is still out there.

[kiahzero]

71. Right

Care to substantiate that spurious allegation ("<she> started directing DUers to doenload private intellectual property through a security hole"), or should I just assume that it's complete and unfettered bullshit?

In fact, I can demonstrate that it's complete and unfettered bullshit: she spoke out against downloading the hacked code, saying that it would be dumb to look at it, because it was about to be released, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1493426

Now, she did distribute the Diebold memos that were leaked, but that wasn't "private intellectual property through a security hole."

[Must_B_Free]

92. You are mixing up Diebold and VoteHere

Two different companies. VoteHere appears to be an entrapment attempt. It has nothing to do with the intellectual property of Diebold that the BBV movement was spurned by.

So I don't know that you made the point that you wanted to.

Also, wouldn't the very definition of a "leak" be "private intellectual property through a security hole"? Otherwise, it would be intentional distribution.

[kiahzero]

93. Um, no.

A leak is when someone on the inside puts something on the outside. A security hole is when someone on the outside puts something on the outside.

One's maybe a breach of contract, the other is illegal.

The Diebold memos were not obtained through a hack.

[Must_B_Free]

98. Are you related to Yogi Berra, or something?

"One's maybe a breach of contract, the other is illegal."

ROTFL!

[dpibel]

102. Tough concept

Breach of contract is a civil matter. It gets you money damages or specific performance.

Breaking the law (i.e., doing something illegal) is a criminal matter. It gets you jail.

A good laugh, indeed.

Edited to remove a stray "civil."

[greenbriar]

7. who is bev harris

???

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. The gal behind Black Box Voting . org

[LittleApple81]

11. She was one of the persons who spearheaded the concern about

electronic voting and the action against Diebold and other manufacturers.

[jdj]

16. results 1-10 of about 81,100 for Bev Harris.

Results 1 - 10 of about 81,100 for Bev Harris. (0.38 seconds)

Black Box Voting: Ballot - Tampering in the 21st Century
... Older Articles. Bev Harris Parts Company with Us, Site ... This suit was
filed secretly by Bev Harris and Jim March in November of 2003. I ...
www.blackboxvoting.com/ - 60k - Jul 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Black Box Voting: Ballot - Tampering in the 21st Century
... Search. Topics All Topics. ... Bev Harris ...
www.blackboxvoting.com/modules. php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.blackboxvoting.com >

Black Box Voting - Bev Harris - BlackBoxVoting.org
The official web site of the Black Box Voting nonprofit organization, Executive
Director Bev Harris. ... Staff: - Bev Harris - executive director. ...
www.blackboxvoting.org/ - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

Black Box Voting - Bev Harris - BlackBoxVoting.org
The official web site of investigative writer Bev Harris, with current
Black Box Voting investigations. Citizens ... , About Bev Harris "Riveting ...
www.blackboxvoting.org/bev-harris.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.blackboxvoting.org >

Scoop: Inside A US Election Vote Counting Program
... By Bev Harris* * Bev Harris is the Author of the soon to be published book " Black
Box Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century " http://www.blackboxvoting ...
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm - 45k - Jul 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Scoop: Bev Harris: Diebold End-Runs Around Certification
Bev Harris: Diebold End-Runs Around Certification Wednesday, 17 September
2003, 10:22 am Article: Bev Harris. Internal Memos: Diebold ...
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00150.htm - 50k - Jul 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.scoop.co.nz >

Bev Harris on the Perils to Democracy by Electronic Voting - A ...
... Bev Harris on the Perils to Democracy by Electronic Voting. A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW.
What remains the greatest threat to democracy in the 2004 election? ...
www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/12/int03323.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

Will the 2004 Election be Stolen With Electronic Voting Machines? ...
... An Interview with Bev Harris, Who Has Done the Groundbreaking Work
on This Issue. A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW. ... BEV HARRIS: Four reasons: ...
www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/29_harris.html - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.buzzflash.com >

Seattle Weekly: News: Black Box Backlash by George Howland Jr.
... NEWS. March 10 - 16, 2004. Black Box Backlash Bev Harris of Renton created
a firestorm with her national Internet campaign against electronic voting. ...
www.seattleweekly.com/features/ 0410/040310_news_blackbox.php - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Salon.com Technology | Hacking democracy
... 20, 2003 | During the past five months, Bev Harris has e-mailed to news organizations
a series of reports that detail alarming problems in the high-tech voting ...
www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/20/voting_machines/ - 36k

[jdj]

24. From the first google link above

from David Allen
"I have been trying since March to keep private a dispute between Bev and myself, in order not to damage our efforts to stop electronic voting machines from undermining our democracy.
Unfortunately, Bev has made a point of making her displeasure as public as possible with considerable damage being done to me and my company, Plan Nine Publishing.

I had hoped that once she formed her foundation, I would be able to negotiate some kind of agreement to simply go our own way, but the filing of the 'qui tam' law suit in California changes that.

This suit was filed secretly by Bev Harris and Jim March in November of 2003. I was unaware of the action and would have opposed it vigorously had I known."

(You can read about the suit here)

'here' as in:

"Electronic voting critics sue company under whistle blower law

SAN FRANCISCO -- Critics of electronic voting are suing Diebold Inc. under a whistleblower law, alleging that the company’s shoddy balloting equipment exposed California elections to hackers and software bugs.

California’s attorney general unsealed the lawsuit Friday. It was filed in November but sealed under a provision that keeps such actions secret until the government decides whether to join the plaintiffs.

Lawmakers from Maryland to California are expressing doubts about the integrity of paperless voting terminals made by several large manufacturers, which up to 50 million Americans will use in November.

The California lawsuit was filed in state court by computer programmer Jim March and activist Bev Harris, who are seeking full reimbursement for Diebold equipment purchased in California."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0407/14/technology-208992.htm

[Must_B_Free]

30. I recall Bev explaining Qui Tam

She said she would never do that because the person who files it gets a big portion of the settlement (i.e. rich) and that would be a sell out. Bev stated explicitly that that would taint the entire thing with a bog money grab. So I am surprised if she actually did secretly file Qui Tam.

[jdj]

34. re-read it and weep, my friend.

[Must_B_Free]

39. wow- she's going to be rich

"State election officials have spent at least $8 million on paperless touchscreen machines. Alameda County, for one, has spent at least $11 million.

Under the whistleblower statute, March and Harris could collect up to 30 percent of any reimbursement"

that's at least a million each.

I was suspicious of Bev Harris at first appearance because it appeared to me she was inviting people to take part in something potentially illegal in downloading the sourcecode through the security hole.

Was my gut feeling was right?

[ParanoidPat]

59. Perhaps you need to re-read it and get your facts straight.......

......Bev initially refused to get involved with a Qui Tam suit because they involve a gag order on the filing parties part that usually prevents
them from speaking out in public about what is going on in regard to the suit. Bev did NOT file the suit, rather, that was done by Jim March through attorney Lowell Finley, (SP?) Bev was added later for her name recognition after it was determined that a special circumstance existed under California law that allowed her to continue speaking out about BBV due to a compelling public interest.

Bev will NOT "get rich" over this. Any monies that may be awarded should the suit be won will ultimately wind up being broken down as follows, 70% to 85% of the award (depending on whether the State of California joins the suit) will go to reimburse the State for the cost of the machines. The remainder will be split between the plaintiffs and their attorney with Bev's portion going to Black Box Voting.org's non profit corporation. The best Bev will do is be able to draw a salary from the non profit for the work she's done.

And as far as David Allen is concerned, I have archived virtually every thread having to do with BBV since the beginning. There were numerous threads where DUers pledged to purchase copies of the book for every member of Congress. That effort seemed at the time to have been a success with all members being covered yet the sales report from Plan 9 showed a total of 18 copies being sold! So who's telling the truth? Are all the DUers who claimed to have ordered the book just a bunch of lier's?

[jdj]

63. I never said she would

"get rich". I posted the article. That's it.

If you want my personal opinion, which I have not given up until this point, and which my gut tells me not to do, but I will anyway, she's earned it. And she stated herself the money would go to her org. I have no reason to question her, and all the disputes people have had with her that have been aired in public, I don't really understand, because they deal with matters over my head. I know there is some dispute with David Allen over money for the books, but I don't have that info, nor will I ever, so I don't know why I would want to express an opinion on that aspect of it.

I gather there are alot of people involved with this, and alot of personal disputes going on. I'm not involved in any of them. I posted the articles hoping people would read them and stop speculating. I erroneously confused the two David Allens, I'll admit that. However saddened I have been by the controversy, it hasn't dampened my admiration for Bev one iota. Her work speaks for itself, and will continue to.

[Must_B_Free]

85. please search your archives

for the earliest discussion of Qui Tam by Bev.

I don't recall the gag justification. What I recall was that she didn't want to taint the movement by seeming like she was only after the money. I specifically recall her talking about that. Am I mistaken?

[ParanoidPat]

95. Are you mistaken? In a word YES!

:)

[Longhorn]

35. She made an announcement on this board

that she filed it.

[cayanne]

48. Here's one of the threads

It's best that everyone read it themselves so they can come to their own conclusions. There was another thread later where David showed that he did pay Bev the $2000 but I don't have that thread handy right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1960084

[ConsAreLiars]

68. That is not what she said

If you want to continue the attack on Bev, you have to do better than misrepresent her words. She opposed that kind of suit when it meant the activist suing would be silenced and forced to withdraw from the fight. That is rather different than the spin you give. Why do you choose to misrepresent her position and then damn her for something she never said. It is a familiar tactic, but not an honorable one.

[Hutzpa]

52. So once again repugs win..

by dangling money infront of our nose, what a shame really did thought she was on to something good. Man!! When are we going to learn?

[whistle]

12. I received an email from Bev about a week ago...

...and it's the last I've seen or heard anything about her crusade. The Florida election is going to be up to it's neck in whale dung over these voting machines, and I feel completely powerless to stop it. These machines should be declared illegal and pulled from use. They have failed every test and inspection to date, yet the juggernaut just keeps moving forward like some unstoppable force. Hey, PayPal(R) just lost the class action suit against it for over $15 million in damages to users for this very same issue, failure to adequately and fairly report Electronic Funds Transfers and illegally holding back payments without proper reporting and grievance filing. The paperless transactions are being allowed to move forward at all levels of our society and we can't do a thing to protect ourselves. The voting machines are just another element.

PS: I don't recall the like but it's something like www.paypalsupportgroup.com

Also, if you do a Google Search on "PayPal, class action lawsuits" you'll get a bunch of sites and discussion boards of people who are being burned for 100's and even 1,000's of dollars.

[jdj]

14. I don't know if the search function is down because of the

high traffic, but you should definitely check the archives.

She declared her intent to leave.

I keep hoping it is a stunt where everyone involved will come running out and yell "sucker!"

and say it was a manufactured stunt to throw pukes off the scent or something.

hope springs eternal.

[uncle ray]

69. her stunts like that have turned a few off.

bottom line is, for whatever reason, she went and did exactly what she said she would NEVER DO. that tends to not sit too well with activist types. the wake of pissed off people that used to work with her on top of her apparantly secret decision to file the suit doesn't help her image. it gets to the point her reasons don't matter, someone else would be better suited to rally behind on the issue. the issue is BBV, NOT Bev Harris. funny how nobody asks what's up with BBV lately? they ask wheres bev. maybe because that's how she presents, what she has done, what she has uncovered, where she just visited. BBV is a tough enough issue to follow without having to read about every bit of drama that she uncovered.

[wtmusic]

73. Once again, big money fucks up everything

So she's not Mahatma Gandhi. But kee-rist, that's a healthy helpin' o' hypocrisy she dished up!

[jdj]

74. I meant, in my tinfoil hat heart of hearts, I had hoped

all of the players had gotten together and feigned a fight to flush out the trolls or something.

I still keep hoping this is it, but if it is not, then I prefer to remain in denial and pretend that everybody loves everybody.

[GoBucksBeatBush]

15. wtf? what's going on? i blinked...

and apparantly missed some shit hitting a proverbial fan somewhere. anyone feeling benevolent enough to give us the 411 on what the farq's going on with bev "burning bridges", etc.?

[The Spirit of JFK]

17. My recollection is...

that she and her publisher got into a legal fight...her publisher ticked her off by being on the boards all the time (allegedly taking credit for stuff), and she aired he grievances here (in detail to some degree) and then tombstoned herself.

Is that about right?

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. That's more or less what I saw happening, but not real sure

Just know it had to do with the book.

[salin]

20. I believe that was awhile ago

but more recently was the announcement of bringing a particular kind of law suit (don't know the terminology). The controversy was that she had previously, in public, accused others of not being "true to the cause" - and hoping to profit (and tank the effort) by bringing the same kind of lawsuit.

Another key propoent - who is also on the board of the organizaton she founded - posted some stuff elsewhere that was linked to du - that included innuendo of a big profit motive behind the case. This appeared to leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth of many - esp those who had particpated in the movement and were maligned (see above.)

Life has gotten so busy that I am only on DU sporadically - so my impression of what had been going on, may very well be very far off from reality.

[trumad]

19. That's completely wrong

I'm too tired to get into this so do a search in the DU archives for the info... I will tell you this though... Bev started the allegations and when she was proven wrong she fled. Period....

[salin]

I think the ability to search the archives

may be turned off at this time.

[Must_B_Free]

22. you HAVE to give us more than that

please!

who was her publisher? godbushNcheney?

what was the dispute over?

[Longhorn]

23. May I say, for what it's worth, that as a completely impartial observer

who only knows what I read on all the threads, including all of David and Bev's comments -- at least, those that were listed as being relevant -- that if I were on a jury, I would find in favor of David.

[ParanoidPat]

29. That's a lie trumad and you know it.....

*

[trumad]

110. PP... come on... do you think I'm one of these knuckleheads

who are posting in this thread that have no idea what they are talking about? The only person I lie to is my wife..;-) If you accuse me of lying then I think you ought to have the decency to prove it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

40. No it wasn't

another DUer who was involved in starting BBV. Based on my read (I was not actively engaged in the discussions, but read Bev's last post....I thought her accusations were refuted.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Longhorn]

45. They have the same name but

I didn't think they were the same person, either. In her book, she credits both David Allen and Skinner. And David Allen, the publisher, uses a different ID on DU -- though I'm blanking on what it is.

[Must_B_Free]

47. is that GodBushnCheney?

althought maybe his name was Andy.

[Longhorn]

53. No. I'd recognize it if I saw it. I'll browse the member names.

[jdj]

50. now I am intrigued

David Allen the publisher... I have read his posts and maybe the moniker is "plan nine (or 9) publishing"?.

If they are indeed two different people it would clear up for me the mystery of why he would be so tolerant of her using his website to criticize him. I always wondered about that reading the threads.

[Longhorn]

56. That's it.

plan9_pub is David Allen, the publisher.

[ConsAreLiars]

61. If you read those threads

you would know that Bev recently posted some factual material about ongoing BBV activities and was then attacked. Part of the attacks were motivated by the contract dispute regarding compensation for and rights to her book (which escalated to the lawyering stage), and she stopped posting altogether very shortly after the attacks began and to my knowledge has not returned. Your assertion that she was using DU to attack others is wrong. (Skinner is not her publisher, and she did not initiate any attacks against her publisher when bring this new info to DU readers.) She responded briefly to critics, and then turned her energies to other more significant battles. The attacks continued for several days longer.

Ax for who "started it" historically, it's probably not worth spit to try to figure that out.

The net result is that some vigorous attacks on Bev have led her to put DU on ignore for the time being.

The net result is that those of us who looked forward to new info and probing into these matters more deeply here on DU no longer have that opportunity to learn and participate.

[jdj]

64. I didn't say she was attacking others.

In the thread I read, she herself asserted she did not get compensated for the books that were sold.

That comment, and only that comment, was what I meant when I said "criticize" or whatever, it's late and I can't remember how to spell it.

[althecat]

89. They are not the same person

Message removed by moderator

[kimchi]

49. Two different people.

Skinner didn't write/edit/publish any of Bev's book. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

[jdj]

57. Yes, I get it now.

It all makes much more sense now.

DU Admin David Allen (forum username "Skinner")

I guess I can stop being amazed at how amazingly inexplicably tolerant skinner is about this whole deal.

[Longhorn]

21. I spent hours reading through the relevant threads about a week ago.

A lot happened from about July 14-19, or so -- at least, the last of the major threads.

When the search function is working again, you can devote a day or so to getting caught up!

[Must_B_Free]

26. someone please add a day to our lives and give us the 5 min version.

please!

[jdj]

31. I was just looking, did you cut and paste, by any chance.

I posted the relevant articles above, but I know from reading this through them that it is a very complicated situation. But the fact that the qui tam was filed in November kind of shattered me just now, I didn't connect the dots.

This reminds me of that routine Tina Fey did about the 2000 election, about being between Al Gore and geedubya, and being caught in the middle, she said "'cause I'm friends with both of them, yada, yada, yada. Both have made enormous contributions, so to take sides either way is kind of detrimental to the cause. But it is so sad.

[thebigidea]

37. Tina Fey thought she was friends with W?

Geez, you'd think she'd know better.

I missed all that, SNL hasn't been funny in ages.

[jdj]

41. no, no, no, she did the routine with a kind of 21st century

valley girl accent, like she was refereeing a dispute between junior high school girls, it was like, "then all called george a loser/and I said "oh no you DIDn't/cause like, I'm friends with both of them...

It was hilarious.

[thebigidea]

43. Ah, ok. For a second I was nearly mortified. NEARLY.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Gold Metal Flake]

32. Isn't this a person working very hard to see that our votes are counted?

Is that a bad thing?

[jdj]

38. Yes!!!!!

and no!!!

[Cleita]

36. Where ever Bev is, thank you!

The voting machine debacle has gone mainstream. It's spoken about here and there on television, the print media and even scientific magazines. Her name is mentioned often. Thanks Bev!

[jdj]

44. I second that, thanks to EVERYBODY INVOLVED

everyone who contributed to this effort rocks.

[goclark]

51. I agree. Thank you Bev for all you

are doing and all you have done on the BBV issue.

I don't know all the facts but I do know this...

ANYBODY who took the time to find out how we can keep our true enemies from stealing this election is fine in my book.

Can we please,please, please Keep Our Eye On The Prize until Nov. 3?

[Hutzpa]

58. So she made money out of it .....right!

something that should have been a charity, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I wonder!

[ParanoidPat]

62. She hasn't made a dime off of this and won't.......

.....First the suit has to be won, and second, her portion (if any) is going to fund the 501(c)(3). The best she'll do is be able to draw a salary from Black Box Voting.org. I think she deserves at least that much.

[rman]

105. "should have been a charity" says who?

Last i heard Bev wants to finance the BBV activism with whatever cash the Qui Tam brings in.

[sendero]

106. I have no idea what is really going on...

... but IMHO if Bev collects a million dollars, it will be money well earned.

It gives me sad pause that this sort of devolution into he-said/she-said blah blah blah is where is seems to end here. Since day one Bev had several detractors around here, at least one of whom, it was easy to tell from their posts, had a screw loose to say the least.

I'm wishing Ms. Harris luck and success. When you sacrifice all of your time to a good cause, with important successes achieved, without pay, you get a free pass to make a mistake or two IMHO.

[WilliamPitt]

55. Deleted Message

Message removed by moderator.

:)

I'm seeing Bev this weekend in Seattle.

[althecat]

87. Deleted Message

What did Will say?

or did he just post a message like this for laughs.

[althecat]

88. Deleted Message

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


I wonder if it would be possible to create a byline "Name removed"

[althecat]

91. I hope you can help sort all this crap out Will...

It is a mess of high order and sorely needs some sorting out. First of all some lines of communication need to be opened....

[Must_B_Free]

101. I don't know

BBV suffers from rabies. These topic people get all rabid when you try to use logic. Here, anyone who asks to many qestions is accused of "having an agenda". That's why it goes on ignore for so many people. So many personal attacks in this thread and every thread on BBV. It's an automatic turnoff. The whole thing has burned itself out from the inside.

Now I think its a good thing that Bev took the next step and took it out of the realm of all this name calling.

[cayanne]

66. Bev Harris' Thread

I posted this above but will post here too.

IMO it's best that everyone read it themselves so they can come to their own conclusions. There was another thread later where David showed that he did pay Bev the $2000 but I don't have that thread handy right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[TiredTexan]

70. Qui Tam suits are very limited

remedies involving whistleblowers who have inside information unknown to the government regarding fraud involving government funds. Essentially, it is my understanding that Qui Tam suits can only be filed by an employee or former employee with personal knowledge of the fraud. The suit is filed under seal preventing disclosure of the existence and content of the suit. The court turns over a copy of the sealed complaint to the governmental agency in charge of investigating fraud, and gives that agency a certain time frame to intervene in the litigation. If the agency takes over the litigation, the plaintiff receives a smaller percentage of the recovery.

Qui Tam suits are one of the most powerful tools in this country designed to root out corruption and fraud in connection with the expenditure of federal funds. The discovery process in the Qui Tam will be extensive, and will require public disclosure of security problems, marketing strategies, and many, many other pieces of information that will assist us in beating the paperless voting consortium. Frankly, I believe that this Qui Tam suit is the smartest thing anyone could have done to the manufacturers. It could force disclosure of information we can't get any other way and if sucessful, could self fund efforts to rid our democracy of this bane.

If anyone would like to know more about how Qui Tams work, read "Giant Killers."

All of this aside, I don't believe that Bev Harris is a proper plaintiff for a Qui Tam on voting machines. If my admittadly hazy recollection serves me correctly (having been out of law school for 15 years), in order to be a proper plaintiff in this type of suit, you must have information not available publically, and gained solely from your position as an employee or insider.

I discussed this with my sister (who is also an attorney - my family has a genetic defect which produces them by the dozens) who has actually filed and pursued Qui Tams for MediCal fraud. She believes Bev does not have standing to pursue the suit because she is not an insider. Perhaps they have a former employee on board.

All of this aside, I'm a little confused about the condemnation from folks regarding the use of Qui Tam. The plaintiffs, if successful, recover only a percentage (up to 30% I think), and the remainder goes back to the government. A substantial part of the Plaintiff's recovery will go to evil lawyers (like me) who demand to be paid first. In many succesful cases, Qui Tam plaintiffs end up with little or nothing, and the lions share is split between the attorneys and the government. Qui Tams are almost always filed as a labor of love by a person on a mission. Recovery is often very iffy, and tremendous costs are incurred by the litigant, often with no recovery.

In one recent case in the news, a scientist opposing the missle defense shield filed a Qui Tam claiming the technology didn't work, couldn't work and alleged that she was fired for refusing to alter test results. This case has been ongoing for over 5 years, litigation costs (which are borne by the plaintiff, not the lawyer) are over $100,000 and there is no end in sight. These suits are enormously expensive, complex and risky, with no certainty of success.

In any event, it is my opinion that we can only win by the filing of the Qui Tam. If Ms. Harris ends up making a little money in the end, it will be from Diebold and the government, and our democracy will be better served. I hope they file them in every state where electronic voting machines are used.

But that's just one opinion.

[ParanoidPat]

75. Thank you!

Very well put. :) :toast:

[Bake]

78. Thank you, TiredTexan!

Obviously, my comment below is not aimed at you!

Bake

[Bake]

77. Obviously many, if not most, of you know nothing about qui tam

No way is Bev a sellout just for filing a qui tam or "whistleblower" lawsuit.

Once again, liberals eat their own in the interest of ideological purity.

There are only two ways, as I see it, to have a significant impact on a company like Diebold. One is legislative action prompted by activists. The other is by means of a lawsuit that hits the bastards in the bottom line, where it hurts. Under the current circumstances, you have to choose a strategy and run with it. Time is running short for hope of significant legislative action nationwide. That only leaves one other option.

Most, if not all, of the trashing of Bev on DU (sellout, etc.) has been done by people with no understanding of the legal ramifications of qui tam suits, or by people with vested (and mostly undisclosed)interests in the fight.

Bake, Esq.

[Must_B_Free]

82. Bev trashed herself, then

She was the one saying that she wouldn't file Qui Tam and said she wouldn't taint this by appearing to be after the money. I think it may be the best idea in this case, but then maybe she shouldn't have rejected it. Of course she's allowed to change her mind.

The point is that Bev herself is the one who set the attitude against Qui Tam.

[ConsAreLiars]

83. Bev did not say that. That is a false accusation.

Why do you persist in making up things? What is your stake? What are your goals?

[Must_B_Free]

86. That is my recollection

your fantasy that I have something at stake is just that, a fantasy.

Can we locate the beginning of Bev Harris in the archives?

[ParanoidPat]

96. Another lie.....

.....please post a link.

[Must_B_Free]

99. The DU archives are currently disabled

But since you have saved every thread on BBV since the beginning, could you please locate Bev's original discussion of Qui Tam? I have a hunch that I am recalling the conversation properly, and not lying, as you suggest.

[thebigidea]

104. right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4052&forum=DCForumID70#0

"Each of the key researchers on this issue discussed the possibility of filing for Qui Tam money. The partipants deserve respect for what I feel is a nearly heart-stopping show of honor, each and every one of the researchers turned down the possibility to make millions, deciding that the issue of democracy was too important to cash in and shut up."

"When we discussed it amongst ourselves, we each independently came to the conclusion that doing this for money was the wrong thing to do, and doing something that will put a federal gag order on what's wrong with voting machines is a VERY wrong thing to do.

We aren't soiling ourselves with Qui Tam money. Go for it."

[gristy]

107. I have no problem with Bev filing a Qui Tam lawsuit

Especially since they were somehow able to avoid the gag order she talks about in the post you found. It seems obvious to me that she was far more concerned about a possible gag order than about the possibility that she might make some money. And that's how it should be. Bev's mouth hurts her sometimes, but her actions have kept me a fan.

[TiredTexan]

111. It is not a federal gag

order, it is a sealed pleading. The litigants cannot talk about the existence of the suit, but can talk about other wrongdoing. The federal investigative agency (usually the DOJ) only has a limited amount of time to review the complaint to decide whether it will take over the prosecution of the action. Once this review is done (usually takes 6 months or so), the court must unseal the complaint unless there are national security matters at issue.

That's what happened here. The California government and the DOJ refused their rights to take over prosecuting the complaint. The complaint was unsealed resulting in the publicity.

Ms. Harris continued her work on these issues even while the suit was sealed, and continued to speak out about the problems. The existence of the suit did not prevent that.

It looks to me that Ms. Harris discussed it with fellow activists, and they agreed not to make money on this. She may have simply misunderstood the value of these suits, and their sealing process.

I, myself, sent Ms. Harris an email last year explaining Qui Tam and the process and advised she seek an expert in these cases. I'm sure she received other correspondence from lawyers suggesting the same course of action. It is also quite likely that once she was advised by an attorney what the real process was, she rethought her earlier opinion.

In my opinion, Ms. Harris is doing a very brave, very necessary and very risky thing. This may be the only way to get these machines out of our lives.

[TiredTexan]

109. In Qui Tam suits,

the litigant is absolutely prohibited from discussing the existence of the suit until the court unseals the complaint. I do not know Ms. Harris, nor have I any insider knowledge. Nonetheless, if I were her attorney, I would have advised her to deny the existence of such a suit, or the intent to file one. It's safer that way because the defendant cannot claim that your silence in the face of questions inferred a suit had been filed.

In any event, in this case, the Plaintiffs are seeking to force Diebold to take back the machines sold because of fraud in the inducement of the contract. This means that the only damages awardable are injunctive relief (i.e., an order by the court requiring Diebold to pick up the machines and return the purchase price), and attorney fees and costs. The entire purpose of the suit is to force the electronic voting machine makers to divulge all the informations about the machines, to divulge misrepresentations in marketing, and to remove the machines.

Ms. Harris' percentage of the take is likely to be nominal. Again, the plaintiffs in these suits are usually pursuing a higher purpose, and this is the only way they can accomplish getting high powered plaintiffs attorneys to take the cases. Unless they are going to paid something, most lawyers, like everyone else, can't afford to work for free.

[Mecil]

108. According to a nutcase she's in it for the money...

Now I've followed her posts for years (first as a lurker, then registered member here) and I find her cause good, but just came across this post in our own editorials forum. Whats up with that? (referring to the guy who claims she does it all for the money) He a thug hack, or something change with Bev?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x64721

[nostamj]

112. Bev and Andy are fine

I spoke with Andy yesterday. they're 'on the road' but I'm not at liberty to say where.