No Excuses on ChoicePoint: A Threat to Our Constitution and Freedom

[Land Shark]

Here’s a real man-bites-dog story:

Election activists from Votetrustusa.org go out of their way to attack prominent investigative journalist Greg Palast (who has an interesting new book out on the NYT’s bestseller list featuring a chapter exposing election fraud) in order to specifically defend Choicepoint, the corporation of Florida 2000 “felon”-purging fame and present privacy-invading-data-mining fame. In the course of defending himself, Palast finds it necessary to offer to defend his accuracy and honor in court if people continue to spread the misinformation about him and his reporting on Choicepoint. See <http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html>

Recent press also confirms that the wife of Choicepoint President (Donna Curling) is a director and apparently also a co-founder of VoteTrustUSA. (see above)

This obviously connects Palast, his election activist critics at Votetrustusa, and Choicepoint, with Palast standing alone on one side as the independent journalist he is.

The issues surround the role Choicepoint may or may not have in funding, influencing or monitoring Votetrustusa or other parts of the election protection movement, the defense of Curling’s involvement and funding (the level of which is unknown but the fact of which is admitted) in votetrustusa, and the accuracy of Palast’s reporting regarding Choicepoint.

But perhaps we can stop right here: I find it almost inconceivable that Choicepoint would be defended by any election activist, except as an extension of defending the bona fides of Ms. Curling or her right to have an opinion. However, the defense of Ms. Curling’s right to be involved and/or found VotetrustUSA ends up taking the form of defending Choicepoint **as if it had no responsibility for Florida 2000,** which is different than defending Ms. Curling’s rights as a citizen activist.

Perhaps we can also stop right here: although it is the point of Greg Palast I quote, my own investigation indicates that the following Palast opinion is an accurate statement of Opinion:

“{Data-mining companies including Choicepoint have a} lucrative link-up {with} the Administration's Homeland Security spy network {because they are} private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.” see www.gregpalast.com

The gist, or the gravamen, of what Palast is describing is a system where private companies do things that the government can’t do, and then the government benefits from that. These private companies then constitute a defacto KGB that compilies dossiers of information on every private citizen that no reasonable person would consider to be consistent with a decent vision of a free society IF THE GOVERNMENT COMPILED THE INFORMATION ITSELF.

Let’s stop again for a reality check: Private detectives have long gotten away with searches that would be illegal if government sponsored because there’s arguably no “state action” that the Constitution can prohibit, so this threat to constitutional rights by private companies is neither un-realistic nor is it new.

But in another DU thread, some have risen to defend Curling’s frequent Democratic contributions. See <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x440147>

However, because many or even most people in the category of ‘heavy hitters’ give contributions to get access, the contributions themselves prove little or nothing about partisan loyalty.

Moreover, partisan loyalty is no litmus test for support of election protection issues, as the official position of the Democratic party unfortunately makes all too clear. Therefore, Curling’s contributions to Democrats do not solve the issue for us.

Perhaps it will help to state clearly what definitely seems legally possible given Choicepoint’s professed business role, and the 1.2 million searches the FBI specifically paid for in a recent year, as I previously wrote back in May 2006:

Some Choice facts on choicepoint:

More recently (2005), ChoicePoint's chairman and CEO, Derek Smith, announced that as a direct result of this recent fraud, it would be exiting the business of selling informational dossiers " ... except where there is a specific consumer-driven transaction or benefit, or where the products support federal, state or local government and criminal justice purposes. News Release, ChoicePoint News Center, at http://www.choicepoint.com/choicepoint/news.nsf/IDNumber/TXK2005-5381565?OpenDoc ument (last visited Apr. 4, 2005). This measure will have a significantly adverse financial impact on the {Choicepoint company, reducing expected "2005 core revenues by $ 15-20 million," and diluting earnings per share by ten to twelve cents. 15 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 639, 663-64.

"Glenn R. Simpson, U.S. Agencies Tap Outside Data Source, Wall St. J., April 13, 2001, at A1, (discussing government agencies' intentional actions which violate the Privacy Act). For example, the FBI, IRS, and numerous federal agencies currently purchase millions of dollars worth of personal data from private companies that provide commercial look-up services. {Simpson, supra at A1. The Justice Department paid $ 8,000,000 to buy data from ChoicePoint in 2000, and the IRS signed a multiyear contract worth up to $ 12,000,000 with ChoicePoint. Id. ChoicePoint alone has at least 35 federal agencies as customers. Id.}"

"These commercial companies specialize in what government agencies cannot do - glean, sort, and organize data on individuals to compile a master information file. Id. By indexing and matching information from various sources, private companies collect credit information, names, aliases, addresses, motor-vehicle information, real property records, traffic records, bankruptcy filings, and other information under an individual's social security number. Id. Although Congress enacted the Privacy Act to prevent federal agencies from gathering data irrelevant for agencies' purposes, federal agencies circumvent the Privacy Act by employing private companies to gather extraneous data." 15 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 639, 663-64

And a little law relative to phone call databases and Choicepoint in a direct quote from a 2004 law review on privacy:

“Surveillance cameras and database searches are generally unregulated by American constitutional law because American courts have held repeatedly that once I have surrendered privacy for one purpose, I have surrendered it for all purposes. See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 742-46 (1979) (relying on telephone service to make a phone call surrenders the right to privacy in the phone numbers dialed); So, for example, if I turn over my personal data to ChoicePoint or LexisNexis, I have surrendered all expectations that the government will not use this information to classify me.” Rosen, Jeffrey; Isaac Marks Memorial Lecture: The Naked Crowd: Balancing Privacy and Security in an Age of Terror, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 607, 615 (2004).

The FBI made 1.2 million queries to Choicepoint, according to a recent article. See http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1005/265065.html but they should be investigating choicepoint, not using them.

This is not fantasy land regarding what choicepoint does and who it sells to. And there's no assurances of any kind that the emails of activists are not being data mined.

Although it is quite possible that there’s nothing untoward going on, all legitimate activists should, IMHO, seek definitive and iron clad assurances that this kind of data mining is NOT occurring and CAN NOT POSSIBLY OCCUR with activist emails.

The concern about Choicepoint having access to activist emails is not because activists have something to hide per se, but because such data mining is the *antithesis* of the vision of a free democratic society we are all fighting to have or to preserve.

I'm not saying there's no way that these sufficient assurances can be made, but I am saying the issue has to be dealt with, AND NOT EXCUSED. Possibly a contract could be drafted that would have sufficient assurances and security, but mere expected “confidentiality” of activist emails would not do. I'll leave the sufficiency of protections up to others. We can not bury our heads in the sand against data mining any more than we can bury our heads in the sand against the risks and realities of election fraud.

But Frankly, I don’t know exactly how someone could have a rich understanding of election fraud and at the very same time, have no concerns about choicepoint data mining. Perhaps someone can right an article in response that explains why it’s either impossible or of no concern to a decent vision of a free society that activist emails could easily be data mined, including all of our most important resources.

Ultimately, those who really care about the election protection movement (including all the folks at votetrustusa) will take care to understand that there are real issues about Choicepoint, and will not seek to whitewash them. Those who are serious about rights will defend Curling’s right to be an activist. But those rights do not extend to either harming other activists, nor do they extend to arrangements that, if not violative of the law, are at least violative of a decent vision of a free society in which the government does not attempt to evade restrictions that citizens wisely placed on government by enlisting private contractors to do the same.

Such data mining privatization contracts constitute nothing less than conspiring to circumvent Constitutional limitations on the power of government that, in light of the totality of recent extra-constitutional actions by this Administration, raises more than just “questions” about what might be done with activist emails sent out through the Votetrustusa email listserv to the wife of the President of a company in fact conspiring to circumvent those Constitutional limitations.

This circumvention, whether ‘legal’ or not, is a threat to a free society, and ought not be tolerated or condoned in any way. This burden of proof means that those who would defend Choicepoint or the idea that there’s no problem here are the ones who have the explaining to do.

--Paul Lehto aka Land Shark
See also: http://tinyurl.com/qnb8m
(Disclosure: I was invited to join VoteTrustUSA’s email list in the winter of 2005-06 and then kicked out without any actual notice just a few short months later in April 2006, for reasons that were quickly narrowed down to solely my tendency to “express my opinions as facts.” I was assured that my opinions against the Holt HR 550 bill that conflicted with Votetrustusa’s primary raison d’etre had absolutely nothing to do with my removal without notice. In any event, one might suspect that expressing opinions as facts is a quality possessed by nearly all attorneys who sell their opinions to willing clients.)

[mod mom]

1. I agree, Landshark. I have discussed this with several election reform

activists who are also in agreement. I will ask my name be removed from VotetrustUSA list (I have no idea how it got there and have deleted w/o much attention.) I vaguely recall hearing this in the past, hence the question whether this is "new news", but info overload had me unsure.

Choicepoint is NO FRIEND to those of us who fight for fair transparent and verifiable elections.

[livvy]

2. Not sure about the "director and co-founder" part

From the article:
"Donna Curling, the wife of the President of Choicepoint, it seems, is also the Co-founder of a group which has endorsed Holcomb, Georgians for Verified Voting, and has funded a national voter integrity organization, VoteTrustUSA."

I read this to mean she was a co-founder of Georgians for Verified Voting, and has given money to VTUSA. I looked at the VT site and didn't see her name listed as one of the original co-founders, although the article mentioned she participated under a different name.

Certainly is a screwy situation. Choicepoint is bad news. VTUSA has to know this, and how damaging the data they collect can be in the "wrong" hands. Why would VTUSA attack Palast, who has done so much for election reform, to protect Choicepoint? The money, huh?
Gads, what next?

[Land Shark]

4. Director of vtusa is confirmed, but co-founder is what the article says

about georgians for verified voting.....

let's just say a director of vtusa and on their email list through early 2006 and also co-founder of Georgians for....

the 'founders' of vtusa as I understand that term were other folks, all 'name' activists, including andy stephenson, so I personally would deny that vtusa as a whole is = choicepoint.

(edited for clarity, majorly)

[livvy]

6. Agreed. I didn't think you were insinuating that from your post.

It's an odd situation. It feels a bit like a "divide and conquer" thing, or some type of diversion.

[Land Shark]

7. from that aspect, yeah, the best advice would be hmmmmmm

there's a giant hornet's nest somehow in the living room, must be dealt with, but not great to get all bent out of shape about and waving arms all around....

[livvy]

10. Lol....

Here's how I look when I'm starting to get upset....

[hedda_foil]

12. VTUSA is totally unrelated to Choicepoint. See my post below.

[autorank]

3. K&R This must be HOT!. Someone phoned me & told me to check.

I'm on break from a meeting but I'll check it later. Wanted to encurage the general fine work the Shark is doing as our resident sentinel of democracy. Thanks.

Palast, Choicepoint...maybe I can get out of the meeting;)

[Boredtodeath]

58. Thanks for confirming a concerted effort

To defame VoteTrustUSA and the Curlings, personally.

Good job.

[Kurovski]

5. One more Recommend to go.

The ER is moving slowly today, is EVERYONE at that meeting with autorank?:-)

[Land Shark]

8. don't know where autorank is, but lotsa folk in san diego at democracyfest

there...

[robinlynne]

9. yep, 2000 people down at DemFest in san diego.

we'll keep it kicked.

[autorank]

27. I'm out. I got the part.

Isn't this a mess. VoteTrustUSA with the wife of the Choicepoint president on the private email list and who knew? All those emails, all that "private" stuff. All that data mining.

What a remakable level of sophistication displayed by this organization, just remarkable. And then, if it's true, going after Greg Palast, a TRUE FRIEND and the person who started the version of what we have now...well, damn, there's a guy to attack (while some defend Choicepoint). This is f'ed up!

[hpot]

155. self-delete

wrong thread

[hedda_foil]

11. The accusations leveled in the OP are untrue.

Donna Curling is neither a cofounder nor a director of VTUSA, and never has been. She is a Democrat (in the DU sense) and a dedicated VVPB activist in her own right and has donated to VoteTrustUSA as an individual,as have hundreds of other supporters of our work. VoteTrustUSA has never attacked Palast in any way. We have no relationship whatsoever with ChoicePoint or any other corporation, or with any foundation funded by any corporation. We do not support or defend ChoicePoint's business in any way, except to point out (as is acknowledged in the Georgia article) that they did not own the company that handled the Florida purge contract when it occurred and took themselves out of handling election related business immediately thereafter. Were ANY donor to request any quid pro quo at any time, we would return any contributions they had made, even if I had to mortgage my house to do so.

This discussion is not only dishonorable and scurrilous, but bears a nasty resemblance to swiftboating. We have never spread negative information about anyone in the movement and resent attempts on the part of others to attack us on the basis of incorrect information and speculation.

Joan Krawitz (aka Heddafoil)
Executive Director, VoteTrustUSA

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Some folks aren't interested in facts

not when it contradicts conventional truthiness.

Some folks want to believe "activists" who cater to their pet theories rather than activists who actually DO REAL WORK to change the voting system. Smearing these people is their SOP.

David Allen

[Land Shark]

16. Joan Krawitz, I have an email dated 1/30/06 that states as follows:

excerpt

"I am Donna Curling, wife of Doug Curling, President of Choicepoint. When the California Election Protection Network’s comments were posted back in November, I went to my husband to discuss us possibly working together to see if we could not address this problem once and for all. I discussed the problem with Roxanne Jekot, whom I work closely with on a daily basis, and with Joan Krawitz and Warren Stewart, both of whom I have worked with and traveled with to DC. I also serve on the Board of Vote Trust USA and help fund many projects."

The author of the above sentence, though posting to a vtusa list under an assumed name of "Marie Adams" clearly identified herself as Donna Curling and made an introduction. An extensive discussion followed in which it was not ever argued to the best of my knowledge that there was an imposter involved. The above quoted paragraph is the source of the term "Director" but perhaps I should have said "Board"? Normally there is no difference in those terms, but if you've got one please advise.

Around that time, I think Joan Krawitz also said that VTUSA was very worried about the privacy issues involved in outsourcing {voter registration lists, for example}, and don't take {outsourcing} at all lightly. So, I would assume that you don't take lightly what I'm saying about data mining in the OP.

[Land Shark]

21. The above post rebuts sentence #1 of Joan Krawitz reply at #11

this is not to say that there aren't other similarly untrue statements in the remainder of post #11.

Now if we can't trust Donna Curling to tell us what Joan Krawitz says is the truth in sentence #1 of her reply #11 (i.e., that Donna Curling is not a director and never has been), how can we trust Donna Curling when she she says there's nothing to be concerned about with regard to her funding and participation in VTUSA?

Now, VTUSA's executive director, while claiming NOT to be after Greg Palast, is most certainly accusing Land Shark here on DU of "swiftboating" and "scurrilous" attacks. But I've got the email with Donna Curling saying she's on the board of VoteTrust USA, and it's not EVERY contributor to the VTUSA email list that inspires this kind of loyalty.

PS Everyone that I know of from the VTUSA list posted under their real name, it's quite unlike DU it's not a board it's an email listserv.

[AmBlue]

139. SHAME ON YOU, Paul!! This is despicable.....

I met you in DC in April and I am shocked and amazed at how you, who claim to be part of the election integrity activist community, are taking so much time and going so far out of your way to do damage not only to VTUSA and all of its hard-working members, but to some of the most important work yet accomplished for verified voting. I, as a member of VTUSA, take it personally and cannot help but seriously question your motives. I just about kill myself daily for this cause, as do many others, including taking precious time away from my family and young children to do this work and it is endless. What have YOU done or accomplished for verified voting lately? If you were, in fact, working for the cause, you wouldn't have time for this!!! Did getting kicked out of VTUSA mess up your speaking tour or something? I think I smell sour grapes and your true motives are showing loud and clear.

Joan and the leaders of VTUSA, on the other hand, have given their lives to this cause. They have proven themselves time and time again to be valiant, courageous and tireless advocates. There is NEVER a day that Joan, particularly, has not made herself abundantly available for even the smallest question or concern. I trust the VTUSA leadership completely because it is plainly evident where their allegiance lies-- with voters whose voices are silenced.

You, however, a johnny-come-lately with a gift for smoke, mirrors and questionable legalese, seem much more interested in damaging this movement just as it is picking up serious steam. HOW COULD YOU??? You engaged in these destructive and relentless smear and distraction tactics back in April, even as election integrity activists, including myself, were lobbying in DC for HR550 at our own expense--when most of us could ill afford to--and very successfully I might add. So much so that you were shown the VTUSA door for your destructiveness and misrepresentations. Now, as this issue hits the mainstream media due in large part to the efforts of the leadership of VTUSA and the blood, sweat and tears of dedicated, committed citizens who want desperately for everyone's vote to count, you're at it again. Why should anyone believe you?

NOW HEAR THIS: NOWHERE has any member of VTUSA EVER defended ChoicePoint or their actions. NOWHERE has any member of VTUSA attacked Mr. Palast and, as far as I can see, you have shown no evidence of either allegation. The only evidence I see is that of a fellow with a stone in his craw and a chip on his shoulder.

Mr. Palast is a busy fellow and "someone" must have relentlessly taken the time to feed him some serious misinformation. Sound like anyone you know?

Too much good has come from the efforts of VTUSA and its members, for you to try and tear it down. What could your motives possibly be? Unless you only intend to use that talent for obfuscation and law degree of yours to hurt all of us who are doing the heavy lifting. The REAL activists are working to further the cause, and wouldn't dream of undoing the good and fruitful efforts of so many, especially when it has taken years to get to where we are.

Go do something productive, would you? REALLY.

[Land Shark]

143. I responded to this over in GD, but why don't you respond to Palast?

among many other strong statements he's saying he will back up in court, one of the things palast says is "...I will (not) tolerate smears from one of their paid hand puppets smearing my investigative reports while wearing the purloined mantle of voter protection. VoteTrustUSA has violated the public's trust."

So far, NOBODY is daring to take on Palast. It seems to be an admission by conduct that he is right.

Instead there's just anger that I've not kept some sort of "trade secret" of the vtusa organization, something I never agreed to when recruited to join that particular email listserv, and totally ignoring the substance of what Palast is saying. he has plenty of media access and doesn't rely on me to get his message out.

What's the response to Palast?

[AmBlue]

144. I believe Palast has been misled

and, as I said above, seen NO evidence whatsoever of him being attacked by anyone at VTUSA, and the truth is going to be known.

We just had a fundraiser for our group here in FL and Greg was here, together with Ion Sancho and supported us by making an appearance. We, in turn, promoted and appeared at his book tour event that same night. Anyone I know with VTUSA or have ever heard of is nothing but complimentary of Greg's work.

So.... in your twisted logic, Paul, since Greg supported us (a VT member) and Ion supported us, then they must be the bad guys too, and you'll probably be attacking Ion's sterling credentials next, right????

This is total crap.

[OnTheOtherHand]

145. a formidable record you are building here

"So far, NOBODY is daring to take on Palast. It seems to be an admission by conduct that he is right."

Right about what? about unnamed "paid hand puppets smearing (his) investigative reports"?

Here are two or three statements that seem germane to me: "We made very sure from the start that Donna's activism was genuine and that her limited contributions didn't come with any strings attached -- and she has never attempted to influence anything we do in any way.... Please see my post in the thread in which Greg Palast is dragged in and convinced, in error, that we've slandered him and defended ChoicePoint."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=440200&mesg_id=440660

"I don't know who is critiquing Mr. Palast's work to reporters or in public, but we have not done so at any time."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1644312

So, are you going to walk this one back?

[Kelvin Mace]

149. I would like to see anwsers to this

but it would interrupr their VoteTrust is evil and corrupt dialogue.

Again, it amazing that he is SO demanding of VoteTrust, but Bev Harris gets a free ride, despite overwhelming evidence of serious mismanagement and lying.

[Einsteinia]

157. Not true. . . .

False: "NOW HEAR THIS: NOWHERE has any member of VTUSA EVER defended ChoicePoint or their actions"

I think VoteTrust has done very important and admirable things for our cause and without diminishing that fact, while I don't want to get into this fracas I need to call you on this.

I believe Donna Curling has a lot of friends, because perhaps she's legit in her concern for election integrity, and people tend to defend friends. Is she truly legit? Who knows? Who cares!

But the truth is that when I posted the CEPN's Centralized Voter Registration Recommendations on the VT list, it was immediately censored (pulled and summarily dismissed) on the grounds that it was factually incorrect, i.e., the part asserting that ChoicePoint ever had anything to do with elections and the perpetuating Palast's version of events in regards to the DB Technologies/ChoicePoint nexus to the Florida cyber-purge.

[Name removed]

26. 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.

[mom cat]

106. I was wondering what evidence you have as to the authenticity of

this e=mail from spmeone who says that she is Donna Curling. I am trying to make some sence of this. Frankly, the self-introduction seems a bit odd and stilted for someone who had been active in supporting the group for some time.

[Land Shark]

151. they don't deny it's from curling at all, they just say that they

corrected her misunderstanding as to her role. But that just leaves it murky at best.

[autorank]

33. Questions regarding VoteTrustUSA

These are questions for you. The answers would clarify a number of disputes quickly. IF VoteTrrustUSA receives money from Choicepoint executive family member(s) or even Choicepoint or affiliates, I'm sure that it is perfectly legal and done in a transparent fashion. That's not my concern here. Rather, I'm concerned about how your organization, VoteTrustUSA, constitutes itself. This is important since you speak for many in our corner of the voting rights world.

I look forward to your answers:

1) Does VoteTrustUSA receive money from (a) Choicepoint or affiliates and/or (b) family members of Choicepoint executives and/or (c) other organizations funded by Choice point, affiliates, or family members of Choicepoint executives.

2) If so, how much has been received and is any more currently pledged?

3) What position or official role did the Choicepoint executive's famly member have with VoteTrustUSA, if any.

4) Were other members of the VoteTrustUSA Listserv informed that a Choicepoint executive's family member was on the list serve prior to those listseve members posting on the VoteTrustUSA list?

5) Is VoteTrustUSA's list of officers and board members public?

6) If so, where can it be seen?

7) Does VoteTrustUSA list its contributors?

8) If so, where is the list?

[Kelvin Mace]

80. Amazing how these questions are not being asked of Bev Harris

despite overwhelming evidence of gross mismanagement, lies and improper conduct.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

110. hi, see below

As per the rules of DU I am telling you that you are on 'ignore.'

I will go do that right now.

[autorank]

100. Reality Check – VoteTrustUSA and Choicepoint- ?'s for Hedda

Joan Krawitz (aka Heddafoil)
Executive Director, VoteTrustUSA said: (in italics)

(She)… is neither a cofounder nor a director of VTUSA, and never has been..

Here is the source’s email quoted in Land Shark’s message: "I also serve on the Board of Vote Trust USA and help fund many projects." What is the relationship, one of mere membership or key player? I’d say being on the board and funding “many projects” counts as key player.

VoteTrustUSA has never attacked Palast in any way. We have no relationship whatsoever with ChoicePoint or any other corporation.

When you provide the list of donors and the financial report, you can settle this one definitively. If you receive significant funds from Choicepoint, then you’ve got a “relationship."

"We do not support or defend ChoicePoint's business in any way, except to point out (as is acknowledged in the Georgia article) that they did not own the company that handled the Florida purge contract when it occurred."

First, you just defended them by deflecting their responsibility for the felon purge with your statement above. Second, that depends on what the meaning of the word “when” is when you use it above.

There is an official notice below dated 2/29/2000. Choicepoint acquired DBT and there is no question that DBT did the work on the felon purge. You say Choicepoint “did not own the company that handled the Florida purge contract when it occurred.”

Unless all worked stopped prior to Feb 29, 2000, the date DBT was acquired by Choicepoint, the statement you make above is, by necessity, completely false. The public record shows, it was not until May 2001 that Choicepoint (formerly DBT) lost its contact with the State of Florida for services related to election lists, etc. (see below). If you have some special insight that resolves the clear contradiction, let us know.

During the time Choicepoint had this contract for felon purges, they did a SEC filing, also quoted below, and claiming that accurate ID work cannot be done without a social security number for those surveyed. Yet after they acquired DBT, no social security number was added to those on the felon purge list. Thus, the work continued under Choice point from February 2000 through the election in 2000 under Choicepoint management of the newly acquired DBT with full knowledge that the list, lacking social security numbers, would produce bad results.

“They were just following orders” doesn’t fly. This was an egregious violation of the standards Choicepoint describes below. Yet the list proceeded through the state knocking people off of the rolls.

One final note. When a large corporation acquires a smaller corporation, there is a vetting process involving “due diligence” and the assessment of risks associated with major contracts. You can be sure, Choicepoint knew about the felon purge contract DBT had with Florida. This would have been a hot potato. Therefore, after the acquisition, 02.29.2000, EIGHT FULL MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTOIN, Choicepoint knew about the felon purge agreement. They were involved. That’s why they ended the NAACP law suit on Election 2000 in a settlement.

Source: acquisition of DBT by Choicepoint:
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/issue/68150-1-2.html
8. DBT ONLINE ACQUIRED BY CHOICEPOINT FOR $444 MILLION.
ChoicePoint Inc. (Alpharetta, GA), a provider of public record information for private and government clients, has acquired DBT Online (Boca Raton, FL) in a stock transaction valued at $444 million. DBT ... Read More »
: Legal Publisher Feb 29, 2000

Source: Choicepoint loses felon purge contract around May 2001. Choice point allows felon purge to proceed while undermining the requirements as outlined in their own SEC filing – social security numbers.

Source: End of Choicepoint/DBT felon contract with Florida; Choicepoint on need for Social Security numbers of accurate reporting.

http://www.thedubyareport.com/voting1.html
In May 2001 the Florida legislature passed an election-reform bill that effectively ended the state's contract with ChoicePoint, $3 million into the contract.

Research by Dubya Report contributor B.E. Simons shows that DBT/ChoicePoint was fully aware that the accuracy of their information was dependent upon being able to match Social Security numbers -- something it could not do consistently in preparing the Florida list. A May 11, 2000 SEC filing <by Choicepoint> warns

Social security numbers are the primary organizing principles that we use to generate our reports.... If we cannot obtain social security numbers ... our ability to generate reports efficiently will be reduced. We can and do use names, addresses and dates of birth to generate our reports. However, without the use of social security numbers, we believe that those reports would not be as complete or accurate as reports generated with social security numbers. We also would incur significant expense to revise the software we use to generate reports. Less complete or less accurate reports could adversely affect our business....


It did adversely affect their business. They bought DBT, DBT created a felon purge without social security numbers. Many legitimate Florida leaders were tossed off the rolls, certainly enough Democratic voters to change the election if you just use Choicepoint’s 3,000 registered voters wrongly removed. Choicepoint stood by and watched Florida officials take away the voting rights of mostly minority voters (the NAACP suit settled by Choicepoint), and they’ve been taking heat for this and other errors since.

Joan, why are you defending Choicepoint?

[glitch]

14. What the hell?? Can anyone provide a link to "Election activists from

Votetrustusa.org go out of their way to attack prominent investigative journalist Greg Palast"?

[Kelvin Mace]

15. I can't wait to see this evidence

[Land Shark]

17. The Atlanta progressive link in the OP contains the following and more

Meanwhile, Greg Palast threatened Atlanta Progressive News with a slander lawsuit if we were to reprint off-the-record comments made by some local and national voting rights activists which may have criticized Palast’s work.

“I’m not going to allow Choicepoint to run a whisper campaign against me. Choicepoint takes shots at me all the time. This is a sneaky tactic, to use cutouts to pretend there’s independent people questioning my reporting who are not independent,” Palast said.

Atlanta Progressive News has contacted a number of local and national voting rights and voting integrity activists, and was surprised to see how many were actually engaging in the practice of defending Choicepoint. Several respondents were granted off-the-record interviews.

Font Tag

Here's the problem: I'm not wanting to engage in the practice of republishing untrue defamatory information about Greg Palast when from everything I've checked out personally, it's all accurate. Nor do I think those "many {who} were actually engaging in the practice of defending Choicepoint" should somehow be "outed" or publicly humiliated.

Unless, that is, they continue to defend Choicepoint after this.

[glitch]

20. I did see that. What I want to see is anything directly attributable to

activists from Votetrustusa.org. If someone is defending Choicepoint they should be quoted or linked, and likewise anyone attacking Palast should be quoted or linked.
Otherwise it looks like "some people say" to me.

[Land Shark]

22. Palast says, if quoted accurately by Atlanta Progressive, it's actionable

therefore, quoting or linking to the defamatory material makes the republisher equally liable as the original quoter.

So, if you're asking me to repeat all those things said or written, then instead of backing up Greg Palast i'd have to be evaluated by his lawyers for potential liability purposes.

I suppose, unless someone else decides to break the ice, that it boils down to taking Greg Palast's word and/or my word for it.

But you can see the pattern, Palast investigates choicepoint, claims to get attacked by certain activists. Land Shark writes about choicepoint, definitely gets attacked for "scurrilous" "swiftboating". But, I just want to know if Donna Curling was lying when she wrote she was "on the Board of VoteTrust USA"

[glitch]

25. Yeah I'd like to know that too about Curling. But did Palast ever say

it was Votetrustusa.org's actions that were actionable? Or just voting rights activists, generic. It's a serious charge, so I would need more information before changing my good opinion about any particular group.
High stakes, and you know the fight will get even uglier. I think it's important to not rush to judgment without direct evidence.

[MelissaB]

24. I'd like to see that, too.

Hedda_foil is a DU'er who has done a lot of work, and I hope people examine this closely before jumping to any conclusions about her personally.

[Land Shark]

38. On the one hand we've got hedda_foil, on the other Greg Palast

edited: to try to fix balancing scale pict below.

while not meaning to diminish the responsibilities of being E.D. of a national organization, Palast's investigational and journalistic credentials and efforts are the weightier. If you want to give use prior contributions as a litmus test, at the very least please perform a balancing test. Here's a head start (there are certain other people that I'm sure can be added to each side)


0
|
hedda_foil ------|------- Palast, Land Shark, Autorank
================______________ / \____________================



However the final "balancing act" might turn out, the interesting thing to me is HOW HARD WILL HEDDA FOIL or ANYONE ELSE FIGHT TO DEFEND CHOICEPOINT'S HONOR?

Either there is no conflict with choicepoint, in which case no one attacking choicepoint needs to be accused of "scurrilous" attacks, OR

There IS a conflict with choicepoint, in which case why choicepoint is being defended is a profound issue.

This raises the specter that VTUSA is acting as if it had some loyalty to choicepoint and/or donna curling that goes way beyond the thousands of dollars donated, and exceeds in value the sum total of all the the below costs:

1. the cost of taking on Greg Palast,
2. the cost of taking on Land shark
3. the cost of distracting the movement
4. the cost to vtusa itself of having some large % of activists question its otherwise good work (I oppose HR 550 but agree that there does need to be a national organization in front to support HR 550 and vtusa does a good job promoting that as far as everything I can see)
5. the cost to the image of vtusa as an independent, non-beholden organization, where appearances have independent significance, in addition to facts and realities that insiders may feel that they "know" but even if they do "know", outsiders have no way to "know" these same things (Like the true nature of Curling's involvement and funding)

I suppose if this thread continues, the price will get higher and higher for VTUSA to maintain ties with choicepoint, even if they deny they constitute "ties."

The point is, we are finding out that the Curling relationship is a VERY valuable one. That apparent value gets higher and higher as vtusa continues, expands and redoubles its efforts to defend Curling's involvement with vTUSA.

How much is Curling really worth? Her stock in VTUSA is skyrocketing, already worth more than GregPalast.com, landshark.com and autorank.com COMBINED. That's some kinda net capitalization, if you ask me. (my apologies to all for assuming my stock has some kind of at least nominal value)

[Boredtodeath]

48. Wow. That's some pretty interesting libel

What's the matter?

Got a hard on for VoteTrust USA? Ahhhh, yeah, reveal that conflict of interest.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. how about _whether_ "choicepoint is being defended"?

Paul, I don't know whether you know something you aren't saying, or what. All I can see is that you are doing a lot of handwaving about "specter(s)" that you seem to be working pretty hard at generating yourself.

If you work a bit less at this, maybe a clearer picture will emerge.

[autorank]

117. Land Shark...

You've forced me into an embarrassing position. I must disclose that autorank.com is sold on the Vancouver Exchange OTC ... oops... :blush: This is just a temporary step, honest, and the stock certificates are truly worth every cent of the value of the paper they're printed on.

[Kelvin Mace]

150. The value of AutoRank and Land Shark

is quite devalued by their continued support of Bev Harris despite her lying, mismanagement and vile behavior.

The scale easily tips in Joan's favor.

[flyingobject]

154. Land Shark disrupted Vote Trust work? He worked against them?

Didn't one of the posts say that Land Shark used to be a member of Vote Trust? -
that he was doing all he could to gather opposition to HR 550 at the
very exact same time that Vote Trust was in DC to gain support for HR 550?

And wasn't he in DC with them while he was working against them?

And that he continued to undermine other activists and after much effort
to avoid it, Vote Trust was forced to make him leave?

And now he is again disrupting at another key moment.

I can see asking questions, but what is happening is alot of
quick assumptions and attacks, twisting of the facts.

[flyarm]

159. yes what you posted is correct! ..n/t

[Land Shark]

160. If all efforts of anyone on a vtusa listserv have to align with HR 550

and support thereof whether during "lobby days" or otherwise, you are placing vtusa at more jeopardy than you realize. and you probably don't even know why the assumption of your post, that no one should be against HR 550 if affiliated with VTUSA at the time of lobby days, places vtusa in a problematic position.

as it was, i understood I was free to express my opinion and I did so very openly. Some people thought the timing should be different, but I think the time to have pro and con debate is when the issue is on the agenda. But, I did not lobby Congress, I just stated on the listserv and on DU the reasons for my opposition to HR 550. There are many, many activists that agree that HR 550 is not "a good first step" much less the "gold standard". There's nothing secretive or wrong about being openly against HR 550

At the same time, I think you should ask questions about who's loyal to the movement and who's not. Those who are not loyal will still be supportive of the movement in most major ways, just not on a few key points that represent the territory of somebody else or some other interest or interests. Just resolve the question based on the merits of whether HR 550 is good legislation THAT WILL ALLOW A SECOND OR thiRD STEP THAT IS A SOLUTION, and not based on whether someone is motivated by their own conscience or otherwise to disagree.

Just make your own call, on the merits, and don't hold grudges. Over time, I think democracy will do its magic that way.

It could be me that is not loyal to the best interests of democracy. Or, it could be those taking money from the First Lady of Choicepoint. Don't be biased against either one, just use your best judgment on the merits of the issues presented.

[garybeck]

163. that is PURE BS.

this discussion is not about Lehto, Palast, or BBV. This is about Choicepoint and whether or not people think they should be involved with VoteTrustUSA. Are you just trying to flame the fire and divide people? This has absolutely nothing, zilch, zippo, to do with BBV. Your comment serves no meaningful purpose.

[yowzayowzayowza]

165. Beg to differ.

In light of their announced "outing" initiative BBVz rite in the middle of this.

[Cookie wookie]

166. Since both Palast and Bev Harris

are quoted in the APN article that attacked not just ChoicePoint but the Curlings, Scott Holcomb, a SOS candidate for GA who wants vvpb, Georgians for Verified Voting, VoteTrustUSA and other "unnamed" activists, they placed themselves in the discussion. The article also conflated ChoicePoint with those individuals. If the discussion was just about ChoicePoint, the reply would be more relevant. ChoicePoint did not give money to any candidate or group mentioned in the article.

Quotes from the APN article that Lehto posted about:

“I gotta tell you, it is painful to turn down money. It would come with expectations. You cannot become beholden. You start to rationalize,” Harris warned.

“Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either,” Greg Palast, an award-winning BBC journalist who has studied voting issues and Choicepoint, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s NOT a question of good or bad . When your decisions could effect the financial fate of a company, are they investing in you? Is there a quid pro quo?” Palast said.

[understandinglife]

18. Recommended.

Peace.

[autorank]

19. Author of the Patriot Act works with Choicepoint. Hmmm...

"To expand its presence in the intelligence community, ChoicePoint hired a team of prominent former government officials as homeland security advisors in late 2003. They included William P. Crowell Jr., the former deputy director of the National Security Agency; Dale Watson, a former FBI executive assistant director of counter-terrorism and counterintelligence, and Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general and primary author of the USA Patriot Act." http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105K.shtml

Well, this says a lot about Choicepoint. The Patriot Act is one of the key fueling points on the road to complete tyranny.

I think it's essential that VoteTrustUSA clarify it's relationship with Choice point.

Were donations made to Entrusts by the company or by officers or family members of officers?

And what the heck does this mean:

Donna Curling, the wife of the President of Choice point, it seems, is also the Co-founder of a group which has endorsed Holcomb, Georgians for Verified Voting, and has funded a national voter integrity organization, Entrusts.

“Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either,” Greg Palast, an award-winning BBC journalist who has studied voting issues and Choicepoint, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s NOT a question of good or bad . When your decisions could effect the financial fate of a company, are they investing in you? Is there a quid pro quo?” Palast said.

Are we going to hear that Choicepoint really had nothing to do with the felon purge in 2000 that cost Al Gore the election and ruined this country by allowing the very worst president ever to occupy the office?

[BeFree]

30. Geezusss

Auto, having seen your line "voter integrity organization, Entrusts." I decide to search it. Geeez, what did I find? Nothing about 'Entrusts', but something important, nonetheless.

Not only was Choicepoint a feature in this web page, but a very well done compilation of the whole she-bang was laid out, from backdoor firmware to defense department and CIA connections plugged into our voting machines.

I will, of course start a new thread, but in the meantime:
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/DCForumID1/418.html

[autorank]

32. Somehow "VoteTrustUSA" became "Entrusts" when I did a spell

check. That will teach me to use that feature;) Sorry.

[autorank]

31. Correction: "Entrusts" in my post shoud read "VoteTrustUSA"

somehow the editor changed that. There is no entrusts. My typo.

It should read:

Donna Curling, the wife of the President of Choice point, it seems, is also the Co-founder of a group which has endorsed Holcomb, Georgians for Verified Voting, and has funded a national voter integrity organization, VoteTrust.

“Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either,” Greg Palast, an award-winning BBC journalist who has studied voting issues and Choicepoint, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s NOT a question of good or bad . When your decisions could effect the financial fate of a company, are they investing in you? Is there a quid pro quo?” Palast said."

My question should read:

Were donations made to VoteTrustUSAby the company or by officers or family members of officers?


So mush for the shortlived, but controversial history of of the typographically fictional "Entrusts," a legend in its brief time:)

[BeFree]

34. Yeah, you had me going

I can see how that would happen. Damn spell check, can't live with it, can't spell without it. <grin>

But I liked where it led... check it out.

[flyingobject]

23. looks like Vote Trust USA is getting great results

looks like Vote Trust USA has been very productive, and
maybe that doesn't go over so well with some folks.

HR 550 has gained more and more co-sponsors since you left Vote Trust USA,
right?

When they were in DC, you were tearing down their efforts, right?

Heck, I would tell you to pack up your marbles myself, if I were them.

Some people don't want HR 550 to pass, aren't you one of those?
Think of all of the activists groups that would put out of business!
Think of all of the lawsuits there would not be.

Maybe that organization was better able to accomplish their goals without
having someone in their group tearing down their work.

As for Donna Curling, it is no big secret that she is trying to get
paperless voting out of Georgia.

Sounds like to me that all she has done is actual ground work trying to
help get a good law passed.

At least some people do want Georgia to have verified voting, and
Donna Curling is one of them.

[Catrina]

36. Choicepoint is NOT a friend to Democracy. This is very disturbing news

and should be cleared up without attacking those who are informing the public.

On a simple, human level, I know this, if my husband was in the business of essentially stealing the private information of my fellow citizens, not only for profit, but as in the case of the 2000 election, to actually harm this country's voting process, I would probably divorce him. Unless, of course I saw nothing wrong with what he was doing.

What is Donna Curling's opinion on data mining (theft of private information which I personally believe is a loophole in the law, and needs to be fixed)? This is Orwellian, and I see no defense for it.

As for the rest, I don't know enough about it yet to comment, but from what I know about Choicepoint, I would want nothing to do with anyone who supports it, nor would I want their money.

[Boredtodeath]

37. So I can't be a Democrat because

my spouse works for the ever hated, dreadful WalMart?

Can you tell me who the hell instituted this new rule?

[Land Shark]

40. It's more like this: One can't be the Prosecutor when the spouse

of the main defendant in a case is working in and funding the Prosecutor's office, and when, as Prosecutor, one feels compelled to spend a great deal of time defending that spouse and at least sometime defending the main defendant's allegedly improper or illegal actions from those that "misunderstand" their nature...

That's either the definition of "compromise" or the "appearance of compromise"

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. well, no

VTUSA is not charged with prosecuting ChoicePoint. And if Krawitz believes that Donna Curling is being unjustly attacked, then defending her is an ethical obligation. As when I defend Mitofsky, or when I defended you (or garybeck, or FogerRox, or kster, or other folks whose motives have been IMHO unfairly impugned at various points).

If you don't want to conflate Donna Curling with ChoicePoint, or ChoicePoint with VTUSA, then Just. Stop.

[Land Shark]

44. A judge that owns stock in a bank, for example, is obliged to recuse

herself from a trial involving that bank, even though that judge might be totally fair in the trial, because it violates the appearance of fairness. Thus, the judge does not = the interests of the bank, there is nevertheless enough of a concern there to justify action.

It's similarly important that major national organizations keep their appearances clean. So, while i don't say vtusa = choicepoint, the appearance that it does creates a problem they should act on.

On edit: Besides, Donna curling is running around saying she's "on the Board" of VTUSA and Joan Krawitz, Exec. Dir. of VTUSA says she has never been a founder or a director of vtusa at any time. (see thread above)

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. put down the analogy machine before someone gets hurt

Well, too late. And you're not the only one playing fast and loose with analogies.

It should be possible to have a reasonable conversation about the relationship between VTUSA and ChoicePoint. But this sure hasn't been it.

By the way, let me state for the record that I am on a non-profit board, and I am not a director. So your factual predicates seem pretty flimsy so far.

[Boredtodeath]

50. So produce ANYTHING that Donna wrote saying that.

Let's see your evidence.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. (saying which?)

Paul posted an e-mail where, apparently, Donna Curling says she is on VTUSA's "board."

I have no idea what that means, except that it doesn't contradict Krawitz's statement that Curling isn't a "director." I don't know whether Curling actually wrote it, I don't know if it's true, I don't know what sort of "board" VTUSA has, I actually hadn't registered Curling's existence until sometime yesterday.

[Boredtodeath]

53. I've seen no such email

I'd like him to produce it.

on edit:

Typical of what DU accepts as "fact," LandShark takes a statement from the article about the Georgia group (Georgians for Verified Voting ?) and attaches it to VTUSA.

It happens all the time around here. Like these people blaming Diebold for Ohio 2004 when Diebold was only in 2 COUNTIES IN OHIO IN 2004.

You would THINK an attorney would know better. At least an attorney worth anything.......

[Land Shark]

57. The quoted portion was produced at reply#16 yesterday already

That's also the part where it says Roxanne Jekot (aka boredtodeath) is in daily communication with Donna Curling, according to Donna Curling herself. (see the exact language here)
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=440200&mesg_id=440248>

[Boredtodeath]

59. Wrong.

I see no email. I see what you purport to SAY is an email.

I want to see the email with headers.

As for "Roxanne Jekot (aka boredtodeath)" you are truly ignorant of the facts. I've said several times I am RELATED to Roxanne. So add just a bit more libel around here......it will catch up to you.

[Febble]

64. Jeez, Land Shark

Do not post personal information about any other person, even if that information is publicly available. Do not "dig up" information about any other visitor to this website. You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

There are reasons for rules like these I assume. I mean I know your name, and most people know mine, but I don't usually put either mine or your in posts because for one thing, posts are googlable, and I'm not that keen on encouraging data mining.


Think, man!

[Land Shark]

67. I'm being asked to post sources, but this was already disclosed long ago

if you want to google that, go ahead.

on edit: but back to the question in the OP: what protections are there against vtusa email data mining? if my disclosure was in fact as you say, doesn't that prove that there's a security problem?

[Boredtodeath]

69. Then you can't support your claims

Prove it.

Or you have a profit motive for defaming the names and reputations of 2 good activist organizations - VoteTrustUSA and Georgians for Verified Voting.

Put up or shut up, attorney.

[Febble]

71. There is a huge security problem

with any computer based communication system, as we all know only too well.

(In fact I was recently privy to an email thread of yours that presumably was not intended for my eyes....)

But what is your point? That you don't trust this person not to let her husband loose on her email threads? How hard would it be for anyone to join the organisation and datamine the email threads?

Are all list members subjected to a security check before they can receive emails?

For all anyone knows you could be selling the threads to Choicepoint yourself.

What are you alleging?

[Land Shark]

78. Febble, I've said both publicly and privately that I don't think your

work is valid. Go ahead and post the email you're referring to or concerned about.

We could just have normal people read the OP and/or greg palast's work and see if they are concerned about it. Pretending like there's nothing there at best just reveals a blind spot.

I think I'll go back to vacation now (I'll be on the road and out of contact)

The Diebold/CIA/Choicepoint thread is probably attracting more hits now anyway. Those who are posting here can go defend choicepoint over there.

[Boredtodeath]

84. In other words.......

I'm getting my ass kicked with facts, so I better go.

[Febble]

93. Well, if you want to engage the argument

Go ahead. But mere assertions that you think my work is invalid won't cut it.

And I certainly won't post that email. I did prepare a response however, and posted it here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/6

But to stay on topic: my point was solely that listservs aren't secure anyway, so I see no point in hounding an individual because she happens to be married to someone you suspect might make undesirable use of it. If Choicepoint wants to access activist listservs then mostly all they have to do is join. The internet is like that. It's both its strength and its weakness. But it does mean that it's worth taking care with what you write in emails sent to more than one person.


Have a good vacation. ;)

[Kelvin Mace]

94. All you have to do is disagree with these folks

and you must be on Diebold's payroll.

It may not be the truth, but it is certainly more dramatic. I mean never assume simple explanations when convoluted ones are better.

[Land Shark]

134. you can debate with Palast (or at least hear him out in part) over in GD

He said it clearer than I could.

I think that by trying to make the issue "me" in this instance you're setting up a straw man. It's Palast who deserves the attention, has done the research, and in GD right now is making the charge.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1643855#1644314>

[Kelvin Mace]

95. You are conflating defending someone who

has demonstrated support for liberal causes and candidates with supporting ChoicePoint. Excellent work.

[Kelvin Mace]

86. Could I see your PROOF

that BoredToDeath is Roxanne?

I am getting tired of this accusation being tossed around devoid of proof.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Catrina]

61. There is huge difference between what is known about Choicepoint's

role in undermining democracy, and Walmart. Although I have reservations about a true Democrat being supportive of Walmart also. Otoh, if the spouse of someone who works for Walmart has spoken out against their questionable practices, there is no problem with them calling themselves a Democrat.

Tell me how one can claim to be a Democrat and at the same time support the government spying on one's fellow citizens by gathering personal information without their consent and providing it to the government for profit? Imo, this does not describe a Democrat.

If Mrs. Curling has denounced these practices somewhere, I will revise my opinion of her. Has she? If not, it is my prerogative to not want anything to do with any organization that is in any way involved with this company.

We seem to keep lowering the bar for what it means to be a Democrat ~ are we now to accept the NSA spying scandal, added to all the other 'policies' of this administration, as 'okay' for what is supposed to be the opposition party?

[Boredtodeath]

62. Nope, no difference

And there's no SPYING going on. You may not like what Choicepoint does, but there's a reason they are still in business - what they do is perfectly LEGAL.

You don't like it? Go find a congresswoman/man and change the law.

Sitting on your ass accusing good Democrats of being spies and killing organizations like VTUSA isn't accomplishing a damned thing.

Get off your ass and do something about it.

[Land Shark]

65. A fair question, does Curling denounce and distance herself from

choicepoint? Do any of the contrarian posters here do so?

Even if the contrarians think that choicepoint is somehow irrelevant, then it should be pretty easy to denounce and distance themselves from it.

What choicepoint stands accused of by Greg Palast and others is a big deal, not something to be neutral and tolerant of.

The interesting thing here is that a few posters think it's more important to point out perceived problems in an expose than to protect the movement from something MANY people think is a big problem for it: Choicepoint ties.

Land Shark could stop posting today, or die tomorrow, or whatever. The choicepoint issue is still there. What about it? What's to stop activist emails from being data mined when, according to one poster, a paragraph from a vtusa email was publicly posted right here on DU?

Doesn't that prove the total insecurity of activist emails when sent to a computer paid for with choicepoint dollars paid in the form of salary to Mr. Curling?

[Boredtodeath]

68. Like I said

You may not like what Choicepoint does, but there's a reason they are still in business - what they do is perfectly LEGAL.

You don't like it? Go find a congresswoman/man and change the law.

Sitting on your ass accusing good Democrats of being spies and killing organizations like VTUSA isn't accomplishing a damned thing.

Get off your ass and do something about it.

And, YES, I DEFEND CHOICEPOINT AS BEING PERFECTLY LEGAL.

[Land Shark]

72. The fact of continued existence is a paltry amt of evidence of Legality

The number of things that continue to go on that are not legal, are legion:

1. Presidential signing statements = exist
2. Wars continue to exist
3. Guantanamo Bay continues to exist
4. etc. etc.

In order to challenge a data mining operation, normally one would have to prove one was harmed by it. Not easy to do with largely secret or secretive use of information against people

Therefore the continued existence of choicepoint doesn't mean it's legal.

However, i already addressed that point as well in the OP, saying that whether it's legal or not, it is inconsistent with a decent vision of a free society. And that should bother all of us.

[Boredtodeath]

74. Wrong again

It takes no proof of harm to change the law.

Only the desire to find someone who supports your desires.

So, get off your high horse and see if you can find a legislator who agrees that " it is inconsistent with a decent vision of a free society."

Oh, too busy to give a damn? Then you have accomplished absolutely nothing except to slander a legal corporation.

[Catrina]

96. We KNOW it's legal, is it Democratic, and is it moral? George Bush is

still in office, is that something a true Democrat would support?

Choicepoint has taken advantage of a loophole in the law. The law forbids the Government from gathering personal information on citizens without probable cause. Apparently our Congressmembers forgot to make it illegal for private individuals to so also, or did they?

I do NOT want strangers spying on me, (and taking what is mine, information, is spying btw). I am not alone, Americans across the board who are aware of this, are outraged. So defend the legality all you want, it is wrong and if it were put to a vote, I feel certain that the American people will overwhelmingly vote against it.

I ask you, do you think it is moral, Democratic or right for companies such as Choicepoint to be allowed to skirt the law AND the Bill of Rights btw, and profit from it? I notice you did not address this. Only the 'legality' of it.

And again, does Mrs. Curling support the tactics of Choicepoint? Why is this such a difficult question to answer? Either she does or she doesn't.

All I can say is that I am totally losing faith in all these so-called voters' rights organizations. To say that this is a shock, whether you understand it or not, is putting it mildly.

[Boredtodeath]

97. Well, since Mrs. Curling isn't HERE......

You're simply making accusations in the form of a question you know won't be answered.

Not terribly clever.

At any rate, will you require ME to condemn WalMart because my spouse is employed by them?

[Catrina]

99. I asked some simple questions after reading the OP

One: Does this organization defend what Choicepoint does and ...
Two: Since presumable Mrs. Curling is involved, has she given her opinion on a matter that has outraged the American people, ie, the trampling of their right to privacy as outlined in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

I have not received an answer, and won't bother to ask again. The attacks on my integrity and motives for simply asking the questions, were completely uncalled for. Is it too much to expect straight answers to straigtforward questions? Apparently so.

Meantime, you and the other poster who responded to my questions, have simply confirmed my initial concerns ~

[mom cat]

111. Choicepoint's actions were not legal in Mexico.

[Boredtodeath]

113. Oh, you know Mexican law?

Well, hot damn, you're such a well rounded human being.

There's only one little problem...........was Choicepoint charged with illegal activities? I musta missed that headline.

[mom cat]

122. link:

http://www.gregpalast.com/stealing-it-in-front-of-your-eyes

The level of civility on both sides of this debate is slipping as is the use of rigor in logic. The sad thing is that I do not think either side sees how it is benefitting the vote fraudsters.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Are you now, or have you ever been

a communist?

I guess supporting progressive causes and candidates cash isn't enough.

[Cookie wookie]

77. Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion,

since you pay taxes (I presume) to a government currently engaged in an unethical, immoral, and illegal war, you are 'okay' to be a Democrat if you denouce the government's practices, right?

Well, as posts to this and other related threads have indicated at some length, the individuals and groups being attacked are busy working for secure, verifiable and accurate elections processes and the Curlings (as American citizens I might remind everyone) are also lawfully supporting Democrats by their actions/deeds.

Therefore, you have your answer to "If Mrs. Curling has denounced these practices somewhere...."

Can we expect you to "revise opinion..." as you say you will do? Or is there a double standard here?

[Catrina]

98. If the answer to your first question is 'no', then there are virtually NO

Democrats. I assume that the vast majority of Americans pay taxes.
To refuse to pay taxes (and I would not be willing to discuss this issue here, btw for obvious reasons) means going to jail.


To refuse to include someone whose ties to a business that has participated in assisting the Bush administration to spy on the American people, simply means saying 'no thanks, we cannot accept your money'.

I have no personal knowledge of any of the people involved in this issue. I read the OP and was shocked to see that there was any connection between a voters' rights organization and Choicepoint. The responses to my questions have been combative which I fail to understand, frankly. Many people will have similar questions, and attacking the questioners merely confirms for me, that there is no satisfactory answer.

I think I do have the answer, mainly by the combative and defensive responses I have received to questions that should have been expected, and I don't like it, to be honest.

I notice the consistent use of the words 'lawful' and 'legal'. Sorry, but so much that has become 'legal' in this country is exactly what needs to be changed, so saying something is 'legal' means exactly nothing, to be honest, and certainly doesn't address the concerns raised in this thread. If anything, it only adds to them, as it is a weak defense to say the least. The Founding Fathers were so aware that bad laws would become a threat to democracy they made provisions for citizens to fight them, (jury nullification, eg).

As for the suggestion that we contact lawmakers and ask them to change the law? That suggests that the poster defending Choicepoint, disagree with the law but are willing to go along with it anyway, until someone else manages to have it overturned. That to me, seems morally questionable, unless of course they see nothing wrong with Choicepoint does, which is even more disturbing.

It's sad to see an organization like Choicepoint or any other Orwellian data-mining organization be defended at all, but particularly by those who claim to be fighting for citizens rights.

[Boredtodeath]

102. by those who claim to be fighting for citizens rights

Whether you like it or not, the Curlings are citizens as well. My heavens, you sound like Castro - we must live in utopia, where all agree.

Well, we're not in Cuba YET.

[Catrina]

125. Wow! So asking a question about Choicepoint makes me a

dictator? Thanks for that, I'll be careful to just blindly accept that we must never, ever ask any questions about those who claim to be fighting for our 'rights'. :sarcasm:

Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al are citizens also, and I know I risk being called a dictator, but I have a serious problem with them representing me even if they should donate large sums of money to some 'progressive' cause.

You're not doing your cause much good. You had a chance to simply explain your position, or Mrs. Curling's. Your attitude towards someone stumbling upon this information and having the gall to ask a few questions, has definitely made up my mind. Maybe you don't understand. Choicepoint is a bad word in this country right now.

Sorry, but I take nothing on faith anymore, and I definitely have a problem with anyone who, in answer to a few serious questions, responds by comparing me to a dictator. I'll put this organization on my list of 'people to avoid and to warn others about'. Rightwing-type attacks do nothing to change minds. You might want to remember that.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Yeah, HR-550 has to be stopped

because if it passes, a lot of faux activists will lose their jobs.

[BeFree]

29. Choicepoint has always been bad news

And now it looks even worse. Good work, Sir Lehto.

Yes, people have the right to donate to any org they desire but inherent in that is the right for any of us to question that financial involvement or any other involvement in any group. We constantly measure the character of individuals by the company they keep, eh?

It is good that an examination of this matter be undertaken... that is what freedom is all about.

As to Choicepoint, our freedom demands a dismantling of it and any other similar organization. How we go about such an dismantling would be my first question.

[autorank]

35. Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do the unruly, overly powerful organizations.

That's why he was called a "Trust Buster" - he broke up mega monopolies legislatively.

Choicepoint and the other data miners are freewheeling without much public scrutiny until they screw up and lose 100k or so names to a scammer.

Our privacy has value to us and is an intrinsic right, regardless of what the neoconservative world view says.

We'll see if my questions to the director of VoteTrustUSA get answered.

Questions to HeddaFoil

[autorank]

101. Amazing, is it now, how many people on DU defend Choicepoint.

I feel like "we are through the looking glass."

Imagine how a regular user of that right wing political forum would feel if he/she logged on one day and saw a bunch of members defending the ACLU or Southern Poverty Law Project.

Yet here, today, we have an entire "crew" out, ready to do battle and throw out the oddest arguments to defend who...Choicepoint.

Simply amazing.

[Boredtodeath]

103. It's amazing how many people will condemn others because

of their employer.

I swear, I think I made a right turn and ended up on Free Republic.

[Boredtodeath]

39. Title should be 'Paul Lehto helps Bev Harris kill competition'

This is bullshit that's happened before.

VTUSA and BBV must be competing for the same grant dollars again.

[Land Shark]

43. Nah, the Bev Harris angle is a canard, I've not even spoken with her

or her organization about this issue, although I did take a phone call interview from her organization regarding legal work I'm doing for non-BBV Kentuckians in Kentucky.

Tell you what, I will send a check to VTUSA in support if they cut all Choicepoint ties and implement a policy to prohibit actual and apparent conflicts of interest. I already wrote, prior to seeing this post, that I think vtusa should exist even though I disagree with their HR550-promotion purpose.

But here again, the suggestion seems to be that a possible motive of organizational competition is worth believing, but that nothing regarding choicepoint is at all troubling. That's the question raised in the OP, how do you justify the cost to VTUSA if it costs VTUSA all this time, trouble, and heartache to defend the relationship?

And, boredtodeath, are you confirming that you have a daily relationship with Donna Curling that you should disclose here?

[Boredtodeath]

46. Yeah, right

Everything in that post is pure bullshit.

I call BULLSHIT.

And, BTW, I haven't seen VTUSA even provide an answer to you, much less defend anything.

No doubt, your relationship with Bev Harris should be revealed. Talk about a conflict of interest.

[Amaryllis]

147. Cut WHAT Choicepoint ties? They HAVE NO TIES with Choicepoint.

[Cookie wookie]

45. Hurry! Let's get the torches

and go after those hard working, high minded, honorable and successful election integrity monsters....

They are monsters -- the "truthiness" squad says so. Look at what they do -- dedicate their lives and souls to working for secure, transparent, accurate and verifiable elections. NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Stop them. Where's the nearest tree? String 'em up....

Burn them at the stake. Crucify them.

Hurry hurry before facts get in the way of the momentum.

[Boredtodeath]

47. AMEN!

Go, Cookie!

[Land Shark]

55. nobody should be crucified, unless they take choicepoint's side

or refuse to deal with the Choicepoint realities in the OP and the comments by autorank, mod mom myself and others.

Although your post above is purely sarcastic and could be applied to any organization to defend it against ANYTHING, there is some merit in not atacking hardworking activists, at least as long as they are not condoning relationships that are unhealthy.

I say again: How can we be 100% assured that activist emails are not being data mined when they are automatically sent to the wife of the choicepoint president? The choicepoint president has every right to that computer data as his wife does, so defending Donna Curling as a progressive misses the point.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Cookie wookie]

66. As to "condoning relationships that are unhealthy",

what exactly does that mean? Please be specific.

Last time I looked, even after the * administration has done everything it can to shred the Constitution, all Americans still have the right to live lawfully, join organizations of our choosing, and support causes we believe in as long as our support is lawful -- that includes all Americans.

Would you take the "case" you are making to court and argue against the Constitution? Or is there a separate court you subscribe to, a court of suspicion?

Edited because I was repeating myself!

[Kelvin Mace]

89. This is the kind of crap

that drives real activists OUT of the movement.

[Boredtodeath]

91. ESPECIALLY activists who CAN make a difference

Why would ANYONE subject themselves to the kinds of slander, libel and swiftboating we've seen with Bev Harris and now this?

Especially, an activist who can AFFORD to make a difference with cold, hard cash?

What a shame a know nothing, unrecognized publication like APN would stoop to such levels. They want to ride the backs of Doug and Donna Curling to fame and fortune.

But, hey, they're only following the lead of Greg Palast.

[Cookie wookie]

54. BTW: Land Shark

Appears you posted up-tread a quote from an email that was posted to a private list when you were a member of that listserv.

One of the rules of that listserv was on privacy and confidentiality: members were asked to get permission before publishing anything posted there. Can we assume you got permission to publish that part of the confidential email here on DU? Or, if not, do you feel you aren't ethically bound to the group's privacy rules now because you were asked to leave?

[Land Shark]

60. this email was previously put in the public domain by someone else

but this just proves my point, doesn't it: There's really NOTHING stopping anybody who has received vtusa emails from data mining them, disclosing them, etc.?

So I ask again, even if we assume you were correct that there was an understanding of confidentiality with respect to that email, that just proves that there's nothing stopping activist emails from being disclosed, data mined, etc., especially when there is a profit motive attached to data mining them.

[Boredtodeath]

63. So you're ADMITTING a PROFIT MOTIVE

Thank you.

[Cookie wookie]

70. So by that logic everyone is suspect!

Maybe it's time to take a deep breath and rethink. The road toward trying to get verified voting has been long and hard, exhausting all those who are dedicated heart and soul to the issue and the fight to take our country back from the evil politicians and corporations. But suspicion of everyone?

I must admit I've had my moments, but sometimes a little break helps put things in perspective. Maybe that's what's needed here (?)

-- Time out. Nap time? Blankee?

[Land Shark]

73. I just got back from the pool, great one here at Splashland

Which part should people not be "excited about"?

1. Private "KGB" companies that compile dossiers and sell to the govt so the government obtains info it could not compile itself.

2. Major election activist organizations taking funds from say, Diebold execs or their wives, or Choicepoint execs or their wives.

3. The opinion that acceptance of said funds and some murky level of influence as a "Board" member of some sort, constitutes a conflict or the appearance of a conflict such that it shouldn't occur, at least not when defending said relationship requires this organization or some of its leaders to attack the work of Greg Palast and others

[Boredtodeath]

75. You, then, MUST DRIVE BEV HARRIS OUT OF BUSINESS

She took Diebold money.

[Land Shark]

79. as friend, or as foe, in litigation? It makes a BIG difference

that being said, Bev can defend herself, or her organization can. I'm not going to, especially if people are saying bev has a relationship with the spouse of a choicepoint exec or a diebold exec, I'm not ever going to defend that. OK? The question in the title of this reply is just so that you can make your allegation clear in this particular regard.

on edit: family just checked out of motel, so i really better go real soon, see ya!

[Boredtodeath]

82. By your own words - Bev MUST go

2. Major election activist organizations taking funds from say, Diebold........

[Kelvin Mace]

90. She accused otehr people of planing Qui Tams

in order to profit from "her" work. She slimed people with that accusation. Secretly, SHE was the one actually filing such a suit. The suit was settled WITH PREJUDICE against Bev. Diebold still operates in California, and Bev walked away with $76,000 of Diebold's money. She claimed last year she had donated the money to BBV, but her 990 posting shows NO SUCH donation.

Bev Harris has consorted with Freepers DIRECTLY and encouraged a vicious attack against Andy Stephenson. Bev Harris made money peddling "Monica" brand cigars during the Clinton impeachment.

Yet none of this bothers you?

[raincity_calling]

164. WTF are you talking about - Drive Bev Harris out of business?

There may be some issues with Bev Harris, but for god's sake,
without her we would have no clue that there is any problem
with Diebold or other voting machines.  I thank god for Bev
Harris. Without Bev's work and her lawsuit we would not know
anything about these machines.  What are you doing to expose
the problems with our elections?  I am sure it is nothing on
the level of Bev Harris. 

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. assumes facts not in evidence n/t

[glitch]

81. I agree with your points but I do believe we need real proof before

impugning the integrity of any person or group working for election reform. Email not good enough, too easy to spoof. Same with posting on forums or lists.
The bar should be higher before attacking our own.

[Cookie wookie]

85. Glad you got a break.

Point 1: We have to use our votes to get the people who are allowing and authorizing spying on Americans out of government power and make sure that our Constitutional rights are restored and protected. How do we do that? By getting rid of unverifiable, insecure evoting, along with educating the public on the issues and helping them to develop their critical thinking skills.

Point 2: What? Please post the information that backs up the assertion that "major election activist organizations" have taken funds from "Diebold execs or their wives" and that shows a connection between Diebold and Choicepoint. It was DBT, the company that Choicepoint purchased after the 2000 election that produced the Florida databases that disenfranchised voters. And I've never seen any connection between DBT and Diebold published anywhere. If you have that documentation, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

Point 3: Please post where any of the organizations being attacked in the APN article have attacked the work of Greg Palast and "others."

[autorank]

104. Defenders of Choicepoint – Defenders of free & fair elections

This is an essential thread. VoteTrustUSA sets itself up as the "voice of integrity" in the "election integrity" movement. It's all over the place. The positive contributions are commended. This, however, is not positive.

On this very thread, we've seen people, including the director of VoteTrustUSA excusing Choicepoint from any responsibility in the most odious incident of election fraud I know of, the Florida felon purge.

Joan Krawitz says in this post above:

"We do not support or defend ChoicePoint's business in any way, except to point out (as is acknowledged in the Georgia article) that they did not own the company that handled the Florida purge contract when it occurred and took themselves out of handling election related business immediately thereafter."

This is excusing Choicepoint for responsibility for the felon purge despite the fact that Choicepoint acquired DBT in 2/2000 and failed to raise a public ruckus regarding what they knew and said would be the negative impact of using a list without social security numbers. Obviously Choicepoint bears some responsibility. That may be why they settled a law suit with the NAACP on this issue and made substantial payments in that regard.

Joan's position here, clearly implying no responsibility to Choicepoint for the felon purge, is an extreme position. But look what how it matches up to the Choicepoint position on their corporate web page:

http://www.choicepoint.com/news/2000election.html
"*ChoicePoint did not perform the legally required review of Florida voter rolls used in the past Presidential election. Rather, ChoicePoint acquired the company that did – Database Technologies – after DBT had delivered the initial 2000 voter exception list to Florida officials for verification."

Carefully chosen words here relying on ignorance of what it means to acquire a company and the use of tense, “after DBT had delivered…” The main work may have been done prior to the acquisition. They are not saying that the work stopped; they're not saying that they were unaware of the problems; they are not saying that they went to the barricades to make sure their work did no harm to minority voters. They just said, hey DBT did it, we bought them, end of story.

Sound familiar to defenders of Choicepoint here?

Most people in the election fraud-election integrity movement avoid aligning themselves with data miners and machine vendors; at least I hope that they would be scrupulous and savvy enough to do this. If you substitute "Diebold" for "Choicepoint" in these posts, people would be outraged about the relationship. If this discussion took place in 2001, the same outrage would have happened because the facts of this situation would still be fresh. It’s only the passage of time that even allows VoteTrustUSA to survive this association.

This is a small faction of a much larger voting rights movement that sometimes doesn't even acknowledge that association. How much do we hear about minority voter disenfranchisement versus computer code on a regular basis? Yet it's the minority precincts that are most often impacted by election screw ups; specifically large minority populations in Republican counties in Florida in 2000. (see below)

We've got growing to do and perspective to gain. Nevertheless, this is a mess and the problem here is not questioning VoteTrustUSA, it's the unbelievable judgment of that organization’s leaders, leaders in creating the conditions for this controversy.

Our goal as proud members of the Democratic Party and defenders of the Constitution is to ensure free, fair, transparent, and inclusive elections. No one group or one or several people can be placed above that goal. The record here is clear. The judgment is as well and we’re all judging for ourselves.

-----------------------

1. NAACP v. Harris (Katherine) – Choicepoint a defendant

Here is some of that pesky evidence regarding Choicepoint. They were a named defendant in the NAACP suit following the disasters in the Florida 2000 election. Choicepoint "doing business as"..."DBT" is a defendant involved in the settlement of this case which clearly showed that NAACP was right.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund:
http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=80
"The defendants in the lawsuit included the Florida Secretary of State; the Directors of the Division of Elections, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and the Secretary of the Department of Children and Families; Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Leon, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Volusia counties; and DBT/Choice Point, Inc., the contractor that screened Florida's voting rolls. Orange and Hillsborough were the last two counties to reach an agreement with the plaintiffs. "

NAACP v. Harris (Katherine)

The Defendants:
http://pdfdl.oceighty.net/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/harris/naacp-v-harris_complaint.pdf

"33. Defendant CHOICEPOINT, INC. doing business as DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES,INC. ("DBT") is a Georgia corporation with offices in the State of Florida and, pursuant to state law, at all times relevant to the events referred to herein, acted as an agent of the State of Florida in connection with the contract between it and the State that is more fully described below."

2. Black voter disenfranchisement in Florida 2000.

Florida 2000 Black Voter Disenfranchisement
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/florida/KlinknerAnalysis2.html
In conclusion, this analysis offers two important findings:

1. There is no evidence that higher rates of spoiled ballots resulted from such individual factors as education and literacy. Instead, the factors influencing spoiled ballots were systemic. Thus, rather than speaking of individuals who spoiled their ballots, we should speak of individuals who were placed in situations in which it was more likely that their ballots would be spoiled. Furthermore, this finding indicates that any effort to reduce the rate of spoiled ballots must focus on systemic solutions--improved technology, more and better election workers, and stronger efforts to investigate and prosecute any instances of corruption and/or racial disenfranchisement.

2. Even after controlling for other factors, rates of ballot spoilage remain higher in predominantly black areas than in other areas of Florida. As the last model indicates, with all else being equal, for every 1-point increase in the percentage of registered voters who are black, there was a .07 percentage point increase in spoiled ballots.

In addition, these rates were even higher where substantial numbers of blacks were found in counties with large margins for George W. Bush. All of this corresponds to and further reinforces the findings of the USCCR that there is evidence of racial disenfranchisement in the 2000 election in Florida. Consequently, it is important that federal authorities should investigate this matter more thoroughly.

[Cookie wookie]

105. Autorank, did you read the information on the lawsuit at the

link you gave? Maybe I missed something, so correct me if I'm wrong but in the lawsuit this was all I could find about the role of Choicepoint = 0, with the exception of having the name "Choicepoint/DBT" as a codefendant, which if Choicepoint owned DBT at the time of the lawsuit, not sure how the corporation DBT could be sued without naming its current owner (?):

"C. Wrongful Purging of Voters from Official Lists of Eligible Voters
61. Pursuant to state and federal law, Defendants Harris, Roberts and the Supervisors of Elections are charged with administering and maintaining the state's overall list maintenance programs and the state's central voter file. Both state and federal law establish the manner in which the voter registration information must be maintained and the circumstances in which individuals may be purged from the voter rolls.

62. Defendant Roberts contracted with Defendant DBT to compare information in the state's central voter file with information available in other computer databases and prepare a list of registered voters who were ineligible to vote. Upon information and belief, in the course of carrying out this contract, Defendant DBT wrongfully identified qualified voters as ineligible to vote and communicated that incorrect information to Defendants.

63. Upon information and belief, Defendants Harris, Roberts and DBT determined the matching and other criteria and sources of information for creating the lists of ineligible voters to
be forwarded to county supervisors under Fla. Stat. Ann. § 98.0975. Upon information and belief, Defendants Harris, Roberts and DBT have failed to exercise appropriate diligence and care to ensure and to verify the reliability and accuracy of the list of ineligible voters that was forwarded to each county supervisor pursuant to the state list maintenance program mandated by Fla. Stat. Ann. §98.0975.

64. Upon information and belief, prior to the November 7, 2000 general election, Defendants Harris and Roberts failed to require that all county supervisors adopt effective measures to ensure accurate purging of the names of registered voters on the lists provided by the state, and to prevent county election supervisors from purging voters without verifying the information provided in the lists. Upon information and belief, Defendants Harris and Roberts failed to ensure that county supervisors would be able to verify in a timely manner the lists of ineligible voters provided by the state, and to determine whether the information provided by the state was accurate."

[Cookie wookie]

107. As to activists "excusing Choicepoint"

from responsibility, that's because DBT and the guilty parties named as co-defendants in the lawsuit (Harris, Roberts, etc) were responsible for the Florida 2000 data purge. The lawsuit got it right.

For myself, I'll defend almost anyone who's unjustly accused, because that's the not only in the spirit of our democracy but also the letter and the law. I use the qualifier "almost" because some of the people the ACLU has defended I just couldn't be that democratic.

In any case, VoteTrustUSA has said that they don't get money from Choicepoint anyway. What part of that do people not understand?

I think everyone with a brain and heart agrees that what happened with the Florida purges and the voter disenfranchisement that resulted was odious in every way and violated our basic democratic rights in America.

Choicepoint's website points out that DBT warned Florida in 1998, a year after they were contracted, about the problems with the review criteria "developed and required by the state." The state said that "county election supervisors -- not DBT -- were legally required to verify the information before any voter was removed from the registration rolls." Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us to see what happened but what Harris and Florida were cooking up were new tricks in the old business of trying to steal elections.

So then the lawsuit, Choicepoint pays for DBT's misjudment and gets out of the elections information business, according to them. That seems like an ethical thing to do. Then they announce in 2005 that they will ".... Exit Non-FCRA, Consumer-Sensitive Data Markets;Shift Business Focus to Areas Directly Benefiting Society and Consumers."

I suppose that's a ploy to trick people, right?

Some would brand people by association using a very broad brush. If I recall US law correctly, one can't be convicted to guilty by association.

If we logically follow that track, branding Cpt for DBT's errors in judgment, we could as easily say that if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, that person will be guilty of war crimes because their predecessor was. Right?

[autorank]

109. Hi, see below

As per the DU rules, I'm telling you that you are now on ignore.

Now I will go do that.

[Cookie wookie]

112. Well, guess that ends the discussion.

Thought we might be getting somewhere, but see that when minds are made up, facts shouldn't be allowed to intrude.

Not for you, Autorank, since you've put me on "ignore", a first for me, but I think others should know that the accusations that have been flying around have had a negative impact on the work toward verified voting.

Chasing off fine human beings in the activist community by smearing their names or organizations, thus undermining their efforts, what is the gain?

A sense of satisfaction at cleansing the movement from those deemed unworthy?

: - (

[Cookie wookie]

114. I might add that I really thought about it today

-- about just walking away from the whole thing.

Three years (on evoting and more on other issues like stopping media deregulation and protesting the war) of using my vacations, my nights, my weekends, working working working.

I could just up and walk away from it all. Just like that. Start doing again all the things I've given up, like recreation and a social life that didn't have to do with evoting. Maybe instead of reading the next installment of the next big report I might read a novel or take a nap.

Finding the organizations and activists I've been associated with, with whom I've poured out my life by days and nights as soldiers shoulder to shoulder, being trashed not by republicans but by fellow activists feels surprisingly close to the last straw. What an irony.

Why not let somebody else do it? Just say to all the "worthy" people, have at it and good luck.

Then I think of people like Riverbend who can't walk away. I'll stick with my unworthy fellow activists, thank you very much. Working together we've gone far, and it's all been upstream. So what is new about this silly business?

[Febble]

118. Well, painting sounds good

but don't let the thread get you down! (Auto has me on ignore too, so I can say what I like....)

Facts matter. It's a shame that sometimes people lack the courage to face them. That's why all movements need people like you. :)

[Cookie wookie]

119. Thanks Febble.

I watched without commenting during the time you and others were discussing the 2004 election exit poll data. You took quite a beating at the time. You often were able to elevate the level of discussion, even if it then went back to mud wrestling. I could understand then as now that those who get so dogmatic in their opinions that they can't listen or see anything else here are often those who also care deeply and for the most of them, their motives are good even if their methods are destructive at times to anyone being able to back and forth and dig to find the truth, which is most often neither all black or all white but a range of color across the spectrum.

I used to be on a CSPAN discussion board, which was cancelled when the right-wing started gaining power and lively discussion of ideas -- especially those that opposed *, became seen as threatening. There were some really right-wing trolls there, but some of us could have deep discussions coming from extremely varied viewpoints that helped me understand issues so much better, broadened my perspective even when in the end, after listening and studying what they presented, I still found I disagreed. For instance, I'll never be a Nader supporting Chomskyite, but one of the posters was masterful in his knowledge of history and politics and articulate in presenting strong arguments for why he was. I gained a broader perspective and lost some of my tunnel vision though that experience.

It was intellectually stimulating and very satisfying, not to mention edifying. I miss that. I'd love it if there was more of that kind of tolerance along with objective, analytical thinking, analysis and discussion on DU. More open mindedness and less "truthiness." I sure could use it to grow my own analytical skills and thus become more effective as an activist.

[OnTheOtherHand]

126. I don't have the heart to kick that other thread, but...

your post #38 there turned my day around. Thank you very much. And #119 below is excellent as well.

[Cookie wookie]

133. OnTheOtherHand

Glad to hear some understanding from a fellow DUer. I feel like I wasted a whole day, but it was for a worthy cause so guess that's never a total waste. Just could have used the time more strategically or even just blown off the whole day doing something fun. But, too late now.

[Boredtodeath]

115. Not to worry, Cookie......autorank doesn't know how to use ignore

He told me that a long time ago and lo and behold he showed up in a thread I STARTED a few hours later.

He's jus jokin'.

[autorank]

108. From Choicepoint re NAACP; re NAACP v. Harris

http://www.choicepoint.net/85256B350053E646/0/16440966B650DEA685256BEB00461242?Open
Print-Friendly Version

NAACP and Florida Voters Reach Agreement with ChoicePoint® in Voting Rights Lawsuit

ChoicePoint to Make Donation to NAACP
and Reprocess Voter Exception List

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ALPHARETTA, Ga. – July 2, 2002 – Civil rights plaintiffs have reached an agreement with ChoicePoint (NYSE: CPS) over work performed by Database Technologies (DBT) for the State of Florida in the 2000 elections. The NAACP and Florida voters filed a federal lawsuit - NAACP v. Harris - challenging the conduct of state and local officials in the 2000 Florida elections, including DBT, because of the company's work as a contractor hired by the state.

As part of the settlement, ChoicePoint will donate $75,000 to the NAACP, which will be used to fund past and future efforts to further the electoral opportunities of Florida's minority voters. Under the agreement, the company also will re-process the 1999 and 2000 "exceptions lists" of Florida voters who may have been ineligible to vote because of possible felony criminal convictions or because of possibly being registered to vote in more than one county. The reprocessing will be conducted pursuant to terms proposed by the plaintiffs and subject to court approval.

DBT was under contract with the State of Florida from late 1998 through 2000 to create a list of registered voters who may have been deceased, registered in more than one county, or convicted felons under the Florida voting fraud statute. ChoicePoint acquired DBT in May, 2000, after the initial 2000 voter exception list was delivered to Florida officials for verification.

The civil rights organizations challenging the Florida election practices on behalf of the NAACP, its Florida Branches, and individual Floridians whose voting rights were compromised in the 2000 election, are the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, People for the American Way Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, Advancement Project, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

[Boredtodeath]

116. ROFL, autorank proves our point FOR US

ChoicePoint acquired DBT in May, 2000, after the initial 2000 voter exception list was delivered to Florida officials for verification.

[Land Shark]

120. and choicepoint then had five months to CORRECT the situation n/t

[Wilms]

123. And you only had four.

I love ya LS. But there's a lot more heat than fire here and I'll break silence to suggest a glass of ice water and a wider view.

Now, after realizing in January Curling's husband works for ChoicePoint, why did it take you until April to leave VTUSA?

I could have posted here in March to beware of a Shark because he is a member of an organization that a ChoicePoint exec's wife belongs to and therefore should be held under suspicion. Right?

But I didn't. So maybe someone else should call me out.

:shrug:

[flyingobject]

129. four months?

n/t

[Land Shark]

137. first people should be talked to privately, then on listservs, then...

so yeah wilms, I wish this had been brought up sooner, to me. it happened right when I got on board i was so new i was unsure of context.

activists are not stuck here in a perfect dilemma where activists "they respect" are on both sides so therefore they are helpless and frustrated in their helplessness.

No, they can use their powers of reason on the election-relevant facts, none of which involve personal disputes or alleged personal disputes at all. Those would be the choicepoint facts.

Whenever I can i'm going to ignore the charges that this is somehow personal and just absorb the hit on that (i may not always do so). But when I do that, it's because there are major issues here regarding choicepoint.

If people here didn't know personalities at votetrustusa or outside votetrustusa they wouldn't have a problem making a call on this issue here.

No one should be bought off by their respect for either side. They should decide based on the choicepoint facts. Pure and simple. And there are more facts to come, I'm relatively sure Palast has got the goods.

[Wilms]

138. I wish it was brought up later.

Like, maybe, once "Palast has got the goods".

Right now I got a company that bought a company that did bad things. When I don't see that important factor featured, I realize I'm reading an editorial. Fair enough. No doubt ChoicePoint's an eyebrow raiser, but you know me. I like accuracy.

I also have a ChoicePoint exec's wife claiming (in an email probably not meant for my eyes...but I digress) to be "on the board" of VTUSA. But I don't have any document otherwise indicating that. And while it seems unlikely that of all people to join an election reform group it would be her, it also seems rather unlikely that she was placed there as a mole.

Next, I have VTUSA supporting the "Gold Standard" in a world that needs platinum. How dare they. And you and them at loggerheads over it despite the fact it ain't goin' nowhere with the exception of going around DC and doing a good job of laying out the issues and forming a foundation for future reform. How awful.

Finally, I have VTUSA and it's researchers doing great work, tickling my heart when I hear it plagiarized by politicians and reporters. And you, flying around the country, fighting election fraud.

So actually, I am "...stuck here in a perfect dilemma where activists "(I) respect" are on both sides (and) therefore (I am) helpless and frustrated in (my) helplessness".

[livvy]

141. I feel much like you do.

"Finally, I have VTUSA and it's researchers doing great work, tickling my heart when I hear it plagiarized by politicians and reporters. And you, flying around the country, fighting election fraud.

So actually, I am "...stuck here in a perfect dilemma where activists "(I) respect" are on both sides (and) therefore (I am) helpless and frustrated in (my) helplessness"."

It is unsettling to have people/groups you respect and admire at odds. Thanks for saying it so much better than I could.

[Land Shark]

142. Just use your judgment, and forget about your mutual respect

for both sides. That will allow you to see things more clearly (at least for yourself). You should not be "bought off" by satisfaction with past media appearances or research or DU postings any more than you should be bought off by money.

So, I think that the past contributions of both sides should merit your CONSIDERATION (from the universe of everything you could pay attention to, you might gravitate to this issue more readily) but I don't think it should also merit your abstention, or inability to decide based on respect for all parties.... nor should your standards of proof be artificially adjusted higher than they would otherwise be....

Don't assume that there aren't any "goods". Nobody's attacking Palast in this OP or the other one particularly and he's the one making the main claims. And they are bold claims. That could well be a reflection that Palast is right, or that there's been legal advice given not to challenge Palast (possible, but who knows?). See the post in GD where they go after me solely, but note closely that the most important and far-reaching statements are Palast's, and he routinely backs his stuff up. Why doesn't any one address the specific factual statements and conclusions that Palast is expressly and impliedly offering to defend IN COURT?

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1643855#1645558>

Wilms, and Livvy, I would ask one favor, under the rubric of "CONSIDERATION" as defined above. Don't assume or wishfully think away the probability that Palast and I are SERIOUS that choicepoint is an enormous problem, and don't assume or wishfully think away that others aren't equally serious about defending choicepoint as not a serious problem. i.e. this is not a personal fit of pique in its predominant form.

Here's an example of a Palast statement (how can it be IGNORED????): "...I will (not) tolerate smears from one of their (ChoicePoint's) paid hand puppets smearing my investigative reports while wearing the purloined mantle of voter protection. VoteTrustUSA has violated the public's trust."

There's been zero response to this any many other statements. Just an attack on me, but I had nothing at all to do with crafting, suggesting or motivating that particular statement by Palast. I just posted it at his request.

[Amaryllis]

148. WHO is defending Choicepoint? I dont see ANYONE defending

them. Link, please?

[mom cat]

121. I would like to encourage some rigorous fact finding here.

Too much is at stake to have this discussion driven by innuendos and dubious leaps to conclusions. The Busby recount is hot right now and this is no time to be tearing each other apart without rock solid evidence. The only winner of that dog fight would be the election fraudsters.
People have been making some pretty remarkable assertions.

One person says that what Choicepoint does is perfectly legal. Well, their employees just got arrested in Mexico for violation of election laws.: http://www.gregpalast.com/stealing-it-in-front-of-your-eyes


Another claims to have an e-mail, but demonstrates no verification that it is legit.

Analogies are thrown back and forth which prove that you can prove anything you want to with analogies. A preacher at Ken Lay's funeral compared him to Jesus Christ and Dr. Martin Luther King. Doh!

I am wondering about the timing of all of this.
I am wondering if good people are being Rathered.
I an wondering about hidden agendas.

But mostly I am wanting to see clear solid substantial evidence of any accusations. The stakes are too high for a whisper or smear campaign. Any of us can destroy anyone with poorly linked but passionately argued bits of information strung together with illogical leaps.

I am also disturbed by the appearance of impropriety that is charged and the tepid defense of ChoicePoint by Hedda. I hope that she can clarify her position with a firm repudiation of the "see no evil" position that ChoicePoint took AFTER they purchased DBT. Their current behavior in Mexico also needs to be repudiated. The Hedda that I remember from the early vote fraud work at DU would have never supported past voter purges or present vote rigging. I only hope the vociferousness of some of the accusers has not polarized this issue beyond repair.

[OnTheOtherHand]

124. thanks for an excellent post

There are pieces I'm not sure about, but I really appreciate the effort you made to voice a range of important concerns.

[mom cat]

127. Thanks. I think that there is a range of facts that need to be

considered. I think that the loose, shoot from the hip accusations can be destructive of the whole vote fraud movement. I would like to see Hedda's responses to Autorank's questions. They were as non inflammatory as possible and I would like to also see her repudiate ChoicePoint's past and current questionable and illegal practices. I do not want to see her discredited on the basis of a possibly spoofed e-mail. I have seen her put her heart and soul into the vote fraud issue before most people even knew what it was all about. Until then I would like to caution against inflammatory rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations and encourage a willingness to see what each side is saying. That will not be facilitated by insults and derision.

[Catrina]

130. I couldn't agree more, mom cat. I think my questions were asked

respectfully and in return I was compared to Fidel Castro. Cookie Wookie, otoh, did answer questions civilly, which was far more encouraging than the gratuitous attacks launched by the other participants in this discussion.

It's possible that those involved have knowledge that we do not, but I would think they would understand that the only information most of us have about Choicepoint is that they were associated with the disaster in Florida in 2000 and with stealing the personal information of private citizens for profit and passing it on to the government. Not a very good resume for anyone concerned about rights in a democracy. That is all I know about them, so to be attacked for asking questions about why I should now change my opinion of them, only served the purpose of confirming what I already knew. Why not just answer the questions people have, and will have, civilly?

[mom cat]

131. Communication is a mysterious process. I saw the flare ups at you

and others and am baffled. In the heat of an argument, some people see an innocent question as a vicious attack and respond accordingly. There was way to much unsubstaitiated or poorly backed accusations and far too many insults flung.
We have got to pull it together. The shit is just starting to fly. The closer the people come to taking back their rights, the more the overlords will fight. We have got to learn to fight better than this!

[Land Shark]

135. here's the start (is it necessary, really, to air it ALL?)

see what palast himself is putting his name to:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1643855#1644314>

[Catrina]

136. True, and since this is so pivotal an issue regarding taking back

this country, I think it is vitally important that we know who to trust. People are no longer as gullible as we all were just a few years ago. Nor as willing to simply take things at face value, or because someone tells us to. So when something like this arises, those 'in the know' should certainly have anticipated a strong reaction and been prepared to explain it if possible. As it is, I feel that the reaction itself is cause to believe there is something to hide. And that's unfortunate ~

Thank you for your response, mom cat ~

[Kelvin Mace]

128. The issue is that the WIFE of a man who runs ChoicePoint

who has an established record of supporting liberal candidates and issues is being attacked. She is considered guilty because of her husband's job. And since she is guilty, VoteTrust is guilty becuase they accepted a donation from her.

[Boredtodeath]

140. Being suicided by lies

Sound familiar?

It shouldn't surprise anyone, since it's coming from the same source.

[cosmicdot]

152. any additional help re her established record?

Is it more than what opensecrets.org is showing?

is the record other than political contributions not recorded at opensecrets.org?

Should a search be done using another state vs. Georgia?


opensecrets.org shows some contributions in 2003

found nothing for her in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002

Right much money in 2004, 2005 and 2006. It seems to be on the increase.

10/31/2004
$2500 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

2/25/2004
$2,000
Edwards, John

7/28/2003
$1,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

9/29/2003
$500
Kucinich, Dennis J

3/31/2004
$2,000
Kerry, John

7/17/2003 <---------- 2003
$2,000
DNC Services Corp

10/24/2003
$1,000
DNC Services Corp

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Curling%2C+Donna&txtState=GA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N


CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER
9/26/2005
$16,700 <------------ $16,700
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER
8/3/2005
$10,000 <------- another $10K
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
Homemaker/Self
9/30/2005
$5,000 <------- $5K ... in 2 months of 2005 = $31,700
DNC Services Corp

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
Homemaker/Homemaker
11/21/2005
$5,000
PAC for a Change

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
DONNA CURLING/PHILANTHROPIST <-----
4/27/2006
$2,100
Feinstein, Dianne

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
DONNA CURLING/PHILANTHROPIST
4/27/2006
$2,100
Feinstein, Dianne

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER
5/16/2005
$2,100
Clinton, Hillary Rodham

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER
5/16/2005
$2,100
Clinton, Hillary Rodham <-------are these duplicates or 2-$2100 contributions the same day?

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER/HOMEMAKER
12/1/2005
$2,000
Pryor, Mark

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
Homemaker/Homemaker
2/11/2006
$2,000
Barrow, John

CURLING, DONNA
ROSWELL,GA 30075
N/A/HOMEMAKER
12/31/2005
$1,000
Casey, Bob

CURLING, DONNA MRS
ROSWELL,GA 30075
HOMEMAKER
2/10/2005
$1,000
Lewis, John

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Curling%2C+Donna&txtState=GA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&Order=N

thanks in advance

[Kelvin Mace]

156. I found close to $100K between the two of them

to Dems in the last 4 years, nothing before. Contributions to other liberal causes and groups like VTUSA would not be recorded there.

[hedda_foil]

132. Thanks for the balanced post, mom cat.

For the record, there's no way to defend the voter purges in Florida and no reason any rational person would want to do so. I don't see correcting a minor factual error as a defense of the indefensible. I haven't supported or defended ChoicePoint's work and have no idea what relationship they might have to the Mexico election fiasco because I was offline most of last week when the discussions about it seem to have occurred. I certainly don't defend datamining in any way, shape or form and think the entire industry should be closely regulated and loopholes that allow our privacy to be invaded firmly closed. There's no relationship between ChoicePoint and VoteTrustUSA whatsoever. What there is is that a very committed and dedicated election integrity activist in Georgia, who happens to be married to an executive of that company, has donated to VTUSA as an individual. We made very sure from the start that Donna's activism was genuine and that her limited contributions didn't come with any strings attached -- and she has never attempted to influence anything we do in any way. Nor is she a board member. VTUSA doesn't even have a board of directors.

These threads are among the most destructive and frightening I've ever seen on DU -- and I've seen them all. The only thing I've seen that's worse or less justified is the smear job that was done on Andy (who was one of our founders) as he lay dying. Please see my post in the thread in which Greg Palast is dragged in and convinced, in error, that we've slandered him and defended ChoicePoint.

[AntiFascist]

146. If Choicepoint is more concerned with making money than with....

political affiliation, then it makes sense that they would try to gain access to Democratic politicians, particularly if Dems will become the party of power in the next few national elections - it just makes business sense. Besides, too many DUers are making the argument that we should be fighting fire with fire. DU as an "underground" political site should be keeping a careful eye on this, otherwise Dems may soon find themselves deserving the label "another party of corruption."

[flyingobject]

153. Donate to Democrats = Bad? Hmm.... Donate to GOP = Good?

so I guess we need to keep track of who is donating to the Democratic
party and start posting their information on Democratic Underground.

We need to know who the bad guys are, right?

Donate to Democrats = Bad?

Is this some sort of reverse psychology?

Should they instead donate to the GOP?

If you don't believe your vote counts, then you know that the party
to influence is the party that controlls all branches of govt and the media, right?

[Land Shark]

161. political donations do not purchase credibility, trust, or legitimacy

If they do, then those with money have all the credibility, trust and legitimacy. That hardly seems democratic or Democratic.

"heavy hitters" donate to get access to politicians. Curling's have also donated to Republican candidates/pacs (much more to Democrats).

The political donations just don't prove anything.

This is an issue of the problem of appearances, and perhaps more than that. but just on the level of appearances, the curling's should have the sense to do independent projects so that their support doesn't do more harm than good. The choicepoint baggage that the curling's MUST ALWAYS have with them in terms at least of appearances should not be used to weight down, or to risk weighting down, one of the foremost election activist organizations out there. Period.

When these kinds of issues come up as they often do in politics, the person in the position of the curling's withdraws or else is refunded their money, FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORGANIZATION, and it is expressly attributed to the need for no appearance of anything improper. That should be done.

[AntiFascist]

162. Donations have nothing to do with Choicepoint's corruption....

Even if they made no donations to the Democratic Party, I would still feel that it would make business sense for them to offer their "KGB style" services to whatever party is taking control at a given time. It is to the Democrats' credit that we aren't linked directly to any of this, let's keep it that way. My post was meant to be more of a warning.

When the tide fully turns against Republican corruption, and against the companies which have aided that corruption (if it hasn't already) hopefully even Choicepoint won't be able to do much about it.

[Joe for Clark]

158. It is a good post, Paul.

I thought this site was all about opinion - and I do think yours is quite informed.

If it was about fact, this would be nothing more than a forensic exercise.

They cheated - and if they do it again we could reasonably assume they will do so with the same means they did last time. That means we should be able to catch it.

The only difference between us Paul is you look forward to protections that should be there - and I look to means that assume they won't be there in time.

The great thing is, I am pretty sure they can't cheat 10 points - maybe 2 - but not ten.

And I think that is where we are today.

Good luck to you Paul, it is good to hear from you. You keep going!!!

Joe

[Cookie wookie]

167. Mrs. Curling has posted a reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=view_all&address=203x441267

[Land Shark]

168. Thanks for the link. You may not want to call it a "reply" because

otherwise the OP above would mostly be taken as admitted (most pertinent details of the OP above are not rebutted in her "reply")

[peacetheonlyway]

169. the difference between landshark

and Donna curling?

it's really quite simple.

Mr. Landshark is full of honor and integrity.
Landshark brought a lawsuit in Washington that cost him time, money and effort to restore honest elections, while Ms. Curling lives in a mansion in Alpharetta GA paid for by the money of victims of both election fraud and identity theft.

Mr. Landshark has continued to speak truth to power about the danger of anyone associated with Choicepoint and for this he should get a medal of honor, Ms. Curling posts personal whiny posts to try to win friends and bolster her support in an activist community that by letting her participate, infiltrates & ruins all the work we other activists are doing to solve the real problem of election fraud.

finally, Mr. Landshark has a much better DU nickname than Donna...

DMAC is an appropriate title... it sounds more like a Soprano name than a DU nickname. Purely symbolic of the thuggery and mob wife mentality of one who has damaged election fraud momentum in ways that many of us can personally and emotionally attest to with conviction. if the argument is that her dirty money can produce good results, I'd ask you to dig deeper, how many lawsuits or legislative acts were stopped because her money and her inside information stopped such actions?

those of you that want to defend her, keep on. I would only urge you to watch your backs while doing so.... she lives in a community of corporate snakes, and it's always a matter of time before such corporate snakes bite hard the hand that feeds them....remember folks.

this is our democracy and it's time to take it back.
it's our tax paying money that funds those Choicepoint government grants, it's time we take it back.
and if the FBI is waking up to Choicepoint good for them, there are people in the FBI who have honorably served our country despite the lame leadership in washington.

people like Landshark are what keep our country honest.. I don't even know why we should waste our breath on the kind of filth that would steal our honest elections from us....