VoteTrustUSA statement

[hedda_foil]

In response to concerns that have been raised recently about
VoteTrustUSA, we would like to issue the following statement:

Donna Curling has never attempted to influence the policy, statements, or actions of VoteTrustUSA, nor do any donor’s contributions, including Mrs. Curling’s have any such influence. ChoicePoint Services has never provided financial assistance to VoteTrustUSA nor have they attempted to have any dialogue or in any way influence VoteTrustUSA policy, statements, or actions. VoteTrustUSA does not defend, endorse, or support ChoicePoint Services. VoteTrustUSA is highly concerned about the invasion of individual privacy that the data aggregation and datamining industry enables, and believe that fair, accurate, and transparent elections will result in legislation, regulation, and oversight to curb the type of abusive practices that have been revealed by Greg Palast and others in the media.

VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity.

John Gideon was not acting as a spokesperson for VoteTrustUSA when he posted remarks critical of Greg Palast on the Black Box Voting Forum message board. Mr. Gideon has apologized to Mr. Palast and publicly retracted his post.

The mission of VoteTrustUSA is to ensure that future elections are open, fair, accessible, publicly transparent, and accurately reflect the intentions of the voters. VoteTrustUSA condemns in the strongest possible terms any practices that seek to deny any eligible voter their right to vote.

Joan Krawitz
Executive Director

Warren Stewart
Director of Legislative Issues and Policy

VoteTrustUSA
http://www.votetrustusa.org

[Selatius]

1. Doesn't ChoicePoint give money to VTUSA??? n/t

[adarling]

2. oh dear god NOOOOOO!!!! for the last freaking time people

please go and read the thousand posts earlier about the whole thing.

[Amaryllis]

4. "ChoicePoint Services has never provided financial assistance to VoteTrust

It's right in the statement.

[Land Shark]

10. It's the First Lady of Choicepoint that provided the funding: Ms. Curling

You can see her post under the title "where to begin...." and her DU handle of dmac, also found in Election FOrum

[Land Shark]

47. from dictionary.com, the definition of veracity

1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness. See Synonyms at truth.
2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity.
3. Something that is true.

[EFerrari]

3. Thank you. I hope we all get our perspective tuned up. n/t

[fooj]

106. Wow. This is really confusing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=442492

So which is it?


fooj
La Selva Beach
(not in the book) :kick:

[BeFree]

5. I'd have a hard time ever saying this:

Donna Curling has never attempted to influence the policy, statements, or actions of VoteTrustUSA, nor do any donor’s contributions, including Mrs. Curling’s have any such influence.

I would think that unless I was running a totalitarian regime, people who were interested parties and those who did financially contribute, would have some influence.

So there is that.

[Boredtodeath]

6. So you're calling them Liars?

Sure the hell sounds that way to me.

[BeFree]

7. No

[Cookie wookie]

18. Does that apply to only VTUSA or is that a principle across the board?

After all, many of us gave what we had to the Kerry campaign and we sure couldn't influence his decisions. Think Ohio and donations for lawyers and concession before the votes were all counted. The list is endless of people I've donated to in the democratic party. None of them have allowed me to influence their decisions, much as I would have loved it if that's all it took.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. thank you

:kick:

[flyarm]

9. thank you hedda foil...i never doubted VoteTrustUSA...

not for one nano second, not for a minute..never!!

VoteTrustUSA is an increbilble group of people who work tirelessly , they do it on their own time ..and endless time that is..to protect our vote and our democracy!

i salute you all at Vote Trust USA!!

fly

[mom cat]

31. I so remember in the early days of the election fraud movement that

Joan could always be counted on. For shch a small group to have accpmplished so much is remarkable. Nothing that the detractors have sais constitutes sufficient grounds for that trust to be diminished.

This is a crucial time for the election reform movement. We need to be focused on CA 50, the emerging lawsuits, planning strategies to monitor the 06 elections and continue the drumbeat about 04.

I think that Joan has responded to the suspicions adequately. Continuing to hound her with more and more questions will pnly destract her from her work at a very critical time. Not only that, thr attacks on Joan certainlly seem to be motivated by bad blood. Don't try and destroy a movement over a bruised ego!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. he will try, but he will fail

don't worry, Paul will never cease to have irrational exhuberance
for attacking Vote Trust.

They had the gaul to remove him!

They must be punished!

Frankly, he did more damage to the group when he was a member,
and could spam people's email boxes with incomprehensible
meanderings and endless closing arguments.

This is about someone's ego, not about election integrity.

No matter what Paul does, Vote Trust will continue to do the great job
that they have always done.

He will attack again and again, but he will fail each time.

[mom cat]

48. Thanks for your insight. I think that people here can spot an

attack that is over the top. It so reminds me of the Repuke dirty tricksters smear campaigns.
I am glad you think that vote Trust will weather the storm. I'm sure they have toughened up over the years.

[Land Shark]

50. I am willing to move forward to the positive side of VTUSA

but if there's going to be any denials of what is a very strong case possessed (not all MADE) by Palast and/or my self, then we can stay stuck here because this is a serious issue.

I may even not participate myself, just because it helps to distract from the real issues here about Choicepoint involvement and influence such that their voice gets heard in "our" groups via submissions of official corporate policy, but our voice is not at all heard at Choicepoint. Of course, there's more....

But, if we can admit our mistakes, I will start out the process by saying that I am very very persistent, to a fault, and it can aggravate people greatly. there's a finnish national characteristic called sisu that i have, which is sometimes inaccurately defined as "guts" but really means "persistence to the ends of the earth but without making too much drama about it". you can google sisu if you want, but it's what caused the Finns to win the winter war in WWII against the Soviets, and to be a nation of only 5 million that fought both the soviets and the nazis in WWII, successfully, and was also the only nation in the world to pay its war debt in full to the United States. harri hursti comes literally close to half way around the world to aid the cause of democracy, I don't doubt his commitment for a second. In any case, this persistence or sisu will naturally be interpreted by some as a vendetta or something like that.

But people with vendetta's don't write things like this thread, IMHO:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html (currently the last message is from me)

Now some people may really tell me they want to puke when they see a conciliatory tone that is attempted above in this link. But i'm fully willing to do that if there is full disclosure, cutting ties and refund. I will help raise money for VTUSA to make up any shortfall, and I will also focus and be able to focus on the many good qualities and work of VTUSA without distraction or compromise.
I've been offering to raise money for VTUSA for a number of days. They don't have to even accept it, if they don't want to. but this presupposes an acknowledgement of major problems (which I believe's made in the admission of Palast's "Veracity") plus full disclosure, refund, and cutting ties pursuant to what's been claimed necessary here.

If there is serious interest, it will be up to others to say what i've done wrong. We can talk about it.

But there's a deal killer out there. Nothing about this issue is "over the top". What possibly may be over the top is my willingness (and I think the willingness of many others) not just to go to the mat, but to go to Winter War on this issue, but only because we can not possibly tolerate this state of affairs in such an important national organization. I refuse to allow any major valuable organization in this movement to be so compromised, on the grounds that it harms our collective democracy, of which I own one share equal to all others and fully intend to defend and protect that share.

IMO, it is so incredibly much easier to admit the reasonable perception of being a captured corporate organization, and the reality of an undisclosed (publicly) choicepoint stakeholder within group membership, and then to remove that perception so that everything else that is good about VTUSA can shine through.

Ok, so now we can step up and shake hands, or you can slap me instead and kick off the rest of the festitivies.

[mom cat]

114. Dear Paul,

There is a big difference between being persistent to a fault and verbal overkill.
I saw the concilliatory post of yours on Bev's site, and frankly, if you had used more of that tone here, you might have not gotten as much resistance and counter bashing. Both sides have stooped to the level of verbal abuse:
name calling,
insinuations,
with us or against us thinking,
irrational demands,
putdowns
etc.
This and the related threads have been some of the most toxic that I have ever seen on DU.
Paul, you mentioned in a post earlier in this thread that you want to be understood and have questioned several posters as to why they haven't "gotten it" - "it" being your point of view. To acquire that kind of understanding, you must also give it. I have not seen that happening.

There are some important questions that you have raised and you clearly have suspicions. However, you are a ways off from proving your case. The disinfrangizement of the falsely labled Florida Felons is reprehensible. Clearly DBT provided the list to Katherine Harris knowing that it was too loose (no SS#s, etc)and all to readilly accepted the excuse that the counties would review them for errors.
Some time after that Choicepoint bought DBT. It is your conjecture that in the pre agreement investigations that Choicepoint would have investigated the DBT - Florida deal and you go into detail as to how this is standard operating proceedure. Perhaps, but if the contract had already been completed, it might not have been reviewed. I do not know one way or another, but I am not going to believe that is what happened until I see proof. I have not seen proof that Choicepoint knew about the faulty felon list before the sale or that they found out about it after their purchace of DBT and then chose to do nothing about it before the elections. I know that you have suspicions and have made accusations, but do you have iron clad proof?
I have yet to see it.
I also hereby ask Donna, or better yet, Mr Curling if he can refute the accusations. It would also be good to know when he joined Choicepoint.

I for one will not support loose accusations against anyone here. We have all seen the damage caused by that on this board. The fact that you are a member of Bev's group and the fact that she has been focused on accusations against the Curlings leads me to wonder if this is another move by her. with your assistance to destroy Joan on DU. Perhaps not, butI do wonder about the coincidence. Perhaps you could shed some light on the relationship between you and Bev and the issues relating to your accusations against Donna Curling.
I would also like to say that I have no idea as to whether your suspicions will pan out. What I do know is that your arguement techniques are turning me off. I hope you can explore this in the spirit in which it is given and change your tactics.

[Land Shark]

161. Choicepoint has admitted that they knew

they even claimed that they checked all the "felons" on the list (that was a lie, but there's no getting around that they knew). See for example Palast's email, as well as pages 38-45 or so of Armed Madhouse, Palast's latest book, where he cites the evidence that Choicepoint knew.

Choicepoint could always issue a recall after purchasing the company in May 2000, prior to the election. At least, that's what we do for cheap plastic toys, so presumable the voting rights of tens of thousands of innocents are equally or more important.

VTUSA has consistently refused to be transparent about its choicepoint connections and actions despite several opportunities prior to become more transparent. Few people take kindly to what amounts to additional transparency when they are resisting that same transparency. Having the First Lady of Choicepoint heavily involved with and funding various projects of vTUSA is a material fact that a significantly high percentage of people dealing with VTUSA would want disclosed to them prior to making decisions regarding the organization.

I am not a "member of Bev's group" i just posted 7 times there in 4 months or so. As to shedding light on my "relationship with Bev" I can only chuckle, our relationship is about the same; rare exchanges via computer, except that when some large panels have been assembled i've been on a panel twice with Bev, but then you'd have to count all kinds of different people as having a relationship with Bev. I am sorry if any techniques turn you off, but honestly, I don't think there is any hope for communication at all here if you really need additional proof re the choicepoint/curling matter but at the same time you freely assume a relationship between me and Bev of some sort and ask me to illuminate it.

Without agreeing to the assumption that a serious problem with lack of transparency hasn't been shown, if i were to set about to really prove the case here on DU, you would REALLY consider that to be destructive, and that's something else you complain about. It appears that you don't want me to have any balance at all? How do you balance these competing goals of proving this on DU and minimizing the damage you see as being caused by the whole debate. Let's be serious, while civility can always be increased somewhat, there's no getting around that this debate is going to upset people, because Greg Palast is saying that VTUSA is a captured organization that takes money from spouses of Choicepoint executives and then advocates/defends choicepoint interests.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. "admission of Palast's 'veracity'"

Jeepers, I can hardly believe I'm reading this stuff. It apparently boils down to:

Palast: "They called me a liar!"
VTUSA: "We've never called Palast a liar!"
Land Shark: "See? they admit he was telling the truth!"

It's Epimenides meets vaudeville. Diverting, but not what I'm looking for.

"if there's going to be any denials of what is a very strong case possessed (not all MADE) by Palast and/or my self"

Unfortunately, this part isn't the least bit funny: how in hell is anyone supposed to deny a "very strong case" that is "not all MADE" -- never mind rebut it?

That seems to be the conversation-stopper right there.

"there's a finnish national characteristic called sisu that i have, which... really means 'persistence to the ends of the earth but without making too much drama about it'."

:eyes:

You might need to rethink this one. Really.

[Land Shark]

160. Please don't be offended, i had to chuckle quite a bit at your post

Palast made very specific remarks that VTUSA's executive took money and then immediately thereafter advocated for Choicepoint, and other charges. These are the ones that were never denied. Read Palast's email. I just chuckled because of your 'senior moment'. I hope you're OK with that.

Are you, OTOH, saying that Palast is lying about something in his email? It's in this OP, and in this thread here if you want to look.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1643855>

[OnTheOtherHand]

170. I don't think Palast's remarks are "very specific" at all

1. "After taking loot from the wife of the CEO of ChoicePoint, VoteTrustUSA's executive immediately ran to the defense of ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls." What does that mean? That is strong language, certainly, but not "specific" in the least.

2. "...I'll be damned if I will tolerate smears from one of their paid hand puppets...." That's even less specific, especially when combined with:

3. "Mrs. Curling's money may not influence VoteTrustUSA."

Say whaa?

It is beyond me why you posted this e-mail and repeatedly cite it as if it supports some "specific" charge.

[Land Shark]

172. when, as reader, you are unable to bring any context or understanding

to a text, it does make a difference I suppose.

[OnTheOtherHand]

173. more empty handwaving

What, you are suggesting that Palast is being specific, but you are unable to be specific about what he is being specific about? Heck of a way to go about challenging other activists' ethics.

EDIT TO ADD: Come to think of it, I should have written "that Palast was being specific." This whole business of parsing one e-mail is part of the problem. Back in February, John Gideon apparently was mad at Greg Palast. Earlier this month, Greg Palast apparently was mad at, well, I'm not sure whom. OK, then.

[Land Shark]

174. Basically, there's a truce for now. Not by express agreement but by

implication.

[Cookie wookie]

11. I sincerely hope that anyone who seeks to limit

VTUSA's very limited funding by subjecting their donors to a litmus test (unless those donors are connected directly connected to the electronic voting industry!!) would get out their checkbooks and send a contribution to VTUSA today.

How they do all they do with so little funding is mind boggling.

Somehow the justification seems to boil down to VTUSA's support of the Holt Bill. Land Shark and BBV obviously don't like Holt. No one has to support Holt if they don't like it, but to suggest that Holt is in any way anything other than an effort to stop paperless DRE voting on privitized code (and add other baseline standards) is incorrect.

Certainly we can all agree to disagree on what's needed, but those activists who don't like the audit provisions in Holt can work to get higher standards in their states, to get legislation they like better at a federal level, or even to get rid of their DREs and bring in paper ballots hand-counted or whatever other provisions that will help to guarantee that we have secure, transparent, verifiable and accurate elections.

[Land Shark]

12. a few requested clarifications, and questions.

1) Is providing an official choicepoint corporate response to a vtusa listserv considered an "attempt to influence" VTUSA, or would that not be considered an influence?

2) Is there a link to any public retraction other than this? Sorry I've missed it so far.

3) Does Joan Krawitz retract any of her earlier statements to the effect that no director or leader of VTUSA had impugned Palast? Has an investigation been completed as to any others?

4) When saying that VTUSA does not question Palast's veracity, does that include not quesationing his veracity as to the emailed statement posted on DU that is critical of VTUSA? When Palast describes Choicepoint as the private KGB and as an outfit that essentially caused George Bush to take the presidency the first time in 2000, does VTUSA not question his veracity as to either of those claims?

5) Did VTUSA consider full disclosure, return of contributions, and severing ties with the First Lady of ChoicePoint?

6) given what you now know, and considering what possibly may come to light in the future, are there any allegations made by vtusa with regard to Paul Lehto or Land Shark that should be modified, retracted, or apoligized for in any way?

7) Is the above statement of VTUSA based on any kind of investigation, and if so, what did that investigation consist of?

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Telll me

when are you going to apply this level of skeptecism to Bev and BBV?

[Land Shark]

37. On Wednesday I called for Bev to return money

from Curling
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441413> That was before your post above, Kelvin Mace.

But it is not just Skepticism that I am applying here, there are important principles to apply, whether we agree or not.

It is astounding to see people vigorously retain a moral neutrality regarding Choicepoint given the facts of Florida 2000, and at the same time claim that there is no "Defense" of choicepoint going on. Even saying "Your Honor, my client is entitled to a trial" is most certainly "defending" a client. "Correcting" inaccuracies is in most case "defending" someone, unless the facts are such that they can not reasonably be disputed. (No one defends against Accuracy, they defend against "inaccuracy" "lack of context" "distortion" "Lies" and the like)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

40. VoteTrustUSA does not defend, endorse, or support ChoicePoint Services.

Read the opening post of this thread.

"VoteTrustUSA does not defend, endorse, or support ChoicePoint Services."

ChoicePoint is not Vote Trust's client.

No one is defending Choice Point.

You say:

It is astounding to see people vigorously retain a moral neutrality regarding Choicepoint given the facts of Florida 2000, and at the same time claim that there is no "Defense" of choicepoint going on. Even saying "Your Honor, my client is entitled to a trial" is most certainly "defending" a client. "Correcting" inaccuracies is in most case "defending" someone, unless the facts are such that they can not reasonably be disputed. (No one defends against Accuracy, they defend against "inaccuracy" "lack of context" "distortion" "Lies" and the like)

The good thing is that Vote Trust's work will continue regardless.

[Land Shark]

41. Repeating something does not make it SO

perhaps that's the core of one misunderstanding on your part. Official statements of VTUSA are not controlling of reality and do not define reality in this debate. It is the differences between the positions of the various parties.

Read Autorank analysis of critical statement that VTUSA "does not question Palast's veracity" in any way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441779#441924

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. why don't you check with Greg Palast?

Paul;

I encourage you to contact Greg Palast with these questions that you have listed.

Meanwhile,

you used to be a member of Vote Trust.

When you joined VTUSA:
- you knew about the comment period on HR 550 that you could participate in, and
- you knew that the leaders of VTUSA were working towards getting more cosponsors for the bill.

But you waited UNTIL a group of VTUSA members were in DC lobbying for HR 550 to launch your
online and email assault AGAINST HR 550:
- emails, message boards, articles published on the internet to coincide with lobbying days
- clogging the VTUSA email list serve in such a disruptive way that no positive work could be done

When you joined VTUSA,
- you knew at least since January that Donna Curling was a member of the group
- many of us did not know the names of ALL of the members, the group is rather large

But you waited UNTIL NOW to launch an assault against VTUSA as if they were part
of some grand conspiracy because Donna Curling was one of at least 100 members!

Your timing seems to coincide with critical moments for VTUSA:

You have almost put Vote Trust USA to a screeching halt on two occasions
now:

Yours was not a give and take conversation, but an endless loop.
A non-stop closing argument that never ended.
- It clogged up all email communications.
- It wasted many people's time.
- It was timed perfectly to disrupt the entire group.

Vote Trust has members who are not advocating for HR 550.
VTUSA doesn't require their members to support HR 550.
BUT they do require that members don't undermine other members' efforts.

You did not have to support HR 550 to be a respected member of that list,
but you were expected treat the other members with a modicum of respect.

There are members who are quite respected that have differing opinions of
HR 550.

There is a strong enough group supporting this bill that they should be able
to strengthen it, given the added creditability this issue and its advocates
gain every day.

To lobby for changes, you need to be able to argue FOR something,
not just AGAINST something.

[hedda_foil]

19. kick

[BeFree]

23. That's it? Just kick?

Something doesn't smell right.

[Land Shark]

30. Palast, I've reason to believe, stands behind what he said and has

not retracted a single word. Hopefully with the apologies being given he will be able to fulfill his wish to concentrate on other issues. At the same time, I highly suspect that a resumption of questioning Palast's veracity will result in another response by Palast.

Your TimeLine Issues

Look, above you provide some timeline issues above and ask why I didn't do something earlier??

Simple: If it's JUST ME, I sit back and contemplate, thinking "let's be sure it's a big issue, nothing personal, etc." I thought about the work of other activists which might be affected by me, but also how that same work is compromised by the facts of this case. The simple fact is that I published a piece on choicepoint in May 2006, but other than that, I never "went public" with any so-called "issues" I had with VTUSA. I didn't even mention publicly that VTUSA was reading my emails secretly before deciding whether to post them (without telling me this). Isn't this perhaps a good thing, not to be impulsive and reactive? yES, i'D heard vtusa activists criticize Palast prior to July 2006 and I didn't take any immediate action other than to disagree when I had the chance. I think that, especially since I could add more here, this is a raesonable picture of restraint. For a shark, anyway. You can try to call it sitting on my rights or whatever, but the most reasonable construction is one of restraint and perhaps also a busy schedule to some extent.

BUT WHEN PALAST BECOMES SO CONCERNED AND PISSED THAT HE HAS TO THREATEN LAWSUITS TO DEFEND HIS VERACIty AND REPORTING, THEN I KNEW IT HAD GONE TOO FAR. IF PALAST IS PISSED, I'M NOT HAPPY EITHER. (see atlanta progressive article, which I've previously posted came 'out of the blue' for me)

I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, HMMM, NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER including election fraud chapters, AND *STILL* DISSING PALAST's reporting of Choicepoint? tIME TO PUT OUT A THREAD!

Again, a picture of restraint IMHO. Since my options include lawsuits and I've a demonstrated ability to obtain pro bono representation from pretty good lawyers.

Now that it's clear that vtusa does not at all challenge Palast's veracity, that criticism of the timing of my "intervention" was especially unjustified. My timing has turned out to be justified. I heard Palast was pissed (in the american sense of that word) and that was an issue for me. I really think that if you've got an issue with palast you've got an issue with LandShark on this one. On the other hand, if you've no issue with Palast then you've no issue with LandShark on this dispute.

Now, if only I could be defined as having views within the realm of reason, it would be a lot easier to work toward a solution of this matter. Gotta wonder about people who think that prodding a shark with a stick because he's claimed to be outside his territory is some kind of smart strategy.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

36. N.B. Personal attack.

This is the second. Some time back you referred to LS as a "bev bot" or behaving like one.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. you are as predictable as Ex-Lax

See, its the endless loop thing.
Dependable, predictable.

[Land Shark]

38. Regularity and consistency are blessings. But thks for pers attack

[Land Shark]

43. i'll allow it, though, if you've got some facts regarding ex-lax

from choicepoint, perhaps? boredtodeath says she can find out if someone shaves their legs with razors, so I suppose you can tell me about ex-lax too. ; ) Lighten up, and have a nice day.

[Cookie wookie]

17. Please clarify

As to question #3:
"....Has an investigation been completed as to any others?"

Are you asking if VTUSA took an official position against Palast or are you implying that that voting activists from across the country who may be members of VTUSA can not be critical of Greg Palast?

There is a vast difference between the organization taking a public stance for or against a person, which is, after all, what Mr. Palast is, a person not an infallible god to whom the world, and every member of VTUSA owes total agreement and can not speak against.

And VTUSA certainly can not control the free speech of members. To ask for that is frankly unAmerican, so we can assume you don't mean that, right?

If you answer yes, you aren't expecting that organization to control the free speech of its members, then you have the answer you seek.

VTUSA, the organization, through Joan Krawitz and Warren Stewart above, emphatically state: “VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity.”

[Bill Bored]

20. Lots of groups support HR 550, VVPB and auditable elections.

Why do you only seem to have a problem with VTUSA?

Lots of groups received some funding from Mr. and/or Mrs. Curling.

Why do you only seem to have a problem with VTUSA?

Lots of groups want voter-verified paper ballots.

Why do you only seem to have a problem with VTUSA?

Lots of groups want auditable elections.

Why do you only seem to have a problem with VTUSA?

I think these are questions that need to be answered, so can you?

Frankly, this is getting a little boring, but if you have some answers or you would also like to direct your attention to other organizations that either:

a) support HR 550 (e.g., Common Cause, Verified Voting);

b) support Voter-verified paper ballots (e.g., The League of Women Voters);

c) support Auditing of elections (Common Cause, The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, the Association for Computing Machinery, the National Election Data Archive) or;

d) have taken donations from Mr. or Mrs. Curling (BBV.org, the DNC, Democratic Underground);

it might help us better understand what's going on here.

Finally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org
is a nonprofit group of passionate people — lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries — working to protect our digital rights. This not only includes privacy and First Amendment rights, but also rights to auditable elections. Maybe you should consider joining the EFF and applying your talents and intellect to their endeavors. Are you a member? By comparison, what you are doing now really seems like a waste of your time to me -- not worthy of your efforts -- beneath you. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll agree.

You can reach the EFF at their website. I'm sure they would be happy to have your help. If you really think it's a more productive use of your time to hang out on some message board like this, gossiping about Greg Palast and VTUSA, I respectfully disagree. I think you can and should do better Land Shark. Much better in fact. Don't you?

Peace.

[BeFree]

22. Bill, you must be bored

If you really think it's a more productive use of your time to hang out on some message board like this,

What a dumb thing to say. Geez.

[Bill Bored]

25. Well, actually I've found that my work on this issue is inversely

proportional to the amount of time I spend here. But once in a while I like to take a break and go down to the corner bar, don't you? :toast:

[Land Shark]

35. I'm back just now from vacation, ready and raring to go; BBored I advise

going further away than just the corner bar.

Jackson Hole, WY, eastern Oregon, Jellystone Park in the Wisconsin Dells (great with young kids), Yellowstone (coming back for more there). All great options and worth the price on your VISA.

But priceless is your 4 year old son wearing a cowboy hat with a sheriff's star on it pointing to the red circle with the slash through it on the bathroom door indicating "No Smoking" and having your son proudly inform you That "Daddy, that sign means NO SMOKE-RINGS," and realizing that, yes, it DOES mean no smoke-rings are allowed...I just never realized that before!

[Land Shark]

39. Bill, this is off-point, all my HR 550 arguments are addressed to all

you can see that there's no specifying vtusa in the threads going on right now on HR 550 such as the one started by Kelvin Mace.

There is only one group that has the Choicepoint issues that VTUSA has. Read the threads, it goes well beyond issues of funding. I guess you, unlike VTUSA, do *not* accept Greg Palast's veracity when he addresses VTUSA and Choicepoint?

on edit: Bill Bored you should read this reply that addresses why and when I got involved here: <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441779&mesg_id=441978>

[Bill Bored]

42. Palast, ChoicePoint, VTUSA

Land Shark wrote:

"I guess you, unlike VTUSA, do *not* accept Greg Palast's veracity when he addresses VTUSA and ChoicePoint?"

Well if you mean his *allegation* that there are "cutouts" within VTUSA somehow doing the bidding of ChiocePoint (e.g., lobbying or otherwise working on behalf of the data mining industry???), probably not without some proof.

This is not a defense of either organization.

I just want to see the evidence that the "cutout" argument is true. I.e., some trail of evidence that indicates that the stated mission of VTUSA and its leaders is somehow compromised by ChoicePoint or some other private entity.

So far, Palast hasn't produced such evidence has he? If so, please cite that evidence. This would have to go a lot further than simply saying that someone donated money to VTUSA who happens to be associated (by marriage) with ChoicePoint. That part is true but Palast's *allegations* go much further than that, don't they? He is suggesting that VTUSA is practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of ChoicePoint. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

So if he's *reporting* facts about the influence of ChoicePoint on VTUSA without having those facts, I'd say I'm skeptical.

If he's *reporting* on the source of a contribution to VTUSA by the wife of a ChoicePoint executive, he's absolutely correct and VTUSA has already admitted this.

I think Palast's assertion that there are ChoicePoint "cutouts" within VTUSA doing ChoicePoint's bidding is the part of his story that still needs some work. If he's NOT saying that, then I don't know what the story is other than that a private citizen with familial ties to the data mining industry gave a donation to VTUSA, along with some other causes to which, on the whole, most DUers would probably be sympathetic.

Finally, if Palast is speaking as a private citizen and not a *reporter* he can say whatever he wants and should not even be subjected to journalistic standards, should he? So which is it?

[Land Shark]

44. that story has not been disputed by VTUSA Bill, we don't have trials

and waste time with anything akin to that unless the allegations are contested.

Going through all the proofs, as many many have pointed out, takes a whole lot of time and distracts from a whole lot of work. So it can be a lot simpler to simply say it's admitted and let the community move on, provided they don't start contesting Palast's veracity, again.

How many people should be inconvenienced, hurt, or distrated so BillBored can satisfy his curiosity?

This is sort of like a settlement, not all the facts come out, vtusa admits the veracity of Palast's work. We can probably move on fairly soon, as long as nobody is going to pipe up and start contesting Palast's veracity, again.

[Bill Bored]

45. Far be it from me to stand in the way of progress. nt

[Land Shark]

46. Great, just remember: what Palast said is admittedly true.

Thus, the executive of VTUSA took money and then defended choicepoint. they don't believe it constituted "defending' or resulted from "influence" but we must take Palast's version as the accurate version that has veracity here.

No objection to that, then we can all move on. I'm not optimistic with regard to a few posters here, like boredtodeath for example. he or she may personally keep this thing fired for another month....

[Bill Bored]

52. BoredToDeath gives NO QUARTER but at least you know s/he's coming from! nt

[autorank]

54. Bill take a look, it's easy, it's been easy since the OP.

Bill, whether you've been to the corner bar or not, you must have read what was right in the middle of the OP about not challenging the "veracity" of Greg Palast. It's right in the middle of the letter Bill. Your questions are gratuitous in the extreme...right in the middle of the OP AFTER the Palast email was published. What standards of proof do you need other than that? The charges are acknowledges as true.

Time 1: Palast makes charges.
Time 2: VoteTrustUSA has no questions of Palast's veracity.
Time 3: End of story.

VoteTrustUSA says: "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity." This is AFTER Palast sends his email. There is no other interpretation than this - VoteTrustUSA admits those statements acknowledging Palast's veracity.

[Bill Bored]

71. So how do you square this with the first paragraph Auto?

Greg Palast has said there are ChoicePoint "cutouts" in VoteTrustUSA doing the company's bidding, hasn't he? I think without some proof of that statement, he may owe the good people at VoteTrust an apology. Once again, IF he was speaking as a private citizen and not a journalist, he can say anything he wants to. It's as if you or I said it on some message board like DU! It's not investigative journalism. His veracity under those circumstances is therefore not an issue. There is no standard of proof. It's free speech.

But if on the other hand Palast was speaking as a journalist plying his trade, that's another story. Then indeed he must offer proof of the "cutout" allegations which would indeed have to involve more than just a donation to VTUSA by the wife of a ChoicePoint executive, as Land Shark himself has admitted.

So which was it? Investigative journalism or just chewing the fat? They are not the same you know. It's a fact vs. opinion sort of thing.

[autorank]

84. Bill, wuz up?

First the good news. kpete keeps posting these stories in which Dean gets asked about electronic voting and he says, consistently, the damn things don't work, don't trust them at all, toss them in the Bay (that's a bit embellished). He's headed for paper ballots counted in public. My hope and prediction is that next he will put those with ill intent on notice that this time we will watch very carefully and seek remedies very quickly, all the time raising holy hell. That's good news. We could have a voice saying, forget ALL the computer garbage, ALL OF IT. Toss it, trash it, stomp it. I'm moved...

CANADA, LAND OF PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTED
AND DAMN PROUD OF IT, EH...HOWS THAT FOR A TOPIC:

Official Lyrics of O Canada!

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

With regard to this extended dialogue, I have a simple question. Palast's status when writing this is not the issue, although he's talking about professional issues. It is the CONTENT of his statement that draws full attention, a real scorcher. It stands because VT keeps saying they don't question his veracity AFTER the statement was issued. What's that all about? These are bombshells. Who on earth would want to see that leveled at you or your organization? Yet there's silence on Palast except to say he's quite a truth teller. "Furthest from him is best" but it doesn't make any sense. It's like the dog that didn't bark. I've made the point clearly enough so I'll "seek opportunities elsewhere" in a bit.

What's Tasini going to poll against Hillary, btw. I saw a Zogby with 1/3 support for her 1/3 for a generic opponent, and 1/3 undecided/to drunk to respond. That's not good news. I wish I had the dough, I'd match her dollar for dollar in his behalf and turn it into some real democracy.

[Bill Bored]

131. Tasini is cool! nt

[Cookie wookie]

102. Um, we never questioned Palasts veracity

does not = we think Palast is 100% correct.

That conclusion doesn't follow logically. It means nothing more than that they never questioned his veracity (meaning questioning whether he is truthful or not).

If say, you don't question Land Shark's veracity, it may mean you trust Land Shark's veracity, you have no reason to doubt Land Shark's veracity, or that you haven't entertained the idea of whether or not Land Shark is truthful.

Land Shark has never posted any documentation proving that VTUSA, the organization, questioned the truthfulness of Palast. VTUSA has never posted any documentation of anything published by the organization relating to Palast's veracity one way or the other.

[Wilms]

105. I take it you got good grades in college logic.

:D

[Cookie wookie]

115. It doesn't hurt to make an effort to use a little logic

even at DU, does it? Especially when the stakes are so high.

After all, the organizations and people being attacked -- VTUSA, GAVV, even BBV, the Curlings (in their role as supporters of progressive causes) and Mrs. Curling as an activist for vvpb -- have been effective, hard working agents for getting secure, transparent, verifiable elections. Losing or damaging their ability to function in this sphere would be greatly felt all around.

For anyone working in this area, there is a real deficit in hands, minds, and money working out their pitching in. Every loss is magnified. I remember when we lost one major worker here in GA because this person was so worn down by accusations from Bev Harris of being involved in a Qui Tam lawsuit. This person has never come back (and also used to be a great poster and worker on the issue here at DU).

So, let's at least take the time to consider the impact to our goals by these accusations and bother to use a little "college level" logic when trying to figure out fact from fiction.

[Febble]

120. Yeah, there seems to be a problem around here

with excluded middles. Not for the first time.

"He who is not for us is against us". Um, no.

[Cookie wookie]

129. I might add that my family calls me

"Dr. Spock".

[Bill Bored]

130. You mean Mr. Spock?

Well I suppose this could all boil down to Palast making what he considered to be truthful statements about VoteTrustUSA based on the information he had available to him at the time, which was probably not a whole hell of a lot.

BTW the definition of veracity is: unwillingness to tell lies.

I think that about clears things up, doesn't it?

(Although it would also be helpful to be willing to tell truths.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

133. Cookie Wookie and Bill Bored

thank you for running the logic and accuracy tests on this.

Some of us, I guess I'll speak for myself - are just not as good
as dissecting such an emotional issue.

Some folks mean well, and it doesn't come out right.

I suppose I will wait for you to come along and help
when things get in such a muddle.

thank you again.

[Cookie wookie]

154. Bill Bored: "You mean Mr. Spock?"

Yes -- definitely am not known for giving advice to family on potty training!!
Synapses misfiring. Thanks.

[livvy]

14. Thank you, hedda_foil.

[BeFree]

16. Yes

Thank you for trying to sort this out. As I am sure you are aware we are an investigative bunch. And you must admit there are some very good questions laid out here. I gotta tell ya VTUSA is one of my fav sites for voting info.

And as an activist myself, I know what it is like to be hit with questions from all sides of an issue, so I feel for yall being in the spotlight for something you may have nothing to do with, but there are those questions, eh?

I hope you feel free enough to continue to tell your side here.

Peace, BeFree

[bleever]

21. Thank you

for this statement.

I wish to express my appreciation for VTUSA's work, hedda's place at DU, and the willingness to have dialogue about thorny, aggravating issues that we have amongst ourselves.

[autorank]

24. "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity." OP

Here is some of Greg Palast's veracity, from his public email in this thread.

We are now through the looking glass with VoteTrustUSA denying behavior in behalf of and relationships with Choicepoint, on the one hand, and, on the the other, saying that all of the material below by Greg Palast is true since

"VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast's veracity."

If you don't question his veracity, then his statements right below yours must be believed.

Are you sure you want to maintain your support for Greg Palast's veracity?

I can't imagine how VoteTrustUSA could do so and stay in business.

VoteTrustUSA (Joan Krawitz, OP):

"nor do any donor’s contributions, ... have any such influence"

Greg Palast (email to DU) which, by the original post (OP), VoteTrustUSA lets stand without challenge:

"And the effect followed the cash: After taking loot from the wife of the CEO of ChoicePoint, VoteTrustUSA's executive immediately ran to the defense of ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls. The company testified their executives KNEW the list used by the state included, in their own words, "those who are not felons" ... that is, they watched thousands lose their civil rights, an election stolen, and pocketed the millions."

We must accept Palast because we are told by the OP, "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity."

VoteTrustUSA (Joan Krawitz):
http://tinyurl.com/qv6w6

"...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."

Greg Palast (email to DU) which, by the OP, VoteTrustUSA lets stand without challenge:

"I don't mind debating with ChoicePoint (which they refuse to do); but I'll be damned if I will 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 publics trust."

The reference to "paid hand puppets" is clear and flys in the face of the VoteTrustUSA statement in the OP ""We do not support or defend ChoicePoint's business in any way."

We must accept Palast because we are told by the OP, "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity."

VoteTrustUSA (Joan Krawitz, OP):

"The mission of VoteTrustUSA is to ensure that future elections are open, fair, accessible, publicly transparent, and accurately reflect the intentions of the voters. VoteTrustUSA condemns in the strongest possible terms any practices that seek to deny any eligible voter their right to vote."

Greg Palast (email to DU) which, by the OP, VoteTrustUSA lets stand without challenge:

"This is not the first time ChoicePoint has purchased protection from pretend voter activists. In 2000, their cover was a group called Voter Integrity Project. What we have here is a case of old tricks with new dogs."

"VoteTrustUSA has violated the publics trust."

We must accept Palast because we are told by the OP, "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity."

What part of this is unclear? That's a rhetorical question. Everything is clear. For some reason, VoteTrustUSA "never questioned Greg Palast's veracity" even AFTER he made these devastating statements.

The record is clear by the telling admission in the middle of the original post.

"VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. I recommend that you immediately contact Greg Palast

before you continue pushing the old story along,
I recommend you get in touch with Greg Palast.

It may have changed.

[Land Shark]

29. There have been an apology or apologies to Palast, but he stands

behind what he said. Nothing's retracted by Palast. Were you implying something specific "may have" changed in THIS regard?

[garybeck]

27. the only solution to this mess

is for a rep from Choicepoint to respond to or debate Greg Palast directly.

if they skirt the issue, or lie, we can tell what's going on.

[autorank]

28. I agree with that 100%. Lets have a public debate. What a concept!

Sort of like real elections where everybody gets to vote with reasonable convenience and 100% compliance to standards of openness and transparency. The debate would be historic and would provide
a chance to really evaluate how each party stands up under the pressure of a full debate.

[troubleinwinter]

56. Good idea!

Let's DO talk about openness and transparency!!!

Exactly who is the person who donated $30,000 to BBV in a year? Who is that person 'connected to'? Who is that person's grandfather?

WHO is the person donating $20,000 to BBV that year? What are that person's 'connections'?

[fooj]

58. *****crickets*****

WTF is going on with all of this SELECTIVE transparency? Transparency is paramount, however, all of this "selective" bullshit is quite telling, isn't it?

[flyingobject]

95. here here, yes, lets ask BBV for transparency too

yes yes lets do have a talk about openness and transparency starting with

Black Box Voting Transparency Issues:

IRS said last week that Black Box Voting had NOT filed their federal
tax return that was due in May 2006.

Washington State says that Black Box Voting has not registered with them
as required by 501 C3s who solicit donations.

The so called 990 that Black Box Voting sent to a DU member
indicates that BBV did not pay payrol taxes as required by the law.

Randi Rhodes raised money for Black Box Voting - how much
did listeners donate? Oh, and did Bev thank Randi?

Who are Black Box Voting's donors, besides Donna Curling?

[BeFree]

49. Interesting about the VIP

Who is the carrier of this ill "reform" wind? One vector is the high-sounding Voter Integrity Project, based just outside Washington, DC. The conservative, nonprofit advocacy organization has campaigned in parallel with the Republican Party against the 1993 motor voter law that resulted in a nationwide increase in voter registration of 7 million, much of it among minority voters. VIP's founding chairwoman is Helen Blackwell, wife of Ronald Reagan's staffer Morton Blackwell.

Just before the November 2000 election, VIP presented its special Voter Integrity Award to DBT -- at a VIP conference substantially paid for by . . . ChoicePoint's DBT unit, the company that gave Florida the bogus list of 'felons.' Noting proudly that "DBT is the company tasked with helping Florida clean up the State's voter registration records," VIP then launched into a campaign to take DBT's Florida methods to other states. VIP announced it had "entered into an agreement with DBT Online to identify small communities with demonstrated need for similar pro bono voter rolls �scrubbing.' " Offers were extended to Pennsylvania and Tennessee, with Florida, the states considered toss-ups in the Gore-Bush race. (According to investigator Catherine Danielson, it looks like Bush won Tennessee the way he won Florida, through another odiferous purge operation.)

Notably, when Republican senator Chris Bond, joined at a press conference by VIP's chairwoman, announced he was introducing a bill to force Florida's voting methodologies on the entire nation, then-Senator Bob Torricelli stood with him grinning and agreeing -- which proves one can always find Democrats willing to attend their own political funeral.

http://www.topplebush.com/article13_election.shtml

[autorank]

51. Thank you. This is an excellent contribution to the rational dialogue.

This is part of our history as a nation and a movement.

I don't consider myself part of the new found "election integrity" movement based on a non partisan approach to computer weakness etc., although I think that is an important subset of a larger movement. I'm part of a long standing political movement to expand the participation and infleunce of all people in the political process which began with the English Civil War and carried over to our Revolutoinary War and various internal conflicts over EXPANDING THE FRANCHISE.


It's not about "the machines," this one or that, it's about fascism, or as conservative legal scholar
Bruce Fein said:

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counter terrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms. " Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan

It's about emerging fascism, tyrannical rule. Or as Vice President Al Gore said on January 16, 2006:

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." Vice President Al Gore, January 16, 2006

The struggle for voting rights started long before 2000 and lousy machines. The machine issues were outlined by Dugger and Saltzman in the 1980's.

The broader issues of voting rights have always concerned the expansion or contraction of the franchise and that have focused almost always on black Americans and new comers of all stripes, now prominently represented by Latino and Latina Americans. The history of voting rights violations is the history of race crimes, always, and sometimes of ethnic and class based crimes.

We need to be aware of our history. The VIP post is an excellent example of the benefits of such research and understanding.

Thank you Be Free.

[BeFree]

53. Thank you, autorank

I get this odd sense of doom after reading your post. Here we are squabbling about this or that little thing and meanwhile the steamroller flattens another pound of our rights.

Unified, we could persevere. Divided, we get flattened. They are winning, eh?

[autorank]

55. As it it is above, so it is below....

We're unified in reality...that's the strongest unity possible. When Bruce Fein and Al Gore start saying the same things, you know there's a problem. This is just one of many manifestations.

That's OK. We won't give up and we will demand the truth. It's a privilege to be able to do that.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[BeFree]

57. Privilege?

Not so, it is our birthright, this demand for the truth, it is inherent in any free people, for without a quest for truth, the liars become more powerful.

Is that not what we see from our society's general lack of the quest for truth when it comes to elections, Iraq, etc? Our freedoms are evaporating.

[troubleinwinter]

59. ./.

[flyingobject]

60. Are the DNC, DU, Orion Society, BBV.org tainted?

Are these organizations "tainted" because they accepted donations
from Donna Curling? ?

-The Democratic National Committee,

-the Orion Society,

-the Democratic Underground,

-Black Box Voting.org

Democratic National Committee

Donna Curling donated $23,000 to the Democratic National Committee during
the 2004 election campaign.Now this is something that actually causes me
to worry about ChoicePoint connections.

Is it possible that the Democratic Party is tainted by its connections
with ChoicePoint and that I should vote for the Greens or the Libertarians?
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=loc&addr=1507+Waters+Edge+Trl&zip=30075

The Orion Society

Donna Curling also donated money to the Thoughts on America Fund sponsored
by the Orion Society, an environmental group:
http://www.orionsociety.org/pages/os/media/ThoughtsInitiative.html
Does this taint the Orion Society's work on the environment?Have I now
carried this to the point of the ridiculous?

Democratic Underground

Donna Curling also donated money to the Democratic Underground -
does that taint the members of this forum, since donations are what keeps
the Democratic Underground running?

Black Box Voting

The original article that started this brouhaha:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11476

In this article, they quote Bev Harris of Black Box Voting extensively
denouncing ChoicePoint and people who would accept donations from them.

"That's called a stakeholder. If your husband is the President, you cannot
make the claim there's not a connection because your livelihood is tied to
that company," Bev Harris of Black Box Voting told Atlanta Progressive News.

How is it that Bev Harris is quoted extensively denouncing ChoicePoint
and at the same time took money from the Curlings?
Is Bev Harris tainted only if she fails to denounce ChoicePoint?

Ms. Harris states on her website that she was not aware of this donation.
Since Ms. Harris kept the donation for 2 years, until the fact became public,
is Black Box Voting.org tainted anyway?
Was she for the donations before she was against them?

Also see this regarding Bev Harris and her stewardship of
her organization's finances:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441426&mesg_id=441426
Several large donations have been made to Black Box Voting, does
that mean that they control the organization?

Donna Curling concern about November 2004 errors that mostly
benefited one party. Is she really saying that George Bush stole the election?

Then there's the comment submitted by Donna Curling in November 2004
about anomalies in voting patterns related to the use of certain vote
tabulation technologies: http://www.evoting-experts.com/index.php?p=65

"Anomalies are random, inexplicable occurrences establishing no pattern.
While the anomalies recorded across the nation seem random and without a
pattern - certainly one thing appears to be consistent - and that
consistency is that the errors always benefited one candidate" - not the
other. So I believe that would be an anomaly in and of itself! Comment by
Donna Curling - Tuesday November 16, 2004 @ 8:49 am PST "

There is always the possibility that Karl Rove was behind the
article that started all of this -- but we will never know that either,
because he is very good at covering his tracks.

I think the bottom line is that we will never know any relevant facts and so
the subject is a big waste of our collective time.

[fooj]

61. Are you suggesting that these posts are "selective"

in the quest for transparency? LMAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Who would have thunk it?

[flyingobject]

62. question for Fooj

how do you make that animated doo hicky?

I want one.

[Land Shark]

66. they should all return the money; but the main VTUSA issues are bigger

but there is no comparing a small contribution that is probably actually anonymous in the sense of not knowing it is choicepoint-related, with large contributions where there is full konwledge among leaders that it is choicepoint-related and where the contributor continues to have "input" as an activist to the point where she herself, to this day, "LEGITIMATELY" confused and thought she was "on the Board" of VTUSA, yet there is no such board. Thus, it would appear that there is some non-board Board of which she is a part, since she still says her confusion is legitimate. There is also the fact that choicepoint related reports get quashed or heavily edited by vtusa (even though reviewed by many activists) and Ms. Curling arranges for official Choicepoint responses to educate activists as to why they should not stray into choicepoint's official business. Still, the claim is made that nobody defends choicepoint, nobody influences vtusa, they just have the inside track at VTUSA, that's all.

HEre's where I called on Bev to return the money. Apparently, it was already returned by the time a couple days ago that I posted this.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441413>

This focus on mere contributions is a straw man and a red herring. Trying to make the issues go away by redefining them downward in importance.

[troubleinwinter]

75. Come on.

"contribution that is probably actually anonymous"

Come on... Bev knows who gave $30,000 and $20,000.

Why won't she say? Why don't you ever ask the question?

Has Harris "become beholden", started "to rationalize" (in Bev's own words)???

Why do you not wonder?

[troubleinwinter]

63. Get ready for

http://bilder.leopardus.de.nyud.net:8090/Terraristik/CanOCricket.jpg

[Land Shark]

64. The only reason you'd hear crickets on this is because you are

in the wrong forest, shouting for Bev.

I called for Bev to return the money, and it appears they did so before I even made that post. But, you check it out to your satisfaction. IN the same post, I pointed out major differences between blackboxvoting and vtusa in the Amount of the donation, Knowledge of the identity of who it came from, access to leadership, belief in being "on the Board" of VTUSA, and no track record that I know of (though I'm no exprt on BBV) of quashing Choicepoint or Diebold reports or heavily editing them.

Your points about Black Box Voting are irrelevant because they've returned the contribution they apparently didn't know about, because they recognize the problems it can create. On the other hand, I've seen no contributions returned from VTUSA.

I stand ready to help VTUSA raise some money once they Fully Disclose, return all contributions, and institute transparency and conflicts policies so that the public will know they are dealing with the First Lady of Choicepoint (or whoever...)

[troubleinwinter]

67. You made my point.

"blackboxvoting... the amount of the donation, Knowledge of the identity of who it came from"

You made my point. A donor to BBV of $30,000 and one of $20,000.... and we do NOT know the identity of the source of these monies. We don't know what level of "access to leadership" there is, do we?

Have you called for Bev to return THIS money? Have you asked for a complete public statement regarding the acceptance of these major contributions and the source? There is NO transparency at all regarding these large donations to BBV.

You don't seem the least interested.

[Land Shark]

70. I'm not OPPOSING you on it, either, I just don't have enough facts

I don't haul off and do things about other groups without investigation. That's one of several reasons for my "delay" in saying things or making cases....

On this case at issue in this thread, you, troubleinwinter, have been opposing me (though your personal posts are now more about BBV).

It's certainly reasonable to sit the bench until you have enough facts.

We all instantly had enough facts to take some actions about donna curling when she admits to certain things like donations.

Troubleinwinter, based solely on your post above, you COULD have a case for a question to be raised. I don't endorse you on that though because i haven't investigated it, but I don't oppose you either.

[troubleinwinter]

72. Oh.

You and I had a discussion about this a week ago. I provided the links related to this matter at that time.

The subthread is here, giving the links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1648234

"you COULD have a case for a question to be raised", " i haven't investigated it"

Yeah... I know.

"I don't haul off and do things about other groups"

Yeah... I know.

[Land Shark]

65. The part I REALLY like is where DOnna Curling advocates 4 Voter ID

at the polls.

As Greg Palast writes, the whole point of voter id at the polls is to be able to creat the Master File on everyone and hook it into voting. Plus it is a suppression technique. A certain percentage of peopel on any given day don't have their driver's license (or whatever) and this forgetfulness, bad luck, senility, and so forth is more likely to be possessed by seniors, the unemployed (stressed), the medically ill, the young and "irresponsible", and basically all of these demographics are Democratic demographics.

BUt that doesnot stop Democrat Curling of Choicepoint from strongly advocating for Voter ID. For the excerpt from her post history on this subject, see
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441420>

Donna said she would come back. THAT'S THE CRICKETS YOU ARE HEARING

[flyingobject]

68. your must not have gotten the latest memo - new show

Didn't you get the memo?

Word is that BBV.org is monitoring the computer scientists now.

Seems like a mysterious group of computer scientists have created
a "private club" that requires a "secret handshake".

No one knows what evil lurks in their hearts!

Experts have not yet identified the formula for the secret handshake,
but top notch investigators are working furiously at this very moment
to find out.



This is a suspenseful, intriguing mystery story where no one knows
who will be next. Did the butler do it? The maid? Or the innocent
looking grandmother? How many are up to no good?

A real cliff hanger.

Please check back with your friends in Branch Bevidian for
the latest target.

[Land Shark]

69. send it to me, i don't have staff devoted to monitoring BBV

I don't know if there's any effective way to tell you this, but you come off strangely to me to the extent you seem to assume or imply that I'm connected in some way to Bev or Blackboxvoting other than by occasional communications, probably numbering less than one per month in the 20 months or so since the 2004 election. I know you've got some issues to talk about there, and that's fine, but those issues are not with me.

NOr does the fact that Bev talks about an issue make that issue forever Bev. If it does, we'll certainly all have to shut up about Diebold.

[troubleinwinter]

73. "send it to me"

You had it a week ago to look at. A direct response to your "send me the information you're referring to."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1648995

[Land Shark]

76. Oh, if this is the same issue you're banging on, I said i'd review it

I haven't finished it yet.

I'm going to do some work on busby/bilbray, that will be intense, so it may actually impact my ability to get to this real soon. How long do you think it will take to review everything in your thread? If it's less than a half hour, it may not be too long from now.

[troubleinwinter]

74. Why don't you care about other groups?

"I just don't have enough facts"

Yes. Paul, you do. And have had for a week about the $30,000 & $20,000 non-transparent donations to BBV.

Bev Harris / BBV.org "990 filing"??????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436340#top

Bev Harris/BBV.org "990 filing" thread 2- NEW INFO!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x437826

Qui Tam $68,500 donation, BBV. Not listed in tax filing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x438498

You just do not care to look at them, and don't "do things about other groups".

Why is that?

Gee, Donna has an opinion? Most of us do. 'Scuse me for a month or so..... I have to go count up how many times I have disagreed with someone's opinion, starting with other DUers.

[Land Shark]

77. Like I said, I thought this was a different issue than the one I said I'd

review.

It's not a question of caring, it's a question of time. I'm not opposing you at all -- I've got insufficient facts to form a belief whether you are right or whether you are wrong.

[Land Shark]

78. But I could also apply the same standard to BBV as to VTUSA

and that standard is this, applied to BBV:

If BBV personally wrongs me (IMO)in a minor way I'll likely keep that to myself for the time being, as I did with VTUSA (until now), and not publicize it.

If BBV appears to be arguing for Diebold (for example) i'd make some verbal comments, I'd be against it, and I'd quietly not support it. Maybe run it by a few friends.

If BBV censors all or part of reports vetted by other groups critical of Diebold, I'd still not publicly go after BBV, but I would talk to BBV and ask what's going on, if I thought they'd listen.

BUT IF TROUBLEINWINTER authors a New York Times bestseller on election fraud that is critical of Diebold, and if BBV or Bev Harris (as an individual, supposedly) then says that everything troubleinwinter says critical of Diebold is a lie or something like that, or that the way one can tell if it's a lie is if it is or must have been authored by troubleinwinter, or if any known prominent BBV activists say similar things,

WHY THEN, I'd lower the boom on BBV.

and if BBV was also taking money from Wally O'dell's wife, I'll really lower the boom on BBV.

and if BBV took this money without disclosing it to the PUBLIC, I'd hammer BBV for that

and you know what? If it turned out that wally o'dell's wife thought she was on the board of BBV and said so in writing, then later said she was "legitimately confused" on that point because she does have some kind of policy or advisory role of some sort, then I'd kick the shit out of BBV

and finally, if these BBV bastards who were doing all of the above, had the audacity to say they NEVER DEFENDED Diebold, or that thousands of dollars plus an advisory or management role OF SOME SORT that resulted in official Dieobld positions being presented at BBV and adopted as the unvarnished truth was something that simply had "NO INFLUENCE" on BBV Policy, I'd be ready to think that BBV is no longer "ready for prime time" and perhaps needs to be put out of its misery as an organization.

But, I'd write to BBV, if all of the above were true, and I'd still give them one last chance to mend their ways. By admitting huge mistakes, fully disclosing, returning contributions, and practicing transparency and conflicts policies.

I'd even offer to help raise money to make up any difference, if they did these things.

Because, I am an openminded liberal who believes that people can reform themselves in certain situations, I do all of that. Others say I'm a fool to cut any quarter, under the circumstances.

But I do have another side.

So troubleinwinter, rest assured, you are 100% guaranteed that if you ever have a NYT bestseller including chapters on election fraud and people start beating up on you, I'll come solidly to your defense. If you want and all of the above facts are met, I'll recommend that organizational death penalty for BBV. YOu can absolutely count on that. I am a man of consistency and regularity. Just ask boredtodeath, who even placed exlax photos in an abusive post to make fun of that fact.

NOTE WELL: I didn't even say you had to be 100% accurate in your veracity, as VTUSA admits Palast is.

You have this in writing. I'll even send you a signed copy, if you like.

[fooj]

79. Boy, your little lawyer cap sure went into overdrive on that one.

Either that, or you are being fed the biggest line of crap there is!

Truth speaks for itself. No need to twist it or make excuses for it. People are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to handle?

George Bush said there were WMD, too. So what?

You seem to enjoy going on and on and on and on and on about virtually nothing. Why is that? People within the movement have uncovered many reasons as to WHY someone as involved as youself should be focusing attention on the what's important. My vote goes to cleaning up this election reform bullshit and then getting back to work to initiate REAL change. How can anyone with the best interests of their country argue that?

[Land Shark]

80. WIth litigation matters in three states, writings all over the place

I do quite a bit. All of the above posts were written while i was on vacation. Maybe 1 hour online per day, max. ALmost all day long we were in the van with no internet and no computer to write on.

But Sunday I'm going to start working on lawsuits regarding the Busby/Bilbray. If we lose, there will be other chances. But on the other hand, if we let our major organizations compromise themselves so thoroughly, there will likely never be another chance.

[fooj]

81. Good luck on the lawsuit.

That's a GOOD thing.

[Land Shark]

82. Thank you kindly. n/t

[Wiley50]

83. Goes for Me Too, FWIW n/t

[flyarm]

132. Sooo YOU'RE the lawyer that was on vacation that Brad was collecting

money for on DU..for the Busby/Bilbray litigation ...

good luck with the case!!

you say in your posting,,

If we lose, there will be other chances.

I would be sincerely reticent to hire an attorney who entertained the possibility of losing a case before the case began..but thats just me..I want someone who believes they will be the winner from the outset!

but good luck..

fly

[MelissaB]

137. Let me get this straight....somebody check me.

LandShark, who is taking the Busby/Bilbray case has ties to Bev, Brad has ties to Bev., but the lawsuit will no way involve Bev according to Brad. Right?

LandShark is trying to discredit VoteTrust, but why? It can't be about the damn donations. Donna donated to BBV as well. I'm not buying this.

Rigel99, otherwise known as peacetheonlyway, is doing the same thing. Why? What stake does she have in this?

Somebody please clue me in. Post it here or shoot me a PM. I may post the daily thread, but during the school year I can't read everything here. What the hell is going on? Does it all boil down to $$ or what? I really want to know.

:shrug:

[Land Shark]

139. And I have ties to Melissa B, troubleinwinter, and others

heck, troubleinwinter has even asked publicly for legal advice or information. It's been pointed out that I posted a grand total of 7 times on bbv, so my posts on DU numbering 2478 or more connect my "ties" quite solidly to everyone here! Its a small world you know!

[Boredtodeath]

140. There's only one question which matters LandShark

Are you the attorney whom Brad Friedman was raising funds to retain?

A simple yes or no.

[Boredtodeath]

141. Never mind. Answered already. YES.

So, there ya go folks........your money went to the man who is demeaning VoteTrustUSA because if they succeed, he has no case, and no retainer.

This is some really low shit.

Shovel some more Paul.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x443045

[MelissaB]

143. We're all related.

Inbred! LOL! Actually, these threads have become funny. I just don't know what the hell has happened to what I thought was a sane group/forum, and I'm trying to "figure it out". I might as well give up. My last free week could be spent wiser and "funner".

:hi:

[troubleinwinter]

146. I asked your opinion. I never asked your advice. Puhleez.

I don't care if you give a professional or a personal opinion.

Presumably you give opinions on this board?

I ask you about an organization that compromises itself in relation to withholding but not depositing employee's payroll taxes for a year, non-filing of IRS 990, non-registration as a charitable org while soliciting donations for 2 years in violation of law.

I have asked you if you are interested at all in the undisclosed origins of donations of $30,000 & $20,000 to BBV.

I have asked your opinion about small donors' money solicited and offered for election reform going to pay IRS penalties.

You have answered zero of these questions, commenting that you would perhaps answer after I write a NYT bestselling book, and even then only if the thread showing the evidence takes you under 1/2 hour to read.

WTF.

Hypocrisy: a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

[flyarm]

148. seems to me Melissa B, troubleinwinter, and others ..didn't refer

you to a case that you neglected to tell du'ers about while you were attacking another activist group!

where are the ethic's there ?? what kind of lawyering is that??

or better yet transparency?

fly

[Land Shark]

150. There was not any discussion until this past Friday 7/21

when i spoke to CA50 people for the first time, in response to a message I'd received. Emlev organized the DU stuff and (in another thread) confirms that another attorney was contemplated at that time.

[flyarm]

151. not my point ..landshark was refered to Kentucky case by bbv!! n/t

[flyarm]

152. and du'ers were told lawyer couldn't be reached because he was on

vacation...for the calif case...i think i remember that...can someone find those posts??

$10,000 was needed for lawyer...hmmm..lawyer was on vacation...hmmm

anyone have those threads??

fly

[Boredtodeath]

153. He just realized he fucked up

Clearly a d'oh moment

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[troubleinwinter]

169. Clues

Velvet Revolution "is a network of more than 120 progressive organizations", of which BBV is one.

This is what I make of it:

BBV is part of VR. BBV not donating to CA-50 litigation.

Bev asserts that she set aside a separate bank account for the Qui Tam "donation" she claims to have made (but isn't shown on 990, nor has the documentation of the donation been posted, as she promised would occur in May), for the sole purpose of supporting litigation.

On July 10, the supposed final day for the funds to be raised for legal council, Brad posts:

There is nothing that I know of which stops her from giving money for litigation. That said, she has not given any money to the efforts as far as I know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=439228&mesg_id=439505

Seems that on Kos she is now saying that the monies she claims are in the 'special litigation account' are going toward suing those who have libeled HER 'good name'! Neato. Election reform issues?? ...Libel suits!! Wonder what those many good people who have been subject to her attacks and smears think about that?

She is going after deep pockets!!! Diebold! Not suing over the issues.... suing for LIBEL! Yup, CA was sold down the river so Bev now has the bucks to finance a LIBEL suit against Diebold... fatten that ol' personal pocket.

No contribution toward CA-50 litigation, though.

[Land Shark]

163. that's a reference to the multiple lawsuits being contemplated now

at least two, maybe more. Plus, election contests are well known to be difficult, many attorneys don't want to take them.

[troubleinwinter]

135. "other chances", "never be another chance", hypocrisy.

"If we lose, there will be other chances." "

Is that also what you thought to yourself going into the Kentucky litigation?

I wonder if one of the "three" cases in different states includes this one that was just dismissed (I haven't read you write about the dismissal here).

"The Whitley County, KY 2006 election contest handled by Paul Lehto (referred by Black Box Voting) and a local co-counsel..."

Dewayne Bunch, et al vs. Kentucky State Board of Elections, et al

Published: July 14, 2006 10:33 am

Judge dismisses candidate lawsuit

Special Judge William Cain returned the order Thursday, giving seven reasons why he was dismissing the case. Among his points were that the petitioners did not act within the required time frame and failed to identify a specific allegation.
........

Lehto said he would have to confer with the plaintiffs to determine their plans for appeal or other options they may seek.
........

There were several major legal problems with the suit and Judge Cain found various grounds as to why the suit should be dismissed, Reynolds said. Most important being that the plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the court.

http://www.thetimestribune.com/local/local_story_195103349.html

"if we let our major organizations compromise themselves so thoroughly, there will likely never be another chance"

It's why I ask you about an organization that compromises itself in relation to withholding but not depositing employee's payroll taxes for a year, non-filing of IRS 990, non-registration as a charitable org while soliciting donations for 2 years in violation of law.

Hypocrisy: a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

[Boredtodeath]

136. Published: July 14, 2006 10:33 am

And Lehto continues to brag about a lost case.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm........

[flyarm]

144. if i remember correctly ..........

bbv was late filing many documents in fla after the 2004 election as well!!

Special Judge William Cain returned the order Thursday, giving seven reasons why he was dismissing the case. Among his points were that the petitioners did not act within the required time frame and failed to identify a specific allegation.
this sounds so familiar to me...hmm wonder why??

another question i have..i have been busy so i am trying to catch up here...

did Brad ever name who the lawyer was he was collecting $10,000 here at du for??

did he ever say BBV had anything to do with the litigation??

was it only last night /today that Landshark admitted he was such lawyer for the calif case..??


and Landshark was refered to the Kentucky case by BBV??
as per this: "The Whitley County, KY 2006 election contest handled by Paul Lehto (referred by Black Box Voting) and a local co-counsel..."

and this is the same man attacking VoteTrustUSA..all the while omitting this info to us here at DU?

do i have this right??

hmmm

sorry but been too busy to keep up with all of this...and it is rather perplexing..

and is this perhaps the reason Landshark hasn't said much about Bev Harris's tax filing problems ?

thinking to self...maybe he is taking notes for bev..
..oh silly me!!

fly

[troubleinwinter]

145. It's here now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=443045&mesg_id=443045

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Boredtodeath]

149. Does it surprise you?

He made scurrilous attacks on good people - there had to be a reason - a money motive.

[troubleinwinter]

155. "hasn't said much"

"...is this perhaps the reason Landshark hasn't said much about Bev Harris's tax filing problems?"

He has said exactly ZERO about any of it. Nothing. Avoids it at all costs. All of it. Every bit of it.

I call it selective blindness. Or hypocrisy.

[flyarm]

156. or invested???????? $$ and referals speak volumns sometimes! n/t

[flyarm]

157. ahhh but his comments regarding you speak loud

and clear, he has read it all!!

but never responds..hmmmmmmmm...............never mind...

fly

[Land Shark]

158. there are no referral fees, the KY clients are happy, and I've decided

not to provide committed detractors with free opinions or advice, at the present time. This thread I had thought was dying out so I wasn't checking back so often.

[flyarm]

159. thanks for your answer..n/t

[flyingobject]

165. so its ok? IRS says BBV didn't file its tax return?

donations went to BBV, IRS says did not get BBV tax return.

why?

[Boredtodeath]

166. Clearly, it's OK with him.

As long as he gets a cut of the funds.

[flyarm]

167. seems he doesn't want to answer questions about bev not filing her taxes

that seems evident..

he doesn't seem to have the same litmus test for accountability for Bev as he does for others...

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

seems odd to me..

fly

[Land Shark]

162. on your suggestion of hypocrisy

i think there's a useful distinction to be made between moving in the general direction of one's goal (like truly wanting to lose weight but sometimes eating more than one should) and professing one thing regularly while constantly doing the opposite.

Andy STephenson was hit with the hypocrisy charge, so I wrote about that here

We don't always succeed, but the important thing is to try regularly for that goal.

<http://washblog.typepad.com/main/2005/07/election_hero_a.html>

[flyingobject]

164. the real goal

the first sentence sums it up, but to any possible suckers,
see the rest....

The really difficult cases are people who are not overtly rude, but who manipulate or abuse the project's processes in a way that ends up costing other people time and energy, yet do not bring any benefit to the project. Such people often look for wedgepoints in the project's procedures, to give themselves more influence than they might otherwise have.

This is much more insidious than mere rudeness, because neither the behavior nor the damage it causes is apparent to casual observers. A classic example is the filibuster, in which someone (always sounding as reasonable as possible, of course) keeps claiming that the matter under discussion is not ready for resolution, and offers more and more possible solutions, or new viewpoints on old solutions, when what is really going on is that he senses that a consensus or a ballot is about to form, and doesn't like where it is probably headed.

Another example is when there's a debate that won't converge on consensus, but the group tries to at least clarify the points of disagreement and produce a summary for everyone to refer to from then on. The obstructionist, who knows the summary may lead to a result he doesn't like, will often try to delay even the summary, by relentlessly complicating the question of what should be in it, either by objecting to reasonable suggestions or by introducing unexpected new items.

[troubleinwinter]

171. Ugh.

"Another example is when there's a debate that won't converge on consensus, but the group tries to at least clarify the points of disagreement and produce a summary for everyone to refer to from then on. The obstructionist, who knows the summary may lead to a result he doesn't like, will often try to delay even the summary, by relentlessly complicating the question of what should be in it, either by objecting to reasonable suggestions or by introducing unexpected new items."

A long-winded way of saying:

"Try to baffle 'em with yer bullshit"

[troubleinwinter]

168. You claim to have written it?

OK. I would not know, as it is signed by someone going by the user name 'botch'.

There is an interesting bit in that post:

Given that transparency and disclosure were key activist themes for Andy, they are still straining mightily to continue to pin the charge of hypocrisy on Andy, as if it were the essence of reasonableness that a weak, jaundiced and dying man should account particularly for each penny received or hire an accountant when money is needed by a date certain to obtain a surgery. You know, the equitable and fair argument that if the government has to do it, then dying activists should do it too.

Evidently it will surprise you to learn that every penny raised for Andy WAS accounted for to the Washington Secretary of State.

The charity was registered in WA. MY SIGNATURE IS ON THE FORM SUBMITTED. The WA state form required to register can be found here:http://www.secstate.wa.gov/documentvault/ApplicationtoRegisterasaCharitableOrganization-1453.pdf

It would seem that if a few DUers out of state can manage to register with the state of Washington SoS for the $50,000 raised for Andy's medical care, that Bev Harris, with a million bucks and a 501(c)(3) and "an accounting firm specializing in nonprofit organizations" could manage within two years to register BBV in her own state, as required by law.

Ya think?

[Boredtodeath]

85. You just make shit up

Just ask boredtodeath, who even placed exlax photos in an abusive post to make fun of that fact.

I have NEVER, EVER IN MY LIFE posted a picture of anything to DU.

NEVER.

So, tell a few more lies LandShark. It's what you do best.

[BeFree]

86. Well

You must not the same boredtodeath who posted pictures that have been posted under the boredtodeath screen name? That would explain that.

Don't you think?

[Boredtodeath]

88. 'Fraid not

I don't even have graphics turned on - must less post them.

I couldn't see them if I did post them. D'oh!

[Land Shark]

91. sorry, the exlax poster was WillYourVoteBeCounted

and a related post next to it got deleted by the mods. But the mistake is due to the fact that I think of you boredtodeath as the worst offender here, thus the confusion on my part.

For example, you say that you are NOT Roxanne Jekot, but her relative. And you said that I had libeled you by calling you your relative. (others still maintain that you ARE Roxanne Jekot, adding to the confusion, like BBV) I'venever heard of anyone being defamed or libeled by being confused with a relative or a sister, so it just appears that you will take any opportunity to claim some kind of offense or problem.

[Boredtodeath]

113. You really are funny

and apply logic to nothing.

But that's OK because your agenda is showing.

[Febble]

87. Well, there's a difference

between a lie and a misattribution.

Though in my view, a misattribution becomes a lie if it isn't corrected after the error has been pointed out. There's been far too much bad referencing around here. Getting stuff right matters.

[Boredtodeath]

89. Facts? Facts don't matter to this bunch!

In case you hadn't noticed that little issue in your exit poll threads. :sarcasm:

[Febble]

90. Oh,

I'd noticed (incidentally, this one has now moved to the status of lie).

Pesky things, facts, like those nit-picky academics who insist on proper attributions and citations, and make a ruckus when they are misquoted.

Who needs 'em.

</sarcasm>

[Land Shark]

92. use of 'this bunch' and 'lies' and link to something about Dopp, etc.

she's not part of "my group" or bunch. is this some kind of attempted group libel, where you leave wide open the membership in "this bunch", link to an alleged lie, and pride yourself on your "precision?" (thus leaving open the inference that i'm somehow responsible for your alleged "lie"?)

[Febble]

94. No. Yet again, you have made an inference beyond the

range of your data.

You misattributed a post by WillYourVoteBeCounted to BoredtoDeath. BoredtoDeath accused you of lying. I entered a plea of mitigation - careless attribution. I also linked to a case where careless attribution had become a lie because it remains uncorrected despite the misattribution being pointed out.

I assume you, unlike Dopp, will have the grace to amend, or post an amendment to, your post.

And I am certainly not alleging your membership of the "bunch" responsible for the "lie". Actually, seeing as the "bunch" commended the "lie" to you as all you would require to "cream" me in a debate, I suggest that you note that it is, in fact, a lie. (We will draw a veil over the circumstances in which the "bunch" came to make the recommendation in the first place.)

Actually, Paul, I don't think you are a liar at all. I appreciate (sometimes) your persistence in keeping lines of communication open with those with whom you disagree (and who disagree with you). I have something of that trait myself, I suppose.

But sometimes you simply do not make sense. And sometimes you just Get Stuff Wrong.

[Land Shark]

100. well i've posted that no one is perfect myself included

have we found an exception to that rule in febble?

[Wilms]

103. Yes we have.

My dog.

[Febble]

108. I love that guy

and I don't even like dogs, usually!

[Wilms]

110. LOL!

He (and my first dog :cry:) have elicited that same response more times than I can remember.

And, I believe, deservedly so.

[Febble]

107. Nope, I Get Stuff Wrong too

and when I do, like you, I try to put it right.


(hence the edit)

Peace.

[garybeck]

134. obviously

BoredToDeath has a long history of making blanket statements and accusations to groups of people, all while hiding under a rock. people who attack and hide in this way have no credibility.

[Boredtodeath]

138. I think you confused me with your buddy

peacetheonlyway aka Rigel99.

[Cookie wookie]

93. These are weak arguments because they are based

on premises that are nonanalagous.

For instance, by analogy:
1) No evidence has been presented that VTUSA argued for Diebold or any other electronic voting vendor, quite the opposite (hope everyone who's been following this has taken a look at VTUSA's website)
2) No evidence that VTUSA has censored any reports by groups critical of Diebold or any other electronic voting vendor
3) There has been no evidence presented that electronic voting vendors have any relationship with Choicepoint
4) You've presented no evidence that Choicepoint is involved in elections other than that they purchased DBT 5 months before the 2000 election
4) "...says that everything troubleinwinter says critical of Diebold is a lie or something like that..." VTUSA has stated they have not, as an organization, critized Greg Palast's work and you've not posted any documentation to prove otherwise

and finally:
"NOTE WELL: I didn't even say you had to be 100% accurate in your veracity, as VTUSA admits Palast is."

Huh?

[BeFree]

96. Not true

1) No evidence has been presented that VTUSA argued for Diebold or any other electronic voting vendor, quite the opposite (hope everyone who's been following this has taken a look at VTUSA's website)

It is evident that support of 550 condones Diebold and the other vendors.

All 550 does is place a little regulation upon their product, whereas the rest of us know Diebold should be out of the election business altogether.

Not calling for Diebold removal can be considered as showing support.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

97. HR 550 - IS - Diebold Repellant

You said:

"It is evident that support of 550 condones Diebold and the other vendors...
Not calling for Diebold removal can be considered as showing support."
All 550 does is place a little regulation upon their product,
whereas the rest of us know Diebold should be out of the election business altogether.

A Little regulation! Really? You must be joking!

It seems to me that Diebold will be lobbying hard
to prevent the passage of HR 550

HR 550 is similar, but stricter in some ways to North Carolina's
tough election law.

Diebold fled North Carolina post haste in December 2005 when it was
made clear that North Carolina law applied to them.
http://www.ncvoter.net/dieboldnews.html

Diebold had a stake in NC, their touchscreen factory is there

Diebold Election Systems is the only election system company that manufactures its products in its own manufacturing facilities in the United States. In fact, jurisdictions in North Carolina have a special benefit when working with Diebold Election Systems because their voting systems are manufactured in their own backyard, Lexington, North Carolina.

HR 550 defangs any voting machine vendor who wishes to stay in the business.

It is seriously doubtful that Diebold would stay in the voting machine business
nationally if HR 550 were passed.

How could they?

-They aren't willing to disclose their source code.
-Their machines have wireless connectivity.

HR 550 is very much like North Carolina's Public Confidence in Elections Law.

Fact is, we in North Carolina who helped write this law, used HR 550 as a template.

Vote Trust USA's support of HR 550 is a clarion call for removal of Diebold,
and any other vendor who won't meet the requirements of the law.

Vote Trust USA isn't going to bow to this attack, nor stop their work.

[BeFree]

98. Then

VTUSA needs to say just that. You aren't a spokesman for VTUSA are you?

We differ on what 550 will do. There appear to be enough loopholes in 550 to drive a truck through. But might slam the door shut on us.

The difference between us looks like it is just a matter of trust. I have no trust in the way government is handling the whole of HAVA, or will handle a weak 550 amendment.


Now, if 550 called for an audit of every machine, that would pretty well lock the bad machines out, and put us in to be the eyes and hands to make sure of the transparency.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

99. the onus is on you

How about defending any of your statements or arguments with
some facts and some references, i.e some links?

Your opinion is just not enough.
I have read enough of what you post to gather that you want others
to do your work for you, i.e facts and documentation gathering.

You will find plenty of writing by Vote Trust urging transparency
of all voting systems, and plenty of documentation of the failures
of Diebold.


HR 550 is a stronger version of NC's Public Confidence in Elections Law,
and that in itself makes it a stronger version of
Diebold Repellent.

I have provided the links to that, but I see that you have not yet provided
any supporting links to what you say.

Or to anything that you say.

[BeFree]

109. Diebold repellant?

I want dieboldicide. I want the full weight of all the groups coming down hard on diebold. Giving diebold any quarter at all is a mistake.

Placing a 550 band-aid on HAVA might be a repellant, as you say. But we need more.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

111. "I want..." well no one is stopping you from taking action

Be FREE - if you really want change, there is nothing
at all stopping you from setting up your own organization.

The same opportunities and obstacles will be the same for you
as they are for anyone else.

The people in the different groups all have responsibilities,
jobs, lives, families and every excuse in the world to
prevent them from working on this issue.

So, please by all means, rather than making futile attempts
to steer other organizations (because it isn't working),

How about setting up your own organization?

you can set up a website for free or cheap
you can set up an email list serve for free
you can do your own research
you can write your own action alerts
you can hire your own lawyers
you can sue Diebold
you can base your entire organization on opposition to Diebold if you want


If you truly believe in what you say, then you have a moral obligation
to see it through.

To endlessly complain because others are not doing what you think they
should do - is a waste of time.

There is plenty of room for yet another election integrity organization.

Have at it!

[BeFree]

112. I want...

...you to say Diebold needs to die. If I can get you to say that, and VTUSA to say that, then I've done something.

Besides, my local situation is well under control. And had everyone across the nation had done what I did to help get rid of diebold, diebold would be dead, something like what you have done in NC. Good for you.

Now, if I can just get you to say Diebold Election systems needs to die.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

116. You want ... to do nothing

thats what you want, Be Free, to do nothing, but meanwhile
play critic.

It would be silly and irrational for organizations
to make their official statement what you want them or me to say.

Getting rid of Diebold is only getting rid of the symptom.
Yes, it would be good to get rid of Diebold, but that doesn't
end the problems caused by lack of transparency.

My actions are proven, Diebold left NC.

HR 550 would cause Diebold to quit all 50 states.

Do you oppose that?

There is no way that Diebold is going to expose their company to transparency.

Diebold is a symptom of the lack of transparency and oversight in
elections.

Getting rid of Diebold as it exists today is not enough.

It is completely short sighted to think that getting rid of Diebold is the solution
to our big problem. It is only eliminating one symptom.

Be Free, I have no evidence of any work you have done, or any remedies that you
claim would help all 50 states. You admit that you are not going to do anything to
address national concerns, but you still wish to criticize.

If you do have any solutions, it is your moral obligation to
put them into action, not sit and wait for someone else to come along

[Boredtodeath]

117. I wondered if others saw that too

Couldn't figure out why no one else was catching on to Mr.BeFree - activist extradionare who's only activism is to critize other's activism.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

119. you would hope that others see it

yep, its a bunch of wasted words.

If a person truly did accomplish something, they would have
a moral obligation to share it with others.

I thought only the voting machine companies were keeping
trade secrets.

Those that can, do, those that can't - try to tell other
organizations what to do.

[Boredtodeath]

122. Exactly.

Those that can, do, those that can't - try to tell other organizations what to do.

[troubleinwinter]

126. Haha!

"catching on". Uhhh..... critisism & and sewing upheaval has been a very clear and obvious hobby for quite a long while. Sorta entertaining to watch.

[BeFree]

118. Self righteousness....

..... is never pretty. I'll not brag about my actions and accomplishments, and you can't goad me into doing so.

We are proud of what you did. K?

And you almost said it: "Yes, it would be good to get rid of Diebold"

We're getting there.

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

On edit: I used to represent the Sierra Club on some issues. I found that getting leaders to take my point of view was easier than trying to tell a bunch of people who didn't have a clue. And a whole lot more successful.

I used to fully support 550. Then I took a closer look, and have agreed with Mark C. Miller, that we can do better. I have more faith in Mark than just about anyone else.

[Boredtodeath]

121. Correct, but.....undeserved self-righteousness is worse

And you are guilty of undeserved self-righteousness.

She can't GOAD (note spelling) you into bragging because you clearly have no action or accomplishments.

[BeFree]

123. And you won't goat me either! LoL

I know you'd like to know what you don't know, but know that you won't ever know. Unless ChoicePoint has me keyed up. They could, you know?

[Boredtodeath]

124. Not possible

Because you've clearly done nothing.

[BeFree]

125. Nothing?

So why fight me so fiercely? I must have done something.

[Land Shark]

101. the point is that diebold takes the place of choicepoint in the analogy

there need not be a direct link between diebold and vtusa for the analogy to work

[Cookie wookie]

104. How are Diebold and Choicepoint analogous? n/t

[troubleinwinter]

128. Diebold?

I don't know where $50,000 in two large donations to BBV came from. Deibold, ESS, Sequoia, GOP, Delay Foundation, Angels in Heaven on Graham Crackers?

I don't know. You DON'T WANT to know.

Why?