Greg Palast Responds re Land Shark ER Post on ChoicePoint/Private KGB!

[Land Shark]

Palast's email to me is in the box below. It's worth reading, on infiltration of election protection groups by Choicepoint.

Background:
I posted in Election Reform the following link about how ChoicePoint is engaged in conspiring with the federal government (i.e. agreeing to something illegal or untoward) via contracts to circumvent the Constitutional and Privacy Act limitations wisely placed on the federal government. ChoicePoint does so because Choicepoint provides detailed informational dossiers (at least 1.2 million paid hits in one recent year alone) to the FBI and up to 35 other federal agencies that the government itself could not legally compile on its own citizens. See detailed evidentiary links from law reviews and choicepoint press releases at
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=440200&mesg_id=440200>

Investigative journalist Greg Palast's new book "Armed Madhouse" continues in his tradition of breaking important stories like the 2000 Choicepoint "felon" purge in Florida (almost entirely non-felons). The man-bites-dog story that is the subject of this and other recent posts is the number of DU'ers who will rise to Choicepoint's defense, despite the fact that Choicepoint and other data mining companies doing a very active business with the feds is called America's Private KGB by Greg Palast.

Although Palast's latest view is that Choicepoint has evolved into a sort of "private KGB" because it engages in the above behavior (and more), several prominent election activists continue to defend Choicepoint. It becomes particularly odd when these activists who defend Choicepoint have to do so by attempting to trash Greg Palast, as well as attorney, scientific study co-author and election activist Land Shark (Paul Lehto), and any other activist who dares to critique Choicepoint's involvement in the election protection movement or Choicepoint generally.

As stated in the atlanta progressive article linked to in the post linked immediately above this sentence, there are a "surprising" number of election activists who defend ChoicePoint privately, in off the record interviews, and sometimes publicly. Public examples include those who trashed my OP link above. Apparently, this defense of Choicepoint extends to trashing Greg Palast in off the record interviews, such that Palast feels he has to offer to defend his honor and accuracy re Choicepoint in court if the campaign continues. Count me among Palast's supporters, as the above link demonstrates.

Palast, with whom I've had the privilege of speaking to only a couple times, has taken time out of his busy schedule (including Mexico City election coverage) to read DU and provide me with an email response to controversy in the thread above, as well as (I presume) Mod Mom's thread also in ER. It's clear from all of this, including Palast's response below, that people are having to pay a price for criticizing Choicepoint, and Choicepoint's activist defenders consider it important enough to honor Choicepoint that it is worth burning all bridges with Greg Palast, Land Shark, and many others.

Perhaps Greg Palast is right, in his email below authorized for Publication in full, that we are dealing with activists who are "cutouts" for Choicepoint of some sort. Certainly, if Greg Palast is right, any *effective* cutout would have certain indicia of respectability or they would never be listened to in the first place.

Also in the last 24 hours:
Choicepoint to Diebold to CIA thread
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x440298>

Choicepoint's President's wife funds votetrustusa and co-founds Georgia election group
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x440147>

You be the judge. There's the link above and its discussion, and here's Palast email to me which he said in the subject line I could post:

Thank you for a cogent response to ChoicePoint's latest smear tactics. When ChoicePoint pays Republicans, progressives are up in arms over the conflicts. But when, through cut-outs, they pay a so-called voter protection group, Rove's excuses come out of activists' lips. Shame. Shame. Shame.


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.


Arguably, ChoicePoint, because of its culpable knowledge, had more to do with the attack on civil rights and the theft of the 2000 election than Jeb Bush.


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 public's trust.


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.


I would welcome a public discussion with ChoicePoint executives, especially about my new findings released in my latest book, Armed Madhouse. But they refuse to speak with me on the record. In one of their weirder faints, the company demanded the right to defend themselves on the Randi Rhodes show on condition I not be in the studio. Randi agred -- and placed me in a glass booth just OUTSIDE the studio.


Mrs. Curling's money may not influence VoteTrustUSA. Likewise, Lockheed's payments to Mrs. Cheney may not have influenced our Vice-President. Nevertheless, these marital joint political accounts are the essence of conflict of interest. But the fact that policies and positions quickly align with the cash leaves the uncomfortable impression that Trust can be bought.

Greg Palast
www.GregPalast.com

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War."

Font Tag

[autorank]

1. Tell GregPalast Thank you from DU...Cool, back in a bit...

I think that this makes the point, don't you?

[understandinglife]

2. DU Homepage material. Recommended.

Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election.

[Hissyspit]

3. K&R'd n/t

[kster]

4. Thanks Landshark.........

Kick-n-Recommended...... and a :toast: to Greg Palast

[Hekate]

5. KnR. Thanks -- to you and Greg Palast. nt

[bleever]

6. What the U.S. govt. prefers not to steal, it buys

from Choicepoint.

Very convenient for those times when breaking the law is just too much trouble.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. If ChoicePpoint does our spying, we will lose the cold war. They suck.

The quality of the work they do is trash. They got their job by doing dirty tricks, not by the quality of their work, so, if it is any consolation, the secret dossier which they keep on all of us is likely to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

These bozos that have all of these welfare corporate contracts the Bush administration would never make it in the private sector, so dont buy their stock.

[tbyg52]

70. Not harmless just because wrong...

...think how much damage wrong information on your credit report can do.

[autorank]

8. No answer to my questions to the Director of VoteTrustUSA

I posted these questions, which are respectfully submitted, to the director of VoteTrustUSA.

They were posted yesterday.

There has been no answer. I guess certain groups are beyond questions as to their activity.

I'd still like the answers.

Questions regarding Choicepoint and VoteTrustUSA, no answer yet.

I must say that the lack of a response to these very reasonable questions has a strong influence on
my opinion in this matter.

I fully endorse Palast and find attacks on him by anyone totally unacceptable. Without him, we would
be years behind and maybe not even exist as a curious, questioning, and demanding group of citizens
who insist on free, fair, and transparent elections.

Thank you Land Shark and thank you Greg Palast and all the people at www.GregPalast.com

From Greg Palasts email ito Land Shark:

"Arguably, ChoicePoint, because of its culpable knowledge, had more to do with the attack on civil rights and the theft of the 2000 election than Jeb Bush." Greg Palast www.GregPalast.com

[kster]

19. Seems like reasonable questions ........nt

[LibertyorDeath]

9. Palast gets the real dirt on anyone he sets his sights on

in this case Choicepoint and their enablers.
He's one of the best investigative Journalists out there bar none!

Thanks for this info.

K&R

BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast

[EFerrari]

10. I'm so glad Greg Palast is on OUR side.

:)

K&R

[glitch]

11. Now I'll go hmmm. But when did Votetrustusa activists smear Palast's

investigative reporting? That link is still needed to complete this report. Palast wouldn't be at risk by providing that, since it's reporting on something they did to him.
Isn't that right?

"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 public's trust."

[hedda_foil]

12. For the record. The truth is the truth.

I don't know what you think you're up to, Paul, but how the hell you drew the conclusion that VoteTrust either slandered Greg Palast, who has always been one of my favorite authors,and whom I have always respected highly, or defended ChoicePoint to him (on edit: him being the writer of the Georgia article) is beyond me. As is why you saw fit to drag Mr. Palast, himself into your own private swiftboating of VoteTrustUSA.

For the record, Donna Curling is not on the board of VTUSA, as Paul Lehto knows full well. We don't have board members. She certainly does not influence (or attempt to influence) anything we do. The leaders of VoteTrustUSA are Warren Stewart, John Gideon, Susan Greenhalgh and me. We have all worked tirelessly for state and federal legislation, regulation and litigation to get rid of paperless electronic voting machines and to mandate Voter Verified Paper Ballots and audits. That's all we do and we have all virtually given up our lives and livelihoods to do so. John and I have given the issue our all for more than three years. Warren and Susan have done so for nearly two years. We are very proud of the work we do and the fact that we have done so with miniscule funding. Last year our total contributions were well under $50,000, and only a fraction of that came from Donna, who hasn't donated anything to VTUSA since last winter. We're in this to try to save democracy and we damn well wouldn't do the bidding of any company or person for any amount of money -- as those who know us at all are very aware.

Warren, Susan and I (who speak for VTUSA) knew nothing at all about it (on edit: it being the Georgia article)until it was published. We weren't contacted, we weren't told about it and we wouldn't have engaged in the behavior described if we had been. John was apparently called (though the rest of us didn't hear about it until the article was posted last week) but he certainly didn't defend ChoicePoint or say anything at all about Mr. Palast.

I don't know who is critiquing Mr. Palast's work to reporters or in public, but we have not done so at any time. Nor have we ever defended ChoicePoint as a company or the work they do. The only posts in these vitriol-filled threads that represent VoteTrustUSA are the two in Paul's thread that I posted under my longtime DU screen name of heddafoil and signed in my own name.

The question, Paul, is why do you want to hurt an organization that you know full well has done nothing but work very hard to reveal the truth about the state of electronic voting in this country, and has worked hard, constructively and effectively to change the sorry situation we have found ourselves in as a result of HAVA?

You were removed from the VoteTrust list for spreading disinformation repeatedly, despite numerous attempts on the part of many list members and myself to sort fact from speculation. Now you're doing it again in a public forum and dragging in a respected member of the press to boot. You've always been held in high regard by members of the election integrity community, Paul, but your determination to press some kind of perceived advantage and win at any cost is exacting a very high price from the very movement you claim to support.

Nobody here has been smeared except VoteTrustUSA -- and it's you, Paul, that has done the smearing (with a little help from a reporter who didn't bother to check out some of his facts)with what seems to be an unseemly amount of glee. What's this all about because the truth doesn't seem to have anything to do with your determination to swiftboat VoteTrustUSA.

Joan Krawitz
Executive Director
VoteTrustUSA

[Jose Diablo]

18. Hedda, I followed the links

to that article in Atlanta Progressive News. Here is a quote from that article;

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

Please note: Curling endorsed and was cofounder of "Georgians for Verified Voting", the article never said Curling was on the board of VotetrustUSA. Where in the hell is that coming from?

As for contributing to VoteTrustUSA, so what if Curling did toss a little money into the kitty?

For me, I want links that prove VoteTrustUSA defended ChoicePoint. I don't see that anyplace.

As for Holcomb, just because he has a D behind his name, that doesn't mean squat in Georgia, look at Cox? If the Curling's contributed $1500 smackers to Holcomb, that right there would make me suspicious of him.

As for yourself, I have complete confidence in your integrety. I've been around here long enough to know you wear a white hat.

I need proof of sharks allegations of you and others in VoteTrustUSA defending ChoicePoint before I just on some smear campaign. I don't believe you did, because Palast way back right after that Florida deal in 2000 pointed out the felon purge as what put junior in the drivers seat. I hardly think you or anyone would have ever defended ChoicePoint. That though is out of the question for me.

I want to see some proof, from Shark. Maybe he read the progressive article wrong and jumped to conclusions. It happens.

Here is the link for anyone that wants to confirm what I am saying.

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html

Where does it say activists from VoteTrustUSA were defending Choicepoint and attacking Palast. It just says voting activists, for all we know the "activists may be from Georgia for Verified Voting. Hell those guys may be the ones that concentrated on the new Voter ID Law in Georgia rather than the Election Fraud issues. Helping Jim Crow back into legitamacy with the Voter ID Law.

Hedda, I believe you on this issue.

[Land Shark]

20. Here's the link to the quoted email in which Curling identifies herself

as on the "Board" of VTUSA. In every legal vernacular I'm familiar with the "board" means the board of directors or other chief policy making body of an organization.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=440200&mesg_id=440248>

in the face of the categorical denials of hedda_foil, Curling's statement is certainly curious isn't it? Even if some other kind of "board" is invented or exists, she's clearly implying a position of funding and influence and introducing herself as such. And, if there were some other board besides board of directors, it would mean that the categorical denials of Curling involvement in VTUSA would be misleading at best.

I'm flattered that some would think that i could somehow drag Greg Palast into this, as if I or anyone has the power to control Mr. Palast and drag him into a personal dispute of some sort. But, his work FAR predates me, is FAR more detailed and researched, and he's the one making the most important statements in the box below.

most importantly, the response that suggests that this is somehow personal to me entirely ignores the HUGE issues presented by Choicepoint, here. This is WAY bigger than little old me.

I'm not your straw man, in other words. Look at what Palast says. he's the man, here.

[Pastiche423]

26. Why don't you answer Joan's question?

Why are you trying to swiftboat VoteTrustUSA?

Many of us that have known her and her work for years would really like to know.

[AmBlue]

37. Paul, what you're doing is despicable.............

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go do something productive, would you? REALLY.

[Land Shark]

51. No, it hasn't messed up my speaking tour ...

Autorank has some useful posts in this thread that focus on the actual issues regarding Choicepoint. It seems that people want to ignore that Greg Palast even exists in the OP, since his points are not being addressed and they are considerable in number and scope.

As far as speaking goes, I'm litigating election fraud with bipartisan clients in Kentucky, in addition to my suit in washington state, and also today in fact I'll be on air america phoenix with Sen. John Edwards, Actress Mimi Kennedy and several others, like Bruce Odell Lora Chamberlain, Greg Palast and Bev Harris. It's the show described as follows:

"Action Point exists to bring a new dimension to talk radio. Solution Politics - the who, what, when, where, and how of people taking back the democratic process from extremist special interests. Thought-provoking questions discussed by nationally recognized guests bring urgent issues to the forefront.. Cynthia Black demands Action Points from callers and guests to outline effective solutions for derailing the right-wing agenda. - Cynthia Black
July 16, 2006: They'll Steal It By Flipping
We'll look at electronic voting machines, their checkered past and questionable future in US elections--especially how partisan forces could (and will?) use those weaknesses to steal your vote in 2006 and beyond...!
LISTEN LIVE - http://aaphx.com/stream.php

So yes, I continue to work hard at what I can, as I know you do too.

The problem is, the chosen vehicle for some of your work or "our" collective work is fatally flawed, and that threatens us all. This has been hashed over "privately" more than once at length. I understand the desire to shoot the messenger because the last thing we all need, it seems, is something else to slow down the process. But the issue is choicepoint, it's a serious one, and please reread greg palast's email above.

Note in particular autorank's proposed response from VTUSA. How simple it might be to disavow and cut all ties to Choicepoint. the more these simple actions are resisted, the more apparent the unhealthiness of the choicepoint relationship becomes.

again, why or how does the issue become me? that doesn't address the larger issues. I'm not even a whistleblower with respect to Curling because that info has been out for some time, yet Im hearing some grief for not keeping this choicepoint connection confidential along with the other vtusa emails. What's the response of you and/or VTUSA to greg palast?

[AmBlue]

72. So, are you also using your "appearances"

To spread lies and disinformation???

There's been no attack of Greg Palast or defense of Choice Point by VTUSA and you know it, or we'd see the evidence of it.

Hell, you don't even have proof that the letter from Greg Palast is real and neither does anyone else here. I haven't seen it. We should just take your word for it? I don't think so.

[Land Shark]

83. here's some more discussion regarding Palast including comments

by a director of vtusa that palast "knows the facts" but "continued the lie"
<http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125>

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie.

You're saying I've fabricated an appearance by Greg Palast that is not real? Please advise what the "proof" that the letter was real would consist of, to your satisfaction.

on edit: I don't agree with the quoted comments and don't want to continue on but certain people keep calling for this and claiming that there's been no choicepoint defense or palast-bashing and taunting on this issue as if there was nothing to it. Not true. The person quoted does a lot of good work, but again the focus is on the choicepoint defense.

[Wilms]

84. You are calling that post a "defense" of ChoicePoint?

Seems John, even if he's wrong, is trying to explain the reality of the situation.

So if I say Saddam gives me the creeps I'm a Bush/war supporter?

I thought 101 Logic was a pre-req for law school. No?

Come now, LS. You're a million times better than that.

[Land Shark]

91. that's an accusation of intentional lying, something to be taken seriously

Like i said before, there have been regular suggestions in this thread that no one ever defended choicepoint or attacked Palast. These assertions are not in accordance with the truth.

Perhaps they should be overlooked, that's worth considering, but the allegation has been that statements WERE NEVER MADE negative to Palast, and that's not true.

[Wilms]

92. Probably because no one defended choicepoint or attacked Palast.

YOU, sir, have chosen to characterize it that way.

BIG difference to this juror.

I'm not buying it, LS.

[Amaryllis]

110. People have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence, links,

quotes that VT has defended Choicepoint or attacked Palast and you have provided none.

[troubleinwinter]

100. John Gideon

from the link, posted in FEBRUARY

John Gideon Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006

This is BS. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that Donna Curling is NOT on the Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. In fact, there is NO Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. Get your facts correct before you make statements, please. You will have a lot more credibility when you check your facts first.

As usual you also continue to use a wall paper paste brush to paint an oil painting. Neither Doug Curling, Donna Curling, or a "Curling Foundation" are funding VoteTrustUSA. Yes, Donna kindly helped us pay for a conference last year. So did other funders. Donna has made it crystal clear that the funds were hers and not from any other source. VoteTrustUSA, unlike some groups, relies on funds from the citizens and the blood, sweat, and, at times, tears of it's volunteers.

Get your facts straight and quit trying to involve other organizations in your vendetta.

[MelissaB]

103. Let me get this straight...

The idea that Donna Curling is on the Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA came from Bev and BBV?

Yeah, I scanned that thread, and that's what it sounds like to me.

[troubleinwinter]

113. I have no clue

where the idea came from, whether Bev made it up or it came from elsewhere.

But clearly, it was stated TWICE in FEBRUARY (same link/thread on BBV) that it was bullshit, wrong, incorrect.

Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006
John Gideon

Again, there is NO board of directors of VoteTrustUSA. If Bev had asked someone would have told her that.

Even today, the same shitlie is being spread.

[Boredtodeath]

118. Absofuckinglutly. Wanna know why?

Because Bev Harris and VTUSA were competing for the same grant funds.

Wanna bet that's EXACTLY where this is coming from?

Read the original article which started it all - Bev Harris is quoted extensively with the same lies she told months ago. And, now she has a partner in crime.

[troubleinwinter]

123. and/or....

maybe she is 'projecting'. Accusing others of what she herself is doing.

How 'bout that single source $30,000 that BBV got that we know nothing about?

[Amaryllis]

107. WHAT ties with Choicepoint? I have seen no evidence whatsoever of

ANY VT ties with Choicepoint.

And you have not answered repeated questions for you to provide a any evidence or quotes or links that VT has ever defended CHoicepoint or that they have ever trashed Greg's work. Yet you write to Greg making statements that they have defended Choicepoint and trashed his work. Where is your proof, your evidence? Links? Quotes? Statements?

[Land Shark]

147. we clarified some things on the phone, the main one of which is

that I did not solicit greg palast's opinion, the email arrived in my inbox as a major surprise to me.

I guess that helps explain why some people were inexplicably thinking that I was playing the Palast card in some sense, but it fell out of the sky from my perspective.

this means that there is a totally independent source of facts here: Greg Palast. I hadn't done or said anything on this issue or vtusa for many weeks, then i see the atlanta progressive link and the mod mom thread....

[Amaryllis]

108. Paul, would you address this please?

AmBlue's statement: NOWHERE has any member of VTUSA EVER defended ChoicePoint or their actions. NOWHERE has any member of VTUSA attacked Mr. Palast and, as far as I can see, you have shown no evidence of either allegation.

Where is your proof? Links? Quotes?

[fooj]

119. Hear that?

"crickets"

[Land Shark]

149. Do you have the authority to allow me to "release" any and all

allegedly "confidential" or trade secret vtusa emails I see fit? Asking these kinds of questions is unfair (under your view of the situation) because on the one hand you demand public disclosure of evidence, and on the other hand you (and others) assert the alleged confidentiality of emails. (and ask or demand that i stop posting as well)

unless you're saying you've got the authority to execute a waiver of the alleged confidentiality of those emails, or else you don't believe that they are confidential, you shouldn't be asking me to post things.

[Wilms]

156. You snipped from Curling's email.

What's the difference? :shrug:

[Land Shark]

158. that email was already out in the public some time ago

that's the difference.

[troubleinwinter]

157. Ah, ya know the saying...

"Backup yer bullshit or back off."

[Land Shark]

222. Isn't the First Lady of Choicepoint a "member of VTUSA"?

Are you saying that EVEN SHE "never defended Choicepoint" even though her husband heads the company?

[Jose Diablo]

55. OK, so instead of the published article

in Atlanta Progressive News as to the source of saying Curling is "on the board" of VoteTrust", you now trot-out an e-mail from a "Marie Adam" posted on a message board. Am I to believe this is a reliable source for your allegation that Curling is on the board of VoteTrust. Crap, anyone could post under any name on a message board.

And now, since you have already damaged Hedda's integrity and also VoteTrust's, with an attack without any facts, you now are skillfully attempting to deflect any response to Greg Palast, in-effect saying 'it's not me saying this, it's Palast'.

I don't think anyone that takes the time to look into what your saying is fooled.

This is so much horse manure you are trying to shovel around here. In fact, all this sounds so, Harris.

Did you, yourself have a falling out with VoteTrust over a completely different set of reasons? Is this attack a result of something else? I am suspicious of your motives on this deal. I am curious about yor working relationship with VoteTrust, if any.

[Land Shark]

57. it's not a msg board it was an email, with subsequent discussion

[Jose Diablo]

59. Do you have the message header from the original e-mail

I want to see the source of the original message. Is it Curling herself that makes the claim of being a "co-founder and on the board" of VoteTrust or someone else?

Still, saying a paste of a e-mail message to a message board is hardly what I would call a reliable source for information.

Edit to add: This all sounds so 60ish cointelpro. Now what about your relationship with your co-workers? Let's get to the bottom of all this hoopola.

[Boredtodeath]

68. I asked for it yesterday

He told me to Google.

He cannot back up his assertions.

The only unanswered question is why Paul is swiftboating DEMOCRATIC activists.

[adarling]

205. your a sad person with no "real" facts to back anything up

you belong on Olbermann's worse person in the world for making stuff up and trying to ruin a great organization and a woman who is probably doing whatever she can to get this man out of office.

[Land Shark]

214. please see replies 207-212; Palast must be more sad than I am n/t

[Land Shark]

25. this issue is way bigger than me

for now i'll just "take the hits' and let the focus get back to choicepoint and its role in our organization(s). I may weigh in later to post a joan letter or email or two that will differ from the spin she's putting on it above. But that, right now, would just distract from Choicepoint. Choicepoint. Choicepoint.

Read Palast's email again please.

[EFerrari]

30. I don't understand why you would make Paul the issue..

Why the all out personal attack?

Aren't we one team here?

How is that useful, Joan?

[autorank]

33. You make a good point. The issue goes from who influences VT to Paul

very quickly. The charge of "disinformation" by Krawitz is really awful and not to be believed under any circumstances.

It's not about trusting one person or an organization, it's about who is influencing our tiny, new movement, as it were. If we have groups blithely connecting with the likes of Choicepoint and what they represent, we need to know this and how extensive this is, as in total dollar amounts consumed by VoteTrustUSA. This has not been answered on the other thread.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. The fifth column here is disgusting beyond words. It oughtn't

to be. Neocons do what neons do. But the treachery of such "sleepers" is difficult to take. It does show how extraordinarily devious they are.

[troubleinwinter]

74. Total dollar amounts

"it's about who is influencing our tiny, new movement, as it were. If we have groups blithely connecting with the likes of Choicepoint and what they represent, we need to know this and how extensive this is, as in total dollar amounts consumed by VoteTrustUSA."

Great idea. Since Land Shark is going to be on Air America today with Bev Harris, perhaps he'll ask her just WHAT SINGLE entity/individual gave $30,000 to BBV in it's first year (three $10,000 donations from ONE source, according to Bev) (as shown on BBV 990 Schedule A)?

"...what they represent... how extensive this is, as in total dollar amounts..."

[Land Shark]

81. I was on with Bruce o'dell in a different section (after Bev left)

but feel free to send me the information you're referring to.

[troubleinwinter]

85. Certainly.

Since Bev Harris was a prominent rock thrower in the APN article, saying:

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

Perhaps she'd like to talk about the following:


From the BBV website:

"One entity has made three $10,000 grants over a one-year period." http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/6738.html

Perhaps Bev would like to explain who the donor is, and if she has become "beholden", if there are "expectations" or if she has begun to "rationalize". She seems to know a lot about it while smearing an elections reform org.

Here are the threads:

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

[troubleinwinter]

128. You said to feel free to send it.

You did not indicate that you would look at it.

Shall I expect it to be ignored?

[Land Shark]

133. that's detailed info, so no instant response

[troubleinwinter]

134. I did not request an "instant response"

I asked if it would be ignored.

[fooj]

75. It is painfully obvious to me that WE are NOT ALL on the same team.

I mean...come on. Who posted this thread? WTF is going on around here?

Why the all out personal attack?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see WHO is attacking WHO on this thread. What's up with that?


Quite frankly, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I've been waiting for this bullshit to start rolling downhill. Let me say that it REEKS from every angle. "Swiftboating" and "projection" is straight out of the Rove playbook. I find THAT useful to remember. Always. Enough said.

[hedda_foil]

80. Thank you, fooj.

[adarling]

206. agreed...this is rove playbook all the way and people should be

ashamed of themselves.

[Land Shark]

215. Palast is the first one to reference Rove on this issue, don't copycat

[fooj]

216. Newsflash...Palast doesn't hold the patent on all things Rove.

What a snide, rude comment...not to mention pointless.

[autorank]

41. Krawitz – Palast - Land Shark: Response to Krawitz "For the Record" above

Aristotle said the art of Rhetoric consists of three elements of persuasion: ethos is persuasion by getting the audience to identify with you on the basis of your character; pathos is persuasion by eliciting sympathy for your situation from the audience through emotional appeals; and logos is persuasion through reasoned, logical argument. I’m concerned only with logos.

Palast’s comments on VoteTrustUSA and other comments on the various threads are important because VoteTrustUSA is important. Given the serious nature of Palast’s email, there are some questions to be addressed.

I want to comment on a few things you said to Land Shark in the post above (your comments are in italics, underlined):

”As is why you saw fit to drag Mr. Palast, himself into your own private swiftboating of VoteTrustUSA.”

This sounds a little like Salon.com’s Farhad Manjoo claiming Kennedy is under the thrall of Mark Crispin Miller and DU. Land Shark is very persuasive but how did he get control of Palast’s mind and pen? That assertion falls right on its face. It is inflammatory but not logical or reasoned.

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. Long silence from Ms .....foil..... I'm amazed at the temperateness

of your post, though Capting. This be the Spanish Main, and these be brigands, pure and simple! Mind you, they do say a scalpel can do mare damage than a battering ram in arguments....Cain't see it maself!

[midnight]

78. Thank you autorank for making sense out of all this for me.

While you have a much better handle on the details and the folks involved here, I was thinking that land shark was dead on when he said that VTUSA should just not have any ties to choice point.

[autorank]

112. I agree with you. "Why trouble trouble?" Thank you for the kind words.

It just doesn't look right and it seems Choicepoint is just one bad situation after another. It looks like the 'separation' process might be starting who knows. Free and fair elections is about ALL THE PEOPLE having a right to vote, knowing it was counted fairly, and being able to review/audit the process just as much as possible. There are multiple paths to that and the job is much bigger than any one person or group right now. Things should really start cooking after 2006. It looks like the elections will be a big mess, even if everyone running them decided to be totally efficient and above board. That will cause some real reform. England and Canada do all paper, all the time. There's no reason we couldn't do that very soon and still accommodate the handicapped voters, many of whom prefer to vote absentee anyway (upstate NY Board of Elections questionnaire, 90% want to continue absentee ballots over DRE's...boy HAVA was sure worth all the trouble).

Keep the faith, things will improve and then get much better if we just don't cave in to "the man";)

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Side question - You say VTUSA has no board of directors?

According to your website you have a leadership team made of people who are directors or this or that. Isn't that the same thing?

BTW: In order to be a 501C or other non-profit you are supposed to have a Board of Directors.

[hedda_foil]

62. Our directors are our staff -- not a board of directors.

VoteTrustUSA's staff is, as stated earlier, myself, Warren Stewart, Susan Greenhalgh and John Gideon. We are fiscally sponsored by a 501c3 organization that sponsors a number of other election integrity and activist groups.

Paul knows that because in the email discussion he points to, we immediately clarified Donna's misunderstanding. Several months before that, we had explored the idea of setting up a 501c3 to umbrella VTUSA and other election integrity groups. Previous to that, we had been fiscally sponsored by The Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics, a 501c3 organization.

The umbrella organization was to be set up in such a way that board members would not be able to direct the activities of any of the groups it sponsored, other than to ensure that the legal rules were followed and that due diligence was exercised. Donna was asked to be part of that (never to be materialized) board because of her dedication and commitment to our cause. The planned organization never went beyond the discussion stage because we realized that administering it would take more time and resources than we could afford to take away from the work of election reform. We applied for and received fiscal sponsorship from the International Humanities Center instead, but neglected to let Donna know that we had abandoned the idea of setting up the separate c3 organization. All of this took place well before Donna's post, and we immediately corrected the misunderstanding at length on that email thread, as Paul knows if he was paying attention at all, which he obviously was.

We aren't defending Choicepoint. We have never defended Choicepoint. We have no relationship with Choicepoint. We have never had a relationship with Choicepoint. I have rebutted Paul Lehto's charges against us because Greg Palast doesn't know us and is understandably responding to Paul's charges. We have never and would never attack Palast or his research and we have never defended Choicepoint or the kind of work they do. Paul and his supporters keep asking us to defend or disavow the company's activities. We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow. As I have said previously, I object to the whole datamining industry, in which Choicepoint is obviously a leader, and believe that the industry must be strongly regulated and the loopholes that allow companies to invade our privacy and sell our personal information closed, without exception.

What has happened here is Paul making totally inaccurate speculative leaps and false assumptions, based on an accusation in a local Georgia paper, to project connections between VoteTrustUSA and Choicepoint that do not and never have existed. I am addressing only those accusations because that is what is at issue for VoteTrustUSA. Our good name and good work are under assault because of these false connections and accusations made by Paul and conveyed by him to Mr. Palast, along with the falsehood that we made off the record comments supporting Choicepoint and attacking Palast to a reporter in Georgia with whom we never spoke. Again I ask Paul why are you so determined to smear our good name and why did you even bother to come to our leadership workshop in DC when you spent all the time there in an online assault on our own list (as well as on DU) against HR 550, which we were supporting? It seems you have been trying to undercut us for quite some time. The question is why.

[Land Shark]

86. compare these statements; one by Krawitz, one by a VTUSA director

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1648905>

on the one hand, Joan identifies the directors of VTUSA in another reply, and then states categorically (and despite the fact that it is PALAST who has made a career out of investigating where choicepoint and similar data miners' trail of evidence leads, but casts ME as the one pushing something):

We aren't defending Choicepoint. We have never defended Choicepoint. We have no relationship with Choicepoint. We have never had a relationship with Choicepoint. I have rebutted Paul Lehto's charges against us because Greg Palast doesn't know us and is understandably responding to Paul's charges. We have never and would never attack Palast or his research and we have never defended Choicepoint or the kind of work they do. Paul and his supporters keep asking us to defend or disavow the company's activities. We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow. As I have said previously, I object to the whole datamining industry, in which Choicepoint is obviously a leader, and believe that the industry must be strongly regulated and the loopholes that allow companies to invade our privacy and sell our personal information closed, without exception.

Now, using the link at the very top of this reply, you can find a director of VTUSA stating, as an example:

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie.

Didn't Joan Krawitz just write: "We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow."

Now what? A response that "there was never an OFFICIAL RESOLUTION attacking Palast?" Just individual directors attacking individually, or in some other capacity?

on edit: perhaps the better comparison is with the sentence above: "We have never and would never attack Palast or his research..." That clearly is in conflict with the statement "Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie."

just sayin', there's a little coverup going on here. Why not just say "oops, made a mistake it won't happen again?"

[Wilms]

87. So, to your mind, that post by John is an "attack" on Palast.

I think you got that wrong. And I think you should know better.

Now, did I just "attack" you? :shrug:

[Land Shark]

89. that post says that Palast is intentionally lying, you've said i "should"

know better. that's one heckuva big difference in legal circles, it's the difference between intental torts or crimes, and negligence or nothing...

I am NOT saying that this is Palast's evidence or the best evidence or anything else. People just keep demanding quotes and attribution, so here's the accusation made that Palast is intentionally lying about Choicepoint. A careful re-reading of the thread here will show that the existence of such statements by directors of VTUSA has been denied.

[Wilms]

94. I've f'in read it, Paul.

And to my pea brain, it doesn't rise to that which is worth destroying a movement over, let alone your concerned postings.

It's John Gideon your talking about. John f'in Gideon. You'll just have to pardon my appreciation of his work, even if he ain't an author the hoi-poli goes bouncy frog over.

Nobody called for Greg's head.

But hey, the summer is still young. Maybe the heat will get to me, too.

[Land Shark]

96. yeah, it is about 100 all over the country

but are you saying that Palast is lying when he says that he's been smeared by activists?

[Wilms]

99. I don't know what Palast is responding to when he says that.

If he's responding to your characterization, I've no doubt he's upset.

You running out of gas or matches yet? We're low on water, LS, and only you can prevent forest fires.

[Land Shark]

102. the atlanta progresssive article predates anything i've said

and to the best of my knowledge i'm not responsible for alerting Palast to people criticizing him. Yes, I posted Palast here, but he was upset before that, see the atlanta progressive article link.

hey what's wrong with my offer below?

[Wilms]

105. Again, I don't know for sure what he's responding to in total.

This has obviously been a bit complicated. Add in bbv's involvement and you have a barbecue.

Your offer is not for me to evaluate. I'm not a VT member. But if someone decides you're trying to coerce them...

[Land Shark]

225. I think i've answered the tenor of your questions in another thread

though I haven't re-read them extremely precisely:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441779#441978>

[Amaryllis]

114. "smeared by activists" does not allow one to leap to the conclusion

that he has been smeared by VT. How do you make that leap?

[Land Shark]

184. up until this thread, I don't know of any non-vtusa activist doing this

or criticizing Palast. Do you want me to drag in your own modest criticism of palast (certainly not a smear) as a support for the category of vtusa activists "criticizing Palast"? Or would you then cry foul? If you'd cry foul at any potential disclosure of that or perhaps of vtusa emails, then why are you baiting me to post? It appears to set up an unfair "win/win" for the side of the debate you are taking where you either exclaim that there's "no evidence" or else you complain about breaches of confidentiality (for emails) or misquotes (for conversations).

Even when we were working closely together, you criticized MY writing as compared to my speaking (and appropriately so, i suspect). I've no reason to believe you were incorrect in your criticism of the particular writing involved. Because you criticized me even when times were great, it's *ridiculous* to take the position that nobody at vtusa has criticized Palast. The only real issue is whether the criticism that's gone on constitutes a "smear" or not.

Clearly, vtusa activists (not all of them) are criticizing Palast, on choicepoint. Whether that criticism constitutes a "smear" depends on whether Palast chooses to quote his own smears or not.

[autorank]

137. You did just attack him Wilms. Sorry to say.

On edit: Are you a member of VoteTrustUSA? I'm not nor do I belong to any organization other than the Democratic Party in my County and State (although I'm going to join Velvet Revolution real soon).

[troubleinwinter]

139. THAT??!!!

:rofl:
Aren't we getting dainty around here!!

[autorank]

143. As per the rules of DU, I am telling you that you are on Ignore..

[Wilms]

155. Well in that case.

I hope LandShark is OK. And something tells me he is. Though perhaps he put me on his ignore list for that withering attack. LOL.

Makes me wonder. What does a shark do when it smells it's own blood?

Oh, and I'm not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party or VoteTrustUSA.

[autorank]

160. Well, that's good to know, aboiut VoteTrust. Shark doesn't put people

on ignore, I do but I'd never give up those graphics.


He's saying, "all will be revealed;"

[Wilms]

162. Just tell that mutt to extinguish the cigar.

There's still a lot of fumes in this room.

[understandinglife]

115. "just sayin', there's a little coverup going on here." Yep.

"Why not just say "oops, made a mistake it won't happen again?".."

Because they're a bunch of gutless liars. It's just that simple.


Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election ... (oh, and NO secret vote counting)

[mom cat]

141. You are not completely forthcoming about the source of the John Gideon

quote and have failed to mention some pertinent information.
John Gideion made that quote on the BBV site in his capacity as a Director of BBV:



"John Gideon
BBV Leadership Team
Username: Johngideon

Post Number: 213
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)
Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 05:18 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am again. No matter how much I try to stay away from here I keep getting drug in. It needs to be made crystal clear that ChoicePoint has not, does not now, and, they say, will never have anything to do with elections. They purchased DBT (DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES, INC,) after the 2000 election and it does not do election data bases any longer. The inclusion of ChoicePoint in this piece is incorrect.

DBT got a contract with the state of Florida and warned the state that the information they were putting together was not accurate because it included many names that did not belong on the list. The state told them that's what they wanted because they expected the counties to scrub the list. The counties didn't do that. That is NOT DBTs fault and is certainly not the fault of ChoicePoint.

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie. "

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125
I found this from following your link in an above post of yours.

In this piece, John Gideon was speaking as a Board Member of BBV, on the BBV site, yet you do not say that a director of BBV was slandering Palast. Instead you leave out the BBV information and only cite John Gibson's ties to VTUSA. Such misappropriate attribution weakens your case.

[Land Shark]

148. I figured the response would be to say that individual directors were

doing things individually or in some other capacity, and that vtusa had no "official" position on palast -- that this would be the attempt to wiggle out of it. Sometimes you can play that sort of shell game with corporations because they are legally different "persons" but it doesn't work that well with individuals because they don't have that legal fiction of separate personhood, its the same person all the time, just wearing different "hats". but those different "hats" are not of the same status legally as corporate shells.

[troubleinwinter]

150. Show one shred that John Gideon is a Board Member of BBV.

[mom cat]

168. You are correct. I misspoke myself. Actually, af the time of the statement

that LandShark repeatedly quotes, John Gideon was Not a board member of BBV. He was a member of the BBV Leadership Team and he identifies himself as such on the BBV website from which the quote is taken. Here Is what he said:
"Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 05:18 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am again. No matter how much I try to stay away from here I keep getting drug in. It needs to be made crystal clear that ChoicePoint has not, does not now, and, they say, will never have anything to do with elections. They purchased DBT (DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES, INC,) after the 2000 election and it does not do election data bases any longer. The inclusion of ChoicePoint in this piece is incorrect.

DBT got a contract with the state of Florida and warned the state that the information they were putting together was not accurate because it included many names that did not belong on the list. The state told them that's what they wanted because they expected the counties to scrub the list. The counties didn't do that. That is NOT DBTs fault and is certainly not the fault of ChoicePoint.

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie."
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125

Further on, in that same Feb 06 conversation (in which Bev Harris and John Gideon have an exchange of views)John goes on to make it clear that there is no board of VTUSA and that Donna Curling is not a member of that non existent board. Here are those comments:
"keeper?)
Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 06:48 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see why Doug's a little 'edgy' about this subject.

http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/org.opn.lists.local_activists/2005-March/0018 31.html

<snip>

Records show Smith and Curling bought and sold 458,600 company shares in
eight biweekly transactions between Nov. 9 — after the company had
confirmed the breach — and Feb. 15 — the day the company publicly
disclosed the breach.

The buying and selling by the two men continued in recent days,
even as Smith has been working around the clock to keep major
shareholders from running away.

Smith's and Curling's trading activity, involving ChoicePoint stock,
was much less frequent by comparison in previous years, according to SEC
records and an analysis with Thomson Financial.

In 2003, Smith and Curling each made only one stock transaction, and in
2002, Smith made three transactions and Curling made one transaction,
according to Thomson Financial.

<more>

I'll bet he wants that forgotten!

Pat A. Vesely ;-)


John Gideon
BBV Leadership Team
Username: Johngideon

Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 08:39 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bev disingenuously asks; "If you "discontinued all involvement with voting processes" why is the wife of Choicepoint President Douglas Curling on the board of directors of VoteTrustUSA and why is money from Choicepoint (through Curling to his wife) funding VoteTrustUSA? Has this funding for VoteTrustUSA and other voting rights groups been coming from Mrs. Curling directly, or from their foundation? If the money is from the foundation, has it been disclosed to the affiliates of VoteTrustUSA that according to SEC documents the Curling Foundation is a stockholder of Choicepoint?"

This is BS. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that Donna Curling is NOT on the Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. In fact, there is NO Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. Get your facts correct before you make statements, please. You will have a lot more credibility when you check your facts first.

As usual you also continue to use a wall paper paste brush to paint an oil painting. Neither Doug Curling, Donna Curling, or a "Curling Foundation" are funding VoteTrustUSA. Yes, Donna kindly helped us pay for a conference last year. So did other funders. Donna has made it crystal clear that the funds were hers and not from any other source. VoteTrustUSA, unlike some groups, relies on funds from the citizens and the blood, sweat, and, at times, tears of it's volunteers.

Get your facts straight and quit trying to involve other organizations in your vendetta." (same link as above).



This came from a link provided by Landshark, so I know that he has access to the info. Perhaps this will refresh his memory so that we can get beyond incorrect attributions of board membership to individuals for whom such attribution is inappropriate. I am certainly more than willing to correct my mis-labeling of John Gideon to the Board of BBV and will henceforth refer to him as a member of the Leadership Team of BBV, in which capacity he made his comments about Palast. I would hope that the failure to fully disclose the BBV venue in which the comments were made will be similarly discontinued.

[autorank]

163. Any unbiased observer would see this as defense of Choicepoint.

Poor Choicepoint, they're wrongly accused by the evil Mr. Palast of being part of that awful felon purge.

Does John Gideon change opinions when he goes to VoteTrustUSA? Probably not.

The sourcing is one thing (and I'm sensitive to complaints on form considering my inconsistent spelling;)) but the content is clear.

Mom cat, help me here. Why would any elections or voting rights activist go out of his way to defend Choicepoint and accuse our leading reporter on since before 2000 of lying?

Tell me if I'm wrong because this is very important. The quotation below is from THE
John Gideon, of VoteTrustUSA, BBV, and VotersUnite (the "Trifecta" of election integrity):

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie.

From whatever source it is a defense of Choicepoint.

For future reference, Little Steven on the Sopranos uses the line (borrowed from Godfather): "No matter how hard I try to get out, they always pull me back."

[Wilms]

165. OK. Ya got that folks?

If you don't see this as a defense of Choicepoint, you're biased. Never mind if it's true, arguable, or misinformed, the point is your biased.

Thanks for clearing that up, Auto.

[autorank]

171. A little more assistance for you. Look at this.

On second thought, forget about it.

[MelissaB]

167. Auto, I think I am an unbiased observer, and I don't see how HeddaFoil

or VoteTrust defended Choicepoint. A lot is on the line here. I wish I knew exactly what the heck is going on.

Maybe I'll become more biased and this crap won't bother me as much. Maybe it will all look better in the morning. I'm going to bed.

[autorank]

173. Go to bed. Get some rest.

The state ment is a really viscious attack on Greg Palast and it's a defense of Choicepoint by saying the claims by Greg Palast, NAACP, etc. that Choice point, during the time BEFORE the election when it owned and managed the acquired entity, DBT, did nothing wrong. It's obvious.

[mom cat]

170. I cannot presume to speak for John Gideon and won't try. I CAN

speak for myself. I am sick of the vitriol, the mis-statements and the rush to judgment on both sides of this. I am trying to tease out the facts on this. There are some questions that I want to see answered, among those are the ones you asked Joan. They are worded in a non inflammatory manner that is more likely to get at the truth than are the accusations that make huge logical leaps.
I hate ChoicePoint and everything they have done. Are they capable of trying to sabotage VTUSA with a friendly face and some spare change? Wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. I would like to see these issues brought up in a way not reminiscent of how Bev Harris went gunning for people, including Andy. I took the time to read a fair portion of the BBV conversations from which LS quotes the quote above. I cannot help but notice the similarities between the line of inquiry from Bev Harris and the line of inquiry from LS.
Perhaps Bev is on target for once, but we do not have to follow an attack plan filled with vitriol and innuendo to get answers. That is why I appreciate your valiant attempts to improve the tenor of the debate.
I would like to get to the bottom of this, but I will not be party to a Bev style attack on someone who has done so much for voting rights. We need to handle matters like this more responsibly. There is too much at stake.

[autorank]

175. This is a total mess. I missed the "bev wars" and had only a brief

time during which I communicated with Andy. I contributed to Andy's fund but avoided, and continue to avoid the bev-bash-athons.

I thought my questions were reasonable. They were never answered in one place, which would have been immensely helpful. It appears that only Bev Harris is required to be accountable and provide an IRS statement.

Here is the IRS statement (latest) for 2004 for the International Humanities Center:

http://ihcenter.org/04-990/04-990-01.html

Here is the page where VoteTrustUSA should appear, between "Voice4Change" and "Western Service Workers." The must not have been associated with IHC in 2004, the last IRS form listed.

http://ihcenter.org/04-990/04-990-16.html

Oh well, it's all a matter of Trust right. Different strokes for different folks.

I've offered two suggestions: Just say, "We screwed up, very sorry, fixed the problems, won't do it again and we'll show our work!" And, open the email files to disinterested, confidential evaluators to see "who struck John." Neither will happen, I suspect but who knows.

[mom cat]

181. Hi there. It is a big mess and there is a lot of painful history here.

We recovered from it before and we will do it again. The cause is too important not to figure a way to heal from this.
You mention Bev bashing. I do not want to open up that can of worms again and I do not want to bash her. What she did and continues to do for the cause is to be admired. I am saying, however, that in the heat of battle, an innocent person was targeted with a witch hunt.People who knew him rallied behind him and continued to do so until his tragic death. I do not want to be a party to any loose accusations about people who have done so much to aid the cause and the pattern that is occurring here feels all too familiar. I would encourage anyone with a dog in this fight to go get a muzzle and show some restraint.
Are the questions raised of concern? Yes.
Can those questions be answered without name calling and innuendo? I sure as hell hope so.
We must do better than this.
You have asked some important questions. Please allow some time for "discovery" to occur.
As to the requests for access to private communications of any group that has been mentioned, I think that is an invasion of privacy that should concern us all.Carrying on a full scale investigation of our voting rights groups seems to be a tragic waste of time and effort that should be going to the immediate, critical voting fraud issues that are emerging nationwide. This is no time for a costly civil war.
What I am requesting is that we look at the process of what is happening. There are some real issues with Choice Point and several questions have been raised that need to be answered. However, the destructive manner in which these questions are being asked is totally unjustified. We do not need to go the way of so many left wing groups and become riddled with accusations and purges.

Toning down the rhetoric does not mean capitulation. It does mean however that we be sensitive to who our most dangerous enemies are and not handing them information against us on a silver platter.

This situation requires thoughtful solutions, not escalation. I again commend you for staying above the fray and dealing with your obvious passionate feelings in a civilized manner.

[mom cat]

174. I see your point, but I do not think that you see mine.

I hate ChoicePoint and think that Greg Palast is great. I do not really know you, but I have worked with Joan through DU in the early election fraud organizing days and found her to be exceptionally dedicated. Maybe you are too.
What I am hoping for is a little less vitriol
in the discussion and a greater effort to be accurate and to avoid inflammatory rhetoric as much as possible. There is too much at stake here.
Obviously any linkage of any voting rights group to ChoicePoint needs to be questioned. Even the appearance of impropriety should be discouraged.
I am questioning the tactics for getting to the bottom of this. And I am not singling you out. Some pretty awful things have been said in the heat of debate on both sides. I think that it is important to pull back from the precipice. I am not advocating silencing your questioning. I am however suggesting a more rigorous application of dispassionate systematic logic and a more careful consideration of the evidence.
I would also suggest that you reread the whole article from which the Palast/lies quote came. There is a remarkable similarity between the issues raised by Bev in Feb of this year and the issues that you are raising now. These issues might be valid, but she has a history of being quite destructive of anyone of whom she suspects a thought crime.
I know that some people in some of these threads have asked about your connection with her. I think that clarifying that would be helpful at this point to defuse the issue.
Some of us here remember the destruction that She wrought on Andy and are loath to be part of any agenda remotely associated with her wherein there is an attack on another member of the election reform community. If you are feeling resistance to your inquiries, know that some of it comes from being badly burned by that hot stove. I am sure that some of it is also coming from other sources. Please be sure to keep us separate.

[slaveplanet]

178. Fiction and the age old excuse "I/they Forgot"

DBT got a contract with the state of Florida and warned the state that the information they were putting together was not accurate because it included many names that did not belong on the list. The state told them that's what they wanted because they expected the counties to scrub the list. The counties didn't do that. That is NOT DBTs fault and is certainly not the fault of ChoicePoint.

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie. "

Let's just expand on this a little so the uninitiated can be up to speed.

DBT, Which was founded by a cocaine smuggler, who formerly used an (now closed)airstrip in a remote Bahamian atoll that was also used by the Iran/contra heroes(and probably Poindexter himself), sets out to create a database of felons so that Florida can eliminate any chance that these felons will be able to cast a vote. Well something goes wrong..OOOPS, and the list contains misdemeanor citizens and an abnormally high percentage of those being of African American descent...OOOPs. No worries, We have a pefectly valid excuse, one that is tried and tested by grade schoolers and defendants in the highest courts of the land alike. They FORGOT, yep...here it is right here:

Hank Asher from Vanity Fair-

"I know exactly what happened 'cause I talked to some programmers—they're friends of mine," he says. "They wrote the program wrong. They forgot to only link people with felonies. They had misdemeanors too, so if some poor guy 20 years ago shoplifted or whatever, drove away from a gas station without paying for the gas or whatever, they tagged him as an illegal voter."

So you see, no problems, a perfectly valid excuse. The excuse was obviosly good enough for choicepoint(fictionRus), as they're in the market for this sort of thing, We know that couldn't still contain fiction ...could it?


So along comes the state of Florida, DBT is to have us believe that Florida is in the market for some fiction bestseller, and since county government is famed for moving at lightning speed when alerted(providing they were actually alerted) to potential problems, The State could see no potential problem sorting all this out in time for the elections.


So since Choicepoint is in the business of buying and peddling truth/fiction. In the future all they have to do is label it as such, no harm , no foul. Problem is...can they even sort out truth from fiction any longer?



Geez how could Palast get such wild ideas about such an honest line of business, We should be grateful Gideon has straigtened it all out for us.

and around, around it goes...

[Land Shark]

190. Interesting "Choicepoint is in the business of buying and peddling...

truth/fiction."

[slaveplanet]

194. Yup, I think that's where the "Choice"

came from in "Choicepoint",as in you can choose whether it's truth or fiction when using our data...but in the end you have no choice at all...

[Land Shark]

95. An OFFER: whatever the choicepoint connections are, CUT THEM off

and return the money. I will HELP raise the difference to your organization. Stay away from choicepoint, the good works of your organization do not deserve that, it's true.

But on the other hand, I will call a spade a spade. Stay with choicepoint in any way shape or form and you are risking the movement for EVERYONE. That, you've no right to do.

So, why not end this with an apology to Greg Palast for anything said, returning the choicepoint money or spousal money with full disclosure of what happened, and cutting off all choicepoint ties (as defined by choicepoint critics). In exchange, to help assuage that loss I'll help you raise a reasonable amount of money for VTUSA to partially or totally offset any financial losses from returning contributions.

Note that I am not asking for an apology to me, but one to Greg Palast (which i've no authority to suggest is binding i'm not his attorney and haven't talked to him about it). My offer will cost me time and money in helping you raise funds.

That being said: I personally won't tolerate Choicepoint or choicepoint tolerators. Period. There's room for all kinds of stripes under the democracy tent but not anti-democracy or "private KGB" stripes) But I will raise some money in small contributions from other folks for you (plus my modest contribution, if you'd take it, but you'd not be obliged to).

[Land Shark]

152. No response on this offer so far

[troubleinwinter]

154. You have been given this answer. Leave that horse corpse be.

"We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow"

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

[Land Shark]

159. So the First Lady's actions or money has NOTHIng to do with the President

and his work?

[mod mom]

111. Hedda, Not coming from GA I contacted an ER activist whom I worked with

and met during an Lucas Co/Noe Investigation who does come from GA. This is someone I respect. Her opinion on Choicepoint was the same shared by others I have worked with on numerous list servs and in combo on different investigations: Choicepoint =BAD for Democracy. This reaffirms my original opinion. It is difficult to raise funds for ER organizations, and it seems like all the same people donate, but STAY AWAY FROM TAINTED $! $30,000 donation sounds big to our groups, but better to turn it down than damage the reputation of your organization by accepting it. This is chump change to a corporation like this. Better to struggle on a low budget than sell your soul to the devil.

[troubleinwinter]

117. The $30,000 was a donation accepted by BBV!!!! NOT VT.

Who here is defending Choicepoint? NO ONE.

Vote Trust is NOT connected to Choicepoint. How many times must it be said??!!! They are only being smeared as such.

I agree, "STAY AWAY FROM TAINTED $! $30,000 donation sounds big to our groups, but better to turn it down than damage the reputation of your organization by accepting it." But it was accepted by BLACKBOXVOTING.org, NOT VoteTrust. Wouldn't you like to know where BBV got $30,000 from one entity?

[autorank]

164. Mom, er...Mod mom (freudian slips showing), $30,000. We were told

$3,000 before, were we not. $30 thousand is ten times that much. Are there ten times as many defenses of Choicepoint out there?

[troubleinwinter]

166. $30,000 is the amount BBV accepted from a single donor.

[lala_rawraw]

13. Nice work!!!

Glad to see your talents are being noticed and rightfully praised!!! Keep up the great work:D

[hedda_foil]

15. accidental posting removed

[Catrina]

14. Thank you LandShark ~ while I'm not as informed as others here

regarding these issues, I was disturbed by the possible connection of voters' rights activist groups and Choicepoint. I asked a few questions and was attacked and compared to Fidel Castro. This convinced me that someone has something to hide.

I never did get a response to my questions however.

Of the few people who were defending Choicepoint at least one, imo, is sincere and did attempt to answer Autorank's questions.

Wouldn't it be better to cut all ties to Choicepoint, rather than alienate large numbers of supporters? Attacking those who are understandably upset by these revelations will do nothing to inspire confidence in the organization. People with ethical motives do not attack those who question, they discuss and answer the questions.

Greg Palast has earned our respect and trust. The very existence of companies like Choicepoint was news to most Americans and the cause of justifiable outrage.

Thanks to Greg Palast for taking the time to address these questions ~

[Joe Chi Minh]

40. How can there be ANY justification for having ANY tie with an

organisation that deliberately set out to disenfranchise legitimate US voters, and indeed succeeded in a big way!

[dweller]

16. i wonder if Mike Malloy would listen to this info?

you should call in and get some air time.


:kick: and R!

dp

[demodonkey]

17. I think Mike Malloy has better sense. nt

[dweller]

21. i'd trust him to make that distinction. eom

dp

[Land Shark]

22. better sense than to do what?

[demodonkey]

32. Paul, please check your PMs...nt

[rman]

42. better sense than to do what?

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. K & R n/t

[Kurovski]

24. Kick.(nt)

[rumpel]

27. Mr. Palast is right

The inherent conflict of interest can not simply be dismissed -

and as an observation, I consider verified voting records as data which can also be abused - no private data mining company should be anywhere near such data. Choicepoint already has both of their hands in the cookie jar now they want your ice cream, too.
Whatever this company and it's execs do- is not for public service -

This makes me wonder - whether I should reconsider supporting public campaign funding, just because - those people who have tendencies of weak principles and ethics seem to expose themselves

We should practice what we preach.

[OneBlueSky]

28. wasn't there a lawsuit about Choicepoint purging Florida voters? . . .

"ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls" . . .

I recall the discussions about this well, and I'm pretty sure I remember a lawsuit by some African-American group or other -- might have been the NAACP -- that was ultimately dropped for unexplained reasons . . . I think it was in a US District Court in Georgia . . .

I, for one, would sure like to know what those reasons were . . .

[autorank]

31. NAACP v. Harris (Katherine) -

Palast investigated and broke the story of the "felon" purges in Florida prior to the 2000 election. Depending on who you listen to (Palast or Choicepoint) over 50,000 predominantly minority voters were wrongfully removed from the registering rolls in a much less than adequate job by the database vendor and the state (Choicepoint says 3,000). The facts were so outrageous, there was a law suit. NAACP prevailed since the other side "settled" - IMHO, was afraid to continue due to th incendiary publicity. DBT, acquired by Choicepoint in 02/2000, is named in the suite, as "Defendant CHOICEPOINT, INC. doing business as DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("DBT") is a Georgia corporation with offices in the State of Florida and, pursuant to state law, at all times relevant to the events referred to herein, acted as an agent of the State of Florida in connection with the contract between it and the State that is more fully described below..."

Here's the NAACP Press Release on the Settlement:

N.A.A.C.P. v. Harris
http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=80

Florida Voting Rights Lawsuit Settled;
NAACP LDF To Monitor State's Implementation of Landmark Agreement

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) joined other civil rights organizations in announcing the settlement of a landmark class action lawsuit stemming from the 2000 presidential election. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of African-American and Haitian-American Floridians who were unable to vote in that election, and named as defendants the state of Florida, seven Florida counties, and a private company that did work for the state.

"We are very pleased with the settlement, but we recognize it will require monitoring and diligence on the part of local and national civil rights organizations," stated LDF President and Director-Counsel Elaine R. Jones. "LDF is not prepared to walk away from the table on this - we will continue to make sure that the favorable terms negotiated actually benefit Florida voters."

The lawsuit, N.A.A.C.P. et al. v. Smith and Kast et al., was filed in January 2001. It sought substantial changes in voter registration and election day practices that the plaintiffs claimed unfairly impacted black voters. The settlement requires the state or state agencies to take concrete steps to improve the voting process, including:

* Help identify eligible voters who were removed from the voter rolls in error so that they may be restored, and implement new procedures to help prevent similar mistakes from happening in the future;
* Assess and recommend improvements in training for poll workers and staffing at polling places;
* Ensure that elections are administered properly, including the fair distribution of equipment, resources, technology, and staffing at polling places;
* Study and report to the Legislature on ways to strengthen election administration throughout the state; and
* Notify voters that they can register to vote and change registration information at DMV and Children's Services offices.

These provisions are consistent with agreements made with the seven counties that were included in the original lawsuit. Those agreements include commitments by the counties to distribute technology and modern equipment fairly among heavily minority and non-minority precincts.

"We will continue to work with community organizations in Florida to make sure this settlement is not just empty words on paper, but has life and is implemented appropriately," asserted LDF Attorney Todd A. Cox.

Other civil rights advocates representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit included The Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, N.A.A.C.P., People for the American Way Foundation, and the Miami law firm of Williams and Associates.

The defendants in the lawsuit included the Florida Secretary of State; the Directors of the Division of Elections, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and the Secretary of the Department of Children and Families; Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Leon, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Volusia counties; and DBT/Choice Point, Inc., the contractor that screened Florida's voting rolls. Orange and Hillsborough were the last two counties to reach an agreement with the plaintiffs.

LDF's involvement in the Florida lawsuit is an extension of its decades-long commitment to fulfilling and safeguarding the voting rights of all Americans. As the nation's oldest and most successful civil rights and public interest law firm, LDF is recognized for its pioneering and long-standing advocacy.
LDF played a major advocacy role in crafting and enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and has been involved in virtually every major voting rights-related legislative and administrative advocacy issue since, including the development, passage, implementation and defense of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

AND here is the original complaint as filed by the NAACP.

http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/harris/NAACP-v-Harris_Complaint.pdf

Hope that helps.

[OneBlueSky]

35. thanks, that what I was looking for . . . the remaining question is . . .

if the NAACP agreed to monitor the situation, what happened when the very same list of "felons" was used to exclude voters in 2002? . . .

[Boredtodeath]

45. From the NAACP lawsuit:

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

[autorank]

47. I'll find out for you. I don't know. Glad the information was helpfl.

:hi:

[OneBlueSky]

29. here's an issue of critical importance for the nation, and most folks . .

have no idea who or what Choicepoint is, much less how they do business . . . in other times, this would have been headline fodder in newspapers coast to coast, and the lead story on network newscasts . . .

it's important to remember that many people's skepticism about things like election fraud and 9/11 is the result of their being lied to -- sometimes by commission, sometimes by omission -- day after day after day . . .

the corporate media is very good at what they do . . . and it's NOT reporting all the news accurately, comprehsnsively, and in an unbiased manner . . .

[Blackhatjack]

34. Companies like Choicepoint, Diebold, Halliburton, KBR, ......

....are huge threats to our democracy. Truth be known they are using the Republican Party just like Abramoff and Reed used the Indian Tribes ...to rake in the millions, escape liability for their dirty deeds, and control political power in this country.

IF money is power, and campaign contributions are the lifeblood of politics, these folks are the real powerbrokers --and no one gets to play without first paying.

And worst of all ..... time is NOT on our side.

[PinkyisBlue]

36. Money talks. You are exactly right.

And, unfortunately, the Republican party has a lot more of it to throw around than does the Democratic party. (By the way, where are those missing billions that were earmarked for the Iraq war)? It's pretty easy for the RNC to entice cash-strapped groups and individuals to change their thinking (and voting) behaviors when some of the green stuff is tossed their way, with the promise of more to come (if the "donation" produces the desired effects).

It's very scary what is happening. I'm thinking it could be a long-range plan by the RNC to infiltrate the entire Democratic party and as many left-leaning groups as possible. Hillary Clinton was correct when she talked about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" all those years ago; it now appears she has been bought out by it. Just look at how the RNC is going after one of the few sources of significant funding of Democrats, the trial lawyers.

Once funding sources of Democratic candidates and organizations are dried up, any real opposition to the RNC is gone. And you're right, time is not on our side.

[Piedras]

39. CLUE database by ChoicePoint

ChoicePoint keeps many databases. One few people probably are aware of is ChoicePoint's CLUE database for real property ownership that keeps track of insurance claims against your home, and insurance claims made by or against you. It's frightening to think of the data mining they can do in combination with your voting records.

Two excerpts from Realty Times:

Homeowners Insurance Shopping Update

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20031218_insurance.htm

CLUE is the Claims Loss Underwriting Exchange, a database for insurance claims available from Alpharetta, GA-based Choice Point, an identification and credential verification service.
When a customer files an insurance claim or inquires about filing a claim, it gets reported to the CLUE database. Insurers use the database to decide whether to issue a new policy, renew or raise rates.

Homebuyers: Get a CLUE About Homeowners Insurance

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20030311_homeownersinsurance.htm

Just because you and your spouse have an unblemished insurance record, that doesn't mean the house you're eyeing does. When an insurance company considers whether to offer you insurance, they're not just looking at your history, but the history of the property in question.

One way to examine the house's claims history is through its CLUE report. About 600 insurers, making up about 90 percent of the market, feed into the CLUE database. The report will show you every claim filed over the past five years.

The database covers 27 types of losses, including dog bites, flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, wind, and medical payments. You can order an electronic report from Choicepoint, the company that owns the CLUE database, for $12.95 by visiting Choicetrust.

One caveat: you can't order a copy of a report unless you own the home. Prospective buyers can't request a report directly from Choicepoint.

edited to change Subject title

[Boredtodeath]

44. Only someone guilty of insurance fraud would have a problem

with this.

So they keep track of how many insurance claims you make! So the fuck what?

[autorank]

172. There is nothing anti Choicepoint in this, yet you're attaked.

That's about the level of debate here.

[Boredtodeath]

180. Attak? You mean attacked?

And, hey, in case you hadn't noticed - a legitimate question is not an ATTACK.

(CK - not K)

[Boredtodeath]

43. Greg Palast is a chickenshit

Why does he need a proxy?

Not brave enough to come here in person to defend his lies????????

[althecat]

49. Catharsis....

Dear all,

I admire the work of VotetrustUSA, and in particular Heddafoil and John Gideon whom I have long known on this board.

This particular piece of nastiness has been sitting in the background for months now and now would be as good a time as any to put it to bed.

Can we perhaps see if some good can come of a full and frank airing of the facts in this situation.

That would be good for us all. Then we can get on with targetting the real enemies which do not include among them Landshark, VotetrustUSA or Greg Palast.

al

[Land Shark]

52. that's a reasonable point re "real enemies" not incl LS, VTUSA or Palast

but the real enemies/threats do include choicepoint, and if we could just get a few people to stop doing the "siamese twin routine" with choicepoint, as if there's joinder at the brain or something, there would be no need for these threads. then we could move on, it would seem.

[Boredtodeath]

53. Greg Palast articles are editorials disguised as news

Nothing more.

He provides no proof of any allegations and expects his readers to take him at his word.

Obviously, many do just that.

He is an enemy to truth and justice.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. And having been 'demised' by boredom, even post-mortem,

you're giving off a bad smell.

[Boredtodeath]

64. ROFLMAO

Anything you say.

[IndyOp]

65. Al - Would you consider writing a piece on this...

You might the be person with the best perspective who could get quotes from everyone involved.

[althecat]

131. I would except that I suspect it would not help....

For some reason there have been several instances of this sort of thing happen in this movement.

I guess it is politics. I live in hope that this will be sorted out in a sensible manner without doing too much damage.

In addition, while fascinating to us insiders - who know all the players - these internal mutual slapping sessions tend to be a bit boring to those on the outside.

Finally, in the past I have attempted to mediate some of these scraps and to be honest I don't think it helped.

That said I can suggest a solution if anyone is interested....

[IndyOp]

145. What is your suggestion?

I know that people are busy behind the scenes as we type...

[althecat]

197. Everybody apologise, be truthful and conciliatory....

... Same thing might work in the Middle East....

[IndyOp]

198. Heck. That'd work everywhere! ;-) (n/t)

[hedda_foil]

69. Self delete dupe

[althecat]

50. Self Delete (Dupe... double post)

[mod mom]

60. Palast has more important enemies to fight than to bother with some

who states:

"Don't live there anymore. Don't do activism there anymore. Can't do activism when ghouls like Bev Harris and APN make it impossible."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=440431&mesg_id=440465

[Independent_Liberal]

56. K&R!

[mod mom]

58. Wow I take a few hour reprise from the hostility to find I missed alot.

Thanks Landshark! Glad to hear Greg respond to this. As I stated in an earlier post on this subject I think very highly of Palast and the work he does, as do the ER groups I associate with. In late June I had the honor of organizing 2 event for Greg (and even drove him to the airposrt the following day.) Greg also came to Ohio shortly after the '04 election and was featured at a rally we put together. He is truly a fighter for the cause.

[AtLiberty]

61. Face it, we don't know the identities of many activists on-line...

There very well could be infiltrators. I'm careful releasing personal data on-line, but never careful of releasing my message. Our philosophy centers on truth and transparency, doesn't it? We have nothing to hide. I almost feel sorry for the other side who must rely on fraud, lies and deception to "win." What a sad existence to be a sewer rat.

If someone is determined to tap our phones and computers, we can't stop them. We're all well aware of evil's hacking abilities with electronic voting.

Despite the real possibility of spies among us, we're making progress. A tipping point is in the wind -- don't you feel it? We even have the attention of the DNC...FINALLY. Do you suppose they actually want to win in November?

Now that we're well on the way to create a critical mass, I will continue to take that risk, with the hope that goodness, truth and light will overcome.

Onward...

[lonestarnot]

63. Hmmm. They have money, they mailed a nanoipod.

I think I will for sure have it inspected. I think I will put it in a drawer.

[IndyOp]

66. Greg, Shark, Anyone - WHEN did VoteTrustUSA's executive immediately

run "to the defense of ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls"?

This is the hole in Greg's email and LandShark's post. I looked at the Atlanta Progressive article and I've click on a whole bunch of links to other DU threads and I don't see the evidence.

It is perfectly fair to ask whether Curling's donation to VoteTrustUSA influenced VTUSA actions.

It is NOT fair to say that a VTUSA 'executive' defended ChoicePoint's role in the felon purges without an exact quote. I don't see that you have provided that and I've been clicking links and reading for quite a while now.

:shrug:

:(

[Boredtodeath]

67. He can't provide that information

Because it never happened.

Paul is trying to swiftboat some very involved DEMOCRATIC activists.

The only unanswered question is WHY.

[robinlynne]

71. many thanks to LandShark and Greg Palast!

as ever.

[Susan Pynchon]

73. Greg Palast Responds re Land Shark ER Post on ChoicePoint/Private KGB!

My name is Susan Pynchon -- I am the founder and executive director of Florida Fair Elections Coalition and this is the first time I have ever posted on DU. If anyone doubts that this is really me, you may call me on my cell phone at 386-804-3131.

I had dinner with Greg Palast a couple weeks ago in Tampa, Florida and was invited to guest blog with him and Cythia McKinney a few days later. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Greg's incredible work, for his courage, and for his dedication to "getting the word out."

However, I am distressed that, with real enemies to fight, attacks continue against VoteTrustUSA. Does everyone realize what VoteTrust is? First of all, VoteTrust is NOT some corporate giant operating behind closed doors. It IS a network of voting activist leaders in at least 40 states and includes such people as attorney Lowell Finley (www.VoterAction.org) , who has filed lawsuits in New Mexico, New York, California, and elsewhere to prevent paperless electronic voting and to demand paper ballots and auditable elections. It includes Matt Zimmerman of Electronic Frontier Foundation -- Matt has filed lawsuits to help voter activists in North Carolina and elsewhere. It includes John Gideon of VotersUnite, who puts out the amazing Daily Voting News and who has documented "train wrecks" in elections across the U.S. It includes me and 3 other members of Florida Fair Elections Coalition (FFEC. FFEC has investigated and continues to investigate election corruption in Florida. I have posted a number of investigative articles on the VoteTrustUSA website, exposing, for example, the lack of credentials of Paul Craft and Kate McGregor of Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group (which provides consulting services on voting systems to California, Illinois, Maryland and elsewhere).

Before ANYONE attacks VoteTrust, they should go to www.VoteTrustUSA.org and look at the amazing articles that are posted there -- there are investigative reports, technical reports, and reports that cover numerous issues relevant to election reform and electronic voting machines. The people involved in VoteTrust are dedicated to election reform. Almost all are working for no pay. Most have given up their personal lives to work day and night towards the goal of fair, auditable, secure elections. VoteTrust offers voting activists a venue to share information and strategies that would not be availabel to us otherwise.

To attack VoteTrust is to attack voting activist leaders in many states. I haven't gotten a dime for any of my work; no one could influence or pay me anything to stop the work I am doing; and I am sick and tired of the inferences or direct accusations that VoteTrust is somehow being influenced by ChoicePoint. IT IS ABSURD. I am also sick and tired of infighting among election integrity groups. Get a life, people. Start an election reform group in your area instead of posting endless, meaningless diatribes on DU. Request public documents from your local and state elections divisions. Monitor your local elections. Volunteer as a poll-worker or poll-watcher. Go through the dumpster at your local elections office. There's a lot you can do that will help to change the way things are. WORK TOWARDS AUDITABLE ELECTIONS, PAPER BALLOTS AND AN END TO PAPERLESS DREs. Expose corruption where you find it, but you're barking up the wrong tree with VoteTrust.

And while I'm at it -- shame on anyone and everyone who has attacked the efforts to pass HR 550. The mind shift from NO audits (as in Florida) to REQUIRED audits is huge. Once people get used to the idea that audits are important and necessary, the percent of ballots audited can be increased. To fight against this bill, which would require audits in every state, is such backwards thinking. Also, HR 550 would allow any citizen to bring a complaint under the Help America Vote Act, which will be next to impossible without this important legislation. Please study this bill carefully and I think you will see that, while not perfect, it will get us many steps closer to where we want to be.

Lastly, please use your efforts to fight the real enemies of democracy. Stop the gossip, infighting, speculation and downright untruths. Become a real activist, not a computer-gossip activist. We need your help.

Susan Pynchon
Florida Fair Elections Coalition

[fooj]

76. At last! A voice of reason.

Lastly, please use your efforts to fight the real enemies of democracy. Stop the gossip, infighting, speculation and downright untruths. Become a real activist, not a computer-gossip activist. We need your help.

If I can get an accurate receipt every time I go to an ATM, why can't I get one when I vote?

Thank you for all that you are doing to insure the integrity of our votes.

[Land Shark]

77. Stop poisoning the good worth with Choicepoint stuff and then we'd all

be on the same page.

All the good works above don't mean that people can do whatever. Should be REAL easy to cut all ties if there's little to cut. What's the problem here?

[troubleinwinter]

88. What's YOUR problem?

What is unclear to you about these statements???? Why do you ignore the complete clarity of them?

We aren't defending Choicepoint.

We have never defended Choicepoint.

We have no relationship with Choicepoint.

We have never had a relationship with Choicepoint.

We have never and would never attack Palast or his research and we have never defended Choicepoint or the kind of work they do.

We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1646620

[Land Shark]

90. It must depend on what your definition of "We" is: see this link

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1649006>

[flyarm]

193. thank you Susan..no one has worked harder for Fla fair elections

than this woman!! you have worked so hard for all of us in Fla against the * machine of corrupt elections! you have worked tirelessly Susan and i respect all you have done for all of us in Fla..as well as the help we have gotten from Vote Trust Usa...

this is nothing but bullshit and i am sick and tired of it..i just wonder who some of these distrupters are..and why they are now pulling the Rove tactic of swift boating all of these hard working people doing a thankless job..for our democracy!

from an elected democratic delegate in Fla.

fly

[midnight]

79. You have quite a topic here today.

So many details. Good thing you are an attorney. What is clear as a bell, for me, is that VTUSA should not be accepting money from choice point. Thanks for bringing this to DU.

[Pastiche423]

93. Clear as a bell?

Make that clear as mud and I'll agree.

VTUSA DID NOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM CHOICE POINT.

[Wilms]

97. Thanks for posting that clarification.

Unfortunately, my dear friends AutoRank and LandShark have seen to it that most people will not be aware of the distinction.

If I have a chance to have a beer with them, I'm making them buy.

[Land Shark]

183. Your argument is: the First Lady's money is NOT connected to the President

in any way. People convince themselves of this strongly enough with regard to the wife of the Choicepoint president to repeatedly exlaim that there is "No choicepoint connection". This is ridiculous head in the sand denial. REad Greg Palast's email in the OP. (I did not ask for it, BTW, it just arrived in my box as my first ever email received from Palast)

This spouse-blindness would never be tolerated if it were Republican spouses making the donation. And, the fact that the spouse has made a bunch of Democratic donations among a couple republican ones is irrelevant in terms of the choicepoint connection. Choicepoint seeks government business and control REGARDLESS of which party controls the government.

[Wilms]

203. I don't need or want you to mis-characterize my "argument", LS.

I am quite capable of making one, and most readers are quite able to understand them. I am capable of being "spouse-aware", and don't need any (insulting and) inaccurate assistance in making the "Choicepoint connection".

I feel as though there is zero point in saying ChoicePoint gave money, when it was an executive's wife because I'm quite capable of being extremely concerned with the truth without also being extremely concerned with the idea that I'll wind-up feeling misled--and wondering why. Others may or may not feel the same way.

I also prefer not seeing the ER Movement put in a position where they "repeatedly exclaim" inaccurate information, as I believe many of your posts on this matter has done. We do that enough and I feel it retards rather than advances our agenda.

Paul, I feel uncomfortable with the characterizations you've posted because I feel I, and perhaps some others, were misled by them.

Please. if you wouldn't mind, answer a few questions for me.

1. Did Choicepoint give money to VTUSA, or was it the wife of an executive?

2. Did Wilms, in his reaction to your previous inaccurate assertions as to the source of money given to VTUSA, ever state or "exlaim that there is "no Choicepoint connection"?

3. When you first asserted that a VTUSA board member smeared Palast did you specifically reference John Gideon's post on bbv?

4. I see you've posted elsewhere that you are now satisfied with the explanation regarding Donna Curling's inaccurate assertion about being a board-member of VTUSA. Please tell. Were you surprised at that explanation? Had you considered that possibility prior to being told it? Other than Curling's inaccurate assertion, did you have any documentation verifying her report?

5. Since you learned of Curling's donation, as you previously stated, in January of '06, what did you between then and April, when you left VTUSA, to express your concern about it to the VTUSA board?

6. So that we may get to an important matter at hand, is ChoicePoint involved, or suggesting that it may get (re-)involved with any, even tangential, aspect of the country's Election Management Systems?

You may not ever know how tough it is for me to grill you. I respect your dedication. I appreciate your efforts. I applaud your successes. And I have to challenge you on all of this given the fact that there's been a lot of discussion raging here, and a lot people saying they don't know what's going on.

And it ain't cause we're dumb.

[troubleinwinter]

204. Your mentioning of "elsewhere"

gives me the opportunity to bring up something that has disturbed me greatly in all of these threads. And that is: that there are ALL OF THESE THREADS.

I don't quite know how many have now been started by Land Shark on the same subject. Several.

If a false claim or accusation is corrected one one thread, it may still be floating around in another. A point of clarification is on one thread but not another.

I think it stinks and I see it as a deliberate tactic.

[autorank]

207. Wilms, I have just one question for you below...

Will you respond to the key points in this message, the underlined points. Leave out the Land Shark, autorank, whomever comments and respond to Greg Palast. It's right here for your convenience.

Thank you for a cogent response to ChoicePoint's latest smear tactics. When ChoicePoint pays Republicans, progressives are up in arms over the conflicts. But when, through cut-outs, they pay a so-called voter protection group, Rove's excuses come out of activists' lips. Shame. Shame. Shame.

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.

Arguably, ChoicePoint, because of its culpable knowledge, had more to do with the attack on civil rights and the theft of the 2000 election than Jeb Bush.

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 public's trust.

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.

I would welcome a public discussion with ChoicePoint executives, especially about my new findings released in my latest book, Armed Madhouse. But they refuse to speak with me on the record. In one of their weirder faints, the company demanded the right to defend themselves on the Randi Rhodes show on condition I not be in the studio. Randi agred -- and placed me in a glass booth just OUTSIDE the studio.

Mrs. Curling's money may not influence VoteTrustUSA. Likewise, Lockheed's payments to Mrs. Cheney may not have influenced our Vice-President. Nevertheless, these marital joint political accounts are the essence of conflict of interest. But the fact that policies and positions quickly align with the cash leaves the uncomfortable impression that Trust can be bought.

Greg Palast
www.GregPalast.com

[Wilms]

208. Not exactly how it works.

I can't nor won't leave out the Land Shark because I posed a series of questions to him I hope he'll address. I don't follow your "autorank, whomever comments" comment so I can't respond to that.

But since you offered, I'll be happy to comment on your query though not "respond" per se. I'm not debating Palast. I'm reading these threads, his writing, the one post from Gideon, and trying to sort it out for myself.

And I'll do so after I hear from Paul.

And after I receive clarifications from you. You know those questions I PMed you? I sincerely meant them. And I'll be patient waiting for a response, because I know we're busy. But I sortof hope you get that I really want you to help me understand particular points, and confirm or dissuade the assumptions I was reaching, rather than reply to me as you just did.

You gonna work with me or not?

Then I could respond to your recent post with the benefit of having had the previously requested tutorial.

Deal?

[autorank]

209. The Palast email is the deal. Everything else is denial of the main issue

This email is the subject of the thread, or should have been. The rest is phatic discourse. These are extremely serious charges, the veracity of which will determine a great deal. If you want to know my position on his assertions, I believe him. Land Shark did not write this. Palast did. Land Shark is not the issue here. Nor are the questions you sent me. I spent hours the other early a.m. going into great detail on a number of subjects we were discussing, more time than I've spent with anybody at one point in that type of discourse. I'm focused on this email, the Palast's statements, and I am asking for your response to the charges Palast levels. What's your response.

[Wilms]

210. The OP is the subject.

And that includes 3 or 4 links and commentary.

The subject of this thread is taking forever to get answers to questions and help the underinformed understand the issues in adequate context and coming to their own determination about what's going on. It's not pick a side and parrot the line for a lot of us. Or some 9/11 Commission where you only allowed to discuss some of the evidence.

I'm interested in understanding what's going on, period.

Here are the questions I PMed you.

So I read some Palast leaving me with the same notion that I've had about this story. It's not clear what ChoicePoint did. The one new ugly bit for me was Grund's (IIRC) testimony.

But it's a whole lot of dbt and the state. Agreed? Do we also agree that CP came clean, eventually? If not, please dial me in.

And ChoicePoint elected to get out of that business? Is that correct?

But, more recently, what happened with CP and Mexico? I didn't research that. Can you point me?

Is your concern she's about pushing 550, with the potential of disastrous consequence?

Are these questions really beside the issues raised in the OP, let alone the rest of the thread?

You want to help me understand? Or just to take your side no questions asked?

[Land Shark]

212. I've stated in the ER thread by IndyOp that I'm holding off til after Wed

due to the pleading of a vtusa activist I know.

But wilms, if you read the palast email, it's clear that if I die today, or tomorrow, Palast's issues do not rely on me, weren't caused by me, they wouldn't go away, and he's making serious allegations. Nobody discloses all of their evidence outside court, and Palast is threatening court. I've also explained that republishing smears or defamations can lead to the same liability.

on edit and review: The posts by "adarling" and others are apparently going to make this hiatus impossible, but we'll see.

[Wilms]

218. Then I'll wait until after Wednesday for your answers.

And if you die before then I'll still have those questions.

I did not assert or assume Palast's issues rely on you, were caused by you, or that they would go away, or that they weren't serious allegations. But I remain open to possibilities.

I'm capable of being simultaneously interested in Palast's, Gideon's, and your point of view.

Again, I look forward to your answers to each of the questions.

[Land Shark]

219. In the mean time, while I don't agree that I'm bound by any confidential

after the fact policy made by vtusa's board or leaders, if you could obtain a written waiver from them saying that they won't object to any answers that I may be able to give based on claims of trade secrecy, conflidentiality, or the like, I'll be happy to answer your questions to the extent I am reasonably able to. If you don't, I can understand that difficulty, but then I have to weigh whether in certain parts its worth the hassle of hearing to the howls of objections made when the truth comes out more fully. I can still answer some though.

But i'd like to ask you a question. If i just retire, seek dismissal of my lawsuit, etc., and never do another thing for or "to" this movement, you'll still have to deal with Greg Palast.

It not only borders on a form of magical thinking, it APPEARS to be magical thinking to think that if I stop posting, THAT WHAT GREG PALAST SAID would somehow go away, or not be a serious issue. It seems like you don't think that would happen (i.e., you're not saying Greg Palast's statements/issues would go away). SO, what's your response to Mr. Palast?

The truth is, I'm small potatoes on this issue, Wilms. It seems Palast has walked in and people are scampering away while bowing and genuflecting, and appearing to explain the scampering as having been unfairly frightened by a vicious Land Shark..... when clearly people are simply in contempt of me ("Despicable" is one word-example) attemtping to laugh at me, saying I misstated things, etc. I'm being set up as a straw man to avoid dealing with what Greg Palast is saying.

[Wilms]

220. Quit Obfuscating. Ya already owe me, like, a keg.

I'm trying to get to the context of Palast's and Gideon's disagreement. I posted specific question of Autorank I'm asking in order to have an adequate background on their dispute. The response seems a bit thin on the spirit of discussion. Did you not see them? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1643855&mesg_id=1662095

These are but among questions I have.

You could answer them if you'd like. You could also answer my questions to you to the degree that it won't involve any potentially enforcable contract with which you've entered.

[Land Shark]

221. Wilms, you know here's what your questions add up to:

if your case were somehow proven, then I would not be the right person to talk about these issues (too much "motive" or delay in acting, or whatever).

But then, someone else would talk about it, somebody lacking the direct experience of a vtusa no-notice dismissal. So the only real point of your questions would be to take me out, or "impeach" me, but that impeachment doesn't do diddly to make the issues here go away. And to think, you're going after Me, Wilms, and I haven't even started on you yet. We should get together for that beer (or kegger) real soon.

By the way, before I was terminated, i was subject to (again, totally without notice) around a couple weeks or more of having my posts "moderated" or subject to approval before being released to the entire listserv. (DU has NEVER done that kind of prior restrain/"moderation" of posting, I don't know if they ever would or have with even the worst troll...DU probably lacks the technology to prevent posting other than by tombstoning) BTW, during moderation None of my emails were denied posting except the last (and the last was, IMHO innocuous at best.)

Maybe Wilms you could ask questions like "How is it even remotely possible that Paul was somehow "undermining" vtusa (as boredtodeath has alleged) during his last weeks when every single post except the last one was specifically approved by the authorized net nannies?"

[Wilms]

223. Don't mistake me for someone with a case to make or prove.

It's ChoicePoint's, dbt's, Florida's, NAACP's, Palast's, bbv's, APN's, Curling's, VTUSA's, Gideon's, and your's, if I haven't lost track of anyone.

I've said over and over that I'm trying to understand and I don't like incomplete, imprecise, leading, or misleading testimony.

[Land Shark]

226. I think this responds to your general questions

Responding to questions that my timing or motive explained why I defended Greg Palast
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441779#441978>

[autorank]

217. Here you go...

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=2

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htmhttp://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/usccrflvoterprt60701.pdf (see remarks about June 9, 2000 letter in particular)

http://tinyurl.com/quwjq (easy to follow whole story, “race” as criteria)

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/19/Tampabay/Officials_wary_of_fel.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

http://tinyurl.com/punad

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040707/NEWS/407070605/-1/INDEPTH (the felon purge continues, ‘effective’ model)

http://tinyurl.com/haep3 (citizen data sold to criminals)

http://tinyurl.com/fyesb (same)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/12/146201 (mexico)

Done. You are in an online version of Zeno's Paradox of Motion - The Dichotomy. That's it. Whatever you opinion is, that is what it will be.

[Land Shark]

227. In answer to your questions

please see this link
Responding to questions that my timing or motive explained why I defended Greg Palast
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441779#441978>

also, please note that I am not "satisfied" by the explanation you describe above regarding Curling's involvement. On that point, please see
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441267#441720>
and also be sure to see
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441420> in response to Mrs. Curling herself appearing and posting on DU in another thread! (Choicepoint's First Lady)

Mrs. Curling has specifically represented and brought forward Choicepoint corporate policy into the listserv of VTUSA. In a link above, she specifically goes out of her way to defend Voter iD, a choicepoint business interest and/or growth area. (that's under her DU handle of dmac where she was posting as an election activist without any of knowing she is the first lady of choicepoint. however, some or many people within vtusa knew, at varying points, her identity)

Basically, I kept my mouth shut UNTIL the point where we've got a book by Greg Palast on the NYT bestseller list that includes a chapter or two on election fraud and election activists are trashing Greg Palast in favor of CHOICEPOINT, and IT ALL JUST GETS TO BE TOO MUCH. WAY TOO MUCH. Trying to give his book a kiss of death where others can say "well, even election activists don't agree it's accurate." Turns out, the claimed inaccuracy has been retracted and apologized for, since Palast is, and was, accurate.

Turns out, in the VTUSA statement thread in Election Forum, VTUSA now says they have no dispute with Greg Palast's "veracity". But that leaves us in a real quandary, as autorank's post points out here:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441779&mesg_id=441924>

[truedelphi]

82. I cannot take any one's side in this matter

UNTIL * I * HAVE * EXAMINED * THE * FACTS * MYSELF

But I do want to thank everyone for posting all of these things.

When someone can go on the Ed Schultz show as a voting activist (I did not catch the person's name) and
deride the need for paper ballots, saying "No Actually Ed, the bigger issue is thus and so'
any thinking voting activist has to think that at some point in time one or more of the voting activist organizations are going to be used and have their work diminished by gatekeepers strolling in as the fat ol' trolls they are.

Is this happening at VoteTrustUSA? Can't say one way or the other.

Did Palast write the email that landshark posted? Guess I need to talk to Palast.

I do think Mike Malloy might try and sort this out a bit. It could be up his alley.

We live in funny and awful times. Not all who accuse are wrong. And sometimes the accused are innocent. It would be so much simpler if we lived in medieval times and could just put the (figurative) witch in the pond and see if she sinks...

Carol

[PATRICK]

101. One big reason

people start tearing into each other is when strategies are different, frustrated and conflicting. There have been problems with fraudulent 'voter reform' organizations and websites ranging from obvious shills to the splits at blackboxvoting to compromising or militant sites. While this is happening meanwhile, the DNC has made its own weird choices or non-choices and seems more unaware than even the public at large of the danger.

In the early stages despite revealed software codes, investigations of the suspect vote machine companies and state verification programs, etc. etc. HAVA went its merry "positive" way with added provisions that might have helped- but only the GOP intentions get enforced. The "paper trail" was unfortunately the major "issue" that separated from attacking the core problem and probable fraud and corruption. Frustrating as well, the paper trail became the issue of "debate" that distracted from the dominant spread of paperless machines.

Curiously, activists who had been ignored and had garnered pretty damning evidence at will all across the country began to have problems, split or retreated to useless corners. Tensions are pretty high considering this stage of battle- where the fundamental dynamic has not been changed and more- not less- fraud enabled gizmos- have been installed. Worse, the DNC itself has been even more ineffectual and self-effacing in fighting vote suppression, getting votes counted in the first place, and all the old fashioned stuff including media definition of everything.

Now is not the time to tear apart the "imperfect" because frankly, it all has been pretty imperfect since no broad based coalition, no frontal assault by the DNC has taken on the core issues of vote fraud, fundamentally flawed voting technology, vote suppression or anything else except soft bi-partisan "reasonable" approaches. As in dealing with any snake the fraud has the upper hand hand. No changes no. WE want reform! YOU cheat! They investigate Chavez's voting machines. take down the Ukraine, ignore Mexico! We say, reasonably, we want paper accountability, because, you know, there is no record of the vote once the glitchy machine swings into action. They delay, ignore, install bum printers, try to put in more crooked interfaces, cite costs, the plight of the disabled.

Time goes by. Time for the objectives to be clearer. Get the electronic paws off the vote. It is useful only as a check with speed and accuracy that could actually inhibit manual vote fixing if properly employed as a check and balance. Mandatory audits and hard records come first.

Palast, in his own words and his own investigations, is immensely involved in the massive vote suppression, the manual fixing mechanisms necessary because the cheaters are so unpopular and need to show their raw power. It is legitimate because little has been accomplished trying to stop it anymore than the flood of HAVA "reform".

This is the real state of affairs. Trolls barely matter because the massive walls against increasing fraud have not been broken. The main progress is only that MORE people want to vote against the regime and fewer will be able to do so. Polls and exit polls must be used fairly to protect the vote at this stage because no other nationwide protection exists. More people must physically man the polls and challenges be prepared to mount challenges.

Volunteers have been betrayed or misguided before and will be again. Reasonable, smart compromises will be shown again to be fatal mistakes. Revelation is not the same as change or criminal justice or media victory. We need to build beyond the scattering of vote protection organizations and especially key on those with local success. Those who have developed the paper trail campaign or the vote principle list(transparency, etc) are just a beginning. Staying trapped or ineffectual on any level means ultimate division, institutional disease, temper turf flare ups, or premature sense of accomplishment and triumph. We have not morphed to the next stage of better, wider, cross genre organizations. The growing public sensitivity to the cause HAS grown without media support or practical power as well. The last ones to be effected are unfortunately very critical: ALL honest politicians and election officials and lawmaker and especially the national Democratic Party.

Maybe if the headlines screamed the real issues for a couple of weeks it would make the establishment- what's left of anyone honest that is- wake up and stop skirting the discomfort.

Collapsing in upon ourselves for any reason is suicide- and facilitates the murder of democracy and the nation.

[mom cat]

182. Thanks for your attempt to try to introject some restraint in the

mud pie fight.

[EFerrari]

192. I've been thinking along the same lines. The last two flare ups

are largely due to having few resources and having no solid way to manage the few on hand.

Somehow we have to crawl out of this stage and into one that is more workable or we're just setting ourselves up for more of the same. This is exactly the wrong year to do it but it needs doing or there will be more of these outbreaks.

[The Count]

98. I had a feeling this might be the explanation - when reading of the wifey

donations.

[KoKo]

104. "Vote Trust" is not to be trusted....I would think from what you posted

am I correct? :shrug: BTW many in my state have been suspicious of them for awhile..

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

109. Thanks for posting "KooKoo?" Did I hit a "nerve" or something...

What the hell is wrong with you? Many of us working in our states have been suspect of "Vote Trust," because of the folks from them we've tried to work with.

Calling me "KooKoo" doesn't answer why "Vote Trust" should be totally trusted. If you disagree then why? :shrug:

[Boredtodeath]

116. Uh, actually, I do believe several NC activists are members

So, you wanna tell us who in NC are suspicious?

[KoKo]

121. Okay....did some checking and it seems that there's more here on this

post from "LandShark" than met the eye of the read of the post.

I have worked hard to have "credibility" here on DU...so when I got other posts besides someone calling me "Koo Koo" (which was a nasty jibe not worthy of a poster who is to be believed) I did some "underground checking."

It appears that poster who called me "Koo Koo" had some points that this whole post might be in question by those of us working for Verified Paper Ballot.

I apologize to those who replied and didn't call me "KooKoo." In that we maybe shouldn't take this post as any more credible than Bev Harris...

[hedda_foil]

120. Koko, we work with a lot of the folks from NC.

And we've both been on DU together for a long time and have a great relationship. What's this all about?

[KoKo]

124. Name Calling........but after checking seems that "BoredtoDeath" might

have been correct...but not about calling me "KooKoo." :D Poster needs to stop "namecalling" and reply in a way that encourages dialog/discussion.

I checked with some sources and the issue is "complicated" about "Choice Point."

But, I would discount "LandSharks" post on this more readily because of the info that I've checked.

[Wilms]

135. To be clear, it was not Bored to Death namecalling.

It was I. And I apologize.

[KoKo]

142. Oh.........well....

apology accepted.

[Hissyspit]

127. Please do not mock usernames. n/t

[Hissyspit]

122. Sigh...

Somewhere a Republican is snickering.

[KoKo]

125. NO! it's important to know the "credentials and loyalties" of those we

work with...and this case the OP is "suspect."

[Hissyspit]

126. I know it's important, KoKo...

but they're still snickering.

[KoKo]

129. Why do you worry about Repug "snickering?" They are kind of "out of

the picture" for me and many others. They are failures. Like in "Sports" who wants to be caught with LOSERS!!! (World Decimation/Wars Forever/Failed Economy/Gas Prices throught the roof/Decline in Services, etc.) Sheesh...I can't believe you actually replied with such a statement.

:eyes:

[Hissyspit]

130. Because they know they will be able to continue to steal elections

because we can't get our act together. I think you are misunderstanding.

[KoKo]

132. Thank God for the NC Activists who got their Act Together....and are

a model for what folks can do..but one needs to have access to one's State Capitol and lots of "clever folks" who can donate time without expecting payment when they hit Kinko's and have to take out time from their jobs that Dem and Repug Lobbyists get paid for!

If NC could do it then it should be a HOPE for everyone else. But...NC does have a DINO DEM as Govenor. (he's DEEP DINO DEM) but, I imagine in Repug States it's like rolling a boulder up a Mountain. I used to live in NJ which is filled with corruption but it was in some ways easier to work locally... yet on Voting Issues our Blue States seem very "dead in the water" ...maybe because they are BLUE they feel they don't have to "try harder" like those of us in the South? :shrug:

[MelissaB]

136. Question: How does Bev Harris play into this? There have been links

to BBV and I want to know how/if she is involved. I'm tired of dancing around the issue and I'll apologize up front to those I'm offending. I'm sorry! I think many of us are wondering the same thing, and people's reputation and business are on the line.

[troubleinwinter]

138. She was a rock thrower in the original APN article.

She is constantly smearing election reform activist and orgs. There is a whole thread referenced above on BBV where she carries on this nonsensehttp://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125. Shark references it here. Though it is CLEARLY stated on the thread in February, that VT is NOT associated with Choicepoint, OP insists on continuing this.

Since Bev is throwing rocks about donations and smearing others, maybe it's time for her to state who her large donors are.

Read trash article article http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html see posts #100, 113, 74.


(Edit- Fixed a link)

[Boredtodeath]

179. Search BBV - Matt Cardinale of APN is a big BevBot

There was an exchange between Bev and Matt some time back on the message boards at BBV.org

Matt wrote a glowing article about Bev.

This whole thing is coming from Bev Harris paying a "reporter" to do a hit piece.

The only unanswered question is what is Paul's involvement with BBV.

Clearly his behavior in DC, advancing a coordinated effort against HR-550, and the effort at BBV.org shows a direct connection.

We need answers about this conflict of interest.

As troubleinwinter has said, this is well documented Bev behavior - accuse others of your behavior.

[flyarm]

187. this is well documented Bev behavior - accuse others of your behavior.

hmmm also a karl rove tactic...

[troubleinwinter]

191. "advancing a coordinated effort against HR-550"

(and smearing activists)

Paper Is the Only Transparent Option
By Barb Burt
Posted on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:11:51 PM EST

Last week, as a large crowd of dedicated activists converged on Capitol Hill to lobby House Members to support H.R. 550, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, a confusing message was heard from one of the pioneers in the fight against unverifiable voting systems.

Bev Harris of Black Box Voting published an article claiming that HR 550 would do more harm than good, and that those dedicated activists who paid their own way to Washington to lobby members of Congress were "insiders" who, according to Harris, are prone to all sorts of nefarious behavior.

Not surprisingly, foes of verifiable elections, or perhaps I should say, proponents of DREs, have joined Harris's cry. One notable example is Dan Tokaji of Ohio State, who trumpeted Harris's article in his blog yesterday.
http://www.commonblog.com/tag/Paper%20Trails

[Boredtodeath]

195. Barb Burt...That wouldn't be Barbara Burt of Common Cause

now would it?

If so, it would thrill me to know they have Bev's number.

[troubleinwinter]

196. YES. Barb Burt of Common Cause.

[flyarm]

199. right on the money Troubleinwinter!!...bev harris up to her eyeballs

trying to destroy all activist groups...its her job.. doncha know!!

fly

[autorank]

140. Here's how this gets cleared up. Any takers?

Some, maybe all of answers to these questions lie in the email traffic of VoteTrustUSA which has been referenced before.

Why not get two or three independent auditors, bound to confidentiality, to review that traffic and determine if any defense of Choicepoint or other influence of a Choicepoint positions (i.e., through censorship of anti Choicepoint views) has taken place.

That's the way to wrap this up. Talking the talk is one thing, walking the walk is another.

There are professional mediators all over the USA who do this sort of thing all the time and they
do it in an exemplary fashion. They are strictly bound to confidentiality and deal with material
much more sensitive than this routinely and there are few if any complaints.

Let's put it to the test.

[troubleinwinter]

144. I think it's absurd.

Unfounded allegations and smears are hurled at Vote Trust and they need to DEFEND themselves? WHY?

This is garbage.

Suppose I hurl allegations that BBV's $30,000 donation came from Deibold or ES&S or Sequoia or Rove or the GOP, and suggested that BBV open their emails to several auditors.

Let Bev and Shark present backup to their asinine allegations.

[Land Shark]

151. You have the authority to execute a waiver of claimed VT confidentiality?

[troubleinwinter]

153. Pardon? WTF??!!!

[flyarm]

188. why don't we start with bev and why she has refused to send real documents

of her tax returns as required by "law"..and she has refused to do so...

i smell a giant rat in all of this and the stink goes all the way to bev!

so are some here just that naive???????????

or are some promoting taking the hard working people down for that wretch????????

i just wonder...well actually, i don't wonder any of it anymore!

fly

[Pastiche423]

146. Audit what and why?

It's actually quite simple. Landshark has lied and tried to smear Joan and VTUSA. Over the years here at DU, Joan (hedda_foil_) has proved her integrity and honesty many times over.

Why does he keep doing that and why won't he answer the questions many DUers on this thread have asked him?

He's lost any credibility w/me and I'm sure others w/his lies.

[mom cat]

161. Landshark: I am wondering why you did not point out the fact that

When John Gideon made his comments about Greg Palast that he was doing so in his capacity as a member of the BBV Leadership Team and the quote was on the BBV website:
"John Gideon
BBV Leadership Team
Username: Johngideon

Post Number: 213
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?)
Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 05:18 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am again. No matter how much I try to stay away from here I keep getting drug in. It needs to be made crystal clear that ChoicePoint has not, does not now, and, they say, will never have anything to do with elections. They purchased DBT (DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES, INC,) after the 2000 election and it does not do election data bases any longer. The inclusion of ChoicePoint in this piece is incorrect.

DBT got a contract with the state of Florida and warned the state that the information they were putting together was not accurate because it included many names that did not belong on the list. The state told them that's what they wanted because they expected the counties to scrub the list. The counties didn't do that. That is NOT DBTs fault and is certainly not the fault of ChoicePoint.

Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie. "

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125

You keep Referring to "a director of VTUSA"

From your post # 86 in this thread:

"Land Shark (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-16-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #62
86. compare these statements; one by Krawitz, one by a VTUSA director
Edited on Sun Jul-16-06 09:55 PM by Land Shark
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

on the one hand, Joan identifies the directors of VTUSA in another reply, and then states categorically (and despite the fact that it is PALAST who has made a career out of investigating where choicepoint and similar data miners' trail of evidence leads, but casts ME as the one pushing something):


We aren't defending Choicepoint. We have never defended Choicepoint. We have no relationship with Choicepoint. We have never had a relationship with Choicepoint. I have rebutted Paul Lehto's charges against us because Greg Palast doesn't know us and is understandably responding to Paul's charges. We have never and would never attack Palast or his research and we have never defended Choicepoint or the kind of work they do. Paul and his supporters keep asking us to defend or disavow the company's activities. We have never defended them and we have no connection with them to disavow. As I have said previously, I object to the whole datamining industry, in which Choicepoint is obviously a leader, and believe that the industry must be strongly regulated and the loopholes that allow companies to invade our privacy and sell our personal information closed, without exception.


Now, using the link at the very top of this reply, you can find
a director of VTUSA
stating, as an example:


Greg Palast, from whom you must have gotten much of this information, knows the facts but refuses to admit that his reporting was wrong. So he has just continued the lie."


Landshark, You keep referring to John Gideon as a director of VTUSA, but fail to mention that he is making the statement he made AS A MEMBER OF THE BBV LEADERSHIP TEAM, ON A BBV WEBSITE AND IN AN ON LINE DISCUSSION WHICH INCLUDED BEV HARRIS.

In fact, Bev Harris responds directly to John and re responds back to her. Their discussion is about ChoicePoint and Bev is raising the same issued that you are now.
At that time, John made clear that Donna Curling was not on the Board of VTUSA and that there was no Board of VTUSA. Therefore,LS, your characterization of John as a "director of VTUSA" is quite misleading.
Here is what John has to say about the VTUSA lack of a board in Feb of this year: (This is from a link I got from the post in which you point out the Palast-lie comment so I know that you have access to this information.)



John Gideon
BBV Leadership Team
Username: Johngideon

Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2004

Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?)
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 08:39 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bev disingenuously asks; "If you "discontinued all involvement with voting processes" why is the wife of Choicepoint President Douglas Curling on the board of directors of VoteTrustUSA and why is money from Choicepoint (through Curling to his wife) funding VoteTrustUSA? Has this funding for VoteTrustUSA and other voting rights groups been coming from Mrs. Curling directly, or from their foundation? If the money is from the foundation, has it been disclosed to the affiliates of VoteTrustUSA that according to SEC documents the Curling Foundation is a stockholder of Choicepoint?"

This is BS. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that Donna Curling is NOT on the Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. In fact, there is NO Board of Directors of VoteTrustUSA. Get your facts correct before you make statements, please. You will have a lot more credibility when you check your facts first.

As usual you also continue to use a wall paper paste brush to paint an oil painting. Neither Doug Curling, Donna Curling, or a "Curling Foundation" are funding VoteTrustUSA. Yes, Donna kindly helped us pay for a conference last year. So did other funders. Donna has made it crystal clear that the funds were hers and not from any other source. VoteTrustUSA, unlike some groups, relies on funds from the citizens and the blood, sweat, and, at times, tears of it's volunteers.

Get your facts straight and quit trying to involve other organizations in your vendetta."

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287#POST17125

Once again LS, this is from the web conversation from which you frequently quote, so I am quite surprised that you would continue to mis characterize the statement as being from "a director of VTUSA."

It is also clear from this web conversation that Bev was deeply interested in the Curling - VTUSA connection and that many of the issues being raised now by LS now were the same ones as were being raised by Bev in Feb of this year. Now, maybe Bev is on to something, but she has also been known to irrationally go after dedicated people like Andy.

I remember how tirelessly Joan worked to build interest in voting fraud here on DU. I do not want to see her or anyone falsely accused. Right now, I am concerned that you are being sloppy with facts and making accusations that could do a lot of harm.
I am also concerned about any possible veracity in the accusations and would encourage Joan to give full answers to Autorank's questions so that this whole sorry mess can be cleared up and put behind us.

I would also like to encourage people not to carry water for Bev in any attack on anyone in the voting rights community and that if there are any questions that arise on appearances of possible impropriety that they be handled with the same respect that anyone of us would want for ourselves.

[EFerrari]

186. mom cat, Gideon there seems to be mischaracterizing what

DBT did in Florida. And, Choicepoint just sold Mexican voter information to our government:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3186.htm

This whole thing reeks of that grifter.

[Land Shark]

189. regarding the "facts" of vtusa

1. I do understand that the explanation has been offered before and now that Ms. curling was just confused when she said she was on the Board of VTUSA. the "clarification" does not control. In lawsuits, this is what is known as a "fact issue" that requires an entire trial to sort out. It's not like the structure of vtusa is utterly commonplace: it's not a regular (c)(3) corporation, it's a "project" of a fiscal sponsor.... The existence of a "clarification" is also why it is claimed that I "know better". That's not true: the situation is at best murky, and the say so of one side of the debate does not erase Curling's statement, made in writing, for all time and for all purposes.

2. See my post reply #186 for what could qualify as a final word, though it probably won't be.

[mom cat]

200. I see what ChoicePoint did in Mexico and it makes me want to

:puke:.
I do not know all the parties involved, but I respect your opinion on the matter. I am just wanting to see some higher standards of evidence applied. It is too easy to jump to conclusions and I am afraid that might be happening here.

[EFerrari]

201. Of course. We'll work it out. n/t

[nolabels]

169. Greg Palast is da MAN

All you brave online freepers that want to challenge others to physical confrontations with bytes of data are just a bit weird me thinks. :hi:

[autorank]

176. nolabels, Greg Says Hello!

PHOTOGRAPH: MATT PASCARELLA

We could call this one, "Paying Attention"

[rman]

177. Leftist action groups are known to have been infiltrated

and compromised. See Operation Gladio.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the RW resorts to such methods. Is it not pretty well established that lies, deception, manipulation and violence are among their preferred methods?
Psychological warfare, disinformation... Pretend to be a lefty (deception), then subvert a left-wing movement (manipulation). Or better yet, create a supposed "left-wing" movement and do extreme things in its name for the purpose of discrediting the left.


Gladio - BBC Timewatch (1992)
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_CIA.htm
Three-part series investigating the secret activities of 'stay behind' units in Europe after the Second World War. Exposes the clandestine terrorist activities of these groups in Belgium & Italy, and their involvement with the CIA. Directed by Allan Francovich.

part one - The Ring Masters
http://11syyskuu.net/video/Gladio-1.wmv

part two - The Puppeteers
http://11syyskuu.net/video/Gladio-2.wmv

part three - The Foot Soldiers
http://11syyskuu.net/video/Gladio-3.wmv

-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio

[Land Shark]

185. Given a $4billion industry in voting machines and control of the world's

sole superpower via elections, it ought to give at least pause to all because the kind of 'cutouts' Palast is alleging are certainly a very real probability. Perhaps he's fingered the wrong cutouts, but regardless of that issue the risks of this infiltration is very real, the fact that choicepiont itself has been involved in voting groups as fronts is implied/expressed in Palast's email, and it would appear to be a GREAT strategy to do what Palast is saying has been done and then have the cutouts (or their loyal but misguided friends) complain mightily and loudly when anyone exposes any part of it.

Note that the number of cutouts may only be 2 or 3. the most likely thing is that the vast majority of everyone posting against my position here is completely in good faith and not a 'cutout.' They are largely "going with who they know and who they trust" which is human but is a SUBSTITUTE for reason.

the likelihood of fake activists is so high, i've said before that nobody should be above suspicion, including myself. At the same time, the work that we're doing on democracy itself is so non-controversial (in the end) that there can still be comfort in working together. We don't need to rely on "trust" and so forth: we can use our own heads and reasoning powers. "Trust" just causes people to be blind to things they would otherwise see.

I think if you've got me and Palast saying that there's an issue here, there need not be trust for our conclusions. But it does mean, I think, that there's a real issue, right or wrong, and it's not a matter of Palast and me suddenly going crazy and being "destructive" or something.

The final word might be this: Watch out for activists defending Choicepoint. Maybe they won't, any more.

[AntiFascist]

202. Wow, thanks for the links...Must See TV n/t

[joeunderdog]

211. This is precisely why we need to get these assholes out of office

so that some semblance of checks and balances can be brought back in. The knot in the noose is tightening and we won't last another election if we don't expose these criminals.

[Blue_Tires]

213. ttt for those that didn't get the message

[blogslut]

224. This is all very interesting

I'm still trying to absorb it. I don't have an opinion.

I will say that both VTUSA and BBV might want to spend some time checking on the SSL's for their respective websites. BBV's plesk cert is expired. VTUSA's host is operating with an expired (self-issued?) SSL certificate. This isn't a huge issue and I realize both sites are taking donations via Paypal. However, it's something each site's webmaster should look into.

http://whois.domaintools.com/votetrustusa.org

http://whois.domaintools.com/blackboxvoting.org