BBV: California to seek restitution for fraudulent claims by Diebold

BevHarris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Sep-07-04 01:31 PM
Original message

BBV: California to seek restitution for fraudulent claims by Diebold

Edited on Tue Sep-07-04 02:01 PM by BevHarris

California Attorney General to Pursue Fraudulent Claims Case Against Diebold

The California Attorney General's office and Alameda County counsel have notified the California Trial Court that they will join the false claims act filed by Bev Harris and Jim March against Diebold Election Systems and Diebold Incorporated.

The suit seeks restitution of taxpayer money paid to Diebold on behalf of Alameda County and other California counties that opt to join the case. The suit alleges that Diebold made fraudulent claims when selling its voting system.

====================

The suit seeks restitution for the state of California, in an amount to be determined. Factors that will determine the amount of taxpayer restitution: Number of counties who join the case, and whether Diebold is required to pay triple damages.

Whistleblower bounty: Harris and March refused to seal the evidence in the case, because it is of critical importance to the public, and is time sensitive. By refusing to seal the evidence, a number of additional safeguards were implemented in California and other states. More are being sought.

Because Harris and March refused to seal the evidence, the State of California may ask to have them removed from the case, but taxpayer restitution will still be achieved. Almost all Qui Tam suits joined by the government do settle in favor of the taxpayer.

In the event that California does not seek to have Harris and March excluded, Harris will remit any settlement to the nonprofit Black Box Voting consumer group. Harris is an employee of the group, but is not on the board of directors and does not have control.

=====================

A personal note: My husband and I are among those who tithe to our church. Once, in a whistleblower action pertaining to a financial fraud case, about a decade ago, I got a small windfall. I knew I should tithe -- but OUCH. My mind could come up with so many rationalizations for other uses. My husband taught me something I have followed ever since: When you know you should give away something, but it is hard to do, you announce it in advance.

On that occasion, when it appeared that a settlement might appear, I told the minister and committed to tithe. Then, when it happened, it was not hard to follow through.

I am using the same lessons here. Perhaps there will be a bounty. Perhaps not. But in the event there is, I have committed to turn it over to a nonprofit group to further efforts towards election reform. Having committed to do so, should a windfall arrive, I'm stuck now, aren't I? That's the way I want it.

The amount is not huge. My estimate is that it will be about one-third of 15% of $9m, after taxes. Certainly not "millions and millions" as some have alleged. But a nice amount to invest to provide ongoing income for Black Box Voting, whether I am employed by the group or not.

========================

How does this affect Diebold?

Note that on Diebold's July SEC statement, it mentioned a number of lawsuits, but never cited them by name and dismissed them as having no material risk for the company.

With one exception: The Qui Tam filed by Harris & March. That suit is in its own small paragraph, and here is why Diebold had to pull it out for special attention:

The suit can domino into taxpayer restitution nationwide, and if this amounts to treble damages, plus related costs, it could run up to close to a billion dollars.

Now that constitutes a material risk.

The GEMS feature, which we have researched further in recent days, can take out Diebold in over 30 states, and all (optical scan paper ballot and touch screen) have the right to seek restitution for false claims based on the fraudulent psuedo-security in GEMS.

================

OK. I'm off to Florida tonight. All the best,

==========

On edit: A person has just notified me that another group(s?) may want to do a joint press conference to offer "support" and get national press saying doing Qui Tams is a good idea nationwide.

Well, not so fast. And I find this very interesting. You see, it is NOT a good thing, if such groups have been planning a federal Qui Tam or have several state actions going, but agreed to seal their research and their evidence. There is only one reason to seal the evidence: It maximizes your chance of collecting money for yourself. The down side is overwhelming -- all that information, all that original research, all that devastating evidence, lay unused and unavailable while we were holding elections.

For now, I declined the press conference "in favor of Qui Tam actions" with these other groups, because the press has difficulty understanding shades of gray. I have always maintained this consistent position: Qui Tam is very bad if you seal the evidence to maximize your chance of collecting a personal windfall. It is very good if you refuse to seal the evidence, because it helps get taxpayer money back.

The press might miss that nuance. Hmm. Interesting development.

Bev Harris