Bev Harris, Jim March turn down California Qui Tam settlement

[BevHarris]

California attorney general indicated that if we didn't accept the settlement, California would cancel our whistleblower bounty on the grounds that we did not keep the evidence under seal.

We turned it down anyway. Here's why: The California settlement treats the Diebold problem as kind of a temporary certification glitch, and does not deal with the severe flaws found in GEMS (double set of books, nonexistent security), the votercard encoder (failed in March, disenfranchising voters, and contains a secret plan to do away with the poll book audit trail, making it electronic, nor did it deal with the unauthorized customization of Windows.

In short, it was a PR opportunity for the A.G. that was completely meaningless in terms of voting integrity reform.

Instead of accepting the settlement, we will be taking Diebold into discovery. All aboard for the ride, should be a wild one.

Bev Harris
Executive Director
Black Box Voting, Inc.

[NamVetsWeeLass]

1. ROCK ON BEV!!!!!!!!

Keep on fighting Bev. I posted something earlier where I stated that I wish Kerry would fight for us, and I am pissed that he isn't. I am glad we have you though.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Superb.

Have you considered a national outreach for pro bono lawyers, law professors with hungy, aggressive law students, et al?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Way to

GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[savetheuniverse]

4. I cannot believe

I just walked in here and *watched* this HAPPEN!

You people are, like, well, it's just that uh just er totally misunderestimated!

(hubby still doesn't believe it, but i think the hack the vote might get him to cave).

You busted him....he is busted... (well i knew that and you knew that but there were some who had doubt....)

[TeeYiYi]

5. I love your strength and tenacity Bev . . .

. . . in a world that feels like it's closing in around me, your undying will and indomitable spirit shine through as nothing less than heroic. Thank you.

TYY

[The Wielding Truth]

6. Doing the job. Bev, thanks.

[louis-t]

7. Bookmarked for further use

Thanks, Bev.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Go Bev, go! *hugs and prayers*

[bigtree]

9. I love the defiance in your statements Bev

Keeps us all focused and determined

[ispeculate]

10. are any lawsuits against diebold eligible for class action status?

[ispeculate]

12. whatever the case...as George Soros says in trading...

"Go for the jugular!"

[leftchick]

11. I have my seatbelt on!

GO FOR IT!!!

[ParanoidPat]

13. Thank you Bev.......

.......and give a hug to my favorite Republican for me next time you see him.

Just an aside about the Florida recount. In order to avoid the type of circus and photo ops that surrounded the 2000 recount, can you ask permission to use a 'copy stand' with a high resolution CCD camera and large monitors to make it easy for all to see the ballots and their markings? I have a brand new one still in the box that you're welcome to use if you'd like.

Hell, they could run it on local cable and let everyone count along at home.

[KittyWampus]

24. Now THAT'S A Damned Fine Idea... You Mean Show Each & Every Ballot

card on tv so anyone who is interested can tally votes for themeselves?

[BevHarris]

27. I was just thinking about that. I will definitely be calling you, Pat

I wasn't sure how to best do this. I have some other questions too.

Bev

[ParanoidPat]

30. Always at your service my dear.......

.......it's the least I can do. (And never let it be said that I didn't do the least I could do! )

If projecting the ballots onto a 16' diagonal screen eliminates any more 'bug eyed guy' pictures I will be happy to help in any way I can.

Technically it would be cheap and easy to add 'high speed machine vision' to the basic optical scanner and take individual pictures of every ballot as they are being scanned creating an archive that can be searched by anyone immediately after the count is finished. I'm certain that many such vision systems were used in the manufacture of various parts of your computer so it should be affordable enough to use it for quality control in our elections. JMHO.

[ParanoidPat]

33. That's exactly what I mean........

....... show it in the public viewing areas and show it on local cable TV!

I'd love to be responsible for creating the 'longest most boring program ever to garner an audience'.

The thought of broadcasting it has a kind of 'Truman Show' appeal to it.

[BevHarris]

40. Pat -- suggestions for this, please:

The Diebold GEMS program allows the county to print "facsimile ballots" -- these are NOT photocopies of real ballots, but instead, are concocted ballots out of GEMS, which print the ballot exactly as it is sent to the printer (GEMS is used to create the ballots sent to the printer) -- except, when GEMS prints the "facsimile ballots" it fills in the ovals as if a voter did it, using the data in GEMS instead of the voter's ballot.

We ran across "facsimile ballots" in another court case. The county said it had to give facsimile ballots in order to "protect" the real ones.

Those of you familiar with GEMS know just how dangerous this concept is.

My question: Florida rules allow us to watch, but not touch, the ballots. How can we effectively eliminate the use of some "facsimile ballots" mixed in with the real ones?

Bev

[ParanoidPat]

43. I don't understand the concept of printing "facsimile ballots".......

.......except in the case where DRE's were used and you would want to construct a physical, human readable ballot from the electronic 'touch screen' input. The concept of printing an alternate ballot to the original, 'prima fascia' evidence of voter intent in order to somehow 'protect' the original record makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'll look into what the code says.

America wake up and pay attention. This is the real battle for Democracy, the right to count the real evidence of voter intent rather than a copy of how the machine interpreted the original.

[ParanoidPat]

45. Florida Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166, Manual Recounts.......

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Dis...

102.166 Manual recounts.--

(1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure.

(2)(a) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by between one-quarter and one-half of a percent of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to judicial office was retained or not retained by between one-quarter and one-half of a percent of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by between one-quarter and one-half of a percent of the votes cast on such measure, any such candidate, the political party of such candidate, or any political committee that supports or opposes such ballot measure is entitled to a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure, provided that a request for a manual recount is made by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election.

(b) For federal, statewide, state, and multicounty races and ballot issues, requests for a manual recount shall be made in writing to the state Elections Canvassing Commission. For all other races and ballot issues, requests for a manual recount shall be made in writing to the county canvassing board.

(c) Upon receipt of a proper and timely request, the Elections Canvassing Commission or county canvassing board shall immediately order a manual recount of overvotes and undervotes in all affected jurisdictions.

(3)(a) Any hardware or software used to identify and sort overvotes and undervotes for a given race or ballot measure must be certified by the Department of State as part of the voting system pursuant to s. 101.015. Any such hardware or software must be capable of simultaneously counting votes. For certified voting systems, the department shall certify such hardware or software by July 1, 2002. If the department is unable to certify such hardware or software for a certified voting system by July 1, 2002, the department shall adopt rules prescribing procedures for identifying and sorting such overvotes and undervotes. The department's rules may provide for the temporary use of hardware or software whose sole function is identifying and sorting overvotes and undervotes.

(b) This subsection does not preclude the department from certifying hardware or software after July 1, 2002.

(c) Overvotes and undervotes shall be identified and sorted while recounting ballots pursuant to s. 102.141, if the hardware or software for this purpose has been certified or the department's rules so provide.

(4) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(5)(a) A vote for a candidate or ballot measure shall be counted if there is a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice.

(b) The Department of State shall adopt specific rules for each certified voting system prescribing what constitutes a "clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice." The rules may not:

1. Exclusively provide that the voter must properly mark or designate his or her choice on the ballot; or

2. Contain a catch-all provision that fails to identify specific standards, such as "any other mark or indication clearly indicating that the voter has made a definite choice."

(6) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) Each duplicate ballot prepared pursuant to s. 101.5614(5) or s. 102.141(6) shall be compared with the original ballot to ensure the correctness of the duplicate.

(c) If a counting team is unable to determine whether the ballot contains a clear indication that the voter has made a definite choice, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for a determination.

(d) The Department of State shall adopt detailed rules prescribing additional recount procedures for each certified voting system which shall be uniform to the extent practicable. The rules shall address, at a minimum, the following areas:

1. Security of ballots during the recount process;

2. Time and place of recounts;

3. Public observance of recounts;

4. Objections to ballot determinations;

5. Record of recount proceedings; and

6. Procedures relating to candidate and petitioner representatives.

History.--s. 9, ch. 18405, 1937; CGL 1940; Supp. 337(23-b); s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 5, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 30, ch. 28156, 1953; s. 24, ch. 57-1; s. 29, ch. 65-380; s. 27, ch. 77-175; s. 48; ch. 79-400; s. 15, ch. 89-348; s. 601, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 99-339; s. 42, ch. 2001-40; s. 21, ch. 2002-17.

Note.--Former s. 100.25; s. 101.57.

[BevHarris]

51. We will not be using the manual recount laws, but the sunshine laws

We're going in using the same laws used by the AP and Judicial Watch.

Bev

52. Bev, they snuck up and certified the result in FL!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041115/ap...

I warned you, get those injunctions out ASAP in Ohio, etc!

[BevHarris]

55. Nope, it's not final.

There are a few additional canvasses that remain to be done. That's a preliminary certification. We still have plenty of time.

Bev

57. YAY The HOOD is a HOOD! n/t

54. Bev I wrote this story earlier today--

www.libertywhistle.us

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
-Among circumstantial evidence, a common thread: e-voting machines don’t meet rule of law in vast areas of US
-Grounds to reject 2004 results already exists
By Dan Spillane The Liberty Whistle

(SEATTLE) 11/14/04 – While plenty of questions remain after the 2004 elections concerning electronic voting equipment, so far evidence of fraud is said to be circumstantial. Therefore, the media has jumped to the conclusion that nothing was awry during elections, and has been running duplicate stories, more or less claiming internet activists are engaged in “conspiracy theories.”

Yet activists have only reviewed facts and figures, most of which are spewed out by computer equipment. Absent paper ballots, however, the reliability of these figures is completely and utterly dependent on the diligence of pre-certification for said equipment; this certification ensures elections are carried out under the rule of law, and give equal protection to e-votes and actual ballots. And therein lies a profoundly big, and ugly, fly in the 2004 election results ointment--a fly that quickly trounces the “all clear” signal echoed in the US media.

You see, it turns out the manufacture and pre-certification of e-voting equipment is largely centralized in the US; moreover, direct (rather than circumstantial) evidence of insecure software, and outright fraud has surfaced recently, related to the central certification lab for US voting equipment. What this means in practical terms is that votes in large e-voting counties all over the US aren’t being given the equal protection and consideration as those in counties with paper ballots. In short, the alleged “equivalence” of electronic records with paper ballots is a sham, in not one, but many areas of the US. Add into the mix, e-voting equipment and certification has never survived (let alone been submitted to) a proper legal challenge… what we’re left with is a moral, ethical and legal obligation to throw out the 2004 election results.

It only follows then that any state which includes 2004 e-voting results in a tally cannot certify final results until it is demonstrated that the underlying diligence in e-voting certification is equivalent to the paper ballot, and “one person, one vote.” But if such a claim is made in coming days, Americans have absolutely no reason to accept it—without the rule of law, US election results simply aren’t free, fair, nor democratic.

So while there may not be direct evidence that Bush “stole” the election, as rumored on the Internet--there is also no direct evidence that he won either, for the very same reason. As they say in computer circles, “garbage in, garbage out.” Certainly, the world’s largest democracy needs more than unsubstantiated electronic numbers to name a president. It follows then, US and world citizens have the right of rejection, protest, and direct action-- as they see fit--until the rule of law in US e-voting elections is established.

58. KICK KICK KICK KICK KICK

59. KICK KICK KICK KICK KICK

60. KICK Somersault

61. KICK they can't certify elections in any states!

62. YEEEEEEEEEHAW SNORT NEIGHHHHHHHHHH!

[RedEagle]

72. Ballot "records and reports" vs. real ballots

I'm not sure about the punch card systems but the optical scan systems can print out a ballot report. (May be called record some places)

I saw this at some testing of optical scan systems, so it's not confined to DRE's.

Like the DRE's, that report is NOT the original ballot, but the computer's version of the ballot.

Watch the language in recount requests and look at what may have been done to some state laws to facilitate recounting something that is not an original ballot. Legislators may have fallen for this one or didn't know what they were signing into law.

Those ballot reports and records are NOT voter verified.

As such, they are not original evidence of voter intent, only evidence of what the computer program said that intent was.

[ParanoidPat]

73. I understand all that, what I can't phathom.......

.......is how any Judge could ignore the fact that the "facsimile ballots" created by this method do not offer evidence of the voters intent, rather, they create a record of the machine interpretation of the original ballot based on a single data point per mark!

The accuracy of this type of "facsimile" ballot may be affected by one or more of the following conditions,

1) The machine's mechanical calibration or alignment may be off just enough for the sensor to miss some properly aligned marks on the originals thereby creating ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the originals.

2) The machine's electrical calibration may be off just enough to miss triggering on legitimate marks, again creating ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the originals.

3) Some original ballots may be printed or trimmed slightly out of proper alignment allowing the machine to miss legitimate markings.

4) Some ballots may contain marks made with pens of the wrong type ink supplied by poll workers, that will not trigger the sensors in a properly calibrated machine.

5) Some combination of slight alignment, adjustment and reflectivity errors may stack in such a way as to miss legitimate marks and create ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the original.

In all of the above cases should a machine miscount a ballot, the fault lies with the State and the voters original intent may be divined only by looking at the original or a "reasonable facsimile" thereof, such as a photograph or photo copy that clearly shows all markings on the ballot regardless of absolute or relative position or the reflectivity of the markings.

In a recount situation, an "equal protection" argument may be invoked if voters anywhere in the same state have their votes hand counted using the originals, as their votes are not subject to the same standards of treatment.

This however is not a recount, rather an inspection of public records under the Sunshine Act so the fundamental question changes. Now we must ask, "Does the public have an inherent right to see the "original" record or a "reasonable facsimile" thereof, or does the State have the right to substitute a synthetic "facsimile" of that record that may be inaccurate and subject to systemic errors in it's creation and offer only it as "the" public record without any way of comparing it to the original?

The legitimacy of our elections hangs on the answer to that question.

[harmonyguy]

80. Ballot images from GEMS are NOT reasonable facsimiles

In many (probably most) cases, courts, legislators and election officials lack the technical skills to understand the difference between a legitimate photocopy of a ballot and a machine concocted printout. They have been hoodwinked into believing that the concoction is the same thing, and therefore is a reasonable facsimile. After all it 'looks' like a duck and 'walks' like a duck, but it didn't come from a duck egg. (Talk about genetically modified)

If you had ask for duck soup in a restaurant, which would you rather be served, soup made from a duck, or soup made from something that's never even been near a duck, and is really of questionable parentage?
(Duck soup could also be soup that was made on board a Wisconsin Dells duck - a type of duck that has no feathers on its metal skin)

Getting back to concocted printouts, in GEMS, between scanning the real ballots and printing the concoctions that look like ducks ballots, you can easily flip votes. This was how I proved my theory about 'ballot images' NOT being reasonable facsimiles. Someone with access to Access, can easily make changes that will appear on any 'ballot image'. This is especially important in jurisdictions where ballot rotation is used. If the order in which the names appear on the ballot is constantly changing, it's harder to spot if someone has 'altered' the result. And, of course, the audit log would show that nothing happened anyway.

Democracy requires that ducks should be from ducks, and that we have all our ducks in a row, before proceeding into the bush.

HG

[Joe Chi Minh]

76. Surely,

there could be no more important usage for the original votes than for them to be counted, Bev, particularly if a filmed record of the count is made and kept. Otherwise, it is rather like keeping an oil-paint masterpiece or a piece of very precious jewelry *permanently* locked up in a safe. Only much worse, of course. And even they are occasionally displayed.

[harmonyguy]

78. Facsimile Ballots

This may be a red herring, but be careful with the term 'facsimile' since, in some jurisdictions, it has special meanings within the law. For example a signature on a document sent on a 'facsimile' or 'fax' machine, has legal standing.

REAL voter-verified ballots for GEMS 'should' be on card stock, slighlty cream in color, while these 'machine generated concoctions' will likely be on flimsier, white, lightweight office paper.

Depending on the distance from which viewed, you might be able to spot them.

In canada, scrutineers are not allowed to touch ballots, either. Only the 'officer in charge' at the count can actually touch them, but make them available for close visual inspection by each scrutineer.

HG - (crosseyed from New Mexico spreadsheets)

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Thanks Bev

you may want to know I just sent my congress critter a how to hack the vote primer.

She and I are from cali

You will love the titlle

"I voted, I think, for whom I intended to vote."

I am sure she will love it, really.....


(Keep feeding the congress critters and others... and keep the presure folks)

[virgdem]

15. My hat is off to you Bev,

Keep fighting the good fight for us and the integrity of our electoral system. It is broken and needs to be fixed and you have been doing one hell of a job in revealing the fraud within our system.

[evolvenow]

16. Free Speech Vindicated in OPG v. D*b*ld

Thank you Bev!! You are our national Treasure! Would this case help?

In a victory for free speech and transparency in electronic voting debates, Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that D*b*ld should pay damages and attorneys' fees for its knowing misuse of the DMCA's takedown provisions.


http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/weather.cgi?Weat...

[JudyM]

44. That sounds great. Here's another way to put the heat on Diebold

Like many of us did with Sinclair, we can put heat on Diebold for its actions. Here's the list of its board members, for whoever's up for writing to them (email them at their companies' websites), followed by a list of its institutional investors and finally, a quickie draft letter you can use. If you're only going to send one letter, consider sending it to one of the institutional investors rather than to a Board member. Note that there are 2 variations of the letter's second paragraph - pick the one that's appropriate, as noted. Please freely edit the letter, of course, however you'd like.

1. Board of Directors:
Louis V. Bockius III Retired Chairman, Bocko Incorporated
Christopher M. Connor Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Sherwin-Williams Company
Richard L. Crandall Managing Director, Aspen Partners, LLC
Eric C. Evans President and Chief Operating Officer, Diebold
Gale S. Fitzgerald Director , TranSpend, Inc.
Phillip B. Lassiter Non-executive Chairman of the Board, Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
John N. Lauer Retired Chairman of the Board, Oglebay Norton Co.
William F. Massy President, The Jackson Hole Higher Education Group, Inc.
Eric J. Roorda Former Chairman, Procomp Amazonia Industria Eletronica, S.A.
W.R. Timken Jr. Non-executive Chairman of the Board, The Timken Company
Henry D.G. Wallace Retired Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Ford Motor Company

2. Institutional Investors (write in particular to any in that hold your money)
Fidelity Mgmt and Research (far and away the largest sharholder)
First manhattan capital Mgmt
T Rowe Price
Artisan Partners
Barclay's Global Investors Intl
Baincapital
Franklin Advisors
US Trust Corp
Aim Capital Mgmt
Pioneer Investments
State Stree Global Advisors
Banc One Investment advisors
Vanguard Group
Alliance Capital Mgmt
Transamerica Investments

3. Draft letter (note - choose one of the 2 verions of 2nd paragraph):

Dear :

I write to express my outrage at the conduct of Diebold in relation to the recent presidential election, and to suggest you consider the gravity of its actions. Diebold's performance on several fronts has been abyssmal. First, there have been numerous problems reported with the equipment that would have been caught with even rudimentary quality control processes. Second, it has been reported that Diebold was made aware of some of these problems and failed to fix them. Third, there was an utter lack of control over the computer code, which is now all over the internet.

Add for Board members only:
It is certainly an element of your fiduciary duty to shareholders to seriously consider the performance of Diebold in these respects, and I urge you to revisit your most basic operating and compliance principles and take swift and strong action to clean up Diebold's operations. In particular, your CEO made a mockery of the service you were entrusted with providing by ensuring the delivery of Ohio votes, and the world now knows. Surely you can see what poor leadership this flagrant conflict of interest constitutes. It is astounding that in this post-Enron/Worldcom environment a CEO would be so oblivious to the ramifications of his own actions. Plus it could subject Diebold to protracted and costly legal action and untold reputational damage. If he is not made to feel the grave error of his actions I think you know that the US Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants will lead any judge to be quite harsh in reviewing any case that citizens or the government bring forth. This is particularly true in that he has violated Diebold's Code of Conduct, which states," Also, every board director, officer and employee must exercise sound judgment in all matters involving business ethics and integrity and to refrain from any conduct that could be questionable, or appears to be questionable, on ethical grounds." It is clear to the country that, as things now stand, Diebold should not be entrusted with upholding the foundation of our democracy.

Add for institutional shareholders only:
Please consider that you have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to seriously consider the performance of Diebold in these respects, and I urge you to drop Diebold from your portfolios. This type of performance suggests a systemic disregard for both product quality and corporate integrity. Both of these are critical lapses in a company that provides security services and counts among its clients the financial services industry. In particular, Diebold's CEO made a mockery of the service it was entrusted with providing by assuring the delivery of Ohio votes, and the world now knows. This constitutes a flagrant conflict of interest and throws question on the integrity of the company's operations, in general. It is astounding that in this post-Enron/Worldcom environment a CEO would be so oblivious to the ramifications of his own actions. Plus it could subject Diebold to protracted and costly legal action and untold reputational damage. And the US Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants will lead any judge to be quite harsh in reviewing any case that citizens or the government bring forth.

[mcg]

17. Say it Bev, say it. Thank you.

[Mike Nelson]

18. ((((THANK YOU))))

Keep working for Democracy, Bev. Americans want it just as much as Iraqis! Thank You.

[evolvenow]

19. Bev, please look at this

http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/trabs/Brazilvote1....

Brazil evote, looks pretty similar, you know

[evolvenow]

21. 2nd link

BD" target="_blank">http://finance.lycos.com/qc/research/insider.aspx?datat...

[AnIndependentTexan]

20. it is because of people like you that we might keep democracy alive

thank you

[Laelth]

22. Thank you.

We all owe you a debt of gratitude.



-Laelth

[da_chimperor]

23. Way to take a stand bev!

eom

[ailsagirl]

25. You're a godsend, Bev--

[ailsagirl]

26. kick

[mountainvue]

28. Keep going

Bev!

[Spazito]

29. Kick

[Eric J in MN]

31. We need more people like you (nt)

nt

[DireStrike]

32. Bev for president 2008!

...If she's not too tired!

64. I will be her campaign adviser!!!!

[annabanana]

34. How's about a little donate-athon

go to
www.blackboxvoting.org
and give her a boost to help offset her refusal to short-circuit the California investigation.

[milkyway]

35. You go, girl! Thanks for not caving. No more faith-based vote counts.

Democracy demands no less.

[underseasurveyor]

36. OMG You are the most awesome person

Not only do I want to be like you when I grow up (I'm 45 now ) but I want you to be my President.
Whadda Woman!

[hunter]

37. Kick...

Wave to Bill Lockyer.

[RedEagle]

67. Ya Think California Need a New AG? N/M

Kick!

[ParanoidPat]

68. Wave to hunter

and a to Bill Lockyer.

[Unforgiven]

38. Kick This Topic!

[Pale_Rider]

87. Kick ...

Howdy to Bev, ParanoidPat, Bill and Agent Mike.

[corker]

39. Thank you Bev!!

[leesa]

41. Bless you Bev. You and your staff are the biggest heroes I know of.

63. EXACTLY! n/t

[KT2000]

42. Yes!

get them into discovery.
Thnks for all you do!

[alittlelark]

46. I can go to sleep a happy woman...

...knowing Bev Harris has my back!

47. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love you. I adopt you as my MOTHER! Or Sister!

www.libertywhistle.us

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
-Among circumstantial evidence, a common thread: e-voting machines don’t meet rule of law in vast areas of US
-Grounds to reject 2004 results already exists
By Dan Spillane The Liberty Whistle

(SEATTLE) 11/14/04 – While plenty of questions remain after the 2004 elections concerning electronic voting equipment, so far evidence of fraud is said to be circumstantial. Therefore, the media has jumped to the conclusion that nothing was awry during elections, and has been running duplicate stories, more or less claiming internet activists are engaged in “conspiracy theories.”

Yet activists have only reviewed facts and figures, most of which are spewed out by computer equipment. Absent paper ballots, however, the reliability of these figures is completely and utterly dependent on the diligence of pre-certification for said equipment; this certification ensures elections are carried out under the rule of law, and give equal protection to e-votes and actual ballots. And therein lies a profoundly big, and ugly, fly in the 2004 election results ointment--a fly that quickly trounces the “all clear” signal echoed in the US media.

You see, it turns out the manufacture and pre-certification of e-voting equipment is largely centralized in the US; moreover, direct (rather than circumstantial) evidence of insecure software, and outright fraud has surfaced recently, related to the central certification lab for US voting equipment. What this means in practical terms is that votes in large e-voting counties all over the US aren’t being given the equal protection and consideration as those in counties with paper ballots. In short, the alleged “equivalence” of electronic records with paper ballots is a sham, in not one, but many areas of the US. Add into the mix, e-voting equipment and certification has never survived (let alone been submitted to) a proper legal challenge… what we’re left with is a moral, ethical and legal obligation to throw out the 2004 election results.

It only follows then that any state which includes 2004 e-voting results in a tally cannot certify final results until it is demonstrated that the underlying diligence in e-voting certification is equivalent to the paper ballot, and “one person, one vote.” But if such a claim is made in coming days, Americans have absolutely no reason to accept it—without the rule of law, US election results simply aren’t free, fair, nor democratic.

So while there may not be direct evidence that Bush “stole” the election, as rumored on the Internet--there is also no direct evidence that he won either, for the very same reason. As they say in computer circles, “garbage in, garbage out.” Certainly, the world’s largest democracy needs more than unsubstantiated electronic numbers to name a president. It follows then, US and world citizens have the right of rejection, protest, and direct action-- as they see fit--until the rule of law in US e-voting elections is established.

[BevHarris]

53. If I was related to you, I'd probably have to get an IQ of 200 or so

like you.

Hi, Dan.

56. I award you 200 IQ points. honorary! n/t

48. I am so happy I am CRYING!!!!!

wooooohoooooooooooo

49. INJUNCTIONS NEEDED TO BLOCK CERTIFICATION IN OTHER STATES

ASAP!!!!

50. EMERGENCY ACTION NEEDED BY LAWYERS ACROSS US!

The fckers in Florida must have known about this. CERTIFICATION NEEDS TO BE STOPPED IN OTHER STATES ASAP!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041115/ap...

Florida Panel Approves Election Results

Sun Nov 14, 7:08 PM ET

By BRENT KALLESTAD, Associated Press Writer

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - It was a wish come true Sunday for Florida's elections officials: no cameras, few questions and a clear decision.

Unlike four years ago, when scores of television satellite trucks and hundreds of reporters camped outside the Capitol, the state canvassing board quietly certified the results of the Nov. 2 general election, in which President Bush (news - web sites) captured the state's 27 electoral votes by a comfortable margin.


"I think everyone is glad the election has come and gone," Secretary of State Glenda Hood said.

But referring to a handful of staffers and a couple of reporters observing the certification, she added, "It's a little lonesome."

65. Kick

[AgadorSparticus]

66. GIVE'EM HELL, BEV!!!

[leftchick]

69. kick

[Window]

70. Big old KICK!

.

[oc2002]

71. time to take them to the mats.

Great work Bev.

thanks.

[renate]

74. kick!!!!

"we will be taking Diebold into discovery"

75. BEV--when is your official announcement?

I checked your website, not there yet.

[tommcintyre]

77. kick

[prodigal_green]

79. How unAmerican of you

not to take the money and run!

Thank you Ms. Harris!! Are they really so cynical as to think that the only reason you'd do this is to get the bounty money? Is the California AG a Republican?

[RedEagle]

82. I believe the California AG is a Dem

Kick!

[HootieMcBoob]

81. Nice

I have a tremendous amount of respect for what you all are doing.

[machiado]

83. KICK

[RedEagle]

84. Working hard to preserve your vote- Kick!

[AmerDem]

85. Thanks for all the hard work!

You are one of the shining few we can count on in this country.

[wickywom]

86. That answers my Bartcop question.

[yojon]

88. Thank you Bev!!

You are a beacon of light in all this darkness. We are behind you >100%!