Reply #204: A quick summary

[ConsAreLiars]

since this thread has a lot of noise in it. Briefly. Jim March has been an important part of the anti-BBV effort from early on and the actions taken by them and others in CA led to the discovery that Diebold could be sued (in CA) for fraud without obligating the plaintiffs to withdraw from the struggle for honest voting systems (in contrast to federal or other state suits). As I read this, Jim brought to Bev the fact that a Qui Tam in CA could be filed without giving up the fight, and they agreed to go forward. You probably recall Jim's crucial help on this project at a key juncture, and both have "standing" in terms of their qualifications as whistle blowers with specific evidence of fraud.

Because this kind of carries stiff penalties it is genuinely punitive, and it returns to the state money for alternative technology that actually fulfills the contract requirements.

Bringing the suit helps the BBV effort by drawing additional attention to the wrongdoing, and if it wins, by funding continued efforts and giving the state a chance to pursue alternatives.

The only people who would be benefited by discrediting or undermining this suit would be Diebold and the TrustMeCorp snake oil operatives generally, and those who want unverifiable voting systems.