Reply #23: Bev engaged in a "qui tam" law suit in California

[Kelvin Mace]

against Diebold. This, in and of itself would not be a big deal unless you understand that Bev Harris VICIOULSY attacked other activists in the Summer of 2003 and accused them of "selling out for qui tam money".

BevHarris
Jul-05-03, 10:24 PM (ET)
The TRUTH behind the demands for Black Box findings

A Qui Tam suit.

Each of the key researchers on this issue discussed the possibility of filing for Qui Tam money. The partipants deserve respect for what I feel is a nearly heart-stopping show of honor, each and every one of the researchers turned down the possibility to make millions, deciding that the issue of democracy was too important to cash in and shut up.

Here's the deal on Qui Tam: Yes, you can file, and this gives you protection, BUT: From the moment you file, it all goes under federal seal.

Who controls whether the lawsuit will see the light of day? Basically, John Ashcroft.

When we discussed it amongst ourselves, we each independently came to the conclusion that doing this for money was the wrong thing to do, and doing something that will put a federal gag order on what's wrong with voting machines is a VERY wrong thing to do.

We aren't soiling ourselves with Qui Tam money. Go for it. And if you don't end up disappeared (because remember, Ashcroft gets a full 60 days when you can't even tell people what you know or that you filed the case), and if under some bizarre circumstance Ashcroft appoints a federal judge who will actually treat your case fairly (hah!), and if you stand up to what is sure to be a relentless attempt to destroy your credibility in every way, and if your evidence proves your case, you will split up a few hundred million dollars.

Later Bev would accuse people of "stealing" her work in order to file a qui tam suit. She would accuse MANY people of selling out, when in fact, she was working behind the scenes to file such a law suit herself.

The matter erupted when Bev first annnounced the law suit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1960084#1967764

The suit was eventually settled with Deibold paying a token fine, admitting nothing and Bev and Jim getting $76,000 a piece. The suit was dismissed "with prejudice" meaning the issues raised in the suit can never be brought up again in California.

Bev and Jim got cash, California got "squat minus".

Jim March made his reasons for the law suits VERY plain in this posting in 2004. In explaining his involvement in the suit (and in another one agaionst ViaCom, Jim said:

What does it all mean?

It means Viacom and Diebold are now engaged in a race to see who can make ol' Jim a millionaire first

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90961&perpage=999

That is Bev's partner (until he meets the same fate as all others who have helped Bev)and a member of the BBV Foundation board speaking.

PM me and I'll be happy to provide you with many more links documenting Bev's treachery.