Reply #89: An observation after seeing a number of these "cybernet" threads...

[Garbo 2004]

If I may. One of the problems with much of the research on this Cybernet matter is the apparent assumption too often taken that any company with "Cybernet" in any form in its name is part of the same company. Another problem is insufficient critical scrutiny of whatever supposed "evidence" and "connections" are found or alleged.

Now some very interesting info has been dredged up as a result of this pursuit, perhaps as side paths not directly related to the Great Cybernet Hunt ;) that do reveal how incestuous the coporate/political world is, with some of the same players and outfits popping up over and over again, government contracts, political appointments, etc. Such as Accenture, for example. But in regards to Cybernet Ventures or CyberNET Group, there have been some whoppers IMO where folks need to critically analyze the finds since connections are asserted that are not substantiated. Not doing so leads to the promulgation of erroneous info which is unhelpful and does not further the investigation or add to the credibility of a theory or its proponents.

For example, such as in this instance where a cite of legal precedent established in another law suit apparently is viewed as evidence that Cybernet Ventures has an "interest" in Diebold and that it is "helping" Diebold in a legal matter. It's no such thing. Specifically, note this section here from the court filing refered to in the first post above and linked to in the previous disappeared thread:

"1.
ISPs Are Not Liable for Hosting Infringing Material When They HaveObjectively Reasonable Beliefs That it Is Fair Use.
It is far from settled that an ISP like Swarthmore College here, who merely hosts infringing material without more, is liable for the infringement. Congress, in creating the DMCA’s “safe harbor,” did not change pre-existing law on ISP liability where the ISP was outside the harbor.

5
In Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002), liability was based upon activities other than linking. As to the linking claim, the court held that plaintiff had “not established a strong likelihood of success on its direct copyright infringement claim against Cybernet.” Id. at 1189"

This #5 is a footnote in a case AGAINST Diebold citing the Cybernet Ventures case as a legal precedent. The Cybernet Ventures case is cited to support the plaintiff's' case that Diebold is misusing the DMCA to threaten web site owners and their ISPs. Cached google link of the filing against Diebold: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:vWD_Tn-KWtUJ:cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/OPG%20MSJ.pdf+Diebold+Cybernet+Ventures&hl=en . Direct link to the PDF of the court case filed against Diebold: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/OPG%20MSJ.pdf .

The mention of Cybernet Ventures is a citation to a court case establishing legal precedent that the plaintiffs are using against Diebold. It is not evidence of any relationship of Cybernet Ventures, Inc. with Diebold. Much less proof of a relationship of CyberNET Group with Cybernet Ventures or Diebold.

In fact, the court case in which the Cybernet Ventures case is cited is the suit filed suit against Diebold when Diebold sent threatening letters to people with web sites and ISP's that hosted the leaked Diebold memos. This should be familiar territory here since Bev Harris' BBV site was one of the sites that received one of these cease and desist letters if my recollection serves. The Cybernet Ventures case is a different case entirely, it's only "connection" to Diebold is that the case was cited as a legal precedent related to DMCA and copyright infringement. Which the plaintiffs used to blow Diebold out of the water in regard to their threats against the web sites and ISP's. More links about the case:
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61243,00.html
http://www.onlinepolicy.org/media/031114opgvdieboldhearing.shtml

This is interesting info relevant to Diebold and its cease and desist letters to Bev Harris and others. But there is no connection at all between Diebold and Cybernet Ventures, Inc. revealed here. The assertion that there is, based on this court filing, is simply a misunderstanding of the material being reviewed.

{Just for informational purposes: this is about the Cybernet Ventures court case regarding copyright infringement: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case269.cfm

This case apparently has established a judicial precedent, interpretation of law, that has relevance to other cases concerning copyright infringement and DMCA; hence it may be cited in subsequent cases involving copyright infringement and the DMCA: http://www.pf.com/DMCA.asp . Citing the case in a legal action is not evidence of any business relationship between the court cases or the companies involved in those cases. It's just standard legal practice to cite whatever relevant precedents exist for or against a legal action.}

One of the keys to building a sustainable credible case is viewing such "evidence" with a skeptical eye to either confirm or disprove its validity. Not by simply assuming that such alleged connections are valid or by basing assertions of connection and relevance on "facts" that really haven't been established. (Don't simply assume "facts" that are not in evidence.)

Look up this Cybernet Ventures to see what that company is about. Apparently adult verification for online adult sites and related stuff. What is the relevance of Cybernet Ventures to Fisher's claims? (I'm talking beyond an apparently unsupported assertion on another chat board that Blass has connections with Cybernet Ventures. Is there any thing other than that?) What connection has been established? Furthermore, what linkage is there between Cybernet Ventures, Inc and CyberNET Group beyond the word "cybernet?" Or of CyberNET Group with anything related to possible election fraud? These are important questions, critical to the investigation being conducted in these many threads. A similar name in itself is not proof of connection or relationship. To credibly claim that the two companies are connected not only requires substantiated evidence to support that claim, it also requires that one not ignore sustantial evidence that they are not connected.

I'm not saying don't look at things but be skeptical and critical to test the relevance and accuracy of what you find and what you assert. As one should do with any sort of investigation if one wants the results and assertions to be regarded as credible. Test the evidence. That's the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the relevant lines to pursue from wild goose chases.