BBV - Diebold Sued (Again) Over Shoddy Voting Machines (Slashdot)

[TrogL]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/12/2351241&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=123&tid=98&tid=99

Computer programmer Jim March and activist Bev Harris have filed suit in California state court against Diebold under a whistle-blowing statue

[natrat]

1. yea baby

we want more,more,more legal action like this.Our country as we know it literally depends on it. more more more

[struggle4progress]

2. Suit filed last November

Much better links exist. Actual LBN appears to be portions unsealed.

Lawsuit against Diebold unveiled
... Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, filed the suit last November. She accuses Diebold officials of financial fraud and seeks to recover damages on behalf of California. Harris filed the suit as a whistleblower, meaning Diebold could be forced to pay a bounty to Harris' organization.
Such a suit, called qui tam, is normally secret, and plaintiffs are barred from releasing evidence to the public. Black Box Voting's attorney, however, found legal precedent to argue that in the presence of overriding public interest, the case can go forward even if evidence is not withheld from the public. Harris unsealed parts of the case late last week, she said in a written statement ...
http://www.fcw.com/geb/articles/2004/0712/web-diebold-07-13-04.asp

Bev's description:

Qui-Tam Lawsuit Filed Against Diebold For Fraud
Monday, 12 July 2004, 2:50 pm
.... "Qui Tam" is a term for a whistleblower suit seeking to recover government funds spent based on fraudulent claims. The Qui Tam suit filed by Bev Harris and Jim March seeks to recover funds for the state of California from Diebold Election Systems. As part of the Qui Tam action, a bounty for the whistleblowers is paid, and Diebold will be asked to pay this to Harris and March as part of additional damages, which in turn will help fund Black Box Voting.
This case was originally filed back in November of 2003, and the existence of the case was held under seal by the courts while various government attorneys decided whether or not to "join in the case". When it became clear that the seal would still be intact through the California primaries (March 2nd), Harris, March and attorney Finley "split out" elements of the case that could be made public immediately in an attempt to improve the security of the primaries. That attempt via preliminary injunction failed, although those weaker case elements are still in play, but now the other shoe has dropped: the much stronger "financial fraud-based" elements of the case are now public.
The state and county attorneys are still officially undecided as to whether to join in or not. Should they do so, the plaintiffs and their attorney will split a 15% "bounty" on all funds recovered -- should Harris and March have to prosecute the entire matter without government legal assistance, the state and county will still get their money back but the "bounty" jumps to 30%.
Note that when fraud can be proven in a Qui Tam action under California state law, damages are subject to triple damage penalties. In Alameda County alone, this would cost Deibold $42 million, which would go towards restitution to the taxpayer ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0407/S00110.htm

[w4rma]

3. Why is Senator Dodd's signature on this document opposing paper ballots?

Why is Congressman Steny Hoyer's signature on it, also?

http://www.house.gov/cha/dearcolleaguemarch3-04.htm

I understand why the two Republicans' signitures are on there with them.

[TahitiNut]

4. There's an interesting 'bandwagon effect' in this.

At this point, we have one lawsuit in one state that has some (controversial) probability of arriving at a verdict that assigns liabilities to a (limited liability) company.

The company's resources are limited. (That's what being a corporation is all about: the sanctioned power to do far greater economic harm than can be compensated. In other words, it's economic power far greater than accountability. Downside is limited but upside is unlimited. Justice? Ha!)

Let's suppose Diebold is similarly exposed in multiple states.

The last state to obtain a civil verdict (whether via the agency of a Qui Tam or not) will never be able to collect. The (subsidiary) company will have gone bankrupt. Indeed, a verdict against Diebold in California alone could bankrupt them.

The question facing other states is, then: "Do we feel lucky?" If Diebold goes bankrupt and the other state has their voting machines, what then? Would a reciever also assume repsonsibility for the systems' certification? Would the liabilities be inherited? What kind of sweetheart deal would other states be able to cut?

It's time for them to shit or get off the pot, methinks.

[hunter]

5. Must...Not...Play...With...Matches...

...arghhhhhhhh...can't stop myself...

...close box before striking...strike...phssssssssst...fire!

Are you not, TrogL, on the "Acknowledgements" page of Bev's book?

And a slashdotter too... that's gotta be worth at least four dollars when this is all done.

Does your stomach hurt when you turn on your computer? Mine does.

I take comfort in the kitchen analogy I posted on that other thread.

Yum. Rhubarb Pie!