At last !!! Bev Shows us the Money !!!!!

[SomthingsGotaGive]

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=84&forum=DCForumID4410

snip
Now, let's look at this idea for a moment: John Kerry literally ran away from the idea of doing any auditing or recounts, and only grudgingly agreed to be involved at all. He invested none of millions that he had raised from his donors was "to make sure every vote counts."

Instead, our small organization, with just two full time employees and a volunteer, were supposed to bootstrap our way into overturning a presidential election -- without the support of the candidate himself -- something that has never been done in history, and an activity that our nonpartisan nonprofit 501c(3) status specifically prohibits.

snip

Donations tagged to Randi Rhodes show: $23,800
All donations, some of which we have allocated to building infrastructure and off-election funding droughts:
About $300,000

We have spent or committed about $19,000 of the $23,800 Randi Rhodes money. This was for FOIA requests and related legal expenses.

more..

[Darknyte7]

1. Call me crazy...

but just $23,800 of $300,000 tagged to Randi's show seems a bit low to me. I didn't mention Randi's show in my donation, and i gave them $50.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Didn't Randi make a comment to someone after Bev appeared

that they don't do fund raisers on the radio because they apparently don't work? Meaning, that the low amount would be accurate.

[cali]

2. This is not an accounting of funds

It's a vague description, and the gratuitous slam at JK is more than a little disconcerting.

[barbarag]

9. Bev

How could she even accept money from Kerry? She is suppose to be non-partisan. This isn't the first time she has slammed JK. I don't like it. I am beginning to think she does have a problem.

[L. Coyote]

33. Yes, a $300,000 problem. We should all have such problems.

It is a huge task to maintain a 501(c)3 and track all the money, file all the reports to the IRS, keep exactive accounts..... not to mention doing the actual work the organization purports to do.

However, it would be nice to find time to report a little to the donors. Of course, that might swell the problem to a million dollar problem.

By the way, I notice that election fraud has grow to a big industry online, with the collection basket out in force. Some sites seeking donations seem to be even more stagnant than blackbox.

[NewsGuyOne]

80. Slam Bev if you want, but seriously, how has Kerry helped?

He's done virtually nothing to keep his promise that every vote will be counted.
She's probably overstressed from her work, while the rest of us sit here on our computers doing next to nothing.
Cut her some slack. She ain't the one with $15 Million in her bank account.

[Maddy McCall]

84. No, but she's the one with $306,000 of other people's money in her acct.

Ya know, you bevborgs all have the same explanation for Bev's irrational behavior..."it's stress."

[NewsGuyOne]

116. John Kerry has millions of "other people's money" in his account.

I've just been amused by the way this board goes from hero worship to libel.
It's not just Bev who's behaved erraticly.

You people turned on her faster than I turn on my television when Hockey Night In Canada begins.

I think she's being doing good work.
She's done more to illuminate the problems with voting than has John Kerry, who incidentally has millions of "otherpeople's" money in his account and the power to get things done.

[Kelvin Mace]

117. Bev is the QUEEN of libel.

And she knows where to serve the papers if she doesn't like what I say.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[NewsGuyOne]

118. The Bev hatred is insane ...

Put it where it really belongs.
it can't possibly be with her, can it?

[Kelvin Mace]

119. She reaps what she has sown

[ebayfool]

133. "The Bev worship is insane ..."

Put it where it really belongs.
it can't possibly be with her, can it?

[NewsGuyOne]

138. I agree

She's a woman with her own motives.
I don't know her personally.
But I don't worship anyone or anything.
I'm only interested in her work.
She was the first person who really alerted me to some of irregularities of the eleciton, so I've been I've been keeping tabs on what she's digging up.

And, in my opinion, her work has been more reliable than Wayne Madsen's work or Curtis' affadivit.
Madsen completely lost me when he suddenly tried to tie in Curtis' claims with his own story, which was hard enough to believe.

[Imagevision]

137. I agree!

[librechik]

139. FYI, David knows her personally and has done business with her

so he knows what he's talking about for real, unlike some I could mention.

I for one have always been skeptical of Bev, but I don't know her and hatred is too strong a word for me in any case. Are you trying to label an entire discussion board as haters? That would be a witless generalization.

[Pepper32]

122. Would you believe someone that worked with her?

READ THIS...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1438290

[Kelvin Mace]

145. There you go AGAIN

citing facts to folks who don't want to join the reality-based community.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Pepper32]

209. I know... lol

Bad habit... What can I say? :D

[berniew1]

134. I don't think you really have much understanding of Kerry account money

[NewsGuyOne]

141. Please Explain

[clydefrand]

130. How can you know for a fact that your statement is true?

"He's done virtually nothing to keep his promise that every vote will be counted."

I'm not sure that any of us can KNOW what he has done.

[Im with Rosey]

21. I Agree!

Anyone can throw numbers around! How about a spreadsheet? At the very least a little bit of proof somewhere.

[merh]

34. Not to mention that according to FEC regulations, all accounting

of the K/E campaign have to be recorded, tracked and are available on line at the FEC's site.

Sniffling angry people are so :boring:

[kalidas]

161. JK has more explaining to do than Bev

Don't blame Bev. She is dedicating her life to cleaning up the vote fraud problems. She is traveling, probably not getting much sleep. People should stop blaming her for what is going on instead of Bush and Kerry. Kerry is the only one that can raise the needed money and put the spotlight on voter fraud. I will not give him another dime unless he acts before January 6th

[SomthingsGotaGive]

3. oh how could I forget this beauty.

"I hear the angst in America, from people who know this election was not trustworthy. I do believe that the person most responsible for failure to get an accountable election is John Kerry himself."

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=84&forum=DCForumID4410

edit to add:

I recommend saving to your hard drive.

This is Bev statement v1.0 beta.

It is bound to be buggy and they will offer a free upgrade later on so check back regularly.

[Pirate Smile]

6. What is the friggin point of that comment? Does she intentionally want

to alienate people who would otherwise support her?

Don't answer that, I already know the answer.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. It's not really Kerry's fault. He was a senator and senators must

abide by a rule of decorum and civility. He needs to realize that doesn't apply to presidential elections. Kerry can still pull this out. But he needs to come out fighting, and show a high profile of spit and fire.

[malatesta1137]

65. he does!

even showing decorum and civility, he could still show a high profile of spit and fire. It's too his fault.

[Straight Shooter]

18. Gosh, Bev, you just keep pushing some of us further and further away

I do believe that the person most responsible for failure to get an accountable election is John Kerry himself.

Well, Bev, I do believe that some of us on this board are absolutely correct that you are a limelight hog and no friend of the Democratic party. It's all about you, you, you, you, you.

:argh:

[Cheswick2.0]

25. no particular fan of Bev Harris

but she is right on that statement. Kerry and the democratic party had an obligation to do whatever possible to make this a fair election and they failed. They failed to even discuss the issue due to a lack of courage.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. no particular fan of Bev Harris

but she is right on that statement. Kerry and the democratic party had an obligation to do whatever possible to make this a fair election and they failed. They failed to even discuss the issue due to a lack of courage.

[Straight Shooter]

28. I will respectfully disagree with that assessment

The horror of the spectacle of Gore 2000 is a nightmare I will never overcome, and I could see it easily happening again following the events of 11/2.

You noticed that as soon as Kerry signed those 88 letters to the BOEs, the media was all over it like white on rice. It was just a brief flareup, but it happened. Look at the way pundits mock Jesse Jackson, an honorable man, for standing up for the rights of citizens to have their votes count. Did you see Sean Hannity blasting Cliff Arnebeck, screaming at him, "Get over it!! You lost!!" They're all just waiting to sink their rotten teeth into Kerry, too.

I feel like I'm on a citizen jury of sorts, and until all the evidence is in, I'm not going to judge John Kerry as a failure at anything. As for Bev, she reminds me of a witness that is so unappealing personally, it's hard to separate the testimony from the person.

Hi, ches, haven't bumped up against you on a thread in a while :hi:

[intelle]

45. Also

with all the fraud allegations surfacing, isn't it the responsibility of BOTH republican and dem parties to make sure we have and had a fair election?

[Straight Shooter]

48. Excellent point.

Maybe it's MORE their responsibility. After all, the mess was created in Ohio by Republicans in charge, and aren't they the self-proclaimed "party of personal responsibility"?

Wow. Great talking point, intelle, thanks!

:yourock:

[intelle]

50. thanks, Straight! n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

91. in never never land

maybe.
That is no excuse to let the democratic party off the hook. They are weak and ineffective. It is time for better democrats.

[Cheswick2.0]

89. Like I said, lack of courage

they are afraid,just as you are, of what they media will do. They failed to have the courage to brave the attacks. We know the media will attack no matter what. What are we going to do, lie down and roll over forever? So we got a fraudulent election.
They could at least have known about the dangers of e-voting before they signed onto the lousy voter protection legislation. They failed.

Hi, back. :hi:

[Straight Shooter]

111. I don't think it's lack of courage

I don't know what it is, I'm as perplexed as I can be. I want John Kerry to make some kind of statement, but I hate that media circus.

I like to think that Arnebeck, who is considered to be a long-time friend of John Kerry, is the one who is front and center acting on behalf of Kerry. What I have seen is that when it comes time to actually act in a constructive manner, even if it appears more timid than we want, John Kerry does step forward; e.g., signing those 88 letters to the BOEs. He just wants to be so sure before he makes a move. I don't know what I'd do in his place because I don't know what he knows and what he suspects.

What's most aggravating to me is that none of us would even be having this conversation if the election hadn't been rigged to begin with. The thorn in my side is that democracy is a sham, and it makes me weary to think of the hard road we have ahead of us to make things right for everybody.

[bobbieinok]

149. AMEN and AMEN, sisters and brothers

it makes me weary to think of the hard road we have ahead of us to make things right for everybody.

[clydefrand]

131. Agreed completely with your assessment. Until I know for a

fact that JFK isn't involved, then I'm not going to criticize him.

[Eloriel]

86. I'm with you on this, Ches

I can think of no reason NOT to do the right thing -- and the right thing has never been silence in the face of tremendous wrongdoing. And we have that in Ohio just in the massive vote suppression, so there's plenty to speak up about that is very well "proven" and there's absolutely no law against raising questions and demanding proof and investigations and so forth when things don't look right, and there's very little in OHio that looks right.

[senseandsensibility]

85. What, seriously, is the meaning of that comment?

She can not seriously mean that Kerry is more responsible than the people who stole the election. You, I'm fairly impervious to all the Bev bashing and want to cut her some slack, but the anti- Dem, and even pro- * comments that I have seen attributed to her will eventually drive me into the enemy camp as well.;( Does anyone know if Bev is a liberal or a Democrat? I have heard rumors that she is a republican.

[Kelvin Mace]

110. She is an opportunist

The remarks attributed to her come from her own web site an bear her name.

She now counts George Bush and Freepers among her supporters.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[senseandsensibility]

142. I wasn't doubting the veracity of the comments

on her website, but they seem to be more pro- * lately. Is that a fair characterization? I realize that she has to appear non-partisan, but her positive comments about * are over the line. If, as you say, she is an opportunist, is she doing this to gain financial support from freeps? Why would they want to support her when all the fraud is on their side? I'm confused. Yeah, I know, what else is new?:9 In your off the record or casual conversations with Bev, did she ever claim to be a Dem or to be a progressive? I can understand if you don't want to answer. However, like most union activists, I prize loyaltly (not the chimp Nazi unquestioning variety) very highly. I am angry about the insinuation that Kerry is to blame for a rigged election that Bev HAS to know was rigged by this administration. To me, that is the ultimate sin. I am curious about where you think this is coming from, so I would appreciate any light you could shed on the issue. Thanks.

[Kelvin Mace]

144. Hard to say

Bev enjoys the limelight. For the first time in her life, she is famous and she is jealous of anything she feels threatens her place in the sun.

In the beginning of her posts here she pursued the line that the GOP was going to rig the election and that this was a grand conspiracy something I rejected then and now.

Her claim that Bush is on her side is bizarre and unlikely which makes me worry more her grip on reality. The right will not embrace her, sweet comments about Freepers not withstanding.

There is no reason to pay her money, she's doing enough damage by herself to the issue. They migh be donating to the foundation, but not to her personally.

That said, Bev engages in classic projection behaviour. She often accuses people of doings things she herself is doing: Lying, being irrational, betraying allies, filing qui tams. She accused me of taking payments to "sabotage the book" when she was the one who killed all the deals.

I do not see Bev as calculating what move to make in order to get more money. She genuinely believes all the nonsense she spouts and is quick to see sinister motives in mundane errors or incompetence.

She has a poor grasp of tech in that she knows just enough to use the lingo, but not enough to genuinely understand it. Thus, the silly-ass claim about IP addresses belonging to "private corporations". She is good at convincing people with little tech savvy that she is an expert.

In the presence of real experts, her claims fall apart.

This, I believe, is the reason the Dems shun her. They have consulted true experts who tell them Bev's claims are spurious at best, pure delusional fantasy at worst.

Bev cannot admit error or apologize, so she must always assume that anyone who refuses to agree with her or submit to her demands MUST be working to thwart her for some dark reason.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[senseandsensibility]

151. If you don't buy into a GOP

conspiracy to rig the election, how would you characterize it?

[Kelvin Mace]

156. The same way I have repeatedly

Fraud has occurred. It always does and in varying degrees in EVERY election and on BOTH sides. There are many tools for fraud, but the word "fraud" has a VERY precise legal definition and unless someone can meet that definition, Bush is going to be inaugurated whether we like it or not.

The GOP used a NUMBER of tactics to win the election, some legal, some shady, some illegal.

1) They smeared Kerry (legal)
2) They worked the voter suppression angle. (shady)
3) They did their damnedest to disrupt registration efforts. (legal-shady)
4) They worked the voter intimidation angle. (illegal)
5) They ARE working to keep ballots from being counted (legal)
5) And some people *probably* tinkered with votes/voting machines. (illegal)

You can be damn sure that the GOP coordinated the legal stuff, but will have a hard time proving and it is unlikely that they conspired to break the law at the national level. Why, because you can't have such a massive conspiracy. The more people involved, the more chances there are that the conspiracy will break down.

It is hard to postulate any scenario for conspiracy that wouldn't involve dozens, if not hundreds of people.

While it is easy to see how these tactics could have cost us Ohio or Florida, we still would have lost the popular vote because TOO MANY PEOPLE don't bother to think.

And THAT is the sad reality of this country.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[robbedvoter]

147. Geez! Blackwell, Diebold and the BFEE are pure as the driven snow then

So glad our non-partisan" rehabilitator of freepers finally found out who is accountable!
John kerry - how dare you steal the election?

[progressiveboston]

4. That is great!

We should thank Bev for doing this. I only wish this had happened sooner, but oh well it's out there :)

[cali]

7. You're being sarcastic, right?

There's nothing in that statement that accounts for anything, and the slam against JK is infuriating. She's trying to deflect criticism, and that's about all.

[pick_a_dilly]

8. oh ya --- really great . . .

BEV has sealed her position as a suffer of a serious personality disorder. this make you happy progressiveboston??

think of all the people, myself included that feel foolish for having given bev $.

what if JK had endorsed this poor diluded soul, financed her blurred crusade --- ya he would look really good now!!!

the only thing bev has turned over is a new reputation as wacko or a right wing operative ----- or as is all too common --- BOTH!

ya ha!

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Well, considering how much time she's put into this effort,

I can only reach the conclusion that no one could ever get this far without being personally affected by everything they've seen. I don't see her as a wacko, nor a right wing operative. But I do have problems with people who go that far in criticizing her and wonder what kind of public good works those critics have engaged in lately?

[On the Road]

38. Money Does Strange Things to People

even if it's only a $300,000 nonprofit back account.

So does publicity and influence, even if it's only over a group of volunteers. But there's no greater personal danger than being committed to a crusade you believe in wholeheartedly.

All of us here believe in the justness of the fair voting efforts and the exposure of election fraud. Most of us are not committed to 24/7.

Helen Keller was a public embarrassment, even to the left, as she became increasingly radical and belligerent. And yet she's still an inspiration today. If Bev is successful at finding widespread election fraud, she may yet have the same status.

[pick_a_dilly]

62. i said reputation as ...

a wacko / RW operative ....and this is true.

personally my opioion is that she is a bit unstable might mean well but is doing us no favors.

[wrate]

79. Exactly. Bev is an Average American doing something about electoral fraud.

She is NO POLITICIAN so don't expect her to be one. As they say in that TV commercial: "I don't see you doing it, Grandma!"

[Kelvin Mace]

113. Just because you don't see it, don't mean it isn't being done.

You could try opening your eyes and looking somewhere other than Bev Central.

And on the contrary, she is a PERFECT politician: Treacherous, duplicitous and backstabbing.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Eloriel]

87. Very weak, Backlash

On at least 2 counts:

I can only reach the conclusion that no one could ever get this far without being personally affected by everything they've seen.

You're attributing her bizarre behavior to what she's "seen" during her activism? No evidence of that, plus it's something of an admission on your part that she isn't quite right.

I do have problems with people who go that far in criticizing her and wonder what kind of public good works those critics have engaged in lately?

By this logic, no one would have a right to criticize anything or anyone unless they themselves were doing the same or similar work.

[The Backlash Cometh]

120. I speak from experience.

In my little foray with activism, I learned that I outrage easily. Which is why I do my best to stay out of the spotlight. I also learned that ordinary people can do & say incredibly stupid, stupid things around you that will reflect on you because you associate with them. They may not realize at the time the harm it causes you, but you learn that even allies may be a problem.

I'll give you an example. At a City Hall meeting, I was outside with one of my "allies" and a city worker which you never knew was a good guy or a bad guy. He played both sides. Well, my "Allie" was an old retired Republican. Old man who has since become very ill. I see him on the golf course from time to time and he's fading fast. But, when I knew him, he use to jaw a lot and exaggerate to get a guffaw from the boys. And he says, in front of this city worker, something to the effect of, haha wouldn't it be funny to put a mail bomb in so and so's mailbox. I turned white. I was shocked. I couldn't believe he would say something so incredibly stupid. I knew that he didn't mean it, which is why he felt comfortable saying it, but you just don't take those kind of chances in a public place when you don't know who's listening. For crying out loud. It was moments like that which decided for me that I'd rather watch from the sidelines, because it was better than hanging around a group of people who didn't have the common sense to watch the things they would say in public.

If I had stayed with the activism, I would have probably ended up as eccentric as Bev.

As for criticizing, yeah, let he who is free of sin, cast the first stone. Criticism is not what is wrong, it's the exaggerated stoning of Bev from people who have never been out in the field that bothers me.

[Kelvin Mace]

112. This is getting damned old

Any time someone criticizes this woman for her petty and vindcitive behavior, they are immediately asked, "and what are YOU doing to save democracy???"

Do YOU have any idea what I and other people have done? Maybe some of us just do it and don't hold effin' press conferences so people can applaud us and tell us how great we are.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[The Backlash Cometh]

125. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

Hey, getting Diebold into discovery will be one hell of a coup, won't it?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dcforum/DCForumID4408/50.html

[Kelvin Mace]

129. If it ever happens

[Garbo 2004]

157. Diebold 12/17 press release: court approved settlement.

Press Release Source: Diebold, Incorporated

Court Approves Diebold Settlement Agreement With State of California
Friday December 17, 11:27 am ET

NORTH CANTON, Ohio, Dec. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A California court today approved the settlement agreement between Diebold, Incorporated, and the State of California and Alameda County in their civil action against the company and Diebold Election Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary. As previously disclosed, terms of the settlement consist of a total $2.6 million payment to the state, which includes a $100,000 payment to Alameda County. A portion of the settlement also includes $500,000 to help form a voter education and poll worker training program in California coordinated through the University of California Institute of Governmental Studies. Additionally, Diebold has agreed to certain technology and reporting obligations that will provide election officials with a better understanding of the most effective manner of implementing its elections systems.

Costs related to this civil action, including the $2.6 million reserve for the settlement payment and costs related to product recertification, legal and other expenses, were included in the company's third quarter results. As previously disclosed, these costs had a $0.05 impact on earnings in the third quarter. The company also previously disclosed it anticipates an additional $0.01 per share of expense in the fourth quarter related to resolving this matter.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041217/clf031_1.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

159. BBV reported this, but according to their webpage, they didn't

accept the settlement. They're still fighting it, but if it goes through, it is another indication that our courts have been taken over, just as the Supreme Court was.

What do you think?

[Garbo 2004]

160. The case is CA (& Alameda) against Diebold. Not BH vs Diebold.

When the AG stepped in and took over the case he took over standing from the original qui tam complainants. So the issue with the settlement was that even if BBV didn't accept the settlement it wouldn't make any difference as long as CA, Alameda and the court approved it.

That was known before and is not something new. That's why "not accepting the settlement" didn't mean quite as much to the disposition of the case as some thought it did.

[The Backlash Cometh]

162. Hmm... next question:

Is there a confidentiality clause in the settlement? And if so, does California allow government bodies to enter into confidentiality clauses?

[Garbo 2004]

163. Read it for yourself...proposed settlement in html via google.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:tJVhtbGwLjYJ:verifiedvoting.org/downloads/Proposed%2520Settlement-Final%2520(11-10-04).pdf+California+vs+Diebold&hl=en

(also available in .pdf format from verifiedvoting.org)

Obviously, the terms of the settlement are not confidential.

[Andy_Stephenson]

164. This says it all....hope I am wrong.

"Pursuant to Paragraph 4.1.d., a sum to be determined by agreement between can be reached, an amount ordered by the court, if any, payable to MARCH and HARRIS by a check made payable to the Law Offices of Lowell Finley Client Trust Account, for the qui tam plaintiffs’ share pursuant to Government Code section 12652 subdivisions (g)(2) and (j), together with actual interest accrued by the Deposit Fund from the date such funds were deposited into the Deposit Fund."

[The Backlash Cometh]

165. They said they turned it down. So we shall see what standing they'll

have at that point.

[Kelvin Mace]

166. I would also

like the fact that the money was turned down confirmed by the court.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[The Backlash Cometh]

167. Let me explain why the confidentiality, or lack of it, is important.

It means that all the evidence that HAS been uncovered, i.e. the incriminating e-mails, can be discussed in the public domain.

[Zan_of_Texas]

126. Hey pick

or is it pick-a-fight.

Name calling seems to be your game -- I lost count, there were more than one per line in your short post.

If you go read all the Bev threads for the past nearly-two years, come back and say that.

It's a little more nuanced than your post.

And please learn to spell "deluded" if you're going to throw it around.

[propagandafreegal]

5. Well, what about a status report. A clear accounting of where she is

going and what she has accomplished thus far. It seems so jumbled to me. What about the lawsuit against Lepore?

[valis]

12. So glad I never donated. But I was tempted early on.

[Sydnie]

37. I gave something I consider more valueable

I gave my TIME! I can earn more money (hopefully) but I can never get that TIME back no matter what I do.

Let me explain:

I gave up a day's pay to stay home and make signs -- freeway blogs -- to lead people to her site when she was "talkin' trash" from Florida. I thought that was important information to share with my corner of the world. I made the signs, drove around and hung them, tended to them for weeks, replacing them when the weather had taken it's toll, hanging more that I carried in my car, etc. Then the drama started. The statements that she placed on her site when she was tombstoned here, now the conflict with ARR and RR, firing Andy, the "theories" about her forum, ... the list could go on for ever!

All those things were played out on her FRONT PAGE. Not some little disclaimer that you had to know was there or look for to find, but right there for ALL visitors, new and old alike to see. It so overshadowed the WORK she was doing that I went out and took down my signs for her site. I was embrassed to leave them. Anyone stumbling onto that site from one of my signs would have thought that I, too, was a loon even if I didn't know them. When the drama became more interesting than the effort and the supporting evidence I could no longer support her site.

Now, she is posting her donation info on the main page and we still haven't seen the evidence that she says she has. What's the point?

I never directly gave her any money intentionally. I did, however, donate without realizing it. At our rally last Sunday, they were passing the "jug" for donations. I put money in the bucket assuming that it was going to the group that organized the rally. Only after the jug had passed by me did they announce that the money they were raising was to go to Bev. I felt sick.

I am one of those that was referred to in an earlier post today about being three paychecks from homeless... only I am tetering on more like a days pay from homeless sometimes... especially with kids at christmas time. I didn't put that much in that jug, but if I could have snatched it back out of that jug I would have with no remorse.

So, I gave something that I can never get back... TIME and a belief that I can get the message out to others with confidence that what I am supporting deserves someone else's consideration.

When the person becomes more important than the movement we have a martyr not a leader. She was a player, no doubt about it, but the drama makes us all seem like we have followed a rat charmer out of the hamlet never to be believed again.

Shame on Bev for that. Rise above it Bev. Those that have supported you would appreciate some professionalism. I would rather hear about the issue on legitimate terms rather than gossipy he said/she said front page distractions.

Just my two cents -- that's all I can afford!

[m berst]

98. great post Sydnie

I would mention something else that people invested - their hopes.

Hopes, dreams, and time are not seen as valuable by far too many people. For those who are already at risk and are willing to be aware of the fact that they are at risk, hopes, dreams and time are all that they have left to give, short of giving their lives.

I think that we can gain a better understanding of the Bev feuds here - as well as the Kerry feuds that have arisen here because of Bev's comments about him - and all of the feuds at DU if we consider that the battle may be between the haves and the have-nots. I offer this for consideration in the quest for understanding and better communication, not as an assertion to be violently argued over as is to often the case.

Haves and have-nots don't so much disagree on positions and ideology as they have different views of reality. When I say "have" I don't just mean that they have money - it also includes having a sense of security and having a sense that they have a place in the society.

I think that behind all of the Fundamentalist moral values rhetoric, all of the liberal bashing and all of the right wing ideology is a have versus have-not battle. Unfortunately, many people who by any rational measure are have-nots are voting for the Republican party because they can believe that they are haves. And, unfortunately, many haves are in the Democratic party and bring all of the prejudices and world view of the ruling class into the discussion here masquerading as something else.

Whether one is a have or a have-not, then, partly depends upon what one actually has and partly upon what one thinks they have or wants to have. Part mindset, part bank account, in other words.

Both parties have become parties that represent haves. The Republican party represents those who may have money, and who have their religion, their jingoism, and their membership in the all-white all-Jesus club. The Democratic party has become the party of those who may have money, and who have position, status, security and membership in the elite, academic, and intellectual club.

Haves in the Democratic party will argue in favor of caution, patience, moderation, compromise, realism, intellectualism, practicality, meritocracy, status, qualifications and individual responsibility and blame.

All of that is anathema for the have-nots.

Have-nots in the Democratic party argue for solidarity, compassion, alertness to danger, creativity, suspicion of those with wealth, power and status, fairness, and collective action, responsibility and blame.

I think these two world views are what animates the two sides of almost every discussion at DU, and among liberals and Democrats in general as well. I saw a thread yesterday that highlighted this for me, and I may not have the facts exactly right about the particular debate, but it will serve as an example.

A poster said he had a problem with his driver's license and asked for help and advice. Now, you wouldn't think that this would be controversial, but sure enough two antagonistic camps started to form.

The one camp berated the poster for his irresponsibility, and chided him for wanting something for nothing by asking for advice at DU.

Now, a have-not might say hey, wait a minute, the guy made a minor error in forgetting about a traffic ticket, and got into a little jam here. The result is a draconian and arbitrary decision by the state to suspend his driving privileges (ironically the original offense was unknowingly driving on a suspended license as a result of a neglected or forgotten ticket for a minor traffic infraction). A have not would say that the fines and punishments are excessive - they are for most people. A have-not would say that this has more to do with whom the police pull over than it does anything else. A have-not would say that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a certain race or a certain economic status or in certain neighborhoods.

Yet, a have would argue that it is all the poster's own fault. Some said that he was stupid for not doing the obvious and enlightened thing - hiring an attorney. Think about that one. The poster said that had the court and the DMV informed him of all of the facts, he would have opted for the alternative - 5 days in jail - rather than agreeing to a huge fine that also included (unknown to him when he made the decision)losing his license for 6 months. This was met with more ridicule - what kind of idiot would agree to spend 5 days in jail seemed to be the unspoken implication.

There are people in this country for whom the situation is already a dire emergency. They are already falling behind, they are already fighting off the wolves, living in fear and poverty, suffering from diminished opportunity and hostility from those around them. They were promised by various haves to put their faith and trust and hopes and dreams - and for many of them dollars and hours they could ill afford - into various people and ideas, from the Democratic party, to Kerry to Bev. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and giving Bev, or Kerry, or the Democratic party chance after chance after chance.

It is shocking to me to see every day Democrats speak with no compassion whatsoever for the people who are going under and going under fast as they are told what is wrong with them, how they are too emotional, too alarmist, how they should get over it and move on, or what famous or wealthy person they should pledge their undying loyalty to.

I would argue that their is a great unseen army of have=nots out there, and that army is growing every day. There are many who are have-nots but are vigorously resisting facing the truth and clinging to nay shred of evidence that things will be ok, and those are the ones who most vociferously argue the point of view of the haves. Soon, I predict that the majority of people in the country will be have-nots and will realize that they are.

Yet so many Democrats see the forgotten people as losers, defectives, stupid, emotionally disturbed, irresponsible, and as an irritant and an annoyance.

Look at every argument you see at DU again and tell me if you see an underlying dynamic at work - the haves versus the have-nots.

[Andrea]

172. Interesting and thought-provoking

Thank you for posting this very interesting theory. I think you may have touched on something very fundamental, but largely unrecognized. I am going to give this a lot of thought.

[valis]

176. Well, I spent days proofing her book

Not just typos, checking those refs with Factiva and other databases to make sure they were correct etc...
Now I hear accusations from people who were very close to the very beginning of the entire story, that she stole the idea/evidence from someone else who had contacted her PR company originally...

[Kelvin Mace]

188. The would be Steven Hertzberg

who had hired her to do PR for his web site votewatch.us. When Bev dug up an lot of the errors for him, she suggested a book together. As she did later with Rox, me and others, she slowly changed it from "our book" to "my book". When I came along, completely ignorant of Hertzberg's role in the issue, she signed on with me, and dumped Hertzberg, telling him she was writing the book on her own.

(Bev warned me early on that votewatch was probably working with Diebold, another lie, but at least I now know why she told it.)

So, very little of Bev's research is her own. As far as I can tell, only the ES&S stuff and Hagel. Whether that research will stand scrutiny has yet to be determined.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[libertypirate]

13. This lady could blow the lid off the whole thing...

Instead we have to listen to this soap opera of BS. I would really like to see some scans of the trash verses the fakes she was given in Volusia. Put your pride aside Bev and put up or shut up. I like the fact that she is aggressive, but the most important thing here is saving this democracy before it's to late.

[AmerDem]

14. she said precise accounting will be released

"Our financial statements will be released with a precise accounting, but here are interim figures as of the end of November:"

It appears she gave these numbers now to temporarily satisfy people who requested this info after Rhodes show. I say wait until this "precise accounting" is released before making further accusations. It's in Harris's best interest to have the official precise accounting done as soon as possible. People are very doubtful of her as of late and her behavior has totally taken everyone away from what really matters, fixing our voting process and exposing the crooks that are part of it.

[cali]

17. She should step aside.

If she cared, she'd exit. She has harmed the cause of bbv reform far more than she's helped it. At this point, she should pass the torch to someone else.

[AmerDem]

36. No one can tell her to step aside

She started BBV. If people have lost faith in her then stop contributing. Who in that small BBV organization would take over or better yet if people lost faith in Harris why the hell would they trust anyone else from that group?

...and yes, it's a major shame but we can't be so distracted by this sideshow. Many good things are happening from Conyors, Jackson and Arnebeck for everyone to be so distracted by all of this. Refocus that energy into helping these men.

[valis]

23. And HOW do we verify what she reports about money anyway?

For what we know, the 3 family members on the board of directors are sucking up a bunch of it for a vacation in FL and calling it "executive travel"...

[AmerDem]

30. right

At least there will be something more official to go by. Rhodes mentioned she helped raise at least $50,000, Harris says $23,000. Who's being more accurate or truthful? BBV is something Harris started so no one can tell her to step aside. Those that gave money did so on their own judgment. Harris has caused a black eye to this serious issue and people should speak out against it by no longer contributing if this is what the feel. We don't know what Harris has collected in way of proof but those that have and will continue to donate should be asking her of this. Have Harris be more approachable and show what she has been doing. Pressure her to except Olberman shows. Without donations Harris wouldn't be where she's at now and owes accountability to those that have helped her along the way.

It's really a shame that something like this had to happen to the issue of voting fraud.

[Pepper32]

59. You can look it up here

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/irs_ef_527.exe?DoFn=&sYR=2004

There are few other places also, I don't have the links right now.

[barbarag]

15. Bev

your own words - nonpartisan nonprofit status prohibits. Now, what do you want from Kerry? Quit slamming him.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Is it possible that what she's saying is:

That all the Dems are putting their hopes on her to over-turn an election and that if Kerry had supported a recount, there would have been so much media attention everywhere else that she would have been able to finish her work without so many people nudging her?

[henslee]

22. If JK had supported a recount, we'd be drowning in Freep media attack. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. I agree with you henslee.

I think their silence is eerie, though. Like someone who stole something and looking back to see if they got away with it. Too afraid to make a peep and bring attention to themselves.

[The Straight Story]

143. And so what on the freep media attack?

It would have been a moment to some of symbolism of Kerry's ability to face the enemy and engage them - Think of Kerry in 'Nam. Here he had people shooting at him and he rose to the ocassion. Here he has millions counting on him to provide strong leadership and fight against something which could affect the very foundation of our freedom, fraudulent voting.

I think the biggest reason people are disappointed is because they saw this as a great moment for him to lead, fight against the media, and get out there and make a difference - even if it hurt him politically in the eyes of others. He chose the safest route for himself.

What did he have to lose in reality? He is wealthy, as is his wife - even if he lost his job later and no one ever employed him again he would still have all needed in life - health, food, a roof over his head, etc and so on. He was not willing to sacrifice his career for this, which makes one think he did not see it as all that important (yet he was willing to be shot at while fighting in Vietnam and face death in a war most think was a bad idea in the first place).

He owned the moment, had the chance to seize it and bring the whole bbv think into a big bright light, to ignite the fires of people waiting to have a central leader in such a position to pull them together - and he simply faded with some little quips and faint hopes on the sidelines. Some attorneys here, a few blurbs there, and so forth - the fire may still be under the pot but the steam is gone.

But all is NOT lost. He can still recover from this in a good way with a measured and forceful response next year - keep on the same path, slowly let the evidence build, and then break it open in the halls of congress with hearings on the fraud - and even if not fraud proven then fraud possible (As I have said several times in the past: let's push congress to adopt Diebold machines for casting votes on bills and see what they do....).

PLEASE NOTE: The above was more an analysis, from my view, of why people feel the way do about the whole JK thing and the election. My personal feelings are evident in that I think he could have done a better job BUT I do think he can still come out of all this well with a solid long term strategy (ie, difuse it all now and the media hype comparing it to 2000, gore, et al and then strike hard on the issue later on in 2005 or early 2006 when people are gearing up for more elections - this time with a mountain of facts and a slick PR campaign with TV commercials, et al).

Sadly I worry the whole issue may die down with our officials - and maybe that is why we look externally for someone in the BBV arena to take up the charge in a smart way without all the theatrics and promises: take it slow, get hard facts, and out of the blue bring it to light in a way that people will pay close attention (and in a bi-partisan way so knee-jerk reactionary's from the other party get on board and not defensive - it's not all about *, it is about all people who want to run for office and all the people who want to vote - bridge the gap, get hard facts, launch a strike in dead of night and knock the wind out of it all.)

Just my few cents worth, minus taxes :)

[New Earth]

47. i don't think any Dems are putting their 'faith' in her

i think they're putting their faith in people like Conyers, Arnebeck, Cobb, and NOW Kerry, the people who really do have a chance at getting this overturned or at least indesputably exposed.

[Cheswick2.0]

94. yes that seems to be what she is saying and I agree

He was the nominee, that makes him the default leader. Is he leading in any way shapr or form? I see no evidence of it.

The people that are still deluding themselves that he is still working "behind the scenes" need to see a therapist.

[jdog]

20. Personally, I don't want to be distracted by this.

I donated $50 to Bev. Maybe it was money down the toilet, maybe not. I don't see why we can't wait and see if anything develops from the work she's done in Florida. We are all anxious to have this resolved quickly, but maybe it won't happen as quickly as we'd like. I definitely want to see something before I'd ever donate more, that's for sure. But I'm not so concerned about my $50 that I'm going to get upset and let it distract me from the whole reason I donated in the first place.

And I agree that it would be nice if JK would have thrown full weight behind contesting this election. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes and hope that everyone who is speculating some grand strategy is right. But I also think alot could have been accomplished by just coming right out and fighting this thing in full view. :shrug:

I see such energy come up when Bev is being discussed. She really seems to have become a lightening rod for many people's frustrations.

[KaryninMiami]

24. I'm still a Bev supporter and wish we could put an end to the bickering

Frankly, I find all of the drama and miscommunication between Bev and Keith, Bev and Randy, Bev and DU, etc. to be very sad. I have no idea why Andy left BBV - I'm sure it was for a very good reason and I'm sure he'll be missed because he was an excellent spokesperson for them.

In my opinion, those who are dedicated to exposing the election fraud need each other and should explore ways to bridge the work everyone is doing thereby creating a united front. I know there are egos involved and that this is a very emotional issue so there are bound to be hurt feelings and mis-communications. Remember, the what we are collectively doing and working to expose to the world is MASSIVE. We should be supporting each other and our roles in this great unraveling. The last thing we need is internal drama and bickering. Bev's work is an integral part of this puzzle, as are the groups doing the recounts, Conyers and the Congressional investigations, the journalists working to get the word out, the web designers keeping the world up-to-date and the wizards who've created those great email blasters, etc. Plus the incredible work that goes on right here at DU and the positive support we give each other which is also crucial to what we are working to achieve.

At some point soon, we some organization will need to gather all of the aligned groups together for some major movement and it is at that moment, when we will all come to realize the importance of the work everyone has been doing.

It is my sincere hope that we'll all do what we can to continue to support each other and those working for the same purpose (even if we differ in our vision of the end result or our expectations regarding the timimg). Ideologically, however, I believe we are all in agreement. We want to know what happened, we want to know the truth, we want the fraud exposed and we want the world to know - as quickly as possible. Working together gives us much more power. I hope we can all remember this in the days and weeks ahead. This is not going to be easy but we all know how important it is and I for one, will not rest until we have accomplished our goal.

Onwards into the future- we can do this- and we must!

[goclark]

27. Eye on the Prize please!!!!

If we want to push for some accounting, let's push the DOD or GWB or Halliburton.

I refuse to trash Bev or anyone else that has lifted even one tiny finger to help get this FRAUD against our government exposed.


The AcCOUNTING we should be caring about is the aCOUNTING of the damn votes!


Let's move on pleeeese!

[KaryninMiami]

29. BINGO!

Thank you. Let's move on and make this happen already. Out with the old, in with the TRUTH!

[sunnystarr]

40. I have to agree ...

I haven't posted any opinion on this Bev Harris battle here and I've read all the threads over the past few month. I can see both sides tho. I agree it's unprofessional of Bev to have posted the things she did which amounted to no more than personal attacks and in some cases downright character assasination. Threats as well are totally unreasonable. It seems to me that Bev should keep HER eyes on the prize and not feed the fire she started.

However as far as the accounting is concerned, she has been working on the cause and that costs money, in time, travel, fees, supplies, etc. Whether or not Bev gains fame with the work she's doing isn't our concern, and it in fact is probably well earned.

Bev needs to stop letting personal feeling get in the way of the purpose of her work. While I agree that she should give credit to those whose work helped her along the way, she did take the ball and run with it and gained a much needed spotlight on the issues.

The work is more important than individual pain. On both sides. The way I see it all this negative focus needs to stop so that everyone can support the work being done.

That said, I don't agree with Bev's radio statement that the video she's obtained should only be seen by a court. Public viewing won't in any way undermine its importance or credibility in a court of law and it will do much to gain attention at the right the right time in the media.

While I don't believe that we've heard the real truth about issues, please remember that sometimes smaller issues have to sacrificed for the larger issue.

To Bev, if you're reading this ... do the right thing. You sit in a unique position to make a real difference in history. Let this be larger than the desire to strike back. Don't let your ego stand in the way, it's not necessary. By giving credit to the work done by others, you will increase your image to the public. Be honest at all costs or you'll lose credibility. Apologize for any previous actions that were either distorted, not truthful, or inappropriate. Remember everyone is ready to forgive when a genuine effort is made.

You will only achieve your place in history by setting aside your ego and petty quarreling. Get the help you need. Have one of your new employees handle the press arrangements and most importantly the phone for the organization.

To everyone else, put the past behind you. I know it's hard but consider it as your contribution to the cause - so end the Bev Bashing that casts a cloud on everything and everyone.

It's almost Christmas. Let the spirit fill everyone with love for one another.

[Zan_of_Texas]

127. Thank you, goclark

The amount unaccountable from the Department of Offense/aka Defense in any year is about 1/4, according to CBS News.

That would be over $100 BILLION. Each year. Can't find it, don't know where it is or what it bought.

For those of you who gave Bev $50, hey, the average we rack up IN INTEREST to our credit card companies each month is $100. That's average -- some more, some less, some none. We get NOTHING for that dough.

So, find somebody else to give your next $50 to if you're unhappy with Bev's work. And, guess what, it's gonna take more than the one $50.

I think the last time I checked the two major pres. candidates and 527 groups on their sides spent over $300 million.

How much is it worth to get a clean, fair election?

[peacetalksforall]

31. What is pathetic here are the accusations that she is sick mentally...

that she is going over and has gone over the edge.

I have no idea if this is true, but based on her earlier personality and work results, I would think this would be the time to stand behind her and try to figure out if there is anything anyone could do.

It would be better to stick to the facts of her actions without the psychological accusations as she is supposed to be on our side. I would think there would be more tolerance and a desire to see if things could be straightened out and healed.

I just wrote some critical comments on Bush, but he is the enemy. If she is our enemy, then people should prove it.

If she is going over the edge, I think there should be some help offered in some form. I don't have any answer. But, there sure is a lot of freeper fodder growing on DU.

[KaryninMiami]

42. Agreed. This is about exposing the fraud and getting the word out.

Enough is enough of this internal back-stabbing and bickering. Let's get on with the goal here-- EXPOSE THE TRUTH, EXPEL THE CRIMINALS and Expediate the information before it's too late and we are stuck with "4 more years of hell" (always loved Theresa Heinz-Kerry for that one).

[lonestarnot]

32. Don't know any of inside scoop to Bev. poop and don't care!

HOPE SHE is stirring up the water as she appears to be. GO BEV

[Mojorabbit]

39. I don't care either

but I think her time could be put to better use than refuting all the speculative posts here. She does enough to torpedo herself, she does not need others to do it for her too. I live in Fl. If she gets some good info here I will be happy. I know Ohio is the place where all the action is now but there were problems here that also need to be addressed and I am glad someone is working on it. Even the most incompetent person may trip over something that will blow things open here.
Peace
Mojorabbit

[lonestarnot]

35. Need some of that money for plane tickets!

For those who can't afford to travel!

[valis]

177. Tough choice. You would not want Bev to fly coach would you?

[tridim]

41. "small organization, with just two full time employees and a volunteer"

IMO BBV needs to be at least ten times that size, and spread out across the country if they want to get any real work done. I had no idea BBV was that small. Disappointing to say the least.

[Stevepol]

71. The size and effect of her organization are the best answer to critics.

With only two full-time employees how can anybody expect her to keep precise track of the money given to her? A story to illsutrate: early on this summer I contributed some money to BBV and sent money for 10 copies of her book to pass out among people I knew (profs, a local newspaper editor, friends, etc.). She failed to send it for a long time. I had sent a contribution exceeding the cost of the books along with the request for the books ($100 for 10, a special rate for those who like me wanted to be involved and give the book circulation). After a month or so, I got a letter from her apologizing for not having been able to respond before then. She sent along 20 books instead of the 10 asked for, saying I didn't need to pay for them since I'd had to wait a long time as it was. Now look: everybody's a little bit cuckoo in some way or other and maybe I'm the only one who fails to see a problem with Bev (maybe I'm cuckoo that way) but I think she's trying her best to achieve the aim of transparent and fair elections. She likely is a little paranoid, as I think almost anybody would be who tried to buck the voting machine vendors. Why not support her and do everything in your individual power to achieve the same end? If she has offended people needlessly, that's her karma. She'll have to meet it. Why make bad karma for yourself and diminish the good that could be done by bad-mouthing somebody with idealistic goals and a lot of courage?

[Bouvet_Island]

44. Questions.

I also posted this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=162256#">here.

I have a few questions to the Bev "skeptics", seeing this from a distance here in Norway. I am currently sitting in the middle of a wet hail storm, that pretty much is the idea of christmas here on the West coast :]

1. What are the accounting requirements of a 501 C(3), in her area? Is she required to have professional revision? Does she have to send anything to the IRS, to keep her status? Is there any records of this, of any problems?

My personal impression is not of a fraudster, simple facts like her putting her book for free on her site doesn´t add up to the profile for me.

Accusations of fraud are not covered by the freedom of speech in my country if they are baseless. To be specific you are attacking the trust she needs to operate in her position, when this is presented in writing the penalty is up to two years of prison. If you really believe she is comitting fraud you should tell the police, if you are right you will not risk going to jail for pressing false charges.

If you are making these accusations in public without even examining the public information that exist about her company, you are IMO in deep water.

I am sending professional journalist to this forum, as there are stories that break here and this is valuable for them. The fact that you discuss Bev is not a problem, but for someone not in the same mindset as you, this type of exchange detracts immensly from the credibility of any information acquired here.

2. Would any of you be willing to believe that her phone was hacked? Is there any record, or knowledge of other people getting their cell phone hacked in the US?

I ask this because it is one of two explanations after hearing the interview on Randi Rhodes, statements on her forums, and reading the Keith Olbermann controversy, in addition to other reports of her having troubble with her communication. I also never got a reply to an email volounteering. The allegations her site was hacked, do any of you believe this is a hoax?

In Norway, there have been cases of this type, there are a very limited number of people that know the programming language but they have obviously been busy. The encryption keys were in the hands of many police departments, illegaly, and there was a moment where someone figured most of the communications in the parliament were possible to listen in to by people programming the phones. They now have to be shut off a lot there.

"Complicating our effort is the fact that even as we hoped to provide a platform to publicize and illuminate her efforts, Ms. Harris had returned none of the messages left on her own voicemail by Countdown staffers since she spoke to our staffers briefly, twice, during the week of November 8. Only today did she even get back in touch with us, and was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown."

How many of the issues you have seen reported with her could be explained by someone interfering with her communication?

I know this sounds like a leading question to some of you, but please give it a real thought, like, count, before you go on bashing the Bev.

I read a report that when Diebold reached settlement with the voting suit, their shares increased 10% instantly. She is potentionally costing some people alot more than the wage of say a half decent psychologist and a reasonably skilled hacker. I don´t have any proof, but there are some significant hints from her reactions at the Randi show, and in her own forums.

The same way I don´t see my enemy in her, I don´t see my enemy in the people in this thread, I think it is too hot, though, in this game we need to have cool heads.

[New Earth]

55. now what, is she gonna try to sue DU for libel?

If you are making these accusations in public without even examining the public information that exist about her company, you are IMO in deep water.

sounds just like something she would say.

hmm.

[Bouvet_Island]

82. Of course not.

Don´t take everything in their worst meaning.

I work at sea, that is simply my favorite way of saying people are acting irresponsibly. If you have good basis for your statements, as I said you are entirely OK, doing us all a favor. If not, you would not only be breaking the laws, at least in my country, an indication something is not so OK. If you are so sure she is a fraud, do the right thing and report her to the police. Better us than the freepers. If you are not willing to do this it means you are not as sure as you should be, then maybe it wasn´t really appropriate to bash someone on our side no matter her style.

The same goes with the allegations about her mental health, if it is true, you skeptics should explain to us how it can be determined and your background in assessing this. If people here are pulling stuff like this out of their ass, they are doing bad work for our cause.

Journalists are very sensitive to these matters, it is part of their daily work to assess exactly this type of controversy. A serious miss on this can put you out of business for good. I sent one rather prominent Norwegian journalist this direction, I wouldn´t if I had read this threads first as it stands now.

____________________

From her Forum today;

To catch y'all up:

Last October elections lawyer Lowell Finley came to me with the idea of making Diebold give a refund for junk voting machines based on laws regarding defrauding the gov't when making sales. Electronic voting law is new and poorly developed; contractor fraud law is MUCH older and much stronger.

I said I'd do it as long as Bev was a plaintiff too.

We filed the suit "under seal" (per the rules) in Alameda County Superior Court in November of '03. The California Attorney General (AG)'s office extended the seal several times while deciding whether or not to "join in", finally doing so Sept. of '04.

About a month ago, the AG's office announced a "proposed settlement" with Diebold, for peanuts. They claimed total damages of $2.6mil and offered Bev and I $76k a piece so long as we didn't complain about this "sweetheart deal", the announcement of which caused Diebold's stock to bump up by over $42mil the next day alone. We were told that any attempt to derail the "proposed settlement" would lead to the AG's office arguing that Bev and I should get nada.

We had already decided to fight this thing regardless, even if it meant colliding with the state's top lawyer. We don't have "veto power" over the proposed settlement, but we do get the right to speak against it before the judge. We assumed that would be a brutal fight with long odds.

But then a funny thing happened.

Alameda County assigned an unusual judge. They pulled the former head of the entire county court system out of retirement, a guy name of William McKinstry. Our sources so far say he's good. And with no other cases on his docket, he seems to be paying attention to what's going on...before we even got a chance to file our opposition data, he put out a set of questions to all the lawyers involved that shows...well, he's deep into "smells a rat mode". Check out what he wrote, verbatim:

http://www.equalccw.com/judgesmellsarat.pdf

Note that the "Qui Tams" is basically Latin for "whistleblowers" - Bev and I.

This document is unbelievably good. We not only have a chance here, the judge is already questioning what's up.

Folks, if we can derail this "proposed settlement", Diebold is in deep kimchee. They either have to come up with a lot more money, or face discovery which is gonna be brutal considering they've now admitted ownership of the 15,000 or so internal memos in the Federal case recently won by Indymedia and EFF. Between that and the other bodies buried which Bev and I know about, discovery will be "anal probe level sans lube" }>. They'll do *anything* to avoid that, possibly right up to quitting the elections biz.

Oh yeah. Hell yeah.

Jim March

[IAMREALITY]

60. Feel Free To Feel How You Like

But I still say she's an f'ing FRAUD, an f'ing EGOMANIAC, an F'ing Drama Queen, and an F'ing Joke.

And No, Not in Deep Water Here. You may be in Norway, which I'm sure is lovely, But I'm in America, where I can speak my mind however I want.

Regardless,

Welcome To DU!

[Bouvet_Island]

83. It´s not lovely,

it is the navel of earth heh.

This is great to hear, now serve the proof and we can get this settled immediately.

You seem to have information I don´t have, please share.

Would you assess the efforts described under as a joke, fraud, drama or egomaniac?

The sooner we get these dishes done, the better.

__________

from her forum today:


To catch y'all up:

Last October elections lawyer Lowell Finley came to me with the idea of making Diebold give a refund for junk voting machines based on laws regarding defrauding the gov't when making sales. Electronic voting law is new and poorly developed; contractor fraud law is MUCH older and much stronger.

I said I'd do it as long as Bev was a plaintiff too.

We filed the suit "under seal" (per the rules) in Alameda County Superior Court in November of '03. The California Attorney General (AG)'s office extended the seal several times while deciding whether or not to "join in", finally doing so Sept. of '04.

About a month ago, the AG's office announced a "proposed settlement" with Diebold, for peanuts. They claimed total damages of $2.6mil and offered Bev and I $76k a piece so long as we didn't complain about this "sweetheart deal", the announcement of which caused Diebold's stock to bump up by over $42mil the next day alone. We were told that any attempt to derail the "proposed settlement" would lead to the AG's office arguing that Bev and I should get nada.

We had already decided to fight this thing regardless, even if it meant colliding with the state's top lawyer. We don't have "veto power" over the proposed settlement, but we do get the right to speak against it before the judge. We assumed that would be a brutal fight with long odds.

But then a funny thing happened.

Alameda County assigned an unusual judge. They pulled the former head of the entire county court system out of retirement, a guy name of William McKinstry. Our sources so far say he's good. And with no other cases on his docket, he seems to be paying attention to what's going on...before we even got a chance to file our opposition data, he put out a set of questions to all the lawyers involved that shows...well, he's deep into "smells a rat mode". Check out what he wrote, verbatim:

http://www.equalccw.com/judgesmellsarat.pdf

Note that the "Qui Tams" is basically Latin for "whistleblowers" - Bev and I.

This document is unbelievably good. We not only have a chance here, the judge is already questioning what's up.

Folks, if we can derail this "proposed settlement", Diebold is in deep kimchee. They either have to come up with a lot more money, or face discovery which is gonna be brutal considering they've now admitted ownership of the 15,000 or so internal memos in the Federal case recently won by Indymedia and EFF. Between that and the other bodies buried which Bev and I know about, discovery will be "anal probe level sans lube" }>. They'll do *anything* to avoid that, possibly right up to quitting the elections biz.

Oh yeah. Hell yeah.

Jim March
http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html

[Garbo 2004]

158. Apparently an even "funnier" thing happened, Diebold issued press release

Friday morning, Dec. 17, stating that the court approved the settlement with State of CA and Alameda County. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041217/clf031_1.html

[Bouvet_Island]

169. This is very interesting.

Please explain what this means in plain english, are you saying The letter above contains lies?

I really want to know about this, I am not disputing your statement.

[Garbo 2004]

195. No, not lies, just apparently superceded by a subsequent report noted

further down in the same BBV thread.

So far as I can tell the only source for the various published reports of the court's approval of the settlement is a Diebold press release. It would be a tremendous whopper if Diebold's press release was completely inaccurate. (The settlement is final when the court approves it.) No doubt the BBV folks are going to look into the matter to see if the court did indeed approve the settlement as reported in the Diebold press release.

As even March notes in BBV thread it was "long odds" that they could persuade the court to not approve the settlement.

[Bouvet_Island]

121. No response?

The way you replied to my messages is not a good "welcome to DU", I am shitting you not I wrote and called one of the more important journalists in Norway under full name, and sent her here.

"But I'm in America, where I can speak my mind however I want."

Not without being sanctioned by the admins, the court system or homeland security you can´t. Your country are bombing the most important piece of free press in the middle east on a regular basis, and I have to say I am sincerely disappointed with the show we all have seen since the 2.

You are probably right you are not in deep legal water, it would be difficult to find people that would take what you say seriously enough for that. But people just stating "she is a fraud", that would be another issue.

The point though isn´t the legality, it is that this type of speach doesn´t serve our cause. That is the deep water.

[Igel]

63. A couple of answers.

"What are the accounting requirements of a 501 C(3), in her area? Is she required to have professional revision? Does she have to send anything to the IRS, to keep her status? Is there any records of this, of any problems?"

She'd have to file with the IRS when she closes out her fiscal year, so probably some time after 1/1/05. I don't know if she has to disclose donors; I doubt it. Just income, expenses, etc.

I think, with two employees, that she has to file a payroll report every 6 months, but I haven't been a NGO bookkeeper for over a decade.

No independent audit is required by the IRS, but most boards require one every so often on principle. I'm not aware of a governmental regulation requiring it. The IRS can, of course, audit BH's organization if they want to, but since they don't pay taxes (apart from employee's income and payroll taxes), they usually only do so if there's malfeasance suspected.

On the other hand, her books are required to be open to public inspection during business hours. (Although I think donors' names are still allowed to be kept private.)

Somebody else will have to deal with the other issues.

[Eloriel]

105. Your questions

1. What are the accounting requirements of a 501 C(3), in her area? Is she required to have professional revision? Does she have to send anything to the IRS, to keep her status? Is there any records of this, of any problems?

I don't actually know the answers to those questions, and someone else responded well to it, I thought.

What I do know is that any 510(c)(3) is required to account for its income and expenses, etc., in a way that allows those who have an interest in that organization (including the government, viz. the IRS) to know that it's a viable concern and no one is being fleeced. I believe they have to make certain financial records public periodically.

. Would any of you be willing to believe that her phone was hacked? Is there any record, or knowledge of other people getting their cell phone hacked in the US?

No. She has a history, among many who have worked with her, of not being available by phone for long periods, not returning phone calls at all, let alone in a timely manner, etc.

Too, if that were the case, don't you think she'd have been apologetic with Olbermann's staff instead of belligerant and obnoxious? I do.


Look. I don't think she's a fraud either -- which isn't the same thing as saying that I believe she's completely above doing anything self-serving or even worse. IMO she needs help, but there's no one I know of who can convince her of that -- or, indeed, anything she doesn't want to be convinced of. When does a pattern of human dysfunctionality cross the line and become something a little worse or more than that? Hard to tell. But when it begins to affect your ability to get the job done often instead of just occasionally, when it creates unnecessary obstacles, heartaches and setbacks for you, it's certainly time to look at those patterns.

[Bouvet_Island]

123. Thanks!

Igil, Eloriel it is great we can have civilised discussion here.

Let´s see if someone can fill in a bit more on the IRS, I´ll try to summarize then.

Eloriel, I got some of those vibes too, but I don´t see this as proof she wasn´t professionaly manipulated, it would in theory just make a better victim of her.

The important moment to me is as mentioned her reaction at Randi Rhodes, and the three messages Olbermann left, that I got the impression were positive to her.

She thinks it is fun to be on TV, why would she fess this up?

"Too, if that were the case, don't you think she'd have been apologetic with Olbermann's staff instead of belligerant and obnoxious? I do."

My view was actually the opposite, why would she get angry, if she had ignored three messages she actually got? She sincerely believe in media lockdown, she sees it in Olbermann or his staff that doesn´t contact her, and becomes "difficult". I believe Olbermann when he says he really wanted to accomodate her, and I get it he considered the risks of her being unpolitical and still wanted to carry through.

I worked with some really messy people, they would be magically timely and perform good communication in connection with "moments", and be generally totally random at everything else.

As I said there doesn´t need to be no black helicopters for such a campaign to take place, simple corporate economics will do. Bev Harris vs. Smart industrial espionage guy, what would you imagine would ensue? You have any idea how common this is?

What you would discover if you tried to manipulate people that are unknown to it, is how easy it is. Many of you are probably familiar with hypnotic techniques, let´s just say that a few well placed performances that are accepted as fact can do a lot of hard work.

If she is spinning me with the phone troubbles, she does it very skillfully.

I don´t take that last line personally -- Kidding, that is a better way of saying it yes. You sound knowledgable about such matters, how have you learnt about them?

I have certainly taken your views into consideration, I am not attacking your position, you are actually a perfect example of how I would like this discussion to be. I´d still like to toss the manipulation idea around a bit more, I am a very curious person.

Again, thanks for great answers.

[ohio_liberal]

140. 501 (c) 3

As per my Mum, a CPA working in WV and OH:

1. What are the accounting requirements of a 501 C(3), in her area?
It's not an area thing, its national. Accounting records are kept the same as any other company.

Is she required to have professional revision?

Don't know what this means? Professional revision?

Does she have to send anything to the IRS, to keep her status?

The company must incorporate, apply for federal ID, have to apply to the IRS for exemption to income tax (sorry, don't remember the exact name of the form), must file Quarterly records for employees, etc. If a company were to fail to file timely records with the IRS then its status would certainly be in jeopardy.

Is there any records of this, of any problems?
Don't know.

Mum's general talk on 501c(3):

The most common 501c(3)s are agencies like local fire departments. They are allowed to show a profit but not organized for profit. They can receive government grants and public donations. They must not make or receive political donations.

P.S. I'll be happy to ask and post any other specific questions concerning 501C3's.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

150. Here are your answers.

1. Yes there are very clear rules for reporting a 501c(3).

2. I would be naive to believe her phone, website, and forum couldn't have been hacked.

But your questions are IRRELEVANT.

1. In the US there are no laws preventing anonymous posters accusing public people of Fraud.

2. The issues of Bev's phone being hacked would be moot had bev done what any grateful recipient of fund raising initiatives would have done.....Keep in touch!!!

When Jerry Lewis held telethons you could watch on a big screen how much was being donated REAL TIME.

So when people see Bev collecting possibly Millions of dollars they expect accountability.

When they receive not even a basic accounting, although none is legally required, suspicions mount.

When seemingly reasonably questions are meet with silence or obfuscation the suspicious among us are well within their rights under US law to anonymously post those doubts and accusations.

Due to the nature of Bev's communication to her supporters (public forums) it is reasonable to expect that these same public forums are used for criticism and accusations.

I reject your premis.....

"The fact that you discuss Bev is not a problem, but for someone not in the same mindset as you, this type of exchange detracts immensely from the credibility of any information acquired here."

That is dead wrong.

What would in fact hurt the credibility of the work done on this site is if people like Ms. Harris could use this board to fundraiser, tease, and titillate without ever providing ANY proof of HER accusations.

She has discredited herself and DU banning her was IMHO a measure taken to minimize the harmful effects you wrongly attribute to critical DU members.

I know for a fact that Mainstream Journalists have questioned the quality of the work done on DU BECAUSE of the work Ms. Harris was posting here.

Please answer that!

[Bouvet_Island]

173. Thanks, good answers.

"But your questions are IRRELEVANT."

I respectfully disagree that they are irrelevant.

Answers.

1. I don´t know, this isn´t relevant to the point I was making. You probably are factually wrong, eg. patriot act and there have been internet libel verdicts, but my point wasn´t the legality of the posts it was the bad form of this discussion. It should be less like Fox television. The person accused is specifically not allowed to defend herself, this is not in good democratic spirit IMO. It makes bells ring for me.

2. I disagree it is moot, I got the impression someone is fessing with her ability to "keep in touch", although I am not able to determine yet. This is why I am interested in facts and good discussion.

It seems there is accountability, if she fucks with the IRS it will be her problem. Anyone suspecting fraud can tip them.

It seems any number she posts or not will be used against her. The proof of "no fraud" is a full accounting, with the reciepts of the donations. This she says will be delivered in due time. If she doesn´t do this, she will probably face jail.

Doubts is one thing, accusations are something else. Stating as a fact she is a fraudster is not timely nor helpful to our greater cause if there is no valid proof. Saying "I think something is fishy" is something else.

"The fact that you discuss Bev is not a problem, but for someone not in the same mindset as you, this type of exchange detracts immensely from the credibility of any information acquired here."

I see it is possible to misunderstand that sentence, I will correct it. I meant that the discussion based on facts is good, while posting blank lies, loose rumor as fact or accusing her of serious crimes unfounded. If you state as a fact she is a fraud, you should be so sure as to be willing to report her. If you are not that sure, you are sortof lying, it is not a fact then.

I don´t see how what you wrote at the end of your post regards what I said. We probably agree on some of the valid criticism of Bev Harris, and as a public figure she is open for it. But it doesn´t warrant or defend the behaviour of some people in this thread.

[ohio_liberal]

174. ...

If she doesn´t do this, she will probably face jail.

Not so. The number of people committing tax fraud who actually spend time in jail is remarkably small. The IRS is always more willing to accept moneys due (with penalties of course) rather than prosecuting an offender.

I'm not a fan of BBV.org (Jim March's postings on message boards was enough to make me stay away) but there's nothing suggesting fraud here. People willingly gave her money. Caveat emptor, or whatever the equivalent is.

[Bouvet_Island]

217. Heh I believe you are correct:

"The Internal Revenue Service data reviewed at Syracuse showed that in the 15-month period that ended on Dec. 31, 2003, convictions had been obtained against six corporate executives in five cases in which the IRS was the lead investigative agency. That was barely more than 0.5 percent of such cases."

Bush antifraud campaign http://www.iht.com/articles/514400.html">IHT

From the sound of this discussion I took it she was accused of theft from her own organisations coffers, I don´t know what the english term, directly translated it is "economic cheating".

[Bouvet_Island]

175. Thanks.

You at least feel a need to answer my questions.

"But your questions are IRRELEVANT."

I respectfully disagree that they are irrelevant.

Answers.

1. I don´t know, this isn´t relevant to the point I was making. You probably are factually wrong, eg. patriot act and there have been internet libel verdicts, but my point wasn´t the legality of the posts, it was the bad form of this discussion. It should be less like Fox television. The person accused is specifically not allowed to defend herself, this is not in good democratic spirit IMO. It makes bells ring for me.

2. I disagree it is moot, I got the impression someone is fessing with her ability to "keep in touch", although I am not able to determine yet. This is why I am interested in facts and good discussion.

It seems there is accountability, if she fucks with the IRS it will be her problem. Anyone suspecting fraud can tip them, though if the accusations are deemed to be baseless they will risk being charged with false report, prison sentence I believe.

It is a difference of accusing someone of being stupid and of having committed very serious crime. It implicates she is not on our side of this conflict, this doesn´t rhyme with me.

"The fact that you discuss Bev is not a problem, but for someone not in the same mindset as you, this type of exchange detracts immensely from the credibility of any information acquired here."

I see it is possible to misunderstand that sentence, I will correct it. I meant that the discussion based on facts is good, while posting blank lies, loose rumor as fact, or accusing her of serious crimes unfounded. This is not good, it is tasteless and not helpful to our cause. If you state as a fact she is a fraud, you should be so sure as to be willing to report her. If you are not that sure, you are sortof lying, it is not a fact then.

Read the posts of the people asking the Bev Haters moderate themselves. These people are on our side. They are not enemies. There is plenty of time for Bev Bashing after mid january.

I don´t see how what you wrote at the end of your post regards what I said, I didn´t mention the decision to ban her.

I disagree that people posting so hard a verdict on so meager proof are displaying a critical attitude.

The way this works to splitting our movement is not attributable to Bev Harris alone.

Much of your post doesn´t regard the points I was making, or the questions. I will not join a general Bev discussion, if you have points about fraud contra IRS demands, or facts relevant to determine if she is being professionally manipulated, I am ears.

[New Earth]

46. wtf is wrong with this lady

she thinks she did things 'instead' of John Kerry?

THERE ARE ABOUT 30 OTHER PEOPLE WORKING IN THIS AS WELL and they've accomplished a lot more than she has.

and John Kerry is helping, so she can take her money and shove it you know where. there is no reason for her to keep dropping names to make herself look better.

:puke: :grr:

[bunny planet]

49. I don't believe a word this woman says. She is now bashing my candidate

and I am getting seriously pissed. I think she has been given lots more money than what she's revealed here. Perhaps she is afraid the money might be drying up soon if she doesn't give a clear accounting. Randi mentioned many more dollars being raised for Bev through her show, I think she even mentioned a figure, much higher than 23K.

Bev Harris seems to be unbalanced at best. I suggest we ignore her until after the inauguration, just cold turkey ignore her, especially since she now seems to have decided the best way to get back at us is to trash the candidate who had the election stolen from him. Bev is kryptonite, that's pretty clear.

After January, I personally will be asking for my money back. I suggest everyone does. Perhaps we should all pull a Bev on her and sue her ass if that's possible!

I wish someone who's been on DU for a long time would explain to me how this woman gained so much cred from so many people for so long, despite her obvious display of a markedly advanced borderline personality disorder. She is a crazymaker, she thrives on drama and causes it to happen, all to draw attention to herself. When the attention dries up, she pulls out the long knives. What a trainwreck.

[Bouvet_Island]

54. Questions

Hi, you seem to be a true Bev sceptic.

Would you care to answer to my quesdtions?

[bunny planet]

64. What are your questions?

[Bouvet_Island]

124. A few posts up from yours

Sorry for the slow response, I got broadband meltdown. Now enjoying nostalgic modem internet.

[Generator]

51. Hmm such a short step from having Bush in your "corner" to having

Kerry the enemy. Next up: she will be blaming the Dems for every election fraud-and voila-Bush really won by ten million votes.

It seems this is her m.o. Get really really pissed when anyone doesn't behave they way she wants and turn on them. Kerry was just way down the list.

[Bouvet_Island]

56. Questions

Hi, you seem like a true Bev sceptic.

Would you like to answer to my questions in my post above.

[valis]

190. Glad you are not affiliated with Bev

[IAMREALITY]

52. Wait A Second, DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME

"Donations tagged to Randi Rhodes show: $23,800
All donations, some of which we have allocated to building infrastructure and off-election funding droughts:
About $300,000. We have spent or committed about $19,000 of the $23,800 Randi Rhodes money. This was for FOIA requests and related legal expenses."

That out of 300,000, she only spent 19,000 of it on what we donated it for? And she spent the rest on "infrastructure" such as a bigger refrigerator to store her food and expanded ceilings to contain her ego?

And what off-election funding droughts. WTF does that mean? If you put it in layman terms does it mean "hey, you, yeah you, please donate to me for a deceptive cause so I can pay my late bills?"

Show the damn video Bev, whether it's yours or not I'm sure you have some influence, and it has been said you had your own video of that day. And release the damn poll tapes too you f***ing fraud.

[Bouvet_Island]

53. questions

Iamreality, you seem like a true sceptic.

Would you like to answer to my post?

[New Earth]

you seem to know the answers so well

so why don't you tell us?

[Bouvet_Island]

171. I don´t.

I don´t have enough facts.

I checked the Norwegian law with lawyer friend and the law text before I posted.

I think we have common interest and should treat eachother with some respect.

[Kelvin Mace]

115. No, we are tired of answering the same questions from her

fans over and over.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Bouvet_Island]

170. answer.

I am not a fan or a hater of either Bev or You. Both nice people privately, I am sure.

I think, though, that it would benefit us all if you and Bev could reach a better truce, until we get this election sorted mid january or when it happens.

Read the reactions from people opposed to the Bev bashing. These are our friends, not our enemies. What I object to is the splitting, this doesn´t serve our cause and I believe our opponents might very well be encouraging this.

I didn´t see my questions answered, can you point me to these discussions?

[Kelvin Mace]

197. You just don't get it

Multiple attempts have been made in the past to get Bev to a peaceful resolution of this matter. She will not have it. If you bothered to read the numerous posts of hers, you would see that she is NOT a person who admits error or who backs down from a position no matter how wrong.

At this point in time, there is no way I would trust any such offer from Bev because she has shown herself to vindictive and completely self-centered.

Why don't you email Bev with your proposal.

See what response you get from her, *IF* you get a response at all.

Better yet, give her a call on the phone. Her number is easy enough to find.

Go over to bbv.org and post your proposal, then come back with a link. See how long it takes them to delete your question.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Bouvet_Island]

219. Well one thing is for sure,

I will not make the middle east conflict paralell :] That was a joke.

I get a better impression of you the more I read, if there was some tone in some of my replies, I think I read your attitude as a bit disrespectful while I now can see other sides of it.

This reply is honest speak, I appreciate it.

I have some idea what you´re saying, I worked with Icelandic fishermen this summer. Never knew someone could be that violent just with their voice, I tell you the swedes where massacred...

I would have to make them believe they got the idea themselves. They refused to speak english on principle, but they spoke a perfect "self interest".

You should find a way to "exchange hostages" then.

Yeah I already tried to email Bev heh. I saw forum posts disappear in front of my eyes, too. I tried to call her once, no answer. I will try again tomorrow.

[Kelvin Mace]

221. I do not wish to be disrespectful

but I and others tried to avoid this becoming a major issue that would play out in the public eye. Bev however, made a point of dragging it out into the open with vile accusations that could not go unanswered. I have email I sent to her explaining that making this a public dispute would ultimately hard her reputation and the movement.

She went right ahead and started a public fight.

You can only reason with rational people and Bev is simply NOT rationale.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[valis]

191. Glad you are not affiliated with Bev

[Igel]

67. Do you process data or are you an NGO bookkeeper?

If I were her, I'd make sure that every cent earmarked for a particular purpose was spent specifically for that purpose and could be documented. Otherwise, it's "general fund".

I wouldn't include phone bills, utilities, fax machine, photocopier maintenance, computers, employee salaries, rent, paper & other supplies, accountant fees, bank fees, travel expenses (unless directly related), software, or anything else. And, if you want BBV to be around next election cycle, you need to set money aside for organizational continuity.

Which is to say, obviously, that none of these things are used to further your goals. /sarcasm off

If I was low on funds, I might separate out relevant phone expenses and the like, but that takes time and effort.

As somebody pointed out before, not necessarily everybody that chucked in $ IDed it as Rhodes show related donations. And $300k isn't much for an organization like that.

[Bouvet_Island]

180. eh..

"Do you process data or are you an NGO bookkeeper?"

Well neither, like, my current profession? I´m a cook, currently work at boats. I like very good and very bad weather, not mediocre.

I don´t think 300 K is a lot either.

[valis]

181. Then it is your field: Bev is COOKING the books. Thank you.

[Bouvet_Island]

210. I actually

had a laugh from that one when I read it, as I identified it as a friendly joke.

[valis]

214. This was meant as joke.

:D

[Bouvet_Island]

216. Well, what can I say? You made me laugh : ]

[proud patriot]

57. off topic but , wow $23,800 is a lot of one dollar donations

:D

[Must_B_Free]

68. who says they were all one dollar?

I gave $25

[proud patriot]

75. Oh well , there goes that I guess

Did you tag your donation through the Randi Rhodes
show? I didn't donate because I'm way broke right now
so I don't know the "tag" . I figured by "tag" it meant
the $1 donations that Randi called for. :shrug:

[Cocoa]

58. that's a lot of cigars!

(to quote another DUer).

[high density]

61. Why the bashing of John Kerry, Ms. Harris?

I think Harris would have been better off if the election went for Kerry. The freepers would still be drinking her Kool-Aid, non-stop. Limbaugh and Hannity wouldn't be grilling her like Randi did.

It keeps looking more and more like everybody has been scammed. About 6.3% of the money has actually been spent on doing something productive (FOIA requests/legal expenses) and the rest paid her salary and for a nice month-long vacation in Florida. A few thousand bucks probably went toward web hosting for a few months, and a few hundred to her evidently very poor cell phone service. It's now mid-December and I have a feeling that those in charge have had plenty of time to cover up all evidence of a rigged election.

[Must_B_Free]

66. Andy Stephenson did too, though

and he's a good guy,

Does anyone know if these people are anti Kerry becaiuse they are more Kucinich? WHo is i that they lean to in alternative to Kerry? Dean? Liberatarian?

[Andy_Stephenson]

69. Everyone knows I was never a Kerry fan...

as a matter of fact I endorsed Dennis Kucinich for President. My dislike of Kerry stemmed from his war vote...patriot act and homeland gestapo votes. That has never changed. That said, I voted for him and was very hopeful he would win. Refer to my deal with Will Pitt on this matter.

[Must_B_Free]

73. My point is

If you are Anti-Kerry because you are Pro-Kucinich, I don't have a problem with that at all. But if someone says about you "He's Anti-Kerry" and leaves out Pro-Kucinich or Pro-Dean, then I do because then I wonder "well, who are they for then? Buchanan?"

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Being Gay

Voting for a republican is like voting to cut my nose off.

[n69n]

81. randi

have you been in contact with randi?

[Must_B_Free]

70. In my opinion the Anti-Bevs are decimated by this

Discomplishments:

Hits on Bev defeated:
money grabbing - various, dead
paying her relatives - my own speculation, dead
doing a movie with the money - (randi rhodes) dead - not her footage, belongs to "Votergate"


Neutralized or debatable:
relatives on board of driectors - neutral
sold Clinton Cigar - possibly irrelevant
threatened DU - overblown, in my opinion
display at Theresa Lepore - distorted by media ("retitement party" spin no evidence of this presented)
not on Olberman - unclear what happened
didn't return rhodes phone calls - (yet she called into the show?)
lies, distorts, sees what she wants to see - possibly subjective
personality conflicts - not surprising

So far the few valid charges left are:

-----------------

Accomplishments:

CA lawsuit ?
BBV book
demonstration with howard dean,media appearances
mass activation of resources
foias
findings (positives comfirmed in Andy Stephenson interview)

Bev had shown tremendous effectiveness as an activist. Many, many complaints from trusted people are "She got work out of me" (although "Not giving enough credit" may be a valid charge) Followed by "She got money out of me." Those are good things. Not giving enough credit may be a valid charge.

I think Bev has a rigid job to do to steer the identity of her org as she sees fit. If you think of activism, it's a delicate subject working with other people, and if they want to pull or present something in a fashion the other is uncomfortable with, tensions would naturally arise.

I think Allens prognosis of "sees what she wants to see" from the IP thread is realistic. Many people have a tendency to do that.

my objective is

[LoZoccolo]

72. BUSH* has brought DEMOCRACY to IRAQ!

The world is a better place with Saddam out of power, isn't it?

That should quell any criticism of Bush* at all, ever!

(No it shouldn't.)

[Must_B_Free]

76. Quelling criticism will come on its own

My prognosis is opening for further discussion and reasoning. I have changed my mind about 3 or 4 times on this already, so many that I don;t even recall them all now.

So, go ahead - throw some more criticism againt it.

I'm just saying, as of this particular point, I'm not seeig a strong case as to why we should be attacking BBV and Bev's efforts, in general.

[troubleinwinter]

92. Honestly, if you'd STFU, it would likely and hopefully die off this forum

[troubleinwinter]

93. Quit picking at the scab. Just quit, huh? Does no one any good.

[high density]

74. She's about as effective as a bag of nails...

...because she can't communicate any "findings" to the media without being hostile.

[Must_B_Free]

78. Well, What do we know?

We know the things that have been said that the media questions ahve been confirmed by GBAC in the interview. So those aren't really in question.

As far as the media, we know tat whatever successful phone calls there were resulted in Bev being bumped from the show. Perhps gbac can confirm, did she invest any travel in that? was any time lost on her part as a result of being bumped?

[Maddy McCall]

96. Only what she reveals, and that ain't much.

[Stevepol]

88. In her apearances on the media she has never to my knowledge been

haughty or vindictive or arrogant or anything else. She may and likely has been all of these things in her own private interactions but to say that she turns people off thru her media appearances is manifestly false I believe. I just heard her on a radio program out of NY, and she answered the criticisms leveled at her calmly and presented her organization in a perfectly reasonable and appealing way. A lot of these critics of Harris are actually Freeper moles I think, tho some may be offended. Her comments about Kerry are nothing more than many have made and are still making about JK's tardiness to take up the recount and support it, the ease with which he conceded considering the gang he was conceding to, etc. She's not a politician and she says what she thinks at the moment. I'm perfectly fine with that.

[LoZoccolo]

95. "A lot of these critics of Harris are actually Freeper moles I think"

Nah. You shouldn't say that.

[bunny planet]

97. People who criticize Harris are Freeper moles? Them's fightin words.

Damn right I'm offended. :wtf:

[m berst]

102. please don't throw that in anymore

"A lot of these critics of Harris are actually Freeper moles..."

Innuendo and insinuation. Please stop doing that.

[tjdee]

100. Why didn't she go to the hearings?

???

[Jersey Devil]

90. "Have a blessed day"?

Is she a fundie?

[Kelvin Mace]

101. Yeah, she had those swings occasionally

One minute she would be commenting on her Christian beliefs, the next mocking AltheCat for his.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Kelvin Mace]

99. Actually, my source in BevBot central says that the number is

around a cool million (raised in November). Curiously, bbv.org has no accountant and I am also told documentation of expenditures could be a problem as detailed records are not being kept.

I would be curious as to how they are determining what money came as a result of RR.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[troubleinwinter]

103. I cannot imagine there is any way to determine what money came due to RR

I was amazed that the comment was even made.

I'd have expected a comment like "Thanks so much for the help from Air America and their listeners in raising funds to continue the work", but, nah.

[Pepper32]

108. Right, where was the thank-you? n/t

[Maddy McCall]

104. Well, she'd better save that missing 700K for the IRS investigation

that will surely follow. I am sure that more than one pissed-off BBV donor will report her to the IRS; and fighting the IRS can become very expensive very quickly.

[Eloriel]

106. It won't take a donor, pissed off or otherwise

And that's reason enough to keep absolutely impeccable records.

[valis]

179. This can be very serious... How many people have fallen

for embezzling??... Greed and sloppiness are going to do her in...

[Bouvet_Island]

183. Please post this a place where Bev can reply.

I think the mere fact that your opponent is specifically cut off from defending herself from these accusations, should be reason enough for taking this elsewhere.

I urge you to post this a place where she can reply, and link the discussion.

Posting so serious accusations based on one single anonymous source, it is quite a risk you are taking with your credibility. Bev is probably capable of proving you wrong if you are, with bank statements and such. Donations over the net will leave paper trail, I take it you are not suggesting the whole 700 000 difference were sent in snail mail?

As someone pointed out, poor accounting generally doesn´t rhyme with successful fraud, the reports will then be perfect with pictures of cute little flowers in the margins.

The rest of your statements here taken into consideration, I would believe the accused could successfully sue you if she wanted.

I would like to make it clear that I do not represent Bev or her organisation, and as most people I am sceptical of her style and certain "problems". But I don´t believe it warrants the kind of treatment she gets here, in absentia. I am not "presenting a legal threat to other members of DU", but accusing a named ex-member of serious, specific crime should mean that non abusive cricique or questioning is OK.

I have screen captured your statements, with the necessary witnesses. If I see it useful, I will make this available on my website, with copies of the witnesses statements that this is what they saw.

If you are right, you of course are doing great public service, although I would generally warn people of following the same route as David here if you come into the same situation. As I said, he risks a serious libel case since it would be possible to prove the accusations are undermining her organisations business, real damages. Don´t expect the anonymous spy to help you in a losing court case. I would also warn against filing a report with the authoritys on a single, statement, the source can deny it and you risk being charged with pressing false charges, prison sentencable.

[valis]

186. "Poor accouting" is odd given that I have Bev on tape

bragging about what a great book auditor she is...

[valis]

187. Glad to hear your a not associated with Bev's organization...

It certainly sounds like you are...

[Pepper32]

107. No thanks. I will wait for the official & authentic accounting records.

Although, Bev Harris is so obviously trying to discredit/belittle two great people, one whom happen to be MY candidate and the other a powerful liberal voice that I have learned a lot from; I will not bother to tell her what I really think about her recent comments. I will not give her that satisfaction.

Having said that, I do have some questions. I also have some
information on BBV, for anyone that want to follow up on the
accounting information released by Bev Harris, to verify it's
accuracy in the future.

I wonder if these comments about John Kerry, are considered
partisan? Also, is an official statement on her website considered
an official organization publication?

"Now, let's look at this idea for a moment: John Kerry literally ran away from the idea of doing any auditing or recounts, and only
grudgingly agreed to be involved at all. He invested none of
millions that he had raised from his donors was "to make sure every
vote counts."

"I hear the angst in America, from people who know this election was
not trustworthy. I do believe that the person most responsible for
failure to get an accountable election is John Kerry himself"

Because if they are she can lose her tax exempt status, according to
the following:

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to
restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of
organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are
leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public
policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under
section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official
organization publications or at official functions.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html


501(c)3 FACT SHEET*
http://www.ezec.gov/Toolbox/501c3factsheet.html

BBV Profile...

BLACK BOX VOTING
330 SW 43RD ST PMB-K547
LINDA FRANZ
RENTON , WA 98055
EIN: 20-1242136
This organization files an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ. It is a

501(c)(03) public charity.
R40 Voter Education/Registration
Ruling Year: 2004
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport
=1&npoId=100316616

Is Linda Franz at the head of this organization?

Here is the address the donations, when mailed, go to. It matches
the above profile address.

"If you want to save us this fee, you can mail a check to:"
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St
PMB K-547
Renton, WA 98055
http://www.eservicescorp.com/form.aspx?fID=912

Washington Secretary of State profile on BBV:

UBI Number 602 403 081
Category Regular Corporation
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State of Incorporation WA
Date of Incorporation 06/10/2004
License Expiration Date 06/30/2005
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name PTSGE CORP
Address 925 FOURTH AVENUE STE 2900
City SEATTLE
State WA
ZIP 981041158
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?name=BLACK+BOX+V
OTING&ubi=602403081

Linda Franz does appear to be committed to this cause, here is an
email she sent an SOS. It also appears she is with more than one
organization.

From: Lcfranz70 @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:21 AM
To: sreed @secstate.wa.gov; elections @secstate.wa.gov
Subject: Last Minute Software Changes Put Citizens Votes At Risk
http://www.electionintegrity.com/docs/LindaFranzToSoS.htm

Additional, public contact info enclosed in this email...
Linda Franz
Citizens for Voting Integrity- WA
BOD, Blackboxvoting.org
6640 Trent Lane
Ferndale, WA 98248

Washington Citizens for Voting Integrity - Linda Franz
http://www.votingintegrity.us/wa/

According to this PDF, Linda Franz is the driving forces on voting
activism she does things so quietly that few people outside the
election industry even know who she is.
http://thoughtcrimes.org/bbv/bbv_chapter-15.pdf

More contact info for Black Box Voting:
Black Box Voting, PO Box 25552, Seattle WA 98165.
Contact info: 206-335-7747 or 206-354-5723

TIPS TO REMEMBER

Avoid charities that won't share information or pressure you.
Reputable nonprofits:
Will discuss their programs and finances.
Don't use pressure tactics.
Are willing to send you literature about their work or direct you to
a Web site.
Will take "no" for an answer
<snip>
http://www.guidestar.org/learn/index.jsp


Know Your Rights: A Donor's Bill of Rights
http://www.guidestar.org/news/features/rights.jsp

A donor has the right to:

Be informed of the organization's mission, of the way the
organization intends to use donated resources, and of its capacity
to use donations effectively for their intended purposes.

Be informed of the identity of those serving on the organization's
governing board, and to expect the board to exercise prudent
judgement in its stewardship responsibilities.

Have access to the organization's most recent financial statements.

Be assured that their gifts will be used for the purposes for which
they were given.

Receive appropriate acknowledgement and recognition.

Be assured that information about their donations is handled with
respect and with confidentiality to the fullest extent provided by
the law.

Expect that all relationships with individuals representing
organizations of interest to the donor will be professional in
nature.

Be informed whether those seeking donations are volunteers,
employees of the organization or hired solicitors.

Have the opportunity for their names to be deleted from mailing
lists that an organization intends to share.

Feel free to ask questions when making a donation and to receive
prompt, truthful, and forthright answers.
<snip>

[m berst]

109. perpetrator or victim? a different view

Is Bev Harris a perpetrator or a victim? I think that she is both, and I want to tie this into my earlier posts about the haves and have-nots as well as the damage that the Reagan administration did to our society.

One side says she is out there on her lonesome fighting heroically for us and we should cut her some slack. She is under pressure and attacks and we need to stand by her.

The other side says that she is a grandstanding fraud only interested in herself and has taken advantage of her supporters. There is no excuse for her irresponsible behavior.

I think that there is truth in both positions, and that both miss the important truth. There is a very powerful lesson that we can take from this situation, one that will allow everyone to win - or at least not take a hideous loss -including Bev.

Bev is grandstanding and taking advantage of her supporters, but not maliciously necessarily, and before we cast aspersions on her it might be wise to see the context within which she is operating. Is she a have or a have-not in my outline of the two world views in the other post, and how does that shed light on the arguments about her.

Bev has bought into the great Reagan myth of self-actualization - as so many of us have - and she is striving to be one of the "haves" and so make a difference in life. Not financially rich necessarily, but one with status and influence. Much of her failure recently may have more to do with her using a bad model for her activities than it does with any evil intent on her part. In the Reagan model, each individual can become all that they can be and so gain status, wealth and success. This ethic led many people down a path of greed and money, while others went down a path of applying this model to various political and social causes, and the thinking has also permeated the Democratic party. The problem arises when the inevitable clash comes between an approach to life that is self-centered and attempting to use that approach to advance causes that are community oriented and supported.

Bev is a have-not striving to be a have, and so gets a lot of sympathy from others who are have-nots. She is Cinderella at the ball, a lone fighter against tremendous odds, the mouse that roared. She didn't so much manipulate people into thinking this, because it is probably how she sees herself, there is some truth in it, and plenty of people are desperate for it to be true and will foster and promote the myth for her.

Bev's rumored sloppy bookkeeping and poor financial accountability leads me to believe that money is not her goal, so the charges of her being a con artist are probably false. If she were interested primarily in feathering her own nest, she would have made sure that no hint of impropriety skipped into public view.

Bev seems to be interested in being the "star" - the celebrity of the election fraud issue - yes, but that doesn't mean that this is her prime motivation, either, or she wouldn't make so many sloppy mistakes with her image.

Bev is trapped in the Reagan mythology and in that way a victim. Reagan changed people's thinking from community to individual, from team to cog, and this was somewhat under the radar. "If you believe you can achieve" self-realization and individual initiative were translated in left wing circles as "personal beliefs" and "life style alternatives" and "making the right choices" and "being the change you want to see." While the supposed goals are different then those who took Reagan's green light on selfishness as an invitation to pursue greed, the underlying premises are the same.

I can well imagine Bev justifying how she has gone about things, and before we throw her to the wolves we might want to consider all of the ways in which we are making the same mistakes. One can take a look at how to approach the election fraud situation and come to the conclusion that fame - celebrity hood - and status and finances are needed before anyone can have any impact on society or even get attention. So flamboyance and the cultivation of an image are tools to help get the job done. Then she might think in the very Reagan era terms of "what you believe you can achieve" and other semi-mystical beliefs and formulas for succeeding in any endeavor.

Yet we watch her seemingly working against herself. Why is this? I would say that she is making the same understandable mistake that so many of us make. The Reagan formula for how to live your life and achieve things will not work for social causes because the goal and the means contradict each other.

Let's compare the career of the current President of the United States with the career of Bev Harris. These two extreme examples illustrate the point very well. How is it that no matter how badly George Bush screws up he wins and no matter how hard Bev tries she loses? I think it is because the Reagan approach to life only works when it is used in the interests of greed and selfishness. When someone with a self-actualization background such as Bev tries to apply these "winning strategies" to a community cause it sets up a dissonance that eventually will either turn the movement into a co-opted hand maiden to the powers-that-be - as some say the entire Democratic party has become - or will shake and rattle the organization to pieces.

Now this is not to defend Bev's lapses and errors in judgment, nor to say that there may not be some personality flaws involved. It also not to dismiss those who have been hurt by her behavior.

Many on the left are not pursuing wealth, but yet they have embraced the Reagan philosophy. They are pursuing status or security and congratulate themselves on their cleverness or superiority as measured by what they do for themselves, not what they are doing for others or for the society. Even doing "good things" is primarily so that they can tell themselves that they have rounded out their personalities and is entirely disconnected from any actual results their do-gooding may be having on the root causes of the problems. Sooner or later the beneficiaries of the do-gooding are resented, and we have Democrats talking about people as "stupid" or defective or doing arm chair analysis of people's mental health.

Or, some on the left take Bev's approach and use the same tactics that the Religious Right, and multi-level marketing businesses, and other types of hucksterism have used - building a cult of personality, creating a "buzz," encouraging hero-worshiping loyal "true believers," and playing into people's fantasies of being the underdog or being persecuted.

The great lesson here is that the Reagan philosophy of self-centeredness in its many permutations has expanded into all areas of our society and into our thinking, and it does not workfor achieving community goals. It can only lead to selfishness, greed and destruction.

As Democrats, we once started with the notion that we as a society can rise no higher than the least among us. Now, the have-nots don't count for most Democrats.

All of the failures, all of the problems, the arguments, the divisions in the Democratic party can be solved by one simple thing. Reject the entire package of celebrity, wealth and status as the model for everything. Focus on the needs of the least among us first, and always, and build from that solid foundation. Then watch all of the problems start being resolved as if by a miracle.

[salin]

128. interesting analysis

and application. Thanks - hope others read it and give it some thought.

[jdog]

135. THANK YOU!

"All of the failures, all of the problems, the arguments, the divisions in the Democratic party can be solved by one simple thing. Reject the entire package of celebrity, wealth and status as the model for everything. Focus on the needs of the least among us first, and always, and build from that solid foundation. Then watch all of the problems start being resolved as if by a miracle."


I believe this is true and necessary.

[robbedvoter]

148. Did I mention I am saving your posts? Great points, amazing writing

I was trying to make the point that by calling itself the party of the middle class the democratic party is ignoring the have nots - but most responders told me that's fine, as the have nots think they are middle class anyway...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1436519

[crispini]

114. Update in GD: Politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1438290

[stlsaxman]

132. Done with you, Bev...

"Now, let's look at this idea for a moment: John Kerry literally ran away from the idea of doing any auditing or recounts, and only grudgingly agreed to be involved at all. He invested none of millions that he had raised from his donors was "to make sure every vote counts."

Let's do the math- $300,000 - 19,000 = 281,000. Right? A cool quarter million dollars.

Hope she has fun with all that money she has left, buys herself a nice dress, saves some for the IRS investigation she'll be facing... invests in Euros... put all that missing money in a numbered account in Zurich... she's laughing all the way to the bank.

I sent her money. I am stunned. Totally disillusioned. Fuck you, Bev... I'm done with you.

This is my first/last "anti-Bev" post.

[Ms. Toad]

136. Not to defend BBV

But for the sake of accuracy - $19,000 was only the money spent for FOIA requests. There were two paid staff (I believe around $108,000/year + presumably additional costs for health insurance, social security, Medicare, workers' comp, etc - which generally costs 20-35% of salary, depending on the benefit package), office, website, legal (related to setting up the 501(c)(3) + filing suits), travel expenses, etc.

[Kelvin Mace]

146. Well, that's another problem

Aside from the fact that my spie at BevCentral says says that over $1 million was raised in November, it is also reported that there is no accountant and poor record keeping.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[troubleinwinter]

152. While I cannot speak to that...

At the very least, her statement is fuzzy/vague. She says $300k, and has alluded to 6 mo. salary for Andy @ $24k, 6 mo. salary for Bev @ $30k, and $19K "committed" to filings. Even if one assumes her claim of only 300k, it leaves $227k unaccounted for. So it isn't worth the cyberspace it's written on, in my book.

[troubleinwinter]

153. If it were ME trying to give an estimate of expenditures, it would look li

6 mo. rental, office space @ $1,000/mo.= 6,000
6 mo. Salary Andy @ $4,000/mo.= 24,000
6 mo. Salary Bev @ $5,000/mo.= 30,000
Equipment (computers, printers, phones, etc.)= 3,200
Furnishings (Desks, file cabinets, etc.)= 1,200
Supplies (Paper, envelopes, etc.)= 500
Electric= @ appx. $200/mo.= 1,200
Phone service @avg. $300/mo.= 1,800
Direct expenses (Filings, etc.)= 19,000
Incidental (Postage, etc.)= 300
Consultations (Legal, accounting, etc.)= 3,200
Travel (lodging, rental car, meals, etc.)= 5,200
Promotion (website & hosting, printing, etc.)= 1,500

And so on. ALL of this should be at her fingertips. If not, her accountant should be fired, forthwith.
-----

Edit note: I just made this stuff up. It has nothing to do with whatever her numbers are.

[Bouvet_Island]

182. Please post this a place where she can reply.

I think the mere fact that your opponent is specifically cut off from defending herself from these accusations, should be reason enough for taking this elsewhere.

I urge you to post this a place where she can reply, and link the discussion.

Posting so serious accusations based on one single anonymous source, it is quite a risk you are taking with your credibility. Bev is probably capable of proving you wrong if you are, with bank statements and such. Donations over the net will leave paper trail, I take it you are not suggesting the whole 700 000 difference were sent in snail mail?

As someone pointed out, poor accounting generally doesn´t rhyme with successful fraud, the reports will then be perfect with pictures of cute little flowers in the margins.

The rest of your statements here taken into consideration, I would believe the accused could successfully sue you if she wanted.

I would like to make it clear that I do not represent Bev or her organisation, and as most people I am sceptical of her style and certain "problems". But I don´t believe it warrants the kind of treatment she gets here, in absentia. I am not "presenting a legal threat to other members of DU", but accusing a named ex-member of serious, specific crime should mean that non abusive cricique is OK.

I have screen captured your statements, with the necessary witnesses. If I see it useful, I will make this available on my website, with copies of the witnesses statements that this is what they saw.

If you are right, you of course are doing great public service, although I would generally warn people of following the same route as David here if you come into the same situation. As I said, he risks a serious libel case since it would be possible to prove the accusations are undermining her organisations business, real damages. Don´t expect the anonymous spy to help you in a losing court case. I would also warn against filing a report with the authoritys on a single, statement, the source can deny it and you risk being charged with pressing false charges, prison sentencable.

[Kelvin Mace]

189. Bev has a place she can reply

I urge you to post this a place where she can reply, and link the discussion.

It is called blackboxvoting.org.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[NC Beach Girl]

192. weird

I have screen captured your statements, with the necessary witnesses. If I see it useful, I will make this available on my website, with copies of the witnesses statements that this is what they saw.

I know I'm new around here and all...but is this statement a threat?
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here and was just curious.

[ohio_liberal]

193. Sure sounds like it

doesn't it? :shrug:

[NC Beach Girl]

194. Yes

Especially from someone who says they only want questions answered.

It's pretty silly...good luck to anyone using printed out screen captures as "evidence" in court. ;)

[Bouvet_Island]

205. Well,

it depends how you see it. If David is right it wouldn´t be a threat. If he is later proven wrong though, it would be unconvenient for him to have this show up on a google search on his name. He would have to stand up for his words, so to say. Screen capture with scanned witness statements of people that can be easily verified are real, makes for a more convincing page IMO, it is possible simple is better though. If he is lying he is pissing on my sincere efforts to help out, I am entitled to make these words last for him then.

I am not making this up, I really don´t blame people for hating Bev, but taking a stab at her here is IMO not helpful to the general effort. Specifically my reaction was that this will make us look not good to journalists reading up on election fraud. Which is relevant to me, since I sent a journalist here to read up on election fraud.

The reactions here are actually not that strange to me, but to someone not familiar with the way of the leftists, Bev recieving more hatred and worse treatment than Blackwell will probably seem strange.

[Kelvin Mace]

206. I stand by each and every statement

I have made on this board and can prove them should Bev ever be so foolish as to take me to court.

If you check the archives you will discover that I back up my claims with HARD fact, much to some people's (Bev comes to mind) regret.

I have not accused Bev of fraud and have said quite the opposite. I have said she has lied about things in the past (and proven that she did in fact lie) and I now have a source that contradicts her latest claims over money.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Bouvet_Island]

220. That is something I can respect,

although it is hard to mind read :]

[Boredtodeath]

196. David, you're supposed to be scared now

Just in case you missed it......

Of course, Bev's lawyer here forgets all the people she got banned from DU and then slandered. I guess what goes around comes around, huh?

Oh, and there's some small matters like taking people's money and not delivering (Timothy Hutchinson), having Better Business Claims filed against her, and asking people to illegally (criminally, I might add) to process her customer credit cards on their merchant account because her merchant account had been cancelled.......

Yeah, get scared when her attorney comes out here to throw threats around....(NOT).

If Bev wants to get nasty, nasty it will be.

[valis]

198. Geez, are you implying her lawyer is a liar?

He/she just said he/she does not represent Bev!

[Boredtodeath]

202. Probably her brother, the lawyer

which means no money changed hands for his "legal advice" which makes his statement technically true.

[ohio_liberal]

199. Who is

Timothy Hutchinson?

[Boredtodeath]

203. The author of

a book named "Battle Scars," who hired Bev/Talion for PR work on the book. She took $6,000.00 from him and never performed one service for him.

Go to the Way Back Machine and search for TalionSucks.com for all the gory details.

[ohio_liberal]

204. I will do that

Thanks for the info. :)

[ohio_liberal]

207. The Wayback Machine is kaput

but I found something posted on Bartcop through Google:

The first tip-off that something was wrong was when the media kit was not finished in a week to 10 days as Bev had originally said. I emailed her several times about this, but never got any replies. I then placed several calls to her and left messages. Those calls were never returned. Finally, after trying to reach her for over a week, I was able to get a hold of her on the phone. She explained that she was having employee problems and would resolve the issue soon. Though that was no excuse for my emails and phones not being returned, I accepted what she said and continued waiting. Unfortunately this scenario would repeat itself at least one more time before I saw any signs of a media kit, a full 6-weeks after I had overnighted the $6,000.00 check to her! And after all that time the media kit had many, many errors in it, the least of which was that it was labeled as having something to do with voting, which had nothing to do with my book.

To make matters worse I got an email from someone in her employ who had been making phone calls about my book even before the media kit was ready. Some of the people he contacted wanted info, and we had none to give them! In two days he had made 190 calls (before the media kit was ready), and on MOST of the calls he simply left a message - and he was counting those calls towards the total of 1,000 I had paid for!

Again it took some doing getting a hold of Bev, but once I did I was able to explain the situation. She said the media kit would be fixed soon, and that she had problems before with the person making the calls on my behalf and would now let him go.

Bev then said she'd start sending email blasts off to the media about me. After a few days I was booked to do a radio show for a local station. I did the interview, but unfortunately he was not provided any background info about me nor any suggested questions to ask. Needless to say we basically fumbled our way through the 40 minute interview. It wasn't until approx. one week afterwards that the press kit was fixed, and suggested questions were added.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=308296#308409

[Boredtodeath]

223. When that was posted at Bartcop and DU

Bev finally refunded Tim $4,000.00 of the $6,000.00 he paid her.

One has to wonder if that's a legitimate use of 501 money, huh?

[ohio_liberal]

235. I think the posts....

were dated August 2004.

[Kelvin Mace]

201. Any time she wants to take

me to court, I will be ready.

I am *so* scared of Bev's proxies. Remind me to lose sleep over it.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Bouvet_Island]

215. Why the fuck should David be scared ?

I specifically stated he is doing public service if his account is truthful.

Se my reply under, there is no legal threat. There is no attourney either, In a court I could deliver expert testimony on stuff like experimental cooking of rare deepwater fish like exclusive Norwegian skate species, but I would not try to play lawyer even if I got paid.

Your points are interesting, this is relevant information although they do not prove or strongly indicate fraud of the donators to her current organisation. Timothy´s account sounds plausible though, but it is a problem with the *****sucks.com sites that people writing there are specifically taking revenge, and not all of them stays on the truth all the time. It is an interesting account though.

Heh I am not Bev. I am a young 20s norwegian male, I lately have become very interested in the american election system.

[Kelvin Mace]

200. Bring it on!

I would generally warn people of following the same route as David here if you come into the same situation. As I said, he risks a serious libel case since it would be possible to prove the accusations are undermining her organisations business, real damages. Don´t expect the anonymous spy to help you in a losing court case. I would also warn against filing a report with the authoritys on a single, statement, the source can deny it and you risk being charged with pressing false charges, prison sentencable.

I can prove everything I say, which is why Bev will not take me to court. In fact, In the past, I *have* proven my claims whereas Bev has NOT.

My sources are quite good, unlike Bev's.

Try not to talk about thing you do not understand.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Bouvet_Island]

208. Prove it to us then!

We get it you have personal issues with Bev, this means you should not be surprised if people don´t take your words about her on face value. I am not fishing for a full Bev debate, I am talking about the difference between saying your sources are good and making it obvious to us they are.

The two of you in court would not be really useful to us all just now.

I probably also should have stated clearly that I have no intent, interest or even the possibility of taking any legal action on behalf of Bev. I could make really good creme brulée on both her and Davids behalf, but this would make no sense.

I would not advise her to go to court either, there are several Sets of reasons why this would not be a good idea for her or us in the general unorganised movement. None of them is that I currently believe she would loose. If you have the proof you tout, I would encourage you to bring her down in the way you find least damaging to the vote movement. I would think something along the lines of bargaining her out of her organisation, with an hounorful leave. And have a neutral, unpartisan candidate replace her, someone that understands grassroots approach to media better. Not just talk about it.

I am a reasonable man, I will accept fact and as I said if he is right about Bev I will happily state I was wrong and David was right, etc. I would kiss your shoes. But again, please post the proof. This is what is demanded of Bev. Or rather, please delay the attack talk or take measures to end the conflict.

I stand by my advice, it was based on the way you presented your allegation. You said one anonymous source. Generally it doesn´t matter if you think the source is good or your best friend, you can not expect people to support you in a court case you are losing. Ask editors or journalists about these matters, it is bread and butter to them. The important point in libel against public people is if there is quantifiable real damage, and if it was done against better knowledge.

I would have to agree with anyone saying I am weighing in on Bev´s side of the discussion in this thread, I understand it is either or with a lot of you. I personally choose to support Both Bev and Davids efforts to jail vote thieves, but not their civil war in the vote movement. And if I find out David was lying/wrong about the million, I intend to remind him of it, at least if he doesn´t see the need to apologize for such a bummer.

I don´t like to see people pick on someone that are not able to defend themselves, this made me write the "Inspired" response over. Her being able to reply at her own site is not quite good enough for me, I like level fights.

I specifically asked for some moderation in the Bev bashing, I mean I did this for a good reason, that I am entitled to ask this, and that I am not the only person interested in such a development.

If you read my posts you will find argument why I personally don´t believe the fraud theories I heard as of yet, but there are only so many possible explanations for what I have seen of her reactions, I have not excluded the ones that is not good for her.

I see some people are alleging that I am affiliated with Bev Harris, I would be interested if you maybe could suggest a way for me to convince you I am not, if it exists. I take the side of civilised discussion, I think the rules of this forum makes a lot of sense and if I have broken any of them please point this out.

I actually with Bev volounteered with for a very specific task, that is to change her front web page which not only is an eyesore, but where the most prominent piece of information is that as most grownups can figure she is having a ongoing feud with David here. It is the reason I didn´t point the journalist I mentioned to Bev´s page, or David´s. I never heard from her either, though.

I worked shortly in a NGO environmental organisation in Norway where there was similar arrangement, a too big ego get´s thrown out and starts his own organisation. He picks a similar sounding name, similar logo and do stuff like remove a particular piece of road he doesn´t like, with his own manual labor. My personal take is that the guy with the ego was somehow right, if someone use the system to poison a well legally, it is good for society that they know there is someone that will possibly work slightly outside the system to make them pay for it. The organisation I worked for was mostly writing statements for bureaucratic processes, which makes sense but is not the appropriate answer to criminal activity like batch releasing pollution you know will be prohibited soon. If someone were legally polluting my garden, I would call the angry stupid fellow even if I in effect had to pay him some and he probably would sortof extort the company and the ones next to it. That would be the only case, though. I am not a specific fan of either organisations, neither "gets" the greenhouse effect. Both generally serve useful purpose though.

What he was not right about was picking that name for his organisation. After 15 years, they still got each others mail, phone calls, and the name recognition is about 50% in the local press. There was once a journalist calling the other one, after having been told the difference, then being "hijacked" and neither actually got any coverage in the end. Cooperation between the two organisations was: 0, they actually had a lot of common interest in the concrete cases they were working. I met very few common people that where able to separate the two correctly, like the organisation I worked for would get more donations after his was in the news and so on. The name discrepancy was "Naturvernforbundet" vs "Miljøvernforbundet", you should think it was possible to learn people the difference over time since both had a reasonable high profile. Nope, nope, nope.

If this was a paralell, I believe Bev probably would be the angry, Ego, less sofisticated one and David would be the one working mostly with a pen.

I am going to continue to talk about things I don´t understand completely, to get a better understanding of them.

I see I get new names, affiliations, occupations and whatnot on the fly. This is not necessary, or correct information to people reading this thread, they are not idiots and can make up their own minds about the issues we discuss without this extra, incorrect information to aid them.

[Kelvin Mace]

213. To once again point out the obvious

1) I have NOT accused Bev of fraud
2) I have not accused you of any affiliation, Bev or otherwise.
3) There is an entire archive of threads which proves the case against Bev. Every time this issue comes up proof is demanded by people who either really don't want the truth or are too lazy to find and/or read the truth. I am weary of constantly proving myself, having done so repeatedly, ad nauseum.
4) If you want to assume I have an axe to grind and disregard my (and other's) warnings. Be my guest. It's a free country. You'll learn the truth for yourself, as so many people have (the latest being Andy, poor guy)
5) You talk about a "feud" between Bev and I, yet there are at least a dozen such feuds going on. How many people have to go through what I and many others have gone through before you folks who insist Bev is unfairly maligned wake up?

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[valis]

218. Why don't cooks stick to cooking? :D

[Boredtodeath]

222. Norwegian cooks who spout civil law AND IRS law

no less!

Bwahahahahahahahaha, anyone buying the Norwegian fisherman's line is a prime candidate for a swindle.

[Bouvet_Island]

227. You know my credentials?

I only stated my current employment.

I of course discussed these matters with my lawyer friend.

Holy fuck, you ever heard of google?

I read papers, american too. Interested in what goes on in the world.

It is not a crime to make arguments instead of loose spin.

Some poor democratic spirit here.

[Boredtodeath]

228. You stated your credentials, repeatedly

Now, when we hold you to that "story," you want to claim you have a "lawyer friend" sitting beside you while you type all these responses, right? You've been going on and on for more than 24 hours, sweetie.

Let me say :hi: to that lawyer friend sitting there.

And, forgive me - I didn't realize that you were a freaking genuis who could figure out 15 volumes of IRS laws when US Tax attorneys spend years in school to do that. Not to mention a clear understanding of US civil laws, by state, so you can cite them for us.

You know what? I need a really, really good attorney. Can I hire your buddy? Since he's sitting there holding your hand, I presume he could use a client or two.

[Bouvet_Island]

230. I don´t really need to answer this kinda crap.

I think the time zones are confusing you a little, and the fact I went to bed at 7 this morning.

I spent 4 hours with him last night, we grew up here together and he arrived from Bergen where he lives now.

I like to do computer work in the nights, the concentration... I have a little 3D graphics learning hobby project, Lightwave fan if that tells you sumthin. I type and read when It renders, and this particular debate interests me, yes.

It is difficult to get good character asessment out of how people act on messageboards, and they are not always who they seem to be, correct. I can live with the suspicion, as long as I enjoy the freedom of the speach here :]

[Boredtodeath]

232. No, you don't

But you should realize that, in refusing to do so, you prove you have no defense to the assumption.

BI, none of your BS holds up. You really are embarassing yourself and should stop now.

You're not going to change the hearts and minds of those who have watched Bev Harris operate, up close and personal, for 2 years now.

She is reaping the harvest of what she has sown.

Your role playing as her defender doesn't alter the facts known to the members of this community.

[Bouvet_Island]

238. Boredtodeath,

I don´t accept the insult.

I answered this in other posts.

I think your last sentence says something interesting.

[valis]

233. Lightwave fan ah?

I guess now that they took the main Bittorrent servers down actually you may have to purchase it... Sigh...

[Bouvet_Island]

237. Ah,

you searched my posts? That I suggested sharing Keith Olbermanns shows?

Hell, this must be solid proof I am not a lawyer then.

If any of you are interested in learning 3d, most of them important programs have official, free, learning editions nowadays as well as free tutorials. In lightwave´s case there are quite a lot of really awesome video tutorials as of lately, that specifically deals with the evasive stuff and makes it funny. Lightwave have very good user community, you tell of a problem on www.cgtalk.com and then someone writes a plugin that fixes it for you and posts, usually for free. There is also something called "fprime" that you really should check out if you are about to pick a 3d package.

Lightwave had a free edition with some limitations, now there is student edition for as low as $439. And the dollar is plummeting...

http://www.idesignsol.com/cat/index.php?manufacturers_id=11">student edition

[Bouvet_Island]

226. Why don´t you stick it

up yours? I stated my current employment, I have the degree in literature and the graphic design work as well as all the other blah blah.

If that is a joke it is not funny, you sound like "Fox television" to me.

[Bouvet_Island]

229. I replied

to the general feedback there, I thougth it was evident.

I said "implied" fraud, in the context I believe you are in effect doing that, although there clearly are room for different interpretation.

I appreciate that, leave the name calling and credential mincing to Fox.

There seems to be some differences on this, also with people that are familiar with the matter. My point is about the current situation, what is most useful to us. I also don´t approve of the notion that hidden evidence is valid, I really don´t want the general Bev discussion though.

The truth is what interests me.

I think it was fair asessment, my point was that it was evident to me before I even heard about DU. My reaction when typing in .com instead of .org when I was first visiting Bev´s site was, like, fuck this feud isn´t really helpful.

There is no conflict between her being, for illustration, a sour donkey ass and also being unfairly maligned. If she is Our "sour donkey ass", the proper reaction would be to deny her glory for her work, when it is done.

Attacking her is only useful if the attack are strong and sharp enough to bring her down cleanly and timely. This not possible, better truce.If else we get polarized vote movement, communication bonanza and leaky media efforts.

[Boredtodeath]

231. You leave out valuable history

Your sour donkey ass Bev has spent 2 years unfairly maligning people she got banned from this very forum.

The BevBorg demands one standard from the people who she has maligned and another for Bev.

Sorry, Bev is getting what she gave.

If you want it to stop, you may want to have a discussion with the person who perfected the process right here on DU.

You'll just have to get over the fact that the people Bev Harris has maligned unfairly have learned their lesson well. From the master.

[valis]

234. The truth is out there, man.

[ohio_liberal]

236. All anyone has to to do...

is make a donation, get the star, and start searching the DU archives. That's what I did. It sure was an eye-opening experience.

[Bouvet_Island]

239. Interesting, I´ll take the advice.

if the truth is *in* there heh.

I don´t need people here to post Bev evidence then if it is as easy to come across as I take it you are implying.

It is always better when you can read the responses from both sides.

[Vinnie From Indy]

224. You Write Just Like DZIKA

WOW! I have noticed several different posters write in exactly the same style using the same horrendous grammar, mangled sentence structure and regional colloquial phrases. One might be tempted to think that they are, in fact, the same person using different names.

[Bouvet_Island]

225. I have noticed

Several different posters whose only contribution is very lame fact absent personal attacks.

One might think they are the same brain, posting under different flesh.

[Boredtodeath]

154. One of those "paid staff" is Bev Harris, herself

And the other was Andy Stephenson.

Now, you're figuring in an annual salary when the corporation hasn't even been in existence for 6 months (see the info above).

So, even WITH your generous figures, it doesn't add up. Not even close. And the "office" is Bev's basement.

Nope. Your inflated figures don't even come close.

Hell, she's begging for a high speed scanner as an excuse for not producing her "evidence," but it would be far cheaper to take those documents to a local Kinkos or Office Depot and pay to have them scanned. Why buy a "high speed (no less)" scanner for a one time application?

Your entire post stretches the imagination.

[troubleinwinter]

155. You answered one of my questions (but I was too delicate to ask)

When she wrote of planned "office expansion costs", I WONDERED if she rents office space or was planning on adding an addition to her house!

Hahah!

I know someone like this, and can read the whole thing.

[Ms. Toad]

168. Take a chill pill and reread what I was responding to

and what I actually said. My point was that it was not just the $19,000 that were reported as expenses against the reported $300,000 in donations. That was only the amount reported as spent or committed for FOIA filings - not for all expenses. The post to which I was responding implied that $19,000 was the only expense, leaving $281,000 for buying dresses and socking away in offshore accounts.

I didn't inflate anything. I gave the numbers I recall being reported for salaries for herself ($60,000) and for Andy Stephenson ($48,000) and accurately stated that those are annual (/year) salaries. (If you reread my post you will not find any statement as to how long either or both of them had been on staff, or what portion of their annual salary should have been drawn against the donations.) I also pointed out that there are always salary related expenses in addition to the actual salary, which generally add 20-35% to whatever is reported as a salary.

I also pointed out other expenses that almost certainly took some portion of whatever money came in. Office expenses do not just include rent, although if the 501(c)(3) is using space in Bev's basement, depending on how it is segregated that could also be a legitimate expense in the eyes of the IRS. I have no idea whether she is actually charging rent or not - and made no suggestion in my post either way. Office expenses also include office supplies, equipment, postage, and even copying expenses at the local Kinko's.

I did not say that these amounts added up to $300,000, that she made wise choices with the money she was entrusted with, that all that she brought in was $300,000, or that she can or has done proper accounting for all that she has taken in.

What I did say was that $19,000 was not all that was spent - and pointed out where some of the rest of it went, for the sake of accuracy.

I am no fan of Bev Harris - but accusations based on completely ignoring reality (i.e. the fiction that there were no expenses beyond the amounts associated with the FOIA requests) drive me nuts - even when those accusations are against someone I am quite happy to see shoved off the radar.

[valis]

178. I smell IRS audit. I do hope somebody reports this.

[Bouvet_Island]

184. I would

warn anybody against filing a report with the IRS without any hard proof, like written or recorded statements from people that have seen the crime firsthand. Basing a report on "rumors from the internet", you risk being tried for presenting false charges.

[valis]

185. Tips do not require evidence if they are presented as such

All people who feel betrayed by Bev should join in...

[Bouvet_Island]

211. Well, that is true I believe.

But the IRS must get a helluva lot of tips, I don´t know it this route is predictable. I was talking about a report, which I believe somehow forces the IRS to act, thus the seriousness of using them wrongly.

[Fud]

212. How come we are still talking about this?

I mean really if others can't read and do research then it's kinda their problem. I'm not saying don't talk about it but alot of us discovered she was a fraud ages ago.

For those that say she did alot of good i say just point out one single thing...just one thats all. Thats not much to ask is it?

I'm still waiting for her to sue me for libel.

For those that don't realize she is a crackpot by now i can't help you at all. The Nile is a river but denial isn't.

[Bouvet_Island]

240. help.

It would be probably be in your might to post a single link or checkable fact supporting what you say. I am not urging you to do it, I just think it is possible to make communication, with information.

I believe this forum shows the general kind of activity I would like most of Americas youth to be engaged in right now:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID4408&conf=DCConfID134">activity

This is more bad than good? Explain.

This is interesting to me,it´d be the single thing:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=50&forum=DCForumID4408&viewmode=all

although I presume you will claim it is simply the perfect fraud.

Let´s see what happens, there´s still time.

[Kelvin Mace]

241. Here are the things that jump out at me...

About a month ago, the AG's office announced a "proposed settlement" with Diebold, for peanuts. They claimed total damages of $2.6mil and offered Bev and I $76k a piece so long as we didn't complain about this "sweetheart deal"...

Note that the "Qui Tams" is basically Latin for "whistleblowers" - Bev and I.

Folks, if we can derail this "proposed settlement", Diebold is in deep kimchee. They either have to come up with a lot more money, or face discovery which is gonna be brutal

Now, the way Jim and Bev are spinning this, it's all about being good citizens. But then I come back to to this posting by Jim March from when the suit was originally filed:

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

So anyways...the profit potential here is just crazy.

Yes, we don't find Bev on record making these types of comments, but Jim IS on the board of directors of bbv.org, so when we look at it in that context the reason for refusing to settle is in order to hold out for more money.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[NC Beach Girl]

242. they got $76,000 and Diebold stays in California

I thought Bev and BBV were going to reject the settlement and "take Diebold into discovery". I saw http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/Proposed%20Settlement-Final%20(11-10-04).pdf">this posted earlier on the thread... it's the proposed settlement that was approved by the judge last week in the case against Diebold. According to the settlement it says:

• there's no admission of any wrongdoing by either party: it says "Settling Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have stipulated
  under the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Stipulation”) that this Stipulated Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Judgment”) may be entered without taking proof; without the Stipulation and Judgment constituting evidence of any issue of law or fact alleged in the First Amended Complaint; and without the Stipulation and Judgment constituting an admission by any party regarding any issue of law or fact alleged in the First Amended Complaint; Settling Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants having waived their right to appeal..." So there is no evidence presented. No witnesses. No testimony at all. Nothing. What was the point?
  
• the state will pay the original plaintiffs (Bev and Jim March) their share, but the exact amount remains to be negotiated between them and the state: "Pursuant to Paragraph 4.1.d., a sum to be determined by agreement between MARCH and HARRIS and the ATTORNEY GENERAL, or if no agreement can be reached, an amount ordered by the court, if any, payable to MARCH and HARRIS by a check made payable to the Law Offices of Lowell Finley Client Trust Account, for the qui tam plaintiffs’ share pursuant to Government Code section 12652 subdivisions (g)(2) and (j)"
  
• At the very end it says: "The original qui tam complaint filed by MARCH and HARRIS on November 21, 2003 is ordered dismissed with prejudice. All DOE defendants named in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice." That means BBV's original lawsuit was completely dismissed (and therefore is almost impossible to re-file).
  

So it sounds suspiciously like at the end of the day BBV just took the money and that's the end of it. Pretty disappointing, but from what I've been reading here the past few days I guess it doesn't sound too surprising. :( I was looking for more news about the case at yahoo and I saw http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687614&tid=dbd&sid=4687614&mid=8893">this post on the Diebold message board... and it says that Bev and Jim never even went to court and their lawyer never filed a motion to oppose the settlement. Weird... I wasn't sure whether it's true or not but there are replies from someone claiming to be Jim March (user "equalccw") and it sounds like it's a done deal, he says on that message board they're going to get around $76,000 each and he's going to use his share to buy a motorcycle and some guns.

I haven't seen any official statements about the case on BBV.org, just a couple of posts about it in their forum. It basically sounds to me like Diebold gets to stay in California while Bev and Jim March get a nice Christmas bonus? I'm not sure what happened to the plan to take Diebold into discovery, but it sounds like that's not going to happen.

Does anyone else know what's going on? The judge approved the settlement last week so the case is over. That seems confirmed by Jim March on the yahoo message board and in the BBV.org forum. Why isn't there a statement from Bev on her site?

[Garbo 2004]

243. The yahoo Diebold group is most interesting.

The link in the above post took me to some site that scoops up folks with incorrect urls. So I'm guessing this is the message you're referring to?

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687614&tid=dbd&sid=4687614&mid=8896

[eowyn_of_rohan]

244. You are right--Very interesting posts re Diebold voting machines, too...

Palm Beach Conspiracy?
by: leaky_faucet_2000 (45/F/canton, oh) 11/17/00 02:55 pm
Msg: 5570 of 8899
A year ago the DBD CFO leaves the company. Didn't someone on this board last year say he retired to - West Palm Beach?
Here's the scenario: send an operative to screw up the elections, then come in and offer to sell millions of electronic voting machines. Yes, I knew when I saw the screw up in Palm Beach that it had DBD fingerprints all over it. Only DBD could screw something up so bad. Maybe we ought to send Bechtel down to finally finish it off. THEN we'll see screwed up!!!

[NC Beach Girl]

245. Yes, sorry

I'm new and still working out how to post links, who knew it was this complicated? haha. It added an extra "http" at the front in all my links, but they work if you just remove that part. ;)

Also, I see Bev herself has mentioned the settlement this morning on her messsage board after someone asked her about it. The link to that statement is here ...scroll to post #6 where she is asked again if there will be an official announcement and she replies in #7 of the thread. She had originally posted that there would be an official announcement about it when she was asked on Dec. 17th.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dcforum/DCForumID4410/89.html


quoting:

QuiTamTimeIsOver
Crew
Dec-21-04, 02:37 AM (PST)

6. "RE: There will be an announcement"
In response to message #3

>Something bizarre happened.
>
>Jim March and I are looking at our options right now.
>
>Bev


Are you still crafting a response to this?

I read Jim March's posts here: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687614&tid=dbd&sid=4687614&mid=8894
it implies that you guys are going to blame Lowell for taking the settlement? But, as Jim has mentioned before you did lose the right to veto anything as soon as the state joined your case, so I'm not sure how that can be Lowell's fault as much it is the nature of Qui Tam.

I get the feeling that some members of this board still think this case is going on and I think you should clear now rather than wait for a backlash and to avoid any feelings of being misled that may arise when they finally realize that this is a done deal.

__________________________________________________________
18. DISMISSAL.The original qui tam complaint filed by MARCH and HARRIS on November 21, 2003 is ordered dismissed with prejudice. All DOE defendants named in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 18th line of the settlement (you can see it at verified voting) it clearly stated that the original case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning of course that there is no bringing it back...it's a shame. I'm not sure Qui Tam is the way to go if the Attorney General can just take over and the company gets away with a little rebate while the machines are still used all over the state. Ultimately, the voters in CA get nothing and I guess Jim gets a new motorcycle, not sure how I feel about that at all.

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687614&tid=dbd&sid=4687614&mid=8887




BevHarris
Member since Jul-11-03
1895 posts Dec-21-04, 07:45 AM (PST)

7. "Something unexpected happened."
In response to message #6

LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-04 AT 07:55 AM (PST)

We simply are not through reviewing our options.
Bev Harris

[Bouvet_Island]

246. Well David,

that is both relevant and interesting.

I got the impression they were somehow risking the 76K, that they didn´t expect this old judge to show up? The letter is real, or could it be fake?

I also read the 2.6 figure as what was "penuts", it sounds like very little to a company of Diebolds size. Open for different interpretation.

Is it usual for whistleblowers to get damages paid in court cases in the US? It doesn´t seem there was anything to suggest they had loss or injury, I read the suggestion of giving them money as a somewhat corrupt move from the initial judge. We´ll get the court papers and the explanation from Bev i guess, it´ll be possible to make better judgement then. It would not be wise of her to accept that money.