Sorry for the delay in this response.

[dmac]

Many have discouraged me from posting anything more regarding last week's discussion. I agree it's a bad idea, but I feel bound by my word to return.

I do not and have never worked for ChoicePoint. My knowledge of company policies and products is limited and second-hand. My work as an activist in the Election Reform community is in no way associated with or influenced by ChoicePoint. I am in the process of gathering links that will enable interested parties to find answers to questions or concerns regarding ChoicePoint. These links will be posted shortly.

I have explained how I became involved with VoteTrustUSA. I did not discuss solutions as I see them for Election Reform. I am a strong advocate for HR550. That in no way means I would work against activists with other points of view or that I do not agree with and support their views and efforts as well. My first preference would be for hand-counted paper ballots – however I do not feel like this is going to happen in the near future and we need safeguards on the integrity of our elections now.

HAVA had serious consequences on our voting system. One way those consequences can be addressed is through legislation that amends HAVA to correct these problems. I also agree with the legal efforts that are on-going. As I stated earlier I believe multi-tasking as a movement is essential so that if the efforts of one group fail, there is hope that the efforts of another group may succeed.

Some have implied I support disenfranchisement of voters and a statement I made about voter ID was pulled from the archives to support this claim. I had never thought very deeply about that subject – THEN. I was naïve and stupid. I would NEVER accept disenfranchisement of ANY voters – and would fight side by side with any of you to prevent such an occurrence.

In regard to Election Reform, some seem to lose sight of the non-partisan nature of this issue. Reading through the responses, my party affiliation was scrutinized. “Good Democrat”, “Bad Democrat”, or “Ruse”? Frankly this kind of discussion is harmful to our cause as Democrats and Republicans alike should be fighting to repair our seriously flawed election system.

I realize this is not the fight many of you may have prepared for. But I am saving my energy for the fight that matters. My intentions and efforts in the Election Reform movement have been well-meaning. If I have made mistakes I have learned from them. I am an independent-minded person whose thinking and contributions are not influenced by any other entity. I feel I have done my best to represent the cause of election reform and I intend to continue in those efforts. As an American citizen it is not only my right, it is my duty. My best to all of you in your efforts.

[papau]

1. If you could get enacted random hand audits of 10% of the precincts,

paper ballots, I'd much appreciate it.

[autorank]

2. Since you're interested in disenfranchisement, take a look here.

Election fraud began as a race crime and continues as a race crime today. This is where the fraud takes place. It began after the Compromise of 1876 when the Federal Government abandoned Reconstruction and turned the former states of the confederacy over to the former rulers. The Democrats bargained away the presidency from Tilden to Hayes to get that deal. From the start, newly formed white legislatures began enacting laws to contract the black vote. Blacks voted at higher rates during Reconstruction than at any time since!

Some of the restrictive voting strategies included:

1) Felony disenfranchisement: The constitutions of the former Confederate states were rewritten after 1876 with great glee by the new rulers. One thing used to suppress black voting was making a felony conviction a PERMANENT loss of the right to vote. No "serving your time", just forget about it, you can't vote again. Since blacks were arrested capriciously, when they were not murdered as a means of intimidation, the result was achieved, fewer black voters. In Florida, there are hundreds of thousands of black males, 600k by some estimates, who CAN NEVER VOTE except by doing back flips to get re-enfranchised. In Virginia, there are 300k black males who cannot vote. The shameful list goes on and on. This is the difference in modern elections and it's as racist as you get. But people forget history or don't study it and the connection is lost between the vile racism under which these laws originated and the current application.

2) Literacy tests & - we all know about those.

3) Poll taxes - paying to vote.

4) Voter IDs - this is an old favor te. The Republicans (Democrats back then) get all agitated about a few people voting who should not (as opposed to ballot box stuffing, an old practice). They huffed and puffed about Voter IDs. Of course, the poorer you are the less likely you are to have a the requisite ID and the less likely, certainly, you are able to pay for one. Georgia wanted to, maybe still does, charge for Voter IDs. It's not an opinion, it's a fact that this works against people voting who should vote.

It's a nation in which the different parties battle over contracting and expanding the franchise. Guess who wants to contract it...they may be called Republicans today and Democrats in the 1900's but they're always the same people, the forces of repression who just don't want too many people voting for obvious reasons.

That's where the voting rights movement starts before you even think of a punch card, lever, computer, or whatever. The election "integrity" movement exists only because there is election fraud, in the forms above and many others. In order to understand the entire problem, we need to be aware that the mis allocation of voting equipment and the malfunction of same often takes place in predominantly black, other minority, and poor areas. Look at this from Florida 2000, it says it http://www.hamilton.edu/news/florida/KlinknerAnalysis2.html

Acknowledging the basis of election problems requires an understanding that it started about race and that it continued with "spoiled ballots," and is carried forward with too few or lousy machines in minority areas (e.g., NM 2004). Rectifying the problems with elections is part of a much broader movement for social Justice.


Ballot Manipulation and the "Menace of Negro Domination”: Racial Threat & Felon Disenfranchisement in the USA, 1850-2002 4 to 6 Million Ballots Not Counted in 2000
http://www.socsci.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdf

Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.
http://sentencingproject.org/pdfs/UggenManza.pdf

Voter Intimidation in Recent Years. Jim Crow Returns
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16399

[garybeck]

3. I don't care about your party affiliation, but I do care about

Choicepoint.

I and many are still waiting for some kind of response to the many accusations that have come from Greg Palast and others concerning the practices of Choicepoint in past elections.

I reject the idea that only your husband works for Choicepoint and you have no idea about them or connection to them. If this person is your husband you must have some way to reconcile the practices of Choicepoint. You have expressed no condemnation for the practices of Choicepoint, or disappointment that your husband is running a company that is involved in actively disenfranchising voters, and getting paid for it.

I know that many couples disagree on issues and manage to get along. But if you are the Election Reform advocate that you say you are, then I can't see any way you could just live with the fact that your husband is running Choicepoint. Doesn't this bother you?

Your relationship with your husband is a personal matter, but you are never going to shake off this problem until/unless you take on the Choicepoint issue. Do you personally condemn their actions? Have you looked into the evidence that they were paid to produce a list of voters to disenfranchise? How could you be such an election reform advocate, and not even wonder about these things? Something just doesn't seem right and until you address this many of us will have doubts about your true intentions, and considering some of the other things we've seen happen, our doubts are warranted.

I hope you are the election advocate you say you are. I hope you can show us that as an election advocate you are concerned about Choicepoint, like the rest of us are.

Gary

[dmac]

4. Did you miss the part of my post that said I am gathering links?

"from Greg Palast and others" - what others please? Links?

Gary - I do intend to provide everything you need so you can read and form your own opinion. Sorry I don't have it all together yet.

[garybeck]

5. yes I did see that

I will certainly check out your links but a personal statement recognizing and condemning Choicepoint's practicies would be more powerful than a link to an article someone else wrote.

If you're looking for links about Choicepoint accusations, just check out Randi Rhodes' website and do a search on Choicepoint. www.therandirhodesshow.com

[Febble]

7. "Your relationship with your husband is a personal matter"

exactly.

EXACTLY.

Women are not obliged to condemn their husbands' views if they do not support them, any more than they are obliged to condemn any other view that they do not support.

Donna has the right to express her own opinion, and has the right to have that expression of her opinion regarded as her own without any assumptions being made as to whether she holds any opinions that others might attribute to her husband.

Women are autonomous individuals. We fought for that autonomy. You ride roughshod over it AT YOUR PERIL, Mr Beck.

[garybeck]

9. complete BS.

you are spinning this into a women's issue? what a crock.

I would be saying the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.

Like I said, personal lives are not our business. and many couples disagree on politics. but this goes beyond all that. It's one thing to be married to a Republican, or someone who disagrees with your political views whatever they are. But if your husband is one of the top people at a company that is accused of disenfranchising thousands of voters with purposeful deceipt, it becomes a public matter in itself. Now that Ms. Curling has chosen to contribute to an organization that we are being asked to trust, it becomes a public matter for her.

If Ms. Curling just happened to be married to a registered Republican, no one would be even mentioning this. Choicepoint takes this to a much higher level of scrutiny that is warranted. Even VoteTrustUSA has admitted that they do not dispute the claims against Choicepoint.

It is not enough to pass it off and say, "he's just my husband."

If my wife was a republican, I could probably live with it. If my wife worked for the RNC and was out there on election day challenging voters at the polls, I could not live with it.

Your attempt to spin this into a women's issue is a lame (and failed) attempt to divert the issue.

[Febble]

10. Not an "attempt" at "spin" at all

just pure, unadulterated indignation!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. notice something?

women are being told they don't know womens issues.

Hmmmm... Febble, we must still be property...

(except of course no one wants to own me.. to much trouble)

Now we must all be good little women and move along, cause them
menfolks told us'ns to.

[mod mom]

17. You aare TOTALLY misrepresenting what Gary and others are saying to

further your own agenda. Landshark nails it in a post below. Women should have the moral obligation(and of course vice versa) to speak out if they believe their husbands are engaged with a group/organization/corporation etc to is working against what they believe. I believe any true election reformer would be appalled to accept any money (even from their husband's salary )from a group that profits from the disenfrachisement of voters.

[fooj]

46. Please explain how Febble's response represents an "agenda".

I don't get it. Further WHAT? What agenda? Since when did OPINION and BELIEF = Agenda?

[troubleinwinter]

58. "Womens' moral obligation

if they believe their husbands...."

I am going to puke.

Fuck if anybody can make moral judgements for me or quantify them. If I choose to involve myself in reform for transparent elections, it is NOT for you or anybody else to decide what my "moral obligations" are.

If you want to judge others' "moral obligations", I'm sure there are some fundie churches that would be delighted to have you join up.

[flyingobject]

69. female inferiority implied - be a good woman do what U R told

Male chauvinism is the term for the belief that males are superior to females. The word "chauvinist" was originally used to describe someone who has a fanatical loyalty in one's country. The word was later applied by the women's liberation movement in the 1960's and used to describe men who uphold the belief of female inferiority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_chauvinism

[flyarm]

78. whoaaaaaaaa..what are you saying??? so if ones husband

works for republicans or a republican corporation..

we all know it is republicans
who are now in the business of disenfranchisement of voters..
so in essence you are saying any woman who's husband works for republicans ..they should not take or benefit from their husbands salary and be able to work on election reform???????

are you for real??

because that is what you are suggesting..

and then you say..

"I believe any true election reformer
would be appalled to accept any money (even from their husband's salary )from a group that profits from the disenfranchisement of voters."

do you really know what you are saying??

that would mean anyone who's husband worked for a republican or republican corporation..would not be a viable voting reform advocate.

ok, so what do those of us who's husbands work for both democrats and republicans fit into voting reform activism?????????????

please let me know..should i wear a shirt that says..today i can be a reform activist because today my husband worked for the dem corp..but tomorrow i should wear a scarlet "r" shirt..because tomorrow my husband is working for the disenfranchisement republican corporation........

what you are saying is preposterous!

think about it...

...remember most republican corps are benefiting from the disenfranchisement of voters..with this administration in office! in fact even dem corps are benefiting with this administration in office!

whoaaa..freedom's on the march i can see..unless your husband works...

maybe no activists should be married..yes i can see it now..voting reform workers should only be non married women!

AND MAYBE NON WORKING WOMEN:sarcasm: ..YES...thats the ticket..:sarcasm:

darn and to think i worked for a corp for most of my adult life that was a very republican corp...the ceo was tied to the hip to little lord pissy pants...gee and when i fought to make him leave the company..because of conflict of interest..i should have just shut up:sarcasm: ..because after all i was working for the corporation..the republican leaning corporation...i should never have been an activist :sarcasm: within my company and those who were effected in the same industry who were faced with layoffs while the ceo's were taking giant salary bonuses..because i took money from the republican corporation !!:sarcasm:

dang..i should have known better than to work for MY UNION, ALS, Sixty five Roses ( cystic fibrosis), Sojourner Truth House,VARIETY CLUB, AND VOTING REFORM!
because i worked for a republican corporation..that benefits daily from voters disenfranchisement...

and curses..my husband works for a huge republican leaning corporation!

well that does it..i am no longer eligible to work in voting reform..according to your standards..:sarcasm: ...

and to think after 31 years of marriage ..i thought i had a free mind..and a free will...

now i feel like i am in oz...........:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

fly

[flyingobject]

97. If you brother is a republican

do you have to separate yourself from him?

[flyarm]

104. NO KIDDING...I FIND THIS PERSONS COMMENTS INSULTING TO ALL WOMEN!

and men!

in 31 yrs of marriage, my husband has never told me what to think or how to think or what to stand up for and what not to stand up for..and we certainly would not have lasted 31 years if he ever attempted to do so!

in fact my husband has never dared to "tell me anything"..i have a perfectly capable mind, to make my own decisions and passion and what i believe is right and wrong..

i stay out of his buisness and he stays out of mine!

and never has my husband
ever attempted to tell me who to donate to, or to question my reasons!!

its insulting to me to even believe people still have these sterotypes of women!

fly

[troubleinwinter]

41. Who am I married to?

Let's just all have every woman here explain who they are married to. What companies their husbands work for. What are the policies and politics of those companies. Let's just cut off our nose to spite our faces. Let's make women retreat from activism because of whoever their husbands may be employed by. Let's just say that women cannot have their own power or control of money. Let's say they only care about marital money riches and have no political or activism devotion. Let's just call married women 'whores', shall we?

[adarling]

53. thank you for this post

if only the rest of DU would read it according to this issue. We all have issues that could go against causes we work for. Ask how many people here shop at walmart, but then bitch and complain about companies that treat their workers wrong. Nothing is black and white and everyone seems to just pass judgment on a situation that they all find out either second, third or fourth hand. This whole issue has made me very wary of some of the people on here and very disappointed and exposed alot of the "crazies" on here that always try to find some evil connection to anyone that is trying to do good things out there. I don't know if this makes sense, but i have commented on this situation and it just infuriates me that people are such sharks here.

[fooj]

49. Sounded pretty straight forward to me.

[Land Shark]

11. I agree, Febble's position here is a crock (with all due respect)

Women fought for FREEDOM, meaning they are free to accept, decline, condemn or praise their husband's political position. Were Mrs. Curling to criticize her husband's position, that would be the greatest exercise of that freedom women fought for, because it was a very difficult if not impossible thing to do in the 1800s, for example.

Thus, when Febble frames this issue as whether Mrs. Curling is "obliged" to "condemn" her husband, the framing here is not the framing of the freedom women fought for (with their male allies). It's the old fashioned assumption that women should simply support and uphold their husbands, never saying a word against them, then flipping that 180 degrees to falsely create some sort of obligation to criticize. Both are wrong. Freedom, baby.

Mrs. Curling has now established that she has the courage to renounce a prior position of her own (Voter ID, see above OP and my reply at #8). We will see if she has enough courage to spotlight differences between herself and either her husband OR her husband's company. The answer will be instructive.

On edit: Because of FREEDOM, Mrs. Curling's answer or non-answer will be her own free choice. She may do the courageous and independent thing and highlight her differences with her husband's company or her husband on political issues, or she may do the more traditional thing and refuse to speak against her husband, or she may publicly defend Choicepoint or her husband's positions (in which case it will be very difficult for us to tell if it is a product of free choice or of wifely support because that is a question of internal motivation).

As an example of the old-fashioned view, there are still statutes in many states that say that wives may not be compelled to testify against their husbands. In fact, I believe all states or nearly all states have this. Thus, it would appear that any statement of personal opinion by Mrs. Curling could not be used in any court of law against her husband (but I've not researched admissibility of out of court written internet postings in this context for any state, to be frank). Its my belief, though, that this is a pure matter of political freedom and women's freedom with no substantial collateral considerations.

Mrs. Curling, I believe you are free to answer as your conscience dictates.

[Febble]

13. You miss my point ENTIRELY

Mrs Curling is under NO obligation to testify against her husband, any more than she is under an obligation to testify against anyone else.

This is NOT a court of law. In case you hadn't noticed.

She is entitled to be considered as a whole person. Not as half of someone else.

[garybeck]

14. you are correct

she is under no legal obligation to do anything whatsoever and I have never claimed such. did I? First you say I'm attacking her as a woman which is complete BS. Then you say I am claiming she has a legal obligation to make some kind of a statement. That is also BS.

I do claim that she is under a moral and political obligation, since she has inserted herself into the public arena by becoming an influential member of VoteTrustUSA, an organization we are being asked to put our faith and trust in.

It is not a legal obligation. It is a moral one. An emotional one, that thousands of people who want election reform and support VTUSA are asking for. She put herself in this position by her own choice. If I were in her position I would completely understand people's concerns and I would do what I can to explain my position. Thus far she has not explained anything about Choicepoint. I have thus far only commented that she hasn't explained it. I have not attacked her or made any accusations. But the lack of response leaves a gaping hole in my mind, and in the minds of others I respect.

She could end all this scrutiny by cutting ties with VTUSA, by publicly condemning Choicepoint, or making some kind of explantion between the two. but just saying "it's my husband, and I have nothing to do with it" is simply not enough. it might be enough for you but it's not enough for me.

[Febble]

20. First of all

I did NOT say you were attacking her as a woman.

Second, I did NOT say that you were claiming she had a legal obligation.

I assumed you considered she had a MORAL obligation, which indeed it appears you do. And Land Shark drew a PARALLEL with the LEGAL obligation, which wives are no longer dispensed from.

But I AM FED UP with people ON THIS FORUM DEMANDING that other posters DENOUNCE things and condemning them for NOT denouncing them. If we were all condemned by SINS OF OMISSION we would all be DOOMED.

It is completely ORWELLIAN to demand that the price of not being PUBLICLY PILLORIED (as Donna was, disgracefully, in that other thread) is to make some forced renunciation of beliefs that others THINK we are in danger of HOLDING.

This is PARTICULARLY TRUE when it comes to renunciations of views held by FAMILY MEMBERS.

I share the views of most on this forum regarding businesses like ChoicePoint. Dammit, it's one of the reasons I feels strongly about issues of confidentiality of exit polls respondents, and secrecy of the ballot (it's one of the reasons I worry about receipts and absentee ballots).

And I EXPECT DONNA SHARES THEM TOO. But you guys are NOT CONTENT with her support for a good Election Reform organisation. Oh no. YOU DEMAND THAT SHE RENOUNCE HER HUSBAND IN PUBLIC. You suggest even (or some posters did) that she should not even be MARRIED TO HIM. Or that REMAINING MARRIED TO HIM, in the absence of a renunciation, is some kind of POLITICAL STATEMENT.

Well, guys NOT NECESSARILY. You don't necessarily HAVE A CLUE.

And frankly, the pillorying of Donna Curling in this forum IS A DISGRACE to PROGRESSIVE VALUES.

And none of the above is spin, lame or otherwise. It's disgust.

Listen TO WHAT SHE IS SAYING. Forget about what she, or any of us, is NOT saying.

Let he (or she) who has ever failed to denounce an evil in the world throw the first stone.

[garybeck]

21. read your reply to ME.

I'm not talking about anything that LandShark said. I can only speak for myself. Why then does your reply refer specifically to legal obligation, and attack me for infering that I think she has a legal obligation. She may or may not have such, but I never said anything about it, so it is completely inappropriate for you to respond in such a way.

Being married to someone is not in itself a political statement. But it raises valid questions. It's the response to those questions, or lack thereof, that become political issues, and for good reasons. You might be comfortable with her responses thus far, but I am not. I have not made any accusations to her; I have only asked questions and patiently waited for respones.

I'm not going to waste my valuable time with your spins and distractions.

[Febble]

23. Well, your response

was a response to my response to Land Shark, and so I took the two points together. It was intended as a response to both of you.

Please regard the references to legal obligations as being addressed to Land Shark.

But it is YOU who are belittling my concerns as "spins and distractions". As far as I can see this witchhunt is a complete distraction from the business of this forum, and whether I am "comfortable" or not with Donna's responses so far has nothing to do with anything.

There are a great many things I am not "comfortable" with, but at the top of the list of things that make me uncomfortable on this board are posts that smear other individuals on the basis not of what they have said, but on the basis of what they have NOT said. And if you can be comfortable with some of the responses on Donna's previous thread, then you have a higher threshold of discomfort than I.

[Land Shark]

27. Unless it is a criminal matter with someone taking the 5th Amendment

SILENCE IS PROBATIVE, meaning it can be argued that the non-response is because any actual response would make the speaker worse off, so they choose not to respond. It is only in criminal actions that it is impermissible to point out the silence of someone, because of the right not to self-incriminate.

Outside of court, which is clearly where we are here, silence on ANYTHING is probative, at least where the person expected to speak has the time, information, and expressed willingness to respond. this can be contrasted with situations where someone posts a question that is off topic, inflammatory, and/or where there's never been an offer to respond (I will still respond to one question by Troubleinwinter myself, but not really soon, due to time....)

Again, there's no legal obligation or other obligation of any kind.

It's just freedom, baby.

But I've got freedom too, and that is to draw inferences from non-responses, particularly when the person said they'd respond.

[Febble]

32. You are free to draw whatever inferences you like

but as with many inferences drawn from an absence of data, you may find yourself with a completely erroneous conclusion.

But that's your problem. It becomes Donna's problem when your conclusions expose her to the kind of crap that has been hurled at her on this forum over the last few days.

[Land Shark]

35. Thank you, I will, and i guarantee

that my inferences will be less wild-eyed than your examination of statistical tea leaves to supposedly prove a negative: i.e. that there WAS NOT any widespread vote switching. (a reference to the paper you wrote on this subject, but can't or won't disclose, yet you regularly give us the conclusions of that paper in no uncertain terms, kind of like a DRE pops out the magic numbers in our elections.)

[Febble]

36. I BEG your pardon?

I have explained WITH CHARTS CONTAINING DATA the conclusions I have drawn, and why, and their limitations.

If you don't understand the statistical arguments (as is apparent from the use of your phrase "prove a negative") then, again, it's not my problem, it's yours.

But I'll explain again if you think it may help.

[Kelvin Mace]

62. Don't you just love how people

with no fucking experience in your discipline, feel they are experts in your discipline?

[Land Shark]

73. You refused to give me the data behind your charts

I understand that you feel constrained in your ability to give out the data, but you are stating conclusions without being willing to produce the data even though it is somewhat disclosed on the charts (if one were to laboriously plot out the coordinates for each data point in your scatter plot)

You know this, so i'm confused as to why you are begging my pardon.

[flyingobject]

74. have you won any cases? (in a court)

could you tell us more about the cases you have won?

have you tried any cases on your own?

[Land Shark]

125. this was answered in numerous other replies on this thread

in addition, for all but about almost 4 of my 11 years of practice I've been a solo lawyer so I almost always do cases by myself. The biggest exception was the death penalty case I referred to.

[Febble]

83. OT

And I can do without your understanding if your understanding is so limited.

If peer-reviewers of scientific papers had to reanalyse data before they could recommend publication, no science would ever be published. It's why we describe data by Ns, means and standard deviations, which are all you need to describe a normal distribution of data. However, because those statistics assume a normal distribution, I went to the trouble of actually showing the data points on a chart. Reports of data analyses doesn't don't come much more transparent than that.

But as you don't seem to be able to understand the implications of the analysis you refer to, then I don't quite know what you think you would do with the data even if were released to you. And as you also know, I have no authority to release any data, nor could I have, since the pollsters are bound by the guidelines of the ethics committee of their own professional organisation regarding respondent confidentiality. If you want to subpoena the data, then good luck.

And none of that has ANYTHING to do with what you are doing on this thread, which is making inferences about what someone believes from something they have NOT said. In contrast, my conclusion from the analysis you referred to was an inference from what poll respondents ACTUALLY SAID, and how votes were ACTUALLY totalled. If you can't tell the difference between data and its absence, or between an upper confidence limit and an attempt at mind-reading, then you are in no position to attempt any analogy between the two.

In fact I recommend you go on a metaphor-free diet for a bit. You'll find things are a lot clearer when you see them for what they are, rather than as something you think they might look like, in the dusk with the light behind them. Some things turn out to be people.

edited for clarity

[Febble]

84. Oh, and it might be worth pointing out the irony

of the coupling of your (perfectly justified) campaign against data-mining companies like ChoicePoint, with your apparent disregard for the confidentiality of exit poll respondent data or of Mrs Curling's personal attitude to her husband's job.

[Land Shark]

85. things like respondent confidentiality yield to larger things like

who is the appropriate leader of the free world. Your inability to see that the true winner of a presidential election is a more important and weighty interest than a risk to respondent confidentiality, if it exists, is troubling, at the very least. Nobody's going to data mine the respondent data or put it in credit reporting files. They are just going to find out about the truth of the presidential election.

[OnTheOtherHand]

86. the problem is your inability to assess relevance

In the post that set off this entire off-topic subthread, you -- ignorantly, I assume -- referred to Febble's analysis as "examination of statistical tea leaves." It's an eye-rubber that you can turn around and purport to believe that the exit poll data can reveal "the truth of the presidential election." I'm used to having elementary standards of coherence thrown to the winds when this subject comes up, but I still think that would-be leaders should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Charitably, this amounts to a remarkably ill-founded attack upon pretty much the entire survey research profession. If relevant experts shared your view that the exit poll data hold the key to determining the truth of the presidential election, they would say so. Your belief to the contrary apparently rests on (1) ignorance of the field and (2) a propensity to assume that other people are ethically defective. I don't know how else to account for this belief, assuming that you actually hold it.

[Kelvin Mace]

89. They are supremely confident in their ignorance

I have posters telling me they have no expertise in computers, computer security, and have never spent one minute working in a precinct, yet they know much more than I do on the topics in question.

I am so tired of this willfull. PRIDEFUL ignorance.

Bad enough they want to hold the intellectual discipline of the Intelligent Design crowd lecturing on topics they are completely ignorant of, but then they want to viciously attack those who refuse to endorse their particular brand of stupidity.

[Land Shark]

91. there's a big diff between doing the best you can with limited avail data

and defending the deliberate withholding of available data. That's the difference between the "entire survey research profession" you wrongly claim that I'm attacking and the claims of Mitofsky and Febble, where, with Mitofsky at least, it appears via his email traffic that part of his defense boils down to a certain use of the F-Bomb when cornered (among other things) with these issues of willful data non-transparency when the proper leader of the free world is at stake.

It's a simple balancing of interests, and it's easy to see which interests are the greater, balancing the legitimacy of democratic elections against the potential privacy interests of a few respondents, whose interests need not necessarily be subject to any more harm being disclosed to folks like STeven F. Freeman and Ron Baiman than they were when they were voluntarily disclosed to someone named Elizabeth Liddle.

This shows that DISCLOSURE per se is not an issue (at least not with a confidentiality agreement) but rather disclosure to someone "trusted" to handle this sensitive data "properly." It can be disclosed, obviously, but only to the right people. Yeah, I have some questions about that.

That's it for today though, I've got constitutional issues to deal with in a filing today.

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. much as you hate to crap and run...

I note that you disregarded the substance of my post -- which was perhaps prudent, since you apparently have no substantive response.

I repeat: If relevant experts shared your view that the exit poll data hold the key to determining the truth of the presidential election, they would say so. What do you think you know that they are missing?

Liddle was and is a highly trained social science data analyst who has done more than most (arguably any) of her critics to expose irregularities in the 2004 election. Bluntly, I think we all know that if she had come to different conclusions, folks here would be cheering her, much as Kathy Dopp cheered her back in the days before she started slandering her instead. Fritz Scheuren was cheered when he expressed concerns about Ohio, and now is trashed because the Ohio analysis he contributed to didn't yield the desired conclusions. This reversal of fortune is not unique to Liddle and Scheuren. The fixation on Liddle's access to the data looks like just another attempt to distract people from the substance, because the substance does not support you. To the extent that the tactic hinges on challenging her integrity or competence, it is contemptible. Liddle's findings are consistent with data from other sources, including the January 2005 evaluation report, election night screen shots, results from previous exit polls, and even reports posted here on DU. Some people try to discuss the issues; some try to make Liddle the issue. Hmmmm.

Warren Mitofsky stands repeatedly accused of complicity in election theft. Does anyone seriously think that adding "use of the F-Bomb" to the bill of particulars strengthens the case? It's like when people open a post by calling me a freeper, then end by calling me rude: what can I do but laugh?

[Febble]

96. sigh

The were not "disclosed" to me, any more than they were "disclosed" to Mitofsky, or anyone else working for Edison-Mitofsky. I was HIRED.

The data DO NOT BELONG TO ME. They were not RELEASED to me. I didn't EARN the data by being a good little girl. I posted a paper on the internet saying that I thought the data should be reanalysed - AND I WAS HIRED TO DO SO.

What you want is PUBLIC RELEASE of the data for INDEPENDENT analysis. I wasn't an independent analyst. I was HIRED.

But I'm a good data analyst, and I'm an honest data analyst, and I was motivated to subject the damn data to every conceivable analysis I could in order to see whether I could find EVIDENCE THAT THE DISCREPANCIES WERE DUE TO FRAUD.

And, as I have explained on countless occasions, I found very little evidence that vote-miscounts were responsible for the discrepancy (a small apparent machine effect, whereby the discrepancy was greater in urban precincts using OLDER technology than in precincts using optical scanners or DREs, and ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP between redshift and advantage to Bush. But you know this.


So what the heck are you saying?

That you don't believe I did it right?

That you want to run the analyses yourself?

That I am lying?

And Mitofsky used the F word to Ron after Ron had repeatedly demanded public release of data that he will NOT release because of the ethical principles laid down by HIS OWN PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION.

If Freeman or Baiman want to apply for a post as Mitofsky's statistician (it was vacant for a while) then they could see the data too. But what you and Baiman appear to want is PUBLIC RELEASE. To ANYONE.

If so, you need to make your case.

And to make that case you need to argue that somehow independent analysis of that data will tell you who won the election, and that without it no-one will know.

Well, all I can tell you is that it won't tell you. It can't. All I think it can tell you is that it is unlikely that vote-switching occurred on a massive scale. But feel free to suggest a hypothesis I haven't yet tested.

IF YOU CAN.

[Febble]

99. And I should add, since this bloody thread is already kicked,

that not only did I turn that data upside down trying to find fraud, but I posted my findings here on DU.

Yes, you guys had your own private exit poll mole right here. If I'd found something - anything - that made me suspicious, you'd have known about it. And boy, would you have loved me if that swing-shift correlation had been positive.

But, curse my luck, it wasn't. So you crap on the messenger. Just like you crap on other people who don't match the photofit of a good election reform activist.

Well, I've had enough crap to last me a lifetime. If you don't like the facts, don't have them.

Filthy things they are. But somehow, I just can't shake the habit. Reality just draws me, ya know?

[Land Shark]

122. you never tested the hypotheses I gave you

or if you did, you never responded at the time.

I don't think you can BE a serious social scientist and STAY HERE, engaged at the level you are. On the other hand, I can still be a lawyer and engage in this because people expect lawyers to fight once in a while.

[Febble]

126. Repeat them please

Either I didn't get them, or I didn't recognise them as testable hypotheses.

And I have no clue what your second paragraph means. Is participation on DU a mark of un-seriousness in any other domain, apart from social science? Or is law the only exception?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

[Febble]

128. self-deleted

thought I'd responded to the wrong post.

[flyingobject]

110. Land Shark, have you or do you work for BBV.org?

Have you ever or do you now work for bbv.org or for Bev Harris or
for any of her Board of Directors?

Or for her spouse?

"It's a simple balancing of interests,"

[Land Shark]

120. Sorry, no work done. Who is on "her Board of directors?"

I don't have any activist clients except in San Diego's 50th Cong. Dist. All other clients are "real people" so to speak,

[Febble]

87. Bullshit

If you want to debate this, start another thread.

I'm not going to keep this one kicked, much as I admire the OP.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. dude, bring it on

I honestly don't think you are confused enough to make that big a mistake. You just expect to get away with it -- and with some readers, you will.

[flyingobject]

66. A holy war, the lonely warrier, blah blah blah

A holy war is a dispute, often but not always over a relatively minor issue,
which is not resolvable on the merits of the arguments, but where people
feel passionate enough to continue arguing anyway in the hope that their side
will prevail. Holy wars are not quite the same as bikeshed paintings.

People painting bikesheds are usually quick to jump in with an opinion
(because they can), but they won't necessarily feel strongly about it,
and indeed will sometimes express other, incompatible opinions,
to show that they understand all sides of the issue.

In a holy war, on the other hand, understanding the other sides
is a sign of weakness. In a holy war, everyone knows there is One Right Answer;
they just don't agree on what it is.

Once a holy war has started, it generally cannot be resolved to everyone's
satisfaction. It does no good to point out, in the midst of a holy war,
that a holy war is going on.

Everyone knows that already.

Unfortunately, a common feature of holy wars is disagreement
on the very question of whether the dispute is resolvable
by continued discussion.

Viewed from outside, it is clear that neither side is changing the other's mind.

Viewed from inside, the other side is being obtuse and not thinking clearly,
but they might come around if browbeaten enough.

Now, I am not saying there's never a right side in a holy war.
Sometimes there is—in the holy wars I've participated in,
it's always been my side, of course. B
ut it doesn't matter, because there's no algorithm for convincingly
demonstrating that one side or the other is right.

blah blah blah blah.....

[troubleinwinter]

39. Remarkable bullshit.

You have certainly had all the time in the world to attack a dedicated elections reform activist, but absolutely no time whatever to respond to my questions from two weeks ago and since. None.

I also draw a shit-load of "inferences from non-responses" from you.

It's just hypocrisy, baby.

Get off it and answer why you are entirely disinterested in the fact that BBV took in a million bucks in donations for the purpose of election reform but is so irresponsible in the handling of funds, that these donations can go to pay very big IRS penalties for not depositing the payroll taxes withheld from employee checks for over a year.

Are you the least concerned about that organization in your state collecting a million bucks but not filing their 990 tax forms with the IRS?

Are you at all concerned that an organizations in your own state has been in violation of WA law, illegally soliciting donations for two years? That there are issues of jail up to 3 months or 1 year, $1,000 or $5,000 for such violations?

Aren't you SUPPOSEDLY a consumer advocacy attorney? Do you have ANY opinion about election reform donors' money sent to a tax exempt organization in your own state 30 miles from you being used for penalties fees and fines?????? Would that maybe be an issue that donor/consumers might like to hear about?

Or that this organization has apparently received $30,000 and $20,000 donations, from completely unknown entities? We have no transparency?

"silence on ANYTHING is probative". No shit. You have NEVER answered a damned thing. Here... check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441779&mesg_id=443298 Any OPINION or FEEDBACK on this? Nahhh... never has been.

You say you'll answer ONE of my questions someday? Which one? When? Oh yeah, you already said on another thread that you'll answer me after I have written a NYT best seller. In the mean time, you have tons of time to attack an elections reform activist who has her own opinion and has supported the movement.

It's just hypocrisy, baby.

Donna had the courage to come here, but you haven't the courage to answer my questions.

[flyingobject]

67. You are guilty until proven innocent ?

Hmmm, guilty until proven innocent?



I thought that so far it was only in Guantanimo
Bay that people were guilty until proven innocent.

[flyingobject]

70. Your Silence is Probative

You just said:

"SILENCE IS PROBATIVE, meaning it can be argued that the non-response
is because any actual response would make the speaker worse off,
so they choose not to respond. It is only in criminal actions that
it is impermissible to point out the silence of someone,
because of the right not to self-incriminate."

And you remain silent when asked these questions:

Are you the least concerned about that organization in your state
collecting a million bucks but not filing their 990 tax forms with the IRS?

Are you at all concerned that an organizations in your own state
has been in violation of WA law,illegally soliciting donations for two years?
That there are issues of jail up to 3 months or 1 year,
$1,000 or $5,000 for such violations?

Aren't you SUPPOSEDLY a consumer advocacy attorney?
Do you have ANY opinion about election reform donors' money sent
to a tax exempt organization in your own state 30 miles from you
being used for penalties fees and fines??????
Would that maybe be an issue that donor/consumers might like to hear about?

Or that this organization has apparently received $30,000 and $20,000 donations,
from completely unknown entities? We have no transparency?

"silence on ANYTHING is probative". No shit. You have NEVER answered a
damned thing. Here... check this out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441779&mesg_id=443298

Any OPINION or FEEDBACK on this? Nahhh... never has been.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x443547#443697

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. "only asked questions"

No, gary, your post #5 does not only ask questions, obviously.

And the questions along the lines of 'how can you live with yourself?' are not exactly only questions, either.

Don't kid yourself. Febble knows a thing or two about witch hunts. Listen up.

[adarling]

55. the only thing i can say to you is that you are probably one of the

lamest posters i have read on here. You are on a witch hunt for a woman who is trying to do a good thing. You know nothing about this woman but it is so easy for you to just trash her and suggest she denounce her own husband. This is a bunch of crap and you know it, a whole lot of crap. Its so easy to criticize someone without the proverbial walking in their shoes and before you suggest she go and speak out against her own husband, think about how easy it is to say that and then do it and also, what the hell do you know about her husband? NOTHING!!! Its just comical about how with a world full of problems this is something you have latched onto and seem fighting tooth and nail for. Maybe you should rethink your priorities ;)

[Kelvin Mace]

64. This is the most disgraceful

aspect of this. People who are actualy WORKING for reform, putting their money, time and effort into it, get smeared if they don't toe the line.

This is Bev Harris' legacy.

[adarling]

77. exactly Kelvin

Harris is a poison in this and needs to be cured of. Its really sad that so many people buy into the bullshit.

[Land Shark]

18. she is FREE, therefore her action or inaction has meaning

that's the point. If she doesn't answer, that will mean something.

[Febble]

24. That's not the way it works.

If she doesn't not answer you will have absolutely NO CLUE about what it means.

So it will be, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

Listen to what people say. It's a heck of a lot more informative than what they don't say.

[Land Shark]

28. see my post above: there are probably cultural or legal differences

between the legal systems of England and the USA.

on edit: while, again, I'm saying that legal doctrines are not directly implicated here and we are not in court, legal concepts are always implicated in the sense that our notions of what is FAIR outside of court are highly influenced by what the law would require or allow inside of court.

[Febble]

34. Nope

It is no easier to know how to interpret silence in America than it is in Outer Mongolia. We are, as you point out, free to speak, and free to keep silent. When we speak, we express meaning. When we are silent, we don't.

You can interpret silence how the hell you like. But you will have no way of knowing whether you are correct.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Land Shark, than are dreamt of in your legal doctrines.

[Land Shark]

37. You can dream on with your dreams of the irrelevancy of legal doctrines

but everything you claim to care about will be decided in court (regarding these electronic voting machines)

We are no better off interpreting silence in court. But people still come to decisions, even binding decisions, by the interpretation of silence, as difficult or easy as that may be under any particular set of circumstances. So, your attempts to obfuscate that silence further than is necessary are not well-taken.

[Febble]

38. Obuscation has nothing to do with anything

I am talking about sensitivity, imagination, and humanity.

[Land Shark]

45. the point is, people can and do reach conclusions based on silence

at least when certain conditions are met, and these conclusions are reached despite your sensitive, imaginative, and humane objections

[troubleinwinter]

51. They sure do.

want to respond to post #39?

No? I thought not.

Why not?

[dmac]

90. Here we go again. You know what Paul?

A good friend of mine believes you are on retainer for BBV. Kind of makes one wonder about your “silence” to all of questions (TIW and others) you completely ignore – not only in this thread but in all of the threads. As a person who cares so much about MY integrity and intentions, it seems only fair that you stand up and speak to your own.

I would also like to understand the point in posting any of my opinions out here about ChoicePoint – OR anything else for that matter. Every single thing I say is treated like a lie – except of course, anything I say that agrees with you personally or anything that denigrates myself. This is precisely why the answers to the ChoicePoint questions will be answered with a post of links. Note I will provide more than a single source. Most every claim about ChoicePoint (if not every claim) I have seen on this message board can be sourced back to one single journalist. Since historically speaking the mainstream media has had no reservations about criticizing this company I am curious why the mainstream media has not picked up on and run with the claims of this journalist? Could it be that these claims have been investigated and were found to have no basis in reality?

I vowed that I would not lower myself to respond to the personal attacks with personal attacks of my own. But I only have so much restraint and it has been tried to the max. I am closing DU and have no intention of returning until some time next week when I will return to provide the links I have promised. Infer from my silence that I am busy with my real life and that I find this kind of discussion an exercise in futility – or infer if you like, that my silence is a statement that I am the dirty, rotten scoundrel that you believe me to be. It makes no difference to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. actually, I don't think it's about money

We don't have to know why Lehto seems so much more concerned about what you have or haven't said than about a host of other issues, including BBV.org's conduct. Attributing it to money may just give Lehto another chance to congratulate himself on the purity of his motives.

I agree that there isn't a chance in hell that your opinions about ChoicePoint will be taken seriously by the people who are demanding that you state them. I have watched Febble go through this cycle over and over again since May 2005.

[flyingobject]

102. we're waiting to see IF HE EVER WON A CASE IN COURT

since asking Paul some tough questions about himself, he seems
to have disappeared into thin air!

[troubleinwinter]

112. As he says....

[Land Shark]

119. I don't know enough about the mentality here to know that if I WERE

on "retainer" for BBV, what that would mean or explain, I'm just not familiar enough with the way this group thinks. But it does seem like there would be a real "aha" moment for ya'll. But it's not true so it's just odd to hear it all here.

The same silly questions have been posted half a dozen times, answered two or more times. You can pretend that they haven't been answered, but they have. I have patience, grasshopper.

Why not just sue this "one single journalist" if you and Choicepoint are so aggrieved? Somebody just told me yesterday that at the mere mention of choicepoint some non-election reform activist practically went apoplectic. It may be this one single journalist that is at fault here. Perhaps he is on some kind of investigatory retainer, from BBV.

Busy here too, I've done two radio shows, three papers, an oped, and the WSJ online edition is planning a story. Rawstory interview this weekend along with air america. Should i start talking about choicepoint? We could have a debate.

[flyingobject]

98. you speak of the law, have you EVER WON A CASE in a REAL COURT?

you seem to be playing prosecutor, or maybe persecutor
here,

have you ever WON a case in COURT?

Not this Kangeroo Court, but A REAL COURT?

[flyingobject]

52. have you looked into the IRS BBV issue?

Have you read Trouble's questions to you about the
IRS and BBV.org?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441426

2 DUers have called the IRS's non profit division and been told
that BBV.org hadn't filed their tax return.

You know the return that BBV sent to trouble via mail
and then a revised version later?

Do you know anything about this?

Have you asked BBV if they filed, and if not, were they going
to, so as to reduce penalties?

Seems like you would want to help BBV.org ?

You are a member and you do email them.

[troubleinwinter]

56. Call a duck a "duck".

'Land Shark' and Bev Harris both vehemently oppose HR 550.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. and no matter what they do, Vote Trust still stands

and will keep standing.

Vote Trust is working FOR people across the country.

They learn, they share, they advise, they write write write.

They are happy to "publish" articles submitted to them,
they are a quick resource of a large group of people who each
have their own contribution.

There is no grassy knoll here.

Donna is not the decider, she is just 1 of over 100 people, she
has been very humble and quiet, and has given her time and energy
as have others - to lobby for legislation to protect all states.
Many of us can't travel to DC or other places, so we appreciate
it when someone does go there.

Vote Trust does good things, lots of good things, and it has
good people who care about all 50 states, and are not ego driven.

Many of us believe that Ga, Va, PA, FL, SC and others can only
be helped with HR 550. We are not going to sit on our behinds
while these states stay stuck.

Vote Trust USA will continue to do their good works.
Especially them getting Lou Dobbs on the evoting issue is breaking out
into the mainstream, in a non partisan way.

No matter what Landshark or anyone does, VTUSA will continue on.
see www.votetrustusa.org for articles, links, reports, daily and weekly news and
more.

[flyingobject]

109. you are free, so did you EVER WIN A CASE IN COURT?

you are free to answer the question now, so please
tell us about the cases you have won.

I am sure we will be very happy to be reassured.

[Land Shark]

124. Answered some time ago, in this reply

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=443547&mesg_id=443864>

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Duplicate post

[Kelvin Mace]

61. But they don't notice and they don't care

they are too busy being sanctimonious jerks.

The level of rudeness, paranoia and just plain ass-hattedness is stunning.

[flyingobject]

63. sanctimonious?

I also liked that word ass-hattedness - haven't
seen that in a long time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. who made you the arbiter of courage and independence?

Maybe to you it seems perfectly natural to say that it would be "courageous and independent" for Donna Curling to do exactly what you want her to do. From over here, it seems sort of goofy. Hey, I'm just reporting.

[Land Shark]

33. well Donna herself agreed with my assessment last time, perhaps

she won't this time. but I have a track record of being correct by Donna's admission on this particular subject.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. not hardly

What "particular subject" is that? Are you saying that because you found a position Donna Curling stated in the past, that she had since repudiated, this somehow gives you a "track record" of... umm, the mind reels. Knowing in advance what she will repudiate? Knowing what she should repudiate?

[Land Shark]

75. reference was made to the following dmac post

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441395>

in the post signature, dmac says she's fighting for freedom. In the post itself, Donna Curling says

I decided to put myself out here again - and I am not sorry I did. You are all entitled to answers to legitimate questions and I intend to answer as many as I possibly can. However I am leaving town in an hour so there will be a delay before I can get back to this.

LandShark - you were absolutely correct in your assessment of my original post. It was an emotional response and I should have known better. I am capable and will do a better job of conveying fact and not emotion when I return to this. Bear with me folks - I am up for this - in fact I look forward to a healthy debate. So until I return keep comments and questions coming. However keep in mind that I DO NOT work for CPS and while I can answer the questions I have the answers to I seriously doubt I can address everything out here.
Fighting for Freedom

Some here seem to have forgotten this post, but I'm referring to it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. how is that germane?

How does Curling's statement that her post was too emotional support anything you are arguing in this thread?

Curling also states in her OP right here, "I agree it's a bad idea" for her to post more on these subjects -- even though in the post you linked to, she said she looked forward to "a healthy debate." At least two inferences are plausible. One is that she is, quite understandably, ambivalent about the whole enterprise. Another is that it is dawning on her that this is no place for healthy debate.

[fooj]

50. I believe OTOH asked you a question. Where's YOUR answer?

Well?

who made you the arbiter of courage and independence?

I've been wondering that myself.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Bev?

[troubleinwinter]

71. Nailed it...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. here's some required reading

this discussion is reminiscent of another one at DU where
a campaign was launched against Donna...

It provides some context to this discussion..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=333357#334843

[Land Shark]

6. Are you a direct or indirect SHAREHOLDER in Choicepoint?

By "indirect" shareholder I mean through a foundation, a trust, relative or a spouse in whose name the shares are actually titled.

Are you willing to disclose the number and/or values of shares in which you are a direct or indirect shareholder in choicepoint such that it is possible to gauge the extent of any financial interest, direct or indirect, you may have in Choicepoint?

If so, what is that number of shares or value of shares?

[troubleinwinter]

40. I rekon I now hafta send you my husband's resume and

our portfolio information before I can, in your ('arbiter of everything') eyes, donate or participate in election reform support and activities.

Would it be simpler if all of us individuals who care to support the issue just post all of our financials online for you to judge before we are permitted to support the work?

You care about an individual activist, but NOT a million dollar organization that rides on donors' money, does not comply with laws, is quite obviously irresponsible with the handling of those funds, and thus far has not been accountable or transparent.

What The FUCK?

[flyingobject]

93. Have you EVER WON A LAWSUIT?

Just wondering.

[Land Shark]

121. That was answered in another place

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=443547&mesg_id=443864>

[flyingobject]

100. have you worked for or do you work for BBV.org?

Have you represented or do you represent BBV.org in any matters?

[troubleinwinter]

114. You have already gotten the explanation that

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. have we just about mined this 'sauce for the gander' vein?

I'm not sure that Lehto has the, umm, "emotional intelligence" to understand that this actually has anything to do with his own conduct. We will see.

Personally, I think Lehto commits his howlers pretty much on his own -- although he has probably been fed some lines from time to time. (What is it about the Shark that evokes all these mixed metaphors? hmm....)

[Land Shark]

118. nice job on the graphics!

no on working for BBV, none of you guys even starting to land punches or guesses but you're sure trying hard. I applaud your efforts.

[troubleinwinter]

101. Has any copying/printing business you own or owned

(such as CopyCare) ever done any business with BBV? (see BBV 990 line 38 'printing and publications' $45,215)

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Awsi Dooger]

131. There is a one hour editing period on this site

Very impressive bugs, but flyingobject cannot remove the illustration since it is well beyond that 60 minute time frame. You will have to ask the site administrators to do it.

Meanwhile, considering your final sentence and how it fits with flyingobject's theme in this thread, I'll be a smartass and ask, "have you ever won a court case?" :rofl:

[Land Shark]

105. nope. copycare was a nonprofit organization that donated all

profits and used post consumer recycled paper and wind energy electricity to produce its product. when i got ill in 2003 I couldn't practice law AND run a nonprofit business at the same time, so it became inactive. Never did any business with BBV to the best of my knowledge though John ran the company quite a bit I'd still know about anything significant.

[flyingobject]

106. Nice. Now HAVE YOU EVER WON A CASE IN COURT?

nice of you to answer other questions,
now have you ever won a case in court?

[fooj]

108. One would assume so considering he has been "annointed"

with the title "FAMED" attorney...

Correct me if I am wrong- doesn't that mean FAMOUS?

Gary Spence is a famed attorney. Johnny Cochran was a famed attorney. Authentic examples of "famed" attorneys, yes? Just wanted to clarify.

[troubleinwinter]

113. well, we have been told...

[Land Shark]

116. I have a published case Syputa v. Druck, 90 Wn. App 698, 954 P.2d 279

Syputa v. Druck, 90 Wn. App 698, 954 P.2d 279 (1998). Nearly my first case out of law school and against an English multinational company, I representated a salesperson who worked sucessfully for two years to land a long term contract to supply parts for the Boeing 777 project, but he got terminated a few months after contract signing and before orders came in, so Druck claimed they didn't need to pay him. In effect, Boeing took their supplier's side so it was a battle royal with me and my client against two multinationals. The above published case was had in which the trial court's grant of summary judgment against me and my client was reversed, and the case thereafter settled amicably for a confidential sum. The court decided to publish the case because it made new law in the area of commission contracts for manufacturer's representatives.

I was also in a death penalty case where our client was a woman. I was not a lead attorney but "third chair" because my practice is not really criminal defense. Victory in a death penalty case is keeping your client alive and away from lethal injection. I assisted with legal research, jury instructions, motions on Constitutional issues including Bush v Gore and applying it to criminal law, and we 'won' our case by avoiding the death penalty. (The allegation was a contract killing against the fellow our client accused of abusing her daughter).

A few weeks ago I got a judgment of nearly $100,000 for my client in a business law suit.

This is silly to suggest that i've never won a case. Over 90% of all cases settle, and it's been rare that I've lost a case outright, but i've lost (clearly) around 3 in almost 11 years of practice.

There are reasons why I was elected Rising Star 2003 and Rising Star 2004 by Washington Law and Politics magazine.

on edit: Lawyers can help, but no matter how great the lawyer, the facts are still very important, as they should be. THerefore, one may be losing a lot but still be a great lawyer if they are otherwise maximizing their clients circumstances under the particular situation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. one yes-or-no q, a 366-word reply without a yes-or-no answer

And -- here's the kicker -- AFAICT it's a pretty good reply.

If an apparently straightforward factual question merits a response this convoluted, I'm thinking that maybe Donna Curling should clear her calendar for the next few months, so she can really do right by her self-appointed inquisitors.

Or maybe she could just tell them to... well, you know.

OK, are we done here?

[troubleinwinter]

129. Barbara Opel? Ugh.

No convicted female felons have ever been sentenced to the death penalty in Washington state.

"a contract killing against the fellow our client accused of abusing her daughter". Here's more of it:

Barbara Opel... accused of soliciting six teens, including her own (13 year old) daughter, of bludgeoning and stabbing a man to death.

(Opel) had already tried and failed to have Heimann killed, first by a group of teens who backed out...

Witness reports indicate Opel solicited the teenagers to kill Heimann with baseball bats and knives, promising them money, cars, clothing and, for her own 13-year-old daughter Heather, a dirt bike. She allegedly told one teen not to worry about getting caught because she intended to pin the crime on Heather.

Witnesses said Opel's younger children were with her as she yelled encouragement to the teens, who were clubbing 64-year-old Heimann to death (with aluminum bats and stabbing him many times) despite his pleas for mercy. They said she had the young kids help clean up the mess afterward.

Opel was live-in caretaker to Heimann's frail, elderly mother, who suffered from Alzheimer's. The alleged motive was Heimann's $40,000.

Heather Opel (13) and four other teens have been convicted in the killing. Some have agreed to testify against Barbara Opel.

....it will be up to Opel's jury to decide whether execution is in line for the 39-year-old mother accused of soliciting six teens, including her own daughter, to bludgeon a man to death.

Several days after Heimann's murder, Heimann's son arrived at his father's home for a visit and discovered his grandmother (who witnessed the crime) alone, soiled, and eating paper to survive.

When interviewed by the police, Marriam eventually made a statement admitting her participation and telling the police that Opel had promised she would pay Marriam's admission to the roller rink if Marriam helped kill Heimann.
.....................................

Barbara Opel was sentenced to life in prison. The children who she set up for this grizzly murder are in prison. Her 13 year old daughter was tried as an adult. She will be released when she's 34.

There has never been a death penalty for any woman in WA, and she got life. But this wasn't Lehto's case.

(though Nguyen v Goode was.... poor Nguyen!)

How was Bush v. Gore applied to the case?

[flyingobject]

107. CopyCare not listed at Guidestar

please provide proof that CopyCare was a non profit and what
type.

[flyarm]

111. oh my..now we need a litmus test of what stock we own ..to decide if we

are a bona fide vote reform activist..

what world are you on??

anyone that would post their personal financial info on this or any forum would need their heads examined..

since you want other people's financial info..why don't you start first Landshark??

have you ever taken any $$$ from bbv???????
or any lobby group you have formed ? or worked with ??

have you ever won a court case?

first we are told if we are married to anyone who has benefited from working with a company that has benefited from disenfranchisement of voters should not work in voting machine reform..that would include working for a republican corporation that has made money and benefited from * being in office ..you know...

now we have to show our stock portfolio?????
because whats good for one person is good for all !!

how far need we go back??????????

lets see..1994 had major damage to home in Northridge earthquake..took a beating for several years on that one...had to cash in stock to pay off mortgage..bank called loans of severely damaged homes you know..just like the gulf states now..

then had to rebuild portfolio........and retirement funds...


wait a second...

shouldn't the person making these demands show their portfolio first...

out of fairness..i would think that only appropriate!

have you ever taken $$ from bbv or have you ever taken lobby money from BBV or retainer fees from bbv??

prove you haven't ..lets see your documents first!!

have you ever won a court case????????

fly

[Land Shark]

8. You've retracted your prior written position supporting Voter ID required

In the OP above, you stated a reference to a post I quoted and highlighted in the original thread, in which you defended Voter ID requirements against attack, and later stated with regard to state Secretaries of State that certain positions they take naturally and reasonably lead to suspicion regarding their motives.

It appears that you've retracted that prior statement in favor of Voter ID (calling it "naive and stupid") with this paragraph, in the OP above;

Some have implied I support disenfranchisement of voters and a statement I made about voter ID was pulled from the archives to support this claim. I had never thought very deeply about that subject – THEN. I was naïve and stupid. I would NEVER accept disenfranchisement of ANY voters – and would fight side by side with any of you to prevent such an occurrence.

In the first OP, many called you courageous and brave, and I disagreed with them since you had said yourself that you hadn't the heart to read some posts you thought were critical of yourself. You responded by saying that I was "absolutely correct" in that regard and you planned to come back with more facts and analysis. But now you HAVE had the heart to say you were naive and stupid and to change your position. So, I shall change mine as well, and admit that changing your position this publicly and with the words "naive and stupid" IS a courageous thing to do. Few people have the courage to admit they were wrong like this.

For purposes of continued discussion, it's interesting to juxtapose Voter ID requirements with what Greg Palast says on that subject, later specifically relating Voter ID requirements to Choicepoint, in his book Armed Madhouse:

Dear Lord, save us from "reform." Almost every evil, devious little improvement in vote bending originates in some voting "reform" law. The requirement for a photo ID, a hit item for Republicans in almost every state of the Union, was another vote-heist horror show masquerading as reform and voter protection.

THe sales pitch for requiring ID is to prevent someone illegally voting by using someone else's name. The notable thing about this crime is that it doesn't happen. {...} There are voters struck by lightning, some die after mailing their ballots {...} but out of tens of millions of votes case, it's quite a hunt to find a single criminal case of a bandit stealing someone's identity merely to cast a vote for the local school board.

See p. 249

Palast also notes, quoting a fellow named Santiago, how difficult it is to get thousands of people to vote ONCE, much less getting thousands to vote TWICE. But, because of how it facilitates creation of a master voter file, Palast states "Certainly, Choicepoint, Inc. of Georgia would prefer {voter ID such as that lobbied for by James Baker and allowed in the Baker Carter Commission report}." p.253

I would personally add the following effect of Voter ID, especially with the centralization of voter registration databases under HAVA and the common reports of problems with those databases. There would be a most reasonable fear that showing said ID at the polling place, then finding out that one is noted as having "already voted" (something similar supposedly even happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger) would mean that insisting upon voting and/or proceeding to vote in the face of this evidence (the local counties being encouraged in many states to dispense with any paper backup of voter registration lists by statutes that authorize them to dispense with any such information) WOULD BE A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FELONY DOUBLE VOTING.

So, if you had even a slight fear of "the system" you may well be highly unlikely to assert your right to vote, as it may lead to prosecution in which the state already holds all of the "evidence" of the crime, and the voter provides the rest of the evidence by presenting an ID card that is duly recorded in the signature roster or pollbook.

Questions:

1. Has Choicepoint EVER made any statements, verbal or written, testimony or otherwise, in favor of or against VOTER ID requirements in any state or federal jurisdiction?

2. Regardless of your answer to question number 1, would you be willing to form a committee of one (yourself) or a committee of more than one in order to convince Choicepoint to take a public position that voter ID requirements should not be adopted, and if adopted, should be repealed?

[Bill Bored]

117. They're ALREADY adopted! Read HAVA!

If you mean voter ID requirements beyond those in HAVA, then please say so.

[Land Shark]

12. Question for Mrs. Curling: Did you relay invitation to debate Palast?

I promise to publicly and repeatedly criticize Mr. Palast if he refuses to debate Choicepoint at any reasonable time and place. Choicepoint's representative must be authorized and knowledgeable as to all subject matter in Palast's work, but provided that condition is kept, it is not absolutely required that the representative for Choicepoint be your husband, Mr. Curling. (though he would be the #1 best choice I suspect).

[troubleinwinter]

43. Why don't you draft a letter

and send it to Choicepoint? Or Mr. Palast can. You can lay out all of you 'conditions of debate' to the principals rather than posturing here.

Grow up.

[flyingobject]

94. Have you ever WON A CASE in COURT?

just wondering.

[truckin]

19. It seems to me that Donna has said all she can say, short of

condemning her husband, which she should not have to do, IMO. At this point you either believe that she is sincerely helping the election reform movement, which I believe, or you do not. To continue to grill her about ChoicePoint issues that she probably knows little about seems like a waste of valuable time. Those who believe that they cannot support VoteTrustUSA because they accepted money from her can support other groups and let this issue rest. If disclosure was the main problem, the issue has certainly now been exposed and it is up to each person to come to their own conclusion.

[Land Shark]

22. RU speaking for her? Donna herself says she's coming back for more

[truckin]

26. No, I'm speaking for myself but if I knew Donna I would tell her that

she has disclosed more than she needs to about her situation. She is never going to satisfy those who aren't comfortable with her ties to ChoicePoint so she should stop beating her head against a wall.

[Land Shark]

31. She has said twice now that many advise her to remain silent, but

she prefers to speak.

It's funny how those who want Donna to remain quiet and demure and not answer questions are, at the very same time, insisting that this is her right as a modern woman (the rough position of Febble).

She has the right to remain silent. Anything she says can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.

(again, she has freedom to do as she wishes, but others have freedom to respond as she wishes, there is no veil of TOTAL obfuscation behind which she can disappear. Obviously though, Febble is correct to some extent that silence creates an ambiguity of sorts at some level. That doesn't leave others without valid arguments, but it does leave room for debate. So, sometimes people prefer that debate involving the ambiguity of silence to the prospect of opening one's mouth and removing all doubt....).

A typical jury instruction would go roughly like this: If you find that a person is in possession of information they had a duty to preserve, or if a person has a duty to speak regarding some information (including, I'd argue, a self-imposed duty), and that person refuses to produce the information or provide the information or to speak, you may infer, but are not required to infer, that the information would have been damaging to the person who should have preserved, produced or spoken the information.

the above instruction is applicable only to civil cases because the 5th amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, and is not a direct quote since i don't have it handy.

Practice Tip: criminals often make a big mistake filing bankruptcy, where a duty of full disclosure of financial info applies and where they may not take the 5th amendment (and keep the bankruptcy filing from being dismissed).

Sorry for the lecture, but this stuff is kind of interesting, at least to me.

[Febble]

42. "The rough position of Febble"?

I'll say it's rough. I assert nothing more (or less) than Donna's right to have her own words taken at their worth, and not interpreted in terms of her husband's job.

And the "court of public opinion" has no intrinsic moral authority. That's why we have courts of law.

[Land Shark]

44. If "court of public opinion" has no intrinsic moral authority", democracy

has no moral authority, since it reflects public opinion on particular election contests.

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Public opinion is oftet wrong,

always has been, always will be.

Democracy is not intrinsically moral, just democratic. Which is why we have a Constitution, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

You would think a lawyer would know that, but I guess not.

[flyingobject]

54. speaking of silence

how about the IRS saying that BBV.org hasn't filed their taxes?

How does it affect our cause if a well known organization
may be racking up IRS penalties?

Would some divorces help that?

[troubleinwinter]

59. "many advise her"

I suspect that people are saying, "Don't even bother with the assholes. It's utterly pointless deliberate diversion."

If I had her phone number, I'd tell her the same thing, and add "Don't further waste your time and energy. Carry on with the work for the cause you have devoted youself to, and pay no mind to those who wish to divert."

[flyingobject]

72. tell us about the legal cases you have won

how about telling us more about your sucesses,
and the cases you have won.

[Land Shark]

123. answered that question, I'm afraid you don't really care

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=443547&mesg_id=443864>

[Febble]

25. Absolutely. n/t

[Bill Bored]

76. It's not just about ChoicePoint

Please help stop the swiftboating of John Gideon and VoteTrustUSA!
See this thread:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x443489>

The "cut-outs" at VoteTrustUSA have been doing some heavy lifting on this issue. All they ask for in return is not to be slandered and dragged through the mud by other activists and shameless self-promoters.

Speaking of which, you can read all about this in my NEW BOOK

Mad Waffle House

in which I uncover evidence that certain activists

support their fellow election reformers one minute:thumbsup:

and then drag them through the mud the next!:thumbsdown:

And don't forget to make a donation to my BORED INVESTIGATIVE FUND so I won't have to do any real work like the activists at VoteTrustUSA.

As for the rest of you:
Dmac wants voter-verified paper ballots (with hand counts). Get over it!

[troubleinwinter]

79. Looks like time

for me to make another donation to VoteTrustUSA!!!

http://www.votetrustusa.org

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=97

[Bill Bored]

80. Wait a minute! What about my BOOK....

...and my INVESTIGATIVE FUND and...how do I know you don't work for PBS? Wasn't that Barney the Dinosaur song used to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3042907.stm

[troubleinwinter]

81. Well... I dunno....

Do you have a bot dancing troupe???

[Bill Bored]

82. Now THAT'S TORTURE! nt