BBV: Who has motive for a smear -- Mixed messages in a Diebold memo

[BevHarris]

We're back to daily, ORIGINAL news stories at http://www.blackboxvoting.org.

Today's story gives another thing to think about in the viscious attacks on California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Makes you wonder just how much someone twisted his arm in his recent downpedalling on voting reform.

The message in this Diebold memo is vague, can be read two ways. Comes from a leaked memo dated June 3, 2004 --


Internal memo, dated June 03 2004:
From: Thomas Swidarski
To: Bob Urosevich
Subject: Board Meeting Update
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential

"The last two days I actively participated in the June board meeting which lasted about 6 hours and an audit committee meeting which lasted an additional hour. As you might imagine it was not a pleasant two days ...

"The board understands, as best anyone can, the volatile nature of the business/media and that politics are involved. However, the board can not understand how the SOS of CA indicates that we have lied, misled and withheld information.(Diebold's emphasis) Only time will tell as the AG (California Attorney General) and we jointly investigate this serious situation. The consequences will be severe.


The key line "the consequences will be severe."

You cannot tell if the "consequences" they are talking about are for Kevin Shelley or for themselves, and likewise, you can't tell if the "investigating" they are doing is of Shelley or themselves.

It is interesting that they refer to "jointly" investigating with California Attorney General (Bill Lockyer) whose office is now investigating Shelley. That puts Shelley in a bad spot, since by law the defense attorney for the Secretary of State is the Attorney General's office.

How does the same office investigate and defend a person?

Look for an announcement on Sept 6 re: Diebold. My guess is the A.G. is gonna say Shelley had no business referring Diebold for criminal prosecution, "no merit", and at the same time they'll decide not to pursue taxpayer restitution for fraudulent claims.

Just so you know: The A.G.'s office has known about the double set of books in GEMS since Nov. 2003 and has not even bothered to ask where the trigger is, or what two digits you type to invoke the hack. When we offered to show it to them, they declined.

Bev Harris

[jean]

1. When can litigation against them for willfully ignoring this issue start?

Bev, you were excellent on Franken's show!

:yourock: :donut: (hoping you can take a tiny break once in a while)

[BevHarris]

3. One thing about our attorney, Lowell Finley, that I really like is this:

As a 20-year veteran elections law specialist, he's pretty jaded about people doing the right thing. So, he's got several little time bombs salted into the work he's done.

One of them is that formal notice on the GEMS hack, Nov. 2003, which was not acted upon by the A.G.

Another is his decision to formally request an opportunity to demonstrate the hack, which was declined by the A.G., which he has kept a record of.

There are many such time bombs. He's a good man, and has kept all options open, for all kinds of actions. He's in it for the same reasons we are: He wants a more accountable voting system.

It was Lowell Finley who nailed Swarzenegger on a $4 million campaign finance violation last March. It was Finley who found the absentee vote rigging in Napa County last spring.

I think he, along with the the Maryland attorneys, have been really gutsy on this, and I guarantee you there will be more. I wish he was licensed in more states. We've already been talking about next steps.

Bev

[stellanoir]

2. will look forward to the 9/6 report

thanks again for your intrepid work Bev. Kudos.

[loudsue]

4. That e-mail sounds like Diebold is in bed w/ Lockyer, no?

When they're referring to "we", it appears he means Diebold & the Atty. General. And, yes, "the consequences will be severe" seems to refer to Shelley's consequences.

Shelley SURELY DID have business referring Diebold for criminal prosecution...no doubt about that! It's Lockyer that appears to be the one that's as complicit w/ Diebold as anyone.

What can we do? Can the citizens bring charges against Diebold based on the hard evidence? There absolutely IS "merit"!!! If the A.G. has known about the double set of books since Nov. 2003, isn't there a RICO charge for him in there somewhere? Can Shelley fight back?

So...what charges are they (Diebold/Lockyer) trying to bring against Shelley? Does Shelley appear to be guilty of something?

:hi: Sorry for all the questions here! This makes me furious, as I know it does all of you, Bev!!

:kick::kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. Sue...I have read this document...and your take is the

same as mine. Sounds like the AG is complicit in the mess. I could be wrong...but I don't think I am.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Re: Shelley

As far as the Charges against Shelley go- it's hard to say. I mean, reading the Chronicle, even though no one has proven anything against the guy, they sure make it sound like he got caught with his hand inside the cookie jar. The original allegations, as I understand them, have to do with large donations made to his 2002 campaign that came from people who received money from a state grant for a community center that was never built. Sure- that sounds bad. But no one really knows the details, and no one has proven that Shelley was behind it. Personally, I'm more inclined to suspect that it's some kind of set-up or smear job in light of the fact that immediately following the first story, now all of a sudden you have day after day of stories in the SF Chronicle about how Shelley is a "mean boss", he "throws his cell phone", he "tells lewd jokes".. etc. etc. And it's really been the Chronicle- alone- that's been pushing this story. Now, the Chron is generally a pretty liberal paper; I'll give them that-- but does anyone know if they have ties- financial, corporate, etc. to Diebold? There's two or three reporters pushing these Shelley stories- could they have been bought off?

Antother thing is, I believe all his campaign donations were okayed during the 2002 campaign by some state agency or another.

The possibility remains, of course, that Shelley is guilty of improprieties, and came under all kinds of scrutiny due to the Diebold/EV thing- at which point the stuff got dug up. That would be unfortunate, but it sure doesn't invalidate the fundamental idea behind what he was doing- I just hope it doesn't serve to scare other pols off of the subject.

Here are links to all the Shelley Stories:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/28/financial1442EDT0068.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/28/BAG028FO861.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/26/MNG088EKH61.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/21/BAGRU8C9OM1.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/20/BAGTT8BKRG1.DTL

Here's the crux of the crap they're using to justify freezing 17.5 Million in election funds:

On another front, records also show that Shelley has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Help America Vote Act intended to upgrade voting machines and improve voter registration to hire friends and Democratic consultants and other purposes that may exceed the limits of the federal program.

Now, when reading the tone of this paragraph, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a news story- I'm pretty sure the "friends" he is accused of hiring include a lawyer and a consultant pertaining to the Diebold/EV case.

And if No-Bid Contracts going out to "friends" was an offense worthy of investigation by the FBI, why aren't they digging through Dick Cheney's undisclosed location for that 8 Billion that went to Halliburton as we speak?

[Boredtodeath]

5. Where is the rest of the document?

Is this being taken out of context? What about publishing the whole thing?

The comment about the consequences being severe could refer to the consequences to Diebold. Without context it's impossible to make a judgement of what they are talking about.

[nostamj]

6. wow! love the new BBV logo....

;-)

[harmonyguy]

7. Maybe there's more to this....

"The board understands, as best anyone can, the volatile nature of the business/media and that politics are involved. However, the board can not understand how the SOS of CA indicates that we have lied, misled and withheld information.(Diebold's emphasis) Only time will tell as the AG (California Attorney General) and we jointly investigate this serious situation. The consequences will be severe."
---------
Heaven only knows, I see no reason to defend these guys, BUT there MAY possibly be another explanation. Hear me out....

Having had considerable 'corporate' experience, (especially with the finance guys), I've often wondered if Diebold got sold a 'pig in a poke' when they picked up Global. As I understand it, Diebold has had a respectable name in the safe/atm business, and likely would not have deliberately bought themselves a pack of trouble. If I recall correctly, Swidarski comes from the financial industry and has only recently been saddled with responsibility for their Election business.

Could it be that this memo to Urosevich was effectively a 'shot across the bow' indicating that Diebold is going to get to the bottom of it, regardless of how severe the consequences may be, including the severe consequence of Urosevich' departure, which apparently is at the 'leave' stage.

Is it possible that the 'jointly investigate' is not so much collusion, but simply an indication that at the same time that the AG is investigating, Diebold itself will be investigating the mess that they're in, to see just who it is that got them into it?

In the past, I've seen a number of situations where a division of a corporation, if led by a character of less than noble integrity, can operate for a long time without a lot of oversight. The head of the division keeps feeding BS to his bosses and to the board, controlling what they hear and see about 'his' division. Eventually the BS catches up with him and, as the executives/board start to question things, and realize the extent of the damage, heads start to roll.

Maybe, just maybe, this isn't as sinister as it might appear. (Or maybe I'm not close enough to it to see how ugly it's really getting)

Just a thought....
HG
(preparing my flame-proof suit)

[BevHarris]

8. Yes, absolutely. There are definitely two ways to take this memo

As I wrote, "You cannot tell if the "consequences" they are talking about are for Kevin Shelley or for themselves, and likewise, you can't tell if the "investigating" they are doing is of Shelley or themselves. "

I don't have a scanner and the ability to .pdf it and Andy isn't home now. The context of the rest of the memo isn't much clearer, but them investigating themselves is likely ... but also, I do know what happened just before they let Urosevich go, and it had to do with a security breach (of which we were the beneficiary).

The rest of the memo, which we will post when we get a chance, has stuff like this...

"I explained our deteriorating financial position..."

Some stuff on that. Info on how the main corporation is having to make up for the loss on the elections division. One sentence that does bode well:

"In the meantime, the board is giving us a chance to clean up our messes, get the organization in order, act/behave like we are part $2.4 billion entity not a$10 million start-up, and above all, act ethically. That is not a lot given the situation we have put the corporation in."

But then it goes on to say,

"However, the culture of this company is not changing fast enough."

I believe the proof will be in the pudding when we see how they handle the ballot printing. That is a situation that they well knew might melt down, back in June. Even then, they knew they might not be able to hit the deadlines, which are hard deadlines and the law requires certain drop dates.

According to our sources, they could not completely fulfill the King County drop date, which was Wednesday. They were short by something like 40,000 ballots. We've done public records requests to find out.

In the past, a lot of fibs and bullshit happened when they missed their drop dates. They've got something like triple the amount they normally have to produce, and the evidence of whether they've changed their corporate culture, or still continue to oversell and undeliver, lying their way out, will come from how they handle the ballot printing in the next few weeks.

Bev

[RedEagle]

15. Ummmm...not so sure Diebold has provided the best equipment

...in banking. Someone a while back I believe found that several banks were not happy with the Diebold ATM's, among other things.

And it does not explain why the company apparently did no due diligence on Global- including the employees and one Jeffery Dean.

And when complaints began emerging on the voting systems, and proof that they were quite vulnerable a number of ways, nothing was done.

Look for California to wait until after the election, look for most states to call for paper ballots for DRE's in 2006, look for VoteHere to come up with the "magic" non-solution before then.

Mandates for voter verified paper ballots need to become NOW.

Otherwise, no touch screen should be purchased. Use ballot templates for the visually disabled instead. They have the added benefit of being able to be mailed.

[ljm2002]

10. "as the AG [...] and we jointly investigate"

Interesting phrasing. Not "as the AG and we investigate", but, "as the AG and we jointly investigate".

Just smells funny.

[Andy_Stephenson]

11. Yes indeed it does

I wonder what the AG is up to...

[BevHarris]

12. Another disturbing detail: Someone tipped Diebold off

to the sealed Qui Tam suit as early as February. Yet, the case was under seal, and only the A.G. had it, until June.

We know this because of another smoking gun, in the Diebold lawyers memos, where they discuss Qui Tam. Exactly HOW did Diebold learn about a sealed case that only the AG had?

Also, the AG did another odd thing: We went to court on this. They decided to unseal the case with Diebold in late May or early June, but not to the public. This is not supposed to be done. The A.G. tried to keep the case sealed Waaaaay longer than the law allows. It was supposed to unseal in January. We went to court. The A.G. blocked it. This would have been very important in bringing stronger charges to bear in seeking an injunction by the March primary, because we could have gone into discovery.

The A.G. kept sealing it over and over again, and finally, after we went to court on it for the umpteenth time, it was unsealed in late June.

So, to me, this may be evidence that Diebold was getting chummy with the California AG in very inappropriate ways, (and perhaps with other state A.Gs as well). But we have no way to prove how Diebold learned of the case while it was under seal. It sure wasn't from us!

Bev

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. In light of the latest revelation (the e-mail)

that is a valid conclusion to make. Another disturbing statement was made by the AG's rep in the meeting last week. He was the one that started the "We'll deal with this after the election" and "The SoS has not set a timeline for action on this issue." Both statements struck me strange...especially in light of the information we had just laid on him.

Something is fishy in Denmark and it isn't fish. You know my feelings on this Bev...stated them after you read the email to me. I have a gut feeling on this.

Somewhere the crooks are still in charge.

[althecat]

18. I have heard of this sort of thing happening before....

... and it is this sort of shit via the AG and DoJ offices that gives Qui Tam its bad name among activists. Fortunately Bev you seem to have an attorney with hobnailed boots and a constitution of iron. You will need it....

[BevHarris]

21. Oh, I think we'll lose the Qui Tam.

The signs were pretty strong on that when:

1) The one and only interview was focused on kicking us out of the case

and

2) No questions whatsoever were asked about much of anything (except things that could function to remove us from the case, mainly because we refused to seal the evidence.)

An election is about to be stolen. That's the main focus. The Qui Tam was one of a whole arsenal of strategies and lawsuits to keep things moving forward.

It is interesting that in the Diebold SEC statement, in the area of litigation that could pose a risk, it listed a bunch of lawsuits and said they were not a factor or a risk, but then singled out the Qui Tam for disclosure of potential financial risk to the overall corporation.

That's because, if it prevailed in Alameda County, the domino effect for taxpayer restitution could cost the company as much as a billion dollars.

Yup, that's a risk.

I see you're noticing that several of the power players are starting to roll up their sleeves now.

Bev

[althecat]

23. Right Qui Tam is a very potent legal tool.... which is why...

The DoJ like to use Qui Tams to play silly buggers so much. The only other Qui tam I know of involved Catherine Austin Fitts and the level of Govt. interference in that case is truly spectacular.

http://solari.com/gideon/

It is impossible not to conclude in light of what happened there that there was a lot of insidious judicial interference going on behind the scenes.

I suspect there is a special team of screwups (men in black) working in the DoJ assigned to Qui Tams who have their fingers in lots of very dark and unpleasant places.

And yes... there are an increasing number of very disturbing things happening as we get closer to this election.

We have to appreciate how important it is to these people that GWB wins - i.e. absolutely vital. And they have already shown themselves to be completely without ethics or qualms about what and who they work/walk over in order to get what they want.

OTOH... they did not see us coming and your law suit is indeed a key component of the battle to stop these AHs.

:)

Al

[vetwife]

19. Bev...got a question noticed CVS has Diebold in drive up? How

much backing is Diebold getting from big pharmaceuticals?

[BevHarris]

20. Diebold has most major banks, Walmart, drug stores

They gained market share in part due to a shakedown with the National Federation for the Blind -- the blind would sue the ATM site, then offer to settle if they bought Diebold. Diebold paid the NFB at least $1 million in a strange settlement offer.

It's one of the Consumer Reports at http://www.blackboxvoting.org -- it think we have it under "investigations"

[vetwife]

22. Thanks Bev....

Thanks for your hard work !

[Bushfire]

14. Hate to see this VERY important thread die so soon.

:kick:

[Zan_of_Texas]

16. Look at the no-holds barred fight to keep the Diebold memos secret, and

look at the unfortunate plane crash of a Diebold VP.

Look at the damning report by Johns Hopkins (Rubin, Wallach et al) in July 2003, and the damning report by RABA early in 2004.

The benefit of a doubt is wearing thin.

What you have is secrecy, incompetence, an untimely death, and not just two but demonstration after demonstration that this software reeks. Not to mention two whistleblower tech guys working contract, hands-on for Diebold, Rob "georgia" and Jimmy Dunn in CA, both of whom felt that procedures in handling the machines were way beyond lax.

If you've forgotten the death, here it is.

Wesley Vance -- April 26, 2003 -- Diebold VP -- plane crash

Pilot Killed In Plane Crash Was Top Exec At Diebold

April 28, 2003 10:50AM
<http://www.wkbn.com/Global/story.asp?S=1253108>

(Jackson-AP) -- The pilot of a single-engine airplane that crashed in southern Ohio over the weekend was the chief operating officer of Canton-based Diebold Incorporated.

The company says 45-year-old Wesley Vance of Canton was flying a private plane that crashed Saturday near the Jackson County Airport. ...The company says Vance joined Diebold in October, 2000, as president of its North America business unit. He was named chief operating officer in 2001. Chief Executive Walden O'Dell will assume the company's daily operational responsibilities until a successor is found for Vance. An airport spokesman says Vance was practicing takeoffs and landings in a six-seat Beachcraft A-36 when it crashed near the airport.

~~~

http://www.abqjournal.com/obits/profiles/vance05-02-03.htm
Vance was an Eagle Scout, elected to Boys State, and a church-going Mormon, married, father of five. He earned a degree from Brigham Young University. He was described as a confident person who people liked to be around. His senior class in high school voted him "favorite boy". He had been a pilot for over twenty years. He was named to Diebold's No. 2 position as COO in 2001, managing the company's global operations.

[althecat]

24. Another suspicious death - Athan Gibbs

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00221.htm

Death Of A Patriot: No More 'Blind Faith Voting'
By Bob Fitrakis March 17, 2004

The subject line on yesterday’s email read: ''Another mysterious accident solves a Bush problem. Athan Gibbs dead, Diebold lives.'' The attached news story briefly described the untimely Friday, March 12th death of perhaps America’s most influential advocate of a verified voting paper trail in the era of touch screen computer voting. Gibbs, an accountant for more than 30 years and the inventor of the TruVote system, died when his vehicle collided with an 18-wheeled truck which rolled his Chevy Blazer several times and forced it over the highway retaining wall where it came to rest on its roof.

Coincidence theorists will simply dismiss the death of Gibbs as a tragic accident – the same conclusion these coincidence theorists came to when anti-nuclear activist Karen Silkwood died in November 1974 when her car struck a concrete embankment en route to a meeting with New York Times reporter David Burnham. Prominent independent investigators concluded that Silkwood’s car was hit from behind and forced off the road. Silkwood was reportedly carrying documents that would expose illegal activities at the Kerr-McGee nuclear fuel plant.

The FBI report found that she fell asleep at the wheel after overdosing on Quaaludes and that there never were any such files. A journalist secretly employed by the FBI, and a veteran of the Bureau’s COINTELPRO operation against political activists, provided testimony for the FBI report.

and more here..
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00221.htm
and here
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/853

[jus_the_facts]

17. KICK....this is even MORE important than the protests IMO.........

:kick:

:hi: and THANK YOU AGAIN BEV and CREW!!! :loveya: :yourock:

[cthrumatrix]

25. thanks Bev....

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Thanks Bev!

Great work. That memo is creepy as hell.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. SF Chronicle: Election fund freeze protested

I think this article makes it clear what this is all about- Fully one third of the contested funds pertain specifically to Electronic Voting Security. (Paragraphs in bold)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/31/BAGCS8H7BO1.DTL

Sacramento -- County election officials said Monday they will have less money to prepare for the November election as a result of a Schwarzenegger administration freeze on federal election money controlled by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

Some $15.4 million of the $17.5 million that is being frozen was earmarked for counties to train poll workers, make it easier for disabled voters to cast ballots and monitor election results

"Kevin Shelley may be under scrutiny for what he's done, but all this is doing is punishing counties and ultimately the state," said Austin Erdman, assistant registrar for San Joaquin County.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's department of finance halted spending of the money pending a legislative audit of how Shelley had spent other money from the Help America Vote Act.

Shelley has been criticized for awarding no-bid contracts using the federal money to political allies and Democratic Party activists.

The Democratic secretary of state has denied he has played political favorites and said all the companies or individuals hired have performed work in compliance with the law Congress passed to help avoid a repeat of the 2000 presidential election.

The audit, ordered by lawmakers last week, will take at least three months to complete, according to the state auditor.

Separately, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have ordered an investigation into whether $125,000 in taxpayer money intended to build a community center in San Francisco was diverted to Shelley's 2002 campaign for secretary of state. Shelley, who secured the grant for the community center while an assemblyman, has said he did not know the contributions were potentially tainted. He recently gave $125,000 from his campaign account to the state's general fund.

Tony Miller, who coordinates California's implementation of the federal voting act for Shelley, said he is negotiating for release of the funds. "We're working with the department of finance to thaw this out so we can have a safe and secure election in November," Miller said.

The department of finance said that if some of the money was needed to guarantee the November election's integrity, it would be spent.

"If there is a clear need to provide money for counties to carry out the election in a fair and impartial manner, we're going to meet that need,'' said H.D. Palmer, a department spokesman.

Forty-five counties, including San Francisco, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Alameda, have applied for the federal grants to augment their training of poll workers and improve access for disabled voters at polling places.

More than $800,000 of the money being held by the Schwarzenegger administration was to be spent on monitoring of voting on election day, with $600,000 of that to police electronic voting systems used in 10 counties.

An additional $5.4 million is earmarked to help counties with electronic voting systems cover the costs of a series of tighter security imposed on them by Shelley as a condition of their using the electronic systems this November.

Grants totaling $3.3 million are earmarked for training poll workers and other election employees; $4.6 million is set aside for county voter education projects, and $2 million was reserved to improve access at the polls for disabled voters.

San Francisco sought $1.04 million -- $740,000 to buy ramps, chairs and tables for disabled voters to use. The remaining $300,000 was for more training for poll workers.

Alameda County applied for $149,000 to reimburse itself for a letter county officials sent to 550,000 voters to encourage them to vote by absentee ballot. Another $93,000 was for a letter to first-time voters alerting them to the photo identification required under the new federal voting act.

Alameda County also sought $257,000 to expand its training to include clerks and $128,000 for various ways to help disabled voters cast ballots.

"We were going to purchase additional encoders and touch screens for hands-on training. Now we're not,'' said Elaine Ginnold, Alameda's assistant registrar.

Contra Costa sought $298,000 for training and voter education efforts. Los Angeles applied for $2.5 million for the same purpose.

Several counties, including San Mateo and Napa, had already decided not to seek the grants. Both the Bay Area counties cited the two weeks Shelley gave counties to complete the application. After complaints, the deadline was extended a week.

Ginnold said that even if the money were released soon, "it's almost too late to do any purchasing before the election because our training starts Oct. 1. And we had a short timetable to begin with just finding out about this in July."