What was the nature of the BBV lawsuit in CA?

[garybeck]

Remember that lawsuit BBV filed against Diebold in CA and they settled out of court? Does anyone have links to the filing? Does anyone know what the lawsuit was about? I can't find anything on it at the BBV website. Everyone seemed to make more of a stink about the fact that they settled out of court, rather than the implications of the settlement - usually if a company settles out of court, it's because they know they're going to lose the suit. I'm trying to find out what the nature of the suit was, to see if others could pursue similar litigation in other areas. the fact that they settled is an indicator that they're vulnerable and we should keep poking at them in the same place until it really hurts.

[Einsteinia]

1. Here's what I know. . . .

I wrote this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/16/20050/601

[garybeck]

2. thanks, a few comments

people have been beating up March and Harris for settling out of court, but from that article it's clear that it was out of their hands.

I would think that the lawsuits are still a matter of public record so if anyone has links to the legal docs please let me know.

Evidently the lawsuit was filed well before the 11/2 election so it couldn't be used as a model for others in that respect but the issues of the lawsuit may still be valid. Just because they said they would fix the problems doesn't mean they did.

thank you

[Einsteinia]

5. The problems remedied?

I spoke to Jim March and that was his chief complaint that Diebold got off without having to fix the problems--which was what the complaint was chiefly seeking

[Helga Scow Stern]

4. Yes, when Kevin Shelley started to go down

someone told me there was something fishy about Lockyer in the Diebold settlement.

We looked up some of his campaign donors and found some powerful lobbyists from Texas,one of whom had worked with Karl Rove, but didn't take it much farther.

[Wilms]

3. Some legal reference

Voting Machines: Constitutional Issues, Federal & Case Law
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachines-ConstitutionalIssues&FederalLaw.htm

E-Voting Litigation: Past and Present
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting

[Boredtodeath]

6. It was a Qui Tam (whistleblower) lawsuit

And this case explains perfectly why Qui Tam is such a troublesome way to bring these actions, unless your motivation is money.

First, the true California whistleblower was James Dunn - the Diebold technician who blew the whistle on uncertified software being used in California. He blew the whistle to Jim March and Bev Harris who took it to their attorney and filed the Qui Tam lawsuit in their names, instead of James Dunn.

Qui Tam law provides that the authorities (Federal and State) must investigate criminal and civil activities in relation to the case because Qui Tam only involves state or federal issues using taxpayer funds. While this investigation continues, the whistleblower is under a gag order not to discuss the case. If the feds/state wish to join in the suit the whistleblower gets less money from the case, and the feds/state controls the legal outcome.

That's what happened in California - the state took control. The state decided to settle the lawsuit instead of take it to court. Bev and Jim lost control of the case and had no say in the matter at all. Diebold got a settlement which admitted no wrongdoing, forced no change in the way they do business, Bev and Jim March walked away with their share and Jim Dunn never got a dime.

And, the biggest problem is that the evidence gained in this case can never be used again to prosecute Diebold for wrongdoing.

[davidgmills]

7. Here are three links from Chuck Herrin

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/11/BAG869PCU31.DTL

and

http://www.atsnn.com/story/97860.html

and

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5021