Where to begin....

[dmac]

Where to begin...let’s start with an introduction: I am Donna Curling. How far to go back……now that’s a good question.

After scanning the posts out here I decided it was time to bring DMAC back out into the Lion’s Den. It would be impossible for me to respond to everything out here – especially because I didn’t have the heart to read all of the cruel, misguided “personal” missiles fired at me – and worse, also fired at innocent people I care about. So instead I intend to just try to express how some of you have made me feel, realizing of course that many may not care.

I “found” DU mid-November, 2004, during what I now refer to as “the dark days” following the 2004 election and it was like finding a light in the darkness. Probably like many of you, I was in a deep depression over the election results and I firmly believed that yet another election had been stolen. DU offered me a place to vent, a place to recover, a place to talk to people who shared my belief, and ultimately a place to hook up with other activists who wanted to do more than sit behind their computer screens and bemoan our sad fate. The same night I found DU I also found BBV and made donations to both organizations.

Being somewhat timid, this was difficult but first I tried to become involved in the Ohio recount and was set to go. This was my first contact with Warren Stewart, who was also going to Ohio but at the last minute decided to go to New Mexico instead. Ultimately I was told that the Ohio recount already had enough volunteers to meet the needs of the recount, who lived closer than GA. Frustrated but still determined, I posted a number of request for activists who worked in GA to PM me. To protect the privacy of activists who may now likewise be crucified for answering my pleas, I will not say all of the people who contacted me and put me in touch with several GA activists working on election reform and/or lawsuits in my state.

I connected with all of the people whose names I had been given and finally decided to go with the person who had been the most receptive to my need to become involved. I intend to respect this person’s privacy and will only refer to her by her posting name, even though she certainly had no reservations about publicly slamming me on DU last year. When this happened I retired DMAC and never told the tale, which does indeed bear telling.

Rigel99 and I began discussing strategies for trying to get Diebold out of GA. Early (possibly even during our first phone conversation) in our relationship I MADE CERTAIN that Rigel99 knew I was Donna Curling, wife of Doug Curling, President of ChoicePoint. I invited her to express any concerns she had and offered to answer any questions. The main question she had was regarding rumors about CPS’s (=ChoicePoint) involvement in the FL 2000 debacle, which I explained as honestly and comprehensively as I could. She told me that my explanation made sense and that she had no qualms whatsoever about working with me. In fact she said it would be welcome to have someone with some financial wherewithal into the group and expressed hope that I would donate generously (which I intended to do). She even came to my house one day for a meeting and gave me some work to do. However, by this time I had had numerous conversations with Rigel99 by phone and we had been exchanging emails for some time. Some things about her concerned me. She was constantly criticizing the work of other GA activists and reiterating that “her” approach (lawsuits) was the best approach and that the others were wasting their time (legislation). Being a complete novice, I was working day and night to educate myself on what all of the options were and was trying to leave the door open to choose the path I thought would be most effective.

During the time this relationship was forming, one of the other groups I had contacted finally had some time to really talk to me about what they were doing and I decided their approach, legislation made more sense than Rigel99’s approach. I contacted her immediately after I made this decision and wished her well but told her I had decided to focus my energy and resources on legislative changes. Needless to say she was not very happy about my decision but I thought at the time she respected my decision.

We have now reached February of 2005, when ChoicePoint fell prey to identity thieves and all Hell broke lose in my life. Imagine (if you can) that you have reached out to numerous strangers to ask to join their efforts – people who know nothing about you personally – and then having such personal relationship information publicly exploited. Needless to say I floundered about what to do but finally decided I had no choice but to do as I have always done – and that was to approach the issue with candor and honesty. They would believe me or they would not but I had nothing to lose by trying and had everything to lose by remaining silent. I was shamed by some, yes, even though this had nothing to do with me personally, nor in my belief in the need for election reform. However I prepared to be found guilty purely by association and to once again be alone in my frustration to make a difference. I knew the public’s perception of CPS and didn’t expect any of my newfound contacts to be sympathetic. Yet I contacted each of them and tried as best I could to explain that I was painfully aware of what they must be thinking about me (us, Doug and me) but that as bad as things were, they were not as bad as what they were likely seeing in print – i.e., my husband was not the villain the press made him out to be. Our friends, suffered with us as we were publicly humiliated and were outraged – as is to be expected of friends. I was able to draw a lot of strength from their love and support, but the part that helped me most was the number of acquaintances who contacted Doug, via email, cards, and phone calls to likewise offer their support and outrage. There is no way to convey how difficult it is to go out into public and hold your head high when your reputation has been called into question based on half-truths and outright viscous lies. But for my children’s sake, for my husband’s sake, and for the sake of my own sanity, this is what I forced myself to do.

In the midst of this madness, one group of activists called me to offer support, sight unseen, just from the conversations we had over the phone or by email. They believed in my character and still wanted me to become part of their group. Meanwhile, Rigel99 showed her true colors and confirmed that I had made the right choice. She took the email that I had sent her (similar to the ones I had sent to the other group) and she posted it on DU with a scathing assessment of me and my character, as well as that of my husband and children (“spoiled and misguided, stealing from the very backs of other Americans” or something along those lines).

It was the other group of activists that called this post to my attention and who stood beside me through my devastation at further humiliation – not so much directed at Doug or myself, but at my innocent children who had done nothing to deserve such criticism. At this time I lost my light in the darkness, retired DMAC and refused to visit DU any longer. I couldn’t explain the change in Rigel99’s judgment of my legitimacy except to think that I ceased to be “okay” as an activist once she realized I supported a different approach from hers and that there were not going to be any donations from the golden calf to her group. And truthfully she sold me short even there as I was still trying to assess where donations would make the most difference and would likely have spread it around hoping that perhaps where one group of us failed, another may have achieved some level of success.

Enough history. This is how I came into the activists’ world and I leave it up to you - the reader - to decide if my motives were pure or not. Of course you only have my word – but if you are in the camp of believers that the wife of a ChoicePoint or any other business executive can be nothing but a deceptive person with ulterior motives, there is not one thing I can do about that. My hope is to reach those who are unsure because of the amount of pure fantasy and fiction out here. There are no assurances my word will sway a single soul. But I have to try. It is my nature and it is so ingrained in my soul that honesty is the best policy, and that as long as you have truth on your side you will be okay. I know that the people who know me all know my character as well and they have no doubts about my motives and this is why they try to defend me at their own peril. It is a sad, sad statement for Democrats that we eat our own – that we refuse to believe the word of a fellow Democrat but it is true nonetheless. But let me reiterate, at no time did I think about anything but how to make a difference in the integrity of our elections. PERIOD. And that has never wavered from the first dark days on DU to now.

How did I become involved in VoteTrustUSA? One of the activists I teamed up with received an invitation to their Lobby Days in 2005 and we decided to go. We also took another GA activist with us and it was a very rich and rewarding experience. This was a team effort of VT, Voter’s Unite, and Common Cause (possibly other groups as well – sorry if I am leaving out anyone). They taught us how to lobby and turned us loose on our Representatives as we went in to try to garner support for Rush Holt’s HR550. It was a life-changing experience for me – very empowering. While at the conference I made a nominal donation to a couple of the groups there as I was very impressed with what they tackled and how well it went. There the “Leaders” list grew from the participants and that is the end of story. I became interested in being more involved and continued to return to DC regularly to lobby again and again. Very simple and nothing sinister.

I apologize for the “misunderstanding” about whether I was on the Board of VTUSA or not. I understand that this has been addressed on one of the many threads out here though I have not actually been able to find it. As long as I am making public statements about things which have confused people I will take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that no, I am not, nor have I ever been on the Board of Directors for VTUSA – CONTRARY to a claim that I made in a post to the Leaders list back in Feb (I think) of this year. There were reasons I thought I was but there were issues of legitimate confusion which were subsequently straightened out.

I realize I have probably failed to answer many questions or concerns but I have tried to speak honestly and candidly about who I am, why I became involved in election reform, and that is about all I can offer. One other statement I would like to make is why my “name” on the VoteTrust leaders list was “Marie Adams” instead of Donna Curling. It certainly wasn’t to deceive anyone in the group and frankly at that point in time I didn’t see myself as any different from any other activist in the group. I assumed we were all there out of outrage and to try to do something to change the system. No, Marie Adams (which is my middle and maiden name) was born after Rigel99 “outed” me on DU and posted all of my personal information, including my email address. Distraught over what to do, my new activist friends encouraged me to create an email account that I used only for activist work and so I did. When I was in DC for the Lobby Days I certainly didn’t introduce myself as Marie Adams. I introduced myself as Donna Curling and that was name that appeared on my name tag. The leaders list was drafted from a sign up that was circulated for email addresses and so I used my activist email address. It honestly didn’t even register to me that the name that showed when I would post something was Marie. I do admit I was a bit stymied about how to sign my posts once I realized this and I think in the beginning I may have signed a few Marie – to try to avoid confusing people. But that didn’t feel right so soon I began to sign Donna, or Donna Curling, or just plain D (which is how I sign all of my mail and a lot of people even call me D). I promise the intent was never to mislead anyone. As for disclosure about what my husband did for a living – I wasn’t ashamed of that either. But it just wasn’t something that came up. We were not in DC to discuss our personal lives or our identities. We were in DC to work.

I would like to say thank you to the few people out here on these posts who seemed to be thinking about the claims against me instead of just jumping on the bandwagon to discredit me without any real knowledge. And I would like to thank my friends who once again tried to come to my defense and apologize for leaving you to defend me instead of mustering the courage to return to DU to defend myself. I am sad and a bit broken in spirit but I am a fighter and if all outlets for me to make a difference are closed to me on this issue, I will find another place I can make a difference after my spirit heals a bit. And I will be careful to make sure that where ever I chose to spend my time, energy, and resources can only help and not harm the cause I decide to support.

As for donations, I certainly hope that all of the candidates I have supported and given money to are not impugned as Secretary of State candidate Scott Holcomb was. The poor man did nothing to deserve the abuse dealt out by the APN article. And the reporter didn’t even have the donations correct at that. It is a LOUSY system our candidates have to face – everything is about raising money and without it you may as well not run. And the Democratic candidates are up against candidates whose supporters generally have more resources at their disposal. I am offended by the “dirty” money comments but more importantly I question why Doug and I supporting voting causes or Democratic candidates or any other causes upsets anyone. We don’t like the system any more than you do but we want to do our part to get the Democrats back in power because we believe in Democratic values and principles. If we are going to donate to “causes” and “groups” would you rather we do it to those you agree with and support, OR those you do not? I am sad for any who believe there could be any other motives behind people who try to help our side fight against the multi-millions the Republicans can generate with the drop of a hat. And personally I think people who automatically suspect the motives of others perhaps have some impure motives of their own they wrestle with. I would never give money expecting anything from a candidate – and more importantly, I would not support a candidate whose vote was for sale – no matter what party he/she belonged to. Doug and I go through our lives trying to make a difference where we can. Sometimes it is through our political system and other times it is through trying to pick up some of the pieces where our system fails its citizens. We are blessed and we believe that to whom much is given, much is expected - and that is how we try to live our lives. I am not trying to make us sound like saints – we have our flaws just as all of you do. Perhaps I should list them so that if we are to be roasted by those of you who are clearly “better” than us, we can be roasted for things for which we are truly guilty.

Yesterday I wrote to the VT Leaders list and asked them to block me while they discussed what should be done about me. I never meant to cause them any harm. I have given my heart and soul to trying to make a difference on this issue and will continue to do so if I am not seen as a detriment to the cause. At this point I have no idea what is the right thing for me to do so I have taken it out of my own hands, and out of the hands of my friends there, and put the pressure on the group as a whole to decide. It is a Democracy after all and I will honor what ever they decide. Joan, Warren, and Big John – to you I feel I owe a public apology as more than once my presence and participation in your group has cost you time, energy, and stress – but it has never stopped any of you from defending my right to be there. You guys are true leaders in every sense of the word and I owe you much gratitude. If the group decides that it is best for VoteTrustUSA for me to go I will always consider all of you as friends and will always do whatever I can to defend your honors. I have been shamed throughout this past year but at least I can understand why some people believe that is their right to shame me. But they have tried to shame you as well and it just goes to show that some people here do not recognize people of character – and I hope that others will someday cease to be influenced by their poor judgment.

I have tried to keep my negative thoughts and feelings from bleeding through here in what I have to say as I do not believe they would be productive. But I trust you can well imagine that I have some. This is very painful and I hate public displays of any kind but I finally decided if I am going to be publicly defamed the least I can do is show up.
+


+

[Boredtodeath]

1. Great courage and honesty

Thank you, Ms. Curling.

:yourock:

[MelissaB]

3. I agree!

None of us are perfect, and you are one brave woman.

[Land Shark]

10. Curling writes here as a feeling human being, not a brave one

She herself states at the outset that she hasn't had the heart to read many of the things she believes are against her: that is not bravery nor is it brave, though it is human. As a result, we won't learn as much as we otherwise should, since in this and another place, reference is made to the fact that she hasn't read the DU threads in anything like their whole.

My immediate reaction to reading the above? To wonder how we might soften and make DU here more Choicepoint-friendly. (no sarcasm) That's the human way to respond to somebody emoting like Mrs. Curling. But it's also the pre-analysis way to think about it, before it hits the cerebral cortex or the political conflicts centers of the brain. It's also a terrible way to make public policy for our government or for our activist organizations.

Already groups are so low on money that someone like Mrs Curling who has funds is an intensely powerful figure. Then she is obviously in command of a certain emotional intelligence, and so leftie thinker/feelers will tend to fall all over themselves trying to be accommodating.

So, Choicepoint gets its official position heard loud and clear before activist groups. (Mrs. Curling, do I have your permission to freely discuss this?)

And, to give due regard to Donna's contributions, reports against Choicepoint are edited, quashed or otherwise censored.

Mrs. Curling, if you are free tomorrow I will be in Jackson Hole, WY and we can meet and discuss these things over dinner, my treat. I've no way of knowing if you've access to planes but I thought it was a maybe, so maybe we could meet.

I am the chair of a state bar association committee on emerging dispute resolution methods (in addition to mediation and arbitration). Thus, i'm open to personal perspectives like you give above, and think that they are an important part of a meaningful process of communication. But they are just one part of it. Good communication does not mean, in the end, that everything is simply OK because all have shared how they feel. There are many things that have to be discussed OPENLY, not just having open and public vote counts. We have to be able to sit down with neocons or whoever and at least try to share information, without turning our heads away from painful realities.

I hope that in the spirit of communication you will agree that any email you've written to the VTUSA leaders list may be quoted or posted, if it's relevant to the issues of your public life and contributions. Would that be oK?

Some of the main things we'd have to discuss are contained in the Greg Palast email cited below. To be a force to be reckoned with in public policy or corporate policy today, these issues have to be met head on:

Thank you for a cogent response to ChoicePoint's latest smear tactics. When ChoicePoint pays Republicans, progressives are up in arms over the conflicts. But when, through cut-outs, they pay a so-called voter protection group, Rove's excuses come out of activists' lips. Shame. Shame. Shame.


And the effect followed the cash: After taking loot from the wife of the CEO of ChoicePoint, VoteTrustUSA's executive immediately ran to the defense of ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls. The company testified their executives KNEW the list used by the state included, in their own words, "those who are not felons" ... that is, they watched thousands lose their civil rights, an election stolen, and pocketed the millions.


Arguably, ChoicePoint, because of its culpable knowledge, had more to do with the attack on civil rights and the theft of the 2000 election than Jeb Bush.


I don't mind debating with ChoicePoint (which they refuse to do); but I'll be damned if I will tolerate smears from one of their paid hand puppets smearing my investigative reports while wearing the purloined mantle of voter protection. VoteTrustUSA has violated the public's trust.


This is not the first time ChoicePoint has purchased protection from pretend voter activists. In 2000, their cover was a group called Voter Integrity Project. What we have here is a case of old tricks with new dogs.


I would welcome a public discussion with ChoicePoint executives, especially about my new findings released in my latest book, Armed Madhouse. But they refuse to speak with me on the record. In one of their weirder faints, the company demanded the right to defend themselves on the Randi Rhodes show on condition I not be in the studio. Randi agred -- and placed me in a glass booth just OUTSIDE the studio.


Mrs. Curling's money may not influence VoteTrustUSA. Likewise, Lockheed's payments to Mrs. Cheney may not have influenced our Vice-President. Nevertheless, these marital joint political accounts are the essence of conflict of interest. But the fact that policies and positions quickly align with the cash leaves the uncomfortable impression that Trust can be bought.

Greg Palast
www.GregPalast.com

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War."

Finally, because you have arranged kindly for official corporate positions of Choicepoint to be shared with an activist group, I'm wondering if you could arrange for Choicepoint to debate Mr. Palast, certainly not in Jackson HOle on Wednesday, but sometime soon in one of America's great cities. Lack of candor and communication breeds mistrust, and I think you simply must be in agreement that the time for candor and communication would be now. If your previously stated views remain intact, you've nothing to fear and Choicepoint has nothing to fear from a frank exchange of facts and opinion in debate format. I'm presuming that Mr. Palast will still be agreeable to his own stated desire to debate above, and I would certainly urge him to make whatever changes in his schedule may be necessary to arrive at a mutually agreeable date for this debate. (though I hardly know the man, sad to say).

My cell phone number is 425-422-1387 and my email is [e-mail] I haven't hesitated a lot to give these out, in fact I'd be willing to bet that Choicepoint has already got them. ; )

[flyingobject]

13. Landshark will be with Bush's Dick?

neato.

Jackson's Hole, that is where Dick Cheney is from.

Check here to see that I am not making this up.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/vicepresident/jackson.html

[Land Shark]

14. Please do tell if he's going to actually BE there, then i may avoid it

Jackson Hole, i think of as the home of famous trial attorney Gerry Spence. It's also the richest county in america, but I'm gonna be there for the scenery and because i used to backcountry ranger/student volunteer just north in yellowstone.

[Wilms]

17. Your "immediate reaction" may be part of the problem.

Another huge part of the problem is the opacity you've contributed (and then you write "There are many things that have to be discussed OPENLY" :rofl: :puke: ).

Instead of--in the spirit of "meaningful process of communication"--answering my questions to you, and the ones I asked for help clarifying the dispute, you write a four paragraph litany of paranoia and for dessert you ask Curling out for dinner.

I wouldn't make reservations.

Wow, LandShark. These "emerging dispute resolution methods" sure are interesting. :crazy:

[Boredtodeath]

21. I think........think, now.........

He was saying he's going to Jackson Hole on the State Bar Association's dime. You know attorneys - they get paid by the page.

[Land Shark]

32. it's a personal vacation, with my wife and two young children

[mod mom]

56. and a very well deserved one for all you do, Landshark!

Hope you enjoy for vacation.

:hi:

[SharonAnn]

2. Thank you for explaining this so well. For some reason, Election

Reform seems to need lots of scapegoats. Why on earth we're "eating our own" is beyond me.

The real battle is out there, against the dishonest Election System (processes and machines), and that's where we should be fighting.

It's my experience on complex issues like this, especially where relatively powerless individuals are up against a powerful corporate/government entity, that a multitude of responses may be needed to find the one that works best. That's where a group of citizens can bring so much strength, a variety of viewpoints and perhaps a variety of actions. There is almost never ONE RIGHT SOLUTION! And the best response might be a multitude of actions, like your description of lawsuits versus legislation.

Thank you for your candor, it's refreshing.

Power to you! And to all of us who are fighting for fair elections in many different locations.

[BeFree]

48. Good show Sharon

Words of wisdom that all need to remember. The forces against real reform of a messed up system are never so glad as when they see us eating our own.

Just remember, however, a few here are really not on the side of real reform.

[Land Shark]

52. Yes, a few are not on the side of real reform

as I've often said with $4 billion in voting machines plus control of the world's richest country and sole military superpower at stake plus dozens of life and death political issues, it would be almost absurdly unlikely that the activist debate would NOT be manipulated by God knows who? What greater motive could there be???

At the same time, we can't know for sure who is what. Getting into the issues of motives, which is what Mrs. Curling is talking about above, treads uniquely inside mrs. Curling's brain and heart, where the argument can be made that pretty much only she can know the truth.

But we can look at outward things. For example, a brief look at post history for DMAC will show many (mostly short) comments that are consistent with her stated beliefs in favor of election reform.

But then, I'd find more salient those posts that arguably start to move into Choicepoint territory, like issues of voter Identification being required at the polls, which many here consider a method of voter suppression (though not unanimously) while Republicans tend to hammer on this as an election security issue.

Mrs. Curling's DU post on voter identification is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=327751&mesg_id=327968

One, I have always puzzled over why people get up at arms about having to show ID. Since most everyone of voting age drives in our country, I do not understand why this is a problem. Secondly, if it is about minorities not having ID that can easily be remedied by having photo ID opportunities available with registration to vote - just as photo ID's are required for passports.

Secondly, the comment "There is an element of guilty of fraud until proven innocent in requiring voter IDs." Let's be careful here - the same could be true of our insistence to have verifiable voter paper ballots - the fact that we want this as a requirement is because we fear cheating and fraud. I personally believe the same can be said of requiring ID - because without it, cheating and fraud are made easier.

{snip}

Edited to add: further, any SoS's who stand in the way of recounts, or opposing legislation to demand them, should understand their motives immediately make them suspect. This is very true of Richardson, Blackwell, as well as Cathy Cox of GA - and probably quite a few others. 2/3 of those listed above are Dems and if Republicans cannot see that we are equally disturbed by their actions, they are not looking. Something needs to be done to highlight the bipartisan nature of this kind of legislation. It seems both sides want to believe the legislation targets one party over another - when in reality it only targets ANYone who even considers standing in the way of the intent of the people.

If Mrs. Curling can understand that "any SoS's who stand in the way of recounts, or opposing legislation to demand them, should understand their motives immediately make them suspect" as she does in the above post, then she can surely understand that her position in favor of voter ID, in light of her position as First Lady of Choicepoint, raises questions as well. She's arguably "standing in the way of free suffrage" and we have criminal laws, signature match requirements, and other mechanisms to prevent illegal repeat voting.

[Cookie wookie]

4. "The same night I found DU I also found BBV

and made donations to both organizations."

That sentence bears repeating here, since it is so matter-of-fact, it might get lost in the narrative, but is so completely amazing in light of what's happened at DU in the past few days.

It appears that Ms. Harris was also the recipient a donation or donations by Donna Curling.

"Some activists did not agree with this explanation. 'That’s called a stakeholder. If your husband is the President, you cannot make the claim there’s not a connection because your livelihood is tied to that company,' Bev Harris of Black Box Voting told Atlanta Progressive News. ...The Curlings are not only reliant on salary from Choicepoint; they are also stockholders, and so is their foundation, Harris said.

“Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either,” Greg Palast, an award-winning BBC journalist who has studied voting issues and Choicepoint, told Atlanta Progressive News.

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html

[Boredtodeath]

5. Uhh, hmmmmm, well.......

I'm speechless.......not much more to say, is there?

[flyingobject]

11. donated to bbv.org

Got Pattern?

1. donated money to bbv.org

2. stop donating money to bbv.org

3. donate to other organization.

4. bbv.org criticizes you to media for donating to other .org

5. got pattern?

[Land Shark]

47. BBV: sounds like it too should return a contribution

though if contributions are or were essentially anonymous OR were de minimis (too small to matter) it puts it in a different category. (i.e. a $50 contribution to a group that doesn't even put two and two together is a different deal, it seems to me).

But in this case, BBV should return the contribution regardless in this case, given its public statements on the matter (assuming it can be tracked down and verified)

But here again, unless the contribution is substantial AND with knowledge of who the donee is, and with the donee falsely believing she is on the "Board" of BBV, it doesn't raise all the same issues as are raised in recent threads here on DU.

Bev, return the money!

[Cookie wookie]

62. What is this about the "donee falsely believing she

is on the 'Board' of BBV"?

#1 That is meant as what?

#2 Mrs. Curling may not want to say what happened there, but from what I understand VTUSA thought they would have a board then decided against it. Wooo, bugga bugga. Let's get out the tar and feathers.

Since that supposedly sinister and incriminating "evidence" came from a private email which you were entrusted to keep private and violated that trust, maybe you might spend some time sweeping off your own side of the ethical street. By the time you get finished with the chore, maybe you will have gained a bit more perspective, generosity of spirit, and wisdom.

To give a level playing field, since you are unable to get off the persecution track, why don't you share all the names of organizations to whom you have been involved in any way as well as all your work history, who your clients were, all your personal associations, and where all your family members work and have worked over their lifetimes.

That way we can begin to investigate you (the Commissar) under the new rules for being good enough to be an activist in America.

If you are like most if not all of us, somewhere someone in your family or one of your friends or one of your associations is linked with a telecom that gave names and information to the NSA, the banking industry or some corporation or entity that is doing something we all hate and despise in the name of freedom.

For anyone who hasn't read it and thinks the philosophy espoused currently in terms of judgment and punishment of the Curlings is democratic or in line with true American values, read "Darkness at Noon," a classic by Arthur Koestler. The perspective being used to judge people here is identical to that of the bureaucrats who administered communist Russia just before the turn of the 20th century.

[BeFree]

104. Let Freedom ring! Or is that just the phone?

#2 Mrs. Curling may not want to say what happened there, but from what I understand VTUSA thought they would have a board then decided against it. Wooo, bugga bugga. Let's get out the tar and feathers.

My experience tells me that only by making a very large financial contribution to a gruop does one ever get a chance to possibly sit on some board.

To give a level playing field, since you are unable to get off the persecution track, why don't you share all the names of organizations to whom you have been involved in any way as well as all your work history, who your clients were, all your personal associations, and where all your family members work and have worked over their lifetimes.

Just call ChoicePoint, they should be able to supply you with all that information. For a price.

If you are like most if not all of us, somewhere someone in your family or one of your friends or one of your associations is linked with a telecom that gave names and information to the NSA, the banking industry or some corporation or entity that is doing something we all hate and despise in the name of freedom.

"...doing something we all hate and despise in the name of freedom".
And ChoicePoint does what? And in the name of what?

[flyingobject]

255. Oh do tell us about all of YOUR EXPERIENCE

You said:

"My experience tells me that only by making a very large financial contribution to a gruop does one ever get a chance to possibly sit on some board."

What exactly IS your experience?

Hadn't you already made it clear that you prefer to criticize others instead
of doing anything yourself?

Further more, Vote Trust made it clear that there IS NO BOARD.

Now, how about turning over all of your financial history as well as your
significant others?

[Kelvin Mace]

75. Bev needs to EXPLAIN why she attacked VTUSA

for conduct she HERSELF engaged in.

[fooj]

85. Look what was tracked down and verified today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441426

[BeFree]

6. So

Tell us what you have learned and what would you do to 'fix' things.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. brave and caring and effective

People don't realize how hard you have worked, or
how much you have accomplished, and alot of it the
old fashioned way -

I know that you did a bunch of grunt work,
i.e feet on the ground, working the hard way,
and helped Vote Trust garner quite a few more co-sponsors
for HR 550.

I feel sure that you have made a big difference,
with your dedication, your smarts, your eloquence and your
honesty.

I hope that those who have issues or concerns will meet with you
or otherwise discuss their issues or concerns about ChoicePoint.

I hope I have said this all right.

**PS about using lawsuits to get Verified Voting, they must be in
tandem with attempts to get legislation.
But I dont know of any cases where states got
verified voting just by lawsuits. Although it is possible.

Its the old carrot and stick.

*Back in Sept 2003, our state board of elections told me that the
only way I could get the state to ban paperless voting was to change the law.
Then, my colleague, Andy Silver - approached his lawmaker and we began a
long road to August 2005 - with a law passed.

[Kip Humphrey]

18. What Kerry had to say about further Federal Election Reform legislation

was dead on and puts the final nail in the H.R.550 coffin. Continuing to pursue Federal legislation (i.e., H.R.550) with this Congress is either a fool's folly or the work of the dark side. Besides, if those advocating H.R.550 were paying attention to the IT investigations in 2003/2004, they would know there are 3 methods that were determined could be employed to avoid fraud detection where audits/recounts were 5% or less: constrain the vote flip to 4% and reduce the chance of detection of more than one flip significantly (Ellen Theisen's demonstration of this repeatedly discovers no flipped votes); current vendor software was discovered to contain method #2 designed-in to easily circumvent audits of 5% or less where precinct totals aren't posted (see GEMS software's 3 detachable tables - works like an old fashioned shell game); and method #3, applied to 3% recounts/audits, is to avoid flipping the vote in the 3 subsets of fewest number of precincts that total 3% - flip the vote in the remaining precincts and never get caught (ensure it 100% by pre-selecting like Ohio did in '04). Of coarse if you screw up and a flipped vote county gets audited, just send in the technicians to fix things (also, Ohio in '04) Read the vendor contracts that stipulate 3% recounts and wonder...

H.R.550 as written (big caveat in this Congress!) calls for a 2% audit. You want the machines? Give me a truly random sample 10% real-time audit in ever precinct without signaling the system it is being audited and you can have the machines. Anything less and its fool or Darth.

Someone please tell me the only ones in the ER movement still pushing Federal legislation that keep the machines aren't just the ones who are affiliated with Choicepoint management and $$$. Am I hearing heavy breathing or Joker's Wild?

[Wilms]

19. Great post.

But is it a fool's folly to assume the legislation won't go anywhere with this Congress. So the point is moot in that regard? It's what I've been doin'

Is it a fool's folly to assume that under a more election-integrity friendly Congress, VTUSA could use some political capital to push for 10% audit (which I agree is essential to the legislation not being dangerous)?

[Kip Humphrey]

20. Yes...

Point 1: Kerry's point wasn't that the legislation wouldn't go anywhere in this Congress. It was where it would go to (i.e., what this Congress would do to it in Committee that would result in our being much worse off).

Point 2: Until that happens given the circumstances of rigged elections and illegitimate power, my answer is an emphatic YES.

Point 3 (my own): Any legislation that keeps these existing rig-intended (by design) machines in place and give them any legitimacy at all is no legislation I will ever support. Such legislation is most likely to only result in a panacea providing the majority of voters with misdirected confidence in what are otherwise corrupt and corruptible voting systems. Do that and where goes the political capital to effect anything? Down the drain.

Solutions MUST be achieved at the state and local levels until which time as we can toss these systems out.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. I'm really going to ask Quick Conceding Kerry for advice

:wtf:


Why would I listen to Senator Kerry for advice on elections?

This is the man that promised to have all of the votes counted.
(that is the only reason some people voted for him)

Then, of course, that didn't happen.

[BeFree]

24. Yeah, eat Kerry

Take another bite out of a dem. How'd that taste? When will you people get your fill?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

28. 7/25/2004 "Kerry promises every vote will count"

I didn't bring Kerry up, you did - as someone we should accept advice from
on election matters.

Its not about Dems, its about who would be a good person to
give advice on election matters.

He promised to count all of the votes -

Kerry promises every vote will count

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — John Kerry said Sunday that a team of lawyers
is looking at "each and every district" where there have been voting
problems to try to prevent a repeat of the 2000 election disputes..

Kerry said he put the legal team in place as soon as he secured the
Democratic presidential nomination in March. He said he also has
thousands of lawyers around the country prepared to monitor the polls
on election day.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-25-kerry-ohio_x.htm

Kerry's running mate, John Edwards urges Kerry to put up a fight,
but Kerry concedes -

Kerry throws in the towel

“In America, it is vital that every vote count ... but the outcome should
be decided by voters, not a protracted legal fight,” Kerry said,
referring to an earlier option of contesting the race in Ohio and
the fact that Bush was 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote.

Kerry was reported to have weighed several options, with his running mate,
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, counseling him to fight on
until all the votes were counted in Ohio,
a process that might not be complete for almost two weeks.
But in the end, Kerry told his supporters, “we cannot win this election.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363692/

*Yes, it would have been a tough battle, but we asked him
to fight for all of the votes.
Maybe it would have hurt his career, but we wanted the votes
to be counted. Two years ago.*

So here we are two years later, and the 2004 votes were
never counted.

[Boredtodeath]

29. OMG! You can't be serious!?????!!!

You tear a good DEM donor and activist to hell and back and have the nerve to complain about someone telling the truth about John Kerry???????????

No, this didn't happen. I'm having a nightmare. Has to be.

[BeFree]

33. How does it taste?

And what good DEM donor and activist did I tear to hell and back?

I'd say you are dreaming. Kerry ran for president, had his election stolen, and some of you eat him alive while Diebold sucks the lifeblood out of the country makes for the real nightmare.

But then, one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. That is the truth.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. which had best election advice - Kerry or Edwards?

just wondering, which democrat did you think gave the best advice?

I kind of like John Edwards advice better than Kerry's.

So which is eating your own - to go with Kerry's concession,
or to go with Edwards's lets count the votes.

As I recall, there was much money donated towards getting the 2004
election recounted, without help from Senator Kerry.

So, alot of people must have wanted 2004 recounted.

I know that I did.

But oh, that would be eating my own, right?

So there must not be any problem with our elections, right?

No need for recount in 2004, and no need for election reform, right?

[BeFree]

41. Now, you want to eat me?

What's wrong with that picture?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

43. does disagreeing with you = disloyalty to dems? I think not

you didn't answer the question.

Its not "eating your own" to disagree with one politician

Its about getting the best advice.

Which advice is better - concede and don't count the votes
or fight to count the votes.

Which advice is better - do nothing, or push election reform
legislation to the forefront.

Who has given the best advice so far?

To say that we/I would be "eating our own" for disagreeing with
what you say is Senator Kerry's advice - is alot like saying that
"opposition to the war is unpatriotic."

I can disagree with Kerry, I can be angry with Kerry, but that isn't
the same as "eating your own".

I disagree that preferring to having 2004 election recounted,
rather than a quick concession - is being disloyal to the democratic party.

I would have considered a recount to be a defense of the democratic party.

That - is hardly eating your own.

[BeFree]

45. Fact

Kerry both verbally and legally worked to get Ohio recounted. But since the judges in Ohio subverted the law it was for naught.


But this is what I object too as it seemed directed at me, these questions:

So there must not be any problem with our elections, right?

No need for recount in 2004, and no need for election reform, right?

You know better than to direct those type of questions at me, because you should know the answers by now. Either you forget, or you were just trying to make me look bad. Why? What is your problem with me? Spill your beans, be truthful.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

46. disagreeing with you does not equal "eating" dems

sorry, I disagree with you.

that makes me neither disloyal to dems or unpatriotic.

this IS a democracy, or is supposed to be.

[Blue Shark]

68. I Know I will get my fill...

...when JFK II quits dancing and hemming and Hawaing and Stands to tell the world He was elected President, he defeated George Bush, and the Election was Black Water Rotten.

...Every time there is any traction what-so-ever in the Election Reform Movement, the Assess of Evil all proclaim, "Well even John Kerry was satisfied with the reult and did not question it...so go to hell"

...His silence on this issue urts every day in every way.

...He needs to Beam a fucking spot light on this Issue Starting NOW, and Invite Al Gore along for good Measure.

...Then I will have had my fill.

[Land Shark]

51. Thanks to Kerry for better expressing something I'd tried to say

and that is that not only is the legislation fatally flawed, even if it weren't flawed it would end up being a trojan horse with last minute amendments

[Land Shark]

50. VTUSA's mantra is "Pass HR550 AS WRITTEN" (no amendments)

[Boredtodeath]

61. And he VALIANTLY tries to change the subject

not gonna work..........

[Cookie wookie]

63. Actually I think that was the mantra

after everyone had been asked and given weeks to comment and offer changes and the clock ran out. Think you came in late in the process. Hope you understand that by not delaying discussion and changes to the bill for your sake, that just means that others have priorities on time and work as well as yourself.

[Land Shark]

49. Very interesting post Mr. Humphrey; false confidence formula: HR 550

You should make this a thread of its own, too.

Legislation: when you need NEW rights or clarification.

Litigation: when existing or extant rights have been violated or the status quo disturbed.

Seeking legislation, while I don't rule it out completely, puts activists on their knees asking the government for "rights." This is democracy and the people are supposed to be IN CHARGE. While we all have to follow the law as passed, things are uniquely different in elections where the very means by which legislators get their power from the people is implicated. They are not permitted to say "OK, now that i'm elected, these are the terms under which you may challenge my re-election." The fact that we don't challenge this state of affairs is why incumbents in congress, for example, have 98 to 99% re-election rates.

So the choice is not legislation OR litigation. Litigation (in my view) should be primary but there can be legislative efforts in particular contexts that may be worthwhile.

But HR 550? As Kip points out and as amply discussed elsewhere, it is not even a step forward or a first step. Those 2% or more audits THAT CHANGE PRECINCT RESULTS will be easily invalidated as equivalent to "partial recounts" under Bush v. Gore, where Gore lost because he asked for only a few counties to be recounted rather than ALL of them. The current US Supreme Court will not have any difficulty doing so, that there might be some thin threads of argument against that position will not deter the present US SUpreme Court from finding partial audits THAT CHANGE RESULTS to be unconstitutional.

So, when in REALLY matters in 2008, the whole HR 550 confidence game would dramatically fail us. But the average voter would have their confidence restored thanks to the Holt bill, actually titled something like "the voter confidence act" of 2006 (assuming it passes this year) because of the "paper trails" (in the mind of the average voter, obviously holt uses 'paper records' as its term)

[mod mom]

57. Excellent argument against Holt. We know how much we can count on SCOTUS

to provide us which excellent choices on leadership. Thank Landshark.

[Cookie wookie]

64. Do you think the Civil Rights Act

was perfect? When has there ever been perfect legislation? Isn't much of legislation a moving, living breathing thing that people will always be tending and tweaking and changing as times change.

Certainly our framers knew this was just the nature of human beings. That's why it takes a Constititional Amendment to change that legal framework with ratification by all the states. Otherwise, we'd be tweaking it every day.

You missed the opportunity to give your feedback on the Holt Bill, but other law will be made, and nothing in Holt supercedes state law if state law is better.

BTW: If we hadn't had the Civil Rights Act, we'd still have a whole race of people disenfranchised in this country. The states were not going to do the right thing. Somebody had to start somewhere. Do you think King thought it was perfect? I don't know, but I doubt it.

[Land Shark]

81. "A good first step" is an awful way to cross a ravine or a chasm

nor is a good first step possible when walking the plank....

The whole notion of Holt audits accepts the machines as givens, and tries to put bandaids on to fix them or mitigate their bad effects.

Because HAVA/electronic machines are SO inappropriate for democracy, HAVA/electronic voting is like someone sticking their hand down the pants pocket of democracy and fishing around. You don't *negotiate* with this person to take their hand HALF way out, when the "trespass" so to speak is so totally inappopriate to begin with.

But HR550 negotiates for some half measures and alleged first steps, such that we are told that even though HAVA/electronic voting is probing/plumbing 100% of our pockets 100% of the time, Holt proposes that we take a picture of what's happening in those pockets of voting about 2+% of the time via "audits". We are thus reduced to debates about whether with 2% transparency and 2% disclosure we can actually tell anything at all about what the hand of Diebold is doing with our elections, while it's fishing around in the pockets of Lady Liberty.

No thanks. Better to take a few more steps than just one, walk the entire plank and die for your country.

[Wilms]

82. Would you suggest a higher percentage audit? n/t

[Land Shark]

83. Wilms, I don't think knowing what the elections are really doing

in even as many as 10% of the precincts constitutes a reasonable interpretation of my post above. If you like small percentage audits, you'll love severe glaucoma.

But if I was inclined to laziness and wanted to support electronic secret vote counting's continued existence, I'd say that the correct minimum percentage would vary by the size of the state from just under 2% in a huge state to as high as 18% or so of precincts in a really small state. (figures are approximate, haven't checked with the number crunchers on that one, but figures are correct rough ballpark)

[Wilms]

84. And higher if the race is close, perhaps? n/t

[Land Shark]

100. yeah, there isn't going to be a formula announceable in advance

as to how much or what will be audited. Holt "Sorta" does that by providing for the possibility of additional audits, but the problem is that those audits have to be supported by some sort of cause or finding based on the original audits (check the bill for precise language). IF the original audit is incapable of providing anything statistically significant, then there will never be valid legal cause for full audits. If the full audits go forward, the candidate defending the presumptive election result will hire experts to torpedo the full audits based on the illegal action of the eac of ordering full audits without sufficient cause to do so. As with Bush v. Gore in 2000, they will cite the supreme court's intervention to stop the recount as the authority to stop the audits.

[BeFree]

108. So

Even the 'treasured audits' will be contested in front of crooked judges, leaving us no recourse.

If we buy 550 we still have nothing but the same?

[Cookie wookie]

130. The question to Land Shark here is:

Could you be specific about your objections to Holt when it doesn't prohibit states from requiring a higher threshold for verified voting than the Holt standards?

[Cookie wookie]

176. Only if the first step doesn't include building a bridge. n/t

[Cookie wookie]

66. The Holt Bill doesn't push DRE voting.

If offers solutions to make using them in elections more secure, transparent and accurate. There is nothing in Holt that requires states to have DREs. I don't like the audit standards, but states can pass legislation to increase them.

What's the big hysteria about? Sometimes it seems like people have gone nuts.

The closest the federal government comes to requiring is in HAVAs accessibility requirements. But that's only because of the way HAVA is written and used and misused as a Trojan Horse by vendors. They convince state elections' officials that HAVA requirements for independent disabled access can only be satisfied by DRE voting. It's a lie, but it hasn't been that long ago (2 years) that there weren't options for independent voting by the disabled other than DREs, but some great things have been invented, like VotePad.

The problem is with the ignorance and/or corruption of politicans, election officials, the vendors, and most likely, to my way of thinking, a basic underlying political conspiracy hatched using HAVA, to move DRE voting into states for the specific purpose of stealing elections without leaving fingerprints.

The Holt Bill is a way to give some baseline regulations to that industry and to elections processes. Activists in states can work to get laws passed for better audits, total hand counts, whatever they want to improve on the requirements. They can get legislation passed for paper ballots, as long as they have a system to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements for those with disabilities. Activists can get their old DREs dumped, take them out into the desert and do a Burning Man Festival around them (well, that's my dream). States can do anything they want except have paperless unaudited DRE voting on proprietary software.

"The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast."

Get a grip people.

[Kip Humphrey]

171. Getting a Grip...

The Holt Bill doesn't push DRE voting. It offers solutions to make using them in elections more secure, transparent and accurate

REASON #1 NOT TO PASS H.R. 550: DREs or, more precisely, digital vote processing systems, whether employing DREs or OpScans, cannot be made secure, transparent or accurate. H.R. 550 will further institutionalize and legitimize existing and future corrupt and corruptible digital vote processing systems.

"The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast."

REASON #2 NOT TO PASS H.R. 550:If algorithms can flip individual votes (see Georgia 2006 Congressional Primary, McKinney; Feeney Demonstration Program, Clint Curtis; etc.; etc.), providing an false record on a piece of thermal paper to placate voters is a piece of cake. You fail to appreciate that digital data has no firm, fixed meaning attached. A "1" can be assigned at one moment to apple (as in "1" apple), as readily and indiscriminately as to orange (as in "1" orange) without altering the essential characteristic of the data (that being "1"). Your vote cast and counted digitally doesn't know from Kerry or Bush.

Unless you have an Apple computer with a MAC OS, you surely don't operate your computer without anti-virus and anti-spyware software, updating their definition files constantly. Why is this? Because spyware and viruses can enter your system and steal, manipulate, alter or destroy your data without your being aware it is happening. And because spyware and viruses are constantly being created or rewritten, the definition files used in combating such software must be constantly updated.
This is the REALITY of present day digital computing. You contend the Holt bill will harness this digital reality to improve our digital voting systems. I say digital voting systems HAVE NO PLACE in our voting processes precisely because of this digital reality and precisely because of the nature of digital data. I also contend that digital vote processing systems in election administration can never keep up with digital advances and will therefore always be highly susceptible to malicious intent. Why? Even if you start with secure, reliable and accurate systems (which they don't presently have), election administrators do not have nor will ever have the funds to maintain the necessary expertise and resources needed to ensure digital security and accuracy; nor to upgrade their systems sufficiently or in anything close to a timely manner in order to keep up with the evolving technologies (Fortune 500 companies have difficulty doing this and they have the money and resources).

A final point: having listened to the Congressional hearing the other day and having read the ER posts about HR 550, I've been struck by the

• incredible efforts
  
• convoluted logic
  
• complex processes
  
• amazing reliance on "future" improvements
  
• required multi-layered, interlaced bureaucracies
  
• large number of promises to implement this or that (all "going to do" in the future)
  
• settling for, get what's available mentality
  

ALL to try to ascribe legitimacy to what we KNOW are complex, unreliable, highly corruptible, extremely expensive, inaccurate digital vote processing systems. All of this, ALL OF THIS to avoid the most straight forward, sensible, common sense method of voting using paper and marker to cast a vote, hands and eyes to count the vote.

We don't need to "Get a grip". We need to "Gain common sense".

[Cookie wookie]

173. I agree with everything you say and

think you've articulated the situation we're in with electronic voting better than most. This has to be the conclusion that most activists working on this issue eventually come to after they fully learn about how the process works.

Were we differ is in whether federal legislation to put minimum standards on electronic voting helps or hinders getting the solution needed for secure, transparent, verifiable and accurate voting.

I oppose electronic voting as I said, for the reasons you articulate. I also think HAVA got us here and that is is a Trojan Horse inside which the intention to steal elections was hidden.

I also dislike making federal law governing voting, as much because I've seen the havoc created by HAVA, but also the kind of control such a law gives when it is put into the hands of those who are corrupt.

But then I think of where we'd be without say the Civil Rights Act, if we'd waited for the states to do the right thing, and wonder where African Americans would be today, if we hadn't had that federal legislation pass. Living in the South, I don't like the thought of how that might have played out, could we even say was likely to have played out.

What's important to me is that the Holt Bill does not stop us from getting hand counted paper ballots in the states. It doesn't mandate electronic voting. It just provides a baseline. Having worked for 3 years in a state that already purchased DREs and passed the laws while I was sleeping so to speak, and having to watch 3 elections take place on those machines, knowing that the state was not going to get rid of the machines in 2002,2003,2004, 2005 and now 2006, because none of us had the knowledge and power to make that happen, I see that federal law may be one way to ensure that no states will be allowed to have paperless DRE voting. Even having the legislation get the sponsorship and support it has has helped move us forward with our legislators in GA.

What happens if Holt should pass? It could break the deadlock for us and other states in similar positions. Maybe we'll beat the feds to it and get rid of the machines and getting paper ballots, counted by optiscan with the kind of audits that are statistically significant enough to ensure legitimate elections.

Our bill in GA calls for hand counted paper ballots on the night of the election that are printed by the DRES. Do we want DREs at all. No. But we have to work with what we have now to move to what we want.

Will Holt institute DREs, will everyone go okay Holt says this is okay so let's forget about getting more. And Holt, to repeat, only mandates a voter verified paper ballot that is the ballot of record, which can be just paper or paper + optiscan + audits.

No. Because activists like us won't let it end there.

[global_warning]

112. Excellent points, Kip.

Can you clarify, what do you mean by "real-time" audit?

And can you describe or link to Ellen Theisen' demonstration?

Those who still want to push this bill should recall how Congress turned the previous election reform legislation, HAVA, into an antidemocratic corporate welfare bill.

Regards,
Mike

[Cookie wookie]

142. Does that mean that no one should try to get

federal legislation until * is out of office?

[global_warning]

143. Until the R's lose control of at least one house of Congress

you'll never know what you will end up with, especially, IMHO, if you may be threatening their ability to keep control.

Anyway, the Holt bill is flawed already as it stands. Even a 10% audit floor is weak.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

145. You are right

lets stick to the 0 percent audit that all states except for
12 have.

Note - my state is one of the 12.

[troubleinwinter]

8. Thank you for this post and for your dedication...

I have seen the ugly smear threads... and they served to remind me to make a DONATION to VoteTrustUSA (which I did a few hours ago) for the work they have done and continue to do. I thank you for your work.

I thank you for your explanation of the 'email ID' question, because as someone who has had my personal information outed and posted on BBV site by Bev Harris, I can understand needing to take steps to avoid the harassment this can cause.

I think the threads have done much to expose the leopard spots of those who seek to smear and discredit genuine devoted activists. I also note that Rigel99 was tomb-stoned from DU.

Thank you again.

[Janice325]

9. I think you show an amazing amount of courage.

I read this thread a while ago, and didn't quite "get it."
Then I saw a very long thread, started several days ago. I didn't read it all the way through because it got ugly very quickly.It started reminding me of the "Andy bashing," Bev Harris "stuff" (I gave money to BBV once-oy!) and how much some of us can tend to eat our own.
Good luck to you and please take care of yourself.

[flyarm]

12. thank you so much for your candid , courageous post...

i commend you for coming here and dealing with this up front..and i applaud you sincerely! and i applaud you sincerity..thank you...and thank you for caring enough about our elections to get involved and trying to change this very undemocratic system of elections!!

fly

[ChrisdemW]

15. Ms. Curling:

I'm sorry you felt hurt and embarrassed. How do you think the minister in Florida felt when he was told WRONGLY that he could NOT VOTE because he was a convicted felon? Your husband's company made profits off that deal, and no I don't care when the deal was finalized. Why did it take Greg Palast to dig out the truth? Would your husband's company EVER have admitted the truth about the felon purge?

I'm sorry you felt mistreated on an Internet forum. Do you think my brothers and sisters in Florida felt mistreated when they were lied to and told they were felons and lost the civil right WE FOUGHT FOR for hundreds of years?

For the DU members who are so quick to applaud Ms. Curling's "courage" and "integrity": I'm sure she is sincere. The movie Quiz Show, a rich white WASP cheated on a quiz show and a working class Jewish guy did too. The working class Jew was ripped to pieces by congress and the press, but the rich WASP was sincere and passionate just like Ms. Curling here. A bunch of congressmen were quick to applaud him on his courage. Finally one Jewish congressman from New Yoak said wait a minute! While he appreciated the guy finally telling the truth it was only AFTER the guy had profited and damaged everyone else.

Before you befriend Ms. Curling, here's something to think about. She lives (Im sure) in a very fancy house, has millions of dollars, and doesn't seem to have a problem taking Choicepoint's dirty money herself. No matter how nice and sincere she is, you can't get away from how her family makes its living: Data mining and selling your personal information to Homeland Security, the FBI and the police. You can't get away from how her family's business was involved in buying illegal voter registration databases in Mexico and other places. You can't get away from the fact that she lives a nice life where the worst problem she has is feeling "embarrassed" about posts on an internet message board.

My African American brothers and sisters who LOST THEIR VOTES in Florida would be happy to exchange their hurt and embarrassment for whatever Ms. Curling is feeling.

Choicepoint bought the company that took fifty thousand votes away from my brethren in Florida and flipped the presidency. Choicepoint bought that company BEFORE the election but they SAID NOTHING. People lost their votes and it was not just because of DBT. It was because Choicepoint failed to tell anyone.

If not for Greg Palast, we still wouldn't know.

She may be being honest but your being naive.

[BeFree]

27. Right on, Chris

I couldn't have said it any better.

[peacetheonlyway]

35. amen!!!

you rock ChrisdemW

it's a perfect rebuttal... absolutely brilliant.
isn't this just slavery by white people all over again, only with a different white sheet covering the perpetrators?

[Land Shark]

53. very interesting points; we do have to balance rights, don't we?!

[Blue Shark]

69. Tell it Brother...Tell It!

[Cookie wookie]

70. Yours is an impassioned argument.

I can't imagine that anyone will read this, it's so long, but here goes.

What happened in Florida with the purging of voters' records so that they lost their vote is a national disgrace and a sin, a bloody sin on this country because those in Florida who perpetrated it got away with it with nothing but a little lawsuit. Harris when on to Washington. Jeb stayed as governor. Instead of Gore as president, we got Bush, and people not only lost their votes in Florida, but people all over the world have died or suffered or been falsely imprisoned and tortured because of it. So what happened in 2000 in Florida is at the crux of most of the animosity aimed at Donna and Doug Curling.

The poster knows that Choicepoint bought the company that created the database 5 months before the election, wasn't it in March 2000? So DBT had been working on the database on contract for the State of Florida for 2 years. DBT delivered that job to the state before the acquisition by Choicepoint.

Okay, so as Land Shark pointed out, Choicepoint had 5 months to do something. The question is, what? The databases had been delivered to Florida. They were created in accordance with the state's contract requirements. DBT complained about problems with the requirements but the state told them that elections superintendents would be going over that data and that it wasn't DBT's job to worry about it.

Knowing what we know now, in hindsight, we have 20-20 vision. Even so, can we for a minute think of this as a practical, real world situation. God knows I don't want to be defending DBT or Choicepoint. But there's something worth defending here which is the what Steven Colbert might call fact-based reality.

What was Mr. Curling to do? Does anyone think for a minute that with his obvious business acumen he would have bought a company headed for a major business, professional and personal disaster if he'd known about it beforehand? Was he supposed to know about all the details of all the contracts that DBT had administered, or just that they had a contract with Florida. But setting that aside, let's imagine he knew (since I haven't seen any proof).

What exactly were Choicepoint's employees to do? Try to go to Kathleen Harris and take back the database-- out of what we can presume would be her cold dead hands? Just exactly how does anyone think that might have worked?

Were they to go break into her office maybe or the offices of election officials and take the information back. Then what would they do, recreate the database according to newly created criteria and force the state to take it and use it? After DBT spending 2 years on it, Choicepoint is supposed to recreate it in a couple of months, somehow forcing the state to use it. Let's not forget there was a primary that summer and the database would have to get to election officials in time for them to go over it before the elections, who will be going over it to make it right, according to the lying state.

What's going on now is nothing more than a witch hunt. Rout out them witches and burn them at the stake. A friend just told me it's like it was in the 60s in Chicago at the convention. All the groups were warring with each other because they were all paranoid about having been infiltrated by contelpro agents.

Choicepoint has become the poster child for everything we hate in the fascist corporate takeover of our country. Anbd all the people and organizations like the Curlings, Vote Trust, Georgians for Verified Voting, who are damaged by that witch hunt are just collateral damage -- like a tsunami that sweeps away the innocent with the guilty without discrimination.

But we are thinking, feeling human beings. We don't have to behave like a natural disaster because we're afraid, bitter and angry at what has happened to our country and our fellowmen.

We can reason. We have analytical skills. We love. We hate war. We hate discrimination. We really love freedom. We don't have to behave like the supporters of our enemies who are so afraid they are willing to trash the Constitution in their panic to have the very thing they are destroying.

Now, please god I pray I will not have to defend the rights of Choicepoint or DBT to an honest and rational appraisal of the Florida disaster again. I'd never be able to work for the ACLU, I'm not that objective.

[Boredtodeath]

71. Wonderful post

That's an amazingly well thought out response.

I'd like to see ANYONE produce evidence, including Greg Palast, that Choicepoint even KNEW what DBT had agreed to in their contract with Florida.

The EVIDENCE shows otherwise.

I'd also like to know how many of these Choicepoint bashers have ever been involved in a corporate merger or purchase. My guess is ZERO.

[Land Shark]

76. Well, my practice areas are business litigation and consumer fraud

and within business litigation, the most common type of case that I've litigated involves purchase and sale of businesses and the issues that come up. In large transactions, this is referred to as "M&A" work, or mergers and acquisitions work.

As part of the due diligence for a merger or acquisition, boxes and boxes of documents arrive for the lawyers which are supposed to contain all of the material contracts, evidence of assets, and evidence of liabilities for the company in question. I'm sure Palast knows specifically, but if this transaction proceeded in anything like a normal manner, Choicepoint would review the DBT - Florida contract PRIOR to consummating the transaction.

In other words, it would be unusual that a purchaser such as Choicepoint would not receive and review a copy of any contract that still had liability or potential liability (a very broad concept) attached to it. Certainly, DBT's contract with Florida would suffice to meet that standard, very much so.

It is the opposite of what boredtodeath suggests, these contracts woudl be reviewed by a purchaser like Choicepoint, and a buyer would normally INSIST in reviewing them, so they know what they are spending their millions on.

[EFerrari]

92. Am I understanding this: the claim is that someone who

intended to go into the data mining business did not gather the information needed to know what they were buying?

[Boredtodeath]

94. No, not quite

Choicepoint was ALREADY in the data mining business. And you, nor I, have any idea whether or not due diligence was accomplished. If not, then Choicepoint pays the price. And, clearly, they are. Just read DU.

Now, if you think "data mining" was new with Choicepoint, you really should stop and think.

Have you ever heard of the Encyclopedia Britanica?

Newspaper reporters?

Credit reporting agencies?

Gossip columnists?

Paparazzi?

Sure you have. And when those gossip columnists or paparazzi invaded the privacy of a movie star, we didn't care one bit. It wasn't OUR privacy being invaded.

So, now, Choicepoint is the big, bad evil corporation because they're an easy target. But, you damned well better stop and think about your privacy when you go to WalMart or Target and buy something with a rice sized tracking device on it. Because, quite frankly, what I do in my home is STILL NOT BEING INVADED BY CHOICEPOINT.

But, by golly, WalMart, Target and all the big food chains are tracking every damned thing I purchase and how I used it when I brought it into my home.

But, keep on keeping on Choicepoint. In the meantime, I can find the information about which razor you buy and whether you shave your legs with it.

[EFerrari]

96. I have no expectation of privacy, Boredtodeath, none.

But it would be very strange if a company in the information business neglected this aspect of a purchase.

[BeFree]

101. That's a lie

BTD says:In the meantime, I can find the information about which razor you buy and whether you shave your legs with it.

No. You. Can't.

[Boredtodeath]

118. ROFL, OK

Anything you say BeFree :sarcasm:

[BeFree]

121. Maybe one day

The way things are going, what with ChoicePoint, Promis, and Ptech, you may one day be able to do just that; find my leg.

Will that make you happy?

[Boredtodeath]

123. Quite frankly

The further away you are, the happier I am.

I prefer to associate with positive people who are working for a goal.

[Wilms]

78. Thanks for your post as it goes to the heart of my questions.

From Palast's own writing I gleaned what you wrote in the first three paragraphs.

In fact, I'm not sure what dbt or ChoicePoint should have done assuming the reassurance from the state that the data would be vetted by the counties.

If, however, dbt/ChoicePoint had reason for concern despite the state's assurances, and was not bound to secrecy, it seems they should have filed a complaint. But I don't know the law.

As to ChoicePoint not knowing what it was getting into I'm not so sure. As LandShark rightly points out in Post 76, "due diligence" is not something taken lightly. I'm sure things are missed, perhaps negligently, but my understanding suggests that less likely. And if dbt hid stuff, that would be another matter.

It is possible that "due diligence" did turn up cause for concern and it was decided to purchase, despite the problem, and deal with litigation if forced to. And if that was the case, I'd still be open to consider CP was being a good guy...or bad one.

I don't know enough.


We get hung-up on believing we have the (only) right answer. Better to focus on the right question. Then the answer will come.

[EFerrari]

88. They could have gone to the press. I understand dealing with

real. It's a much better way to do things. :)

In the real world, ChoicePoint had the resources to out this but did not because it would have been bad for business.

That's reality.

[Wilms]

16. Here ya go.

Welcome back to the "Unarmed Madhouse".

Aren't YOU having an interesting life.

Your resume provides unexpected perspective. And the fact that it includes Rigel99 giving you a hard time would seem a plus to many.

It still does not resolve in the minds of the under-informed, like me, the disagreement Palast and Gideon have. But apparently, a number of posters realize the possibility that the phrase "ChoicePoint Purged Voters" may be less than accurate. Hopefully, we'll sort that out.

In the meantime, have you and your husband ever considered opening a Bed & Breakfast somewhere. :)

[Boredtodeath]

22. Well, good news! Bev says Diebold is the villian!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441349

Looks like Choicepoint is off the hook.

[flyingobject]

26. she donated to DU to

Donna donated to DU too, according to her message.

[Stevepol]

25. You have nothing to be ashamed of or sorry about if it's as you say.

If you've been honest and you've been working for a good cause, there's no cause for sorrow or alarm or anything. In politics you can't possibly have everybody like you or understand your motives correctly.

Just keep working for the things you truly believe in as honestly as you can.

What else matters?

[peacetheonlyway]

34. just a simple question

if you were bringing a lawsuit against Choicepoint, would you take money from the wife of it's CEO? ok, how about this analysis, if you were bringing a lawsuit against Diebold and you received an offer of money from it's well publicized partner Choicepoint, would you take it?

it's always a personal decision...
but the crux of the argument is that some money is 'strategic money' and for strategic reasons needs to be left on the table.. anything else is just psychobabble....

[peacetheonlyway]

30. thank-you for your honest and very emotional explanation BUT IT DON"T WASH

but I choose to view your life and Doug's with the camera lense of Greg Palast.
www.gregpalast.com his report on Mexico is all I need to know about Doug or Donna Curling...
\A Democracy Now! Exclusive Report
THEFT OF AN ELECTION: MEXICO
By Greg Palast

MEXICO CITY Protest

WATCH THE REPORT

TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-con-salsa

GREG PALAST: July 3rd, I was in my office in London when the phone rang. It was Mexico City. I was told, “Take a look at the Mexican papers.”

Responsible now for 2 stolen US presidential elections and now Choicepoint finger prints on the clearly stolen Mexican election, I am going to find Choicepoint (and by association it's CEO / Board members, wives of CEO's etc.) 'guilty as charged'. And like it or not the CEO and his family are part of a corporation's behaviour, because it is now about personal and financial accountability and the stakes are the honesty of our democracy. Quite simply Doug took millions in stock transactions after knowing his company had defrauded their clients of their identities. The AJC took the Curling's identities in retribution for their theft of other identities.. it was a perfect punishment for a perfect crime....

take your money and your emotions elsewhere, we have an honest election system to build in the US and your whining only hurts activist causes that are wise to avoid you like the plague. Your throwing money around does not fool many of us.

you'll find that people who turned you down are working on the real issues of election fraud and others as you mention, such as defenders of democracy who thought legislation was the way to go, well, guess what? news for you, they decided legal fight was another good way to fight and have a VoterGA lawsuit publicized and underway. perhaps both a legislative and legal strategy is wise in these very precarious times...

so in the end... perhaps Rigel99 was correct in her strategy as well about legal fighting as being a powerful deterrent to vendors who push machines that steal elections or vendors who participate in such stealing like Choicepoint....


oh yeah, and by the way, you forgot the part about how Rigel99 was offered and did not take a penny of your money because she knew that it was 'dirty money'

but in the end, there is no need for personal attacks... you are a person who deserves love and kindness and supportive friends who share your political causes. I wish this for you..... I'm sad to say until you divorce Doug or encourage him to take a different role/responsibility as CEO of Choicepoint, you will never have that kind of life....

that my dear may be your spiritual mission to untangle...

[MelissaB]

31. I'd like to see evidence of this:

oh yeah, and by the way, you forgot the part about how Rigel99 was offered and did not take a penny of your money because she knew that it was 'dirty money'

Or should we pretend not to know who Rigel99 is/was and dance around that issue, too?

[Boredtodeath]

37. From an American living in Mexico re: Greg Palast

His reporting on the Mexican election was filled with historical errors, misinterpretations and slovenly reporting.

snip....

No Mexican ballot passed through any kind of mechanical or electric counting device. They were filled out manually in ink by human beings who marked an X on the boxes of candidates of their choice, identified by a party symbol and name.

The ballots were manually counted by precinct representatives of all parties, who were required to read the count out loud together, and then sign off on the final tally.

Apparently the ballots were reviewed again at the Instituto Federal Electoral regional centers, because the final figure was 827,000. In his next story he used the new figure, but failed to explain how it came about, and continued to imply that these null ballots were evidence of fraud.

snip.....

As far as I can tell, none of his stories on the Mexican election showed any sign of original research, except one in which he claimed to have found voters who were not allowed to vote even though they had valid voter IDs. He gave no names, showed no photographs of either the people or their voter IDs, and did not present any statements from the precinct officials.

[Cookie wookie]

59. Peaceistheonly way, some points for discussion:

You said that you: "view your life and Doug's with the camera lense of Greg Palast" and his report on Mexico.

When I've looked at previous work by Palast, I've found that he did not have the kind of rigorous objectivity that would be required if one were to rely ONLY on his work or his word when making a critical analysis of an issue, or in this case, judging the character of a person. I find Michael Moore’s work to be similar. They both work as investigative journalists in a sense, but their work doesn’t pretend to be objective. They have a mission and a perspective that their research supports (or vice versa).

These aren’t academic publications, nor are they intended to be. That doesn’t mean works of this kind don’t convey factual information, aren’t valuable, or aren’t an entertaining read in support of one’s political worldview.

And certainly you have every right to draw conclusions about Choicepoint, and by association the Curlings, from the information you find in Palast’s work. But there is a danger if any of us believe, as you seem to indicate here, that one individual’s perspective is 100% reliable.

Thomas Jefferson and the early framers of our Constitution codified the need for a democracy to have a populace who were exposed to the entire spectrum of opinion so that they could freely make reasoned judgments. Because one opinion or perspective does not wisdom make. We are all fallible, have our personal peccadillo's, our blind spots, our prejudices.

The basis of democracy is the rule of law, which itself is founded on the discovery of the truth by using facts established from objectively examining sources connected to all sides of the argument.

Without that law, what we have is mob rule, the law of the jungle, a pig’s head on a stick.

Let’s take one example of the problems we run into if we start to rely too much on basing our decision making on the opinion of one person:

“ ‘It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s NOT a question of good or bad . When your decisions could effect the financial fate of a company, are they investing in you? Is there a quid pro quo?’ Palast said,” in the recent APN article posted to DU by LandShark.
(http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0069.html)

Palast goes on to say “Candidates for office should not take dirty money, and voting advocates should not take dirty money either.”

You use that term “dirty money” in description of donations from Mrs Curling.

Of course we now hear from Mrs Curling that Blackbox Voting also took contributions her, which means that, using Palast’s argument and the conflation of the Curlings with Choicepoint that it infers, Mr. Palast would have to also conclude that Bev Harris of BBV is guilty of taking “dirty money” from Choicepoint.

Remember, this is the Bev Harris/BBV that brought us all the Harri Hursti tests that resulted in a great leap forward in advancing the goals of all election integrity activists.

But since you indicate that Mr. Palast’s word is all you need to make your judgment of Choicepoint -- and vis a vis the Curlings – and your post indicates you subscribe to his view of guilt by association, then you would have to agree with the headlines, “BBV.org Takes Dirty Money From Choicepoint Prez’s Wife,” “Choicepoint Invests in BBV.org”, and finally, “BBV.org Guilty of Conflict of Interest RE: Choicepoint and Voting Issue.”

If looked at from this perspective, hopefully not just you but all involved in this issue will see there is something out of kilter with the logic being used to form opinions of the Curlings and their Democratic activism (and their right to be activists).

Guilt by association is another problem the founders of this country sought to eliminate when they wrote the Constitution. If any of us donate money to a political candidate or cause in the manner legally prescribed by law, by Mr. Palast’s standards (again from the quotes above), that means we are all immediately suspect of seeking quid pro quo or that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the transaction.

For in a democracy and under the rule of law, either we have a standard that is applied to everyone or no one. This is essential for our freedom, so that we will not be persecuted, arrested, or otherwise have our freedom infringed upon because of the judgment, prejudices, or personal opinions of others.

There are no special exceptions to the rule, unless you are the Bush Supreme Court. If we do not live by the standards set forth in our Constitution in our social dealings with our fellow men and women, we are venturing into treacherous waters. Certainly we might question whether we are living up to the kind of Democratic standards we politically espouse for others and are trying to uphold by our activism.

Our thinking and our actions must be the living embodiment of the principles of our democracy. The words on the pages of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless unless they are carried into the world in our human dealings, in our social interactions, and in our hearts.

[Febble]

65. Superb post n/t

[BeFree]

67. Innocent until proven guilty! Yes Sir!

Choicepoint has not been convicted and they never will be! They have lawyers, and money, and friends, So there!

Besides the constitution what do we have? That's all we got.

It is just a piece of paper.

We can hold that paper, we can have our own receipt. We don't have to depend on an electronic version, but we do have to get some smart ass mofo to read that paper and tell us what it means, eh?

Look what the smart ass mofos did in 2000... they said "you don't count."

Isn't that what they told us? So, it doesn't matter what you think about that Paper, does it?

But it does matter what you think, and what I think. And I think those rich bastards who can buy their way around the constitution need to have their heads examined.

Now, all this is about our vote, about our power to select the right smart ass mofos.

And that power has been bought... and sold. So that's what this is about: Who's buying and who's selling.

Well, I ain't buying.

And My vote ain't for sale.

[Kelvin Mace]

139. If everyone's bought an sold

what is the point of voting?

According to you the fix is in. We can't change the law because Bush won't allow it. If we pass 550, corrupt judges will screw us with the audit provision.

We are pretty much screwed no matter what we do according to your thinking, so we should all just quit.

[BeFree]

140. Wrong impression

No we fight it. The whole way. All the way until we get a system that we are all comfortable with.

Believe it or not, there are people looking up to us to tell them that a system we approve of is in place. Surely you can't honestly say that now?

As for not being able to change the law, you know that's not true. Look at how you helped change it in NC. And how 20+ other states did so.

I guess you are just mad at me, and want a piece of me. That's why you would say such a thing as: "what is the point of voting?"

Please, Kelvin, don't even go there again. Not with me, not with anybody. My vote will not be bought or sold, and if I can help it, it won't ever be stolen.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

149. good thing NC didn't take your brand of advice

Talk about unmitigated gall:

"Please, Kelvin, don't even go there again. Not with me, not with anybody.
My vote will not be bought or sold, and if I can help it, it won't ever be stolen. "

When it comes to NC's election law, or getting an election law passed,
or defending an election law - Dont even go there with me or Kelvin.

If we had listened to your sort of advice, our state would have
100% paperless voting, and Diebold sure as crap would not have left our state.

Especially since they make the touchscreens here.

*Diebold leaves NC, court battle -
http://www.ncvoter.net/dieboldnews.html

" In fact, jurisdictions in North Carolina have a special benefit when
working with Diebold Election Systems because their voting systems are
manufactured in their own backyard, Lexington, North Carolina."
http://www.ncvoter.net/diebold.html

You don't know Jack.

And you aint qualified to talk about North Carolina law,
unless you sweated blood and tears to get it done in the first place.
And we know that you didn't.

Your condescending "eat me" remarks are nasty and crude.

Instead of tearing down people who got results, why don't you
give us your clear plan of what you want to do?

It disgusts me when someone constantly belittles but never offers
a plan of action except for some vague

"No we fight it...."

That is like saying -
"just trust me.."

North Carolina has made huge process, and we have something
to build on.

We didn't get there with your kind of advice.

[BeFree]

166. With attitudes like that...

...its a wonder yall had success in NC. Of course the fact that 4,400 votes disappeared in one county had an awful lot to do with NC making new laws. The people in that county raised hell.

What I told Kelvin was to not go there with his words "why vote", or some stupid crap like that. That is the first time I've read those words from a serious activist. If you do a search, you will find I have many times fought people that have said that's what election activists were saying, and here I see it for the first time, from Kelvin. Shame.

[Kelvin Mace]

168. The question was rhetorical

not serious.

The rep for Caterete Co. was on the committee with me. A very nice lady, but I think she asked maybe two questions the entire time.

Yes, the fact that Caterete lost 4,400 votes certainly helped. The fact that Joyce and I WARNED Gary Bartlett in the Spring PRIOR to the election that it could happen, gave us a bit more clout.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=170x3669

Electronic voting machine reform activists David Allen and Joyce McCloy can look back on an embarrassing election season in North Carolina and utter a familiar phrase: "I told you so."

Allen and McCloy, who both live in the Triad, are among the grassroots organizers who warned state leaders and election officials starting a year ago that North Carolina's electronic voting machines could cause a monumental meltdown on Election Day.

Some election officials leading up to the Nov. 2 general election dismissed the critics as alarmist or misguided, saying that electronic voting machine technology would ensure a verified vote.

Instead, North Carolina became the national poster child this election season for a voting machine fiasco.

Allen said that last year, before the general election, he advised state officials that if an electronic voting machine failed, "you better hope it's in a race where there's a clear winner because, if not, there are going to be a lot of lawsuits."

In the Carteret County situation, Allen said, the machines accepted ballots but didn't record them. State officials didn't pay enough attention before Election Day to the reliability of electronic voting machines, he argues.

"No one tampered with the machines in Carteret," he said. "It was exactly the kind of scenario we foresaw - poorly written and poorly checked software."

[Kelvin Mace]

167. The point I am trying to make is

I am tired of people telling me that it won't matter because corrupt judges have the fix in.

I don't want a piece of anyone, I am just very tired of this.

Read my new post on HR-550 to get a more detailed discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441999

[BeFree]

172. Awww

You want me to get over the SCOTUS stopping the recount in Florida, and also you want me to stop talking about keeping the vote as far away from judges as is possible?

I guess you want me the just STFU?

Ain't gonna happen.

[Land Shark]

162. It would not take a "corrupt" judge to rule against HR 550, any judge

would be highly likely to, IMO. However, the Supreme Court, I would *guarantee* would rule against it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

163. well Mr. Lehto, lets all run home with our tails tucked between our legs

great advice for quitters.

Just don't even try.

Just lay down and give up because a blogger told you to.

We might be successful, and that would put a bunch of
"activists.orgs" out of business.

We must be too afraid to even try.

[Land Shark]

170. I think this is the first time i've been called a blogger, so thanks

Bloggers are adding a lot of value in the world these days.

[EFerrari]

91. I don't find the appeal to the framers, rich white men who

were protecting their property, moving. Nor do I find your estimation of Greg Pallast's brand of journalism a reason to discount his conclusions.

And we all know that Harris grifter would take money from the devil himself. That she was involved in the Hursti hack doesn't absolve her unless you have a personal view that the ends justify the means.

The ends don't justify the means. That keeps getting lost in this discussion.

The Curlings have every right in the world to their avocations. And we have every right to protect our elections from those who prey on them, including those who enable or benefit from voter suppression and election theft.

[peacetheonlyway]

114. great post sfexpat2000

nothing more needs saying....

[Cookie wookie]

175. Anyone who denigrates the founders of this country

doesn't appreciate the freedom and justice FOR ALL that was built into the documents they created, and on which this country was founded. By God, I feel thankful and grateful every day for what they created. Martin Luther King was a black man, an educated man. Could we similarly say that we shouldn't appeal to the awe inspiring beauty and majesty of his words, his philosophy should be disregarded because he was black and educated?

What philosophy does one cleave to if they disregard the principles on which the Constitution stands in their lives, because the framers weren't worthy enough for them?

There is a brand of elitism woven into this discussion, but it's the kind of elitism that comes from the ongoing and timeless war of the haves and those who believe they are more righteous because they think they are the have-nots. The Constitution is the rea,l and to my thinking the only, path for equality and freedom for all. We are not all equal in talents and gifts but under the Constitution we are all equal under the law. They espouse an elitism built on prejudice, injustice, self-righteousness and hatred, the very antithesis of democracy.

[EFerrari]

187. No, please, let's not elevate this debate so high

that "they", I mean I, can't manage to follow it!

:rofl:

[livvy]

36. Thanks for your post.

As others have mentioned I think it took some courage to post it. As you have discovered recently and in the past, this can be a tough place to post if you aren't willing to risk, at times, a personal vs an issue debate.
You sound sincere in your desire to help Dem. causes/candidates, and for your efforts (including those of the non-financial kind), I thank you. I wish I had the financial means to do more of the same.
For me the enigma is your business interests vs your personal interests. I'm having a hard time reconciling the two from what I've read here, in various books, and other web blogs/sites. I understand that your company acquired the original company that did the voter purges, but I still have questions about ChoicePoint's current involvement in data gathering. (I have visited the website, so I have an idea of some of the types of work done by ChoicePoint.) Like Wilms mentioned, it would be helpful if some of the current concerns could be sorted out.
Again, thanks for posting your side of the story. It is helpful to see all sides of an issue, both intellectual and affective.

[dmac]

38. Against the advise of many

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.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

40. na

just expect endless closing arguments from land shark.
That is just his nature.

Nothing anyone says will change that.

[Land Shark]

55. well boredtodeath, at least one of my "closing arguments" was correct

according to Mrs. Curling in her post just above. But I'm sure she will find things to disagree with me about. That's democracy.

Hey, boredtodeath, Wilms, etc. Let's all try not to take this worse than Mrs. Curling does herself. She looks forward to posting facts and not emotion.

Wilms, regarding "opacity", i've asked you to get that signed release, I hope you are fair enough to realize the source of any lack of transparency and/or opacity: it comes from possible distracting (though invalid) claims of confidentiality or trade secrecy as to vtusa emails.

If you want to see a lawsuit attacking trade secrecy in election vote counting, check mine out at www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

I just think it is EXTRAORDINARILY poor practice to broadly assert secrecy or confidentiality once issues really are in the public domain. The only exception generally would be techniques to discover fraud: Those ought not to be generally disclosed (like how audits will be conducted, e.g., 2% or more on a precinct basis) because that just tells wrongdoers what they need to avoid the detection of. Of course, that's the HR 550 approach to fighting fraud.

[Boredtodeath]

60. Nothing you've claimed has been true or correct

Except that VTUSA gave you the boot for undermining their work.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. And the facts support that assumption.

[Land Shark]

77. I'm just feeling too good here in Jackson Hole to respond to that

except to say that VTUSA stressed its commitment to freedom of thought and speech, so the idea that I was let go due to "undermining" them when all I ever really do is make my views clear to willing listeners, would, I think, put VTUSA in a position of playing censor, something they adamantly denied. Were you on the vtusa list at the time boredtodeath?

[Boredtodeath]

90. Now, I think this IS a response........

You truly ARE deluding yourself.

Nope, never been a VTUSA member. Sorry.

As for your response, your agenda is showing.

[AmBlue]

113. Well I was/am a member of VT, and....

All I have to say is that whenever I tried to shoehorn my head into your convoluted logic and opinions, Paul, that you always present as FACT, I came away every time with one overwhelming headache and an even more overwhelming conclusion. I simply HAD to IGNORE your posts and get back to WORK. Many others felt the same. The whole HR550 smear and distraction that you mounted was a total waste of time and energy and destructive to my personal goals for our county and state, as well as to the work of all our groups in the coalition.

I WILL NOT be distracted, sucked in, or deterred by this crap. Look at the hours everyone here is spending on this!! YOU, FIRST AND FOREMOST, PAUL. There can be no justification for taking valuable human resources away from this important cause. It is painfully obvious that your agenda, Paul, does not match those of us who are working.

I have NO PATIENCE for this. We have WORK TO DO for God's sake. Elections are looming and, personally, I'd really like to know what everyone's plans are for pollworking/watching in your area and helping to repair our democracy.

Excuse me while I get back to work. *stomps off frustrated*

[livvy]

42. I look forward to further discussions. n/t

[Janice325]

44. Thanks for coming back.

Looking forward to further discussion.
Have a safe trip.

[Land Shark]

54. Thanks for the clarification: it's hard for all of us at time to wrap

our minds around inconsistent, yet simultaneously true, conceptions, keeping them both in mind at the same time without dismissing either. Yet Keats called that capability "negative capability" and considered it the key to intelligence.

Negative capability is required to understand these two statements, since some will be tempted to suggest that the first one is not truly intended: (1) I hope your trip is a good one, really I do, please post as soon as you can. (2) I also think there are serious problems here with Choicepoint and how it intersects with this movement and with our democracy, and those do involve you in part because you've involved yourself with Choicepoint.

Off To Jackson Hole! Wish you ALL were here, it's great in WY!!

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

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

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

252. accusations like that don't faciliate peace

How is it that you gave yourself the name
"peacetheonlyway"?

I don't see how any "peace" will be arrived at with your message.

It seems to be purely an attack and nothing more.

While you may not have physically attacked, your words surely did.

[rumpel]

58. I agree. I have been following the debate

the past few days.

To me, it seems there is an inherent underlying dilemma of who you are as a person and your choices and decisions you make in life. I too, do believe Ms Curling is sincere in her intent to assist the cause.
However when her life philospohy is in direct conflict with a company philosophy she is involved with, and at that, being part of the executive circle, I wonder whether Ms Curling has in fact worked out this conflict to her satisfaction.

Good luck and best wishes Ms Curling, but please know that actions of companies like Choicepoint affect many people and you and your husband seem to be in a position to have the power to change that.

I believe there are always responsibilities and consequences to your actions and choices you make in life.

I don't envy you.

Like I said before, Walk the Talk - are we not all working towards it in life?

[Zan_of_Texas]

74. Thanks for all the posters who have sincerely tried to get at the facts.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Donna Curling, for stepping into the fray, and I look forward to further discussions.

There are a few people who are not attempting to shed light here, but hey, it's not the first time.

Paul posted in another thread that Donna claimed in an email to be on the board of VoteTrust. Paul's post was accurate, and has now been discussed by Donna:

As long as I am making public statements about things which have confused people I will take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that no, I am not, nor have I ever been on the Board of Directors for VTUSA – CONTRARY to a claim that I made in a post to the Leaders list back in Feb (I think) of this year. There were reasons I thought I was but there were issues of legitimate confusion which were subsequently straightened out.

From this point on, I would expect that organizations involved in election integrity will give us the same kind of transparency we require in elections -- who is on their board, and who their major funders are, especially if those funders are tied to a company such as Choicepoint.

I once worked for a law firm that was defending Brown & Root in major litigation (Brown & Root is now the KBR division of Halliburton). Most of many many work days was spent in defense of Brown & Root. I thought about quitting, even back then (this was before Cheney). But, didn't. It was hard to go to work each day, I will tell you that.

Donna Curling's family livelihood is directly connected to a company that profits by shrinking an irreplaceable resource in this country -- privacy.

And, to the extent that the data mining enables further consolidation of power in the hands of the government and those already in power, the company enables the further shrinking of another irreplaceable resource in this country -- democracy and freedom of expression.

A train engineer whose job was to drive a train in Germany in the 1930s might well say, "Hey, all I'm doing is driving the train." But, if all the train operators had refused to drive boxcars full of Jews, gypsies, gays, and resisters to the concentration camps, perhaps the immense tragedies of that time could have been halted, or slowed down at least.

As we write here, there is someone somewhere loading ammunition or bombs onto a transport, to take to the Middle East.

I am not calling Choicepoint the equivalent of a Nazi organization -- just pointing out that an enterprise that enables bad actions should be closely examined, even if legal. A government that would wage war on Iraq, at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives, cannot be trusted with billions of private data points on Americans.

We all need to think carefully about what role we play in furthering our own value systems, and how we may also be -- wittingly or not -- assisting in things we abhor.

[Bill Bored]

79. This makes sense, but if we fix the election system, we should be able to

regulate the ChoicePoints of the world which cannot always be expected to regulate themselves. If VoteTrustUSA and other organizations are needed to do that, then what purpose does it serve to denigrate them? (I'm not necessarily saying you are.)

Why not write letters to Congress and other officials asking them to regulate data mining? If they don't do it, vote them out! But to do that, we need free and fair elections, don't we?

VTUSA has already partially responded to some of your questions. The ballpark was $50,000 total donations of which some fraction was from Mrs. Curling. This was in another thread; maybe you missed it. But that's what happens when people post on other forums that have nothing to do with Election Reform. That's always been a pet peeve of mine; it has nothing to do with Land Shark or ChoicePoint. So if this is the kind of money we're talking about on an annual basis, I think VoteTrustUSA is giving a fair return for the cause of election integrity. Certainly no one's getting rich or being influenced for that kind of money! You'd have to go someplace like CONGRESS to sink that low, wouldn't you? ;)

As to their "board":
<http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=31>

[Boredtodeath]

93. Sorry, Zan, that's just not always the case

Let's just take for example work I did with an election reform group...........

There were 2 pieces of VVPT legislation.......1 bad, 1 excellent..........7 members of the Board of the organization.

Some of us were vehemetly opposed to the bad legislation and we put it to a vote. We lost.

The organization got behind the bad legislation.

You can't always effect change, not even a minor change, if you are outnumbered.

You see, it didn't matter who refused to drive those trains - because there were many standing in line to do so. And, walking away meant the train driver couldn't even speak to the others to change their minds.

You can't effect ANY change if you're not part of the conversation.

[Land Shark]

105. Good post Zan, I'd like to hear some follow up on this Curling quote:

Quote: "CONTRARY to a claim that I made in a post to the Leaders list back in Feb (I think) of this year {I am not on the Board of VTUSA}. ****There were reasons I thought I was***** but there were issues of legitimate confusion which were subsequently straightened out." (emphasis added)

Now, I've been told via Joan Krawitz here on DU that I "know full well" that the First Lady of Choicepoint has no role on the Board of VTUSA, since said Board doesn't even exist, actually. (there are simply "leaders" of VTUSA as a non-incorporated association).

STill, there are **reasons** why Donna Curling really thought she was a Director, and the reasons for that confusion quite probably overlap to some extent with the reasons for my "confusion" as to who is on the Board of VTUSA. Moreover, Donna admits that at least her confusion was "legitimate."

In contrast, here I am in a position of somewhat less information, being pilloried by VTUSA for daring to say what Donna said herself flat out, as a product of "legitimate confusion."

But I don't concede that Donna was wrong in her first written, carefully crafted statement in which she said she was on the Board of VTUSA and funded various projects.

Sometimes people let things slip, you know, and the subsequent denial of the slip up admission is NOT the BINDING TRUTH ON THE WHOLE WORLD, especially when VTUSA has no official legal structure that files lists of officers with government agencies, etc. The Freudian (or other) slip may in fact reflect a greater truth.

Simply put, when the First Lady of Choicepoint says she's on the Board of VTUSA due to "legitimate confusion which was subsequently straightened out," the correction of that mistake, whether slow or rapidly occurring, is by no means so authoritative and so incontestible that it can be fairly said that I "know full well" that Donna curling is NOT on the Board of VTUSA, as Joan Krawitz has alleged.

People have also said that there's no evidence that "any member" of VTUSA has defended Choicepoint. See posts by Amaryllis in GD thread, e.g. Good Lord, are we now going to deny that Donna Curling is even a MEMBER of Votetrustusa and/or that she does not DEFEND Choicepoint at all?

THen, in reply 12 to the GD thread, Joan Krawitz titles her reply "for the record the truth is the truth" and even says that I was

"removed from the VoteTrust list for spreading disinformation repeatedly, despite numerous attempts on the part of many list members and myself to sort fact from speculation."

I can prove via writings from VTUSA that (1) I was removed from the list **without notice** that there was any problems at all with my posts (the warning and the termination came in the same email) and (2) even more importantly, consistent with this being without notice, I was never at any time made aware of VTUSA's claim that they had to spend time calming people down who were upset by my posts (here, it's very important to recognize that the posts were SOLELY about election issues and not about governance of VTUSA or this controversy, otherwise you might think that my posts were "inherently upsetting to some folks" or something like that), and (3) FOR MANY WEEKS, MY EMAILS HAD BEEN (AGAIN WITHOUT NOTICE) SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODERATION BEFORE BEING FORWARDED TO THE LIST, BUT AT TERMINATION IT WAS STATED THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY EMAILS HAD BEEN FORWARDED TO THE LIST, EXCEPT THE LAST ONE, WHICH I CONTEND WAS INNOCUOUS.

Because my emails were subject to approval by VTUSA prior to being posted, if I "repeatedly" spread "Disinformation," I did so WITH THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF VOTETRUSTUSA's moderator/censor, because they let all of my posts through.

The only way out of this logical trap would be if the cause for removal from the list was Quite old, but I was only on the list for around four months and hardly participated the first month or two, being new and all.

I believe that the fact that my posts were subject to the approval of VTUSA management puts the lie to the idea that it was "repeated disinformation" that was the cause for my removal.

In fact, given that VTUSA had and exercised this power of prior approval, they did not need to remove what they've called a "valuable member" of this community without notice or *actually sending* a warning -- they could simply refuse to post any "offending" posts to the email listserv, before my ideas could cause "harm" to others. (here again, it must be emphasized that all discussion was strictly about election issues of Stewart v Blackwell, filing administrative complaints under HAVA, whether HAVA has a "safe harbor", HR 550, and related subjects, and not about choicepoint or internal governance).

Here is my sincere hope: That people would realize that, since I've not seen fit to point out this important fact that my posts were moderated and only remembered it last night and never brought it up in the other threads that have been going on for a week or so now, is some good evidence that I am NOT sitting around rehashing in my mind the circumstances of my removal from the vtusa listserv. If I were, this post with these facts would have been made long ago.

[peacetheonlyway]

115. this post is the crux of the matter

i'm lucky to have read your words...

[bleever]

72. I would just like to express my appreciation to

both you, Donna, and also to Land Shark, for your willingness to engage in discussion with us and each other on this subject.

This willingness to wade in where there are no easy answers is a powerful thing.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

73. So, enough about you. Let's talk about your husband's company.

Since you are a self-proclaimed political activist, you should have some interesting perspectives on Choicepoint's role in election manipulation in America and Mexico.

Do tell.

[kster]

80. I wonder if these companies that rig votes one way

or another, and the politicians that REMAIN SILENT about the manipulation, be it electronically or just straight out suppression, do you think they ever think about these guys/gals when they are doing the rigging?



http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html

[EFerrari]

86. Just wait and see what happens to Cynthia when her campaign

brings the vote flipping up to scrutiny. We all have to be ready to back her up.

[eridani]

87. Looks like she won, however--

--that doesn't matter if the machines are flipping votes. That malfunctions don't change the outcome in any given election is IRRELEVANT! If we allow it to continue, someday it will.

[Boredtodeath]

89. So, my spouse works for WalMart

Do you think I have any clue what WalMart does or how they make their decisions?

Do you think I have any influence over what they do?

Does HIS job make ME any less an activist?

[BeFree]

102. That figures...

But we aren't talking about a walmart worker, we are talking about the wife of the walmart CEO.

The wife of a walmart CEO would have a clue, and influence, especially if they were an activist.

There is no comparison between you and them.

[Boredtodeath]

110. Bullshit

It's EXACTLY the same.

I have absolutely no influence of my husband's employer. NONE.

[BeFree]

111. You're dreaming

If you think your spouse and Ms. Curling are the exactly the same when it comes to having power and influence. That is unless you are married to a walmart CEO?

[Boredtodeath]

120. Damned good question, isn't it Mr. BeFree?

You know what happens when you ASS U ME.

[rman]

242. Does your spouse own WalMart?

thought so.

[Boredtodeath]

95. Hey, folks........while you're watching Choicepoint.........

The FBI is working hard to cut them out of the picture:

The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1681521

[meganmonkey]

97. Admittedly, I have been out of the loop on the Election Reform front

lately, but this is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen since Blackwell was the co-chair of the Bush campaign in Ohio while being Sec of State...

Put me solidly "in the camp of believers that the wife of a ChoicePoint...executive can be nothing but a deceptive person with ulterior motives", or maybe "in the camp of those who believe bad appearances may or may not lead to bad reality but they're bad enough, or maybe Florida 2000 was all a dream."

Good god, are all these people drinking Choicepoint Kool-aid of late? Maybe dmac should retire her name and just start over as Jim Jones :shrug:

In total bafflement,

Meganmonkey

[BeFree]

98. Hey

Words of wisdom, thanks.

[yowzayowzayowza]

103. Welp, my score card reads:

Black Box Voting Smear Squad: 0
Working Activist donating funds for office supplies: 1

[meganmonkey]

106. I'm so out-of-the-loop

I have no idea what you even mean

Rest assured I am no squad member, though, if that's what you are implying...

And if I am totally off-base, then someone please shed some light on this for me.

[Land Shark]

107. don't worry, it's a bit of a tangent

in discussing the existence or lack thereof of transparency as to leadership and funding of VTUSA, the subject of the same funding and transparency with regard to BBV has been asserted in replies to threads. Curling herself in this thread says she made an unspecified donation (probably small) to BBV. I've called on BBV to return that donation if it can be verified, while pointing out the differences between BBV and VTUSA with regard to Mrs. Curling. Still, it's really a subject for a new thread and off topic (though somewhat analogous).

[garybeck]

99. OK, we got your story, but what about the purging of voters?

You said that you convinced others that the accusations made by Palast and others are not a concern. Can you enlighten us? this is the real reason we have concerns about your relationship with VTUSA. Do you deny the accusations? Or do you admit it and say it happened under someone else's watch? I appreciate your personal story but that is not our concern here. We need to know what happened with those voter lists, how people got purged who should not have been, and how ChoicePoint was involved. Until you respond publicly to this (and I apologize if you have elsewhere but I haven't seen it) there will continue to be many people who feel extremely uncomfortable with your position.

[Boredtodeath]

109. So, GaryBeck......

are you still Rigel99's big buddy?

Wasn't her site first published under the SolarBus logo?

[peacetheonlyway]

116. Solarbus has posted a ton of information

from all over the election reform activist community.

his tireless efforts are appreciated by all.

What he publishes is why Mr. Beck is an amazing person. We are grateful to have him asking Ms. Curling the really tough questions we all should be asking.

[Boredtodeath]

117. And, the latest to arrive.....

Is the only other friend Rigel99 has in the world.

[garybeck]

147. funny how you

are supposedly "bored to death" but you have all the time in the world to type away and criticize the hard work that many people do.

the most telling part of it all is that you hide behind an alias. at least David Allen isn't that low.

some of us know who you are, and your troubled history, which explains most of this.

for those who aren't aware, of BoredToDeath's history or identity, I suggest you take everything they say with a grain of salt. The fact that they hide behind an alias should tell you something.

Those of us who are working hard to fix the problems with election systems, we don't throw criticisms at people while hiding under a rock.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[Boredtodeath]

161. Again with her kids! COWARDS pick on children!

But that's your strategy, and always has been.

And accusing her of CHILD ABUSE.

No need to edit it, either. It's already saved.

And, just so everyone here knows, the guitar player is a minor.

[Boredtodeath]

157. Funny how you jump to conclusions

You tried this before and I stopped short of sending your PM threats to the Administrators. Keep it up though, I still have those PMs.

[Boredtodeath]

160. You might wanna tell "peacetheonlyway" to get out from under the rock

Bwahahahahahahahahaha. I think you have a double standard going here, Mr. Beck.

Oh, yeah, she's only stating fact, right? Not critizing..........yeah, that's it. :sarcasm:

[garybeck]

125. Ms Curling: A suggestion

In order to resolve this situation I would like to make a suggestion.

Can you please respond to the specific accusations that Greg Palast has made in his various writings about Choicepoint. I realize you may not be able to do this yourself, but perhaps you can convince your husband to do it, or he could have a representative from Choicepoint do it.

Better yet, if you or a representative from Choicepoint would agree to an interview with Greg Palast, then we can listen and decide for ourselves. As you have said, you are all about openness and honesty, so I don't think this would be a problem.

If given the opportunity to hear such an interview, we would be able to discern what is going on. We've heard the spokespeople from Diebold repsond to allegations and it is obvious that they skirt around issues and even blatantly lie in their responses. If Choicepoint is not a conern to us we will hear the thruthfulness in their (or your) respones to Palast's questions and we will be convinced as rigel99 was by you previously.

You see, the problem is that Greg Palast is a very well respected journalist, and he has made some very serious accusations about Choicepoint, and he has presented some documentation to this effect. It involves money being paid and voters being purged from voter roles. If these accusations are true, I think you could understand why people would have trepidations about someone like yourself being involved in VTUSA, even if you don't directly work for Choicepoint. I can understand why people would not want any connections to choicepoint at all, regardless of how direct or indirect.

If you are sincere in your desire to improve elections, I think you are in a very unique position to clear some things up and much progress can be made. But if we only get to hear your personal story and don't get sincere answers about Choicepoint's past, I believe many of us will feel uncomfortable with this situation.

Thank you
Gary Beckwith

[peacetheonlyway]

119. Simple Questions for the DMAC lady

Let's ask some simple questions:

1. What does your husband do for a living?
2. Who pays for your bills? You or your husband and by association, your husband's company?
3. When your family got their identities stolen was it because your husband has an honorable career helping people? Why would the AJC have such a personal vendetta against your family? What personal responsibility do you have to your children allowing them to grow up around a man with a career that is so damaging to the personal lives of others your personal life is one of constant worry and consternation?
4. Who did your husband pay to make the SEC investigation go away?
5. What 'actionable' results has your money produced in the election fraud world? Give me examples of won lawsuits or legislation passed as the result of your efforts that helps create cleaner elections.
6. When your husband and his cronies cashed in over $20M in stock shares last year, how much of that money went to election fraud causes? How come he waited till a month after a huge PR leak about identity theft rather than cashing in the stock options sooner?
7. Why, if you are so solidly clear in your role as wife to a man with a job at a company, why are you so worried about gaining the respect and attention of a DU community? If you knew you were in the right, you wouldn't need validation from us.
8. What personal sacrifices have you made to fix election fraud? (giving money from a bottomless pit of money does not qualify as a personal sacrifice). Have you met anyone that lost their husband/wife or job over pursuing election fraud? Perhaps you should meet some of the folks from Case Ohio or J30. They are all heroes and heroines of the cause. Could you give up your mansion and live in an apartment with your kids if it meant restoring honest elections to this country?
9. Finally, why are you here? because your therapist sent you? The choices are very simple. Honesty=happiness while dishonesty and deception and cognitive dissonance breeds depression.

[Boredtodeath]

122. Hey, Phyllis........

You just can't avoid attacking her children can you?

[peacetheonlyway]

124. why are you so bored?

I'm just curious....

is it because you've left the heavy lifting on election fraud to the rest of us?

[Boredtodeath]

126. Bwahahahahaha! You wish.

.

[ebayfool]

129. Why in hell would you attack her @ her kids? You didn't like it when

it was yours' being brought up before - so why would that even figure in your questioning now?

And since this will get wiped out anyway - I'd also ask the same of you:

"Why are you so worried about gaining the respect and attention of a DU community?".

Why keep battering on our door trying to rewrite YOUR history? Why are YOU so worried about gaining the respect and attention of a DU community? Isn't your own forum giving you enough love & money?

And why haven't you filed your return w/the IRS?

Should we bring up YOUR kids now so you can scream to 'free republic' @ it?





And why haven't you filed your return w/the IRS?

[peacetheonlyway]

131. i don't have kids

for the record, I was busy getting a progressive, Georgia State House Representative who has fought valiantly for paper ballots/trail legislation elected by a margin of over 60%. I also have 2 lawsuits in Georgia I am working on related to election fraud and I also have convinced on key municipality and one key county to go back to hand counted paper ballots.

so what you have done for election fraud lately besides defend the wife of a man that screws people out of their right to vote?

[ebayfool]

135. So what does bringing her kids into the mix have to do w/your sanctified

battle against election fraud? Picking on someone's kids hasn't anything to do w/your resume.

By your standards I ain't done shit ...

because I don't fuck w/peoples' children!



I'm still catching up reading @ all this, so I wasn't defending anyone. Till I ran up against your post. Your underhanded swipe at her kids tells me ALL I need to know @ anything YOU have to say on the subject!

[Kelvin Mace]

136. Could you tell me when he did that?

Since the 2000 vote purge took place BEFORE he worked for the company.

[Cookie wookie]

177. You mind saying what representative that was? n/t

[Boredtodeath]

179. Karla Drenner, no doubt.

She's the only one these folks consider "worthy."

[Boredtodeath]

132. It's not Bev.

It's Rigel99.

[peacetheonlyway]

133. anyone notice

dmac is all silent when the tough questions get asked....

strange how that is...

[Boredtodeath]

134. Can you read?

She said upthread that she was going out of town.

[Kelvin Mace]

137. Now don't go injecting facts into the discussion,

[peacetheonlyway]

148. here's a fact about Donna Curling

she once approached Rigel99 with a list of questions her husband told her to ask about Rigel's legal efforts.

sounds like Donna was a puppet for her husband's monitoring the activist groups that could hurt his company's stock price.

here's another fact.

Rigel99 turned down the dirty money of donna curling on a sunny day in her driveway because she knew it was tainted. imagine being broke and not knowing if the lights would stay on another week, months from eviction, saying no to a woman who's checkbook was open and ready to write a check......

something deep inside helped Rigel99 realize that while the woman was personally very impressive, the total package of the woman as part of a family connected to modern day white collar crime bosses was dangerous and that taking money from dangerous people always involves strings that may over time prove more harmful than the value of the money.
She also knew that most her data was compromised and that meant she'd have to change her strategy completely. months and tens of thousands of dollars spent and time/effort wasted because the competition alread knew your legal strategy....

was the red wine good? I gave you one of my best bottles. I believe it was the Pommard, an excellent wine.... and did you ever get that massage you so desperately needed?

[Kelvin Mace]

169. Hmmmm

she once approached Rigel99 with a list of questions her husband told her to ask about Rigel's legal efforts.

What evidence do you have to support this accusation?

[mom cat]

226. I would like to see some evidence of this too. There are too many

undocumented serious charges flying around here.
If it is true, show us the beef!

[Cookie wookie]

178. She's busy working for the cause

you so avidly espouse.

[adarling]

253. get a life Rigel 99

after reading all the last stuff you posted, you seem to be a little off your rocker. You have NOTHING on Donna curling so all you can do is attack her kids....just sick..sick sick sick.

[ebayfool]

138. The attack strategy sure is the same ...

sure kicked my ass out of the lethargy I've been feeling lately! It's been a long month & it's barely half over - all I've had energy for is reading to keep up. Posting after work has been impossible.

Should I thank her for the wake-up call?

[Boredtodeath]

156. Good to see you back

But, nah, no thanks to this one.

The reason she sounds so much like Bev is because she's Bev, Jr. I recognized that the moment I met her.

[peacetheonlyway]

127. Donna

you can get off the scary train you have been riding on for years just by getting off the train. You have so many choices.... your husband can be COO at CARE a company that provides refugee tents.. that would be an honorable living for Doug.. or he can have a heart to heart meeting with his company and divest of the 'disenfranchising' aspects of the voter registration business... sooo very many choices, Donna, and you can influence him to do the right thing.. because deep down I think you know the right thing to do....

and then your participation in election groups can be 'clean' meaning it will not generate angst because of your ties to Doug. Your intentions are pure even if your actions are impure.

you can love Doug too, but so long as you live taking his dirty money to supposedly do good acts, you abdicate the responsibility for digging deeper into where that money comes from and the very real sobering fact that little old ladies and young college grads and white and african american men and woman returning from years in jail have had the most basic of their privacy and voting rights violated. You and Doug are so high up in that organization, you don't see the trenches view of how Choicepoint really HURTS PEOPLE in ways that are both sinister and somewhat life threatening. Taking away our votes is like taking away our life.....

But you can change all that by making a bold move to become just Donna.

get rid of the Choicepoint curling and I think you'll find a community of friends who will support you thru whatever changes your life will manifest...

I don't understand your fear related to this bold move....
I just see that your coming out of a long dark phase means it's time for change...

I hope you make the right changes... I want nothing more than happiness for you... you deserve it...

[Boredtodeath]

128. You CAN'T mean this community

you'll find a community of friends

Read this thread.......with the exception of a few, this place has been very ugly to this lady and her husband.

[Cookie wookie]

141. Just to clarify:

you work for "a company that provides refugee tents.." right?

[peacetheonlyway]

144. no.. are you kidding me...

that was just an example.

i don't feel the need to share who I work for....

I just happen to know Care has an office here in Atlanta and has a peaceful, loving mission of changing the lives of oppressed people all over the world.. have a friend who's a VP that could put in a good word for Doug if he's ready for a move....

[Boredtodeath]

159. This is hysterical

Like Mr. Curling needs ANYONE'S help finding a job! Especially from an anonymous poster on DU who continously attacks his children and wife.

I'm rolling on the floor over this one. Good thing I have a wireless keyboard.

[peacetheonlyway]

146. HISTORIC footnote...

most of the legislative efforts have failed.

I always said 'rigged unelected officials' will never vote themselves out of office by demanding clean elections.

For the record, there are activist groups in Georgia involved in the VoterGA lawsuit as they reached the conclusion I held long ago that legal activity was the way to go.

there are 3 lawsuits that have legs in this community.

lowell' finley's suits in various states, he's with a group fighting fraud on all levels and has a track record of success (bev harris lawsuit in alameda CA was won by lowell).

the VoterGA lawsuit

and RFK's whistleblower lawsuit...

****donna's words...
She was constantly criticizing the work of other GA activists and reiterating that “her” approach (lawsuits) was the best approach and that the others were wasting their time (legislation).

****
Rigel99 should never criticize any activist activity and it's clear that in the end, the solution has both a legislative and legal angle working in concert to bring about change.

there is another way... to simply convince counties and municipalities to go back to paper ballots... that too is a valid way to fight election fraud. only this time, suggest we use a locked ballot box and a ceremonial time when a citizen group unlocks the box to remove all previous fraud related to ballot stuffing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

151. most of the legislative efforts have NOT failed

What? There is no historic footnote.

most of the legislative efforts have failed.

Excuse me, but that isn't correct. 27 states require
verified voting. Most of those used legislation to get there,
my state is one.

there is another way... to simply convince counties and municipalities to go back to paper ballots... that too is a valid way to fight election fraud. only this time, suggest we use a locked ballot box and a ceremonial time when a citizen group unlocks the box to remove all previous fraud related to ballot stuffing.

Huh?

Can you provide me with some success stories of citizens just asking their
officials to use traditional hand counted paper ballots?

Name a state that is using this method.

Since when has changing the mind set of your politicians, election officials
and citizens been a matter of "simply convince"?

[peacetheonlyway]

153. you are correct..

let me clarify..
the legislative efforts in Georgia have failed to produce audits or paper trail requirements even though there were heroic efforts. You are correct that national legislation has moved in a positive direction but has a LONG way to go.


Wait about a month and look for a press release on 1 county and 1 municipality in Georgia going back to paper ballots. JUST LOOK IN THE ELECTION code of any state that took on electronic voting. There is usually a section that authorizes a meeting of 4 or 5 of the voting board of any county to vote to either 'accept/decline' the use of electronic voting. therefore the same election code law enabling the use of the machines gives the power to the county to take those machines away. you'll find some smaller community (Such as one in Georgia) miss the good ole days of counting their ballots and the community and comraderie that used to happen on election night and the resultant feeling the count was more accurate than the machines and much less costly to the municipality.

stone mountain in Georgia tried it and got an ass whipping from Cox and some folks threatened to lose their jobs, but this is not a new approach and future will prove that it works easily.

just look at miami.. they essentially ditched ES&S to the tune of 20+M Dollars to go back to paper ballots...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

155. incorrect - Miami didn't go to paper according to this June 28, 06 article

Another correction -

You said:

"just look at miami.. they essentially ditched ES&S to the tune of
20+M Dollars to go back to paper ballots..."

That didn't happen.

Actually, back in 2005
they had hoped to switch to optical scan voting,
but they lost in that effort.

Jun. 28, 2006
VOTING MACHINES
Critic: Paper vote records vital
A California computer expert discussed with two local groups the importance
of having a paper record attached to electronic voting machines.

Miami-Dade and Broward counties use iVotronic
touch-screen machines from Election Systems & Software,
which were not tested in Sancho's experiment.

Lida Rodriguez Taseff, chairwoman of Miami-Dade's Election Reform
Coalition, said her group looks forward to working with Dill to help
fine-tune the election process.

''We're glad his debut in Florida was at the Miami-Dade Election Coalition,''
Rodriguez Taseff said. ``He is one of the foremost experts in this issue.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14918419.htm

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

152. I've done the court thing - against Diebold, against Election Officials

I have done the lawsuit thing.

I sued to get Diebold's TRO in NC revoked.
I sued our NC State Board of Elections and IT dept.

Lawsuits are NOT enough.

Lawsuits work when the law is being violated, and
they can be used to boost getting laws passed,
like www.VoterAction.org did for New Mexico,

but if someone hand't worked their butts off in New Mexico
to get legislation drafted, then the lawsuit would not
been enough.

It takes a multi pronged approach, which Vote Trust
believes in.

If you go to their website, you will see Voter Action's name and
a link given prominent display.

With this type of battle, it takes an wide range of tools
to get the job accomplished.

[peacetheonlyway]

154. 100% agreed

if you read my post you'd see I came to that same multipronged conclusion with the added possibility of an outright mutiny of the counties to go back to paper ballots..

and your work in NC is so awesome, it is a tribute to your efforts... kudos...

[Boredtodeath]

158. The VoterGA lawsuit is a joke

The attorney is Walker Chandler - a Libertarian who's only claim to fame is getting Georgia's drug testing law overturned. Drug testing for political candidates, BTW. Georgia children have to be drug tested to play football, but Georgia's politicians can be high as a kite, thanks to Walker Chandler.

The fundraiser for this effort is none other than Rigel99 who's only claim to fame is the inability to raise a dime to pay her own rent.

Oh, in case anyone is interested, Rigel99 bragged about working for Homeland Security.

The plaintiffs don't even have standing.

This lawsuit will be tossed at the first Motion for Summary Judgement.

[peacetheonlyway]

165. the facts about my employment

I have in the past worked for Intervoice a company that participated in a homeland security funded pilot project in San Diego called ResponseNet that was piloted in the city of Chula Vista. Our software was part of the simulation along with some great stuff from www.emergencyemail.org where we did a mock notification of over a million people to evacuate for a simulated biological terroist emergency. it was a great project and very rewarding to me to participate in. I feel Bush is leaving our homeland completely unprotected and since 9/11 when I was supposed to be in the trade center on that day, I have kept my telecomms career focused on homeland activity as I feel we did not have to lose as many people if we had a smart evacuation system that notified people by cell/radio/TV/internet, etc.

one great aspect of the project was finding this website:
www.emergencyemail.org which notifies you of weather conditions and other homeland threats via cell, homephone or email/instant message. it's great technology.

I no longer work for Intervoice, FYI....
I have never worked directly for homeland security. I'm sure my activist background would not get me in the front door there.. nor would I want to....

[Cookie wookie]

174. You didn't have to say where you worked as my question was

intended to make a point that what we've had here is a one-sided argument focused on one individual, and I think people need to think about that, to do some soul-searching about whether this is just a convenient scapegoat for all our frustrations and anger about information control and management as well as our fear (justified) about the dangers of that kind of massive information gathering on the part of for-profit corporations.

Homeland Security is an entity that many of us, including myself, think is another way for the fascists to take over our country. So we could be having a similar argument and debate, even a smear of you because you worked there. But that's not the point. Even the name, "Homeland", is too close to Nazi Germany to be an accident. This country isn't the "Homeland" vs. "Otherland". In the world it's not about us against then.

Many people work for corporations that are collecting information on us. I shopped today and used my bank card. I've loved the convenience of using cards instead of cash. But my bank and credit card companies, not to mention cell phone company and cable company and bank that holds my mortgage, etc. are collecting so much information to put in their databases that we're all losing our privacy. The thought that these companies are getting together and aggregating our information is threatening to me and many other citizens. But the ease and convenience of using the products of those companies is well, easy and convenient. I held out, much to the protests of my friends and family, until just recently before getting a cell phone just because I didn't want any sleasy cell phone company to put my information into their databanks.

Rather than targeting individuals like yourself or the Curlings or others who work for any of these entities, we have to get the corruption out of our institutions and see that laws are passed on how data is collected and aggregated.

My way to work on that (and Mrs. Curlings for that matter) is to work to get rid of unverifiable, privitized election systems.

Should that work stop because fear and paranoia targets any one individual or entity and brands them unfit to serve the cause? I deplore injustice where ever I see it.

[peacetheonlyway]

184. ask yourself this question cookie....

the money Ms. Curling spreads around, where does it come from?

does it come from doing humanitarian things?

no. it comes from a company that steals people's identities and VANISHES them from voter rolls... (and continues to do so as evidenced in Mexico) and from executives who sell their stock out of fear that such identity theft publicity would cause their stock price to plummet...

didn't you pay attention to the public outlash to Donna's family as being a signal she is doing something wrong??????

and as long as you help her 'eschew responsibility' for her and her husband's very dangerous actions, you help her continue to place her children in harm's way... you are in fact using your own greed to benefit rather than helping a friend...

it's really that simple.

any other argument is merely ignoring the facts of the connection of donna to donna's money to choicepoint to election fraud....

[flyingobject]

185. do her donations to DEM party mean we should vote Green or Lib?

Donna Curling donated $23,000 to the Democratic National Committee during
the 2004 election campaign. Now this is something that actually causes me
to worry about ChoicePoint connections.

Is it possible that the Democratic Party is tainted by its connections
with ChoicePoint and that I should vote for the Greens or the Libertarians?
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=loc&addr=1507+Waters+Edge+Trl&zip=30075

Another web site had a comment submitted by Donna Curling in November 2004
about anomalies in voting patterns related to the use of certain vote
tabulation technologies:
http://www.evoting-experts.com/index.php?p=65

Anomalies are random, inexplicable occurrences establishing no pattern.
While the anomalies recorded across the nation seem random and without a
pattern - certainly one thing appears to be consistent - and that
consistency is that the errors always benefited one candidate - not the
other. So I believe that would be an anomaly in and of itself! Comment by
Donna Curling - Tuesday November 16, 2004 @ 8:49 am PST "

Is Donna Curling really saying that George Bush stole the election?

Donna Curling also donated money to the Thoughts on America Fund sponsored
by the Orion Society, an environmental group:
http://www.orionsociety.org/pages/os/media/ThoughtsInitiative.html

Does this taint the Orion Society's work on the environment? Have I now
carried this to the point of the ridiculous?

Donna Curling also donated money to the Democratic Underground -
does that taint the members of this forum, since donations are what keep
the Democratic Underground running?

the original article that started this brouhaha:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11476

In this article, they quote Bev Harris of Black Box Voting extensively
denouncing ChoicePoint and people who would accept donations from them.

"That's called a stakeholder. If your husband is the President, you cannot
make the claim there's not a connection because your livelihood is tied to
that company," Bev Harris of Black Box Voting told Atlanta Progressive News.

How is it that Bev Harris is quoted extensively
denouncing ChoicePoint and at the same time took money from the Curlings? Is
Bev Harris tainted only if she fails to denounce ChoicePoint?

Ms. Harris states on her website that she was not aware of this donation.
Since Ms. Harris kept the donation for 2 years, until the fact became public,
is Black Box Voting.org tainted?


Also see this regarding Bev Harris:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441426&mesg_id=441426

There is always the possibility that Karl Rove was behind the
article that started all of this -- but we will never know that either,
because he is very good at covering his tracks.

I think the bottom line is that we will never know any relevant facts and so
the subject is a big waste of our collective time.

[Boredtodeath]

181. Hmmmm, this sounds an awful lot like......

DBT, not Choicepoint prepared and delivered the Florida list.

Just listen........

I don't really work for Homeland Security, just a company which CONTRACTS with Homeland Security..........

So, let us all begin to rip "peace" here to shreds.

She's a SPY.

She works for the enemy!

She got PAID to spy on us all.

See, isn't that easy?????????

[Cookie wookie]

180. Um, no counties in GA can "go back to paper ballots"

without legislation that allows it. So if you convinced them to do so without getting legislation passed that's a mighty feat.

[peacetheonlyway]

182. check the election code

it's totally possible....

and it is happening next month in one municipality.....
done deal...

[Cookie wookie]

186. Would you please post the election code

section number you're referring to. I'm familiar with election code in GA and have never seen that.

Thanks.

[peacetheonlyway]

183. one more thing..

I just helped get a woman elected who is a PRO paper trail / audits legislator, early SB500 supporter back into the Georgia house... voted hero of defenders of democracy, so trust that legislation will follow all my actions as well....

[Boredtodeath]

188. My, my, are you suggesting you "own" this legislator?

I wonder what Karla Drenner thinks of that idea!

I think I'll send it along to her just so she knows that you are publicly claiming you own her.

[peacetheonlyway]

164. choicepoint + Diebold + CIA + SAIC Connections...

This thread is the most comprehensive, well researched piece of investigative journalism on Choicepoint I've found yet! Sharona has truly done her homework. any other folks on this group that want to praise Donna, please read this in its entirety.

I was offered a VP job at SAIC early in my career. I also knew then it was a dangerous move and declined.. I know more than anyone how dangerous that company is... I'd also point you to Chuck Hagel who has controlling interests in both ES&S and Diebold.

http://www.ballotintegrity.org/DCForumID1/418.html


NATIONAL BALLOT INTEGRITY PROJECT
NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOT INTEGRITY TASK FORCE
[e-mail] http://www.ballotintegrity.org

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: WHAT'S WRONG WITH COMPUTER VOTING MACHINES? WHY CAN'T WE SAFELY ENTRUST OUR ELECTIONS TO AUTOMATION?

· Five former CIA Directors are identified as directly involved in election engineering, overtly or covertly: John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, Bobby Ray Inman, Robert Gates, and George H.W. Bush.

· Investigative journalist, Lynn Landes, reports that SAIC (Science Applications International Corp., sometimes also referred to as Scientific Applications International Corp.), of San Diego, California, is described as, “the shadow ruling class within the Pentagon,” and as a “behemoth military defense contractor with a shadowy, if not tarnished reputation,” which maintains strong business ties to the military and intelligence communities, such as the NSA and CIA. Many of SAIC’s board members are formerly with the Pentagon and CIA.

· Behemoth military contractor SAIC and ChoicePoint, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, have developed a strategic alliance, teaming up as partners in “data mining”.

· SAIC is aligned with a number of major voting machine vendors, including Diebold Election Systems, Hart Intercivic, VoteHere and ES&S (Election Systems & Software).

· SAIC has bid for state voter registration database contracts, such as that of the State of Nevada, under the name of “Votec/SAIC/ES&S”.

· Investigators have uncovered hidden colorful criminal histories of investigation, indictment, prosecution, and imprisonment for corruption among voting machine vendors and their networks. Among the offenses uncovered: serious security lapses, creative accounting, multiple sets of books (including in the vote counting software itself), dummy front companies, and numerous counts of racketeering, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, fraud, theft, bribery of officials, and embezzlement.

· According to T. Hommel, expert computer programmer, attorney, and Editor of wheresthepaper.org, SAIC, ChoicePoint and Diebold Election Systems now control America’s electronic automated elections.

· Jeffrey Dean, Senior Vice President of Diebold, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, of planting back doors in his software, and of using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years.” While heading up the development of Diebold’s GEMS controversial central compiler software source code at Global Election Systems (later, purchased by Diebold, and renamed Diebold Election Systems), convicted felon, Jeffrey Dean, worked in association with John Silvestro, Owner and CEO of LHS Associates of Methuen, MA, which maintains, pre-programs and configures the voting machines and memory cards of five New England States, including New Hampshire.*

· Diebold Election Systems is under tremendous scrutiny nationwide for sales of voting systems proven to be highly vulnerable and easily hackable by anyone from a teenager to a terrorist. Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, recently resigned, Diebold shareholders and numerous others have filed suit, and contracts for Diebold voting systems sales and services are in question, and being canceled, throughout the country.

· According to Peter Phillips, Director of Project Censored,“Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines.”

· Yet, the State of Maryland hired SAIC as an “independent reviewer,” to assess Diebold’s Accuvote-TS (touch-screen) software security, in light of widespread concerns about its Diebold touch-screen voting machines. On September 2, 2003, SAIC released a “Risk Assessment Report,” with significant deletions, and the media reported that the machines “passed muster.”

· ChoicePoint and its associates lobbied aggressively for a Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provision for federally mandated statewide voter registration databases. ChoicePoint has since bagged the lion’s share of state contracts nationwide.

· ChoicePoint was in the news, in 2000, for purging 91,000 African-American males from Florida’s voter registration database, for which ChoicePoint was paid well. Asserting that they were felons, the company claimed those purged were, thus, ineligible to vote. ChoicePoint’s controversial voter purge list was proven erroneous after the Florida 2000 Presidential Election, which George W. Bush was reported to have won by 537 Florida votes.

· ChoicePoint was in the news for “Grand Theft Identity,” as reported by Newsweek Magazine on July 4, 2005, and for massive credit card identity theft, reportedly, in the hundreds of thousands, possibly more, on its watch, just prior to the 2004 Presidential Election.

· ChoicePoint controls the “no-fly” watch list, recently augmented to 88,000.

· On April 22, 2005, Andrew McIntosh of the Sacramento Bee reported that, despite being under investigation by federal and state regulators for improprieties, ChoicePoint was poised to receive an $845,500 contract from California’s State Attorney General to “develop a computer system (to) help probe suspected criminals and terrorists.”

· The now infamous PROMIS software was originally developed by a company called INSLAW (Institute for Law and Social Research), which was awarded a contract for $10 million by the U.S. Department of Justice, “to adapt a computer program to the needs of U.S. attorneys and government agencies in tracking criminals (later termed “terrorists”), inter-agency.”

· Upon being shorted $2 million of $10 million, INSLAW filed suit against the U.S. Justice Department for breach of contract. Discovery revealed that the PROMIS software had been unlawfully altered with a quiet nod of approval from high-level officials at the Justice Department.

· According to INSLAW Owner and CEO, Bill Hamilton, PROMIS software was later sold with companion hardware, “with extra signal-sending hardware chips that broadcast data to satellites owned by the NSA.”

· Robert Gates, a Senior American intelligence and national security official (later, appointed Director of the CIA by President George H.W. Bush), personally peddled the PROMIS software overseas, complete with “back doors by which to spy on client countries.”

· Corroboration regarding the illegal sale of PROMIS came from, among many, former agent of the United States’ Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lester Knox Coleman III. According to Coleman, bootleg copies of PROMIS were “made without the knowledge of INSLAW, to which a “backdoor’ software routine had been added. No matter how securely the front door might be barred with entry codes and passwords, American operators, holding the key to the secret back door, could break into the PROMIS systems operated by Cyprus, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Iran and Iraq whenever they wished, access the data stored there and get out again without arousing the slightest suspicion that the security of those systems had been breached…”

· Numerous PROMIS client countries also included Canada, Libya, and Chile.

· Similar language has been noted in the case of the computer voting industry, as follows:

On July 8, 2003, an article was published, by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, elections investigator and author of Black Box Voting – Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, stating that Johns Hopkins and Rice University technologists had discovered secret “back doors” in the Diebold GEMS software source code (which accounts for the tabulation of 50% of America’s votes) by which votes could be changed, in real time, by remote, during America’s elections.

· In January 2005, it was reported at Boston.com, that SAIC was awarded a $170 million contract for a PROMIS-type computer software program for the FBI, intended “to help agents share data about terrorist threats and criminal cases.” Could SAIC be the keeper of the “improved” PROMIS technology?

· Robert Gates now presides over election engineering, in association with SAIC and VoteHere (satellite cryptography technology).

· An electronic voting project is in progress, at MIT and Caltech, funded by Carnegie and others, that is based on satellite cryptography technology, and which entrusts the security and control of whole elections to five individuals, possessing one-fifth, each, of a single encryption key. Encryption is as much about secrecy as it is about security. Exactly what is being encrypted and who is to be entrusted with the secrets?

· Note that, of the five former CIA Directors identified as directly involved in election engineering, John Deutch is with MIT and Bobby Ray Inman is Caltech-connected.

· Career CIA professional, Ray McGovern, wrote unfavorably of Robert Gates, in Chapter 19 of the book, Neo-Conned, as follows: “Why dwell on Gates? Because a careerist in both senses of the word, he bears the lion’s share of responsibility for institutionalizing the corruption of intelligence analysis (at the CIA).”

· If such is the case, why is Gates presiding over election engineering? Could Robert Gates have interest in “institutionalizing the corruption” of America’s elections?

· Similar properties have been noted between the PROMIS technology (with “extra signal-sending hardware chips that broadcast data to satellites owned by the NSA”) and firmware, commonly in use in America’s elections.

--------

· Firmware is "flashable." Modem firmware is often stored in updateable 'flash' memory, rather than requiring chip exchange.

· If there's a remote interface, firmware can be updated by remote and such an interface can be a wireless receiver inside a case, and we wouldn't see it. Simply putting a scanner around it would ensure no telltale signals that might arouse suspicion.

· In the case of wireless, one transmitter can hit all receivers in a given area, and one server can send out and download a particular program, such as a vote-changing program, to every device.

· Such microprograms, composed of microinstructions, can control the sequencing of computer circuits directly at the detailed level of the single machine instruction.

-------

· We understand that LHS Associates, New England’s exclusive “independent” voting machine sales and service vendor for Diebold and ES&S equipment, long advised New Hampshire that we were using software v. 1.92 T (an early “non-GEMS, pre-GEMS”) test version of the Diebold software, and that we have, therefore, not been using firmware (v. 1.94 W and above) in our automated elections. Thus, we in New Hampshire were advised that we have been safe from any concerns over “central tabulation” and the controversial Diebold GEMS software source code (now known to involve flashable firmware). The matter of firmware’s involvement in New Hampshire’s elections, however, has not in fact been clear, and now, firmware is openly proposed for all of New Hampshire.

· LHS Associates, overseen by Owner/CEO, John Silvestro (a long-time associate of Senior Vice President of Diebold Election Systems, Jeffrey Dean, convicted felon and designer of the controversial Diebold GEMS software compiler code and source code)*, has long been entrusted with the pre-programming, configuration and maintenance of the memory cards and voting machines of five New England States, including both Diebold and ES&S optical scanners in New Hampshire. LHS typically pre-programs the voting machine memory cards on site at its location in Methuen, Massachusetts, absent oversight, and delivers them directly to client communities, throughout New England, for a fee of approximately $500 - $700 per client community, per election period.

· Coincidentally, LHS Associates is also in the business of census demographic data collection for sizeable geographic areas of New England.

· Voting machine software and memory cards provided by private vendors, such as Diebold and ES&S, are regarded as “proprietary.” Thus, even election supervisors are not permitted to closely inspect the memory cards and voting machines widely in use throughout America. As such, it is unknown as to what precisely, is being programmed on the memory cards and voting machines in use in New England, which election officials have long dutifully employed in their elections, in accordance with instructions issued by LHS.

· New Hampshire is presently comprised of 45% hand counted paper ballot areas (encompassing 22% of New Hampshire’s votes), with 55% of areas of the state conducting its elections on electronic voting systems manufactured by Diebold Election Systems (72 towns) and ES&S (25 towns), encompassing 78% of New Hampshire's votes. New Hampshire’s automated elections have long been conducted on Diebold AccuVote OS (optical scanner) and ES&S Optech-OS (optical scanner) computer voting systems, all overseen by LHS.

· Due to a ballot design change ordered by a New Hampshire court and related legislation, the use of columnar-styled ballots is scheduled to be implemented in this next election (2006). New Hampshire is now poised to fully convert over to Diebold electronic voting systems in all of its automated areas. Or, it can recommend an immediate return to community-based, locally controlled hand counted paper ballot elections.

· We first understood that the columnar ballot design change was to require the conversion to Diebold voting systems of only the 25 towns now running elections on ES&S equipment. We later learned from Diebold/LHS that, to conform to the ballot design change, New Hampshire is also compelled to uniformly “upgrade” the software running its existing Diebold voting machines to a recent version of the controversial Diebold GEMS firmware, a change which would impact all electronic voting machines throughout the State.

· Journalist, Bill Moyers, has referred to elections as, “The reform upon which all else depends.” With each successive U.S. election, America and the world have long looked to the State of New Hampshire to lead. New Hampshire is in an interesting position to set an important example for America. This is, in fact, a Jeffersonian moment in our nation’s timeline, at which what we do or don’t do in New Hampshire will have powerful far-reaching effects into the future.

· We now ask ourselves two pressing questions:

Q: Can we really safely entrust our sacred New Hampshire democratic elections to such proprietary and surreptitious technology?

Q: Are we prepared to courageously lead in staking a righteous claim on our own elections, by recommending an interim or long-term return to a time-honored system of locally controlled, community-based hand counted paper ballot elections?

-----

UPDATE: On Friday, March 10, 2006, the NH Ballot Law Commission, in a vote of 4:1, voted to approve the upgrade and use of the Diebold GEMS v. 1.94 w firmware on all electronic voting systems throughout the state. ES&S machines will be eliminated.

Barring an appeal or decision override, in the 2006 election and thereafter, 78% of New Hampshire citizens (55% of areas) will vote on Diebold Accu-Vote Optical Scanners with v. 1.94 w firmware, and 22% of New Hampshire citizens (45% of areas) will vote on hand counted paper ballots.

“Under the circumstances, I cannot in good conscience vote to approve the upgrade,” said Gregory Martin of Keene, the Commissioner who opposed the action, and the sole member of the panel to have studied the materials presented.

-------

Testimony of:
Sharona Merel, Co-founder
National Ballot Integrity Project &
New Hampshire Ballot Integrity Task Force

New Hampshire Ballot Law
Commission Hearing
Concord, New Hampshire
March 10, 2006

[EFerrari]

189. Donna, I've read this thread five times over. And what I think at

this point is this:

WHAT HAPPENED IN FLORIDA?

Where many DUers will try to empathize with you, I don't need to. I recognize that adults make choices.

What happpened in Florida? What was your part in that?

What happened in Florida? What was your part in that?

The questions are easy enough.

Don't even try to hang me up in "I didn't know" and "VoteTrust" didn't know and "It's all so confusing".

Bullshit. I call bullshit.

If this is so hard for you or for VoteTrust to figure out, we shouldn't trust either of you.

I can balance my checkbook and there are no NSA clients in there.

How hard can it be?

Sell it somewhere else.



Elizabeth Ferrari
San Francisco
(I'm in the book)

[Wilms]

191. According to WaPo,here's "what happened in Florida"

Bear in mind most of the info I see in this article is what I saw Palast, himself, write.

There may be more to it, and anyone should feel free to clarify it, with links, rather than call anyone a defender of CP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30?language=printer

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Wilms]

193. According to WaPo,here's "what happened in Florida"

Bear in mind most of the info I see in this article is what I saw Palast, himself, write.

There may be more to it, and anyone should feel free to clarify it, with links, rather than call anyone a defender of CP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30?language=printer


-on edit-

I hope I'm being clear about this.

[EFerrari]

194. Wilms, sure. We should always be willing to get more

information. That is what rational people do.

But it is NOT rational to know over and over and over again that our Black community is targeted and then to behave as if this is some kind of effen surprise to us.

They steal it via our Black bros and sisters vote. What a f#cking surpise!

Do not come to me and tell me that the buyers of DBT didn't know what they were doing. Because, I need to believe in people. And I've closed too many deals to believe that.

SHOW ME WHERE ALL THOSE BLACK VOTES ARE

AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, GET THOSE WHINEY WHITE RICH WOMEN OUT OF THE WAY SO I CAN SEE.

[Wilms]

195. When you stop shouting out me, I'll respond. n/t

[EFerrari]

196. That's very fair. n/t

[Land Shark]

199. Wilms, I'd be even happier to talk to you if you'd realize this:

1. If a cheap plastic toy worth two bucks might bust prematurely and injure two or three human beings in a nonfatal manner, we will issue a RECALL

EVEN THOUGH THE DAMN MACHINE IS MANUFACTURED, SHIPPED, SOLD, and closed out. Get it?

If there's a danger of any kind you issue a recall! EVEN IF THE "LIST" OR PRODUCT HAS BEEN SHIPPED, EVEN IF THE LIST OR PRODUCT IS ALREADY SOLD, EVEN IF IT'S "OLD NEWS"

Now, choicepoint KNEW the list had defects on or before May 2000, most likely before.

CHOICEPOINT KNEW 100,000 voters were going to not be able to vote, 97% of them for no good reason at all. Choicepoint said they knew.

CHOICEPOINT DID NOT ISSUE THE EQUIVALENT OF A RECALL, EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND VOTING RIGHTS of almost 100,000 people were destroyed, which JUST SO HAPPENED to bring us the Bush Presidency.

Wilms, I suspect sfexpat and I will find it much easier to talk to you civilly when you come out of the closet with your deep skepticism about elections and voting rights (or whatever it is that causes you to defend intentional inaction in the face of knowledge that 100,000 or so would lose their right to vote).

Call it a litmus test if you want: If one doesn't care about the vote of almost 100,000 people, or if you think it is HARDLY worth raising a corporate alarm bell again and again about, then it's difficult to imagine why we should care about elections AT ALL.

[Wilms]

200. I'm already out of closet (awaiting you).

And it is linkless assertions, dubious logic, hero-worship, and flamebaiting that enjoys my deep and considerable skepticism.

I'm out of the closet, LS. You just don't like what I'm wearing.

[Land Shark]

207. Yeah we're down to about less than ten but I still want to be understood

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=442596>

Explaining my feelings of failure when people like Wilms just don't get it AT ALL. NOt even enough to argue the case.

[Wilms]

208. I hear you. And I considered that we might get on the phone about this.

But two points should be considered.

1. I did try to "argue" by asking questions. I really don't feel I understand in full enough detail what you are saying and having you/autorank answering the questions I had asked would have been helpful. The apparent assumption, that my questions formed a defense of CP, left me a bit cold.

2. re: "people like Wilms": It's (I'm) no big deal. I'm an unaffiliated (except for DU) amateur election reform activist involved since late December 2004 when I realized that the warnings in an engineering article about evoting dangers I had read sometime before may have just been proved to be warranted. My technical background and my good grade in college logic may give some an overblown/unwarranted image of me.

Just consider me someone who cares about democracy. No more. No less.

[peacetheonlyway]

234. bravo.....

bravo

[EFerrari]

190. And ya know, when I take all of this into account,

you are asking the ERD to back off you.

And I don't speak for anyone.

But I will tell you, although I have no stake in hurting you or your family,

I will NEVER back off trying to clean up our vote.

[Wiley50]

197. PLEASE STOP THIS INFIGHTING!

It's been a long hard slog for all of you.
And now that the media spotlight is finally turning our way,
what will the public see?
This Crap!

I love you all.

Please just stop

[EFerrari]

198. It is sort of amazing that you can reduce this to in fighting.

It is no such thing.

Maybe you haven't read the thread?

:kick:

[Wiley50]

201. Actually, I read little else here for days.

and all the spin off threads too.

Not to mention the PM's urging the principals too cool it.

And watched the Harlem Book Review panel this PM
just as you did.

And even though we've all known about the purge lists for years now
Seeing it get covered today pissed me off all over again

You too I see

I just got back on this board after being gone a year
due to family tragedies and personal hardships
and am the first to admit that I have been able to contribute little to this cause in that year
other than duping Gary's CD and pushing them on anyone who would let me bend their ear about it.

You folks have done all of the heavy lifting
and, because of that,
You are my heros and heroines
(I'm addicted to you)

But, I came back with a fresh view
and, maybe expected too much from you all

But, I expected solidarity
which is so important right now.

[Land Shark]

202. Wiley, you're one of only two who PM'd me

There can be solidarity as soon as people stop defending the indefensible and stop denying what is OBVIOUSLY a problem.

No one can deny there's a problem of APPEARANCE, for just one example.

Wiley, I'm going to start another thread in your Honor. Well maybe not, if you read autorank's post here and tell me why this is a non-issue:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x441779#441924>

That is by no means the end of the real issues here.

Wiley if you remain unconvinced, I can release more evidence, name more names, etc. is that what you want?

Hey, I haven't even STARTED to write articles for the general press. Is this what you want Wiley?

It's so much easier to say oops, kick the conflict out, set better policies, increase transparency, fully disclose, and so forth. If that happens i've already pledged to help VTUSA raise money.

But if this precedent stands, then any large group can have funding from Diebold and not tell the public. C'mon.

ANd it doesn't work to make fine distinctions between the president of choicepoint and his first lady. The question is whether a REASONABLE PERSON donating to an "election integrity" organization would want to know about Choicepoint spouses involved. SURE THEY WOULD.

[Wiley50]

203. Please, not another thread..... and my honor deserves it not

I had already read that one

but, I just read it again.

And I said in my PM that I rhought John Gideon's statement on BBV.org's board
was, most likely, I felt
"a mis-informed personal view and not the official position
of VTUSA.

And I'm still not clear about the timeline of whether or not Ms. Curling's husband
was even employed by CP during the relevant time.
( although I am concerned aboutr their culpability in Mexico's recent .........
God, like 04, I can't even call it an election, I'd puke)

But, I'm not an attorney and my legal knowledge is limited to what I learned
from Perry Mason and Matlock.

Still, reading Autorank's post my first reaction
is the voice of the judge in my head saying:
" Mr Autorank, You are Badgering the witness"

Maybe if he had bothered to return my PM and
explain himself as youy did
I'd feel differently.

Like I said I'm newly returned
and trying to figure out why the people I look up to
are after each other

Wiley

[autorank]

204. Hi. "Badgering" whom?

My keyboard maybe.

Look, you can all take a little rest here if you'll just listen up.

Palast said what he said in the email.

VoteTrustUSA said they never challenged Palast's "veracity" = truthfulness AFTER the Palest email (which you can be sure they were aware of).

Therefore, without any doubt whatsoever, VoteTrustUSA accepts the veracity of Palast's email by the above statement, which they've made here and which they've repeated on Mark Crispin Miller's
mailing list.

That's not badgering, they say "VoteTrustUSA has never questioned Greg Palast’s veracity" - - AFTER Palast's email. this is the second to last time I'm explaining it here. Anyone who denies this obvious, completely logical, fact supported (the two events are facts in this instance) series of events is simply not playing straight. There is only one interpretation.

VoteTrustUSA is either unwilling or unable to challenge ONE SINGLE THING in the Palast email, not a one. The Palast characterization stands for lack of challenge.

[Wiley50]

205. Dunno Man. I'm not here to fight

just trying to broker a peace.

As an old hippie, I know

"Fighting for peace is like
fucking for virginity"

Maybe Hedda and Co don't wanna fight about it either
so just said, in effect
"We don't wanna fight with You, LS or Palast."

When the dogs of war
are at your door
it's time to sit tight
Maybe they'll smell raw meat
that's easier to get to

What about Bev's 990, anyway?

[autorank]

210. Well Wiley, old buddy, I don't take offense at you completely

ignoring my post and the logic therein. I'm not here for a fight. I find this to be one huge waste of time. As for the fighting, the visciousness of attacks on Paul have surpassed even what TIA had to endure. Have you objected to that? They're from supporters of JK and also from her at times. Are you reading the threads? I have not attacked anybody, I've just asked the obvious question, and what I got was ignoring the obvious, like I got from you, or no answe This is not an attack on you at all. I'm merely pointing out what happened. You side stepped the question.

There is good news on the horizon. Dean is repeatedly trashing electronic voting. He's not asking for verified paper ballots or any other "fixes." He's saying the obvious: you CANNOT trust any of it, it's trash, throw it out. When the "big boys" enter the room, they take over and run the show. The solution proposed is the correct one. At that time, which I hope is soon, the points on this thread will be moot, largely, because this organization is all about fixing the machines with those pseky "verified" paper ballots. Thank you Chairman Dean.

[Wiley50]

211. Agreed! Thank You Chairman Dean

Ya Know? We wouldn't be fighting these particular battles if he had been the candidate in 04. That's why he was "swiftboated" with the "Dean Scream".
My son was in the room that night. He didn't come home for college break that year 'cause he was in Iowa canvassing for Dean. Sleeping under desks at the HQ. Worked himself sick. Literally. I remember some pundit saying that it was Kerry's election to lose. Well he did by not contesting Ohio. Dean would not have done that.
I didn't intend or even now see myself sidestepping anything. Palast is great and I treasure having been able to speak with him on Malloy's show in Oct 04 and He's right on most things
But
He's still human
and if veracity=truthfullness
Humans can very well be both truthful and mistaken at the same time
Humans can assume and do
jump to conclusions and do
ect.

I just want the lady to come back and answer LS' questions
before I jump to a conclusion about folks
that I have seen work their butts off on this issue
If she can arrange a debate with Palast all the better.

And in the meantime, how come you guys aren't after Bev too.
She only returned the money after being called on it
Two Years Later
Why does she get a pass/
and this Rigel99/peacetheonlyway
How come she's back here after being tombstoned?
If she's the same dreary bitching chick from GA
who sat across from me at lunch in Nashville in April 05
I can believe nothing she says
Lowell was seated to my left
and this chick just kept on and on about
how everyone had done her wrong
Not the movement, mind you
Her, personally

This is the kind of stuff that I'm seeing in these threads that I can't figure out

By the way. I'm math challenged and TIA's statistical studies I could not follow
but I'm sure am glad he did them

we're friends AR

Wiley

[autorank]

214. AR

[peacetheonlyway]

235. autorank Rocks..

far cry from that piece of trash DNC report..

Dean has finally gotten the message. and the whole world will see when the US decides to go back to honest elections. that day is coming soon. because of the hardwork of many of the activists on this thread.

can I have a hallelujah....amen!

[Boredtodeath]

236. How about a great big.......

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[autorank]

239. Amen sister peace!

As I like to say, Let Dean be Dean. He's so on target its unbelievable. He keeps saying the machines suck, can't trust them. Well, what's the alternative...lets see...raise your hands, no...tell the poll worker, non...PAPER BALLOTS. :)

[troubleinwinter]

213. "What about Bev's 990, anyway?"

Oh, you mean the one that indicates $30,000 from one unidentified donor and $20,000 from another?

[Boredtodeath]

222. TIW, we must learn the rules of this game of

hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander according to their rules.

At least I THINK that's how it works.

[Land Shark]

206. Wiley, I've totally failed in communication if all you think this is, is a

food fight of some sort. Therefore, I must redouble my efforts.

If you in fact DO UNDERSTAND the problem with VTUSA and Choicepoint's first lady, then please PM me or post what you think that is. Otherwise, I still think i've got quite a few legitimate points, but it simply must be deficiencies in my communication abilities that is the problem, but I can work on that. I'll try to improve. OK?

[Wiley50]

209. Paul, the way I understand it

we are all waiting for the lady in question to return, as promised, and answer your questions.
In the meantime, most of this thread seems to be premature conjecture. No wonder VTUSA is laying low for now.
I,and I am sure many others, are waiting for that time and fully expect you to have an outlet
for your aggressive prosecution. If her answers don't wash, I'm with you.
But I still don't understand why your pressure on VTUSA, but not Bev
(or DU for that matter)
when all received donations from the lady.
Clear me up on that. It seems like selective enforcement.
and I'll keep an open mind until I see what shakes out of your
interaction with Ms Curley, when and if it happens.
.

[Land Shark]

212. Yes, we're waiting for Curling to show up and answer question, BUT

there are several issues where there's nothing she can say that will change anything.

You ask about BBV, but probably haven't had time to read my promise to treat BBV under the same or slightly tougher standards than I've treated VTUSA with:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441779&mesg_id=442590>

[troubleinwinter]

215. Your 'promise' that only matters

"IF TROUBLEINWINTER authors a New York Times bestseller on election fraud that is critical of Diebold"

That is the first of about a dozen qualifications before you become concerned about BBV's two huge invisible donors, BBV not filing tax return, not depositing payroll taxes for over a year, soliciting funds without being registered in violation of WA law for two years(*), not fully complying with 990 copy request law, exposing BBV donors' money to be used to pay severe IRS penalty fees, etc., etc., etc.

*Aren't you a WA lawyer? Can't this subject an individual to a year in the clink & $5,000? Doesn't this make you go "Hmmmmm..."? Never mind, I haven't written a bestseller yet, so it doesn't seem to matter at all.

[flyingobject]

223. Paul Lehto BBV Participant Registered 04-2006

Paul is a member of the Mickey Mouse Fan Club.

Paul Lehto
BBV Participant
Username: Paul_lehto

Post Number: 7
Registered: 04-2006

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1153513020#POST26185

[fooj]

240. Big Surprise.

:eyes:

[flyingobject]

256. now big question: Did Lehto Ever Win Any Cases in Court?

seems to be no answer to that question.

[Cookie wookie]

217. Maybe if there was more documentation presented,

from more sources than Mr. Palast's to support your assumptions and accusations, you might make better progress toward the goal of bringing down the people and organizations you target.

You also lose traction when you shift the argument from Choicepoint/the Curlings, to the Holt Bill to audits to Mexico and round and round without addressing valid questions asked that are based on other documentation, the Florida lawsuit, for instance, or that question how you are making the assumptions you are, based on what evidence?

For instance what evidence is there that the Holt Bill is anything other than one path to attempt to get verified voting? Your argument and that of others here and on related threads, seems to connect an influence by Choicepoint and the Curlings via VTUSA to mandating electronic voting nationwide/helping the * fascist agenda. But there is no evidence to support that argument. Everything points to the contrary and is documentable:

1) Holt doesn't mandate electronic voting and in fact mandates verified voting: paper ballots, machines, optiscan, the states can choose as long as it is a transparent, voter verified process;
2) Choicepoint doesn't donate to VTUSA;
3) Choicepoint didn't own DBT when the dbase was created and delivered to Florida
4) Choicepoint isn't involved in creating elections databases -- since 2000
5) VTUSA works for verified voting;
6) Mrs. Curling works as an activist for verified voting;
7) The Curlings donate heavily and with only a couple exceptions to Democrats and progressive causes and verified voting organizations;
5) If the country gets verified voting, that will be a major move toward taking it back from the fascists;
6) If Choicepoint wanted a fascist government and the Curlings supported that agenda, how would getting verified voting do anything but achieve the opposite ends

[flyarm]

245. WELL ISN'T THAT THEIR MOTIVE OF ALL OF THIS CRAP?? N/T

[Febble]

216. Ms Curling makes an interesting point

that seems to be at the root of a number disagreements that have emerged recently on DU, by contrasting litigation with legislation as approaches to effecting reform. I have been struggling to understand the opposition to HR550 by Land Shark and others, as I could see no mechanism by which legislation could hinder rather than help the cause.

OK, now I think I see it:

The difference appears to be that on one side we have those who actually value the law as it stands, because the abuses they want to eradicate are currently in violation of it (and lawsuits are therefore possible), and on the other side we have those who want to change the law so that abuses are less likely to happen.

And so we have Land Shark tilting at Curling and VTUSA (who support the legislative approach), but not at BBV (which opposes the proposed legislation), even though both VTUSA and BBV appear to have received donations from Curling.

Is this the real difference here? Is this at the root of the HR550 debate? Is the perceived problem with HR550 that it would make litigation against abuses more difficult?

In which case, could we have that debate, instead of this one?

[Land Shark]

218. You are slipping in false issues inside an otherwise helpful post

sure, the difference is that litigation is to vindicate existing rights while legislation is to create new rights that otherwise wouldn't exist.

But the problem is, you adopt the VTUSA talking point that suggests that all this is about is the mere acceptance of money by VTUSA from Curling. And that's a misrepresentation of the nature of the debate, which goes far beyond the mere acceptance of money. See, for example, the email from Greg Palast, posted in various places around here.

[Cookie wookie]

220. I repeat from above, Mr. Shark

6) If Choicepoint wanted a fascist government and the Curlings supported that agenda, how would getting verified voting do anything but achieve the opposite end?

[Febble]

221. Well, I asked a question -

and thanks for the clarification.

But I have certainly not adopted anyone's talking point (I don't, in case you hadn't noticed). I was merely responding to yours.

If "this" is about more than money from Donna Curling then it's a shame your original posts made it seem that Curling was your target. As I've said before, I often find it extremely hard to know what you are even trying to say, and I know, to my cost, that innocent people sometimes get hurt in the metaphor fallout (me, for instance).

If it looks like duck, and it quacks like a duck, maybe it's not always a duck, maybe sometimes it's just a shark out of water.

But sometimes it looks a heck of a lot like a duck. And in this case, the duck it looked like was called McCarthy.

[Cookie wookie]

224. Here, here n/t

[flyingobject]

225. Based on Paul's arguments - Democrats, DU, Orion all tainted

Based on Paul's Endless Argument (because it would be a stretch to call it logic):

Democratic Underground Members and the owner are tainted by
Donna Curling's donations to DU.

All registered Democrats, (and anyone voting for a democrat)
are tainted by Donna Curling's donations to the DNC.

All members of the Orion Society, or anyone who benefits from
any of their actions, are tainted.

Also notice that Paul associates with Black Box Voting, YET

he has not challenged them about their failure to
file their 990 non profit tax return with the IRS

he has not challenged them for ignoring Washington
State law requiring Non Profits to register with them.
(And he is supposed to be licensed in Washington State).

He has not challenged Black Box Voting for failure to
pay payroll tax during the year that they were due.

But, he is a member in good standing with BBV.org

[troubleinwinter]

229. Paul Lehto

is a consumer fraud attorney in the state of Washington.

I don't know if this means that he defends those who defraud people, or if he opposes such perpetrators.

Perhaps he'll give us a legal opinion as to whether a tax exempt organization illegally soliciting charitable funds for two years while not registered in his state, leading donors to believe donations are to be used for election reform rather than IRS penalties (knowing that penalties were accruing) is consumer fraud or not.

Perhaps he will discuss with us Washington State law regarding soliciting funds while not registered, in relation to 'gross misdemeanor' with a penalty of up to a year in jail and $5,000 fines.

I'd think a consumer fraud attorney would be at least slightly interested in discussing the issue.

Seemingly not.

[troubleinwinter]

230. Something I have wondered about for a long time...

The statement on BBV site:

"We are the official consumer protection group for elections"

This is what every new potential donor is told upon arriving at BBV.org website.

Hey, Mr. Consumer Fraud Attorney, can we have a legal opinion as to this bullshit?

[Boredtodeath]

231. LandShark will need time with his family, suddenly.

Another trip out of town, perhaps.

[troubleinwinter]

232. I know.... sitting by the pool takes a lot of time.

[troubleinwinter]

233. I wonder about this too...

http://www.kcba.org/ScriptContent/KCBA/publications/pdf/nonprofit/NPHandbook.pdf

Mr. Consumer Fraud Attorney: Can donors recoup the IRS penalties from Bev as an individual? (in order to redirect their donations to the purpose for which they were and intended)

[Boredtodeath]

219. Ohhhhhh, you better have on your flame retardant suit!

Showing LandShark's true motives will make you a target.

[BeFree]

227. Yep

Showing Land Shark's true motives: his dedication to the truth, democracy and the rule of law, will end up burning those who get in his way. And rightfully so. I'd burn them too, but I don't like the smell.

[Boredtodeath]

228. Hahahahahha! If only n/t

.

[peacetheonlyway]

237. feeling the need to explain

****
"couldn’t explain the change in Rigel99’s judgment of my legitimacy except to think that I ceased to be “okay” as an activist once she realized I supported a different approach from hers and that there were not going to be any donations from the golden calf to her group."

****
Perhaps Rigel99 felt at the time of your interviewing her that your 'honest' offer of help was really just a ruse. That your husband set you up to gather information, that the day after the meeting, you produced none of the 6 things you promised to produce and it was clear then that you were not a helping factor to the election fraud movement but a spy (albeit perhaps a little tricked into that role by your husband) for the advancement of his understanding of elements that could affect his stock price, a precious thing that allows he and you to have huge houses and spend money on political causes.

perhaps she didn't take your money because she was a much bigger person and knew that taking money meant compromising her position which she had spent tens of thousands of her own dollars gathering and such data which is now the evidence behind 3 very powerful lawsuits. Let the record state, Ms. Rigel99 bought election records in 28 counties in Georgia and that data has been useful in Ohio, Florida, NM, etc. in places that such data can help people win cases....

given a chance to do it over again, Rigel99 would never have set foot on your property. She might admit to being naive when she entered your home, but by the end of that meeting , she wised up and realized you were a bigger fraud than the election fraud she was litigating against.

finally. rigel99 did treat you with love and respect because she felt you were a very good person trapped in a very bad situation.

the only message she kept trying to get across to you was "donna deserves better, and so do her children". But somehow going thru a storm of public disapproval and dangerous fallout because of her husband's career did not change Donna's opinion.. and it finally made sense to Rigel99 why there was nervous twitch in Donna's shoulder and a very medicated glaze to her eyes.. that her depression was the result of not living a good and spiritual and giving and kind life. the cognitive dissonance clear in her eyes, like rapunzel, a lovely damsel in distress, trapped in a tower of power, greed and money but not happy.

I only have ever wished for Donna to realize she can get off the crazy train anytime she wishes...

go meet with Mr. Landshark.. and carefully listen to the trials of a man that has done wonders for the election fraud community....

but alas...
I hear crickets again!

[Boredtodeath]

238. No, honey, what you hear is your own voice

get help.

[Febble]

241. good God. n/t

[MelissaB]

243. You seem to *know* an awful lot about rigel99.

Odd...

[Wilms]

244. Well, at least it ain't just me wondering about that. n/t

:think:

[Boredtodeath]

246. Read carefully...

'Peace' starts off in the third person, then ends with this:

I only have ever wished for Donna ...

Note the first person reference.

[MelissaB]

247. peacetheonlyway also writes just like rigel99.

I just came out of the archives. :evilgrin:

[Boredtodeath]

248. Uh huh

no surprise to me.

[MelissaB]

249. Check this out!

Read through this thread with the same players (yeah, I said players). It sheds a lot of light on this issue for me. Andy even posted there. Start with the deleted messages.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=333357#334968

[peacetheonlyway]

250. CONGRATS to landshark

for being chosen as council for the recount in San diego.

now that's what I call fucking progress.


kudos landshark....
and in case anyone forgets, let's outline the diebold shady tree of relationships..

[adarling]

254. oh dear lord please stop posting here

just so tired of you trying to pretend you are someone else and failing miserably at it. This is Rigel99 in the flesh and if anyone wants to understand this situation, go into the archives and look up the posts rigel99 put up about Donna. As someone mentioned before and Donna did as well, you got upset when she decided to put her efforts elsewhere and you decided to try and take her down. Reevaluate yourself and who you are because after reading everything you have posted under both names, you are a severely disturbed individual.

[flyingobject]

257. Has he EVER WON A COURT CASE?

just wondering.