Came across one heck of a thread over at DU.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ic_id=3300#3461

Well the bloggers at the other site need to state that is only what they deem an message board related unofficial name.

They need to be very clear about that I believe, because BBV is an activist non-profit bi partisan corporation who investigates electronic fraud and voting problems.

They are a clearly cited 501C3 and nobody else should be trying to start companies with their name. Message board topics, with how old they are, obviously don't matter. I don't think anyone can say legally someone is hijacking something if they just put it in a message board. Not even using the patriot act, so unless they try to start a company using it its a non issue.

Well isn't that all lovely.

Will Bev be pissed that I directed people here to her site later today..... I did make sure to put her material in quotes....

Actually, it seems that person used 'BBV'. There is no action that could be taken here unless the person was using the legal trade name of Bev's organization.

I was actually interested in what the legal trade name is, so I decided to look it up.

The legal name of the 501c(3) corporation is: "Black Box Voting". There are no other trade names associated with the filing at all.

Therefore, it sounds like Bev sort of flew off the handle on this one.

But, I had heard from several others before (and said as much here) that Bev was not exactly the best person to be heading up this sort of thing.

She has had *falling outs* with many people due to various problems, including the people at blackboxvoting.com.

I hope no one has been pinning their hopes on her.

I am here in your state arranging for a hand count.

Now, this isn't "talking to people that way." What do you think would happen if I started organizing a "PFAW Election Protection" group on DU? That trade name belongs to People for the American Way and their related entities. Surely you see that it would be nuts to just go in and take their trade name without permission?

This is very important. Stuff like this can cause groups to lose their 501c(3) status. If we do not protect our own trade name, and publicly, all it takes is someone with good intentions encouraging something that is against our approved charter, and we lose our whole operation.

C'mon now.

Bev Harris
Executive Director
Black Box Voting Inc., a registered 501c(3) nonprofit organization
Cleanup Crew, the volunteer arm of Black Box Voting


*********************

hey brossingnol

dont you have some work to do?

I started having doubts about her the time when she said a well placed friend informed her that a media lockdown was in force.

For most of you including bross a 501c(3) can loose its designation very easily

and quickly. Especially when you are out trying to prove the truth. Accepting money

has to be done in very specific ways and accounted for. So before anyone flies off

on Bev I think she is busy and needs our help not our sarcasicm or criticism

this thread is "Much Ado About Nothing,(well nearly Nothing)"
Bev has every right to protect her organization's name, I don't consider
either party DU or Bev as PisD.

If you look closely at the DU thread, it's from 11/14/04, so it's from over a week ago. It's not exactly a new development, And she was objecting to them using the name "BBV Cleanup Crew", since her organization was collecting donations under that name. She was afraid that any confusion regarding that name would endanger BBV's 501c(3) status, which would endanger her ability to conduct the investigation. So she was really just trying to protect her ability to investigate the voting problems.

Yea, I guess you would be hoping that, wouldn't you?

Never miss a chance to slide in the knife, do you?

Sounds like a lot of craziness going around. She and that
Jeff Fisher guy are too into the 'conspiracy theory' stuff.
I'm glad the Dems are working on Ohio.

Too bad. Cooperation gets things done, at least in my world. The Dems are ding the right stuff in Ohio.

After what happened in FL in 2000, I think the Dems have decided to enter the fray only when they think there is decent chance of winning.

Why? Jealous?

Sure she does. But, no one was using her organization's name. To use 'BBV' means absolutely nothing. Her corporation's name is "Black Box Voting"

This would be like Microsoft going after someone for using 'M', or my company going after someone for using 'VTC'

You see, what a typical person would do would be to email the person who posted that and politely discuss the situation with them. But to post in a public forum, threatening lawsuits, etc., is not just very unprofessional, it would tend to cause some to question the credibility of the person, at the very least.

I am sorry, but I have heard stories from people Bev has worked with and those stories do not tell a happy tale. They indicate that she can be very divisive because she tends to buy into off the wall ideas and simply does not want to hear what anyone else has to say.

Do you post anything other than comments that cast doubt on the chance that any fraud is revealed or that minimizes computer security risks?

How anyone can believe that our elections are not corrupt is beyond me. This would not be the first time, would it?

Where did you hear those unsubstantiated, shallow rumors about Bev Harris? They seem suspect and sound like typical trashy smears that an oppressive hate group would put out against an activist.

Spreading rumors about someone supposedly started by her ex-employees is not very professional Bros. Why are you so determined to defame Bev Harris?

Defamation is a highly litigious area.

1. I only post the truth. Well, certainly as I believe it, but when it comes to computers and computer security, I am posting absolute fact.

Berkeley and Caltech/MIT release studies that are fatally flawed from the word 'go' and I should just accept them at face value?

I have posted skeptical responses to things that would favor both sides.

If I am skeptical about something, I investigate, I research and I form a well-informed opinion.

I am not the type to wildly believe everything that comes down the pipe.

You are entitled to believe that there was widespread fraud and our entire system is corrupt and, without these Kerry would have won. That is your right to believe that.

It is my right to not believe anything without proof. No one has proven anything even remotely resembling fraud during the election. In fact, so far, in NH, the recount effort there has turned up nothing. The recount is proving that a very small amount of votes were missed here and there, but that is normal. The results are almost exactly mirroring the overall percentages of the count on election day.

What do I think will happen in Ohio? Zip. Zero. Nada. Because I do not believe there was fraud. Why? Because every tinfoil laden theory so far has been proven to be wrong. So, Ohio will be recounted, and the overall results will vary by about 1% either way. Simple as that.

I have seen NO solid evidence that would indicate, for certain, that there was any type of fraud in this election (well, no more than the *usual* perpetrated by both parties equally).

2. This information came from people Bev has talked to and tried to work with. This includes people at blackboxvoting.com, people in Congressmans' offices, and just other people who have tried to help her in her effort, but are no longer working with her. I also read her posts. It all adds up to a very large distrust of her on my part.

You believe what YOU want to believe, I will believe what I want to believe. You have the right to post what you believe, I have the right to post what I want to believe.

We knew this, that you "do not believe that there was fraud" but thanks for reiderating where you stand here.

Spreading rumors and defaming a professional on the internet is not very professional Bros... This info you are spreading is purely speculative and subjective. There is NO hard evidence to support this. It sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy type talk.

All this "extra drama" reminds me of church!

Then don't take my word for it. Read the entire thread on DU. Search DU for more. You will see that the core group at DU has more than just turned their collective backs on her.

And, if I am defaming her, then she can threaten to sue me too.

In THIS case, the defamation would have to be proven to be untrue.

Sorry, but Bev has her own agenda. She claims that Black Box Voting is a non-partisan group, but then she focuses 99% of the group's efforts on states that would help Kerry if the results were to be turned. Not only that, but SHE, herself has made many HIGHLY partisan statements.

Bev buys into some of the worst conspiracy theories. Every time she has problems with her site, it was "hacked". That is so typical. My company houses more than 6,000 domains and we hear of users' domains being hacked all the time when they have problems. Unfortunately, it is never a case of hacking, just ineptitude on the part of the user who really doesn't know much about developing and maintaining a web site and domain.

Bev has said that she was invited onto Olbermann's show, but then he cancelled at the last minute, not once, but twice! Riiiiiiiight!!

That other post about the FBI interviewing Bev. I wonder if that is true... I have some friends at the FBI and I think I will ask them to look into any investigations where she was even questioned.

Sorry, but, I personally helped out a grassroots group similar to Bev's once. Not a political group, something else. They were a registered 501c(3) corp. and I handed them more than $200,000. Then, I was contacted by a small group of people who had left the organization and told some things that sounded fishy. Now, I could have just chalked it up to disgruntled ex-members, but I did the smart thing and asked to see the organizations books. All 501c(3)'s are required to divulge this information upon request.

What I found was astonishing. The founders of the group had misappropriated funds, used them for personal expense including travel that was completely unrelated to the group's activities.

This group also participated regularly on some online forums, so I jumped in to read some of the posts. There was a lot of infighting, similar to what is heard in the DU post above and in others. I pulled the plug.

So, if *I* had given any money to Black Box Voting, I would at least be a little concerned at this point.

And, I will even be nice. I know the proper method for filing a request for their books. Anyone who is concerned can let me know, PM me if you want, and I will be happy to get copies and put them in a location where you can download them.

Now, if anyone has any regular communication with Bev, feel free to tell her to come here and respond. Tell her to come and threaten to sue ME.

So you have the FBI at your personal disposable? You can just call up some friends at the Bureau and they'll investigate whatever you ask? Why don't you do that then. Ask them to see if Bev was even questioned and then report back.

Yeah, the drama is what bothers me. I've been to enough
al-anon meetings to know what all that drama means.
(and Bush falls into the same things that they talk about
at al-anon).

Actually I agree. But this does support my opinion of Bev.

Any leader of a company, group, organization, whatever, knows that they do not run around and create or participate in drama. It is bad for moral within the group and it is counter-productive to their efforts.

Sort of the way that I come here on a personal level and, sure there is drama, but I refuse to do anything to let it harm my company.

I have a sailboat for sale if anyone is interested.















It comes with a bridge to.

ditto....stop being Democrats and start being patriots...Bev is one doing her best to get YOUR VOTE BACK!

so chill...

So I guess you can see why YOUR posting in a public forum unsubstantiated negative rumors (gossip) about someone else (who isn't using your 501c3's name OR commonly-used and recognized acronym without your express permission, by the way) would tend to cause some to question your credibility, at the very least. BTW, Bross, I welcome you to express your opinion here and believe that challenging people's assumptions can be quite helpful, but I know that gossip (especially about someone risking so much and working so hard to protect your right to vote) is not.

Hello, Karl! Having a little fun with us?

Well, first, I don't have to have prove my credibility. I am not soliciting donations from people using a very HOT topic and I am not purporting to be a group's *voice* in a very important matter.

As for gossip, well, I won't say another thing about this issue. Take a look for yourselves and see what others have to say. The people at DU who bring up numerous issues with Bev have all been at DU for a long time and have *known* Bev for a very long time.

But, honestly, I won't change anyone's mind. Some people's minds simply cannot be changed.

I'm commenting on this as a FYI only:

When I first heard about Ms. Harris' site I accidently went to

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

As a new person to the blogs I was lost at first trying to determine which site was valid.

To a one time/novice visitor they would be hard press to tell the difference.

Each site is collecting money for their activities as they regard the voting process.

Each site is has an on line version of Ms. Harris book.

Each site now has a disclaimer that they are not affliated with each other.

Each site's name is the same with the exception of the suffixs "com" and "org".

If Ms. Harris won't fight for the organization. where will those folks be who help degrade the legal status of the organization and the name when she is in court defending both.

I'm on the outside looking in and it's doesn't sound like a problem I would like or need.

Originally, both sites were affiliated with Bev. Now, the .org site is hers while the .com site is that of her publisher and co-author. The book is available through either site.

Just for the record, Bev Harris (.org) and David Allen (.com) actually collaborated on the book. Bev's site has an abridged version of the book, while David's has an unabridged version. I do know at one point, the .com site had taken down its donation link while Bev was pushing for donations so there would be less confusion.

Also, keep in mind that Bev was not defending her organization. The person in the original post used "BBV Clean Up Crew", while Bev's organization is called "Black Box Voting". Now, if the person was seeking donations, I could at least see where she would want to step in, though I still think she should have done so in private, and politely. However, this person simply used that in the title of the post and, in no way, infringed on Bev's organization's trade name.

Therefore, she simply jumped the gun a bit. And, if she didn't have a pretty good history of doing things like that in the past, it would have likely been overlooked by most.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just say in the "Down Under" thread that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused (which IS correct, BTW)?

Thanks for the advice about quoting. Now let's see if I can do it!

Also, you'll have to agree -- what I said as a Hobbes/Foucault love-child on that thread was BLOODY BRILLIANT! :D :o

No, defamation is an interesting thing. First, let's say Bev, would have to prove 1) that I knew the statements were untrue, and 2) that she was harmed by them. There is actually more to it than that, but those are the basics.

So, it is still the *wronged* person who shoulders the burden.

And, that was either 'bloody brilliant' or you have been up too late.

It is only 23:00 here, so I cannot comment which it is.

OK, I see, you're right -- IF she were to sue you for defamation (which she hasn't even threatened to yet)!

I can tell you don't like her, but you've got to admit that she has done more than almost anyone to bring the dangers of unaudited, electronic elections to the public consciousness -- and beyond that, to tenaciously lead investigation into areas where there is justifiable suspicion of fraud. She should not have to be the central person in this fight, but as neither governmental agencies nor the press have the balls to, she feels rightly that she has no choice but to try to make up for their incompetence. I'm sure she's not perfect (who is? [hence the pointlessness of gossip, which holds up as a contrast to its subject a one-sided and non-existent ideal]), but personally, I'm glad she feels that way, and I wish more citizens did.

I respect her tenacity and I would like to believe that she truly does believe that she is doing the right thing.

One will never convince mainstream America of anything through extremism, though.

This never should have been a big deal. I think that if she had just said "do not use it” the problem would have been solved. She threatened legal action and some people felt offended, hurt and threatened.

Much of the money donated to her organization came from DU members. I don't want her to use the money that I donated to sue someone on DU. I want a champion to deal with the voting fraud issues.

I have donated to her organization and like many others I have placed my hope and faith in her to carry the fight and achieve real results. It is reasonable to question what she is doing.

Perhaps we need another champion to carry this fight. Why hasn't the League of Women Voters taken an active roll in this? They only make a vague statement about voting irregularities on their page. They have a responsibility to look at this issue. They also have the credibility needed to get something done.