BREAKING: DIEBOLD WHISTLEBLOWER STRIKES PLEA DEAL ON FELONY CHARGES

[BradBlog]

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3824

BREAKING: DIEBOLD WHISTLEBLOWER STRIKES PLEA DEAL ON FELONY CHARGES

Stephen Heller Agrees to Plead Guilty, Pay $10,000, Apologize and Receive Three Years Probation After Being Charged with 'Burglary' for Sharing Diebold Lawfirms Attorney-Client Privileged Documents with Newspaper, Election Integrity Activists

Tells BRAD BLOG He Has 'No Assets Left, Other Than House' and Deal is Meant to Protect Him and His Wife as 'Best Deal I Could Get Based on the Circumstances'



FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3824


---
Brad Friedman
THE BRAD BLOG - The uprising continues...
http://www.BradBlog.com
VELVET REVOLUTION's Election Protection Strike Force!
Of the people, by the people, for the people...
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/ElectionStrikeForce

[Independent_Liberal]

1. K&R!

:woohoo:

[pnwmom]

2. He's a hero to me. Here's the link to his defense fund:

http://www.hellerlegaldefensefund.com/

[dubykc]

13. Because the case is resolved they are no longer taking donations

[NVMojo]

3. damn ...only the good do time in Bushworld???

[Polesitter]

39. Like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney...

Care to rethink your definitions?

[laylah]

42. Martha Stewart comes to mind..

while Ken Lay, basking in some tropical sun, enjoying his penis-colada and new identity...

BTW, welcome, sit back and watch...you will learn a lot.

:toast:

Jenn

[berni_mccoy]

4. This man should not be charged, or he should be granted a Pardon

If the end result is that he exposed criminal activity by a company, then what he did was not criminal.

[spillthebeans]

5. Diebold pleads guilty to unlawfully taking votes and shifting them

This is a headline I would like to see.

But with Patriot Act Section 129 even Federal Agents have no whistleblower protection anymore.

[BradBlog]

6. Wait for it, spillthebeans...

It shouldn't be long now... ;-)

Brad

[Last Lemming]

7. Is anything ever going to break on this

I'm about to give up.


Oh, by the way, Brad, you've been told you are fantastic by many on this site but I don't believe I have had a chance to personally add my small voice to the chorus. Thanks for everything.

[robinlynne]

27. Bobby Kennedy's gag order should be lifted any day now! I would guess

he has some lovely info in his lawsuit....

[mopinko]

32. the 60 days is more than over.

sept 15th, according to my note to myself.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. LOL. I've been wondering the same thing. They told me "dont worry"

when I posted here in alarm over Al Gonzales's use of the gag rule. They said "it will only be 60 days." Yeah, right.

[mojowork_n]

11. Orange jumpsuits?

Or are we going to see a few new guests visiting that Graybar Hotel of Federal Prison myth and legend, the one with the squash and racketball courts, and the polo ponies, and hot and cold running Evian?

[xchrom]

8. sigh.

i can't add more than that.

[bonito]

9. Kick

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Another victim of Bev Harris' ego and

craving for money and fame.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Kelvin%20Mace/1

Any evidence that Bev ever gave him $10,000 like she claimed?

[Katzenjammer]

20. "Any evidence that Bev ever gave him $10,000 like she claimed?"

Heller says she did. See bradblog.

[steveheller]

21. I'm Steve Heller

Let me make this perfectly clear. I know Bev Harris personally, and all of my dealings with her lead me to believe she is a woman of great loyalty and integrity. Black Box Voting DID donate $10,000 to my defense fund, and anyone who says otherwise is a damn liar. Also, Bev was very helpful during my legal defense. She came to L.A. to meet with my lawyer and discuss the situation and provided important insight and advice regarding the content of the documents. Also, AT MY ATTORNEY'S REQUEST Bev met with the D.A. to tell them why the documents were important and why I should be considered a whistleblower and not a criminal.

Also, those who have said Bev "gave me up" to the D.A. are fools who don't know what they're talking about. Again, MY LAWYER ASKED BEV TO MEET WITH THE D.A. and she did so to help me. The D.A. ALREADY KNEW that I was the one who took the docs, because I left what the D.A. called "the perfect electronic trail." Bev Harris has never done anything to harm me or my legal defense, and in fact she was extremely helpful to my legal defense.

Others are entitled to their opinions, however vicious or mis-informed they may be. But to me personally, and to me as a voter and a citizen, Bev Harris is a hero.

I will be posting the entire story of what happened on the defense fund website in a few days, probably after Thanksgiving. Stay tuned....

Steve Heller

[elehhhhna]

22. Somebody buy this guy a star already. I've given out my starts for November.

[lebkuchen]

29. Thank you to you and Bev

I'll check in w/your website, Steve. Take care.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. My, oh my, yes, it does look like, that in this case, Bev came through.

Thanks to the both of you. May better days lie ahead for all of us because of your sacrifices.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. That remains to be seen.

The only thing that came through is that this man now has a felony conviction.

[jackster]

31. Mr Heller....

you are a hero. Thank you for what you've done, for setting the record straight, and taking one for your country.

One day I believe you will be vindicated. Keep up the good fight.

Blessings on you and yours.

[w4rma]

37. Thank you, Mr. Heller!!!!! (nt)

[daveskilt]

65. thank you!

[Grey]

82. from the Canadian side of the Heller Family

Let me say, good for you, Thanks, and thanks to your wife.
You did good, man, not the easiest thing to do. But Hey, We're Proud of you.

OK, I know we are, probably, not even distantly related but you do make me proud to be a Heller.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Now there's a rub!

See, Bev has an MO of pretending to be other people on this board and of posting via proxies. So, you will hopefully take no offense if I ask you to establish your bona fides with Skinner and get him to vouch that you are who you say you are.

Bev Dudley (aka Harris) routinely makes all sorts of claims, which have zero foundation in truth.

But, for the sake of argument, let us accept your claim for a moment. The fact that you don't think Bev sold you out, doesn't mean she didn't. According to the press, she just didn't talk to the DA, she talked to the cops.

Now if she REALLY had wanted to get you protected status as a whistle blower, there is a way she could have done that, and that was to make you a party in the qui tam suit she filed.

Of course, that means she would have had to SHARE the money she collected with you, something she was unlikely to do.

Now you say she HAS in fact given you $10,000, as she claimed. Now I have never said she didn't, I have simply asked for proof that this did in fact happen. Given Bev's predilection for forging documents (See her fake IRS 990 form), I am afraid we will need some seriously unimpeachable documentation.

Ms. Dudley has proven herself a liar on too many occasions for us to simply accept her word, or the word of someone claiming to be one of her victims.

Personally, if you are who you say you are, you have my greatest admiration for your actions. I am only sorry that it has resulted in a criminal record since you chose to trust Bev.

Again, the fact that you don't see yourself as a victim, doesn't mean you aren't. Sooner or later, the truth about Bev always come to people who have dealings with her.

[BradBlog]

90. No...You're the rub, David...

"Kelvin Mace" (David Allen) said:

But, for the sake of argument, let us accept your claim for a moment. The fact that you don't think Bev sold you out, doesn't mean she didn't. According to the press, she just didn't talk to the DA, she talked to the cops.
...
Personally, if you are who you say you are, you have my greatest admiration for your actions. I am only sorry that it has resulted in a criminal record since you chose to trust Bev.

For those who are unaware, "Kelvin Mace" is David Allen, Bev Harris' former publisher and clearly a man with a vendetta based on his continual attacks here and elsewhere on anything that has to do with Harris or BlackBoxVoting.org

Not only are you simply WRONG about your assertions concerning Harris in this case, David, you're also wrong concerning your suggestion that Stephen Heller is not who he says he is.

As you fancy yourself a reporter via your website, if you had any questions, why did you just pick up the phone and call Heller yourself to verify his comments here?

I'm sorry. I've tried to stay out of the internal squabble between you and Bev, but this has now gotten to be fucking ridiculous. Please take your vendetta elsewhere, or at least reserve your bullets for when you've actually got something to shoot at. Because for now, you're shooting nothing but blanks and, if I might add, making a jack-ass of yourself while injecting bullshit into a place where there is none.

If you bothered to do a moment's investigation, you'd find your continued slurs that Harris had *anything* to do with Heller's arrest or conviction is complete and utter horseshit. Please knock it the fuck off unless you've got something legitimate to add to the conversation.

Until then, you're wasting a lot of time for those of us who actually give a damn about cleaning up this country's woeful election system. The *real* enemies we (all) face are far greater than the nonsense you continue to splatter across these pages, David. It would be appreciated if you'd begin to realize that, grow up, and join the fight in ernest.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. I have never claimed to be a reporter

My blog is political commentary.

The BBV blog is simply news about BBV and my experiences on the issue over the years.

Unlike Bev, I have never "fancied" myself to be a reporter (nor have I claimed I deserved the Pulitzer Prize for my work).

I will not take the truth elsewhere. Bev was banned from this site, yet continues to post here via her proxies, sock puppets and apologists.

I have also NEVER made a secret of my identity and connection to Bev, despite you attempt to imply that I have.

You continue to defend Bev and make excuses for her lies and vile behavior. That is certainly your prerogative, but you cannot do it here without rebuttal. If you want to post hosannas to Bev without rebuttal, that is what your blog is for.

I have made my contributions to this issue, and substantive ones at that. To imply that I have impeded anti-BBV efforts by keeping a check on Bev's abuses is dishonest and conflates Bev's reputation with the issue of e-voting reform.

I will not be shouted down, bullied, smeared, or driven off. If this has not be made clear by now, I do not know how much clearer I can make it.

It is interesting that you PUBLICLY attack me for my "squabble" with Bev, yet you never (on this board) attack Bev for her despicable actions.

[BradBlog]

99. That's a good thing...

David Allen as "Kelvin Mace" said:

If you want to post hosannas to Bev without rebuttal, that is what your blog is for.

You can "rebut" whatever you wish. Of course, there were no "hosannas to Bev" posted here (at least by me) and you weren't "rebutting" you were attacking. And with disinformation I might add.

It is interesting that you PUBLICLY attack me for my "squabble" with Bev, yet you never (on this board) attack Bev for her despicable actions.

As you know, since you and I've tried to discuss this with you privately via both phone and email, I feel that all such public squabbling serves only to harm the EI movement. I have taken my concerns to you privately (apparently to little effect) as I have taken my concerns with her actions at various times to her privately as well. If you bother to look into such things, you'd learn that quite quickly.

Only after I see, as I have from you, one public attack after another, each time based on frequently wholly incorrect and misleading information which you clearly know to be exactly that (and if you don't, you should, but as I've personally informed you of some of that misinformation privately, I'm not sure how you couldn't know it was inaccurate)...and only after I've *tried* to ask you to knock it off privately, am I left with any choice but to REBUT your nonsense publicly.

Sorry. But if you consider my "rebutting" your obvious and unseemly bullshit, to an attempt to have you "shouted down, bullied, smeared, or driven off" that is, as you say, "your perogative." It would just be incorrect, that's all.

I make make no "excuses" for anybody's "lies and vile behavior". Thus, I'll not stand by, be shouted down, bullied, smeared, or driven off when such lies and vile behavior are coming from you, David.

[Kelvin Mace]

101. As they say, "follow the money"

David Allen as "Kelvin Mace" said:

Is there a reason you keep sticking my name up? Anyone who wishes to find out who I am can do so in 2-3 clicks. Making a point of it seems to have some ulterior reason. Should I expect an attack from Bev's goon squad? Will Jim March show up on my door step with his big, bad gun?

Sorry Brad, you are a Bev apologist. You post stories about her while ignoring the SERIOUS questions about her ethics and actions. You defend her here and claim that attempts to question her actions amount to aiding and abetting the enemy.

But as I said, let's follow the money.

Bev draws a salary ($60,000 a year) and has received a substantial payout from her law suit (about $70,000). She has taken in over $1 million dollars in donations that we know of in BBV's first year. No reason to assume that this hasn't continued on track, so we are talking about several million and change at least.

Bev promised to donate her qui tam winnings to BBV. No evidence that ever happened. She promised to post proof she did donate the money. Never happened.

Bev promised to account for all this money, and have a CPA audit the books and render her IRS Form 990. Never happened. The 990 was WAY late, and was WAY bogus. BASIC MATH ERRORS are on the form. One person signed the form, but Bev's name appears above the signature.

Bev has failed, nay, she has REFUSED to account for the money she has been given. She has told lie after lie about the status of her books. And during all of this time what legislation has she spearheaded? The one bill she originally supported, she now opposes (she has for HB-550 before she was against it).

The one guy who is chiefly responsible for her qui tam law suit is pleading guilty to a felony. Yet if Bev had REALLY wanted to protect him, all she had to do was make him a party to the law suit. Now the law suit has been settled WITH PREJUDICE and we are back at square one. BBV still rampant in California.

Now let's look at another activist, Joyce McCloy (who garners 15 mentions on your site versus Bev's 376). Joyce asked for an received no money, draws no salary, and has not had any dealings with Freepers, gun nuts, nor hounded anyone on their death bed.

She was pivotal in getting the nation's toughest anti-BBV law on the books in my state. While not perfect, it certainly affords greater protections to voters and harsher penalties to vendors. She fought two court cases with the help of the EFF (an organization Bev has attacked as financially motivated)

What is the result? Diebold left the state rather than comply with the law. 70% of our counties have OpScan, and the counties that use TS, MUST produce a VVPB. Any discrepancy between the digital and the paper count, and the paper count is the official count.

All of this done without asking for a single penny of anyone's money.

As you know, since you and I've tried to discuss this with you privately via both phone and email, I feel that all such public squabbling serves only to harm the EI movement. I have taken my concerns to you privately (apparently to little effect) as I have taken my concerns with her actions at various times to her privately as well. If you bother to look into such things, you'd learn that quite quickly.

Yes, but you attack me PUBLICLY. And please do not claim Bev doesn't attack me public, she certainly does, has done so repeatedly. I have confined my criticisms of her predominantly to this web site, whereas I have been attacked by Bev here, on her site, on Daily Kos and elsewhere.

Sorry, you can't claim we are both at fault, then chastise me publicly, but her privately. Doesn't wash.

Where is your heated public condemnation for Bev's actions on this, or any other site?

You call my remarks bullshit, but my opinion is my opinion, and people can make up their own minds.

But the facts aren't bullshit.

What she did to Andy is a fact.

Her attacks on anti-BBV activists, academics, and journalists like Keith Olberman are facts.

Her lying about filing a qui tam is fact.

Her accusing other people of filing qui tams (when they weren't) is fact.

Her lying about my never paying her is a fact.

Her changing her book to downplay other's efforts and work is fact.

Her anti-Clinton money-making scheme is fact.

Her lies about how her book was put together are fact.

Her failure to account for BBV donations is fact.

Her posting a completely bogus document is fact.

Her failure to have a CPA do her books as she claimed is fact.

Do I need to go on? At what point does the volume of her lies and treachery reach a point where you say "ENOUGH!"

My guess is that you will finally have enough the day she turns on you.

[BradBlog]

103. Follow whatever you want...But get it right...

David Allen ("Kelvin Mace") wrote:

You defend her here and claim that attempts to question her actions amount to aiding and abetting the enemy.

Sorry, did no such thing. Re-read my posts if you must, but please try to avoid mischaracterizing either me or my statements as much as I have seen you mischaracterize Bev's.

As to your other charges, as mentioned, I can't speak to the bulk of the claims you've made and don't particularly feel like wasting my time on them. Were it not for so many of the unsubstantiated charges I've seen made against her, and were it not for the harm such open and pointless attacks cause to the movement over all (Yes, I've said the same to her when she's done same, including when she's attacked me or my work) I might consider it.

Such as the good work BBV has done has by *far* outweighed the bad as far as I have been able to determine, I'm not interested in the self-defeating and personal attacks.

And yes, Andy was a very dear and close personal friend to whom I would *never* do anything I feel he would not have approved of. Just mentioning that since you seem to be interested in continuing to play that card. Sadly.

[Kelvin Mace]

106. Dude you have told me on the phone

that publicly attacking Bev was "playing right into Diebold's hands", since they want to see Bev and her work discredited.

As to your other charges, as mentioned, I can't speak to the bulk of the claims you've made and don't particularly feel like wasting my time on them.

You don't want to investigate the other charges (I guess clicking on links and reading is hard work) since you would have to admit that the woman is scamming us. For some reason you avoid this truth at all cost. How hard is it to read her 990 and realize the math doesn't add up?

You also don't address the fact that other people have accomplished REAL progress on the issue and solicited NO money.

The people working for free are doing the real heavy lifting, but folks like Bev are milking it for all the money it will bear.

And yes, Andy was a very dear and close personal friend to whom I would *never* do anything I feel he would not have approved of. Just mentioning that since you seem to be interested in continuing to play that card. Sadly.

I spoke with Andy several times in the last months of his life and the man was in tears as to why Bev was doing and saying the things she did and said. Yeah, Andy would certainly approve of you actions. :sarcasm:

Yes, I will continue playing "that" card, since it is the one that is so hard for Bev apologists/enablers to explain away. What Bev did to Andy was premeditated and loathsome. Bev has NEVER expressed any remorse for it, worse she has tried to profit from it by using Andy's name and death when it suits her.

I can't think of which is worse, being a ghoul or enabling a ghoul. What next? A book from Bev called "I didn't smear a dying man, but if I did here's how I would do it?"

You also glossed over the fact that you claim to object to both our behaviors, yet you privately chastise Bev, but nastily and publicly attack me.

If you can't bring yourself to publicly condemn Bev, how about publicly sticking up for me to Bev and her goons when they tell lies about me? You know, stuff like I am being paid by Diebold. Or do YOU believe that horseshit too?

[BradBlog]

108. Just about done with this nonsense, David...

I'm just about done with this waste of time. I'll bother only to reply to these:

I spoke with Andy several times in the last months of his life and the man was in tears as to why Bev was doing and saying the things she did and said. Yeah, Andy would certainly approve of you actions.

Andy was quite aware of any and all of my interaction with Bev and/or BBV. Period. You are owed no more of an explanation than that. Frankly, as I've tried to offer it to you and others you work with before, it won't make a difference anyway.

You also glossed over the fact that you claim to object to both our behaviors, yet you privately chastise Bev, but nastily and publicly attack me.

I tried speaking to you many times in private (both phone, email, etc.) only now that that has failed, and now that you persist in your destructive behavior I find that I have no choice. Good work hijacking Stephen's thread for your own purposes, David.

If you can't bring yourself to publicly condemn Bev, how about publicly sticking up for me to Bev and her goons when they tell lies about me? You know, stuff like I am being paid by Diebold. Or do YOU believe that horseshit too?

You haven't a clue (apparently) what I tell Bev or anyone else. If you had a clue, you'd have bothered to find out before being so obnoxious here. If you bothered to comport yourself like a professional you likely would have learned a great deal. But it seems clear you don't give a damn.

See ya. And happy Thanksgiving.

[greatauntoftriplets]

112. I also had similar conversations with Andy....

both on the phone and in person -- the personal conversations being Christmas two years ago when he stayed with my family. What David says is 100 percent correct.

[troubleinwinter]

98. questions

Brad, this is not an "internal squabble" between David and Bev. It is a small part of telling truth of Bev's history that goes back YEARS. The documentation of Bev's lies, hooey and burning down of activists has long been documented and shown here.

As for the $10k she supposedly sent to Heller, I sure hope it is true, since "Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, told investigators that Heller met her in a Ventura County park in early 2004 and gave her the documents." Bev is the self-proclaimed 'investigative journalist', one surely might have expected her to protect a whistle blower source.

The money? Maybe it came from the Qui Tam money that she claimed to have donated to BBV.org in May of 2005, though it was never reflected on the 990 she wrote. Why?

(Qui Tam) "The remaining amount I will donate into Black Box Voting, tagged as a restricted donation to be spent only on consumer protection litigation." Though you, yourself, Brad, told us that she never contributed one single dime toward the CA55 legal effort (though she did say that she is filing a libel suit against Diebold, but never said who the plaintiff is... is it BBV.org or Bev Harris? Haven't heard a thing about it since she came up with it during the expose of her 990). Why?

She claimed she would post a pic of the donation check in May, but never did. Why?

To this day, she has never provided a complete 990 copy per legal request. Why?

She solicited donations in violation of state law for two years. Why?

She claimed that her financial reporting to IRS were being prepared by a certified public accountant, but they weren't. Why?

She claimed to have filed the 990 by the due date, but did not. Why?

She solicited money for FOIAs through Randi Rhodes and promised to post the documentation on her site, but after a year and a half had posted only 3 of 3,000. Why?

She is a self-professed Public Relations professional and wrote an article on the 'Top Ten Mistakes ' in promoting your 'product', yet broke her own Rule #1 with Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes (losing our best shots at getting the issue out). Why, Brad? Why?

She wrote an article on the importance of keeping sophisticated, sortable databases, describing them in detail. Yet when I asked how many FOIAs had been responded to (a year and a half later), she said that she couldn't answer the question, as it was kept "on a dry erase-board in the office",and could/would not answer the question Why?

She has viciously smeared voting reform activists, scientists and organizations, and falsely accused various activists of being different people. Why?

When I made a legitimate and legal citizen's request for a copy of the 990 form, she posted my personal information (name and address) publicly on her website. Why?

She offered assistance to Rossi's(R) campaign, but not Gregoire's(D). Why?

She lied on the air to Randi, and fired and smeared Andy publicly. Why?

She did not deposit payroll taxes withheld from Andy's check for over a year. Why?

She wrote an article describing why an employer should never fail to deposit payroll taxes, stating that the fines are huge. She did it anyway. Why?

She faces spending dollars donated by well-meaning people on IRS fees and fines, rather than on the cause. Why?

She informed me that her pal, professional gun lobbyist, who states that he never goes anywhere without a gun came to my state with my address asking people about me. Why?

Nothing on her posted supposed 990 form adds up. Why?

Though accepting nearly a million dollars in donations, no professional accountant filled out the 990 form, there is no indication of an proper accounting, despite inaccuracies throughout the form, and despite six months in filing extensions, it was still late. She wants to be regarded as the 'face' of voting counting accuracy and integrity. Why?

NONE of these questions are new. They have been asked before. I have gotten no answers. Never will.

She is known to have come on DU after her banning, under false identities, pretending to be yet another adoring fan, defending her(self).

She carried on precious flirty conversations on Free Republic with the administrator of the Scamdy site in late May 2005, during the height of the torment of Andy, posting "Hey, franksolich, Your sentiments are adorable, but I will be on a plane Thursday and in Cleveland Friday and Saturday. Thus the lovely flowers might wilt."

There are loads of more questions, and too many lies to list. But it certainly is not "an internal squabble" effecting merely David Allen. These are serious questions when donated dollars are at stake, along with the reputation of the movement and those of dedicated and effective activists who she attempts to smear and tear down to boost herself.

(Disclaimer for Bev: Nope, I am not in the employ of Diebold, as you generally accuse any critic of being.)

[BradBlog]

104. answers

Sorry, Trouble. I can't answer for Bev on any of the questions you post. That's up to her (or to you and David).

I'm well familiar with the oft-quoted:

"Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, told investigators that Heller met her in a Ventura County park in early 2004 and gave her the documents." Bev is the self-proclaimed 'investigative journalist', one surely might have expected her to protect a whistle blower source.

...And infact investigated the charge when you and David A. first tried to make hay with it. I checked legal documents to see if it was supported and checked with both Heller and Harris. It had no merit, and still does not (as Heller has himself repeated on this thread and elsewhere several times).

I know you were a dear friend of Andy's. As do I. In fact, I ran a tribute to Andy during the final 15 minutes of our Election Night Broadcast on November 7th and agree with Will Pitt that this was "Andy's Election".

I know you continue to be angry with Bev for how things worked out between her and him. I heard earfuls for a long time from Andy about those issues and talked with both him and Bev privately about them on many occassions.

Nonetheless, I can't join you in your unbridled -- and frequently incorrect -- attacks on her.

As to the only substantial points that I *can* respond to:

Though you, yourself, Brad, told us that she never contributed one single dime toward the CA55 legal effort

That was CA50 legal effort, and as far as I know she has not contributed any money to that effort. If she did, it didn't come through VelvetRevolution.us (who was managing the contributions to that effort -- as well as putting out a LARGE AMOUNT OF OUR MONEY towards it. We are stilling doing so as the case is still pending in appeals court, while CA50 donations are now few and far between)

Finally, I don't know if it was you or David who wrote something along the lines of "maybe you'll get it once she turns on you" ... or something like that... But just so you know, for the record, she has "turned on me" by attacking, at various times, various stories and sources on whom I've reported. Where I thought her attacks were incorrect or inappropriate, I've let her know. Sometimes she has retracted her story, or changed her position, other times she has not.

In all such cases, however, I hope that a public spectacle which would serve only to derail important overall efforts did not occur. I don't believe that it did.




(though she did say that she is filing a libel suit against Diebold, but never said who the plaintiff is... is it BBV.org or Bev Harris? Haven't heard a thing about it since she came up with it during the expose of her 990). Why?

[troubleinwinter]

107. answers?

Well, I didn't really expect you to "answer for Bev". But you promote her and present yourself as a writer or journalist on election reform issues. Her credibility IS an issue related to the movement. I thought it might be interesting for you to sit down with her and ASK these questions. Perhaps INVESTIGATE behind the 'face' of election reform to find out WHY these questions are asked, and what the ANSWERS are.

"...you and David A. first tried to make hay with it. I checked legal documents to see if it was supported and checked with both Heller and Harris." Make hay? Uhm, it is from Los Angeles Times, Copyright 2006, and I have posted the quote and link. If it's inaccurate, have you sought a comment from the reporter? You "checked with Harris".... is that kinda like how Larisa checked with Brett Kimberlin?

Andy's personal friendships are not the issue, nor is any "tribute". What is at issue is that BEV's actions in not depositing an employee's money that she took from paychecks, causing the employee to be unable to file for a tax refund of his OWN withheld money. "I know you continue to be angry with Bev for how things worked out between her and him." No, Brad, I am not angry about "how things worked out" between them, I am angry that her public smearing and lies about him are indicative of her constant pattern of behavior of lies and smears against legitimate dedicated activists, organizations and others.

The "public spectacle" is directly traced to, and caused by Bev's own behavior, postings and writings, and she has done the work to "derail important overall efforts" by her abberant antics and ugly paranoid smears.

You claim my so-called "attacks" are "frequently incorrect". They are not "attacks", they are FACTS. I am sorry that you seemingly seldom come to DU except to post a thread directing to your own site. If you had spent more time reading here over the last couple of years, you would have seen that EVERY point has been backed up. Mostly by her own rantings.

"...she has "turned on me" by attacking, at various times, various stories and sources on whom I've reported." Yeah. Good luck, Brad.

If you should ever decide to talk some serious turkey to her about these questions and issues, please do give our regards to 'Bailey77' and 'Patriothackd'.

[BradBlog]

110. Yup...

You've got an agenda, I'm not gonna change anything for ya. So for now, my time is only worth spending to clarify this (which I truly hope will help you):

"...you and David A. first tried to make hay with it. I checked legal documents to see if it was supported and checked with both Heller and Harris." Make hay? Uhm, it is from Los Angeles Times, Copyright 2006, and I have posted the quote and link. If it's inaccurate, have you sought a comment from the reporter?

You are quoting a report which says she told investigators she received the documents from Heller. Nobody, that I know of, has *ever* disputed that. What you don't seem to wish to understand is that investigators had already known *long* before speaking with Bev who took the documents. She didn't "burn any sources" or "rat anybody out".

Heller himself has been trying to tell you that. But neither you nor David, obviously, care to listen as it doesn't seem to fit in with what you wish to believe. There's a whole lot of that going on here, it seems. (See David's report that "Bev stole info from the RABA report and claimed it was her own in Hursti II" or whatever that nonsense was, for example).

I guess if I was called into the police tomorrow and I told them that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, you'd consider me a rat fink too...Good lord.

[pitohui]

86. thanks for the personal update, mr heller EOM

.

[EFerrari]

91. If you knew that grifter, you would be disabused of the idea

that she is a person of loyalty or integrity. So, be careful. She has a track record of screwing people who work with her.

And my opinion is formed by personal experience with that grifter as well as time spent trying to protect a dying man from her predations.

Watch your back.

[Crim_n al]

102. A screen-name means nothing.

For all we know the poster you are addressing may be the grifter you are referring to.

[pnwmom]

26. If she hadn't cooperated in the investigation, SHE would have gone to jail.

Like Judith Miller.

Seems a little much to expect from her, or almost anyone.

She wouldn't have been very much use to anyone there.

On edit: I just read Heller's post. Apparently she not only didn't try to harm him, she actively helped him. It's interesting that so many people here seem out to get her, to the point that they will entertain almost any idea about her, no matter how baseless. Whatever her flaws as a personality, it's clear to me that her work on black box voting has benefited us all.

Yes, I know about Andy, or at least what I've heard here about Andy, but there are two sides to every story. I don't think we usually get that here.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Jail is where I would go before ratting out a source

[pnwmom]

43. She didn't rat out a source. I trust Mr. Heller's word on that

more than yours.

We'll just have to take your word on your claim that you would have gone to jail under these circumstances. But few people would have.

[Kelvin Mace]

85. Once he gets Skinner to vouch for his identity

we can make that assumption. For the money, such a claim assumes facts not in evidece.

[steveheller]

50. Dude, what is your problem?

As I wrote above, BEV HARRIS DID NOT "RAT" ON ME OR DO ANYTHING TO HARM ME OR MY LEGAL DEFENSE! In fact, Bev Harris went out of her way to help my legal defense, and met with the D.A. on my behalf and at my lawyer's request.

I'm really sick of the jerks on various blogs who attack Bev Harris in regards to my case without knowing what in the hell they are talking about.

I posted this above, and I'm posting it again. To me, both as a criminal defendant and as a citizen, voter and taxpayer, Bev Harris is a hero.

[Kelvin Mace]

87. Bev Dudley (aka Harris)

Is a manipulative, vindictive, head case who has viciously attacked just about every major anti-BBV activist. She has routinely taken other people's work and claimed it as her own. She has lied repeatedly (and the proof is incontrovertible) and with very little skill.

She has posted crude forgeries which purport to document how she has spent the money she has solicited.

The list goes on and on.

In fact, she cannot post here because of her abusive and threatening conduct got her banned TWICE!

We have repeatedly and meticulously documented her lies and abuses here. For some people, no amount of proof is ever enough. Sadly, this is why confidence artists like Bev thrive.

[BradBlog]

69. What the hell is wrong with you David?

Why do you persist in this nonsense? Heller himself has TOLD you Harris didn't "rat out" anyone.

If you bothered to read the arrest documents, you'd also find out that Harris didn't "rat out" Heller.

And you keep up this non-stop attack based on nothing. Do you *really* think your continued misinformation is actually good for the Election Integrity movement?!

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Misinformation?

You have had the opportunity to see irrefutable proof of Bev duplicity and illegal behaviour. You have chosen to take "the ends justifies the means" as a philosophy. That is your choice, it is not mine. I have an obligation to keep her from scamming people on this board. What you chose to do on your blog is certainly your choice. I do not bother Bev on your blog (or on hers for that matter), but if you post here, expect the truth about Bev and her actions to be discussed.

At this point in time we have established WITHOUT QUESTION that she posted a completely bogus Form 990 which details how she spent almost $1 million in donations. For some reason, this does NOT bother you.

If Mr. Heller's identity IS established and vouched for by Skinner, and if he does in fact believe he is not a victim, that does not change the fact that he is.

If Bev TRULY wanted to protect him she would have made him part of her qui tam, which of course she didn't. This would be the same qui tam law suit she LIED THROUGH HER TEETH THAT SHE WOULD NEVER FILE! The same law suit she FALSELY accused NUMEROUS other people of filing.

She has behaved DISGRACEFULLY and is not the the least bit sorry about it.

If you don't want the facts about Bev to keep coming up, then don't post here. Your blog has a big enough audience that you don't need DU.

[EFerrari]

93. What the hell is wrong with you, Brad? Do you really think

your attempts to rehabilitate that grifter here are good for the Election Integrity movement, let alone this forum?

I understand that you need to develop sources and I have witnessed the lengths you will go to to appease that grifter. Rewrite her history all you like, deal out your usual rations of abusive language -- no sale, Brad.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. Oh, yeah

And let's not forget that all of docs that Heller managed to disclose are now moot.

From the settlement:

The original qui tam complaint filed by MARCH and HARRIS on November 21, 2003 is
ordered dismissed with prejudice. All DOE defendants named in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

And what does "dismissed with prejudice" mean to the anti-BBV issue?

A dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused on the same charge at a later date. The defendant cannot subsequently be reindicted because of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. A dismissal with prejudice is made in response to a motion to the court by the defendant or by the court sua sponte.

And we are supposed to THANK Bev for this?

[Zhade]

97. Bev "Professional Liar" Harris?

Fuck her. She helped kill Andy Stephenson.

[texpatriot2004]

12. K & R nm

[Blackhatjack]

14. What you see here is a version of 'civil disobedience' .....

Was his act a punishable crime? Yes
Was his motive to gain financially, or to benefit himself in some way? No
Did he know what he was doing was a crime when he disclosed the docs? Yes

Was his act an unselfish act to educate and protect the public from harm? Yes

Is he willing to accept the punishment for breaking the law to protect the public? Yes

Conclusion: It sure seems like a version of 'civil disobedience' that he engaged in by the commission of this act.

Remedy: Eventually he will be 'pardoned' for his selfless act, that technically was a crime. And if he and his family suffered substantial economic loss to perform this patriotic act, then there are patriotic members of this country which are well able to step up and provide him with financial gifts that offset his financial loss.

If we give awards to people who sacrifice much for their country, he deserves one --but most of all he deserves that our gratitude come with a little something attached which restores his economic standing. Otherwise, the next 'whistleblower' may make the decision not to risk his family's financial welfare to perform their patriotic duty, and we all will suffer for it.

[steveheller]

23. To clarify:

When I wrote that I had to pay a $10,000 restitution payment to Jones Day, I did not mean to imply the defense fund did not cover it. The defense fund DID have enough to cover the $10,000. Thank you for suggesting that the progressive community pay it for me, but they have already done so through many, many small donations; $10 here, $25 there, $15, etc. It all added up to enough to cover the $10,000 I had to pay Jones Day in order to get the release from civil liability.

I will thank all who donated to my defense fund at length and with some rather gushy language when I post the entire story to my defense fund website. I owe all who donated a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Steve Heller

[Klimmer]

24. Steve Heller, You are an American Hero and a very brave . . .

Patriot. Thank you for doing what you did. Civil disobedience is necessary at times to keep our democracy free from corruption. It is outrageous that they are treated you this way as a whistle-blower to inform the American public the truth. You are by all definition a whistle-blower. Thank God there are brave Americans like you.

I would hope that when you post-up your full story you would let us know how to donate $ to help off-set your lose of personal assets. I would like to contribute. Thank you.

Klimmer

[Locrian]

25. thanks

My dad keeps saying: "wouldn't there be SOMEONE who whould risk it all to do the right thing? To be a patriot."

Im sending him your name and website. Thank you.

[robinlynne]

28. Actually, we all owe you tremendous gratitude!

[pnwmom]

30. You and your wife are both heroes.

You were the one facing felony charges, but I'm sure she's been going through hell, too. I hope you both are breathing easier now. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude.

[steveheller]

53. Thank you for that.

Yes, my wife has really suffered because of what I did. And yet, even in the midst of the worst of it, she has stood by me like a rock. She would have been completely justified in screaming at me something like "What the F--k were you thinking?!?" and yet she never did. She has always understood the kind of man I am and why I did what I did. She has supported me both emotionally and financially, because I lost 2 jobs from this whole thing, and my darling Michele has worked hard to keep food on the table and the mortgage paid. No wife should have to go through what she did, and yet she has never critized me or yelled at me, she always has stood be me and told me she was proud of me and that I did what I had to do. I owe her so much. So yes, thank you for mentioning my wife, and please everyone understand that she, in some ways, has suffered more than me. I love her very much.

[pnwmom]

56. Please relay to Michele our deepest gratitude.

And sincere thanks to anyone else who has helped to support you in your long struggle.


:grouphug:

:loveya:

[stepnw1f]

33. Thank You for Sticking Your Neck Out

It will not be forgotten.

[democrat_patriot]

40. It is us who owe you the thanks.

Would I have done the same? I cannot say. I would like to think that I would, but who knows?

Please let us know if there is any way we can help, monetarily or otherwise. It's th least we can do.

Thank you sir.

[catrose]

67. Thanks for clearing that up

That was my first thought: that we were going to pay this out of gratitude for your actions. I'm glad we already did! Thanks and more thanks to a real American hero.

[lyonn]

78. Thanks so much Steve. Bucking the govt. takes guts and

character.

[trogdor]

89. Props, dude.

What you did took guts, something sorely lacking in most people nowadays.

[Nordmadr]

15. So then wouldn't that indicate that the information he provided was

legitimate and true? Just askin'.

Let's prosecute those that expose lies, but not the liars.

:sarcasm:

Olafr

[Blackhatjack]

16. The issue is not whether the info was accurate and true, it goes deeper...

.... Just as an example. At the time when laws were on the books which required an individual to pay a 'poll' tax in order to vote, those who enforced the law were acting 'within' the law until such time that the law was overturned as 'unconstitutional.'

If we as a nation are outraged that an obvious patriot will now be punished for engaging in an act which is currently 'illegal' then the appropriate response is to work to repeal and/or change the law in question.

The problem is difficult to remedy since there are thousands of cases in which the same acts are perpetrated for different non-patriotic reasons, and the application of this law is entirely appropriate in those cases.

It will be hard, but whistleblower protection laws need to be updated. That is the proper way to diffuse future situations like this one.

[Katzenjammer]

17. Perhaps the liberal community would want to pay his $10K fine?

I remember the fantastic response for Andy (RIP).

Paying someone's fine when they've been done by an unjust law seems like a good way to relieve the victim of that part of the burden AND put government on notice that what he did had social approval.

Thoughts?

[pnwmom]

44. In his post above, Mr. Heller says that's already happened.

The legal defense fund covered it.

[Katzenjammer]

72. ooops. That'll teach me to read the whole thing first

on second thought, it probably won't :blush:

[davekriss]

54. They did

See post 23

[stellanoir]

18. this truly sucks

[Katzenjammer]

19. What's especially sucky about it is that I'm pretty sure lawyers were ethically forbidden

to claim innocence on behalf of their client if the client had admitted felonious guilt to them. Apparently now lawyers can collude instead. Or maybe that's only with corporate clients.

It really does suck, doesn't it. :(

[jilln]

34. Wait, OUR tax money paid Diebold's lawyers??

How does that work??

[woodsgirl]

36. Thank you

from the bottom of my heart Steve. ...Bev and Brad.You guys
are the behind the scenes movers and shakers of our country.We
have nothing without a fair vote.

[Election]

45. Criminal cases are always against society

As opposed to civil cases ... That's why your traffic ticket from an accident, if you've ever gotten a traffic ticket from an accident :), is styled State v. Defendant or People v. Defendant, as opposed to Person I Hit v. Defendant.

[Election]

46. self-delete

editing mistake

[Dinger]

41. K & Friggin' R!

[Election]

47. For those who think this guy's a hero, would you think a cop spying on attorney-client conversations

is justified as well?

[nashville_brook]

48. care to elaborate?

[Election]

49. This guy was charged for burglarizing attorney-client documents

So would those who support this guy support a police officer who illegally spies on an attorney-arrestee conversation?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. No.

If I asked for an apple, would you give me an orange?

[EFerrari]

52. Enjoy your stay here, "Election".

[Election]

57. I have enjoyed my time here thus far, actually

:)

[populistdriven]

55. No. The Hypothetical Arrestee has little in common with a corporation like Diebold

Diebold deserves far FEWER rights and privileges than a individual

Thats how it used to be in this country before the Corporations took control of both parties.

[Election]

58. But attorney-client privileges ARE extended to corporations.

I understand the point you're making, which is a very good one actually in illustrating the differences between my hypothetical arrestee and a corporation, but our country has always vaulted attorney-client privilege almost to the point of sanctity, even if the client is clearly in the wrong.

If this is allowable, couldn't the same arguments be used to justify the Bush wiretaps on lawyers (which the case of Lynne Stewart comes to mind, though I'm not sure how the evidence was collected in that case)?

[nashville_brook]

71. this is a "whistleblower" -- not a corporate spy

the difference is in the intent and the use of the information gained.

[nashville_brook]

76. People have RIGHTS and People get to design the rules

that corporations MUST play by.

otherwise it's game over. corporations are human constructions that have NO CONSCIENCE and enough POWER to destroy humans. it is our RESPONSIBILITY to keep corporations on a short leash. period.

i'm so f'n sick and tired of people treating corporations better than people -- they are psychotic/sociopathic entities without OUR INTERVENTION. to unleash corporations on the world without regulation is irresponsible and ultimately suicidal economically.

[FighttheFuture]

79. Diebold deserves no rights, they are a corporation, not a person!

[pnwmom]

61. He wasn't doing anything illegal, he was doing

his job when he read the documents. When he realized they described secret illegal activity, he exposed it, even though that meant exposing confidential documents. It was that action on his part that was illegal.

[nashville_brook]

75. i simply don't believe you are this cynical

you're putting us on, right.

you don't really believe this, do you?

you're aware we're talking about a WHISTLEBLOWER who has the goods that can unravel a large portion of the whole ELECTION FRAUD mess.

would you really trade the atty/client privilege of a corrupt corporation for our 230 years of DEMOCRACY that has been secured with the blood of those much greater than us keyboard jockeys?

right now we need more heros like heller and fewer play-by-rules-with-blinders-on cowards who probably care more about American Idol than American Democracy.

[pnwmom]

59. No comparison. He wasn't spying. He was doing his job

when he read the documents, and he recognized that they described illegal activity.

[steveheller]

60. Your point of view is valid

What I did was a very serious crime. Yes, I believe that it was worth the risk to myself, but nevertheless what I did in exposing attorney/client priv. docs is a very serious crime. Election's point of view is a valid one. Of course it's nearly impossible for me to be objective on this case, but I believe that ultimately what I did was necessary. However, those who say it was wrong no matter what have a valid point, if not one I agree with.

Respectfully,

Steve Heller

[mimitabby]

64. Steve, you are a true patriot

when I think about the complacency and lack of interest in anything beyond consumerism that i see in many of the people in this country, now I can remind myself that YOU exist. There is still someone willing to take a chance for what they believe in.
Thank you!

[nashville_brook]

73. imo -- your equanimity further proves your moral fidelity

those who would trade your actions for strict adherence to "The Law" are not folks i want on my side.

while "Election" might have a "valid" point... it's a "point" that has no VALUE and is quite offensive to those who have followed the election fraud stories for years.

so yeah -- breeching atty/client priv is a serious crime. so is election stealing. i'm sick to death of the "good guys" being so damn GOOD that no good ever comes of their goodness.

every once in a while you have to HAVE THE COURAGE to BREAK THE RULES.

godspeed steve heller.

[redacted]

77. I have a question: hindsight is always 20/20. Do you now think that

there could have been any other way that this information might have gotten out to the public had you not broken the law?

Just curious, obviously you did a brave thing that you felt you needed to do at the risk of your career. And had you not been an at a law office, you would have likely been considered a whistleblower, a hero. But, attny client privledge is what it is. . . and exists for very important reason. And you chose to do what you felt was the moral thing to do. I respect that.

I am sure I could ask most of my attny friends and they would have a hard time with it. It's a very sticky dilemma.

It must have been a very hard decision.

Are you an attny or are you a clerk/paralegal etc.... of some kind?

Happy Turkey,

redacted

on edit: let me add that you have my utmost respect for taking life my the hands and doing what you thought was right. If more people were like you and thought about their actions, rather than being 'sheeple' you might not have been in the position you were in.

[steveheller]

81. Good question

I don't know. If I'd gone to the DA and said "I saw this and that in documents at a law firm" they might have arrested me on the spot for revealing attorney client priv. information. If I'd gone to the DA and said something like, "I can't tell you what I saw or where I saw it, but I have reason to believe there is a crime in progress" they would have laughed at me. So I don't think the info could have gotten out another way, but maybe there is some other avenue I'm overlooking or don't know about.

Steve Heller

[BradBlog]

70. He wasn't "spying"...And...

Heller wasn't spying. In the course of doing his job, he witnessed wrong doing. If a cop came across such information in the course of his job, and the release of that information was in the "public interest" (the general yardstick for determining whistleblower status) the case would have to be decided based on that.

If a cop, for example, overheard a criminal admit that he had killed somebody and gave specific information to his attorney that accomplices of his were planning to kill again, it would certainly be in the public interest for the cop to release that information to the proper authorities, even though the information was gleaned during a privileged attorney-client conversation.

I'm not an attorney, so forgive if the analogy isn't perfect...but hopefully you get the idea.

Heller was heroic in what he did. Even though (as he admits in one of his posts here) it was a crime in general to do what he did.

[FighttheFuture]

80. Our right to vote and have it heard is the cornerstone of our entire system. Wihtout it,

the concpet of rule of law simply means rule of dictator. It overrides any conerns of attorney client privlege in this case. As Deibold, and other firms have conspired to subvert the very essence of this country for other ends. What he exposed is:

Stephen Heller, the Los Angeles whistleblower who turned over documents from Diebold's attorney, Jones-Day, in 2004 showing the Voting Machine Company had illegally installed uncertified hardware and software in California — and was preparing to lie about it...

The man is an true American Hero, while Diebold, the Prosecutor, and those behind them are the real criminals. Try to put the real perspective on this case.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. If these were state charges, Gov Arnold needs to pardon him!

If we had a working Congress, he would have been called before a committee, which would have offered him immunity to testify. If we had a working criminal justice system, it would have called him as a witness, which would have offered him immunity to testify.

When people look over their bosses shoulders for evidence of criminal activity, you want them to take it to the authorities. This kind of action on the part of the authorities makes it more likely that people will either keep their eyes closed or resort to blackmail.

[pacalo]

66. Thanks so much, Mr. Heller (& Mrs.) for taking such a courageous stand.

Much thanks to Brad, too, for working so diligently on election fraud.

My digital cable has been giving me fits since last Thursday -- my computer has been out of service for the entire weekend & most of Monday -- & I'm glad I didn't miss this thread.

[lovuian]

68. He's a Hero All right

good for him!!!

[philly_bob]

74. Jones Day, eh? Right-wing Washington corporate law firm.

You don't expect law firms to be on the right side all the time, they represent clients; but these guys have been on the wrong side almost every time I've seen their name pop up. The $10,000 payment is peanuts to them.


They were attorneys for Diebold, eh?

Figures.

That alone is significant in piecing together the whole story


(Incidentally, they just dropped to number #2 in Fortune-60 clients. SFX: walls come tumbling down!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Day
http://www1.jonesday.com/Home.aspx

P.S. Mr. Heller, thanks. I hope things work out for you and your family.

[unblock]

94. jones day is a hueueuge law firm

and therefore they cover a lot of ground, good and bad. i've used them, and referred clients to them, and can't see any reason to say anything negative about them in my own experience.

being able to spot a few distasteful clients doesn't shed much light on a big law firm's overall reputation.

[philly_bob]

100. My experience limited to (a) DC office and (b) financial matters

within that limited purview, my opinion holds, that they tend to the free-market right. Like, government regulation and taxation is wrong, free markets alone can solve all problems.

But perhaps I shouldn't judge the whole firm by one office.

My main point is for DU researchers: watch the Diebold / Jones Day connection, it is likely to be fruitful.

[Eurobabe]

109. Yeah they are HUGH!

Unfortunately I know someone who works for them in SFO. :(

[BradBlog]

92. EXCLUSIVE FOLLOWUP NOW POSTED: Heller Speaks Out on Diebold, May Have Sentence Reduced!

EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower Stephen Heller Says 'Diebold Cannot be Trusted to Run Elections in America'
Plea Deal for 'Wobbly Felony' Conviction, 3-Years Probation, May be Reduced to Misdemeanor after One Year of Good Behavior

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2778615

[Hieronymus]

111. Excellent news .. men like him should be celebrated.

[DuaneBidoux]

105. Is this simply not big enough to make it to MSM?