iT'S ON-LINE: Curtis Affadavit: SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED !!

[Shalom]

http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

[noclonyofthechimp]

1. wahoo! thanks!

[IAMREALITY]

2. WooooHooooo!! Thanks for the Post!

Everything we already read, but to see it coming from the horses mouth, on legal documentation with signature and seal, was just simply amazing. Everything feels just THATTTTT much more real now, don't it folks?

[Shalom]

5. Curtis takes names and numbers

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Boom.

This is certainly something. I hope that the lawyer who took this affadavit grilled this guy well, in the interest of vetting him.

[Stand and Fight]

99. Notary Public

In the United States, generally speaking, a notary public is a public official appointed by the government to serve the public as an impartial witness. Usually individuals need no special training to obtain a notary public license; they must only pass a simple test, have some form of background check, or obtain a bond or insurance to insure their integrity. In the United States, a non-attorney notary may not offer you legal advice, may not prepare documents for you, and cannot recommend how you should sign something or even what type of notarization is necessary.

Each state in the United States has different requirements for becoming a notary public. In some states, an appointment by the legislature may be necessary.

Some states required that a notary be a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States declared that to be impermissible in the case of Bernal v. Fainter 467 U.S. 216 (1984).

At least every other year in the U.S., there are reports of notaries (or people claiming to be notaries) who take advantage of the differing roles of notaries in common law and civil law jurisdictions to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The victims of such scams are typically illegal immigrants from civil law countries who need assistance with their immigration papers and do not understand that they need to hire an attorney. Prosecutions in such cases are difficult. The crooks' shoddy legal work usually ensures that their victims will be deported and thus will be unavailable to testify.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary_public

[GingerSnaps]

328. I'm a Notary

You go through a background check, they take your fingerprints and you are also bonded. By now my bond might be out of date.

Need something notarized :D

[Stand and Fight]

104. Affidavits

An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, written down, signed, and witnessed (as to the veracity of the signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public. The name is Medieval Latin for he has declared upon oath.

One use of affidavits is to allow evidence to be gathered from witnesses or participants that may not be available to testify in person before the court. In some countries, criminal defendants routinely execute anyone that testifies or will testify against them.

In American jurisprudence, it is very unusual to allow an unsupported affidavit to be entered into evidence with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence. A formerly written affidavit, which reflected a better grasp of the facts closer in time to the actual events, may be used to refresh a witness' recollection. Materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence.

Some types of motions will not be accepted by a court unless accompanied by an independent sworn statement or other evidence, in support of the need for the motion. In such a case, the court will accept an affidavit from the filing attorney in support of the motion, as certain assumptions are made, to wit: The affidavit in place of sworn testimony promotes judicial economy. The lawyer is an officer of the court and knows that a false swearing by him, if found out, could be grounds for severe penalty up to and including disbarment. The lawyer if called upon would be able to present independent and more detailed evidence to prove the facts set forth in his affidavit.

[FogerRox]

270. Affy davids

Swift boats creeps signed affies too---SO there--

NOW--AN Affie in court--that falls under possible penalty of perjury.

Thats An Affie--LOL

[understandinglife]

341. Curtis affidavit submitted to House....

...Judiciary Committee on 6 Dec 2004.

quoted, personal email from Brad Friedman:

"Haven't been able to get back on my site at all since it's been slammed.

As it eases up, I'll be able to post more follow to many questions I've seen.

The affidavit has been given (unscanned!) to the Dem Judiciary Comm."

Brad
---
Brad Friedman
THE BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

==========================================
Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[noclonyofthechimp]

4. should we present to oberman?

[keepthemhonest]

11. i think oberman reads these blogs himself

based on the stuf he covers on his show,

but did anyone notice that the writing changed on the last page?

I wonder if the top of that page really goes with the bottom

[mccoyn]

29. I think it is a color scan.

If you look at the first three pages they are black and white. There is no discoloration, or even shades of gray. The last page has shades of gray and some little discoloration. This is done to preserve the signature I would guess.

Thats the best explanation I can think of.

[BlueDog2u]

31. Good observation

But I'll bet its just that the final page was scanned a bit differently. I've seen that kind of difference resulting from slight variations in how the scan was produced.

[keepthemhonest]

33. i hope you two guys are right

i really want to get excited about this, oh what the hell i just get excited then:bounce:

[Kralizec]

98. This is not a blog. I hate that generalization. n/t

[keepthemhonest]

129. these are not weblogs

that what people are calling them

[Stand and Fight]

105. Olbermann

I doubt Olbermann reads these blogs.

[steve2470]

142. great avatar ! lol nt

[Pepper32]

216. I don't think he reads these blogs, a lot of members here email him

...updates from DU.

[rodeodance]

170. of course--pass to KO--any and all of us--so what if he gets a 100+ copies

[Pepper32]

220. Yep, it's time to start accidentally dropping copies of this affidavit

in supermarkets etc etc

[OKthatsIT]

6. YES!

whoever found that..THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[understandinglife]

7. Brad Blog: whistleblower affidavit story and link

Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Republican Congressman's Request

CLAIM: Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) Asked Company to Create E-Vote Fraud Software

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[caligirl]

111. tried to connect but Too Many Users was what came up. MSM?n/t

[understandinglife]

161. Brad's site is definitely getting hammered; 'slashdot' or 'dos'??

don't which.

Peace.

"Did Bush Know?"

[BradBlog]

281. I'm just getting hammered...

...as far as I can tell.

For obvious reasons, traffic is huge. I've given the story to BuzzFlash to run at their site so it can get out easier.

Brad
THE BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[kitty1]

235. bradblog story copied at buzzflash.com as well n/t

[ahyums]

8. does this only apply to Florida? n/t

[ET Awful]

9. Why is the last page a different color?

Just curious.

[keepthemhonest]

12. yeah I noticed it is in a different type too

something is wierd about that

[ohio_liberal]

13. I wondered that too

:shrug:

[BR_Parkway]

17. And why is it dated today? Why would someone (Madsen)

do all the research and writing for that article without having already gotten a sworn affadavit?

[ClintCooper2003]

23. He probably had been in contact with Curtis before and...

maybe Curtis was unsure about swearing to anything given what happened to Lemme!

[keepthemhonest]

26. something seems fishy about the paper

please look close you guys

i would love to get all excited too but the last page threw me off

smaller type and different type

[pointsoflight]

85. Black and white vs. color scanning.

Simple as that.

[fasttense]

148. I use to do Notary work

and I used a blue pen so people could identify the original vice a copy. I see here the person requesting the notarization is using the blue pen. I guess as long as one or the other is using blue it will work.

[AmyCrat]

42. agree... inconsistencies like this

make the document questionable

[IAMREALITY]

46. No

It was already detailed that the official affidavit would be delivered today.

[Pepper32]

213. Yeah, I really wish it scanned more true to the document

Perhaps, they can take pictures of every page of the Affidavit and post the pics. Anything, to quiet this doubt that does seem to be valid.

[AmyCrat]

214. another reasonable and good idea n/t

[Pepper32]

230. Thanks, hopefully they will do this and SOON n/t

[pointsoflight]

84. Two different affadavits.

The one Madsen has is older and shorter. The one BradBlog has is longer and was signed today.

[rodeodance]

292. yes, signed Dec 6, 2004 (per pdf document)

[BradBlog]

36. It was Auto-Scanned that way...

When we scanned the docs, it was set on auto-scan, and the last page was in color, so trigged a different setting is all.

I have the originals.

Thanks to RAW STORY for hosting the .PDF of the affidavit.

MUCH MORE on the the whole thing with my complete article at:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm


Brad
THE BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[pointsoflight]

87. Thanks for your work on this!

[keepthemhonest]

106. ok n/t

[Liberty Belle]

147. Who are you giving this to? Which authorities/media?

Should we forward copies? Have you already done so, or has someone else? Is there litigation pending over this?

[BradBlog]

283. Let your Congressman (and Media!) Know...

Since you asked who you might contact about this, I might recommend contacting your congressmen and asking them to support and attend the Judicial Committee's Ohio hearings on Wednesday.

Right now, the Judicial committee could use some support for what they are doing. A lot of it.

As well, if you'd like to see them include Mr. Curtis in one of their hearings, let them know that as well.

The Dem Judicial Committee has been given a copy of the affidavit. (A non-scanned version!)

I'll try to reply to the other notes as best as I can. (I can't get to my own blog for now, so I may as well write here! :-)

I do have some sad news to report however, but it deserves it's own heading.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Emillereid]

284. So the auto-scanning makes the font look like different sizes??

Is it possible to color scan the whole document so that all the pages look the same?

[mccoyn]

37. I think it is a color scan.

The first pages are black and white. The last page is color. Thats my guess.

[NVMojo]

93. this can easily happen as someone scans individual pages and forgets to

click on the same settings each time for quality, color, etc.

[mdb]

77. This appears to be the difference in how the pages were scanned.

The first pages look like it was scanned as text, and the last page looks like it was scanned as a photo.

[jwmealy]

302. Well, duhhh. . .

It's because the first two were scanned in black and white and the last one needed to be scanned in color because it had

1. clinton's signature in blue
2. the notary public's rubber stamp in dark blue and
3. the notary public's stamp embossed stamp in nothing but the gray of shadow.

I do that all the time when I am making digital copies of documents. If there is no color, I do it in b&w. The notary's embossed stamp would be totally invisible if the page were scanned in b&w.

As for the guy crossing out his name and redoing it (someone mentioned that above as a mark of phoniness), that's an authentic touch (although it could be a pseudo-authentic touch). The guy didn't realize until the NP told him that he had to use his actual legal name. So he altered it and initialled it.

Webb

[Gregorian]

10. This part jumped out at me

I mean, this was absolutely open to manipulation. Kind of like a bank without a vault. Not really a bank. Not really an election.

[Mister K]

28. It looks like the first three pages were scanned in...

and the last one was typed into a word processor. The text flows, so I don't think that it is a forgery.

[bj2110]

14. Great news! This is the first item that could be considered...

to be actual proof of the fraud that so many statistics and irregularities have hinted at. Somehow, though, it seems to me that this affidavit is a little wordy? Maybe a little too much storytelling, and not enough proveable fact? Don't get me wrong, though, there is still plenty there to get my hopes up...

Great to see!

[whistle]

15. How much smoke does this document produce......

...can Feeney and this Chinese company be indicted on the claims of this document? It is pretty hot stuff if in fact it is all true.

[Stand and Fight]

113. Smoke...

If it is proved to be untrue, it is also a case of libel. If it does prove to be libel people are going to be facing some serious legal problems.

[Scout1071]

16. Simply put

Holy Shit.

If this is true......

[burythehatchet]

18. have a look at some history

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:n5y3OTnLlTsJ:home.earthlink.net/~fsrhine/2003.11.01_arch.html+tom+feeney+voting+software&hl=en
Intense pressure, including a call from the president, was put on freshman Rep. Tom Feeney. As speaker of the Florida House, he was a stalwart for Bush in his state's 2000 vote recount. He is the Class of 2002's contact with the House leadership, marking him as a future party leader. But now, in those early morning hours, Feeney was told a ''no'' vote would delay his ascent into leadership by three years -- maybe more.

Feeney held firm against the bill.

Its nice when you have pictures.

[ClintCooper2003]

20. I couldn't find it.

[burythehatchet]

30. its buried pretty deep

but basically it recounts the medicare vote strong arm tactics. Mr. feeney was one of the few thuglicans who risked his political future by voting against it. I contend that he may have some material that insulates him.

[Donailin]

325. And I would agree with you

Christ, the shit that goes down in Congress is unbelievable. If even the Republican voters knew what the hell was going on, they's have the whol lot thrown out.

The GD corruption. I'm just so sick of it.

[ClintCooper2003]

19. Holy, holy, holy!

It's even more shocking than I thought it would be. I forwarded the link to Keith Olbermann and David Shuster.

[Florida_Geek]

21. FYI Tom Feeney is a clone for Tom Delay

the shit he pulled in Florida....

[rawstory]

22. DETAILS ON STORY

RE: last page is in color because of the notary and signature stamps in color.

More at http://rawstory.com

and even more at http://bradblog.com

Dated today because it was signed and notarized today in its most recent form.

[Shalom]

27. THANKS to Raw Story & Bradblog for busting this wide open...n/t

[mackdaddy]

327. Please Re-scan with a fixed setup and re-post

If you have the original document please just re-scan and re-post using a fixed format for all the pages. It will get rid of the questions, because I though it looks odd too, and this needs to be nailed!

It should be an easy fix.

[Broken Acorn]

24. This is bogus

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this document looks like a fraud. Page 4 is completely different than page three. Furthermore, why is his name crossed out Clint and changed to Clinton at the bottom, when the opening line at the top says that he is 'Clint'.

Finally, on page 4 I have a hard time believing that he contacted the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. to report all this misconduct via email! Come on, if this stuff was legit, I would have picked up the phone or met somebody at their office to file a full report.

Sorry everyone, but this looks very fake :(

Followup: I hate to say it, but this whole 'Brad Blog Exclusive' stuff has been surfacing all weekend and looks like a selfish promotion act to generate interest to their site by Shalom/Raw Story usernames.

[IAMREALITY]

32. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Don't worry, you aren't raining on any of us. Rain always falls down. Since we are all up right now ABOVE the clouds of misinformation and opinion, the rain shall hit us not..

[BradBlog]

40. Sorry, you're wrong Acorn

Feel free to look into the details on the whole story.

Chose to believe it's "bogus" at your own peril, senor.

Brad
THE BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[emcguffie]

193. real casolaro's death in 1991

I think it was 1991. he was killed the same way. Gone to meet his last contact, excited, found the next day dead in the bathtub with his wrists cut and a suicide note.

He was writing a book about what he called "the octopus", which I think could be likened to BFEE.

If this is all a set-up, they're using the same story. if it's all real, they're using the same murderers.

Which is it?

[countmyvote4real]

336. I don't know WTF you're talking about.

Could it be a red herring?

[emcguffie]

361. madsen and casolaro

When madsen comes on this forum, he uses the tag "casolaro". Danny, or David, or whatever, Casolaro was an investigative reporter who was writing a book on what he called "the octopus", something that sounds kind of like the BFEE meets Carlyle Group. Although Carlyle Group is certainly part of the BFEE...

Anyway, as he was finishing his book, he went off one day to meet with what he thought would be his last contact. And then he would be finished. But he was found in the motel room bathtub, dead, with his wrists slashed. There was a suicide note, but none of his family or friends believed it, because he was too excited about finishing his book.

If you google casolaro, you will find it.

Other people have since done the book, I think, but I have not read it. Only found this because someone else said, in response to a similar query, to google casolaro. It's illuminating.

That was real, there's no two ways about it. He was there, he was doing his book, and he died in a very suspicious suicide. Oh, on top of that, the town coroner had him EMBALMED right away, which is illegal without the permission of the family. Once embalmed, couldn't do very good toxicology on the body, I don't think.

So no autopsy.

[NVMojo]

101. there is nothing unusual about the fourth page being scanned in color

if it has color on the original that triggered the settings to scan in color, especially if the per page scan wasn't set to only scan each page in black and white. I have a color copy machine in my office that will do that unless we set it to only copy in B/W unless color is requested and detected. Much ado about nothing on that point.

Also, if you have ever contacted a federal agency to blow the whistle, you dam well better put it in writing cuz phone talking is nothing more than hearsay to an investigator if there is nothing in writing to back whatever happened up. In the words of an attorney who sues the medical industry, if a caregiver didn't write down in a patient's chart, it didn't happen. Doesn't matter if people say it happened. It has to be documented.

[BlueDog2u]

121. I am quite open to the possibility that the document is not genuine

But your argument does not lead to that conclusion. The difference in the document pages has already credibly been explained by Bradblog. Have you ever scanned a document with color? I have, and this is what it does when the default switches to color.


"Page 4 is completely different than page three. Furthermore, why is his name crossed out Clint and changed to Clinton at the bottom, when the opening line at the top says that he is 'Clint'."

[mostly_lurking]

25. This isn't credible (sorry)

The description of the task in this document just isn't credible and will be picked to pieces by "real" engineers. To start, this individual's degree is in Political Science (he apparently is a "self-taught" computer engineer).

But the real issue is that the task he supposedly completed makes no sense. To be of any use the software would have to be specifically designed to interact with the specialized hardware (in this case the voting machines). The hardware is a form of computer but what engineers refer to as an "embedded system" rather than a general purpose PC. To write code for an embedded system an engineer would need details of I/O functionality, the specific API (application program interface), complete set of existing source code, and access to an actual device for testing.

From an engineer's point of view, this affidavit reads as an amateur's attempt to sound convincing. Any competent lawyer could tear it apart in minutes with expert witnesses.

I have a MSEE from Stanford University (1984) and have served as a expert witness for various cases concerning computer security (mostly for disputes between the US government and defense contractors).

[IAMREALITY]

34. You're Right

It isn't credible.

It is INCREDIBLE!

WOOOOOHOOOOO MADSEN AND CLINT!!!!!!

[Shalom]

39. INCREDIBLE REALITY FROM IAMREALITY, REALLY !!! n/t

[eowyn_of_rohan]

144. Is this a dream?

I think I need a good :cry: , in a good way though. Now GODSPEED to all who are working to bring this evil empire down.

[Shalom]

35. I Disagree...It Is Credible

Just like applications for desktop computers, such as Word, Excel, and so on can be written to operate across different platforms, it is trivial to replace the hard drive memory that contains such software with Read-Only-Memory (ROM), and thus create an embedded system.

The operation, however, will be precisely the same.
I believe you are mistaken: you have a EE degree, not one in computer science. Furthermore, lots of self-taught programmers know more than operating systems and programming than those who studied computer science in school.

[Broken Acorn]

38. No disrespect Shalom

but you are conveniently posting all these threads that are directing us back to your sites. Of course you're going to defend your own misinformation.

[mostly_lurking]

45. My degree is an MSEE in Computer Engineering

As such I not only write lots of software I also design, build and test the computers that run the software. I write more code than most Computer Sciences and usually command a much higher fee. The reason is that most EE's (computer engineering) actually are much better programmers than Computer Scientists. This is because we understand the internal working of the machines and can better target the strengths of the device.

You are completely wrong in assuming that software written for general purpose PCs can be easily ported to embedded devices. As a professional in this field for 20+ years I can say that without any hesitation whatsoever.

I'm only posting this to prevent some members here from getting unrealistic expectations. Anyone who touts this document is going to wind up looking pretty silly. I have replied to some other threads cautiously, but this area is my strength and I know what I am talking about.

Time will tell. Let's sit back and watch.

[skids]

81. My degree is also.

It may not be a Master's, but I have a BS in EE/Computer Systems Engineering. And his description of what he did sounds exactly the way I would expect a Political Science major that had taught himself to code to describe such a thing. I also happen to know a few people who write some pretty good code despite having been CS or even liberal arts majors.

The fact that he was under the misimpression that you cannot dissassemble a program and discern what it does squares with an incomplete understanding of machine code, suggesting someone who has learned only a higher level language.

Furthermor, code for embedded systems is more often than not, these days, written in a higher level language and cross-compiled. These systems are no longer rocket science. Without details as to whether he had a developers kit for an embedded system, we do not know whether he was working directly on such a system, or whether he was simply generating a working mock-up using a simulator or a standard PC platform. That will have to remain an open question.

Access to IO, both the user input device and any file IO, can be easily abstracted, rendering the central algorithm of the program reusable across operating systems and platforms. I don't know if a political science major would abstract cleanly, or if he would accidentally trip a few bugs by failing to account for small default integer sizes on a target platform, but these sorts of questions are usually not brought up by ignoramuses in board rooms, so they quite easily could have been impressed with the results and taken them at face value. Wouldn't be the first time a higher up ran with improperly QA'd software.

And, it is in no way clear that the program he describes was the one allegedly used in the long run, he just establishes that these people were looking for a demo model, and got it. Then they said they wanted him to obfuscate the source code, a typical maneuvre of the boardroom class, adding requirements at the 11th hour. They were disappointed because he felt that was impossible, which it is, sort of... a deep audit will almost always find such things, but code can be made a bit murky if you try, enough to pass a circumspection.

Time will tell, however, you are correct there.

[mostly_lurking]

89. Excellent post

Had you written the affidavit, I would have taken it more seriously.

[BlueDog2u]

125. Thanks for the clarification

I particularly appreciate this: "And, it is in no way clear that the program he describes was the one allegedly used in the long run, he just establishes that these people were looking for a demo model, and got it." Even those of us who are not qualified to appreciate the technical details of this discussion can appreciate the shrewdness of your insight. There is no requirement here that the code in question actually would have worked under the conditions it was allegedly designed for. The only requirement is that it was credible that Curt and his employers and Feeney could reasonably have thought that it would work.

[skids]

286. In fact, it is pretty much stated to be another program

What Curtis alleges he developed, as a demo model, was to be followed up with a development effort that would utilize a lot of money.

When you want to throughly debug and vet a program for something mission critical, this usually involves a team. The first thing you come up with is a working model, and if you want to keep the details of the project from being known to the entire team, the project manager looks over the prototype and tries to break that code it into components that can be assigned seperately to individual programmers. In the process the code loses its context and it is harder for the assigned programmer to guess the use the product will be put to. That of course is the old mainframe mentality which is a horrible way to actually develop software in a modern environment, but I have no doubt it still persists in a good number of companies.

Personally, from reading the affidavit I'm getting the impression that if this guy is legit, he was one of these people who were lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time, for his upper management to get a stellar impression of him and consider him to be a "whiz kid." I really don't think the people that asked him for the code had much of a clue. Odds are the code was completely scrapped later on when they hooked up with someone who was a professional project engineer.

Or, they may have been overstimating his talent, and the true pupose of having him do this code was to feel him out to see how far he would go -- they may have done a similar thing to several other candidates until they found the one with the total lack of princple neccessary to do the job.

The point is, there are scenarios that make the affidavit plausible.

There are also problems in the wording of the affidavit that make it less plausible. For example, being introduced to "the future Speaker of the House" is not clear as to whether that phrase is simply meant to identify him, or to mean that those words were actually used when he was introduced. The lawyer is supposed to clean up unclear language like that, which could mean the affidavit was done in haste, or it would mean that the lawyer isn't top-notch, which raises questions as to whether the notary themselves are impunable(sp?).

What they need to do (Conyers, Madsen, and all) is to find a knowlegable computer expert to ask him detailed questions, without providing or coaxing, that will help him write a clearer, more specific affidavit that doesn't leave such a gray fog floating over the technical details.

[jwmealy]

311. The language about Feeney is a little ambiguous,

but not damaging to Curtis, because Curtis is indeed alleging that he was introduced to Feeney as "future Speaker of the House".

Curtis may have run the affidavit past a lawyer really quickly, and certainly the notary public has no particular responsibility to look at that sort of thing. All he or she does is certify that it is you signing the thing.

Webb

[milkyway]

131. Thanks to both of you for providing reasoned, intelligent analysis.

To this non-expert, I found it a little unsettling that Curtis was vague about how he learned programming. Also unclear is exactly how the fraud was to be committed (using what machine, and by who and when). But much of the rest of his story seems plausible and is presented in a coherent narrative.

[pointsoflight]

146. But he wouldn't have known how it was to be committed.

In fact, if Yang did end up developing the software, it would've been after Curtis had resigned.

Again, Curtis claims to have developed a demo, not a final software program that would've been used on actual voting machines.

[phantom power]

139. When it comes to software design, EEs are legends...

in their own minds.

Every EE I've ever known thought he was hot stuff with the programming, and 90% of them wrote the worst spagetti code I've ever seen. And not very efficient, either, mind you. Just bad.

(But you might be one of the 10% who are actually good)

[mostly_lurking]

143. Stanford's Computer Engineering program

includes the equivalent of a CS degree (at least it did back in the early 80s when I attended). I studied program flow and algorithms alongside CS majors in addition to hardware courses.

Of course, I have also had to update my skill set as my career progressed. OOP for example, didn't exist then, nor did the concepts of event-based computing or exceptions.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[NVMojo]

103. I agree, Shalom, and I know lots of self taught programmers who

know more about computer code from hands on application then alot of "degreed" programmers.

[Mister K]

41. What I found interesting is that it ties into the GEMS system

The GEMS system does use numbers instead of candidates names to like the tables in Access.

It sounds like he had access to some of the software even though he does not admit it. I agree with you on the API interface points. The voting machines do run on Windows and it would be possible to make 'invisible buttons' on a screen without seeing the existing code if it were to directly interface with the database. You would just need to make sure the program is running along with the voting software.

[Broken Acorn]

44. ALL Databases use serial numbers

As a professional database developer (MS SQL Server, MySQL, Oracle, etc.) all databases link one table to another using a 'serial number'. So the name of the candidate is only a text field, not the relationship builder.

I am not doubting this thing couldn't happen, but this specific pdf file spells Bogus all over, especially seeing how Blad's Blog al of a sudden became the authority for releasing all this info that just works too well.

"It's ok to be skeptical"

[Viktor Runeberg]

54. Your point?

As another professional database developer (MySQL, R:Base, Paradox, etc.) I'm not sure what your point is. A relational database can link tables by any field. When there are large numbers of people listed in a database, it's standard to have their unique identifier be a number, since for instance "John Smith" isn't unique. But in a voting system, where you never see exactly the same name for two different candidates, that's not a design requirement. You can easily "count votes where race = president and candidate = George W. Bush," or, if Bush has a serial number in a candidates table, you can go the long way around and look up the serial number by the name, then count the votes for the candidate with that serial number.

The point is, in database as in most other programming, "there's more than one way to do it."

[IAMREALITY]

58. Well Said Viktor

"You can easily "count votes where race = president and candidate = George W. Bush," "

Very True.

"or, if Bush has a serial number in a candidates table, you can go the long way around and look up the serial number by the name, then count the votes for the candidate with that serial number."

Also true. And what would it take, 60 seconds to write the code to do it the 'long' way?

Good Post Viktor, and Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[keepthemhonest]

96. so if this is for real then

i guess we could expect a distraction from the *administration

as far as someone directing back to their own site there is alot of that going on around here. Iwould not be concerned to much with networking ,that is how we have been spreading all this info all over the place and we don't want to discourage that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

263. Mr K - I remember reading a story about ballots in affiliated

precincts - I Fl or OH, I'll have to look. But they show that ballot order in each of the precincts was different. Some had Kerry first, some had Kerry second, etc.

Do you think the number driven table would have any effect on this or vice versa?

[iconoclastNYC]

51. How many thousands of people do programming without a degree?

To discredit him because he doesn't have a degree is silly. I could train someone over a weekend how to hack a database with visual basic.

[mostly_lurking]

62. Perhaps, but...

I very much doubt you could train someone how to work on embedded systems. Even im my field there are few engineers that can do so. It it were so easy, people like me wouldn't be paid $150/hour for the work.

[Viktor Runeberg]

67. As someone else has pointed out ...

The voting machines aren't embedded systems, they're close to being off-the-shelf Windows PCs.

[mostly_lurking]

76. That's completely wrong

Embedded systems may run Windows, but they are NOT off-the-shelf PCs. Microsoft in fact makes several variants of Windows specifically for embedded systems (Windows CE, Windows Embedded, and Windows XPE are examples).

Embedded systems have specialized I/O and drive specialized user interfaces. How many of the voting machines have you seen that have a mouse or a keyboard?

[NVMojo]

112. for what it is worth, our county clerk had the database from the recent

elections on a Windows-based operating system that had the results for each precinct in an Access database file that she had to take some time to convert to an Excel spreadsheet for me to have emailed to Cobb's people.

I didn't ask her how the totals from each voting machine ended up in the Access spreadsheet but she did say the results from each Sequoia voting computer were downloaded into the tabulation database.

[electropop]

68. Voting machines are PCs, not embedded systems

They run Windows, which is a major reason they are so hackable. Of course here we aren't really talking about hacking, but installation of rougue code by officials with unlimited access to the machines. As a developer (30 years+) of embedded and desktop software, I also know that there are compilers/libraries/classes available that are quite portable across platforms (example: gcc/GTK+), so even if after award of contract they had to port to one of the rare non-Windows machines, it wouldn't be rocket science.

[mostly_lurking]

79. I already addressed this in my earlier post

Just because a machine runs an embedded version of Windows does not make it a "PC".

I have built quite a few embedded products (from intercom systems on airplanes to video feed controllers for cable plants) that run Windows. The user interfaces for these devices were usually fixed buttons, knobs, dials, and flashing LEDs.

These were not PCs but ran specialized versions of Windows.

[NVMojo]

114. gee, I remember when I was looking my ballot choices on the Sequoia

voting machine at my precinct, I was amazed at how similar it looked to a Windows based software program on the screen. And was very similar to electronic cash registers I've used in stores that were Windows based so that the data totals for sales and taxes could easily be imported from the Cash register to the store's pc for accounting use and also imported from the cash register to offsight accounting computers.

Really, I don't see how it is all that much different.

edited for spelling by poster.

[wrate]

86. Exactly, plus since the OS is Windows, you need only the Windows API's

which are widely available to have your little culprit code do as it pleases you. And yes, I am a Computer Engineer too.

[mostly_lurking]

92. No

If you know anything about the embedded OS's, then you should know that they do not ship with an API to external devices. That's the first thing the designer of an embedded system must develop.

[electropop]

110. It's irrelevant anyway

Because the software in question was a _DEMO_, not meant for the final platform. Besides, the various versions of Windows share a huge amount of commonality, including many device drivers. I've "programmed to the bare metal" many times in the past on older embedded OSes. Windows reduces the need greatly. But even if the final job involved writing drivers, or more likely, using drivers already provided in the legitimate code, so what?. This is just not a strong case for the affadavit being fraudulent. What else ya got?

[pointsoflight]

123. Yes, it IS windows software. You can download the software here....

...and run it on your own windows-based computer.

http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.html

[pointsoflight]

102. This is all irrelevant.

The guy never claims that he created the software that was used on the actual system. He only says that he created a "demo" that was purportedly for demonstrating feasability in order to land a contract. The software would've presumably been developed by experts working with the specific systems AFTER the contract was obtained.

[Pepper32]

109. Maybe my point is simple but he was obviously qualified enough to be hired

by Yang Enterprises. Is that fact in dispute also?

YE had a lot of faith in his skills, apparently.

[mccoyn]

56. It doesn't sound like he was good at his job.

He states that he initially understood that he was supposed to demo the possibility of fraud. I think he did just that. What more could you do? He set up a fake vote program with malicious code in it. He then describes it as unable to be detected even though he sets up invisible controls. Those invisible controls are detectable with a program like Spy++. If this is all true then it is safe to say that this guy wasn't a good programmer, or a good technical adviser.

[Viktor Runeberg]

71. Or else ...

Or else he's a good enough programmer to know how to fully hide invisible controls. I haven't looked at Spy++, but tell me what it's looking for and I'll outline how to hide it. You could, for instance, set up a touchscreen so that every instance of a touch is evaluated, and there's dummy code that runs and does nothing for just the same amount of time as does the real code that hacks the vote, depending on where and in what sequence you touched, or real code that just accepts votes as advertised, so that wherever you touch the screen there's an input, and there's processing work done, so there's no clue in the timing whether you've hit an active invisible control or just a no-consequence section of the screen, or an active, public control for that matter. There's a million ways to obfuscate stuff.

[mccoyn]

82. Agreed.

Spy++ allows you to look at individual controls and list all the children of each control. So, you could find any hidden controls. It can't determine how events are processed though. So if it was an event processing system, it would be undetectable.

The reason I don't think he did this is the phrases he uses. They suggest he created separate controls.
"Hidden on the screen were invisible buttons."

[badc0der]

334. This guy is a vb programmer...

If you are thinking about spy++, I'm guessing your not. I doubt that anything written in VB would pass the "undetectable" test. It's unlikely that this guy/YEI got the project based on his prototype. However that is an entirely separate question from if the request was made of him.

[crispini]

59. Well, it's INTERESTING.

One thing I noticed is that he does not say that HIS program is how the election itself was rigged. He refers to it as a "prototype," and says that "neither I nor anyone else could produce any such program."

So I'm inclined to give him a pass on that-- programmers are known to just hash shit together and call it a "prototype" when in fact it would never, ever work in the real world.

But, like mostly_lurking, this account would have more credibility with me if he said some very specific things. For example (and I'm just making this sh*t up):

"I studied "Voting Company X's VOTRON" hardware platform and developed a set of runtime classes in C++ using the Turbo C++ SDK. These runtime classes interfaced with the Clipper database which resides on the VOTRON system and intermittently decremented a specific field in the database by Y number of votes." Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

I guess what I'm saying is, the fact that there is a signed affadavit is impressive. However, he never states that what he wrote was with any knowledge used to rig THIS election, and the lack of technical details here made me think that whatever he wrote could NOT have been used to rig an election.

Of course, the mere fact that Tom Feeney ASKED for it is pretty bad.

[high density]

61. I have to agree

He makes no sense. He says that he created a prototype program that displays how one could perpetrate fraud, but this doesn't prove that any fraudlent code actually made it into a voting machine.

[Sparkle]

126. But the thing is, it proves that they (Feeney and the Repukes)

were looking for a program that does perpetrate fraud. If they went to him and others, what makes you think they won't stop looking until they find someone to do it for the right price?

[life_long_dem]

182. I believe a person can be charged with "attempted crime".

from: http://www.lawnerds.com/testyourself/criminal_rules.html

Attempted Crimes
A person can be charged with an attempted crime (such as "attempted rape" or "attempted murder") even though the criminal did not complete all of the elements necessary to make the person guilty of the actual crime.

The following must occur for a person to be guilty of an attempted crime.
1. Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and
2. the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements.

[electropop]

64. I'm only a lowly BSEE (1984) but...

Even I know that all the major touchscreen machines are PC/Windows platforms; that's one of the reasons they are so insecure. Besides, the code Curtis wrote was a _demo_ written to win a contract for writing the real code. The target system would have been brought in after award of contract.

[Viktor Runeberg]

66. Don't know where you work but

In the real world, I've done database work for major Wall Street firms (well, okay, minor ones in the scheme of things, but still movers of large amounts of wealth), and like many professional programmers of a certain age I never formally studied programming at all, beyond a single BASIC class in high school using punch tape and a dial-in terminal.

Yeah, probably not too many people without MS's working for defense contractors (although my brother used to program for one with nothing but a BA in engineering - and no computer training in that degree at all). But in NYC, where the economy's run from, much of the talent is self-trained and made its way in from the ranks of PC hobbiests. That's what a new field will do sometimes - there were more jobs than graduates for this stuff in the 80s and early 90s, and database development in particular doesn't require any deep knowledge, it's just logic and a bit of design skill. I still advise people who want this kind of work to get a degree in something else; the best pay is in knowing another field well enough to represent it well in a database, not in know just databases by themselves.

[mostly_lurking]

73. I agree there are many talented programmers

with no corresponding degrees. I have had many work under me on various projects and teams.

However, when you move outside the realm of standard PC applications into embedded devices (such as voting machines, ATMs, etc.) things change dramatically. It is very hard to self teach subjects that are not so widely published as PC application programming. I have never seen a self taught EE and in most cases an EE is required to design or modify embedded systems.

My point as to the affidavit is credibility. If you were on a jury and had a Political Science major and self taught programmer contradicted by numerous MSEEs and PhDs from prestigious universities, who would you be inclined to believe?

Now it's possible some respectable engineers will come to the defense of the descriptions in the affidavit. If I were asked to... (well you already know what I think of the document).

[Boredtodeath]

134. 2 MAJOR things

First, let me state that I am suspcious about this document based solely on the last page not matching the first three.

Despite that, let me counter some of your points in this thread:

1. Having reviewed the Diebold source code extensively, I know that what he describes is exactly how the candidate databases are created.

a. There is a master candidate database set up as Candidate A=Candidate #something

b. There is a master vote total database where Candidate #something=Candidate by Name.

Points 1 a. and b. are fact.

2. The Diebold system already has a hidden button system. If a voter is at the booth, and discovers they have the wrong ballot, a poll worker can walk over to the screen, touch a series of places on the screen and "Cancel" the ballot . Additionally, if a voter "abandons" their ballot without hitting the Cast Ballot button and exits the polling place, this same procedure is used to cancel the vote.

Point 2 is fact.

Now, as far as the discrepancy in the actual document, I plan to take this whole thing with a grain of salt. But, with respect to what is being said, it's not only possible, it already is functional in an existing system.

[Donailin]

326. This is very true

I have a friend who was an Army Mechanic for 15 years, got sick to death of his hands being dirty and took up computer programming and basicaly taught himself everything he knows with a two yar college course at night. He now writes code for the enemy -- RAYTHEON, and has been steadily moving up the ladder. He hates Bush, I should add, but has to make a living.

[pointsoflight]

94. Your logic is flawed.

You want to discount the report because you say the guy doesn't has an engineering degree and sounds like an amateur. Problem is, it's an undisputed fact that he did work as a computer programmer for Yang and FDOT. Doesn't matter what you think of his credentials, they were apparently good enough for him to get those jobs.

Second, he says that he was only asked to write a "prototype" to examine "feasability." Nowhere in his statements does he say that he wrote the software that was actually used. He couldn't have, in fact, because he never worked with the vote tabulation software itself, which is what his program would've interacted with.

[Pepper32]

118. exactly n/t

[NVMojo]

yeah, and Feeney may have just been using him through an "inquiry"

process to see if it could be done before he lobbied the concept to whomever eventually did develop the code or program to hack...

[davidlynch]

153. Not Credible

The font size, margins and spacing are different. There are also conventions that differ, such as paragraph 12, where the use of July 1st (superscript) is at odds with the legal requirement to spell out the entire date (e.g., July 1, 2004).

What has happened here is obvious: the last page has nothing to do with the first pages. If you read the text carefully, you can also see that if taken alone, the last page could be interpreted as having nothing whatsoever to do with the first pages. How convenient.

The forger had to bend over backward to write the text to make it seem to flow together, but the last page sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sorry, this is fake, and as such detracts from our real cause.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Pepper32]

289. Yes, what would we have done? The thought is frightening. Good thing we

...have so many people coming to our rescue today. Just in time... :)

[Qutzupalotl]

280. Superscripting could only have been done on a 1973 IBM Executive.

:P

[jfern]

202. BS in CS is over-rated

And I say this as someone who has a BS in CS

[bj2110]

43. So, the way I'm reading this is....

Both of these theories are plausible if you believe the account in the affidavit:

1) Any registered voter (who also wants to be a vote rigging operative) could stroll up to the voting machine and touch the screen in a few invisible places in order. Rather than adding one to the vote count of whichever candidate is selected, this would trigger the internal counting routines to alter the current totals to show a 51% - 49% margin. This could be done as many times and in as many places as you have vote rigging operatives.

2) The code could be altered to remove the need for an operative. Simply change the trigger from an invisible set of ordered screen touches to a certain time in the day, or when a certein vote total / % margin combo is reached. The 51% - 49% margin could also be altered to whatever margin is desirable. For example, votes are counted accurately up until a candidate has a 70% margin on a particular voting machine with a minimum of 100 votes. That's the trigger, 70% / 100 votes. If and when that happens, the machine adjusts the internal count to a desirable margin, say 60% for that candidate. The other candidates are adjusted accordingly. This scheme could be triggered off of lowering one candidates margin or increasing another candidate's margin. The trigger could occur multiple times during the day.


Problems I see with these theories:

1) It does not directly address op-scan machines. However, the same logic could be incorporated into the vote counting software, whether precinct-located or county centrally located.

2) It would require a huge, absolutely huge, effort of tapping isolated machines, as the triggers would have to be different for every precinct in every county. Whether through the use of operatives or duplicated code, it would have be a coordinated effort larger than any of us could imagine. But, that said, I wouldn't put it past 'em.


If theory #2 above is chosen, the recent developments of early voting in Florida, and the recent Florida County SoE's proposal to go to "super precints" with an election period, seem like methods to facilitate this fraud. Fewer voting machines required, fewer algorithm variations. Less transparency at the precinct level, i.e. it would be increasing the size of the smallest data set able to be analyzed.

That's scary.

[Shalom]

52. Other Possibility:

3) Voting machines are set up with "combination locks" based upon data entry sequence or hidden buttons for intrusion NOT during voting, but afterwards: either during lockdowns (which is not absolutely required), or during readout of results by poll workers.

This makes it much easier to carry out, since fewer people would be involved, since it is best to hack lots of voting machines and avoid large machine-to-machine variatons, which is a signature of fraud.

NOTE: This "grand larceny" can be combined, and loaded into the machine, with with "petty larceny" software that runs automatically during voting; for example, something that "just" inflates Bush votes for 5 %. The "grand larcency" software would be available after the voting process to massage the results when and if necessary to give Bush the election.

[bj2110]

55. Makes even more sense. Embed it everywhere and...

... only recall the altered counts when its necessary. I can just picture Rove sitting in his White House office on election evening figuring out which areas to "turn on".

[Shalom]

95. Need Computer Whiz Thread on Scams, and Other Ideas

We need computer/programmer/data base experts to explore all the variations of fixing voting machines, given that Curtis just did a proto, and if there is hacking software in machines used in the election, it may be configured quite differently than Curtis envisioned. I suggest they set up a thread to focus on this.

To seed this discussion, I have a few amateur ideas below which can be discarded if they make no sense:

1. I have really scary thought that may or may not be plausible: Is it possible that a "combination lock" of the type we are considering could be provided to allow an "Egyptian Tomb" option, in which (after hacking is complete), a final instruction is given to obliterate the hacking code, as well as the trigger for the "Egyptian Tomb", so that subsequent readout of the machine code would not have the hacking SW at all. (This idea, of course, is based upon the practice of Egyptian pharohs to inter the slaves who created the secret passages to their tombs in the pyramids)

You've got to believe they (Diebold, ES&S) would not want to rely upon the "proprietary" aspect of their software to prevent us from determining afterwards they had scammed us - they would want a way to hide their trail. It there was evidence of crime, the courts could dictate that they open up their source code, and require that they verify it against the compiled binary code in the machine. By having the "Egyptian Tomb" feature, they could provide a "clean" version of their source code to the courts, and it would match the contents of the machine after scrubbing.
(Don't know how feasible this is - for comment by experts)

I suggested another hacking variation in another message which I copied below:

2. Voting machines are set up with "combination locks" based upon data entry sequence or hidden buttons for intrusion NOT during voting, but afterwards: either during lockdowns (which is not absolutely required), or during readout of results by poll workers.

This makes it much easier to carry out, since fewer people would be involved, since it is best to hack lots of voting machines and avoid large machine-to-machine variatons, which is a signature of fraud.

NOTE: This "grand larceny" can be combined, and loaded into the machine, with with "petty larceny" software that runs automatically during voting; for example, something that "just" inflates Bush votes for 5 %. The "grand larcency" software would be available after the voting process to massage the results when and if necessary to give Bush the election.

[wiggs]

57. Affadavit doesn't say what was actually used.....

What the affadavit says it that a politician asked him to design a vote tampering program. That's the news.

It doesn't claim that this is the program that was used in the actual election. The actual mechanism that was used could have been entirely different; he wouldn't have any knowledge of that one way or the other.

There is a lot of information in the affadavit on a number of fronts. But in terms of the election, we have to ask Tom Feeney about why he approached this company to design fraud software, and what he did with the information. We have to look at the software used in the election. We have to ask Mrs. Yang about her company.

This is very interesting, but the affadavit is limited in what it says. It says that the vote was hackable, that a republican in Florida was interested in knowing how to hack it, and that that republican had a least one tool needed to hack it.

This appears to be a great starting point. And how interesting would it be if the polling tapes that Bev has reveals a difference in voting triggered sometime during the day?

[bj2110]

60. I sure hope Bev, Madsen, & Conyers are all talking...

... I could care less about grandstanding, the "attack" on Iran, or any of that. But these three have to get on the same page.

[proudtobeadem]

100. I hope they're all talking...to Kerry

[nmoliver]

70. what it does prove ...

What it proves is that there has been a Republican conspiracy to rig the presidential elections.

What it proves is that the Watergate conspiracy was not an isolated, one-time affair, but a continuity of strategy, a modus operandi of the Republican party that has been going on for at least 35 years.

Maybe we can put the pejorative implications of the term "conspiracy theory" to rest with this one. That would be a major accomplishment. Nobody, for example, could any longer dismiss ideas that the Bush regime was complicit in 9/11, as a mere "conspiracy theory" and hence not valid.

- Nina

[wiggs]

78. Right

This affidavit, if not discredited, moves the discussion from the completely "hypothetical" category to the "likely" category, IMO.

And you are also right...if it can be shown definitively that republicans in power have conducted themselves dishonestly with this, then the snowball will gather momentum downhill and you'll see more whistleblowers, more skepticism of past events, more scrutiny, etc.

I can't wait to see who in the media reports this and how. This may be a tipping point. The SBVT garbage was a litmus test for media and we all know who passed and who failed. This will be a similar, telling issue. Buried on page 26 or front page?

I bet there is A LOT of checking going on right now regarding Curtis. Is he associated with Rove? Is he a disgruntled employee of Yang? Who is Brad? Who is Madsen?

How sweet would it be for Rather to get all this verified first and break it open on MSM?

[danostuporstar]

91. good thoughts, wiggs

"This is very interesting, but the affadavit is limited in what it says. It says that the vote was hackable, that a republican in Florida was interested in knowing how to hack it, and that that republican had a least one tool needed to hack it."

that's a great summary of the significance of this affadavit. i was a little disappointed when i found out Madsen was talking about the http://www.justaflyonthewall.com guy (which, btw, seems to be somewhat updated recently) but wiggs make a great point about being a tangible starting point...and that means everything right now.

if someone doesn't step forward though with credible first-hand testimony about code in use on 11/2/04, this document means nothing.

(can somebody with familiarity with Microsoft fill an old unix guy in on something...i thought VB was purely a scripting language. is it accurate to talk about 'compiled" VB?)

[mccoyn]

97. Affidavit suggests it wasn't this program.

Read item 7 carefully. He describes the voting program he wrote. Why would he be writing the voting program if he had access to the real version?

I think the people who gave him the task didn't understand what he would need. Further, in their attempt to hide their doings, they failed to communicate what they wanted.

[pointsoflight]

115. Yes, and he recreates the program here:

http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/votefraudprogram.htm

Notice that it is a stand-alone program--A DEMO--not a program that actually interacts with the real voting software.

People need to read the affadavit again. He explicit says he was asked to write a "prototype" to demonstrate feasibility in order to land a contract. Nowhere does he claim that worked on a program that actually interacts with the voting software and that was actually implemented. In fact, he says he resigned once he found out what the software was for.

[tjdee]

205. Crap--

I just duped this in a new thread.

Goes to show I should actually read all the way through a thread....sigh.

:)

[pointsoflight]

107. Exactly, good post.

[googly]

203. Exactly!!! If they very devious enough to use vote hacking code, they

would'nt be dumb enough to leave that code in the computers for subsequent inspections. I have used the Egyptian tombstone method myself a few times when selling source code to buyers.

[Zan_of_Texas]

262. Some stuff for you geeks

Doug Jones is a recognized computer expert on this stuff. There's a lot of stuff about Diebold on this page online -- go most of the way down the page for this.

DIALING IN TO GEMS
Doug Jones
discussing the SAIC report on Diebold for Maryland
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.html

<> Remove the SBE GEMS server immediately from any network connections. Rebuild the server from trusted media to assure and validate that the system has not been compromised. Remove all extraneous software not required for AccuVote-TS operation. Move the server to a secure location.

Again, the redactions make it hard to criticize this, but apparently, despite repeated public assurances from Diebold that GEMS servers are not connected to networks, the Maryland centeral GEMS system was. Furthermore, Diebold's Election Support Guide dated October 21, 2002 makes it clear, in Section 13, item 1 (on page 23) that Diebold was equally happy to have results distributed to the press using LAN connections, FTP transfers, HTTP transfers or "sneakernet" (hand-carried data). Only the latter can be considered secure in this context, and even then, such security can only be trusted if there is a trivial proof that the data transfer is one-way, outgoing only, from the GEMS server. One way to assure this is if only new or bulk-erased disks are ever loaded into the disk drive on the GEMS system, instead of allowing one disk to be alternately loaded on one system and the other.
But, that deals only with one of the paths into the GEMS server. If the GEMS machine serves a pool of modems that are used to make connections with the voting machines at the precincts, then GEMS is already connected to a public network, the telephone system. Depending on how the modems are managed, this is just as dangerous as the Internet, and in fact, it can be considered part of the Internet, because a huge number of computers connect to the Internet using the telephone network.

There are several risks that must be addressed here. First, that an outsider could dial in to the GEMS server and corrupt data on that server directly, and second, that an outsider could dial in to the GEMS modem bank and 'tunnel through' that modem bank to a machine at the polling place, connecting to that machine and corrupting data there. Because the Diebold AccuVote machines at the polling place use the PPP protocol to connect to GEMS, the nature of the PPP server connected to the GEMS machine determines whether this attack is feasible.

Diebold's Election Support Guide offers several options, in section 11.3.2 (page 19) in this regard, and it offers no advice for any of these options for how to configure the modem pool and PPP server to prevent 'tunneling through'. This is a crucial barrier to such an attack. In general, PPP servers, particularly "intelligent port servers" such as Diebold's suggested option 2, are delivered, out of the box, with no effective logging of connections and no effective security against use to establish arbitrary network connections.

[Zan_of_Texas]

266. Actual hack test of Diebold touchscreen

Almost no one seems to have read the one actual Red Team hack test of Diebold equipment.

Here is the best story I've seen on it.

Briefly, there were many flaws, but the worst weakness was that if someone knew a phone number, they could call in on a laptop from anywhere to the central Diebold tabulator (Windows-based) and "edit" the election, leave the system, and leave no trace of their visit.

Highlight:
Meanwhile, William A. Arbaugh, an assistant computer science professor at the University of Maryland, College Park and part of the team, easily sneaked his way into the state's computers by way of his modem. Once in, he had access to change votes from actual precincts - because he knew how to exploit holes in the Microsoft software.


Remarkably (or not), the State of Maryland commissioned high techies, formerly of NSA, to hack the Diebold system in a real test. Then, when the results came out, the State of Maryland went ahead and bought Diebold, saying it was basically everything they ever wanted.

So, no pre-installed algorithm is necessary -- just a phone number.


Md. computer testers cast a vote: Election boxes easy to mess with

By Stephanie Desmon
Sun Staff (Maryland)
January 30, 2004
<http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-te.md.machine30jan30,0,4050694.story?coll=bal-local-headlines>

For a week, the computer whizzes laid abuse - both high- and low-tech -on the six new briefcase-sized electronic voting machines sent over by the state. One guy picked the locks protecting the internal printers and memory cards. Another figured out how to vote more than once - and get away with it. Still another launched a dial-up attack, using his modem to slither through an electronic hole in the State Board of Elections software. Once inside, he could easily change vote totals that come in on Election Day.

"My guess is we've only scratched the surface," said Michael A. Wertheimer, who spent 21 years as a cryptologic mathematician at the National Security Agency. He is now a director at RABA Technologies in Columbia, the firm that the state hired for about $75,000 to look at Maryland's new touch-screen voting machines scheduled to be unveiled in nearly every precinct in Maryland for the March 2 primary.

The state has no choice but to use its $55 million worth of AccuVote-TS machines made by Diebold Election Systems for the primary. The old optical scanners are gone. Yesterday, Wertheimer calmly presented his eight-member team's findings to committees in the House and Senate, explaining the weaknesses they discovered and a plan for how to plug many of the cracks, at least in the short run.

*Giddy geek speak *
Yet on a recent morning at his offices, Wertheimer's computer programmers were practically giddy as they invented new ways to muck up an election. Some were simple - like the lock-picking or just yanking the cords out of a machine's monitor, disabling it for the rest of the day. Other fiddling inspired round after round of excited geek speak, true gibberish to the untrained ear, to explain a host of attacks that could be launched up close or by modem.


MORE

[Zan_of_Texas]

269. One more thing --

As someone pointed out, the touchscreen hidden "buttons" would not explain the potentially rigged optical scan counters, which still control over a third of the votes.

Nor would it explain any potential rigging of Hart InterCivic electronic (and paperless) voting machines, which use a dial rather than a touch screen. Those count 2 of the largest 5 counties in the US in the two largest states -- Harris County, TX (Houston) and Orange County, CA. Also the state capital's votes in Texas, Travis County (Austin).

I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that there is more than one mechanism for actual hacking, perhaps more than one hack-team, and perhaps even competing hackers. This stuff is, according to the article from Maryland, so lacking in security that an eighth-grader could hack it.

Given that control of the largest military and largest economy on the planet is in the balance, it's reasonable to assume more than one perp, more than one scheme is at work.

[Zan_of_Texas]

274. okay, one more - re qui tam

You guys are missing something - toward the end of the affidavit, it says he is filing a qui tam.

There was a huge uproar about qui tam lawsuits vis a vis Bev Harris and various researchers, but we need not revisit that. Currently, Harris and Jim March have a qui tam against Diebold, joined by CA in that state; as I understand it, Diebold offered to settle, but Harris and March are rejecting the settlement as not offering enough reform, and not enough punishment for Diebold in CA.

Basically, a qui tam lawsuit is one filed by a citizen to help a government get back money it is being cheated of. The citizen is in line to get a portion of the recovery, if there is a recovery.

It helps reward whistleblowers, and the government gets the lion's share of the recovery.

Seems like he is attempting to do the qui tam regarding the DOT of Florida. Hmmmm.

[From the south]

47. Why are the first 3 pages

different from the last one?

[crispini]

48. Read the thread.

Your answer is above.

[jcollins35]

49. No Raymond Lemme in Google search

The document says Raymond Lemme at FDOT was found dead in Valdosta, Georgia. Google turns up nothing on "Raymond Lemme" Valdosta Georgia. Or under Lemme Valdosta Georgia.

That seems strange.

[Metatron]

63. Here is a google link (about Lemme, not his death)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:shLrOKUYla4J:www.dot.state.fl.us/businessmodel/pdf/August%25202003.pdf+%22Raymond+Lemme%22+Florida&hl=en
An HTML version of an August 2003 PDF also online, which lists Raymond Lemme as a member of the Inspector General’s Contract Fraud Investigation Team.

[AmyCrat]

65. Raymond Lemme is mentioned here

on the Florida DOT website.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/businessmodel/pdf/August%202003.pdf

[qanda]

164. I found a document from google

It was from the Florida Department of Transporation Inspector General's Office and had Ray Lemme listed under the "In Memory Of" Section... 1947-2003. Also on a fishing site where he was called the "Reel Man" (Again under an "In Memory Of" Section. Links below.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:gFNF6f8ygM0J:www.dot.state.fl.us/inspectorgeneral/Reports/AnnualReport2003.pdf+%22Ray+Lemme%22+Florida&hl=en (Page 61)

http://www.cals2speed.com/photos.html

[eek]

219. I found a few things on Ray Lemme

and so far two of the things are "in memoriam" references from 2003!!






edit: punctuation,typos

[MarkusQ]

50. Feeny's rebuttal -- issued two years ago???

Feeny apparently responded to this, or similar accusations, two years ago.

--MarkusQ

[mostly_lurking]

53. Link doesn't work... n/t

[Quakerfriend]

69. THis is awsome!!

On another thread there is talk that this will be released by MSM later this afternoon........anyone else heard this??

[Broken Acorn]

72. It's fake

This affidavit isn't real people. We need to refocus on the task at hand and not get sucked into these false *Brad Blog Exclusives* that are clouding our judgements.

[IAMREALITY]

74. Here we go again

Nothing to see here folks! (Dead bodies laying around everywhere) Move along, nothing to see here! (sirens wailing, horns blaring, people screaming in horror) Nothin to see here!

:eyes:


Edit to add (since last time I used this analogy is was misintrepreted, it is a statement of sarcasm mocking the concept that we should not regard something as real, when it in fact IS real, and extremely important :) )

[George W. Hayduke]

233. that is so

f*cking hilarious!!!!!!!!

[bj2110]

75. I haven't seen anything that proves its fake.... Please direct me to...

... somewhere where I can verify its artificiality for myself...

I'm not taking you on your word any more than I'm taking BradBlog on his...

[faithfull]

83. Its not working.

Nothin to see here people...its fake. I said so.
:eyes:

:donut:

[BlueDog2u]

120. That's a very persuasive argument you're making....

[SueZhope]

90. If you say its a fake and since you are 100% sure

then who created it?

[Broken Acorn]

108. IF this was true

AAR and KO would be running this as a headline story. I wish it were, but it is not :(

[IAMREALITY]

124. Broken Acorn

You are sounding like a Broken Record.

The affidavit is real. Period.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[IAMREALITY]

135. No Ass Here

The Affidavit is REAL. Period.

[merh]

275. The sky really isn't falling - we really didn't hit an iceberg . . .

Damage control by the damage patrol.

[coreystone]

287. YES! Who created it, or rather, who did such a "sloppy" inconsistant...

scan of the document! I'd love to get to the content, but, I have a BIG question regarding the access to the original document, and why it was such an amateurish endeavor in the process of scanning it in a .pdf format with a "minimal" amount of consistency.

Where did "bradblog" get to take a scan of this affidavit!!

Whoever did the technical work on this was much more concerned with the content as opposed to the presentation as a "valid" representation of what may be the original document.

Secondly, the "programmer" would have to have a considerable amount of hard copy documentation, and other valid forms of tangible legal proof to corroborate his affidavit.

NOW!!! I would would love, love, love to believe that this programmer and this affidavit are the real thing, but, unless it can be backed up by anything more than what we have witnessed so far, it really is like a "he said, she said" representation of truth.

Please! Do not misinterpret!!! I am intentionally playing "devil's advocate" to go beyond the obvious. Let us build our case upon a solid unimpeachable foundation, or the structure will fall during its construction!

The content seems to make a great deal of sense!

Is there anyway that we would be able to obtain a more "genuine" and "authentic" .pdf file of this affidavit???

[stirringstill]

119. It's fake because I said so

WTF. We aren't getting sucked by anything. We're just blogging. Clouding our judgement about what?

Some people suspect fraud and are investigating on multiple fronts. Some are crunching numbers, some are making flyers, some are going to protest, others just watching it all unfold and the Madsen investigation happens to be the most interesting and promising in terms of scope. If the bottom falls out well the bottom falls out, but we are not there yet. There are a thousand angles to this election and I'm glad someone is investigating it from the macro angle.

[BlueDog2u]

136. This affidavit isn't real people.

This sentence isn't grammatical, people.

[IAMREALITY]

140. LOL Blue

:toast:

[Dolphyn]

294. Compare page 3 at 89% to page 4 at full-size ...

I printed page 3 at 89% to page 4 at full-size. This gives
a line spacing that is roughly equal between the two documents.

The margins do indeed appear to be different, BUT,
the number of characters per line is approximately the same.
(I counted one "average-looking" line from each page, and they
came up 76 and 77 characters, respectively.)

I don't venture to make any judgment on whether the document is
authentic -- but if it is, then there is some "distortion",
i.e. height and width not magnified in the same proportions.

That could lead one to a conclusion that the fonts are different,
but for all I can tell, the fonts may be the same.

One interesting thing I noticed, in all four pages, the typist
has a peculiar habit of sometimes double-spacing after a period,
and sometimes not. This proves nothing, of course.

[sabra]

116. Updated Link

http://www.informedvolusian.com/2002/Issue_24/issue_24_article_1.htm

[NVMojo]

128. been there, done that....this is typically how corporations or the feds

react when someone blows the whistle on them. They shoot the messenger's credibility to hell.

[wiggs]

130. Typical

Typical republican strategy to discredit the messenger.

Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were credible whistleblowers. The harder Feeney tries to discredit Curtis, the more likely it is the story is true.

Curtis had better steel himself against the upcoming onslaught. Think the CIA and FBI have extensive files on him?

Think Rove has talked to anyone today about Curtis?

[milkyway]

179. Good find, but Feeney doesn't say anything. It's just empty words telling

us how reckless Curtis is, and how ethically upstanding Feeney is. The only argument of substance he makes is about the overbilling vs. spending cap issue.

This doesn't address election fraud at all, and doesn't do much to damage the credibility of Curtis.

[Donailin]

329. Right and two weeks ago during the Merck hearings

the scientist who blew the whistle and who was employed by the FDA was accused of being a "maverick" by his own boss.. Why? Becuase he had the gall to write a report saying that Vioxx increases the risk of heart attacks.

[merh]

260. Your link doesn't work!

n/t

[rawstory]

271. INFORMATION ON DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES

As an aside, the last page was scanned in color because of the color signature, which is why it looks different than the other pages. If you want to believe it's a fake, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to play the flame game in here, because I know it's not worth my time or yours.

We're certain the document is authentic, but of course we are, like everyone, skeptical of the claims.

However, the House people are looking at it, which, if we get a statement from them, will put us in a better position to understand its veracity. The affidavit itself is not fake, and I have spoken with Mr. Curtis.

More will be posted on this story tonight at http://rawstory.com

[Turn CO Blue]

293. More cache'd Feeney hits on google:

Yeah, Feeney was denying and then investigated for these allegations over a long period of time and then eventually cleared for them. Ms. Georgalis was reinstated in her job after blowing the whistle.

<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:BWFXlt-YWDgJ:news-journalonline.com/special/feeney.htm+FDOT+feeney+clint+curtis&hl=en>

scroll down a little ways...

Read the very bottom response letter to the paper from Feeney...in it Feeney calls Clint Curtis a "disgruntled Yang employee" - which at least shows that Feeney knew that Mr. Curtis worked for YEI.

Also read this response from Feeney that ran on Wednesday, June 12, 2002

Daytona Beach News Journal
Florida House Speaker refutes allegations
FLORIDA VOICES
By TOM FEENEY
In response to the Sunday article in the Daytona Beach News-Journal ("Feeney's role in contract dispute questioned.")

Yang Enterprises is a renowned technology firm with the highest level of clearance at NASA and great credibility and respect in our community. Based on their tradition of providing exemplary service, Yang was awarded a technology contract with the Department of Transportation.

Clint Curtis, a disgruntled former Yang employee, raised questions relating to that contract. Mr. Curtis ended his employment with Yang under negative circumstances. The DOT Office of Inspector General investigated Mr. Curtis, and as a result, he is no longer employed by DOT.

Mr. Curtis contends Yang was over-billing the DOT. This allegation makes little sense. The eight-year contract negotiated between Yang and the DOT has a spending cap that cannot be exceeded.

Mr. Curtis also alleged conflicting interests in my role as long time legal counsel to Yang and in my role as House Speaker. On the absolute contrary, I took the highest ethical ground and removed myself from any direct involvement with DOT leaders.

...more

[DTinAZ]

352. article to which Feeney was responding...

..is archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021219105233/http://www.news-journalonline.com/2002/Jun/9/STAT001.htm

it's from the Daytona Beach News-Journal, and the title of the article is "Feeney's role in FDOT contract dispute questioned"

[Sparkle]

80. This isn't news until Drudgie says it's news.

Don'tcha know?

[Donailin]

330. I stopped reading drudge a month ago.

He has nothing of interest anymore since his reality is fake.

[danostuporstar]

346. i dunno it's made it to MetaFilter

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37553

MeFi may not pull as much weight as drudge with the MSM, but online it's certainly as influential as drudge is.

[izzy12]

88. Raymond Lemme

I've been reading through this tread, and did a search for Raymond Lemme. I'm pasting what I found in the SS death index.

Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools Order
Record?
RAYMOND W LEMME 06 Apr 1923 15 Sep 1994 34684 (Palm Harbor, Pinellas, FL) (none specified) 074-12-6083 New York SS-5 Letter
Add Post-em
Search Ancestry.com
RAYMOND C LEMME 21 Feb 1947 01 Jul 2003 (V) (FO) (none specified) 363-48-7667 Michigan SS-5 Letter
Add Post-em
Search Ancestry.com
RAYMOND A LEMME 26 Nov 1917 28 Jan 1992 90660 (Pico Rivera, Los Angeles, CA) (none specified) 505-05-8403 Nebraska SS-5 Letter






The second Raymond Lemme seems to fit the time of death. July 3, 2003. Does not say where he died.

[CabalPowered]

122. More on Raymond Lemme.. He did work for Fl. IG

Specifically on Contract Fraud..

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/businessmodel/pdf/August%202003.pdf

hmmmm...

[Donailin]

331. say, it's not a very good idea to post someones SSN

you ought to delete that post and repost it, no?

[wiggs]

117. Was there a "pi" symbol on the bottom of the voter screen?

This stuff sounds more and more like a thriller novel everyday...or the movie "The Net", where they used hidden buttons to access secret parts of the internet. In the movie, those in control of hidden software used throughout government used the software to control everything.

[libmeayer]

127. This guy is going to jail.

[qanda]

133. I found this through google

It takes guts to see something going wrong at work, and speak up about it.-- That's why Florida has a tough law meant to protect state employee "whistleblowers" from being fired when they speak out. It's troubling to see state agencies fighting to strip them of that shield.--- Mavis Georgalis was a manager at the state Department of Transportation until April 1. That day, she says, she was pushed by DOT officials into signing a letter of resignation. That happened, she says, because she and another worker filed complaints about the performance of DOT contractor Yang Enterprises. The department has since admitted that some of Yang's invoices were "questionable." 7/22/02

Found here: http://www.whoseflorida.com/dot/DOT.htm

[qanda]

137. And this...

Despite repeated claims that he never used his influence to benefit his client, House Speaker Tom Feeney arranged at least one meeting
between state officials and an Oviedo computer firm that was having trouble with its state contract.-
E-mails obtained by The Daytona Beach News-Journal through the state's public records law contradict statements made by the Oviedo Republican to the state Ethics Commission, which cleared him of ethical missteps surrounding his ties to his client, Yang Enterprises.- Yang's dealings with the state have been at the heart of an ongoing dispute over questionable invoices in its $8 million technology contract with the Florida Department of Transportation...10/13/02

http://www.whoseflorida.com/central_florida.htm

[DTinAZ]

351. archived version of this URL

there seem to be problems with "whoseflorida.com" at the moment, so here's an archived version of this Daytona Beach News-Journal item:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021219105643/www.news-journalonline.com/2002/Oct/12/ELEC3.htm

[DTinAZ]

350. archived version of this URL

The "whoseflorida.com" site doesn't seem to be responding, so here's the page from Archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040229215137/http://www.whoseflorida.com/dot/DOT.htm

[mdb]

138. Question... how does this tie in to the technicians at polling places?

Wayne Madsen said, the Bush campaign spent some $29 million to pay polling place operatives around the country to rig the election for Bush.The operatives were posing as Homeland Security and FBI agents but were actually technicians familiar with Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, Unilect, and Danaher Controls voting machines. These technicians reportedly hacked the systems to skew the results in favor of Bush.

If Clint Curtis's program was used, and it was activated to skew the votes with touch screen buttons, why would they need these technicians?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

141. Great respect for Clinton Curtis.

I wonder if he was a friend of Ray Lemme...If so, he must have some incredibly mixed feelings about finally getting this story out in the open, for himself, for his slain friend, for all of us...

What a hero.

[shraby]

145. I believe there were news reports about

Raymond Lemme's death put on du yesterday. I'll see if I can find them

It was in Wayne Madsen's report at:

<http://www.onlinejournal.com>

[eowyn_of_rohan]

151. I've been reading about his death today--very sad. Another hero -nt

[Liberty Belle]

149. I sent it to Olbermann. What else should we do? kick! kick!

[shraby]

150. Kick!!

[Peace Patriot]

152. To the Naysayers:

I don't see much evidence, or argument, that this is bogus. The last page being different has been explained. (The color seal triggered color printing in a different font.) One of you said (Crispini) that it doesn't sound like a programmer wrote it. But I happen to know that lawyers and paralegals help people write affidavits because some people are not very articulate, especially on paper, and need help organizing their thoughts, staying on point, and conveying their facts in a way that others can understand. It's not fraudulent, it's just, "Okay, what is your point here?", or "Couldn't you say this more simply?", or (particularly to a technical specialist) "Put that in English, please!"

That last one might be particularly relevant in this case--either the programmer himself trying to "put it in English" or someone asking him to.

Obviously, we should be very careful about another Rove operation. (I think we can be sure there are several in motion, or or in the works.) And I tend to trust hardcore data analysis, as opposed to explosive revelations based on one person's word, or just a few people or investigators. But that's just me. History proves me wrong on this. (Remember Butterfield's explosive revelation that Nixon's conversations in the Oval Office had all been taped? It was hard to believe at first.) More often than not, investigation goes along at a snail's pace, with incremental gains and an accumulation of facts and analysis, then, suddenly, someone just breaks down--they can't stand the fraud or the lying or the crime any more (as happened with John Dean).

The fact that it is explosive or sensational--or even that someone hopes to profit from it in some way (as with investigative reporters trying to make a reputation)--doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. (That seems to be the implication against Bragblog--by Broken Acorn. Please see my note below.).

Re: programming, credentials mean nothing to me. I happen to know people with no more than a high school diploma who are top industry engineers--entirely self-taught.

What this means for non-techies (like me) is that we cannot rely on ANY prestige factor (degree, salary, reputation, etc.) when it comes to programming. We just have to follow this stuff as well as we can, and make "preponderance of opinion" and other kinds of judgments. In this respect, the fact that certain bloggers are ALWAYS naysaying on election fraud, no matter what the subject is, weighs into our judgment of what they are saying.

This is not a contest about who has the best credentials, nor about who can be the most insistent that s/he is right. We need to be more systematic than that, and when someone produces serious, well-thought out arguments for any position (pro or con this document, for instance), we need to consider each point, offer replies, answer replies, and so on--and not get hot under the collar about it. It's too important!

Note to Broken Acorn:

I don't know a thing about these "Brad Blog Exclusives" and their "clouding our judgments." What are you talking about? Do you have an example? Has a "Brad Blog Exclusive" stopped or sidetracked any other investigation here?

And, why shouldn't a highly relevant lead like this be pursued--unless and until it proves bogus or not what it seems?

Do you have reason to believe that "Brad Blog" puts out bogus stories? If so, please tell us. It could save us a lot of time--or at least help support your claim that THIS is bogus.

[davidlynch]

155. Disagree--Obvious Fake

The font size, margins and spacing are different. There are also conventions that differ, such as paragraph 12, where the use of July 1st (superscript) is at odds with the legal requirement to spell out the entire date (e.g., July 1, 2004).

What has happened here is obvious: the last page has nothing to do with the first pages. If you read the text carefully, you can also see that if taken alone, the last page could be interpreted as having nothing whatsoever to do with the first pages. How convenient.

The forger had to bend over backward to write the text to make it seem to flow together, but the last page sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sorry, this is fake, and as such detracts from our real cause.

[davidlynch]

154. ITS FAKE--SORRY

The font size, margins and spacing are different. There are also conventions that differ, such as paragraph 12, where the use of July 1st (superscript) is at odds with the legal requirement to spell out the entire date (e.g., July 1, 2004).

What has happened here is obvious: the last page has nothing to do with the first pages. If you read the text carefully, you can also see that if taken alone, the last page could be interpreted as having nothing whatsoever to do with the first pages. How convenient.

The forger had to bend over backward to write the text to make it seem to flow together, but the last page sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sorry, this is fake, and as such detracts from our real cause.

[reality_bites]

157. Agreed n/t

[Sparkle]

158. It's is? Thanks for letting me know. I really appreciate that.

[IAMREALITY]

160. Sparkle

I truly hope that is a message of sarcasm, correct?

[Sparkle]

180. Yes, I was being sarcastic.

Although, I am a little skeptic. I just get tired of folks posting stuff saying "this is fake" or "this hurts our cuase" or "we need to move on".

[Pepper32]

199. Every time, I see "move on", I get even more determined NOT to move on...

We are zooming in on the truth.

[ibegurpard]

159. Okay, I always view things with skepticism

But I really have to question why people are showing up out of the blue to try to discredit this. Why should anyone here take you seriously when you decide to just drop in today?

[IAMREALITY]

162. Oh Don't Worry ibegurpard

NO ONE will take that seriously...

[qanda]

168. And why do all the people who try to discredit this

Have the same avatar saying "stop election fraud"? Are they trying to convince us they are on our side? I say, go away!

[AmyCrat]

176. You say go away, I saw no.

[AmyCrat]

163. Being skeptical makes sense

and I'm sorry, but the difference between scanning in color and b/w doesn't change the font, or the margin, or the entire format of the document. The only thing it should change is the COLOR.

I can't speak to whether it's fake or not... but I can say that the difference between the last page and all the others shows enough inconsistency to hurt it's credibility.

[IAMREALITY]

167. AmyCrat

When Scanning B & W the resolution is generally far less then when an auto scan recognizes a color doc.

[ibegurpard]

169. You didn't address my question

Why is THIS bringing you here? You heard about this and suddenly got the epiphany to either go join DU or start posting after lurking for a long time? Why shouldn't YOU be viewed with suspicion when a potentially huge development comes along and you show up with 6 posts to try to discredit it?

[IAMREALITY]

172. Hey, Do Not Talk To AmyCrat That Way

You obviously jumped to conclusions about who posted the post. Your return post was aimed at the wrong DU'r. Please be more careful.

[AmyCrat]

173. maybe you're right

but maybe the poster is right too.

Don't just jump off the brooklyn bridge cause everyone says so. View the document from a skeptic's perspective, because that's the only way to prove it's real.

[ibegurpard]

184. Oh, I will

but this reminds me of the whole Bush TANG records debacle with CBS and 60 Minutes. There was a HUGE push to discredit the documents, including by many people who suddenly showed up here. Conventional wisdom is now that CBS was duped by forged documents even though the documents were never proven to be fake. They weren't proven to be real either but the onslaught was so overwhelming that CBS folded. I WILL view it skeptically but I will VOCIFEROUSLY condemn someone who suddenly shows up here calling it fake when I've never seen them before this issue surfaced.
My apologies for directing some of the sentiments of my previous post at you, most of it was meant for the poster I originally replied to.

[pointsoflight]

174. Looks to me...

...like several changes to the scanner settings: B&W to color, plus a change in resolution, plus a change in how much the document was blown up. This isn't weird, though. My scanner automatically checks the document and changes the settings, unless this automatic feature is turned off.

But to settle this once and for all, hopefully BradBlog will re-scan the document with the same settings.

[AmyCrat]

178. that's a very good idea.

the rescan.

[SueZhope]

187. Amycrat

have you read this? your quoted in here
(this has nothing to do with the current thread)


http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,65928,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

[IAMREALITY]

190. Woooohoooooo Amy!!!!

:yourock:

[AmyCrat]

200. hehe thanks n/t

[AmyCrat]

192. ack!

I didn't know! thanks for telling me. Bizarro!

[IAMREALITY]

195. Kinda Makes Ya Realize

That you have to watch what ya say here sometimes, cause other eyes are reading, ya know?

Like I was surprised to find that my compilation of the Wayne Madsen Q & A was used for a website.

Cool to see the quote of you though Amy, you come off sounding like such a voice of reason! :)

[AmyCrat]

201. I hear ya...

I always try to look at all this stuff reasonably, objectively. I don't want to JUST believe something I read because it's there. We should all form educated opinions on all this stuff... and the answers aren't usually so black and white. Life is usually in shades of grey :)

[pointsoflight]

165. Looks to me like it's about scanner settings.

Hopefully Bradblog will just re-scan the document to allay concerns about this.

Regardless, though, are you saying the first three pages are fake or the last one? And what about the second affadavit that Madsen has which says the same thing? That one fake, too?

If so, don't we have a bunch of people headed for jail for libel?

[davidlynch]

166. The Last Page Is Real--Rest Is Fake

The last page is real, the others are fake.

[pointsoflight]

177. And you think Madsen's is fake, too, and that he's risking a libel suit?

[davidlynch]

204. Believe Me--I Hate Bush--But This Is Fake

I wish to god this was real, but it isn't. Do a side by side comparison of the text, for example NASA or FDOT. It's a different font. The margins are different, and the subject flow is contrived.

[pointsoflight]

254. And what about Madsen's affadavit?

That faked, too?

[wiggs]

181. If you are right...

...then Clinton Curtis or the notary who witnessed his signature will be popping up shortly to say so.

I'd say that if we don't hear from them in the next, oh....5 minutes or so, then we can assume that he signed the last page of a 4 page document and that these published documents are all the correct ones.

We don't need to guess or assume here at all in this case. If what we see is doctored, Curtis will tell us.

I'm surprised at the direction of the discussion here....most of the talk is on Curtis's credentials, programmer qualifications in general, and whether or not the document is the same as the one Curtis actually did sign. Pretty unproductive and uninteresting.

Let's get to the information in the affidavit! Let's talk about this Feeney guy....let's talk about Yang, about what the Justice Department, FBI, ACLU, Nader, BBV.org, Kerry, and David Boies are going to do about this affidavit.

The owls are not what they seem...

[shraby]

175. I don't think anyone would sign an affidavit

attesting to the kinds of wrongdoing that is in this one if it were lies libeling individuals. If they did it would open them to all kinds of grief. I tend to believe the affidavit is on the up and up.

[intelle]

273. What I am noticing is that the nay-sayers

have very low post count and some joined only yesterday. Could be coincidence, but then again, maybe not.

I think the document is worthy of exploring. No one can say with absolute certainty that it is or is not fake. No one.

But, we can hope it's real, and we can further investigate.

:think:

[Razorback_Democrat]

298. Okay, can you go back to FreeRepublic now?

you've attempted your discrediting and re-posted it over and over

[jsamuel]

183. The document is being hit hard by posters with less than 150 posts...

That in itself is reason to think it is real. We must make sure it is.

WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!
http://redhandsmovement.com

[ibegurpard]

186. Not necessarily

But it's definitely a good reason to be suspicious. When i see a huge onslaught of low-post-count naysayers, I have to wonder.

[prof_science]

189. Me > 200 posts.

So I must be credible, right? And what if *I* have doubts about the document's authenticity? Well, easy-- I have less than 500 posts, and therefore, my opinion doesn't count. Personally, I think if you have more than 2000 posts, you are infallible. (/sarcasm)

Anyway, so what if it's a real, legit affadavit? Who's this Curtis guy behind the words? Is he for real? Attention whore?

I don't believe it's real, but I'm open to being proven wrong. To me, it's just too perfect to be real.

[jsamuel]

191. You have that right, and we do need to be sure, but just SHOUTING

that it is fake without any REAL evidence is stupid.

[prof_science]

194. Who's shouting?

Surely you don't mean me? I'll assume the shouting you hear is the large chorus of healthy skeptics here in the room.

The way I think: bogus until proven legit.
The way some others think: legit until proven bogus.

I don't think looking at this cautiously is a bad thing.

[AmyCrat]

197. I think we should all be careful who we point fingers at...

The more people that come to DU and start to believe there was Election Fraud, the better. I don't think we should be so quick to accuse someone of having "spin" motives just because they question the authenticity of a document. We shouldn't chase people away with insults and accusations because we want to believe this document is true.

It's GOOD to question it... otherwise it's going to end up "rathered". If we can think up these questions here and they don't have valid answers, don't for one second think the media won't come up with the same questions -- and hence, won't be willing to touch this story with a ten foot camera/microphone.

[Sparkle]

210. Hi Amycrat!

Sorry for changing the subject, but did you know that you were quoted in an article stating that DU banned Bev Harris? Check out the latest breaking news page.

[AmyCrat]

211. sparkle... yes, someone just let me know a few posts up^ -- thanks :) n/t

[Pepper32]

297. Amycrat you are a DU star now... hehe Congrats :) n/t

[mirrera]

344. Thank You

I have nothing new to add to this, but if I did I would certainly hesitate. People with large post numbers need to understand that a lot of us are new to this issue, but are just as enthusiastically against this administration. We may lurk more then we post, it doesn't make us a spy!
Maria Irrera
Artist
Bartender
Kucinich supporter
Voted Kerry
http://NoBullShiRt.com
http://MariasArt.com

[mccoyn]

349. Thank you, this is a big problem on this forum.

I've read a lot of reasonable posts that have been countered by pointing out the post count of the author. Never mind that it was a reasonable post that stands on its own. Counter the argument (or lack of), not the persons.

I myself am very hesitant to post here. I make thought out, reasonable arguments. It just isn't worth my time if a bunch of people are just going to say OMG 10 posts. This behavior is really damaging to the growth of the forum and possibly even the issue.

Worse still, I tend to read a lot more than I post. I doubt I will ever reach 1000+ posts and therefore will never be considered credible here no matter how consistent and resonable my posts are.

[buddysmellgood]

185. The first and third letters of every tenth word are fake, the rest are

real if you read them backwards first. Let's all try to miss the point.
Whether the document is real doesn't really matter. This person will have to testify in order for any of this to matter.

[Cronus Protagonist]

188. Section 14 regarding Hai Lin Nee is partially verified here (USA Today)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-16-china-tech-case_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

"Ting-Ih Hsu, a naturalized U.S. citizen and president of Azure Systems Inc. and Atlantic & Pacific ICS Inc., and Hai Lin Nee, a Chinese citizen who worked for both companies, were charged with attempting to violate the Export Control Act, conspiracy and making false statements.

The indictment alleges the two never obtained the required export license for the chips, which also have civilian uses. Instead, the indictment says that in shipping declarations filed with the government the two men listed the chips as "transistors" worth only $20. "

[raipoli]

198. The Affidavit Is Real

I have seen the original of the affidavit and Clint Curtis met today with investigators from Congress in Washington DC and with others who have now seen the original affidavit. There are three copies of the affidavit with three original signatures and notary seals. These have been distributed to various people to protect their integrity. The affidavit was signed today in front of a notary at a major bank in Washington and scanned one page at a time. The scanner was an Epson Stylus CX 3200 and the software used was Epson Smart Panel, and it automatically detects color on a paper and that is the reason the last page looks slightly different. It had to be scanned because BRADBLOG is located in California and he did not want a fax copy. That's the deal, so please stop wasting time and energy arguing about the authenticity of the affidavit. It is for real.

[davidlynch]

206. Then Why Is the Font Different?

If it's real, why is the font different? Compare any two words side-by-side, it's obvious (e.g., NASA or FDOT). You can see that the first pages have a "wider" font, although both are Times, they are different variants.

[pointsoflight]

215. It's not different.

The first three pages were clearly resized (i.e., stretched). Note how the text goes nearly to the edges of the page.

Not the case for the final page.

My scanner, if I don't turn the automatic setting feature off, will resize the text like this, will determine if its black and white or color, and will change the color and resolution settings accordingly.

[Pepper32]

308. Also...

If it was a fake, wouldn't they try to convince their viewers its real? Why would they so obviously increase the text size to further cast doubt on something they know is fake? They would go out of their way to make sure these documents (at the very least) looked authentic. Think counterfeit money.

Also, the goal is get the media involved, well I doubt if they will touch this story if they don't have copies of the original. I read somewhere in another thread, Madsen is talking with the media.

Raw Story obviously was not concerned about the way it may scan because they already knew the Affidavit was real (they have the original) and was more than likely just eager to get it out to the public. Too bad, because now we have people singing it's a FAKE, based on the fact it was not scanned perfectly.

Hopefully, Raw Story will submit another scan or take photos of the affidavit and post them on their site.

On Edit: corrected spelling

[Donailin]

335. I just had an affadavit notarized last week at my local bank

in Silver Spring, MD. I typed up the thing on my computer, and signed it and had it notarized at my Wachovia branch, where I do my business banking. All you need is proper ID, this is NOT a big deal. I could have written it in crayon, I could have written that I was running for president in 2008 or that I ran for president in 2004. but in fact used blue ink from the printer b/c I'm out of black and wrote that I received x amount of dollars. Either way, the notary only skimmed the document. I mailed the affadavit (child support related) to the State of MD and it was accepted no questions asked. Folks need to chill. In this case, it is NOT the document that is problematic in proving, it is the claims that we will need to focus on and be critical of.

[ET Awful]

348. When a Notary notarizes a document, all they are doing is

certifying that they witness you signing the document. The contents of the document itself are irrelevant to the Notary. All they are doing is stating that they, as a licensed Notary Public, witnessed you signing the document. They are not permitted to notarize it without you proving your identity to them (usually via a drivers license or other photo ID).

A Notary is required to keep a log of ALL notarizations they perform (not copies of the documents just the name of the person(s) signing the document, a brief description of the type of document (i.e. deed, trust, affidavit, etc.), and an additional signature from the person in their journal (at least it works this way in the states where I've been a Notary, California, Massachusetts and Arizona).

[BlueDog2u]

207. Thanks

I think the rational folks here already felt certain that this was the case, but we appreciate your clarification of the details.

[Cronus Protagonist]

208. Fine, but since we don't know you, do you mind if we verify?

I hope not. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "trust, but verify".




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[SueZhope]

209. That sounds great

How did you get to see it?

[Sparkle]

212. And who might you be?

[Donailin]

332. You mean Maryland.

"The affidavit was signed today in front of a notary at a major bank in Washington"

can you name the bank? I

[Shalom]

196. Jeb Bush Called FL Congressman Feeney a "LOOSE CANNON"

The Washington Post had it right:

1. "Teeny Wienie" Feeney is a retro Ronnie Reagan Repig.

2. Feeney Fuckface was behind the plan to bypass Florida voters in case the Supreme Scam did not materialize....He was prepared to fix the 2000 election, so don't be surprised if he's still at it:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32928-20 ...

In 1994, Feeney gained an unexpected statewide platform when gubernatorial candidate Jeb Bush picked him to be his running mate. Lawton Chiles, the incumbent, called Feeney "spooky" and "dangerous" during the campaign, as well as "the David Duke of Florida politics." Former Gov. Claude Kirk dubbed Feeney a "walking mental paraplegic." Even Jeb Bush said he "may be a loose cannon."

Bush and Feeney lost in a close race. But the campaign solidified Feeney's status as one of Florida's rising conservatives. He was elected speaker of the Florida House in 2000, and he entered national consciousness during the post-presidential election mess of that year. After the state's Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount, Feeney led an effort to have the legislature name a new set of electors that would vote for George W. Bush.

[wiggs]

234. Loose cannons are needed in the BA to implement unwritten policy

Unwritten policy is a cornerstone of the BA. Those at the top in this administration make it clear what their hopes are, and "loose cannons" lower down make it happen. This administration has, time after time, made it clear that THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

This administration prevaricates over torture and geneva conventions. Therefore, coupled with arrogance and cultivated nationalist fervor, you get Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld may not have given orders for torture to happen, but he created the environment that fosters it.

Cheney hints at what intelligence he is looking for. CIA and OSP whips it up for him: WMD in Iraq. Connecitons to Al Queda.

BA makes it clear that it wants Medicare bill passed. You get a bribed congressman and distorted cost statements.

BA makes it clear that whatever is good for corporate America is good for America. Therefore you get gutting of environmental laws.

And in elections, it is clear that honesty is not to stand in the way of reelection. Therefore you get the Blackwells, Harrises, Sprouls, and Feeneys and a dozen others out there working on their own to reelect their leader in any way necessary. They may not be ordered to take steps to tamper...but I'm sure they know it would be appreciated.

With this group the ends always justify the means. That is how they sleep at night.

[Shalom]

245. Good Point: Loose Cannons Give BA Distance & Deniability..

They use these guys to do the dirty work - and since winning is the only thing that matters, the ends always justifies the means.

But I still don't know how they sleep at night.

[Broken Acorn]

217. I love the reasoning

"The low posters are speaking out" means that it must be real, lol.

Please, maybe the people who haven't been living in DU since it's inception, but enjoy the content and ideas, are less rabid to take the bait when some of this fake evidence comes in.

You are all welcome to search some of my other posts to see that I'm not a freeper (or whatever you call it), lol. I live in the Bay Area and have been a die-hard liberal since I was born. PM me if you dare and I will share my point of view on numerous positions (all left-ward leaning).

I just think people need to take a step back and stop being so defensive. Rather, look at the arguments from different angles and agree to disagree.

Just because someone doesn't have 10,000 posts doesn't mean that their opinion shouldn't considered, if not accepted.

[mamalone]

224. The thing is

You aren't just expressing your own scepticism..you are stating "It's a fake" as though you have absolute proof or something:eyes: On another thread you stated that this "had already been debunked", which is not true...all very annoying, I must say. If you want to express an opinion, fine, but frame it as your opinion and not as though you have some corner on the truth, please.

[Broken Acorn]

241. Agreed

You are correct mamalone. My mistake is claiming it was fake, just as everyone else is claiming that it is real.

I apologize.

[Shalom]

225. Let's Not Bust "Broken Acorns" Nuts....

Hope you enjoyed my silly pun - it's an attempt to get us all to lighten up.

I agree we should not rate our opinions based upon message count.

I think we need to take a deep breath and THINK DEEPLY as well.

For example, perhaps 100 messages have questioned the fonts, etc. of the Curtis affadavit: we should all know that the authenticity of this document will be established one way or another within 24 hours. We are wasting energy fretting over this.

On the other hand, one would expect statements very soon from Wang, Inc. and Rep. Feeney's office, and perhaps even the NASA Administrator, which (one way or another) may shed some light on this topic.

[Broken Acorn]

247. I hope you are right Shalom

I just find this whole thing really fishy. This evidence looks like a loaded weapon with smoke from from Jeb's FL straight to B*sh's dumbass WH.

This is huge if it were real, but the fact that we haven't heard anything from any other sources besides Brad's Blog and Raw Story keep me skeptic (as we should be with everything).

I am looking forward to you proving me wrong.

[Pepper32]

316. Exactly...

I do not see Feeney, Jeb and the rest of the players saying it's not true. Not that I would believe them, considering their history.

However, I am interested in what they have to say about all of this... I'm sure they are planning their spin.

anyway, I agree we should let this play out before deciding it's fake, just because it wasn't scanned perfectly.

[mikelewis]

218. document not fraudelent - the scan was done different on the last page

because the person scanning wanted to make sure you could see the signature in color. The margins are off because the image size was enlarged. The font and the flow is consistant.

To see for your self, scan a text document and use this to represent the last page. Now convert it to B/W. Then increase the size by 125%. The reason you would do this is to decrease to file size to the lower the bandwidth demands you know you're going to get.

I applaud those that are investigating the content of this affidavit. I am hesitant to accept this at face value but the affidavit is one complete document. Whether or not this is one of the pieces we are looking for is another matter. Keep digging guys, you're doing great.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[Shopaholic]

222. Remember what happened to Rather and the fake documents

we know the Repugs aren't inventive, they believe that if it worked one time, it will work again. Just a word to the wise. . .

[mikelewis]

226. This is different, the question is on the content not the doc. The doc

is legit. Whether the content has value remains to be seen. Whether or not this Curtis guy is credible remains to be seen. I hope he is, it'd be nice. I am mostly working on Ohio so I only catch bits and pieces of the Madsen story but this caught my attention. It is one complete document.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[BlueDog2u]

257. Right

We should be focusing on whether the contents are legit and whether Curtis himself is credible. The issue of the document is a red herring. As someone else already indicated, even if the document is legit, it doesn't mean much unless Curtis will stand up in court and vouch for its authenticity. If the contents are not true, then Curtis, Madsen and others risk a libel suit, since the affidavit alleges that Mr. Feeney engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the vote. To me, that in itself is strong grounds for suspecting the authenticity of the claims, especially since many critical elements of Curtis' story have now been corraborated from independent sources.

But I agree we should not take his credibility for granted.

[pointsoflight]

227. But also keep in mind the full story.

Curtis has given two affadavits to two different people. Both would have to be fake, and both Madsen and BradBlog would have to be risking a libel suit to be in on the fake.

[Pepper32]

243. Exactly, why would they risk a libel suit?

Until someone proves these guys have some malicious agenda that goes against what we are trying to accomplish, I'm staying on what I believe to be the truth train to justice.

Too many facts that check out and too much at stake for this to be fake. And where things don't completely add up or change, it's because we are privileged to see Madsen investigation/research in real time.

I'm sure under normal circumstances Madsen would not have put this information out there so quickly. However, time is of the essence.

[coreystone]

221. I am no expert, but, just on the last page, in the remainder of....

paragraph #13 the print appears "heavier", perhaps "more dense" than the #14 and #15. I am looking at a printed version from a laser HP 1300. Maybe it's just a matter of a psycho-visual effect, but, it still looks strange!

Certainly, the "font" size is noticeably larger on the first three pages. I still am questioning the "valid replication" process as was discussed earlier in this thread.

There was definitely a different process used on the first three pages. Very strange!


:-)

[pointsoflight]

223. The first three pages have been enlarged.

So yeah, the font will be thicker, and therfore appear heavier.

[coreystone]

229. The fourth page which finishes Para. #13, it looks different!

:-)

[mikelewis]

228. That's because when you convert to B/W you loose greyscale shading

They should have done the doc in greyscale. IT would have saved space and put an end to the question. The doc is real.. Try the conversion yourself. Take a picture, convert it to B/W and then convert to Greyscale, see for yourself, it only takes a minute.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[lthuedk]

236. Agreed. The total bit depth of the B & W will be divided three ways

for RBG (unless the printer is set to CYMK). The result will be 1/3 the number of levels of lightness (grey scale) compared to the grey scale only page.

[KeireG]

256. The Affidavit is REAL!

It is clear that the scan was done differently on the fourth page. You can see the actual sheet of paper on the fourth page, but on the first three pages you can not. Because, as a previous poster pointed out, the image was stretched.

[mostly_lurking]

231. OK, all the professionals who have chimed in here...

This is supposed to be the link to the "prototype" that this "professional" programmer developed:

http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/votefraudprogram.htm

Draw your own conclusions.

[coreystone]

232. I just don't want to get "Dan Rathered"! :-) n/t

[jsamuel]

238. This program is a simple Visual program...

It is just too easy...

I could program that in a few hours, tops...

[Karmadillo]

240. Since you found this, maybe you'd like the honor of starting a new thread

so others can provide analysis without wading through the disputes over the authenticity of the affidavit. Would make for an interesting discussion.

[mostly_lurking]

250. Already one going

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x119385

[Karmadillo]

261. Thanks

n/t

[Shalom]

258. I Think a New Thread Makes Sense - Can You Propose a Title ?

I actually suggested this in this thread already, but I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. Maybe you had a different focus in mind. Anyway, if you have a good title, please go ahead and start it yourself, if you wish. In a way I'd prefer it, since out of the many messages on this thread, someone accused me of grandstanding (maybe because I can't keep my fingers off the keyboard, and he figured I was pumping this topic)

Thanks again.

P.S.: If you do like this theme, we could go with something like "Computer Whiz Technical Discussion on Machine Hacks", or something like it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=118513&mesg_id=118885&page=

Need Computer Whiz Thread on Scams, and Other Ideas

We need computer/programmer/data base experts to explore all the variations of fixing voting machines, given that Curtis just did a proto, and if there is hacking software in machines used in the election, it may be configured quite differently than Curtis envisioned. I suggest they set up a thread to focus on this.

[mikelewis]

237. This is Clint Curtis' consulting firm Ask him if this affidavit is real.

http://www.ccux.com/index.shtml

[Liberty Belle]

239. Surely he's gone into hiding for his own protection?

I'd be astounded if he's still there.

[mikelewis]

242. The last update to his site was on Jul 4, 2004. Anyone have any idea what

may have been happening around that time in this investigation? His site's still up and he used it as a reference when he created Clintcurtis.com.

His email address for justaflyonthewall.com is listed as [e-mail] and clintcurtis.com lists Curtis Consulting as it's main address.

Is his consulting firm still active and he just hasn't updated?

I would like more information on clint curtis and I think we need to question his integrity first before the other side does. Let's get ready to debunk any B/S coming from the right or prove him wrong and move on.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

p.s. I hope he's right!

[coreystone]

246. Go to the site, go to the 4th page! then,

Blow up the image to 200%. Compare the "YEI" (for example) found on the second to the last line of section #13 ("to YEI"), to the "YEI" found in any of the sections of # 14 and # 15. There really is a quite noticeable difference to me.

Keeping in mind that any of the replication explanations as being accepted, the 14th and 15th sections appear different than the remainder of the 13th section on the same page (page 4).

I have already admitted that I am NOT an expert, but, there still appears to be something odd here. No matter how much I want to believe this document to be true. Perhaps it is, but, we have been duped before. Pardon me for my skepticism!

No flame war here, it just "looks" funny!


:-)

[mostly_lurking]

248. Wrong "Curtis"

That site is for "Ray Curtis" -- altogether different from "Clint" Curtis.

[EndElectoral]

244. Smoking gun "IF" we can get Yang to confirm!

[jsamuel]

251. or Mrs. Yang

[smartvoter]

249. Can we get a uniform scan to end the authenticity controversy?

Can someone connected to the sources ask for a scan with the auto-detect functions turned off so it's uniform? If it's causing grief here, where there is a sympathetic audience, it'll be much worse w/ the general public.

[BlueDog2u]

252. Good idea/ eom

[Broken Acorn]

253. Yes

Maybe it will be the next *Brad Blog Exclusive* brought to us by Shalom or Raw Story to add to their free advertising for their websites.

[IAMREALITY]

255. Woooooohoooooo Go BradBlog!!!!!

BradBlog Rocks!

[Cronus Protagonist]

265. Hey, Broken Record

What's your problem? Can't the guy promote his own web site since he broke the story? Would you denigrate Yahoo! if it was them instead?

P.S. In case you haven't noticed, hundreds of DU users promote their own web sites with "free advertising" on DU. Have you checked out the links page? It will make you hurl!

:)




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Broken Acorn]

290. No problem with promotion

If it's legit. I AGREE that this election was stolen and I think it was done at the central tabulator level. I can also see programming fixed beforehand as well.

I just don't see anything made from this affidavit. KO or AAR would be screaming bloody murder if it was real.

It just looks like that $27 million check that was wrong.

[Cronus Protagonist]

291. Well, it does pay to be cautious

That's why it's important to check the facts as well as the affidavit. So far, the facts in the affidavit are turning up true, however, there's still no proof that the code was used in an election. Even if it's all verified, it's only a "gun sale" rather than a "smoking gun".

Still, it could crack the whole thing wide open too :)

[merh]

268. It's really not causing grief, let the doubters do a dan rather

on the docs. Most are here as damage control for the dark side. We don't have to prove the validity of the affidavit, that is for those reporting, vetting and investigating the issue. The substance is the issue and is what the Affiant says probably, possible, logical.

Let the others play with the font size - give them a wet hide to drag along the trail. It keeps them busy. I personally believe it was typed using a 1973 IBM selectric myself and "they" are just trying to get it to look like a microsoft word document. :shrug: :silly:

[wiggs]

259. No headline on cnn, yahoo, or msnbc on affidavit yet. nt

[lonestarnot]

264. holy fooking crap!

This guy have any credibility problems?

[Digit]

267. W*O*W

A feast for the eyes.

[Mr Grieves]

272. South Florida, Berkely Study Connection

From the affidavit - "The program is needed to control the vote in South Florida" - which is exactly where the Berkely study noticed the "130,000" missing votes.

I know that connection was probably obvious to eveyone here - it's just very encouraging to me that all the evidence seems to be aligning together right now.

We have circumstantial evidence and now it seems testimony from those involved to corraborate it. I don't see how the MSM can ignore this any longer.

Mr Grieves
(long time reader, first time poster)

[lthuedk]

278. Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence.

[senseandsensibility]

301. Welcome to DU

Great post! :toast: Hope to hear more from you!

[Mr Grieves]

337. Thanks!

[Turn CO Blue]

276. Okay - one point in the affidavit that seems to check out:

would be the whistle-blower complaint filed by both Mavis Georgalis and Clint Curtis

This is a pdf of one court complaint in the District Court of Appeals in Florida, First District
<http://www.1dca.org/opinion/opinions2003/4-10-03/02-3020.pdf>

The Florida Department of Transportation versus Mavis Georgalis
Case 1D-023020

See the bottom paragraph on Page 2 - where it mentions Clint Curtis particated in a whistle-blower complaint with her against FCHR Florida Commission on Human Relations

I too, am ALWAYS skeptical, but I would urge us to check out (google) this stuff point by point -- not just discount it wholesale over some techie disagreements -- or just accept it wholesale either.

[LittleClarkie]

277. Isn't it weird that Feeney was so forthright with Curtis

I don't get that. Why would Feeney be so loose-lipped. Were we meant to find this evidence? Does that strike anyone else as odd?

[BlueDog2u]

317. It does seem odd

But why would anyone be intended to find the evidence, if Feeney actually said what he is alleged to have said? Just saying those things makes him party to a criminal conspiracy, so saying it was all a joke doesn't really save his ass, although its true that that Nassau NY jerk Peter King now says that he was kidding when he told Pelosi that "we'll take care of the counting." That Feeney would lay such a trap makes less sense to me that than that Curtis made the whole thing up, which also doesn't ring true to me. Sometimes arrogant people do very stupid things.

[blackspade]

360. nobody said that criminals were smart

Just because this Freeney is a politician does not make him the smartest or most circumspect individual.
Like all criminals, I think he deep down didn't expect to get caught.

[davidlynch]

343. Exactly, That's Just Unbelievable

Please see this posting:

<href>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=118513&mesg_id=121740&page=</href>

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

279. I wish it mentioned SOME detail of the programming

... I don't want to be a wet blanket, but even a little geek-speak on the aspects of the TARGET system would have reassured me a lot more.

No mention of the target system make or model, no mention of the data repository that the vote manipulation was working upon (for example the "access database" mentioned in BBV).

Only mentions of how it worked in a "back of a napkin" kind of pseudo-code.

I really wish there were some real technical details ... even if the thing is a complete fake, at least some details like that would make it a more believeable, thus stymieing people a little more ...

[pointsoflight]

309. But he wasn't working on a program for the target system.

He only claims to have worked on a quick and dirty prototype that was simply intended to show one way it could be done.

The programs to be implemented, if they were ever constructed, would've been programmed after he resigned.

[ExCiber]

312. I'm missing something

The 'Demo" program that was done did nothing more than proves that hidden buttons could be placed in an application. Yippee...My 13 year old can do that in VB.

To actually do this on the REAL systems would require that Wang, Wong, Ying, whoever would require access to the SOURCE code for all the systems placed in the field. Is there a connection between Wong, Sequioa, Diebold, ES&S that I missed?

If the 'Demo' was a program that ran on ANY system, intercepted the touchscreen hits and activated some other program or DB then I would think there was something to this.

I stand by my earlier statements that what you have here is someone trying to sell a book.

[blitzburgh55]

282. wow

I really hope this is true and all comes to surface soon, cause I'm dreaming of Bush in an orange jumpsuit Christmas. :toast:

[Quakerfriend]

305. It does seem hard to believe Feeney would be so upfront

about what he was doing. But, as Jebby said "a loose cannon".

[Sperk]

285. ya know what's so weird.....I just saw a re-run on Unsolved Mysteries

last week and I think it was the Raymond Lemme story. I don't recall the guys name i the story but it was about a reporter who was working on a big story and he was about to break it. He was found dead in a hotel room bathtub with his wrists slashed. His family said that he told them to not believe and accident or suicide if anthing happened to him. Did anyone else see that episode last week?

[IAMREALITY]

288. Just Wanted To Let All Of You Know

I had no doubt about the affidavit from the start, and still don't. I did a little experiment to prove to myself the validity. I printed out the color page, scanned it with my scanner, with the settings merely on the default fax and copy setting. It produced an almost identical version as the other 3 pages. Fonts, characteristics, etc... meshed completely.

[mikelewis]

295. Just so you can see why this is not a fraud doc I did the b&w convert

It's not the same dimensions or correct shading but as you can see, it looks a lot like the other 3 pages

Sincerely
Michael Lewis

[BlueDog2u]

314. Thanks Mike

Your repro shows what many of us already concluded, namely that the alleged distinctions in the document were a result of reproduction technology and not intrinsic in the document itself. But thank you for clarifying this point. There are reasons to be skeptical of this story, but the alleged problem with the document is not one of them. Moreover, no one on these boards (oops, to my knowledge, anyway) is a forensic document analyst. For a definitive opinion, that kind of work can only be done with originals by professionals. So if the document were to be debunked, we would need professional analysis of the original. My hunch is that the document really is legitimate. Certainly, as your repro shows, there is no reason based on the evidence presented so far to doubt its authenticity.

The real question is whether the contents are true, and whether Curtis is a reliable informant. On that we can and should reserve judgement, imo, at this time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

296. If such a program was written once

Someone should be able to replicate it, or one much like it. It would be useful to show how it can be done.

[Broken Acorn]

299. Arguments aside regarding the authenticity of the affidavit

It looks like this Curtis guy might be a fraud and is trying to generate interest for a book he published 3 months ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x119926

Please don't hate the messenger...

[IAMREALITY]

300. Wow

What a thorough job of journalism. woohoo.

:eyes:

[Shalom]

306. IAMREALITY IS REALITY - DON'T GET SUCKER PUNCHED

You are totally in the right - but don't waste your energy in this duel that never ends. We must put our energy in places where it can make a difference.

[wiggs]

313. Correct. Let's get on with the good stuff.

If you look back at the 300 plus posts on this thread, DU'ers have done some thinking about whether or not the document is real (it appears to be), if the content passes the initial smell test (it does, for now), if EE's are capable of software design (they are), and if color scans look different than black and white scans (they do).

With that settled, we can think about details of the actual information.

Who is this person Yang? What does YEI do? What are the YEI connections to the administration, to Jeb Bush, to Feeney, to Deibold, to Kathleen Harris?

Who is this Feeney character really? In 2000, was he connected to Jeb or Rove? What did he do with the prototype tampering program? What does he say about this affidavit? ASSUMING THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROTOTYPE SHOWED THAT TAMPERING COULD OCCUR, WHAT WERE THE STEPS HE TOOK AFTERWARD TO PREVENT TAMPERING?

Does the FBI know about this and what are they doing? Should ACLA get involved? Wouldn't the ACLU like to know if a public official was secretly asking how to tamper with an election?

There are dozens of interesting questions. Let's put the uninteresting ones behind us.

[Shalom]

303. You Hate the Messenger (Curtis): His message is BEAUTIFUL

Why would someone think Curtis is a fraud when he wrote a book that warned that the Repigs:

1. Purposely attempted to RIG THE LAST ELECTION RESULTS
2. HAD THE ELEMENTS IN PLACE TO RIG THE 2004 ELECTION

In other words, like "the canary in the mine", Curtis wrote a book warning about the fraud that WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE ELECTION.

IMHO, anyone who hates this message and accuses the messenger of being a fraud on DU, is hard to understand.

Particularly when someone else who blew the whistle on Bushitler Votergate WAS APPARENTLY MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD. Curtis has lots of cojones to make this statement, and risk his own life in doing so.

Just My Opinion

P.S. In case you want to read the book of a brave man, here is the synopsis. Unfortunately, it is out of print, and the warning Curtis provided may be OBE.

P.S.: At this point, I must side with the other posters who have been dueling with you. I had suggested we should not Bust "Broken Acorn's" Nuts, but you seem determined to bust other peoples balls.


Synopsis:

You've read the speculation. Heard about all the research books. No one has actually come forward and told a first hand account of the deceptions of the Bush Administration. Now someone has. With time running out, finally, an eyewitness has come forward. Within the pages of this book, you will learn that the Bush Administration has: Purposely attempted to rig the last election results and has the elements in place to rig the 2004 election. Knew that Iraq had no WMD, yet planned to invade Iraq, Iran, and Syria even prior to his election in 2000. Makes speeches on making America safer, while allowing Communist spies high security access to government installations. Covered up and prevented NASA investigations into spying and even sent the Vice President and the appointed head of NASA to campaign for the congressman responsible for the spies access to NASA.

[Broken Acorn]

307. I will eat humble pie if I am wrong

Shalom. The whole thing just seems to fit ever so nice and neat.

I want this thing to break as much as you do, I just don't want people to get false hopes up. That's all...no more for me on this topic :)

[jwmealy]

304. First time authors do have this thing. . .

of wanting people to read their books.

That doesn't speak one way or another to the matter of whether Clint is crazy, bought, or on the level.

[pointsoflight]

310. Generate interest at the expense of being sued? I don't think so.

[wiggs]

315. Ask Mr. Feeney

One of the questions I'd like to ask Feeney:

If you requested that this prototype program be developed for the purpose of understanding and preventing vote tampering, you must have subsequently understood that the vote was hackable and easily tampered with. Based on this understanding, WHAT DID YOU THEN DO TO PREVENT FRAUD FROM OCCURING IN 2002 AND 2004? Did you share your findings with anyone? Did you demand a paper trail? Did you demand different, more secure software?

This will be interesting. If Curtis can show that he did indeed develop this program, then Feeney looks bad either way: Feeney either wanted the program for tampering purposes...or....his prototype showed that hacking was possible, even likely, and he did nothing to stop it.

Feeney is on the hot seat right now.

(Assumes credible affadavit)

[BlueOhio]

318. OMG Check out the period on page 3, middle on the right side,

If you blow it up 5000% you can make out karl roves face!

















Satire, Blah, Lighten up peeps, if its real, we be jammin, if not, we keep looking.....

[IAMREALITY]

319. Ohhhhhhhhh That'sss What That Was!

I did the same thing but would've swornnnnnnnnnn it was a horse's Ass. I was thinking 'Why on Earth would they put a hidden picture of a horses ass in there???'

Nowwwwwww I got it.

hehe

[buzzard]

321. Why was his dog killed today??

[coreystone]

320. Which one?

;-)

:freak:

[Twist_U_Up]

322. Wanted to get this out in case someone missed it

I cant find the link its on DU somewhere I did Copy the Text
Maybe someone can follow this up:

Dr.Phool (634 posts) Mon Dec-06-04 09:48 PM
Response to Original message

12. I have some first hand experience


I live in Pasco County, Florida, and have been working on the Voting Machine Task Force for over a year, trying to get a paper trail. After taking our findings to Sen. Bob Grahams staff he introduced legislation that subsequently died.

On Nov. 3rd, a woman who worked on my campaign (I was a congressional candidate earlier this year.) was a pollworker on Nov. 2nd and previous years. She asked about an added procedure in this years tally. After the polls closed, they conducted an audit on the machines. This was unusual as they had never done it previously. I checked into it with our local computer expert, Patrick Bergy and was told by him that that wes the necessary first step to change the totals.

Of course the SOE denies this happened, but the woman is willing to sign an affadavit and has the other poll-workers as witnesses.

[Unforgiven]

324. I Know

both these people (Bergy & Dr.Phool), this is a legitimate thread.

[rdmccur]

338. Send this info to Madsen and Conyers.

[Unforgiven]

371. Is It

relevant that I should? I mean with everything else that is going on here? I just happen to know these two as one is a member of our DEC and the other ran for SOE here in Pasco county, I worked with Bergy and supported his campaign.

[Kahuna]

323. Tom Feeney!!! I knew he had something to do with the theft...

In 2000, he swore over and over that no matter what the recounts showed, Florida's electors were going for Bush. :puke:

[rodeodance]

333. nothing on the news about it--not even a dismissal.

Suspose the networks and cables do not want to Rathered--

[George W. Hayduke]

339. CURTS DOG FOUND DEAD!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2797121

[George W. Hayduke]

340. CLINT CURTIS'S DOG FOUND DEAD!

sorry for dupe......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2797121



A note from the Brad Blog!

As I'm unable to get to The BRAD BLOG due to the crush of traffic since reporting the "WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Republican Congressman's Request!" story, I am also unable to report on a sad new related item just in.

I've just spoken with Clint Curtis, the "whistleblower" in this case, and he's reported that his previously healthy three-year old German Shepard has been found dead. Just a few hours after I published my story on Mr. Curtis.

more at:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[davidlynch]

342. This Smells Like Nonsense

I've spent considerable time pouring over this affidavit, and I've concluded that it is very likely fake. I also have a theory about how it was constructed.
There are several problems IMHO.

First, the idea that Mr. Feeney would ask YEI to develop a prototype that could alter vote tabulation doesn't pass the straight face test. It would be a mind-bogglingly dangerous move because it could be easily discovered and I don't believe Feeney could be that naive. For one, there is no reason to assume that YEI would have the necessary technical expertise. Making a software patch to accomplish this goal could require deep, hands-on technical awareness of the specific platform and software architecture of the target voting system (ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia). Since that code is proprietary, it is unlikely that anyone other than an insider from the development team could be successful. Moreover, it would be of no benefit to make a stand-alone "prototype" program that would alter voting tabulation if that prototype had no means of integration with the target platform.

Then, the statement "You don't understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code." It would be astonishing to me if any real person said this. This sounds like a James Bond movie. There are just so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. As mentioned above, you cannot hide code in a platform to which you have no access. This purported statement by Mrs. Yang pinned my bullshit meter deep into the red.

Finally, there is a problem with the overall flow of the Affidavit. It begins by focusing on voter fraud, and ends with a completely unrelated subject, apparently related to corporate espionage. It is the juxtaposition of these two unrelated topics in a single affidavit that leads to my hypothesis.

I believe that last page (4) with the signature and the notary seal is real, while pages 1 through 3 are pure fiction, but written in a manner to allow them to flow "seamlessly" into the last page. If you read the transition from page 3 to 4 carefully, you can begin to sense that this is forced.

Further supporting this theory, there is a reference in the final paragraph "...as a co-defendant as well because it was the sole owner of the software that Ms. Georgalis and I were falsely accused of having appropriated." This is the first time in the affidavit that "software appropriated" by Clint and Ms. Georgalis is ever mentioned, and the structure of the sentence strongly suggests that this topic was discussed earlier in the document. I believe that it was mentioned (in the real affidavit), but naturally missing here since pages 1-3 have been rewritten.

Finally, there are minor technical problems, such as the use of the reference to July 1st (superscript eerily reminding us of the Dan Rather documents) where in the final page, all dates are spelled out in their entirety as generally required in contracts (e.g., March 17, 2004).

I would be absolutely giddy if any of this were real. I would love to see George Bush get his just rewards. Unfortunately, if this document gets out, it will likely have the same effect as the Dan Rather documents, discrediting real findings and turning the MSM away once again.

[AmyCrat]

345. There are things that bother me about it also

while I cannot speak to the authenticity of the document, I think it's important to look at carefully -- "under a microscope" -- to try to determine if it's authentic.

While the things you state bother me, I wanted to see what other affidavits look like. Format, typical "legalese" used, etc.

I went to www.thesmokinggun.com and, using their search feature, looked up the word "affidavit". I lot of results came up.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0426042inc1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mallard1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sirico/tscharge1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0330044pot1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/roclark2.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0810041nc1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0525041mayfield1.html

Regardless of state, there seemed to be a general format that was followed. Whether the Clint Curtis affidavit follows the same format is a bit questionable. Whether it really makes a difference, I don't know. I would imagine there are many different types of affidavits.

A few things would help illiminate some of the questions right off the bat. Re-scan the document so all pages are consistent, and/or take photos of the originals. Include all pages (if any were left off for privacy reasons) and simply "black out" sensitive data (like home address of affiant). All the "brad blog exclusive" logos take away from the documents authenticity quite honestly... as it shows how easily extraneous items can be added after a document is scanned, so get rid of them.

Provide links to data that backs up the claims, including who these people are, the company's they work for and evidence they all actually exist.

[Hamoth]

347. And he has a book out. See if he promotes it?

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inke...62-0976195917-0

Book written about all of this, prior to the election. Some say that this was just his way of trying to tell the story when the media ignored him. We shall see. But the Book's synopsis was written by Dick Morris, and works as a nearly perfect outline for recent articles that have been making the rounds.

[Minnesota_Lib]

353. I may be missing something, but you seem to be implying ....

that Curtis faked his own affidavit? Or are you sayig someone else forged it and hopes Curtis just won't notice that this fake document attributed to him is all over the internet.

Whatever....

[davidlynch]

359. Yes, Curtis Faked It

Yes, I don't mean to be harsh, but the only conclusion is that Curtis faked it.

[blackspade]

362. what?

how do you fake your own affidavit?
What are you saying is faked?

[IAMREALITY]

363. blackspade LOL

Don't worry, you aren't going crazy.

There is no way to fake your own affidavit. If you wrote it, and signed it, then it would be real. I have no idea what the heck the other post is talking about LOL

[Jack Rabbit]

355. That deserves a response

Your concerns are valid and need to be addressed. I'm not saying you're wrong. After all, these are things that would be brought up in defense of those named by Mr. Curtis in his affidavit.

There are two kinds of people who would ask Yang Enterprise personnel about how vote rigging could be done: (1) election officials; and (2) candidates or political party officials who don't trust election officials. So far, there's nothing suspicious.

Where an alert should have been raised in this project is when it became an actual project rather than a hypothetical discussion on what could go wrong with election software, either accidentally or intentionally. A private company is out to make a profit and has better things to do than to write computer software that merely proves a point rather than is intended for actual use. It is at that point that Mr. Curtis or anybody else should have had reason to suspect that his employer and Mr. Feeney were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud.

[BlueDog2u]

358. Thanks for the very careful analysis

You've done the best job of critical analysis of the document I've seen so far. Here's my question, though: why would anyone fake this? Does your theory of the faked affidavit require us to think that the document is a Rove-style plant?

[jwmealy]

366. I don't think you're thinking this through deeply enough.

David,

I'd like to reply to your red flags.

1. First, the idea that Mr. Feeney would ask YEI to develop a prototype that could alter vote tabulation doesn't pass the straight face test.

Couple of things. First, Tom Feeney's alleged concept was, how would you disguise source code for a vote hacking program? Can it be done? There is no reason why Feeney, as a lawyer, would know that this would be virtually impossible. He was asking. Naturally, Curtis told him, no, it can't be done. But once you've compiled, then and only then it is invisible. Sounds like a natural enough exchange, if you hypothesize that someone had to start somewhere to begin researching how to design a vote hacking system. Secondly, It doesn't suggest anything to me that Mrs. Yang's understanding of the project was that the source code itself had to be innocent-looking. We don't know HER to be a computer programmer--all we know is she is company CEO. For all we know, she never understood the distinction fully. Also, her grammar, as quoted verbatim by Curtis, is susceptible to the interpretation, "we have to hide the manipulation OF the source code", which could mean, we swap code and/or bribe a programmer to let us hack a program at the last moment before it is compiled. Of course, Mrs. Yang's extreme indiscretion is hard to believe--but then again, so is cold-blooded election rigging. For all we know, Mrs. Yang had reasons to think that Curtis was a hard-crust rightist, or that, coming from China, she didn't appreciate how baldly treasonous such a comment would sound to an American. If other statements in the affidavit are to be believed, there wasn't a whole lot of sanguinity around loyalty to US interests in YEI anyway. This same company is alleged to be helping Chinese communists get a hold of sensitive NASA data. If he's asking me to believe that there are such things in America as businesses that don't care who they sell out, that's no stretch of the imagination--think Enron.

2. Supposed inconsistency between pages 1-3 and page 4.

I think you may have missed the implication of the last part of para. 13 (which begins page 4), and the other final paragraphs. He is not saying--because it's obvious to him--that the probable reason for Mr. Nee's wiretapping software was either (1) to intercept and insert vote hacking code into a final version of a vote counting software program as it was being electronically delivered in preparation for compiling, or (2) to intercept and adjust votes as they were being passed electronically from the polling places to the central tabulation databases for the state.

Paras. 14 & 15 simply back up Curtis's allegation that Mr. Nee is a criminal and a spy, and has no loyalty to the USA. It stands to reason that such a person might be willing to write treasonous code for whoever would pay him enough money.

The last, unnumbered, para. airs Curtis's dirty laundry, i.e. his previous lawsuits and the possible appearance of conflict of interest because he is in dispute with YEI on a civil matter. That way he has no secrets that can pop out and discredit him. He is saying the bare minimum to indicate that he is the defendant in the YEI matter, and that it involves a claim that he and Georgialis expropriated software. He's not willing to go into it, so he he explains it so curtly that you really can't tell much. But he has accomplished what the paragraph intends: To defuse the anticipated counter-attack that he's only saying all this to screw up his opponent in a lawsuit.

This affidavit is not a work of literary genius, and it doesn't really read like something cooked up with a lot of help from a lawyer. But your criticisms of its authenticity don't move me.

[davidlynch]

369. Disagree--But Respect Your Views

Regarding (1) Your argument is plausible only if bribery of an inside developer was anticipated; this would be the only way that source code would be relevant. But if such bribery were planned, why not get the insider to make the patch instead of using Curtis, who has no relevant technical expertise (other than happening to be a programmer)? This reminds me of the arguments people use to reconcile how Klingons look in the original Star Trek TV series versus the motion pictures. You can establish a cohesive argument that somehow makes sense, but you have to go to extremes.

Regarding (2) You have stuffed a square peg into a round hole. It is a leap to say that mentioning Mr. Nee supports Curt's accusations of a conspiracy to rig the vote when his actions were to intercept Florida Department of Transportation transmissions and route them to YEI. It's tantamount to saying "See, Mr. Nee is capable of writing software to intercept communications; therefore, he must be out to rig to vote." That assertion would be perched atop the dubious assumptions that (1) source code would be electronically delivered and susceptible to interception instead of being compiled on site (2) Mr. Nee would be positioned to intercept it or (3) Mr. Nee would be in a position to intercept vote tallies on Election Day.

C'mon, I'm trying to be open minded here, but doesn’t this give you pause?

[jwmealy]

372. Nope. . .

1. Curtis doesn't assert that he wrote a program through which vote hacking was accomplished on election day. He says he was asked to write a PROTOTYPE program, as an exercise in "Can it be done?" by a company lawyer who also happened to be a ranking Florida politician. Curtis says that when he did so, his boss told him the politician's intention was to hack the vote, not (as originally had been stated) to anticipate Dems hacking the vote.

He's not alleging what people intended to do re vote fraud--he's testifying to what he heard and did and experienced. Someone else is going to have to put things together and prove something, or someone else is going to have to jump ship in order for this thing to get legs. But he has nonethess risked his life for saying as much as he has. Curtis is well aware of what he thinks are the implications of his knowledge, but he can only assert what he personally knows to be true. This is sworn testimony. You don't testify that I think so-and-so intended to do such and such, you testify that I saw/heard so-and-so do such and such.

2. I agree that it is odd that source code would be sent from a programming team to another location electronically before final compiling. Maybe that's a dud idea. But note what happens if you can actually create a contract that has that as the workflow. If anyone goes to check the code of the vote tabulation transfer program, it's fine. Because the investigator goes to the original company that wrote it, and their testimony is that they were writing a vote tabulation transfer program, and here are all the iterations. They don't know that the quality control person (such as Nee) has been engineering an add-on module to fit seamlessly into the tab transfer program, and his final quality control check on the code (before compiling) is the moment at which the hacking module is inserted.

3. Curtis is not alleging that Nee was doing the hacking on election day. He's saying Nee wrote and illegally used a sophisticated wiretapping program that invisibly caused data in transit from A to B to go to C also. If he had use of such a program, it could easily be tweaked so that the data went to C INSTEAD of B, then to be sent on, altered, to B just as though it were coming straight from A. He says, remember, that Nee was working together with Feeney--in the same company, and on the vote hack prototype project. It's a nexus of information, and you have to read between the lines to conclude that Nee's program, or something like it, may have been used on election day. Curtis can't say that: he can only say what he knows, and that in and of itself is dangerous enough to his personal safety.

If you haven't seen it yet, check the following post on this thread, and the statistical study to which it refers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=118513&mesg_id=125382

Webb

[Jack Rabbit]

354. 'Very interesting,' said the computer programmer

Speaking as a professional computer programmer, if I were to inspect the source to determine if it is intended to steal elections, I would first have an idea of what a bona fide vote counting program would look like. It would have a straightforward method of counting votes and some modules to correct a mis-vote before the ballot is sent and secure the count afterwords. That isn't a lot of code.

I would question anything more than that. There is no such things a undetectable electronic voter fraud provided that one is inspecting the actual source code. As Mr. Curtis states in this affidavit (paragraph six), it would be impossible to detect such fraud if the code were compiled first; in other words, write one program and show the authorities another.

The basic algorithm to rig an election would simply be to count all of the first n-number of votes cast for candidate X, regardless of whether the voter actually selected some other candidate. In this hypothetical program, written in psuedocode, tallies votes in a two-way race. An integer value is passed to the procedure; a value of 1 indicates a vote for Candidate1 and of 2 for Candidate2. The values of the total number of votes cast and the total number of votes for each candidate are passed to the program and returned to the parent program. The code written in red doesn't belong there.

PROCEDURE CountVote:

INPUT PARAMETER iSelectCandidate AS INTEGER.
INPUT PARAMETER iVotesCastIn AS INTEGER.
INPUT PARAMETER iVoteCandidate1In AS INTEGER.
INPUT PARAMETER iVoteCandidate2In AS INTEGER.

OUTPUT PARAMETER iVotesCast AS INTEGER.
OUTPUT PARAMETER iVoteCandidate1 AS INTEGER.
OUTPUT PARAMETER iVoteCandidate2 AS INTEGER.

DECLARE iRigLevel AS INTEGER CONSTANT VALUE 100.

ASSIGN iVotesCast = iVotesCastIn.
ASSIGN iVoteCandidate1 = iVoteCandidate1In.
ASSIGN iVoteCandidate2 = iVoteCandidate2In.

If iSelectCandidate = 0 THEN RETURN. /* No vote Cast */

ASSIGN iVotesCast = iVotesCast + 1.
IF iVotesCast <= iRigLevel THEN DO:
ASSIGN iVoteCandidate1 = iVoteCandidate1 + 1.
END. /* IF iVotesCast < iRigLevel */
ELSE DO:
CASE iSelectCandidate:
WHEN 1 THEN ASSIGN iVoteCandidate1 = iVoteCandidate1 + 1.
WHEN 2 THEN ASSIGN iVoteCandidate2 = iVoteCandidate2 + 1.
END CASE.
END. /* ELSE */

RETURN.

END PROCEDURE.

In this program, the event that triggers the code in red, which rigs the election in favor of Candidate1, is that 100 votes or less have been cast; in that case, any vote cast is counted for Candidate1; after 100 votes have been cast, the votes are counted as they should be. Notice that the total of the number of votes cast for each candidate balances with the overall total number of votes cast, which avoids such red flags as Candidate1 getting more votes than the total number of registered voters in the district.

Mr. Curtis' vote-rigging algorithm would require a great deal of code and could be detected by examining the source code. It is really little more than an elaboration of the above algorithm, with a more complicated set of events triggering the code in red.

What needs to be emphasized is that in an environment where there is no paper audit trail of the ballot and where the software is the property of the voting machine manufacturer and thus beyond public scrutiny, anybody who has ever received a passing grade in a rudimentary programming course would have the skills to rig an election. Mr. Curtis has more skills than that.

[FogerRox]

356. low posters

thats me--Ive not dumped on this, Curtis-Madsen etc.

[Nederland]

365. Wow

Is that COBOL? I've never seen COBOL before, but I think it is, right?

[Jack Rabbit]

370. Hi, Nederland. It's been a while

No, it isn't anything in partcular. It's pseudocode.

Part of a COBOL program would look something like this:

DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.

01 VOTE-COUNT-VARIABLES.
05 SELECT-CANDIDATE PIC 9.
05 TOTAL-VOTES-CAST PIC 9(5).
05 VOTES-FOR-1 PIC 9(5).
05 VOTES-FOR-2 PIC 9(5).
05 RIG-THRESHOLD PIC 999 VALUE 100.

PROCEDURE DIVISION.

MAIN-PROGRAM.

IF SELECT-CANIDATE IS GREATER THAN ZEROES
PERFORM TALLY-VOTE.

STOP RUN.

TALLY-VOTE.

ADD 1 TO TOTAL-VOTES-CAST.

IF TOTAL-VOTES-CAST IS GREATER THAN RIG-THRESHOLD
PERFORM COUNT-THE-VOTES-HONESTLY
ELSE
PERFORM RIG-THE-VOTE.

RIG-THE-VOTE.

ADD 1 TO VOTES-FOR-1.

COUNT-THE-VOTES-HONESTLY.

IF SELECT-CANDIDATE IS EQUAL TO 1
ADD 1 TO VOTES-FOR-1
ELSE
IF SELECT-CANDIDATE IS EQUAL TO 2
ADD 1 TO VOTES-FOR-2.

It's been a long time since I've written COBOL. I used to write poetry in COBOL.

[peabody71]

357. kick.

[Dancing_Dave]

364. Wow.

If this pans out it's quite a smoking gun!:nopity:

[Must_B_Free]

367. Am I the only one point out the most obvious point of fraud?

In order to perpetrate this as described, you have to have someone in on the conspiracy running the secret easter egg protocol to trick each machine.

Each voting machine has to be manually defrauded. People can only vote once. Do you get to choose your machine or do you have to go to the next available one? That complicates the job of the "insiders" as well.

What is described seems implausible to me for this sole reason.

[jwmealy]

368. Good point--which leads to another!

Curtis isn't saying his software or Feeney's original concept was used. All in all, it's a stupid idea--to make a single voting machine programmable to fool with its own vote totals.

What he may be doing is showing that the thought process, hmm, how can we hack the system?? was beginning, and that Nee had the more powerful component. See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=117559&mesg_id=121123

I formed and tested all these hypotheses before I ever heard of Curtis and his affidavit. But from the pattern in the red shift data, notice how much it looks like someone in many of the battleground states was intercepting data streams coming from the polls (using something like Nee's wiretapping software) and then spoofing data packets to add and subtract votes so as to keep Bush ahead until (1) certain conditions applied that indicated that Bush would win comfortably, or (2) certain conditions applied that indicated that Bush could not be made to win by vote swapping without causing too much discrepancy between exit polls and tabulated results.