Anti-Bev folks, please explain:

[Must_B_Free]

1. If Bev herself is a crazy fraud, why did the collectibe board of directors of BBV decide that Andy Stephenson was to be ousted? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy with Bev?

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

[robbedvoter]

1. No work whatsoever is needed to discredit your protegee. Not even W

"hard work"

[Must_B_Free]

7. score: no facts presented

[robbedvoter]

38. I wasn't playing, so don't keep score. Embezzling thousands of DU-ers

stealing people's work and threatening lawsuits, sliming many (by projecting her own vile traits) - a long list including Skinner, Olberman, Randi. DU in general - all this stuff doesn't seem to make an impression on you.
Does the fact that she defends freepers and accuses democrats of voter fraud makes a dent?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2&forum=DCForumID4410&omm=17&viewmode=threaded


Update: SUNDAY, DEC. 5, 2004: Black Box Voting is honing in on seven investigations right now. To the surprise of some, five of the counties we are investigating are Democratic. A national investigation we are doing trends Republican. Our members just want clean elections. We want answers, not theories, statistics, or potentialities, and therefore we are concentrating on areas which have anomalies, and where we believe we can get the facts.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Because if it doesn't, I really have nothing in common with you. And keep your scoring for other activities in your empty life - seems you may need it more.

[Must_B_Free]

55. "doesn't seem to make an impression on you"

it does, but I can't render your desired judgement based on all the information I have consumed.

"Does the fact that she defends freepers and accuses democrats of voter fraud makes a dent?"

And if she accused Zell Miller? See my point? There ARE bad dems. We need to understand the context of the statement and what the intended meaning was.

you personal attack on me detracts from your argument.

[jamboi]

61. Give me a break. Throwing around "embezzling" completely irresponsible and

premature. We want to have accountability, sure. But just because she isn't for our desire of flipping the election doesn't mean that she's misused anybody's money. She obviously is organizationally and tempermentally challenged, but that doesn't make her a crook.

I think part of the problem here is our (including RR's) expectations, which may always have been askew. She's clearly not a partisan Democrat and not primarily concerned with immediate gratification of our collective desire to nail the so called Republican (really they are no true Republican, but just thugs and traitors) operatives that appear to have done this. Did we expect her to try to get a recount across the country and to flip the election our way? That seems unrealistic and not well enough aligned to her stated aims to my analysis. Maybe RR made a mistake by trumpeting BBV's efforts without making sure they were really on the same wavelength. That wouldn't necessarily be BH's fault, but more a function of our own overheated longings to see things done in the way WE would run them. We are free to set up our own organizations that will fit our expectations.

Also we don't know what kind of influence baddies who may have threatened or carried out psyop and disinformation campaigns againt here may have had on the situation. Its quite possible she's getting yanked around by the nasties through all this. We simply don't know from this distance.

So I say focus on the rest of the fraud investigations and let her go her way hoping that she'll contribute in time. She already has and I'm sure she will continue to in her own quirky quixotic way.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

93. Jamboi I'm getting tired of your revisionist history.

Bev is only "non-partisan" since we on DU started questioning her on her results or lack there of, and her financial reporting or lack there of.

Had Bev answered a single direct question regarding how much money had been collected or how it was being spent I might agree its too soon to call out possible embezzlement, but as she felt those on DU that helped raise the money don't deserve answers we are free to think and say what we like.

To now suggest her goal was never turning around the election result is total absurd.

You are new here Jamboi, I understand if you might have missed a lot of the history of Bev claiming she was $10 away from producing THE SMOKING GUN that would expose election fraud in the 2004 election.

Pretty clear?!?!

In the past three weeks since you've been here we at DU have seen a 180 degree flip/flop from Ms. Harris.

No amount of revisionism will change peoples' memory of recent history.

Not here on DU anyway.

Next you'll say Bev deserved all the money for work she had already done BEFORE the election.

I'm sure thats what she thinks too.

[Griffy]

97. Look at this DUer attacking DUer .... THIS is my point...

or someones a freep.. because we need unity in the most urgent way... I dont need o tell anyone here of whats at stake, perhaps a reminder of the enemy... We'll sue or praise Ms. Harris starting on the 21st of January. WE got bigger fish to fry!

[SomthingsGotaGive]

101. Perhaps you should consider this...

People here on DU have many objectives.

Like sending surrogates in to defend the objectionable behavior of other members.

Do you think it helps our cause having people rewrite the history of OUR board for their own objectives?

Do you think it could hurt our cause if people reading DU get purposely false information about this and other issues to be then passed on to family and friends?

That has already happened to DU thanks to Ms. Harris.

Perhaps those that insist on rewriting the DU history would consider how much damage they are doing.

Could you give me a single reason we should allow a cancer within for the sake of unity.

Before you or Jambio answer please consider that unchecked cancer spreads and kills.

Is that what you want?

I'll assume that it is if you continue your efforts to rehabilitate Ms. Harris reputation here on DU.

"Unity" what a joke.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

103. What is your point in this thread?

Are you trying to rehabilitate her reputation here on DU?

It's going to take a lot more than trying to rewrite history.

DU'rs aren't like the cool aid lovers elsewhere.

Most of us can see right through your efforts.

My concern is all the new members coming to our site because of all the publicity DU's decision to BAN Bev has received.


So Must Be Free I'll be happy to respond to any thread you wish to start on this issue.

Score : No facts possible to change Bev's current reality

[Must_B_Free]

113. I'm not going to retype

please see my replies past #100, I believe you'll find the same information there. Also #86

[Kralizec]

2. Thank you. We must continue to speak sense even when we are

attacked for it. Just sense.

[Must_B_Free]

6. Excactly - I'll keep score by replying to the detractors.

I'll try to summarize the factual rebuttal presented.

[Eloriel]

75. Keep score? You got the wrong damn questions

How do you keep score on the wrong questions? You can't.

Anti-Bev folks, please explain:

First, what or who IS an "anti-Bev" folk? If you have issues with Bev you're "anti-Bev"? If you've had problems? If you doubt some of what she's said or done? What?

I have some issues with her (and for good reason), but would NOT have considered myself "anti-Bev."


1. If Bev herself is a crazy fraud, why did the collectibe board of directors of BBV decide that Andy Stephenson was to be ousted? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy with Bev?

Ahh, does that mean that your definition of "anti-Bev folks" is those who consider her a "crazy fraud"? Then that's not me, and in fact doesn't apply to most of the people I know of at DU who have issues with Bev. I believe she needs some professional help for some of her personality problems, but I don't consider her crazy, nor a fraud, which also doesn't mean that I rule out the possibility of her ever doing something fraudulent.

As for the board, I wrote about this on another thread. I frankly don't believe the board is acting independently or that Bev indeed reports TO the board. They were hand-picked by her not all that long ago. I believe instead that it's a very weak -- and very new -- board, that they take their clues and tips and what to believe based on what Bev tells them. "Conspiracy"? Hardly. Not even (necessarily) incompetence on the board's part -- just confusion and not understanding their role and responsibilities.

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

It's not clear to me that Bev didn't know it. SOmeone here remarked that she was just surprised that Randi knew. How is it you're so sure that Bev didn't know it?

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

Another cheap shot and a question a little too reminiscent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Of course there ARE those here at DU (tho they only show up periodically) whose job it actually is to discredit her work, but you assume a meanness of spirit on the part of those who have justifiable issues with her that would extend well beyond those issues -- and I don't think that's either a valid assumption or even all that logical. Most of the people I know of who have issues with her don't really have any desire to see her fail or her work discredited -- and shame on you for suggesting that we do.

[fishnfla]

99. Game over

Slam dunk eloriel

Whats the score now?

[Must_B_Free]

108. You've got an itchy trigger finger

First, what or who IS an "anti-Bev" folk?

People who choose not to ignore or not participate, but people who actively attack, diminish and discredit Bev.

If you have issues with Bev you're "anti-Bev"? If you've had problems? If you doubt some of what she's said or done? What?

Nope. None of those make you Anti-Bev, what does is an active campaign to malign her.

I have some issues with her (and for good reason), but would NOT have considered myself "anti-Bev."

Nor would I

Ahh, does that mean that your definition of "anti-Bev folks" is those who consider her a "crazy fraud"?

no

Then that's not me, and in fact doesn't apply to most of the people I know of at DU who have issues with Bev. I believe she needs some professional help for some of her personality problems, but I don't consider her crazy, nor a fraud, which also doesn't mean that I rule out the possibility of her ever doing something fraudulent.

good, then I think we're in agreement.

As for the board, I wrote about this on another thread. I frankly don't believe the board is acting independently or that Bev indeed reports TO the board. They were hand-picked by her not all that long ago. I believe instead that it's a very weak -- and very new -- board, that they take their clues and tips and what to believe based on what Bev tells them. "Conspiracy"? Hardly. Not even (necessarily) incompetence on the board's part -- just confusion and not understanding their role and responsibilities.

fair enough

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

It's not clear to me that Bev didn't know it. SOmeone here remarked that she was just surprised that Randi knew. How is it you're so sure that Bev didn't know it?

I thought she said "This is the first I've heard of this". Perhaps my mind filled in that detail from my assumption.

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

Another cheap shot and a question a little too reminiscent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Of course there ARE those here at DU (tho they only show up periodically) whose job it actually is to discredit her work, but you assume a meanness of spirit on the part of those who have justifiable issues with her that would extend well beyond those issues -- and I don't think that's either a valid assumption or even all that logical. Most of the people I know of who have issues with her don't really have any desire to see her fail or her work discredited -- and shame on you for suggesting that we do.

Again, you've apparently taken offense at what wasn't addressed to you, unless you consider yourself "Anti-Bev". I think the bandwagon judgement about her "threatening DU" was misconstrued for reasons I have stated many times (with no rebuttal).

[Eloriel]

123. Well, either point me to one of those other "misconstrued"

arguments or cough it all up yet again, 'cause I either don't understand what you're talking about, or I think you're nuts to believe that her threats against DU were misconstrued or overblown.

Oh, and about all those "wasn't addressed to you's" -- you might consider defining your parameters a lot earlier in the game (like straightaway), ya know?

[Must_B_Free]

130. Gladly, it only took me a hour to find the thread for you

arguments or cough it all up yet again, 'cause I either don't understand what you're talking about, or I think you're nuts to believe that her threats against DU were misconstrued or overblown.

Follow this exchange:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=130050&mesg_id=131150

Oh, and about all those "wasn't addressed to you's" -- you might consider defining your parameters a lot earlier in the game (like straightaway), ya know?

The subject of the thread specifically started with "Anti-Bev folks" - Is this you? If not, then it wasn't addressed to you, was it?

[SomthingsGotaGive]

160. Its crazy you would spend an hour finding a link that....

Proves absolutely nothing.

LOL

See lower explanation.

What you proved is Bev registered BlackBoxVoting.org

Not BBV

Not Clean Up Crew

Not BBV CLEAN UP CREW

Thats what she threatened to sue for.

You are funny because you are so sad.

[Must_B_Free]

163. BZZZZT! Wrong again!

Although the term Black Box Voting was coined by David Allen, this PDF file indicates that Bev Harris holds the copywrite.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-1.pdf

Regarding BBV, Cleanup Crew and BBV Clean Up Crew, Bev is using those, and
"--The first person or entity to use a trademark in commerce receives common law protection for the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others from using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never registered the mark."

Does that say anything about being limited to registering a domain name?

[Must_B_Free]

133. here's another example of misconstrument

the "dead battery" story. This story was over the head of non-techies, relying on misconstruing the words "all you data is gone".

Specifically, what was lost was some setting data in the BIOS that allowed the box to talk to the harddrive, but it was pushed to construe that somehow all of the data on the harddrive was gone.

And how many loudmouths incorrectly claimed that what the tech said was BS?

The point is if we attempt to build on misinformation, it's like building on quicksand.

[IAMREALITY]

3. Maybe We Should

Change the name of this forum from 2004 election results and discussion to "hey, let's all talk about a big-boned attitudal unprofessional fraudulent greedy woman some more!"

[Must_B_Free]

9. score: no facts presented

[IAMREALITY]

13. score: Your facts are redundant, useless, and boring

Gee, how many more threads will we have summarizing the same damn thing. Wanna keep score? Why not go to some of the other 50 threads on this and tally it from there, rather than forcing us to repeat ourselves a billion times just cause you don't like to hear what we have to say.

[HEAVYHEART]

11. Oh my god you are too funny IAMREALITY!!!

:toast:

[aquart]

18. "Big-boned," honey?

She's actually quite small, which is why the weight of middle age looms large to some with Playboy standards.

So sorry she isn't up to Ann Coulter's beauty standards. Bev looks like an average American cuddly grandma. That's why it feels so surprising that she has such a crusade going.

[IAMREALITY]

21. Relax, I was trying to be nice!

I thought it was more politically correct to say it that way rather than fat and ugly, which would've been offensive!

:)

[HEAVYHEART]

24. You're killing me IAMREALITY!!!

}(

[momzno1]

58. why do fat and ugly always seem to go together?

Frankly, you don't need to be an ass, and show such low rent beliefs.
Her appearance is irrelevant!

[IAMREALITY]

60. They Don't Always Go Together.

I was just being silly :silly:

[SeattleRob]

77. very classy....

and substantive.

[aquart]

180. So you equate fat with ugly?

How nice.

Perhaps all of us at DU will furnish you with bodyweight numbers so you'll know whose opinion is of worth.

[Stephanie]

188. It's shameful and sexist and disgusting

Whatever one may think of Bev's actions, she does NOT deserve this kind of abuse.

[IAMREALITY]

195. After the Fraud, Deception, Cruelty and Greed She Has Displayed,

She Deserves Everything She Fucking Gets...

[Razorback_Democrat]

4. Wrong forum !!!! n/t

[IAMREALITY]

5. Already Alerted. Too many damn threads on this crap already. nt

[Must_B_Free]

10. score: no facts presented

[BlueEyedSon]

8. To pro AND anti-Bev peeps. Explain what is the issue and the

most likely explanation. For example:

Bev is disorganized.
Bev is whack.
Bev is overworked.
Bev is great at what she does, but shouldn't be the org's spokesperson/media face.
Bev is slow with info because she doesn't want to be Wellstoned.
Bev is milking it (for personal notoriety and/or $$$).
Bev is working for Rove.
etc....

[Must_B_Free]

12. score: meaningful - we aren't in agreement enough on the facts to do that.

[BlueEyedSon]

Given what little we have can we RULE OUT some possibilities.

For example: I reject that she is a total nutcase. She has done basic research, developed a reasonable thesis (i.e. BBV is bad for democracy) and written a book.

[Old Mouse]

51. My point in all of the other forums

Is that she helped get media coverage when no one else did. It may have just been that the name of her organization has a solid ring, but I think the work she did certainly helped bring new people into the fray.

And she has lawsuits and freedom of information acts filed in Florida. Something real and tangible! To me there is a difference between those who do something and those who talk about it. We would never see the enemy eat one of their own this way. Crazy and belligerent seems to be required to work for the Republicans.

This is tearing us apart, and that is making someone very happy.

[Eloriel]

76. score

I see you tipped your hand: You are obviously the keeper -- the SOLE keeper -- of "the facts."

Please let the rest of us know when you've got this all nailed down, will ya? Some of the people who've been on the receiving end of Bev Harris will definitely want to know what YOU consider "the facts" to be.

[Must_B_Free]

86. I am trying to differentiate between discussion and person al attacks

The stuff about personal appearance is obviously irrelevant to this discussion; also irrelevant is stuff that makes declarations of judgement with no mention of what reasoning was used to reach the conclusion.

If you follow the message numbers, you'll see that the thread was crapped on with this type of BS early on.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

116. Craped on by who?

I was late joining this thread but the only bullshit on this thread is coming from you.

The fact is BEV IS A LIAR

YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, AND ANYBODY WILLING TO READ KNOWS IT !

If you don't you have NO PLACE determining the validity or credibility of any other DU member that has taken the time to research Bev's antics here on DU and elsewhere.

BEV IS A LIAR

And that is the only fact anyone considering sending her money needs to know.

Do you really think its OK to LIE to DU'rs when raising money from them?

Do her means justify the ends?

Especially when she announced YESTERDAY her ends are not this election but protecting future elections.

What horeshit.

FACTSFACTSFACTS do you have any?

[Must_B_Free]

120. Crapped on by I_AM_REALITY, for one, See post #3

The fact is BEV IS A LIAR

YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, AND ANYBODY WILLING TO READ KNOWS IT !

My point its that, as far as I have read, there has been much SHOUTING, name calling and strawmen, but substantive discussion on this subject has been scant.

When I look into the judgement of "threatened DU" there is nothing to support the judgement that was passed. That's the fact.

Then more recently, I was personally attacked by Symbolman who declared that she had no rights to the name Black Box Voting because she hadn't registered the trademark. This is factually incorrect, and had I not corrected it, people would have taken it for Gospel.

Here you are making efforts to discredit, disparage and defund Black Box Voting. If I think there may be some BBV fraud, why shouldn't I correct the misinformation that has been spread?

[carolinalady]

121. Yes there is evidence it is in one of the threads the day before

she was banned from DU I don't have the exact one but others do. I read it--she threatened to sue DU and the administrators confirmed in their public statement that she threatened them as well.

[Must_B_Free]

126. what you read was misconstrued

I read it too, very carefully. It was taken out of context and justification.

Go back and quote it, and I'll rebut your assertions.

[carolinalady]

151. ok you want to mince words? Here is the thread--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=3300#3461

Now it appears to me that you are trying to infer that because her intentions stemmed from a legitimate concern it is therefore not a threat. That is a fallacy. She may or may not have a trademark name but her written words on that particular thread constitute a threat. She threatened to sue fellow DU'ers.
She could have politely asked that they not use the name and explain why without threatening them. I do not see nor have I ever heard in all the Bev threads where she spoke to Hedda-Foil in the past about the same situation and failed to receive satisfaction on the matter. It therefore appeared to be unneccesarily harsh and counter productive.

[Nederland]

190. score: Must_B_Free loses in a landslide

Fact: Must_B_Free claims Bev never threatened to sue DU and the administrators (posts 120 & 126).

Fact: carolinalady posts a thread with a specific example of Bev threaten to sue (post 151).

Fact: Must_B_Free fails to respond.


Conclusion: score not even close, Must_B_Free loses in silence.

[carolinalady]

193. rotflmao! n/t

[Must_B_Free]

209. nisrtoys!

[Kelvin Mace]

202. Fact,

Bev has made such threats and DU cited them in her banning.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

208. sorry I missed one

thanks for notifying me. I have replied.

[Must_B_Free]

207. once again

i'll post a reply that will get no reply,

I said it was misconstrued, and I stand by that. I think as she stated, she has an obligation to protect the organization for anything that could be used againt it (not by us, but by freepers). Regardless of anything, Freepers would love to shut her down.

you interpret my inference as you choose, but I refuse to pass negative judgement of Bev on this particular issue, I thought the thread adequitely explained her position.

My negative feelings are solely based on other issues, in particular the statement against Andy Stephenson and the following public disgracement from the board of directors, which happens to include several family members, and Jim March, an apparent conservative who uses harsh language against liberals. This situation creates an appearance of impropriety.

[carolinalady]

210. Oh I will reply...

Yes I agree she has an obligation to protect her organization though I will say her recent words and actions will call that in to question.

I am editing this to add: As she stated in that thread she said "she would take action". These people (myself not included) that know her speak of her fondness for suing. They inferred from multiple past instances that those words implied a suit. A threat can only be a threat if it is inferred by the intended recipient to be one.

The point that you raised was whether or not a threat was issued.
It was. Whether or not she tried to explain herself does not detract from the words she issued.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

124. I believe you are again LYING or being disingenuous

Why can BlackBoxVoting.com use it?


Are you saying Bev did not threaten to sue DU?

Are you saying Bev hasn't lied to DU members several times?

I have posted two examples on this thread that you refuse to acknowledge.

Can you please point to a single instance of me disparaging ANYBODY other than bbv.ORG and Bev Harris.

Oh and YOU.

[Must_B_Free]

128. Perhaps I can change your mind

Why can BlackBoxVoting.com use it?

Apparently Bev lets him. I am pretty sure she has rights to the name. I don't think either wants to end the efforts of the other.

Are you saying Bev did not threaten to sue DU?

I am certainly saying that assertion is a mischaracterization of her position, and this mischaracterization is repeated as something people "heard about" and assume judgement on. My read of the details reveals something completely different.

Are you saying Bev hasn't lied to DU members several times?

She may have jumped the gun, (who hasn't?) but I am not prepared to call her a liar.

Here is the specific example of an exchange where Symbolman is not only rude, but he is asserting a non-fact, and ends up getting burned. This is a perfect example of what feel needs to be corrected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=130050&mesg_id=131150

[SomthingsGotaGive]

137. LOL you are a real tool aren't you.

You go from saying you saved us all from the misconception that Bev does not hold copyright to BBV.

The when i call you on your BS you then say.

"I am pretty sure she has rights to the name."

Bev said quite clearly that she would take legal action against ANYONE including DU for using HER trade name.

BUT it's NOT Bev's.

She even LIED about it to Wierd Magazine when they contacted her for a comment after she was BANNED from DU.

And that's the truth.
Despite what you THINK.

She is a liar and so are you.

Answer my questions any way you want.

It is your answers that are proving Bev and you are liars worthy of scorn and contempt.

[Must_B_Free]

140. The burden is on you to prove your assertion

"BUT it's NOT Bev's."

Please prove that assertion

Here is my evidence that that Bev does have rights to the name:

What is a "common law trademark right?"
Once a trademark is successfully registered with the USPTO, certain statutory rights are created protecting the trademark owner. However, the general rule often referred to as "first-in-time"--The first person or entity to use a trademark in commerce receives common law protection for the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others from using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never registered the mark. Therefore, conducting a Comprehensive Trademark Search is vital in helping you make the determination of whether to proceed forward with your trademark registration...even if the mark is NOT registered with the USPTO by another person or company.

Although the majority of trademarks in existence are NOT registered, owners of UN-REGISTERED trademarks still have legal rights to the EXCLUSIVE use of their trademarks.

http://www.mycorporation.com/trademark/common-law-trademark.htm

[SomthingsGotaGive]

152. You are great I love this.

So if I read your post correctly......

David Allen "owns" the term Black Box Voting.


The hits keep rolling.

According to the 'whois' information Bev registered her site Six months after David Allen registered his.


BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG

Domain ID:D98329399-LROR
Domain Name:BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG
Created On:09-Jul-2003 15:45:32 UTC
Last Updated On:24-Aug-2004 01:47:54 UTC
Expiration Date:09-Jul-2006 15:45:32 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:OK


BLACKBOXVOTING.COM

Registrant:
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, North Carolina 27263
United States

Registered through: Hare-Link
Domain Name: BLACKBOXVOTING.COM
Created on: 21-Jan-03
Expires on: 21-Jan-05
Last Updated on: 06-Dec-04


First you said Bev OWNED it.
Then you said you THINK she owns it.
Now you say according to the site you link she MIGHT own it.

Make up your mind.

[Must_B_Free]

167. David Allen coined the term "Black Box Voting"

Bev holds the copywrite to the book Black Box Voting.

Does David Allen have a nonprofit 501c(3) regisered in that name? No.

His business name is Plan 9 Publishing.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

168. Judging by your links to copyright law...

The fact that David registered the name blackboxvoting.com and used it for commerce means its his.

as for clean up crew.....a soap company owns that.

If she could sue David for bbv.com I'm sure she would.

Judging by the venom spewed by her toward him in the past I think for you to say she is "letting" him use it is wishful thinking.

[Must_B_Free]

171. There is clearly some ambiguity

But I think it's Bev's baby. Read the first pages of the PDF.

Bev's suspicion of everyone of stealing this from her reflects that she views this thing as a goldmine on some level, but I think her intentions are decent enough.

[JMac]

184. "she views this thing as a goldmine"

Thats the first true statement you have made. Its also probably the reason people are pissed. It appears Bev has milked this "goldmine" for all its worth.

[Must_B_Free]

185. Her fears are somewhat suggestive of her own intentions

I think the cake taker is this revelation that the "Board" includes 3 family mambers. Does anyone have confirmation of this as fact?

It suggests that she is taking our donation money and paying it to her family, among the other uses.

Non-Profit DOESN'T mean everyone works for free. They are probably getting paid reasonable corporate rates.

Maybe that is not so bad, because she feels she can trust them, but it certainly creates an appearence of impropriety.

[carolinalady]

187. Yes and in regards to your question about the board--

If she is also a member of the board (a very common practice) and it is true that 3 other members are relatives, then the 4 of them make a majority. She could issue a statement of support without the agreement of the other three members.

[Kelvin Mace]

199. The information comes from William Pitt

who now that he has said something critical of Bev, I expect will be subject to baseless attacks as well.

It is called nepotism, and it is ALWAYS wrong.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Nederland]

192. Nice Post

Boy, the score of this game isn't even close is it?

[Jersey Devil]

14. Oh thanks, another Bev string, just what we needed

It depends on who is on the board, doesn't it? Maybe it's her uncle Fred, her hairdresser, her sister and her personal trainer. How the hell would we know whether it is a truly independent board or a bunch of puppets?

[Must_B_Free]

17. score: meaningful reply - I believe she made that argument herself

on the NYC radio program today, so that argument goes both ways.

Thanks for a meaningful reply

[papau]

15. Bev is true to herself, believes what she says, wants fair elections

she is just hard to get along with -

and per some DU posts - has hurt some very nice people.

Still her work is valuable - and we should back her in her work.

I suspect a few folks at DU will not back her in her personal feuds.

[Must_B_Free]

20. score: meaningful reply

[smartvoter]

16. 1, 2: Unknowable. 3: No. n/t

[Must_B_Free]

19. score: meaningful reply

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Bev, we hardly knew ya!

Bev is like DU's own LaToya Jackson. I have learned to trust my lying eyes and what I saw on Bev's site in regard to Andy closed the deal in my mind. If she can provide solid evidence that Bushco stole the election I am sure her champagne glass will never go dry! Until then, I will just watch her keep running into walls at full steam and then wondering why she has a headache.

[Must_B_Free]

25. score: meaningful reply

[BlueEyedSon]

31. She has never said that Bushco "stole" the election, so why

should she "provide solid evidence" of that?

She is doing more than you to try to find out SOMETHING about the election irregularities regarding voting & IT.

[bunny planet]

59. I have not seen anything from her yet. She's always investigating but

never seems to bring forth any proof for her allegations. Those Volusia county tapes she supposedly found in the garbage a few weeks ago should have been turned over for safe keeping to Conyers or Kerry's people, a long time ago. What pray tell, is she waiting for, if she is so concerned about preventing or prosecuting election fraud?????? She is stalling almost as much as Kenneth Katherine Harris Blackwell, perhaps more.:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[merwin]

78. She interested in fixing the big problem, not the current situation.

The current situation with Kerry, Ohio, etc is IMHO, not repairable. Kerry won't win this one (Blackwell will make sure about it), but something will come out of it.

If you were a lawyer gathering information to use against the Mafia, you wouldn't be spouting information left and right to the media in order to take them down, would you?

[SomthingsGotaGive]

100. Since when yesterday?

Thats when her new mission statement appeared on her site.

How much money would she have raised from AAR listeners and DU members had she REALLY been saying all along....

"Hi all, even though this election is over I'm still here working hard to make sure elections in the future will be fair"

Maybe $100


So all of you "Bev Revisionists" can stop wasting our time.

And please consider people like me will be on every BBV.org thread making sure the facts remain consistent and DU newbies realize there are critical non cool aid drinking people on this site that care about it's integrity.

Must Be Free score....

Credibility = zero
Objectivity = zero

[anamandujano]

161. i haven't seen you on any other type of thread

"people like me will be on every BBV.org thread"

[SomthingsGotaGive]

You haven't looked very hard then.

Try googling my screen name.

[shraby]

147. Those tapes were not hers to turn over

as I understand it, an independent group made the films.

[On the Road]

23. I Don't See Where You Were Asking for Facts

I also don't see where any of us is in a position to address your first two questions.

On the third, no I will absolutely NOT work to discredit Bev when and if she releases results, provided they are in line with BBV's work to date.

Activists are usually flawed people. I'm more concerned about her findings and what happens with them.

[Must_B_Free]

26. score: meaningful reply

[Starlight]

41. I agree.

Why do people feel it is their duty to analyze everything about her in great detail? Personally, I don't really care whether she's a super friendly person or a total bitch. I don't care whether the people around her love her or hate her. Her personality not the issue. She's dedicated years of her life to working very hard on an important project that none of us was willing to do. That's all that matters. Whether or not a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks agrees with her techniques is totally irrelevant. And, personally, I wish they'd get off their lazy asses, get busy with their own projects & STFU. :nuke:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

105. Sure whatever you say...........

My project sitting here in Canada is to make sure cheats, liars, and thieves don't take the stolen election of 2004 and turn it into a cash cow while discrediting other true activists working to save democracy.


If you think her technique or personality are irrelevant you must not care about this issue or have little understanding about the real fight.

A used car salesman could have got more coverage of these critically important issues.

Unfortunately Bev's technique and personality have relegated BBV to the fringe conspiracy crowd as far as the mainstream is concerned.

So please explain how her personality and technique are irrelevant to our cause?

[Starlight]

106. Bev is not "our cause."

We don't own her. We didn't even hire her or vote her into office. People who don't like what she's doing, don't have to donate to BBV or participate in her investigation. They are free to do our own investigations or fight "the real fight" as they see it. But obviously your "project" is to sit back & bitch & complain rather than do any real work. :puke:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

109. really?

More revisionism.

We are OWED a lot from BEV and BBV.ORG

Bev conned people at DU including myself and rather than "sit back & bitch & complain rather than do any real work"

I have actually prevented people like Must Be Free convincing new DU'rs that Bev is solid and trustworthy.

Bev came to DU and lied in order to raise money.

That is fact.

Do her means justify the ends?


Your sycophantic bullshit makes me puke.

[Must_B_Free]

144. you have been off the mark every time.

I have actually prevented people like Must Be Free convincing new DU'rs that Bev is solid and trustworthy

All you've done is yell and disparage, you try to pigeonhole people into holes of your own definition, but I can assure you, you are only gratifying yourself.

The fact is that BBV's investigations will continue regardless of your efforts to stop them. So don't pat yourself on the back too hard.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

156. My efforts to stop them?

By that I assume you mean steering people away from donating money to her site.

I have never suggested she stop investigating.

I have never said anything that would even hamper those investigations.

Until she accurately, and honestly accounts for the money she has already been given you can't even prove I am hampering her investigations by trying to cut off her resources.

As far as gratifying myself, you must not read any of my posts before you respond.

This issue pains me like nothing else in the whole election fraud 2004.

I expected Buchco to steal the election.
I didn't expect the person I THOUGHT was one of our Brightest hopes would turn out to be such a disappointment and ultimate damaging factor.

We must not let her fool us again.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.

[Must_B_Free]

164. "I have never said anything that would even hamper those investigations."

there goes your credibility...

Anyone who read this thread can see that...

[SomthingsGotaGive]

170. link? n/t

[Must_B_Free]

172. ROTFL!!!

somehow, your statement

"I have never said anything that would even hamper those investigations."

is a little incongruous with your other statement

"We must exorcise the demons OURSELVES to show the world we are responsible, accountable, trustworthy, and most important.... capable of the task."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x163206#166012

[SomthingsGotaGive]

176. a little how?

If we are the ones to expose the cheats among us we are better of as a movement.

Thanks for linking to that.

If we show how Bev withholds evidence for her own gains, lies about forthcoming smoking guns, and raises money while refusing to answer basic questions, how does that hinder her future investigations and why .

I know she has no legal obligation to tell anybody until next year.
I also know that many people want to trust and believe her.

Do you think her behavior has anything to do with the suspicions about money?

And if so do you think she is hurting the movement by not answering.

The purpose of exorcising a demon is saving the patient.

Mea Culpas have a wonderfully cleansing, and healing effect.

For both the victim and the perpetrator.

I think I help the cause and Bev by demanding one from her.

[Must_B_Free]

177. "I think I help the cause and Bev by demanding one from her."

Oh - so you really want to HELP Bev by calling her a FRAUD! I finally get it now...

g'night...

[SomthingsGotaGive]

179. Finally !!!!

[Triana]

27. not discrediting her work...not discrediting HER either...

...she did a good enough job of discrediting herself. I'm supportive of her work, but she shot herself in the foot a few too many times...

[Must_B_Free]

28. score: meaningful reply

[Jersey Devil]

29. I thought Randy said she spoke to Stephenson

Perhaps I didn't hear her correctly but I think she said she had spoken to him.

My take on Randy is that she was pissed that Bev was not sharing her info either with the Conyers hearings or anyone else. The implication was clear to me that Randy thought Bev was holding back, perhaps to save the info for another book or a documentary. She kept asking Bev why she was not in Ohio, why she didn't go to the Conyers hearings.

That was my take. I didn't hear the entire discussion but for the few minutes or so I tuned in it seemed Randy was most upset with Bev's secretiveness about what she had found.

[Must_B_Free]

33. score: meaningful reply - Can anyone confirm this?

Because this contradicts Andy Stephenson's official statement last night that he only found out about his termination last night when he read the statement of the Board on the BBV site.

It could be an issue of parsing of words, however, maybe he knew he had quit and conveyed that to Rhodes, but didn't know he had been fired by BBV.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

45. Yes this is exactly what many of us heard

There is a thread with over 200+ responses on it titled something like "Bev is on Randi".

And this sounds exactly like what happened:

"It could be an issue of parsing of words, however, maybe he knew he had quit and conveyed that to Rhodes, but didn't know he had been fired by BBV."

I think all these threads are really nuts. We are all entitled to our own opinions on it - we don't need to bicker back and forth on it.

Many of us gave money we don't really have. All we wanted was some proof of her work. I am new to this, (but have read many of the posts detailing the past) put my faith in Bev, got most of my extended family to donate to her over Thanksgiving. It upsets me that she is reacting like she is. All I want is straight answers. That's all.

I personally would like to thank Randi, because she tried to get the answers out of Bev, that none of us are able to get. Randi put herself out there - getting thousands of people to donate by backing Bev - I think she is allowed to try and clear this up - because not only is Bev's credibility on the line, but Randi's as well.

(Just my two cents).

[shraby]

148. It's possible that Bev is not in Ohio

because there aren't that many Diebold voting machines there, but there is in Florida.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Your answers

1. If Bev herself is a crazy fraud, why did the collectibe board of directors of BBV decide that Andy Stephenson was to be ousted? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy with Bev?

Because like you, some people have an amazing knack for ignoring the truth.

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

I heard Andy was through with Bev several days ago. Firing him provided cover for the fact that he left AND gave Bev a scapegoat.

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

Don't hold your breath waiting on her "proof".

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

39. score: meaningful reply

so in summary, your position is that Bev is a fraud and the board of directors are spineless followers, and they will never produce anything.

This is at odds with the fact that she has produced a book and is possibly behind the lawsuit in California.

Your personal attack against me for my judgement of the information is suggestive that I am also in on the conspiracy or a dupe.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Not quite

so in summary, your position is that Bev is a fraud and the board of directors are spineless followers, and they will never produce anything.

No, I don't believe I have ever accused Bev of being a fraud. She believes all the nonsense she spouts and persuades herself of all sorts of things that are simply not true.

The fact that many checks go uncashed shows me its not about money, but it certainly is about fame.

As to the board, I can't say. I did not call them spineless, those where YOUR words.


This is at odds with the fact that she has produced a book and is possibly behind the lawsuit in California.

Nothing odd about it at all. She had plenty of help from people on the book. Despite her claims to the contrary, much evidence is on the record that it was a group effort. As to the suit in California, what exactly has it accomplished? Diebold is still doing business there and has admitted to no wrong doing. Bev did show herself to be a great hypocrite by filing it though.

Your personal attack against me for my judgment of the information is suggestive that I am also in on the conspiracy or a dupe.

I have NEVER accused anyone around Bev of being in a conspiracy, I leave that kind of thinking to Bev and her acolytes. As to being a dupe, history will judge that, not me.

It is telling to me, that you put words in my mouth though.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

88. 'She believes all the nonsense she spouts'

No, I don't believe I have ever accused Bev of being a fraud. She believes all the nonsense she spouts and persuades herself of all sorts of things that are simply not true.

I can probably agree with that. I have yet to see any thing labelled as "proof" that proves anything to me...

I have NEVER accused anyone around Bev of being in a conspiracy, I leave that kind of thinking to Bev and her acolytes. As to being a dupe, history will judge that, not me.

It is telling to me, that you put words in my mouth though.

I listed my interpretation of what you mean when you said Because like you, some people have an amazing knack for ignoring the truth.

Despite her claims to the contrary, much evidence is on the record that it was a group effort.

I was unaware that she was claming sole credit for everything. I thought she was the leader and spokesperson for BBV.

As to the suit in California, what exactly has it accomplished?

I thought there was somethig accomplished by this. Something to the effect of greater scrutiny in the future. If there was nothing accomplished, then what was awarded?

[SomthingsGotaGive]

107. YAWN

You make this too easy.

Please go back and rate all of my responses on your score card.

Please explain why Bev refuses to give a ball park estimate of donations collected since Nov 2.

Please explain why Bev said yesterday on Randi's show that she is getting the FIOA requests based on how much they cost.

On Nov 3 Bev said she filled 3000+ FIOA requests. Yesterday she says she has filed a few.

And

BEV WAS THE FIRST PERSON THAT SAID IT WAS OK TO USE THE "F" WORD.

Now she says she never intended to overturn this election.

OK I'll say it

BEV IS A FRAUD and so are YOU.

Give it up Must Be Free.

How about You answer some questions instead of posturing like you actually mean anything relevant.

[Must_B_Free]

111. 'BEV IS A FRAUD and so are YOU.'

Those are legitimate questions that I don't have the answer too, nor am I the proper addressee.

Here's what I did:

- I pointed out a logical inconsistency of painting Bev as the sole bad guy for a joint decision.

- I pointed out that there is a potential logical inconsistency between what Bev said and what Andy said.

- I think there is potential for something to come of the BBV organization and so I implied that if you are trying to sink her now, it will be hypocritical to then cheer the results of BBV when or if they are ever released.

What I am doing is debating the specific weak judgements that have been presented and demanding that they be backed up factually or logically. That was the point of keeping score - to distinguish anything meaningful from the BS personal attacks. How does that make me a fraud?

You seem to try to project Bev on to to me and attacking me personally because I am not giving you Bev's answers to your questions.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

114. You aren't answering ANY questions

All you are doing is trying to pretend you are some kind of arbiter.

Who are you to determine the score of a response.

You are fraudulently stating fiction as fact and trying to obfuscate the issues surrounding Bev and BBV.org LYING to DU members and others about their activities.

Here is a direct question for you. Try answering it.

Was Bev ever caught LYING on DU and have you ever heard her say it was OK to say the F word FRAUD?

I'm not holding my breath for a straight answer but a little intellectual honesty I think is in order for those that think Bev and BBV.org are worthy of anything other than scorn and contempt.

Anyone willing to defend the indefensible shouldn't be surprised if the stink wears of on them.

[Must_B_Free]

118. 'Who are you to determine the score of a response.'

it's not a hard test. "She's Fat" is a meaningless reply, where as "she lied on DU and here is the example" is a meaningful reply. Do you want to debate this?

As far as your question, I am certain she did say the F word on DU, and I base that on the fact that you wouldn't use it as an example if she hadn't.

However, I may disagree with what it means. In the specific example where she was characterized of "threatening DU", I disagree with that assessment based on a careful reading of said thread.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

119. Blow it out yer......

Score my responses then.

She said there was evidence of FRAUD. It was OK to say fraud when it meant we were supposed to ask our family and friends to send hard earned money to her to fight the stolen election.

On Mike Web she was asked point blank...
"Do you smell fraud?"

She said amazingly...
"there are certainly activities that are consistent with it to varying degrees"

I almost died.

Explain that away.

Go say Bev is playing for our team.

I'm not buying her or you.

Was that an honest, credible, or even defensible thing to say.

I doubt it.

She made us all look like fools.

I for one have made a point of not letting it happen again here by her or anyone willing to peddle snake oil.

[Must_B_Free]

139. Actually

I only care about debating the substantive issues to arrive at a well supported conclusion - something that has disappeared around here lately.

On Mike Web she was asked point blank...
"Do you smell fraud?"

She said amazingly...
"there are certainly activities that are consistent with it to varying degrees"

The tapes in the trash weren't the scent of fraud? The freshly printed results weren't the scent of fraud? To me, that is the scent of fraud.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

153. They Might be...

Problem is it's your word against the worlds that the "tapes" exist.

You reference tapes you know fine have NEVER been shown to ANYBODY outside the bbv.org cult.

And to be fair to the cult members I haven't seen one post from ANYBODY claiming to have seen the tapes first hand.

Not even you.

"there are certainly activities that are consistent with it to varying degrees"

Sounds like an apt description of Bev and your activities on this site.

Does it prove anything? No.

Is it a way of taking a swipe without getting in trouble because you have zilch, zero, nada to back it up. Absolutely.

[Must_B_Free]

162. You just defeated yourself, thanks for playing

Problem is it's your word against the worlds that the "tapes" exist.

It most certainly is not. We already have proof that the extraneous poll tapes existed, as BBV stated:

The Daytona Beach News further noted that, " Lowe confirmed Wednesday some backup copies of tapes from the Nov. 2 election were destined for the shredder," but pointed out that, according to Lowe, that was simply because there were two sets of tapes produced on election night, each signed. "One tape is delivered in one car along with the ballots and a memory card," the News reported. "The backup tape is delivered to the elections office in a second car."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Or does this mean that the Daytona Beach News and the Volusia Election Supervisor are in on the bbv.org "cult" too? :eyes:

[SomthingsGotaGive]

169. Doesn't prove Bev has them or has video.

Which she and you claim she has.

That Dayton article is just reporting what Bev said she SAW.

get it.

She has never proved she has any evidence.

[Must_B_Free]

173. You should have quit before you totally immolated yourself

"Doesn't prove Bev has them or has video."

Now you change your story - before it was "you can't prove they exist", then after I did, it's "you can't prove she has them"...

I speficically referred to "The tapes in the trash". Noone every claimed she found video tapes in the trash, they were poll tapes (meaning paper spool). DO you really think they lied about having a video camera? Is that so unbelievable? Clearly the event happened, or the Election Supervisor's defense would not need to have been mounted.

Same crap happened with Olberman blog - poll tape / video tape word play to wiggle out of it.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

157. There is no need to explain yourself.

You might think you are being fair and balanced in your approach and want to distinguish between fact and personal attack, yet on other threads you engage in the exact opposite.

You accuse Andy of whining about his dead sister?

At least I say I don't believe EITHER of them OR you.

If Bev gave a shit about the "cause", or at least todays definitions of her cause (I call it Mission Statement v2.3 beta) Her primary objective would be restoring credibility and honor to the organization she founded a runs.

Instead she slides further into obscurity clutching to her chest as much of the BBV movement as she can.

[AmerDem]

32. as someone who supported Bev strongly I have to say

I no longer do. She has lost all credibility with me. Many people having no relationship to one another repeating the same allegations Bev has pulled on them and her response is always it's their fault. Today was pretty much the icing on the cake. When she inferred the Dem party was more concerned with the voter suppression angle of the story rather then the e-voting fraud because they probably benefited as much as the repukes that did it for me.

What's the deal with her? She will take all the help and money she can get from people but the second questions are raised she starts an all out smear campaign against them. I'll sit back and watch this bs play its self out.

[Must_B_Free]

40. score: meaningful reply

[MrUnderhill]

34. Ever work with a "board of directors"?

It often translates to "rubber stamp".

1) See above. The CEO wants to do something... the board "approves" it. She started this project and she runs the show.

2) Assumes facts not in evidence (i.e. "before Bev or Andy knew"). Second (more likely) alternative? Bev was lying.

3) I will review any actual evidence presented, so it depends on what that "work" IS. However, her honesty is in question and her motivations are suspect. She won't get the benefit of the doubt.

[Must_B_Free]

42. score: meaningful reply

This is not congruous with my experience as a mamber of a board of directors. We always engaged in substantive discussion.

2. valid point, but this requires the board to support her lie.

[MrUnderhill]

46. If the BOARD was running things.... If they were TRULY independent..

SHE would have been gone a long time ago.


Therefore... this one is a rubber stamp. Quo Erat Demonstrandum

[Griffy]

35. the enemy is not Bev... is she helping?... are you?

If she is helping then all you attacking her are the hinderance... if she IS a mole for Rove (which sounds like freep rummors to divide us) then SHE IS A DECOY... and all this talk is wasting time.. I plea for unity... bush and his band of crooks are the enemy, dont lose sight of that.

on the human emotion side...
The times are tough for all of us and the stress runs high, I know I haven't eaten as much in the past few weeks and I struggle to balance my time with wife and friends. I found myself angry at a good friend as she dismissed any notion that Kerry could end up president, or that the election was rigged, fraud sure... but rigged? Human nature can lead to nasty things, like turning on allies when things go bad... calmer heads must prevail. I gave her money too... I've also bought lottery tickets... lifes full of risk, but I remain focused between now and the 6th of january (be in DC on 1/6/05) on exposing bush and the rigged election... Our success or failure does not hinge on any 1 of us(Bev included), it hinges on all of us.

[Must_B_Free]

43. score: meaningful reply

I agree

[SomthingsGotaGive]

110. How is she helping?

Since the donations started pouring in how has Bev or BBV.org helped us.

Did she help us at either Conyers hearing?

Did she help us get lawsuits filed on time in Florida?

Did she help us by looking like a jealous egomaniac attacking Bradblogs work instead of worrying about her own investigations?

Did she help us by lying to us all saying it was OK to say the fraud word then BACK TRACKING to "Fraud program related activities"?

WHAT HAS BEV OR BBV.ORG DONE SINCE NOV 2 THAT HELPS OUR CAUSE.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Who is on the BBV Board of Directors?

Are they receiving any money from this endeavor?

[Must_B_Free]

44. score: meaningful reply

David Allen details this on a post here recently.

They all seem to be dedicated activists with very strong credentials.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Regardless of credential, are they making any money from this?

If they are, that would certainly call into question their neutrality. This whole thing is built on Bev Harris, and if she goes the whole BBV organization is done.

[jamboi]

63. Well if they were it would violate 501(c)3 laws so rest assured that if

that turns out to be the case, they'll get theirs.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

112. How about answering the question...

Instead of your typical sycophantic reply.

List the BOD or say you can't.

But don't insult us by saying they are dedicated activist without offering anything other than your opinion based on zero presented fact.

Are you for real?

[americanstranger]

37. My take.

1. If Bev herself is a crazy fraud, why did the collectibe board of directors of BBV decide that Andy Stephenson was to be ousted? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy with Bev?

Depends upon who picked the BoD. If Bev did, it would stand to reason that they would side with her in a dispute with Andy, IMO.

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

There have been rumors floating since early this week that Andy was gone. If those rumors are based in fact, Andy could have told Bev he was gone and Bev could have turned it into a 'You can't quit, you're fired' scenario.

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

Let's see it released first.

And as an addendum - it's funny you should mention discrediting - as Bev seemed to have discredited all of DU on WNYC this morning.

-as

[Must_B_Free]

49. score: meaningful reply

re "And as an addendum - it's funny you should mention discrediting - as Bev seemed to have discredited all of DU on WNYC this morning."

I didn't hear it, but my hunch is that she was referring to the fact that, to a great extent, noone on DU knows who anyone else here really is.

Longtimers are well familiar with the opposition's psychological operations, deep cover operatives and skill with warfare of propaganda, disinformation and misleading.

So, just because a DUer says something bad abut her, we don;t know who that really is.

So far, based on users I am comfortably famillar with, I know Eloriel, Symbolman, David Allen and the DU founders have moved away from Bev. Will Pitt is agnostic, so far, I believe.

I tend to the agnostic side, let them do their work and see what comes of it. I do feel that the "threat against DU" issue was a complete distortion of the facts by her detractors, which makes me lean toward defending her.

[Eloriel]

79. How were the facts distorted?

(This has got to be good.) Are you considering Admin "her detractors"?

[Must_B_Free]

89. No

Detractors are ones who come in and simply declare "She's a fraud", "Embezzelment", "She's fat", etc...

The distortion of fact was that she "threatened DU", it is a bad sounding charge that can only stand out of context. She clearly explained that she was obliged to protect the organization due to the delicate status of non-profit, but, nonetheless it was used against her.

Then Symbolman mocked the idea that her name was trademarked, until I pointed out the common usage laws regarding trademarks.

[carolinalady]

47. ok I am going to say something about the Board.....

Question: Who came first-Bev or the Board? If the answer is Bev then MOST LIKELY the Board members are personal friends. Having said that they may at this point choose to believe Ms. Harris' account of where the trouble lies in the organization. It is obvious that the issue of all her recent activities has been discussed at the board level. The question becomes :Who initiated the discussion? Was it a board member who is concerned about the impact on the organization or was it Bev who is concerned about the impact on the organization?
Did she ask them for a statement of support? Who wrote it? In the hospital where I worked it was not uncommon for the CEO to write board "statements" then have them give their approval.
If Bev formed the initial board, those people asked to serve may feel that it truly is her organization and therefore are most likely to give her all benefit of the doubt. If however they truly believe in the cause and Bev continues to display bizarre behavior, there may come a time when they no longer believe her and take appropriate action. I'm sure at this point they would not be too comfortable accusing her when she created the organization. An example comes to mind would be Martha Stewart. It has been my experience that most people do not change their behavior. If she is the problem now she will be so again. You will probably see board resignations first before you see them take action against her, however.

[Must_B_Free]

52. score: meaningful reply - due to the harshness of the termination

I have a hard time seeing people going along with it if it were such a distortion. The credentials of the board posted by David Allen indicate that these are people with strong credentials and credibility.

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Uh, no it doesn't

The post I provided identifies board members. It says not a bloody thing about credibility and provide no evidence of such either way.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

90. you listed the impressive credentials of the board

credentials speak to credibility.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Damn, you are good at being obtuse

I am stating the credentials Bev CLAIMS they have. No one has vetted these claims and holding an impressive position does not mean your are credible or honorable (See the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

98. Well, you did a cut a paste without qualifying them

I thought those credentials were real...

[Kelvin Mace]

142. Again you are being disengenious

I "cut and pasted" them AND included the link to them for context.

Next up from the Bev Harris Fan Club, linking is evil.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

149. You mean

I was supposed to follow that link and read 300 posts and come to the conclusion that Bev made this stuff up? Why didn't you just say "this information I'm posting is probably made up"?

Who's really being disengenuous?

[carolinalady]

115. Credentials that I would consider impressive are lawyers,

accountants, those that have served on other boards or in high management positions and would be able to recognize the legal ramifications of becoming an employer and administering a 501(c)3. From what I have seen published on this forum regarding those particular board members--they may be highly intelligent and honorable people--that does not make them qualified.

[Wiley50]

50. My Experience

I was a hardworking campaign person who didn't buy the story
>of losing. I joined BBV as my county rep in the first week
>after Nov 2.
>I registered and was issued a password to the BBV site. It has
>never worked.
>The second week, before they left for FL., Kathleen Wynne (
>Bev's asst) called me on my cell, told me what to request
>from my SOE and told me to call the BBV when I had received
>it. When I got the data ( not everything that I asked for ) I
>called, got voicemail that said "voice mailbox full".
>So I emailed with no reply.
>Then I posted an appeal on the BBV forum. A personal friend of
>Andy contacted me and offered to relay my contact request to
>him. I never got any reply.
>The morning that Bev was tombstoned, my partner called the BBV
>number to leave a message on the answering machine asking Bev
>to consider that, since our only attention was from Olbermann,
>would she try to get along with him enough to make our case.
>To his misfortune, Bev answered.
>He got totally reamed by Bev and Kathleen for several minutes
>and never was even allowed to make his point.
>He didn't deserve this. He was the best volunteer we had at
>our local HQ having personally registered over 1000 new
>voters. He is now the organizer and spokesman for our TN
>resistance ( 51 Capital March,ect.) His screen name at DU is
>flybynight. Ask him.
>During the time Bev was in FL, the BBV board was unmoderated
>and overcome by a poster called Auditors who posted reams of
>"research" on Cybernet and another poster named Bozos for
>Bush ( who was tombstoned by DU in the process ) who
>obcessivly stalked and attacked him. I stopped posting on that
>board at that time.
>I can only say that I am very glad Randi challenged Bev. Bev
>is guilty of neglect ( in the best case ) and, in the apparent
>case, is going completely off her rocker.

>I just thought that you would like to hear my personal
>experience with BBV.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

65. Dear Wiley, I was slandered here and on BBV by Bozos

I used to post on FR as an antagonist and troll for the most part, and stood up for liberals, and liberal causes constantly. I have dozens of posts to back this up. I was kicked off for being a troll. I joined here on Nov 8, and was so glad to be among like-minded people to discuss, vent, research etc., the issues surrounding this stolen election. It was very lonely over in freeperland but I was sort of addicted to my role there. I am a lifelong Dem voter with occasional forays into the Green party, though there are some issues on which I am moderate.

A group that included myself was researching all the Cybernets, trying to determine which pertained to the Piotr Blass issue and which to the Grand Rapids FBI issue,etc. Maybe there were freepers on that thread and maybe not,but we who are NOT were making some interesting finds, and no one was being disruptive until Bozo came in, and was insulting and demeaning,and hell bent on destroying our momentum, so one day I stood up to him and defended our right to research whatever we wanted to. The argument on quite awhile, and he proceeded to find 2 posts of mine from Free Republic days, took portions of them out of context so that it appeared I meant the exact opposite of what I did, and posted them here on DU.

I was just informed via a PM, that Bozo has been spreading the same stuff about me on BBV. So I checked it today, and sure enough, there are those 2 distorted posts, along with a 3rd regarding the Abu Grhaib torture publicity and my fear that the Iraqis would take revenge on our soldiers because of them. I was not happy with the media at that time, over this, as I have a dear friend in Iraq, and was very afraid for him, so if my comment sounded like a freeper I am sorry.

Anyway, this whole thing has been is humiliating and degrading. It hasnt been real fun for me here since this happened. My husband tells me not to take it personally, but it's hard not to. I now realize why people aren't responding to my questions in posts. They probably saw the BBV posts. I can identify with Andy Stephenson, and I also wonder why Bev allows slander to remain on her website.

I've been looking for a place to tell my story, and this seems to be a good one, since you will know exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for listening.

[crispini]

69. Oh! THAT's what happened.

I saw his accusations re: you on Ask the Admins, and saw that he was tombstoned, but never really put everything together. I was wondering.

Re: people not responding to your questions in posts -- don't worry about it. Half of what I post doesn't get responded to either. IMO that's just the nature of message boards. Don't worry about whatever he's posting over there, most people here don't read those boards anyway. I alwauys thought he was kind of a jerk myself.

Edited for language.

[Eloriel]

81. Absolutely true

Plus something like 95% of what gets posted here doesn't get seen by anyone else. Really. Some of it scrolls off and is never seen again, some of it gets ignored and forgotten even if it gets seen by a lot of people.

I didn't see the posts in question and don't think they would affect your credibility to any great degree anyway. Really.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

82. Thanks to you and Crispini

I felt so exposed and violated, guess I got paranoid. Feels good to get that junk off my chest!!

[mimitabby]

94. i think you are courageous

i don't have the stomach or nerve to post in freeper places!
and I agree with the others, sometimes I post something and i think
it is so witty or profound (pick one) and no one else ever even sees it.
So relax. if you can still post, you're okay with me :)

[eowyn_of_rohan]

104. Thanks. :) nt

[SomthingsGotaGive]

117. Perhaps had you been a bit more forthcoming about your Free Republic posts

You wouldn't have been "outed".

I read more than two of your Free republic posts and thought them rather alarming.

I however have respect for the rules and would never have accused you of anything.

Transparency is the key to us making headway into the mainstream consciousness.

While Bozo was aggressive and disrespectful of the DU rules it would be hard to characterize anything he did or said as anything other than searching for the Truth.

Your posts were not taken out of context. I read the entire threads your posts appeared on.

Your activism over the past weeks here on DU speaks for itself. Bozo was only doing the research all you Cybernet posters asked him to do.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

183. well hello , somethinggtg-havent talked to you since the cybernet threads

I didnt exactly know how to fit in that I had posted on FR in the past--I mean should I insert it into every post? Should I write it into my profile? I had thought of it, btw, but I wasnt expecting FR tactics from DU people! BTW, I am sure there are dozens here who have posted there as well, under different names. And BTW, I don't recall BZB being asked for his "help" on those threads ONCE. Au contraire.

RE not taken out of context? You are wrong! Re the "fat people" partial post: This was from a series of threads on another citywide smoking ban and my point was that people's rights are being infringed upon, and how the anti-smoking campaign tactics could be used against any group. Here is the rest:

"I will enjoy not having to walk around a crowd of smokers on my way to class," said LCC student and nonsmoker "
Yes, and some would enjoy not having to walk past a crowd of women wearing perfume, or around a group of guys staring at you, or around people who are sneezing, or past the neighbor's pesticide filled yards, etcetcetc. I Hate anti-smoking Nazis
4 posted on 09/26/2002 5:14:48 PM PDT by Eowyn-of-Rohan
Create a sin tax for junk food and ban fat people from eating inside public buildings...make them eat their lunches in alleyways & have "Fat" sections in restaurants...put up billboards that villianize fat people and teach kids in school that fat people are bad.
13 posted on 09/23/2002 8:51:06 AM PDT by Eowyn-of-Rohan
To: freeeee
" what other people eat is none of your damned business. "
But their fatness affects my health and raises my taxes...my blood pressure goes up when I am forced to sit next to one on an airplane, and the excess trash and garbage they generate puts a disproportionate strain on our garbage dumps
21 posted on 09/23/2002 9:06:46 AM PDT by Eowyn-of-Rohan
To: freeeee
Are you nuts? I am trying to illustrate a parallel with the anti-smoking Nazis
27 posted on 09/23/2002 9:13:36 AM PDT by Eowyn-of-Rohan
To: Eowyn-of-Rohan
Wow... now that's good analogizing!
42 posted on 09/23/2002 10:09:41 AM PDT by Teacher317
To: freeeee
The nannys drive me nuts too. Every whine they come up with could be altered to attack any group. No one stands up to them. We have a local Walgreens that is carding EVERYONE who asks for a pack of cigarettes...a 72-year old lady was carded last week for trying to buy a cigar for her husband.
31 posted on 09/23/2002 9:31:39 AM PDT by Eowyn-of-Rohan
It is absolutely insane.... It is like prohibition in the 1920s and I can't imagine it will stay this way forever.. I think of all the things that are not good for us--pesticides in people's yards and on the food we eat, factory induced pollution, etcetc, that are more harmful than getting a whiff of someone's cigarette, and I wonder WHY these anti smoking lobbyists are getting their way all over the country!! Smoking is LEGAL. Why can't a business owner decide what kind of business they want if it is LEGAL? Strip joints are OK, gambling is OK, getting smashed is ok, but smoking is not? Non smokers can STAY away from places where there is smoke if they want to --PLEASE!! Why are we allowing this to happen? whether people smoke or not, they should object to this infringement on rights...
10 posted on 01/02/2004 7:02:04 AM PST by Eowyn-of-Rohan

[eowyn_of_rohan]

87. Oh boy, I missed his spews on Ask the Administrator

But dont tell me! I will only get my undies in a wad again (thanks to Wiley for that). I am glad you now know the true story! B-)

[Wiley50]

72. Eowyn, I remember it all

Bozos was completely obcessed! He attacked anyone who called him on it.
He tried to call me a freeper too.
With Bev neglecting everyone on the BBV board, His hijinks turned off most of us, who departed, leaving only the Bev true believers and "Yes" people. Then when Bev returned he sucked up to her. The guy was insane or much worse.
I was the one who actually called and spoke to Dr. Piotr Blass the night his resume ( including cell number ) was posted at BBV.
I remember it all. And I made a choice. I chose DU.
Don't get your panties in a wad, it's all history now.
Thankfully.

Wiley

[eowyn_of_rohan]

85. Ignorance is bliss

I am glad I never cared to check out what was being said on that board. Sounds like hell!!! Glad you escaped with your life! Re "BFB", He sure makes a (dumbass) name for himself. Someone on commonsense wrote "someone named Bozos might be a spy for (Alan Guiterrez) them and intentionally leaking all research we do so that they have it deleted." But I am going to forget that clown and START getting ready for Christmas now. :crazy: What a month...

[standingup]

53. Can you prove

that the statement provided on her website is from the Board of Directors? In fact, can you point me to any information on Blackboxvoting.org which identifies the board members or any information about them?

[Must_B_Free]

57. Board Info - from David Allen

Board of directors:
- Linda Franz (Washington state), with knowledge of HAVA and pending voting machine legislation;
- Jim March (California), with expertise in lobbying and computer programming. March has been heavily involved in analysis of the Diebold software, and testifies regularly at California
Voting Systems Panel hearings;
- Joseph M. Bailey III (Washington state), founder of an electrical workers union for people of
color
- Thalia Dudley (Washington state), a member of the Dudley family, an African-American family who has fought for the right to vote every generation for five generations;
- Vickie Karp (Texas), who is also chairperson for the Coalition for Visible Ballots, and recently made the news with a billboard campaign about the need for paper ballots
- Agrippa Williams (Washington state), renowned for his work keeping black history alive, and the recipient of many awards for outstanding citizenship (he once gave a kidney to a complete stranger in order to save his life.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x161632#162090

[standingup]

62. Point taken - provided by David Allen

And my status per my number of posts at DU does not represent the amount of time I have spent reading at DU, or reading the history of Bev and DU.

I fully support the movement to reform our electoral system. I also know of several organizations other than BBV who are working toward the same. If Bev discovers something to help, great. But I have a difficult time contributing to an organization that does not provide full and transparent disclosure any better than BBV. And when reasonable inquiries are made, I would expect a simple, straightforward response. That doesn't seem to happen with Bev.

[jamboi]

64. Impressive. Solid. n/t

[preciousdove]

54. Bev should step down...

for the good of the cause. She is not rational, is no longer credible and is hurting the cause and no amount of the Bev cult people posting affirmations under different names on DU or BBV.org will change that. The issue should be election fraud not Bev.

[Shalom]

56. Perspective on This Thread

The Cheating Wife Analogy

(there is a mirror equivalent for the “cheating husband” – works for either sex)

1. First time she’s caught, you go to counseling, cause she says she still loves you
2. Second time she’s caught, she promises you to be faithful
3. Third time she’s caught you have a fight, then kiss and make up
4. Fourth time she’s caught, you go back to counseling…
5. And so on, and so on, and so on….

Moral of the story:
If are you one of those who react in this way, by having an endless debate, and consider work-arounds and whether thing can be patched up, and consider whether she still has feeling for you, then you are a spineless cuckhold and a pussy-whipped fool.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Isn't the official term

"co-dependent"?

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Shalom]

70. I thought it was a "Cuckoo Co-Cuckhold" !!

[Eloriel]

83. Yes

and very well put.

[Protect The Vote]

71. My replies, for what it's worth

1. With no direct knowledge, this is hard to answer. Theories could be that Bev controls the board members, as has happened to other non-profits or that Andy deserved to be ousted and the board ousted him. Regardless, publicly posting the reasons for firing someone is wrong. To me, that's where the focus should be. By the way, I didn't know the board was collectible. I would like to start my board member collection, but I haven't yet seen a list of the alleged board members. Hopefully I'll be able to collect all six.

2. Don't know - ask Randi. Again, we can theorize. Perhaps Randi is tapped into information that Bev does not have. Perhaps Bev is too busy to keep up with all of the goings-on at BBV.org. Perhaps Bev is too incompetent to keep up with all of the goings-on at BBV.org. Perhaps Bev was lying when she said she did not know. These are all just possible theories and I don't claim to support or care about any of them. Again, I think the focus should be as I outlined in answer 1.

3. It's too early to answer this question. I will judge the work on it's merits when and if it is released. If I judge that it needs discrediting, then I will discredit. If I judge that it needs promoting, then I will promote. If I judge that it needs ignoring, then I will ignore. I would like to see some return on my investment instead of feeling like my money went into a black box.

On edit: I see that the board members are posted in a reply above. If you could provide some contact information, then I will start my collection. By the way, I hope I score well. I live to see how others judge me.

[LoZoccolo]

73. My answers.

1. Stalin had other people working with him too, and so did Hitler, and Mussolini, and Idi Amin. And George W. Bush. She has her share of lackeys too.
2. Who cares? She's a nationally-known talk-show host and anyone can get her email address.
3. No.

[saracat]

74. She has discredited us at DU via current comments on RR

and her behaviour with MSM reflects badly on her own work as well as the work of others.She needs to be replaced as the face of this movement pronto. It is obvious when so many are turned off. You must turn people on the be sucessful because they have to be interested in listening.Replace her quick before the whole election reform issue is reduced to the laughingstock she is. ( Yeah Score,) Whoopie.

[Eloriel]

84. Totally unnecessary.

She's not the face of this movement. She's ONE face. She is increasingly marginalized, thanks to her own actions. No need to replace her, just shift your gaze (and your actions) elsewhere.

[Shalom]

92. Absolutely Correct: This Focus is Sucking Up the Oxygen

Eloriel, you are absolutely right that this focus is a diversion from doing useful work. It has the flavor of the National Enquirer and Entertainment Tonight. Expect new threads with teasers such as:

1. Was Bev Harris a visitor in Bernard Kerik's Love Nest ???

2. Bev Harris: Is she really a grandmother, or the Big Bad Wolf ???

3. Was Bev Harris' surgery a cover-up for a sex-change operation ???

ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!!!!!!!

[saracat]

96. I agree. It just seems there is no one out there right now to

balance her and the negativity she projects. I am concerned that she is making it difficult for others who may be credible to get mainstream exposure. Believe me, I am not looking to her for a thing. I have read enough to convince me that she is someone to keep my distance and my wallet from!

[Shalom]

125. Yes, But Why Do DU Members Set Up BS Chat Rooms About Bev ?

Are they trying to divert us from kicking Bushitler's butt with their whiny discussions about Bev this, and Bev that ?

[saracat]

138. Just venting , I guess. A lot of angry people out there.

they didn't like being duped. There is no where else for them to go but DU to vent because no one else will understand. Even Will Pitt statrted a thread today after what happened to Andy.

[Cocoa]

80. of course Bev Harris has partners

and they frequently squabble publicly about their loot.

[Sparkle]

91. their loot?

LOL !!

[Kelvin Mace]

145. Just make sure you don't include me in the list

Some jackass just described me as her "ex-partner".

<shivers>

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

150. From your own website - key words in bold

"Important!

This information is provided as a courtesy. Bev Harris is no longer affilated with this site, David Allen, or Plan Nine Publishing. We do not speak for her, nor she for us. "

Now are we going to split hairs over "affialiate" and "partner"?

[Kelvin Mace]

155. Thanks for pointing out the typo

I'll have to fix that.

To reward you, an English vocabulary lesson:

af·fil·i·at·ed (adj) - closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position.

part·ner (n) - a member of a partnership

part·ner·ship (n) - a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

174. yep, splitting hairs

so because Bev "worked for YOU", you weren't partners? Whatever.

[Fescue4u]

102. If an ANTI-BEV and a PRO-BEN Shake hands...

Will they explode or just cancel each other out?

[Merlynn]

122. collectibe board of directors of BBV

Has anyone actually seen this board??

[Shalom]

127. After 244,877,925 posts about Bev Bullshit, Can We Get Back to Action ?

People are doing real things while we endlessly finger-fuck ourselves with Bev Bullshit - this is not the National Enquirer.

Suggestion: Stop this stupid thread after 690,877,101 additional meaningless posts.

[Fescue4u]

129. Does yours count

in the meaningless post tally?

[Shalom]

135. Yes, I Have Been Hopelessly Corrupted By Bev Bullshit...

So, here's my answer to the Bev Bullshit poll I proposed earlier:


1. Was Bev Harris a visitor in Bernard Kerik's Love Nest ???
> Yes, she was observed giving Bernie and Guiliani head in the elevator.

2. Bev Harris: Is she really a grandmother, or the Big Bad Wolf ???
> Neither - she is an alien from Mars.

3. Was Bev Harris' surgery a cover-up for a sex-change operation ???
> As a Martian, she is sexless, therefore the question has no meaning.


REMEMBER:
ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!!!!!!!

[jdog]

131. I admit to not reading this whole thread.

I'm sorry but it is very long, and I think I understand most of the feelings.

I related to Bev so much when I first saw her, because she seemed like a normal person just like me, fairly intelligent, but not a genius and not a celebrity. Just like me (and maybe you). And she's been thrown into extremely weird circumstances. Just like me (and maybe you)...only much more extreme.

I sent Bev money, and I've heard alot of weird things. And I agree, the result has not been as forthcoming or stunning as I was hoping for. And I know that there is stuff going on. I sent her the money because I HOPED she could do some good toward stopping fraud, and hopefully overturning the election. And from what I know, which of course is limited, she has been trying. And I have been trying. And I know you have been trying.

We are fighting a machine, and I appreciate every one of you guys, and every Bev, and every Al Franken, and RR, and Conyers. These are BAD guys we are fighting. I don't want to eat any of our own because we need ALL OF US.

I hope Bev can achieve something that will make us happy. No matter what, I admire her for trying.

[Must_B_Free]

134. I second that statement

I agree with each sentence. Still I will fight for correct information whereever I feel misinformation has been passed off as factual.

[valis]

132. Who is the board of directors though? Her husband is one, right?

[Must_B_Free]

136. Not sure. If he is, he has a different last name

Board of directors:
- Linda Franz (Washington state), with knowledge of HAVA and pending voting machine legislation;
- Jim March (California), with expertise in lobbying and computer programming. March has been heavily involved in analysis of the Diebold software, and testifies regularly at California
Voting Systems Panel hearings;
- Joseph M. Bailey III (Washington state), founder of an electrical workers union for people of
color
- Thalia Dudley (Washington state), a member of the Dudley family, an African-American family who has fought for the right to vote every generation for five generations;
- Vickie Karp (Texas), who is also chairperson for the Coalition for Visible Ballots, and recently made the news with a billboard campaign about the need for paper ballots
- Agrippa Williams (Washington state), renowned for his work keeping black history alive, and the recipient of many awards for outstanding citizenship (he once gave a kidney to a complete stranger in order to save his life.)

This was posted by her ex-partner, David Allen, who then went on to suggest that Bev possibly made up these listed credentials. His exact words are

"Damn, you are good at being obtuse, I am stating the credentials Bev CLAIMS they have. No one has vetted these claims"

[Kelvin Mace]

143. There's a Dudley

which is her husband's name and Bev's legal last name.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Shalom]

146. And a DUD...

[Shalom]

141. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THREAD ON BEV BULLSHIT:

Seeding the discussion with my answers to the Bev Bullshit poll: WHAT ARE YOURS ?


1. Was Bev Harris a visitor in Bernard Kerik's Love Nest ???
> Yes, she was observed giving Bernie and Guiliani head in the elevator.

2. Bev Harris: Is she really a grandmother, or the Big Bad Wolf ???
> Neither - she is an alien from Mars.

3. Was Bev Harris' surgery a cover-up for a sex-change operation ???
> As a Martian, she is sexless, therefore the question has no meaning.


REMEMBER:
ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!!!!!!!

[BeHereNow]

154. Answers you won't like.

1. If Bev herself is a crazy fraud, why did the collectibe board of directors of BBV decide that Andy Stephenson was to be ousted? Are they ALL in on the conspiracy with Bev?

I just found out from Will Pitt on another thread that three of the board members are family members. That DOES explain the unity of
VITRIOL directed at Andy on their web site last nght, now doesn't it?
What's the saying, blood is thicker than water?

2. Why did Randi Rhodes say that Andy was no longer with BBV before either Bev or Andy knew this? Where did Randi get this information?

Two possibilities here:
1. One of the family board members spilled the beans about an
inside "family" board member decision to fire Andy?
2. Having missed the last few days possible with his sister before
she died, Andy mentioned that he thought it best if he leave?

Either does not shed a favorable light on BBV.
WHO in their right mind tells an employee they shouldn't go home to
be with a family member who is DYING?
No one I could ever respect ot trust.

3. Will you work to discredit the work of this organization when it is finally released?

No. IF it ever is.
So far though, the REAL smoking guns have come from
OTHER sources. BBV? Name ONE.
It has been my experience that no good fruit ever falls
form a ROTTEN tree.
And sorry to say, as a huge BBV supporter in the past,
this tree is starting to stink.

BHN

[AmyCrat]

158. I did not want to start a new thread, but the story -- crib notes please?

I've been trying to catch up... I heard the RR show, so I know what transpired there.

I hear Andy isn't working with BBV any longer? Is this true and how did it come about? I'm following here that he quit, but than BBV tried to publicly fire him before word got out he quit? Is that true? Was he "bad-mouthed" on the BBV boards (as I've seen insinuated)?

Anyone want to share the crib notes?

[Must_B_Free]

165. Not exactly

"I'm following here that he quit, but than BBV tried to publicly fire him before word got out he quit?"

He quit and told Randi Rhodes, who then used this to broadside attack Bev on the show, who explicitly stated that this was the first time she had heard of this. So that was the word getting out.

Then Andy got a dose of the same medicine he dished out from the BBV board, who publically disparaged him in a way that noone has ever seen in a professional setting.

[AmyCrat]

166. I have since caught up...

and whether Andy went to RR first or not is really besides the point as far as I'm concerned. The way it was handled on the BBV site was completely unprofessional, not to mention incredibly hurtful... AND given his personal circumstances, seems to define the terms immoral and unethical.

[Must_B_Free]

175. He's the one who ultimately made the decision

She should have let him go, but, the details suggest that neither of them expected her passing so soon.

But he chooses to blame it on Bev, so, whatever.

[tjdee]

178. Wrong--- BBV let him go. He didn't quit.

Where here does it say he quit?
(From the BBV site, on Tuesday: )
"Update: TUESDAY, DEC. 14, 2004: NOTICE
The six-member Board of Directors of Black Box Voting has unanimously voted to terminate the employment of Associate Director Andy Stephenson, for:
- Repeatedly lying to various members of the board of directors
- Misrepresenting results of investigations
- Mishandling telephone communications and withholding information
- Temper tantrums and hanging up on members of the organization
- Outburst at the Florida Supervisor of Elections meeting, offending public officials
- Failing to assist, show up, or even call while Kathleen Wynne and Bev Harris repeatedly reached him to request assistance when they were accosted by Volusia County police."


What you are saying about Randi (and Andy) wouldn't seem to compute in light of what BBV itself said on the subject.

[Kelvin Mace]

181. Actually, I heard from several sources

before the Randi show that he had quit because of Bev's abusive treatment.

Bev seems, in usual fashion, to have spun the truth to her advantage. Firing Andy allowed her to cover up his quitting and make him the scapegoat for her actions.

Except for the first and last reason, the record is clear that Bev has committed those actions herself. Talk about projection.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Must_B_Free]

186. She blames the Lepore hubub on Andy

when they were both equally as disruptive. I traced the story. They both stood in front of the crowd. They were trying to stage a Michael Moore moment.

[shireen]

159. Bartcop has comments about the Randi & Harris interview

http://www.bartcop.com/

[valis]

182. Good piece....

As usual, Harris has got nothing.

[skooooo]

189. Where? I don't see anything on the page about it...

:shrug:

[valis]

191. Go to the bottom. Search in the page for Harris

[skooooo]

197. the only search box..

...I see is for Amazon.com. I did a "find" search and the only Harris that comes up is Katherine Harris.

[Kelvin Mace]

201. He means the search function in your browser

<g>

[Lerkfish]

194. LISTEN: here's my take, and one I've stated in the past...

1. This effort needs to be spearheaded by thousands, not one figurehead, no matter who that may be.
2. Any evidence of fraud needs to be shared above board and as widely as possible, rather than hidden or hoarded for obscure reasons. If there is evidence, charges need to be made. This should NOT be a PR excercise, but rather a legal matter.
3. Controversy between adherents or against one adherent of BBV is distracting and allows the perpetrators of fraud the opening they need to discredit ONE personality and then by association, the entire movement. For that reason, pinning all our hopes on one person is counterproductive, and inherently dangerous. To waste time defending or attacking a personality is aiding the enemy of free and valid elections.


now, to this end, I think forcing us to get bogged down in minutiae is the danger here over things that is frankly none of our business, AND is unknowable for the most part...I'm referring to personality clashes. To the extent that we think this person or that person is worthy/not worthy of hero worship is TRULY killing this effort, and people on all sides should cease and desist immediately. That includes Must_B_Free, as well as others.

We need to keep an eye on the prize: maintaining and ensuring free and fair elections. To that end, I do NOT CARE if Bev is a saint or an orange peel snogging lunatic. I'd prefer we all FORGOT about Bev entirely, no matter what we think about her. In four years, she'll be completely forgotten and unimportant. HOWEVER, in four years, if we do not resolve the voting issues, we will be right back here again.

[nedbal]

196. Why is qui tam looked down on or it only Bev's spin ?

I didn't want to start a new thread, let me ask in this one what I had asked in
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x165011#166627>


David Allen posted this re a dibold lawsuit
<<<"how Bev SWORE she would never file such a suit in the first place. How was it she put it? Something about never "soiling her hands" with qui tam money?"

"This was when she smeared about a dozen people with the accusation that they had sold out and filed a qui tam. " >>>>>>

and I found qui tam is:
"Qui Tam or Whistle-Blower laws have existed in Western cultures for over 600 years. One of the first examples of Qui Tam legislation can be traced back to the Civil War, when Congressional hearings disclosed widespread instances of military contractor fraud that included defective products, substitution of inferior material, and illegal price gouging of the Union Army. "

[Kelvin Mace]

198. The point at the time was

that filing a qui tam would have required the filer to clam up until the suit was revealed to the public. So, no discussion would take place, no further investigation, etc.

More importantly, filing such a suit would make it look like the activists were in it for the money, and such was what Bev accused Avi, Rubin, David Dill, Roxanne and many others of doing

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[nedbal]

204. Howl long is the "clam up" period ???

OK one files the suit all get served, a public announcement is made, I imagine this is one week since there is only major party involved (diebold) and it's officers, I do understand the "clam up" time was the minor of the two reasons not to go this route of qui tam

[Kelvin Mace]

205. Not positive,

but usually until the preliminary investigation was completd, which could be six months to a year.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Paligal]

203. Didn't Bev herself then file a Qui Tam suit in CA? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

206. Yes, thus the blowback on Bev

[Bill Bored]

200. Where's the Bev?

"Where's the Bev?"

I hope that's not copyrighted, as "Cleanup Crew" is supposed to be, but maybe it should be.

I would love to see a grassroots org like Bev's come up with some massive expose to blow the lid off this election fraud thing. How truly American that would be! Right out of the movies, or the days of Watergate. But everything that BBV has come up with about this election, so far, has been so disorganized and poorly communicated, it's hard for anyone other than the True Believers to take them seriously. There are a lot more of those types on the Republican side than ours, aren't there? Maybe this is why Bev has been starting to court them lately. They ain't exactly skeptical are they?

Why am I skeptical? Here are some reasons:

1. Bev says there's a lawsuit to invalidate the election in FL, based on the missing poll tapes, or whatever, but she doesn't want to divulge too much to the media because it could damage the case. So why doesn't she just say "Please talk to the lawyers handling the case," and provide their names and numbers? In this way, any doubts that have been raised about Bev personally could be alleviated. Lawyers know exactly how to talk to the media without giving away their evidence prematurely. Why does Bev insist on keeping herself in this loop and then not even answer phone calls? Where's the Bev?

2. BBV is supposed to be non-partisan, so it's entirely possible that they could have uncovered some fraud in Democratic counties. So what? There are lots of Democrats who vote Republican, especially in FL. I have personally talked to Democrats in other states who are the same way. They vote in Dem primaries to help elect their friends to county seats, and then vote Republican in national elections. There were lots of Republicans for Kerry too. I don't think we should be afraid of the truth, but where the heck is it? And where's the Bev?

3. I personally volunteered to be part of the C-crew, or whatever we're supposed to call it, and never got an answer to my email. Why? I have a background in IT security and like most people in any field, I know people who know more than I do and who live in places like FLORIDA where investigations are supposedly underway. I told BBV I could help. I asked a few basic questions about BBV.org, and I never got an answer. Now, we hear all kinds of stories of machines originating calls to reserved IP addresses that aren't even allowed on the Internet, etc. Were they connected via firewalls? NAT routers? What? This isn't necessarily rocket science. Where's the Bev?

4. Bev claims her web site was hacked, and her phone, or her cell phone, etc. Anyone engaged in this sort of work should know how to protect a website and how to use voice mail or get a phone line without releasing their number to their enemies. That's not rocket science either. Sorry. No security is perfect, but it's possible to prevent tampering if the appropriate safeguards are used, and they ain't that expensive. Where's the Bev?

5. As Randi Rhodes has said, why wasn't Bev or another BBV representative in Ohio or at Conyers' previous hearing in DC? Surely it's not just because there MAY be fraud in a Democratic county somewhere. These hearings where a virtual who's who in the world of election fraud, but where was the Bev?

6. It could just be that Bev is not technically savvy, not a good administrator, not a good PR person (despite her supposed background in PR), not a good communicator, overworked, or whatever. But given the importance of what she is investigating, to have credibility, she simply must do better! At the risk of further copyright infringement, "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around!" Where's the Bev?

7. Now she says she's working on a possible fraud that could have affected 40,000,000 votes. That's a lot o' votes! I'd settle for an interview with the lawyers working on the Volusia County, FL case. If Cliff Arnebeck can do that, why can't they, and where's the Bev so she can set this up?

8. I can see how those who actually contributed money to BBV.org would be a little concerned. I offered to donate my time instead, which is actually much more valuable, and I was ignored. Now, I'm not sure what to do, except to watch and help Cliff Arnebeck, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson and the rest pursue justice in Ohio and wherever else their investigations may lead.

But where's the Bev?

[Bouvet_Island]

211. Questions, BBV funding response

I have a few questions, seeing this from a distance here in Norway. I am currently sitting in the middle of a wet hail storm, that pretty much is the idea of christmas here on the West coast.

Compliments Must B Free, you are doing very nice work. I would very much like to have a chat with you on msn, skype or such [e-mail]. I need some advice.

1. What are the accounting requirements of a 501 C(3), in her area? Is she required to have professional revision? Does she have to send anything to the IRS, to keep her status? Is there any records of this, of any problems?

My personal impression is not of a fraudster, simple facts like her putting her book for free on her site doesn´t add up to the profile for me.

2. Would any of you be willing to believe that her phone was hacked? Is there any record, or knowledge of other people getting their cell phone hacked in the US?

I ask this because it is one of two explanations after hearing the interview on Randi Rhodes, statements on her forums, and reading the Keith Olbermann controversy, in addition to other reports of her having troubble with her communication. I also never got a reply to an email volounteering. The allegations her site was hacked, do any of you believe this is a hoax?

In Norway, there have been cases of this type, there are a very limited number of people that know the programming language but they have obviously been busy. The encryption keys were in the hands of many police departments, illegaly, and there was a moment where someone figured most of the communications in the parliament were possible to listen in to by people programming the phones. They now have to be shut off a lot there.

"Complicating our effort is the fact that even as we hoped to provide a platform to publicize and illuminate her efforts, Ms. Harris had returned none of the messages left on her own voicemail by Countdown staffers since she spoke to our staffers briefly, twice, during the week of November 8. Only today did she even get back in touch with us, and was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown."

How many of the issues you have seen reported with her could be explained by someone interfering with her communication?

I know this sounds like a leading question to some of you, but please give it a real thought, like, count, before you go on bashing the Bev.

I read a report that when Diebold reached settlement with the voting suit, their shares increased 10% instantly. She is potentionally costing some people alot more than the wage of say a half decent psychologist and a reasonably skilled hacker. I don´t have any proof, but there are some significant hints from her reactions at the Randi show, and in her own forums.

The same way I don´t see my enemy in her, I don´t see my enemy in the people in this thread, I think it is too hot, though, in this game we need to have cool heads.

_________________

I noticed this on her board as I wrote this, I believe it to be relevant to some of the discussion here;

...

About 20 people wrote to me with questions after the Randi Rhodes show. I spoke with one of Randi Rhodes’ producers this morning, and had a very good conversation. There was a misunderstanding, and we discussed ways to deal with it.

Some of Rhodes’ listeners asked for an accounting of donations. Here is more information:

I founded Black Box Voting in June, 2004, and to provide its seed money, I donated my revenues and the rights to the Black Box Voting book. In addition, I persuaded two benefactors to provide $10,000 each. This yielded just under $30,000, and the entire organization survived on that for many months -- two full-time salaries, supplies, travel, investigations, press conferences, web site development and all.

I knew it would be a tough go of it to take an organization with almost no funding (and therefore no infrastructure -- no administrative support, no equipment, no development director, no business manager, no secretary) and turn it into a viable long-term organization to do consumer protection for elections.

I was fortunate to find six courageous, ethical, and committed people to serve on the board of directors. A well-known author, Will Pitt, has apparently been reporting that three members of the board are my family members. This is incorrect, but I am lucky enough to have one member of my family on the board, Thalia Dudley, my sister-in-law. She is a tremendous asset to the board. Other board members were chosen for the combination of strengths they possess, and are not related to me whatsoever.

We believed that our organization would survive, because in the 12 weeks before and after the election, interest would peak and we could, hopefully, obtain enough donations to put in an infrastructure and get some basic computer and telecommunications equipment, in addition to some administrative staff. We are also aware that for our organization, this kind of fund raising will happen only every four years, and it will be a challenge to stay alive in the mean time.

From September through November, members of our organization did over 300 interviews, including international wire service stories and TV spots on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, and many local stations. We also provided interviews for over 100 print media outlets, like newspapers and magazines. Five members of Black Box Voting conducted interviews, many of us nonstop for months on end. Randi Rhodes was one such interview, and of course I appreciate what she did to fund raise.

One thing that caused a miscommunication, I think, is that I did not know that Randi Rhodes was going to do the fund raising. I learned about it after it started, when I was in a meeting, when to my astonishment my phone lost its mind. Apparently my cell phone number was being given out over Air America.

The fund raising was specifically for Freedom of Information requests, and was never for the purpose of overturning an election. I am confident that Randi Rhodes was accurate about that, because the letters we got with donations had notes saying "heard about you on Randi Rhodes, this is for the FOIA."

American people were hurting, because they saw that the election was not transparent or accountable. Some people began to hope that Black Box Voting would reverse the presidential election.

Now, let's look at this idea for a moment: John Kerry literally ran away from the idea of doing any auditing or recounts, and only grudgingly agreed to be involved at all. He invested none of millions that he had raised from his donors was "to make sure every vote counts."

Instead, our small organization, with just two full time employees and a volunteer, were supposed to bootstrap our way into overturning a presidential election -- without the support of the candidate himself -- something that has never been done in history, and an activity that our nonpartisan nonprofit 501c(3) status specifically prohibits.

I hear the angst in America, from people who know this election was not trustworthy. I do believe that the person most responsible for failure to get an accountable election is John Kerry himself.

A handful of people mailed us checks with the words "for a recount" on them. I think this was due to the proximity, I’m sure accidentally, of news about the Ralph Nader recount with news about Black Box Voting’s FOIA request and auditing.

We were careful to identify those checks, and made arrangements for these to go to Help America Recount, a 527 organization that is set up for this purporse. Our nonprofit status does not allow us to become involved in recounts.

I am also confident that most people donated for exactly what we do, because most checks -- when they say anything -- say "for auditing" or "for the FOIA" or "help restore clean elections."

Our financial statements will be released with a precise accounting, but here are interim figures as of the end of November:

Donations tagged to Randi Rhodes show: $23,800
All donations, some of which we have allocated to building infrastructure and off-election funding droughts:
About $300,000

We have spent or committed about $19,000 of the $23,800 Randi Rhodes money. This was for FOIA requests and related legal expenses.

(By "committed" I mean that Palm Beach County has assessed $4,400, but is now saying we can't have all the records, so of course we haven't handed over the money yet, and Snohomish County, which wants $2500, suddenly got caught up in a hand recount for the governor's race and couldn't deliver some of the documents).

- Our board of directors has taken no compensation at all.
- Kathleen Wynne -- bless her! -- has taken no compensation at all, though she has devoted week after week of 14-hour-a-day work specifically for our organization. We have offered her a position. She has more than earned it!
- My salary is $60,000 per year, about half what I was making before I took on this mission.
- Andy Stephenson was making $48,000 per year.

We are replacing the Associate Director position with two people: A media specialist/investigator and an administrator, and we will incur considerable expense in our end of year accounting. We are putting in infrastructure, including more permanent office space, a decent phone system, a decent computer system, a high speed scanner to get the FOIA documents on the Web, and a much better Web site under new hosting.

This will add one salary, and will add fixed cost for office space and additional accounting. In addition, we need to bring in a development director to write grant proposals and set up a permanent fund raising structure.

In our travels, I have learned that this is truly a nonpartisan issue. Everyone wants clean elections, and everyone realizes that having a wholly independent organization, completely funded by the grass roots for the purpose of acting as a watchdog for elections, is a very important thing to do.

Now, as to why I did not travel to Ohio: I have testified in front of the legislature many times. Each time, I was asked to do so. I was not asked to go to Ohio and testify, and I certainly wouldn’t just barge in without an invitation. I did let people of influence know that I would be happy to go to Ohio to do whatever is needed. I am not printing their names here, because that seems like an invasion of privacy. One is a lawyer who has been helping with the recount, one has been involved in strategy, and one is a leading Ohio voting integrity group head.

I remain willing to go on Randi Rhodes show, go on Keith Olbermann’s show, or go to Ohio for the hearings, but I do need an invitation to do so.

I hope this answers at least some of your questions.

Have a blessed day,

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting