Diebold to Settle with California (2.6 Million)

[rman]

Diebold to Settle with California
December 17, 2004
By Clint Boulton
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/344969...

A California court has approved a $2.6 million settlement between Diebold and the State of California and Alameda County. The state and county had sued Diebold for fraudulent claims about the security of its electronic voting machines.

Diebold, whose subsidiary Diebold Election Systems manufactures the voting machines at the heart of the suit, will pay the state $2.6 million, and Alameda County another $100,000.

The court ordered that $500,000 of the lump sum be used to help form a voter education and poll worker training program in California, coordinated through the University of California Institute of Governmental Studies.

<snip>

The settlement is the fruit of a suit filed in September by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who argued that Diebold was not truthful about the security and reliability of its electronic voting machines.

<more>

===

Looks like Greg Palast knew what he was talking about when he wrote the book "The best Democracy money can buy".

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. In Florida, there is a statue, I believe it's somewhere in the 69 range,

that prohibits a government entity from entering into a confidentiality clause in a civil suit. Obviously, it's because the public deserves to be protected from unscrupulous or incompetent people. Does California have the same statute?

[lthuedk]

2. The state should not have allowed a settlement, particularly now.

This matter should have been forced to trial rather than allow the weasels to escape the scrutiny they fully deserve.

This "settlement" will be revisited, I assure you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. How do you revisit a settlement if both parties have agreed to the

terms? The only way would be on the basis of a public interest. In that case, could someone file a Friend of the Court Brief? Or is that not the correct procedure?

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Who's going to revisit it?

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org