ATS: Diebold Whistle Blower Faces Felony Charges

Originally posted by soficrow
JEEZ!

This is an important story!

Why is no one discussing the story?!

I was doing some research first and have a couple of things that bother me.

First I want to say that Diebold was wrong there is not doubt about, yet at the very same time the defendant/whistle-blower was also wrong.

Why did he steal the documents in the first place? I agree he should have reported them for wrong doing, but he should have used legal channels and not taken things in his own hands. I believe the right thing to do would have been to report his findings to authorities and tell them where they could find the evidence and let them get a search warrant to obtain the proof legally.


When I first saw this story the first thing that came to mind was oh oh here we go again, another series of rants about politicians and parties, alleging wrong doing to rig the elections, which as I understand it is now a no no on ATSN. Also being very honest I did not see the conspiracy angle. I checked out the yahoo link and found the link

www.blackboxvoting.org...

which lead to the event logs here

www.bbvforums.org...

I then looked up their data sheets and was somewhat myth-ed by the excel sheets and thought perhaps this was just another activist group trying to make a big deal out of what might be easily explained, I.e. machine testing. Also the list looks real long but in fact there are not as many sheets there as they claim, several link to 404 not found errors. That also had me wondering about the intetnions.

The xls worksheets do not make it very clear just what took place in some cases and I am still somewhat confused in that area. Can anyone else make sense out of them?

Now to recap I do feel that Diebold should have been reported as should the lawyer, but I do not feel the proper channels were followed.

BTW, SO, I was one of the No not rights but only for one reason and that was I thought it was going to turn into nothing but a political debate, had I seen the conspriacy angle I would have voted yes.

Do you think that if proper channels had been followed that these documents would have been revealed? I have serious doubts about that.

Originally posted by shots
Now to recap I do feel that Diebold should have been reported as should the lawyer, but I do not feel the proper channels were followed.

Oh Bull. If proper channels had been followed we would have no story because the-powers-that-be would have buried this guy before the story ever reached the media. The point of beating on this whistleblower now is to send a message intended to silence other possible whistleblowers in the future.

BTW, SO, I was one of the No not rights but only for one reason and that was I thought it was going to turn into nothing but a political debate, had I seen the conspriacy angle I would have voted yes.

It sounds to me like you are kissing up because SO posted the article. I am certain that you would not have responded in this contrite manner had I posted the article.

It appears to me that you are the one guilty of the partisan political voting on ATS articles which you imply others are doing.
.

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think that if proper channels had been followed that these documents would have been revealed? I have serious doubts about that.

I honestly do not know, although I would like to think it is.

I would assume if he had obtained a good attorney, that lawyer would have a good idea who would be the most honest assistant DA to contact. Also I would get more then one lawyers opinion first, because in most cases the first consultation is free.

Also if lawyers can shop for good trial dates to get good/fair judges, why would this be any different?

shots

You know Shots you bring a good point, going through the proper channels would have been ok and the right thing to do legally.

But even you have to see what has been going on in our government and with our administration, it seems that is to much secrecy or just anything that gets public attention is deemed criminal.

Originally posted by marg6043

But even you have to see what has been going on in our government and with our administration, it seems that is to much secrecy or just anything that gets public attention is deemed criminal.

Marg this is at a state level not federal.

Also it would appear that Diebold has ironed out the kinks in the systems and California has now certified them as 100% accurate as of their 2005 election. This was not the case in the 2002 and 2004 elections.


California Tests Find Diebold Touch-Screen Voting 100 Percent Accurate During November 2005 Election

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by marg6043

But even you have to see what has been going on in our government and with our administration, it seems that is to much secrecy or just anything that gets public attention is deemed criminal.

Marg this is at a state level not federal.

Also it would appear that Diebold has ironed out the kinks in the systems and California has now certified them as 100% accurate as of their 2005 election. This was not the case in the 2002 and 2004 elections.


California Tests Find Diebold Touch-Screen Voting 100 Percent Accurate During November 2005 Election

You're kidding, right? Diebold's OWN site, complete with links to investment opportunities?

Let's see who's in power there at the state level. Hmm. Something smell fishy, even away from the coast.

BTW, can you leave the

quotes

close to the end of your posts to make it easier for members that aren't so familliar with BB code?

Originally posted by intrepid
You're kidding, right? Diebold's OWN site, complete with links to investment opportunities?

Let's see who's in power there at the state level. Hmm. Something smell fishy, even away from the coast.

Nice try but will not fly, the machines were originally ordered by Governor Gray Davis or I should say the state house/senate under him. Arnold was not elected until 2003.

We have them here in certain areas not all and we have a democrat for governor. I would assume, but am not sure states let out bids for them.

It just so happens the first machines had bugs, happens with almost anything that is computer controlled. Look at your windoz machine in front of you (assuming you have one) it might be a MAC. If it is a windoz though Microsoft has known of many security issues for years and only since XP have they really addressed the flaws as they should and we all know it, yet we still use them don't we?

I am sure you get my point, everything that is designed will have certain flaws when the first models come out that need to be fixed.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
You're kidding, right? Diebold's OWN site, complete with links to investment opportunities?

Let's see who's in power there at the state level. Hmm. Something smell fishy, even away from the coast.

Nice try but will not fly, the machines were originally ordered by Governor Gray Davis or I should say the state house/senate under him. Arnold was not elected until 2003.

Nice try, good analogy. When were these tests you're talking about taking place? During Gray's tenure? I'm thinking NO. See my point?

No? Let's look again. California Tests Find Diebold Touch-Screen Voting 100 Percent Accurate During November 2005 Election. 2 years after Ahnold was elected.

Hmm. if Gray had Diebold he would probably still be in office.

Next round! Wanna go again?

Not only did it fly, it went international.

Originally posted by intrepid
[Nice try, good analogy. When were these tests you're talking about taking place? During Gray's tenure? I'm thinking NO. See my point?

No? Let's look again. California Tests Find Diebold Touch-Screen Voting 100 Percent Accurate During November 2005 Election. 2 years after Ahnold was elected.

Hmm. if Gray had Diebold he would probably still be in office.

Next round! Wanna go again?

I thought that we were not to bring up politics or have the rules changed?

Can we stick to the topic at hand which is the individual who has been charged?

I have made my points regarding the charges against him, what are you points?

Originally posted by shots
I thought that we were not to bring up politics or have the rules changed?

Can we stick to the topic at hand which is the individual who has been charged?

I have made my points regarding the charges against him, what are you points?

Tactical withdrawl, smart move.

As to the topic, I don't have the faith in the system that you do. If it had gone proper chanels we wouldn't even know about it.

Edit to add: I guess I got my answer to this:

Originally posted by intrepid
Next round! Wanna go again?

[edit on 28-2-2006 by intrepid]

Originally posted by intrepid


Tactical withdrawl, smart move.

No withdrawal here just trying to follow the rules.

As to the topic, I don't have the faith in the system that you do. If it had gone proper chanels we wouldn't even know about it.

It is not the system, it is the laws in the system. Ever heard the saying two wrongs do not make a right? States could avoid situations as this if they had laws similar to some of federal whistle-blower laws. In this case one person did not follow the law and I truly feel he could have avoided the situation had he followed a procedure similar to the one I laid out earlier.

Edit to add: I guess I got my answer to this:

Originally posted by intrepid
Next round! Wanna go again?

See Above

SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
...the observed results show an inability for conspiracy-themed stories to be approved that are politically sensitive.

Also, I had 18 "No Bias" votes and 9 "No not right" votes on this submission.

That's unfortunate.

I'm curious why you think that is? In other words, why is there such a disparate number of "No Bias" votes?

I also wonder why you just don't remove that option. The remaining "no" options seem appropriate. My thought would be to continue to have MODS, or designated "editors", make the initial decision as to whether a story has "conspiracy" merit, (or whatever goal you are seeking for ATSNN), and have the members vote on stories based upon technical form.

Just my $0.02.


shots

Originally posted by shots
First I want to say that Diebold was wrong there is not doubt about, yet at the very same time the defendant/whistle-blower was also wrong.

I disagree. But first, let's be clear. This is a criminal prosecution, and not a civil claim being brought by Diebold. Indeed, as I believe the article pointed out, whistleblower legislation protects the defendant from such civil claims, but not criminal prosecutions...a SERIOUS FLAW in the whistleblower statute, imo...

That should be changed. My bet is that the legislature never contemplated that a criminal prosecution would be initiated unilaterally by an arm of the state in such cases. What could be more blatantly political and contrary to the intent behind whistleblower legislation?

I wonder how many other states inadvertently fail to protect whistleblowers from criminal prosecution?

Originally posted by shots
Why did he steal the documents in the first place? I agree he should have reported them for wrong doing, but he should have used legal channels and not taken things in his own hands...

As you will see later in this post....not likely.


Regenmacher

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Tell the DA to go to hell and drop the charges at:

LA District Attorney's Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (213) 974-3512
Fax: (213) 974-1484
TTY: (800) 457-7778 (8:30am - 5:00pm M-F)

Good luck! I checked into this office. Here is what I found....


Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley

Nice bio! Sounds like a read stand up guy...

But not when you dig into what others really think about him. For example:

Uncommon Sense

It’s been three years since Steve Cooley stunned the political establishment by trouncing incumbent District Attorney Gil Garcetti. Now it’s Cooley who’s the incumbent, with $700,000 in his campaign chest and no prominent opponents when he runs for reelection next March. Cooley looks like a winner, until you look at his record.

Cooley campaigned as a reformer, and in his first weeks on the job he acted that way, targeting just the sort of prosecutions he demanded of Garcetti. He created separate task forces to investigate the city’s two biggest scandals: police misconduct at the Rampart division and malfeasance at the school board’s disastrous Belmont development. But after the press conferences and all the hoopla, both task forces were disbanded with no charges being filed.

Now a Los Angeles Times investigation reveals just how far Cooley will go to avoid bringing a tough case. At the height of the DA’s investigation into Belmont, prosecutors turned up a raft of allegations of bribery and influence-peddling against Art Gastelum, a longtime City Hall insider with a reputation for shady dealings. Among the informants were a former county sheriff’s deputy and a detective at the LAPD. Both offered detailed information and leads to key participants, yet the DA ignored them...

Or, how about this?

Courting Trouble

STEVE COOLEY PROMISED TO LEAVE THE POLITICKING BEHIND ONCE ELECTED L.A. COUNTY’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY. TEN MONTHS LATER, HE IS DOGGED BY CHARGES OF FAVORITISM, QUESTIONABLE ETHICS, AND POOR JUDGMENT — AND THOSE ARE FROM HIS SUPPORTERS

...

Although support for Cooley appears to remain high in the office, the honeymoon is over. There is mounting discontent over a variety of issues, including charges that Cooley chose some top managers for their political support and friendship rather than their ability or experience, that he has retaliated against Garcetti supporters in the office, and that he decided to pursue several splashy criminal cases that had more publicity value than legal merit...

Much, much more!

Here is the opinion of a former aide who worked for Cooley:

While Cooley has brought a number of anti-corruption prosecutions against local officials in smaller cities, he has a tendency to go after “little people” while wealthier and more prominent individuals are allowed to walk away unscathed, Patchett said.

Source.

Remember the bit above about "he has retaliated against Garcetti supporters in the office"? Look at what he did to this newspaper:

Metropolitan News Company Sues Cooley Over Warrant

The company that publishes the Metropolitan News-Enterprise and Roger M. Grace, the paper’s editor and co-publisher, sued Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley yesterday over a May 2 raid by investigators executing a search warrant on the company’s downtown office.

The complaint by the Metropolitan News Company, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and damages and stems from investigators’ quest for documents they said related to a probe of possible government corruption in South Gate.

A group of about 10 investigators closed the company’s offices, located at 210 S. Spring St., for three hours, ordered reporters and other employees out of the building and threatened a search of all company offices, including the newsroom, as they served the warrant. The company, which also publishes several other newspapers, was one of 15 locations across the county where warrants were served in connection with the South Gate investigation.

The warrant, issued by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Pounders, authorized a search of “all rooms, safes, locked boxes, files, desks, and other parts therein, the surrounding grounds, vehicles, storage areas, trash containers, and outbuildings of any kind—any containers including all purses and wallets found in the care/custody and/or control of ADVERTISEMENT, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, EDITING and/or ANY OFFICE WHICH CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ALBRIGHT, YEE AND SCHMIDT [sic] PLACING PUBLICATIONS ON RECALL OF SOUTH GATE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.”

More...

But look at what this article says about the raid:

Cooley’s Raid on Newspaper Premises Stemmed From Investigative Boner

At last it is learned what it was that the Office of District Attorney Steve Cooley was after when 11 armed investigators raided the premises of the Metropolitan News Company on May 2, 2002.

The raid coincided with those taking place throughout the county in connection with a probe of possible political corruption in the City of South Gate.

The immediate purpose conveyed at the time of the raid was to gain evidence as to the identity of the law firm that had placed a notice of intent to recall a South Gate official that was published in this newspaper. The ultimate purpose of gaining that information is now bared.

...

It is now seen that no actual investigative purpose existed in connection with the raid.

Read more to learn why...

See what the Metropolitan News says about the raid.

Look at these choice stories:

Lawyer May Sue Cooley for Prosecutorial Misconduct—Ninth Circuit

Cooley Unwilling to Fight Corruption, Opponent Says in Belmont Campaign Kickoff

What was the real reason for the raid? Harassment, because they www.metnews.com...:70%3BLW:30 0%3BGL:1%3BBGC:%23FFFFFF%3BT:%23000000%3BLC:%230000CC%3BVLC:%230000CC%3BALC:%230000CC%3BGALT:%23008000%3BGFNT:%23000000%3BGIMP:%23000000%3BDIV:%230000 CC%3BLBGC:%23FFFFFF%3BAH:center%3B&domains=www.metnews.com&sitesearch=www.metnews.com&start=0&sa=N" target="_blank" class="postlink">cover him so closely?

I wonder if there is connection between this list:

Jones Day Los Angeles Directory

and these lists:

D.A. Steve Cooley Officeholder Account

Committee to Re-elect Steve Cooley


What really motivated this criminal prosecution???? ...because I'm not buyin' the "it's-wrong-what-the-whistleblower-did" argument.

I have a feeling all appeals made to this office are likely to fall of deaf ears. What do you think?

This thing stinks to high heaven. :shk:

Shots:

So much for trusting the process....

This guy looks like an easily bought, self-interested puppet.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by shots
No withdrawal here just trying to follow the rules.

And you would be right, thank you. My apologies to all for going off topic.

If you would care to continue this debate shots, you can find it on topic here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by loam
Shots:

So much for trusting the process....

This guy looks like an easily bought, self-interested puppet.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by loam]

Nowhere in the article does it state he is handling the case that was an assumption by Regen. They have a staff of 948 ADA's anyone of them might be handling the case.

da.co.la.ca.us...

The article as I recall mentioned a Sandi Gibbons but I do not know if she is an ADA, she may just be a PR person.

I also did a search for Stephen Heller in the Superior court of LA but as of this time no files are shown, so we have to take a wait and see attitude before jumping to the conclusion He is handling the case himself.

Shots

I am dumbfounded that you think the DA has no influence on this case, whether or not he directly "handles" it, as you put it.

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I think you have brought that to an entirely new level... :shk:

Well, the DA does have a significant role of choosing which cases to pursue, or not pursue... so it might be relivant.

If not, then the appeals might get to someone who cares...
If he is involved directly, then a noticable amount of public pressure and oversight, might at least make him think twice...

But again... If you email... be nice... or at least respectful... and probably not a good idea to point out this guys questionable judgements and ethics...

Originally posted by loam
Shots

I am dumbfounded that you think the DA has no influence on this case, whether or not he directly "handles" it, as you put it.

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I think you have brought that to an entirely new level... :shk:

Like I said I am not sure. That is why I prefer to take a wait and see attitude rather then to jump to conclusions as you and Regen seem to be doing.

My point is unless he handles the case personally and is in the actual court room, no one really knows what will happen. Yes I do realize he can have some influence, but I would tend to think he might just hint at what kind of approach he would take while assuming his ADA will do just what he suggests. We all know you can make the very best of plans only to find out we are diverted by road construction for a trip. In this case the ADA might have to change tactics do to an answer they get in the court room; I am sure you get my drift.



[edit on 3/1/2006 by shots]

Just to be clear, the implication I think is in play by my research was that the decision to prosecute was potentially motivated by political reasons. Given the guy's track record, it's not like that would be a far fetched story.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by intrepid
You're kidding, right? Diebold's OWN site, complete with links to investment opportunities?

So you are saying that a company cannot correct mistakes on it's own programs? Or maybe you are sugesting that someone else makes the correction, and maybe even steal the technology, from other companies?

Originally posted by intrepid
Let's see who's in power there at the state level. Hmm. Something smell fishy, even away from the coast.

Unless you have evidence that there is something fishy it is only your opinion based on "your own bias", whatever your bias might be.