Slashdot Mirror
Diebold Whistle-Blower Charged With Felony Access
Vicissidude writes "An employee of law firm Jones Day found legal memos showing that their client, Diebold Election Systems, had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002 - violating California election law. The whistle-blower turned over the memos to the Oakland Tribune, which published the legal memos on its website in April 2004. The company's AccuVote-TSx model was subsequently banned in May 2004. Now, the whistle-blower, Stephen Heller, has been charged in L.A. Superior Court with felony access to computer data, commercial burglary, and receiving stolen property. If convicted on all three counts, Heller could face up to three years and eight months in state prison. Blair Berk, Heller's attorney state, "Certainly, someone who saw those documents could have reasonably believed that thousands of voters were going to be potentially disenfranchised in upcoming elections." Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the L.A. County district attorney's office rebuts, "He's accused of breaking the law... If we feel that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt in our minds that a crime has been committed, it's our job as a criminal prosecutor to file a case.""
And in other news, whistle-blower Charleton Heston has been charged with attempts to incite a riot as well as breaking and entering at a government food production facility. Although the production of their main product was found to use human beings as a source for protein and flavoring agents, Mr. Heston has been brought into custody.
His public outcries of "Soylent Green is people!" led to a riot that left 4 people dead and many hospitalized in various conditions.
"He did not have clearance to enter the facility. He broke the law, and that's that", said the prosecuting attorney while nibbling on a cube of Soylent Yellow.
The NRA President faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Most of what I know about the legal system I learned from watching Law & Order, so maybe a real lawyer can pipe in here: Would the whistle blower's work be protected from disclosure as attorney-client work product? But if the information he had was evidence of a continuing criminal conspiracy, wouldn't the attorney-client privledge be invalidated? BTW, the man (Stephen Heller) was not an employee (as started in the blurb), but a subcontractor. Does this change the legal questions?
One thing that I don't need a JD to see is that the prosecutors have their work cut out for them in convincing a jury that this man deserves to go to prision. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a politician who's up for reelection in November introduce and grandstand over some new legistlation that would have protected this guy.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Try charging Diebold for fraud you dipshits
...that he "found" these memos, does it actually mean that he broke the law to gain access to them in the first place?
Game dev and music blog
doesn't make his actions ok.
If this is not summarily dismissed for the crock it is, Whistleblowing in this country will officially be dead, federal protections notwithstanding.
Living here is becoming creepier and creepier, I think some of Katz's old paranoid ramblings here may not have been so paranoid.
You say you want a revolution....
"Certainly, someone who saw those documents could have reasonably believed that thousands of voters were going to be potentially disenfranchised in upcoming elections."
So let me get this straight. His "crime" was the fact he alert people to the fact that the local elections were flawed due to the use of uncertified equipment? Is it their argument that because of this people might have disengaged from local politics and that hurts society and thus requires punishment? That's not just absurd, it's scarey.
He's accused of breaking the law... If we feel that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt in our minds that a crime has been committed, it's our job as a criminal prosecutor to file a case.
No it is not. It is your job to prosecute if the following criteria are met:
While the first criteria may well be true, the second one is not. As an aside, pne of the assignments that my brother was asked when he was studying for his law degree was to answer the following question: "Given the fact that Parliament can make any law it pleases, without being constrained by the decisions of previous Parliaments, would the courts uphold a law that sactioned the execution of every blue-eyed baby in the country."
The answer is no. Technically, the court would be obliged to rule in favour of Parliament. This is because we do not have a written constitution that safeguards our rights [1]. However, the view is that the courts would never uphold this because of it's incredible abhorence.
The point of the excercise is to demonstrate one thing to woodbie lawyers: "Just because it's the law does not make it right." Morality and law are seperate beasts. Lying to your wife is immoral but it not a crime. In this case he may have broken the law, but frankly I think that is price worth paying for the value of the information he gave us. What he did was a crime but it was not immoral and did not seek to undermine society.
Simon
[1] - This is becoming less and less true. While in terms of legal theory it is certain that Parliament is not constrained by the decisions of previous Parliaments, in practice this isn't true. There are some acts that would be pretty much impossible to repeal. The European Communities Act (ECA) is a prime example of this kind of legislation. While it's legally possible to repeal the act doing so would require leaving the European Union which will never happen.
Thanks to the ECA, we are slowly acquiring a constitution. The Human Rights Act of 1998 was derived from the European Convention on Human Rights and was the first act of Parliament to acknowledge our fundamental rights in the positive. (i.e. Paraliment stating we have these rights explictly rather than simply failing to prohibit these actions).
Is this lost in the political posturing of a grandstanding procecutor?
How can one balance the voter fraud versus the revealing of "trade secrets?"
More and more it is of the People, for the rich, by the ownership class.
*mumbles about the revolution and walls*
And in a off-shore bank account someplace, money changes hands.
Only three years and eight months? That is sickening!!! He should be in prison for the rest of his life and be subjected to anal rape and be forced to give blow jobs. He is a TERRORIST!!!! Please Mr. Bush, deal with this terrorist how he should be dealt with!!! GAS HIM!!!!!
If the government breaks into your computer without a warrant and steals information about you, it's illegal.
Why shouldn't it be illegal for some random lawyer to break into computers? The fact that he found evidence of criminal activity does not justify the means he used to get it.
The whistle-blower turned over the memos to the Oakland Tribune
There's something seriously fucked with our public trust in this country. Why would this guy take this stuff to the media instead of the appropriate government authorities? Shouldn't he at least have tried to go through official channels first? It's not like the 'media' option would have gone away had those attempts failed.
There are plenty of ways he could have accomplished all the same things without breaking the law.
The documents included legal memos from one Jones Day attorney to another regarding allegations by activists that Diebold had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002.
And so, once more, the American public has been saved from a shameful case of fraud by its justice system, ensuring that decent, law-abiding citizens everywhere will fear for their lives if they point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Was what he did wrong? By the law, yes; by morality, no. If you know something bad is happening and you're in a position to do something about it, shouldn't you? Is that what the whole Enron trial is, pointing out that the people in the know not only didn't do anything about the destruction of the company, they helped it along. When was someone at Enron going to stand up and say, "hey guys, you're doing bad things."
But that's just it. They had to pass laws to protect whistle-blowers in the first place, because once you did it, you had a bullseye painted squarely on your back. It was the only way to assure people that they could speak up about the wrongs they were seeing committed every day. And yet those protections do not go far enough as evidenced by this, where the old saw "no good deed goes unpunished" has apparently been made law of the land. All Ican say is, I hope this does not get pursued or there will be a freezinf effect that will allow big business to continue to steamroll people everywhere.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Well, Heller is learning the modern lesson about corporations: if you cross them, they will slap (SLAPP?) you down HARD. The harder you cross them, the harder they will slap you down. In this case, crossing a highly Republican corporation in a politically-charged topic, the victim is facing THREE FELONIES.
Of course, if it were me, I'd go to prison with a big, shit-eating grin on my face. The corporations are trying to Rule the Earth, and so this is a war between normal citizens and the elite. In war, people get hurt; I accept that. Heller may be a necessary sacrifice. He can eat at my dinner table anytime, and he can always ask me for a job when he gets out of prison. I hope there are many citizens who feel the same way and will help him when he needs it.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
I can't imagine they* (the LA county DAs) would prosecute him just for leaking the fact that the machines were uncertified. They listed the charges, but what actions did he take to get those charges?
Is he being prosecuted for taking part in the use of illegal voting machines? Is he being prosecuted for leaking diebold source? It couldn't just be for telling people about the illegal voting machines.
Something doesn't quite add up here, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to defend him. Why does the
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You read this and your blood runs cold. It makes you wonder what would happen to George Washington if he was attempting to break the colonies from Britain today.
Sometimes government becomes so complacent, the people accepting of crap, that both need a good house cleaning.
In any event, this country needs a reminder of what the founding fathers had in mind when they formed this country.
It's all quite sad.
...let's first kill the messenger.
More accurate product name: AccuVote-TehSux
Man that guy was bold for trying to show that Diebold was acting fraudulently.
Send him directly to jail, that'll show him! Problem solved!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It's a Good Thing.
I'll never have to serve on a jury as I find it my civic duty to ask a question relevant to the case that forces the judge to explain that concept to those jurors who _are_ allowed to stay. The job of the jury is to ensure that _justice_ is done, not that the law is followed. If they determine that application of the law is itself unjust, they are absolutely 100% in their rights to find "not guilty," even if every single shred of evidence screams out otherwise.
As much as I hate Diebold and like the idea of whistleblowing, I'm not sure it should be encouraged in the case of legal memos. People and companies alike should have the right to discuss legalities, even illegal or unethical situations, in privacy. If they actually violate the law, as opposed to just generally being scumbags, you can get them for that. Probably you could have the DA start an investigation without publicly leaking memos.
You never know who's on the payoff in this government thing. I wonder how he got caught.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Seriously, though, I can see where the Attorney's office would be upset about someone taking legal memos from a law office. I mean, it wasn't a Diebold memo, TFA said it was a memo between two of Diebold's lawyers, and that is the property of the law office.
On another note, it seems that with all the "errors", faulty machines and mysterious voting numbers, uncertified changes 1 week before the election, etc., I still personally go with my first statement.
This is the United States. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.
Whether or not you'll win (or avoid barratry charges) is a separate story.
Go ahead and prosecute him, I say. Whistleblower laws and anti-SLAPP laws should cover him. For a case as important as this, he'll definitely have the EFF and the ACLU behind him.
This is an instance, in my opinion, where jury nullification (http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07 JuryNullification.html ) would apply. The law in this case is harmful to the public because it would have kept the information hidden.
He should of just blew some CIA operatives cover. He would be guaranteed not to be charged that way.
I think the explaination can be found in this court transcript:
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: It is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.
source:
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~diatchki/jokes/court.html
When everyone is afraid to speak, there will be no dissenting voices.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Common Law only has two parts that've been discovered thus far:
Civil law is when someone says "there oughta be a law". Legislators make shit up, try to pass it off as Law. Think of the damage done by drug laws. Yah, drugs are bad, but drug prohibition is worse.
No harm, no foul, no conviction.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
L.A. has a Parliament?
Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
Applies well enough to prison sentences in today's United Soviet States, don't it? Congratulations, you've first seemingly defeated your old enemy only to replace it in the end.
Looks like it may be time for jury nullification.
Seastead this.
here in mexico, a tapped phone conversation was published to a TV station. The conversation was between a governor and a man charged with pedophilia. In the conversation they agreed to punish the journalist who published facts about the pedophile. They wanted to jail her and have her raped there.
:-/
The federal government has asked for an investigation about acts of corruption and abuse of power by this governor... but also one about phone tapping
Charge the Sec of State with malfeasance (the commission (as by a public official) of a wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties) and nonfeasance (the failure or omission to do something that should be done or esp. something that one is under a duty or obligation to do), charge Diebold with FRAUD as a disenfranched voter, and refer the lawfirm Jones Day to the ethics board in the state.......That'll Teach Em!
The "whistleblower" status is for people who know that something dirty and wrong is going on and turn over their evidence to internal agencies of the government to deal with it. A whistleblower takes his knowledge and does not go public with it. This guy mailed this stuff to the newspapers, that's why he's in trouble. Had he contacted any one of a dozen agencies to handle the complaint, he'd be in no legal trouble. The whisteblower law would protect him. THat's why all these "leakers" are landing in hot water. WE learned from Watergate that if you go public with something incriminating, you become a hero to the media. So now people leak all kinds of shit trying to be the next "Deep Throat." Well, that's not why we have whistleblower laws. The whistleblower law is to protect a consciencious objector to an unlawful government practice. In this case, a company working on the government dole breaking the law. If the guy wanted legal protection to busing Diebold on their shitball hardware, there's a legal recourse to do so. He didn't use it. He leaked to the goddam newspaper. That's exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do. He's geetting what he deserves. Now, if only Diebold can be held to the same standard.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Perhaps if he'd gone to the PROPER authorities instead of a newspaper, he might not be in the hot water he's in.
the documents were stored in a filesystem with
username: user
password: password
George Orwell may eventually be referred to as a prophet. Granted, 1984 is 22 years ago, but "utopia" is running a little behind.
Just remember, no go deed goes unpunished.
If in doubt, ask what Robocop would do:
1: Serve the public trust.
2: Protect the innocent.
3: Uphold the law.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It has always been the tradition in America to distrust the government, and the media has historically been the most powerful way of keeping the government in check. Going to the media is exactly what any kind of government whistle-blower should do!
Remember this: Government is EVIL (but necessary). To think otherwise is un-American.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Look, this is the California court system in action - that's all.
Everyone who has lived there knows it is fucked up. That is how some dude who rapes and cuts off the arms of a 15 year old goes free after doing some time and there are riots there every ten years or so. You are fully familiar with cases concerning OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson aren't you, dear reader?
California is simply a mess. I am so glad I moved out of there.
Sure, it sounds horrible. Hey, that guy showed a flaw in the voting process, the fundament on which the US are (supposedly) built! He shouldn't be facing crime charges, he should be celebrated as a hero.
Ok. But he commited a crime to do just that. He "stole" the documents and gave them to someone else.
Crime justified in the name of the higher good? While I do agree in this case (even im my books, stealing from a company is peanuts compared to the fundament of democracy), think of the possible results that could come out of a verdict like this.
Would this legalize torture in the name of avoiding terrorist attacks? Hey, one terrorist getting his kneecaps clubbed in compared to thousand innocent? Higher good?
Would this legalize snooping into everyone's very private and intimate information? Some loss of privacy in change for more safety? Higher good?
I think it would justify just what is done already, but then the outcry would be silenced simply by mentioning this precendent. Any crime is justified, if done in the name of the higher goals.
Of course... one could argue now, when we're supposed to trade privacy and freedom for the "war against terror", and consider it legal, why should it be now illegal when someone is doing a far smaller crime to protect something at least as vital for the US society, the freedom and fairness of the voting process?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is what happens to whistleblowers
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You be welcoming me to Bizzarro World!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
History has shown us that jurors who refuse to look at the law and simply look to their own moral beliefs have done a lot of evil, like in the deep south where murdering a man was unpunishable if the victim was black.
The appropriate thing for this guy to do was NOT to run to the newsmedia, but rather to the appropriate authorities, with this information. A true "whistle-blower" doesn't seek for public recognition, but to work within our system of checks and balances.
Personally, going to the newsmedia these days is contemptible. They exist for the sole purpose of selling their "stuff," and long ago abandoned in pretense of "journalistic integrity," in favor of sensationalism and controversy.
I'm glad this guy got a rap on the knuckles. Further, I hope that anyone who has been dangling "the peoples' business" in front of the hungry newshounds for fun, profit and political posturing gets it, too--no matter what side of the "political fence" they're on.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Sandi Gibbons: sandi@lacountyda.org
no good deed goes unpunished. Now remember kiddies, this is why you should never whistle blow. Your life will be destroyed, while the guilty will get a slap on the wrist and 50,000 on the lecturing circuit
I see things like this all the time, and the first thing people do is jump all over the DA for filing charges. I can't believe it even has to be said, but I guess is bears repeating that it is the job of the D.A. to file charges whenever it appears that the law has been broken, REGARDLESS OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. This guy may or may not have had a good reason to do what he did, but either way, the verification of those motives is determined IN COURT, not by a D.A. I, for one, would not want any type of system whereby the District Attorney decided by his/her self whether or not the guy was in the right. That's not justice.
This is one gint step backwards for our rights. When a person who lets others know of posible corruption, and than get prosicuted for informing the public of so- called corruption, is that not corruption in its most simplelistic form???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
every person that is associated with pressing charges against this guy. For this is the face of the enemy, these are the people who are trying to destroy everything that has made this country great. He should be applauded for discovering and bringing a potential flaw in the election forward. He should be treated as an American hero, this is what a patriot is. This is one person trying to keep the democratic process alive.
All I can say is welcome to our New Labour overlords.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Another fine example that police are a bunch of pricks, who will stab you in the back for giving them useful information/leads. Submit useful information anonymously so that the powers that be cannot smite you for disrupting their political agenda.
Here's a fine and recent example : My ex-neighbor once called the police to report the disturbance of a young girl screaming, concerned that there could possibly be some kind of rape attempt. The police showed up, checked into the disturbance, then ran a background on my neighbor. Apparently he had some traffic violations on the books, so they took his license while they were there.
Yes, the guy in the article broke the law. But there's an older law about biting the hand that feeds you.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
Oddly enough, if you look at the creation of our legal system, the authors were quite intent on creating one whose SOLE purpose was to ensure justice, not utility and certainly not expedience.
You know, the reason why it is the Department of JUSTICE, not the Department of LAW.
From slashdot: "An employee of law firm Jones Day found legal memos showing that their client, Diebold Election Systems, had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002 - violating California election law."
From the la times: In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified voting systems violated California election law and that if Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract. The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were exploring whether the California secretary of state had the authority to investigate the company for alleged election law violations.
In other words, the documents didn't show that Diebold did anything wrong. Just that their lawyers were discussing the law.
I think this case has probably more to do with a law firm protecting its confidentiality and the security of it's documents, than Diebold protecting itself from exposure.
Diebold recently won approval from California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to start selling the machines again in California. As long as they make them "secure".
especially for whistle-blowers.
Here, the main issue, aside from the L.A. Prosecutor having the appearnce of being in the pocket of special interests and not representing the best interests of the public, is that there does not appear to be any law that protects him from prosecution.
From TFA: "Although state law protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by their employers, they can still be criminally prosecuted, said Tom Devine, legal director at the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project.
"It's very rare that it's successful," he said. "It's a tactic where the primary goal may be to scare other would-be whistle-blowers rather than a realistic attempt to obtain a conviction."
My thoughts exactly.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
body or the subject.
emt 377 emt 4
Exactly. We wouldn't want the gov't to break into our homes, autos, place of business just because they "think" there's illegal activity going on; we require them to have some proof. If the whistleblower had some serious reason to believe criminal activity had taken place, then he should have reported it to the proper authorities. If he simply stumbled onto the memos in the normal course of his assigned task, that's another point entirely that's not mentioned in the summary.
Quote: "The documents included legal memos from one Jones Day attorney to another regarding allegations by activists that Diebold had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002.
In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified voting systems violated California election law and that if Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract."
Read that again now, SLOWLY . The memos DO NOT SAY that Diebold HAD used uncertified machines, but were just giving a legal opinion on what COULD HAPPEN IF (that is a BIG IF) they did.
This is standard - attorney client privellage trade secret, etc.... (ie. Don't disclose) stuff.
If you were on trial, would you want some idiot secretary releasing your defense strategy to newspapers?
Also....
"The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were exploring whether the California secretary of state had the authority to investigate the company for alleged election law violations."
AGAIN, more attorney-client advice - nothing specific.
Unless the article is wrong about the substance of the memos - this guy should be nailed to the wall for releasing confidential information between an attorney and a client.
Also, as others have pointed out - GO TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY and NOT A NEWSPAPER!
the only people worried about whistle blowers are people doing something wrong.
Isnt that the strange justification used for wiretapping,patriot act and any other right stripping policy this current administration has implimented.
QED, Bushco == OCP
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I'm as much an opponent of rigged elections as anybody. But in your zeal to see black and white, you missed the point.
It's not that alerting the citizenry that a voting machine is uncertified is bad, nor even that blowing the whistle is bad. This is not a simple case of retribution against a whistleblower.
It's stealing documents that's bad. Violating attorney-client privilege is bad. Why, you ask?
Even those accused of murder and child molestation have a right to a fair trial. In fact, the more heinous the crime the more important it is to conduct the trial fairly, so as not to punish the innocent. Funny how people who otherwise know that forget it when someone they don't like, whether it's OJ Simpson or Diebold, is the accused.
Leaking documents prejudices the case, one way or another, and risks having the case thrown out. Attorneys *must* be able to discuss in secret what their strategy is, or the legal system would fall apart. The discussions between two attorneys behind the scene are not facts, they are not evidence. They are merely commentary.
The trouble is that people (jurors) cannot help but form an opinion based on some leak. "Gee, if that's what they say in private, it must be true." Possibly, if the discussion is not taken out of context by some reporter with an axe to grind or newspapers to sell. It's also possible that the typist only chose those documents that looked the worst for Diebold.
I don't want the justice system to reward people who work to thwart it, even if it means letting a guilty man go free.
sigs, as if you care.
If you really think it was *wrong* what he did, then please explain to me how the populace should find out that their voting machines are (potentiatlly) fatally flawed? Who would willingly release this information? How would we *ever* find out?
If Diebold doesnt want bad press then they should improve thier machines to stand in the light of open public investigation. If they are unable to build such machines then they should probably not be in the business of selling voting machines.
Anyone else read that as "Diebold Whistle-Blower Charged With Firefox Access"? I panicked for a sec, thinking that MS had finally gone and made OSS illegal.
On one hand, I hate Diebold and the dirt on them needs to get some publicity.
On the other hand, I'd like it done correctly, internally, so that it does some good.
Did the guy not know how to report correctly (the media's fault for publicizing leaks too much? After all it does serve their best interests.)?
Or did he think that reporting it internally wouldn't be effective? I have no idea how it should have been done in Diebold's case but I can believe alot of companies try to quash improvement efforts by their employees (anyone here work for a big corp with office politics up to here?).
I don't think we'll hear all the details. But fuck Diebold anyway. They are more dangerous to freedom than suicide bombers right now.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
A whistle-blower reports criminal acts to the proper authorities. This guy went to a newspaper.
To me he looks more like a glory-seeker than a whistle-blower.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
There is a curious possibility that the DA is using this to investigate the actions of Diebold in this case. It could be - and here's hoping - that by bringing the whistle blower into court (the only way possible) the DA hopes to create a public record which can then be used to investigate Diebold. It would seem, that if in fact Diebold has rigged an election, that is a far more worthy pursuit; but it may also be that the evidence is unavailable and this round-about approach is a rude means to a proper end. No?
AIK
Revealing an inept, ridiculous computer voting system: 3 years, 8 months.
l
Raping a 4 year old repeatedly for years: 60 days.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181498,00.htm
What a great system.
-Styopa
...which is balanced quite nicely by those jurors who refused to convict fugitive slaves.
The point is ensuring the government is "of, by and for the people," no matter how loathsome those people may be. Once goverment, or it's laws, becomes above the people, you're not living in a democracy. Some people would argue, some of them quite convincingly even in fairly lofty academic circles, that we've already crossed well over that line.
Fry: Maybe the secret ingredient in Slurm is people!
Leela: No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola.
Fry: How is it?
Leela: It varies from person to person
who's gonna set up the Paypal account so we can contribute some $$ to help pay for his lawyer ?
>Why would this guy take this stuff to the media instead of the appropriate government authorities?
Which authorities should he take it to? The ones who already knew about the cockup and would look bad/stupid when it came out? The ones who made the deal with Diebold? The ones who will have to do all that work all over again when this comes out? Look how hard it is to get elections officials to do something about flaws that everybody knows about. They're not going to be real happy about evidence that an election should be invalidated because illegal voting machines were used. The Tribune actually published the story rather than burying it under a new concrete floor in the third under-basement of the courthouse.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
A whistleblower is anyone who protects the public interest by releasing information of wrongdoing. In the case of California elections, the officials in charge of them have been arguably complicit in using uncertified as well as easily-hackable equipment. Reporting the problem quietly to them would be like going to the mob-associated mayor and telling him the proof you had about the city garbage contract - you'd be likely to find yourself amongst the garbage in the next truck. (Nor is there anyone on the federal level to report it to when it's a state law being violated.)
Responsible whistle-blowing goes public. That's what it means: You're standing there blowing the whistle as loudly as you can to get attention to the wrongdoing. You're not finding some official to whisper quietly to about it.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Disagree with a definition used by the prosecution. They will invariably try to convince the jury that if abstract concept X=Y, then if the evidence meets the definition of Y, you must convict. That's a load of rubbish and they know it. So, you challenge that definition very coyly with judge, being sure to question "is that REALLY the law? I can imagine MANY cases where Y would be perfectly understandable and certainly NOT=X and I'd have to seek an acquittal." The judge will then be forced to admit that, yes, you could, although he/she may not actually use the term "nullification," the concept will be made clear enough... and you will be promptly excused, I can assure you.
there are proper channels for a law firm to follow when they know their clients are breaking the law? What are the ethics on this?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
This is very reminiscent of the treatment received by Linda Tripp when she blew the whistle on Bill Clinton's habit of committing massive workplace sexual harassment and obstruction of justice.
"Of course, if it were me, I'd go to prison with a big, shit-eating grin on my face."
I think you're blowing hot air. While I agree with your sentiments, the reality is that for most people Jail, even in the name of a Just Cause like this, is not a realistic option. For Jail to work you'd have to be willing and able to pay for standing up.
Lets look at some of the potential costs in this case:
1) loss of income while in jail (unless you have the cash to continue clipping stocks and bonds). Good luck getting a loan to pay on that mortgage while you're in jail if you are a homeowner, BTW.
2) explaining to family/wife and/or kids why you need a birthday cake and your christmas gifts delivered to the pokey
3) if you are married, look out for a potential divorce if you're spouse's feelings on the matter (and finances) are not in complete agreement with yours. Then there is the price your kids have to pay for *your* decision here.
4) if you have kids, skipping out on three years or more of their life. If your child(ren) is very young, this could be a serious loss for them and you.
5) permanent record as a convicted felon, making employment much harder (except for sympathtic employers, which there may ot may not be, since anyone in the chain of command at a given potential employer could shoot your application down without your ever knowing about it).
6) the legal fees associated with the (criminal) case
7) if convicted, you are now also wide open to a civil suit, which, in a case like this, could force you into bankruptcy (better hope you aren't already bankrupt, then you're really screwed) and cost you, financially, almost everything you have
8) family which does not agree with you may disown you (you may not want these family members around anyway, but its still another cost) which may or may not be problematic for you and or your spouse/children (assuming you have them)
9) The media may not even notice (or care) about your plight/martyrdom, making your sacrifice worthless
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that fighting the evil that govrenments and corporations do is worhwhile, especially in a case like this, but don't think for a moment that this guy thought this scenario would happen to him (foolish/unfortunate as that may be).
He hired a lawyer for a reason.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
What agencies are you talking about?! There is no standard agency for whistleblowing reports, for obvious reasons. How would you report a problem with the agency responsible for investigating? Whistleblowers have always leaked to the media, because that's how you get investigations started.
Internal investigations...now you're just being stupid. No organization can effectively investigate itself.
As far as your ridiculous claim that "the whistleblower law woudl protect him", try reading the article. Whistleblower laws protect people from retribution from their employers; they do not protect that person from criminal prosecution.
Your entire post stinks of a pathetic attempt to smear the whistleblower, and claim he "didn't follow proper procedures", and now he should face multiple felony charges and years in prison.
The above is irrelevant. Even diebold systems failing cert could still give a fair election, as long as no one deliberately exploited them. Let's assume good faith and say no one did exploit them. 95% of humanity is honest, so we're likely to have been lucky.
Even so, the systems were still wide open to any DIShonest people. And Diebold lied about that. And that's why they should rightly be in trouble.
Contrary to what many people think, a prosecutor must utilize "prosecutorial discretion" when prosecuting crimes. That is, even if a law is broken .. they have to decide whether the overall circumstances were to benefit the public good (for example, if you won't be charged for speeding to get away from a maniac serial killer or to report a imminent terrorist plot etc).
.. they keep losing big cases .. guess now they are going after the little guy.
So yeah the LA district attorney's office is exercising very poor judgement in this circumstance. What is it down there in southern california? They lost the OJ case, they lost the Michael Jackson case
you win by making the other person die for theirs.
-prahprase of Patton
Where can I contribute to Heller's defense fund? Anyone?
However, whistleblower protection is only when you do something you can be punished for to expose a larger crime. I.e., violate a NDA or take documents home with you that you are not allowed to. And it's usually about punishment from the people you're blowing the whistle on...they don't get to fire you because you 'violated your NDA' because you went to the police.
About the only way it would apply to cops is if you break out of a corrupt jail, I guess.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The leakier is an employee of a law firm, and the memos were in regards to a client.
I don't understand why everyone here is so quick to say this is an unjust prosecution. People go to their lawyers for legal advice. They are told by their lawyers to tell them everything, because then they can provide the best legal advice. These records are kept secret. It's basic attorney-client privilege. Employees of the lawyer are also bound by this privilege under work-product.
Violating that privilege is BAD. We want people to be able to tell their lawyers everything so that the lawyers can do the best professional job, as they were hired to do. Don't you want the ability to go to a lawyer and have what you tell him stay secret? It's the same as priest-parishioner, husband-wife, or doctor-patient. These are secrets people are allowed to keep, and ANYONE who violates that secret should be prosecuted.
I don't understand the rampant apologists' accusations against the prosecutors on this one.
I am not a lawyer. None of this is legal advice.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
...that whistleblowers can use other than running to the media with a bunch of documents. As important as it is to bring things like this to light, whistleblowers have a responsibility to exhaust other means of exposing the information they have. Almost every industry and government organization has anonymous methods in place for people to report things like this. He could have gone to a state or federal agency such as the FBI or state police and negotiated immunity from self incrimination in exchange for the information. I'm not saying he was wrong for uncovering such a violation of public trust, however there are much more responsible ways of doing so. However it is possible that he will get let off by a sympathetic jury or an extremely light sentence with early relase for good behavior.
I've heard this before, it's what our system is based on.
But, has anyone ever tested it scientifically? Has any law school ever created a realistic crime senario then set up multiple mock juries giving some of them access to various parts of the evidence to see how many of those juries would reach the right decision?
Imagine such a test:
Create a crime scenario with some evidence obtained legally, some illegally. Run it past multiple juries, first with minimal information, then with more and more, finishing up with trials where there is no Attorney/ Client privilege and the virtual defendant had a confession beaten out of him. Also run each test with a guilty defendant, and a related non-guilty one. (Yes, the non-guilty will often confess to a crime they didn't commit)
You might be able to do this as a multiplayer online game.
I've been told by a lawyer who dealt with civil suits that 10% of law was random chance. You might be absolutely right, have a good attorney, and there's a 10% you would lose your case. I imagine criminal law is similar, but I'd like to test it. It could be that a maximally aware jury would render the correct decision more often than the current system.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that CA law does not protect client confidentiality in cases where the client is planning an overtly criminal act. But that does not mean that disclosure to the press is necessarily protected.
It seems somewhat unlikely that this trial is going to result in a guilty verdict unless the court prevents the defense from presenting their case that the accused believed that he was protecting the election to the jury.
What it does mean is that there is going to be a lot of intense scrutiny of Diebold's voting machines and a lot of internal Diebold correspondence is going to come out in court.
At this point Diebold paranoia is mostly on the left in the US, but as I was arguing in my blog this morning it is only a matter of time before the right begins to become equally suspicious. Whether justified or not there is going to be someone who cries foul. I really do not think it is at all likely that Diebold would be part of any electoral conspiracy, even if the CEO is a Republican I'll bet most of his engineers are liberals and libertarians.
The key discovery here is that a voting system has to be auditable, not just secure. Diebold's ATMs only need to be secure. The bank knows how much cash is put into them each day and how much is withdrawn. The machine itself is not the sole trusted component in the audit loop. That is not the case with the voting machine designs.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
So what if he is retarded? Borderline? A good percentage of criminals are border-line mentally retarded. I don't buy the whole non-culpable because of emotional disturbance or mental retardation or whatever. Who cares? This is nonsense. We as society have to put up with crap like this 'cause someone is mentally inept or unstable? I call bullshit! This is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on people. We're supposed to give someone a pass because they are inept, retarded, and/or emotionally disturbed? I don't think this is right. Don't bother telling me I'm wrong. I could care less for your bleeding heart arguments on this one. There is not a single example you can produce to which I'll agree that culpability should be ignored.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
The charges arise from Heller's alleged disclosure two years ago of legal papers from the Los Angeles office of international law firm Jones Day, which represented Diebold at the time. Heller was under contract as a word processor at Jones Day.
The documents included legal memos from one Jones Day attorney to another regarding allegations by activists that Diebold had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002.
emphasis my own. the memos in question (at least according to tfa) make it pretty clear that they are discussing allegations that the voting machines weren't certified. they did not (as far as i can tell from the article) state that the voting machines were, in fact, not certified. big, big difference. in the best case, he's a fool for misunderstanding the content of the documents and living under the misapprehension that he's a whistleblower. in the worst case, he stole internal documents in an attempt to win his moment in the sun.
"He did not have clearance to enter the facility. He broke the law, and that's that", said the prosecuting attorney while nibbling on a cube of Soylent Yellow.
Man, we're even outsourcing production of that to China now?
Americans seem to be getting very good at that lately.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis
Send money.
$20 contributed by a few hundred people can go a LONG, LONG WAY towards helping him out, even if only in terms of moral support. A little search at google reveals the attorney's address and phone number. I already called, to confirm that they are, in fact, representing Stephen Heller in this case.
I'll be throwing them $100. I encourage you to contribute, as well. Whether or not the "Whistle-Blower" law specifically supports Stephen's behavior, I commend his actions and feel that the Whistle-Blower law should be ammended to allow for what Stephen has done.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, refused to call Heller a "whistle-blower." "We call him a defendant," she said. "He's accused of breaking the law."
OK, Sandi, I refuse to call you a "prosecutor" or, for that matter, a "public servant". I call you a "thug".
Oh, wait, you're a PR flack. Perhaps "stooge" would be more appropriate.
#!
Technically, the Magna Carta did have a clause stating that when the king violated the law, the barons and land-owners were authorized to seize such compensation as entitled under the law, by whatever means were necessary. Under this clause, the confiscating of the northern Americas from the British Crown could be argued to have been within British law and to have precedent by means of the rebellion leading to the Magna Carta, the granting of Cornwall its own parliament, and the independence of a small town on the border between Scotland and England whose name I forget. English Common Law also has the theory of the "reasonable man", which basically raises the bar on legal cases by asking if a theoretical "reasonable man" would have done exactly the same thing under the same circumstances.
Would the British of the time have been satisfied by any of this? Hell, no. The Government wanted blood, legal or otherwise. Mind you, so did Mr. Washington - Ghandi he was not.
Ok, well would any of these apply in the Diebold case? I'd say it's very arguable that a reasonable man would indeed highlight by whatever means possible a clear violation of both trust and law. Indeed, to not do so would likely have made him an accessory to the crime. In a case where a "crime" would result regardless of what you do, it must surely be the case that the "reasonable" response is necessarily lawful to avoid an absolutely impossible situation.
The Magna Carta doesn't apply in the US, but if it did, the confiscation clause could be interpreted to assert that obtaining the information proving electoral fraud was protected as punishment for a crime within Government.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Taking it into your own hands because you don't like it, is just as bad as a bad law itself."
I think you miss what is going on here. A mistrial is when the jury doesn't reach a verdict. For "nullification" to work, a verdict must be reached, not just hung by one lone hold-out.
I would challenge you to get 12 random strangers in a room to decide what flavor of coffee should be served. If those same people can decide unanimously that justice is not being served, I'm inclined to believe them and find it pretty scary how many people think they those people should be crushed under the heel of unwavering law. That's a pretty far departure from what a certain group of people had in mind 200-odd years ago...
Remember, slavery was once legal, but I don't think any human with a shred of decency would ever call it moral. The door swings both ways. Laws are there to keep the mob in line, not to outline a set of morals for which we should conduct our lives.
A good example of why we need an Open Source voting method.
Take Corporate interests out of this story and there is no motivation to cover something up or to protect trade secrets (or uphold a clause in the contract that Mr. Heller was working under).
Resources at - http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
.
It's now obvious that practically all current Congressmembers are complicit in the vote rigging schemes. Because otherwise these blatant frauds and coverups, which even produce convictions from time to time, from the same few corporations that count practically all the votes, would see Congress act swiftly and strongly. Hearings, corporate liability, exchange delisting, jailtime.
Instead, silence. The silence not of the lambs, but of the Congressional shepherds who run with the voterigging wolves. The American sheep bleat sometimes, but it's lost in the wind of the corporate media paying the shepherds' bar tabs.
--
make install -not war
Is there some kind of legal defense fund the community can donate to? I think we need to take a stand. And how might we apply pressure to this prosecutor? What district is he in? Is the prosecutor an elected official?
My argument on the need for auditability such as it is, is here.
The Drum article I link to is actually quite interesting because it brings up another thing that happened yesterday, the Diebold machines were certified in California despite objections to the security flaws.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Let's do the sinking ship.
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
It's the jury's job to aquit if they determine the law to be unreasonable. And it's the voters' job to choose a new D.A. based on the perfomance of this one.
We expect that each citizen will do his or her duty.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Next time stop swallowing BS put forth by a shill to The Party. True whistleblowing, which shouts out wrongdoing so that nobody can deny or shuffle it away, is what bit the GOP hard regarding the NSA.
of the saying that no good deed goes unpunished.
This guy should be covered under whistle-blower laws as he was bringing to light an activity that is illegal in California (and other places as well). I really wonder about humanity when the people who are trying to do the right thing keep getting punished for standing up.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Yay! More soylent green for everyone else.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
...is that he committed a felony, which means he'll no longer be allowed to vote on the machines he's trying to fix!
It is universally agreed under Anglic law that the job of the jury is to return a verdict according to the factual evidence in the particular case before them. It is a matter of contention as to whether and to what extent the law itself should be judged by a jury. Most judges and lawyers consider outright nullification an irremediable error, and hold the view that it is the function of the judge to decide the questions of law, and the jury to only decide the questions of fact. Proponents of the right of jury nullification disagree, with considerable US historical precedent. Both sides feel that any flaws of the current arrangement are less than those of any proposed alternative to correct them.
Myself, I believe it is a right akin to that of the right to take arms against the government for purpose of establishing a new one: not justicable when sucessful, but the exercise of this right indicates a major problem in society (one way or another), and should be done neither lightly nor casually. That said, the prosecutor would have his work cut out extracting a "guilty" verdict out of me given the surrounding circumstances of this case, and the DA would also have no hope of extracting my vote for his re-election.
Those interested in the topic should read the oddly named Sparf v. US in its entirety. (No, it's not the trial of a Thundercat.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I have no representation in either the House or the Senate. Quelle difference!
I just keep seeing the "report this to the proper authorities" comment, and I couldn't help but remember that Woody Woodpecker classic: "Bunco Busters", where the narrator keeps interrupting with that line. It was cynical and sarcastic even 50 years ago . . .
I am not a crackpot.
No points for "never".
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Easily solution if I was Diebold: I'd only hire Republican lawyers, analysts, fincial advisors, interns, janitors... top to bottom, all GOP loyals. There are no laws for discriminating against political party. Even if there were, just need a few background checks into voter registration.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I've always wondered what the process would be to redress the actions of a politically motivated DA. Could the Los Angeles DA's office be charged with abuse of process or malfeasance?
And what part of 'No good deed goes unpunished' are we having problems understanding?
Yes, the Federal whistleblower statutes say Jones should have reported this to the government. Problem with that is, the current government in California directly benefits from the faulty machines. Where do you go from there? The Feds? They ALSO directly benefit from the faulty machines. Where is Jones to go?
So, a shady corporation provided voting software that could have potentially caused voters to lose what little power they have. A man exposes their illegal activites by using means that are also illegal, however, no other means would have ever revealed this breach of the law by the corporation, because they obviously had no problem using the uncertified software. Now the whistleblower is in trouble.
Kind of makes you wonder what these people are thinking these days...
If I'm not mistaken, the Bush administration pushed an ideal shortly after 9/11 that the citizens should report any susupicious activity they might note that could be connected to terrorism. If something like this could happen to a whistleblower protecting the rights of American citizens, what could happen to someone protecting the LIVES of American citizens? Instead, this proliferates the idea that anyone who might report possible terrorist activity could instantly be associated with it and accused themselves, thereby prohibiting their participation in such a situation.
This case should have us all thinking that legal precedent in the U.S. has fallen to nil, and that any angry corporation with enough money can exact revenge on someone doing the right thing, even if they have done the wrong thing. There's no justice in this.
And I am appalled by the comments on this thread. The majority seems to be of the opinion that the document leaker has performed a public service. That is as far from the truth as it could possibly be.
One of the constitutionally protected rights that all Americans have, even people you hate (or most especially people you hate), is the right to the effective assistance of counsel for their defense. That right is necessary to protect the even greater right to a fair trial. Counsel must have complete confidential access to client information in order to provide effective assistance. That access is so important, that lawyer-client confidentiality has always been protected by the law.
If employees of a law firm can suborn that right by leaking confidential information then the right to counsel and the other rights that are vindicated by legal process are at severe risk. If the allegations against the leaker are proved, then I should hope that the court deals with him most severely so that others will not be encouraged to do likewise.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I agree he should be prosecuted. Then the jury should nulify. It's what jury nulification is for.
Hmmm - let's think about this - public servant, rigged voting machines.... public servant, rigged voting machines... hmmmmm
There's an old latin phrase that is often applied in cases like this -"qui bono" , or "who benefits".
The prosecutor is certainly not responding to any public outcry - ergo
We can reasonably assume that he is benefitting in some other way.
Likely guess - The prosecutor (or a superior) is running for office soon, and Diebold may have offered a brib.....I'm sorry , in this country they're called *campaign contributions*.
Who knows - they may even be able to simply GIVE him the election - as long as there is no public scrutiny of their voting machines.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
> And that's why they should rightly be in trouble.
And they may very well *be* in trouble, but that won't help Mr. Heller, because it's not a defense for his crime.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Here is the mailto: for Sandi Gibbons, The L.A. County D.A.'s spokesperson with the obnoxious opinion in this piece.
She can probably be deluged with your complaints, and general opinion on her political future, and that of sitting D.A., Steve Cooley. He's tried to frame himself as holder of a non-partisan office, but this makes his acknowledged party affiliation pretty obvious. He previously insulted jurors and responsible in the failure to prosecute the attackers of Donovan Jackson.
A more civil feedback form is available at http://da.co.la.ca.us/feedback.htm. I think Ms. Gibbon's own e-mail might garner more attention.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Why the grandparent is modded as Interesting, I'll never know.
A temp working as a word processor decided to reveal legal discussions between a client and an attorney. Some decide that the client was so wrong, that the temp was justified. After all, it prevented a major fraud of the voters. The end was so good that the means was justified.
The problem might be that the form of action (the means) if repeated in other circumstances is clearly unethical and of course illegal. While I have a very low opinion of Diebold, I do not applaud the temp violating the communcations between an attorney and client.
You mean god save the king back then who I think was king George.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams... and this guy who knew a thing or two about law around the time of the revolution:
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty, -- For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a
saving hand while yet there was time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_Parsons
Frightful how far we've come from that view.
Did he run across these documents in the normal course of his work?
Or, was he up to naughty stuff like corporate espionage, insider trading, or gathering blackmail material and found this?
If the latter, just because you do something good with the proceeds of a crime should not eliminate your punishment for said crime. It should certainly be considered a mitigating factor at sentencing, but should not let you get off the hook entirely.
The question of exactly how he got the documents is rather critical here.
Various professional societies will help whistle-blowers (IEEE comes to mind). Get their help.
Get local/national TV (investigative news programs) to air the case.
The DA is an ellected positon. Mount local pressure on DA's office to do the right thing.
It is time to set up a community based Groklaw-type site to help out in these kinds of cases.
A whistleblower takes his knowledge and does not go public with it. This guy mailed this stuff to the newspapers, that's why he's in trouble. The fact that he has been prosecuted by the people's duly appointed deputy district attorney is evidence enough that this comment is simply garbage.
Dog is my co-pilot.
What if the government is so tied up in the scandal that you risk swimming with the fishies if you go to the government? I don't care WHO you tell, any outlet which brings the story to light and gets it out to the people's ear is just measure. Public outcry will then inform the government's "justice" branch. I trust many agencies and organizations to bring about justice, and government is off the bottom of that list, has been for some years.
Most people are misguided, they think "law" decides the difference between right and wrong... Law never decides right and wrong, it's all about twisting it and finding loopholes to get what you want out of it, it's just a big game.
I wonder what an attourney would have told this guy if he had consulted one before releasing the documents. Would he have advised him to turn them over to the media? Turn them over to the state attourney general? Sell them to the highest bidder?
Just curious. Any CA (or other) lawyers care to comment?
Actually, it was more Adams and Jefferson who were out for blood. Washington and Franklin were a bit more moderate. However, when Parliment and the Crown were disinclined to grant the colonials their rights assured by the Magna Carta, they were willing the settle for blood.
I'd say it's very arguable that a reasonable man would indeed highlight by whatever means possible a clear violation of both trust and law. Indeed, to not do so would likely have made him an accessory to the crime.
That's not so clear to me. From the summary, it sounds like the lawyers were saying "what you're doing this may be illegal; we need to figure out how to get your asses back within the law before they get handed to you." That is, the lawyers were trying to help Diebold stop breaking the law, while avoiding Diebold getting convicted of anything. This is expected conduct for a lawyer as within the Bar's accepted ethical guidelines as I understand them. (However, IAmNotALaywer either.)
Attorney-client privilege exists in part so that clients can get advice on how to avoid breaking the law, allowing (as a not-so-random example) a lawyer to write the client telling them that what they're doing might be unlawful. The papers were covered under the ACP as a legal work product. Presumably this privilege is retained even though the papers were seen by a non-attorney worker at the firm (IE: the "word processor", aka typist). To break the ACP, you would need to show that the lawyers were activly conspiring to help Diebold break the law, EG: "when you applied these patches the software violated the law; you need to destroy all record that the software used wasn't the original software approved". Only then would those at the firm be liable as co-conspirators. There is nothing suggesting such misconduct by the law firm; ergo, the release was illegal.
Barring evidence of such unlawful conduct by the lawyers, the actions by the typist should have consequences; it was a clear breach of legal ethics. The breach of confidentiality should get the typist fired if the firm weren't idiots in drafting their NDA. For the violation of client trust, no law firm in the country should be willing to hire him ever again. And the released papers look ripe for a motion to supress if anyone tries to use them in any court prosecution of Diebold. (Of course, Diebold can't do squat about their being admitted to legislative hearings....)
But prosecution of the poor typist, for a crisis of conscience and putting the public interest above the client and the law firm? Hack, no. It's crap that starts making kookery about lawyers being an unconstitutional aristocracy sound less kooky.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The guy was working for the company's law firm.
I don't like Diebold any more than the average slashdotter, but jesus christ on a candy cane, you don't divulge the secrets of your clients. Even if he wasn't a lawyer in the firm, he knew damn well that he wasn't supposed to run around giving away confidential information.
This guy is not a whistleblower in the slightest sense of the word. That would be like calling Johnny Cochran a whistleblower if he jumped up in the middle of the OJ trial and screamed... "He's GUILTY, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!"
During the last special election to replace an outgoing congressman, a person from a party not affiliated with the mainstream republican/democratic party ran. Jim Gilchrist of the California affiliate of the Constitution Party won the most votes on election day. However, it was the absentee ballots that caused him to lose the election. Whether that was because the election was directly rigged by the corporate government alliance or whether it was due to the lack of information reaching the absentee voters we will never know. However, the alternative parties such as the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and many others have been gaining ground. Many people who would otherwise stay home on election day are beginning to see that there are now choices in politics. As people stop voting for the perpetual bullshit of the so called main parties, it looks like these parties are looking for even more innovative ways to stay in power. If one of those ways involve manipulating votes, so be it. The day will likely come when people see that even their votes no longer count, they may very well be forced to take extreme measures to make sure they are heard.
One news story from a couple of years ago that has been severely underreported is Marvin Heemeyer's punishment of the rulers in the town of Granby, Colorado. This man converted a bulldozier into an improvized tank. He used this tank to demolish the buildings of those who he felt wronged him. However, he did not cause any injury or deaths to anyone besides himself. Whether he was in fact wronged or not, I will never know. What I do know is that it is extremely difficult to get a redress of grievances from any local, state, or Federal government.
Now that it looks like one of the only two legal weapons that can be used by the common man might be usurped by the corrupt government-corporate alliance. Even when reporting this corruption, a whistleblower is punished. I guess that freedom of speech is yet another right that is being usurped by government. The last power that the people have is when they get a chance to sit on a jury. I know that if I ever get to sit on a jury and I see a judge shushing the defendent or witness, I will vote NOT GUILTY. If the person is accused of violating an unconstitutional law, I again will vote NOT GUILTY. I encourage people to visit http://www.fija.org/ to learn about their rights and powers as jurors.
One of our Founding Fathers once stated that reasonable men are sometimes forced to do unreasonable things. Once the rule of law is usurped from a country such as the P.S.A., anarchy is the result. In the P.S.A. we have been living under anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of law. The P.S.A. is hardly ruled by laws anymore but rather by the decree of men in power. This type of government is called a democracy while a government that is ruled by laws that apply to everyone is called a republic. One day, there may be a general uprising of the people to restore the rule of law. If that day comes, it will mean hard times for years. Governments as powerful as the ones in the P.S.A. do not return their wrongfully gained power easily. I am afraid that if this uprising happens, many, many on both sides will lose their lives. Like the Civil War, there will be family members fighting on opposite sides. Hopefully, if and when that day comes, freedom and the rule of law will be restored.
...I can tell y'all that the most important thing in it is what's NOT in it: any indication that Diebold was fixing the actual problems, or for that matter even interested in doing so.
There are also several places where Jones Day was actively involved in covering up ongoing illegalities by Diebold, which is probably what got Heller as upset as he was.
Jim March
Staffer, Black Box Voting
http://blackboxvoting.org/
Lead plaintiff, March v. Diebold, the suit that got California that $2.6mil refund...which believe me, had a TON more support than just the Heller material and would have come out the same way regardless, basically quashed by California Attorney General Lockyer before we could even get to discovery. It should have been a refund of all Diebold contracts in California, somewhere over $100mil.
Sigh.
What are the legal precedents (in the US) regarding breaking a minor law to prevent a larger problem? For example, if a man is speeding to get to a hospitol, because of a medical emergency (preganancy, spouse's heart attack, etc), or a man slashing a bank robber's tires to prevent the robber from getting away...
I'm sure we all know about self-defense laws, but what kind of precedents do we have when you're either acting to defend others, and/or when it is not a life-and-death situation, but the same concept taken to less of an extreme?
"Nullification" is by definition an acquittal. It is not however _just_ an aquittal, it is an acquittal when the evidence would strongly support a guilty verdict (say, OJ as a bad example). It is definitely NOT synonymous with "hung jury," which is a total lack of any verdict.
Doesn't California have a three strikes law? If this guy is convicted of 3 felonies, would the three strikes law apply to him?
Laws never have anything to do with the 'stated purpose' of the political hack that is putting it forward.
Do you also think 'gun control' is about crime reduction? (Only if you are talking about hitting what you aim at!)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is this man in need of help with his legal or other related expenses? If so, is there a way to make donations?
"What is contained within these brackets gives me pause: [,]"
Are you a modem?
> If this is not summarily dismissed for the crock it is, Whistleblowing in
> this country will officially be dead, federal protections notwithstanding.
This sort of political illiteracy is going to do in our Republic. No, someone breaks the law the DA's duty is to file charges. Civil disobedience has an honored place in our nation's history but the whole point is that when you decide circumstances require you to break a law in service to some higher moral duty you have to be willing to suck it up and face the consequences.
Those consequences are being charged and standing trial. If a jury of your peers agree you were doing the right thing it is THEIR duty to ignore this modern practice where judges think they can give 'orders' a jury and to return a not guilty verdict. But the requirement to face a jury of your peers is vital to prevent every crackpot from deciding their alternate reality gives them a license to ignore the law. It is one of the key parts that makes us a nation of laws, not men. Breaking the law has to be a rare exception.
So yes, this guy needs to be charged. The reporters at the New York Times who published classified documents need to be charged. The prosecuters need to do their damndest to put them away because that is their role in our system. And if after hearing both sides the jury lets em walk then I have no objection.
Democrat delenda est
When you are whistleblowing against the authorities, which is what this case really is, not the dipshit stupid lawyers crap, it's whistleblowing against the government, the government who proven over and over again what lying bastards they are, then, no matter where the evidence comes from, the LAST place you would take the evidence is to the government.
..he did.
Refererence:"pentagon papers"
This is a far ranging case that could eventually go all the way to help prove an election coup detat. This is serious business, control of the US government is worth so much money and power it is hard to put an actual figure on it. We might still have a civil war or something equally as bad over all this crap sometime if things don't change for the better. Look around, check the over all scene, this is in your face pure fascism we are talking about, corruption on such a scale as to dwarf anything yet to ever happen on the planet earth. The mother of all conjobs.
Maybe you don't get it, I'll explain it even simpler. It's new rules time, time for plan B, the canary in the coal mine is looking mighty ill and is staggering, the fat lady has finished her tunes and is headed off stage.
The current government in power is highly likely to have gotten there illegaly.
That makes them serious crooks. The man was quite logical in assuming that nothing much would happen if he took it to them, they would cover it up, maybe even silence him, as in permanently.
This case ISN'T about some stupid company named diebold making a few thou on the side, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
The only way to expose government when it is this corrupt is on the street, in the press, mouth to mouth, citizen to citizen, whatever it takes to do this. Of course, he could have done his best to stay anonymous. Oh well, water under the dam and all... The WORST track record with "law enforcement" in the US is whenever they are tasked to investigate *themselves*. Go back in history and look. And when they have to investigate higher ups, the default is nothing happens and a lot of people have gotten hurt over the centuries trying it.
The man has a conscious, meaning he knew he had to do something, and stuck with two extremely sucky choices, he chose the lesser of two evils. He saw documents that would go a long way to help prove serious and TREASONUS vote fraud. OF COURSE he knew it was dangerous to go public with it, but
Sorry, as one who has "bent the rules" a little back in the protest days,here ya go, from my memory banks -some random chief of pigs -"It is illegal for you to assemble here, disperse! You have 60 seconds to disperse!"-then the hammer came down. Sucked donkey balls, but it was worth it in the long run. FUCK them running backwards. What was ILLEGAL was them defending the status quo of second class citizenship for US citizens. What was illegal then was them arresting-kidnapping-people who were trying to get some god damned justice. What was illegal was them perverting the court system to maintain that what they said was illegal was illegal, as opposed to what anyone who could read past a 3rd grade level knew was complete bullshit. Ya, "laws on the books". SCREW THAT. Another google reference : "the enabling act"
This is similar, except it is a MUCH BIGGER case than getting decent civil rights for a subsection of the population, this affects ALL OF US. Vote fraud to hijack elections is right up there with bad things to do. Massive computerized vote fraud should be enough to totally change governments, and frequently does around the world. Vote fraud that goes unchecked because no one has the guts to say it out loud or release the evidence to the people who matter-the PEOPLE- leads to fascist regimes, remarkably similar in appearance to what we are seeing getting bigger and bigger by the day now in this nation.
Here's reality: if people are too afraid to violate ANY law, no matter the emergency or t
...the continued benevolence of the government.
Remember, I live in a place that requires an act of Congress to pass the city budget. A congress in which I have no vote. So, pardon if I balk at the idea of 'writing my rep' or voting in order to change something. I HAVE NO VOTE.
Sound rather similar to the situation prior to the revolutionary war? It should.
I hadn't considered my .sig in that way; thank-you for that clever observation.
One can always appreciate a well constructed sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek response to one that almost begs for it. *-)
as has been discussed, privilege does not cover crimes in progress or crimes being planned
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/coa.opinion.htm
Some case highlights:
Kriho did not mention the fact that, 11 years earlier, she had received a deferred judgment and sentence for possession of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Following entry of the judgment in that case, she had successfully completed two years probation and 40 hours of community service, after which the charges had been dismissed.
She also was asked to give a routine biographical sketch indicating, among other things, her "special interests and hobbies" and to state "anything else" that would prevent her from being a fair and impartial juror. She provided particulars as to her marital status,
education, and employment, and various hobbies and interests. She did not mention the fact that she was a member of the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project, an organization that supports the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Nor did she voice any antipathy towards drug laws or their enforcement.
Following the mistrial and the release of the jurors, Kriho handed one of the other jurors a pamphlet outside the courthouse which purported to be sponsored by the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project and the "Fully Informed Jury Association." It was entitled: "True or False? When you sit on a jury, you have the right to vote your conscience."
Thereafter, the People initiated this contempt action against Kriho pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107 and 18-1-104(3), C.R.S. 1998. The contempt citation alleged that she should be held in contempt for:
(1) disobedience to an order of the court, (2)
obstructing the administration of justice, and (3)
committing Perjury in the First Degree, C.R.S. 18-
8-502, a class 4 Felony, by lying under oath to
8-502, a class 4 Felony, by lying under oath to
the Judge and the attorneys.
Approximately three months after the close of the evidence, the trial court issued a written order finding that two of the prosecution's charges -- disobedience to a court order and perjury -- had not been sustained. However, it found that Kriho had intended to obstruct the judicial process and that her actions had prevented the seating of a fair and impartial jury. On that basis, the court found her in contempt under C.R.C.P. 107 for obstructing the administration of justice and imposed a $1200 fine payable within one year. It is from this order that Kriho now appeals.
Ron Paul
If it's the later, then he absolutely deserves to be prosecuted (and convicted). The idea behind the whisleblower laws was to give people with knowlege of criminal activity some protection from reprisal. But the key point is you had to have obtained that info in the course of your regular (legal) duties. These laws do not give you carte blanche to break into your boss's computer to see if the company you work for is doing anything you don't like.
If he just copied documents in his possession he could certainly get sued by his boss for breach of contract, but I don't think the charges will survive the grand jury. Based on the specific charges, I suspect there's more to it than that (or at least the DA thinks so).
Prosecutors always have discretion about what they prosecute. If you think they prosecute every case of lawbreaking, you're just revealing your lack of knowledge of the criminatl justice system.
Aside from any policy arguments, prosecutors HAVE TO make choices about what to prosecute--neither they nor the courts have the personnel to handle every instance of law-breaking.
mod troll or not at all if you want but
people all over the country are starting to realize that the only way the current alliance of fundamentalist christianity and the military industrial complex is going to give up power is if a lot of them are shot
twenty percent of america, most of who believe johah was swallowed by a whale and the world is six thousand years old, are in league with the far right who have rigged what reasonable chance existed of real balloting
the solution, in this and other countries, to religious fundamentalism run amok is insurrection
but beware as the air force is stacked with christians and they have the h bombs and believe the end of the world is at hand
to everything there is a season
The problem is that those agencies belong to the Executive Branch, which is not interested in the release or investigation of this particular knowledge!
Given the current administration's disdain of oversight of its activities, no law in the land would protect said whisleblower from disappearance once this Branch found him in possession of this Evidence.
The best way to protect both the Evidence and himself was to go public.
Oh yeah and Bush Snr/Jnr are so innocent.
But having secret links and ex-cia head is no match for any DA right, because it takes
one phone call to have you and your family KILLED.
USA is dead, no freedom, no democracy, no justice, just full of scum and CRIMINALS called the USA-GOVT.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.com/article1.htm
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If you daddy, or uncle works for these evil corporates, give them a nice big
book about true freedom for xmas/bday next time, or nothing at all, and tell em they
are a nazi loving FWIT.
Btw, im looking at taking over the Phillapense next summer, so are there any corporates out there that will
design a voting system that I can hack via GPS/sats that will get me elected?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
What a bunch of tripe bullshit. Voting doesn't change anything especially nowadays with Diebold voting machines and Florida recounts. Here. Let me take you back into Federation Highschool civic class (Starship Trooper II Hero of the Federation):
Student: "My mother says violence never solves anything!"
Teacher: "Oh Really? You, what do you think the city fathers of Hiroshima would say about that?"
Student2: "I think they wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed!"
Teacher: "Correct. Violence has resolved more issues throughout history than any other factor. People who forget that always pay".
Right. It's just another Hollywood movie but those are the three minutes of gold in it. If you want change then you _will_ have to get your hands _bloody_. History is full of examples of this, from 9000 BCE to 2006 CE. Do you think the English would have held votes in 1776?
Laws never have anything to do with the 'stated purpose' of the political hack that is putting it forward.
I'm talking about the stated purpose as written in the laws themselves, not what some politician happens to have said about them. You might note I suspect there was some copy/paste going on since the laws from several states are very similar.
Shouldn't Diebold executives face charges for treason?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0603/S00118.htm Ernest Partridge: An Appearance of Guilt Thursday, 9 March 2006, 11:15 am Opinion: Ernest Partridge An Appearance of Guilt By Ernest Partridge Co-Editor The Crisis Papers March 7, 2006 The accumulated weight of evidence of election fraud - statistical, circumstantial, and anecdotal - has failed to move the mainstream media to report or investigate this evidence, or the Democratic party to acknowledge and protest the apparent Republican control of our elections. This essay is not yet another account of that evidence, which I have spelled out extensively and which I firmly believe to be compelling. Instead, I wish to deal with another indicator that our national elections no longer represent the will of the voters, but rather are manipulated to produce the outcome desired by the "winning" candidates and party. This indicator is the behavior of those who manufacture, program, and operate the paperless, unauditable machines (direct recording electronic: "DRE"), and those who benefit from this technology. Perhaps this new electronic voting technology is as honest and reliable as the private election industry and the winning candidates tell us it is. However, they simply do not behave as if this were the case. My contention might be illustrated by this parable: Suppose that a drug-sniffing dog at an airport identifies a suspicious piece of luggage. The customs officer then locates the individual whose name is on the tag, and orders him to open it. Now suppose further that this person then proceeds to do one or more of the following: a) He denies that the luggage is his. b) He calls his lawyer who presents an injunction against further inspection of the luggage. c) He claims that he is a diplomat, and thus not subject to luggage inspection. d) He offers a bribe to the inspector if he will "forget the whole thing." Might one not suspect that the traveler was trying to hide something? The dog then gets back to work, and soon identifies another bag, and the owner of this parcel is identified and ordered to open the luggage for inspection. He does so willingly and without qualm, having packed the bag himself and thus knowing that there is no contraband therein. He is also aware that the dog has a record of 30% false positives. Which of these two responses more closely resembles the behavior of the DRE manufacturers (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), of the Republican Congress, and of the Republican National Committee? Are the DRE manufacturers and the Republicans acting in a manner consistent with their claims that "e-voting" is both honest and accurate? Or are they behaving as if they have something to hide? Here are a few indicators. Because there are so many, I will be brief. For details and documentation, follow the links: First and foremost: DRE machines use secret software and produce no separate record of the voting to allow auditing and validation of the votes. Thus, by design, it is impossible either to prove or disprove directly the accuracy of the vote totals of a DRE machine or the neutrality of the software. (However, there is abundant indirect evidence of e-voting fraud: statistical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. But that's another topic). The manufacturers and programmers of DREs (all of whom have close ties with the Republican Party) insist that their software ("source codes") must be kept secret - for no apparent and defensible reason. (They claim to be concerned about copyright infringement. But music, essays, fiction, drama, etc., all are public by nature, and yet all are protected by copyright). The e-voting manufacturers also make ATM machines and automated gas pumps, both of which produce paper receipts. Yet they steadfastly resist demands that their "touch screen" voting machines produce printouts, which might then serve to validate the accuracy of the votes. DRE manufacturers will not allow "test hacks" of randomly selected machines. (Unauthorized hacks have proven DREs