READER COMMENTS ON
"WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Republican Congressman's Request!"
(91 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
gassed
said on 12/6/2004 @ 11:20 am PT...
Nice work. Lets all pray that this stuff goes mach 5.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
BobbyinPortland
said on 12/6/2004 @ 11:31 am PT...
That is AMAZING!!! I hope that this is the smoking gun that we need to prove how low these people will go.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Psyop Samurai
said on 12/6/2004 @ 11:45 am PT...
You rule, Brad!!! Keep it comin'! :hehe:
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Mixter
said on 12/6/2004 @ 11:46 am PT...
GREAT! Now if this guy doesn't disappear, maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the Dubya stolen elections!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
bejammin075
said on 12/6/2004 @ 12:56 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Beth Craig
said on 12/6/2004 @ 1:28 pm PT...
:) Wow! If this holds up, it will make Watergate look like petty theft!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Michele
said on 12/6/2004 @ 1:32 pm PT...
When do you think the main stream media will pick this up? Is it even worth the time to tune into them any more?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 12/6/2004 @ 2:37 pm PT...
Holy Moly! I had heard about a particular touch-screen operation of a software program and this sounds strikingly familiar in that an operator code is built into certain areas that control the function through touching these designated areas on the screen.
Keep up the superb work, Brad! I'm hoping that this man, Mr. Curtis, stays safe and the story reveals what many of us have long suspected regarding our election process in America.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Paul Landis
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:04 pm PT...
Good work Brad:
The reason I knew Bush would win: 30% of voters for Election Thieft 2004 were to be done on Electronic Voting machines - Bush Vote Capturing Machines.
Paul J.Landis, Author, "Stop Bush Now"
:angry:
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Windy
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:14 pm PT...
I am wondering just how the media will handle this, even if it is true, which I feel deep within my soul to be true.
I am elated that this is coming out, and afraid as well, to be honest. I feel that the Bush administration and those that wholeheartedly support it will stop at nothing to maintain their current power. Who knows where this will lead?
I hate them.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Katherine A. Farr
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:43 pm PT...
Somebody get this man into protective custody!!!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Ron von Arb
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:47 pm PT...
Hi There,
Keep up the GREAT WORK, it will be hard work to
nail the CROOKED BASTARDS. We cannot get over
it, we need to STOP the CROOKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Angry Girl
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:54 pm PT...
Thanks for the ballsy investigative journalism!
At least some people still know how to track a story, unlike the lapdog mainstream media, which has become a bloody disgrace. Go, Brad, go!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Angry Girl
said on 12/6/2004 @ 3:54 pm PT...
Thanks for the ballsy investigative journalism!
At least some people still know how to track a story, unlike the lapdog mainstream media, which has become a bloody disgrace. Go, Brad, go!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Chris
said on 12/6/2004 @ 4:04 pm PT...
If this does go down as truth, lets use Ukraine as a template. They seem to know what Power to the People is all about.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Mustif
said on 12/6/2004 @ 4:14 pm PT...
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Ohio Vote Fraud
said on 12/6/2004 @ 4:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
falcon
said on 12/6/2004 @ 4:54 pm PT...
"...You will know them by their fruit..."
This is good news...but stay focused...do not let Karl Rove spin this like he did the bush military service records at the sacrifice of Dan Rather's career...these fascist assholes would love to bring down the internet...don't let this be the straw that broke the camel's back...
Canada is suing bush on war crimes in Vancouver and we will legally destroy these evoting machines...it's the machines, stupid!
Yes, the Ukraine=America, but with Media coverage...having said that, we are the new 49ers...the 49% that didn't vote for this piece of **** and the entire world knows us now!
Support blackboxvoting.org. and via con Dios, mi amigos!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
toosie turner
said on 12/6/2004 @ 5:03 pm PT...
Its time we take this matter to the streets and fight for democracy. We must use Ukraine as our example.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
rick
said on 12/6/2004 @ 5:07 pm PT...
Got my hopes up but do see one thing that needs explaining pronto. The signature page is very obviously in a different font. Why?
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Dan
said on 12/6/2004 @ 5:13 pm PT...
Brad, keep up the good work! It's people like you and Clint that make me proud to be an American! Let's hope this isn't like the Dan Rather fake memos. You HAVE BEEN stating when parts of the story are as of yet unsubstantiated. I actually believe there are people who purposely throw out fake stories, so the real ones are viewed with too much skepticism (paranoid? maybe!). Here's the HUGE thing I can never understand: HOW WERE COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES WITH NO PAPER TRAILS EVER ALLOWED TO BE INSTALLED??? I will never ever ever believe that in this great old USofA, that someone like even Ralph Nader has allowed this to happen. The only way votes could be stolen and manipulated is if there was widespread installation of computerized voting machines with no paper trail. Are there no rules that prevent installation of voting machines you can't recount in this country??? That's so hard for me to get over, sorry............
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
joey
said on 12/6/2004 @ 5:38 pm PT...
Note that the site http://www.justaflyonthewall.com is posting an incomplete zip file at this time. It is just a small VB program (demo), this will not work unless the file votefraudcode.frm is added to it.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
patricia jarvis
said on 12/6/2004 @ 6:18 pm PT...
Something got the wind up Buzzflashes back, all of a sudden they hang this Karl Rove ,yellow alert, on their headline. Is it this font business that made them a tinge paranoid, or do they know something not yet apparent to the rest of us? My first inclination, on reading the blog, was to alert my republican son, that his hero boy might be going down in flames,now glad I hesitated. Hate eating crow. Going over everything, can't really see where Jerko Rove could do any damage. Anyway, great reporting , Brad.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
kevin
said on 12/6/2004 @ 6:23 pm PT...
rick: the signature page is the same font. It's the only page scanned in color and in its entirety; the rest were apparently scanned black-and-white (not even grayscale) and omitted the (presumably empty) margins, hence the differences in appearance and size of the text.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
oc
said on 12/6/2004 @ 6:50 pm PT...
There is now a mirror containing PDF and GIF and Word Document (printable) versions of the affidavit, for those of you who need these formats. Just go to www.civictools.org (this is a test blog created by a progressive nonprofit).
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Jen
said on 12/6/2004 @ 7:01 pm PT...
Hope this crap get out on the media....get that son of a bush impeached.....
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Val Zudell
said on 12/6/2004 @ 7:12 pm PT...
God, Please protect Mr. Curtis from wrath and retaliation!
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Alison
said on 12/6/2004 @ 7:18 pm PT...
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Veronica E. Sissons
said on 12/6/2004 @ 7:40 pm PT...
We all know that fraud was perpetrated in the election. Now something has emerged that may indeed be substantiated. What now - can we drive a mass complaint across the nation? Must prove up first though. We must postpone the inauguration at least until we know the truth. Keep Curtis safe. Veronica
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Julie
said on 12/6/2004 @ 8:10 pm PT...
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
Rich
said on 12/6/2004 @ 8:30 pm PT...
This is some very good news for those of us that want to see Dubya and his cronies out of power, but I dont feel we have enough backing to turn the election. There just seems to be too many assholes in this country who are blind to what's going on with the current administration. Let's hope I'm wrong and things turn out in our favor, and keep up the good work! :angry:
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Red-Blooded American
said on 12/6/2004 @ 8:31 pm PT...
Get a clue, people. There was no fraud, no vote rigging.
This so-called "afidavit" reads more like the beginning of a cheap spy novel. Don't you all think it's strange how none of the major news networks picked up on this "hot" story?
As much as you all wish it was otherwise, the fact is that the majority of people in this country voted for Bush. Being whiny and liberal pansies must somehow make you all feel better, because there's a lot of that going on out here.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
Bob
said on 12/6/2004 @ 8:33 pm PT...
Isn't it ironic that the bushies say the election in Ukraine was crooked because the exit polls differed from the count, but in America, when the only place they don't match is in precincts with e-voting and no paper trail and that's not crooked.
Let's hope that this finally makes the bush fans FINALLY open their eyes and admit the truth. They're a bunch of immoral thieves and have no business having any power at all, let alone the ultimate power they currently have. The only hope is for widespread dissemination of the facts, and let's pray that these are the true facts!
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Neil Katcher
said on 12/6/2004 @ 9:32 pm PT...
Interesting piece. When I first read it, i got very excited, but now that i've had time to read the entire filing and think it over, i have a few questions and concerns that i feel need answering.
1) Is this provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? Is there tangible evidence like a copy of the materials Mr. Curtis handed over to Feeney and Yang? If so, can the actual software be uploaded into a voting machine that hasn't been tampered with to see if it would mimic a machine that acted suspiciously in this past election? Even if true, Curtis' allegations only prove a desire to fix the election and not actually fixing it.
2) Is there any tangible evidence linking Feeney to a larger plot? It's one thing to have software, it's another thing to actually do something with it in a meaningful way. Unless one could somehow install the software without having to be there, the amount of folks that would need to be involved makes this a difficult pill to swallow.
3) While I'd love to believe Mr. Curtis, he does have a motive here to screw his former company. Plus, as we all know, a smoking gun does not a whistleblower make. Ultimately, we need the material behind it, (think THE INSIDER... there were studies and findings that were purposely covered up, we'd need the same here)
4) This is concerning the Florida Vote... there is no heat on the florida vote currently except for Bev Harris, who some of you may or may not know has been marginalizing herself by fighting with the very people trying to help her, give her press. Unless something drastically changes, a bombshell like this needs something more tangible to blow up. In other words, one of the down sides of breaking this story before it's totally developed is that it gives those who may be potentially covering up a scandal a chance to destroy any incrimminating evidence and get their ducks in a row if they haven't already.
In the end, Brad keep up the hard work, it's much apreciated... and if you have any answers to these questions, please pass them along. Thanks.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
Neil Katcher
said on 12/6/2004 @ 9:33 pm PT...
Interesting piece. When I first read it, i got very excited, but now that i've had time to read the entire filing and think it over, i have a few questions and concerns that i feel need answering.
1) Is this provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? Is there tangible evidence like a copy of the materials Mr. Curtis handed over to Feeney and Yang? If so, can the actual software be uploaded into a voting machine that hasn't been tampered with to see if it would mimic a machine that acted suspiciously in this past election? Even if true, Curtis' allegations only prove a desire to fix the election and not actually fixing it.
2) Is there any tangible evidence linking Feeney to a larger plot? It's one thing to have software, it's another thing to actually do something with it in a meaningful way. Unless one could somehow install the software without having to be there, the amount of folks that would need to be involved makes this a difficult pill to swallow.
3) While I'd love to believe Mr. Curtis, he does have a motive here to screw his former company. Plus, as we all know, a smoking gun does not a whistleblower make. Ultimately, we need the material behind it, (think THE INSIDER... there were studies and findings that were purposely covered up, we'd need the same here)
4) This is concerning the Florida Vote... there is no heat on the florida vote currently except for Bev Harris, who some of you may or may not know has been marginalizing herself by fighting with the very people trying to help her, give her press. Unless something drastically changes, a bombshell like this needs something more tangible to blow up. In other words, one of the down sides of breaking this story before it's totally developed is that it gives those who may be potentially covering up a scandal a chance to destroy any incrimminating evidence and get their ducks in a row if they haven't already.
In the end, Brad keep up the hard work, it's much apreciated... and if you have any answers to these questions, please pass them along. Thanks.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
Elyce Ellies
said on 12/6/2004 @ 9:42 pm PT...
Maybe we all can do something before the inauguration. Let's hope so. Would be nice
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
STOP_George
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:10 pm PT...
Thanks, Brad!!!
You have proven that bloggers are, once again, making the mainstream media look like amateurs.
I will definitely track this story on my blog!!! That is, if it ever gets mentioned in the mainstream.
http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/
>>> FOCUS: VOTERGATE
This site is dedicated to dissect mainstream news and to expose the half-truths, mis-truths and, most importantly, the truth left out.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
Travieso
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:13 pm PT...
I really hope there is meat to this. Whatever happens, we need to get Curtis some witness protection. Then, we need to investigate thoroughly. We should explain it to the media in the most simple and concise manner possible, because it gets murky when there so much detail. We began to lose people.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
Bill Metcalfe
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:22 pm PT...
There is probably no connection between the death of Mr. Lemme in Georgia and the acknowledgement by a programmer that he inserted changes into several voting machines. I also can't recall if it was during the Presidental Election of 2000 or from a local election in Georgia. I forget when or where I saw the information. Maybe BlackBox.com
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
Buzz
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:29 pm PT...
I wouldn't get to worked up. The press could care less and even more so since they didn't find it themselves.
AND don't expect any help from the democrats. They are too frightened right now to do anything that would smack of "CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!".
So I have no doubts it is true. Not one, but the press which is soundly asleep like it has been for the last 4 decades aint' gonna do shiite.
BUT we can dream can't we?
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
Travieso
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:48 pm PT...
Buzz, I think it is just how we play our cards right. That is why, I feel, we really need to investigate it thoroughly. Leave nothing unturned which can leave holes in the story. If we come out with allot fo rage and anger, at first, it will seem as just typical partisan ranting. But, if we keep our cool, and really stay on top of the story and investigation, this could really pan out. What do you think?
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Don Whiting
said on 12/6/2004 @ 10:48 pm PT...
I don't think anyone truely GETS IT. This country's leaders are corrupt from top to bottom and in between. There is no salvation in a totally rigged system of government backed by billions of dirty dollars and thousands of cut throat dirty people.
All I can say is good luck. Changing this system is but a fantasy!
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
eva
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:43 am PT...
This is great reporting and interesting since I've been wondering when programmers will come forward and blow the whistle on these vote fraud purpetrators. We also need a reward program to get others to come forward especially the Diebold employees because they coded the optical scanners and the central vote tabulation computers. All of the code should be open for public inspection. There is a bill in congress to make the voting process transparent. H.R.2239: Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. It requires a paper trail and that the code for ALL e-voting machines be made available for public scrutiny. It was intended that this bill pass in time for this November’s election… guess not with these crooks in power. Info on my blog, plus other vote fraud related links.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
rambler
said on 12/7/2004 @ 2:48 am PT...
If this is true, if someday soon we see bush and his cohorts in orange prison jumpsuits, I may start believing in God. In anticipation of my conversion I am praying it happens.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Arlene Montemarano
said on 12/7/2004 @ 3:46 am PT...
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
Daniel
said on 12/7/2004 @ 5:26 am PT...
Martin,
About your point (5): Curtis mentions that it would be easy to make the rigging automatic instead of triggered by the hidden buttons. In that case there would be no need to have manpower at each polling station.
Remember, this is about a prototype, not directly about the software used for the elections. If the story is confirmed, what it shows is that a Republican official was investigating the possibility of stealing elections. It could also give trails that would lead to the big deal.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
Daniel
said on 12/7/2004 @ 5:50 am PT...
And about why waiting so long to reveal this, that question is tackled by this interview.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
Lynne
said on 12/7/2004 @ 6:16 am PT...
We know the vote was hacked in more ways than can be counted, and this may very well be credible evidence, but I'm bothered that there is no reference regarding a)who took the affadavit, b)was it prompted by a legal investigation; and if so, c) who's investigating?
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
seamonkey
said on 12/7/2004 @ 7:47 am PT...
listen Brad, there is no explanation of the discrepancy in the typeface between the first three pages and the signature page.
this really looks like disinformation.
if it ends up to be another Karl Rove trick to kill the investigation into REAL FRAUD that took place at the polls, and YOU ARE THE ONE who propagated it, I personally am going to hang you by the balls off of Golden Gate bridge.
either back this up with FACTS or RETRACT!
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
gassed
said on 12/7/2004 @ 8:39 am PT...
Oh yes...if this is dis-information it will ruim our integrity. After all...look at how the Vince Foster garbage ruined the right wing extremists.
And another thing...haven't these Bushies realized that when they start throwing around the "whiny pansies" labels that they are just projecting their self loathing on to us. It is pretty clear that most of them don't work in mental health environments.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
Paul
said on 12/7/2004 @ 11:23 am PT...
Wow! You guys on the kook fringe are just filled will all sorts of conspiracies. I agree with gassed, I do not think that Vince Foster last talked to Clint Curtis but perhaps Curtis is the one who shot Ron Brown in the head.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
Terri
said on 12/7/2004 @ 11:57 am PT...
:) I do hope this gets to the mainstream media. Is Olbermann on the story? He seems to be the only media man covering the election fraud of 2004
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Bryan
said on 12/7/2004 @ 12:19 pm PT...
Seamonkey, it's quite obvious the last page was scanned, so that the signature would be there. I doubt anyone would be willing to put his/her credibility on the line for something if it was obviously a fake. If you've noticed this site at all over the past months, you'll know Brad has been thorough and deliberate in his assessments.
That said, I'm not buying this story yet. At all. I'm fully teased, yet entirely unconvinced. I'm glad the Judiciary Committee is looking into this should it turn out that any of this is substantiated. Neil and Martin's questions above, especially N#3 and M#5, ring true.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
Martin
said on 12/7/2004 @ 12:45 pm PT...
I would be quite willing to believe that voter fraud may have taken place in 2004. However, I am reluctant to believe this particular story is true. There are several questions which I would like answered:
(1) Why wait four years to make this revelation?
(2) For whom was this notarized affadavit prepared? To what end?
(3) In 2000, was electronic voting used in any counties in Florida? The quote from Mrs. Yang implies imminent usage of the program in Southern Florida. I was under the impression that touchscreen voting was only a very recent development in that state.
(4) Was the prototype developed to work with any particular type of electronic voting machine? Or, was it just a generic proof of concept?
(5) The concept of a touchscreen program seems extremely misguided to me. Touchscreens exist only on the individual voting machines at each polling stations. This would be an incredibly inefficient way to hack the vote. It would require manpower at each precinct and significant risk of discovery. Hacking could be much more safely and efficiently done at the computer compiling the results at the county level. What is the proposed scenario of how the touchscreen program would be used?
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
Seth
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:01 pm PT...
This story sure is bringing a lot of attention - I can't get to bradblog.com at all due to high traffic it seems, I have to use the bradfriedman.com/bradblog (or whatever the address is) URL... a lot of people may be missing the story because of that, but it's inevitable. I was scared something bad happened to the Blog at first.
And of course, great work, Brad!
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
Mark
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:03 pm PT...
WOW!! What a hoot. Tell you what I am gonna do with my huge tax cut after I send some to the RNC. I am going to buy lots of stock in aluminum foil. You guys are real wackos.....entertaining but wackos just the same.
Hey don't take my opinion for it. Step back, take off your foil hats and read this thread from top to bottom. Ok you can put your foil back on now.
Keep up the good work.
Mark
W.....still the President
Bush/Rice08
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
Seth
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:04 pm PT...
And of course, after I post that, bradblog.com seems to be working again. Excellent. Here's to hoping it stays that way!
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
Lerdy
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:47 pm PT...
Hey Everybody!!!
You won't believe this pic of Feeney and Jeb Bush. Photo of the Year for sure. :O :O :O
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
Lerdy
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:51 pm PT...
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Lerdy
said on 12/7/2004 @ 1:53 pm PT...
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
Lerdy
said on 12/7/2004 @ 2:12 pm PT...
Feeney definitely prefers Optical Scan. Check it out!
Copyright Times Publishing Co. Mar 6, 2001
Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday pledged to push for money and legal changes to fix Florida's badly broken elections system.
Senate President John McKay and House Speaker Tom Feeney did not attend. McKay got a copy of the report when he arrived at the Capitol late Monday afternoon.
House Speaker Feeney said Monday he supports the optical-scan system, but he would prefer to lend the money to the 41 counties that need the new technology. He said it's not fair to have the state pay for the systems when other counties have already upgraded on their own.
"Are we prepared to spend $20-million if we are fixing a real problem with a real solution? Absolutely yes," Feeney, R-Oviedo, said. "Are we going to spend $20-million so that we could feel good and go home and say, 'Don't worry, we took care of the problem?' Everything's still on the table."
Full article here.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
REALLY BAD FAKE AFFIDAVIT
said on 12/7/2004 @ 3:42 pm PT...
Look at this really bad faked affidavit!!!
These guys keep talking about the "Sworn Statement" from some guy who says he was asked
to write a software hack...
He doesn't claim to have anything to do with the 2004 Presidential election, but whatever.
I seem to remember a scene in a movie, but I can not remember what the movie was.
In the movie, a young lawyer lost an affidavit, so they took the signature page from a different document, and attached it to an affidavit with out the real signature page.
Download the document.
If you want to overlay page 4 text onto the same words in the other pages, it is unbelievably obvious.
Without even going that far, just look at the background of page 4 compared to the rest.
look at the print quality of page 4 compared to the rest.
look at the margins of page 4 compared to the rest.
This has got to be one of the WORST forged/hoax documents of all time.
Is there anything that the left is honest about?
What a bunch of crap.
Dan Rather's Was Better
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
Eillene McWilliams
said on 12/7/2004 @ 7:14 pm PT...
I hope Mr. Curtis gets some protection. We need more people like him to speak out against the government.
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
john h. higgins
said on 12/7/2004 @ 7:24 pm PT...
I was very impressed with the Clinton Curtis affidavit. I'm another of those "wishful thinkers" hoping against hope that something will come up to prove that G dumbya stole the 2004 election. I believe he did but I don't know how he did it. I don't think the program that Mr. Curtis wrote or one like it was necessarily used to fix the election. I like his claim but an affidavit does not prove voter fraud. Nor does the creation of a program that could achieve voter fraud. The proof will only be found in its use....and the election is over so may be hard to prove any program was used to flip the vote.
I believe that what Bev Harris is doing is more likely to prove vote rigging than anything else available. I hope when she's free in Florida that she can come to those important counties in Ohio and give a hand there. It doesn't matter if the proof in all this doesn't occur till after the inauguration. If it's proved beyond a doubt, G dumbya just gets moved from the White House to the Big House.....hopefully brother Jeb and Slippery Dick Cheney...the Halliburton felon...will be sharing a cell with him for many years. An internet connected video camera should be installed in their cell so that all of us ...from wherever we are, can check in on them from time to time just to make sure the world is still safe. Good work Brad...hope you're up for doing more. Investigating Raymond Lemmey's death is a good place to start. To do this, why doesn't everybody email one of his colleagues Robert Clift an clift@dot.state.fl.us and ask him whatever questions come to mind. Thanks jH
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
Moesie
said on 12/7/2004 @ 8:59 pm PT...
Thanks Brad...great job of investigating...let's hope
that the Shrub and his gang don't get to the P.T.B
in the govt to hang Curtis...
If you ever want to change location, Boston would give you tons to write about...lots of corruption here..buried, but here! https://BradBlog.com/Images/emoticons/laugh.gif
You are giving us all hope.....
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
Bjoern from GERMANY
said on 12/9/2004 @ 8:07 am PT...
GREAT JOB! Greetings from Germany! I am watching the progress of the fraud discovery with much attention, and I try to contact as many people as possible to tell them that the world might not be lost yet I pray everyday though I don't believe in God that Bush and his corrupt fukkfaces will be kicked out of the white house.. good luck!!!!!!!
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
tekki2k
said on 12/9/2004 @ 10:21 am PT...
I knew there was sabotage and the programmer would know exactly what was done. However, I really hope he kept a copy of the uncompiled code, or Karl Rove will be able to spin himself out of this one.
However if the proof has been laid out, there is no way he no one could spin out... the code, the documents supporting the procurement of such software, and the proof that it was loaded onto machines used in the elections will need to be fool proof, and holy holidays, Bush his brother, this congressman and many many others should spend some time behind bars.
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
Jon Strayer
said on 12/9/2004 @ 1:31 pm PT...
Brad, why does the fourth page look different from the other three? Do you have a copy of the original? Can you scan the whole thing in?
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/9/2004 @ 3:25 pm PT...
Please see my post about why the Affidavit fourth page looks different than the other three right here.
And let me know if you have any further questions about it.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
visitor01
said on 12/10/2004 @ 9:55 am PT...
Why try to suss out or panic about the 'authenticity' of this affadavit by examining the fonts, etc? An affadavit by definition is on file. What's presented here will prove to be a real copy, or not, in very short order. Its a totally different situation from alleged copies of documents which no one else can produce. What will be entertaining while sickening will be to see how long the attack poodle branch of the press will try to spoof the public with this bogus argument just to try to generate swift boat doubts.
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
Knight_Tyme
said on 12/17/2004 @ 7:46 am PT...
Be Wary of Liberals Bearing Bloggs
By Leo Johnson
To all the honest bloggers out there, take note you’re under attack and your beloved blogger-shpere will be hijacked by the leftist/liberal/socialist agenda
I will offer to you, a list of opinions on why I believe that is about to occur, (for the liberally impaired, please note: opinions are not facts).
I’m well aware that bloggers come in all shapes, sizes and flavors; I (personally) thank God and the framers of the Constitution for that.
On the other hand Leftist/Socialist have to thank Darwin, The DNC, Madonna (no silly, the singer), Al Franklyn, little “g” god, MTV, Mother Nature, PETA, The NY Times, Random chance, The CBS news and of course the holiest of all holies, the one and only true god that all leftist/liberal/socialist pray to, the ACLU [pronounced AK’-Loo] (holy music should play here)
Personally, I like the shorter route of; God and Country… Ok, ok I know I’m way out there in bias-opinion land but I just had to take that tangent, I’ll get back to the point at hand.
I know some of you are already upset with me, but please let me offer some facts to bolster my OPINION. Before I start, I know that throwing facts at a liberal is much like throwing holy water at a vampire, both will get you bulging eyes and forming mouths along with a barrage of profanity and mostly un-intelligible comments. But no matter, here it goes…
Fact: Bloggers where widely credited for exposing the CBS memo-gate debacle, and along with that, came the 1st resounding ring to the end of the old media’s strangle hold on the news we digest. (Thank you bloggers everywhere)
Fact: That recognition has also brought along bandwagon jumping, fair weather, politically motivated old-media types jumping into the fray attempting to “cash-in” on that recognition.
Opinion: That “cash-in” may not be in money but in trying to mold the new media into a clone of the old media, thus maintaining control (I know I’m on tangent again… But I had to close in on that point)
Fact: Bloggers have already been used by the leftist/liberal/socialist groups. Case and point back before the election bloggers throughout the country where posting articles claming plots and plan for the return of the draft. The whole concept of the draft returning was a ploy used by the Democratic Party. They used bloggers and it worked! Now don’t take my word for it… look for yourself in this New York Times article (yes I did say New York Times);
October 6, 2004
Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Trying to quiet fears of a return of the draft, the House Republican leadership engaged in a hasty call-up of its own on Tuesday. The Republicans brought to the floor a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service and presided over its overwhelming defeat on a vote of 402 to 2.
"We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. He accused Democrats of generating opposition to President Bush - especially on college campuses - by raising the idea that the draft might be re-established after the November election to provide troops for service in Iraq.
Democrats were outraged at the tactic, charging Republicans with a cynical political ploy on a matter that merited more thoughtful hearings and debate. The Democrats originally
introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war, even before it began, and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military.
"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it.
With the military strained by its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, talk of a return of the draft - discontinued in 1973 during the Vietnam War - has persisted, fueled by e-mail and Internet chatter warning of a new draft once the election is concluded. The activist group Rock the Vote, which seeks to register young Americans to vote, has also broadcast public service announcements pointing to the draft as an important campaign issue.
Members of Congress are regularly asked about the idea as well, often by worried parents.
"This is the issue that will not go away," said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington. He and other Democrats suggested again on Tuesday that Mr. Bush's re-election could mean a return of the draft, because the administration is already calling back reservists and halting the discharge of military personnel. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has referred to such moves as a backdoor draft.
"How big a step is it from where we are right now to the president saying it is the national interest that everyone serves?" asked Mr. McDermott.
Republicans portrayed such claims as part of a pre-election fraud. "The reason we are doing this is to expose the hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring young people," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Administration officials including Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have said they have absolutely no plans to restore the draft and believe that the all-volunteer military is the proper way to field troops. Both of them have reiterated that position in recent days.
"We will not have a draft so long as I'm the president of the United States," Mr. Bush said to applause from a crowd in Iowa on Monday.
"We do not need a draft," Mr. Rumsfeld said during a radio interview with Sean Hannity. "We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces."
Some Democrats said it was the administration's loss of credibility due to the failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and its mishandling of the aftermath that was to blame for worry about the draft. "The president's foreign policy is scaring the kids of this country," said Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio.
The Internet traffic on the draft often cites as evidence of a future draft the measure sponsored by Mr. Rangel, which would require two years of military service or the alternative of national service, as well as its companion in the Senate sponsored by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina.
The issue has also gotten an airing from Rock the Vote. Officials of the group have said the draft is a subject that should be addressed in detail by the presidential contenders. "We are not saying there is going to be a draft," said Jay Strell, a spokesman for the group. "What we are saying is we need to have an open an honest dialogue about this based on the facts."
With lawmakers acutely aware of the potential political ramifications of backing a draft, the Rangel measure languished without much attention until the Republican leadership decided to force it to the floor to make a political point.
One lawmaker spoke in favor of the bill, saying it was time Congress gave some thought to future military manpower needs.
"I believe we have to start looking at this right now," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democrat on military issues. He was joined in backing the bill by Representative Fortney Stark, Democrat of California.
Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest.
"I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said
Fact: Only two Congressmen voted for the draft and they were Dem-o-crates (the vote was 400 to 2). If you note, it was the Democrats that drafted the bill in the 1st place. It was the Democrats that raised the issue and it was the Democrats that leaked the whole thing to bloggers and it was Democrats that cried foul when the Republicans brought it to a vote in order to defeat it. I’m sorry to say, but many bloggers got duped, plain and simple and with that success liberals see a fertile landscape for future plans.
Fact: It’s happening again, the latest Leftist ploy is to spew out the crazy notion that the election was rigged on a nation wide level. Now I can see many of my leftist friends out there foaming at the mouth ready to pounce, but before you leftist get your “Words of Wisdoms by fourteen olds” book to quote from, let me make my case.
My friends and I have been posting and counter posting one another debating on that very subject. (Personally I think I’m winning) in the following postings:
http://samesidetwocoins....of-2004-welcome-back.php
In the above posting Matthew and Joel cut and pasted an article by Larry Chin that laid out claims of a republican rigged election. (Good fiction I found it very entertaining) Here’s a bit;
"They have been given millions of dollars by the Bush regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting machines that were just used in the 2004 election. The technology involved had a trial run during the 2002 mid-term elections. Georgia had Diebold machines in every precinct. As a result, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called an "amazing" 16 percent swing.
"Diebold's Walden O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, publicly committed himself to delivering his home state Ohio's votes to Bush. At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy, a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement, which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy.
http://peanuts.rizzn.com...out-rigged-elections.php
I refuted such claims with my posting (above) that in part said:
Fact 1:
There is 3,007 entities named "County"
16 Boroughs in Alaska
11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State)
64 Parishes in Louisiana
42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.
Puerto Rico - 78 Municipios
U.S. Virgin Islands - 2 Districts
Guam - 19
Election Districts Northern Mariana Islands - 17
Districts American Samoa - 5 Districts
There are over 191,000 voting precincts.
(Source, USGS) http://interactive2.usgs...ry/get_answer.asp?id=785
Fact 2:
Those numbers would translate into 3,261 Supervisors of Elections, plus that each supervisor would have employees (ranging from 6 to thousands, each) plus each voting district would have a canvassing board with a minimum of 3 people each (from both parties and or an "independent Judge"), each state would have a Secretary of State or comptroller to oversee the results before submitting them to the US federal governments plus each party has delegates to account for each electoral vote. Let alone the 191,000 voting precincts that each has poll workers and polling observers each. That would be by conservative averages involve a total of 2,194,570 co-conspirators. (That's 652,400 SOE employees + 13,044 canvassing board members + 50 Secretaries of State + 1,076 Delegates + 1,528,000 poll place workers and observers). Who would need rigged software? Just let the co-conspirators vote.
(Source, http://www.us.gov/ , my calculator and some common sense)
http://samesidetwocoins....we-had-fair-election.php
After some goading I got Joel to respond, but sadly it was yet another cut and paste, of Dr. Steven F. Freeman’s article from buzzflash.com. If you’ll take note: He keeps referring to buzz flash as his primary source. Here’s an excerpt;
Fact #1
The Exit polls (which are used more and more in Democracies internationally to insure fair elections like in Ukraine) were consistently off in favor of Bush in Key state after key state on the night of election. Strangely enough, In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman a Professor at the university of Pennsylvania says:
"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."
The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Freeman, "250,000,000 to one." That's 250 MILLION to ONE.
Read the full report at
http://www.buzzflash.com...11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf
Let me pause for a second… I have to ask, what algorithm did the good Doctor use, to come up with the 250 million to one formula? I guess we’ll never know, somehow the Doc failed to include or mention it.
http://peanuts.rizzn.com...ks-for-facts-film-at.php
I replied in the above post by demonstrating how a conspiracy in the other direction was more likely; (I wanted to play liberal that day)
But, on the other hand, to rig the exit polling it would only take a fraction of co-conspirators to pull it off. According to Edison/Mitofsky http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html (the people that ran the poll) the exit polling was, in part, as follows;
How many polling places will be in your sample?
Sample sizes vary from state to state. There will be 1,480 exit poll precincts throughout the country. In addition, there will be 2,995 quick count precincts where the vote count will be collected. The vote count comes from the precinct voting officials after the polls
close.
If I put 3 pollsters at each precinct, that would be 4440 pollsters (1480 x 3) and yet another hand full of technicians to do the quick count, but let's go wild and say that the techs aren't pollsters and it would take yet another 2000 more. That brings the total to, 6440 (4440+2000).
Now, let's take a look at the difference, 2,194,570 to 6440 that's 340 times smaller. Which group would be easier to handle? Oh by the way, the 6440 are employed by one PRIVATE company. The 2.2 million would cross over thousands of jurisdictions of varying political parties and bias.
http://samesidetwocoins....-proof-is-in-pudding.php
Then Matthew pressed the CRTL-C key to cut and paste yet another article;
Cobb Sues Blackwell in Federal Court over Ohio Recount
http://peanuts.rizzn.com...als-make-bad-pudding.php
I replied with more FACTS to refute Cobb’s claims and I put Matthew, to task;
Why not try doing some research and stop just, cutting and pasting other people's articles.
I understand, the usefulness of cutting and pasting FACTS from various postings, but you're just using opinion and biased posting. Let me show you a better way...
You cut and pasted a paragraph or two from an article from the Green Party's website, http://www.votecobb.org/...004/dec/pr2004-12-02.php
Now you'd have to admit that it's a partisan view. But then again you're a liberal and you can bend common sense into liberal sense.
Now on the other hand, I went to the State of Ohio's Official election recount website http://election.sos.stat.../RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP
and got the following results. (Those are what we'd like to call FACTS)
President/Vice President Office Candidate Party Votes % of
Votes Statewide Totals
Bush, George W. Republican 2,858,727 50.82%
Kerry, John F. Democratic 2,739,952 48.70%
Badnarik, Michael 4,695 0.26%
Peroutka, Michael Anthony 11,907 0.21%
Cobb, David Keith -WI 186 0.00%
Schriner, Joe -WI 114 0.00%
Harris, James -WI 22 0.00%
Duncan, Richard A. -WI 16 0.00%
Zych, Thomas F. -WI 10 0.00%
Parker, John T. -WI 2 0.00%
Precincts Reporting: 5,625,631 100.00%
Please note that your "proof candidate" got a total of 186 votes and Kerry gained 17,708 votes. That's including counting the provisional ballots.
http://samesidetwocoins....es-bend-over-for-big.php
Joel then took over the cut and pasting job, (I think Matthew’s fingers got tired) and posted a short line or two that was mostly a link to;
http://bradblogtoo.blogs...-blog-whistleblower.html
I hope you still with me. I know the trail is a bit bewildering, but I’m trying to establish a pattern here, no its not that Joel and Matthew are pretty good with the CTRL-C / CRTL-V keys... but you’re close. It’s the fact that they keep using postings from liberal biased BLOGGER sites, and presenting them as facts.
As it turns out, that link was to yet another left leaning website and I figured oh well I’ll read it, (it was almost verbatim copy of an article posted on www.onlinejournal.com.) I became very interested when I came across this tidbit within that article;
https://bradblog.com/Doc.../CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf
(A link to a PDF that is on buzzflash.com, Yep you guessed a leftist web-log site).
As I read it, I was preparing my retort to dispel the whole notion that a conspiracy could be planned back in 2000, to rig a future election by using, yet to be created software on yet to be designed terminals in yet to be announced states using Microsoft’s Visual Basic as a cross platform program (grin). I had a smile on my face…It was going to be an easy target. But then I came to the last two pages of this so called AFFIDAVIT. It was a flash back of CBS’s Memos. The last page doesn’t even come close to matching the other 3 pages the color of the paper was wrong the margins and the typeset didn’t match. But this fraud was in reverse, it was the bloggers faking the documents!
Now here’s the payoff, if we bloggers are to maintain or elevate our current status then we need to take a look at what we put out there and what our peers post and re-post. We need to make HONEST and RESPECTIVE commentary on the issues and if we can find facts to bolster our point of view then we should by all means use it.
All of us will sometimes find that we believe in an issue, a belief that goes right down to the core of our being, but we can’t prove it as fact. Now here is where we need to be able to accept it for what it is, a belief or theory that is not yet a fact. We should feel free to express it as an opinion. A valued opinion, but still just an opinion
But for goodness sake, we can never consider the manufacturing of facts or promote the use of those tainted facts by posting them elsewhere.
For the Leftist Liberals themselves, they have yet a deeper problem. They need to take a look at their whole approach. Maybe they should look for REAL conspiracies going on right in front of them, like the UN Oil for Food program or those 500 Chinese Christians that are killed every day. But alias Liberals only like to search for, or create conspiracies that just happen to coincide with their leftist agenda.
I expect and hope for hardy responses to this posting, but mind you, look at the point of this article and the issue at hand and please use facts to support your response because in turn I will.
I’ll leave you with this thought, many of you may disagree with my politics and outlook but hopefully none of you accept the concept “Do anything to win no matter what”. If we fall into that mind set, we won’t be protectors of the “New Media” but instead we’ll just be a bunch of Dan Rather’s presiding over the New CBS.
Posted to Rizzn.com / Buzzflash.com and hopefully online journal.com
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
Martie Anderson
said on 12/20/2004 @ 7:59 am PT...
I hope that a lot of people learn about this and this gets investigated thoroughly. I will tell you that the House and the Sentate in Florida tried to pass a law saying that it was "ILLEGAL" to have a recount in Flordia elections. I called myself to verify this because I couldn't believe it was true and got in touch with the committee in the house this bill was assigned to. Fortunately, it never came out of committee but if the past holds true, the Republicans will try again.
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
Paul
said on 12/20/2004 @ 8:04 am PT...
John h. higgins wrote:
> I'm another of those "wishful thinkers" hoping against hope that something will come up to prove that G dumbya stole the 2004 election
Hey, kook fringe John, Bush did not steal the election!
Good comments Knight_Tyme.
Boerne from Germany wrote:
> I pray everyday though I don't believe in God
and...
Rambler wrote:
> If this is true, if someday soon we see bush and his cohorts in orange prison jumpsuits, I may start believing in God. In anticipation of my conversion I am praying it happens
If you do not believe in God, who are you praying to? God will not listen to your prayers anyway. You need to get right with God or you will be left somewhere else. There is only one way to God and one way to Heaven, and that is through Jesus. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/20/2004 @ 1:57 pm PT...
Paul, as you know, if you actually bothered to read Knight_Tyme's actual cut and pasted comments, they are wrong from top to bottom.
(And the passage about "Why not try doing some research and stop just, cutting and pasting other people's articles." is, of course, particularly embarrassing for him/her).
By way of just one example, the cut and pasted text mentions this in regards to the affidavit we posted here with this article originally:
"The last page doesn’t even come close to matching the other 3 pages the color of the paper was wrong the margins and the typeset didn’t match. But this fraud was in reverse, it was the bloggers faking the documents!"
As anyone who's been following this story now knows well, the affidavit is certainly not fake, and has been given to members of congress, and used for the basis of Curtis' public sworn testimony given to Judiciary Committee member last week.
(For more on that "mysterious fourth page of the affidavit, see this BRAD BLOG article.)
In other words, Knight_tyme's attempts to use faulty, cut and paste, and frankly just made-up information in an attempt to "discredit" our reporting, and your naivety in agreeing with his silly information have both been miserable failures, and only further to bolster the legitimacy of Clint Curtis' case.
Keep trying though! And better luck next time!
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
...
Leo Johnson
said on 12/20/2004 @ 4:57 pm PT...
Brad,
I am Leo Johnson and I'm also Knight_Tyme, (that’s my blogger name) I wrote the entire article save for the postings that I credited and used those cut and pasted postings only to confirm my position. I took pains to make sure I outlined that in detail.
So once again you’re making postings on stuff you haven’t checked out yet, and you missed the entire reason I wrote the article. I understand, that’s the way liberals work it, you know, the entire “Don’t look at the facts look elsewhere” thing.
I'm not wrong, and the whole idea that the Curtis PDF isn’t a fraud is ludicrous. The page that contains the signature is completely different from the previous 3 pages.
Even if the content of the PDF is what Mr. Curtis claims to have done, it makes no difference, the point of my article was that, as a blogger, you should take time to conceder what you post BEFORE you post it.
When you write and article and within that article you offer a PDF (a PDF that is the anchor of the entire article) that is going to be questioned and examined and it, (the PDF) has glaring inconsistencies. You then have to accept the replies that open you and your site to questions of fraudulent postings.
I’ll rephrase it. So you’ll understand what it is that I’m trying to say. Even if he did sign an affidavit it’s only HIS WORD that he’s attesting to. It in itself is not proof, and no matter what you say that PDF, is not the documentation he signed. That PDF is a document that was pieced together by someone else.
Regardless if the election was rigged or not, that PDF will not prove it for you. You and whoever else used it, has blown that chance, because everyone neglected to use due diligence in vetting the document. Let’s say a pristine version manifest it’s self tomorrow. I will still be overshadowed by the one you presented earlier.
You’re making the same old tried mistakes that most liberals make. You can’t accept what is, and you become so angered by it you complain about it, and then you think that somehow if you keep saying something it will become true. Then, if someone else agrees with you that somehow that becomes “proof” and the next you know you and you pals are off to the races slapping one another on the back claiming some sort of victory. While we conservatives just go about looking at the FACTS (you remember them) and we use logic and the laws of probability to make a reasonable conclusions, and blow you whole theory away.
For the record, most of everything I said here is my opinion, and it only has to be my opinion. That’s because the burden of proof is upon you my friend. You and you buddies have cooked up the idea that the election was rigged. Well, you’d better prove it or shut up and be careful while you looking for that “proof” because we’re watching and if you’re right then we’ll accept it and praise you for you efforts. Otherwise we will challenge you and put you to the test.
I’d like to make this clear, I’m not trying to say that you manufactured the PDF; I’m saying that you did yourself and your cause a disservice by using it. Then by extension you’re also harming all bloggers by diluting the mission… Truth.
Leo Johnson
Knight_Tyme@hotmail.com
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/20/2004 @ 5:37 pm PT...
Good to see from Leo!
> I am Leo Johnson and I'm also Knight_Tyme, (that’s my blogger
> name) I wrote
> the entire article save for the postings that I credited and
> used those cut
> and pasted postings only to confirm my position. I took pains
> to make sure I
> outlined that in detail.
>
> So once again you’re making postings on stuff you haven’t
> checked out yet,
As you'll note in the other thread in which you cut and pasted the same contacts, I asked for your information on where "Leo Johnson" had posted that information orginally, so that I could reply directly to "him" and let him know that he was mistaken.
That *you* are Leo Johnson (something you did not point out when you used an pseudonym to post your article, as if it was written by someone else...You certainly could have used "Leo Johnson" when you left the comment, but chose --- for whatever reason --- to hide behind a pseudonym) is notable, and I hope you'll post as "yourself" next time you wish to go on the record in this matter.
> and you missed the entire reason I wrote the article. I
> understand, that’s
> the way liberals work it, you know, the entire “Don’t look at
> the facts look
> elsewhere” thing.
Ironic statement, Leo. But I'd encourage you to point out a single "fact" in re: my reporting on the Clint Curtis matter that is either wrong, or used to tell folks to "look elsewhere".
Your skepticism is encouraged. Your cynicism and unsupported mis-information is not.
> I'm not wrong, and the whole idea that the Curtis PDF isn’t a
> fraud is
> ludicrous. The page that contains the signature is completely
> different from
> the previous 3 pages.
If you read the link I gave you to the article discussing that "Mysterious Fourth Page" you would know by now that you were wrong. The PDF is not a "fraud" and such a charge has long ago been proven to be "ludicrous", in fact.
If you wish to dispute the information *in* the affidavit, that is fine, and I look forward to your evidence demonstrating that any of it is incorrect. So far, I've been able to find none.
But your backtracking now to claim that you didn't call the affidavit frauduelent is just silly, Leo. You did. You are wrong. And this will go a lot easier for everyone if you are willing to admit that much. For the record, and for the friends you've CC'd. Here's the specific text from "Knight_Tyme's" twice posted comments:
"But this fraud was in reverse, it was the bloggers faking the documents!"
If you have evidence that in any way indicates that *this* "blogger" at least was "faking the documents" I'd encourage you to show it us, or otherwise, admit that you are simply 100% wrong in re: the above statement.
> Even if the content of the PDF is what Mr. Curtis claims to
> have done, it
> makes no difference, the point of my article was that, as a
> blogger, you
> should take time to conceder what you post BEFORE you post it.
If you've have bothered to actually read what I've written on this story, you would know well that not only have I considered what I'd posted "BEFORE" it was posted, but I vetted the information with a number of authorities, and have continuously followed up with additional detail for the past two weeks based on reams of public records, confirmed correspondences between many of the players in this case, extensive interviews with a number of other parties familiar with the case, and other newspapers articles on the matter. All of which extend back at least as far as three years in this case.
Again, I await your evidence demonstrating that this case was not well considered before it was posted here.
> When you write and article and within that article you offer
> a PDF (a PDF
> that is the anchor of the entire article) that is going to be
> questioned and
> examined and it, (the PDF) has glaring inconsistencies. You
> then have to
> accept the replies that open you and your site to questions
> of fraudulent postings.
I accept such "replies" wholeheartedly, and --- in fact --- have encouraged them on many occassions!
You did not "question" however. You "stated". And --- ironically enough --- without any evidence, and contrary to many articles already written on the topic which demonstrate that you were simply wrong, even while charging that I was the one who posted before considering what I was saying.
> I’ll rephrase it. So you’ll understand what it is that I’m
> trying to say.
> Even if he did sign an affidavit it’s only HIS WORD that he’s
> attesting to.
> It in itself is not proof, and no matter what you say that
> PDF, is not the
> documentation he signed. That PDF is a document that was
> pieced together by someone else.
That is not a "rephrasing", Leo. That is a completely different charge.
If you wish to make that charge, I have no problem with it, and --- as I have encouraged others to do (as has Curtis himself) --- I welcome your investigation and any additional material or evidence you may have to offer to suggest that there are reasons to disbelief the allegations that Curtis has made.
I welcome your efforts to do so, and look forward to what you may find in the matter. But to attempt to cover your ass by suggestion you didn't suggest something that you damn well know that you did, only makes your case all the more weak.
> Regardless if the election was rigged or not, that PDF will
> not prove it for you.
Not sure where you got the idea that I ever suggested that it did.
> You and whoever else used it, has blown that chance,
> because everyone
> neglected to use due diligence in vetting the document.
Silly, Leo. We've already discussed this. It was vetted, I saw the original. As have now countless others from the largest media organizations to folks in both the U.S. House and the Senate.
> Let’s say a pristine
> version manifest it’s self tomorrow. I will still be
> overshadowed by the one
> you presented earlier.
If folks like you wish to discredit the whole story based on something completely shown to be incorrect, then I'm sure you will make every effort to do so.
I might, however, suggest you attempt to disprove the actual allegations made since the affidavit itself has already well proven to be authentic, original, and legally binding by scores, if not hundreds of media organizations, elected officials and attorneys at law.
> You’re making the same old tried mistakes that most liberals
> make.
Once again, such silly attempts to discredit information you may not like to read about as being invalid because it has been reported on by someone you regard as "liberal" only weakens your already weak case.
You may wish to try and refute the message, instead of the messenger. But I'll leave that to you.
> You can’t
> accept what is, and you become so angered by it you complain
> about it, and
> then you think that somehow if you keep saying something it
> will become true.
Heheh...Hello, Pot? It's the Kettle on line one!
> Then, if someone else agrees with you that somehow that becomes
> “proof” and the next you know you and you pals are off to the
> races slapping
> one another on the back claiming some sort of victory. While we
> conservatives just go about looking at the FACTS (you
> remember them) and we
> use logic and the laws of probability to make a reasonable
> conclusions, and
> blow you whole theory away.
I look forward to your "FACTS" as well as your "logic and laws of probability" to offer reasonable conclusions in this matter.
Until then, Leo, you're blowing an awful lot of unsupported wind without a shred of evidence to back up your unsupported claims in this matter.
> For the record, most of everything I said here is my opinion,
> and it only
> has to be my opinion. That’s because the burden of proof is
> upon you my friend.
To do what? To demonstrate that your opinions are incorrect? I have done so. My friend.
> You and you buddies have cooked up the idea that the
> election was rigged.
I'm not sure who my "buddies" are in this matter. But I look forward to your FACTS demonstrating that I have claimed this "election was rigged".
> Well, you’d better prove it or shut up and be careful
> while you
> looking for that “proof” because we’re watching and if you’re
> right then
> we’ll accept it and praise you for you efforts. Otherwise we
> will challenge
> you and put you to the test.
Somehow I have a feeling that you'll praise nothing, as long as it doesn't demonstrate the result you'd like to believe in. That said, I have no interest in "shutting up" about these matters, but *you* may wish to do so in order to keep from looking so silly the next time you post unsupported and wholly incorrect information on this blog.
> I’d like to make this clear, I’m not trying to say that you
> manufactured the
> PDF; I’m saying that you did yourself and your cause a
> disservice by using
> it.
Well, actually, that's not what you said at all. But I understand that's what you're attempting to use to save face now.
> Then by extension you’re also harming all bloggers by
> diluting the mission… Truth.
Um, grab a mirror, Leo.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
...
Leo Johnson
said on 12/21/2004 @ 1:00 am PT...
Brad,
If you READ my article Brad you would have noted that I used my name right under the title. I made NO attempts to hide who I was nor did I use a pseudonym. Your system asks for a name and if it should “remember me” and my “auto fill” posted my blogger name and email address. You may have made a reasonable assumption that it was one of two people but you made the UN-reasonable assumption to base your response on that assumption (a response that avoided the point of the article in the first place).
You started out ok, you used MY EMAIL address (that I provided to you), to successfully contact ME. In that email you make some mistaken accretions and asked who Leo Johnson was. But instead of waiting to collect that information you when ahead and posted your totally attention diverting response.
That’s on you Brad and not matter how upset you get. You can’t change it. You moved before you knew. But then again you’re a liberal, it’s expected. You can now claim a tiny victory, you used one of the oldest liberal tactics to DIVERT instead of engaging in a fair debate, and so far I’ve used 3 paragraphs (and counting) to answer your misdirection.
So far you’ve acted like a typical liberal Just like the “personal” type of responses you given me so far. You tried to take apart my last response line by line in order to make yourself look good in what is suppose to be a pseudo “point counter point” style but sadly you’ve failed Brad, any visitor of this site can read for themselves and it’s obvious that you’re tiring to misinform and misdirect your readers.
Now let’s get to the FACT part you asked for Brad: (I love this stuff)
FACT 1: You misinformed your readers. In your response you alluded to suggesting that you made NO claims that the election was rigged by writing…
But I look forward to your FACTS demonstrating that I have claimed this "election was rigged".
Who is trying to fool whom? Your entire site is a towering edifice to biased, crazed anti-Bush, liberalism. Your site promotes a book that claims President Bush is tiring to establish a Holy Roman Empire, Your site sales Anti-bush gifts, You Site has an ad that ask for
“HELP AMERICA RECOUNT”, and that ad links
http://www.helpamericarecount.org
If you aren’t making that claim then what would be the whole point of your article and its FAKE affidavit? Come on Brad that was too easy.
FACT 2: I don’t need to prove anything, you do. I have the luxury to challenge your claims because (I know this hurts) George W Bush WON the election and it’s your side that making the claims and it’s up to your side to PROVE it. Now don’t even try to say you’re not making that claim. (Please refer to fact num 1)
FACT 3: The Affidavit is at the very least questionable or worse, a fake. Being that you used a mismatching affidavit and you have not been able to provide us with a set of four matching pages of the REAL affidavit then it can hold no weight and should be treated with suspicion.
FACT 4: I don’t need to refute the affidavit. When I read the affidavit and realized it was FAKE then why should I or anyone else waste time on it? (Please refer to CBS’ Memo-gate) The burden was to call out everyone who was using it and presenting it as some sort of proof.
FACT 5: It matters not. If it turns out that Curtis did indeed make such a document it proves not a thing. If you were to use LOGIC, you’d have to treat such a claim with suspicion and then ask…
Why did you wait five years to say something?
Can you provide us with the software?
Where is the money you was paid and can you prove why it was paid to you?
How did you write a “hack” for software that was yet to be written?
How did you predict what OS, database and which company would use the yet to be designed machines on yet to be decided hardware and its drivers?
Can you demonstrate on a real machine (any that is still in DEMOCRATIC and Republican precincts throughout the country) on how are you able to avoid detection of the hacked software?
How did you train the election officials to run the “fraud routine” and can you provide the names of those officials and or the trainers?
Can you rewrite that routine today? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
How come, with you being such a Genius Mr. Curtis, (a genius that was able to write such fantastic code) you weren’t able to make a copy of the source code to PROTECT yourself?
Why shouldn’t we conceder the fact that your making all these claims against your former bosses that sued you and you them?
Why is it that you blew your whistle AFTER the election!!?!!!???!?
If you could answer those few questions then and just then you’ll have something to talk about. Otherwise store that affidavit in your UFO.
FACT 6: You’ve been duped. You’re biased and you’re looking for a conspiracy. You could have easily offered that PDF and made clear statements that stated what his claims are and offer room to look for real evidence. But instead you put sirens and “Whistle Blower” headlines and your BRAD logos all over the pages and claim an “exclusive” while others like Buzzflash.com and Onlinejounal.com and www.lefterer.com has been stating that their not sure yet and some have reporting on it for weeks http://www.lefterer.com/?page=feature&id=139
FACT 7: Curtis has his own site. He registered on godaddy.com please look.
Registrant:
clint curtis
P.O. Box 955
Woodville, Florida 32362
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: JUSTAFLYONTHEWALL.COM
Created on: 27-Jan-04
Expires on: 27-Jan-05
Last Updated on: 13-Sep-04
Administrative Contact:
curtis, clint clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com
P.O. Box 955
Woodville, Florida 32362
United States
8502100047
Technical Contact:
curtis, clint clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com
P.O. Box 955
Woodville, Florida 32362
United States
8502100047
Domain servers in listed order:
WSC1.JOMAX.NET
WSC2.JOMAX.NET.
And on HIS OWN site he doesn’t post his OWN Affidavit!!! http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/votefraud.html and if you want do a www.whois.com look up on www.justaflyonthewall.com
FACT 8: Mr. Curtis had his chance. He created his site back in Jan 2004 and it could have used his site to post his claims WELL BEFORE the elections but somehow with all of the information he had, he waited AFTER the election to say anything…and used YOU. Brad to do it (see fact 6)
FACT 9: You’re in a Bind. You have chased this story (that supported your bias) with so much passion you failed to use due diligence and much like CBS you have to find some proof to validate your involvement and commitment. You’re now making claims to have spoken to officials that validate Curtis’ claims but you don’t offer those officials names.
FACT 10: Visual Basic is not a cross platform capable program! I own a computer company and run a web hosting company and my employees and I code for ourselves using VB.NET /ASP /JAVA /RAIL /PHP /FLASH ACTION SCRIPT/ RSS/ COLDFUSION /PEARL and we laughed out loud when we heard that Curtis made claims that he used VB to write a cross platform program. VB and ASP will not run on Unix/Linux systems and of all the choices VB would be the worst. If you wanted to create a cross platform code you’d have to have some idea what different OS’es it would be running under, and then find the API’s or “Hooks” that would let you run you code. Then you’d have to write a OS independent set of drivers that would talk to the touch screen hardware that reads your finger press on a yet to be designed platform and then you have to know what variable/arrays they might use and/or if the touch screen uses HEX / DECIMAL or STRING values to pass the info back to the OS.. If Curtis was able to pull of this he missed his calling, he’d be the worlds BEST programmer. Now, if you question that he purposed VB look at Curtis’ personal site: http://www.justaflyonthe...com/votefraudprogram.htm please note that he used VB5, and here’s the code he offers as an example www.JustAFlyOnTheWall.com\VoteFraudCode.zip
FACT 11: You knew about the VB problem and chose to ignore it. Mark Hopkins of Rizzn.net / Rizzn.com posted a comment to you that made mention of the VB problem and you refuted Mr. Hopkins’ point when you could have typed in http://www.justaflyonthe...com/votefraudprogram.htm
in you browser window and found out for yourself. But instead you typed out your biased articles.
I just got started Brad and I will offer you more if need be. Wait!, I haven’t even gotten to the part that you suggest that I backed away from my own comments somehow.
I did indeed say that the document was faked but I graciously gave you the benefit of the doubt that you where not directly involved, well, now that you prodded me to look deeper, I’m not so sure.
Leo Johnson
Knight_tyme@hotmail.com
P.S. I hope you rethink you position and look deeper into Mr. Curtis’s agenda.
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/21/2004 @ 2:00 am PT...
Leo, you're so silly.
We'll set aside your nonsense that your name "Knight_Tyme" was used because it was auto-remembered by a system on which you've never published before. And that you posted your initial article as if it was "by" someone other than yourself. Frankly, this newest backtrack of yours is not worth the effort to even discuss.
That said, I was actually going to respond to your "FACTS" section point-by-point until I got to this section:
"Why did you wait five years to say something?
Can you provide us with the software?
Where is the money you was paid and can you prove why it was paid to you?
How did you write a “hack” for software that was yet to be written?
How did you predict what OS, database and which company would use the yet to be designed machines on yet to be decided hardware and its drivers?
Can you demonstrate on a real machine (any that is still in DEMOCRATIC and Republican precincts throughout the country) on how are you able to avoid detection of the hacked software?
How did you train the election officials to run the “fraud routine” and can you provide the names of those officials and or the trainers?
Can you rewrite that routine today? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
How come, with you being such a Genius Mr. Curtis, (a genius that was able to write such fantastic code) you weren’t able to make a copy of the source code to PROTECT yourself?
Why shouldn’t we conceder the fact that your making all these claims against your former bosses that sued you and you them?
Why is it that you blew your whistle AFTER the election!!?!!!???!?"
...Which revealed that you haven't even read my first article on the Clint Curtis affidavit, much less the boatloads of subsequent reporting I've done on it!
Had you done so, every one of the questions you asked above would have been answered (though most of them wouldn't have been asked in the first place since they have no basis in the actual FACTS of the Clint Curtis story).
There's a nice easy to use "sidebar" at right listing several of the key articles in my reporting on the Clint Curtis story. Read them.
And then if you find that any of your ill-informed questions above (or any new ones) still require answers, feel free to let me know.
(Here's the smallest of hints to help you get started, Leo: Clint Curtis never said or even implied that he used this software on *any* voting machines. Also, you may wish to look up the definition for "prototype" if you still are unclear on the concept after reading the actual stories --- and I might suggest you bother to read his actual affidavit while you're at it. And finally --- your last hint for now, Leo --- Curtis never claimed he was "paid money" to write this prototype, he claimed to have done so while being paid a salary by a company who's name you might know if you bothered to read a single one of the articles written on the topic).
Beyond that, feel free to continue your disinfo campaign as you see fit. It will take quite a bit of your time, but until you bother to pose questions based on the actual story being reoprted here, I won't bother to spend any more of my time trying to help you out.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
...
Leo Johnson
said on 12/21/2004 @ 10:22 am PT...
You're hiding from the facts Brad.
Are there Black Helicopters hovering over your home?
Do you have a tin Foil Hat?
Did a Giant White Rabbit tell you…? “Silly Liberal... FACTS are for Republicans. “
I know, I should have known the result when I threw the holy water of common sense on you Count Brad. Only if you’d open your eyes and LOOK, then you’d realize that this is what you need to understand, (it may help you in 2008)
You're suffering from P.E. S. T. Post Election Stress Trauma, and you just want it to be different (the election) and only if it could be true that it was rigged then you'd be able to breathe again.
Get the Net Brad the election was NOT rigged your guy Kerry lost fair and square. Please stop trashing the good name that bloggers still have. You started this trash and when we task you to come of with some REAL facts you have none, and now you’re using smoke and mirrors to “FIX” it.
Just because you typed up some excuses that try to explain Curtis glaring holes within his “STORY”, doesn’t mean you have facts. It just means that Curtis or you how to write a good STORY and too bad so sorry, neither of you aren’t that good at it.
FACT 1: A truthful story doesn’t need excuses to stand on its own
FACT 2: A responsible reporter does objective and independent research. Please note the words Objective and Independent!
FACT 3: You continue to be duped (Hook line and Sinker) by Curtis. You posted this diatribe: http://www.crooksandliar...com/2004/12/06.html#a962
You were called or IM’ed (I assume by electronic means) by Curtis and he informed you that his healthy DOG died. You then moved on from that pseudo FACT and wrote an 8 paragraph article, concluding that someone KILLED his dog, in order to threaten or warn Curtis. A good reporter would ask you these questions?
Did you do any research that did not rely on Curtis’ claims?
You typed;
“I don't wish to give any other details for the moment, but the story should get out there.
Why would ANY story need to go out without details?
Do I the reader, even know if Curtis even has a DOG, and if so is it dead?
Can you prove the dog’s medical history and what was cause of death?
What “kind” of people in Florida?
FACT 4: Using your Biased Monolithic Polarized logic I could write and entirely different story with the very same limited information of the DOG story and it would hold just as much water.
Flash! This just off the presses! Visual Basic programming expert, Clint Curtis’ otherwise healthy German Shepard gets hit by a CAR with Florida tags!
Flash! German Shepard gets attacked by un-seen Giant grub!
Bigfoot eats DOG In Florida! Film...Uhm, artist rendition at eleven!
FACT 5: Your site and its biased postings are not that important or informative to have triggered an assassination of the poor DOG, within hours of you posting the story.
FACT / Opinion 6: It’s not working. No serious media outlet has picked up on the story and backed it up, because Mr. Curtis’ story has too many holes in his story. That can NOT be verified independently an would expose them to honest questions that hey could not answer. (See how that works Brad?)
FACT / Opinion 7: You’re using an old liberal / leftist tactic; you throw out a lot of accusations and then ask everyone else to disprove it, by making them prove the negative (something that NEVER happen) thus shifting the burden on them, instead of YOU.
FACT 8: The world is littered with prototypes that never worked. Curtis’ software is not only VAPOR-ware it never happened nor could it happen as he claims it did. Visual Basic will not run on VOTING machines. I’ll type it slowly so you can understand. Visual BASIC will not run on VOTING machines. Your boy Curtis claims to have used Visual Basic to rig the election. on his OWN site!
http://www.justaflyonthe...com/votefraudprogram.htm
FACT 9: It still matters not. If he signed an affidavit that claimed he flew to the moon and back would you write a story supporting that claim and then task the rest of the world to disprove it? The rigged software story is just as improbable with the VB thing and the prewriting of a HACK before real versions of the voting software or hardware was made.
I’ll stop with the facts for now; you might get faint and upset. (Liberals can only take facts in very small doses because it hurts their “FEELings”.)
Stop using the Knight_tyme thing to distract everyone Brad; it was YOU who tried to use it as a point of contention in the fist place, not I. It’s an obvious diversion tactic form the issue at hand. That issue was:
You where being ill-responsible and biased by using FAKE documentation to make up a story and use it as supported for your already conceived conspiracy theory.
It’s funny that in a way, I hope you have an impact on the Democratic Party because with your mind set we (the Republicans) will have the White House and more of Congress in 2006 and 2008. Keep up the good work... Brad.
Leo Johnson
Knight_tyme@hotmail.com
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
...
Mark Hopkins (aka rizzn)
said on 12/21/2004 @ 1:12 pm PT...
Brad,
Before I even begin, I sigh to myself and try to figure out exactly why I'm attempting to explain the obvious to you, since you refuse to even read the entirety of our emails before responding, and I remember, for whatever reason, major media outlets like Air America decide to give you and Bev Harris feature interview slots, and if I can reach one person who speaks to many, then it *might* be worth it. To be honest, I'm starting to re-evaluate that belief.
I had actually just read that article before writing to you lat time.
Many of your claims are actually quite wrong, even after a simple cursory read through Curtis's website. Furthermore, the centerpiece to the whole story, the source code to the vote fraud software, is available on that site.
Let me tell you as someone who has been involved in professional programming from the time I was 14, that this software is little more than a joke. It proves nothing as a prototype, and as a piece of actual *functioning* software, it is even *less* useful. The program doesn't even run on 80% of the machines I've tried to install it on.
All that aside, the point of my letter was not to say that Curtis was actually involved in or claiming that he rigged the vote, but to say that many people *involved with this* claim themselves that the voterigging would be impossible; having established that, why are we so very concerned with a certain Mr. Feeney's congressional indiscretions?
I present myself, first of all, as an expert on the field to back up the claim that it's impossible, if not improbable. Just as well as you know how to make a story up that stirs all the liberals in the country to your side, I know programming, and this program is not only improbable, Curtis's "prototype" us unable to perform it's purported task, not to mention fall short of providing a blueprint on how to rig the vote. Don't even think about trying to apply it to any other voting platform, it doesn't pass muster on ANY level.
With this as your supposed smoking gun to prove that there is something rotten in Denmark, how can you delude yourself into believing *anything* untoward happened with the vote?
If you are serious about finding out the truth, you shouldn't be looking at things that can be faked or lied about (such as anecdotal evidence, personal evidence, affidavits, and the like) --- take a lesson from memogate and take your source material to experts in document forensics and take the source code and concepts to actual experts in the field.
I don't poo-poo this story on the basis that I'm a conservative, I poo-poo it on the basis that I'm a programmer, and my intelligence has been insulted by this crazed bunch of liberals in this country trying to convince me that there's a vast conspiracy of evil Republicans screwing with the voting process. It's simply not technically feasible, and people like Bev Harris are screwing with the laws of probability and feasibility and have convinced a surprisingly large number of otherwise intelligent people into believing in a myth.
/mark
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
...
Leo Johnson
said on 12/21/2004 @ 1:53 pm PT...
Here's a quick one for everyone...
Brad replied to Mark Hopkins and CC'd it to me...
Please Note: this just part of Brad's email and I’m not taking it out of context
Replying to you here, Mark, instead of to Leo, but CC'ing him of course,
since I'm in the middle of quite a few things, and don't for the moment
have
the time to answer to Leo's questions since all of them have already been
answered to (if you guys bothered to read my actual reporting...See "Some
Good Questions Answered" for instance at:
https://bradblog.com/archives/00001036.htm
As you can see he's directed me / us to a FAQ for his article...
NOTE to Brad; If you have to write a FAQ for your postings... you failed.
Good articles don't need FAQs You should have figured what questions would be asked before hand and if the questions out weighted the article then you should take a pass on the story.
Brad, learn the lesson here, you're suppose to do research that does NOT reply on a single person's word. If you're going to do it, then, DO IT right! Do your homework BREFORE you post it.
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/21/2004 @ 2:39 pm PT...
Since Mark reposted his email here, I feel compelled to post my emailed reply --- in it's entirety --- here as well. Here it is...
===
I appreciate your opinions, Mark. As a programmer myself, I'll have to disagree with you however. There is nothing in Curtis' simple little code that could not have been used (if anyone wished to) in any of the central tabulating machines or voting machines.
If you're unable to get a VB5 app to "run on 80% of the computers it was installed on", I'm not sure what to tell you. As Curtis has said, it was a simple program written in an afternoon. As a longtime (VB) programmer, I concur. There was nothing extraordinary sophisticated about his prototype program. To that end, I also present myself as an "expert" on the matter, though I haven't discussed *my* expertise in that field, since I've been reporting on the topic, leaving it to others unrelated to reporting to do so. And they have. Go read them.
What *is* extraordinary are his claims that Tom Feeney conspired to tamper with the vote. Period.
If those claims are true, a felony was likely committed. We have been going about determining if Curtis can be trusted on this account, and to find out who else might be willing to discuss it (there were several others in the room at the time).
So far, not a single claim of Curtis' has proven to be untrue, and in fact, the bulk of them have been proven to be precisely true and verifiable and confirmable via loads of Public Records, and more.
To the contrary, the majority of Mr. Feeney's few claims, along with those of Yang's Attorney's (who happen to be Mr. Feeney's old law partners, and contributors still to Feeney) along with those of YEI themselves (as seen on their website, and discussed in some detail here: https://bradblog.com/archives/00001054.htm) have proven *demonstrably* UNtrue. With actual evidence.
So far, neither Feeney, nor YEI, nor their Attorneys (Feeney's law partners) have presented any evidence to back up *their* claims (that Curtis was "a disgruntled employee" that "Nee never worked at YEI", etc.).
So if you look at the actual *evidence* from both sides, so far it's CURTIS: Several - FEENEY/YEI & ATTORNEYS: Zero.
We'll see how it unfolds. More evidence to be produced which seems to be support Curtis' claims today, by the way.
And yes, I read your entire emails (along with Leos). But I'm too busy to bother wasting time answering questions that have either already been publicly answered, or are based in NO WAY on any of my reporting or on Curtis' publicly made claims.
Brad
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
...
attorney jim
said on 12/24/2004 @ 6:41 am PT...
How is Clint's book doing? I am sure with all this "publicity" the Bradblog is raising, that sales for his book are up by 10 or 12.
How much does that put in your pocket, Brad?
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
...
Clarence E. Walker Jr
said on 12/30/2004 @ 5:14 pm PT...
Where is the Washington Post, CNN,NBC,FOX,ABC,CBS ? Does the BBC know? Well now a well kept secret is out let the whole world know that we of Black America knew with in our hearts that "Dirty Hands" applys to the Bush Election2000 Here is the Proof "World"
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
...
Rodolphe De Rosee
said on 2/11/2005 @ 12:52 pm PT...
Interesting article Brad! What's also very interesting is to read the comments from seemingly pro-Republican people...how they disguise personal opinions as supposedly "FACTS #1, 2, 3, etc"...and how they label people they dislike as "leftist/liberal/socialist". But can these pro-Republicans, who claim to hold the Truth, and make references to God repetitively, tell me what's actually wrong with being a "Leftist", a "Liberal", or a "Socialist"? Firstly, isn't one entitled to have one's own political opinions without being persecuted? Secondly, do you people even know what leftist, liberal and socialist mean? If you did you would know that "Socialist" and "Liberal" are actually contradictory terms! Do you even know what ideologies they represent? Isn't leftist ideology about redistribution of wealth in order to help the less fortunate? Why is it wrong to believe in helping your fellow humans, and (to continue with your introduction of Religion) wasn't Jesus the very one who pioneered those concepts? Please tell me what Republican ideology is all about except for making money, and how it implies you are so much closer to THE Truth, and God! Have you ever thought that the Republican's insistence of introducing God, and (Holy) Truth within a debate, was a technique to justify arguments which would otherwise be undefendable?
Open your eyes!!!!
Finally a FACT is of the type: Bush justified the war in Iraq by telling us he had hardcore evidence that Iraq hosted Weapons of Mass Destruction....2 years later he acknowledges he was wrong.
Seems like a pretty big LIE to me (and only one of the MANY MANY MANY!!!). So if your #1 Republican is incapable of telling us the truth, how dare you claim that your opponents' ultimate goal is to corrupt this country with their lies!!!! Smell your own shit before smelling others'!
So until you can prove me that Bush and Co. are telling the truth, I will be willing to believe those such as Brad who can provide viable evidence of what really happened.
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
...
Nunya
said on 3/10/2005 @ 11:13 am PT...
"Socialist" and "Liberal" are not necessarily contadictory terms. Social Democrats and Libertarian Socialists would be inclined to take issue with you, but thanks for kind words. You are right, most of the trolls, and many liberals, really haven't looked into it all very much. A liberal is one thing here and another thing in the rest of the world. To most of Europe, George Bush and Tony Blair are neo-liberals. Labels are almost useless in political discourse these days.
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
...
MTS
said on 3/12/2005 @ 6:57 am PT...
I absolutely admire bloggers as journalists, I think they provide a very necessary outlet for news, such as this story. As if reporting isn't shameless enough, bloggers do it nearly for free. Just the very presence of a well-written story helps us get closer to the truth.
They can even bring down a man like Dan Rather, or point out discrepancies in FOX News' broadcasts. But sometimes they fall flat on their face, which is the risk in partisan investigative journalism. It's there so we can talk about it.
But I'm sure the vast majority of Americans, John Kerry included, believe this story has too many loose ends and too much information relies solely on one person whose character and motives are unknown to the rest of the world.
Keep doing what you're doing, Brad. As a student of journalism, I know what you're doing is important, and I wish more people put in the time and effort you do. I just don't think you've got anything this time.
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
...
Jeanne Chebib Presidential Candidate Washington DC 2004
said on 4/1/2005 @ 11:20 am PT...
I have file two complaints to the Federal Election Commission by Certified Mail and FAX that:The State of Ohio Owe me 3 Billions Dollars for Damages case 2cv1419 and for re-election de G.W.Bush 2004 have Judge Gladys Kessler has accepted a case CR60 to revert her own award judgement :The Law says 4 months to file and the Attorney General of Ohio filed in 7 months about ,and the State of Ohio had failed the Federal Laws RICO complaint.Others cases 2cv1433 stealing my racing Horses and dogs,and 2cv1488 State of Ohio And Samaritan Hospital in Ashland County battery and violence into the hands of CIA Dr.Cover to try to destroy my legal brain and more including attempted murder in Jan 15,2000 on my life and quantity of Sham Pleadings and Harrassement originated in Washington D.C.:Mrs Schiavo may also have like me a supporter of the United States Constitution and had been a victime and hence the result.
COMMENT #89 [Permalink]
...
the martins
said on 5/9/2005 @ 11:17 am PT...
Brad, i couldn't find another way to get in touch with you so please forgive and welcome our note...
Dear Brad,
Great web site! We know all too much about what your web site deals with, please review our web site and ADD it to your links page or "useful sites page"
http://www.self-protection.info
The psychology behind this biography is "bar none" the "best" to deal with abusive employers "disgruntled bosses" BULLIES, in certain situations, because when you learn from this, what can be done and said, one may NEVER have to work AGAIN due to damages done by and employers…and the FACT that the government allows it!
this is potentially priceless…especially when it is used!!!!
Please call if you have any questions...we are looking for someone who is just as honorable to help launch this into the mainstream. Someone who knows marketing/advertising/etc.
feel free to pass this email along...
Thanks ever so much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
the martin family
po box 3
roselawn, in 46372
219-765-5019
ps. this has been nominated for the 2005 Entrepreneur of the Year Award!.... we hope to be in the winners circle
Let Whistleblowers make a “STRONGER” Claim!
please review
http://self-protection.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/...arassmentDiscrimination/
COMMENT #90 [Permalink]
...
mildred l. smith
said on 5/21/2005 @ 11:16 pm PT...
:angry:
I am so angry at the democratic party for standing by and allowing the election to be privatized by the republican party. There is no way that the republicans would have allowed this to happen to their members. The democrats make me angry trying to repersent the republicans instead the members from their own party. If I wanted a republican to rapersent me I would have voted republican. They should all learn from Barbera Lee.
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
...
Jim
said on 10/25/2006 @ 4:16 pm PT...
This is so much BS it is unbelievable that anyone would fall for it. Oh what am I saying you are Democrats of course you believe it. The citizens from voter fraud groups did not believe him. John Conyers investigators did not believe Curtis. Vote Fraud did not buy his story. All the local papers except the Daytona Beach News Journal a Democrat owned paper stated that the man was lying. He was fired from YEI for incompetence. Tom Feeney does not kill dogs at night another reported Curtis claim. The guy just got several Florida Police departments in trouble by claiming on his website that they had endorsed him. That is of course illegal but the guy is a pathological liar. He has after being caught at that changed the claim to reflect that it was not the Departments but the Teamsters who endorsed him. The guy is not only nuts he is stupid as well. The reason all of the investigations in which he was involved concluded he was a liar was THERE WERE NO ELECTRONIC TOUCH SCREENS IN FLORIDA DURING THE 2000 VOTE AS CURTIS CLAIMED. THAT IS WHY WE WERE ALL RECOUNTING PAPER BALLOTS, DUH!!!
The only folks attempting to steal an election were the Gore dems. They wanted to keep counting the ballots until the Constitutional deadline passed and all the votes in Florida were void because our electors were not seated. Gore would have won with 49 states and you mopes would have come back to blame the Republicans for not certifying the votes. Just like you tried to blame the Republicans for the incompetence in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. All Democrat, all Democrat election supervisors, majority Democrat canvassing boards. No surprise that they could not count, but again the mopes of the world try to place the blame on the Republicans. Yeah, they were trying to steal the election and picked the Democrat controlled counties in which to do it. And they let you people vote, no wonder the country is having trouble at the polls.