BRAD BLOG: Good Questions Answered About the Curtis/Feeney Story!...

Some Good Questions Answered About the Curtis/Feeney Case!
Many questions have appropriately been raised out in the net and beyond about the entire Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang Enterprises story, and -- occassionally -- my role in it. Rather than answer the same questions so many times, I'll attempt to answer here some of the most frequently asked...
FULL STORY: http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/some-good-questions-answered-about.html

Hope that articles helps answer several questions I've seen here on DU!

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

where the hell has Curtis been for four years? why is he only coming out now as opposed to before the election, and why didn't he come out during the 2000 crisis?

Curtis was only approached to write a prototype in 2000. And it was his understanding that Feeney wanted it to see how easy it would be to do to protect the system from such tampering. Later he was told that they had to make it work in order to get the contract. However, these considerations come straight from the blog:


"Curtis claims that it was the fact that he thought such a program could never be used -- since the code would likely be discovered -- that he didn't give much thought to the election-rigging issue, and was far more troubled by the various acts of espionage that he had witnessed at YEI.

He told me that it was not until a story last summer on CNN which mentioned that source code for electronic voting machines was not being inspected -- and was instead being given to states already-compiled in the machines -- that he sat up, took notice, and recalled what he claims that Feeney had asked him about in October of 2000."

There's probably more information, out there. Like, either he or Madsen went to the FBI and CIA and they wouldn't listen.

he just forgot until he saw a CNN story, is that his official story?

In answer to your question, Feeney, allegedly, came to him in October 2000. Election was in November. The electronic machines that would have been tampered with, hadn't yet been manufactured.

But here some more background information:

"Curtis, "a life-long Republican" at the time, claims that it was his initial belief that Feeney's interest was in trying to stop Democrats from using "such a program to steal an election". Curtis had assumed that Feeney, "wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred."

Upon delivery of the software design and documentation on CD to Mrs. Yang, Curtis again explained to her that it would be impossible to hide routines created to manipulate the vote if anybody would be able to inspect the precompiled source code.

Mrs. Yang then told him, "You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in S

http://anti-bush.blogspot.com/2004/12/whistleblower-affidavit-programmer.html

but i have to go to work so i'll be dropping out of this conversation right now. thanks for responding with what you could.

He was a lifelong Republican, remember?

"where the hell has Curtis been for four years? why is he only coming out now as opposed to before the election, and why didn't he come out during the 2000 crisis?"

Good question, codegreen! And I wish I had included what *I* understand to be the answer to that question in my post.

I will answer here what my understand is, and will add both your your question, and my answer to Q&A post at BRAD BLOG TOO.

That's a very good question! And when I've asked Curtis about this his answer was fairly straight-forward. At the time, he told me, he was more concerned about the various espionage issues he claims to have been seeing at YEI, including "wire-tapping software" added to programs sold to large contracts such as NASA and FDOT, and Mrs. Yang shipping off information wholesale to her brother in China. (As I mentioned in the original story, Mrs. Yang had told Curtis that her brother had been deported for "being a spy".)

Given that Curtis had felt at the time that any plan to rig the voting though such means could never work since -- as he'd pointed out several times according to his affidavit -- any such tampering would be discovered upon examination of the source code.

It wasn't until the summer of 2004, Curtis told me, when he noticed a story "on CNN or something" (he claims he's not really much of a political junkie) about electronic voting which mentioned that the source code for the machines was allowed to have been kept proprietary by the companies which made and sold them.

At that point, he told me, "that when I sat up and said...oh, my god, they're actually doing it...they're keeping the source code hidden!"

Since then, he claims, he's been trying to contact "anybody and everybody" he could about the Tom Feeney incident back at YEI in 2000.

I hope that helps. That's *his* story on the matter and it can be accepted or not as valid as you see fit.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

but thank you for providing what response you could for the time being.

...were included when I added your question, and my answer to the bottom of the Q&A at http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/some-good-questions-answered-about.html

Hope it helps. And I'm sure he will be elaborating more as more folks ask him about that.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Thanks Brad!

Q17. Was his dog really shot just after The BRAD BLOG published the original article on this case? That seems a bit much to believe!

A. Curtis' three-year old German Shepard, Champ -- which had been rescued from a pound -- was found dead the evening that my original story on this was published. A pool of blood was found on the back porch at Curtis' house, and the dog was later found under some sticks in the nearby woods with an entrance wound in his front left leg, and exit wound in his rear. A police report was filed on the incident and should be confirmable via public records.


Until you prove this you are just a gossip blogger.

edit to add:

You were the one to report being told this by Curtis himself.

You own it.

Welcome to the big leauges.

I'm more concerned about his book being free, or whether he took software.

I believe him about the dog though

I have heard this story repeated by talk show hosts leaving out the dead dog.

The dead dog is part of the whole story because Bradblog not only broke the affidavit story but also used the dead dog to add weight and credibility to it.

Now when I see it being left out of other reports I worry about a set up and get suspicious of the motives behind reporting it without proving it.

This is deadly serious.

...for the reasons you described.

If you are truly concerned, then make a few calls in the morning to assuage them or confirm them.

I'm not going to post material that may further endanger Curtis or those around him. Sorry.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Maybe I'm just thick but unless you explain a little how proving your claims endangers Curtis then your answer may look like a cop out to some.

Then that will have to be the the case, SomthingsGotaGive. If you feel it's a cop out, that's your right, of course.

(Though spending so much time criticizing *me* instead of doing as I suggested and finding out *for yourself* if you're *really* interested in the matter..."may look like a cop out to some" as well.)

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

This is B.S.

If we question you, then we don't care? That's exactly opposite to the direction reason should lead us. We question you, and demand our proof, becuase we DO care and are scared shitless that you are setting us up to look like fools.

YOU prove it. Or perhaps it's YOU who doesn't care. But horsecrap ad hom attacks aren't going to fly around here in lieu of evidence.

the leg work. I don't see the dog thing as relevant. Its just sort of human interest (or canine interest in this case) sideline. It has little to nothing to do with Curtis' allegations in his affadavit. That is where everything stands or falls.

you're already indicting Brad as being purposely spreading disinformation. I believe in skepticism, but it also needs to be balanced by giving trust where trust is due. Nobody gets it right 100% of the time and if Friedman got it wrong I'd expect him to correct himself. But I really can't see why you think this detail is relevant or is fabricated.

What I have implied is that Bradblog may have been duped into running with a story that might have been designed to make us look foolish.

To assuage those fears I have asked for simple help proving one of the more sensational allegations.

Anybody that wants to argue it is irrelevant that the principle character in this drama says his dog was killed in retribution is as irresponsible as the reporter that first published the unverified information.


Anyone arguing that it is up to me to prove it if I want is horribly obtuse or purposely sycophantic.

...though it certainly wasn't what I was seeking. Nonetheless, here we are.

As I've said, the police records are available in the matter. However, I will not post identifiable material publically which may put Curtis and others into more danger. Neither will I jeopardize official ongoing investigations in the matter. Because of that, there is *much* being currently investigated which I have *not* reported and will not. I trust you understand. If not, I am sorry.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

commenting on the number of other people's posts. I just don't want you to get into trouble. Not trying to antagonize you, just wanted to remind you. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123856



Edited to include Elad's name instead of Skinner.

and yeah i guess i was trying to be a little rude with that... probably over the line. i'll change it.

You don't have to agree with the reasoning. You do have to respect the sincerity of the response. Or maybe you want to be the one to clean up the corpses?

It is your decision not to offer proof of your claim. I don't see why a police report with names and addresses removed can't be scanned and posted but you may.

When you are suggesting doubters check it out are you suggesting they start from scratch and try and find personal info about Curtis then call the local police station and ask?

Most reasonable people will just ignore the whole story. Which is a shame. Perhaps help us out a bit with a link to the police station or a phone number.


Ultimately your credibility is yours to do with as you please.

I will ask you to consider the credibility of the entire vote fraud issue and refrain from posting such sensational tid-bits with out proof in the future.

I find it telling and concerning that the dog twist in this tale is being left out of other reports on the matter.

Protecting Curtis is more important than satisfying your curiousity, and it does say it's been turned over to the police, as it should be.

Was Bradblog being disingenuous when suggesting we check it out?

Do you think it was responsible to report it?

Do you think the story's credibility has suffered, and, perhaps has received less coverage than it would have otherwise?

Is this a good thing if so.

BradBlog did not ask us to check out the dog story--he says it's in the hands of the police and he won't give out details that would jeopardize the safety of people involved. Take it or leave it.

What he does suggest is that we check out the germane aspects of the affadavit itself. There are many things that could be examined there. Yet some want to see pictures of a dead dog, instead, even though that is not directly relevant to the information in the affadavit.

Do you really think it is irrelevant?

No you don't.

You just don't want to look at it because you know it is way to dubious to believe without proof.

Bradblog did indeed suggest doubters "check it out".

You asking people to look past this part of the story and focus only on parts that may help our cause is much more harmful than me making sure people are legitimate.

BradBlog made the statement about the dog, NOT Curtis. Whether the dog story is true or not therefore has ZERO bearing on Curtis' credibility.

You are making DU look like a place for con artists and sycophants.

I'm tying to change that.

For what it's worth, pictures were taken of the dead dog. I'm told Curtis plans to post them on his site.

Personally, I don't think that will be very helpful since folks like SomethingsGotaGive will then say "well, that could be *any* dead dog! It proves nothing!" - and I would agree.

(Which is also why I wouldn't post such pictures on The BRAD BLOG unless it would, in some way, further the story and not *add* to the critics).

Furthermore, I could post a police report, black out everything identifiable, and end up with a police report that SomethingsGotaGive would say "Well, that could be *any* dead dog report! It proves nothing!" - and I would agree.

As I said in the recent article, skeptism is healthy, cynicism is not. If SomethingsGotaGive is *truly* skeptical -- and not just being cynical -- he/she is more than welcome to answer his/her concerns rather easily own his/her own.

I believe I've been quite clear (at least twice in previous posts) about why I will not be posting additional info here on the matter.

Perhaps his/her energy would be better spent determining if the *boatloads* of information presented in the affidavit can be verified via the years-long paper trail that exists and seems to confirm so many of the points in the affidavit.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

To characterize any thing that I have said in previous posts as irrational skepticism is really revealing.

It has been suggested by me and others that you provide information about the police station the report was filed at.

I never asked for photos.

What you fail to realize is that the onus is on you to prove the story's facts, or state that they are unverified allegations. To do so now would be at least honest instead you are ridiculously claiming I and others will never believe anyway.

Why won't you tell us the cops name that took the report.

Try and make my disbelief the story now if you wish, but, what I do intend to do is steer as many well meaning investigators AWAY from this story as possible until it starts to look credible.

The "*boatloads* of information presented" is worse than irrelevant if such shoddy reporting and reckless allegations are how we wish to proceed.

I sent all the pertinent information to www.thesmokinggun.com as another poster suggested

I would love some genuine (see below) suggestions on how a lowly ol'reader like myself could verify the dog story.

Thank you

48 entries found for genuine.
Entry: genuine
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: authentic
Synonyms: 18-carat, 24-carat, absolute, accurate, actual, authenticated, bona fide, certain, certified, demonstrable, exact, existent, factual, for real, good, hard, honest, honest-to-goodness, indubitable, kosher, legit, legitimate, literal, natural, official, original, palpable, plain, positive, precise, proved, pure, real, real stuff, sound, sterling, sure-enough, tested, true, unadulterated, unalloyed, undoubted, unimpeachable, unquestionable, unvarnished, valid, veritable, very, whole

No reasonable person would expect you give out information that would tell the entire internet community where Curtis is.

Let me say the I am wholly unimpressed by the reckless and unprofessional manner in which Somethingsgottogive is attempting to tarnish the Bradblog. Brad's answers have been cogent and credible at every stage of this inquiry. SGG affects to be concerned about Bradblog's credibility and then attacks him with spurious adjectives. Sorry, for those skeptical of the Curtis story, there's a very simple solution: don't promote it. Reserve your judgement. Focus, as many polite and disciplined voices have urged, on the more definite and directly applicable evidence for fraud in the election. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with murdering the messenger just because you can't see the picture of the dead dog yet.

I appreciated your reaching out to me in PM to try to come to some common understanding, but we didn't really succeed except hopefully to raise the level of respect in the dialogue where I see both of us were guilty of over the top hurtful rhetoric. Applying that same thing to you and Brad, why can't we just leave it at you have differing points of view? If you really want to investigate the dog, why not call and put it to rest one way or the other. Brad Freidman doesn't strike me as any kind of tool from Rove's camp and I think the vast majority of folks here would agree with that. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, but why get so wound up about the poor dog? Why not just agree to disagree?

His story is indefensible thats not my problem it's his.

.....for the www.thesmokinggun.com website!

i sent them all the info we'll see what happens.

Skepticism is our friend in these matters of vote fraud. It is to our benefit to be skeptical and demand a bit more substance than wild theories that change on a dime. Did Curtis report the dog killing? If not, why? Does he have a picture of the dead dog? It would seem that Curtis would most certainly have chronicled this bit of intrigue if it had occurred.

In regard to this guys affidavit, I have one in which I swear that I am Santa Claus. Affidavits don't mean diddly squat unless they are supported with evidence. It is only as good as the case that goes with it.

In addition, this BradBlog guy's explanatory blog on this matter does nothing to dispel the doubts in my mind. It reminds me of the Nigerian scam emails that float around the 'Net. Curtis may ultimately be the real deal and I hope he is, but the case being made so far is flimsy at best in my opinion. You can flame me if you want, but that is how I feel.

...and the complaint is in the police records.

He also stated that we needed to speak with one Mike Connelly and he knew far more then Clint did concerning the inner workings of the coding/programming plans. Has anyone followed up on this individual to see what he is all about and his link to the Yang plans ??

I *believe* you're referring to Mike Cohen, not "Mike Connelly" as you suggested in your note. Mr. Cohen is still employeed by YEI and is quoted by Curtis as being in the room during the now infamous October 2000 meeting at YEI with Feeney.

FWIW.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Why did you even have to ask.

Just go spend four hours researching everything you can about him.

What ever you do don't investigate how Black votes get counted.

You can redact the personal info if that is a problem. Just make sure that the officer that took the report is clearly identified so it can be verified.

Yeah, real smart. Great way to protect him.

Do you think narrowing it down to a county is putting this guy in harms way?

Do you REALLY think "hit-men" can't find him?

Maybe he is in protective custody.

Hang on, shouldn't he be if his dog was shot as a warning.

The guy with the "smoking gun" in the biggest crime in US history and you're trying to tell me Bradblog is protecting him by withholding a police report about his dead dog?


Anyone want to have a reality based discussion with me ?

Yeah, just keep twisting words and diverting the discussion to irrelevant information. Sure, you're just looking for the truth about Curtis. That's why you focus on the statement of a blogger, rather than the sworn statement of Curtis himself?

If his dog was killed as a warning, wouldn't it stand to reason that the "bad" people already know where Curtis lives.

How much of a hit did this story take in your mind when you heard about the dog?

If Curtis's information is untrue, Tom Feeney is going to make sure Curtis never sees the light of day. Even if he's a Rove plant, Feenney is going to have to make sure that Curtis serves time, because if Feeney lets him go, everyone will know Curtis was a plant.

Therefore, I'm willing to give latitude for another day or week to see how this story develops.

BTW, in case I haven't made myself clear, Feeney is no local yokel. He is a major player, IMHO.

with the story about Feeney and the code Curtis was asked to write for him??? Beyond intimating that someone doesn't want Curtis to talk, it's relevance is a moot point. Sheesh!!!

Of course they know it's irrelevant.

...is a diversion to irrelevant information that is not even part of the affadavit. Why aren't skeptics looking at the details that are in Curtis' affadavit? Why are people asking to see a picture of a dead dog even thought that's not part of Curtis' sworn statement and is not directly relevant to his allegations in that statement?

As for affadavits not meaning diddly squat, that's not true. If Curtis is shown to have given false information here, he could be sued. It's not as though there's no risk for him.

Any first year law student will tell you that an affidavit doesn't mean sh*t without supporting evidence. People lie in affidavits as easily as they lie in any other endeavor. Like I said, I have an affidavit that says I am the walrus. So what?

The dog issue goes straight to this guy's credibility. It should be NO problem for him to provide us all with a redacted (to protect his privacy) police report naming the officer and date and time of the incident. I don't think he can do it. Prove me wrong!

BradBlog made the statement about the dog, not Curtis. Why are you ignoring Curtis' sworn statement and instead focusing on a statement made by a blogger?

But he broke the Affidavit story and still claims the dog was shot.

Do you think it is diversionary to suggest/demand we check the EASIEST verifiable part of the story that is being presented as fact?

Damn people wake up.

Bradblog reported the whole story. If parts of the story are bull shit then why should we trust any of it.

I'm the one trying to divert your attention..ha.. what a joke.

Just like any blogger that reports a story then asks his reader to verify the fact because he refuses to prove them himself.

BOGUS.

You can't. It therefore does not speak to Curtis' credibility, as much as you want to confuse people into thinking that it does.

More importantly, there are tons of details in the affadavit that can be investigated--concrete statements directly relevant to the fraud issue that would have a paper trail and can therefore be confirmed or disconfirmed. Yet you ignore those things and imply that a second-hand statement by a blogger is the more important thing to consider? Come on, get better material.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And is there a resl reason for it?

affidavit with proof? We only have the affidavit to read, not much else. Do you think he would put all he has out on the internet? If you do, I have some ocean-front property in Nevada I'd like to sell.

I've read your stuff in the Plame thread and other BFEE related threads.

You should have a better BS detector than that.

if they do. I'd say that's a rather enormous disincentive, wouldn't you? Would most people have the guts (or the insanity) to make allegations against people who are likely to have already arranged for other people to be killed? Most wouldn't do that, and listening to Curtis' interviews, he sounds quite mentally fit to me.

"As for affadavits not meaning diddly squat, that's not true. If Curtis is shown to have given false information here, he could be sued. It's not as though there's no risk for him."

How could anybody ever show it to be false? How do you prove a negative? If someone were to turn over anything, how do you know it was what he wrote? It's not like his handwriting is in it.

Furthermore, perjury is a pretty high bar to reach. The key word is "knowingly" lie. "I could have been mistaken and would like to amend my answer" is a perfectly good answer in court and used almost all the time.

For example, if I were to write an affidavit that swore I surgically removed Bush's head and stuck it up Rumsfeld's ass, that's an easily provable lie. But if I swore I saw Bush try to stick his head up Rumsfeld's ass, there is no way for you to prove I never saw that. And even if you did, I could just say "Ooops...he looked just like Bush".

The affidavit is worthless, but any other hard evidence he has of anything certainly isn't.

You are correct about affidavits. My point is that you can have an affidavit created for any reason. You are only potentially liable if someone takes offense and sues you. My affidavit swears I am the Walrus. Even Yoko Ono couldn't prevail in a court case against me. I believe I am the Walrus and she can't prove that I am not.

The dead dog thing is an easily provable event and by not providing evidence that this event occurred, the skepto-meter is goes to high.

They think its OK to be associated with reporters that don't verify there facts in the rush to be the first out of the block with a story.

I guess they don't think the stink will rub off on them !

turns out to be perfectly true?

the irresponsibility of having reported the dog shooting in the first place without offering proof.

How many people have ALREADY been turned off this story because of the sloppy reporting.

Nobody has offered a single reason why giving us the officer's name that took the report would endanger Curtis.

Jamboi when I spent all that time corresponding back and forth via PM, I thought you to be a reasonable, articulate, and passionate debater.

I am now going to have to revisit those conclusions based on your defense of the indefensible here.

When I see a valid police report or am offered a police station with officers name I will verify myself.

Until then I'll assume it is unverifiable and therefore irresponsible and I will say as much.

don't see the relevance of Brad's story re: the dog. Why not check up on it if its so important? I just don't follow your logic here.

who, before they launch into lectures about responsibilities of reporters, run their missives through a spell checker.

But since this is what you wrote, maybe you could explain it:


its OK to be associated with reporters that don't verify there facts


What do you mean by "be associated with"? Because this sloopy, loose, jocular phrase conceals the dubious character of your argument. Are you really saying that Brad should not be allowed to post at DU, just because you happen to disapprove of his journalistic standards? And what is your authority, sir, to be lecturing us on journalistic standards? Are you by any chance a journalist yourself, or just an armchair coach who likes to tell other people how they should do their jobs?

A little "clarification of thought," to quote Peter Maurin's phrase, is in order.

I never said he shouldn't be allowed to post DU.

I did ask him to be more responsible to the entire vote fraud community by first checking his facts before posting allegations that if not proved make us look bad.

As far as allowing yourselves to be "associated" to stories like this I think your word games are revealing.

I've clearly stated my reasons for pursuing this thread and pointing out the incredible lack of consideration for DU and the vote fraud movement.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us about your motivations to provide lock step support for Bradblog?


edit to add: 3 entries found for associated.
as·so·ci·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ssh-t, -s-)
v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
v. tr.
To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
To connect or join together; combine.
To connect in the mind or imagination: “I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn” (John Keats).

v. intr.
To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join.
To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends.

n. (-t, -t)
A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague.
A companion; a comrade.
One that habitually accompanies or is associated with another; an attendant circumstance.
A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges.
often Associate An associate's degree.

adj. (-t, -t)
Joined with another or others and having equal or nearly equal status: an associate editor.
Having partial status or privileges: an associate member of the club.
Following or accompanying; concomitant.

But what facts did Brad get wrong?

Please see me post below why this is important.

100% of the serious allegations in the affidavit are Curtis' word against other participants.

The ONLY thing relevant is his credibility.

I WANT BRAD TO PROVE HE IS CREDIBLE.

Start by proving his dog was shot AS HE SAYS IT WAS.

The vacuous responses to my question reveal more to the casual reader of this thread than my questions. So as far as I'm concerned....Keep it up.

But the SAD part is I WANT YOU TO PROVE THIS.

I REALLY DO.

But you haven't yet. All you do is say its irrelevant.

I've just PROVED it is far from it.

You said that Brad made claims which are not true. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you would never get very far in law. You don't seem to understand the difference between something is not true and something which is not proven. End of discussion.

I'll top your end of discussion with a ...Get a life.

Nobody reading this thread will have seen me claim anything at all about Curtis' and bradblog's claims other than they are unverified.

I have made many a criticism of Bradblog for tarnishing an otherwise interesting article with irresponsible reporting.

And I have asked that the story be proved in order to lend credibility to Curtis' OTHER unverified claims.

Most of which are his word against others.

You should really question your devotion to this story.

Please scan and post your notarized affadavit that you are the Walrus. Also please post your notarized affadavit that you are Santa (mentioned earlier).
If you cannot post these things, please post your apology for pretending to have these things under the throwaway assumption that 'people lie on affadavits'.

Welcome To Du PGH

can you tell me who the eggmen are, and do they have affidavits?

I'm no attorney, but it occurs to me that Mr. Curtis has levelled some fairly serious crimes against some rather powerful people.

There is likely a reason he was interviewed in meetings both at the House and the Senate, and that CREW has been meeting/working with.

While the Walrus you might (or SomethingsGotaGive, who used the example) may not wish to see you for swearing that you are one in an affidavit, a very powerful U.S. congressman being accused by name of participating in a conspiracy to commit vote fraud just might have something to say about it, and the friends to help him to do.

As I say, I'm no attorney, but it seems that swearing under penalty of perjury that named individuals may have participated in:

+ Vote Rigging and/or Conspiracy to attempt same.
+ Spying on the United States of America.
+ Giving secrets to enemies of the United States.
+ And, Knowingly harboring illegal aliens, later charged with espionage

...Would seem to be a fairly risky thing to do. Particularly when it's not a walrus that one is charging with such things.

But if you have no concerns about creating a similar notarized and sworn affidavit, please send it over, and I'll do my best to help disseminate it for you.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

I doubt anyone will.

he named names

a libel suit would not be hard to do

the fact that no one he has named has publicly denied any charges that I'm aware of tells me something too.

They want this story to circulate.

They don't want to deny it.

If there was ANYTHING about this story that was remotely credible Ann Coulter would have been sent in to the battle.

But nothing.

They are letting this stew on purpose.

I don't know why some here are all stuck on the dog story. Curtis' privacy and the policemans should be left out of this. And may the dog rest in peace.
The dog being killed may or may not have anything to do with the rest of this. Interesting as a side story though.

What I found new and interesting is when Curtis heard on the news that they are not revealing the codes. It doesn't appear that the corrupt vote thieves will share that without a fight.

When all we've got is a sling shot, glad to see someone with such a steady hand.

The harder they fall?

...for the kind words, guys.

While I've been covering Election 2004 related questions since the early morning hours of Nov. 3rd, I certainly never expected to find myself near the center of a story of these proportions. And to be frank, it has not been a lot of fun doing it.

I am glad to see the various mainstream folks looking into it. Hopefully they will latch onto it, and I can go and get the vacation I thought I was gonna be taking after Nov. 2nd.

Until then, however, I'll try to keep reporting the stories that need to be heard. Though seriously...I *really* need a nap.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

I heard your interview with Jerry Quickley on Pacifica a few weeks ago. You do not seem (to me) to be some troublemaker that others want to paint you as. I appreciate the info you give here. :)

....that I hope hasn't been already asked.

Out of all the places this guy could have taken his story - especially with "convincing proof" - why did he take it to a place offering a cash reward?

I've heard how he said he will not accept money (although I've not heard of him officially rejected the reward), but why muddy the waters unnecessarily if money is not a factor?

Just curious...

As ever, I will tell you what I know about it, and you can make up your own mind.

I first heard about the story from several different "tipsters" since I'd been covering these issues at BRAD BLOG from way back when most folks were unwilling to even question if there were any problems with Election 2004. BRAD BLOG has been fairly well-known since then for covering these issues, so many folks send in tips.

Amongst the tips I'd occassionally get would be from the group who was offering the $200,000 reward (which was only $100,000 when it was first announced) since they were getting many tips, as you'd imagine, that were exactly that: tips. Not hard evidence yet of Election 2004 vote tampering. So they too would send me such tips.

I've attempted to follow up as many tips as I could from the *many* that have been sent. Most of them turned out to either be nonsense, or wholly uncredible and/or unevidenced stuff. This one turned out to be different, and had some meat on it's bones based on Curtis other related provable charges.

Since working on it, I've become aware that I was not the only working on it as well. At least one, who hadn't yet reported on the story, was none to happy with me for having done so.

Apparently Curtis contacted alot of people. "Anybody who might listen!" to paraphrase what he's said many times to me on these points.

Since I'd heard of his story from several more than just one source originally, I find his claims about having hoped to contact whoever he could to be quite credible.

But that's just me. And that's what I know. And you'll decide for yourself.

But I hope that helps answer your question.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

You're doing a great job with your reporting and you just ignore some of the less than polite comments that have surfaced here.

How can we all be for offering a reward to anyone that will TALK and then imply they are suspect when they do?

It doesn't matter to me that he wanted a reward. I care more about proving his claim. And so far, I have not been able to poke single hole in it.

Bradblog and Curtis have produced NOTHING tangible or verifiable to support their wild claims. Even when given an opportunity to prove just a portion of their claims, they retreat into excuses. You guys can yack on all you want about affidavits, but anyone with any experience in legal matters will tell you that people lie on affidavits, in depositions and on the stand by thousands every day. Granted, they are susceptible to prosecution in certain circumstances for lying, but they do it by the boatload every day.

My allegation that the dog event never happened is easily refuted if these guys are telling the truth. If Bradblogger and Curtis can produce the police report on the incident, I will publicly apologize on these boards for doubting them. If not, you be the judge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

lying that you have a sworn, notarized affadavit that you are The Walrus?
That kind of lying?

that Brad Friedman is just reporting a story and he appears quite objective to me. And if Curtis is lying he's taking an enormous risk, not just to his credibility, his ability to earn a living and his freedom from jail and punitive damage $$ but more importantly to his life. Why do that? If you listen to his radio interviews he doesn't appear to be crazy and I'd have to say to risk all that on a lie would seem to me to be pretty crazy. I don't know if any amount of money would be worth it.

.....people who are not on our side, and are here only to disrupt the work that is done by the people at DU. So again, bradblog, just ignore them and continue with your work. We, the real Democrats, support your efforts and appreciate them.

I find it astonishing that some feel all claims, regardless of their merit, are worthy of support. Skepticism is our friend in these matters. We do not further our cause by blindly supporting every person with a good story. Skeptical inquiry will strengthen our best arguments not weaken them. You have to wonder why when given the opportunity to easily prove an element of their story they resort to excuses, distraction and attack.

As for not releasing the police report because of personal safety, that doesn't wash either. The "bad" guys allegedly responsible for shooting Curtis's dog already know where he lives and the freeper community need only look at Yahoo people search to find his address.
DU is NOT compromised by people that question, debate and probe claims of voter fraud. If Bradblogger and Curtis's claims can't stand up to people that want them to be true, they will be crushed by those that don't.

99% of the population don't get computer talk.

Those that do, or sort of do, are meant to spend hours sorting through this bullshit in order to dilute the voter fraud movement at best and sucker us into a "plant" at worst.

The MSM and even most Indy media dropped this story in a flash when they heard the dead dog part of it.

Now it's the vote fraud activist that are taking up this cause. Exactly the plan.

Maybe

Prove the most Odious of these "Facts" and maybe people will listen.

But from where I'm sitting I'm going to keep asking the obvious questions till I get answers or banned.


The answers so far are quite revealing.

people's minds what folk's motives are? Don't these "debunkers" want to help us get organized and get rallies going and spread the information that is solid? Why spend such enormous amounts of time bird dogging irrelevant details. If something doesn't make sense why waste further time on it? The truth will emerge, just give it time.

But I can Debunk and question reports and stories that are trying to occupy our valuable time.

If I can discourage a single activist from wasting more time on this story until its verifiable then I've have done something more for our cause than sycophantic back slapping and cheerleading do.

Have You or Any of the "GO BRAD GO" crowd done a single thing to further this story or verify it. No, you've just called me names and insinuated that I have misguided intentions.

Well go prove ANY of the story then.

Prove Feeney wanted to use the proto type nefariously.

Prove Mrs. Yang said what Curtis CLAIMS she said.

Its her word against his. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS ???????

His credibility is of PARAMOUNT importance !!!!!

So prove he isn't a LIAR.

PROVE his dog was shoot AFTER he signed the affidavit.

Until then you look foolish.

And because of me and others willing to question this DU doesn't.

activism. This doesn't feel constructive to me.

good one line answer.

Did you only read the subject line?

Don't respond to the rest of it thats OK.

posts on this thread, I think that you SGG are the one looking foolish. Give it up, and give the folks a break. No one appreciates your cynicism. Take your "assistance" elsewhere please. It doesn't seem to be appreciated here and I understand why.

I can think of a couple of reasons why the MSM would drop the dog part of the story:

1) It casts undue suspicion on Feeney et al without hard evidence linking Feeney et al to the shooting. They're not going to do ballistic fingerprinting and a nationwide manhunt over a dead dog.

2) The important part of the story is the affidavit itself and what it contains.

But It didn't stop the irresponsible bloggers did it.

Does that bother you at all about the story considering Curtis is certain it was a reprisal killing?

And since you have concern about the veracity of the story, and have shown yourself to be such a skeptic of it, your confirmation of it's truth here will be more than enough to assuage any further critics.

Since you mention how easy it is to find such information, please check it, verify it, and let the others here know that all is well, or all is not.

I'm certain nobody would doubt such a previous skeptic as yourself when you let them know what they found.

Thanks for being so concerned with such issues, and I'll look forward to your report here!

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Brad Blog has reported on what Mr. Curtis has told him and nothing more.

Personally I respect his reporting and his refusal to release any info that might be dangerous to Mr. Curtis.

I believe that congress is talking to him and that he is being vetted by others as well.

The dog report is really irrelevant to the affidavit as it came after the affidavit.

I'm going to see where it all goes.

If it pans out, and Brad Blog never said it all would end up being true that I'm aware of, then it will be the biggest story in our country's history.

As for all those who want to discredit Brad Blog I truly question the motives and agenda for doing that.

I'll make no comments about number of posts etc., but we all have eyes, and we all draw our own conclusions.

As for "our cause"? I think we all want democracy, but there is no one cause on these boards.

Some Qs about the programming aspects:

--I know that Curtis purportedly worked on only a prototype, but do you know if he had access to or worked with any election software as the basis for designing his prototype?

--Madsen says in his article that Feeney "wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems." Is this accurate? And is this only a statement about what Feeney wanted, or is this also what Curtis provided?

--Madsen's article also says "Feeney wanted the program to...flip Republican votes to 51 percent and keep Democrat votes to 49 percent." Is this accurate, and just to verify, is it true that the 51%-49% mechanism was one that Feeney asked for (rather than something Curtis came up with)?

These questions get at issues raised by those who question Curtis' story based on the information given about the program itself. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

--I know that Curtis purportedly worked on only a prototype, but do you know if he had access to or worked with any election software as the basis for designing his prototype?

He's told me nothing about working with any election software. I have no reason to believe he had access to any at YEI at the time in question.

--Madsen says in his article that Feeney "wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems." Is this accurate? And is this only a statement about what Feeney wanted, or is this also what Curtis provided?

Hopefully you've read my original article (http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/original-brad-blog-whistleblower.html) and my "response to Bev Harris" (http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/response-to-bev-harris-questions-on.html) to get some idea of my great concerns about various information from Madsen's story in general.

That said, Curtis has never said anything to me aobut Feeney wanting the program to be in any particular programming language, or that it should be portable to any other system. If Madsen got that information from Curtis or somewhere else I don't know anything about it. The specific requirements that Curtis spelled out for me that Feeney had asked for are the ones spelled out in his affidavit.

Curtis claims to have written the code allegedly requested by Feeney in VB5, which, Curtis says, is what he used at the time, and still uses for programming (though he may be up to a later version of VB, I'm not sure - point is he confirmed that he codes with VB).

--Madsen's article also says "Feeney wanted the program to...flip Republican votes to 51 percent and keep Democrat votes to 49 percent." Is this accurate, and just to verify, is it true that the 51%-49% mechanism was one that Feeney asked for (rather than something Curtis came up with)?

I'd have to check my notes, but I don't *believe* the 51%-49% spec was asked for by Feeney. Or atleast, Curtis didn't tell me that it was. He did, however, say that's what he created.

The quote from Madsen's article above is inaccurate according to my interviews with Curtis and with his affidavit in that the 49% would go to the remaining (Non-Republican) parties in the same proportion that they had been before the flip. Not 49% for the Democrats only, as the quote from Madsen's story claims.

Hope that's helpful!

Brad
The BRAD BLOG - http://www.BradBlog.com
BRAD BLOG TOO (overflow site) - http://BradBlogTOO.blogspot.com

Points of Light asks:
"Madsen says in his article that Feeney "wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems." Is this accurate? And is this only a statement about what Feeney wanted, or is this also what Curtis provided?"

I provided part of the verbage for that sentence. I suggested that Madsen update his original article because I thought that part read incorrectly. In the early morning hours when I read the first version that was posted I felt it inaccurately conveyed the sense (due to Madsen's unfamiliarity with programming I took it) that this VB program was meant to be ported to the voting machines as is. I didn't think and still don't think that's what Curtis claimed, because on the face of it it sounds rediculous to a programmer. So I suggested emphasizing that this was a prototype meant to be an example for whatever more developed designs were eventually to be ported to the actual voting machines.

Madsen appearently recieved my input and did a quick update to the article updating both my point and I think a some other minor points in the article. I'm afraid now that I read your question it may have still gotten garbled in the translation and conveyed something that I don't think Madsen and certainly not Curtis meant to be conveyed. Sometimes when passing verbage back and forth in an attempt to edit you end up with a sort of literary cuisinart effect. I think that's what happened here. Bummer, and I was so please with having made a contribution. :-(

n/t

1. If Mr. Curtis claims he does not have the software because it was proprietary to YEI, why can't he just recreate it?

2. I am having difficulty understanding how YEI can "refuse" to give deposition. I was involved with lawsuits at a hospital that I worked in and as such was required to give depositions. I was never advised by legal that I could refuse, though I sure would have liked to. Why is a judge not involved to impose penalties on these executives? Claiming that a lawsuit can just 'sit in limbo' like this one supposedly is makes no sense.

Thank you.

....I thought if you got subpoenaed, you had no choice.

But a subpoena requires probably cause, doesn't it? I understand that to be a fairly low bar in terms of faciltating a deposition.

Just more curious questions...

in 10 minutes. Its just a simple proof of concept prototype.

On your second point if and when it comes to a lawsuit (which it hasn't yet) I'm sure there will be all kinds of supeonas flowing back and forth and people will not be able to refuse or neglect to give deposition. Till then....

"A. As explained to me by Curtis, and confirmed by others close to the case -- and verifiable via public records searches on the case -- the issue in that suit concerns software that FDOT contracted YEI to create. After YEI delivered what FDOT had purchased from then, they then owned it according to Florida state law. It was that software -- which FDOT then owned -- which YEI has charged both Curtis and Mavis with having "stolen". FDOT is now a defendant in that three-year old suit as well.

Curtis, and others, have informed me that in the three years since the case has been pending, YEI has refused to give depositions in the case. And so, the case mostly just sits there at this time. Nothing proved about any of it so far."

This is why it does not make sense. When I gave deposition I was subpoened.

Madsen writes in part:

"...This controversy reminds me of the Steve Jackson Games incident with the Secret Service some years ago. The Secret Service raided their company offices in Texas and sezied their equipment and files because they made a game that allowed a person to act as a hacker. It was just a game but the govt. maintained that it was a tool to help hackers break into computer systems. The case never really went anywhere. But if Feeney had in his hands a program that demonstrated how a touch screen machine could be hacked, the govt could use the very argument against him that they used in the Steve Jackson Games case.

wayne"

One you've already said you can not answer. The other is why was Curtis deliberately mispelling the name of his employer on his website.

Someone mentioned it was to protect the source. But HE was the source, so what is he protecting by purposely mispelling Yang, but naming Bush and Feeney?

I was just informed by a one-armed man that aliens were responsible for the killing of Mr. Curtis's dog. It seems that his dog swore out an affidavit claiming the Elvis is still alive and that he is the person responsible for the bizarre crop circles near the Bermuda Triangle. Mr. Curtis's dog also swore in the affidavit that he worked on a hush-hush program to insert highly technical subliminal messages in all of Elvis's songs designed to make people crave peanut butter and banana sandwiches. It seems the aliens want to fatten us all up before they descend from space and start harvesting our bodies for food. Is it any wonder that the dog had to be eliminated? Of course you can all go to vinnieblog to read the rest of what the one-armed man told me. While your their make sure you hit all the pages so my counter will spin and get yourself something from my store. Donations don't hurt either.

I really do support the effort to uncover and report vote fraud, but these wild, unsupported claims are not cutting it. I think the refusal to verify the dog story pretty much demonstrates the rest of their claims are highly suspect.

Seems no one else here but SGG and you see it as relevant. Go bugger off and do your own research if it's so important to you.

...irrelevant.

I think what it was intended to infer is.

A long time ago, there was a movie (I think it was one of the Godfather movies) that showed a man's thorougbred horse's head in the guy's bed to "send a message".

So, when we see this story of the dead dog attached to the story, this infers the guy knows so much, somebody is "sending him a message" as well. I think it's a perfectly valid point. If you can show this really happened, it adds a sense of credibility.

If the guy doesn't shut up, it won't be his dog next time. That's a fairly powerful and relevant aspect of this debate.

I've posted substantially on all this at:
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MadsenVoteFraudTaleSpin.htm

Just to note, that as I said in a radio broadcast
on the topic: (mp3)
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews041206.mp3

I knew it would get to the stage where this story
would deteriorate into arguments about the dog.

When a Vote Fraud story begins to hinge around incidentals
like this, is when you know you have a dud on your hands.

Try the MSM with a story depending in any part on a dead dod.

They'd still be laughing in 2007.

Where's my forty foot pole?

Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.BreakForNews.com

...you know they got nothing!

...the lack of anything else to focus on!?

It would be a VoteFraud story if...

If, we had the FINISHED actual software which steals votes - not the demo.
If, we had a story which featured EVIDENCE like a payoff cheque to/from Feeney/Yang.
If, we had an AFFIDAVIT from ANYONE in addition to Curtis to confirm this story.
If, we had EVIDENCE like the discovery of similar vote-theft software in just ONE OpScan/Touchscreen machine.
If, we had EVIDENCE like internal Yang memos or Feeney on tape.

But we don't have any such confirming evidence.

Is Feeney a political hack with ties to Bush? Yes.
Did Yang expect Florida DOT to ante up for unfinished software. Mebbe.
Was pressure put on Florida DOT over the overbilling issue. Looks like.
Did DOT ivestigator, Ray Lemme take his own life? Someone should check.

Do ANY of those issues confirm there was a Feeney/Yang VoteFraud plot? Nope.

We just have the say-so of Curtis and the demo HE wrote.

So.....

You watch TV cop shows? Right.

Make like you're a busy cop.
Some guy calls in.
He has a piece of demo software HE wrote.
He says his ex-boss and a GOP hotshot made him write it.
No witnesses. No confirmation.
He has a prior dispute history with these people.

What happens in the cop show?

A) Cops go hassle the politician, who has never even
been convicted of having untied shoelaces, and
start putting heat on the firm who fired the guy.

B) Cops say they're real busy right now. Call again soon.

That's when the guy says that his dog's been shot.
That's where we are at: Discussing the dog.
We got nothing else.

This story got floated on a $29 million wave of vapor-check money.
But that's not Clinton Curtis' problem. It's Madsen's.
So it doesn't reflect badly on Curtis - nor should it.

So, leaving that aside, it's Clint's word and Clint's DEMO software.
And Clint's dog.

Conan or Leno could milk this for a week's worth of laughs.

You couldn't even get a search warrant on this.

I drew the short straw.
I get to point all this out.
Lucky me.

It would be beautiful to PROVE Vote Fraud.
That's what we all want.

But I'm just... holding this short straw.
I'm not... clutching at it.

I'm done with this.
Call again soon.

12/11/04
Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.BreakForNews.com

Good luck with that dog angle.