I am apparantly fated to be permanently at war with Bill Lockyer. Sigh.

[Gewehr98]

Something definitely does smell fishy, Jim!

Although Harris is entitled to some of the proceeds from the settlement, she does not have veto power over the final disposition of the case, said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.

That would be worth looking into, just by itself. I thought "settlement" meant something agreed upon by *all* the parties involved?

 

[Jim March]

It's this particular funky law we're dealing with - the "California False Claims Act".

It's got it's good points and bad. Lockyer's people are exploiting the bad .

BUT! Bev and I (and our lawyer) have the right to challenge what's going on. We don't have veto power, true, but they can't gag us.

We're going to have a lot to tell the judge.

 

[gunsmith]

do you still get the 75 grand?

I know you were expecting more,but that is still a nice chunk,it lets your lawyers know that if they win they'll get a nice payoff as well.

Maybe Lockyer was hoping this would slow down the prop 59 stuff you were planning or it was payback for the "lockyer on crack" expose you wrote concerning the Cruickshank reference that idiot bases his 2nd amendment beliefs on.

I personally think the CA AG is up to something no-good,he is as dumb as a post but his advisers are evil bureacrats well versed in sticking it to CA voters.

 

[pax]

Although Harris is entitled to some of the proceeds from the settlement, she does not have veto power over the final disposition of the case, said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.

And

The court will consider their views before a final settlement is approved.

If you're the ones who filed the lawsuit, how is it possible they can reach a settlement without you?

pax

 

[Mute]

That SOB Lockyer needs to be tarred, feathered and sent packing.

 

[rock jock]

You're doing great, Jim! Keep at it.

 

[Rumpled]

Jim,
So Friday has passed.
Was the settlement settled?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Friday just began.

 

[Jim March]

Nothing has happened yet. We've let Lockyer's office know that we'll be fighting the settlement, is all - basically, the deadline Lockyer's people gave us to cave in to his office's demands is up.

If Lockyer's people make good on their threat, that means they'll argue against us having whistleblower status at all. We on the other hand are ready to argue that the deal Lockyer and co. cut with Diebold is a bad deal for the people of the state, as Diebold won't be paying for all the harm they've caused and won't be blocked from future bad acts.

This harm happens because Lockyer's office stripped from the complaint all of the worst allegations about Diebold's software that Bev and myself made (the crap is tamper-friendly), leaving in only "technical violations of law" issues (wrong version numbers installed).

So it'll be Bev, myself and our one lawyer versus the combined legal might of Lockyer *and* Diebold thrashing it out in front of an Alameda Superior Court judge soon .

Past that, I can't get into strategy. Just understand that Bev and myself have turned down a guaranteed $75,000 each in order to pick this fight . Which wasn't easy. Dangit, I want a new freakin' bike out of all this if nothing else...$12k or so worth of BMW R1100S (Replika! so kewl!) but that "settlement" is such a pathetic slap on the wrist...no. It's on.

Lockyer & Diebold together are gonna think they've run into their own weight in rabid weasels by the time we're done .

 

[Rumpled]

Leon,
It appears to me that Mr. March's first post on this was Thursday the 11th - I was assuming the 12th was the Friday he mentioned. If I interpreted incorrectly, my bad.

Jim, thanks again for the update. Pretty tough to turn down that new Bimmer at this point, I don't know if I could remain that principled.

 

[BB62]

I wonder if the GOP would be interested in getting in on your side, Jim?

Do you or does anyone else have any contacts?

 

[Esky]

Keep up the good work Jim!

And I sure hope that the Judge is not one of those infamous Californee judges....

Esky

 

[Jim March]

Thanks for the kind words. Can't discuss strategy at this point other than to say the collision I described in an Alameda County courthouse will happen soon. Hard to say exactly when...probably less than a month?

Dunno which judge yet. That'll be interesting. We *are* dealing with pretty liberal judges over there which normally when discussing Diebold is a good thing. 'Cept Democrat Lockyer is on the other side.

Danged if I know what he's thinking.

 

[Bruce H]

Jim, Lockyer is thinking that you and Bev can be bought off. Lockyer has probably been bought off several times and thinks it's SOP. Watch your six because this will probably get real ugly before it is over. It wouldn't suprise me if a link between Lockyer and Diebold to be out there.

 

[BB62]

Hey, Jim, I think you should apply for a CCW license, so you can "protect your back!

AND you can probably add the refusal to your list of "not good enough" reasons licenses are refused.


All my best,
BB62

 

[Jim March]

It wouldn't suprise me if a link between Lockyer and Diebold to be out there.

Well maybe, but it makes no sense at all unless it's brand new.

Another thing: a fair number of lawyers/staff from a special department of the California DOJ is involved. This group specializes in False Claims Act cases.

<scratches head>

I keep saying "Lockyer" and the buck DOES stop at his desk. But what if the real problem is within this "False Claims Act division", and Lockyer is getting faulty data from them?

Hmmmm...

If that's the case...I wonder if I can do an end-run...get the video on the GEMS hack up through to Lockyer directly via...hrm. Lemme think on that.

 

[Waitone]

Makes no difference. It is his shop.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Jim, Lockyer is thinking that you and Bev can be bought off. Lockyer has probably been bought off several times and thinks it's SOP. Watch your six because this will probably get real ugly before it is over. It wouldn't suprise me if a link between Lockyer and Diebold to be out there.

I had a different idea. I've worked for a few attorneys on occasion as an expert witness. They bring me in to testify about engineering stuff. Obviously, in order to ask the right questions they need me to give them at least a Cliff's Notes summary of what it is we're going to be talking about. Usually after the first 2 minutes I can see thier eyes glazing over.

They are attorneys. They can debate and interpret and dissect the LAW 24/7 because that's what they live with on a day-to-day basis. They don't understand technical stuff, and therefore when possible would prefer not to deal with it.

It's very possible that this is a case of dropping out of the suit the parts they don't understand and don't want to deal with. "Technical violations of the law" would be something they are comfortable with, and therefore it's easier for them to argue those points.

Of course, Jim and Bev have the goods to use in court on the substantive issues, but attorneys in gummint offices can't be expected to have any desire to learn anything more than what they already know, and being able to argue the substantive issues would require them to learn something they have no interest in.

 

[Jim March]

You know, what Hawkmoon just said makes piles of sense.

I just got off the phone with Peter Mancus. He was having computer problems. Yesterday his photoshopping station had crashed and on reboot, he'd lost contact with three of his nine 250gig external hard drives. (Yes, you read that right. Three on USB2, six on Firewire. HEY! I just realized, that means he OWNS "seven of nine"! ) Ahem. Right. So all he needed to do was reset power to the drives as one or more had themselves crashed with the CPU - I had him pull the plug to the first of his three power strips for a sec. Brought it all up fine.

Guy's a GREAT lawyer, worst freakin' computer techie you ever heard of.

I've yet to run into a really geeky lawyer. Lowell Finley is pretty competent but then again he doesn't run a monster critter for a photography sideline. David Beauvais was again, competent but no great shakes. Gorski is pretty solid, ditto Don Kilmer and Dan Karalash. Chuck Michel is on AOL ('nuff said!)...I could go on. (Good God, how many lawyers do I *know* at this point?)

Anyways. Yeah, at least 70% or so of these guys probably couldn't grok http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html at first glance. Heck 70% is generous.

And what's worse? The AG's office hired GOVERNMENT lawyers. How many of THEM are trying to figure out where the keyboard port is on an etch-a-sketch?