READER COMMENTS ON
"Diebold Class Action Securities Fraud Litigation"
(7 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 3:10 pm PT...
Well, that is a good pleading strategy. I mean the federal courts allow liberal amendment of pleadings.
In fact, the pleadings are automatically amended to conform to the admissible evidence.
Anyway, as professor Prosser said, litigation of this sort is "social engineering".
Wanna bet that the neoCons hate professor Prosser?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 3:48 pm PT...
Heh....I know the law firm very well. They're going to tighten the litigation like bullets until everyone's squeezed....
I hope everyone submits their testimony. Its time to get the discovery process rolling nationwide, and nail these bastards with every bit of explosive gun powder we have!!!!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 4:27 pm PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 4:46 pm PT...
Actually, I had thought the same thing at first glance, Bejammin. But actually, if you read their announcement closely, it's not a new suit. Their actually just underscoring the original complaint by Scott+Scott but asking for possible plaintiff's to contact *them* for a suit that this other firm is working on. So they may *likely* file another suit, but that's not what their announcement was (very tricky to realize though it was!)
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 8:26 pm PT...
The bigger story is that blackboxvoting.org has threatenned to take legal action against the CA Secretary for failure to comply with voting regulations. The deadline for the reply by the CA secretary is Dec. 16th. The damning letter ends,
“Accordingly, please contact me upon receipt of this letter as to whether the Secretary of State will allow Black Box Voting’s 19202 Inspection and, if so, which Protocols he is agreeable to. If we do not receive a response to this letter by December 16, 2005, Black Box Voting will be forced to pursue other available legal remedies.”
In the letter, BBV's attorney points out a small fact: Diebold wrote the requirements for the proposed test of CA's Diebold machines.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 10:25 pm PT...
Diebold guarding the henhouse huh? Who'd have thunk.....typical neocons.
And now its just a matter of PLAME.....Err....plenty of blame to go around I'd say, with those new plaintiffs joining the Security prosecution suit!!!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 6:15 am PT...
Brad, thanks for providing the link to the complaint.
I read it and was particularly interested in the allegations that "The company remained unable to assure the quality and working order of their voting machine products" (paragraph 23).
This we know to be a very, very accurate allegation.
I hope discovery uncovers the underlying motivation for reason they were "unable" to assure the quality and working order of voting machines.
I do not think it is a technical inability, but rather an inability brought on by corruption.