The Hidden Truth Behind 2000 and 2004 Elections

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Continued In-Between Updates

Once again while waiting on the evidence, I have to give an all important update on what is going on regarding reaching into the hearts of Congress.

While still to this date, I have been unable to get real attention on this issue from the groups who will make the most difference, I have received response from leaders and have good news for those following the story.

I had a chat with Clint Curtis who some know famously as the original programmer for the Vote Fraud, and I finally now have someone who can help translate this terminology, enhancing the message of this blog and getting it to spread like wildfire and catches on in the House as an important topic.

I have also received another response from Congress as I was just telling you.

Its an interesting letter and it tells me that gradually people are understanding the issue.

"Dear Mr. Nols,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 2004 Presidential Election.

On January 6, 2005, Congress met to count the electoral
votes for President and Vice President as provided
in the Constitution.

Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer objected to the electoral votes from the state of Ohio.

The objection was raised because of perceived voting irregularities in Ohio.

The House, by a vote of 267 - 31, voted to override the objection and certify the
election results.

The Senate, by a vote of 74-1, reached the same conclusion.

I am committed to working with states from a federal level to assist in
improving voting processes and to ensure that election results are accurate.

I will keep your concerns in mind during the 109th Congress should these
issues come before the House.

For more information on my work in Congress, or to send me
an electronic message, please visit the
21st District's website at http://lamarsmith.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Lamar Smith Member of Congress "

Congressman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary bench, may be a long time friend of persons such as Tom Delay documented here but he as well has started to distance his relationship with these people.

It seems that even he recognizes the value of dropping the charade and re-forming our electoral process when it is positively clear that it is only suiting the personal interests of a select group of people and that they are not friends of free expression or free democracy.

So far the most powerful responses in congress have been Republican, and one independant, but perhaps this will gradually catch on.

I look forward to doing continuing updates as they come, and here's a sneak peek of what is going to be coming up as I outline specifically, how key people in the government can approve the use of wide-spread aggregation for vote purging.

And if possible, perhaps even how Jeb Bush and several members of this power-cult worked in order to make this a widespread mechanism that makes the government their puppet for anything one desires.

Rodney N. bringing the seeds of corruption to justice. Taking down one casino type president gambit at a time

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

In-Between Update

While waiting on the evidence neccesary to make the all new much important update on this crisis for democracy, I thought I would share a meaningful letter and declaration I received earlier about this issue.

Even though it is increasingly clear that there are those operatives out there who are intent on trying to prove that this is disinformation, or GOP related attacks going on who would like nothing more than to misrepresent the facts, I have today succeeded in a great victory of getting this very serious issue adressed publically and action taken on behalf of our elections.

At long last I have reached someone in congress, which gives me hope that there is still some out there fighting for civil rights.

Today, a Republican no less, wrote back with a thoughtful and important letter which is targeting the malfeseance done by multiple parties in regards to purging of voters and misuse of aggregation in our voting rights.

"March 22, 2005

Mr. Rodney Nols
***********
*******, Virginia 23322-8382

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the
integrity of 2004 elections. I appreciate your taking the time to
share your thoughts on this matter with me.

The most fundamental aspect of American democracy is our
ability to choose the course of our nation's future through
participation in the electoral process.

Unfortunately, individuals with a malicious or personal agenda
can corrupt this privilege if we do not properly safeguard our
elections.

In an effort to prevent possible fraud and abuse, we must identify
potential areas of vulnerability in existing voter registration and
election regulations and close loopholes that allow non-citizens to
choose our nation's leadership and shape our policies.

Increased oversight of poll activity must be ensured and the identity
of those participating in voting must be properly verified.

Rest assured that I will do all that I can to see to it that this
and future elections are conducted fairly and with strict integrity.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your
Representative in Congress, I appreciate your input in this
matter. As always, if I may be of assistance to you on this,
or any other issue, please feel free to contact me in my
Washington DC office at (202) 225-6365
or online at www.house.gov/forbes.

With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,
J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress"
http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/letter.jpg

Mr. Forbes also strongly objects to the Syria war coup, and would like nothing more than to pass legislation which can get this kind of activity barred legally. It takes the combined effort of republicans and democrats on this issue, who choose not to fight with eachother, in order to ban the use of illegal aggregators and purging lists which radical members of both parties have been using to subvert democracy.

If I can reach at least one congressman, one at a time each week, it will make a difference and it will make all the difference for me. Legislation can be passed that will make this activity illegal in a combined setting. We can force the issue of impeachment to election officials on high who engage in it.

If only I had the same kind of response out of Democrats or other members of Congress, I believe action could be taken immediately. This is a serious issue which will forever affect the victims and criminals of Votergate.

The straight ticket vote bias has the ability to purge voters from any side of the map that this aggregation is installed at. As shown here in this diagram, it has certainly affected the democratic and independant.

http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html http://www.flcv.com/midwest.html
http://flcv.com/Indiana.html

You look at the evidence on these aggregators, and tell me it doesn't have a straight-ticket bias. It certainly did, and that was partially why Votergate worked. With that many filtered out and purged voters across the country, an instant win was a guarantee no matter who the incumbant is.

The more and more I look, its more and more of the same sickening disgust to think that democrats and republicans both failed to fix the system and prevent this widescale assault. An assault orchestrated by the Fellowship "cult", men and women who claim to speak for jesus, that have sworn a horrible anti-democratic oath that makes most regular moderates cringe.

Both democrats and republicans in this cult, especially the senior members, have absolutely no interest in democracy. See Wayne Madsen's latest column on the origins of their leaders.

The question remains then how will we hold these corporate minions of the world accountable to their actions, if we failed to do it then, how can we possibly afford to do it now. Another election will come, another one will be rigged, our civil rights will be stripped.

This concerns everyone, so I keep pressuring and pointing fingers towards the source. This either gets stopped now, or that is our future. Next time I will be covering the most important parts of this event, that started on November, 2 2004 in a place that is normally called Ground Zero.

Rodney N. is currently working away with the best resources he can find, to edit this important blog so that it is able to reach everybody, and continues to discuss the issue with Clint Curtis and other leaders.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Hidden engagements. Deals continued.

As promised, we are going to explore more evidence now in part two of this two part update.

Since I don't want to be dealing with assumptions, I have made sure the evidence obtained is hard evidence. Screenshots, and verifiable interactions between these people.

There certainly has been alot of contention about different subjects here, and rather than trying to go over them all at once I am going to proceed to clear up confusion as I go along while working on this.

First let's examine Alan Gutierrez and his actual projects. Lets take a hard look at what he was involved in.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/alan1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/alan2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/alan3.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/alan4.jpg

The coding of XML-related applications, the coding for a voter aggregator called Publius, the coding of multiple ID related authorization software for cities and for Michigan itself.

Each aggregator is not called just a simple aggregator. I'm not sure where people are getting this idea, and I am clearing it up right now. Each aggregator normally has a name associated with software. Its nickname, as in what ChoicePoint uses or Accenture uses could be a data-miner aggregator. But that does not represent what it is actually called.

This has to be addressed in a finite way so that programmers, and certainly anyone else will get it finally. It's something that aggregates. Each one has a specific name and also-a specific function.

Knowing that let's examine this key line of the screenshots.

"Authorization Filter

Created an ISAPI filter to implement an authorization system that uses ODBC to map a Windows NT user account to a list of users in an SQL database."

O.k now we're getting somewhere. This is the type of aggregation we are truly talking about. A mapped user system which can be pre-set to define what kind of users are allowed to go through.

We're not talking about an RSS aggregator, we're not talking about a web aggregator, and based on the kind of confusing reports I have heard we are certainly never talking about a News aggregator. Such misconceptions lead to a dangerous amount of mis-understanding of the whole issue.

Aggregators like I mentioned above, are nothing else but examples of the kind of parsing possible by an aggregator and what it actually does. RSS feeds, or more importantly, RDF models can be used for interconnecting a large amount of data together and actually moving it. That was all the analysis was to demonstrate.

Now, it could certainly be used in a social-wide networking device or something related to collecting identities. That is what I have been explaining the whole time. It could be completely harmless also, if the intention of those who had orchestrated it was not to harm.

But based on the amount of things that are being uncovered, it has become increasingly clear that it was only created with one purpose. A simple "authorization aggregator" combined with PeopleAggregator's data-mining ability, could pose the largest threat among elections that can be conceived.

So data-mining aggregators are a problem, no doubt. But if one was customized to the point that it could strip and mine complete and total social network arrays of people and then transport them for the U.S. government on behalf of elections then we have the biggest problem.

Lets stop being tabboo and let us study the evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/antiKerry.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nicksn.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-1-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-2-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-3-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-4-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-5-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-6-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-7-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-8-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-9-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-10-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-11-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-13-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-14-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-15-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-16-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-17-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-18-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-19-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-20-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-21-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-22-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/nick-23-copy.jpg

Clearly, we have an interesting group of people here. Number one, they have close contact and work with the government. Number 2, they claim to be making a new re-vitalization in aggregation and networking people's identities. Number three, every last one of them, except for Tom, has extreme prejudice against John Kerry for the vietnam war.

He claims in one paragraph "I would much rather go take out Sodom myself." as if he, himself is tired of the beurocrats and would like to end the war and over-run Iraq. It is these kind of mindsets and ideals which got us into Iraq in the first place, and massacred it. He follows a core set of principles, one that all of them follow.

Now, don't you think if we put two and two together, the contracts they carry with the government, the desire to see Sodom killed, the desire to see Kerry indicted, and Naval Officer intelligence creating wide-spread social datamining software that we might have a motive right here before our eyes?

Another subject. I'm going to take some comments from a viewer.

"Are you suggesting that there may be a straight-ticket bias?"

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm demonstrating it by showing indisputable evidence from the EIRS voting database. http://www.votersunite.org Now, let's start with what we can conclusively prove.

We can basically prove that straight-ticket bias in aggregators has been in effect in more than 4 states based on actual code coming out of a state tabulator. http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/audit_log.jpg

That and on evidence showing undervotes consistant across the EIRS database. Now, to prove it irrefutably someone would need to remove the control code for the state tabulator. First step is testing it for straight ticket, on every single party ID line. Second step is removing the control code from the audit file and locking it down permanently.

There is also evidence it may be affecting provisional ballots. See the latest mainstream media article about provisional ballots in the wrong precincts, mostly "glitched out" and not counted.

Another question I have heard reach my ears.

"Based on the fact that the bias would need to connect to the voters....How can it be done if voting is private?"

An excellent and well debated question deserves a well formulated answer that explains what I am saying.

In order to connect to the voters themselves, caging lists do not require anything but personal information that is numerical. Social Security numbers, drivers liscence, I.D. When any voter goes to polls they are forced to show it as a governmental rule. Based on these facts, the persons in charge now have the information needed to cage virtually anybody. If they do not even know the aggregator bias is there, they probably will not ever know. It is simply fed through and the social security number for instance for said voter is purged directly out.

Enough background information is logged in almost every ID file to create general profile exemption. That means that the voter may not even know it, but the aggregators say that he doesn't live in the right city or doesn't have the right background. Thus after a whole entire hive of voters take to the polls their identity can be purged forcing the vote to not register. Because it will purge every user who fits that bias, they generally would have to know the area and the city so that it does it automatically.

Since this affects mainly precincts where registrations are over-run and where there are sometimes too many voters, it has basically gone against the democratic party line the entire time. If it was done in lesser known districts, it would have gone against the republic party line. Likewise if it was done in say ammish country, there probably would be no independant votes and no ralph naders logged.

Again let's examine a physical news story of this in action.

"Firm in Florida election fiasco earns millions
from files on foreigners

Oliver Burkeman in Washington and Jo Tuckman
in Mexico City Monday May 5, 2003 The Guardian

A data-gathering company that was embroiled in the
Florida 2000 election fiasco is being paid millions of
dollars by the Bush administration to collect
detailed personal information on the populations
of foreign countries, enraging several governments
who say the records may have been illegally obtained.

US government purchasing documents show that the company,
ChoicePoint, received at least $11m (£6.86m)
from the department of justice last year to supply
data - mainly on Latin Americans - that included names
and addresses, occupations, dates of birth, passport
numbers and "physical description".

Even tax records and blood groups are reportedly included.

Nicaraguan police have raided two offices suspected of providing
the information.

The revelations threaten to shatter public trust in electoral
institutions, especially in Mexico, where the government
has begun an investigation.

The controversy is not the first to engulf ChoicePoint.

The company's subsidiary, Database Technologies, was
responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter
registration records, with the result that thousands of
people, disproportionately black, were
disenfranchised in the 2000 election.

Had they been able to vote,
they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency,
for Al Gore, who lost in Florida by a few hundred votes.

Legal experts in the US and Mexico said ChoicePoint
could be liable for prosecution if those who supplied
it with the personal information could be proven
to have broken local laws.

That raises the possibility that any person whose data
was accessible to American officials could take legal
action against the US government.

"Anybody who felt they were affected by this could take the US
government to court," said Julio Tellez, an expert in Mexican
information legislation at the Tec de Monterrey University.
"We could all do it ... We are not prepared to sell our
intimacies for a fistful of dollars."

How the US is using the information remains mysterious,
although its focus on Latin America suggests obvious
applications in targeting illegal immigrants. Whatever
the reasons, its commitment to ChoicePoint is long-term:
last year's $11m payment was part of a contract
worth $67m that runs until 2005.

ChoicePoint denied breaking any laws.
"All information collected by
ChoicePoint on foreign citizens is obtained
legally from public agencies or private
vendors," it said. It also denied
purchasing "election registry information
" from Mexico."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html

O.k so they were illegally datamined. So what. There are many voters illegally datamined. However, many of these mexican identities and we could even say Saudi, some of them could not even be real, some of them could be dead, and all of them will be fed into the tabulator.

Will they just automatically be fed in? No they will be parsed in. Just like any code works at transplanting data from one location to another. Is it replacing anything? No its replacing nothing. Caged and purged voters are first taken out. Most all of them are belonging to one set group. Afterward all the other voters are just fed directly in. Evening out the totals, smoothing out the suspicion.

The danger here is not in data-mining by itself anymore. The danger here is in complete, and abusive, data-mining at the level of specifics that the people aggregator produces. It now no longer is possible to list all your friends and find a whole bunch of buddies and network them all together, without at the same time having the ability to collect everyone's information and cage whoever you want out of your circle of friends.

Chalko and the men involved here are veterans. They own stock in the blogs which are produced here. There is evidence now of them working with the Department of Agriculture. To answer more questions on this I will be updating again soon.

Now lets take a stronger look at the new evidence and see what can be ascertained.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-6-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-7-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-8-copy.jpg

Chris Allen is clearly concerned with the issue of privacy in a passive way. He is active in GOP related politics, and doesn't believe that much of the disagreements deserves such attention. He sees the polarization of John Kerry and George Bush, as a overall social problem.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-1-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-2-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-3-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-4-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-5-copy.jpg

Here, Chris Allen is now going through the motions of how this type of code is actually set up and implemented. He shows us that you can store the virtual identity of anyone, inside the People's Aggregator. Allen believes this level of specification will be invaluable to Nick, Marc, and the rest of the team.

He also previously specifices that he already created SSL encrypted aggregators for Concensus Development or other governmental institutions.

He indicated in no uncertain terms that the following is true.

"For instance, one of the uses of the SSL encryption software that I designed and sold at Concensus Development was to preserve privacy; however, I never sold it with privacy as a feature."

"All of this has stewed in my head until I arrived at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference this week here in Berkeley, where I met many of my friends in the cryptographic security business, as well as advocates on issues of privacy in organizations such as EFF and EPIC. My thoughts have now gelled sufficiently to make some observations about privacy."

Part of his oberservations about the aggregator, is that privacy is not really overall much of a consequence. It is not, as consequential, as building strong relationships and receiving strong information.

They have collected this program the People Aggregator and distributed it to departments like the Concencus, and developed it for strategic goals and interest in the US Department of Agriculture and multiple other partners which we are going to explore below this line.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-13-copy.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-14-copy.jpg

Gifford Pinchot, the partner to Chris and involved with Alacrity Ventures oversees the board of his personal what they call "Intrapeneurial Government services".

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/venture-10-copy.jpg

Can we at all say Pinchot or harold shattock are involved with Nick? Yes we can, through the president of Alacrity Chris Allen.

It's important to make this distinction early on. Especially if a contract is viewed here.

Later on, Chris essentially changes his tune second guessing and saying that the government can and will abuse this information. Signifying that yes, perhaps this level of social interaction could become quite a problem.

Well we aren't done here, but we certainly have come a long ways in learning what was instituted in a very personal way. If such a network of people were interested in proving a point through the fundamental reduction of human civil rights and electing their own president, they certainly have the tools and means to do so.

Is there a fine line between overt exposure and over exposure? That's what we are going to get to the bottom line of, because frankly these rigged aggregators can change the course of our future.

As usual keep in mind that some people can get confused on what this blog is presenting, and you should know certain Rovian style operatives who we have exposed as liars would like nothing more than to mislead you and cause massive confusion in a deliberate manner.

So take time to learn the facts, digest it, and then from that decide your actions.

Rodney N. programming and blogging the days away.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Hidden engagements. Deals for the people's identity.

This is going to be a two part update. The first part of the update will be to illustrate the precise relationship that the head programmers of PeopleAggregator had with the U.S. government.

The next part of the update will include screenshots and additional sources that, in fact document their connection with this to provide widespread networking arrays that collect people's personal information.

Note that I can not vouch enough for the danger that is presented here. However, I do not claim these as my own words and further, do not present them all as the official truth. Only the facts as far as one website and several documented statisticians have viewed them.

"I really suggest you check the site out. The theory driving PeopleAggregator is what they call social network software or what a statistican would call data mining. Collecting people with similar interest. He has mountains of info, he discusses the issue of privacy and to tell you the truth, it is very luke warm, he knows it is affecting it. What I finding interesting this is similar to the spider web searches. Here is some text on his front page. http://www.lifewithalacrity.com "

"In my post about the Dunbar Number I offered some evidence on the levels of satisfaction of various group sizes based on some empirical data from online games. There I was able to show that even though the Dunbar Number might predict a mean group size of 150 for humans, that in fact for non-survival oriented groups the mean wassignificantly less, probably between 60 to 90.

I also offered a second hypothesis, that there is a dip insatisfaction level of groups at around the size of 15. Unfortunately, I could only offer anecdotal evidence that this threshold existed. My personal belief was that this dip was caused by not enough "attention" being given to everyone and that group gatherings of this size risk becoming too noisy, too boring, too long, or some combination thereof.

Yet groups of this size are not large enough to allow for different perspectives (i.e. insufficientrequisite variety) or for other group processes to come into play.Dunbar Triage: Too Many Connections. As someone who now has over 171 professional "connections" in myLinkedIn Profile, 198 "friends" on Orkut, many more non-intersecting friends and acquaintances on Tribe.Net, LiveJournal, and othersocial networking services, as well as a plethora of correspondentsthat I only interact with via email, I am trying reconcile amismatch between my connections and my own Dunbar Number.How do I maintain meaningful relationships with over 300 people?

Venture Capitalist Jeff Nolan relates similar concerns:"It strikes me that the social networking theory holds that the more volume you have, the bigger your network will become by introducing degrees of separation roughly along the lines of Metcalfe's Law. I disagree, human networks do not grow in value by multiplying, but rather by reduction.

For me, it's the quality of relationships that enhances my professional and personal life, not the sheer numbers."Ultimately social networking services -- be it LinkedIn, Tribe.Net,Orkut, or LiveJournal -- are making the problem worse, not solving it. Any engineer or information theorist can tell you that a system that only has amplifiers will be out of balance, and that you need attenuators in the system as well.

Our current breed of social networking services have focused on amplifying our contacts not only because it serves us, but because it serves them. The more contacts that you make, the more people they potentially have in their service. However, in the long run this is unsustainable -- a social networking service also has to be useful -- merely amplifying your contacts isn't enough.

Thus the problem becomes not just one unique to me, where my friends network is overextended, but rather one that's endemic to the current generation of social networking services. In order to solve it we need to look at the traditional cultural answers to the problem, compare them to technical solutions, both current and to-be-invented, and then see how a new generation of social networking services can be designed that molds the two ideas together into amore cohesive whole.

I offer here the beginning of that discussion.The Cultural Strategies. The problem of overextended social networks are not new with the Internet generation. Many professions require maintaining a large base of relationships and have done so for hundreds of years, among them: politicians, salespeople, public company CEOs, and even professions that you might not think of requiring these skills such as family doctors.

The Dunbar Number of 150 may be a kind of species-wide average limit, it is not an individual limit -- thus my guessis that people with an innate talent for maintaining more relationships are attracted to these professions.

But even with innate talent those who follow these professions can be overwhelmed,and each have found different cultural strategies for managing larger numbers of relationships.

Cultural Strategy - Spending More Time: Some people just spend a lot more time keeping up with their connections. Politicians and salespeople are classic examples of professions that requiresignificant schmoozing time in order to keep trusted connections together.

How does someone like a member of the US House of Representatives manage their relationships? In no way can they even come close to having a relationship with all the 645,952 people they represent. They would, however, at least have to keep up at some level with the other 435 House members, their own staff, key members of the staff of other House members, as well as key politicians and contacts backhome.

From what I've read, successful politicians spend most oftheir days just meeting with people, and have staff dedicated to "tickling" -- keeping track of constituents, schedules, issues,etc. and reminding the politician before each meeting of theessentials they need to know.

The cost of this strategy is twofold -- the time spent managing relationships can't be spent elsewhere, and the quantity of relationships lowers the quality of those relationships. Forinstance, my experience with most politicians and many salesperson is that I will be forgotten as soon as I leave the room.

Cultural Strategy - Changing the Standard: There are different cultural standards in each profession as to what is an acceptable relationship. Thus some people chooose a profession that manages relationships in different ways. Doctors are a good example of socializers who fit into this category.

Your family doctor has a similar problem to that of politicians -- too many people to keep track of. Yet a good family practitioner can see you and look beyond just today's symptoms. Thus because of an ongoing relationship with you he can be a better doctor.

The way the doctor does this is through cultural and professional limits. Because of the authority, status and title granted to doctors, patients tend to defer to them. There is not an expectation that the relationship is equal. This allows the doctor to have a 'shallower' relationship with the patient that is still acceptable.

Still, even this level of serial, shallow socialization can be excessive for many people. A Radiologist acquaintance of mine told me the reason why she ended up in her specialty was that she just couldn't handle the ongoing patient relationships required by other specialities -- instead, she now looks at one set of images at a time, performs a diagnosis, and doesn't have to retain any relationship to move on to the next patient.

There are also problems with changing your socialization standards. Unless it is culturally understood, or your standard is reciprocated by others, it can make you appear shallow and not trustworthy.

I've seen this when someone moves from one profession to another, say a salesperson to a manager -- styles of relationships that were acceptable among salesperson and between salespeople and customers are not quite as acceptable as those between managers and their staff.

Another example is when someone moves from the East Coast to the West Coast, where the usefulness of casual alumni connections is significantly less valued, but those casual connections are unable to understand the change in standards. "

The Author, Chris Allen is one of the principal programmers for the PeopleAggregator.
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com

"Nick is not named, but I guess this is his partner, Marc Canter. So how do you like that, a Venture Capitalist with PeopleAggregator.

"The next thing is to add pointers to any other FOAF files that you might have on other services, for instance, I have a profile on MarcCanter's People Aggregator service. You should also list the place where you plan on making your FOAF file available -- you might think that this is a circular reference, but it is OK. My convention is to put the most "authoritative" FOAF file last, so that if there is a conflict the last one might override earlier ones. However, in practice I've not found that any FOAF tool I've used supports this convention. Put these right above the closing <./foaf:Person> tag. "

Chris Allen owns Alacrity Ventures.
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/business/index.html
http://www.alacrityventures.com/about.html

"Alacrity Ventures is an angel capital investment firm. Its main purpose is to fund and guide start-up companies through initial stages of development, offering seed financing and mentorship. Alacrity is primarily oriented toward working with Internet and technological companies with new and innovative ideas. Alacrity's goal is to identify people with a passion to create ground-breaking high-tech firms and to help them achieve success in building those businesses.---------------------

It looks harmless, here are the owners: Christopher Allen - We know about this guy - the data miner Founder, Alacrity Ventures

Gifford Pinchot: is an author, speaker and consultant on innovation management. His best-selling book, INTRAPRENEURING: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur (Harper &Row, 1985) defined the ground rules for an emerging field of enterprise: the courageous pursuit of new ideas in established organizations.

Pinchot & Company, http://www.pinchot.com/MainPages/Clients.html the firm he leads, "helps companies reduce bureaucratic obstacles." It audits and helps improve the environment for innovation, trains intrapreneurial teams to succeed, helps managers to be better sponsors of innovation, facilitates strategic and business planning meetings and designs reward systems more favorable to innovation andwise long-term management.

Its client list includes many of the largest and best-run firms in the United States.

How modest his little bio is about his company:

Here is the some interesting US Departments as his clients
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Services
U.S. Dept. of Defense
U.S. Dept. of Labor
U.S. Dept. of the Treasury
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
U.S. National Security Agency "

Alacrity Ventures and Pinchot are located in Berkeley, California the same exact area as Nick Chalko.

"Alacrity Ventures 1563 Solano Avenue, #353 Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 ...Copyright © 1999-2003, Alacrity Ventures. All rights reserved"

http://www.alacritymanagement.com/contact.html

Now I certainly don't want to infer anything yet, without seeing all of the evidence. But let us remember that when the vote-rigging software story first broke, Tom Feeney and Jeb Bush were found connected to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Department of Transportation in quite the scandal.

It was discovered that Raymond C Lemme had tracked the corruption all the way to the top through the FDL and FDOT, and he was going to come out with a big story. Then he suddenly was killed in an apparent "suicide". Well, little do people know that about 5 months ago there was a mexican man at the Yahoo group ElectionFraud2004.

He stated repeatedly that the Department of Agriculture was involved in something shady and that people's votes were being purged. No one at the time to anyone's knowledge did anything but contact the state.....The audit of the Department of Agriculture layed little more out than a slap on the wrist.

However, it appears that Marc Canter, Nick Chalko, Pinchot, Chris Allen all share something in common. One of their biggest customers happens to be the US Department of Agriculture, besides just the Department of Defense. One of the Department's main avenues of gathering information via datamining is Accenture, according to the procurement contract they received.

In the next update we will explore more evidence and concrete resolve. Though it appears as though, Lemme may have seen a little too much of Jeb Bush's plan. Jeb Bush runs the Agriculture and Transportation offices, and helped Tom Feeney and the House of Reps. In a scathing audit up to 108,000 dollars apparently went unaccounted for to unknown contracts.

If Karl Rove wanted to steal the entire election, would he resort to such crude tactics as hiring a few people who would surely be caught in each state? Or would he, knowing the power of US government, engage the operation in a much more subtle way. By securing contracts through the Dept of Agriculture to datamine identities, and let a few people running the BOE log in and out corrupting the aggregators.

Each aggregator has a login time, a date timestamp, and goes through a lib file parser thread. When the PA was online, I could actually secure a login name and use a password to view the registrar. Since they took it offline, I can no longer do so. However the lib parser is corrupt. It can easily delete data due to sabatoged XML.

Connecting the dots of this crime goes back to the formula these programmers basically used, Momento-XML, a free form XML with no real parser limits of data delivery. And if you can see the shady deal in action here now, and get a disgruntled feeling....It may be time to rip into the Department of Agriculture's archived contract reports.

I am not a hacker and wouldn't suggest to anyone to hack their database. However, surely a lawyer or someone who wants this resolved could simply log in and just check the contracts. If they have not covered their tracks, the contracts for the aggregators are still intact. And that means hard evidence which could bring down the whole operation if we take the initiative.

In part 2 we will explore more of this and I will also talk about the new Q&A session I am opening up, with viewers to discuss the seriousness of it and raise new topical points.

Rodney N. has seen alot of people lose their jobs due to lies and coverup. Winning back jobs and civil rights is what he does best.