ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Is there anything in the legal world in regards to public good? It seems to me there should be some sort of obligation in the name of public good to verify all the components of an election. wishful thinking?

---

Of course, but it is generally the conservative position to favor individual and corporate rights over a broader public good. That shouldn't be read with a confrontational tone, just stating the typical political alignment. Masks, vaccines, gun and component restrictions are a few prominent examples in our current context.

---

You are speaking in broad generalities. Lets focus, so election counting methods should be hidden and not transparent. Is that what you are advocating ?

---

Exactly. Dominion isn't on trial here. If it is discovered that there were "glitches", then the state should go after Dominion.

Troutslime said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Is there anything in the legal world in regards to public good? It seems to me there should be some sort of obligation in the name of public good to verify all the components of an election. wishful thinking?

---

Of course, but it is generally the conservative position to favor individual and corporate rights over a broader public good. That shouldn't be read with a confrontational tone, just stating the typical political alignment. Masks, vaccines, gun and component restrictions are a few prominent examples in our current context.

---

You are speaking in broad generalities. Lets focus, so election counting methods should be hidden and not transparent. Is that what you are advocating ?

---

Exactly. Dominion isn't on trial here. If it is discovered that there were "glitches", then the state should go after Dominion.

---

Doesn't appear Raffensperger third partied in Dominion in the long running earlier suit.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7224814-Curling-v-Raffensperger-Rulling-101120.html

Can you explain "third partied" por favor?

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Is there anything in the legal world in regards to public good? It seems to me there should be some sort of obligation in the name of public good to verify all the components of an election. wishful thinking?

---

Of course, but it is generally the conservative position to favor individual and corporate rights over a broader public good. That shouldn't be read with a confrontational tone, just stating the typical political alignment. Masks, vaccines, gun and component restrictions are a few prominent examples in our current context.

---

You are speaking in broad generalities. Lets focus, so election counting methods should be hidden and not transparent. Is that what you are advocating ?

---

Well, you're using different language now. My position is that, absent prima facie evidence, at minimum, and, if such evidence has been produced, then a showing of reasonable necessity, trade secrets should not be discoverable.

---

Dont dodge the question and I have not changed my theme but the wording to simplify it for you.
Counting votes as a trade secret is laughable proposition in this context. Its just BS legal mumbojumbo to hide having any voting software vetted or better yet open sourced. You want loop holes to cheat. So you call it a "trade secret" even though its simple stuff. Then have it invisible to the outside world to get any result you want.

Trade secrets are for private industry. This is for a national PUBLIC election where TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST ARE A MUST. You don't see the difference? Of course you do. You just want to manipulate the law to your favor. That's why people hate lawyers

Troutslime said:

---

Can you explain "third partied" por favor?

---

Sure. Plaintiff sues a defendant but the defendant believes someone else is really responsible for the harm of which plaintiffs complain, so they file what is called a third party complaint against them to bring them into the case.

Not to mention the whopper of a counter suit Dominion would have if "trade secrets" were publicly exposed.

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Is there anything in the legal world in regards to public good? It seems to me there should be some sort of obligation in the name of public good to verify all the components of an election. wishful thinking?

---

Of course, but it is generally the conservative position to favor individual and corporate rights over a broader public good. That shouldn't be read with a confrontational tone, just stating the typical political alignment. Masks, vaccines, gun and component restrictions are a few prominent examples in our current context.

---

You are speaking in broad generalities. Lets focus, so election counting methods should be hidden and not transparent. Is that what you are advocating ?

---

Well, you're using different language now. My position is that, absent prima facie evidence, at minimum, and, if such evidence has been produced, then a showing of reasonable necessity, trade secrets should not be discoverable.

---

Dont dodge the question and I have not changed my theme but the wording to simplify it for you.
Counting votes as a trade secret is laughable proposition in this context. Its just BS legal mumbojumbo to hide having any voting software vetted or better yet open sourced. You want loop holes to cheat. So you call it a "trade secret" even though its simple stuff. Then have it an invisible to the outside world to get any result you want.

Trade secrets are for private industry. This is for a national PUBLIC election where TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST ARE A MUST. You don't see the difference? Of course you do you just want to manipulate the law to your favor. That's why people hate lawyers

---

Well, I think I'm done with this discussion. I've tried to present explanations in an objective way and to remain civil. You seem inclined to accuse me of wanting to cheat, describe legal explanations as laughable, dodging questions, and being a hated lawyer. That doesn't do much to advance a reasonable exchange. Thankfully, we've got attorneys and judges from both political persuasions advocating and deciding these issues.

What continues to interest me is that the position you are arguing is extremely liberal. Conservatives are very much about protecting individual and corporate rights, including trade secrets. Demanding a company disclose its trade secrets without a showing of a prima facie case or a reasonable necessity in court is so far left it's socialistic. You keep self-defining the voting software as "simple" despite (1) having no idea what it looks like and (2) repeated explanations that the "simplicity" of a trade secret doesn't make it discoverable.

When either side takes a position in stark contrast to their norm, it is generally because they are result-driven rather than law-driven. While I rarely agreed with Scalia, he abhorred result-driven decisions. He would've been staunchly opposed to ordering a business to disclose trade secrets in the name of "public good" because a portion of the public thinks "something just looks wrong" about a result. It's why some of his decisions seemed in contrast to popular Republican opinion, but wholly in line with a strict recognition of the role of courts.

What trade secrets are being protected? Does Dominion position itself as having proprietary software?

Troutslime said:

---

What trade secrets are being protected? Does Dominion position itself as having proprietary software?

---

Yes.

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

What trade secrets are being protected? Does Dominion position itself as having proprietary software?

---

Yes.

---

Is "proprietary " assumed with all software/hardware cases?

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

Troutslime said:

---

What trade secrets are being protected? Does Dominion position itself as having proprietary software?

---

The discussion at hand has been whether Dominion should be required to disclose the code written by its software developers. My response has been based on TTU's comment "don't give me the 'it's proprietary' excuse" or something along those lines. I'm assuming the code is not open-source, otherwise, the code would be readily available to everyone and, thus, not an issue. Assuming it is not open source, it is an extremely valuable trade secret, given Dominion's place as a leading proprietor of voting software.

Troutslime said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

What trade secrets are being protected? Does Dominion position itself as having proprietary software?

---

Yes.

---

Is "proprietary " assumed with all software/hardware cases?

---

Depends. There are different features in different licensing agreements. When it comes to Dominion they were successful in thwarting efforts to have experts (even under court order not to reveal to anyone other than the court) of inspection of machines and their latest version of their software in the Curling case.

Read the opinion that I have posted in this thread a few times.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Is there anything in the legal world in regards to public good? It seems to me there should be some sort of obligation in the name of public good to verify all the components of an election. wishful thinking?

---

Of course, but it is generally the conservative position to favor individual and corporate rights over a broader public good. That shouldn't be read with a confrontational tone, just stating the typical political alignment. Masks, vaccines, gun and component restrictions are a few prominent examples in our current context.

---

You are speaking in broad generalities. Lets focus, so election counting methods should be hidden and not transparent. Is that what you are advocating ?

---

Well, you're using different language now. My position is that, absent prima facie evidence, at minimum, and, if such evidence has been produced, then a showing of reasonable necessity, trade secrets should not be discoverable.

---

Dont dodge the question and I have not changed my theme but the wording to simplify it for you.
Counting votes as a trade secret is laughable proposition in this context. Its just BS legal mumbojumbo to hide having any voting software vetted or better yet open sourced. You want loop holes to cheat. So you call it a "trade secret" even though its simple stuff. Then have it an invisible to the outside world to get any result you want.

Trade secrets are for private industry. This is for a national PUBLIC election where TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST ARE A MUST. You don't see the difference? Of course you do you just want to manipulate the law to your favor. That's why people hate lawyers

---

Well, I think I'm done with this discussion. I've tried to present explanations in an objective way and to remain civil. You seem inclined to accuse me of wanting to cheat, describe legal explanations as laughable, dodging questions, and being a hated lawyer. That doesn't do much to advance a reasonable exchange. Thankfully, we've got attorneys and judges from both political persuasions advocating and deciding these issues.

What continues to interest me is that the position you are arguing is extremely liberal. Conservatives are very much about protecting individual and corporate rights, including trade secrets. Demanding a company disclose its trade secrets without a showing of a prima facie case or a reasonable necessity in court is so far left it's socialistic. You keep self-defining the voting software as "simple" despite (1) having no idea what it looks like and (2) repeated explanations that the "simplicity" of a trade secret doesn't make it discoverable.

When either side takes a position in stark contrast to their norm, it is generally because they are result-driven rather than law-driven. While I rarely agreed with Scalia, he abhorred result-driven decisions. He would've been staunchly opposed to ordering a business to disclose trade secrets in the name of "public good" because a portion of the public thinks "something just looks wrong" about a result. It's why some of his decisions seemed in contrast to popular Republican opinion, but wholly in line with a strict recognition of the role of courts.

---

Two professions collide. I spent 12 years designing software applications and other 10+ writing them. I can tell you the core algorithms for counting votes is pretty basic stuff. And no, you were not civil but sarcastic, chicken and all.

Me arguing a liberal stance ? by demanding election management software be transparent in this age when faith in the Republic is being shaken to its core? Fine so be it. I'll be the staunch pro-business low tax conservative I've always been while demanding elections be secure, transparent, and true.

Who knows where this goes, but to treat election management software as a closed corporate secret is foolish to anyone with a brain, especially today. The election process must be vetted, transparent, yet secure in an age as polarized as this one. If any system vendor wants to sell election management systems, transparency must be part of the deal. If you can't see that, I have no idea what to say.

As a software developer, it is terrifying how this can be gamed and scammed without safeguards. It's clear we see this from two different worlds.

I'm, as pro noncorporate capitalist as you can get. Owned a business for 27 years. For the sake of the republic and its voting rights I'll settle for open sourced solutions to this specific simple but critical application.

Shouldn't they be required to at least provide the nature of its proprietary software? Has Dominion threatened counter suits yet? To me the behavior of state officials and judges is evidence.

Can a judge issue a warrant to seize state property?

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

---

That was unnecessary snark. When have I ever even indicated that I don't?

aggiehawg said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

---

That was unnecessary snark. When have I ever even indicated that I don't?

---

Apologies for the tone. I get concerned when I see comments like yours that promote stories that may or may not be true and may or may not have anything to do with specific issues, even if true. I realize comments on a message board don't necessarily reflect how folks would act before a court.

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

M-K-TAG said:

---

agjacent said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

This thread is great example of why people hate lawyers.

---

Because we often have to tell people hard truths that they'd rather not hear? %A0Yes, I agree, people do tend to hate us for that.

---

OR: %A0Because those of us who aren't lawyers can see something so clear (in this case that the election is a complete sham and the American voter has been cheated) and that justice is being denied because all this legalese of what is fraud blah blah blah...We just want fairness and justice... we don't want to hear well sorry nothing you can do because not enough time to prove, not the correct procedure to do this legal thing or that legal thing ... blah blah blah.. sorry just accept that you have an illegitimate president and you can try and right this for the next time around?? %A0that's ridiculous and disgusting. Yep a lot of average Americans are pissed about that ... probably about 70 million.

aggiehawg was right: " Laws were clearly broken but no one seems to care. NO ONE!"

---

This is exactly why we have rules, %A0procedure, laws, etc. We don't want people going to jail, paying judgments, losing custody, or courts overturning elections because somebody is "just real sure they did it." The founding fathers would strongly agree.

---

No body here disagrees but hear is the difference you trust the vote counters and we do not. %A0Prove to us the counts are fair and accurate then we buy the results. %A0 Lawyers seem to be all about process. %A0We are all about the count.

We do not trust the counters. %A0Its all this simple

---

Not the way burden of proof works, again, thankfully. You think we live in a litigious society now? That would be utter chaos. %A0

---

There were severe statistical deviations in the counts. %A0Lets see the counting software source code. %A0There is your proof. %A0Why is it a burden for it to be made public ? and dont give me its proprietary. %A0This is simple stuff. and goes along way to proving the truth.

---

I feel real strongly that KFC tastes just like my grandpa's fried chicken. I sue KFC. Now they have the burden of proving they didn't get their fried chicken recipe from my grandad. To do so, they must publicize their recipe. That doesn't work very well. We would have no trade secrets.

---

Bawahahah. Terrible analogy chicken recipes don't determine public and fair so-called elections that affect 335 million lives. Study something called open source and get back to me. You just showed how little you understand all this and its implications.

Here that folks, We can all rest easy knowing software that counts election totals can be hidden and proprietary.

---

I'm guessing their software isn't open source. And, of course software can be proprietary, especially with something as significant as the primary software used in elections. That makes it hugely valuable. It should be protected by trade secret laws unless there is a sufficient showing of proof to justify it being disclosed, and then likely only in camera.

Just as an aside, incorrectly using hear and here in multiple messages doesn't help with credibility.

---

Of course software can be and in most cases should be proprietary as its hard ass work. %A0Just not software that count election totals. %A0Dont really need mysterious black boxes in this case. %A0

---

So, a software company with an extremely valuable voting software program can be forced to turn over the code for that software simply because a plaintiff files a lawsuit, regardless of evidence? That's not very capitalistic. Now, there are 300 software companies making identical voting software. That company's valuable software now is actually open source and valueless. The value of that company just plummeted. Not a very conservative position to take.

---

Counting votes and reporting them is pretty simple stuff. Nothing earth-shattering about it. Nothing like the source code for industrial automation. This is about election management software used for national elections where transparency is a must. Don't see a conflict.

---

I'm sure Dominion doesn't think their software is very valuable. Their investors probably don't either. Just simple stuff. It's just fried chicken right???

---

Bahahaha if it helps determine election its very valuable. Doesn't change the fact its also very simple stuff and hidden..

Just curious do you know anything about software production? Or are you just a chicken expert ?

---

You keep making this "simple" argument, which just isn't the standard for trade secrets. And "hidden" is the essence of trade secrets. Of course they're hidden. Otherwise they wouldn't be trade "secrets."

All chicken for me. Although I do have some experience with mobile apps.

---

I'm puzzled why you keep talking about trade secrets. Sure, there are probably trade secret issues, but there is also copyright issues. If someone copies their software to make voting machines of their own, then they are almost surely violating copyright.

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

---

That was unnecessary snark. When have I ever even indicated that I don't?

---

Apologies for the tone. I get concerned when I see comments like yours that promote stories that may or may not be true and may or may not have anything to do with specific issues, even if true. I realize comments on a message board don't necessarily reflect how folks would act before a court.

---

Some of the same cybersecurity experts that were deemed expert witnesses in the Curling v. Raffensperger federal case in Georgia are cooperating with Sidney.

IOW, the case regarding Dominion's flaws has already been made. But as always the biggest issue is what remedies are available under the law. I fully understand the law cannot address nor redress every injustice.

Sorry if my frustration was suggesting anything else. That's all it is. Frustration. And my frustration increased after I read Totenberg's opinion. This was all so avoidable.

Look up the Amistad Project of the Thomas Moore Society. They too filed multiple federal suits well before the election challenging the use of Dominion in each of the battleground states, including Georgia. They were turned away because the harm had not happened yet. Correct result under the law but horrible consequences.

But my ultimate assessment is that Biden is sworn in. The lawsuits continue and Dominion gets exposed down the road. GOP retakes the House and impeaches Biden and Kamala in 2023.

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

---

Where your point of view fails in this whole discussion is on the issue of proprietary "code" vs "open source" code. It is obvious to me that you have never been party, as in signing your name as responsible and obligated to deliver the end items to a Government Services or Product Delivery (think DoD) Contract where Deliverables include HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES.

So, if you are required to hand all of it over INCLUDING SOURCE CODE, then that is what you do...proprietary, trade secret or not.

What ttu85 and I advocate is for a CONTRACT REQUIREMENT that obligates whomever to provide HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, THAT INCLUDES SOURCE CODE FOR APPS, API's and FIRMWARE, in accordance with GPL 2.0 for the Voting tally and counting software.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THEN I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER YOURSELF A LAWYER AKIN TO THE IDIOT THAT ARGUED WITH ME ABOUT PROCESSES, CORPORATE MANDATES AND MAKING IT EASY ON LAWYERS TO DEFEND ANYTHING.

And your very statement about aligning a legal position to a political one proves that the lens you use to argue the law is politics.

Piss up a rope.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

We're going to count the votes for the most powerful position in the world, but you can't see how we're counting them. Ignore our suspicious behavior and just trust that we're doing the right thing.

---

And the poll workers were on Zuckerberg's payroll.

But nothing to see there, either.

---

If there's something to see, i.e. actual, relevant, admissible evidence, it should be shown to the courts, at least sufficiently to avoid summary judgment. That's not happening so far, not in courts of original jurisdiction nor appellate courts. If there's not, we're back to "I just feel real strongly." You know that. Hopefully, you still believe in evidentiary standards and the other rules that guide our legal system.

---

Where your point of view fails in this whole discussion is on the issue of proprietary "code" vs "open source" code. It is obvious to me that you have never been party, as in signing your name as responsible and obligated to deliver the end items to a Government Services or Product Delivery (think DoD) Contract where Deliverables include HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES.

So, if you are required to hand all of it over INCLUDING SOURCE CODE, then that is what you do...proprietary, trade secret or not.

What ttu85 and I advocate is for a CONTRACT REQUIREMENT that obligates whomever to provide HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, THAT INCLUDES SOURCE CODE FOR APPS, API's and FIRMWARE, in accordance with GPL 2.0 for the Voting tally and counting software.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THEN I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER YOURSELF A LAWYER AKIN TO THE IDIOT THAT ARGUED WITH ME ABOUT PROCESSES, CORPORATE MANDATES AND MAKING IT EASY ON LAWYERS TO DEFEND ANYTHING.

And your very statement about aligning a legal position to a political one proves that the lens you use to argue the law is politics.

Piss up a rope.

---

Gig 'em and have a good one. Somewhere along the way, this went from a discussion to piss up a rope. That's a shame.