- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge calls election lawsuit ‘baseless,’ orders Kari Lake, Mark Finchem to pay court fees
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:50 am to loogaroo
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:50 am to loogaroo
I'm very familiar with
* industrial chain of custody procedures/audits
* industrial programming and cyber audits
* voting procedures and devices in general and in LA specifically
With that said, the burden of proof is 100% in the hands of the custodians of the hardware and processes, especially when they are your employees (public servants). Auditors ask questions about concerns and they expect full and open discourse. Any stonewalling is flagged heavily and is unacceptable.
The "without proof" narrative is totally ridiculous. The process needs to be wide open and transparent. We should not be expected to just "trust the experts."
* industrial chain of custody procedures/audits
* industrial programming and cyber audits
* voting procedures and devices in general and in LA specifically
With that said, the burden of proof is 100% in the hands of the custodians of the hardware and processes, especially when they are your employees (public servants). Auditors ask questions about concerns and they expect full and open discourse. Any stonewalling is flagged heavily and is unacceptable.
The "without proof" narrative is totally ridiculous. The process needs to be wide open and transparent. We should not be expected to just "trust the experts."
2
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:53 am to DerkaDerka
quote:
The process needs to be wide open and transparent. We should not be expected to just "trust the experts."
The fox is literally guarding the hen house in AZ.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:58 am to DerkaDerka
quote:
'm very familiar with
* industrial chain of custody procedures/audits
* industrial programming and cyber audits
* voting procedures and devices in general and in LA specifically
With that said, the burden of proof is 100% in the hands of the custodians of the hardware and processes, especially when they are your employees (public servants). Auditors ask questions about concerns and they expect full and open discourse. Any stonewalling is flagged heavily and is unacceptable.
The "without proof" narrative is totally ridiculous. The process needs to be wide open and transparent. We should not be expected to just "trust the experts."
The burden of proof will be on the plaintiff in court.
That said, proof is not normally required at this stage. Federal courts use what is called notice pleading. I have not read the opinion but I suspect that it would be overturned on appeal, especially the award of fees and costs.
The suit should have been filed in Arizona state court. Those judges face a retention election every four years and will have to be much more responsive to the electorate than the political party.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News