Started By
Message

Dominion v Powell- Dominion’s rebuttal of the allegations asserted

Posted on 1/8/21 at 6:45 pm
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54137 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 6:45 pm
LINK

I just got through the factual allegations in this lawsuit. It is a good summary of the various allegations made by Powell and Dominion’s response.

Haven’t finished reading the whole thing. I have no opinion yet as to the outcome.

I ignored the article and don’t know what it says. Just scroll to the bottom to read the filing.
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
141987 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 6:46 pm to
tl:dr?
Posted by 4Ghost
Member since Sep 2016
8518 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 6:47 pm to
This may not work out like Dominion planned. Discovery can be a bitch!
Posted by ColoradoTiger1987
Tampa
Member since Jan 2019
1613 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:00 pm to
I’m really wondering how they can justify 1.3 billion dollars in damages?
Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:11 pm to
quote:

I’m really wondering how they can justify 1.3 billion dollars in damages?



Generally, businesses can't claim general damages in defamation cases, though they can claim reputational damages and lost revenue, whatnot. They made $100M off of GA, and were already in what, like 38 states? I think they will have to show that they have lost or are substantially certain to lose 13 deals or have 13 contracts cancelled to the same magnitude.

However, I think that the NYT vs. Sullivan standard comes into play and Smartmatic/Dominion has a pretty sordid, well-published history. So yes, bring on discovery.

In the ocean, the mighty ocean, the Kracken sleeps tonight.
Posted by dgnx6
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2006
68653 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

think they will have to show that they have lost or are substantially certain to lose 13 deals or have 13 contracts cancelled to the same magnitude.



But why would they be canceled with no evidence of fraud?

And let's say they do have contracts cancelled, could a defense of that be, well your machines were already in question before this and actually didn't get contracts from some states because of it.
Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:26 pm to
Well, there is a lot they could claim occurred in the intervening years since Smartmatic developed the vote-switching software, improvements made, separate companies, etc, etc, etc... This does not only open up Dominion to discovery, it opens up every state in question to subpoenas, including forensic inspection of machines in GA, PA, AZ, etc....

Sidney and Lin Woods are not dumb (though Lin's a little crazy), so they may have been baiting Dominion all along while pressing the voter fraud cases.
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54137 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:31 pm to
I can tell you haven’t read the complaint. Start there first.
Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:54 pm to
I must be a hell of a speed reader if I could digest a 125 pg complaint in that timespan. But all a complaint is, much to the chagrin of the muh 60 suit dismissal crowd, is the initial pleading of a party's allegations. Not fact. So what's your point?

My point is that Dominion is going to have to prove actual malice under Sullivan's public figure standards because of its high-profile sordid past in Venezuela, the Philippines & elsewhere and, because Sidney acting in her capacity as an attorney advocate in many situations, Dominion will face additional privilege hurdles with this defamation claim.
This post was edited on 1/8/21 at 7:56 pm
Posted by MrFizzle
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2012
496 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 7:55 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 1:50 pm
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54137 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 8:18 pm to
quote:

is the initial pleading of a party's allegations. Not fact. So what's your point?
I understand, but they do a pretty good job citing sources. It’s pretty compelling.

quote:

My point is that Dominion is going to have to prove actual malice under Sullivan's public figure standards because of its high-profile sordid past in Venezuela
Again, you need to read it as you believe things that aren’t supportable in and way.

quote:

Sidney acting in her capacity as an attorney advocate in many situations, Dominion will face additional privilege hurdles with this defamation claim.
All addressed. I encourage to take the time and read it.
Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 8:33 pm to
quote:

My point is that Dominion is going to have to prove actual malice under Sullivan's public figure standards because of its high-profile sordid past in Venezuela

Again, you need to read it as you believe things that aren’t supportable in and way.


Not doing on a Friday night when my week has been consumed by it anyway.

May look some the cliffs for the attorney advocate issue later and only doing some good old fashion issue-spotting, which apparently I got correct.

The NYT v. Sullivan standard is often an insurmountable hurdle in itself in a defamation claim, and Dominion will have a tough time proving that it is not a public figure. Regardless, Sidney will get broad discovery in a civil suit, so, Dominion, careful what you wish for.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111529 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 8:34 pm to
quote:

Again, you need to read it as you believe things that aren’t supportable in and way.


Dominion lies a lot. A lot a lot. About their connections to Smartmatic. It’s easy to say things when you’re not being challenged.
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54137 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 8:36 pm to
quote:

Dominion lies a lot. A lot a lot. About their connections to Smartmatic.
This stuff is easy to prove. They clearly aren’t connected to smartmatic.

Even newsmax agrees

quote:

Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies," the outlet said in a statement posted online and read by host John Tabacco. "There are several facts our viewers and readers should be aware. Newsmax has found no evidence either Dominion or Smartmatic owns the other, or has any business association with each other."
This post was edited on 1/8/21 at 8:42 pm
Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 1/8/21 at 8:54 pm to
quote:

In October 2009, Dominion granted Smartmatic a worldwide (except for the United States and Canada) nonexclusive license to certain precinct count optical scan (“PCOS”) voting systems that Dominion had developed (the “License Agreement” or the “Agreement”). The License Agreement granted Smartmatic rights to certain patents and patent applications that Dominion owned or controlled (the “Licensed Patent Rights”) and to “all know-how, trade secrets, methodologies and other technical information owned or possessed by Dominion” (the “Licensed Technology”).1 The License Agreement contains a noncompetition provision. This provision limits Smartmatic's rights to develop, market, or sell2 products that embody the Licensed Technology (the “Licensed Products”). The noncompetition provision, discussed in detail infra, restricts Smartmatic's right to sell both Licensed Products (i.e., Dominion PCOS voting systems) and non-Dominion PCOS voting systems. These restrictions apply differently in different parts of the world. The section of the noncompetition provision that gives rise to this dispute is Section 3.4(b), which states in relevant part that “Smartmatic shall not develop, market or sell any Licensed Product in the United States.”

When the parties entered into the License Agreement, Dominion intended to focus its efforts on Canada and the United States.4 Smartmatic would focus on emerging international markets.5 In fact, before entering the License Agreement and based on prior agreements with Dominion, Smartmatic contracted with the Republic of the Philippines to provide certain technology and services to modernize and automate the Philippines' national elections.

The parties' relationship hit a snag in June 2011 after the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission issued a request for proposals. The Commission sought to acquire products to implement a uniform electronic vote-counting system using optical scanning voting technology like Dominion's. Both Smartmatic and Dominion submitted bids. On May 23, 2012, Dominion notified Smartmatic by letter that Smartmatic was in breach of the License Agreement because it submitted a bid to the Government of Puerto Rico to sell Licensed Products “in the United States” in violation of Section 3 .4(b). Dominion also purported to terminate the agreement as a result of Smartmatic's alleged breach. In a May 24 response, Smartmatic rejected Dominion's termination as invalid because Puerto Rico is not “in the United States.” The parties now contest, among other things, the validity of Dominion's purported termination. Since the termination, Dominion has not performed its obligations under the License Agreement.


quote:

SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Dominion Voting Systems International Corporation, et al., Counterclaim–Plaintiffs,
v.
Smartmatic International Corporation, et al., Counterclaim–Defendants.
Dominion Voting Systems International Corporation, et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs,
v.
Smartmatic Tim Corporation, Third–Party Defendant.
C.A. No. 7844–VCP.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2013.
Decided: May 1, 2013.


quote:

C.A. No. 7844–VCP.


No connection.
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54137 posts
Posted on 1/9/21 at 6:16 am to
Competitors in the market place... not common ownership.

It’s funny that you will research that, but won’t take the time to read the complaint.
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 6:18 am
Posted by Barstools
Atlanta
Member since Jan 2016
9425 posts
Posted on 1/9/21 at 6:22 am to
More than competitors, the were using each other's IP. If they were truly competitors they wouldn't be doing that.
Posted by NoSaint
Member since Jun 2011
11283 posts
Posted on 1/9/21 at 6:27 am to
quote:

But why would they be canceled with no evidence of fraud?



Because plenty of y’all took a stance that “Sidney would never lie about fraud” and that causes a lot of reputations issues for a company that needs high public trust.

Public opinion matters nearly as much as facts for a state weighing what voting machine to purchase.

Would you want to buy a machine, even if perfectly working, if you would end up with protests every election?
Posted by NoSaint
Member since Jun 2011
11283 posts
Posted on 1/9/21 at 6:32 am to
quote:

Sidney and Lin Woods are not dumb (though Lin's a little crazy), so they may have been baiting Dominion all along while pressing the voter fraud cases.


I don’t think Sidney is dumb but I also don’t think the legal team for dominion is less savvy than your average message board poster with regards to the law.

If we accept both as smart and skilled, do you think wondering if they called her bluff may be the more reasonable discussion than pondering if they forgot the very basics of legal exposure?
Posted by ksayetiger
Centenary Gents
Member since Jul 2007
68313 posts
Posted on 1/9/21 at 6:33 am to
quote:

This stuff is easy to prove. They clearly aren’t connected to smartmatic.

Even newsmax agrees


true, but (the way I understand it) is dominion uses its source code based off of smartmatic. it would be like if I wrote a book based off another book. everyone knows it is the same story, but I changed enough words that it isnt technically plagiarism

so dominion might be correct, legally. depends on interpretation.

and of course, the intanglement of characters involved over the years within companies knowledge and resourcds
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram