ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
If dominion is the one suing then they have the burden of proof.
US Army DID seize Dominion Servers in Germany
- Thread starter CaseHardened
- Start date
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
HOW THIS WORKS:
I have a customer that bought an EXPENSIVE home ($400K+). After just a year the sidewalk from the driveway to the front door began cracking and buckling. My customer called and asked the builder to repair the sidewalk at their cost because this was obviously a construction error. The builder refused, after several attempts to get the builder to correct the issue, my customer took them to small claims court for the cost of the repair, about $5,000. The builder turned around and COUNTER SUED for $70,000 for DEFIMATION, my customer dropped their small claims case, the builder dropped their defamation case.
see how this works, when guilty, ATTACK, ATTACK WITH OVERWHELING FORCE, and the little guy will go away. Except Powell and Wood are not little guys, this is going to turn into a shit-storm and in the end, everyone will walk away, no one be guilty of anything, but this will take years to resolve.
I have a customer that bought an EXPENSIVE home ($400K+). After just a year the sidewalk from the driveway to the front door began cracking and buckling. My customer called and asked the builder to repair the sidewalk at their cost because this was obviously a construction error. The builder refused, after several attempts to get the builder to correct the issue, my customer took them to small claims court for the cost of the repair, about $5,000. The builder turned around and COUNTER SUED for $70,000 for DEFIMATION, my customer dropped their small claims case, the builder dropped their defamation case.
see how this works, when guilty, ATTACK, ATTACK WITH OVERWHELING FORCE, and the little guy will go away. Except Powell and Wood are not little guys, this is going to turn into a shit-storm and in the end, everyone will walk away, no one be guilty of anything, but this will take years to resolve.
Hmmm, must have misread that part. The logic still stands though. The compaint needs to prove their case, not the other way around.
spat
.950 JDJ
In this case *Dominion* is the plaintiff, and *Sidney* is the defendant. Dominion is the one that needs to prove their case.
Sidney can sit back and say nothing and unless Dominion can prove that Sidney caused then actual harm with factually untrue statements they will lose.
To their benefit however Civil suit != Criminal case.
The standards of evidence are completely different.
Hint "reasonable doubt" is not a thing in a civil case.
Dominion is suing claiming that they suffered a tangible harm from *untrue* statements made by the defendant.
They have to prove that they suffered harm, and demonstrate the level of harm is commensurate with the money they are asking for.
They need to prove the defendant is the one who caused the harm.
And they need to prove the statements causing the harm were untrue.
If they fail to prove any of those things, Sidney wins.
spat
.950 JDJ
Right, in this lawsuit Dominion is the complainant who needs to prove their case.
Sidney didn't sue them, they sued her.
Part of proving their case would be demonstrating that the defendant made false statements about them. That would entail proving that the statements were false.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
But how does it all work when the claims made by Dominion would potentially be evidence in a pending criminal case? Which case goes forward first? Or could Dominion win in civil court but then be found guilty of the same thing in criminal court??
100% agreed. I had the parties flopped due to my own hasty reading.
spat
.950 JDJ
Typically they would postpone the civil trial.
But because of the difference in the burden of proof it's quite likely they could win a criminal trial and lose the civil one.
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
ie: OJ Simpson
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I underlined, italicized, and bolded the part you're absolutely right about.
Cult-like behavior indeed.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I go to the news and tell the news my next door neighbor is a pedophile. Now he has to prove he's not.
We all know that's not how it works. But, as you said, cult-like behavior is being exhibited here.
----
We're now only -22 days until Powell proves her case!
spat
.950 JDJ
Except this is an election not a criminal case.I go to the news and tell the news my next door neighbor is a pedophile. Now he has to prove he's not.
We all know that's not how it works. But, as you said, cult-like behavior is being exhibited here.
----
We're now only -22 days until Powell proves her case!
View attachment 101192
The burden of proof is on the government conducting the election to prove to the people that it is secure.
Just like FDA doesn't need to prove a new drug is unsafe. It's on the manufacturer to prove that it is safe.
The automaker needs to prove that the car meets crash standards, it's not on the highway traffic safety board to prove that it doesn't.
The government is making the claim that they conducted a fair and secure election. They need to prove it.
When a cop pulls you over you have to prove that you are licensed and insured and the car is registered. He doesn't need to prove that it isn't.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
We’ve gone over this. The only thing that can possibly qualify as a “secure” election, objectively, is one lacking criminal fraud.
Given the complete absence of fraud proven in court so far we can conclude it is secure.
These inept, incompetent lawsuits have actually given me more confidence in this election than I had in early November. Many concluded this was unfair when their guy lost and for them there will never be a way to convince them.
spat
.950 JDJ
That is not remotely how it works.
Ford doesn't take a new model of truck to the HTSB and say "well, nobodys been hurt in one yet, so we can start selling it".
They have to *prove* that the car meets objective standards for safety.
What makes an election secure is the ability to *detect* fraud if it occurs.
Saying "we didn’t find any" is *not* proof that you had robust policies in place that would *allow* you to defect fraud if it occurred.
By your standards an election that had hardcore communists counting the ballots alonr and in secret and burning them before announcing the count would be the most secure possible. Nobody could *ever* prove fraud.
Given the complete absence of evidence being allowed in Court, so far we can conclude that this is the most insecure and corrupt "election" ever performed in the United States.
But, hey, if the dog and pony show helps you sleep at night knowing your candidate "won", congratulations. There is obviously no way to "convince" you of anything. Chances are, if evidence were to be allowed in court, you would just shrug it off as "Trump's Judge".
So I guess it's time the conservatives start using the same playbook as the liberals.
"Not my President"
Start impeachment proceedings now.
Ignore his edicts.
Stonewall anything he tries to do.
And, in 4 years, the conservatives can have "peaceful protests" too, right? The precedent has already been set.
spat
.950 JDJ
We don't want to wait 4 years. We're way overdue already.
spat
.950 JDJ
If the yardstick for "secure elections" is a lack of evidence of fraud (as opposed to robust systems to detect it). Then Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the Il family of North Korea are the worlds foremost experts on running a secure election.
There was 0 (surviving) evidence of any fraud in any election Stalin win. In fact there isn't even much evidence that the people complaining of fraud ever existed... They had a habit of even disappearing from the history books.
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Heard the Army was storing those servers at an AT&T building in Nashville. 
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thats the rumor. Of course it would give the FBI total access to the building without a warrant too. But who the hell knows,
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
I have come to the conclusion that I don't care anymore. I hope Pres. Trump can pull this out, but Im not seeing any evidence that this will happen.
Im concluding, that I may actually have to defend myself from fellow citizens. My furvert hope is I can sell my property in New Yorkistan, buy a decent RV and get my ass out west, in the wilderness were there are very few or no people. I will make my own law. I will be my own boss.
will it work out that way? doubtful. but I will have to deal with far less people than I do now
Im concluding, that I may actually have to defend myself from fellow citizens. My furvert hope is I can sell my property in New Yorkistan, buy a decent RV and get my ass out west, in the wilderness were there are very few or no people. I will make my own law. I will be my own boss.
will it work out that way? doubtful. but I will have to deal with far less people than I do now
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Number 1 there is not a complete absence of fraud.
Number 2 Nothing has proven in a court room there fore nothing is proven.
Number 3 You cannot conclude anything is secure if it is a contested election .
The courts did not refuse the cases on basis of merit but on basis of legal technicalities, and procedures. Nothing can be ascertained about the validity of the claims from that .
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
why? every president Pardons people at the end of they year.
An RV? Sure about that, lol.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
At least some of, if not all of the following, are true.
1. They make accusations that they refuse to provide proof for and refuse to bring those claims to court as they know there are repercussions for lying to a judge under oath.
2. The cases they do bring and provide evidence for would not have materially affected the electoral results.
3. They're lousy lawyers.
4. They're bat shit crazy.
5. They're grifters.
1. They make accusations that they refuse to provide proof for and refuse to bring those claims to court as they know there are repercussions for lying to a judge under oath.
2. The cases they do bring and provide evidence for would not have materially affected the electoral results.
3. They're lousy lawyers.
4. They're bat shit crazy.
5. They're grifters.
I'm going with #6
6. Courts are compromised like we already know and won't hear any of the OVERWHELMING Evidence.
*side note
if you think the Courts are not compromised, ask yourself.... Why the safe act hasn't seen it's day in Court?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
spat
.950 JDJ
Yes, even those courts.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
ya well that will depend on Harris/Pelosi fossil fuel plan, If gas prices go through the roof, who knows