2024 Election Results Lawsuit--Documents Requested

[NJCher]

Snip

The lead plaintiff in a legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election, has submitted 15 pages of document requests as part of the discovery process.

SMART Legislation, the action arm of nonpartisan watchdog group SMART Elections, also submitted a series of questions to the Rockland County Board of Elections in New York this week, according to court filings reviewed by Newsweek.

"The best way to reassure the public about the accuracy of the election results in Rockland County, New York, is to conduct a full, transparent, hand recount of the 2024 Presidential and Senate elections," Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement to Newsweek. "That is why we have requested it, and so far, the judge seems to agree."

A spokesperson for Rockland County told Newsweek it had filed a motion to dismiss, which includes a request for a stay of all discovery.

snip

https://www.newsweek.com/2024-election-results-lawsuit-documents-2091077

To see what they're requesting, go to the 2nd page of this link.

[NJCher]

1. Here are a few items they are requesting

snip

Inquiries About Starlink

Plaintiffs additionally presented the Board with the first in a series of inquiries including questions about modem, Wi-Fi, or cellular connections to Rockland County’s election systems; whether the county was using either Starlink’s Direct to Cell service, or a program known as Ballotproof;1 and if any irregularities in the 2024 election were reported or investigated.

Discovery is proceeding at the direction of Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court, who ruled in the lawsuit’s first hearing on May 22nd, that discovery would proceed saying, "...my rules say that discovery continues and advances.” (p.5)

Source Code Requested

Software on most U.S. voting machines is proprietary and not available to the public. Instead what’s called the “trusted build” (or approved software) is held in escrow. The New York State Board of Elections has been criticized 2 for serving “as its own escrow facility, “3 instead of using a third-party software escrow firm. The discovery requests ask for the trusted build software as well as the software currently running on Rockland County’s voting machines in order to make a comparison.

snip

[Abnredleg]

2. Why are we still beating these horses?

NY law requires that all election equipment “ t. not include any device or functionality potentially capable of externally transmitting or receiving data via the internet or via radio waves or via other wireless means.” How can they connect to Starlink if they have no modems? To connect to Starlink would require cracking all the physical security on the machines without disturbing the tamper proof seals and installing modems. Any proof of this?

Source code is proprietary but it has to be released to the federal certifying labs in order to be certified. As to comparing the software on the machine to the version held in escrow, that is done annually.

Hash Check
A hash check is a test that compares the software running on the voting machine to the officially approved software currently held in escrow with the State Board. This ensures that there has been no tampering of the software loaded on to the voting machine. When the test is run, a series of characters will be produced at the end and if the characters produced by the machine matches the characters produced by the State Board, the machine has been verified to have the same software as the official copy held by the State Board. Hash checks need to be run on every machine on an annual basis.

[NJCher]

3. your metaphor makes no sense

Would you like to re-phrase it so we could consider taking your post seriously?

"Beating dead horses," ( ) is not an appropriate use because the cliche' means a useless cause. The case is in court, so by definition it is not a useless cause, especially if you bothered to read the judge's comments.

Actually, scratch taking your post seriously. You bring up a couple points out of many being brought before the court, and furthermore, you cite no sources. In addition, the points you bring up have been discussed and how they did it is available if you care enough to follow it. You obviously don't.

I do believe your post qualifies as a dead horse.

[Abnredleg]

5. Remember all those cases in 2020 that went to trial?

They all crashed and burned. The burden of proof to get to trial is far lower than what is required to prevail so the fact that discovery is going on doesn’t mean much.

As to my sources, they are direct quotes from the either the Board of Elections or NY Statute. And yes, I’ve read the complaint and it is nonsensical, as has been pointed out by other people in the other threads on this topic. All the schemes require connectivity and no one has presented any evidence on how that can be done, just conjecture that requires ignoring all the security protocols, protocols that you are studiously ignoring. We went through this magical hand waving in 2020, with “statistically impossible results” and every claim fell to pieces under scrutiny. We know how well the security protocols work from all those trials and they only got stronger after that election. Yes, there is always a chance of human error, but large scale fraud that can influence the results is another matter all together. All the campaigns, with all those experienced staffers, were not surprised by the results and accepted them.

Hence the dead horse.

[NJCher]

7. provide sources

"They all": cite the names of the cases.

Provide links to which it is: Board of Elections or NY statute. Exact links to which information, not just a home page.

There are sources that provide how the connectivity took place. Your statement shows your lack of familiarity with the issue.

You can't just come here and make sh#t up and not expect to be challenged on it. If you were seriously interested in setting the record straight, you would have provided names of cases and links in the first place.

Until you can do that, your post has no credibility.

[Abnredleg]

8. Here you go

I hadn’t posted all these links because they had been posted in other threads on this topic, but I should have realized that you had ignored them.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/election-law/eln-sect-7-202/

https://elections.ny.gov/testing-and-review-process

https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections

As to how they “connected”, the proof is farcical, to say the least. I worked in government IT for almost 30 years and the claims being put forward show a complete ignorance of how elections are run, how technology works, and how all the security protocols keep them safe. It’s the same quality of argument put forward by the election deniers in 2020, with wild speculation and a willful disregard to all the measure in place to keep things secure. This will become evident if this case ever goes to trial.

All the campaigns, with all their highly experienced staffs, accept that it was a fair election and have moved on. Time for you to do the same.

[NJCher]

9. sigh--you're making this tedious

You have to connect the links to the specific statement (proof). Citation systems are designed that way and your post shows no evidence of higher education. Do you understand why? You put the reader in the difficult and time-consuming position of matching which specific claim goes with what link. If you're going to make a claim and document it, it has to be done with the citation next to the claim. No reader is going to take the time to match your statements with three "possible" links. That is your job as the writer.

When a person cites their background on DU, it does nothing to convince me or probably anyone else. It shows me you are grasping at straws to back up your points. I could sit here all day and talk about credentials, licenses, certificates, undergrad and grad degrees, plus other accreditations, but I don't put myself in the position of having to stoop to that. As the legendary cartoon goes, on the internet no one knows you're a dog.

Finally, you make a huge error in claiming "All the campaigns..." One does not say "all" because you open yourself wide open to be proven false. If I wanted to spend research time, I'm pretty sure I could find some "highly experienced" election worker who disputes this.

This attempt at credibility is not good enough.

Finally, you don't get to tell me or anyone else that it's time to "move on." Take care of your own mental status and don't be concerned with mine or anyone else's. Not your job.

[Abnredleg]

10. Let's try something different

Here is the complete list, including transcripts and detailed legal and technical analysis, of all cases from 2020 that successful proved in a court of law that election machines were successfully hacked and votes changed:

1.
2.
3.

In 2020 the key claim of the election deniers was that voting machines were hacked and were changed. This resulted in several instances of the GOP trying to gain access to the software images of the machines, as well as multiple cases filed in the battleground states (see list previously provided). Oh, and let's not forget the Cyber Ninjas and the Arizona audit. They ALL failed miserably in proving any illicit hacking of machines by any method, including the internet. Not only did the cases fail, but Fox New ended up paying hundreds of millions to the election software companies. This clearly comes under the category of "crash and burn." There's no need to provide a myriad of details to make argument - the mere fact that the claims made failed in a court of law is sufficient.

Anyway, no sense getting bent out of shape over this since we'll know one way or the other soon enough. It's always enjoyable debating someone as passionate as you since it makes you think about things you might not have done otherwise. To end where we started, this horse is dead and best to leave it in peace.

Have a good weekend.

[Takket]

4. hahaha those cyber ninjas are at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[malaise]

6. I remain

Doubting malaise
Truth will out