Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Issues Order Denying Jennings and Intervenors Permission to Examine Source Code in FL-13

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:15 PM
Original message
Judge Issues Order Denying Jennings and Intervenors Permission to Examine Source Code in FL-13
December 29, 2006

Judge Issues Order Denying Jennings and Intervenors Permission to Examine Source Code in FL-13 Election Contest
The judge's order here http://electionlawblog.org/archives/ess-pdf.pdf . A snippet: "Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to demonstrate that the parallel testing was flawed and/or the results not valid. ...The testimony of Plaintiffs' experts was nothing more than conjecture and not supported by credible evidence."

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/007551.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. I was just going to post - this is incredible
Now that we have a Dem Congress, suddendly the Courts can issue rulings!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. Really disappointing. How can people be so obtuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. So....
....a 18,000+ undercount = No evidence demonstrating testing flaws or invalid results.

Judge = Corruption plus stupidity wears judicial robes in Florida.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. kick... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fvck, so now you have to prove it before you can examine it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. What an effing farce.
I'm assuming there will be an appeal.

The GOP managed to get machines impounded in PA. They have a tradition of suing anyone and everyone who stands in their way -- from election officials to judges.

Will this playing field ever be level?
I'm so fed up with Dems acquiescing and going away quietly. Hopefully, that won't happen this time.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is why
the system needs more jury inquests or grand jury examinations. Judges are appointed by political masters, with their own philosophies. At least with twelve jurors, you get a spread of the political spectrum to try and cancel out bias.

Chalk one up on the list of judges whose credibility and impartiality needs to be "re-examined".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenstevensteven Donating Member (333 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. So unfortunate
They set themselves up for failure almost from the beginning.
The parallel testing regime was statistically flawed. They
never identified highly probably causes of the discrepancies,
they simple moved forward with an almost random trial and error
process. Almost all key mission critical election assets were
untested. What a complete disappointment, as this was an opportunity
to uncover a potential configuration mistake that will now remain
out of the public domain.

Finally, they didn't need to review source code to uncover the issue.
But they concocted a scientifically flawed theorem that they could not
prove, and the judge didn't go for it. Now, by loosing, they have setup
a legal precedent supporting the intellectual property rights of vendors.
What a terrible terrible shame, as this could have all been handled with
much more maturity with a chance for a much better outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC