Slashdot Mirror
HBO's Hacking Democracy Available Online
prostoalex writes "HBO's controversial special 'Hacking Democracy' on issues with Diebold voting machines is now available in full on Google Video." Covered earlier on Slashdot, the documentary seems to have gathered quite a bit of heat from Diebold in addition to the one that didn't air.
Alright people, there should be no talking for 1 hr 21 min 57 secs after the post, or else you didn't WTFM!
Which documentary didn't air? Why not, did HBO not air something because of diebold?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you have the "VideoDownloader" extension for Firefox, it gives you three choices of downloading the video from google: flv, avi, mp4. I'm sure you can find at least one of those options suitable.
Watch an hour and 20 minute video on google? No thanksr acy
http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=Hacking+Democ
Fact is an affirmative defense to libel.
To determine facts there is a legal process known as "discovery." I don't imagine that Diebold is going to be in much of a hurry to go there; hissy fits are their stock in trade.
Just as it is for all abusive control freaks.
KFG
punchscan.org is your friend.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
What's the legal status of that video being there?
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
Great documentary.
Despite the fact that I have very little faith in the electoral process in the USA, and no confidence at all in the election results - what I still retain faith in is the way that US citizens will not stand idly by, while democracy is stolen from them, whether it be by design, or by mistake (it's immaterial really, either way).
The important thing is that the US system of checks and balances permits citizens to kick up an almighty stick about the systems which count (or fail to count, or alter, even worse!) their votes.
The only question in my mind is this: can the citizens of the USA kick up a big enough stink, and fast enough, to produce a fair election in 2008. Somehow, I doubt it, sadly.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
So if I keep telling myself that my software I write needs to make me money, it'll automatically make itself bug-free?
Dammit! I have really been wasting a lot of time debugging software if all I needed was a little positive thinking!
The coder managed to get around the security by using SQL injection. It boggles my mind that you can do that.
MABASPLOOM!
No, it is not in the US. An affirmative defense is something the defendant must prove. Truth is not an affirmative defense to defamation (libel or slander), proof of falsity is part of the prima facie case for defamation that the plaintiff must prove.
Yeah, putting the facts in this case into a public forum is exactly what Diebold wants to avoid; a defamation suit is the last thing they'd want to do.
Of course, ATMs are capable of providing a paper receipt and the accuracy of ATM actions are routinely audited by average citizens with a vested interest in the accuracy of an ATM's tabulations.
You just go to your electronic voting machine and do a write-in vote for a candidate named:
:-)
'; UPDATE votes SET type='W', name='Electronic voting is not ready yet';
Voting machines are much harder. See with ATMs there's trust on all parts except the final operator. The ATM trusts the bank fully and does whatever it says. The bank could lie to the ATM and say you had no money, or tell it you had money you didn't. However they have no reason to do that since the amount they could steal that way is peanuts and they'd be shut down over it. So what it comes down to is you can trust the owner of it, you just need to make sure the person using it can't break in and steal money.
Not the case with a voting machine. Here you can't really trust, well, anyone. The person who controls the machine might very well want to change the results so you have to have a system to keep them from doing that. It's a much harder problem.
It would be somewhat analogue to why encryption works for SSH but not for copy protection. With SSH you are trying to keep everyone out except for trusted parties. You trust the server, it trusts you (if you authenticate). All the people who should have keys. However for copy protection you want to keep everyone out, even the person who you are giving the software to in the end. You want them to have use but not access. Well it doesn't work like that, the key has to be there somewhere and thus the encryption is mostly just for show.
So that's actually part of the problem here. Diebold just kinda decided to apply their ATM design to voting machines, but that doesn't work because voting machines are a much harder problem.
I live in a suburb of Toronto and we have our municipal elections tomorrow. I voted early on Saturday and I noticed my vote got counted on a Diebold machine. All previous elections we wrote an "X" in a circle and they were hand-counted - this time it was electronically counted.
1 324237&from=rss) really pissed me off.
I asked the elections official how did they know my vote was counted. Her response was, (as she pointed to a small LCD display), "this counter here says how many votes this machine processed." I asked her how does she know it was counted *CORRECTLY* she made the mistake of saying "we're pretty sure it's correct."
At this point I demanded to know how "pretty sure" she was. Her defense was "there's a paper trail incase of an error" - a fairly valid defense. I proceeded to point to two electronic Diebold machines, the 6" thick ones with an LCD screen, and asked her "what about those?" She told me in a very matter of fact way that there's a paper trail for those too.
I asked her where the printer was, and if she ever actually say a printer. It was at this point that she no longer wanted to talk to me and kinda laughed me off as some sort of conspiracy wackjob.
The fact that we used these machines after their utter failure in larger US elections pissed me off, but the fact that they FAILED in CANADA, just one province over (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/25/
I wanted to argue with her further but had no hard references memorized, essentially making my argument invalid. I did a bit of research from the usual sources (http://www.blackboxvoting.org), but I was really hoping to see this documentary before the elections tomorrow.
I encourage all Canadians voting in municipal elections tomorrow to make your feelings about e-voting (especially on Diebold machines) known to the organizers, and write your MPs and MPPs to tell them that e-voting is not acceptable.
>> the accuracy of ATM actions are routinely audited by average citizens with a vested interest in the accuracy of an ATM's tabulations.
it's really too bad that average citizens don't have any vested interest in the accuracy of a voting machine's tabulations...
Yeah, those silly Democrats. They're not happy if Republicans steal an election with paper ballots, they're not happy if Republicans steal them with electronic ballots. How do they want you to steal them, eh?
Well, if you ask me, the deal is that the Bush machine is getting ready to pull some fast ones tomorrow, and they expect they're going to have some peculiar "upsets" that need to be explained away, so they're sending folks like yourself around to soften up the crowd in advance. But hey, some people think I'm paranoid.
Aw, poor baby. You might lose some karma.
Is having a national release tomorrow! One day only!
Why the sudden 180?
Simple: because there have been a number of documented problems involving electronic voting in the last 3 election cycles.
In 2000, everyone (not just the Dems - don't be a tool) supported electronic voting because it looked like the easiest way to avoid another Florida. But then it turned out that the machines government officials latched onto are worse than bad.
Is it so wrong for concerned citizens to want a non-disenfranchising electoral system with both accessibility and accountability?
So you can laugh all you want to...
I thought this would be of interest. I texted a friend of mine who works as a pole worker volunteer about the system used in Orange County California. The "OC" uses a paper audit trail system developed by Hart-Intercivic.
Here is what my friend had to say:
I am still undecided if the safeguards are sufficient, but this sounds pretty good. The "OC" is a Republican area, but the paper audit trail requirement reforms are due to requirements by the California Secretary of State, a Democrat.
Personally, I have no confidence in any system without the p
This is a great sworn testimony by a programmer named Clinton Curtis that talks about the hackability of the machines. Eak.
So the demonstration at the end showed how this could work - they voted in a fake election. They had six votes for "Yes" and two votes for "No". They put in the hacked memory card and it produces the initial printout which shows zero votes for no and zero votes for yes. After entering in the votes through the machine it comes out as seven for "Yes" and one for "No" (so I guess they had -5 "No" and +5 for "Yes" on the hacked card).
Just to set the record straight;
The vote was can the machine be hacked?
6 no votes were cast and 2 yes votes were cast.
The pre count showed no votes cast for either option and no votes cast.
After the count (optical scan) the official verified result was 7 yes and one no.
My question is - why did the initial printout show zero votes?
The initial votes on the card were zero..
The important question is.. How did the final count get altered?
Answer.. The card that does not contain a program actualy does contain a program. That program altered the result. Re-watch the film. The card contains much more than just the poll totals which is denied by the manufacture.
I would hope the machines would format any card at the start of an election and then write the encrypted count totals to the card and nothing else except a checksum and the machine ID number.
The truth shall set you free!
It's been proposed, and even implemented. Not popular with the election officials due to expense and maintenance hassle.
"Auditing of any sort" is one thing. Auditing packaged such that the states' election officials are willing to actually buy it is a different matter.
Almost as much as fraud, is that you can hit one button and vote a straight party ticket (at least here in NC.) What ever happened to knowing were a candidate stands on the issues? Doesn't the constitution state that votes will be cast for the CANDIDATE of your choosing, not the party? Also, here in NC write-ins aren't allowed in partisan races. You have to choose Rep or Dem or nothing at all. The only non-partisan race that I saw was for "Soil and Water Conservation District Manager". We can bitch about voter fraud all we want, but until you are allowed to vote for anyone you want, it's not a fair election.
I remember as a kid, there were some kids that were obsessed with "cheating" to the point that playing with them was nearly impossible. At a certain point I realized (often as they were redefining the rules of the game as we were playing it) that they had the slogan, "Either I win, or you cheated..." Technology can be scary, but elections have had a "fudge-factor" since they were created. The best way to win an election is to keep it from being really close. Typically that's based upon good ideas, not on blaming the voting machines. --Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
I noted that one of the computers running GEMS (don't know if it was an actual tally machine) seemed to have Bear-Share installed so I assume it was connected to that "series of tubes". Nice; a Windows box running something as monumentally critical as voting connected to the web and probably used for general computing as well - there's a system I would have faith in. I'm also amazed at how stupid this piece of software was. You modify the MS access database (or maybe it was a plain JET database) which has seems to have no protection whatsoever and the stupid software doesn't even notice - "its ok, it has a password". Diebold made much about encryption but it seemd bogus if you can modidy databases and memory cards and not have the software notice. The worst part is the election officials presented all seemed to blindly accept that all was OK. I'm we use paper in my country.
Yeah, and the Republicans are really good at that one. You got to hand it to them, whenever they're under-fire they go on a really strong counter-attack (kind of like this one).
Bullshit. You don't have documentation of that.
Now this at least actually happened. Against the long litany of sins in Ohio in 2004, against the use of hired thugs to interfere with the vote count in Florida in 2000, you can point to this one mindless prank.Hardly. But they cheat so well! Or at least, the new breed of Republicans do... give 'em one or two more elections and maybe we can forget about the rest of them.
To quote an interview with Steven Freeman:
By the way, if you're voting in California, you might consider that one of the candidates for Secretary of State, Debra Bowen is a proponent of Open Voting.
Bruce McPherson, the incumbent, appears to be obstructing progress towards open voting.
I don't know the other candidates' stances. Anyone?
- The "safeguards" in place border on the non-existant at this point. No one who understands those DRE machines thought they were a good idea.
- I would not believe the 2004 election was stolen were it not for
- the patterns in the exit-poll data discrepancies
- the huge number of conventional election corruption techniques deployed in Ohio.
In other words, you can spin, spin, spin all you want, but there's a reality-based world out there, and some day the truth (if you will excuse the expression) will out.I'd be happy to document any experiences with the Ontario November 13 municipal elections in my blog, Paper Vote Canada.
I would hope the machines would format any card at the start of an election and then write the encrypted count totals to the card and nothing else except a checksum and the machine ID number.
What is so mindblowing about this is the question why this very simple thing cannot being done, and the fact that the diebold engineers lied about the cards on tape.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
"I stand behind the nation, not the bozo who happens to hang out at 1600 Pennsylvania."
You called the President of the United States a bozo. For any other president, that would be disrespect. For George W. Bush, that is an improvement over what he is usually called, so I guess he can count you as one of his warmest friends.
Check what comedians say about him: Funniest George W. Bush Comedy Videos. (I'm assuming that we can all agree that bozo is friendlier than "cretinous simpleton".)
Already been done.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
You ask an excellent question. Would folk be outraged if their candidate had won?
...)
I'll venture a guess. If the Democrats had won amidst the same widespread reports of electoral fraud, many of them would suffer the same bias and belittling of outrage that many vocal Republicans have demonstrated.
Anyone want something like a percentage comparison? Just how many more or fewer Democrats would be assholes and hypocrites about a rigged election that served them versus Republicans? Homey don't play that. If you're curious and you think it's important, you're a fool. It's called sectarianism. It's called an "Us v. Them" mentality, and it is destructive.
(... hundreds of Slashdot readers immediately start trying to perceive me as being from their favorite whipping boy opposing party
Every one of you that's taking a side and rabidly generalizing about the standard opposing party is failing to realize that they're being used. Do you think "Dems blow!"? Or maybe "Damned Republitards!"? You are a tool, controlled with psychological forces seeded by greedy and self-serving players, amplified in an ugly dynamic between our innate tendencies and media pandering. You have failed to question the system. You fail it!
The truth is that every candidate is different, that there is a wide variety of (actual, not professed) platforms, regardless of party affiliation, despite all this damned gravity of conformity and majority voting pulling politics to these polar ideological centers of mass.
If I were on the winning side of an election, I'd be perfectly fine with supporting electoral reform that ensured accurate counting of each and every vote. Is it because I'd be so gracious? Does that really matter? What matters more is that I'd have the goddamned foresight to realize that nobody's political position is safe from electoral fraud and it wouldn't matter anyway if your fucking country were on a rocket sled shooting down the chute of corruption into a dystopic authoritarian septic pond of a future.
Securing the vote can only help. Regardless of your team's color.
openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org
(And if we can get well-working electronic voting instated, we'll be one step closer to implementing a method that helps to combat the ills of majority voting.)
Are you so blinded by partisan stupidity that you believe there aren't just as many rabid bush haters doing the exact same thing?
Wow. If people doing the same thing on the other side, there is no problem? The problem is that people are able to do this in the first place! Which party is doing it is completely immaterial. (especially to me, I don't even live in the US)
The real problem is who do you want to be in charge of the country.
Democrats have this way of penalizing success with higher taxes and murderous business regulations. They also completely miss that China is an emerging problem that will bite us in the ass soon enough (unless we control the natural resources/oil needed for their economy).
The Democrats would also close the borders to the point where we would not be able to bring in the needed skills, instead opting to give amnesty to millions of high-school dropouts already here (and sending the foreign PhDs to EU/China).
Since reality does have a liberal bias, in a fair election the Democrats would surely win (and America would surely lose). If we need a little vote tampering to do the right thing and have the Republicans in charge, so be it!
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Put it this way: I trust "Hacking Democracy" about as much as I trust Diebold. I really wish Moore hadn't brought us the trash-umentary genre. There's enough bullshit to filter out there without these people adding to it. Unfortunately, I suspect that many people--in their quest to bury Diebold--will overlook the obvious bullshit and let it by just because they happen to agree with the motives.
The ends do not justify the means.
The thing is you can't possibly deny that, say, Diebold Accuvote machines aren't pieces of swiss-cheese as far as vote security is concerned, and you can't possibly deny that the management of the big electronic voting companies (Diebold and ES&S) have a known Republican bias -- both of those points are tremendously well documented. The one and only thing you can possibly deny is that maybe those two points weren't put together to steal the 2004 election -- except that there is that nasty little problem of explaining away the peculiarly large exit-poll discrepancies that correlated with the use of those voting machines.
Hence, I vehemently deny your accusation that this is all Democratic spin, and I reiterate that this is just an attempt at Republican counter-spin.
El wrongo... if you really believe that (and I find it unlikely that you really do) you're not paying attention.
Well, at the moment it's a little hard to believe that, because all polls seem to agree that most people are sick of the Iraq war, and annoyed at the Bush regime's handling of it. The American people can be a little slow on occasion, but they do catch on eventually (you know, "some of the people some of the time" and so on, as was once said by a man who doesn't deserve to be associated with the current crop of people calling themselves Republicans).
What is so hard to believe about Karl Rove engaging in an internet astro-turf campaign? Wouldn't it seem weird if he didn't try something like that?
In any case, I'm not suggesting that every conservative voice on slashdot is necessarily a hired Republican-sock puppet. What I am saying is that there's a surprising number of folks doing mindless reiteration of the same pretty lame talking points, like "Oh the democrats do it too!", or "oh polls are so inaccurate", or "oh you're just a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut like those 9/11 truthies!" Those folks, I find, shall we say, suspicious.
It must be biased. We just don't realize that The Democrats Do It Too (so it must be okay).
In any case: if anyone is so whacked as to still be reading this: don't get so wrapped up in the "the elections are rigged!" business that you don't bother voting. Yeah, they're rigged, but none of us know how badly they're rigged, and if it's just a finger on the scale (and not a two-ton weight) we need all the legit voters out there we can get.
This is definitely a year for the lesser-of-two evils: all we've got is a choice between evil and incompetent, so if you ask me incompetence is the best pick.
Overall, I disagree with your assessment of the American political character. If you did down into people's attitudes about issues, you find that they're a lot more "liberal" than you would think, even when they vote Republican.
After the 2004 election there was an interesting poll that showed that the people who voted for George Bush actually didn't understand his position on a lot of issues, whereas the people who "voted against him" had a more accurate grasp of these things. Just as an example, most people want the government to Do Something about global warming, and had trouble believing Bush was against the Kyoto accord.
GVI format and conversion
.avi files, are modified Audio Video Interleave (.avi) files that have an extra list containing the FourCC "goog" immediately following the header. The video is encoded in DivX4 alongside an MP3 audio stream. DivX video players can render .gvi Google Video Files without format conversion (after changing the extension from .gvi to .avi, although this method of just renaming the file extension does not work with videos purchased with DRM to protect it from piracy). Among other software VirtualDub is able to read .gvi files and allows the user to convert them into different formats of choice. There are also privately developed software solutions, such as GVideo Fix, that can convert them to .avi format without recompression. MEncoder with "-oac copy -ovc copy" as parameters also suffices.
Google Video Files (.gvi), and latterly its
Very simple conversion with no program
It is Simple to convert a GVI or GVP file. 1st download file, then open file with notepad. There will be a URL address. You copythe URL into your browser then you get a download window from google server for files real format AVI mpep wmv ect.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Well okay. As long as you promise not to drown the facts in another "he said/she said" shouting match.
Oops, too late.
I think the Democrats are too timid to cross the street without a helicopter, the idea of them committing election fraud on the scale that the Republicans have been getting away with is completely laughable.
Even if it were really the case that the Democrats were just as slimey as those damn Republicans, then what? Would everything suddenly be okay? Oh wait: if you thought that were true, you might feel too apathetic to bother going out to vote. Is that the concept here?
Hm... so those specs of dirt over there justify the wallowing in the mud over here?
*phffft*. There are so many things wrong with this kind of thing, I don't know where to start. (1) You don't think Democrats internally reexamine their positions? You can turn-around without stumbling over some monday-morning quarterback explaining their grand scheme to get out the word, get out the vote, and really win one next time. (2) These people very, very rarely have a grasp of the possibility that the Democrats really have been winning: it is now eminently possible to win the vote and lose the election. The idea that The Democrats just won't shut up about election fraud is ridiculous: Mark Crispin Miller has been arguing that they're in denial about how bad the problem is, and he may well be right.
What do they have to worry about? That's the mantra of a large percentage of Americans. Probably the same ones who, over the past couple of decades, in survey after survey, say that Americans have "too much" freedom. These are the people (and companies) that scare me. Not the Republicans.
'Dieb' means 'thief' in German, so could say that you're getting exactly what the name promises. Isn't that comforting?
If you don't want to mess about with Google Video, here's the high-quality torrent http://isohunt.com/download/14712136/hacking+democ racy
The video
:)
0 &secureurl=wQAAAFtCSd0BXfG1A817GeMkPAixlrkhjTWsskg by79JBOPbMzTAWcrRpb5kuJoGJ1uu3ONHnqzgA98N_mFLH_Oxo PJL3TYewqMSfRqbRKDo8XHf6vDHnCg-zRK8FvtnQY8zujarb8N Sd0_hDUs6cD3IP5mk7YpFQNrH9Kq47Tn33koWBKh5gcLkt8fwo 9fqi63QsZjnoESjeD16VJKF4CXrkA0qM6xtKjUEDYw-wmUnLUY iFZ1j1NC6986P-XtJdTmK7OetHXDLjwh_dmNcjDJBs_I&sigh= 13RHbEsHegQ5Ae3kWbGSv_nhTTo&begin=0&len=4917885&do cid=-7236791207107726851
The url to the video. Links directly to the file Short version above, paranoid long version below
http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=
In 2000, the Democrats said that the Republicans stole the election because of the confusing butterfly ballots and that we needed a new and modern way of voting. Now that we have it,
Yup, just that like that guest I served in the restaurant yesterday. He complain there was no sauce on the steak, so I took it back and gave him a new one with sauce but this time no fries. But guess what: he still complained. Sheesh, there's no pleasing some people.
Look, everyone agrees the old system was hopeless. Does that mean we have to accept whatever crap we are offered as a replacement? The main complaint with the voting machines is really very simple: the results are unverifiable. Even if no other actual problems were found (although they have), this really should disqualified the Diebold machines. It is a very simple point, very easy to understand, and very easy to understand the importance of. If you don't get this, you are not smart enough to vote.
The fix is well known: keep a paper trail. Now here's the hard part: That does not mean a return to badly designed paper based mechanical voting. Got that? Yes, I know the word "paper" is involved in both but don't be fooled by that. Really: they are still not the same thing, and they do not share the same problems. Trust me on this, or better still, just think it over for two seconds.
So the only question left is why would anyone oppose the fix, except if they stand to gain from errors and/or manipulation that the fix would prevent?
sudo ergo sum
If you don't have the time to watch the entire thing ... start watching at 1:05:15 until at least 1:16:00 ... which includes Diebold stating that the memory cards cannot be hacked without the system knowing, and then watching the process of the memory cards being hacked and altering the outcome of an election (and the system not registering the fraud). All it takes is to preset the cards with a number of negative votes for one candidate and the same number of positive votes for another candidate (thus not altering the total number of votes cast).
"... rabid bush haters ..."
Bush has given the world plenty of reason to dislike him: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.
"... but you act like bush has minions at every voting station actively working against those who would vote against him."
You completely missed the point. You apparently didn't watch the HBO movie, and haven't been reading about Diebold events. The voting machines are computers, and it is easy to program them to give results. In 2003, the Diebold CEO said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to (President Bush) next year.". 'The Cleveland Plain Dealer also reported that O'Dell was one of President Bush's top fund-raisers, ranked in the elite "Pioneer" echelons for collecting a minimum of $200,000.'
George W. Bush is the most disrespected U.S. president, by far: George W. Bush comedy videos.
Bullshit. You don't have documentation of that.
Did you notice, by the way, that the only actual fraud in 2004 the HBO documentary FOUND was 200 votes stolen FROM Bush in the "troublesome in 2000" Florida precinct they went after first?
(Of course this is still consistent with the theory that, in 2004, the Republicans knew how to rig things untracably and the Democrats had to do their cheating in a tracable way.)
But I'm happy to see the R's take all the heat on this one. That way the D's will be SO paranoid about having things yanked out from under them that they may actually be willing to sign on to a bill that attacks ALL forms of vote fraud - even the ones massively in their favor - if it fixes the potentially overriding "black box voting" problem.
Meanwhile, the bulk of the R officials believe that the Ds do most of the cheating and derive most of the benefits. (And that, even if they were being used in the R's favor, the blackbox hacks are now both blown and available to all parties.) So they'd perceive such a bill as being in their favor.
For the rest of us, eliminating ALL cheating, computerized or otherwise, is in our interest and what we want.
Right?
I think that documentary was brilliant:
- Democrats see the Republicans stealing the elections.
- Republicans see the Democrats stealing the elections.
- So both of them work for cleaning up the process.
Which is exactly what *I* want. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...that had no paper trail. At the end, the old lady running the place gave me a sticker that said "I Voted". I told her, that it must be a misprint... it should say: "I Voted?" ..For the record... this was PA district 06.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Most congressional districts are so gerrymandered that there are only a handful of seats that are truly in competition.
There is only so much hacking of votes one could do without it being obvious, in this election.
The few districts that have actual competition is where I'd watch out for.
If you really want to show your discontent with how corrupt the system is: Vote Libertarian.
The best part is, you can point out how corrupt both parties are and go away with a clean conscience.
HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
Since this line of debate was started by your claim that there was no burden of proof with affirmative defenses, because proof was moot with them, your correction, while accurate, demonstrates that your original position was wrong.
It has nothing to do with the burden of proof on the elemetns of the plaintiff's case, but it has everything to do with the burden of proof the defense has with regard to proving the elements of the affirmative defense.
I think you are confused as to the context of this discussion. There is no judge.
Well, we agree on that.
Or, looked at a different way, I gave you an opportunity to either productively move the discussion forward, or make a fool out of yourself, and you chose the latter option.
Ah. So your delusion about the mere existence of a judge is rather deeper than it initially appeared. Might I suggest you seek professional help with that?
I agree with you. However, it's important to note that corruption in the Federal Government did not start with the 2000 Presidential Election. It's been around long before that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.