We had TV service with our internet connection for a few months. (The basic plan didn't include the ability to watch the local Major League Baseball team games, which struck me as idiotic.) We watched a movie, and found it almost unwatchable, since we'd been used to paying what we had to to avoid commercials. A few months later, we noted that we had no intention of watching it, so we canceled.
What always bothered me about local cable company services is that I never did find what the cost of them would be after the six-month introductory period. If they hid it that well, they presumably had good reason for me not to know.
It sounded to me like Corney was saying plenty of bad things about Clinton. The reason he didn't recommend criminal prosecution was that people before who did what Clinton did did not face criminal prosecution, and therefore filing felony charges would be unprecedented. Nothing I've seen since contradicts that. I've been asking people for names of people who did what Clinton did and were seriously criminally prosecuted, and so far I've got one case where a misdemeanor charge was filed and later dropped.
By law, political organizations are not supposed to have tax-exempt status. This implies to me that the IRS needed to examine organizations that had names with political meaning fairly carefully, to make sure they didn't go over the line. I don't really understand why my donations to the EFF are tax-exempt and my donations to the ACLU aren't, personally.
First, Clinton didn't destroy tens of thousands of government documents. She destroyed tens of thousands of personal emails, and didn't get it done right. She's clearly sloppy about the computer practices she is involved with. I haven't seen good evidence yet that she lied about Benghazi. She did say things that can't be confirmed, but that's not the same thing.
The Benghazi congressional hearings were there to find wrongdoing, which would presumably be turned over to another branch of government. The fact that Congress is limited in what it can do when it finds wrongdoing doesn't mean the Republicans weren't out to get her. They failed to find wrongdoing, and it wasn't because they were afraid of her or went easy on her for political reasons.
During the campaign, Politifact listed Clinton as the most honest politician. Their methods aren't really rigorous, so it's entirely possible that a more rigorous analysis would have given that to Sanders or Kasich, but the gap between Clinton and most of the Republican field is massive. My best reading is that she's fairly honest for a politician, which admittedly isn't great praise. To repeat, thee was nothing wrong with having a private email server, and assigning blame based on that is either stupid or malicious.
Which judge claimed Clinton threatened him? A quick google search on "clinton judge threat" produced nothing. Why do you believe an unnamed judge over other people who have steady contact with Clinton?
As far as Trump's racism, let's go with the judge of Mexican descent. That isn't culture. That's racism.
I also wonder what you have against the US criminal justice system. Clinton was a public defender, and was assigned to defend an accused rapist that she knew was guilty. US jurisprudence is to give everyone some chance at a decent defense in court, and I'd rather not have that changed. She got him into a plea deal, which means the guy served more prison time than most rapists. There's nothing to her discredit here.
"Pandering" to women's rights? Politicians have different visions and agendas. Typically, if you like them, you call them "fighting for" or "crusading" or something. When you dislike them, it's common to call it "pandering". It's a subjective word, and emotionally loaded.
You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?
Do you know why Obama pulled out of Iraq? Because it was required by a treaty that Bush negotiated and signed. Obama tried to negotiate to stay longer, but couldn't get acceptable terms. Personally, I figured that the US pulling out was going to be a disaster of indeterminate proportions, but I didn't see things getting any better by prolonging the occupation. The big mistake was the Bush-ordered invasion, and the botched early occupation by Bush appointees. There was no salvaging the situation after the Iraqi army as a whole was disbanded. (To be honest, I don't think that was what Bush wanted to happen. It wasn't in the occupation plan.)
Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution
He couldn't recommend it because there was no precedent for anyone doing what Clinton did facing significant criminal charges. Worst I've seen was a misdemeanor charge, later dropped.
Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot?
Petraeus deliberately transferred classified material. The sailor deliberately took a photo that contained classified information. That seems to be the dividing line between prosecution and no prosecution. Clinton was negligent, and did not deliberately do anything against the law.
I knew a guy who committed suicide, and some people who have been in accidents. I'm a geeky ASD introvert, and the Clintons are widely politically active extroverts. It would stand to reason that the Clintons know a whole lot more people than I do, and that correspondingly more people involved in the Clinton's actions would be dead than those involved with me. So far, I've seen a lot of whispered speculation about people dying, and precisely no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even evidence that Clinton associates die in greater than statistically greater numbers.
Wanting them all indicted and prosecuted is a valid position, but it's not the one I generally see. I see people who are "meh" about violations of the law until they involve a Clinton, at which point they get outraged.
The law in my state says that, for sex with fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds, having good reason to think they were sixteen or over is an affirmative defense (it isn't for sex with thirteen years old on down). In other words, intent is the difference between a serious crime and no crime. The intent here is somewhat different, since to get off the defendant needs to show that he or she had positive intention to not violate the law, rather than whether or not there's intent to do something that is against the law.
In which case it would be necessary to prove gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence. In fact, the number of classified documents on Clinton's private server was small, IIRC a bit over a hundred. Given the number of documents involved in toto, that looks like ordinary negligence to me.
I'd be interested in that NPR article. I haven't found anyone yet who did what Clinton did with classified material and faced more than a misdemeanor charge, later dropped. There's plenty of people who did with intent pretty much what Clinton did unintentionally, and they were typically prosecuted, but in actual practice intent vs. negligence does matter.
At the time Clinton used a personal email server, it was perfectly legal. There's no reason Obama should have particularly cared about it, and it wouldn't implicate Obama in anything. Care to redo your argument?
Pointing out that Bush did X and nobody in particular got up in arms about it, and Clinton did X and people got outraged, is not a SJW response. It brings up a legitimate question. Now, it could be that Bush and Clinton should be excoriated, or it could be that what Bush and Clinton did wasn't really all that bad, but people who casually accepted what Bush did and yell about the same thing when done by Clinton are probably using a double standard.
If you look at snopes.com, you'll find them debunking a fair number of accusations against Trump. Right now, I don't trust accusations against either Clinton or Trump until I get some sort of evidence (and normally Snopes and Politifact provide this in verifiable form).
I've been studying the accusations against Clinton enough to know that they're largely unfounded. The number of people who think she did something seriously wrong about Benghazi, or who believe the Clintons kill their political enemies, is frightening. The anti-Clinton people have achieved the "boy who cried wolf" status with me for the most part. I haven't studied the anti-Trump stuff as much.
You don't seem to quite get "intent" n the legal sense. If you intentionally do something against the law, whether or not you meant harm, whether or not you knew it was illegal, you have intent. Taking a picture of a classified area is intentionally taking a picture of a classified area and putting it on a device not properly secured.
Proving intent is trivial in the cases I'm familiar with. People deliberately did things that violated the law.
As for the legalities, I'm looking at what is done in practice. All the people I've heard of who faced serious criminal prosecution had intent. The one other person I've heard of who was negligent had a misdemeanor charge against him, which was dropped. As Corney said, there is no precedent for serious criminal prosecution against people who did what Clinton did.
My television came with Netflix and Amazon Prime and others having special buttons on the remote. I don't use it, because I really don't want to have to connect my television to the net..
It's hard to include a check. I pay for most things by credit card or direct deposit, but I still need to send checks off for a few services. (I understand bank transfers work much better in Western Europe than in the US.) I sometimes send things that depend on their physical format (such as greeting cards). I can put letters in envelopes with patterns on the inside to make sure nobody who doesn't open the envelope can read what's in it, but mail clients generally don't support encrypted email, and most of my friends are a lot less computer-savvy than I am.
Your unprovable belief is that religion is delusion. It's not possible to prove that Christianity is true or false. You are willing, however, to call Christians delusional without having any support for your position. I don't call people delusional unless I have good support for my opinion. I have no problems with what you (or anyone else) believe, as long as you don't try to impose it on others, as long as you don't use it as justification to hurt or hate or discriminate against others, and as long as it doesn't lead you to believe things we have sound reasons to believe are false.
You also seem to agree that it doesn't really matter, that it is possible to be a good person while being a Christian. If somebody's belief doesn't hurt you in any way, and you can't prove it wrong, why not just ignore it? Why do you appear to be compelled to be an evangelist? Lots of Christians I know know they can't prove their religion to me, that I'm going to need good evidence to believe something, and that I'm a good person regardless, and let it go at that. (I generally avoid or disregard the other ones. They're not worth my time and annoyance)
I also consider it presumptuous at best for a non-X to try to define X. Both of us are non-Christians. I observe Christians and note what I see. I don't try to say that those people claim to be Christians and actually aren't. I don't talk about people twisting their faith because they don't meet my expectations of Christianity. I observe Christians generally accepting the findings of science, and other Christians denying such findings based on what I consider misleading and wrong, but not twisted, faith. There is a lot of variety within religion. A quick look at the World Almanac tells me that the majority of people are seriously wrong in their religion. (Christians and Muslims together make up a majority, but neither do in isolation. Now, logically speaking, either Jesus is God or Jesus isn't, or maybe Jesus is God in the same general sense everyone else is. Only one of those answers is valid either in Christianity or Islam. Either Muhammed was the (not just a) Prophet of God or he wasn't. That's pretty much defines the difference between Muslims and everybody else.)
There are theologians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible, and theologians who believe it isn't. Obviously, there are contradictory theologians. That doesn't mean the source material is contradictory, only that people interpret it in different ways. Christianity is not just based on the Bible, although some Christian denominations claim to be. The Bible is indeed inconsistent (many Christians take something Jesus said to justify ignoring the Old Testament rules, disregarding the other thing he said that contradicts that). I never, in my adult life, claimed it was something to rely on. I do claim that it's vague and self-contradictory enough that there are valid interpretations that don't disagree with science.
Currently, without loser pays, if a lawyer is 80% sure they can win, they'll likely accept on a contingency basis. It isn't perfect, but the plaintiff is going to get the majority of any winnings without taking any particular risk. The lawyer is taking the risk of not being paid, but that's a standard business risk anyway, but nobody's taking any bigger a risk than that.
Insurance isn't a miracle in the economy. It's what people pay to convert a risk of big loss into a certainty of small loss. If a lawyer loses a few high-bucks cases, their insurance rate will go up. If there's a serious financial risk to losing a case, the insurance is going to be correspondingly expensive.
Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.
If you want to say that politics and ideology play a part in deciding priorities in law enforcement overall, I'll agree. It's obvious that you value anti-discrimination laws much less than I do, presumably based on differences in our politics and ideology. However, you seem to be saying that only someone who differs from you ideologically is acting out of ideology, which seems one-sided.
People do what they are rewarded for, and for politicians that's typically re-election. We elect people who are leaders in some sense, but we keep them accountable, often in unfair ways.
The reason politicians do what you dislike is that that's what gets them elected and reelected. It's that simple. If we wanted visionary leaders, we'd elect some (and sometimes do). What we can't do is elect people who don't care if they get elected, because they won't campaign and get on the ballot. What we don't usually do is reelect people who value their vision and integrity over reelection prospects.
Politicians are not to blame for just being in this situation. (They deserve blame for exacerbating it, as some do.) We get the sorts of politicians the electorate as a whole is willing to elect and reelect.
Not quite. Compare your current and your different solution. If the different is better, go for it. If it's worse, there's a certain probability that you should go for it anyway. With proper changes in the probability function over iterations, the probability of getting the global optimum approaches. Without this, you're liable to wind up in a local maximum.
Disobeying, talking back, hiding your hands, running, reaching for things are all good ways to get shot, and the officer will be perfectly justified as well.
In other words, you have a list of offenses that deserve the death penalty. These include disobeying a police officer, regardless of whether the order is legal, heard and understood, or physically possible, as well as disagreeing with a police officer. If I'm using a camera to record what's happening in a police encounter, perfectly legally, and the police officer asks me to hand over the camera, and I either give him a reason why not or just don't hand it over, the police officer is "perfectly justified" in shooting me. (If I do hand over the camera, and the officer destroys it, destroying my personal property and potential evidence in a criminal prosecution, no amount of follow-up with the most cooperative police department is going to fix the situation completely.)
The ONLY legitimate reason to shoot me is if I present a credible and serious threat to the officer or others, and there is no other way to handle the situation. If I"m running away, which is on your capital crime list, I'm presenting no threat to the officer, and if I'm not clearly armed I'm presenting no threat to anyone else.
You are describing a police state, where the police can do what they wish and shoot any dissenters.
Slashdot Mirror
We had TV service with our internet connection for a few months. (The basic plan didn't include the ability to watch the local Major League Baseball team games, which struck me as idiotic.) We watched a movie, and found it almost unwatchable, since we'd been used to paying what we had to to avoid commercials. A few months later, we noted that we had no intention of watching it, so we canceled.
What always bothered me about local cable company services is that I never did find what the cost of them would be after the six-month introductory period. If they hid it that well, they presumably had good reason for me not to know.
It sounded to me like Corney was saying plenty of bad things about Clinton. The reason he didn't recommend criminal prosecution was that people before who did what Clinton did did not face criminal prosecution, and therefore filing felony charges would be unprecedented. Nothing I've seen since contradicts that. I've been asking people for names of people who did what Clinton did and were seriously criminally prosecuted, and so far I've got one case where a misdemeanor charge was filed and later dropped.
By law, political organizations are not supposed to have tax-exempt status. This implies to me that the IRS needed to examine organizations that had names with political meaning fairly carefully, to make sure they didn't go over the line. I don't really understand why my donations to the EFF are tax-exempt and my donations to the ACLU aren't, personally.
First, Clinton didn't destroy tens of thousands of government documents. She destroyed tens of thousands of personal emails, and didn't get it done right. She's clearly sloppy about the computer practices she is involved with. I haven't seen good evidence yet that she lied about Benghazi. She did say things that can't be confirmed, but that's not the same thing.
The Benghazi congressional hearings were there to find wrongdoing, which would presumably be turned over to another branch of government. The fact that Congress is limited in what it can do when it finds wrongdoing doesn't mean the Republicans weren't out to get her. They failed to find wrongdoing, and it wasn't because they were afraid of her or went easy on her for political reasons.
During the campaign, Politifact listed Clinton as the most honest politician. Their methods aren't really rigorous, so it's entirely possible that a more rigorous analysis would have given that to Sanders or Kasich, but the gap between Clinton and most of the Republican field is massive. My best reading is that she's fairly honest for a politician, which admittedly isn't great praise. To repeat, thee was nothing wrong with having a private email server, and assigning blame based on that is either stupid or malicious.
Which judge claimed Clinton threatened him? A quick google search on "clinton judge threat" produced nothing. Why do you believe an unnamed judge over other people who have steady contact with Clinton?
As far as Trump's racism, let's go with the judge of Mexican descent. That isn't culture. That's racism.
I also wonder what you have against the US criminal justice system. Clinton was a public defender, and was assigned to defend an accused rapist that she knew was guilty. US jurisprudence is to give everyone some chance at a decent defense in court, and I'd rather not have that changed. She got him into a plea deal, which means the guy served more prison time than most rapists. There's nothing to her discredit here.
"Pandering" to women's rights? Politicians have different visions and agendas. Typically, if you like them, you call them "fighting for" or "crusading" or something. When you dislike them, it's common to call it "pandering". It's a subjective word, and emotionally loaded.
Do you know why Obama pulled out of Iraq? Because it was required by a treaty that Bush negotiated and signed. Obama tried to negotiate to stay longer, but couldn't get acceptable terms. Personally, I figured that the US pulling out was going to be a disaster of indeterminate proportions, but I didn't see things getting any better by prolonging the occupation. The big mistake was the Bush-ordered invasion, and the botched early occupation by Bush appointees. There was no salvaging the situation after the Iraqi army as a whole was disbanded. (To be honest, I don't think that was what Bush wanted to happen. It wasn't in the occupation plan.)
He couldn't recommend it because there was no precedent for anyone doing what Clinton did facing significant criminal charges. Worst I've seen was a misdemeanor charge, later dropped.
Petraeus deliberately transferred classified material. The sailor deliberately took a photo that contained classified information. That seems to be the dividing line between prosecution and no prosecution. Clinton was negligent, and did not deliberately do anything against the law.
I knew a guy who committed suicide, and some people who have been in accidents. I'm a geeky ASD introvert, and the Clintons are widely politically active extroverts. It would stand to reason that the Clintons know a whole lot more people than I do, and that correspondingly more people involved in the Clinton's actions would be dead than those involved with me. So far, I've seen a lot of whispered speculation about people dying, and precisely no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even evidence that Clinton associates die in greater than statistically greater numbers.
Wanting them all indicted and prosecuted is a valid position, but it's not the one I generally see. I see people who are "meh" about violations of the law until they involve a Clinton, at which point they get outraged.
The law in my state says that, for sex with fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds, having good reason to think they were sixteen or over is an affirmative defense (it isn't for sex with thirteen years old on down). In other words, intent is the difference between a serious crime and no crime. The intent here is somewhat different, since to get off the defendant needs to show that he or she had positive intention to not violate the law, rather than whether or not there's intent to do something that is against the law.
In which case it would be necessary to prove gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence. In fact, the number of classified documents on Clinton's private server was small, IIRC a bit over a hundred. Given the number of documents involved in toto, that looks like ordinary negligence to me.
I'd be interested in that NPR article. I haven't found anyone yet who did what Clinton did with classified material and faced more than a misdemeanor charge, later dropped. There's plenty of people who did with intent pretty much what Clinton did unintentionally, and they were typically prosecuted, but in actual practice intent vs. negligence does matter.
At the time Clinton used a personal email server, it was perfectly legal. There's no reason Obama should have particularly cared about it, and it wouldn't implicate Obama in anything. Care to redo your argument?
Pointing out that Bush did X and nobody in particular got up in arms about it, and Clinton did X and people got outraged, is not a SJW response. It brings up a legitimate question. Now, it could be that Bush and Clinton should be excoriated, or it could be that what Bush and Clinton did wasn't really all that bad, but people who casually accepted what Bush did and yell about the same thing when done by Clinton are probably using a double standard.
If you look at snopes.com, you'll find them debunking a fair number of accusations against Trump. Right now, I don't trust accusations against either Clinton or Trump until I get some sort of evidence (and normally Snopes and Politifact provide this in verifiable form).
I've been studying the accusations against Clinton enough to know that they're largely unfounded. The number of people who think she did something seriously wrong about Benghazi, or who believe the Clintons kill their political enemies, is frightening. The anti-Clinton people have achieved the "boy who cried wolf" status with me for the most part. I haven't studied the anti-Trump stuff as much.
You don't seem to quite get "intent" n the legal sense. If you intentionally do something against the law, whether or not you meant harm, whether or not you knew it was illegal, you have intent. Taking a picture of a classified area is intentionally taking a picture of a classified area and putting it on a device not properly secured.
Proving intent is trivial in the cases I'm familiar with. People deliberately did things that violated the law.
As for the legalities, I'm looking at what is done in practice. All the people I've heard of who faced serious criminal prosecution had intent. The one other person I've heard of who was negligent had a misdemeanor charge against him, which was dropped. As Corney said, there is no precedent for serious criminal prosecution against people who did what Clinton did.
My television came with Netflix and Amazon Prime and others having special buttons on the remote. I don't use it, because I really don't want to have to connect my television to the net..
It's hard to include a check. I pay for most things by credit card or direct deposit, but I still need to send checks off for a few services. (I understand bank transfers work much better in Western Europe than in the US.) I sometimes send things that depend on their physical format (such as greeting cards). I can put letters in envelopes with patterns on the inside to make sure nobody who doesn't open the envelope can read what's in it, but mail clients generally don't support encrypted email, and most of my friends are a lot less computer-savvy than I am.
I know a guy who got enough of them together to cover his car. Sparkly!
It just feels weird to have "AOL" and "innovative" in the same headline without a "not" or a "was" in there somewhere.
Your unprovable belief is that religion is delusion. It's not possible to prove that Christianity is true or false. You are willing, however, to call Christians delusional without having any support for your position. I don't call people delusional unless I have good support for my opinion. I have no problems with what you (or anyone else) believe, as long as you don't try to impose it on others, as long as you don't use it as justification to hurt or hate or discriminate against others, and as long as it doesn't lead you to believe things we have sound reasons to believe are false.
You also seem to agree that it doesn't really matter, that it is possible to be a good person while being a Christian. If somebody's belief doesn't hurt you in any way, and you can't prove it wrong, why not just ignore it? Why do you appear to be compelled to be an evangelist? Lots of Christians I know know they can't prove their religion to me, that I'm going to need good evidence to believe something, and that I'm a good person regardless, and let it go at that. (I generally avoid or disregard the other ones. They're not worth my time and annoyance)
I also consider it presumptuous at best for a non-X to try to define X. Both of us are non-Christians. I observe Christians and note what I see. I don't try to say that those people claim to be Christians and actually aren't. I don't talk about people twisting their faith because they don't meet my expectations of Christianity. I observe Christians generally accepting the findings of science, and other Christians denying such findings based on what I consider misleading and wrong, but not twisted, faith. There is a lot of variety within religion. A quick look at the World Almanac tells me that the majority of people are seriously wrong in their religion. (Christians and Muslims together make up a majority, but neither do in isolation. Now, logically speaking, either Jesus is God or Jesus isn't, or maybe Jesus is God in the same general sense everyone else is. Only one of those answers is valid either in Christianity or Islam. Either Muhammed was the (not just a) Prophet of God or he wasn't. That's pretty much defines the difference between Muslims and everybody else.)
There are theologians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible, and theologians who believe it isn't. Obviously, there are contradictory theologians. That doesn't mean the source material is contradictory, only that people interpret it in different ways. Christianity is not just based on the Bible, although some Christian denominations claim to be. The Bible is indeed inconsistent (many Christians take something Jesus said to justify ignoring the Old Testament rules, disregarding the other thing he said that contradicts that). I never, in my adult life, claimed it was something to rely on. I do claim that it's vague and self-contradictory enough that there are valid interpretations that don't disagree with science.
Currently, without loser pays, if a lawyer is 80% sure they can win, they'll likely accept on a contingency basis. It isn't perfect, but the plaintiff is going to get the majority of any winnings without taking any particular risk. The lawyer is taking the risk of not being paid, but that's a standard business risk anyway, but nobody's taking any bigger a risk than that.
Insurance isn't a miracle in the economy. It's what people pay to convert a risk of big loss into a certainty of small loss. If a lawyer loses a few high-bucks cases, their insurance rate will go up. If there's a serious financial risk to losing a case, the insurance is going to be correspondingly expensive.
Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.
If you want to say that politics and ideology play a part in deciding priorities in law enforcement overall, I'll agree. It's obvious that you value anti-discrimination laws much less than I do, presumably based on differences in our politics and ideology. However, you seem to be saying that only someone who differs from you ideologically is acting out of ideology, which seems one-sided.
People do what they are rewarded for, and for politicians that's typically re-election. We elect people who are leaders in some sense, but we keep them accountable, often in unfair ways.
The reason politicians do what you dislike is that that's what gets them elected and reelected. It's that simple. If we wanted visionary leaders, we'd elect some (and sometimes do). What we can't do is elect people who don't care if they get elected, because they won't campaign and get on the ballot. What we don't usually do is reelect people who value their vision and integrity over reelection prospects.
Politicians are not to blame for just being in this situation. (They deserve blame for exacerbating it, as some do.) We get the sorts of politicians the electorate as a whole is willing to elect and reelect.
Not quite. Compare your current and your different solution. If the different is better, go for it. If it's worse, there's a certain probability that you should go for it anyway. With proper changes in the probability function over iterations, the probability of getting the global optimum approaches. Without this, you're liable to wind up in a local maximum.
In other words, you have a list of offenses that deserve the death penalty. These include disobeying a police officer, regardless of whether the order is legal, heard and understood, or physically possible, as well as disagreeing with a police officer. If I'm using a camera to record what's happening in a police encounter, perfectly legally, and the police officer asks me to hand over the camera, and I either give him a reason why not or just don't hand it over, the police officer is "perfectly justified" in shooting me. (If I do hand over the camera, and the officer destroys it, destroying my personal property and potential evidence in a criminal prosecution, no amount of follow-up with the most cooperative police department is going to fix the situation completely.)
The ONLY legitimate reason to shoot me is if I present a credible and serious threat to the officer or others, and there is no other way to handle the situation. If I"m running away, which is on your capital crime list, I'm presenting no threat to the officer, and if I'm not clearly armed I'm presenting no threat to anyone else.
You are describing a police state, where the police can do what they wish and shoot any dissenters.
Ordinary businesses need auditors, also, and will face similar problems. I'd check and see what standard business auditing practices are.