Dominion alarmed by 'highly-orchestrated scheme' to leak discovery through indicted clerk case
lawandcrime.com
Dominion Voting Systems has identified a new threat to discovery materials: a subpoena issued to a "Kraken" lawyer in the criminal case against Tina Peters.

Itā€™s been months now since Dominion Voting Systems complained of a massive discovery leak and subsequently demanded the disqualification of an indicted ā€œKrakenā€ lawyer from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in a 2020 election-related defamation suit. While a Washington, D.C., federal court has taken no action on Dominionā€™s pending motion to boot attorney Stefanie Lambert from the case, the voting technology company has identified a new threat to discovery materials: a subpoena issued to Lambert in the criminal case of indicted former Colorado clerk Tina Peters Ā®.

In a Friday motion to enforce an existing protective order in their lawsuit, Dominionā€™s lawyers claimed that there appears to be a ā€œhighly-orchestrated schemeā€ by Byrne and Lambert to ā€œimproperly release yet more discovery informationā€ through Petersā€™ case, which was set for trial in late July after months of delays.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        61Ā·
        4 months ago

        I deleted the comment because I had a brain fart. It sticks around outside of lemmy.world though I think? Idk.

        They sued Fox. I thought they got sued for something they sued Fox for.

        But, they do have a weird history owning voting machines. It doesnā€™t take too much digging to find left wing conspiracy theories about their voting machines being up to no good during the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections.

        I digress. I deleted it because I am unsure.

        • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8Ā·
          4 months ago

          Diebold was the Big Baddie in 2000. (Wikipedia lists Diebold as being formed in 2002, but also mentions a merger at that time, so it might have been their parent who made the machines in 2000?, I seem to recall them and ES&S being the main culprits.) They were pushing touch-screen voting machines with questionable software and no real paper trail. There were people reporting that the screens were so badly calibrated that people frequently mis-voted. There were a lot of independant researchers that singled out Diebold in particular for making insecure machines.

          Dieboldā€™s reputation never really recovered. It went through a few name changes before eve tually being acquired by Dominion. But all the increased scrutiny seems to have really helped, voting systems now generally have paper trails and are auditable.