I would imagine that the lack of evidence, is simply because it can’t be granted.
Ever.
The lawsuits are “theatrical” in a sense, because it establishes a significant series of burden, requiring the Supreme Court to “indulge their arbitration”
I.E. bullying the court is the only way to prosecute people for election performance or conduct because the court(s) can’t.
AFAIK The courts cannot collect evidence of election performance. It’s not their jurisdiction or mandate.
People seem to believe that the state courts can accept testimony or evidence.
They cannot accept evidence or suggest prosecution, no court can.
Fraud can’t be proven even if the action meets the definition and standard for fraud, if a court cannot be found or suggested.
They can only reject the motion, even if there is sufficient proof to investigate, affidavit or observation. Not that there is no evidence, but evidence can’t be collected and can’t be used, validated or collected until the Supreme Court is given the authority, agency and mandate to investigate the election.
It is a no-mans-land due to the lack of a court to prosecute those involved.
And it can’t be any other way.
A fundamental loophole exists because of the US constitution and the US court system during an election. It’s not new. It’s been there for centuries, and it can’t be patched over unless the elections are organised via a federal mandate, under a provisional government body with executive and/or legislative power.
The next few months are literally going to be noting that “the emperor has no clothes”, due to the hidden reality of the lack of legal consequence of people influencing the outcome, acting in a fraudulent manner.
And the resolve will be “the emperor has clothing, you just refuse to accept it”
It is a very long process of establishing that the “safeguards” have no meaning if the safeguards have no legal effect, and any election participant can’t provide evidence or audit results. That’s the theatre of the current process.
Especially if people know they can defraud the government, and communicate with others that they have done so, and avoid prosecution.
Only the Supreme Court can act during the election, and it is unwilling, because it can only intercept or accept cases that require the unburdened access to the undefined legal system to operate and arbitrate.
People seem to believe that these cases “lost”. They would never have “won”.
That’s the goal of the theatrical “losses” and attempts here, to show that the election process is vulnerable, and no legal domain exists, or can exist, so the Supreme Court is the intervention.
And it is prohibited from preemptive action for the reason that the Theatrics are legally necessary too.
There are no “Election Police”. There are no election courts / mandated legal bodies /commissions or state investigations that arrest people for election misconduct during or after election.
The role is absurdly and often temporary because of the partisan problems of establishing a “Neutral” body with the power to dismantle the US electoral system by degrees or by action, have the power to change the foundation and membership of the US Federal Government.
The mandate could only exist in a Supreme Court, with the power to arbitrate or commission an investigation, granted the domain to prosecute and perform this single task.
It’s fine to believe in Justice, but an Electoral Court would be the Arbitration of every future State and Federal Government. And they would require a mandate to act in the belief/service to a higher authority, perhaps the Constitution.
Perhaps not. Who would be appointed. Who would be compelled to attend or supply evidence. Who would be responsible for the decisions made, etc.
It’s far too late to implement an organisation with this epic mandate, one that could recreate or reshuffle an operating government.
Thus, There can never be Election Fraud. Because it cannot be investigated during the Election process, nor can evidence be collected, or interpreted/discussed under a legal action unless it exists outside of the election itself.
Something like “Purge” rules, the situation is generally grotesque if you try to process how the counter to the argument, that “of course the law exists”.
It’s also about applying the law. And enforcing the laws that exist. Think about the ramifications of not being able to process any evidence, because a court cannot exist in this domain.
You may believe a court could act, order, suggest or proscribe action, but if it cannot act, and it cannot compel or prove, what could a court order or interpret.
Who would apply the law. Who would determine the penalty. Who would apply that penalty, and who would defend the parties involved.
More importantly, can a court ever exist. Who determines the scope and power of a court to determine and act. The mandate to intervene.
What if that court does not exist, nor can it be created.
There is a degree of lawless agency because of the necessary expediency of counting and validating results.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no record, did it even exist? This aphorism applies to the entire process of the US Election.
Unless evidence is collected outside of the Election, it’s not wilful ignorance, it’s entirely legally oblivious to any action or consequence during the conduct of an Election.
And to say that there’s any ability to “catch” indicates a lack of familiarity with the brokenness of the election process in the United States.
The AP and media likely feel comfortable being arbiters because the laws governing the collection of results are Anarchic.
AFAIK, anybody involved in the election could very easily commit fraud during the election process, because the process is not able to detect, investigate, prosecute or determine criminal action took place.
There is no police, no agency to record or investigate criminal or audit performance. There is no office or commission that could arrest people or provide testimony, and convert that testimony to evidence of misconduct.
The ability of a court to investigate requires a legal mandate to operate in (sic).
AFAIK this has never existed in the US. Most of the prosecution and criminal investigation happens before, after an election, because there has never been a criminal investigation of misconduct of election representation, nor the ability of a court to intervene during the election.
It may be that someone deliberately fed ballots into a machine over and over, meeting the requirements of impropriety and the action of fraud, but nobody can recover or remove that action with the current legal frameworks that exist, possibly even if that person acknowledges their action.
Their conduct may meet the burden of fraud, but criminal prosecution can’t or won’t be recommended or forwarded to local authorities for prosecution.
It may be that you can cheat the election process, but be arrested for stealing a paperclip, given the legal framework for election(s).
Without a National management of election performance, prosecution would be improbable within the timespan of an election period of 4 years, let alone 4 weeks.
The FBI or DOJ may appoint some organising body in the future, but I have no idea what the burden of proof is for a state election or “538 separate audits” of performance during an election.
Nobody is keeping the receipts if they don’t have to. Especially not with the standard of criminal investigation and audit of conduct.
It may fall to the FBI or adjacent investigation officers across states to have a granted license or authority to.
The courts aren’t able to investigate or interpret/ introduce evidence, Especially across the burden of State Courts who aren’t responsible for vetting or establishing the requirements for evidence of criminal or unconstitutional proceeding.
versus hearsay or other court-approved material would require a police investigation, or branch of government to intervene and provide a form of license for the provision of evidentiary material at the standard of proof required to allege fraud ie Communication, Payment or Beneficience of the act (whatever the legal burden for Fraud requires) versus the legal burden for defining Widespread Fraud, wherein it has to be a certain volume of Fraud, a co-ordinated action, a hierarchy or actor who provides facilities and mediation, or who would act on behalf of others to obscure evidence of Fraud as a signal of agency and conspiracy.
The likelihood of proving conspiracy and fraud, even with evidence and recordings, communications and affidavits, would take years and decades to process, not days or weeks.
If the standard of evidence requires an investigation, or, It requires a level above affidavit or hearsay, this would also require a court or official to “hear” or ponder the statements made.
A breach-monitoring service could act as a data washing service, sic.
Especially if privatized.
Blockchain is Very overrated, but it could be useful in keeping data "safe" where the temptation would exist to index or obscure results. Especially where data collection and censoring / disclosure has value to certain markets, i.e. Timed/rated or delayed disclosure, sic.
IDK, it's not impossible, but it's not my wheelhouse either.
I don't see any reuse or value to old databases and hashes being public, so it's missing that purpose to exist or be used/shared. Like a lot of blockchain is. It's not enough to exist, it has to be shared and kept alive. I suppose.
Still,
If you look at the way AV and user security is handled, there are potential vectors to prevent or anticipate, especially if the process of disclosure is censored or segregated.
Perhaps also if they proactively lean towards purges or spontaneous negative actions, in order to obscure their intent or actual content / behavior.
HIBP relies on disclosure, and if it were woven into a typical service structure, there would be a temptation to "alleviate" the workload for customers, offering to "feed the beast" with positive results and competitive, defensive tactics against 3rd parties offering a similar product.
Which could segment the disclosure process, so that you would have multiple options, much the way that AV and Malware is handled.
And now you have the same failures as AV and Malware being segmented domains.
The probability of a corporation being incentivized to airbrush a 3rd party listing in a semi-corporate "index" or offering "alternatives" to anxious, very large corporations to disclosure or remediation. Especially if they deal with financial or legal data, or specific disclosure requirements.
And have problems with timely disclosure, or any disclosure.
Imagine if a clearing house for disclosure existed as a Symantec or Kaspersky "Subscription", with tiers of access and disclosure prevention for corporate members, wrapped up in a daily routine app, such as a 2FA/Password manager.
So that a disclosure would be made silently by the subscription service, without disclosing details, or the level of breach, etc. The accounts or corporations breached, would just have their entire client accounts auto-reset and the updated password would be applied to your password manager within a batch process without the user(s), the press, the security agencies, or the hacker(s) being notified.
That, instead of revealing the time period, the hashes of usernames & passwords, or the name of the user, or their IDs, it would just be rotated on a regular basis, and invisibly managed.
Its a concept with some value, ie "paranoid" security features as a service, to prevent or anticipate disaster, sic. But handled via a handshake type batch process of cycling password management.
But this also has potential for occlusion and obfuscation, especially in examples where the breach would be a crime, or need to be disclosed to federal/state/police agencies, etc.
Thankfully, most security policy would prevent this kind of amorphous takeover, but for small businesses and large businesses, having access security taken away and handled by 3rd parties, for convenience, is inevitable.
Well, grid feed-in can lead to faster repayment and smaller bills, but it's only 20-25% of the electricity price, so generating enough to be in credit relies on paying off the usage you have when the solar isn't generating enough for storage, or to offset your grid usage.
i.e. If you use 10kwh from the grid, and export 40kwh, you should get credit on your energy bill, but it's never that ideal, and some of the providers cap the export to 5kw/h for residential solar.
Most Australian energy providers have flat rate, some are on smart metering with peak/Time of Use rates;
The benefit of a battery isn't as immediate if you're not on peak rates. For those states which do have Peak/ToU rates, there are calculators that can show the amounts saved over 10-20 years, but it's still around 12 years to pay off a battery and solar install with the current pricing, not enough to cover the warranty or the useful lifespan of a battery in the same period. i.e. In 6 years, we'll have a next generation Powerwall or a competing technology, or something even cheaper, etc to store energy.
The solar rebates mean that even a smaller solar system is cost-effective in a smaller payback period.
The amount of the rebate has started to reduce, but a 4kw solar install will have a rebate around $2400 AUD ($1800 USD) off the price of the install, which usually comes to around 25-30% off the total cost of $5000 AUD, around USD $4200.
Prior to the half-price chinese panels coming into the market, the break-even was around 8-10 years, even with rebates. Cheaper panels have reduced the payback window to 4 years in some cases, even if the actual performance is not even close to the system's size,
ie. their real-world performance might only be 3.4kwh on a 4kw system, and the real-world payback might be closer to 5 years, due to changes in energy pricing affecting the returns, but also handling the problems like difficult installations, replacing/handling faulty hardware, or having to service the system if it fails in Australian weather conditions.
You can also find aggregates for these prices on sites like https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/residential-solar-pv-pri... which contrasts costs and pricing across states, and also accounting for variables like labour and electricity pricing, etc. Most solar systems with the rebate can be USD $3k to $5k for a smaller home install, and the system can be paid off within 4 years, 5 years if you want reliable parts.
Energy Pricing in Australia depends on state and providers, but is around USD 20c per kWh depending on state and supplier, with some areas having flat rate, others requiring net metering and peak/offpeak times
There's also a grid connection cost of USD ~70c/day, while Feed-in of solar PV generation is around USD 6c to 10c per kWh, which will probably drop to 5c/kWh in July. An earlier solar generation scheme had dual/gross metering and USD 45c/KWh feed-in rates, but this was discontinued in 2016.
Add to this, residential systems often have to get special approval from their energy company for things like 3-phase solar installs, require limiting exports to 5kwh, restricting to 90% output for Grid stability, sic. etc.
There are no rebate programs for the batteries, and there's a cost hike for importing the Tesla Powerwall 2, for no particular reason.
Compared to the AUD $9,000 to $11,000 AUD cost for the PW2 install, and despite it being better value, there are smaller, but similar LG Chem RESU batteries, which are more affordable and easier to obtain.
You mean IoT installed into wallplugs and whitegoods appliances, pool pumps, heaters, washers, heat pumps/air conditioners, hot water systems, etc.
Yeah. If there was only an IoT standard that worked to allow for usage to be monitored and devices to be switched on/off in a standard way ... sure.
There are "appliances" like HomeAssistant.io and OpenHAB and Domoticz out there to micro-manage these peripheral home devices and monitor consumption/excess/PV generation, and rulesets that can trigger responses and excess/egress of energy,
but it's too complex for the Inverter/Solar managers to take care of usually.
but FreeNAS is about '20 minutes'* away from trying to implement a GUI package/plugin manager with IOCAGE for this very task so that they can set-and-forget the process and have it scripted into a launch command that is self-healing in case of failures.
'20 minutes' being 'maybe this year' in terms of delivery.
While it might not be the most practical guide for non-media use, it will get you past the basics of implementation and problem-solving,
especially the concept of putting iocage settings inside of a zpool dataset where it can be snapshot for backups, the issue of iocage not handling spaces inside datasets, without being escaped, and the networking glitch introduced in FN11.1 that can prevent IPv6/IPv4 addressing working as intended (that should be fixed by now ?)
to an extent, this is top-down, people will get their feet wet and learn, or not need to learn iocage.
or how to script pkg updates across the iocage 'fleet' etc.
Ever.
The lawsuits are “theatrical” in a sense, because it establishes a significant series of burden, requiring the Supreme Court to “indulge their arbitration”
I.E. bullying the court is the only way to prosecute people for election performance or conduct because the court(s) can’t.
AFAIK The courts cannot collect evidence of election performance. It’s not their jurisdiction or mandate.
People seem to believe that the state courts can accept testimony or evidence.
They cannot accept evidence or suggest prosecution, no court can.
Fraud can’t be proven even if the action meets the definition and standard for fraud, if a court cannot be found or suggested.
They can only reject the motion, even if there is sufficient proof to investigate, affidavit or observation. Not that there is no evidence, but evidence can’t be collected and can’t be used, validated or collected until the Supreme Court is given the authority, agency and mandate to investigate the election.
It is a no-mans-land due to the lack of a court to prosecute those involved.
And it can’t be any other way.
A fundamental loophole exists because of the US constitution and the US court system during an election. It’s not new. It’s been there for centuries, and it can’t be patched over unless the elections are organised via a federal mandate, under a provisional government body with executive and/or legislative power.
The next few months are literally going to be noting that “the emperor has no clothes”, due to the hidden reality of the lack of legal consequence of people influencing the outcome, acting in a fraudulent manner.
And the resolve will be “the emperor has clothing, you just refuse to accept it”
It is a very long process of establishing that the “safeguards” have no meaning if the safeguards have no legal effect, and any election participant can’t provide evidence or audit results. That’s the theatre of the current process.
Especially if people know they can defraud the government, and communicate with others that they have done so, and avoid prosecution.
Only the Supreme Court can act during the election, and it is unwilling, because it can only intercept or accept cases that require the unburdened access to the undefined legal system to operate and arbitrate.
People seem to believe that these cases “lost”. They would never have “won”.
That’s the goal of the theatrical “losses” and attempts here, to show that the election process is vulnerable, and no legal domain exists, or can exist, so the Supreme Court is the intervention.
And it is prohibited from preemptive action for the reason that the Theatrics are legally necessary too.
There are no “Election Police”. There are no election courts / mandated legal bodies /commissions or state investigations that arrest people for election misconduct during or after election.
The role is absurdly and often temporary because of the partisan problems of establishing a “Neutral” body with the power to dismantle the US electoral system by degrees or by action, have the power to change the foundation and membership of the US Federal Government.
The mandate could only exist in a Supreme Court, with the power to arbitrate or commission an investigation, granted the domain to prosecute and perform this single task.
It’s fine to believe in Justice, but an Electoral Court would be the Arbitration of every future State and Federal Government. And they would require a mandate to act in the belief/service to a higher authority, perhaps the Constitution.
Perhaps not. Who would be appointed. Who would be compelled to attend or supply evidence. Who would be responsible for the decisions made, etc.
It’s far too late to implement an organisation with this epic mandate, one that could recreate or reshuffle an operating government.
Thus, There can never be Election Fraud. Because it cannot be investigated during the Election process, nor can evidence be collected, or interpreted/discussed under a legal action unless it exists outside of the election itself.
Something like “Purge” rules, the situation is generally grotesque if you try to process how the counter to the argument, that “of course the law exists”.
It’s also about applying the law. And enforcing the laws that exist. Think about the ramifications of not being able to process any evidence, because a court cannot exist in this domain.
You may believe a court could act, order, suggest or proscribe action, but if it cannot act, and it cannot compel or prove, what could a court order or interpret.
Who would apply the law. Who would determine the penalty. Who would apply that penalty, and who would defend the parties involved.
More importantly, can a court ever exist. Who determines the scope and power of a court to determine and act. The mandate to intervene.
What if that court does not exist, nor can it be created.
There is a degree of lawless agency because of the necessary expediency of counting and validating results.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no record, did it even exist? This aphorism applies to the entire process of the US Election.
Unless evidence is collected outside of the Election, it’s not wilful ignorance, it’s entirely legally oblivious to any action or consequence during the conduct of an Election.
And to say that there’s any ability to “catch” indicates a lack of familiarity with the brokenness of the election process in the United States.
The AP and media likely feel comfortable being arbiters because the laws governing the collection of results are Anarchic.
AFAIK, anybody involved in the election could very easily commit fraud during the election process, because the process is not able to detect, investigate, prosecute or determine criminal action took place.
There is no police, no agency to record or investigate criminal or audit performance. There is no office or commission that could arrest people or provide testimony, and convert that testimony to evidence of misconduct.
The ability of a court to investigate requires a legal mandate to operate in (sic).
AFAIK this has never existed in the US. Most of the prosecution and criminal investigation happens before, after an election, because there has never been a criminal investigation of misconduct of election representation, nor the ability of a court to intervene during the election.
It may be that someone deliberately fed ballots into a machine over and over, meeting the requirements of impropriety and the action of fraud, but nobody can recover or remove that action with the current legal frameworks that exist, possibly even if that person acknowledges their action.
Their conduct may meet the burden of fraud, but criminal prosecution can’t or won’t be recommended or forwarded to local authorities for prosecution.
It may be that you can cheat the election process, but be arrested for stealing a paperclip, given the legal framework for election(s).
Without a National management of election performance, prosecution would be improbable within the timespan of an election period of 4 years, let alone 4 weeks.
The FBI or DOJ may appoint some organising body in the future, but I have no idea what the burden of proof is for a state election or “538 separate audits” of performance during an election.
Nobody is keeping the receipts if they don’t have to. Especially not with the standard of criminal investigation and audit of conduct.
It may fall to the FBI or adjacent investigation officers across states to have a granted license or authority to.
The courts aren’t able to investigate or interpret/ introduce evidence, Especially across the burden of State Courts who aren’t responsible for vetting or establishing the requirements for evidence of criminal or unconstitutional proceeding.
versus hearsay or other court-approved material would require a police investigation, or branch of government to intervene and provide a form of license for the provision of evidentiary material at the standard of proof required to allege fraud ie Communication, Payment or Beneficience of the act (whatever the legal burden for Fraud requires) versus the legal burden for defining Widespread Fraud, wherein it has to be a certain volume of Fraud, a co-ordinated action, a hierarchy or actor who provides facilities and mediation, or who would act on behalf of others to obscure evidence of Fraud as a signal of agency and conspiracy.
The likelihood of proving conspiracy and fraud, even with evidence and recordings, communications and affidavits, would take years and decades to process, not days or weeks.
If the standard of evidence requires an investigation, or, It requires a level above affidavit or hearsay, this would also require a court or official to “hear” or ponder the statements made.