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.

It’s been months now since Dominion Voting Systems complained of a massive discovery leak and subsequently demanded the disqualification of an indicted “Kraken” 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 Dominion’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 ®.

In a Friday motion to enforce an existing protective order in their lawsuit, Dominion’s lawyers claimed that there appears to be a “highly-orchestrated scheme” by Byrne and Lambert to “improperly release yet more discovery information” through Peters’ case, which was set for trial in late July after months of delays.

    • @foggy
      5•5 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 doesn’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.

      • @dhorkEnglish
        8•5 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.

        Diebold’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.