Sure - I am happy to explain this to you if you want to understand further.
They are not alleging fraud because in a court of law, you don't need to prove fraud in order to get what they want.
Fraud in layman's terms is slightly different from fraud in legal terms. To prove fraud in legal terms, you need to go through a number of tests which often requires extensive litigation. Happy to explain this further if you want.
All you need to prove to get ballots thrown out or audited is that there was procedural impropriety. If a ballot was counted when the law says it shouldn't have been, you don't need to prove that the counter was dishonest or being fraudulent. All you need to prove is that the counter did not follow the law.
In law, we have a concept of actus reus and mens rea. The first means the act is guilty, or wrong. The second means the "mind is guilty". You need both actus reus and mens rea to prove fraud, meaning you need to prove the accused person's state of mind, which is harder and takes a long time. But to prove procedural impropriety, you simply have to prove actus reus, which means the person did something he shouldn't have done.
There is no reason to allege fraud and waste time in court when the priority now is to challenge the dodgy ballots ASAP. All you need to prove to the judge is procedural impropriety. Criminal investigation for fraud can come after.
Yeah it's unfortunate because this is why the Dirty D's get off so easily - proving intent is a real bitch and there's a thousand people who will take the fall even if they could prove it.
But it's as you put it, you fight what you can to get what you want. Justice will come, but only if this does first.
No. Jesus, did you even watch the fucking presser?
Sure - I am happy to explain this to you if you want to understand further.
They are not alleging fraud because in a court of law, you don't need to prove fraud in order to get what they want.
Fraud in layman's terms is slightly different from fraud in legal terms. To prove fraud in legal terms, you need to go through a number of tests which often requires extensive litigation. Happy to explain this further if you want.
All you need to prove to get ballots thrown out or audited is that there was procedural impropriety. If a ballot was counted when the law says it shouldn't have been, you don't need to prove that the counter was dishonest or being fraudulent. All you need to prove is that the counter did not follow the law.
In law, we have a concept of actus reus and mens rea. The first means the act is guilty, or wrong. The second means the "mind is guilty". You need both actus reus and mens rea to prove fraud, meaning you need to prove the accused person's state of mind, which is harder and takes a long time. But to prove procedural impropriety, you simply have to prove actus reus, which means the person did something he shouldn't have done.
There is no reason to allege fraud and waste time in court when the priority now is to challenge the dodgy ballots ASAP. All you need to prove to the judge is procedural impropriety. Criminal investigation for fraud can come after.
Yeah it's unfortunate because this is why the Dirty D's get off so easily - proving intent is a real bitch and there's a thousand people who will take the fall even if they could prove it.
But it's as you put it, you fight what you can to get what you want. Justice will come, but only if this does first.