« Give this a read - Patrick Armstrong | Main | Solon on Justice for Land and Suffering Citizens »

06 February 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chuck Light

Deap: I wouldn't worry too much about Smartmatic proving damages, if it comes to that. In fact, because Smartmatic is a privately held company, it will most probably have to disclose a whole lot of information about its business during the discovery phase that it would probably like to keep private.

It's not like going on a TV show and saying whatever you want and then getting a jury to award the damages you claimed on TV. Smartmatic, if it gets to that, will have to establish economic loss, from the date(s) of the defamatory statements forward, including present and future economic loss. If they cannot provide relevant and admissible evidence of economic loss, they don't get damages.

One point on the damage claims of Smartmatic. As I understand it, they have alleged that as a result of the alleged defamation, many of their employees and their employees' families have received death threats. Assuming they can prove this, one element of damage would be the extraordinary security costs they can prove they have incurred.

Other elements of damage would of course include lost future business, cancelled contracts linked to the defamatory publicity, etc.

If it goes to trial -- in the New York State Supreme Court -- they will have to prove their damages as any Plaintiff would have to. According to the New York State Rules of Evidence.

David: I don't read posts that long. One interesting fact I noticed, however, is how you turned a thread about FOX News and Smartmatic into a thread about Hunter Biden. Clever diversion, that.

David Habakkuk


If you are only prepared to read short posts, you are as lazy as most of the MSM journalists I have come across. Understanding needs work.

If you cannot grasp that Hunter Biden and Smartmatic are part of the same story, and you think my attempt to relate them is a ‘diversion’, you either have no understanding of what has been going on, or are pretending to be stupid.

Which is it? Tell me.

Barbara Ann

Chuck Light

It is a shame you did not read David Habakkuk's comment. If you had you would see that it is in fact not a "diversion" from the topic at hand. David has much to say about the information war being waged against team Trump - specifically the insidious practice of deliberately using disinformation to discredit opponents. Lou Dobbs may end up being a second order casualty of such practices and it is IMO therefore highly relevant.

I can't help but smile at the irony of an accusation of dissembling against someone honestly trying to explain the dark practices of (dis)information warfare. David Habakkuk is one of the good guys.

Chuck Light

Deap: Rather than just trying to "recall" what the Smartmatic Defendants said between November 3, 2020 and o/a February 1, 2021 (the lawsuit was filed on February 4, 2021), you could read the lawsuit itself. It is 258 pages, and apparently sets forth in exquisite (or painful, depending on your point of view) detail allegations regarding alleged defamatory statements made by Powell, Giuliani, Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro.

You (and anyone with an interest) could actually see what Smartmatics says are defamatory statements. The statements as contained in the complaint must be factual to the extent they are actual quotations, so there should be no dispute about whether Smartmatic is making stuff up.



Chuck Light,

Please read it then.

Your use of the word "diversion" is inappropriate. Actually, you seem to have completely missed DH's point.


As best I recall, Powell in her early public statements made very equivocating statements about the origins on the various voting systems - trying them back to a common Venezuelan parentage. And she was quoting someone who claimed to have first person knowledge of this potential linkage ...
Posted by: Deap | 07 February 2021 at 01:37 PM

Deap, I have not followed Powell's public statements, but I closely followed her legal files. I remember affidavits trying to connect election fraud in Venezuela with companies operating in the US. One looked like a real intelligence document about election fraud in Venezuela but it did not mention either Dominion and Smartmatic, as far as I recall. The other affidavit were affidavits based on witness statements by US citizen of Venezuelan descent.

Smartmatic's complaint and related reports suggests they may have a bigger media/social media collection up there sleeve. ... They seem to have a good communications department, and really that is part of their job. Seems other pro-Trump media have withdrawn content by now.

Smartmatic Complaintm searchable pdf:

Smartmatic is the firm that was indeed founded in Venezuela and managed elections there. It is the firm that drew David Habbakuk's attention via Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. In 2018, it cut its ties to Venezuela, after going public in London supporting allegations of voter fraud in Venezuela in Sept. 2017, in London. (see Wikipedia

The Dominion Complaint was filed earlier and only against The Kraken only, they seem to follow their own strategy here, already in December they challenged Powell to withdraw two affidavits that connected Dominion with Smartmatic Software (see links in Reason document below):


Dominion Complaint, searchable pdf:



It seems to me that LeAnder, Confused Ponderer and the Spanish troll group are all the same thing.

Chuck Light

I have read the first 80 or so pages of the Smartmatic complaint, and skimmed the next 50 or so pages, and am satisfied that Smartmatic has alleged facts sufficient to make things difficult for the Defendants. By facts I mean words uttered by the named Defendants (Giuliani, Powell, Dobbs, Bartiromo, and Pirro) quoted from transcripts of their appearances on FOX network shows or websites, as well as video clips of those appearances.

If anyone is interested in the history of the Smartmatic company, that is contained in the beginning of the complaint. Contrary to certain statements in the comments, Smartmatic is a US corporation, incorporated in Delaware o/a 2000, and located (since it's incorporation) in the State of Florida.

For those interested in statements of the named Defendants, the initial allegations containing those statements can be found here:

pp. 32-34 -- Giuliani/Dobbs;
pp. 34-36 -- Pirro/Powell;
pp. 36-39 -- Bartiromo/Giuliani;
pp. 39-41 -- Bartiromo/Powell;
pp. 46-47, paragraphs 116-117 -- Dobbs/Giuliani;
pp. 53-54, paragraph 126 -- Powell statments regarding documentary evidence (which has never seen the light of day);
pp. 56-57, paragraph 131 -- FOX News "walkback" rebuttal after initial demand from Smartmatic;
p. 67, Section E, paragraphs 149-142 -- Evidence

Beginning at the bottom of page 78, Section III, through at least page 132, paragraph 216, Smartmatic alleges how the statements of named Defendants are in fact lies, as well as setting forth the true facts according to Smartmatic.

What is most important about these later allegations is that the named Defendants have alleged that they actually have relevant and admissible evidence (such as "reams and reams" of documents from Smartmatic and Dominion, paragraph 126) to back up their statements. If they have that evidence, it has been kept secret. This lawsuit will compel them to produce the evidence or admit they made it up.

One point regarding the affidavits obtained by and submitted to various courts by Powell. In the form in which they were submitted, under penalty of perjury, they may be relevant, but they are not admissible evidence. To make the information contained in the affidavits admissible, Powell would have to produce the affiant, and obtain the affiant's statements in open court. An affidavit by itself is not subject to cross-examination to determine its veracity.

I am satisfied that FOX News and the Fox Defendants, as well as Giuliani and Powell, will have their hands full with this lawsuit. Reasonable minds can differ, I suppose.


Looks like folks on Twitter are trying a GameStop blocking action:


Sounds like the victory is already achieved and no need for a trial, just a summary judgement by the court. Or, as you discovered: "If they have that evidence, it has been kept secret. "
That means this has only been adjudicated in the press by one side and not in court at all. Fun times ahead for all.


Chuck Light -

A corporation family tree is needed to follow the fortunes of Smartmatic. A brief outline might help all understand how easily confusion arises.

Yes. Smartmatic was incorporated in Delaware, with headquarters in Boca Raton, FL in 2000. The founder-owners were three Venezuelan engineers. What is less obvious is: who were all the investors, who provided development capital?

Smartmatic's first voting systems were developed for Hugo Chavez's 2004 elections in Venezuela. At this time, Smartmatic was part of a consortium, including a company partially financed by the Venezuelan government or by a good friend of the government (akin to some Silicon Valley investments in the US).

Smartmatic continued to provide voting services to the Venezuelan government, until after the suspect 2017 Maduro referendum. The company declared that the total number of voters had been adjusted upward by more than 1 million votes, and ended their contract with Venezuela.
"Smartmatic said that although Venezuela’s election process includes “a series of auditing systems” that are “impossible to circumvent,” no election monitors from the opposition were present to watch for evidence as it came in." (NYT 8/2/17)

Meanwhile, in 2005, in order to position themselves for the new US market for electronic voting equipment, which suddenly expanded with the 2002 Help America Vote Act, Smartmatic acquired California-based Sequoia Voting Systems. Sequoia had made legacy voting equipment for years. It was later reported that the legacy Sequoia equipment had been used in Palm Beach Co in 2000. Smartmatic redesigned the Sequoia product line with their own, high tech software, and enjoyed robust sales in the US for the next several of years. The same man, Jack Blaine, served as president of Sequoia and of Smartmatic.

In November 2007, as a result of investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investments, Smartmatic was ordered to sell Sequoia. Sequoia was sold to a group of Sequoia managers, who were U.S. citizens. During an attempted hostile takeover in 2008, court documents revealed that Smartmatic retained some financial control over Sequoia through a large loan, as well as retaining intellectual property rights, which Sequoia machines continued to use.

In 2010 Canada-based Dominion becomes part of the family, when it "acquired all physical and intellectual assets of Sequoia, as well as retaining technical and sales staff." (Wikipedia) So now Sequoia/ Dominion appears to be entirely independent of Smartmatic, although the intellectual property acquired by Dominion indicates that software developed by Smartmatic was still in use in Dominion equipment.

In 2014 Smartmatic's Venezuelan CEO Antonio Mugica and British Lord Malloch Brown announced the formation of SGO, a holding company with HQ in London. SGO describes itself as "sitting at the intersection between government and society". SGO assumed ownership of Smartmatic.

It appears that Smartmatic re-entered the US elections market directly in 2017, providing equipment to the Utah Republican Party. They also entered into contract with LA County in 2017, to develop new election systems. The system is publicly owned by LA, which owns all equipment and intellectual rights. This system was used in 2020 elections.

What remains of the original Smartmatic software in US operated systems, or perhaps later generations of that software, is difficult to know. During the period that Smartmatic and then its US managers, owned Sequoia, questions about reliability, security, and intellectual trespass were all raised in legal challenges.

Meanwhile, Smartmatic has been supplying voting equipment and services to countries across the world.

Chuck Light

Smoke: All that and more is readily available on Wikipedia:


But you don't state that Dominion used Smartmatic hardware or software in the US 2020 elections. And you don't say that Smartmatic hardware and software were used during the 2020 elections anywhere in the US other than LA County:

It appears that Smartmatic re-entered the US elections market directly in 2017, providing equipment to the Utah Republican Party. They also entered into contract with LA County in 2017, to develop new election systems. The system is publicly owned by LA, which owns all equipment and intellectual rights. This system was used in 2020 elections.

So apparently what Smartmatic alleges in its lawsuit is correct. I am sure that if Dominion used Smartmatic hardware and software in the US battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Arizona, you would have found evidence of that, right?

The problem is that Giuliani and Powell both said Smartmatic hardware and software were used in the battleground states, and that a "back door" existed in the Smartmatic software which permitted Smartmatic to flip millions of votes and steal the election from Trump. And none of that was true.

The rest, IMO, is another "seven degrees from Kevin Bacon" game. If relevant and admissible evidence ties Dominion to Smartmatic during the 2020 elections, I have yet to find it. And apparently you have yet to find it either. So we are left with Smoke and mirrors. No offense intended.


Chuck -

I am sure that if Dominion used Smartmatic hardware and software in the US battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Arizona, you would have found evidence of that, right?

All I attempted to find, as I stated, was a rough geneology of how these corporate entities, which we keep hearing bandied about, are related. Corporate mergers, acquisitions, name changes can sometimes be tracked through the web. It was useful to me, and I thought it might be to others.

Evaluating the ever changing construction of high tech intellectual properties would require specialized technical skills, access to the equipment, and perhaps to patents. Since much of this is considered proprietary, and we know that these companies have in the past resisted sharing this information, no, I did not stumble on it, and I did not search for it.

What is known, what keeps showing up in reports online, is that, ever since electronic voting systems were introduced in early 2000's, some experts have warned that they are neither reliable nor secure. Since everything about how Americans cast their vote and how those votes are counted should be transparent, I look forward to explanations from such experts.



"you don't state that..." .... "The problem is that Giuliani and Powell both said...." .... "And none of that was true."

What court has seen ALL the evidence presented by both sides and come to such a conclusion?

Chuck Light


Following is a link to an article from an Australian newspaper by a reporter who went through every case decided up to the date of the report. I posted this article previously in another thread. From my prior count, at least 10 courts actually reviewed the evidence that was submitted to them, regardless of whether the case was ultimately dismissed due to lack of standing, or some other technical grounds. Every court that actually reviewed the evidence submitted to them determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations raised in the complaints before them.


I'm sure you will agree that in order to review evidence supporting a massive conspiracy to commit election fraud, it is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to actually put all of the evidence they control, or have access to before the court they seek relief from. If the evidence is withheld from the court, the court simply cannot see ALL the evidence.

One example. As I said in a previous comment, above, Sidney Powell was quoted in Smartmatic's complaint, at paragraph 126, pp. 53-54, as follows:

We now have reams and reams of actual documents from Smartmatic and Dominion, including evidence that they planned and executed all of this.

Perhaps you can find one of the cases where Ms. Powell actually submitted to the court the "reams and reams of actual documents from Smartmatic and Dominion" but I know of none. Nobody has actually seen any of these "reams and reams" (a ream being 500 pages) of documents that Ms. Powell claims to possess. If she had them, why didn't she put them before one of the courts she filed a lawsuit in? Have you seen these documents, Fred?

If a lawyer has relevant and admissible evidence of a crime and fails to put it before the court, whose fault is that?

But I suppose the best answer to your question lies in the future. Because one court -- the Supreme Court for the State of New York (Supreme Court in this case refers to the trial level court, not the highest court) -- will, at some time in the future, see all of the evidence possessed by Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani. It will be obtained, to the extent it actually exists, by Smartmatic through the discovery process.

At that point, we will finally know for certain whether Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani lied about the evidence they had of this massive, multi-state fraud allegedly perpetrated by Smartmatic and Dominion.

At that point, a court will have "seen ALL the evidence presented by both sides" and it will come to a conclusion about who is telling the truth, and who is lying.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad