I've finished reviewing the Georgia filing and I have a few comments to share with the socialverse in my capacity as a 30-year registered Democrat, former Oregon state elections official (with policy and admin experience), and former CIO.

I will not comment on the legal claims because, while I have familiarity with the law and court filings, I'm not a lawyer. I am also going to mostly stay away from alleged behaviors, too, as I wasn't there and, anyway, they add color but are more open to dispute.

The original intent of the software code (acc'd to affidavits) was to manipulate votes without detection. When you start with one goal in mind, it's tough to pivot to the opposite goal later — no matter how hard you might try. Not that it seems anyone tried... Absence of secure audit log (to record every action in the software) is so indefensible that I LOL'd when I read it. This fact alone should be enough to negate the results when there is ANY question about fraud because it cannot be proven that fraud DIDN'T occur Elections administration.

Lawsuit alleges that many procedures required in state law — for good, common sense reasons to ensure the one voter, one ballot rule is adhered to — were not followed, including Receipt of absentee ballots in their return envelopes was not recorded (this reduces risk of ballot box stuffing, i.e., to ensure that only one real ballot has been submitted by one real voter). Signatures were not verified against voter registration on return envelopes (same reason as 6, above). There might be missing envelopes, too; it wasn't clear to me in my reading or I missed it. Ballot processing is not allowed before Election Day in Georgia (this varies by state); in this election, by rule inconsistent with state law, Secretary of State Raffensperger allowed counties to start 3 weeks early. Absent a rigid accountability processes, this risks double or counterfeit voting.

Conducting one election with INTEGRITY is hard enough; when you overlay what is, in effect, a 2nd election (by mail) that has to be reconciled with what happens at the polls ... this is very high risk this "2 concurrent elections" risk was a primary argument for all elections being conducted by mail in Oregon, which was adopted after 20 years of practice with dual polling/mail elections — practice that none of these states whose elections are in question have had Observers were not allowed during the original count or the recount. There is no defense for this and intrinsically implies that elections officials had something to hide. There are other things to pick on, but these I cannot think of a way to defend and probably are sufficient to meet the apparent (according to the lawsuit) standard of "preponderance of the evidence" to "doubt the result." Eager to read defendants' response!