I went to [redacted] and spent about ten minutes reading and still had no idea what he did or what they claimed he did. I did a quick google search on his name though and found this which explained their side fairly succinctly:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1...
For anyone trying to figure out what's actually going on, that does appear to be the best link.
It basically boils down to: OP committed (alleged) fraud. The government used a spreadsheet populated from the defrauded's database to come to a figure for fraud, and submitted the spreadsheet as evidence. OP contends he needs access to the original database to satisfy as evidence, as a spreadsheet is potentially modifiable, but apparently doesn't allege that the data was actually modified.
Or, put another way, OP is insisting that a formatted report of SELECT * FROM table WHERE user_id=10343; should be inadmissible as evidence in court.
Money quote from the judgement: "Many of Defendants' arguments are better placed as questions concerning authentication. However, as this was not raised in the briefs, any argument to this effect was waived."
The government did modify the spreadsheet, and we alleged as much multiple times.
They didn’t even gave us one SQL query like that. All we got was a typo-ridden excel spreadsheet, with multiple authors, no chain of custody, no queries, and a random list of accounts that can hop state lines in minutes, and they told the courts that was how the information came out of the computer.
If that SQL query was what they actually produced, everything would be fine. We asked them for the queries they used, but they refused.
The quote is what they call “dicta”, or in passing. If you follow the cited opinions in this brief you will find them all totally inappropriate. They don’t say what the circuit judge says they say. It’s like the judge just had his clerk do it and didn’t check the work.
It won’t let me respond as fast as you all are attacking me, so you’ll have to bear with me.
It basically boils down to: OP committed (alleged) fraud. The government used a spreadsheet populated from the defrauded's database to come to a figure for fraud, and submitted the spreadsheet as evidence. OP contends he needs access to the original database to satisfy as evidence, as a spreadsheet is potentially modifiable, but apparently doesn't allege that the data was actually modified.
Or, put another way, OP is insisting that a formatted report of SELECT * FROM table WHERE user_id=10343; should be inadmissible as evidence in court.
Money quote from the judgement: "Many of Defendants' arguments are better placed as questions concerning authentication. However, as this was not raised in the briefs, any argument to this effect was waived."