NewsFollowUp.com Home

SIDNEY POWELL ---- GEORGIA AND MICHIGAN COMPLAINTS, in html text form

The Rise of Populism

9-11

foxnews contrived islamophobia iraq war neocon zionists
Go to Russiagate page....Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer demonized Trump for nearly three years, then the truth hit...their ratings suffered greatly


amazon wordpress banned holocaust revisionist books new source
There's no principle difference between NeoNazism, Jewish Chosenness and White Supremacism...all forms of supremacism are wrong....

holocaust revisionism holohoax auschwitz ig farben hitler germany nuremberg
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

jfk rfk jfk-jr assassination johnson ben gurion israel
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

clinton obama bush death list
Clinton Bush Obama death lists...over 300 names suspicious deaths...Clintons by far the worst

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism
Cultural Marxist goal is to destroy Christian nationalist culture. LGBTQ is just one avenue...to disengenuously elevate LGBTQ above all other issues as a club against white males...all for Jewish megalomania

yellow vests france nonviolent protest 1 percent 99 percent midwest trump populism
The Yellow Vests movement in France has severely weakoned the (((globalist Jews))) despite government attempts to infiltrate groups with violent actors

newsfollowup link 9-11 jfk holocaust hoax cultural marxism to modern events
Go to original NewsFollowup.com home page

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Immigration drives are funded by deep state cultural marxists to advance the cause of socialism then Communism

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Communism is just Talmudism politicized.. both seek centralized power, abolish the family, state and Christian religion

9-11 truth israel nuked wtc silverstein netanyahu false flag war iraq afghanistan patriot act
9/11 was a false flag attack on America by a cabal consisting of Israel, US, Britain and Saudi Arabia...executed to start Iraq War
  • Georgia complaint
  • Michigan complaint
  • DECLERATION OF DR. NAVID KESHAVARZ-NIA

Sidney Powell Georgia Complaint, Election Fraud 2020

CORECO JA’QAN PEARSON, VIKKI TOWNSEND CONSIGLIO, GLORIA KAY GODWIN, JAMES KENNETH CARROLL, , CAROLYN HALL FISHER, CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, and BRIAN JAY VAN GUNDY, Plaintiffs. v. BRIAN KEMP, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State and Chair of the Georgia State Election Board, DAVID J. WORLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board, REBECCA N.SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board, MATTHEW MASHBURN, in his official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board, and ANH LE, in her official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICCT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRCOICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION
CORECO JA’QAN PEARSON,
VIKKI TOWNSEND CONSIGLIO,
GLORIA KAY GODWIN, JAMES
KENNETH CARROLL, , CAROLYN HALL
FISHER, CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM,
and BRIAN JAY VAN GUNDY,
Plaintiffs.
v.
BRIAN KEMP, in his official capacity as
Governor of Georgia, BRAD
RAFFENSPERGER, in his official
capacity as Secretary of State and Chair
of the Georgia State Election Board,
DAVID J. WORLEY, in his official
capacity as a member of the Georgia
State Election Board, REBECCA
N.SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as
a member of the Georgia State Election
Board, MATTHEW MASHBURN, in his
official capacity as a member of the
Georgia State Election Board, and ANH
LE, in her official capacity as a member
of the Georgia State Election Board,
Defendants.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This civil action brings to light a massive election fraud, multiple
violations of Georgia laws, including O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-30(d), 21-2-31, 21-2-
33.1 and §21-2-522, and multiple Constitutional violations, as shown by fact
witnesses to specific incidents, multiple expert witnesses and the sheer
mathematical impossibilities found in the Georgia 2020 General Election.1
1.
As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of
the evidence” to show, as the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that, “[i]
was not incumbent upon [Plaintiff] to show how the [] voters would have voted
if their [absentee] ballots had been regular. [Plaintiff] only had to show that
there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” Mead v.
Sheffield, 278 Ga. 268, 272, 601 S.E.2d 99, 102 (2004) (citing Howell v. Fears,
275 Ga. 627, 571 S.E.2d 392 (2002).

1
The same pattern of election fraud and voter fraud writ large occurred in all the swing
states with only minor variations, see expert reports, regarding Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Arizona and Wisconsin. (See William M. Briggs Decl., attached here to as Exh. 1, Report
with Attachment). Indeed, we believe that in Arizona at least 35,000 votes were illegally
added to Mr. Biden’s vote count.
3
2.
The scheme and artifice to defraud was for the purpose of illegally and
fraudulently manipulating the vote count to make certain the election of Joe
Biden as President of the United States.
3.
The fraud was executed by many means,2 but the most fundamentally
troubling, insidious, and egregious is the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned
“ballot-stuffing.” It has now been amplified and rendered virtually invisible
by computer software created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that
very purpose. Mathematical and statistical anomalies rising to the level of
impossibilities, as shown by affidavits of multiple witnesses, documentation,
and expert testimony evince this scheme across the state of Georgia.
Especially egregious conduct arose in Forsyth, Paulding, Cherokee, Hall, and
Barrow County. This scheme and artifice to defraud affected tens of
thousands of votes in Georgia alone and “rigged” the election in Georgia for
Joe Biden.

2 50 USC § 20701 requires Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of
elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation, but as will be shown wide pattern of
misconduct with ballots show preservation of election records have not been kept; and
Dominion logs are only voluntary, with no system wide preservation system.
4
4.
The massive fraud begins with the election software and hardware
from Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (“Dominion”) only recently
purchased and rushed into use by Defendants Governor Brian Kemp,
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and the Georgia Board of Elections.
Sequoia voting machines were used in 16 states and the District of Colombia
in 2006. Smartmatic, which has revenue of about $100 million, focuses on
Venezuela and other markets outside the U.S. 3
After selling Sequoia, Smartmatic's chief executive, Anthony Mugica.
Mr. Mugica said, he hoped Smartmatic would work with Sequoia on projects
in the U.S., though Smartmatic wouldn't take an equity stake.” Id.
5.
Smartmatic and Dominion were founded by foreign oligarchs and
dictators to ensure computerized ballot-stuffing and vote manipulation to
whatever level was needed to make certain Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez
never lost another election. (See Redacted whistleblower affiant, attached as
Exh. 2) Notably, Chavez “won” every election thereafter.

3 See WSJ.com, Smartmatic to Sell U.S. Unit, End Probe into Venezuelan Links, by Bob Davis,
12/22/2006, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116674617078557263
5
6.
As set forth in the accompanying whistleblower affidavit, the
Smartmatic software was designed to manipulate Venezuelan elections in
favor of dictator Hugo Chavez:
Smartmatic’s electoral technology was called “Sistema de Gestión
Electoral” (the “Electoral Management System”). Smartmatic was a
pioneer in this area of computing systems. Their system provided for
transmission of voting data over the internet to a computerized
central tabulating center. The voting machines themselves had a
digital display, fingerprint recognition feature to identify the voter,
and printed out the voter’s ballot. The voter’s thumbprint was linked
to a computerized record of that voter’s identity. Smartmatic created
and operated the entire system.
7.
A core requirement of the Smartmatic software design was the
software’s ability to hide its manipulation of votes from any audit. As the
whistleblower explains:
Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a
way that the system could change the vote of each voter without
being detected. He wanted the software itself to function in such a
manner that if the voter were to place their thumb print or
fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a
record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter
would not be tracked to the changed vote. He made it clear that the
system would have to be setup to not leave any evidence of the
changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence
to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the fingerprint or
thumb print was going with a changed vote. Smartmatic agreed to
create such a system and produced the software and hardware that
6
accomplished that result for President Chavez. (See Id., see also Exh.
3, Aff. Cardozo, attached hereto)).
8.
The design and features of the Dominion software do not permit a
simple audit to reveal its misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes.
First, the system's central accumulator does not include a protected real-time
audit log that maintains the date and time stamps of all significant election
events. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs. Essentially
this allows an unauthorized user the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify,
or remove log entries, causing the machine to log election events that do not
reflect actual voting tabulations—or more specifically, do not reflect the
actual votes of or the will of the people. (See Hursti August 2019 Declaration,
attached hereto as Exh. 4, at pars. 45-48; and attached hereto, as Exh. 4B,
October 2019 Declaration in Document 959-4, at p. 18, par. 28).
9.
Indeed, under the professional standards within the industry in
auditing and forensic analysis, when a log is unprotected, and can be altered,
it can no longer serve the purpose of an audit log. There is incontrovertible
physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting
machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to
7
the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws.
(See Id.)
10.
Moreover, lies and conduct of Fulton County election workers about a
delay in voting at State Farm Arena and the reasons for it evince the fraud.
11.
Specifically, video from the State Farm Arena in Fulton County shows
that on November 3rd after the polls closed, election workers falsely claimed
a water leak required the facility to close. All poll workers and challengers
were evacuated for several hours at about 10:00 PM. However, several
election workers remained unsupervised and unchallenged working at the
computers for the voting tabulation machines until after 1:00 AM.
12.
Defendants Kemp and Raffensperger rushed through the purchase of
Dominion voting machines and software in 2019 for the 2020 Presidential
Election4. A certificate from the Secretary of State was awarded to Dominion
4
Georgia Governor Inks Law to Replace Voting Machines, The Atlanta JournalConstitution, AJC News Now, Credit: Copyright 2019 The Associated Press, June 2019.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-governor-inks-law-replace-votingmachines/xNXs0ByQAOvtXhd27kJdqO/
8
Voting Systems but is undated. (See attached hereto Exh. 5, copy
Certification for Dominion Voting Systems from Secretary of State).
Similarly a test report is signed by Michael Walker as Project Manager but is
also undated. (See Exh. 6, Test Report for Dominion Voting Systems,
Democracy Suite 5-4-A)
13.
Defendants Kemp and Raffensperger disregarded all the concerns that
caused Dominion software to be rejected by the Texas Board of Elections in
2018, namely that it was vulnerable to undetected and non-auditable
manipulation. An industry expert, Dr. Andrew Appel, Princeton Professor of
Computer Science and Election Security Expert has recently observed, with
reference to Dominion Voting machines: "I figured out how to make a slightly
different computer program that just before the polls were closed, it switches
some votes around from one candidate to another. I wrote that computer
program into a memory chip and now to hack a voting machine you just need
7 minutes alone with it and a screwdriver." (Attached hereto Exh. 7, Study,
Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters by
Andrew W. Appel Princeton University, Richard A. DeMillo, Georgia Tech
Philip B. Stark, for the Univ. of California, Berkeley, December 27, 2019).5

5
Full unredacted copies of all exhibits have been filed under seal with the Court and Plaintiffs
have simultaneously moved for a protective order.
9
14.
As explained and demonstrated in the accompanying redacted
declaration of a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military
Intelligence with experience gathering SAM missile system electronic
intelligence, the Dominion software was accessed by agents acting on behalf
of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the
most recent US general election in 2020. This Declaration further includes a
copy of the patent records for Dominion Systems in which Eric Coomer is
listed as the first of the inventors of Dominion Voting Systems. (See
Attached hereto as Exh. 8, copy of redacted witness affidavit, 17 pages,
November 23, 2020).
15.
Expert Navid Keshavarez-Nia explains that US intelligence services
had developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems including Dominion.
He states that Dominion’s software is vulnerable to data manipulation by
unauthorized means and permitted election data to be altered in all
battleground states. He concludes that hundreds of thousands of votes that
were cast for President Trump in the 2020 general election were transferred
to former Vice-President Biden. (Exh. 26).

10
16.
Additionally, incontrovertible evidence Board of Elections records
demonstrates that at least 96,600 absentee ballots were requested and
counted but were never recorded as being returned to county election boards
by the voter. Thus, at a minimum, 96,600 votes must be disregarded. (See
Attached hereto, Exh. 9, R. Ramsland Aff.).
17.
The Dominion system used in Georgia erodes and undermines the
reconciliation of the number of voters and the number of ballots cast, such
that these figures are permitted to be unreconciled, opening the door to ballot
stuffing and fraud. The collapse of reconciliation was seen in Georgia’s
primary and runoff elections this year, and in the November election, where
it was discovered during the hand audit that 3,300 votes were found on
memory sticks that were not uploaded on election night, plus in Floyd county,
another 2,600 absentee ballots had not been scanned. These “found votes”
reduced Biden’s lead over Donald Trump6.

6 Recount find thousands of Georgia votes, Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Mark Niesse and
David Wickert,11/19/20. https://www.ajc.com/politics/recount-finds-thousands-of-georgiavotes-missing-from-initial-counts/ERDRNXPH3REQTM4SOINPSEP72M/
11
18.
Georgia’s election officials and poll workers exacerbated and helped,
whether knowingly or unknowingly, the Dominion system carry out massive
voter manipulation by refusing to observe statutory safeguards for absentee
ballots. Election officials failed to verify signatures and check security
envelopes. They barred challengers from observing the count, which also
facilitated the fraud.
19.
Expert analysis of the actual vote set forth below demonstrates that at
least 96,600 votes were illegally counted during the Georgia 2020 general
election. All of the evidence and allegation herein is more than sufficient to
place the result of the election in doubt. More evidence arrives by the day
and discovery should be ordered immediately.
20.
Georgia law, (OCGA 21-5-552) provides for a contest of an election
where:
(1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election
official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result; . .
. (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at
the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result; (4) For any
error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or
election, if such error would change the result; or (5) For any other
cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated,
elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.
12
21.
As further set forth below, all of the above grounds have been satisfied
and compel this Court to set aside the 2020 General Election results which
fraudulently concluded that Mr. Biden defeated President Trump by 12,670
votes.
22.
Separately, and independently, there are sufficient Constitutional
grounds to set aside the election results due to the Defendants’ failure to
observe statutory requirements for the processing and counting of absentee
ballots which led to the tabulation of more than fifty thousand illegal ballots.
THE PARTIES
23.
Plaintiff Coreco Ja’Qan (“CJ”) Pearson, is a registered voter who
resides in Augusta, Georgia. He is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia. He has standing to
bring this action under Carson v. Simon, 2020 US App Lexis 34184 (8th Cir.
Oct. 29, 2020). He brings this action to set aside and decertify the election
results for the Office of President of the United States that was certified by
the Georgia Secretary of State on November 20, 2020. The certified results
showed a plurality of 12,670 votes in favor of former Vice-President Joe Biden
over President Trump.
13
24.
Plaintiff Vikki Townsend Consiglio, is a registered voter who resides in
Henry County, Georgia. She is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia.
25.
Plaintiff Gloria Kay Godwin, is a registered voter who resides in
Pierece County, Georgia. She is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia.
26.
Plaintiff James Kenneth Carroll, is a registered voter who resides in
Dodge County, Georgia. He is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia.
27.
Plaintiff Carolyn Hall Fisher, is a registered voter who resides in
Forsyth County, Georgia. She is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia.
28.
Plaintiff Cathleen Alston Latham, is a registered voter who resides in
Coffee County, Georgia. She is a nominee of the Republican Party to be a
Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Georgia.
14
29.
Plaintiff Jason M. Shepherd is the Chairman of the Cobb County
Republican Party and brings this action in his official capacity on behalf of
the Cobb County Republican Party.
30.
Plaintiff Brian Jay Van Gundy is registered voter in Gwinnett County,
Georgia. He is the Assistant Secretary of the Georgia Republican Party.
31.
Defendant Governor Brian Kemp (Governor of Georgia) is named
herein in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia. On or
about June 9, 2019, Governor Kemp bought the new Dominion Voting
Systems for Georgia, budgeting 150 million dollars for the machines. Critics
are quoted, “Led by Abrams, Democrats fought the legislation and pointed to
cybersecurity experts who warned it would leave Georgia's elections
susceptible to hacking and tampering.” And “Just this week, the Fair Fight
voting rights group started by [Stacy] Abrams launched a television ad
critical of the bill. In a statement Thursday, the group called it “corruption at
its worst” and a waste of money on “hackable voting machines.”7

7 Georgia Governor Inks Law to Replace Voting Machines, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
AJC News Now, Credit: Copyright 2019 The Associated Press, June 2019
15
32.
Defendant Brad Raffensperger ("Secretary Raffensperger") is named
herein in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Georgia and
the Chief Election Official for the State of Georgia pursuant to Georgia’s
Election Code and O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50. Secretary Raffensperger is a state
official subject to suit in his official capacity because his office "imbues him
with the responsibility to enforce the [election laws]." Grizzle v. Kemp, 634
F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011). Secretary Raffensperger serves as the
Chairperson of Georgia's State Election Board, which promulgates and
enforces rules and regulations to (i) obtain uniformity in the practices and
proceedings of election officials as well as legality and purity in all primaries
and general elections, and (ii) be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly
conduct of primaries and general elections. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-30(d), 21-2-
31, 21-2-33.1. Secretary Raffensperger, as Georgia's chief elections officer, is
further responsible for the administration of the state laws affecting voting,
including the absentee voting system. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(b).
33.
Defendants Rebecca N. Sullivan, David J. Worley, Matthew Mashburn,
and Anh Le (hereinafter the "State Election Board") are members of the State
Election Board in Georgia, responsible for "formulating, adopting, and
promulgating such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as will be
16
conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections."
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(2). Further, the State Election Board "promulgate[s] rules
and regulations to define uniform and nondiscriminatory standards
concerning what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for
each category of voting system" in Georgia. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(7). The State
Election Board, personally and through the conduct of the Board's employees,
officers, agents, and servants, acted under color of state law at all times
relevant to this action and are sued for emergency declaratory and injunctive
relief in their official capacities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
34.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which
provides, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
35.
This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343
because this action involves a federal election for President of the United
States. “A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing
Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” Bush v.
Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); Smiley v. Holm,
285 U.S. 355, 365 (1932).
17
36.
The jurisdiction of the Court to grant declaratory relief is conferred by
28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 and by Rule 57 and 65, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.
37.
This Court has jurisdiction over the related Georgia Constitutional
claims and State law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
38.
In Georgia, the "legislature" is the General Assembly. See Ga. Const.
Art. III, § I, Para. I.
39.
Because the United States Constitution reserves for state legislatures
the power to set the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congress
and the President, state executive officers, including but not limited to
Secretary Raffensperger, have no authority to exercise that power
unilaterally, much less flout existing legislation or the Constitution itself.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
40.
Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and
under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522 to remedy deprivations of rights,
18
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States and to contest the election results.
41.
The United States Constitution sets forth the authority to regulate
federal elections, the Constitution provides:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. U.S.
CONST. art. I, § 4 (“Elections Clause”).
42.
With respect to the appointment of presidential electors, the
Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled
in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
Elector. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1 (“Electors Clause”).
43.
Neither Defendant is a “Legislature” as required under the Elections
Clause or Electors Clause. The Legislature is “‘the representative body which
ma[kes] the laws of the people.’” Smiley 285 U.S. 365. Regulations of
congressional and presidential elections, thus, “must be in accordance with
19
the method which the state has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Id. at
367; see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576
U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (U.S. 2015).
44.
While the Elections Clause "was not adopted to diminish a State's
authority to determine its own lawmaking processes," Ariz. State Legislature,
135 S. Ct. at 2677, it does hold states accountable to their chosen processes
when it comes to regulating federal elections, id. at 2668. "A significant
departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors
presents a federal constitutional question." Bush, 531 U.S. at 113 (Rehnquist,
C.J., concurring); Smiley, 285 U.S. at 365.
45.
Plaintiffs also bring this action under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522,
Grounds for Contest:
A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of
the following grounds:
(1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election
official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;
(2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in
dispute;
(3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at
the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;
(4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the
primary or election, if such error would change the result; or
20
(5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person
legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary
or election.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522.
46.
Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-10, Presidential Electors are elected.
47.
Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(l)(B), the Georgia Legislature instructed
the county registrars and clerks (the "County Officials") to handle the
absentee ballots as directed therein. The Georgia Legislature set forth the
procedures to be used by each municipality for appointing the absentee ballot
clerks to ensure that such clerks would "perform the duties set forth in this
Article." See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-380.1.
48.
The Georgia Election Code instructs those who handle absentee ballots
to follow a clear procedure:
Upon receipt of each [absentee] ballot, a registrar or clerk shall write
the day and hour of the receipt of the ballot on its envelope. The
registrar or clerk shall then compare the identifying information
on the oath with the information on file in his or her office, shall
compare the signature or make on the oath with the signature or
mark on the absentee elector's voter card or the most recent update
to such absentee elector's voter registration card and application for
absentee ballot or a facsimile of said signature or maker taken from
said card or application, and shall, if the information and signature
appear to be valid and other identifying information appears to be
correct, so certify by signing or initialing his or her name below the
21
voter's oath. Each elector's name so certified shall be listed by the
registrar or clerk on the numbered list of absentee voters prepared
for his or her precinct.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(l )(B) (emphasis added).
49.
Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(l)(C), the Georgia Legislature also
established a clear and efficient process to be used by County Officials if
they determine that an elector has failed to sign the oath on the outside
envelope enclosing the ballot or that the signature does not conform with
the signature on file in the registrar's or clerk's office (a "defective absentee
ballot").
50.
The Georgia Legislature also provided for the steps to be followed by
County Officials with respect to defective absentee ballots:
If the elector has failed to sign the oath, or if the
signature does not appear to be valid, or if the elector has failed
to furnish required information or information so furnished does
not conform with that on file in the registrar's or clerk's office,
or if the elector is otherwise found disqualified to vote, the registrar
or clerk shall write across the face of the envelope "Rejected," giving
the reason therefor. The board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk
shall promptly notify the elector of such rejection, a copy of which
notification shall be retained in the files of the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk for at least one year.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2 -386(a) (l)(C) (emphasis added).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
22
I. DEFENDANTS' UNAUTHORIZED ACTIONS VIOLATED THE
GEORGIA ELECTION CODE AND CAUSED THE PROCESSING OF
DEFECTIVE ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
51.
Notwithstanding the clarity of the applicable statutes and the
constitutional authority for the Georgia Legislature's actions, on March 6,
2020, the Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, Secretary Raffensperger,
and the State Election Board, who administer the state elections (the
"Administrators") entered into a "Compromise and Settlement Agreement
and Release" (the "Litigation Settlement") with the Democratic Party of
Georgia, Inc., the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (collectively, the "Democrat
Party Agencies"), setting forth different standards to be followed by the clerks
and registrars in processing absentee ballots in the State of Georgia8.
52.
Under the Settlement, however, the Administrators agreed to change
the statutorily prescribed manner of handling absentee ballots in a manner
that is not consistent with the laws promulgated by the Georgia Legislature
for elections in this state.

8 See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc., et al. v. Raffensperger, et al., Civil Action File
No. 1:l 9-cv-05028-WMR, United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, Doc. 56-1.
23
53.
The Settlement provides that the Secretary of State would issue an
"Official Election Bulletin" to county Administrators overriding the statutory
procedures prescribed for those officials. That power, however, does not
belong to the Secretary of State under the United States Constitution.
54.
The Settlement also changed the signature requirement reducing it to a
broad process with discretion, rather than enforcement of the signature
requirement as statutorily required under O.C.G.A. 21-2-386(a)(l).
55.
The Georgia Legislature instructed county registers and clerks (the
“County Officials”) regarding the handling of absentee ballots in O.C.G.A. S
21-2-386(a)(1)(B), 21-2-380.1. The Georgia Election Code instructs those who
handle absentee ballots to follow a clear procedure:
Upon receipt of each absentee ballot, a registrar or clerk shall write
the day and hour of the receipt of the ballot on its envelope. The
registrar or clerk shall then compare the identifying information on
the oath with the information on file in his or her office, shall
compare the signature or make on the oath with the signature or
mark on the absentee elector’s voter card or the most recent update
to such absent elector’s voter registration card and application for
absentee ballot or a facsimile of said signature or maker taken from
said card or application, and shall, if the information and signature
appear to be valid and other identifying information appears to be
correct, so certify by signing or initialing his or her name below the
voter’s oath …
24
O.C.G.A. S 21-2-386(a)(1)(B).
56.
The Georgia Legislature prescribed procedures to ensure that any
request for an absentee ballot must be accompanied by sufficient
identification of the elector's identity. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-38 l(b )(1)
(providing, in pertinent part, "In order to be found eligible to vote an
absentee ballot in person at the registrar's office or absentee ballot clerk's
office, such person shall show one of the forms of identification listed in Code
Section 21-2-417 ...").
57.
An Affiant testified, under oath, that “It was also of particular interest
to me to see that signatures were not being verified and that there were no
corresponding envelopes seen in site.” (Attached hereto as Exh. 10, Mayra
Romera, at par. 7).
58.
To reflect the very reason for process, it was documented that in the
primary election, prior to the November 3, 2020 Presidential election, many
ballots got to voters after the election. Further it was confirmed that “Untold
thousands of absentee ballot requests went unfulfilled, and tens of thousands
of mailed ballots were rejected for multiple reasons including arriving too late
25
to be counted. See the Associated Press, Vote-by-Mail worries: A leaky
pipeline in many states, August 8, 2020.9
59.
Pursuant to the Settlement, the Administrators delegated their
responsibilities for determining when there was a signature mismatch by
considering in good faith only partisan-based training - "additional guidance
and training materials" drafted by the Democrat Party Agencies’
representatives contradicting O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31.
B. UNLAWFUL EARLY PROCESSING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS
60.
In April 2020, the State Election Board adopted on a purportedly
“Emergency Basis” Secretary of State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15, Processing
Ballots Prior to Election Day. Under this rule, county election officials are
authorized to begin processing absentee ballots up to three weeks befoe
election day. Thus, the rule provides in part that “(1) Beginning at 8:00 AM
on the third Monday prior to Election Day, the county election
superintendent shall be authorized to open the outer envelope of
accepted absentee ballots …” (Emphasis added).

9 https://apnews.com/article/u-s-news-ap-top-news-election-2020-technology-politics52e87011f4d04e41bfffccd64fc878e7
26
61.
Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(2), which prohibits the opening of absentee ballots
until election day:
After the opening of the polls on the day of the primary, election,
or runoff, the registrars or absentee ballot clerks shall be
authorized to open the outer envelope on which is printed the
oath of the elector in such a manner as not to destroy the oath printed
thereon; provided, however, that the registrars or absentee ballot
clerk shall not be authorized to remove the contents of such outer
envelope or to open the inner envelope marked “Official Absentee
Ballot,” except as otherwise provided in this Code section.
(Emphasis added).
62.
In plain terms, the statute clearly prohibits opening absentee ballots
prior to election day, while the rule authorizes doing so three weeks before
election day. There is no reconciling this conflict. The State Election Board
has authority under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31 to adopt lawful and legal rules and
regulations, but no authority to promulgate a regulation that is directly
contrary to an unambiguous statute. Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 is therefore
plainly and indisputably unlawful.
63.
The State Election Board re-adopted Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 on
November 23, 2020 for the upcoming January 2021 runoff election.
27
C. UNLAWFUL AUDIT PROCEDURES
64.
According to Secretary Raffensperger, in the presidential general
election, 2,457,880 votes were cast in Georgia for President Donald J. Trump,
and 2,472,002 votes were cast for Joseph R. Biden, which narrowed in
Donald Trump’s favor after the most recent recount.
65.
Secretary Raffensperger declared that for the Hand Recount:
Per the instructions given to counties as they conduct their audit
triggered full hand recounts, designated monitors will be given
complete access to observe the process from the beginning. While the
audit triggered recount must be open to the public and media,
designated monitors will be able to observe more closely. The general
public and the press will be restricted to a public viewing area.
Designated monitors will be able to watch the recount while standing
close to the elections’ workers conducting the recount.
Political parties are allowed to designate a minimum of two monitors
per county at a ratio of one monitor per party for every ten audit
boards in a county... Beyond being able to watch to ensure the
recount is conducted fairly and securely, the two-person audit boards
conducting the hand recount call out the votes as they are recounted
, providing monitors and the public an additional way to keep tabs
on the process.10

10 Office of Brad Raffensperger, Monitors Closely Observing Audit-Triggered Full Hand
Recount: Transparency is Built Into Process,
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/monitors_closely_observing_audittriggered_full_hand_recount_transparency_is_built_into_process
28
66.
The audit was conducted O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498. This code section
requires that audits be completed “in public view” and authorizes the State
Board of Elections to promulgate regulations to administer an audit “to
ensure that collection of validly cast ballots is complete, accurate and
trustworthy throughout the audit.”
67.
Plaintiffs can show that Democrat-majority counties provided political
parties and candidates, including the Trump Campaign, no meaningful
access or actual opportunity to review and assess the validity of mail-in
ballots during the pre-canvassing meetings. While in the audit or recount,
they witnessed Trump votes being put into Biden piles.
68.
Non-parties Amanda Coleman and Maria Diedrich are two individuals
who volunteered to serve as designated monitors for the Donald J. Trump
Presidential Campaign, Inc. (the "Trump Campaign") on behalf of the
Georgia Republican Party (the "Republican Party") at the Hand Recount.
(Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits 2 and 3), respectively,
are true and correct copies of (1) the Affidavit of Amanda Coleman in Support
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the "Coleman
Affidavit"), and (2) the Affidavit of Maria Diedrich in Support of Plaintiffs'
29
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the "Diedrich Affidavit"). (See
Exh. 11, Coleman Aff.,2; Exh. 12, Diedrich Aff., 2.)
69.
The Affidavits set forth various conduct amounting to federal crimes,
clear improprieties, insufficiencies, and improper handling of ballots by
County Officials and their employees that Ms. Coleman and Ms. Diedrich
personally observed while monitoring the Hand Recount. (See Exh. 11,
Coleman Aff., 3-10; Exh. 12, Diedrich Aff., 4-14.)
70.
As a result of her observations of the Hand Recount as a Republican
Party monitor, Ms. Diedrich declared, "There had been no meaningful way to
review or audit any activity" at the Hand Recount. (See Exh. 12, Diedrich
Aff.,14.)
71.
As a result of their observations of the Hand Recount as Republican
Party monitors, Ms. Coleman likewise declared, "There was no way to tell if
any counting was accurate or if the activity was proper." (See Exh. 12,
Coleman Aff.,10).
72.
On Election Day, when the Republican poll watchers were, for a limited
time, present and allowed to observe in various polling locations, they
30
observed and reported numerous instances of election workers failing to
follow the statutory mandates relating to two critical requirements, among
other issues:
(1) a voter’s right to spoil their mail-in ballot at their polling
place on election day and to then vote in-person, and
(2) the ability for voters to vote provisionally on election day
when a mail-in ballot has already been received for them, but when
they did not cast those mail-in ballots, who sought to vote in person
during early voting but was told she already voted; she emphasized
that she had not. The clerk told her he would add her manually with
no explanation as to who or how someone voted using her name.
(Attached hereto as Exh. 13, Aff. Ursula Wolf)
73.
Another observer for the ballot recount testified that “at no time did I
witness any Recounter or individual participate in the recount verifying
signatures [on mail-in ballots].” (Attached hereto as Exh. 14, Nicholas Zeher
Aff).
74.
In some counties, there was no actual "hand" recounting of the ballots
during the Hand Recount, but rather, County Officials and their employees
31
simply conducted another machine count of the same ballots. (See. Exh. 9,
10). That will not reveal the massive fraud of which plaintiffs complain.
75.
A large number of ballots were identical and likely fraudulent. An
Affiant explains that she observed a batch of utterly pristine ballots:
14. Most of the ballots had already been handled; they had been
written on by people, and the edges were worn. They showed obvious
use. However, one batch stood out. It was pristine. There was a
difference in the texture of the paper - it was if they were intended
for absentee use but had not been used for that purposes. There was
a difference in the feel.
15. These different ballots included a slight depressed pre-fold so
they could be easily folded and unfolded for use in the scanning
machines. There were no markings on the ballots to show where they
had com~ from, or where they had been processed. These stood out.
16. In my 20 years of experience of handling ballots, I observed that
the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually
uniform, perhaps even with a ballot-marking device. By my estimate
in observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for
Joe Biden. I only observed two of these ballots as votes for President
Donald J. Trump.” (See Exh. 15 Attached hereto).
76.
The same Affiant further testified specifically to the breach of the chain
of custody of the voting machines the night before the election stating:
we typically receive the machines, the ballot marking devices – on
the Friday before the election, with a chain of custody letter to be
signed on Sunday, indicating that we had received the machines and
the counts on the machines when received, and that the machines
have been sealed. In this case, we were asked to sign the chain
of custody letter on Sunday, even though the machines were
not delivered until 2:00 AM in the morning on Election Day.
32
The Milton precinct received its machines at 1:00 AM in the morning
on Election Day. This is unacceptable and voting machines should
[not] be out of custody prior to an Election Day. Id.
II. EVIDENCE OF

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ERN SHOWING THE ABSENCE OF MISTAKE
77.
The stunning pattern of the nature and acts of fraud demonstrate an
absence of mistake.
78.
The same Affiant further explained, in sworn testimony, that the
breach included: “when we did receive the machines, they were not sealed or
locked, the serial numbers were not what were reflected on the related
documentation…” See Id.
79.
An affiant testified that “While in Henry County, I personally
witnessed ballots cast for Donald Trump being placed in the pile for Joseph
Biden, I witnessed this happen at table “A”.’ (See Exh. 14, par. 27).
80.
The Affiant further testified, that “when this was brought to Ms. Pitts
attention, it was met with extreme hostility. At no time did I witness any
ballot cast for Joseph Biden be placed in the pile for Donald Trump. (See
Exh. 14, par. 28).
33
81.
Another Affiant in the mail-in ballot and absentee ballot recounting
process, testified in her sworn affidavit, that “on November 16, 2020 … It was
also of particular interest to me to see that signatures were not being verified
and there were no corresponding envelopes seen in sight.” (See Exh. 10, at
Par. 7).
82.
Yet another Affiant, in the recount process, testified that he received
push back and a lack of any cooperation and was even threatened as if he did
something wrong, when he pointed out the failure to follow the rules with the
observers while open mail-in ballot re-counting was occurring, stating:
“However, as an observer, I observed that the precinct had twelve
(12) counting tables, but only one (1) monitor from the Republican
Party. I brought it up to Erica Johnston since the recount rules
provided for one (1) monitor from each Party per ten (10) tables or
part thereof…”
(See Attached hereto, Exh. 16, Ibrahim Reyes Aff.)
83.
Another Affiant explains a pattern of behavior that is alarming, in his
position as an observer in the recount on absentee ballots with barcodes, he
testified:
I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated paper
machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray,
placing them in to the Biden tray. I also witnessed the same two
poll workers putting the already separated paper receipt ballots in
34
the “No Vote” and “Jorgensen” tray, and removing them and putting
them inside the Biden tray, They then took out all of the ballots out
of the Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count
ballot sheet.
(See Attached hereto, Exh.17, pars. 4-5, Aff. of Consetta Johson).
84.
Another Affiant, a Democrat, testified in his sworn affidavit, that
before he was forced to move back to where he could not see, he had in fact
seen “absentee ballots for Trump inserted into Biden’s stack, and counted as
Biden votes. This occurred a few times”. (See attached hereto, Exh. 18 at
Par. 12, Aff. of Carlos Silva).
85.
Yet another Affiant testified about the lack of process and the hostility
only towards the Republican party, which is a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. He testified:
I also observed throughout my three days in Atlanta, not once did
anyone verify these ballots. In fact, there was no authentication
process in place and no envelopes were observed or allowed to be
observed. I saw hostility towards Republican observers but never
towards Democrat observers. Both were identified by badges.
(See Id., at pars. 13-14).
86.
Another Affiant explained that his ballot was not only not processed in
accordance with Election law, he witnessed people reviewing his ballot to
decide where to place it, which violated the privacy of his ballot, and when he
35
tried to report it to a voter fraud line, he never received any contact or
cooperation stating:
“I voted early on October 12 at the precinct at Lynwood Park …
Because of irregularities at the polling location, I called the voter
fraud line to ask why persons were discussing my ballot and
reviewing it to decide where to place it. When I called the state fraud
line, I was directed to a worker in the office of the Secretary of
State…”
(See Attached hereto, Exh. 19, Andrea ONeal Aff, at par. 3).
87.
He further testified that when he was an Observer at the Lithonia
location, he saw many irregularities, and specifically “saw an auditor sort
Biden votes that he collected and sorted into ten ballot stacks, which [the
auditor] did not show anyone.” Id. at p. 8.
88.
Another Affiant testified about the use of different paper for ballots,
that would constitute fraud stating:
I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden.
Many batches went 100% for Biden. I also observed that the
watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of
transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I
challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate
ballot and was due to the use of different printers. Many ballots had
markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot.
(See Attached hereto, Exh. 20, Aff of Debra J. Fisher, at pars. 4, 5, 6).
36
89.
An Affiant testified, that while at the Audit, ‘While in Henry County,
I personally witnessed ballots cast for Donald Trump being placed in
the pile for Joseph Biden. I witnessed this happen at table “A”’. (See
attached hereto as Exh. 22, Kevin Peterford, at par. 29). Another Affiant
testified, that “I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated
paper machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray,
placing them in to the Biden tray. I also witnessed the same two poll
workers putting the already separated paper receipt abllots in the “No
Vote” and “Jorgensen” tray, and removing them and putting them
inside the Biden tray, They then took out all of the ballots out of the
Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count ballot
sheet. (See Exh. 17, Johnson, pars. 4-5).
90.
Another Affiant, a Democrat, testified in his sworn affidavit,
before he was forced to move back to where he could not see, he had
in fact seen, “I also saw absentee ballots for Trump inserted
37
into Biden’s stack, and counted as Biden votes. This occurred
a few times”. (See Exh. 18, Par. 12).
91.
A Republican National Committee monitor in Georgia’s election
recount, Hale Soucie, told an undercover journalist there are individuals
counting ballots who have made continuous errors,” writes O’Keefe. Project
Veritas, Watch: Latest Project Veritas Video reveals “Multiple Ballots Meant
for Trump Went to Biden in Georgia.11
B. THE VOTING MACHINES, SECRECY
SOFTWARE USED BY VOTING MACHINES THROUGHOUT GEORGIA
IS CRUCIAL
92.
These violations of federal and state laws impacted the election of
November 3, 2020 and set the predicate for the evidence of deliberate
fraudulent conduct, manipulation, and lack of mistake that follows. The
commonality and statewide nature of these legal violations renders
certification of the legal vote untenable and warrants immediate

11 https://hannity.com/media-room/watch-latest-project-veritas-video-reveals-multipleballots-meant-for-trump-went-to-biden-in-georgia/
38
impoundment of voting machines and software used throughout Georgia for
expert inspection and retrieval of the software.
93.
An Affiant, who is a network & information cyber-security expert,
under sworn testimony explains that after studying the user manual for
Dominion Voting Systems Democracy software, he learned that the
information about scanned ballots can be tracked inside the software
system for Dominion:
(a) When bulk ballot scanning and tabulation begins, the
"ImageCast Central" workstation operator will load a batch of ballots
into the scanner feed tray and then start the scanning procedure
within the software menu. The scanner then begins to scan the
ballots which were loaded into the feed tray while the "ImageCast
Central" software application tabulates votes in real-time.
Information about scanned ballots can be tracked inside the
"ImageCast Central" software application.
(See attached hereto Exh 22, Declaration of Ronald Watkins, at par. 11).
94.
Affiant further explains that the central operator can remove
or discard batches of votes. “After all of the ballots loaded into the
scanner's feed tray have been through the scanner, the "ImageCast Central"
operator will remove the ballots from the tray then have the option to either
"Accept Batch" or "Discard Batch" on the scanning menu …. “(Id. at par. 8).
39
95.
Affiant further testifies that the Dominion/ Smartmatic user manual
itself makes clear that the system allows for threshold settings to be set to
mark all ballots as “problem ballots” for discretionary determinations on where
the vote goes. It states:
During the scanning process, the "ImageCast Central" software will
detect how much of a percent coverage of the oval was filled in by the
voter. The Dominion customer determines the thresholds of which the
oval needs to be covered by a mark in order to qualify as a valid vote.
If a ballot has a marginal mark which did not meet the specific
thresholds set by the customer, then the ballot is considered a
"problem ballot" and may be set aside into a folder named
"NotCastImages". Through creatively tweaking the oval coverage
threshold settings it should be possible to set thresholds in such a way
that a non-trivial amount of ballots are marked "problem ballots" and
sent to the "NotCastImages" folder. It is possible for an administrator
of the ImageCast Central work station to view all images of scanned
ballots which were deemed "problem ballots" by simply navigating via
the standard "Windows File Explorer" to the folder named
"NotCastImages" which holds ballot scans of "problem ballots". It is
possible for an administrator of the "ImageCast Central" workstation
to view and delete any individual ballot scans from the
"NotCastImages" folder by simply using the standard Windows delete
and recycle bin functions provided by the Windows 10 Pro operating
system.
Id. at pars. 9-10.
96.
The Affiant further explains the vulnerabilities in the system when the
copy of the selected ballots that are approved in the Results folder are made
40
to a flash memory card – and that is connected to a Windows computer
stating:
It is possible for an administrator of the "ImageCast Central"
workstation to view and delete any individual ballot scans from the
"NotCastImages" folder by simply using the standard Windows delete
and recycle bin functions provided by the Windows 10 Pro operating
system. … The upload process is just a simple copying of a "Results"
folder containing vote tallies to a flash memory card connected to the
"Windows 10 Pro" machine. The copy process uses the standard dragn-drop or copy/paste mechanisms within the ubiquitous "Windows
File Explorer". While a simple procedure, this process may be error
prone and is very vulnerable to malicious administrators.
Id. at par. 11-13 (emphasis supplied).
97.
It was announced on “Monday, [July 29, 2019], [that] Governor Kemp
awarded a contract for 30,000 new voting machines to Dominion Voting
Systems, scrapping the state’s 17-year-old electronic voting equipment and
replacing it with touchscreens that print out paper ballots.”12 Critics are
quoted: “Led by Abrams, Democrats fought the legislation and pointed to
cybersecurity experts who warned it would leave Georgia's elections
susceptible to hacking and tampering.” And “Just this week, the Fair Fight
voting rights group started by [Stacy] Abrams launched a television ad

12 Georgia Buys New Voting Machines for 2020 Presidential Election, by Mark Niesse, the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 30, 2019, https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--
politics/georgia-awards-contract-for-new-election-system-dominionvoting/tHh3V8KZnZivJoVzZRLO4O/
41
critical of the bill. In a statement Thursday, the group called it “corruption at
its worst” and a waste of money on “hackable voting machines.”13
98.
It was further reported in 2019 that the new Dominion Voting
Machines in Georgia “[w]ith Georgia’s current voting system, there’s no way
to guarantee that electronic ballots accurately reflect the choices of
voters because there’s no paper backup to verify results, with it being
reported that:
(a) Recounts are meaningless on the direct-recording electronic
voting machines because they simply reproduce the same numbers
they originally generated.
(b) But paper ballots alone won’t protect the sanctity of elections
on the new touchscreens, called ballot-marking devices.
(c) The new election system depends on voters to verify the printed
text of their choices on their ballots, a step that many voters might
not take. The State Election Board hasn't yet created regulations for
how recounts and audits will be conducted. And paper ballots embed
selections in bar codes that are only readable by scanning machines,
leaving Georgians uncertain whether the bar codes match their
votes.14

13 Georgia Governor Inks Law to Replace Voting Machines, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
AJC News Now, by Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse, June 14, 2019; Credit: Copyright 2019 The
Associated Press, June 2019
42
i. As part of the scheme and artifice to defraud the plaintiffs, the
candidates and the voters of undiminished and unaltered voting
results in a free and legal election, the Defendants and other persons
known and unknown committed the following violations of law:
50 U.S.C. § 20701 requires the retention and preservation of records
and papers by officers of elections under penalty of fine and imprisonment:
§ 20701. Retention and preservation of records and papers by
officers of elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for
violation
Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of
twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary
election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice
President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the
House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for, all records and
papers which come into his possession relating to any
application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act
requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required
by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer
of election and except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and
papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be
deposited with such custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve
any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon such custodian.
Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with
this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
50 U.S.C.§ 20701.
99.
In the primaries it was confirmed that, “The rapid introduction of new
technologies and processes in state voting systems heightens the risk of
43
foreign interference and insider tampering. That’s true even if simple human
error or local maneuvering for political advantage are more likely threats15.
100.
A Penn Wharton Study from 2016 concluded that “Voters and their
representatives in government, often prompted by news of high-profile voting
problems, also have raised concerns about the reliability and integrity of the
voting process, and have increasingly called for the use of modern technology
such as laptops and tablets to improve convenience.”16
101.
As evidence of the defects or features of the Dominion Democracy Suite,
as described above, the same Dominion Democracy Suite was denied
certification in Texas by the Secretary of State on January 24, 2020
specifically because of a lack of evidence of efficiency and accuracy and
to be safe from fraud or unauthorized manipulation.17

15 See Threats to Georgia Elections Loom Despite New Paper Ballot Voting, By Mark Niesse, The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution and (The AP, Vote-by-Mail worries: A leaky pipeline in many states,
August 8, 2020).
16 Penn Wharton Study by Matt Caufield, The Business of Voting, July 2018.
17 Attached hereto, Exh. 23, copy of Report of Review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy
Suite 5.5-A Elections Division by the Secretary of State’s office, Elections Division, January 24,
2020.
44
102.
Plaintiffs have since learned that the "glitches" in the Dominion
system–that have the uniform effect of taking votes from Trump and shifting
them to Biden—have been widely reported in the press and confirmed by the
analysis of independent experts.
103.
Plaintiffs can show, through expert and fact witnesses that:
c. Dominion/ Smartmatic Systems Have Massive End User
Vulnerabilities.
1. Users on the ground have full admin privileges to machines and
software. Having been created to “rig” elections, the Dominion
system is designed to facilitate vulnerability and allow a select few
to determine which votes will be counted in any election. Workers
were responsible for moving ballot data from polling place to the
collector’s office and inputting it into the correct folder. Any
anomaly, such as pen drips or bleeds, results in a ballot being
rejected. It is then handed over to a poll worker to analyze and
decide if it should count. This creates massive opportunity for purely
discretionary and improper vote “adjudication.”
2. Affiant witness (name redacted for security reasons18), in his sworn
testimony explains he was selected for the national security guard
detail of the President of Venezuela, and that he witnessed the
creation of Smartmatic for the purpose of election vote manipulation
to insure Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez never lost an election
and he saw it work. Id.
“The purpose of this conspiracy was to create and operate a voting
system that could change the votes in elections from votes against

45
persons running the Venezuelan government to votes in their
favor in order to maintain control of the government.”
(See Exh. 2, pars. 6, 9, 10).
104.
Smartmatic’s incorporators and inventors have backgrounds evidencing
their foreign connections, including Venezuela and Serbia, specifically its
identified inventors:
Applicant: SMARTMATIC, CORP.
Inventors: Lino Iglesias, Roger Pinate, Antonio Mugica, Paul Babic,
Jeffrey Naveda, Dany Farina, Rodrigo Meneses, Salvador Ponticelli,
Gisela Goncalves, Yrem Caruso.19
105.
The presence of Smartmatic in the United States—owned by foreign
nationals, and Dominion, a Canadian company with its offices such as the
Office of General Counsel in Germany, would have to be approved by CFIUS.
CFIUS was created in 1988 by the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense
Production Act of 1950. CFIUS’ authorizing statute was amended by the
Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA).
As amended, section 721 of the DPA directs "the President, acting
through [CFIUS]," to review a "covered transaction to determine
the effects of the transaction on the national security of the
United States." 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170(b)(1)(A). Section 721 defines

19 https://patents.justia.com/assignee/smartmatic-corp
46
a covered transaction as "any merger, acquisition, or takeover …, by
or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any
person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States." Id. §
2170(a)(3). Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv., 758 F.3d 296, 302,
411 U.S. App. D.C. 105, 111, (2014). Review of covered transactions
under section 721 begins with CFIUS. As noted, CFIUS is chaired by
the Treasury Secretary and its members include the heads of
various federal agencies and other high-ranking Government
officials with foreign policy, national security and economic
responsibilities.
106.
Then Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney wrote October 6, 2006 to the
Secretary of Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Objecting to approval of
Dominion/Smartmatic by CFIUS because of its corrupt Venezuelan
origination, ownership and control. (See attached hereto as Exh. 24, Carolyn
Maloney Letter of October 6, 2006). Our own government has long known of
this foreign interference on our most important right to vote, and it had
either responded with incompetence, negligence, willful blindness, or abject
corruption. In every CFIUS case, there are two TS/SCI reports generated.
One by the ODNI on the threat and one by DHS on risk to critical
infrastructure. Smartmatic was a known problem when it was nonetheless
approved by CFIUS.
107.
The Wall Street Journal in 2006 did an investigative piece and found
that, “Smartmatic came to prominence in 2004 when its machines were used
47
in an election to recall President Chávez, which Mr. Chávez won handily --
and which the Venezuelan opposition said was riddled with fraud.
Smartmatic put together a consortium to conduct the recall elections,
including a company called Bizta Corp., in which Smartmatic owners had a
large stake. For a time, the Venezuelan government had a 28% stake in Bizta
in exchange for a loan.’
20 …“Bizta paid off the loan in 2004, and Smartmatic
bought the company the following year. But accusations of Chávez
government control of Smartmatic never ended, especially since Smartmatic
scrapped a simple corporate structure, in which it was based in the U.S. with
a Venezuelan subsidiary, for a far more complex arrangement. The company
said it made the change for tax reasons, but critics, including Rep. Carolyn
Maloney (D., N.Y.) and TV journalist Lou Dobbs, pounded the company for
alleged links to the Chávez regime. Id. Since its purchase by Smartmatic,
Sequoia's sales have risen sharply to a projected $200 million in 2006, said
Smartmatic's chief executive, Anthony Mugica.” Id.
108.
Indeed, Mr. Cobucci testified, through his sworn affidavit, that he born
in Venezuela, is cousins with Antonio (‘Anthony’) Mugica, and he has

20 See WSJ.com, Smartmatic to Sell U.S. Unit, End Probe into Venezuelan Links, by Bob Davis,
12/22/2006, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116674617078557263
48
personal knowledge of the fact that Anthony Mugica incorporated
Smartmatic in the U.S. in 2000 with other family members in Venezuela
listed as owners. He also has personal knowledge that Anthony Mugica
manipulated Smartmatic to ensure the election for Chavez in the 2004
Referendum in Venezuela. He also testified, through his sworn affidavit, that
Anthony Mugica received tens of millions of dollars from 2003- 2015 from the
Venezuelan government to ensure Smartmatic technology would be
implemented around the world, including in the U.S. (See attached hereto,
Exh. 25, Juan Carlos Cobucci Aff.)
109.
Another Affiant witness testifies that in Venezuela, she was in an
official position related to elections and witnessed manipulations of petitions
to prevent a removal of President Chavez and because she protested, she was
summarily dismissed. Corroborating the testimony of our secret witness, and
our witness Mr. Cobucci, cousin of Anthony Mugica, who began Smartmatic,
and this witness explains the vulnerabilities of the electronic voting system
and Smartmatica to such manipulations. (See Exh. 3, Diaz Cardozo Aff).
110.
Specific vulnerabilities of the systems in question that have been
documented or reported include:
49
a. Barcodes can override the voters’ vote: As one University of California,
Berkeley study shows, “In all three of these machines [including
Dominion Voting Systems] the ballot marking printer is in the same
paper path as the mechanism to deposit marked ballots into an
attached ballot box. This opens up a very serious security
vulnerability: the voting machine can make the paper ballot (to add
votes or spoil already-cast votes) after the last time the voter sees the
paper, and then deposit that marked ballot into the ballot box without
the possibility of detection.” (See Exh. 7). 21
b. Voting machines were able to be connected to the internet by way of
laptops that were obviously internet accessible. If one laptop was
connected to the internet, the entire precinct was compromised.
c. We … discovered that at least some jurisdictions were not aware that
their systems were online,” said Kevin Skoglund, an independent
security consultant who conducted the research with nine others, all of
them long-time security professionals and academics with expertise in
election security. Vice. August 2019. 22

21 Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters, Andrew W. Appel,
Richard T. DeMillo, University of California, Berkeley, 12/27/2019. 22 Exclusive: Critical U.S. Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online Despite Official
Denials, Motherboard Tech by Vice, by Kim Zetter, August 8, 2019,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3kxzk9/exclusive-critical-us-election-systems-have-been-leftexposed-online-despite-official-denials
50
d. October 6, 2006 – Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney called on Secretary
of Treasury Henry Paulson to conduct an investigation into Smartmatic
based on its foreign ownership and ties to Venezuela. (See Exh. 24)
e. Congresswoman Maloney wrote that “It is undisputed that Smartmatic
is foreign owned and it has acquired Sequoia … Smartmatica now
acknowledged that Antonio Mugica, a Venezuelan businessman has a
controlling interest in Smartmatica, but the company has not revealed
who all other Smartmatic owners are.” Id.
f. Dominion “got into trouble” with several subsidiaries it used over
alleged cases of fraud. One subsidiary is Smartmatic, a company “that
has played a significant role in the U.S. market over the last decade,”
according to a report published by UK-based AccessWire23.
g. Litigation over Smartmatic “glitches” alleges they impacted the 2010
and 2013 mid-term elections in the Philippines, raising questions of
cheating and fraud. An independent review of the source codes used in
the machines found multiple problems, which concluded, “The software

23 Voting Technology Companies in the U.S. – Their Histories and Present Contributions, Access
Wire, August 10, 2017, https://www.accesswire.com/471912/Voting-Technology-Companies-inthe-US--Their-Histories.
51
inventory provided by Smartmatic is inadequate, … which brings into
question the software credibility…”24
h. Dominion acquired Sequoia Voting Systems as well as Premier Election
Solutions (formerly part of Diebold, which sold Premier to ES&S in
2009, until antitrust issues forced ES&S to sell Premier, which then
was acquired by Dominion).25.
i. Dominion entered into a 2009 contract with Smartmatic and provided
Smartmatic with the PCOS machines (optical scanners) that were used
in the 2010 Philippine election—the biggest automated election run by
a private company. The international community hailed the
automation of that first election in the Philippines.26 The results’
transmission reached 90% of votes four hours after polls closed and
Filipinos knew for the first time who would be their new president on
Election Day. In keeping with local election law requirements,
Smartmatic and Dominion were required to provide the source code of

24 Smartmatic-TIM running out of time to fix glitches, ABS-CBN News, May 4, 2010
https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/05/04/10/smartmatic-tim-running-out-time-fix-glitches
25 The Business of Voting, Penn Wharton, Caufield, p. 16.
26 Smartmatic-TIM running out of time to fix glitches, ABS-CBN News, May 4, 2010
https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/05/04/10/smartmatic-tim-running-out-time-fix-glitches
52
the voting machines prior to elections so that it could be independently
verified.27
j. In late December of 2019, three Democrat Senators, Warren,
Klobuchar, Wyden, and House Member Mark Pocan wrote about their
‘particularized concerns that secretive & “trouble -plagued
companies”’ “have long skimped on security in favor of
convenience,” in the context of how they described the voting machine
systems that three large vendors – Election Systems & Software,
Dominion Voting Systems, & Hart InterCivic – collectively provide
voting machines & software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all
eligible voters in the U.S.” (See attached hereto as Exh. 26, copy of
Senator Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden’s December 6, 2019 letter).
k. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said the findings [insecurity of voting
systems] are “yet another damning indictment of the profiteering
election vendors, who care more about the bottom line than protecting
our democracy.” It’s also an indictment, he said, “of the notion that
important cybersecurity decisions should be left entirely to county

27 Presumably the machiens were not altered following submission of the code. LONDON,
ENGLAND / ACCESSWIRE / August 10, 2017, Voting Technology Companies in the U.S. -
Their Histories and Present Contributions
53
election offices, many of whom do not employ a single cybersecurity
specialist.”28
111.
An analysis of the Dominion software system by a former US Military
Intelligence expert concludes that the system and software have been
accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and
China. By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and
hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked
credentials, Dominion neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data
and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor
and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. (See Exh.
7).
112.
An expert witness in pending litigation in the United States District
Court, Northern District Court of Georgia, Atlanta Div., 17-cv-02989
specifically testified to the acute security vulnerabilities, among other facts,
by declaration filed on October 4, 2020, (See Exh. 4B, Document 959-4

28 Exclusive: Critical U.S. Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online Despite Official
Denials, Motherboard Tech by Vice, by Kim Zetter, August 8, 2019,
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3kxzk9/exclusive-critical-us-election-systems-have-been-leftexposed-online-despite-official-denials
54
attached hereto, paragraph. 18 and 20 of p. 28, Exh. 4, Hursti Declaration).
wherein he testified or found:
1) The failure of the Dominion software “to meet the methods and
processes for national standards for managing voting system problems and
should not be accepted for use in a public election under any circumstances.”
2) In Hursti’s declaration he explained that “There is evidence of
remote access and remote troubleshooting which presents a grave security
implication and certified identified vulnerabilities should be considered an
“extreme security risk.” Id. Hari Hursti also explained that USB drives with
vote tally information were observed to be removed from the presence of poll
watchers during a recent election. Id. The fact that there are no controls of
the USB drives was seen recently seen the lack of physical security and
compliance with professional standards, " in one Georgia County, where it is
reported that 3,300 votes were found on memory sticks not loaded plus in
Floyd county, another 2,600 were unscanned, and the “found votes” reduced
Biden’s lead over Donald Trump29.
(a) In the prior case against Dominion, supra, further
implicating the secrecy behind the software used in Dominion Systems,

29 Recount find thousands of Georgia votes, Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Mark Niesse and
David Wickert,11/19/20. https://www.ajc.com/politics/recount-finds-thousands-of-georgiavotes-missing-from-initial-counts/ERDRNXPH3REQTM4SOINPSEP72M/
55
Dr.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric Coomer, a Vice President of Dominion Voting Systems,
testified that even he was not sure of what testing solutions were
available to test problems or how that was done, “ I have got to be
honest, we might be a little bit out of my bounds of understanding the
rules and regulations… and in response to a question on testing for
voting systems problems in relation to issues identified in 2 counties,
he explained that “Your Honor, I’m not sure of the complete test plan…
Again Pro V&V themselves determine what test plan in necessary based
on their analysis of the code itself.” (Id. at Document 959-4, pages 53,
62 L.25- p. 63 L3).
113.
Hursti stated within said Declaration:
“The security risks outlined above – operating system risks, the
failure to harden the computers, performing operations directly on
the operating systems, lax control of memory cards, lack of
procedures, and potential remote access are extreme and destroy the
credibility of the tabulations and output of the reports coming from a
voting system.”
(See Paragraph 49 of Hursti Declaration).
114.
Rather than engaging in an open and transparent process to give
credibility to Georgia’s brand-new voting system, the election processes were
56
hidden during the receipt, review, opening, and tabulation of those votes in
direct contravention of Georgia’s Election Code and federal law.
115.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2722 in an attempt to
address these very risks identified by Hursti, on June 27, 2019:
This bill addresses election security through grant programs and
requirements for voting systems and paper ballots.
The bill establishes requirements for voting systems, including that
systems (1) use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots; (2)
make a voter's marked ballot available for inspection and verification
by the voter before the vote is cast; (3) ensure that individuals with
disabilities are given an equivalent opportunity to vote, including
with privacy and independence, in a manner that produces a voterverified paper ballot; (4) be manufactured in the United States; and
(5) meet specified cybersecurity requirements, including the
prohibition of the connection of a voting system to the internet.
ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC FRAUD
116.
On November 4, 2020, the Georgia GOP Chairman issued the following
statement:
“Let me repeat. Fulton County elections officials told the media and
our observers that they were shutting down the tabulation center at
State Farm Arena at 10:30 p.m. on election night to continue counting
ballots in secret until 1:00 a.m. 30

57
117.
It was widely reported that "As of 7 p.m. on Wednesday Fulton County
Elections officials said 30,000 absentee ballots were not processed due to a
pipe burst.”31 Officials reassured voters that none of the ballots were
damaged and the water was quickly cleaned up. But the emergency delayed
officials from processing ballots between 5:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Officials say
they continued to count beginning at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday. The statement
from Fulton County continues:
"Tonight, Fulton County will report results for approximately 86,000
absentee ballots, as well as Election Day and Early Voting results.
These represent the vast majority of ballots cast within Fulton
County.
"As planned, Fulton County will continue to tabulate the remainder
of absentee ballots over the next two days. Absentee ballot processing
requires that each ballot is opened, signatures verified, and ballots
scanned. This is a labor-intensive process that takes longer to
tabulate than other forms of voting. Fulton County did not anticipate
having all absentee ballots processed on Election Day." Officials said
they will work to ensure every vote is counted and all laws and
regulations are followed.32

31 “4,000 remaining absentee ballots being counted in Fulton County”, Fox 5 Atlanta,
November 3, 2020, https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/pipe-burst-at-state-farm-arenadelays-absentee-ballot-processing
32 4,000 remaining absentee ballots being counted in Fulton County, Fox 5 Atlanta,
November 3, 2020, https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/pipe-burst-at-state-farm-arenadelays-absentee-ballot-processing
58
118.
Plaintiffs have learned that the representation about “a water leak
affecting the room where absentee ballots were counted” was not true. The
only water leak that needed repairs at State Farm Arena from November 3 –
November 5 was a toilet overflow that occurred earlier on November 3. It
had nothing to do with a room with ballot counting, but the false water break
representation led to “everyone being sent home.” Nonetheless, first six (6)
people, then three (3) people stayed until 1:05 a.m. working on the
computers.
119.
An Affiant recounts how she was present at State Farm Arena on
November 3, and saw election workers remaining behind after people were
told to leave. (See Exh. 28, Affidavit of Mitchell Harrison; Exh. 29, Affid. of
Michelle Branton)
120.
Plaintiffs have also learned through several reports that in 2010 Eric
Coomer joined Dominion as Vice President of U.S. Engineering. According to
his bio, Coomer graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a
Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics. Eric Coomer was later promoted to Voting Systems
Officer of Strategy and Security although Coomer has since been removed
from the Dominion page of directors. Dominion altered its website after
59
Colorado resident Joe Oltmann disclosed that as a reporter he infiltrated
ANTIFA, a domestic terrorist organization where he recorded Eric Coomer
representing: “Don’t worry. Trump won’t win the election, we fixed that.” – as
well as social media posts with violence threatened against President Trump.
(See Joe Oltmann interview with Michelle Malkin dated November 13, 2020
which contains copies of Eric Coomer’s recording and tweets).33
121.
While the bedrock of American elections has been transparency, almost
every crucial aspect of Georgia’s November 3, 2020, General Election was
shrouded in secrecy, rife with “errors,” and permeated with anomalies so
egregious as to render the results incapable of certification.
MULTIPLE EXPERT REPORTS AND STATISTICAL
ANALYSES PROVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTES
WERE LOST OR SHIFTED THAT COST PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES OF
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 6 AND 7 THEIR RACES.
122.
As evidenced by numerous public reports, expert reports, and witness
statements, Defendants egregious misconduct has included ignoring
legislative mandates concerning mail-in and ordinary ballots and led to

33 Malkin Live: Election Update, Interview of Joe Oltmann, by Michelle Malkin, November 13,
2020, available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh1X4s9HuLo&fbclid=IwAR2EaJc1M9RT3DaUraAjsycM
0uPKB3uM_-MhH6SMeGrwNyJ3vNmlcTsHxF4
60
disenfranchisement of an enormous number of Georgia voters. Plaintiffs
experts can show that, consistent with the above specific misrepresentations,
analysis of voting data reveals the following:
(a) Regarding uncounted mail ballots, based on evidence
gathered by Matt Braynard in the form of recorded calls and
declarations of voters, and analyzed by Plaintiff’s expert, Williams M.
Briggs, PhD, shows, based on a statistically significant sample, that
the total number of mail ballots that voters mailed in, but were
never counted, have a 95% likelihood of falling between 31,559
and 38,886 total lost votes. This range exceeds the margin of loss of
President Trump of 12,670 votes by at least 18,889 lost votes and by as
many as 26,196 lost votes. (See Exh. 1, Dr. Briggs’ Report, with
attachments).
(b) Plaintiff’s expert also finds that voters received tens of
thousands of ballots that they never requested. (See Exh. 1).
Specifically, Dr. Briggs found that in the state of Georgia, based on a
statistically significant sample, the expected amount of persons that
received an absentee ballot that they did not request ranges from
16,938 to 22,771. This range exceeds the margin of loss of
61
President Trump by 12,670 votes by at least 4,268 unlawful
requests and by as many as 10,101 unlawful requests. Id.
(c) This widespread pattern, as reflected within the population
of unreturned ballots analyzed by Dr. Briggs, reveals the unavoidable
reality that, in addition to the calculations herein, third parties voted
an untold number of unlawfully acquired absentee or mail-in ballots,
which would not be in the database of unreturned ballots analyzed
here. See O.G.C.A. 21-2-522. These unlawfully voted ballots
prohibited properly registered persons from voting and reveal
a pattern of widespread fraud down ballot as well.
(d) Further, as calculated by Matt Braynard, there exists
clear evidence of 20,311 absentee or early voters in Georgia that
voted while registered as having moved out of state. (See Id.,
attachment to report). Specifically, these persons were showing on the
National Change of Address Database (NCOA) as having moved, or as
having filed subsequent voter registration in another state also as
evidence that they moved and even potentially voted in another state.
The 20,311 votes by persons documented as having moved exceeds the
margin by which Donald Trump lost the election by 7,641 votes.
62
(e) Applying pro-rata the above calculations separately to Cobb
County based on the number of unreturned ballots, a range of 1,255
and 1,687 ballots ordered by 3rd parties and a range of 2,338 and 2,897
lost mail ballots, plus 10,684 voters documented in the NCOA as
having moved, for a combined minimum of 14,276 missing and
unlawful ballots, and maximum of 15,250 missing and unlawful
ballots, which exceeds the statewide Presidential race total
margin by a range of as few as 1,606 ballots and as many as
2,580 in the County of Cobb alone impacting the Cobb County
Republican Party (“Cobb County Republicans”).
123.
As seen from the expert analysis of Eric Quinnell, mathematical
anomalies further support these findings, when in various districts within
Fulton County such as vote gains that exceed reasonable expectations
when compared to 2016, and a failure of gains to be normally distributed
but instead shifting substantially toward the tail of the distribution in
what is known as a platykurtic distribution. Dr. Quinell identifies
numerous anomalies such as votes to Biden in excess of 2016 exceed the
registrations that are in excess of 2016. Ultimately, he identifies the
counties in order of their excess performance over what would have fit in a
63
normal distribution of voting gains, revealing a list of the most anomalous
counties down to the least. These various anomalies provide evidence of
voting irregularities. (See Exh.27, Declaration of Eric Quinnell, with
attachments).
124.
In sum, with the expert analysis of William M. Briggs PhD based on
recorded calls and declarations, the extent of missing AND unlawfully
requested ballots create substantial evidence that the mail ballot system has
fundamentally failed to provide a fair voting mechanism. In short, tens of
thousands of votes did not count while the pattern of fraud makes clear that
tens of thousands were improperly counted. This margin of victory in the
election for Mr. Biden was only 12,670 and cannot withstand most of these
criticisms individually and certainly not in aggregate.
125.
Cobb county, based on lost votes, unlawfully requested votes and
NCOA data on these facts alone would consume more than the entire margin
of the statewide difference in the Presidential race. These election results
must be reversed.
126.
Applying pro-rata the above calculations separately to Cobb County
based on the number of unreturned ballots, a range of 1,255 and 1,687 ballots
64
ordered by 3rd parties and a range of 2,338 and 2,897 lost mail ballots, plus
10,684 voters documented in the NCOA as having moved, for a combined
minimum of 14,276 missing and unlawful ballots, and maximum of
15,250 missing and unlawful ballots, which exceeds the statewide
Presidential race total margin by a range of as few as 1,606 ballots
and as many as 2,580 in the County of Cobb alone impacting the
Cobb County Republican Party (“Cobb County Republicans”). (See
Exh. 1).
127.
Mr. Braynard also found a pattern in Georgia of voters registered at
totally fraudulent residence addresses, including shopping centers, mail drop
stores and other non-residential facilities34.
128.
In sum, with the expert analysis of William M. Briggs PhD based on
extensive investigation, recorded calls and declarations collected by Matt
Braynard, (See attachments to Exh. 1, Briggs’ report) the extent of missing
and unlawfully requested ballots create substantial evidence that the mail
ballot system has fundamentally failed to provide a fair voting mechanism. In

34 Matt Braynard, https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1331324173910761476;
https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1331299873556086787?s=20; (a)
https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1331299873556086787?s=20
65
short, tens of thousands of votes did not count while the pattern of fraud and
mathematical anomalies that are impossible absent malign human agency
makes clear that tens of thousands were improperly counted. This margin of
victory in the election for Mr. Biden was only 12,670 and cannot withstand
most of these criticisms individually and certainly not in aggregate.
129.
Cobb county, based on lost votes, unlawfully requested votes and
NCOA data on these facts alone would consume more than the entire margin
of the statewide difference in the Presidential race.
130.
Russell Ramsland confirms that data breaches in the Dominion
software permitted rogue actors to penetrate and manipulate the
software during the recent general election. He further concludes
that at least 96,600 mail-in ballots were illegally counted as they
were not cast by legal voters.
131.
In sum, as set forth above, for a host of independent reasons, the
Georgia certified election results concluding that Joe Biden received 12,670
more votes that President Donald Trump must be set aside.
66
COUNT I
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE AND 42 U.S.C. §
1983
132.
Plaintiffs reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
133.
The Electors Clause states that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such
Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” for
President. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). Likewise, the Elections Clause
of the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of
holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof.” Art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (emphasis added).
134.
The Legislature is “‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of
the people.’” Smiley, 285 U.S. at 193. Regulations of congressional and
presidential elections, thus, “must be in accordance with the method which
the state has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Id. at 367; see also Ariz.
State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2668
(2015).
67
135.
Defendants are not part of the General Assembly and cannot exercise
legislative power. Rather, Defendants’ power is limited to “tak[ing] care that
the laws be faithfully executed.” Pa. Const. Art. IV, § 2. Because the United
States Constitution reserves for the General Assembly the power to set the
time, place, and manner of holding elections for the President and Congress,
county boards of elections and state executive officers have no authority to
unilaterally exercise that power, much less to hold them in ways that conflict
with existing legislation.
136.
Defendants are not the legislature, and their unilateral decision to
create a “cure procedure” violates the Electors and Elections Clauses of the
United States Constitution.
137.
The Secretary of State and the State Election Board are not the
legislature, and their decision to permit early processing of absentee ballots
in direct violation of the unambiguous requirements of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-
386(a)(2) violates the Electors and Elections Clauses of the United States
Constitution.
68
138.
Many Affiants testified to many legal infractions in the voting process,
including specifically switching absentee ballots or mail-in ballots for Trump
to Biden. Even a Democrat testified in his sworn affidavit that before he was
forced to move back to where he could not see, he had in fact seen, “I also saw
absentee ballots for Trump inserted into Biden’s stack, and counted as Biden
votes. This occurred a few times”. (See Exh. 18, Par. 12).
139.
Plaintiff’s expert also finds that voters received tens of thousands of
ballots that they never requested. (See Exh. 1, Dr. Briggs’ Report).
Specifically, Dr. Briggs found that in the state of Georgia, based on a
statistically significant sample, the expected amount of persons that received
an absentee ballot that they did not request one ranges from 16,938 to
22,771. This range exceeds the margin of loss of President Trump by 12,670
votes by at least 4,268 unlawful requests and by as many as 10,101 unlawful
requests.
140.
This widespread pattern, as reflected within the population of
unreturned ballots analyzed by Dr. Briggs, reveals the unavoidable reality
that, in addition to the calculations herein, third parties voted an untold
number of unlawfully acquired absentee or mail-in ballots, which would not
69
be in the database of unreturned ballots analyzed here. See O.G.C.A. 21-2-
522. These unlawfully voted ballots prohibited properly registered persons
from voting and reveal a pattern of widespread fraud.
141.
Further, as shown by data collected by Matt Braynard, there exists
clear evidence of 20,311 absentee or early voters in Georgia that voted while
registered as having moved out of state. Specifically, these persons were
showing on the National Change of Address Database (NCOA) as having
moved, or as having filed subsequent voter registration in another state also
as evidence that they moved and even potentially voted in another state. The
20,311 votes by persons documented as having moved exceeds the margin by
which Donald Trump lost the election by 7,641 votes.
142.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and
irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief requested herein is granted.
Defendants have acted and, unless enjoined, will act under color of state law
to violate the Elections Clauses of the Constitution. Accordingly, the results
for President and Congress in the November 3, 2020 election must be set
aside. The results are infected with Constitutional violations.
COUNT II
70
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND GEORGIA COUNTIES VIOLATED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, 42
U.S.C. § 1983
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION
INVALID ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS AFFECTING
OBSERVATION AND MONITORING OF THE ELECTION
143.
Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were repeated at length
herein.
144.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. See also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)(having
once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later
arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over the value of
another’s). Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966)
(“Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn
which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”).
71
145.
The Court has held that to ensure equal protection, a “problem inheres
in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The
formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring
circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.” Bush v. Gore, 531
U.S. 98, 106, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000).
146.
The equal enforcement of election laws is necessary to preserve our
most basic and fundamental rights. The requirement of equal protection is
particularly stringently enforced as to laws that affect the exercise of
fundamental rights, including the right to vote.
147.
In statewide and federal elections conducted in the State of Georgia,
including without limitation the November 3, 2020, General Election, all
candidates, political parties, and voters, including without limitation
Plaintiffs, have a vested interest in being present and having meaningful
access to observe and monitor the electoral process in each County to ensure
that it is properly administered in every election district and otherwise free,
fair, and transparent.
72
148.
Moreover, through its provisions involving watchers and
representatives, the Georgia Election Code ensures that all candidates and
political parties in each County, including the Trump Campaign, have
meaningful access to observe and monitor the electoral process to ensure that
it is properly administered in every election district and otherwise free, fair,
and transparent. See, e.g. In plain terms, the statute clearly prohibits
opening absentee ballots prior to election day, while the rule authorizes doing
so three weeks before election day. There is no reconciling this conflict. The
State Election Board has authority under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31 to adopt lawful
and legal rules and regulations, but no authority to promulgate a regulation
that is directly contrary to an unambiguous statute. Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 is
therefore plainly and indisputably unlawful.
73
Plaintiffs also bring this action under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522,
Grounds for Contest:
149.
A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the
following grounds:
150.
(1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or
officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;
(2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;
(3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls
sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;
(4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the
primary or election, if such error would change the result; or
(5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally
nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522.
151.
Several affiants testified to the improper procedures with absentee
ballots processing, with the lack of auditable procedures with the logs in the
computer systems, which violates Georgia law, and federal election law. See
74
also, 50 U.S.C. § 20701 requires the retention and preservation of records and
papers by officers of elections under penalty of fine and imprisonment.
152.
The State Election Board re-adopted Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 on
November 23, 2020 for the upcoming January 2021 runoff election.
153.
A large number of ballots were identical and likely fraudulent. An
Affiant explains that she observed a batch of utterly pristine ballots:
14. Most of the ballots had already been handled; they had been
written on by people, and the edges were worn. They showed obvious
use. However, one batch stood out. It was pristine. There was a
difference in the texture of the paper - it was if they were intended
for absentee use but had not been used for that purposes. There was
a difference in the feel.
15. These different ballots included a slight depressed pre-fold so
they could be easily folded and unfolded for use in the scanning
machines. There were no markings on the ballots to show where they
had com~ from, or where they had been processed. These stood out.
16. In my 20 years of experience of handling ballots, I observed that
the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually
uniform, perhaps even with a ballot-marking device. By my estimate
in observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for
Joe Biden. I only observed two of these ballots as votes for President
Donald J. Trump.” (See Exh. 15).
154.
The same Affiant further testified specifically to the breach of the chain
of custody of the voting machines the night before the election stating:
75
we typically receive the machines, the ballot marking devices – on
the Friday before the election, with a chain of custody letter to be
signed on Sunday, indicating that we had received the machines and
the counts on the machines when received, and that the machines
have been sealed. In this case, we were asked to sign the chain
of custody letter on Sunday, even though the machines were
not delivered until 2:00 AM in the morning on Election Day.
The Milton precinct received its machines at 1:00 AM in the morning
on Election Day. This is unacceptable and voting machines should
[not] be out of custody prior to an Election Day. Id.
155.
Defendants have a duty to treat the voting citizens in each County in
the same manner as the citizens in other counties in Georgia.
156.
As set forth in Count I above, Defendants failed to comply with the
requirements of the Georgia Election Code and thereby diluted the lawful
ballots of the Plaintiffs and of other Georgia voters and electors in violation of
the United States Constitution guarantee of Equal Protection.
157.
Specifically, Defendants denied the plaintiffs equal protection of the
law and their equal rights to meaningful access to observe and monitor the
electoral process enjoyed by citizens in other Georgia Counties by:
(a) mandating that representatives at the pre-canvass and
canvass of all absentee and mail-ballots be either Georgia barred
76
attorneys or qualified registered electors of the county in which
they sought to observe and monitor;
(b) not allowing watchers and representatives to visibly see and
review all envelopes containing official absentee and mail-in
ballots either at or before they were opened and/or when such
ballots were counted and recorded; and
(c) allowing the use of Dominion Democracy Suite software and
devices, which failed to meet the Dominion Certification Report’s
conditions for certification.
158.
Instead, Defendants refused to credential all of the Trump Republican’s
submitted watchers and representatives and/or kept Trump Campaign’s
watchers and representatives by security and metal barricades from the
areas where the inspection, opening, and counting of absentee and mail-in
ballots were taking place. Consequently, Defendants created a system
whereby it was physically impossible for the candidates and political parties
to view the ballots and verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and
counted
159.
Many Affiants testified to switching absentee ballots or mail-in ballots
for Trump to Biden, including a Democrat. He testified in his sworn
affidavit, that before he was forced to move back to where he could not see, he
77
had in fact seen, “absentee ballots for Trump inserted into Biden’s stack, and
counted as Biden votes. This occurred a few times”. (See Exh. 18, Par. 12).
160.
Other Georgia county boards of elections provided watchers and
representatives of candidates and political parties, including without
limitation watchers and representatives of the Republicans and the Trump
Campaign, with appropriate access to view the absentee and mail-in ballots
being pre-canvassed and canvassed by those county election boards and
without restricting representatives by any county residency or Georgia bar
licensure requirements.
161.
Defendants intentionally and/or arbitrarily and capriciously denied
Plaintiffs access to and/or obstructed actual observation and monitoring of
the absentee and mail-in ballots being pre-canvassed and canvassed by
Defendants, depriving them of the equal protection of those state laws
enjoyed by citizens in other Counties.
162.
Defendants have acted and will continue to act under color of state law
to violate Plaintiffs’ right to be present and have actual observation and
access to the electoral process as secured by the Equal Protection Clause of
the United States Constitution.
78
163.
Defendants further violated Georgia voters’ rights to equal protection
insofar as Defendants allowed the Georgia counties to process and count
ballots in a manner that allowed ineligible ballots to be counted, and through
the use of Dominion Democracy Suite, allowed eligible ballots for Trump and
McCormick to be switched to Biden or lost altogether. Defendants thus failed
to conduct the general election in a uniform manner as required by the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Georgia Election
Code.
164.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief holding that the
election, under these circumstances, was improperly certified and that the
Governor be enjoined from transmitting Georgia’s certified Presidential
election results to the Electoral College. Georgia law forbids certifying a tally
that includes any ballots that were not legally cast, or that were switched
from Trump to Biden, through the unlawful use of Dominion Democracy
Suite software and devices.
165.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief holding
that the election, under these circumstances, was improperly certified and
that the Governor be required to recertify the results declaring that Donald
79
Trump has won the election and transmitting Georgia’s certified Presidential
election result in favor of President Trump.
166.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and
irreparable harm unless the declaratory and injunctive relief requested
herein is granted. Indeed, the setting aside of an election in which the people
have chosen their representative is a drastic remedy that should not be
undertaken lightly, but instead should be reserved for cases in which a
person challenging an election has clearly established a violation of election
procedures and has demonstrated that the violation has placed the result of
the election in doubt. Georgia law allows elections to be contested through
litigation, both as a check on the integrity of the election process and as a
means of ensuring the fundamental right of citizens to vote and to have their
votes counted accurately. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-520 et seq.
167.
In addition to the alternative requests for relief in the preceding
paragraphs, hereby restated, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction
requiring the County Election Boards to invalidate ballots cast by: 1) voters
whose signatures on their registrations have not been matched with ballot,
envelope and voter registration check; 2) all “dead votes”; and 4) all 900
military ballots in Fulton county that supposedly were 100% for Joe Biden.
80
COUNT III
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE U.S.
CONST. AMEND. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
DISPARATE TREATMENT OF ABSENTEE/MAIL-IN VOTERS AMONG
DIFFERENT COUNTIES
168.
Plaintiffs incorporate each of the prior allegations in this Complaint.
Voting is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the
right to vote from conduct by state officials which seriously undermines the
fundamental fairness of the electoral process. Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873,
889 (3d Cir. 1994); Griffin, 570 F.2d at 1077-78. “[H]aving once granted the
right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and
disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Bush, 531
U.S. at 104-05.
169.
Defendants are not part of the General Assembly and cannot exercise
legislative power. Rather, Defendants’ power is limited to executing the laws
as passed by the legislature Although the Georgia General Assembly may
enact laws governing the conduct of elections, “no legislative enactment may
81
contravene the requirements of the Georgia or United States Constitutions.”
Shankey, 257 A. 2d at 898.
170.
Federal courts “possess broad discretion to fashion an equitable
remedy.” Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
781 F.3d 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2015); Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc., 837
F.2d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1988) (“The decision whether to grant equitable
relief, and, if granted, what form it shall take, lies in the discretion of the
district court.”).
171.
Moreover, “[t]o the extent that a voter is at risk for having his or her
ballot rejected due to minor errors made in contravention of those
requirements, … the decision to provide a ‘notice and opportunity to cure’
procedure to alleviate that risk is one best suited for the Legislature[,] . . .
particularly in light of the open policy questions attendant to that decision,
including what the precise contours of the procedure would be, how the
concomitant burdens would be addressed, and how the procedure would
impact the confidentiality and counting of ballots, all of which are best left to
the legislative branch of Georgia's government.” Id.
82
172.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The disparate treatment of Georgia voters, in subjecting one class of
voters to greater burdens or scrutiny than another, violates Equal Protection
guarantees because “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or
dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly
prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555. Rice
v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v.
Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo.
Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d
524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
173.
Defendants are not the legislature, and their unilateral decision to
create and implement a cure procedure for some but not all absentee and
mail-in voters in this State violates the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will
suffer serious and irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief requested
herein is granted.
83
COUNT IV
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONST. ART. I § 4, CL. 1; ART.
II, § 1, CL. 2; AMEND. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE
174.
Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were repeated at length
herein.
175.
The right of qualified citizens to vote in a state election involving
federal candidates is recognized as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Harper, 383 U.S. at See also
Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554 (The Fourteenth Amendment protects the “the
right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.”).
Indeed, ever since the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the United
States Supreme Court has held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment protects certain rights of federal citizenship from
state interference, including the right of citizens to directly elect members of
Congress. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 (1908) (citing Ex parte
Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663-64 (1884)). See also Oregon v. Mitchell, 400
U.S. 112, 148-49 (1970) (Douglas, J., concurring) (collecting cases).
84
176.
The fundamental right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
is cherished in our nation because it “is preservative of other basic civil and
political rights.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 562. Voters have a “right to cast a
ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud,” Burson v.
Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211 (1992), and “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our
electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory
democracy.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam).
177.
“Obviously included within the right to [vote], secured by the
Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots
and have them counted” if they are validly cast. United States v. Classic, 313
U.S. 299, 315 (1941). “[T]he right to have the vote counted” means counted
“at full value without dilution or discount.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555, n.29
(quoting South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 279 (1950) (Douglas, J., dissenting)).
178.
“Every voter in a federal . . . election, whether he votes for a candidate
with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right
under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being
distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S.
211, 227 (1974); see also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208 (1962). Invalid or
85
fraudulent votes “debase[]” and “dilute” the weight of each validly cast vote.
See Anderson, 417 U.S. at 227.
179.
The right to an honest [count] is a right possessed by each voting
elector, and to the extent that the importance of his vote is nullified, wholly
or in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege
secured to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States.” Anderson,
417 U.S. at 226 (quoting Prichard v. United States, 181 F.2d 326, 331 (6th
Cir.), aff'd due to absence of quorum, 339 U.S. 974 (1950)).
180.
Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots or fail
to contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct, can violate the
Fourteenth Amendment by leading to the dilution of validly cast ballots. See
Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555 (“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a
debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as
by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”).
181.
In Georgia, the signature verification requirement is a dead letter. The
signature rejection rate for the most recent election announced by the
Secretary of State was 0.15%. The signature rejection rate for absentee ballot
applications was .00167% - only 30 statewide. Hancock County, Georgia,
86
population 8,348, rejected nine absentee ballot applications for signature
mismatch. Fulton County rejected eight. No other metropolitan county in
Georgia rejected even a single absentee ballot application for signature
mismatch. The state of Colorado, which has run voting by mail for a number
of years, has a signature rejection rate of between .52% and .66%.35 The State
of Oregon had a rejection rate of 0.86% in 2016.36 The State of Washington
has a rejection rate of between 1% and 2%.37If Georgia rejected absentee
ballots at a rate of .52% instead of the actual .15%, approximately 4,600 more
absentee ballots would have been rejected.
COUNT V
THERE WAS WIDE-SPREAD BALLOT FRAUD.
OCGA 21-2-522
182.
Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were repeated at length
herein.

35 See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colorado+signature+rejection+rate&t=osx&ia=web last
visited November 25,2020
36 See https://www.vox.com/21401321/oregon-vote-by-mail-2020-presidential-election, last
visited November 25,2020.
37 See https://www.salon.com/2020/09/08/more-than-550000-mail-ballots-rejected-so-far-hereshow-to-make-sure-your-vote-gets-counted/ last visited November 25, 2020.
87
183.
Plaintiffs contest the results of Georgia’s election, with Standing
conferred under pursuant to O.G.C.A. 21-2-521.
184.
Therefore, pursuant to O.G.C.A. 21-2-522, for misconduct, fraud, or
irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change
or place in doubt the result. The foundational principle that Georgia law
“nonetheless allows elections to be contested through litigation, both as a
check on the integrity of the election process and as a means of ensuring the
fundamental right of citizens to vote and to have their votes counted
accurately.” Martin v. Fulton County Bd. of Registration & Elections, 307 Ga.
193, 194, 835 S.E.2d 245, 248 (2019). The Georgia Supreme Court has made
clear that Plaintiffs need not show how the [] voters would have voted if their
[absentee] ballots had been regular. [] only had to show that there were
enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” See OCGA § 21-2-520 et
seq., Mead v. Sheffield, 278 Ga. 268, 272, 601 S.E.2d 99, 102 (1994) the
Supreme Court invalidated an election, and ordered a new election because it
found that,
Thus, [i]t was not incumbent upon [the Plaintiff] to show how the
[481] voters would have voted if their [absentee] ballots had
been regular. He only had to show that there were enough irregular
ballots to place in doubt the result. He succeeded in that task.
88
Id. at 271 (citing Howell v. Fears, 275 Ga. 627, 571 SE2d 392, (2002) (primary
results invalid where ballot in one precinct omitted names of both qualified
candidates).
185.
The "glitches" in the Dominion system—that seem to have the uniform
effect of hurting Trump and helping Biden have been widely reported in the
press and confirmed by the analysis of independent experts.
186.
Prima facie evidence in multiple affidavits shows specific fraudulent
acts, which directly resulted in the flipping of the race at issue:
a) votes being switched in Biden’s favor away from Trump during the
recount;
b) the lack of procedures in place to follow the election code, and the
purchase and use, Dominion Voting System despite evidence of serious
vulnerabilities;
c) a demonstration that misrepresentations were made about a pipe burst
that sent everyone home, while first six, then three, unknown
individuals were left alone until the morning hours working on the
machines;
89
d) further a failure to demonstrate compliance with the Georgia’s Election
Codes, in maintaining logs on the Voting system for a genuine and
sound audit, other than voluntary editable logs that prevent genuine
audits. While the bedrock of this Democratic Republic rests on citizens’
confidence in the validity of our elections and a transparent process,
Georgia’s November 3, 2020 General Election remains under a pall of
corruption and irregularity that reflects a pattern of the absence of
mistake. At best, the evidence so far shows ignorance of the truth; at
worst, it proves a knowing intent to defraud.
187.
Plaintiff’s expert also finds that voters received tens of thousands of
ballots that they never requested. (See Exh. 1, Dr. Briggs’ Report).
Specifically, Dr. Briggs found that in the state of Georgia, based on a
statistically significant sample, the expected amount of persons that received
an absentee ballot that they did not request ranges from 16,938 to
22,771. This range exceeds the margin of loss of President Trump by 12,670
votes by at least 4,268 unlawful requests and by as many as 10,101 unlawful
requests.
90
188.
This widespread pattern, as reflected within the population of
unreturned ballots analyzed by Dr. Briggs, reveals the unavoidable reality
that, in addition to the calculations herein, third parties voted an untold
number of unlawfully acquired absentee or mail-in ballots, which would not
be in the database of unreturned ballots analyzed here. See O.G.C.A. 21-2-
522. These unlawfully voted ballots prohibited properly registered persons
from voting and reveal a pattern of widespread fraud.
189.
Further, there exists clear evidence of 20,311 absentee or early voters
in Georgia that voted while registered as having moved out of state.
Specifically, these persons were showing on the National Change of Address
Database (NCOA) as having moved, or as having filed subsequent voter
registration in another state also as evidence that they moved and even
potentially voted in another state. The 20,311 votes by persons documented
as having moved exceeds the margin by which Donald Trump lost the
election by 7,641 votes.
190.
Plaintiffs’’ expert Russell Ramsland concludes that at least 96,600
mail-in ballots were fraudulently cast. He further concludes that up to
91
136,098 ballots were illegally counted as a result of improper manipulation of
the Dominion software. (Ramsland Aff).
191.
The very existence of absentee mail in ballots created a heightened
opportunity for fraud. The population of unreturned ballots analyzed by
William Briggs, PhD, reveals the probability that a far greater number of
mail ballots were requested by 3rd parties or sent erroneously to persons and
voted fraudulently, undetected by a failed system of signature verification.
The recipients may have voted in the name of another person, may have not
had the legal right to vote and voted anyway, or may have not received the
ballot at the proper address and then found that they were unable to vote at
the polls, except provisionally, due to a ballot outstanding in their name.
192.
When we consider the harm of these uncounted votes, and ballots not
ordered by the voters themselves, and the potential that many of these
unordered ballots may in fact have been improperly voted and also prevented
proper voting at the polls, the mail ballot system has clearly failed in the
state of Georgia and did so on a large scale and widespread basis. The size of
the voting failures, whether accidental or intentional, are multiples larger
than the margin of votes between the presidential candidates in the
92
state. For these reasons, Georgia cannot reasonably rely on the results of the
mail vote.
193.
The right to vote includes not just the right to cast a ballot, but also the
right to have it fairly counted if it is legally cast. The right to vote is infringed
if a vote is cancelled or diluted by a fraudulent or illegal vote, including
without limitation when a single person votes multiple times. The Supreme
Court of the United States has made this clear in case after case. See, e.g.,
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 (1963) (every vote must be “protected
from the diluting effect of illegal ballots.”); Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election
Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 196 (2008) (plurality op. of Stevens, J.) (“There is no
question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in
counting only the votes of eligible voters.”); accord Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.
533, 554-55 & n.29 (1964).
194.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. As seen from the expert
analysis of William Higgs, PhD, based on actual voter data, tens of thousands
of votes did not count, and tens of thousands of votes were unlawfully
requested.
93
195.
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause protects the right to
vote from conduct by state officials which seriously undermines the
fundamental fairness of the electoral process. Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873,
889 (3d Cir. 1994); Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1077-78 (1st Cir. 1978).
196.
Separate from the Equal Protection Clause, the Fourteenth
Amendment’s due process clause protects the fundamental right to vote
against “the disenfranchisement of a state electorate.” Duncan v. Poythress,
657 F.2d 691, 702 (5th Cir. 1981). “When an election process ‘reaches the
point of patent and fundamental unfairness,’ there is a due process
violation.” Florida State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d
1153, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574, 580
(11th Cir.1995) (citing Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302, 1315 (11th Cir.1986))).
See also Griffin, 570 F.2d at 1077 (“If the election process itself reaches the
point of patent and fundamental unfairness, a violation of the due process
clause may be indicated and relief under § 1983 therefore in order.”); Marks
v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873, 889 (3d Cir. 1994) (enjoining winning state senate
candidate from exercising official authority where absentee ballots were
obtained and cast illegally).
94
197.
Part of courts’ justification for such a ruling is the Supreme Court’s
recognition that the right to vote and to free and fair elections is one that is
preservative of other basic civil and political rights. See Black, 209 F.Supp.2d
at 900 (quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561-62 (“since the right to exercise the
franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil
and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote
must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.”)); see also Yick Wo v.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) (“the political franchise of voting … is
regarded as a fundamental political right, because [sic] preservative of all
rights.”).
198.
“[T]he right to vote, the right to have one’s vote counted, and the right
to have ones vote given equal weight are basic and fundamental
constitutional rights incorporated in the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Black, 209 F. Supp. 2d
at 900 (a state law that allows local election officials to impose different
voting schemes upon some portions of the electorate and not others violates
due process). “Just as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment prohibits state officials from improperly diluting the right to
vote, the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment forbids state
95
officials from unlawfully eliminating that fundamental right.” Duncan, 657
F.2d at 704. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,
[Defendants] may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one
person's vote over that of another.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104-05.
199.
In statewide and federal elections conducted in the State of Georgia,
including without limitation the November 3, 2020 General Election, all
candidates, political parties, and voters, including without limitation
Plaintiffs, have a vested interest in being present and having meaningful
access to observe and monitor the electoral process to ensure that it is
properly administered in every election district and otherwise free, fair, and
transparent.
200.
Moreover, through its provisions involving watchers and
representatives, the Georgia Election Code ensures that all candidates and
political parties, including without limitation Plaintiff, Republicans, and the
Trump Campaign, shall be “present” and have meaningful access to observe
and monitor the electoral process to ensure that it is properly administered in
every election district and otherwise free, fair, and transparent.
96
201.
Defendants have a duty to guard against deprivation of the right to
vote through the dilution of validly cast ballots by ballot fraud or election
tampering. Rather than heeding these mandates and duties, Defendants
arbitrarily and capriciously denied the Trump Campaign and Republicans
meaningful access to observe and monitor the electoral process by: (a)
mandating that representatives at the pre- canvass and canvass of all
absentee and mail-ballots be either Georgia barred attorneys or qualified
registered electors of the county in which they sought to observe and monitor;
and (b) not allowing watchers and representatives to visibly see and review
all envelopes containing official absentee and mail-in ballots either at the
time or before they were opened and/or when such ballots were counted and
recorded. Instead, Defendants refused to credential all of the Trump
Campaign’s submitted watchers and representatives and/or kept Trump
Campaign’s watchers and representatives by security and metal barricades
from the areas where the inspection, opening, and counting of absentee and
mail-in ballots were taking place. The lack of meaningful access with actual
access to see the ballots invited further fraud and cast doubt of the validity of
the proceedings.
97
202.
Consequently, Defendants created a system whereby it was physically
impossible for the candidates and political parties to view the ballots and
verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and counted.
203.
Defendants intentionally and/or arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiffs
access to and/or obstructed actual observation and monitoring of the absentee
and mail-in ballots being pre-canvassed and canvassed by Defendants, and
included the unlawfully not counting and including uncounted mail ballots,
and that they failed to follow absentee ballot requirements when thousands
of voters received ballots that they never requested. Defendants have
acted and will continue to act under color of state law to violate the right to
vote and due process as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
204.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and
irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief requested herein is granted.
205.
When we consider the harm of these uncounted votes, and ballots not
ordered by the voters themselves, and the potential that many of these
98
unordered ballots may in fact have been improperly voted and also prevented
proper voting at the polls, the mail ballot system has clearly failed in the
state of Georgia and did so on a large scale and widespread basis. The size of
the voting failures, whether accidental or intentional, are multiples larger
than the margin in the state. For these reasons, Georgia cannot reasonably
rely on the results of the mail vote.
206.
Relief sought is the elimination of the mail ballots from counting in the
2020 election. Alternatively, the Presidential electors for the state of Georgia
should be disqualified from counting toward the 2020 election.
207.
The United States Code (3 U.S.C. 5) provides that,
“[i]f any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination
of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or
any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or
procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least
six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such
determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day,
and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the
electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the
electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter
regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by
such State is concerned.
3 USCS § 5.
99
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
208.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order instructing
Defendants to de-certify the results of the General Election for the Office of
President.
209.
In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting
Defendants from including in any certified results from the General Election
the tabulation of absentee and mailing ballots which do not comply with the
Election Code, including, without limitation, the tabulation of absentee and
mail-in ballots Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing
or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee and mail-in ballots
which (i) lack a secrecy envelope, or contain on that envelope any text, mark,
or symbol which reveals the elector’s identity, political affiliation, or
candidate preference, (ii) do not include on the outside envelope a completed
declaration that is dated and signed by the elector, or (iii) are delivered inperson by third parties for non-disabled voters.
210.
When we consider the harm of these uncounted votes, and ballots not
ordered by the voters themselves, and the potential that many of these
unordered ballots may in fact have been improperly voted and also prevented
100
proper voting at the polls, the mail ballot system has clearly failed in the
state of Georgia and did so on a large scale and widespread basis. The size of
the voting failures, whether accidental or intentional, are multiples larger
than the margin in the state. For these reasons, Georgia cannot reasonably
rely on the results of the mail vote. Relief sought is the elimination of the
mail ballots from counting in the 2020 election. Alternatively, the electors for
the state of Georgia should be disqualified from counting toward the 2020
election. Alternatively, the electors of the State of Georgia should be directed
to vote for President Donald Trump.
211.
For these reasons, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment in
their favor and provide the following emergency relief:
1. An order directing Governor Kemp, Secretary Raffensperger and the
Georgia State Board of Elections to de-certify the election results;
2. An order enjoining Governor Kemp from transmitting the currently
certified election results to the Electoral College;
3. An order requiring Governor Kemp to transmit certified election
results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the
election;
101
4. An immediate order to impound all the voting machines and
software in Georgia for expert inspection by the Plaintiffs.
5. An order that no votes received or tabulated by machines that were
not certified as required by federal and state law be counted.
6. A declaratory judgment declaring that Georgia Secretary of State
Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 violates the Electors and Elections Clause,
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4;
7. A declaratory judgment declaring that Georgia’s failed system of
signature verification violates the Electors and Elections Clause by
working a de facto abolition of the signature verification
requirement;
8. A declaratory judgment declaring that current certified election
results violates the Due Process Clause, U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV;
9. A declaratory judgment declaring that mail-in and absentee ballot
fraud must be remedied with a Full Manual Recount or statistically
valid sampling that properly verifies the signatures on absentee
ballot envelopes and that invalidates the certified results if the
recount or sampling analysis shows a sufficient number of ineligible
absentee ballots were counted;
102
10. An emergency declaratory judgment that voting machines be
Seized and Impounded immediately for a forensic audit—by
plaintiffs’ expects;
11. A declaratory judgment declaring absentee ballot fraud occurred
in violation of Constitutional rights, Election laws and under state
law;
12. A permanent injunction prohibiting the Governor and Secretary
of State from transmitting the currently certified results to the
Electoral College based on the overwhelming evidence of election
tampering;
13. Immediate production of 36 hours of security camera recording of
all rooms used in the voting process at State Farm Arena in Fulton
County, GA from 12:00am to 3:00am until 6:00pm on November 3.
14. Plaintiffs further request the Court grant such other relief as is
just and proper, including but not limited to, the costs of this action
and their reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1988.
Respectfully submitted, this 25th day of November, 2020.
103
CALDWELL, PROPST & DELOACH, LLP
/s/ Harry W. MacDougald
Harry W. MacDougald
Georgia Bar No. 463076
CALDWELL, PROPST & DELOACH, LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30346
(404) 843-1956 – Telephone
(404) 843-2737 – Facsimile
hmacdougald@cpdlawyers.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s Sidney Powell*
Sidney Powell PC
Texas Bar No. 16209700
Julia Z. Haller *
Emily P. Newman*
Virginia Bar License No. 84265
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75219
*Application for admission pro hac vice
Forthcoming
L. Lin Wood
GA Bar No. 774588
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
Telephone: (404) 891-1402
Howard Kleinhendler*
NEW YORK BAR NO. 2657120Howard Kleinhendler Esquire
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Office (917) 793-1188
Mobile (347) 840-2188
howard@kleinhendler.com
www.kleinhendler.com
104
*Application for admission pro hac vice
Forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRCT OF MICHIGAN
TIMOTHY KING,MARIAN ELLEN
SHERIDAN, JOHN EARL HAGGARD,
CHARLES JAMES RITCHARD, JAMES
DAVID HOOPER and DAREN WADE
RUBINGH,
Plaintiffs.
v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official
capacity as Governor of the State of
Michigan, JOCELYN BENSON, in her
official capacity as Michigan Secretary of
State and the Michigan BOARD OFSTATE
CANVASSERS.
Defendants.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY,
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 75
2
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This civil action brings to light a massive election fraud, multiple violations of the
Michigan Election Code, see, e.g., MCL §§ 168.730-738, in addition to the Election and Electors
Clauses and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution violations that occurred during the
2020 General Election throughout the State of Michigan,1as set forth in the affidavits of dozens
of eye witnesses and the statistical anomalies and mathematical impossibilities detailed in the
affidavits of expert witnesses.
2. The scheme and artifice to defraud was for the purpose of illegally and
fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden as President of
the United States. The fraud was executed by many means,2 but the most fundamentally
troubling, insidious, and egregious ploy was the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned “ballotstuffing.” It has now been amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software
created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose. This Complaint details an
especially egregious range of conduct in Wayne County and the City of Detroit, though this
conduct occurred throughout the State at the direction of Michigan state election officials.
3. The multifaceted schemes and artifices implemented by Defendants and their
collaborators to defraud resulted in the unlawful counting, or manufacturing, of hundreds of
thousands of illegal, ineligible, duplicate or purely fictitious ballots in the State of Michigan, that
1
The same pattern of election fraud and voter fraud writ large occurred in all the swing states
with only minor variations in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin. See Exh. 101,
William M. Briggs, Ph.D. “An Analysis Regarding Absentee Ballots Across Several States”
(Nov. 23, 2020) (“Dr. Briggs Report”).
2
50 U.S.C. § 20701 requires Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of
elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation, but as will be shown wide-pattern of
misconduct with ballots show preservation of election records have not been kept; and Dominion
logs are only voluntary, with no system wide preservation system. Without an incorruptible
audit log, there is no acceptable system.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 75
3
constitute a multiple of Biden’s purported lead in the State. While this Complaint, and the
eyewitness and expert testimony incorporated herein, identify with specificity sufficient ballots
required to overturn and reverse the election results, the entire process is so riddled with fraud,
illegality, and statistical impossibility that this Court, and Michigan’s voters, courts, and
legislators, cannot rely on, or certify, any numbers resulting from this election.
Dominion Voting Systems Fraud and Manipulation
4. The fraud begins with the election software and hardware from Dominion Voting
Systems Corporation (“Dominion”) used by the MichiganBoard of State Canvassers. The
Dominion systems derive from the software designed by Smartmatic Corporation, which became
Sequoia in the United States.
5. Smartmatic and Dominion were founded by foreign oligarchs and dictators to
ensure computerized ballot-stuffing and vote manipulation to whatever level was needed to make
certain Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez never lost another election.See Exh. 1, Redacted
Declaration of Dominion Venezuela Whistleblower (“Dominion Whistleblower Report”).
Notably, Chavez “won” every election thereafter.
6. As set forth in the DominionWhistleblower Report, the Smartmatic software was
contrived through a criminal conspiracy to manipulate Venezuelan elections in favor of dictator
Hugo Chavez:
Importantly, I was a direct witness to the creation and operation of an electronic
voting system in a conspiracy between a company known as Smartmatic and the
leaders of conspiracy with the Venezuelan government. This conspiracy
specifically involved President Hugo Chavez Frias, the person in charge of the
National Electoral Council named Jorge Rodriguez, and principals,
representatives, and personnel from Smartmatic. The purpose of this conspiracy
was to create and operate a voting system that could change the votes in elections
from votes against persons running the Venezuelan government to votes in their
favor in order to maintain control of the government. In mid-February of 2009,
there was a national referendum to change theConstitution of Venezuela to end
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 75
4
term limits for elected officials, including the President of Venezuela. The
referendum passed. This permitted Hugo Chavez to be re-elected an unlimited
number of times. . . .
Smartmatic’s electoral technology was called “Sistema de Gestión Electoral” (the
“Electoral Management System”). Smartmatic was a pioneer in this area of
computing systems. Their system provided for transmission of voting data over
the internet to a computerized central tabulating center. The voting machines
themselves had a digital display, fingerprint recognition feature to identify the
voter, and printed out the voter’s ballot. The voter’s thumbprint was linked to a
computerized record of that voter’s identity. Smartmatic created and operated the
entire system. Id. ¶¶ 10 & 14.
7. A core requirement of the Smartmatic software design ultimately adopted by
Dominion for the Michigan’s elections was the software’s ability to hide its manipulation of
votes from any audit. As the whistleblower explains:
Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a way that the
system could change the vote of each voter without being detected. He wanted the
software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their
thumb print or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a
record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not
tracked to the changed vote. He made it clear that the system would have to be
setup to not leave any evidence of the changed vote for a specific voter and that
there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the
fingerprint or thumb print was going with a changed vote. Smartmatic agreed to
create such a system and produced the software and hardware that accomplished
that result for President Chavez.Id. ¶15.
8. The design and features of the Dominion software do not permit a simple audit to
reveal its misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes. First, the system's central
accumulator does not include a protected real-time audit log that maintains the date and time
stamps of all significant election events. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs.
Essentially this allows an unauthorized user the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify, or remove
log entries, causing the machine to log election events that do not reflect actual voting
tabulations—or more specifically, do not reflect the actual votes of or the will of the people. See
Exh. 107, August 24, 2020 Declaration of HarriHursti, ¶¶45-48).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 11/25/20 Page 4 of 75
5
9. Indeed, under the professional standards within the industry in auditing and
forensic analysis, when a log is unprotected, and can be altered, it can no longer serve the
purpose of an audit log.There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical
security of the voting machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to
the internet in violation of professional standards, which violates federal election law on the
preservation of evidence.
10. In deciding to award Dominion a$25 million, ten-year contract (to a Dominion
project team led by Kelly Garrett, former Deputy Director of the Michigan Democratic Party),
and then certifying Dominion software, Michigan officials disregarded all the concerns that
caused Dominion software to be rejected by the Texas Board of elections in 2018 because it was
deemed vulnerable to undetected and non-auditable manipulation. An industry expert, Dr.
Andrew Appel, Princeton Professor of Computer Science and Election Security Expert has
recently observed, with reference to Dominion Voting machines: "I figured out how to make a
slightly different computer program that just before the polls were closed, it switches some votes
around from one candidate to another. I wrote that computer program into a memory chip and
now to hack a voting machine you just need 7 minutes alone with it and a screwdriver."3
11. Plaintiff’s expert witness, Russell James Ramsland, Jr. (Exh. 101, “Ramsland
Affidavit”), has concluded that Dominion alone is responsible for the injection, or fabrication, of
289,866 illegal votes in Michigan, that must be disregarded. This is almost twice the number of
Mr. Biden’s purported lead in the Michigan vote (without consideration of the additional illegal,
ineligible, duplicate or fictitious votes due to the unlawful conduct outlined below), and thus by
itself is grounds to set aside the 2020 General Election and grant the declaratory and injunctive
3
Andrew W. Appel, et al., “Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the
Voters” at (Dec. 27, 2019), attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (“Appel Study”).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 11/25/20 Page 5 of 75
6
relief requested herein.
12. In addition to the Dominion computer fraud, this Complaint identifies several
additional categories of “traditional” voting fraud and Michigan Election Code violations,
supplemented by healthy doses of harassment, intimidation, discrimination, abuse and even
physical removal of Republican poll challengers to eliminate any semblance of transparency,
objectivity or fairness from the vote counting process. While this illegal conduct by election
workers and state, county and city employees in concert with Dominion, even if considered in
isolation, the following three categories of systematic violations of the Michigan Election Code
cast significant doubt on the results of the election and mandate this Court to set aside the 2020
General Election and grant the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein.
Fact Witness Testimony of Voting Fraud & Other Illegal Conduct
13. There were three broad categories of illegal conduct by election workers in
collaboration with other employee state, county and/or city employees and Democratic poll
watchers and activists.First, to facilitate and cover-up the voting fraud and counting of
fraudulent, illegal or ineligible voters, election workers:
A. Denied Republican election challengers access to the TCF Center, where all
Wayne County, Michigan ballots were processed and counted;
B. Denied Republic poll watchers at the TCF Center meaningful access to view
ballot handling, processing, or counting and
lockedcredentialedchallengersoutofthe counting room so they could not observe
the process, during which time tens of thousands of ballots wereprocessed;
C. Engaged in a systematic pattern of harassment, intimidation and even physical
removal of Republican election challengers or locking them out of the TCF
Center;
D. Systematically discriminated against Republican poll watchers and favored
Democratic poll watchers;
E. Ignored or refused to record Republican challenges to the violations outlined
herein;
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 11/25/20 Page 6 of 75
7
F. Refused to permit Republican poll challengers to observe ballot duplication and
other instances where they allowed ballots to be duplicated by hand without
allowing poll challengers to check if the duplication was accurate;
G. Unlawfully coached voters to vote for Joe Biden and to vote a straight Democrat
ballot, including by going overtothevotingboothswithvotersinorder to watch them
vote and coach them for whom to vote;
H. As a result of the above, Democratic election challengers outnumbered
Republicans by 2:1 or 3:1 (or sometimes 2:0 at voting machines); and
I. Collaborated with Michigan State, Wayne County and/or City of Detroit
employees (including police) in all of the above unlawful and discriminatory
behavior.
14. Second, election workers illegally forged, added, removed or otherwise altered
information on ballots, the Qualified Voter File (QVF) and Other Voting Records, including:
A. Fraudulently adding “tens of thousands” of new ballots and/or new voters to QVF
in two separate batches on November 4, 2020, all or nearly all of which were
votes for Joe Biden;
B. Forging voter information and fraudulently adding new voters to the QVF Voters,
in particular, e.g., when a voter’s name could not be found, the election worker
assigned the ballot to a random name already in the QVF to a person who had
notvoted and recordedthesenewvotersashavingabirthdate of1/1/1900;
C. Changing dates on absenteeballots received after 8:00 PM Election Day deadline
to indicate that such ballots were received before the deadline;
D. Changing Votes for Trump and other Republican candidates; and
E. Added votes to “undervote” ballots and removing votes from “Over-Votes”.
15. Third, election workers committed several additional categories of violations of
the Michigan Election Code to enable them to accept and count other illegal, ineligible or
duplicate ballots, or reject Trump or Republican ballots, including:
A. Permitting illegal double voting by persons that had voted by absentee ballot and
in person;
B. Counting ineligible ballots – and in many cases – multiple times;
C. Counting ballots without signatures, or without attempting to match signatures,
and ballots without postmarks, pursuant to direct instructions from Defendants;
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 11/25/20 Page 7 of 75
8
D. Counting “spoiled” ballots;
E. Systematic violations of ballot secrecy requirements;
F. Unsecured ballots arrived at the TCF Center loading garage, not in sealed ballot
boxes, without any chain of custody, and withoutenvelopes, after the 8:00 PM
Election Day deadline, in particular, the tens of thousands of ballots that arrived
on November 4, 2020; and
G. Accepting and counting ballots from deceased voters.
Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Voting Fraud
16. In addition to the above fact witnesses, this Complaint presents expert witness
testimony demonstrating that several hundred thousand illegal, ineligible, duplicate or purely
fictitious votes must be thrown out, in particular: (1) a report from Russel Ramsland, Jr. showing
the “physical impossibility” of nearly 385,000 votes injected by four precincts/township on
November 4, 2020, that resulted in the counting of nearly 290,000 more ballots processed than
available capacity (which is based on statistical analysis that is independent of his analysis of
Dominion’s flaws); (2) a report from Dr. William Briggs, showing that there were approximately
60,000 absentee ballots listed as “unreturned” by voters that either never requested them, or that
requested and returned their ballots; and (3) a report from Dr. Eric Quinell analyzing the
anomalous turnout figures in Wayne and Oakland Counties showing that Biden gained nearly
100% and frequently more than 100% of all “new” voters in certain townships/precincts over
2016, and thus indicated that nearly 87,000 anomalous and likely fraudulent votes from these
precincts.
17. As explained and demonstrated in the accompanying redacted declaration of a
former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence with experience
gathering SAM missile system electronic intelligence, the Dominion software was accessed by
agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 11/25/20 Page 8 of 75
9
the most recent US general election in 2020. This Declaration further includes a copy of the
patent records for Dominion Systems in which Eric Coomer is listed as the first of the inventors
of Dominion Voting Systems. (See Attached hereto as Ex. 105, copy of redacted witness
affidavit, November 23, 2020).
18. Expert Navid Keshavarez-Nia explains that US intelligence services had
developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems including Dominion. He states that
Dominion's software is vulnerable to data manipulation by unauthorized means and permitted
election data to be altered in all battleground states. He concludes that hundreds of thousands of
votes that were cast for President Trump in the 2020 general election were transferred to former
Vice-President Biden. (Ex. 109).
19. These and other “irregularities” provide this Court grounds to set aside the results
of the 2020 General Election and provide the other declaratory and injunctive relief requested
herein.
JURISDICTION ANDVENUE
20. This Court has subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which provides, “The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.”
21. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because
this action involves a federal election for President of the United States. “A significant departure
from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional
question.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); Smiley v. Holm,
285 U.S. 355, 365(1932).
22. ThejurisdictionoftheCourttograntdeclaratoryreliefisconferredby28U.S.C. §§ 2201
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 11/25/20 Page 9 of 75
10
and 2202 and by Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P.
23. This Court has jurisdiction over the related Michigan constitutional claims and
state-law claims under 28 U.S.C.§ 1367.Venueisproperbecausea substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) &(c).
24. Because the United States Constitution reserves for state legislatures the power to
set the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Congress and the President, state
executive officers, including but not limited to Secretary Benson, have no authority to
unilaterally exercise that power, much less flout existinglegislation.
THE PARTIES
25. Each of the following Plaintiffs are registered Michigan voters and nominees of
the Republican Party to be a Presidential Elector on behalf of the State of Michigan: Timothy
King, a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan; Marian Ellen Sheridan, a resident of Oakland
County, Michigan; and,John Earl Haggard, a resident of Charlevoix, Michigan;
26. Each of these Plaintiffshas standing to bring this action as voters and as
candidates for the office of Elector under MCL §§ 168.42 & 168.43 (election procedures for
Michigan electors).As such, Presidential Electors “have a cognizable interest in ensuring that the
final vote tally reflects the legally valid votes cast,” as “[a]n inaccurate vote tally is a concrete
and particularized injury to candidates such as the Electors.” Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051,
1057 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming that Presidential Electors have Article III and prudential standing
to challenge actions of Secretary of State in implementing or modifying State election laws); see
also McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892); Bush v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd.,
531 U.S. 70, 76 (2000) (per curiam). Each brings this action to set aside and decertify the
election results for the Office of President of the United States that was certified by the Michigan
Secretary of State on November 23, 2020. The certified results showed a plurality of 154,188
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 11/25/20 Page 10 of 75
11
votes in favor of former Vice-President Joe Biden over President Trump.
27. Plaintiff James Ritchard is a registered voter residing in Oceana County. He is
the Republican Party Chairman of Oceana County.
28. Plaintiff James David Hooper is a registered voter residing in Wayne County. He
is the Republican Party Chairman for the Wayne County Eleventh District.
29. Plaintiff Daren Wade Ribingh is a registered voter residing in Antrim County. He
is the Republican Party Chairman of Antrim County. is
30. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer (Governor of Michigan) is named herein in her
official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan.
31. Defendant JocelynBenson (“Secretary Benson”) isnamed as
adefendantinherofficial capacity as Michigan’sSecretaryofState. Jocelyn Benson is the “chief
elections officer” responsible for overseeing the conduct of Michigan elections. MCL § 168.21
(“The secretary of state shall be the chief election officer of the state and shall have supervisory
control over local election officials in the performance of their duties under the provisions of
this act.”); MCL § 168.31(1)(a)(the“SecretaryofStateshall…issueinstructions
andpromulgaterules…fortheconduct of elections and registrations in accordance with the laws
of this state”). Local election officials must follow Secretary Benson’s instructions regarding
the conduct of elections. Michigan law provides that Secretary Benson “[a]dvise and direct
local election officials as to the proper methods of conducting elections.” MCL § 168.31(1)(b).
See also Hare v. Berrien Co Bd. of Election, 129 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 1964); Davis v. Secretary
of State, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 6128, at *9 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2020). Secretary
Bensonis responsibleforassuringMichigan’slocalelectionofficialsconductelectionsinafair,just,
and lawful manner. See MCL 168.21; 168.31; 168.32. See also League of Women Voters of
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 11/25/20 Page 11 of 75
12
Michigan v. Secretary of State, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 709, *3 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 27,
2020); Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, 922 N.W.2d
404(Mich.Ct.App.2018),aff’d921N.W.2d247(Mich.2018);Fitzpatrickv.Secretaryof State, 440
N.W.2d 45 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
32. Defendant Michigan Board of State Canvassers is “responsible for approv[ing]
votingequipmentforuseinthestate,certify[ing]theresultofelectionsheldstatewide….” Michigan
Election Officials’ Manual, p. 4. See also MCL 168.841, etseq. On March 23, 2020, the Board
of State Canvassers certified the results of the 2020 election finding that Joe Biden had received
154,188 more votes than President Donald Trump.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
33. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and under MCL
168.861, to remedy deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws of the United States and to contest the election results, and the corollary under the
Michigan Constitution.
34. The United States Constitution sets forth the authority to regulate federal
elections. With respect to congressional elections, the Constitution provides.
35. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing
Senators. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4 (“Elections Clause”).
36. With respect to the appointment of presidential electors, the Constitution
provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a
Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 11/25/20 Page 12 of 75
13
State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. U.S. CONST.
art. II, § 1 (“Electors Clause”). Under the Michigan Election Code, the Electors of the President
and Vice President for the State of Michigan are elected by each political party at their state
convention in each Presidential election year. See MCL §§ 168.42 & 168.43.
37. Neither Defendant is a “Legislature” as required under the Elections Clause or
Electors Clause. The Legislature is “‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the
people.’” Smiley, 285 U.S. 365. Regulations of congressional and presidential elections, thus,
“must be in accordance with the method which the state has prescribed for legislative
enactments.” Id. at 367; see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n,
576 U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (U.S. 2015).
38. While the Elections Clause "was not adopted to diminish a State's authority to
determine its own lawmaking processes," Ariz.State Legislature, 135 S. Ct. at 2677, it does
hold states accountable to their chosen processes when it comes to regulating federal
elections, id. at 2668. "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing
Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." Bush, 531 U.S. at 113
(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); Smiley, 285 U.S. at 365.
39. And Plaintiffs bring this action,to vindicate his constitutional right to a free and
fair election ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the process pursuant to the Michigan
Constitution, art. 2, sec. 4, par. 1(h), which states all Michigan citizenshave:
The right to have the results of statewide elections audited, in such a manner as
prescribed by law, to ensure the accuracy and integrity of elections.
40. TheMich.Const.,art.2,sec.4,furtherstates,“Allrightssetforthinthissubsection shall
be self-executing. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of voters' rights in order to
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 11/25/20 Page 13 of 75
14
effectuate itspurposes.”
41. Based upon all the allegations of fraud, statutory violations, and other misconduct,
as stated herein and in the attached affidavits, it is necessary to enjoin the certification of the
election results pending a full investigation and court hearing, and to order an independent audit
of the November 3, 2020 election to ensure the accuracy and integrity of theelection
I. LEGAL BACKGROUND: RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN
ELECTION CODE AND ELECTION CANVASSING PROCEDURES.
A. Michigan law requires Secretary Benson and local election officials to
provide designated challengers a meaningful opportunity to observe the
conduct ofelections.
42. Challengers representing a political party, candidate, or organization interested in
the outcome of the election provide a critical role in protecting the integrity
ofelectionsincludingthepreventionofvoterfraudandotherconduct(whethermaliciously undertaken
or by incompetence) that could affect the conduct of the election. See MCL § 168.730-738.
43. MichiganrequiresSecretaryofStateBenson,localelectionauthorities,and
stateandcountycanvassingboardstoprovidechallengerstheopportunitytomeaningfully participate
in, and oversee, the conduct of Michigan elections and the counting ofballots.
44. Michigan’selectioncodeprovidesthatchallengersshallhavethefollowing rights and
responsibilities:
a. An election challenger shall be provided a space within a polling place where
they can observe the election procedure and each person applyingto vote.
MCL§ 168.733(1).
b. An election challenger must be allowed opportunity to inspect poll books as
ballots are issued to electors and witness the electors’ names being entered in
the poll book. MCL§ 168.733(1)(a).
c. AnelectionChallengermustbeallowedtoobservethemannerinwhichthe duties of
the election inspectors are being performed. MCL§ 168.733(1)(b).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 11/25/20 Page 14 of 75
15
d. An election challenger is authorized to challenge the voting rights of a person
who the challenger has good reason to believe is not a registered elector.
MCL§ 168.733(1)(c).
e. Anelectionchallengerisauthorizedtochallengeanelectionprocedurethat is not
being properly performed. MCL§ 168.733(1)(d).
f. Anelectionchallengermaybringtoanelectioninspector’sattentionanyof the
following: (1) improper handling of a ballot by an elector or election
inspector; (2) a violation of a regulation made by the board of election
inspectors with regard to the time in which an elector may remain in the
polling place; (3) campaigning and fundraising being performed by an
electioninspectororotherpersoncoveredbyMCL§168.744;and/or(4)any
otherviolationofelectionlaworotherprescribedelectionprocedure.MCL
§ 168.733(1)(e).
g. An election challenger may remain present during the canvass of votesand
until the statement of returns is duly signed and made. MCL§168.733(1)(f).
h. An election challenger may examine each ballot as it is being counted.
MCL§ 168.733(1)(g).
i. An election challenger may keep records of votes cast and other election
procedures as the challenger desires. MCL §168.733(1)(h).
j. Anelectionchallengermayobservetherecordingofabsentvoterballotson voting
machines. MCL§168.733(1)(i).
45. The Michigan Legislature adopted these provisions to prevent and deter
votefraud,requiretheconductofMichiganelectionstobetransparent,andtoassurepublic
confidenceintheoutcomeoftheelectionnomatterhowclosethefinalballottallymaybe.
46. Michigan values the important role challengers perform in assuring the
transparency and integrity of elections. For example, Michigan law provides it is a felony
punishable by up to two years in state prison for any person to threaten or intimidate a challenger
who is performing any activity described in Michigan law. MCL § 168.734(4).
Itisafelonypunishablebyuptotwoyearsinstateprisonforanypersontopreventthepresence of a
challenger exercising their rights or to fail to provide a challenger with “conveniences for the
performance of the[ir] duties.” MCL 168.734.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 11/25/20 Page 15 of 75
16
47. TheresponsibilitiesofchallengersareestablishedbyMichiganstatute.MCL § 168.730
states:
(1) Atanelection,apoliticalpartyor[anorganization]interestedinpreserving the
purity of elections and in guarding against the abuse of the elective franchise,
may designate challengers as provided in this act. Except as otherwise
provided in this act, a political party [or interested organization] may
designate not more than 2 challengers to serve in a precinct at any 1 time. A
political party [or interested organization] may designate not more than 1
challenger to serve at each countingboard.
(2) A challenger shall be a registered elector ofthisstate ...........A candidateforthe
office of delegate to a county convention may serve as a challenger in a
precinct other than the 1 in which he or she is a candidate. . . .
(3) A challenger may be designated to serve in more than 1 precinct. The
politicalparty[orinterestedorganization]shallindicatewhichprecinctsthe
challenger will serve when designating challengers under subsection (1). If
more than 1 challenger of a political party [or interested organization] is
servinginaprecinctatany1time,only1ofthechallengershastheauthority to initiate
a challenge at any given time. The challengers shall indicate to the board of
election inspectors which of the 2 will have thisauthority. The challengers may
change this authority and shall indicate the change to the board of
electioninspectors.
48. SecretaryBensonandWayneCountyviolatedtheseprovisionsofMichigan law and
violated the constitutional rights of Michigan citizens and voters when they did not conduct this
general election in conformity with Michigan law and the United States Constitution.
B. The canvassing process in Michigan.
49. Michigan has entrusted the conduct of elections to three categories of
individuals,a“boardofinspectors,”a“boardofcountycanvassers,”andthe“boardofstate canvassers.”
50. The board of inspectors, among its other duties, canvasses the ballots and
compares the ballots to the poll books. See MCL § 168.801. “Such canvass shall be public and
the doors to the polling places and at least 1 door in the building housing the polling places and
giving ready access to them shall not be locked during such canvas.” Id. The members of the
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 11/25/20 Page 16 of 75
17
board of inspectors (one from each party) are required to seal the ballots
andelectionequipmentandcertifythestatementofreturnsandtallysheetsanddeliverthe
statementofreturnsandtallysheettothetownshiporcityclerk,whoshalldeliverittothe probate court
judge, who will than deliver the statement of returns and tally sheet to the “board of county
canvassers.” MCL § 168.809. “All election returns, including poll lists,
statements,tallysheets,absentvoters’returnenvelopesbearingthestatementrequired[to cast an
absentee ballot] … must be carefully preserved.” MCL § 810a and § 168.811 (emphasis added).
51. After the board of inspectors completes its duties, the board of county canvassers
is to meet at the county clerk’s office “no later than 9 a.m. on the Thursday after” the election.
November 5, 2020 is the date for the meeting. MCL 168.821. The board of county canvassers
has power to summon and open ballot boxes, correct errors, and summon election inspectors to
appear. Among other duties and responsibilities, the board of county canvassers shall do the
following provided in MCL168.823(3).
52. The board of county canvassers shall correct obvious mathematical errors in the
tallies and returns.
The board of county canvassers may, if necessary for a proper determination,
summon the election inspectors before them, and require them to count any ballots
that the election inspectors failed to count, to make correct returns in case, in the
judgment of the board of county canvassers after examining the returns, poll lists,
or tally sheets, the returns already made are incorrect or incomplete, and the board
of county canvassers shall canvass the votes from the corrected returns. In the
alternative to summoning the election inspectors before them, the board of county
canvassers may designate staff members from the county clerk’s office to count
any ballots that the election inspectors failed to count, to make correct returns in
case, in the judgment of the board of county canvassers after examining the
returns, poll lists, or tally sheets, thereturns already made are incorrect or
incomplete, and the board of county canvassers shall canvass the votes from the
corrected returns. When the examination of the papers is completed, or the ballots
have been counted,
theyshallbereturnedtotheballotboxesordeliveredtothepersonsentitled by law to
their custody, and the boxes shall be locked and sealed and delivered to the
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 11/25/20 Page 17 of 75
18
legalcustodians. The county board of canvassers shall “conclude the canvass at the
earliest possible time and in every case no later than the fourteenth day after the
election,” which
isNovember17.MCL168.822(1).But,“[i]ftheboardofcountycanvassersfailstocertify
the results of any election for any officer or proposition by the fourteenth day after
the election as provided, the board of county canvassers shall immediately deliver
to the secretary of the board of state canvassers all records and other information
pertaining to
theelection.Theboardofstatecanvassersshallmeetimmediatelyandmakethenecessary
determinationsandcertifytheresultswithinthe10daysimmediatelyfollowingthereceip
t of the records from the board of county canvassers.” MCL168.822(2).
53. The Michigan board of state canvassers then meets at the Secretary of State’s
office the twentieth day after the election and announce its determination of the canvass “not
later than the fortieth day after the election.” For this general election that is November 23 and
December 3. MCL 168.842. There is provision for the Secretary of State to direct an expedited
canvass of the returns for the election of electors for President and VicePresident.
54. The county board of canvassers shall “conclude the canvass at the earliest
possible time and in every case no later than the fourteenth day after the election,” which
isNovember17.MCL168.822(1).But,“[i]ftheboardofcountycanvassersfailstocertify the results of
any election for any officer or proposition by the fourteenth day after the election as provided,
the board of county canvassers shall immediately deliver to the secretary of the board of state
canvassers all records and other information pertaining to
theelection.Theboardofstatecanvassersshallmeetimmediatelyandmakethenecessary
determinationsandcertifytheresultswithinthe10daysimmediatelyfollowingthereceipt of the
records from the board of county canvassers.” MCL168.822(2).
55. The Michigan board of state canvassers then meets at the Secretary of State’s
office the twentieth day after the election and announce its determination of the canvass “not
later than the fortieth day after the election.” For this general election that is November 23 and
December 3. MCL 168.842. There is provision for the Secretary of State to direct an expedited
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 11/25/20 Page 18 of 75
19
canvass of the returns for the election of electors for President and VicePresident.
56. The federal provisions governing the appointment of electors to the Electoral
College, 3 U.S.C. §§ 1-18, require Michigan Governor Whitmer to preparea Certificate of
Ascertainment by December 14, the date the Electoral Collegemeets.
57. The United States Code (3 U.S.C. §5) provides that if election results are
contestedinanystate,andifthestate,priortoelectionday,hasenactedprocedurestosettle controversies
or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, and the
results have been determined six days before the electors’ meetings,
thentheseresultsareconsideredtobeconclusiveandwillapplyinthecountingofthe electoral votes.
This date (the “Safe Harbor” deadline) falls on December 8, 2020. The governor of any state
where there was a contest, and in which the contest was decided according to established state
procedures, is required (by 3 U.S.C. § 6) to send a certificate describing the form and manner by
which the determination was made to the Archivist as soon as practicable.
58. The members of the board of state canvassers are Democrat Jeannette Bradshaw,
Republican Aaron Van Langeveide, Republican Norman Shinkle, and Democrat Julie Matuzak.
Jeanette Bradshaw is the Board Chairperson. The members of the Wayne County board of
county canvassers are Republican Monica Palmer, Democrat Jonathan Kinloch, Republican
William Hartmann, and Democrat Allen Wilson. Monica Palmer is the BoardChairperson.
59. More than one hundred credentialed election challengers provided sworn
affidavits.Theseaffidavitsstated,amongothermatters,thatthesecredentialedchallengers were denied
a meaningful opportunity to review election officials in Wayne County handling ballots,
processing absent voter ballots, validating the legitimacy of absentvoterballots, and the general
conduct of the election and ballot counting. See Exhibit 1 (affidavits of election challengers).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 11/25/20 Page 19 of 75
20
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND FACT WITNESS
TESTIMONYREGARDINGMICHIGAN ELECTION CODE VIOLATIONS AND
OTHER UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY ELECTION WORKERS AND MICHIGAN
STATE, WAYNE COUNTY AND/OR CITY OF DETROIT EMPLOYEES.
60. Wayne County used the TCF Center in downtown Detroit to consolidate, collect,
and tabulate all of the ballots for
theCounty.TheTCFCenterwastheonlyfacilitywithinWayneCountyauthorizedtocountthe ballots.
A. Republican Election ChallengersWere Denied Opportunity to Meaningfully
Observe the Processing and Counting of Ballots.
61. There is a difference between a ballot and a vote. A ballot is a piece of paper. A
vote is a ballot that has been completed by a citizen registered to vote who has the right to cast a
vote and has done so in compliance with Michigan election law by, among other things,
verifying their identity and casting the ballot on or before Election Day. It is the task of Secretary
Benson and Michigan election officials to assure that only ballots cast by individuals entitled to
cast a vote in the election are counted and to make
surethatallballotscastbylawfulvotersarecountedandtheelectionisconductedinaccord with
Michigan’s Election Code uniformly throughoutMichigan.
62. Challengers provide the transparency and accountability to assure ballots are
lawfully cast and counted as provided in Michigan’s Election Code and voters can be
confidenttheoutcomeoftheelectionwashonestlyandfairlydeterminedbyeligiblevoters.
63. WayneCountyexcludedcertifiedchallengersfrommeaningfullyobserving the
conduct of the election in violation of the Michigan Election Code. This allowed a substantial
number of ineligible ballots to be counted, as outlined in Section B. below. These systematic
Michigan Election Code violations, and the disparate treatment of Republican vs. Democratic
poll challengers, also violated the Equal Protection Clause and other provisions of the U.S.
Constitution as detailed herein. The following affidavits describe the specifics that were
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 11/25/20 Page 20 of 75
21
observed. This conduct was pervasive in Wayne County as attested to in the affidavits attached at
EXHIBIT3.
1. Republican Observers Denied Access to TCF Center
64. Many individuals designated as challengers to observe the conduct of the election
were denied meaningful opportunity to observe the conduct of the election. For example,
challengers designated by the Republican Party or Republican candidates were denied access to
the TCF Center (formerly called Cobo Hall) ballot counting location in Detroit while Democratic
challengers were allowed access. Exhibit 3 (Deluca aff. ¶¶7-9, 16-18; Langer aff. ¶3; Papsdorf
aff. ¶3; Frego aff. ¶9; Downing aff. ¶¶2-9, 11, 15, 22; Sankey aff. ¶¶5-8; Ostin aff. ¶¶5-7;
Cavaliere aff. ¶3; Cassin aff. ¶4; Rose aff. ¶18; Zimmerman aff. ¶8; Langer aff. ¶3; Poplawski
aff. ¶3; Henderson aff. ¶7; Fuqua-Freyaff.¶5; Ungar aff. ¶4; Eilf aff. ¶¶9, 17; Jeup aff. ¶¶6-7;
Tietz aff. ¶¶9-18; McCall aff. ¶¶5-6; Arnoldyaff.¶¶5,8-
9(unlimitedmembersofthemediawerealsoallowedinsideregardless of COVID restrictions while
Republican challengers were excluded)).
65. Many challengers stated that Republican challengers who had been admitted to the
TCF Center but who left were not allowed to return. Id. (Bomer aff.¶16; Paschke aff. ¶4;
Schneider aff., p. 2; Arnoldy aff. ¶6; Boller aff. ¶¶13-15 (removed and not allowed to serve as
challenger); Kilunen aff. ¶7; Gorman aff. ¶¶6-8; Wirsing aff.,p. 1; Rose aff. ¶19; Krause aff. ¶¶9,
11; Roush aff. ¶16; M. Seely aff. ¶6; Fracassi aff. ¶6; Whitmore aff. ¶5). Furthermore,
Republican challengers who left the TCF Center were not allowed to be replaced by other
Republican challengers while Democratic challengers were replaced.
2. Disparate and Discriminatory Treatment of Republican vs.
Democratic Challengers.
66. As a result of Republican challengers not being admitted or re-admitted, while
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 11/25/20 Page 21 of 75
22
Democratic challengers were freely admitted, there were many more Democratic challengers
allowed to observe the processing and counting of absent voter ballots than Republican
challengers. Id. (Helminen aff. ¶12 (Democratic challengers out- numbered Republican
challengers by at least a two-to-one ratio); Daavettila aff., p. 2 (ten
timesasmanyDemocraticchallengersasRepublican);A.Seelyaff.¶19;Schneideraff.,p. 2; Wirsing
aff., p. 1; Rauf aff. ¶21; Roush aff. ¶¶16-17; Topini aff.¶4).
67. Many challengers testified that election officials strictly and exactingly enforced a
six-foot distancing rule for Republican challengers but not for Democratic challengers. Id.
(Paschke aff. ¶4; Wirsing aff., p. 1; Montie aff. ¶4; Harris aff. ¶3; Krause aff. ¶7; Vaupel aff. ¶5;
Russel aff. ¶7; Duus aff. ¶9; Topini aff. ¶6). As a result, Republican challengers were not
allowed to meaningfully observe the ballot counting process.
3. Republican Challengers Not Permitted to View Ballot Handling,
Processing or Counting.
68. Many challengers testified that their ability to view the handling, processing, and
counting of ballots was physically and intentionally blocked by election
officials.Id.(A.Seelyaff.¶15;Milleraff.¶¶13-14;Pennalaaff.¶4;Tysonaff.¶¶12- 13, 16; Ballew aff.
¶8; Schornak aff. ¶4; Williamson aff. ¶¶3, 6; Steffans aff. ¶¶15-16, 23- 24; Zaplitny aff. ¶15;
Sawyer aff. ¶5; Cassin aff. ¶9; Atkins aff. ¶3; Krause aff. ¶5;Shereraff. ¶¶15, 24; Basler aff. ¶¶7-
8; Early aff. ¶7; Posch aff. ¶7; Chopjian aff. ¶11; Shock aff.¶7; Schmidt aff. ¶¶7-8; M. Seely aff.
¶4; Topini aff. ¶8).
69. At least three challengers said they were physically pushed away from counting
tables by election officials to a distance that was too far to observe the counting. Id. (Helminen
aff. ¶4; Modlin aff. ¶¶4, 6; Sitek aff. ¶4). Challenger Glen Sitek reported that he was pushed
twice by an election worker, the second time in the presence of police officers. Id. (Sitek aff. ¶4).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 11/25/20 Page 22 of 75
23
Sitek filed a police complaint.Id.
70. Challenger Pauline Montie stated that she was prevented from viewing the
computer monitor because election workers kept pushing it further away and made her stand
back away from the table. Id. (Montie aff. ¶¶4-7). When Pauline Montie told an election worker
that she was not able to see the monitor because they pushed it farther away from her, the
election worker responded, “too bad.” Id.¶8.
71. Many challengers witnessed Wayne County election officials covering the
windows of the TCF Center ballot counting center so that observers could not observe the ballot
counting process. Id. (A. Seely aff. ¶¶9, 18; Helminen aff. ¶¶9, 12; Deluca aff. ¶13; Steffans aff.
¶22; Frego aff. ¶11; Downing aff. ¶21; Sankey aff. ¶14; Daavettila
aff.,p.4;Zimmermanaff.¶10;Krauseaff.¶12;Shereraff.¶22;Johnsonaff.¶7;Poschaff.¶10;Raufaff.¶23
;Lukeaff.,p.1;M.Seelyaff.¶8;Zelaskoaff.¶8;Ungaraff.¶12;Storm aff. ¶7; Fracassi aff. ¶8; Eilf aff.
¶25; McCall aff.¶9).
4. Harassment, Intimidation & Removal of Republican Challengers
72. Many challengers testified that they were intimidated, threatened, and harassed by
election officials during the ballot processing and counting process. Id. (Ballew aff. ¶¶7, 9;
Gaicobazzi aff. ¶¶12-14 (threatened repeatedly and removed);
Schneideraff.,p.1;Piontekaff.¶11;Steffansaff.¶26(intimidationmadeherfeeltooafraid to make
challenges); Cizmar aff. ¶8(G); Antonie aff. ¶3; Zaplitny aff. ¶20; Moss aff. ¶4; Daavettila aff.,
pp. 2-3; Tocco aff. ¶¶1-2; Cavaliere ¶3; Kerstein aff. ¶3; Rose aff. ¶16; Zimmerman aff. ¶5;
Langer aff. ¶3; Krause aff. ¶4; Sherer aff. ¶24; Vaupel aff. ¶4; Basler aff. ¶8; Russell aff. ¶5;
Burton aff. ¶5; Early aff. ¶7; Pannebecker aff. ¶10; Sitek aff. ¶4; Klamer aff. ¶4; Leonard aff.
¶¶6, 15; Posch aff. ¶¶7, 14; Rauf aff. ¶24; Chopjian aff. ¶10;
Cooperaff.¶12;Shockaff.¶9;Schmidtaff.¶¶9-10;Duusaff.¶10;M.Seelyaff.¶4;Storm aff. ¶¶5, 7;
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 11/25/20 Page 23 of 75
24
DePerno aff. ¶¶5-6; McCall aff. ¶¶5, 13). ArticiaBomer was called a “racist name” by an election
worker and also harassed by other election workers. Id. (Bomeraff.¶7). Zachary Vaupel reported
that an election supervisor called him an “obscene name”
andtoldhimnottoaskquestionsaboutballotprocessingandcounting. Id.(Vaupelaff.¶4). Kim Tocco
was personally intimidated and insulted by election workers. Id. (Tocco aff. ¶¶1-2). Qian
Schmidt was the target of racist comments and asked, “what gives you the right to be here since
you are not American?” Id. (Schmidt aff. ¶9).
73. Other challengers were threatened with removal from the counting area if they
continued to ask questions about the ballot counting process. Id. (A. Seely aff. ¶¶6, 13, 15;
Pennalaaff. ¶5). Challenger Kathleen Daavettila observed that Democratic challengers
distributed a packet of information among themselves entitled, “Tactics to Distract GOP
Challengers.” Id. (Daavettila aff., p. 2). An election official told challenger Ulrike Sherer that the
election authority had a police SWAT team waiting outside if Republican challengers argued too
much. Id. (Sherer aff. ¶24). An election worker told challenger
JazmineEarlythatsince“Englishwasnot[her]firstlanguage…[she]shouldnotbetaking part in this
process.” Id. (Early aff. ¶11).
74. Election officials at the TCF Center in Detroit participated in the intimidation
experienced by Republican challengers when election officials would applaud, cheer, and yell
whenever a Republican challenger was ejected from the counting area. Id. (Helminen aff. ¶9;
Pennala aff. ¶5; Ballew aff. ¶9; Piontek aff. ¶11;
Papsdorfaff.¶3;Steffansaff.¶25;Cizmaraff.¶8(D);Kilunenaff.¶5;Daavettilaaff.,p.4; Cavaliere aff.
¶3; Cassin aff. ¶10; Langer aff. ¶3; Johnson aff. ¶5; Early aff. ¶13; Klamer aff. ¶8; Posch aff.
¶12; Rauf aff. ¶22; Chopjian aff. ¶13; Shock aff.¶10).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 11/25/20 Page 24 of 75
25
5. Poll Workers Ignored or Refused to Record Republican Challenges.
75. Unfortunately, this did not happen in Wayne County. Many challengers testified
that their challenges to ballots were ignored and disregarded. Id. (A.Seely aff. ¶4; Helminen aff.
¶5; Miller aff. ¶¶10-11; Schornak aff. ¶¶9, 15; Piontek aff. ¶6;
Daavettilaaff.,p.3;Valiceaff.¶2;Sawyeraff.¶7;Kerstein aff.¶3;Modlinaff.¶4;Cassin aff. ¶6;
Brigmon aff. ¶5; Sherer aff. ¶11; Early aff. ¶18; Pannebecker aff. ¶9; Vanker aff. ¶5; M. Seely
aff. ¶11; Ungar aff. ¶¶16-17; Fracassi aff. ¶4).
76. As an example of challenges being disregarded and ignored, challenger Alexandra
Seely stated that at least ten challenges she made were not recorded. Id. (A. Seely aff. ¶4).
ArticiaBomer observed that ballots with votes for Trump were separated
fromotherballots.Id.(Bomeraff.¶5).ArticiaBomerstated,“Iwitnessedelectionworkers open ballots
with Donald Trump votes and respond by rolling their eyes and showing it to other poll workers.
I believe some of these ballots may not have been properly counted.” Id. ¶8. Braden Gaicobazzi
challenged thirty-five ballots for whom the voter records did not exist in the poll book, but his
challenge was ignored and disregarded. Id. (Giacobazzi aff. ¶10). When Christopher Schornak
attempted to challenge the counting of
ballots,anelectionofficialtoldhim,“Wearenottalkingtoyou,youcannotchallengethis.”
Id.(Schornakaff.¶15).WhenStephanieKrauseattemptedtochallengeballots,anelection
workertoldherthatchallengeswerenolongerbeingacceptedbecausethe“rules‘nolonger applied.’” Id.
(Krause aff.¶13).
6. Unlawful Ballot Duplication.
77. If a ballot is rejected by a ballot-tabulator machine and cannot be read by the
machine, the ballot must be duplicated onto a new ballot. The Michigan Secretary of State has
instructed, “If the rejection is due to a false read the ballot must be duplicatedby two election
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 11/25/20 Page 25 of 75
26
inspectors who have expressed a preference for different political parties.” Michigan Election
Officials’ Manual, ch. 8, p. 6 (emphasis added). Thus, the ballot-duplicating process must be
performed by bipartisan teams of election officials. It must also be performed where it can be
observed bychallengers.
78. But Wayne County prevented many challengers from observing the ballot
duplicating process. Id. (Miller aff. ¶¶6-8; Steffans aff. ¶¶15-16, 23-24;
Mandelbaumaff.¶6;Shereraff.¶¶16-
17;Burtonaff.¶7;Drzewieckiaff.¶7;Klameraff.¶9;Chopjianaff.¶10;Schmidtaff.¶7;Champagneaff.¶
12;Shinkleaff.,p.1).Challenger John Miller said he was not allowed to observe election workers
duplicating a ballot
becausethe“duplicationprocesswaspersonallikevoting.”Id.(Milleraff.¶8).Challenger Mary Shinkle
stated that she was told by an election worker that she was not allowed to
observeaballotduplicationbecause“ifwemakeamistakethenyouwouldbealloverus.” Id. (Shinkle
aff., p. 1).Anotherchallengerobservedelectionofficialsmakingmistakeswhen duplicating ballots.
Id. (Piontek aff. ¶9).
79. Many challengers testified that ballot duplication was performed only by
Democratic election workers, not bipartisan teams. Exhibit 1 (Pettibone aff. ¶3; Kinney
aff.,p.1;Wasilewskiaff.,p.1;Schornakaff.¶¶18-19;Dixonaff.,p.1;Kolanagireddyaff.,p. 1;
Kordenbrock aff. ¶¶3-4; Seidl aff., p. 1; Kerstein aff. ¶4; Harris aff. ¶3; Sitek aff. ¶4).
7. Democratic Election Challengers Frequently Outnumbered
Republican Poll Watchers 2:1 or Even 2:0.
80. Dominon contractor Melissa Carrone testified that there were significantly more
Democrats than Republicans at the TCF Center, and that as a result there were “over 20
machines [that] had two democrats judging the ballots-resulting in an unfair process.” Exh. 5 ¶5.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.26 Filed 11/25/20 Page 26 of 75
27
Other affiants testified to the fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 2:1 or more Id.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Helminon aff. ¶12). Democrats also impersonated Republican poll watchers. Id. (Seely aff.
¶19).
8. Collaboration Between Election Workers, City/County Employees,
and Democratic Party Challengers and Activists.
81. Affiants testified to systematic and routine collaboration between election
workers, Michigan public employees and Democratic election challengers and activists present,
in particular to intimidate, harass, distract or remove Republic election watchers. See, e.g., Exh.
1 (Ballow aff. ¶9; Gaicobazzi aff. ¶¶12, 14; Piontek aff. ¶11).
B. Election Workers Fraudulent Forged, Added, Removed or Otherwise
Altered Information on Ballots, Qualified Voter List and Other Voting
Records
82. A lawsuit recently filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center (“GLJC”) raises similar
allegations of vote fraud and irregularities that occurred in Wayne County. See Exhibit 4
(copyofcomplaintfiledintheCircuitCourtofWayneCountyinCostantino,etal.v.City of Detroit, et
al.) (“GLJC Complaint”).The allegations and affidavits included in the GLJC Complaint are
incorporated by reference in the body of this Complaint.
1. Election Workers Fraudulently Added “Tens of Thousands” of New
Ballots and New Voters in the Early Morning and Evening
November 4.
83. The most egregious example of election workers fraudulent and illegal behavior
concerns two batches of new ballots brought to the TCF Center after the 8:00 PM Election Day
deadline. First, at approximately 4:30 AM on November 4, 2020, poll challenger Andrew Sitto
observed “tens of thousands of new ballots” being brought into the counting room, and “[u]nlike
the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the room.” Exh. 4, GLJC
Complaint, Exh. C at ¶ 10. Mr. Sitto heard other Republican challengers state that “several
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.27 Filed 11/25/20 Page 27 of 75
28
vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and
unloaded boxes of ballots.” Id. at ¶ 11. “All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for
Joe Biden.” Id. at ¶ 12.
84. A second set of new boxes of ballots arrived at the TCF Center around 9:00 PM
on November 4, 2020. According to poll watcher Robert Cushman, contained “several thousand
new ballots.” Exh. 4, GLJC Complaint, Exh. D at ¶ 5. Mr. Cushman noted that “none of the
names on the new ballots were on the QVF or the Supplemental Sheets,” id. at ¶ 7, and he
observed “computer operators at several counting boards manually adding the names and
addresses of these thousands of ballots to the QVF system.” Id. at ¶ 8. Further, “[e]very ballot
was being fraudulently and manually entered into the [QVF], as having been born on January 1,
1990.” Id. at ¶ 15. When Mr. Cushman challenged the validity of the votes and the
impossibility of each ballot having the same birthday, he “was told that this was the instruction
that came down from the Wayne County Clerk’s office.” Id. at ¶ 16.
85. Perhaps the most probative evidence comes from Melissa Carone, who was
“contracted to do IT work at the TCF Center for the November 3, 2020 election.” Exh. 5, ¶1.
On November 4, Ms. Carrone testified that there were “two vans that pulled into the garage of
the counting room, one on day shift and one on night shift.” Id. ¶8. She thought that the vans
were bring food, however, she “never saw any food coming out of these vans,” and noted the
coincidence that “Michigan had discovered over 100,000 more ballots – not even two hours after
the last van left.” Id. Ms. Carrone witnessed this of this illegal vote dump, as well as several
other violations outlined below.
2. Election Workers Forged and Fraudulently Added Voters to the
Qualified Voter List.
86. Many challengers reported that when a voter was not in the poll book, the election
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.28 Filed 11/25/20 Page 28 of 75
29
officials would enter a new record for that voter with a birth date of January 1, 1900. Exhibit 1
(Gaicobazzi aff. ¶10; Piontek aff. ¶10; Cizmer aff. ¶8(F); Wirsing aff., p. 1; Cassin aff. ¶9;
Langer aff. ¶3; Harris aff. ¶3; Brigmon aff. ¶5; Sherer aff. ¶¶10-11; Henderson aff. ¶9; Early ¶16;
Klamer aff. ¶13; Shock aff. ¶8; M. Seely aff. ¶9). See also id. (Gorman aff. ¶¶23-26; Chopjian
aff. ¶12; Ungar aff. ¶15; Valden aff. ¶17). Braden Gaicobazzi reported that a stack of thirty-five
ballots was counted even though there was no voter record. Id. (Giacobazzi aff.¶10).
87. The GLJC Complaint alleges the Detroit Election Commission “systematically
processed and counted ballots from voters whose name failed to appear in either the Qualified
Voter File (QVF) or in the supplemental sheets.” Exh. 3, GLJC Complaintat 3. The GLJC
Complaint provides additional witness affidavits detailing the fraudulent conduct of election
workers, in particular, that of Zachary Larsen, who served as a Michigan Assistant Attorney
General from 2012 through 2020 and was a certified poll challenger at the TCF Center. “Mr.
Larsen reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system, where it appeared
that the voter had already been counted as having voted. An official operating the computer then
appeared to assign this ballot to a different voter as he observed a completely different name that
was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed ballots on the right side
of the screen.” Id. at ¶ 16. Mr. Larsen observed this “practice of assigning names and numbers”
to non-eligible voters who did not appear in either the poll book or the supplement poll book. Id.
at ¶ 17. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters whose ballots he
personally observed being scanned. Id.
3. Changing Dates on Absentee Ballots.
88. All absentee ballots that existed were required to be inputted into the QVF system
by 9:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. This was required to be done in order to have a final list of
absentee voters who returned their ballots prior to 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. In order to
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.29 Filed 11/25/20 Page 29 of 75
30
have enough time to process the absentee ballots, all polling locations were instructed to collect
the absentee ballots from the drop-box once every hour on November 3, 2020.
89. Jessica Connarn is an attorney who was acting as a Republican challenger
attheTCFCenterinWayneCounty.EXHIBIT6.JessicaConnarn’saffidavitdescribeshow
anelectionpollworkertoldJessicaConnarnthatthepollworker“wasbeingtoldtochange the date on
ballots to reflect that the ballots were received on an earlier date.” Id. ¶1. Jessica Connarn also
provided a photograph of a note handed to her by the poll worker in which the poll worker
indicated she (the poll worker) was instructed to change the date ballots were received. See id.
Jessica Connarn’s affidavit demonstrates that poll workers inWayneCountywerepredatingabsentvoterballots,sothatabsentvoterballotsreceived after 8:00 p.m. on Election Day could
be counted.
90. Plaintiffs have learned of a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) worker
Whistleblower, on November 4, 2020 told Project Veritas that a supervisor named Johnathan
Clarke in Traverse City, Michigan potentially issued a directive to collect ballots and stamp them
as received on November 3, 2020, even though there were not received timely, as required by
law: "We were issued a directive this morning to collect any ballots we find in mailboxes,
collection boxes, just outgoing mail in general, separate them at the end of the day so that they
could hand stamp them with the previous day's date," the whistleblower stated. "Today is
November 4th for clarification."4
This is currently under IG Investigation at the U.S. Post
Office. According to the Postal worker whistleblower, the ballots are in "express bags" so they
could be sent to the USPS distribution center. Id.
91. As set forth in the GLJC Complaint and in the Affidavit of Jessy Jacob, an
4
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/11/04/usps-whistleblower-in-michigan-claims-higher-upswere-engaging-in-voter-fraud-n2579501
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.30 Filed 11/25/20 Page 30 of 75
31
employee of the City of Detroit Elections Department, “on November 4, 2020, I was instructed
to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive date that were not in the QVF as if they
hadbeen received on or before November 3, 2020. I was told to alter the information in the QVF
to falselyshowthattheabsenteeballotshadbeenreceivedintimetobevalid.Sheestimatesthatthis was
done to thousands of ballots.” Exh. 4, GLJC Complaint, Exh. B at ¶ 17.
4. Election Workers Changed Votes for Trump and Other Republican
Candidates.
92. Challenger ArticiaBomer stated, “I observed a station where election workers
were working on scanned ballots that had issues that needed to be manually corrected. I believe
some of these workers were changing votes that had been cast for Donald Trump and other
Republican candidates.” Id. (Bomer aff. ¶9). In addition to this eyewitness testimony of election
workers manually changing votes for Trump to votes for Biden, there is evidence that Dominion
Voting Systems did the same thing on a much larger scale with its Dominion Democracy Suite
software. See generally infra Section IV.D, Paragraphs 123-131.
5. Election Officials Added Votes and Removed Votes from “OverVotes”.
93. Another challenger observed over-votes on ballots being “corrected” so that the
ballots could be counted. Exh. 3(Zaplitny aff.¶13). At least one challenger
observedpollworkersaddingmarkstoaballotwheretherewasnomarkforanycandidate.
Id.(Tysonaff.¶17).
C. Additional Violations of Michigan Election Code That Caused Ineligible,
Illegal or Duplicate Ballots to Be Counted.
1. Illegal Double Voting.
94. At least one election worker
“observedalargenumberofpeoplewhocametothesatellite location to vote in-person, but they had
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.31 Filed 11/25/20 Page 31 of 75
32
already applied for an absentee ballot. These people were allowed to vote in-person and were not
required to return the mailed absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the voter lost the mailed
absentee ballot.” Exh. 4, GLJC Complaint (Exh. B) Jacob aff. at ¶ 10.
Thiswouldpermitapersontovoteinpersonandalsosendinhis/herabsentee ballot, and thereby vote at
least twice.
2. Ineligible Ballots Were Counted – Some Multiple Times.
95. Challengersreportedthatbatchesofballotswererepeatedlyrunthroughthe vote
tabulation machines. Exh. 3 (Helminen aff. ¶4; Waskilewski aff., p. 1; Mandelbaum aff. ¶5; Rose
aff. ¶¶4-14; Sitek aff. ¶3; Posch aff. ¶8; Champagne aff. ¶8). Challenger Patricia Rose stated she
observed a stack of about fifty ballots being fed multiple times into a ballot scanner counting
machine. Id. (Rose aff. ¶¶4-14). ArticiaBomer further stated thatshe witnessed the same group of
ballots being rescanned into the counting machine “at least five times.” Id. ¶12. Dominion
contractor Melissa Carone observed that this was a routine practice at the TCF Center, where she
“witnessed countless workers rescanning the batches without discarding them first” – as required
under Michigan rules and Dominion’s procedures – “which resulted in ballots being counted 4-5
times” by the “countless” number of election workers. Carone aff. ¶3. When she observed that a
computer indicated that it had “a number of over 400 ballots scanned – which means one batch
[of 50] was counted over 8 times,” and complained to her Dominion supervisor, she was
informed that “we are here to do assist with IT work, not to run their election.” Id. at ¶4.
3. Ballots Counted with Ballot Numbers Not Matching Ballot Envelope.
96. Many challengers stated that the ballot number on the ballot did not match
thenumberontheballotenvelope,butwhentheyraisedachallenge,thosechallengeswere disregarded
and ignored by election officials, not recorded, and the ballots wereprocessed
andcounted.Exh. 3(A.Seelyaff.¶15;Wasilewskiaff.,p.1;Schornakaff.¶13;Brunell aff. ¶¶17, 19;
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.32 Filed 11/25/20 Page 32 of 75
33
Papsdorf aff. ¶3; Spalding aff. ¶¶8, 11; Antonie aff. ¶3; Daavettila aff., p. 3; Atkins aff. ¶3;
Harris aff. ¶3; Sherer aff. ¶21; Drzewiecki aff. ¶¶5-6; Klamer aff. ¶4; Rauf aff. ¶¶9-14; Roush
aff. ¶¶5-7; Kinney aff. ¶5). For example, when challenger Abbie Helminen raised a challenge
that the name on the ballot envelope did not match the name on the voter list, she was told by an
election official to “get away” and that the counting
tableshewasobservinghad“adifferentprocessthanothertables.”Id.(Helminenaff.¶5).
4. Election Officials Counted Ineligible Ballots with No Signatures or
with No Postmark on Ballot Envelope.
97. Atleasttwochallengersobservedballotsbeingcountedwheretherewasno signature or
postmark on the ballot envelope. Id. (Brunell aff. ¶¶17, 19; Spalding
aff.¶13;Shereraff.¶13).ChallengerAnneVankerobservedthat“60%ormoreof[ballot] envelopes [in a
batch] bore the same signature on the opened outer envelope.” Id.(Vanker aff. ¶5).Challenger
William Henderson observed that a counting table of election workers lost eight ballot
envelopes. Exhibit 1 (Henderson aff.¶8).The GLJCComplaint further alleges the Election
Commission “instructed election workers to not verify signatures on absentee ballots, to
backdate absentee ballots, and to process such ballots regardless of their validity.”
5. Election Officials Counted “Spoiled” Ballots.
98. At least two challengers observed spoiled ballots being counted. Id. (Schornak aff.
¶¶6-8; Johnson aff. ¶4). At least one challenger observed a box of provisional ballots being
placed in a tabulation box at the TCF Center. Exhibit 1 (Cizmar aff. ¶5).
6. Systematic Violations of Ballot Secrecy Requirements
99. Affiant Larsen identified a consistent practice whereby election officials would
remove ballots from the “secrecy sleeve” or peek into the envelopes, visually inspect the ballots,
and based on this visual inspection of the ballot (and thereby identify the votes cast), determine
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.33 Filed 11/25/20 Page 33 of 75
34
whether to “place the ballot back in its envelope and into a ‘problem ballots’ box that required
additional attention to determine whether they would be processed and counted.” Exh. 4, GLJC
Complaint, Exh. A at ¶14. Mr. Larsen also observed that some ballots arriving without any
secrecy sleeve at all were counted after visual inspection, whereas many ballots without a
secrecy sleeve were placed in the “problem ballots” box. Id. at ¶¶21-22. “So the differentiation
among these ballots despite both ballots arriving in secrecy sleeves was perplexing and again
raised concerns that some ballots were being marked as ‘problem ballots’ based on who the
person had voted for rather on any legitimate concern about the ability to count and process the
ballot appropriately.” Id. at ¶24.
7. Election Workers Accepted Unsecured Ballots, without Chain of
Custody, after 8:00 PM Election Day Deadline.
100. Poll challengers observed two batches of new ballots brought to the TCF Center
after the 8:00 PM Election Day deadline, as detailed in the GLJC Complaint and Paragraphs 79-
81above. Affiant Daniel Gustafson further observed that these batches of ballots “were delivered
to the TCF Center in what appeared to be mail bins with open tops.” Exh. 4, GLJC Complaint,
Exh. E at¶4. Mr. Gustafson further observed that these bins and containers “did not have lids,
were not sealed, and did not have the capability of having a metal seal,” id. at ¶5, nor were they
“marked or identified in any way to indicated their source of origin.” Id. at ¶6.
101. An election challenger at the Detroit Department of Elections office observed
passengers in cars dropping off more ballots than there were people in the car. Exh. 3 (Meyers
aff. ¶3). This challenger also observed an election worker accepting a ballot after 8:00 p.m. on
Election Day. Id.¶7.
102. An election challenger at the Detroit Department of Elections office observed
ballots being deposited in a ballot drop box located at the Detroit Department of Elections after
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.34 Filed 11/25/20 Page 34 of 75
35
8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Id. (Meyers aff.¶6).
103. On November 4, 2020, Affiant Matt Ciantar came forward who, independently
witnessed, while walking his dog, a young couple delivered 3-4 large plastic clear bags, that
appear to be “express bags”, as reflected in photographs taken contemporaneously, to a U.S.
Postal vehicle waiting. See generallyExh. 7 Matt Ciantar Declaration. The use of clear “express
bags” is consistent with the USPS whistleblower Johnathan Clarke in Traverse City, Michigan.
See infra Paragraph 78.
8. Ballots from Deceased Voters Were Counted.
104. One Michigan voter stated that her deceased son has been recorded as voting
twice since he passed away, most recently in the 2020 general election. Exh. 3 (Chase aff.¶3).
III. EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY SUPPORTING INDICATING WIDESPREAD
VOTING FRAUD AND MANIPULATION
A. Approximately 30,000 Michigan Mail-In Ballots Were Lost, and
Approximately 30,000 More Were Fraudulently Recorded for Voters who
Never Requested Mail-In Ballots.
105. The attached report of William M. Briggs, Ph.D. (“Dr. Briggs Report”)
summarizes the multi-state phone survey data of 248 Michigan Republican voters collected by
Matt Braynard, which was conducted from November 15-17, 2020 and covered voters in
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. See Exh. 101, Dr. Briggs Reportat 1,
and Att. 1 (“Braynard Survey”). The Braynard Survey sought to identify two specific errors
involving unreturned mail-in ballots that are indicative of voter fraud, namely: “Error #1: those
who were recorded as receiving absentee ballots withoutrequesting them;” and “Error #2: those
who returned absentee ballots but whose votes went missing (i.e., marked as unreturned).” Id.
Dr. Briggs then conducted a parameter-free predictive model to estimate, within 95% confidence
or prediction intervals, the number of ballots affected by these errors out of a total of 139,190
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.35 Filed 11/25/20 Page 35 of 75
36
unreturned mail-in ballots for the State of Michigan.
106. With respect to Error #1, Dr. Briggs analysis estimated that 29,611 to 36,529
ballots out of the total 139,190 unreturned ballots (21.27% - 26.24%) were recorded for voters
who had not requested them. Id. With respect to Error #2, the numbers are similar with 27,928
to 34,710 ballots out of 139,190 unreturned ballots (20.06% - 24.93%) recorded for voters who
did return their ballots were recorded as being unreturned. Id. Taking the average of the
two types of errors together, 62,517 ballots, or 45% of the total, are “troublesome.”
107. These errors are not only conclusive evidence of widespread fraud by the State of
Michigan,
5 but they are fully consistent with the fact witness statements above the evidence
regarding Dominion presented below insofar as these purportedly unreturned absentee ballots
provide a pool of 60,000-70,000 unassigned and blank ballots that could be filled in by
Michigan election workers, Dominion or other third parties to shift the election to Joe
Biden. With respect to Error #1, Dr. Briggs’ analysis, combined with the statements of the
Michigan voters in the Braynard Survey, demonstrates that approximately 30,000 absentee
ballots were sent to someone besides the registered voter named in the request, and thus
could have been filled out by anyone and then submitted in the name of another voter. With
respect to Error #2, Dr. Briggs’ analysis indicates that approximately 30,000 absentee ballots
were either lost or destroyed (consistent with allegations of Trump ballot destruction) and/or
were replaced with blank ballots filled out by election workers, Dominion or other third
parties. Accordingly, Dr. Briggs’ analysis showing that almost half of purportedly “unreturned
5
The only other possible explanations for the statements of 248 Michigan mail-in voters included
in the Braynard Survey data is (a) that the 248 voters (who had no known pre-existing
relationship apart from being listed as having unreturned absentee ballots) somehow contrived to
collude together to submit false information or (b) that these 248 suffered from amnesia,
dementia or some other condition that caused them to falsely claim that they had requested a
mail-in ballot or returned a mail-in ballot.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.36 Filed 11/25/20 Page 36 of 75
37
ballots” suffers from one of the two errors above – which is consistent with his findings in the
four other States analyzed (Arizona 58%, Georgia 39%, Pennsylvania 37%, and Wisconsin 31%)
– provides further support that these widespread “irregularities” or anomalies was one part of
much larger interstate fraudulent scheme to rig the 2020 General Election for Joe Biden.
B. Statistical Analysis of Anomalous and Unprecedented Turnout Increases in
Specific Precincts Indicate that There Were at Least 40,000 “Excess Voters”
in Wayne County and At Least 46,000 in Oakland County.
108. The attached affidavit of Eric Quinell, Ph.D. (“Dr. Quinell Report”) analyzes the
extraordinary increase in turnout from 2016 to 2020 in a relatively small subset of townships and
precincts outside of Detroit in Wayne County and Oakland County, and more importantly how
nearly 100% or more of all “new” voters from 2016 to 2020 voted for Biden. See Exh. 102.
Using publicly available information from Wayne County and Oakland County, Dr. Quinell first
found that for the votes received up to the 2016 turnout levels, the 2020 vote Democrat vs.
Republican two-ways distributions (i.e., excluding third parties) tracked the 2016 Democrat vs.
Republican distribution very closely, which was 55%-45% for Wayne County (outside Detroit)
and 54%/46% for Oakland County. Id. at ¶¶18 & 20.
109. However, after the 2016 turnout levels were reached, the Democrat vs.
Republican vote share shifts decisively towards Biden by approximately 15 points, resulting in a
72%/28% D/R split for Oakland County and 70%/30% D/R split for Wayne County (outside of
Detroit). What is even more anomalous – and suspicious – is the fact that nearly all of these
“new” votes in excess of 2016 come from a small number of townships/precincts where the
increased Biden vote share is nearly 100% or over 100% for Biden. Id. For example, in the
township of Livonia in Wayne County, Biden gained 3.2 voters for every 1 new Trump voter,
and Biden receive 97% of all “new” votes over 2016 and 151% of all new voter registrations. Id.
at ¶6. In the township of Troy in Oakland County, the vote share shifted from 51%/49% in 2016
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.37 Filed 11/25/20 Page 37 of 75
38
to 80%/20% in 2020 due to Biden receiving 98% of new votes above 2016 and 109% of new
voter registrations. Id. at ¶20. Looking county-wide, Biden gained 2.32 new voters over 2016
levels to every 1 new Trump voter in Wayne County (outside Detroit) and 2.54 additional new
voters per Trump voter for Oakland County. Id. ¶5.
110. Based on these statistically anomalous results that occurred in a handful of
townships in these two counties, Dr. Quinell’s model determined that there were 40,771
anomalous votes in Wayne County (outside Detroit) and 46,125 anomalous votes in Oakland
County, for a total of nearly 87,000 anomalous votes or approximately 65% of Biden’s purported
lead in Michigan.
C. Over 13,000 Ineligible Voters Who Have Moved Out-of-State Illegally Voted
in Michigan.
111. Evidence compiled by Matt Braynard using the National Change of Address
(“NCOA”) Database shows that 12,120 Michigan voters in the 2020 General Election moved
out-of-state prior to voting, and therefore were ineligible. Mr. Braynerd identified 1,170
Michigan voters in the 2020 General Election who subsequently registered to vote in another
state, and were therefore ineligible to vote in the 2020 General Election. When duplicates from
the two databases are eliminated, the merged number is 13,248 ineligible voters whose votes
must be removed from the total for the 2020 General Election.6
D. There Were At Least 289,866 More Ballots Processed in Four Michigan
Counties on November 4 Than There Was Processing Capacity.
112. The expert witness testimony of Russell James Ramsland, Jr. (“Ramsland
Affidavit”), which is described in greater detail below, identifies an event that occurred in
Michigan on November 4 that is “physically impossible” See Exh. 104 at ¶14. The “event”
6
Mr. Braynard posted the results of his analysis on Twitter. See
https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1329700178891333634?s=20. This Complaint includes
a copy of his posting as Exhibit 103.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.38 Filed 11/25/20 Page 38 of 75
39
reflected in the data are “4 spikes totaling 384,733 ballots allegedly processed in a combined
interval of 2 hour[s] and 38 minutes” for four precincts/townships in four Michigan counties
(Wayne, Oakland, Macomb ne and Kent). Id. Based on Mr. Ramsland’s analysis of the voting
machines available at the referenced locations, he determined that the maximum processing
capability during this period was only 94,867 ballots, so that “there were 289,866 more ballots
processed in the time available for processing in the four precincts/townships, than there was
processing capacity.” Id. This amount is alone is nearly twice the number of ballots by which
Biden purportedly leads President Trump (i.e., approximately 154,180).
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RE DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS
A. Evidence of Specific Fraud Wayne County used ballot tabulators that were
shown to miscount votes cast for President Trump and Vice President Pence
and instead count them for the Biden-Harristicket.
113. On the morning of November 4, unofficial results posted by the Antrim County
Clerk showed that Joe Biden had over 7,700 votes — 3,000 more than Donald Trump. Antrim
County voted 62% in favor of President Trump in 2016. The Dominion Voting Systems election
management system and voting machines (tabulators), which were used in Antrim County, are
also used in many other Michigan counties, including Wayne County, were atfault.
114. However, Malfunctioning voting equipment or defective ballots may have
affectedtheoutcomeofavoteonanofficeappearingontheballot.”MichiganManualfor Boards of
County Canvassers. Thesevotetabulatorfailuresareamechanicalmalfunctionthat,underMCL
168.831-168.839, requires a “special election” in the precincts affected.
115. SecretaryofStateBensonreleasedastatementblamingthecountyclerkfor
notupdatingcertain“mediadrives,”butherstatementfailedtoprovideanycoherentexplanation of how
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.39 Filed 11/25/20 Page 39 of 75
40
the Dominion Voting Systems software and vote tabulators produced such a massive miscount.7
116. Secretary Benson continued: “After discovering the error in reporting the
unofficial results, the clerk worked diligently to report correct unofficial results by reviewing the
printed totals tape on each tabulator and hand-entering the results for each race, for each
precinct in the county.”Id.What Secretary Benson fails to address is what would have happened
if no one “discover[ed] the error,” for instance, in Wayne County, where the number of
registered voters is much greater than Antrim County, and where the tabulators were not
individuallytested.
117. Wayne County used the same Dominion voting system tabulators as did
AntrimCounty,andWayneCountytestedonlyasingleoneofitsvotetabulatingmachines before the
election. The Trump campaign asked Wayne County to have an observer physically present to
witness the process. See Exhibit 4. Wayne County denied the Trump
campaigntheopportunitytobephysicallypresent.RepresentativesoftheTrumpcampaign did have
opportunity to watch a portion of the test of a single machine by Zoomvideo.
B. The Pattern Of Incidents Shows An Absence Of Mistake - Always In
The Favor Of Biden.
118. Rules of Evidence, 404(b), applicable to civil matters makes clear that,
(b) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts shall not be admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may,
however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to,
proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
or absence of mistake or accident.
119. Tabulator issues and election violations occurred elsewhere in Michigan
reflecting a pattern, where multiple incidents occurred. In Oakland County, votes flipped a seat
to an incumbent Republican, Adam Kochenderfer, from the Democrat challenger when
7 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf (emphasis in original).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.40 Filed 11/25/20 Page 40 of 75
41
120. “A computer issue in Rochester Hills caused them to send us results for seven
precincts as both precinct votes and absentee votes. They should only have beensent to us as
absentee votes,” Joe Rozell, Oakland County Director of Elections for the City of Huntington
Woods, said.8
121. This Oakland County flip of votes is significant not only because it reflects a
second systems error wherein both favored the Democrats, precinct votes were sent out to be
counted, and they were counted twice as a result until the error was caught on a recount, but
precinct votes should never be counted outside of the precinct, instead they are required to be
sealed in the precinct.
C. Dominion Voting Machines and Forensic Evidence of Wide-Spread
Fraud in Defendant Counties
122. The State of Michigan entered into a contract with Dominion Systems’
Democracy Suite 4.14-D first, and then included Dominion Systems Democracy Suite 5.0-S on
or about January 27, 2017, which added a fundamental modification: “dial-up and wireless
results transmission capabilities to the ImageCast Precinct and results transmission using the
Democracy Suite EMS Results Transfer Manager module.”
123. Whereas the same Dominion software in an updated contract with Pennsylvania,
unlike in Michigan’s contract, sets forth the standard as requiring physical security: No
components of the Democracy Suite 5.5A shall be connected to any modem or network interface,
including the Internet, at any time, except when a standalone local area wired network
configuration in which all connected devices are certified voting system components.” Id. at 41
(Condition C).
124. The Michigan Contract with Dominion Voting Systems Democracy packages
8 Detroit Free Press, https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020/11/06/oakland-countyelection-2020-race-results/6184186002/
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.41 Filed 11/25/20 Page 41 of 75
42
include language that describes Safety and Security, which in part makes the risks of potential
breach clear where keys can be lost despite the fact that they provide full access to the unit, and
while it is clear that the electronic access provides control to the unit, and the ability to alter
results, combined with the lack of observers, creates a lack of security that becomes part of a
pattern of the absence of mistake, or fraud:
The ImageCast tabulators are unlocked by an iButton security key, which is used
to:
• Authenticate the software version (ensuring it is a certified version that has not
been tampered with)
• Decrypt election files while processing ballots during the election
• Encrypt results files during the election
• Provide access control to the unit
It is anticipated that the iButton security keys may get lost; therefore, any
substitute key created for the same tabulator will allow the unit to work
fully.9
125. In late December of 2019, three Senators, Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden and House
Member Mark Pocanwrote about their ‘particularized concerns that secretive & “trouble -
plagued companies”’“have long skimped on security in favor of convenience,” in the context of
how they described the voting machine systems that three large vendors – Election Systems &
Software, Dominion Voting Systems, & Hart InterCivic – collectively provide voting machines
& software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the U.S.”
126. As evidence of the risks of the Dominion Democracy Suite, as described above,
the same Dominion Democracy Suite was denied certification in Texas by the Secretary of State
on January 24, 2020 specifically because of a lack of evidence of efficiency and accuracy and
9See Exh. 8, State of Michigan Enterprise Procurement, Notice of Contract, Contract No.
071B770017 between the State of Michigan and Dominion Voting Systems Inc. at ¶2.6.2
(“Dominion Michigan Contract”).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.42 Filed 11/25/20 Page 42 of 75
43
identified vulnerabilitiesto fraud and unauthorized manipulation.
10
D. “Red Flags” in Dominion’s Michigan Results for 2020 General
Election Demonstrate Dominion Manipulated Election Results, and
that the Number of Illegal Votes Is Nearly Twice As Great as Biden’s
Purported Margin of Victory.
127. The expert witness testimony of Russell James Ramsland, Jr. (“Ramsland
Affidavit”)11analyzes several “red flags” in Dominion’s Michigan results for the 2020 election,
and flaws in the system architecture more generally, to conclude that Dominion manipulated
election results. Dominion’s manipulation of election results enabled Defendants to engage in
further voting fraud violations above and beyond the litany of violations recited above in Section
II.A through Section II.C.
1. Antrim County “Glitch” Was Not “Isolated Error” and May Have
Affected Other Counties.
128. The first red flag is the Antrim County, Michigan “glitch” that switched 6,000
Trump ballots to Biden, and that was only discoverable through a manual hand recount. See
supra Paragraph 94. The “glitch” was later attributed to “clerical error” by Dominion and
Antrim Country, presumably because if it were correctly identified as a “glitch”, “the system
would be required to be ‘recertified’ according to Dominion officials. This was not done.” Exh.
104, Ramsland Aff. at ¶10. Mr. Ramsland is skeptical because “the problem most likely did
occur due to a glitch where an update file did not properly synchronize the ballot barcode
generation and reading portions of the system.” Id. Further, such a glitch would not be an
10 See Texas Analysis of February 15, 2019 from the Voting Systems Examiner to the Director
of Elections (emphasis added).
11As detailed in the Ramsland Affidavit and the CV attached thereto, Mr. Ramsland is a member
of the management team Allied Security Operations Group, LLC (“ASOG”), a firm specializing
in cybersecurity, OSINT and PEN testing of networks for election security and detecting election
fraud through tampering with electronic voting systems.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.43 Filed 11/25/20 Page 43 of 75
44
“isolated error,” as it “would cause entire ballot uploads to read as zero in the tabulation
batch, which we also observed happening in the data (provisional ballots were accepted
properly but in-person ballots were being rejected (zeroed out and/or changed (flipped)).” Id.
Accordingly, Mr. Ramsland concludes that it is likely that other Michigan counties using
Dominion may “have the same problem.” Id.
2. Fractional Vote Counts in Raw Data Strongly Indicate Voting
Manipulation through “Ranked Choice Voting Algorithm”
129. Mr. Ramsland’s analysis of the raw data , which provides votes counts, rather
than just vote shares, in decimal form provides highly probative evidence that, in his
professional opinion, demonstrates that Dominion manipulated votes through the use of an
“additive” or “Ranked Choice Voting” algorithm (or what Dominion’s user guide refers to as
the “RCV Method”). See id. at ¶12.
12 Mr. Ramsland presents the following example of this data
– taken from “Dominion’s direct feed to news outlets” – in the table below. Id.
state timestamp eevp trump biden TV BV
michigan 2020-11-04T06:54:48Z 64 0.534 0.448 1925865.66 1615707.52
michigan 2020-11-04T06:56:47Z 64 0.534 0.448 1930247.664 1619383.808
michigan 2020-11-04T06:58:47Z 64 0.534 0.448 1931413.386 1620361.792
michigan 2020-11-04T07:00:37Z 64 0.533 0.45 1941758.975 1639383.75
michigan 2020-11-04T07:01:46Z 64 0.533 0.45 1945297.562 1642371.3
michigan 2020-11-04T07:03:17Z 65 0.533 0.45 1948885.185 1645400.25
130. Mr. Ramsland describes how the RCV algorithm can be implemented, and the
significance of the use of fractional vote counts, with decimal places, rather than whole numbers,
in demonstrating that Dominion did just that to manipulate Michigan votes.
12See id. (quotingDemocracy Suite EMS Results Tally and Reporting User Guide, Chapter 11,
Settings 11.2.2., which reads, in part, “RCV METHOD: This will select the specific method of
tabulating RCV votes to elect a winner.”).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.44 Filed 11/25/20 Page 44 of 75
45
For instance, blank ballots can be entered into the system and treated as “writeins.” Then the operator can enter an allocation of the write-ins among candidates
as he wishes. The final result then awards the winner based on “points” the
algorithm in the compute, not actual votes. The fact that we observed raw vote
data that includes decimal places suggests strongly that this was, in fact, done.
Otherwise, votes would be solely represented as whole numbers. Below is an
excerpt from Dominion’s direct feed to news outlets showing actual calculated
votes with decimals. Id.
3. StrongEvidence That Dominion Shifted Votes from Trump to Biden.
131. A third red flag identified by Mr. Ramslund is the dramatic shift in votes between
the two major party candidates as the tabulation of the turnout increased, and more importantly,
the change in voting share before and after 2 AM on November 4, 2020, after Wayne County and
other Michigan election officials had supposedly halted counting.
Until the tabulated voter turnout reached approximately 83%, Trump was
generally winning between 55% and 60% of every turnout point. Then, after the
counting was closed at 2:00 am, the situation dramatically reversed itself,
starting with a series of impossible spikes shortly after counting was
supposed to have stopped. Id. at ¶13.
132. Once again the means through which Dominion appears to have implemented this
scheme is through the use of blank ballots that were all, or nearly all, cast for Biden.
The several spikes cast solely for Biden could easily be produced in the Dominion
system by pre-loading batches of blank ballots in files such as Write-Ins, then
casting them all for Biden using the Override Procedure (to cast Write-In ballots)
that is available to the operator of the system. A few batches of blank ballots
could easily produce a reversal this extreme, a reversal that is almost as
statistically difficult to explain as is the impossibility of the votes cast to number
of voters described in Paragraph 11 above.Id.
4. The November 4 Ballot Dumps Wayne County and Other Michigan
Counties Was “Physically Impossible” Because There Were More
Ballots Than Machines in Those Four Counties Could Have Counted
Or Processed.
133. Mr Ramsland and his team analyzed the sudden injection of totaling 384,733
ballots by four Michigan counties (Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Kent) in a 2 hour 38 minute
period in the early morning of November 4 (which would have included the first ballot dump
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.45 Filed 11/25/20 Page 45 of 75
46
described above in Paragraph 72), and concluded that “[t]his is an impossibility, given the
equipment available at the 4 reference locations (precincts/townships).” Id. at ¶14.
134. Specifically, Mr. Ramslund calculated that “94,867 ballots as the maximum
number of ballots that could be processed” in that time period, and thus that “[t]here were
289,866 more ballots processed in the time available for processing in four precincts/townships,
than the capacity of the system allows.” Id. Mr. Ramsland concludes that “[t]he documented
existence of the spikes are strongly indicative of a manual adjustment either by the operator of
the system (see paragraph 12 above) or an attack by outside actors.” Id. The vote totals added
for all Michigan counties, including Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Kent counties, for the period
analyzed by Mr. Ramsland are reproduced in the figure below.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.46 Filed 11/25/20 Page 46 of 75
47
5. The Number of Illegal Votes Attributable to Dominion Is Nearly
Twice the Biden’s Purported Margin in Michigan.
135. Based on his analysis of the red flags and statistical anomalies discussed below,
Mr. Ramsland concludes that:
[T]hese statistical anomalies and impossibilities compels the conclusion to a
reasonable degree of professional certainty that the vote count in Michigan and in
Wayne County, in particular for candidates for President contain at least 289,866
illegal votes that must be disregarded.
Given that Mr. Biden’s currently purported margin of victory is approximately 154,000, the
number of illegal votes attributable Dominion’s fraudulent and illegal conduct is by itself
(without considering the tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal votes due to the unlawful
conduct described in Section II), is nearly twice Mr. Biden’s current purported lead in the State
of Michigan. Thus Mr. Ramsland affidavit alone provides this Court more than sufficient basis
to grant the relief requested herein.
E. Additional Independent Findings of Dominion Flaws.
136. Further supportive of this pattern of incidents, reflecting an absence of mistake,
Plaintiffs have since learned that the "glitches" in the Dominion system -- that have the uniform
effect of hurting Trump and helping Biden -- have been widely reported in the press and
confirmed by the analysis of independent experts.
1. Central Operator Can Remove, Discard or Manipulate Votes.
137. Plaintiffs have also learned of the connection between Dominion Voting Systems,
Smartmatic and the voting systems used in Venuezela and the Phillipines.
a. Dominion Voting has also contradicted itself in a rush to denial a pattern of errors
that lead to fraud. For example, Dominion Voting Systems machines can read all
of these instruments, including Sharpies.https://www.dominionvoting.com/
b. but Dominion Voting’s Democracy Suite contract with Michigan specifically
requires:
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.47 Filed 11/25/20 Page 47 of 75
48
Black Inc: Black ink (or toner) must be dense, opaques, light-fast and permanent,
with a measured minimum 1.2 reflection density (log) above the paper base.
13
138. An Affiant, who is a network & Information cybersecurities expert, under sworn
testimony explains that after studying the user manual for Dominion Voting Systems Democracy
software, he learned that the information about scanned ballots can be tracked inside the
software system for Dominion:
(a) When bulk ballot scanning and tabulation begins, the "ImageCast Central"
workstation operator will load a batch of ballots into the scanner feed tray and
then start the scanning procedure within the software menu. The scanner then
begins to scan the ballots which were loaded into the feed tray while the
"ImageCast Central" software application tabulates votes in real-time. Information
about scanned ballots can be tracked inside the "ImageCast Central" software
application.
(See Exh.Aff. of Watkins __, at par.11).
139. The Affiant further explains that the central operator can remove or discard
batches of votes. “After all of the ballots loaded into the scanner's feed tray have been through
the scanner, the "ImageCast Central" operator will remove the ballots from the tray then have the
option to either "Accept Batch" or "Discard Batch" on the scanning menu …. “Id. at ¶ 12.
140. Affiantfurther testifies that the user manual makes clear that the system allows for
threshold settings to be set to find all ballots get marked as “problem ballots” for discretionary
determinations on where the vote goes stating:
“During the voting process, the voter will mark an oval on the ballot using a
writing device. During the scanning process, the "ImageCast Central" software
will detect how much of a percent coverage of the oval was filled in by the voter.
The Dominion customer determines the thresholds of which the oval needs to be
covered by a mark in order to qualify as a valid vote. If a ballot has a marginal
mark which did not meet the specific thresholds set by the customer, then the
ballot is considered a "problem ballot" and may be set aside into a folder named
"NotCastImages". Through creatively tweaking the oval coverage threshold
settings it should be possible to set thresholds in such a way that a non-trivial
amount of ballots are marked "problem ballots" and sent to the "NotCastImages"
13See Exh. 8, par. 2.6.2 of contract # 071B770017.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.48 Filed 11/25/20 Page 48 of 75
49
folder. It is possible for an administrator of the ImageCast Central work station
to view all images of scanned ballots which were deemed "problem ballots" by
simply navigating via the standard "Windows File Explorer" to the folder named
"NotCastImages" which holds ballot scans of "problem ballots". It is possible for
an administrator of the "ImageCast Central" workstation to view and delete any
individual ballot scans from the "NotCastImages" folder by simply using the
standard Windows delete and recycle bin functions provided by the Windows 10
Pro operating system.
Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.
141. The Affiant further explains the vulnerabilities in the system when the copy of the
selected ballots that are approved in the Results folder are made to a flash memory card – and
that is connected to a Windows computer stating:
It is possible for an administrator of the "ImageCast Central" workstation toview
and delete any individual ballot scans from the "NotCastImages" folder by simply
using the standard Windows delete and recycle bin functions provided by the
Windows 10 Pro operating system. … The upload process is just a simple copying
of a "Results" folder containing vote tallies to a flash memory card connected to
the "Windows 10 Pro" machine. The copy process uses the standard drag-n-drop
or copy/paste mechanisms within the ubiquitous "Windows File Explorer". While
a simple procedure, this process may be error prone and is very vulnerable to
malicious administrators.
Id. at par. 14 and 15.
2. Dominion – By Design – Violates Federal Election & Voting Record
Retention Requirements.
142. The Dominion System put in place by its own design violates the intent of Federal
law on the requirement to preserve and retain records – which was clearly requires preservation
of all records requisite to voting in such an election.
F. § 20701. Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of
elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation
Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twentytwo months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of
which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential
elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives,
or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.49 Filed 11/25/20 Page 49 of 75
50
voted for, all records and papers which come into his possession
relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other
act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by
law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of
election and except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and papers at a
specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such
custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so
deposited shall devolve upon such custodian. Any officer of election or
custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not
more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
143. A Penn Wharton Study from 2016 concluded that “Voters and their
representatives in government, often prompted by news of high-profile voting problems,
also have raised concerns about the reliability and integrity of the voting process, and
have increasingly called for the use of modern technology such as laptops and tablets to
improve convenience.
144. As evidence of the risks of the Dominion Democracy Suite, as described
above, the same Dominion Democracy Suite was denied certification in Texas by the
Secretary of State on January 24, 2020 specifically because of a lack of evidence of
efficiency and accuracy and to be safe from fraud or unauthorized manipulation.
14
3. Dominion Vulnerabilities To Hacking.
145. Plaintiffs have since learned that the "glitches" in the Dominion system --
that have the uniform effect of hurting Trump and helping Biden -- have been widely
reported in the press and confirmed by the analysis of independent experts.
146. Plaintiffs can show, through expert and fact witnesses that:
A. Massive End User Vulnerabilities.
14See Exh. X, Report of Review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A Elections
Division by the Secretary of State’s office, Elections Division, January 24, 2020.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.50 Filed 11/25/20 Page 50 of 75
51
(1) Users on the ground have full admin privileges to machines and software. The
Dominion system is designed to facilitate vulnerability and allow a select few
to determine which votes will be counted in any election. Workers were
responsible for moving ballot data from polling place to the collector’s office
and inputting it into the correct folder. Any anomaly, such as pen drips or
bleeds, is not counted and is handed over to a poll worker to analyze and
decide if it should count. This creates massive opportunity for improper vote
adjudication. (See Exh.____ For Affiant Watkins).
(2) Affiant witness (name redacted for security reasons15), in his sworn testimony
explains he was selected for the national security guard detail of the President
of Venezuela, and that he witnessed the creation of Smartmatic for the purpose
of election vote manipulation:
“I was witness to the creation and operation of a sophisticated
electronic voting system that permitted the leaders of the Venezuelan
government to manipulate the tabulation of votes for national and local
elections and select the winner of those elections in order to gain and
maintain their power. Importantly, I was a direct witness to the
creation and operation of an electronic voting system in a conspiracy
between a company known as Smartmatic and the leaders of
conspiracy with the Venezuelan government. This conspiracy
specifically involved President Hugo Chavez Frias, the person in
charge of the National Electoral Council named Jorge Rodriguez, and
principals, representatives, and personnel from Smartmatic which
included … The purpose of this conspiracy was to create and operate a
voting system that could change the votes in elections from votes
against persons running the Venezuelan government to votes in their
favor in order to maintain control of the government.”
(See Exh. 14, pars. 6, 9, 10).
147. Specific vulnerabilities of the systems in question that have been
documented or reported include:
A. Barcodes can override the voters’ vote: As one University of California,
Berkeley study shows, “In all three of these machines [including Dominion
Voting Systems] the ballot marking printer is in the same paper path as the
mechanism to deposit marked ballots into an attached ballot box. This opens
up a very serious security vulnerability: the voting machine can make the
paper ballot (to add votes or spoil already-case votes) after the last time the
voter sees the paper, and then deposit that marked ballot into the ballot box
1515The Affiant’s name will be produced in camera to the court, with a motion for seal of the
information.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.51 Filed 11/25/20 Page 51 of 75
52
without the possibility of detection.” (See Ex. __,) 16
B. Voting machines were able to be connected to the internet by way of laptops
that were obviously internet accessible. If one laptop was connected to the
internet, the entire precinct was compromised.
C. “We … discovered that at least some jurisdictions were not aware that their
systems were online,” said Kevin Skoglund, an independent security
consultant who conducted the research with nine others, all of them long-time
security professionals and academics with expertise in election security. Vice.
August 2019. 17
D. October 6, 2006 – Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney calls on Secretary of
Treasury Henry Paulson to conduct an investigation into Smartmatic based on
its foreign ownership and ties to Venezuela. (See Exh. __,).
E. Congresswoman Maloney wrote that “It is undisputed that Smartmatic is
foreign owned and it has acquired Sequoia … Smartmatica now
acknowledged that Antonio Mugica, a Venezuelan businessman has a
controlling interest in Smartmatica, but the company has not revealed who all
other Smartmatic owners are.
F. Dominion “got into trouble” with several subsidiaries it used over alleged
cases of fraud. One subsidiary is Smartmatic, a company “that has played a
significant role in the U.S. market over the last decade,” according to a report
published by UK-based AccessWire.
G. Litigation over Smartmatic “glitches” alleges they impacted the 2010 and
2013 mid-term elections in the Philippines, raising questions of cheating and
fraud. An independent review of the source codes used in the machines found
multiple problems, which concluded, “The software inventory provided by
Smartmatic is inadequate, … which brings into question the software
credibility,” ABS-CBN reported.
H. Dominion acquired Sequoia Voting Systems as well as Premier Election
Solutions (formerly part of Diebold, which sold Premier to ES&S in 2009,
until antitrust issues forced ES&S to sell Premier, which then was acquired by
Dominion). This map illustrates 2016 voting machine data—meaning, these
data do not reflect geographic aggregation at the time of acquisition, but
16Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters, Andrew W. Appel,
Richard T. DeMello, University of California, Berkeley, 12/27/2019.
17https://www.vice.com/en/article/3kxzk9/exclusive-critical-us-election-systems have-been-leftexposed-online-despite-official-denials
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.52 Filed 11/25/20 Page 52 of 75
53
rather the machines that retain the Sequoia or Premier/Diebold brand that now
fall under Dominion’s market share. (The Business of Voting, Penn Wharton,
Caufield, p. 16).
I. Dominion entered into a 2009 contract with Smartmatic and provided
Smartmatic with the PCOS machines (optical scanners) that were used in the
2010 Philippine election, the biggest automated election run by a private
company. The automation of that first election in the Philippines was hailed
by the international community and by the critics of the automation. The
results transmission reached 90% of votes four hours after polls closed and
Filipinos knew for the first time who would be their new president on
Election Day. In keeping with local Election law requirements, Smartmatic
and Dominion were required to provide the source code of the voting
machines prior to elections so that it could be independently verified.18
J. In late December of 2019, three Democrat Senators, Warren, Klobuchar,
Wyden and House Member Mark Pocan wrote about their ‘particularized
concerns that secretive & “trouble -plagued companies”’ “have long skimped
on security in favor of convenience,” in the context of how they described the
voting machine systems that three large vendors – Election Systems &
Software, Dominion Voting Systems, & Hart InterCivic – collectively provide
voting machines & software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible
voters in the U.S.” (See Exh. __, attached copy of Senators’ letter).
K. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said the findings [insecurity of voting
systems] are “yet another damning indictment of the profiteering election
vendors, who care more about the bottom line than protecting our
democracy.” It’s also an indictment, he said, “of the notion that important
cybersecurity decisions should be left entirely to county election offices,
many of whom do not employ a single cybersecurity specialist.” Vice. August
2019.19
148. The expert witness in pending litigation in the United States District Court
of Georgia, _______, Harri Hursti, specifically testified to the acute security
vulnerabilities, among other facts, by declaration filed on August 24, 2020, (See Exhibit
18LONDON, ENGLAND / ACCESSWIRE / August 10, 2017, Voting Technology Companies
in the U.S. - Their Histories and Present Contributions
19https://www.vice.com/en/article/3kxzk9/exclusive-critical-us-election-systemshave-been-left-exposed-online-despite-official-denials
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.53 Filed 11/25/20 Page 53 of 75
54
“___” attached hereto) wherein he testified or found:
A. “The scanner and tabulation software settings being employed to determine
which votes to count on hand marked paper ballots are likely causing clearly
intentioned votes to be counted” “The voting system is being operated in
Fulton County in a manner that escalates the security risk to an extreme level”
“Votes are not reviewing their BMD printed ballots, which causes BMD
generated results to be un-auditable due to the untrustworthy audit trail.” 50%
or more of voter selections in some counties were visible to poll workers.
Dominion employees maintain near exclusive control over the EMS servers.
“In my professional opinion, the role played by Dominion personnel in Fulton
County, and other counties with similar arrangements, should be considered
an elevated risk factor when evaluating the security risks of Georgia’s voting
system.” See Paragraph 26 of Hursti Declaration.
B. A video game download was found on one Georgia Dominion system laptop,
suggesting that multiple Windows updates have been made on that respective
computer.
C. There is evidence of remote access and remote troubleshooting which
presents a grave security implication.
D. Certified identified vulnerabilities should be considered an “extreme security
risk.”
E. There is evidence of transfer of control the systems out of the physical
perimeters and place control with a third party off site.
F. USB drives with vote tally information were observed to be removed from the
presence of poll watchers during a recent election.
1. Hursti stated within said Declaration:
“The security risks outlined above – operating system risks, the failure to
harden the computers, performing operations directly on the operating
systems, lax control of memory cards, lack of procedures, and potential
remote access are extreme and destroy the credibility of the tabulations
and output of the reports coming from a voting system.” (See Paragraph
49 of Hursti Declaration).
149. Rather than engaging in an open and transparent process to give credibility
to Michigan’s Dominion-Democracy Suite voting system, the processes were hidden
during the receipt, review, opening, and tabulation of those votes in direct contravention
of Michigan’s Election Code and Federal law.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.54 Filed 11/25/20 Page 54 of 75
55
150. Finally, an analysis of the Dominion software system by a former US Military
Intelligence expert concludes that the system and software have been accessible and were
certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees
connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily
discoverable leaked credentials, Dominion neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access
data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate
elections, including the most recent one in 2020. See Exh. 105, Spider Declaration.
4. Dominion Connections to Smartmatic and Hostile Foreign
Governments and Domestic Groups Such as Antifa.
151. Plaintiffs can also show Smartmatic’s incorporation and inventors who
have backgrounds evidencing their foreign connections, including Serbia, specifically
its identified inventors:
Applicant: SMARTMATIC, CORP.
Inventors: Lino Iglesias, Roger Pinate, Antonio Mugica, Paul Babic, Jeffrey
Naveda, Dany Farina, Rodrigo Meneses, Salvador Ponticelli, Gisela Goncalves,
Yrem Caruso20
152. Another Affiant witness testifies that in Venezuela, she was in official
position related to elections and witnessed manipulations of petitions to prevent a
removal of President Chavez and because she protested, she was summarily dismissed.
She explains the vulnerabilities of the electronic voting system and Smartmatica to such
manipulations. (See Exh. __, Anna Mercedes Diaz Cardozo).
153. Plaintiffs have also learned through several reports that in 2010 Eric
Coomer joined Dominion as Vice President of U.S. Engineering. According to his bio,
20https://patents.justia.com/assignee/smartmatic-corp
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.55 Filed 11/25/20 Page 55 of 75
56
Coomer graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a Ph.D. in Nuclear
Physics. Eric Coomer was later promoted to Voting Systems Officer of Strategy and
Security although Coomer has since been removed from the Dominion page of directors
after Joe Oltmann disclosed that as a reporter he infiltrated ANTIFA< a domestic
terrorist organization where he recorded Eric Coomer representing that “Don’t worry
Trump won’t win the election, we fixed that.” – as well as twitter posts with violence
threatened against President Trump. (See Joe Oltmann interview with Michelle Malkin
dated November 13, 2020 which contains copies of Eric Coomer’s recording and
tweets).21
154. In sum, as set forth above, for a host of independent reasons, the Michigan
certified election results concluding that Joe Biden received 154,180 more votes that
President Donald Trump must be set aside.
COUNT I
Defendants Violated the Elections and Electors Clauses and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
155. Plaintiffs reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
156. The Electors Clause states that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislaturethereofmaydirect,aNumberofElectors”forPresident.U.S.Const.art. II, §1, cl. 2
(emphasis added).Likewise, the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he
Times,Places,andMannerofholdingElectionsforSenatorsandRepresentatives,shallbe prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof.” U.S. Const. art. I, §4, cl. 1 (emphasis added).
157. The Legislature is “‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the
21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh1X4s9HuLo&fbclid=IwAR2EaJc1M9RT3DaUraAjsycM
0uPKB3uM_-MhH6SMeGrwNyJ3vNmlcTsHxF4
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.56 Filed 11/25/20 Page 56 of 75
57
people.’” Smiley, 285 U.S. at 193. Regulations of congressional and presidential
elections, thus, “must be in accordance with the method which the state has prescribed
for legislative enactments.” Id. at 367; see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep.
Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (2015).
158. Defendantsare not part of the Michigan Legislature and cannot exercise
legislative power. Because the United States Constitution reserves for the Michigan
Legislature the power to set the time, place, and manner of holding elections for the
President and Congress, county boards of elections and state executive officers have no
authority to unilaterally exercise that power, much less to hold them in ways that
conflict with existing legislation. Defendants are not the legislature, and their unilateral
decision to deviate from the requirements of the Michigan Election Code violates the
Electors and Elections Clause of the United States Constitution.
159. Many affiants testified to Defendants’ failure to follow the requirements of
the Michigan Election Code, as enacted by the Michigan Legislature, MCL §§ 168.730-
738, relating to the rights of partisan election challengers to provide transparency and
accountability to ensure that all, and only, lawful ballots casts be counted, and that the
outcome of the election was honestly and fairly determined by eligible voters casting
legal ballots. As detailed in Section II, many of these requirements were either
disregarded altogether or applied in a discriminatory manner to Republican poll
watchers. Specifically, election officials violated Michigan’s Election Code by: (a)
disregarding or violating MCL § 168.730 and § 168.733 requiring election challengers
to have meaningful access to observe the counting and processing of ballots, see supra
Paragraphs 59-75; (b) wanton and widespread forgery and alteration, addition or
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.57 Filed 11/25/20 Page 57 of 75
58
removal of votes, voters, or other information from ballots, the QVF or other voting
records, see supra Paragraphs 76-86; and (c) illegal double voting, counting ineligible
ballots, failure to check signatures or postmarks, and several other practices in clear
violation of the Michigan Election Code (and in some cases at the express direction of
supervisors or Wayne County officials). See supra Paragraphs 87-98.
160. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and
irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief requested herein is granted. Defendants
have acted and, unless enjoined, will act under color of state law to violate the Elections
Clause.
161. Accordingly, the results for President in the November 3, 2020 election
must be set aside.
COUNT II
Governor Whitmer, Secretary Benson and Other Defendants Violated
TheFourteenth Amendment U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Equal Protection
Invalid Enactment of Regulations Affecting Observation and Monitoring of the
Election
162. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior paragraphs of this
Complaint as though the same were repeated at length herein.
163. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides “nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See also Bush
v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)(having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,
the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.58 Filed 11/25/20 Page 58 of 75
59
over the value of another’s). Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665
(1966) (“Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which
are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). The
Court has held that to ensure equal protection, a problem inheres in the absence of
specific standards to ensure its equal application. Bush, 531 U.S. at 106 (“The
formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances
is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.”).
164. The equal enforcement of election laws is necessary to preserve our most
basic and fundamental rights. The requirement of equal protection is particularly
stringently enforced as to laws that affect the exercise of fundamental rights, including
the right to vote.
165. In statewide and federal elections conducted in the State of Michigan,
including without limitation the November 3, 2020 General Election, all candidates,
political parties, and voters, including without limitation Plaintiffs, have a vested
interest in being present and having meaningful access to observe and monitor the
electoral process in each County to ensure that it is properly administered in every
election district and otherwise free, fair, and transparent.
166. Moreover, through its provisions involving watchers and representatives,
the Michigan Election Code ensures that all candidates and political parties in each
County, including the Trump Campaign, have meaningful access to observe and
monitor the electoral process to ensure that it is properly administered in every election
district and otherwise free, fair, and transparent. See, e.g.,MCL § 168.730
&§ 168.733(1). Further, the Michigan Election Code provides it is a felony punishable by
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.59 Filed 11/25/20 Page 59 of 75
60
up to two years in state prison for any person to threaten or intimidate a challenger who is
performing any activity described in Michigan law. MCL § 168.734(4). Defendants have a
duty to treat the voting citizens in each County in the same manner as the citizens in
other Counties in Michigan.
167. As set forth in Count I above, Defendants failed to comply with the
requirements of the Michigan Election Code and thereby diluted the lawful ballots of
the Plaintiffs and of other Michigan voters and electors in violation of the United States
Constitution guarantee of Equal Protection.
168. Specifically, Defendants denied the Trump Campaign equal protection of
the law and their equal rights to meaningful access to observe and monitor the electoral
process enjoyed by citizens in other Michigan Counties by: (a) denying Republican poll
challengers access to the TCF Center or physically removing them or locking them out
for pretextual reasons; (b) denied Republican poll watchers meaningful access to, or
even physically blocking their view of, ballot handling, processing, or counting; (c)
engaged in a systematic pattern of harassment, intimidation, verbal insult, and even
physical removal of Republican poll challengers; (d) systematically discriminated
against Republican poll watchers and in favor of Democratic poll watchers and activists
in enforcing rules (in particular, through abuse of “social distancing” requirements); (e)
ignored or refused to record Republican challenges to the violations set forth herein; (f)
refusing to permit Republican poll watchers to observe ballot duplication or to check if
duplication was accurate; (g) unlawfully coached voters to vote for Biden and other
democratic candidates, including at voting stations; and (h) colluded with other
Michigan State, Wayne County and City of Detroit employees (including police) and
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.60 Filed 11/25/20 Page 60 of 75
61
Democratic poll watchers and activists to engage in the foregoing violations. See
generally supra Section II.A, Paragraphs 56-75.
169. Defendants further violated Michigan voters’ rights to equal protection
insofar as it allowed Wayne County and City of Detroit election workers to process and
count ballots in a manner that allowed ineligible ballots to be counted, including:
(a) fraudulently adding tens of thousands of new ballots and/or new voters to the QVF
in two separate batches on November 4, 2020, all or nearly all of which were votes for
Joe Biden; (b) systematically forging voter information and fraudulently adding new
voters to the QVF (in particular, where a voter’s name could not be found, assigning the
ballot to a random name already in the QVF to a person who had not voted and recorded
these new voters as having a birthdate of 1/1/1900); (c) fraudulently changing dates on
absentee ballots received after 8:00 PM Election Day deadline to indicate that such
ballots were received before the deadline; (d) changing Votes for Trump and other
Republican candidates; (e) adding votes to “undervote” ballots and removing votes from
“Over-Votes”; (f) permitting illegal double voting by persons that had voted by absentee
ballot and in person; (g) counting ineligible ballots – and in many cases – multiple
times; (h) counting ballots without signatures, or without attempting to match
signatures, and ballots without postmarks, pursuant to direct instructions from
Defendants; (i) counting “spoiled” ballots; (j) systematic violations of ballot secrecy
requirements; (k) accepting unsecured ballots arrived at the TCF Center loading garage,
not in sealed ballot boxes, without any chain of custody, and without envelopes, after
the 8:00 PM Election Day deadline; (l) accepting and counting ballots from deceased
voters; and (m) accepting and counting ballots collected from unattended remote drop
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.61 Filed 11/25/20 Page 61 of 75
62
boxes. See generally infra Section II.B. and II.C, Paragraphs 76-98.
170. Plaintiffs have obtained direct eyewitness testimony confirming that
certain of these unlawful practices were at the express direction of Wayne County
election officials. With respect to (a) and (b), Affiant Cushman testified that election
supervisor Miller informed him that the Wayne County Clerk’s office had expressly
instructed them to manually to enter thousands of ballots arriving around 9 PM on
November 4, 2020, from voters not in the QVF, and to manually enter these
unregistered voters in the QVF with the birthdate of 1/1/1900. Exh. 3, GLJC
Complaint, Exh. D at¶¶ 14-17. With respect to (c), fraudulently back-dating absentee
ballots, City of Detroit election worker Affiant Jacob affirmed that she was instructed
by supervisors to “improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive date … to falsely
show that absentee ballots had been received in time to be valid.” Id. Exh. B at ¶17.
With respect to (h) (accepting ballots without signatures or postmarks), affiants testified
that election workers did so at the express direction of Wayne County election officials.
See id. at ¶15.
171. Other Michigan county boards of elections provided watchers and
representatives of candidates and political parties, including without limitation watchers
and representatives of the Trump Campaign, with appropriate access to view the
absentee and mail-in ballots being pre-canvassed and canvassed by those county
election boards without the restrictions and discriminatory treatment outline
above.Defendants intentionally and/or arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiffs
access to and/or obstructed actual observation and monitoring of the absentee and mailin ballots being pre-canvassed and canvassed by Defendants, depriving them of the
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.62 Filed 11/25/20 Page 62 of 75
63
equal protection of those state laws enjoyed by citizens in other Counties.
172. Defendants have acted and will continue to act under color of state law to
violate Plaintiffs’ right to be present and have actual observation and access to the
electoral process as secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution.Defendants thus failed to conduct the general election in a uniform manner
as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the corollary
provisions of the Michigan Constitution, and the Michigan Election Code.
173. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Secretary Benson
to direct that the Michigan Counties allow a reasonable number of challengers to
meaningfully observe the conduct of the Michigan Counties canvassers and board of
state canvassers and that these canvassing boards exercise their duty and authority under
Michigan law, which forbids certifying a tally that includes any ballots that were not
legally cast, or that were switched from Trump to Biden through the unlawful use of
Dominion Democracy Suite software and devices.
174. In addition, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order that no ballot processed by a
counting board in the Michigan Counties can be included in the final vote tally unless a
challenger was allowed to meaningfully observe the process and handling and counting
of the ballot, or that were unlawfully switched from Trump to Biden.
175. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and
irreparable harm unless the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein is granted.
Indeed, the setting aside of an election in which the people have chosen their
representative is a drastic remedy that should not be undertaken lightly, but instead
should be reserved for cases in which a person challenging an election has clearly
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.63 Filed 11/25/20 Page 63 of 75
64
established a violation of election procedures and has demonstrated that the violation
has placed the result of the election in doubt. Michigan law allows elections to be
contested through litigation, both as a check on the integrity of the election process and
as a means of ensuring the fundamental right of citizens to vote and to have their votes
counted accurately.
176. In addition to the alternative requests for relief in the preceding
paragraphs, hereby restated, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction
requiring the Wayne County and other Michigan Election Boards to
invalidate ballots cast by: (1) any voter added to the QVF after the 8:00 PM
Election Day deadline; (3) any absentee or mail-in ballot received without a
signature or postmark; (4) any ballot cast by a voter who submitted a mailin ballot and voted in person; (5) any ballot cast by a voter not in the QVF
that was assigned the name of a voter in the QVF; (6) voters whose
signatures on their registrations have not been matched with ballot,
envelope and voter registration check; and (7) all “dead votes”.See generally
supra Section II.A-II.C.
COUNT III
Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Art. I § 4, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cl. 2;
Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Due Process On The Right to Vote
177. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were repeated at length herein.
178. The right of qualified citizens to vote in a state election involving federal
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.64 Filed 11/25/20 Page 64 of 75
65
candidates is recognized as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Harper, 383 U.S. at 665. See also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at
554 (The Fourteenth Amendment protects the “the right of all qualified citizens to vote,
in state as well as in federal elections.”). Indeed, ever since the Slaughter-House
Cases,83 U.S. 36 (1873), the United States Supreme Court has held that the Privileges
or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects certain rights of federal
citizenship from state interference, including the right of citizens to directly elect
members of Congress. SeeTwining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 (1908) (citing Ex
parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663-64 (1884)). See alsoOregon v. Mitchell,400 U.S.
112, 148-49 (1970) (Douglas, J., concurring) (collecting cases).
179. The fundamental right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is
cherished in our nation because it “is preservative of other basic civil and political
rights.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 562. Voters have a “right to cast a ballot in an election
free from the taint of intimidation and fraud,” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211
(1992), and “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the
functioning of our participatory democracy.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006)
(percuriam).
180. “Obviously included within the right to [vote], secured by the
Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have
them counted” if they are validly cast. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299,315
(1941). “[T]he right to have the vote counted” means counted “at full value without
dilution or discount.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555, n.29 (quoting South v. Peters, 339
U.S. 276, 279 (1950) (Douglas, J., dissenting)).
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.65 Filed 11/25/20 Page 65 of 75
66
181. “Every voter in a federal . . . election, whether he votes for a candidate
with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the
Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently
cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974); see also Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208 (1962). Invalid or fraudulent votes “debase[]” and “dilute” the
weight of each validly cast vote. See Anderson, 417 U.S. at 227.
182. The right to an honest [count] is a right possessed by each voting elector,
and to the extent that the importance of his vote is nullified, wholly or in part, he has
been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the laws and
Constitution of the United States.” Anderson, 417 U.S. at 226 (quoting Prichard v.
United States, 181 F.2d 326, 331 (6th Cir.), aff'd due to absence of quorum, 339 U.S.
974 (1950)).
183. Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots or fail to
contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct, can violate the Fourteenth
Amendment by leading to the dilution of validly cast ballots. See Reynolds, 377 U.S. at
555 (“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of
a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the
franchise.”).
184. Section II of this Complaint and the exhibits attached hereto describe
widespread and systematic violations of the Michigan Election Code and/or the Equal
Protection Clause described, namely: (A) Section II.A, Republican poll challengers
were denied the opportunity to meaningfully observe the processing and counting of
ballots; (B) Section II.B, election workers forged, added, removed or otherwise altered
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.66 Filed 11/25/20 Page 66 of 75
67
information on ballots, the QFV and other voting records; and (C) Section II.C, several
other Michigan Election Code violations that caused or facilitated the counting of tens
of thousands of ineligible, illegal or duplicate ballots.
185. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Secretary Benson
to direct that Secretary Benson and Wayne County are enjoined from certifying the
results of the General Election, or in the alternative, conduct a recount or recanvas in
which they allow a reasonable number of challengers to meaningfully observe the
conduct of the Michigan Counties canvassers and board of state canvassers and that
these canvassing boards exercise their duty and authority under Michigan law, which
forbids certifying a tally that includes any ballots that were not legally cast, or that were
switched from Trump to Biden through the unlawful use of Dominion Democracy Suite
software and devices.
COUNT IV
Wide-SpreadBallot Fraud
186. Plaintiffs reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
187. The "glitches" in the Dominion system -- that seem to have the uniform
effect of hurting Trump and helping Biden -- have been widely reported in the press and
confirmed by the analysis of independent experts. See generally supra Section IV.
188. And as evidenced by numerous sworn statements, Defendants egregious
misconduct has included ignoring legislative mandates concerning mail-in ballots– including the
mandate that mail-in ballots be post-marked on or before Election Day, and critically, preventing
Plaintiff’s poll watchers from observing the receipt, review, opening, and tabulation of mail-in
ballots. Those mail-in ballots are evaluated on an entirely parallel track to those ballots cast in
person.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.67 Filed 11/25/20 Page 67 of 75
68
189. The right to vote includes not just the right to cast a ballot, but also the right to
have it fairly counted if it is legally cast. The right to vote is infringed if a vote is cancelled or
diluted by a fraudulent or illegal vote, including without limitation when a single person votes
multiple times. The Supreme Court of the United States has made this clear in case after case.
See, e.g., Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 (1963) (every vote must be “protected from the
diluting effect of illegal ballots.”); Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 196
(2008) (plurality op. of Stevens, J.) (“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of
the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”); accord Reynolds v. Sims, 377
U.S. 533, 554-55 & n.29 (1964).
190. The disparate treatment of Michigan voters, in subjecting one class of voters to
greater burdens or scrutiny than another, violates Equal Protection guarantees because “the right
of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as
effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at
555. Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp.,
Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v.
Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
COUNT V
MICHIGAN STATUTORY ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
191. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of the prior
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were repeated at length herein
Violation of MCL 168.765a.
192. Absent voter ballots must only be counted when “at all times” there is “at least 1
election inspector from each major political party.” MCL 168.765a.
193. Per eyewitness accounts described in this Complaint and its attached sworn
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.68 Filed 11/25/20 Page 68 of 75
69
affidavits, Defendants habitually and systematically disallowed election inspectors from the
Republican party, including Plaintiff, to be present in the voter counting place and refused
access to election inspectors from the Republican party, including Plaintiff, to be within a
closeenoughdistancefromtheabsentvoterballotstobeabletoseeforwhomtheballotswerecast.
See generally supra Section II.A., Paragraphs56-75.
194. Defendants refused entry to official election inspectors from the Republican
party, including Plaintiff, into the counting place to observe the counting of absentee voter
ballots. Defendants even physically blocked and obstructed election inspectors from the
Republicanparty,includingPlaintiff,byadheringlargepiecesofcardboardtothetransparent glass
doors so the counting of absent voter ballots was notviewable.
Violation of MCL 168.733
195. MCL 168.733requires sets forth the procedures for election challengers and the
powers of election inspectors. See generally supra Paragraph 39.
196. Per eyewitness accounts described in this Complaint and its attached sworn
affidavits, Defendants habitually and systematically failed to provide space for election
inspectors from the Republican party, including Plaintiff, to observe election procedure,
failed to allow the inspection of poll books, failed to share the names of the electors being
entered in the poll books, failed to allow the examination of each ballot as it was being
counted, and failed to keep records of obvious and observedfraud.See generally supra
Section II.A., Paragraphs 56-75.
197. Pollchallengers,includingPlaintiff,observedelectionworkersandsupervisors
writing on ballots themselves to alter them, apparently manipulating spoiled ballots by hand
and then counting the ballots as valid, counting the same ballot more than once, adding
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.69 Filed 11/25/20 Page 69 of 75
70
information to incomplete affidavits accompanying absentee ballots, counting absentee
ballots returned late, counting unvalidated and unreliable ballots, and counting the ballots of
“voters”whohadnorecordedbirthdatesandwerenotregisteredintheState’sQualifiedVoter File
or on any Supplemental voterlists.
Violation of MCL 168.765(5) and 168.764a
198. Michigan election law, MCL 168.765(5), requires Defendants to post the
specific absentee voting information anytime an election is conducted which involves a state
or federal office, in particular, the number of absentee ballots distributed to absent voters.
199. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to post by 8:00 a.m. on
Election Day the number of absentee ballots distributed to absent voters and failed to post
before 9:00 p.m. the number of absent voters returned before on Election Day.
200. Per Michigan Election law, all absentee voter ballots must be returned to the
clerk before polls close at 8pm. MCL 168.764a. Any absentee voter ballots received by the
clerk after the close of the polls on election day will not be counted.
201. Michigan allows for early counting of absentee votes prior to the closings of
the polls for large jurisdictions, such as the City of Detroit and Wayne County.
202. Upon information and belief, receiving tens of thousands additional absentee
ballots in the early morning hours after election day and after the counting of the absentee ballots
had concluded, without proper oversight, with tens of thousands of ballots attributed to just one
candidate, Joe Biden, indicates Defendants failed to follow proper electionprotocol.See generally
supra Section II.B.1, Paragraphs 77-78.
Violation of MCL 168.730
203. MCL 168.730 sets forth the rights and requirements for election challengers.
MCL 168.734 provides, among other things:
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.70 Filed 11/25/20 Page 70 of 75
71
Any officer or election board who shall prevent the presence of any such
challenger as above provided, or shall refuse or fail to provide such challenger
with conveniences for the performance of the duties expectedof
him,shall,uponconviction,bepunishedbyafinenotexceeding$1,000.00, or by
imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding 2 years, or by both such fine
and imprisonment in the discretion of thecourt.
204. WayneCounty’sandSecretaryBenson’sdenialofRepublicanchallengers’
righttoparticipateandobservetheprocessingofballotsviolatesMichigan’sElectionCodeand resulting
in the casting and counting of ballots that were ineligible to be counted and diluted or canceled
out the lawfully cast ballots of other Michigan voters.
205. Further, Secretary of State Benson and the election officials in Wayne County
violatedMCL168.730-168.734bydenyingRepublicanchallengers’rightstomeaningfully observe
and participate in the ballot processing and countingprocess.
206. Based upon the above allegations of fraud, statutory violations, and other
misconduct, as stated herein and in the attached affidavits, it is necessary to order appropriate
relief,including,butnotlimitedto,enjoiningthecertificationoftheelectionresultspendingafull
investigation and court hearing, ordering a recount of the election results, or voiding the election
and ordering a new election, to remedy thefraud.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.71 Filed 11/25/20 Page 71 of 75
72
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
207. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order instructing Defendants to decertify the results of the General Election for the Office of President.
208. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek an order instructing the Defendants to certify the
results of the General Election for Office of the President in favor of President Donald Trump.
209. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting Defendants from
including in any certified results from the General Election the tabulation of absentee and
mailing ballots which do not comply with the Michigan Election Code, including, without
limitation, the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots Trump Campaign’s watchers were
prevented from observing or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee and mail-in
ballots which (i) lack a secrecy envelope, or contain on that envelope any text, mark, or symbol
which reveals the elector’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference, (ii) do not
include on the outside envelope a completed declaration that is dated and signed by the elector,
(iii) are delivered in-person by third parties for non-disabled voters, or (iv) any of the other
Michigan Election Code violations set forth in Section II of this Complaint.
210. Order production of all registration data, ballots, envelopes, etc. required to be
maintained by law. When we consider the harm of these uncounted votes, and ballots not ordered
by the voters themselves, and the potential that many of these unordered ballots may in fact have
been improperly voted and also prevented proper voting at the polls, the mail ballot system has
clearly failed in the state of Michigan and did so on a large scale and widespread basis. The size
of the voting failures, whether accidental or intentional, are multiples larger than the margin in
the state. For these reasons, Michigan cannot reasonably rely on the results of the mail
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.72 Filed 11/25/20 Page 72 of 75
73
vote.Relief sought is the elimination of the mail ballots from counting in the 2020 election.
Alternatively, the electors for the State of Michigan should be disqualified from counting toward
the 2020 election. Alternatively, the electors of the State of Michigan should be directed to vote
for President Donald Trump.
211. For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter a judgment in their favor and
provide the following emergency relief:
1. An order directing Secretary Benson, Governor Whitmer, the Board of State
Canvassers and Wayne County to de-certify the election results;
2. An order enjoining Secretary Benson and Governor Whitmer from transmitting the
currently certified election results to the Electoral College;
3. An order requiring Governor Whitmer to transmit certified election results that state
that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election;
4. An immediate order to impound all the voting machines and software in Michigan for
expert inspection by the Plaintiffs.
5. An order that no votes received or tabulated by machines that were not certified as
required by federal and state law be counted.
6. A declaratory judgment declaring that Michigan’s failed system of signature
verification violates the Electors and Elections Clause by working a de facto abolition
of the signature verification requirement;
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.73 Filed 11/25/20 Page 73 of 75
74
7. A declaratory judgment declaring that current certified election results violatesthe
Due Process Clause, U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV;
8. A declaratory judgment declaring that mail-in and absentee ballot fraud must be
remedied with a Full Manual Recount or statistically valid sampling that properly
verifies the signatures on absentee ballot envelopes and thatinvalidates the certified
results if the recount or sampling analysis shows a sufficient number of ineligible
absentee ballots were counted;
9. An emergency declaratory judgment that voting machines be Seized and Impounded
immediately for a forensic audit—by Plaintiffs’ expects;
10. A declaratory judgment declaring absentee ballot fraud occurred in violation of
Constitutional rights, Election laws and under state law;
11. A permanent injunction prohibiting the Governor and Secretary of State from
transmitting the currently certified results to the Electoral College based on the
overwhelming evidence of election tampering;
12. Immediate production of 48 hours of security camera recording of all rooms used in
the voting process at the TCF Center for November 3 and November 4.
13. Plaintiffs further request the Court grant such other relief as is just and proper,
including but not limited to, the costs of this action and their reasonable attorney fees
and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.74 Filed 11/25/20 Page 74 of 75
75
Respectfully submitted, this 25th day of November, 2020.
/s Sidney Powell* /s/ Scott Hagerstrom
Sidney Powell PC Michigan State Bar No. 57885
222 West Genesee
Texas Bar No. 16209700 Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 763-7499
Scotthagerstrom @yahoo.com
/s/ Gregory J. Rohl P39185
The Law Offices of Gregory J. Rohl, P.C.
41850 West 11 Mile Road, Suite 110
Novi, MI 48375
248-380-9404
gregoryrohl@yahoo.com
Of Counsel:
Emily P. Newman (Virginia Bar No. 84265)
Julia Z. Haller (D.C. Bar No. 466921)
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75219
*Application for admission pro hac vice
Forthcoming
L. Lin Wood
GA Bar No. 774588
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
Telephone: (404) 891-1402
Howard Kleinhendler
New York Bar No. 2657120
Howard Kleinhendler Esquire
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(917) 793-1188
howard@kleinhendler.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DECLERATION OF DR. NAVID KESHAVARZ-NIA
I, Navid Keshavarz-Nia, declare as follows:
1. I am 59 years old and have been a resident of Temecula, California for one year. Previously, I resided in
the Washington DC metropolitan area for nearly forty years. I have personal knowledge of the contents
of this Declaration and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to their truth.
2. I have a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering and a Master’s degree in Electronics
and Computer Engineering from George Mason University, a Ph.D. degree in Management of
Engineering and Technology from CalSouthern University and a Doctoral (Ed.D) degree in Education
from George Washington University. I have advanced training from the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), DHS office of Intelligence &
Analysis (I&A) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
3. I am employed by a large defense contractor as a chief cyber security engineer and a subject-matter
expert in cyber security. During my career, I have conducted security assessment, data analysis and
security counterintelligence, and forensics investigations on hundreds of systems. My experience spans
35 years performing technical assessment, mathematical modeling, cyber-attack pattern analysis, and
security counterintelligence linked to FIS operators, including China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. I
have worked as a consultant and subject-matter expert supporting the Department of Defense, FBI and
US Intelligence Community (USIC) agencies such as the DIA, CIA, NSA, NGA, and the DHS I&A supporting
counterintelligence, including supporting law enforcement investigations.
4. The USIC has developed the Hammer and Scorecard tools, which were released by Wiki Leaks and
independently confirmed by Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney (USAF, retired), Kirk Wiebe, former NSA official
and Dennis Montgomery, former CIA analyst). The Hammer and Scorecard capabilities are tradecrafts
used by US intelligence analysts to conduct MITM attacks on foreign voting systems, including the
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.822 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 9
2
Dominion Voting System (DVS) Democracy Suite and Systems and Software (ES&S) voting machines
without leaving an electronic fingerprint. As such, these tools are used by nefarious operators to
influence voting systems by covertly accessing DVS and altering the results in real-time and without
leaving an electronic fingerprint. The DVS Democracy Suite Election Management System (EMS) consists
of a set of applications that perform pre-voting and post-voting activities.
5. I have conducted data collection and forensic analysis using a combination of signals intelligence
(SIGINT), human intelligence (HUMINT) and open source intelligence (OSINT) data associated with
Chinese and other Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) operators targeting US critical infrastructures. In that
capacity, I have also conducted ethical hacking to support USIC missions.
6. I have performed forensic analysis of electronic voting systems, including the DVS Democracy Suite,
ES&S (acquired by DVS), Scytl/SOE Software, and the Smartmatic systems used in hundreds of precincts
in key battleground states. I have previously discovered major exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS and
ES&S that permit a nefarious operator to perform sensitive functions via its built-in covert backdoor. The
backdoor enables an operator to access to perform system updates and testing via the Internet without
detection. However, it can also be used to conduct illicit activities such as shifting votes, deleting votes,
or adding votes in real-time (Source: DVS Democracy Suite EMS Manual, version 5.11-CO::7, P.43). These
events can take place through the Internet and without leaving a trace.
7. During my career, I have studied network communication reports that show DVS data being transferred
to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses registered to Scytl in Barcelona, Spain. The results showed that Scytl
maintained its SOE Software servers in a Barcelona data center for disaster recovery and backup
purposes. In 2020, the SOE Software data center was moved to Frankfurt Germany where I believe 2020
election data was transferred.
8. Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) Corporation was founded in 2003 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, by John
Poulos and James Hoover. The company develops proprietary software and sells electronic voting
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.823 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 9
3
hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators, throughout the United States and
other parts of the world. DVS reportedly had a strategic relationship with Venezuela’s Bitza Corporation,
which was 28% owned by the former President Chavez. Intelligence reports indicate that the DVS/Bitza
software was co-developed in Venezuela to alter vote counts to ensure President Chavez (and later,
President Maduro) were guaranteed to win an election. The combined DVS/Bitza software was used in
numerous countries such as Bolivia and Philippines to forge election results to favor a specific candidate.
Subsequently, DVS and its international partners, including Diebold/ES&S (later acquired by DVS), Scytl,
SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic to establish a global monopoly.
9. Reports show that DVS is comprised of several companies which obfuscate its true organizational and
ownership structures. The DVS companies include: 1) Dominion Voting Systems International
Corporation, a Barbados corporation; 2) Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and 3)
Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, a Canadian corporation. Similarly, Smartmatic is comprised of: 1)
Smartmatic International Corporation, a Barbados corporation; 2) Smartmatic USA Corporation, a
Delaware corporation; 3) Smartmatic International Holding B.V, a Netherlands corporation; and 4)
Smartmatic TIM Corporation, a Philippines corporation. Based on my counterintelligence experience in
USIC, I conclude that corporate structures were partially designed to obfuscate their complex
relationships, especially with Venezuela, China and Cuba; and impede discovery by investigators.
10. According to NT Times, in April 2018, J. Alex Halderman from University of Michigan computer scientist
demonstrated in a video how simple it is to rig a DVS machine. In the video, Dr. Halderman
demonstrates how easy it is to rig the DVS machine. The name of the video is “I Hacked an Election. So
Can the Russians.” A caption next to the title read “It’s time America’s leaders got serious about voting
security.” (Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?463480-4/washington-journal-j-alex-haldermandiscusses-election-security)
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.824 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 9
4
11. Despite DVS’s constant denial about the flaws of its systems, the company’s ImageCast Precinct optical
scanner system was totally hacked in August 2019. This occurred during the largest and most notable
hacker convention, called DEFCON Voting Machine Hacking Village in Nevada. The DVS ImageCast
Precinct is an integrated hybrid voting equipment by combining an optical paper ballot and ballot
marking device to allow accessibility for the visually impaired. The system runs the Busybox Linux 1.7.4
operating system, which has known medium to high level exploitable vulnerabilities to allow remote
attackers to compromise the VDS. (J. Moss, H. Hurtsi, M. Blaze et al., Voting Village Report, DEFCON
Village Report in association with and Georgetown University Law Studies; Online Source:
https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2027/voting-village-report-defcon27.pdf). The report indicated
that “many of the specific vulnerabilities reported over a decade earlier (in the California and Ohio
studies, for example) are still present in these systems today (A. Padilla, Consolidated report by
California Secretary of State, Top-to-Bottom Review summary and detailed report, Page 4 (Online
Source: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ovsta/frequently-requested-information/top-bottom-review)
12. In 2019, a computer laptop and several USB memory cards containing the cryptographic key to access
DVS systems were stolen in Philadelphia. The company disputes the risks posed by lost USB memory
cards containing the cryptographic key. However, according to the election security expert Eddie Perez
of the nonpartisan OSET Institute states “it is very common that a USB memory card has a wealth of
information that is related not only to the configuration of the election and its ballot — and the behavior
of the voting device — but also internal system data used to validate the election.” I have previously
analyzed the contents of the DVS and other voting system cryptographic keys. I believe that USB
memory cards were used to facilitate administrative access to the backdoor to disrupt polling operations
and impact ballot counting across MI, GA, PA, AZ and WI.
13. In 2018, NY Times conducted an investigation and concluded that DVS machines can be easily hacked.
Subsequently, security experts conducted comprehensive security testing on DVS in August 2019 and
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.825 Filed 11/25/20 Page 4 of 9
5
discovered innumerable exploitable vulnerabilities that do not require extensive technical skill to
breach. The DEFCON report identified major exploitable security flaws in DVS that were shared with the
vendor. However, there is ample indication that these problems were not resolved. Moreover, DVS
maintains the position that its voting machines are fully secure. They continue to avoid transparency or
make their software codes to be analyzed by independent security investigators. In turn, December
2019, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden and Amy Klobuchar, along with Democratic
Representative Mark Pocan raised major concerns regarding security vulnerabilities in DVS machines.
14. In my expert opinion, the combination of DVS, Scytl/SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic are
vulnerable to data manipulation by unauthorized means. My judgment is based on conducting more
than a dozen experiments combined with analyzing the 2020 Election data sets. Additionally, a number
of investigators have examined DVS and reported their security findings (J. Schwartz, Scientific American
Journal, 2018; DEFCON 2019; L. Norden et. al, America’s Voting Machines at Risk, Brennan Center for
Justice, NYU Law, 2014) confirming that electronic voting machines, including DVS have glaring security
weaknesses that have remained unresolved.
15. I have not been granted access to examine any of the systems used in the 2020 Election. However, I
have conducted detailed analysis of the NY Times data sets and have discovered significant anomalies
are caused by fraudulent manipulation of the results. In my expert judgment, the evidence is
widespread and throughout all battleground states I have studied. I conclude the following:
a. The vote count distribution in PA, WI, MI, AZ, NV, and GA are not based on normal system
operation. Instead, they are caused by fraudulent electronic manipulation of the targeted voting
machines.
b. On approximately 2:30 AM EST, TV broadcasts reported that PA, WI, AZ, NV and GA have
decided to cease vote counting operations and will continue the following day. The unanimous
decision to intentionally stop counting by all 5 battleground states is highly unusual, possibly
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.826 Filed 11/25/20 Page 5 of 9
6
unprecedented and demonstrates prior coordination by election officials in battleground state.
There would be no legitimate reason battleground states need to pre-coordinate election
activities and stop on-going adjudication processes. However, is equally puzzling that the vote
counting did not stop, as reported. In fact, it continued behind closed doors in early hours of
November 4, 2020. This activity is highly unusually and demonstrates collusion to achieve
desired results without being monitored by watchers.
c. When analyzing the NT Times data for the 2020 election, I conclude that the software algorithm
manipulated votes counts forging between 1-2% of the precinct results to favor Vice President
Biden. The software performed data alteration in real-time in order to maintain close parity
among the candidates and without raising red flags. The specific software algorithm was
developed by Smartmatic and implemented in DVS machines to facilitate backdoor access by a
nefarious operator to manipulate live data, as desired.
d. The DVS Democracy Suite’s ImageCast Central optical scanner failed to correctly verify and
validate absentee ballots, as described in its own literature. There is reported evidence that the
optical scanner accepted and adjudicated ballots that did not have signatures or other key
features that is required for ballot validation and verification. This indicates that the DVS system
configuration was modified to accept invalid ballots when they should have been rejected.
e. After the DVS ImageCast scanner validates a ballot, by design, it is required to tabulate and store
the results in a cast vote record along with a human-readable image of the ballot that has been
scanned. The image, called AuditMark provides the user with scanned results that is verifiable.
However, media reports indicate that not only did the ImageCast fail to properly verify absentee
ballots; it also failed to maintain records of the AutitMark that would be necessary to conduct
an audit. The only way to alter this protocol is to alter the system configuration and prevent the
ImageCast scanner from rejecting illegal ballots; and reprogram AuditMark to store ballot image
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.827 Filed 11/25/20 Page 6 of 9
7
that could be verified. This is evidence of fraud perpetrated to prevent investigators to discover
the number of invalid votes that were cast.
f. The cryptographic key store on DVS thumb drive (reported stolen in Philadelphia) was used alter
vote counts prior to up chain reporting. Since DVS uses the same cryptographic key for all its
voting systems in all battleground states, the key allowed a remote operator to conduct massive
attacks on all battleground state data set without being detected.
g. Beginning on approximately 4:30 AM EST on November 4, 2020, the vote counts favored Vice
President Biden by nearly 80% in many jurisdictions. The data distribution is statistically
congruent, even when considering a larger number of absentee ballots were collected for Vice
President Biden.
h. The data variance favoring Vice President continues to accelerate after 4:30 AM EST on
November 4, 2020 and continues until it momentum through November 9, 2020. This
abnormality in variance is evident by the unusually steep slope for Vice President Biden in all
battleground states on November 4, 2020. A sudden rise in slope is not normal and
demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means. For example in PA, President Trump’s lead
of more than 700,000 count advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours,
which does not occur in the real world without an external influence. I conclude that manually
feeding more than 400,000 mostly absentee ballots cannot be accomplished in a short time
frame (i.e., 2-3 hours) without illegal vote count alteration. In another case for Edison County,
MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4,
2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These
distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud.
i. DVS has acknowledged that Chinese made parts are used in its voting machines. However, the
company is unwilling to share details on its supply chains, foreign ownership, or its relationship
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.828 Filed 11/25/20 Page 7 of 9
8
with China, Venezuela and Cuba. In particular, I have seen USIC intelligence reports showing
China’s espionage activities in the United States and efforts to infiltrate elections. Since these
countries are our enemies, I conclude that FIS and other operators were involved to influence
the outcome of the 2020 election.
j. A Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) cyber attack was carried out by covert operators using
sophisticated tools, such as Hammer and Scorecard. The MITM attack occurred in two ways.
Initially, remote operatives used USB memory cards containing cryptographic keys and access
system backdoors to alter votes in battleground states. Subsequently, the results were
forwarded to Scytl/SOE Software servers located in Frankfurt, Germany (previously, Barcelona,
Spain). The MITM attack was structured to ensure sufficient data alteration had occurred prior
to forwarding the tallied results to the Scytl/eClarity Software Electronic Night Reporting (ENR)
system. The reason election data are forwarded overseas is to avoid detection and monitoring
by the USIC to obfuscate the MITM.
k. In my expert opinion, the DVS Democracy Suite, Scytl/SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic
have not produced auditable results in the 2020 election. It is evident that ballots were not
properly validated, system records were not kept, and the system experience considerable
instability even several days prior to November 4, 2020 that require DVS to implement software
changes at the last minute. In addition, the disparity in data distribution after 4:30 AM on
November 4, 2020 indicates significant systemic anomalies that were widespread among all
battleground states. The evidence is both extensive and persuasive and indicates large-scale
fraud by remote operators.
16. I conclude that a combination of lost cryptographic key contained on stolen USB memory cards, serious
exploitable system and software vulnerabilities and operating system backdoor in DVS, Scytl, SOE
Software/eClarity and Smartmatic created the perfect environment to commit widespread fraud in all
Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 1-19, PageID.829 Filed 11/25/20 Page 8 of 9
9
states where these systems are installed. My analysis of the 2020 Election from NY Times data shows
statistical anomalies across the battleground state votes. These failures are widespread and systemic -
and sufficient to invalidate the vote counts.
17. I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states
resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to
Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable
vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve
the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.S. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED ON: November 25, 2020 By:
Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Ed.D.


 

 

 

© 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophilia contact: info@newsfollowup.com



9-11 9-11 vimeo