Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Re:: Emergency Petition Under Rule 20 For Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus
In Re:: Emergency Petition Under Rule 20 For Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus
Petitioners,
SIDNEY POWELL
Counsel of Record
Texas Bar No. 16209700
Sidney Powell, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75219
(517) 763-7499
[email protected]
Of Counsel
JULIA Z. HALLER
BRANDON JOHNSON
EMILY P. NEWMAN
HARRY W. MACDOUGALD
Georgia Bar No. 463076
Caldwell, Propst & DeLoach, LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Ste 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
(404) 843-1956
[email protected]
L. LIN WOOD
Georgia Bar No. 774588
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
(404) 891-1402
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
D. The District Court erred to the extent it
dismissed the complaint as moot. .......... 32
II. Respondents Violated The U.S. Constitution
And Georgia State Law........................... 32
A. Respondents Violated the Electors Clause by
Modifying the Georgia Election Code
Through Non-Legislative Action. ........... 32
B. Respondents Knowingly Enabled Election
Fraud by Election Workers, Dominion,
Democratic Operatives, Unknown Third
Parties, and Potentially by Hostile Foreign
Actors. ...................................................... 34
C. Petitioners Submitted Expert Witness
Testimony Establishing Wide-Spread Voting
Fraud That Changed The Outcome of the
Election. ................................................... 40
D. Respondents’ Actions Satisfy the
Requirements for a Constitutional Election
Fraud Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 That
Can Be Remedied by This Court. ........... 45
Conclusion ................................................................ 49
6
T A B L E O F AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting
Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) ............................................ 22
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ......................................... 47
Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020) ................ 18
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 S.Ct. 367 (2004) ............... 17
Curling v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 5994029 (N.D. Ga.
10/11/20) ................................................................ 36, 37, 39
Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943) ................. 17
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 534 (1965) ............... 31
Kasper v. Bd. of Election Com’rs of the City of Chicago,
814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987) ............................................ 45
King v. Whitmer, No. 20-cv-13134 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7,
2020) .................................................................................. 14
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............ 28
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) ............................ 18
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)................................ 47
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) ............... 31
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) .................................... 22
Wood v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 7094866 (11th Cir.
Case No. 201-14418 Dec. 5, 2020) ............................. 28, 32
Statutes
28 U.S. Code § 1254.............................................................. 16
28 U.S.C. § 1367 ................................................................... 20
3 U.S.C. § 5 ........................................................................... 12
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................... passim
7
42 U.S.C. § 1988 ............................................................... 4, 20
O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3) ........................................................... 29
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-10 ................................................... 18, 21, 25
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-11 ......................................................... 21, 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-12 ............................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-13 ............................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132.1 .......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132(a) ......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(e) ......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-285(e) ................................................... 21, 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-322(2) ......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-365(2) ......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.5(e) ...................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(d)(1) ..................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386 ....................................................... 33, 42
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-435(c)(4) ..................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-438 ............................................................. 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-452 ............................................................. 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-455 ............................................................. 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-480(g) ................................................... 21, 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-483(b) ................................................... 15, 34
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498 ............................................................. 33
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-499(b) ......................................................... 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-501 ............................................................. 26
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-502(e) ......................................................... 27
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a) ......................................................... 29
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-527(d) ................................................... 16, 29
O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-2(25)(B) .................................................... 26
8
O.G.C.A § 21-2-520 .............................................................. 20
O.G.C.A § 21-2-521 .............................................................. 20
O.G.C.A § 21-2-522 .............................................................. 20
Rules
Secretary of State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 ............................ 33
Supreme Court Rule 11 ....................................................... 16
Supreme Court Rule 20 ....................................................... 16
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 4, clause 1 ............................... 12, 19, 20
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, clause 2 .......................................... 19
9
INTRODUCTION
10
declarations and affidavits. Because the December 7
judgment does not provide any explanation for the District
Court’s decision, Petitioners must divine the rationale for
the District Court’s decision from the transcript of the
December 7, 2020 hearing (“December 7 Transcript”),
which suggests that the District Court dismissed the
Complaint and TRO Motion for the reasons urged in the
Respondents’ filings: namely standing, laches, perhaps
mootness, abstention, and an ersatz theory of exclusive
state jurisdiction over all issues in this case that
Defendants themselves did not argue. December 7
Transcript at 41-44.
******************
11
before—at least not in America. Hundreds of
thousands if not millions of illegal, fraudulent,
ineligible or purely fictitious ballots were cast for
Biden (along with hundreds of thousands of Trump
votes that were intentionally destroyed, lost or
switched to Biden), changing the outcome from a
Biden loss to a Biden “win.”
12
unconstitutional acts of Respondents, and their
counterparts in the other Defendant States that have
brought us to this constitutional donnybrook.
***********
1See William Bailey v. Antrim County, Michigan Circuit Court for the
County of Antrim Case No. 2020009238CZ, pending before the
Honorable Kevin A. Elsenheimer.
13
In the District Court, Respondents and the District
Court dismissed Petitioners’ requested relief as
“unprecedented” and hinted that granting it could
undermine faith in our election system. But to use a phrase
favored by the District Court in a similar complaint in
Michigan: that “ship has sailed.” King v. Whitmer, No. 20-
cv-13134 at *13 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). According to a
Rasmussen poll, 75% of Republicans and 30% of
Democrats believe that “fraud was likely” in the 2020
General Election.2 Public confidence is already shattered
and will be destroyed beyond repair if an election widely
perceived as fraudulent were ratified in the name of
preserving confidence.
2https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-
margolis/2020/11/19/whoa-nearly-a-third-of-democrats-believe-the-
election-was-stolen-from-trump-
n1160882/amp?__twitter_impression=true Last visited December 10,
2020.
14
leave the State Farm Arena in Fulton County on the
pretext that counting was finished for the night. But
election workers resumed scanning when no one (except
security cameras) was watching – a clear violation of the
“public view” requirement of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-483(b). There
are dozens of eyewitnesses and whistleblowers who have
testified to illegal conduct by election workers, Dominion
Voting Systems (“Dominion”) employees or contractors, as
well as other conduct indicative of fraud such as USB sticks
discovered with thousands of missing votes, vote switching
uncovered only after manual recounts, etc., etc.). This is
2020, and what is casually dismissed as a “conspiracy
theory” one day proves to be a conspiracy fact the next.
15
of illegal ballots in excess of the margin of victory are
sufficient to place the outcome of the election in doubt and
warrants the injunctive relief of de-certification. Cf.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-527(d). The testimony of Petitioners’
experts is sufficient to set aside the 2020 General Election
and enjoin voting in the Electoral College by the Biden
slate of presidential electors pending a final resolution of
this case.
JURISDICTION
16
The case is therefore “pending in a United States court of
appeals . . . .” Sup. Ct. R. 11. They plan to file a Petition for
Certiorari as soon as humanly possible. Because the
Electors are set to vote on December 14, 2020, the time for
obtaining effective relief is extraordinarily short, it would
be impossible to present the case to the Eleventh Circuit
and then await a decision from that court before seeking
relief in this Court. Moreover, as demonstrated herein, “the
case is of such imperative public importance as to justify
deviation from normal appellate practice and to require
immediate determination in this Court.” Id.
17
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND
STANDING
18
Respondent Brian Kemp is named in his official capacity
as Governor of the State of Georgia.
19
Georgia’s election contest statutes, O.G.C.A § 21-2-520 et
seq.
20
U.S. Const. Art. II, clause 1 (“Electors Clause”).
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-11.
21
None of respondents is a “Legislature”. The Legislature is
“‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the
people.’” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 365 (1932).
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 (2015).
22
“equal protection of the laws.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98
(2000).
23
REASONS IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF INJUNCTION
ARGUMENT
24
that the 2020 General Election may have been subject to
interference by hostile foreign governments including
China and Iran. See Doc. 1-9 (Appdx. p. 525) and 1-10
(Appdx. p. 450).
25
responsibilities defined by law, namely voting in the
Electoral College for President and Vice-President.
O.G.C.A. § 21-2-11. While their names do not appear on the
ballot, Georgia Law makes it clear that (“A vote for the
candidates for President and Vice President of a political
party or body shall be deemed to be a vote for each of the
candidates for presidential electors of such political party
or body.” O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-285(e), 21-2-480(g) They are
entitled to compensation for their services. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-
13. The Georgia Election Code is replete with code sections
treating presidential electors as candidates.3
26
The standing of presidential electors to challenge fraud,
illegality and disenfranchisement in a presidential election
rests on a constitutional and statutory foundation—as if
they are candidates—not voters. Theirs is not a generalized
grievance, one shared by all other voters; they are
particularly aggrieved by being wrongly denied the
responsibility, emoluments and honor of serving as
members of the Electoral College, as provided by Georgia
law. This Court has recognized this when it decided two
cases involving vote counting procedures for the 2000
presidential election, Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Palm Beach
Cty. Canvassing Bd.
27
from any illegal conduct affecting the manner in which
votes are tabulated or counted.
28
making authority that had been exercised by” Respondent
Raffensperger. Id. at 43:6-8. (Appdx. p. 45).
29
The claims of prejudice to the Defendants and to lawful
voters who cast their legal votes in the election presume
the point in controversy – whether the election was lawful
or fraudulent. No defendant, no candidate, no intervenor,
no political party and no citizen can claim a legally
protectible interest in a fraudulent vote count; there can be
no prejudice to anyone from invaliding such an election.
The notion that there is no cognizable legal, equitable or
constitutional remedy for an election won through
fraudulent means is obnoxious to history, law, equity, the
Constitution and common sense. Elections may and should
be invalidated where the evidence shows they are tainted
by fraud and illegality.
30
Petitioners’ claims cannot all be shoe-horned into the
exclusive state court remedy of a state law election contest.
Respondents’ actions in modifying, or violating, the Georgia
Legislature’s election laws—for example, de facto
eliminating the signature requirement for absentee ballots
or authorizing county election officials to process absentee
ballots prior to election day—amount to “[a] significant
departure from the legislative scheme for appointing
Presidential electors,” which “presents a federal
constitutional question.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 112
(Rehnquist, C.J., joined by Scalia and Thomas, J.J,
concurring).
31
D. The District Court erred to the extent it
dismissed the complaint as moot.
32
State Election Board without the approval or ratification of
the Georgia Legislature changed or effectively nullified
provisions of the Georgia Election Code that were
specifically intended to prevent absentee ballot voter fraud.
33
majority counties were conducted in an unlawful
manner, discriminated against Republican
observers, counted certain ballots without signatures
or spoiled ballots, conducted machine recounts
instead of hand recounts and other violations. ¶¶ 65-
75. Aside from the illegality of many of these
procedures, their differential application in different
counties suffered from precisely the type of non-
uniformity that this Court held violated equal
protection in Bush v. Gore.
34
paras. 10-11, 116-119. (Appdx. 53, 102-104).
Republican observers were told to leave
around 10:30 PM. (Appdx. 104). Doc. 1-28
and 1-29 (Appdx. 615, 619). This has recently
been confirmed by surveillance video
obtained from State Farm Arena which
clearly shows this activity, and further shows
that the same ballots were scanned over and
over, another clear election fraud. This video
evidence was filed with District Court
Monday December 7, 2020, and has been seen
by tens of millions of Americans since its
release on December 4, 2020 in connection
with hearings held by the Georgia
Legislature. (Appdx. 2090).
35
3. There is compelling evidence that the
electronic security of the Dominion system is
so lax as to present a “extreme security risk”
of undetectable hacking, and does not include
properly auditable system logs. Complaint ¶
8 (Appdx. 54); Doc. 1-4 (Hursti Declaration
¶¶ 37, 39 (Appdx. 213-215), ¶¶ 45-48 (Appdx.
218-219); Doc. 1-5, at Appdx. 278-279, p. 29, ¶
28). Judge Totenberg’s decision in Curling v.
Raffensperger, 2020 WL 5994029 (NDGA
10/11/20) presents a detailed review of the
evidence on these issues.
36
output of the reports coming from a voting
system.” Id. at ¶ 49. (Appdx. 219).
37
Netherlands which correlates to known
Iranian use of the Netherlands as a remote
server. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11 (Appdx. 433-440). The
Spider affidavit identifies a series of Iranian
and Chinese connections into Dominion’s
networks. The affidavit concludes in ¶ 21
(Appdx. 448-449):
38
on servers operated by SCYTL (an affiliated
intermediary for processing and reporting
election results) and can capture log in
credentials used in the Dominion networks.
Id. at ¶¶ 4-5 (Appdx. 452). Ramsland finds
that Dominion’s source code is available on
the Dark Web, and that Dominions election
systems use unprotected logs, enabling
undetectable hacking by sophisticated
hackers. Id. at 6-7 (Appdx. 452-453). This
latter point confirms Judge Totenberg
findings about the vulnerabilities in the
Dominion system in Curling v. Raffensperger,
2020 WL 5994029 (NDGA 10/11/20).
39
C. Petitioners Submitted Expert Witness
Testimony Establishing Wide-Spread
Voting Fraud That Changed The
Outcome of the Election.
40
2. A massive number of unrequested absentee
ballots were sent in violation of the
legislative scheme, estimated to a 95%
confidence interval to be between 16,938 and
22,771 ballots – sufficient in itself to put the
outcome of the election in doubt. Complaint ¶
122(b); Doc. 1-1 (Briggs Declaration and
Report) (Appdx. 152); Doc. 45-1 (Expert
Report of Matthew Braynard) (Appdx. 1393).
41
anomalies in the absentee ballot data. See
Doc. 45-2 (Appdx. 1419).
42
uniformity of procedures employed by
different local officials violate this Court’s
clear command in Bush v. Gore.
43
9. In further analysis, Ramsland finds through
sophisticated mathematical techniques that
there was a distinct political bias in favor of
Joe Biden and against Donald Trump in the
results reported from Dominion machines vs.
those reported on other systems. (Appdx. 454-
455 at ¶¶ 8-10). Biden averaged 5% higher on
Dominion and Hart systems than on other
systems. Id. Biden overperformed Ramsland’s
predictive model in counties where other
machines were used only 46% of the time,
indicating machine neutrality. However, in
the Dominion/Hart system counties, Biden
overperformed the model 78% of the time, an
anomalous or unnatural result to the 99.99%
confidence level. Id. at 10-12. This analysis
was confirmed by checking it by another
machine learning method. Id. at ¶ 12. See
also ¶13 (“This indicates the fraud was
widespread and impacted vote counts in a
systematic method across many machines
and counties.”) (Emphasis in original). The
consonance between this evidence and Dr.
Coomer’s vow that he had “fixed” it so that
Trump could not win cannot just be brushed
aside.
44
of voting machines manufactured by
different companies affected 2020
US election results, we found the use
of the Dominion X/ICX BMD (Ballot
Marking Device) machine,
manufactured by Dominion Voting
Systems, and machines from Hart
InterCivic, appear to have
abnormally influenced election
results and fraudulently and
erroneously attributed from
13,725 to 136,908 votes to Biden
in Georgia. (Emphasis in original).
(Appdx. 460-461).
45
court held that “casting (or approval) of fictitious votes can
violate the Constitution and other federal laws,” and that
for the purposes of Section 1983, it is sufficient to allege
that this conduct was permitted pursuant to a state
“‘policy” of diluting votes” that “may be established by a
demonstration” state officials who “despite knowing of the
practice, [have] done nothing to make it difficult.” Id. at
344. This “policy” may also lie in the “design and
administration” of the voting system that is “incapable of
producing an honest vote,” in which case “[t]he resulting
fraud may be attributable” to state officials “because the
whole system is in [their] care and therefore is state
action.” Id. The state action requirement is thus clearly
met for the Respondents’ conduct described above.
46
Respondents’ policies also disenfranchised Republican
voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s “one person,
one vote” requirement by:
47
carry out non-delegable duties of election
administration so this form of discrimination is under
color of law.
48
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,
49
New York Bar No. 2657120 Sidney Powell, P.C.
Howard Kleinhendler 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd.,
Esquire Suite 300
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Dallas, Texas 75219
Floor (517) 763-7499
New York, New York 10017 [email protected]
(917) 793-1188 m
[email protected]
L. LIN WOOD
Georgia Bar No. 774588
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
(404) 891-1402
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
50
type-volume limitation. As required by Supreme Court
Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 8,974
words, excluding the parts of the document that are
exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
Respectfully submitted,
51
Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 75 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Defendants,
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF
GEORGIA, INC., DSCC, DCCC,
JOHN MANGANO, ALICE
O’LENICK, BEN
SATTERFIELD, WANDY
TAYLOR, and STEPHEN DAY,
Intervenors.
1
Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 75 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 2
JUDGMENT
This action having come before the court, Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr.,
United States District Judge, for consideration of defendant’s and the intervenor
defendant’s motions to dismiss, and the court having granted said motions, it is
Ordered and Adjudged that the action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
JAMES N. HATTEN
CLERK OF COURT
By: s/ D. Barfield
Deputy Clerk
By: s/ D. Barfield
Deputy Clerk
2
1 of 44
3
4 Coreco Jaqan Pearson, )
et al., )
5 )
Plaintiff, )
6 ) Civil Action
vs. ) File No. 1:20-CV-4809-TCB
7 )
) Atlanta, Georgia
8 Brian Kemp, et al., ) Monday December 7, 2020
) 10:00 a.m.
9 Defendant. )
_________________________)
10
11
12 Transcript of Motions Hearing
Before The Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
13 United States District Judge
14
APPEARANCES:
15
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Sidney Powell
16 Harry MacDougald
Attorneys at Law
17
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Carey Allen Miller
18 Joshua Barret Belinfante
Charlene Swartz McGowan
19 Melanie Leigh Johnson
Attorneys at Law
20
21
22
23 Lori Burgess, Official Court Reporter
(404) 215-1528
24
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
25 produced by CAT.
6 would ask that -- each of y'all should have some plastic bags.
7 As you leave the lectern, take the bag with you, and the next
8 person who comes up should put a new bag. You all have bags,
1 President.
9 I have read everything that has been filed in this case by the
13 complaint and the claims in the complaint. The way that time
19 that under Georgia law this kind of suit, one for election
8 ballot marking devices, could have been raised months ago, and
10 before Plaintiffs filed this suit over three weeks after the
20 election in Georgia was Donald Trump and not Joe Biden. They
22 undo what they have done, which is certify Joe Biden as the
17 think the lawyers talk loud enough that I can hear what they
13 morning, Your Honor. I think you have hit the nail on the
14 head in terms of what the issues are. This case simply does
15 not belong in this Court. The relief that Plaintiffs seek is,
7 brought.
9 else, the Court need only look at what has happened in Georgia
10 since roughly 2019 and the passage of House Bill 316. It was
12 Georgia election law. And there had been suit after suit
17 ordered relief. And to the extent that two have, the Curling
18 case and the New Georgia Project case on discrete issues, the
10 are asking this Court to do, substitute this Court for the
11 Florida Supreme Court, and you have Bush v. Gore all over
13 that the Court has seen in our brief and the Court has already
15 hit the high notes on some, but we will rely on our briefs.
22 are the acts of the State? Not Fulton County, not mullahs in
1 where that gets fleshed out really for the first time in the
2 reply brief, and there are three. And they tell you, and I
10 period. And from that they raise what appears to now be four
7 tell me to stop.
5 standing. The 8th Circuit said yes, the 3rd Circuit said no.
7 And to the extent that the Plaintiffs say the 3rd Circuit did
13 in our briefs.
17 that the State has entered into, or anything truly under the
24 The Wood court, the 11th Circuit Wood opinion, says the same,
14 they raise the point that under Young, you can only get
21 Judge Grimberg on laches in the Wood case and said that there
23 elements, was there a delay, was it not excusable, and did the
2 And it does here for all of the Plaintiffs' arguments, and all
3 you need to do, again, is go back to that Page 20 and see why.
1 challenged when the rule has been promulgated, when the order
4 And truly, Your Honor, they all kind of get to the same place
12 cases the 11th Circuit does not typically abstain. And those
18 other cases that we have seen that we've defended since the
4 place, and that is exactly what they seek to turn on its head.
7 at Page 120, for the Court, in that case the Florida Court, to
22 if you look in the Election Code, there are five times that
25 date they can do this, but it doesn't say it can only happen.
1 And the five times elsewhere in the Code would suggest that
3 121-2-132, 133, 153, 187, and 384. They are simply reading
5 Federal and State law says you should read it to avoid the
13 Mr. Miller is going to talk about that a good deal, but also
15 Prohm and that we are estopped from raising Prohm. There are
19 from the 11th Circuit applying Georgia law 2011. And two,
24 when a voter gets a ballot from the machine they can read who
25 they voted for. And when the hand count took place, they
1 didn't scan it back in, they looked at what the ballot said
2 and who they voted for and that is why things were put in
5 issue.
11 the extent that that is the due process claim, they don't
17 here, they can do. Your Honor, with that, unless there are
19 rebuttal.
24 many of the points Mr. Belinfante just made, and I will not
25 repeat them, but for the record, Your Honor, I would just like
1 to say that for the statements that we've made in our motion
3 this case lack standing. They bring their claims and assert
6 now that the election has been certified, which is what the
14 and with the remedy asked for in this case. Over a month ago
18 both the ballots that were cast on Dominion machines and the
6 place, and they asked this Court to take back that choice, to
7 set aside the choice that Georgia voters have made, and to
15 from the beginning and said that they are rife with the
16 possibility of fraud?
19 does not mean that fraud has actually occurred. And here
20 Plaintiffs come after an election has taken place and they say
2 there has been actual fraud. And that is just not in their
6 Judge Totenberg and that she is deciding. But that is not the
17 have been counted not once, not twice, but three times, and
18 the vote has been confirmed. Their request for relief is not
4 has been lawfully cast would violate the Due Process Clause.
6 3rd Circuit found the same thing in their finding where they
13 Court cannot grant the remedy that Plaintiffs seek and the
17 good company, not just from the 1st Circuit and the 3rd
8 Nevada. And the list goes on, Your Honor. We could talk
15 with the judge right down the hall from here who, just two
5 applies here even more because most of the claims that were
8 greater in scope.
14 Court -- this case would not be moot because the Court can
3 vote has already taken place, Your Honor, and if this Court
9 year as also known as Election Day, which this year took place
11 Day, and if this Court were to now, months after the -- over a
14 the very reasons that the Plaintiffs -- the very relief that
17 be dismissed.
19 and insecurity regarding how their votes are actually cast and
2 process."
7 first question I have for you, for the Plaintiffs in the case,
6 say we have never seen it, the future does not bode well."
7 And sure enough, exactly the fears articulated in her 147 page
21 claims.
24 and create a world in which the 2020 election results are not
25 certified?
6 our brief that allow the Court the decertify. And at the very
14 across the State that weighed Biden votes more heavily than it
18 who have explained how the fraud can occur within the
17 for --
18 THE COURT: How is this whole case not moot from the
2 particular election, can Mr. Trump even win the election even
3 if he wins Georgia?
8 saw that their vote did not come out the same way it was.
13 Arlo system changed, and there was no way to verify the votes
22 candidate and take those out and put them in Mr. Biden's pile.
4 were just thrown out. They could just literally drag and drop
9 we can have a few days to examine the machines and get the
12 ballots that were used in the Fulton County count that night.
18 possible that many people did not know anything was wrong with
25 We have shown more than enough for a prima facie case to get
11 Carson?
14 In that case, for example, the State could not even say who
16 clearly do.
19 Right?
1 cases. I mean, the 11th Circuit has basically said, you know,
16 issues in Wood.
7 Protection claims.
9 You know, the Plaintiffs allege that their interests are the
18 sound like your clients are special, that they have some
19 unique status that they enjoy that allows them to bring this
2 theory survive?
11 video of the Fulton City vote count, they lied about the water
15 and big batch of ballots which would explain why the same
15 from the beginning, and find out exactly what went on and give
17 because the fraud that has happened here has destroyed any
1 go back and check. The Siegel case they rely on cites to only
6 jurisdiction.
12 you and read to you numerous aspects of the Curling case, and
13 they say that going back to 2006 somebody thought that there
16 are the arguments that they are about the machines. They
20 Curling case, everything that was read was stayed by the 11th
3 from 2011. But even still, that can be brought in the State
10 And they have not shown you that the State process is
16 too, and say that when you are not a candidate you don't have
3 that looks at what the ballot says, and when the voter had
4 access to that ballot they could see too. And if they voted
6 for Joe Biden it will show it on the ballot. And if not, they
9 election results, the State Courts are open for them to do it,
16 considered the entire record in the case and I find that, even
13 held that these types of cases are not properly before Federal
21 suit and raised the exact same arguments and made the exact
24 pleading that their interests are one and the same as any
13 before the 11th Circuit and the 11th Circuit would reverse me.
14 The relief that the Plaintiffs seek, this Court cannot grant.
17 exists, and I find that it does not. The 11th Circuit said as
4 * * * * *
5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
6
7 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
9
10 _________________________________
Lori Burgess
11 Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
12 Northern District of Georgia
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25