1

Amicus Brief

This amicus curiae brief is filed in support of Plaintiff,

elaborating upon irregularities that occurred in
Pennsylvania including one that victimized the lead
author of this document, and her husband. {f.n. 1 & 2}

{MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/fil
es/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf and
cite both your writings and our writings}

Each cause-of-action summarized in the introduction

was experienced in Pennsylvania and each factual
assertion [pp. 14-20] has been thoroughly documented.

That they accommodate the gravamen of two additional

cases that are ripe for adjudication by the Court [cite “4-
4” 3-day delay and Rudy’s 3rd Circuit omnibus] suggests it
may enhance judicial efficiency were they to be
consolidated; similarly, it appears imminent that certiori
will be sought in Kelly, another matter that could be
merged with the instant case.

Indeed, it is anticipated that appeals arising in multiple

jurisdictions are imminent and, thus, the detailed claims
therein could be invoked to create an omnibus filing.

In the absence of a briefing schedule, this is remitted

expeditiously, taking into account Defendants’ response
docketed on December 10, 2020.

We concur with Plaintiff’s conclusion:

This Court should first administratively

stay or temporarily restrain the
Defendant States from voting in the
electoral college until further order of
this Court and then issue a preliminary
injunction or stay against their doing so
until the conclusion of this case on the
merits. Alternatively, the Court should
reach the merits, vacate the Defendant
States’ elector certifications from the
unconstitutional 2020 election results,
and remand to the Defendant States’
legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to
appoint electors.
 2

Due to the indeterminant electoral findings in each state

and recognizing time constraints, a realistic alternative is
to preclude their sending any Electors unless Defendants
can satisfy their respective Legislatures that aberrations
didn’t occur and/or didn’t affect the electoral outcome.

Starting immediately after the election, we (Ms. Lechter

and Dr. Sklaroff) predicted that Trump’s campaign would
follow our Study Guide and how we had Handicapped it,
triggering him to orient litigation toward this Court; we
have asserted that merely accepting three cases that
have arisen in Pennsylvania would be seismic.

This constitutes an annotation of the Plaintiff’s filing:

41. Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes, with a statewide

vote tally currently estimated at 3,363,951 for President
Trump and 3,445,548 for former Vice President Biden, a
margin of 81,597 votes.

Video evidence of vote flipping in Pennsylvania has been

captured, when precisely 19,958 votes were transferred
within seconds from Trump to Biden. {f.n. 3}

{https://populist.press/dominion-caught-red-handed-
stealing-votes-on-live-tv/ &
https://www.peteyvid.com/video-
How_Trump_Votes_Flip_to_Biden_Votes_in_Seconds-
642529080.php}

A Dominion Voting Systems spokesman stated Trump

had won 14 Pennsylvania counties where Dominion
voting systems were used; this prompted efforts to
prompt Dominion to testify in Pennsylvania that, at the
last minute, was reversed. {f.n. 4 & 5}

{https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dominio
n-spokesman-trump-won-14-pennsylvania-counties-
where-dominion-voting-systems-were-
used?utm_source=WEX_News%20Brief%20-
%20YouTube%20_11/22/2020&utm_medium=email&ut
m_campaign=WEX_News%20Brief&rid=32963
&
 3

https://populist.press/dominion-just-lawayered-up-
right-after-refusing-to-testify/}

Reportedly, Dominion Transferring Vote Ratios between

Pennsylvania precincts were captured by Edward
Solomon {f.n. 4}

{https://rumble.com/vbas2t-smoking-gun-dominion-
transferring-vote-ratios-between-precincts-in-pa.-by-
e.html}

Without being under oath, a Dominion spokesperson

denied allegations of voter fraud and irregularities;
efforts are ongoing to prompt Dominion to testify in
Michigan. {f.n. 5 & 6}

{https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/11/22/283632-
n283632
&
https://www.theepochtimes.com/michigan-house-
chairman-tells-dominion-ceo-to-appear-or-be-
subpoenaed_3609633.html?utm_source=newsnoe&ut
m_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-
08-3}

Dominion claims, “Voting systems are, by design, meant

to be used as closed systems that are not networked
(meaning not connected to the Internet),” but Dominion
is linked to the Internet and, further, its Manual details
how Operations Support can be accessed remotely to
obviate the need for a house-call. (f.n. 7 & 8 & 9}

{https://www.dominionvoting.com/election2020-
setting-the-record-straight/ &
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-
vulnerable-experts-find-nearly-three-dozen-u-s-voting-
n1112436 &
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VotingSyst
ems/systemsDocumentation/Dominion/209-
ADJSystemMaintenanceManual-419.pdf}

And in Montgomery County, voter fraud is alleged: “A

very large batch of mail ballots were counted that
showed an enormous advantage for Biden; this batch
looks nothing like the mail ballots counted up to that
point in the New York Times data, and also looks different
from the mail ballots counted later in each precinct as
measured using the county’s own data.” {f.n. 10 & 11}
 4

{https://www.rightnowmn.org/explosive_new_data_fro
m_rigorous_statistical_analysis_points_to_voter_fraud
_in_montgomery_county_pa
https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/explosive-new-
data-from-rigorous-statistical-analysis-points-to-voter-
fraud-in-montgomery-county-pa/
&
https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/one-possible-
fraud-scenario-montgomery-county-pa/}

Therefore, it is necessary to challenge to statewide

tabulations, both by analyzing the way votes were
aggregated and how they were tabulated.

42. The number of votes affected by the various

constitutional violations exceeds the margin of votes
separating the candidates.

This supports the conclusion that the results could

support a Trump victory but, assuredly, may be viewed as
indeterminate.

43. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar,

without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated
several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature
verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.
Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these changes,
and the legislation did not include a severability clause.

Signature verification hasn’t been assessed in

Pennsylvania but, in Nevada, it has been demonstrated
to be aberrant, perhaps due to liberal machine settings;
thus, manual assessment is vital to ensure integrity. {f.n.
12 & 13}

{https://saraacarter.com/report-experiment-shows-
that-ballot-signature-verification-has-an-89-failure-rate/
&
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-
columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-county-lowers-
confidence-level-for-ballot-signatures-2156478/}

44. On August 7, 2020, the League of Women Voters of

Pennsylvania and others filed a complaint against
Secretary Boockvar and other local election officials,
seeking “a declaratory judgment that Pennsylvania
existing signature verification procedures for mail-in
voting” were unlawful for a number of reasons.
 5

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar,

No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020).

No opportunity was provided administratively for the

Legislature to provide input regarding how this litigation
might be appropriately resolved.

45. The Pennsylvania Department of State quickly settled

with the plaintiffs, issuing revised guidance on
September 11, 2020, stating in relevant part: “The
Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the
county board of elections to set aside returned absentee
or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by
the county board of elections.”

No opportunity was provided administratively for the

Legislature to provide input regarding how this litigation
was resolved.

46. This guidance is contrary to Pennsylvania law. First,

Pennsylvania Election Code mandates that, for non-
disabled and non-military voters, all applications for an
absentee or mail-in ballot “shall be signed by the
applicant.” 25 PA. STAT. §§ 3146.2(d) & 3150.12(c).
Second, Pennsylvania’s voter signature verification
requirements are expressly set forth at 25 PA. STAT.
350(a.3)(1)-(2) and § 3146.8(g)(3)-(7).

As former judges of elections, we attest to the fact that

the tabulation process initiated at 8 p.m. E.S.T. routinely
would necessitate signature comparison with the voter
registration roll before any tabulation of votes that had
been cast by people who hadn’t appeared in-person.

47. The Pennsylvania Department of State’s guidance

unconstitutionally did away with Pennsylvania’s
statutory signature verification requirements.
Approximately 70 percent of the requests for absentee
ballots were from Democrats and 25 percent from
Republicans. Thus, this unconstitutional abrogation of
state election law greatly inured to former Vice President
Biden’s benefit.

Thus, Secretary of the Commonwealth Boockvar violated

black-letter statute to the detriment of President Trump.
 6

48. In addition, in 2019, Pennsylvania’s legislature

enacted bipartisan election reforms, 2019 Pa. Legis. Serv.
Act 2019-77, that set inter alia a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on
election day for a county board of elections to receive a
mail-in ballot. 25 PA. STAT. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c).
Acting under a generally worded clause that “Elections
shall be free and equal,” PA. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 1, a
4-3 majority of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in Pa.
Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020),
extended that deadline to three days after Election Day
and adopted a presumption that even non-postmarked
ballots were presumptively timely.

As noted supra, this concern was upheld prior to the

election by a 4-4 vote but can be revisited by a refiling
(noting a nine-member Court)or by inclusion herein.

49. Pennsylvania’s election law also requires that poll-

watchers be granted access to the opening, counting,
and recording of absentee ballots: “Watchers shall be
permitted to be present when the envelopes containing
official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened
and when such ballots are counted and recorded.” 25 PA.
STAT. § 3146.8(b). Local election officials in Philadelphia
and Allegheny Counties decided not to follow 25 PA.
STAT. § 3146.8(b) for the opening, counting, and
recording of absentee and mail-in ballots.

Violation of Justice Alito’s orders transpired, yielding the

view that this constituted a conscious pattern of
repudiation of this Court’s mandate that cannot be
justified by claiming that Boockvar could satisfy it merely
by conveying “guidance” to county administrators.

50. Prior to the election, Secretary Boockvar sent an

email to local election officials urging them to provide
opportunities for various persons—including political
parties—to contact voters to “cure” defective mail-in
ballots. This process clearly violated several provisions of
the state election code.
• Section 3146.8(a) requires: “The county boards of
election, upon receipt of official absentee ballots in
sealed official absentee ballot envelopes as provided
under this article and mail-in ballots as in sealed official
mail-in ballot envelopes as provided under Article XIII-
D,1 shall safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked
containers until they are to be canvassed by the county
board of elections.”
 7

• Section 3146.8(g)(1)(ii) provides that mail-in ballots

shall be canvassed (if they are received by eight o’clock
p.m. on election day) in the manner prescribed by this
subsection.
• Section 3146.8(g)(1.1) provides that the first look at
the ballots shall be “no earlier than seven o’clock a.m. on
election day.” And the hour for this “pre-canvas” must be
publicly announced at least 48 hours in advance. Then
the votes are counted on election day.

As both judges of elections and as poll watchers, we

noted strict adherence to these statues in past elections.

51. By removing the ballots for examination prior to

seven o’clock a.m. on election day, Secretary Boockvar
created a system whereby local officials could review
ballots without the proper announcements, observation,
and security. This entire scheme, which was only
followed in Democrat majority counties, was blatantly
illegal in that it permitted the illegal removal of ballots
from their locked containers prematurely.

This behavior unambiguously violated the constitutional

mandate of Equal Protection as per the 14th Amendment,
the gravamen of Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

52. Statewide election officials and local election officials

in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, aware of the
historical Democrat advantage in those counties,
violated Pennsylvania’s election code and adopted the
differential standards favoring voters in Philadelphia and
Allegheny Counties with the intent to favor former Vice
President Biden. See Verified Complaint (Doc. No. 1),
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 4:20-cv-
02078-MWB (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2020) at ¶¶ 3-6, 9, 11,
100-143.

Absent the ability to audit the ballots, the number of

votes “cured” by this scheme cannot be determined.

53. Absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were

thus evaluated under an illegal standard regarding
signature verification. It is now impossible to determine
which ballots were properly cast and which ballots were
not.
 8

One of us (Ms. Lechter) reported (via an affidavit and per

an essay published in the American Thinker) that she and
her husband had been disenfranchised by an unknown
person or persons who had applied for and filed mail-in
ballots by using their names feloniously.

54. The changed process allowing the curing of absentee

and mail-in ballots in Allegheny and Philadelphia
counties is a separate basis resulting in an unknown
number of ballots being treated in an unconstitutional
manner inconsistent with Pennsylvania statute. Id.

“Naked Ballots” were rampant in Montgomery County,

but no judge has ordered a probe of this crime. {f.n. 14}

{https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/gop-
pennsylvania-blocking-ballots-lawsuit-434045}

55. In addition, a great number of ballots were received

after the statutory deadline and yet were counted by
virtue of the fact that Pennsylvania did not segregate all
ballots received after 8:00 pm on November 3, 2020.
Boockvar’s claim that only about 10,000 ballots were
received after this deadline has no way of being proven
since Pennsylvania broke its promise to the Court to
segregate ballots and comingled perhaps tens, or even
hundreds of thousands, of illegal late ballots.

In addition, there is no evidence that chain-of-custody

concerns can be rectified, a defect that impacts both this
issue and others having to do with ballot-stuffing.

56. On December 4, 2020, fifteen members of the

Pennsylvania House of Representatives led by Rep.
Francis X. Ryan issued a report to Congressman Scott
Perry (the “Ryan Report,” App. 139a-144a) stating that
“[t]he general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was
fraught with inconsistencies, documented irregularities
and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-
canvassing, and canvassing that the reliability of the
mail-in votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is
impossible to rely upon.”

This is why 26 Representatives and 8 Senators have called

for withdrawing certification of presidential Electors;
unexplained, for example, is why mail-in ballots in
Pennsylvania were rejected for technical errors at a
suspiciously low rate in some key counties. {f.n. 15 & 16}
 9

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/26-
pennsylvania-house-republicans-8-senators-call-
withdrawing-certification-presidential-
electors/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-
gateway-
pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=daily
&
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/23/m
ail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania-were-rejected-for-
technical-errors-at-a-suspiciously-low-rate-in-some-key-
counties-n284157}

57. The Ryan Report’s findings are startling, including:

• Ballots with NO MAILED date. That total is 9,005.
• Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed Date. That
total is 58,221.
• Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date. That total
is 51,200. Id. 143a.

There is a certain irony conveyed by these data, recalling

pre-election concerns that the U.S. Postal Service would
not provide election-related information in a timely
fashion; these data were conveyed during a hearing in
Gettysburg that congealed myriad concerns that remain
unresolved (either by officials or by Dominion). (f.n. 17}

{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfBD0JpeKEw}

58. These nonsensical numbers alone total 118,426

ballots and exceed Mr. Biden’s margin of 81,660 votes
over President Trump. But these discrepancies pale in
comparison to the discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s
reported data concerning the number of mail-in ballots
distributed to the populace—now with no longer subject
to legislated mandated signature verification
requirements.

These data arguably underestimate the true discrepancy,

inasmuch as 47 USB cards are missing and hundreds of
thousands of ballots were processed with no oversight.
{f.n. 17 & 18}

{https://www.theepochtimes.com/poll-watcher-
describes-pennsylvania-election-irregularities-including-
47-missing-usb-
cards_3594549.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medi
um=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-26-2
&
 10

https://populist.press/evidence-hundreds-of-
thousands-of-ballots-processed-with-zero-oversight/}

59. The Ryan Report also states as follows: [I]n a data file
received on November 4, 2020, the Commonwealth’s PA
Open Data sites reported over 3.1 million mail in ballots
sent out. The CSV file from the state on November 4
depicts 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out but on
November 2, the information was provided that only 2.7
million ballots had been sent out. This discrepancy of
approximately 400,000 ballots from November 2 to
November 4 has not been explained. Id. at 143a-44a.
(Emphasis added).

This may be explained by a “The Biden Injection” vote

dump of 570,000 (vs. 3200 for Trump)—a “spike” that
allegedly also occurred elsewhere—or by the fact that a
mathematician has flagged upward of 100,000 aberrant
votes. {f.n. 19 & 20}

{https://gellerreport.com/2020/11/pa-hearing-expert-
witness-the-biden-injection-vote-dump-of-600k-570k-
went-for-biden-3200-for-trump.html/
&
https://www.theepochtimes.com/williams-college-
mathematician-flags-up-to-100000-ballots-in-
pennsylvania_3587723.html}

60. These stunning figures illustrate the out-of-control

nature of Pennsylvania’s mail-in balloting scheme.
Democrats submitted mail-in ballots at more than two
times the rate of Republicans. This number of
constitutionally tainted ballots far exceeds the
approximately 81,660 votes separating the candidates.

They may be due to the fact that voting systems allow

authorized and unauthorized users to cancel votes, shift
votes, preload votes, and vote blank ballots, all in real
time; a DoD cyberwarfare team claimed to have busted
this fraud. {f.n. 21 & 22}

{https://gellerreport.com/2020/11/military-
information-expert-these-systems-allow-authorized-
and-unauthorized-users-to-cancel-votes-shift-votes-
preload-votes-vote-blank-ballots-all-in-real-time.html/
&
https://populist.press/dod-cyber-warfare-team-busted-
the-fraud-in-pennsylvania/}
 11

61. This blatant disregard of statutory law renders all

mail-in ballots constitutionally tainted and cannot form
the basis for appointing or certifying Pennsylvania’s
presidential electors to the Electoral College.

That’s why Trump’s campaign has vowed to invoke this

Court to expose systemic fraud; the implications include
whether other down-ballot cases, such as that of
Ziccarelli, might have to be reassessed. {f.n. 23 & 24}

(https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/21/
mcenany_we_have_to_take_election_to_the_supreme
_court_to_expose_systemic_voter_fraud.html
&
https://triblive.com/local/valley-news-
dispatch/ziccarelli-asks-pa-supreme-court-to-
reconsider-decision-to-count-undated-allegheny-
county-ballots/}

62. According to the U.S. Election Assistance

Commission’s report to Congress Election Administration
and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report, in 2016
Pennsylvania received 266,208 mail-in ballots; 2,534 of
them were rejected (.95%). Id. at p. 24. However, in
2020, Pennsylvania received more than 10 times the
number of mail-in ballots compared to 2016. As
explained supra, this much larger volume of mail-in
ballots was treated in an unconstitutionally modified
manner that included: (1) doing away with the
Pennsylvania’s signature verification requirements; (2)
extending that deadline to three days after Election Day
and adopting a presumption that even non-postmarked
ballots were presumptively timely; and (3) blocking poll
watchers in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in
violation of State law.

These concerns were corroborated by Eric Coomer (the

head of Dominion Security) when he showed how to “fix”
votes already cast, perhaps by hacking memory cards.
{f.n. 25 & 26}
{https://populist.press/head-of-dominion-security-eric-
coomer-showing-how-to-fix-votes-already-cast/
&
https://www.facebook.com/tim.gillingham.9/videos/10
214607594742701/}
 12

63. These non-legislative modifications to Pennsylvania’s

election rules appear to have generated an outcome-
determinative number of unlawful ballots that were cast
in Pennsylvania. Regardless of the number of such
ballots, the nonlegislative changes to the election rules
violated the Electors Clause.

This is also illustrated by an unusual pattern and ratio

within Philadelphia ballot data allegedly due to Dominion
software manipulation of the vote; although potentially
related to Pennsylvania, it is beyond the scope of this
brief to elucidate concerns raised by Attorneys Powell
and Wood, who have probed the links among Dominion,
Sequoia, Smartmatic, and the Communist Party of China.
{f.n. 27 & 28}.

{https://www.facebook.com/tim.gillingham.9/videos/1
0214607594742701/
&
https://gnews.org/577635/}

Many of these concerns overlap with those raised by

other states, as elucidated by compendia updated by
Real Clear Politics and The Epoch Times; they will soon
formally be submitted to this Court. {f.n. 29 & 30}

{https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020
/12/07/a_running_compendium_of_fraud_charges_in_
election_2020_126261.html
&
https://www.theepochtimes.com/}

Remedies may have to be preceded by a remand for

analyses of the ballots to confirm their legitimacy (as was
raised in Bush v. Gore); it has been alleged that ballot-
stuffing can be detected by noting the type of paper, the
type of ink used, the potential for uniform completion of
ballot-bubbles, and even whether they were received
without having been folded.

After addressing such relevant details—as raised in our

essays [vide supra]—it would then be possible to conjure
how to remediate these aberrations (in our opinion,
fraudulent); this is why the Trump campaign welcomes
airing these concerns to, if nothing else, acquire official
responses from authorities.
 13

It can be anticipated that the concept of laches will be

invoked to evade addressing such profound concerns, as
was accomplished by Pennsylvania regarding the Kelly
case; otherwise, in addition to the suggestion that as
many cases as possible be aggregated, we advise that the
Court issue “findings” seriatim after specific problems
have been probed. {f.n. 31 & 32}

{https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/01/h
as-the-penn-supreme-court-invited-ridicule-and-
rebuke-by-relying-on-laches-to-dismiss-an-incovenient-
complaint-n286518
&
https://healthyelections-case-
tracker.stanford.edu/file?id=176}