Emergency Application For Preliminary Injunction

Received 1/19/2021 7:25:35 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed 1/19/2021 7:25:00 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

635 MD 2020
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREW IOANNIDIS, :
: 635 MD 2020
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
TOM WOLF, in his official capacity as :
Governor of the Commonwealth of :
Pennsylvania :
:
KATHY BOOCKVAR, in her official capacity :
as Secretary of the Commonwealth of :
Pennsylvania :
:
Respondents :
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner hereby applies for an Emergency Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. § 1531
and avers as follows:
Procedural History
1. On Sunday December 6, 2020, Petitioner sued the Governor and the Secretary of the
Commonwealth for violating his Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Petitioner sought
a writ of mandamus, a preliminary injunction, and a declaration that the 2020 General Election was
contested. The federal “safe harbor” deadline was two days later on Tuesday, December 8. On Thursday
December 10, Petitioner misfiled an amended Petition for Review and thereby sought a writ of
Mandamus and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
2. On Friday December 11, Petitioner filed an emergency application that requested an immediate
writ of mandamus that would compel the Governor to rescind the certificates issued to Democratic
electors and de-certify the election; and, that requested a preliminary injunction that would enjoin the
Respondents from simply re-certifying and re-issuing the certificates to the Democratic electors
thereafter.
1
3. On the morning of December 14, Respondents filed their response opposing Petitioner’s
emergency application, as directed by this Honorable Court, and asserted that this action is but an
untimely election contest; that Petitioner failed to state a claim; that Petitioner lacked standing; that
this action is moot; that this Court lacks jurisdiction; and, that Petitioner’s claims are barred by laches.
Respondents had almost nothing to say about the elephant in the room, i.e., the large pile of evidence
showing equal protection violations and more than enough potentially illegal votes to alter the
purported outcome of the election. Approximately two hours later, slightly before the electoral college
convened to vote at noon, this Honorable Court denied Petitioner’s emergency application.
4. On Friday December 18, Petitioner filed an emergency application that sought a two-day
evidentiary hearing on January 4 & 5, 2021; a discovery and preservation order; and, the issuance of
subpoenas. Respondents filed their response on December 22, as directed by the Court, and essentially
opposed Petitioner’s emergency application on the same grounds as before. Petitioner filed a reply brief
and amended application for subpoenas the morning of December 23. This Honorable Court denied
Petitioner’s emergency application on December 28, recognizing it as an application for reconsideration.
5. On December 31, Petitioner misfiled another Petition for Review and filed another emergency
application that sought the same two-day evidentiary hearing on January 4 & 5, 2021. Respondents filed
their response the night of January 7, as directed by this Honorable Court, which opposed Petitioner’s
application on largely the same grounds as before, except, Respondents raised the issue of Petitioner’s
misfiled Petitions for Review and also filed Preliminary Objections to Petitioner’s original Petition for
Review. Petitioner filed a reply brief and application for leave the morning of January 8. This Honorable
Court denied Petitioner’s applications later that day, recognizing the former as an application for
reconsideration, and struck Petitioner’s misfiled Petitions for Review.
6. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Review on January 19, 2021, as provided by Pa.R.C.P.
1028(c)(1). This emergency application for preliminary injunction ensues.
2
JURISDICTION
1. This action is against the Respondents, named in their official capacities, as officers of the
government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thus, this Honorable Court possesses original
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1).
JUDICIABILITY
Standing
2. By enacting the Election Code, the Pennsylvania State Legislature granted qualified citizens of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the right to vote for electors for the President and Vice-President of
the United States. 25 P.S. § 3191.
3. “When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as
the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal
weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104,
121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000) (per curiam).
4. Petitioner has a fundamental right to vote which is a legally recognized protectable interest.
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-555, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964).
5. Petitioner has alleged and will prove that Respondents intentionally discriminated against him
and injured his fundamental right to vote by classification.
6. As the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, a person’s right to vote is “individual and
personal in nature.” Id. 377 U.S. at 561.
7. “Voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to
sue” to remedy that disadvantage. Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018).
8. Petitioner has a fundamental right to associate, emanating from the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, which is a legally recognized protectable interest.
3
9. Petitioner has alleged and will prove that Respondents intentionally discriminated against him
and injured his fundamental right to associate by classification.
10. Petitioner has a Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
11. Petitioner has a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
12. “Safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process is a fundamental task of the Constitution,
and [the Courts] must be keenly sensitive to signs that its validity may be impaired.” Johnson v. FCC, 829
F.2d 157, 163 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Mootness
13. In Pennsylvania and other states, two different slates of electors met, cast votes, and
transmitted those votes to the President of the Senate.1
14. The election of 1876 similarly resulted in multiple slates of electors from several states, namely,
Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina.
15. The legal challenges associated with that election were only deemed moot once a commission
established by Congress determined that Rutherford B. Hayes had prevailed, and that was only after he
was inaugurated on March 4, 1877.2 3
16. Therefore, the relief requested will not be moot at least until the next President of the United
States is inaugurated.
Ripeness
17. On the morning of Tuesday, November 24, Respondent Boockvar laid before Respondent Wolf
the certificates of election in Pennsylvania for President and Vice-President of the United States.
18. Respondent Wolf signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for Joseph R.
Biden as President and Kamala D. Harris as Vice-President of the United States.
1
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/electors-in-7-states-cast-dueling-votes-for-trump_3620059.html
2
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1876/The-disputed-election
3
See generally, William H. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876 (Vintage 2005).
4
19. Candidate Biden’s purported victory margin, as reflected on the Commonwealth’s certificate of
ascertainment, is 80,555 votes.4
20. The certificate was submitted to the Archivist of the United States.5
21. The Democrat slate of electors met, cast votes, and transmitted those votes to the President of
the Senate.6
22. The issues presented are adequately developed for judicial review.
23. Petitioner’s injury involves no uncertain or contingent events that may not occur as anticipated
or at all – the results have been certified, the certificates have been issued, the electoral college has
voted, those votes have been counted, and a president elect is scheduled to be inaugurated tomorrow.
24. The only way Petitioner’s injury may be avoided or remedied, or that events may become
uncertain or contingent, is if this Honorable Court grants review.
25. Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if review is delayed and his civil rights are allowed to be
eviscerated.
26. Respondents will suffer no harm whatsoever if review is granted.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION
27. Petitioner has alleged and will prove that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
Respondents, as officers of the Commonwealth government, intentionally failed to perform their duties,
failed to uphold and enforce the law, and violated the law.
28. In so doing, Respondents intentionally discriminated against Petitioner and injured his First
Amendment right to Freedom of Association, his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and
due process, and his fundamental rights to vote and associate.
4
https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-pennsylvania.pdf
5
https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/State-details.aspx?newsid=435
6
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-pennsylvania-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-harrisburg-
e1d2afadefa36cf2c82046be779463d1
5
29. Regrettably, Petitioner will also show, in short order, that Respondents acted intentionally to
discriminate against Petitioner.
30. Of note is the fact that the Secretary is appointed by, and her power emanates from, the
Governor. Moreover, the Governor retains all of the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary
pursuant to the Administrative Code. The Secretary is an agent of the Governor.7
ON THE MERITS
Count I of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review – Signature Verification
31. Petitioner is a qualified voter in Pennsylvania.
32. Respondents have the duty to ensure equal protection under the United States Constitution, the
Pennsylvania State Constitution, the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), and the Pennsylvania State HAVA
plan.8
33. Respondents are the Chief Election Officers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
34. Petitioner voted in-person in the 2020 General Election for President and Vice-President of the
United States.
35. Petitioner signed a poll book in order to vote.
36. Petitioner’s vote was subject to signature verification by the election officer in charge of the poll
book as provided by 25 P.S. §3050(a.3)(2).9
37. If the election officer deemed Petitioner’s signature to be not authentic, Petitioner’s vote would
be disqualified unless he produced the evidence required by 25 P.S. §3050(d).
38. Petitioner’s vote was subject to disqualification and Petitioner was subject to
disenfranchisement.
7
https://www.dos.pa.gov/about-us/Pages/History.aspx
8
https://www.luzernecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/2173/State-Plan-of-HAVA-Compliance-PDF
9
https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-25-ps-elections-electoral-districts/pa-st-sect-25-3050.html
6
39. In contrast, on September 11, 2020, Respondents issued guidance to the County Boards of
Election that stated, “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.”10
40. Respondents’ September 11 guidance appears to be, at least partially, the result of a lawsuit
filed in early August 2020, in which the League of Women Voters filed suit against the Secretary alleging
that in implementing the signature verification requirements contained in state law, the Secretary had
failed to develop a plan for providing notice and an opportunity to cure for mail voters whose ballots
were disqualified because the signature did not match the registration signature on file, which the
League contended violated federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.
League of Women Voters v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020).
41. The League did not contend that Pennsylvania state law did not allow for signature verification,
probably because Section 1308(g)(3) and 1302-D(c) clearly state otherwise.
42. Instead of responding to the notice and cure allegations relating to due process and equal
protection, however, Respondents issued the discriminatory and illegal September 11 guidance.
43. Respondents then realized that the guidance contravened long-standing recognition and
practice that state law allowed signature verification of mail ballots during canvassing beginning on
Election Day, so Respondents asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ratify their decision to dispense
with the signature verification requirements via an extraordinary petition for “King’s Bench jurisdiction”,
and the Supreme Court obliged.
44. On September 28, 2020, during the pendency of the Petition, Respondents issued additional
guidance titled “Guidance Concerning Civilian Absentee and Mail-In Ballot Procedures”, and directed
10
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Examination%20of%20Absentee%20an
d%20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Return%20Envelopes.pdf
7
that “[t]he Election Code does not permit county election officials to reject applications or voted ballots
based solely on signature analysis.”11
45. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held on October 23, 2020, just 11 days before the election,
that “county boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on
signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees.” In re: November 3, 2020
General Election, 2020 WL 6252803 (Pa. Oct. 23, 2020).
46. Perplexingly, The Supreme Court accepted the argument advanced by Respondents despite the
obvious equal protection concerns, stating, “[t]he Secretary notes that the General Assembly knows
how to draft provisions requiring signature comparison, as it did for the in-person voting process
governed by Section 3050(a.3)(2), which directs election officials to compare the signature of the voter
signing the voter certificate at the polls with the district register, and then to make the determination of
whether the signature on the voter certificate is genuine.” Id.
47. Moreover, the Respondents actually advanced their argument on the basis of equal protection,
but on a speculative basis that could be substantially avoided if the Respondents so desired.
48. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, “In the Secretary’s view, this would constitute a
denial of equal protection to voters whose ballots were challenged and rejected under such varying and
imprecise standards.” Id.
49. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Election Code is correct, Petitioner
was classified facially by Respondents as a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.
50. In the more likely scenario, as evidenced by 25 P.S. §3146.8(g)(3), historical precedent, and the
legislators’ intervention and opposition to the Secretary’s position, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
11
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/DOS%20Guidance%20Civilian%20Abse
ntee%20and%20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Procedures.pdf
8
interpretation of the Election Code is incorrect, and Petitioner was classified in effect by Respondents as
a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.
51. Either way, because Petitioner’s vote, as a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter, was subject to
signature verification and disqualification, and mail-in and absentee voters’ votes were not, Petitioner
was discriminated against.
52. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of having his vote subject to signature
verification and disqualification, to the exclusion of voters who they classified as mail-in and absentee
voters.
53. Voters who were classified by the Respondents as mail-in and absentee voters were conferred
the benefit of not having their vote subject to signature verification and disqualification, to the exclusion
of Petitioner.
54. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional.
55. The Respondents issued discriminatory and illegal guidance to county boards of election and
initiated litigation to affirm and advance the discriminatory policy.
56. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections followed the discriminatory guidance, “per the
directions from the Department of State we cannot verify signatures against the system.”12 (p. 7).
weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104
(emphasis added).
58. Additionally, “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise.
Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on
equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and separate treatment, value one person’s vote over
12
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.182.6.pdf
9
that of another.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added) (See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections,
383 U.S. 663, 665, 16 L. Ed. 2d 169, 86 S. Ct. 1079 (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”)).
59. Petitioner has shown that his fundamental right to vote was infringed because benefits and
burdens were unequally distributed amongst voters and Petitioner was disadvantaged. See Attorney
General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986).
60. Because it has been shown that Respondents impinged upon Petitioner’s fundamental right to
vote, strict scrutiny is the applicable framework. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
61. Strict scrutiny means that the policy is presumed unconstitutional and Respondents are imposed
with a heavy burden of justification and the classification will be closely scrutinized in light of its
asserted purpose. Respondents must not only show a “very substantial state interest”, but “[i]n pursuing
that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict
constitutionally protected activity. Statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with
‘precision’, and must be ‘tailored’ to serve their legitimate objectives. And if there are other, reasonable
ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on the constitutionally protected activity, a State may
not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose ‘less drastic means.’” Dunn v.
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
62. Again, as the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, a person’s right to vote is “individual and
personal in nature.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561.
63. The only plausible argument that Respondents may advance for negating only mail-in and
absentee voters’ signature verification requirements relate to enhancing the franchise of the electorate,
which is not a state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. Further, in advancing such an
argument, Respondents would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to uphold
10
and enforce the law, including the United States Constitution. Finally, in advancing such an argument,
Respondents would also be asserting that certain voters are more equal than others, and would be
arguing that the franchise of mail-in and absentee voters is more important than Petitioner’s franchise
and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. For these reasons, Petitioner will prevail on
the merits.
64. Assuming that interest qualifies as a “very substantial state interest”, for the sake of argument,
such a position would assert that mail-in and absentee voters have a lesser opportunity to cure ballots
that were disqualified on the basis of signature verification, so the policy is in furtherance of enhancing
the electorate’s franchise. Mail-in and absentee voters clearly have the ability to cure under Section
1308(h)(2). 13
65. The policy of negating signature verification and disqualification for only mail-in and absentee
voters is not a substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
According to the Department of State’s website, there were 4,193,889 in-person voters in the 2020
General Election, and 2,616,012 mail-in and absentee voters.14 Enhancing the franchise of approximately
38.4% of the electorate while exposing the rest to disqualification on the same basis cannot qualify as a
substantially effective or precise means. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
66. It must be noted that Democrat Presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden received 1,995,691 mail-
in and absentee votes; Republican candidate Donald J. Trump received 595,538; and independent
candidate Jo Jorgensen received 24,783, according to the Department of State’s website.
67. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that wholesale negation
of signature verification is narrowly tailored. For example, a narrowly tailored policy would be to simply
follow the law and allow the mail-in or absentee voter six days to cure pursuant to Section 1308(h)(3) of
13
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1937/0/0320..PDF
14
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov
11
the Election Code. Or, simply allow mail-in and absentee voters the same opportunity to cure that
Respondents may allege they lack in comparison to in-person voters. For this reason, Petitioner will
prevail on the merits.
68. It must also be noted that provisional votes are subject to signature verification and
disqualification pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3050(a.4)(5)(i).
69. Nevertheless, to complete the analysis, for the sake of argument, Petitioner will prevail on the
merits because there are less drastic or less onerous means that don’t unnecessarily burden or restrict
Petitioner’s constitutionally protected right to vote. For example, Respondents could have given mail-in
voters the same opportunity to cure that they may allege in-person voters have. Or, signature
verification could have been negated for all voters, subjecting none to potential disqualification,
including Petitioner, not just mail-in and absentee voters, like some other States.15 For this reason,
Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
Count II of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review – Third Party Challenges
70. Petitioner’s vote was subject to third-party challenge and disqualification pursuant to 25 P.S. §§
3050(a.3)(2) & 3050(d).
71. Pursuant to a challenge, Petitioner’s vote could be disqualified unless he produced the evidence
required by 25 P.S. § 3050(d).
72. Moreover, it cannot be denied that poll watchers have the right to challenge in-person voters on
the basis of their qualifications. 25 P.S. § 2687(b).16 17
15
https://ballotpedia.org/How_do_states_protect_and_verify_absentee/mail-in_ballots%3F_(2020)
16
17
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Documents/Elections%20Division/Administration/Rights%20of%20Watc
hers%20Candidates%20Attorneys.pdf
12
73. Respondents explicitly acknowledge voter eligibility challenges in their March 11, 2020
“Guidance Concerning Voter Privacy at the Polling Place.”18
74. Respondents explicitly acknowledge voter eligibility challenges in Section 1.1 of their October
21, 2020 “Provisional Voting Guidance.”19
75. The Department of State’s website explicitly acknowledges that in-person voters are subject to
third-party challenges.20
76. Respondents also acknowledge that they have duties under HAVA and that provisional votes are
subject to challenge and disqualification in their October 21 “Provisional Voting Guidance.”
77. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed in its October 23, 2020 opinion, “other
provisions of the Election Code, such as those governing in-person voting, see 25 P.S. §3050(a.3)(2),
allow a vote to be challenged where a voter’s signature on the voting certificate executed at the polls is
deemed not to be authentic when compared to the signature recorded in the district register of voters.
Likewise, other sections of the Election Code allow boards of elections to reject provisional ballots based
on an election official’s conclusions that the voter’s signature on the ballot envelope is not authentic,
see 25 P.S. § 3050(a.4)(5)(i)-(ii).” In re: November 3, 2020 General Election, 2020 WL 6252803 (Pa. Oct.
23, 2020).
78. Petitioner’s vote was subject to third-party challenge and disqualification, and thus Petitioner
was subject to disenfranchisement.
18
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/PADOS_Guidance%20Concerning%20V
oter%20Privacy%20at%20the%20Polling%20Place_1.0.pdf
19
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/PADOS_ProvisionalBallots_guidance_1.
0.pdf
20
https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Elections-FAQs.aspx
13
79. In contrast, Respondents issued “Guidance Concerning Civilian Absentee and Mail-In Ballot
Procedures” on September 28, 2020, and advised county boards of election on page 9 that “[n]o
challenges may be made to mail-in and absentee ballots at any time based on signature analysis.”21
80. This, despite the fact that Sections 1308(f) and 1308(g)(4) of the Election Code clearly state
otherwise.
81. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held on October 23, 2020, 11 days prior to the election, that
“county boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature
comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party
challenges based on signature analysis and comparison.” Id. (emphasis added).
82. The Supreme Court also found that “the Election Code presently provides no mechanism for
time-of-canvassing challenges by candidate or party representatives.” Id. (emphasis added).
83. The Supreme Court found that mail-in and absentee ballots could not be challenged on any basis
whatsoever, whereas Petitioner, as an in-person voter, could have his right to vote challenged for a
number of reasons, e.g., signature mismatch, residency, registration status.
84. The Supreme Court captured the Respondents’ position in the case, “The Secretary argues that
there is no provision of the Election Code which allows or requires the county boards of elections to
entertain challenges based on perceived signature mismatches.” Id.
85. Again, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that the Respondents understand their
obligations to ensure equal protection under the law, “[i]n the Secretary’s view, this would constitute a
denial of equal protection to voters whose ballots were challenged and rejected under such varying and
imprecise standards.” Id.
21
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/DOS%20Guidance%20Civilian%20Abse
ntee%20and%20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Procedures.pdf
14
86. Paradoxically, about two weeks prior to issuing their discriminatory and illegal guidance,
Respondents issued “Guidance Concerning Examination of Absentee and Mail-In Ballot Return
Envelopes” that states on page 3 that “mail-in or absentee ballot[s] should be approved for canvassing
unless challenged in accordance with the Pennsylvania Election Code.”22
87. Respondents issued the following Guidance on November 1, 2020, “By statute, no challenges by
authorized representatives or any third party are permitted during the canvass of the mail-in and
absentee ballots.”23
88. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Election Code is correct, Petitioner
was classified facially by Respondents as a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.
89. In the more likely scenario, as evidenced by the law, historical precedent, and the legislators’
intervention and opposition to the Secretary’s position, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Election Code is incorrect, and Petitioner was classified in effect by Respondents as
a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.
90. Either way, because Petitioner’s vote was subject to third-party challenge and disqualification,
and mail-in and absentee voters’ votes were not, Petitioner was discriminated against.
91. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of having his vote subject to third-party
challenge and disqualification, to the exclusion of voters they classified as mail-in and absentee voters.
92. Voters who were classified by Respondents as mail-in and absentee voters were conferred the
benefit of not having their vote subject to third-party challenge and disqualification, to the exclusion of
Petitioner.
22
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Examination%20of%20Absentee%20an
d%20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Return%20Envelopes.pdf
23
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Canvassing-Segregated-Ballot-
Guidance.pdf
15
94. Respondents changed their position in late September and issued discriminatory and illegal
guidance to county boards of election and argued in furtherance of discriminatory policies which the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed sua sponte.
weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104
(emphasis added).
96. Additionally, “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise.
Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on
equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and separate treatment, value one person’s vote over
that of another.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added) (See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections,
383 U.S. 663, 665, 16 L. Ed. 2d 169, 86 S. Ct. 1079 (1966) (“Once the franchise is granted to the
97. Petitioner has shown that his fundamental right to vote was infringed because benefits and
burdens were unequally distributed amongst voters and Petitioner was disadvantaged. See Attorney
98. Because it has been shown that Respondents impinged upon Petitioner’s fundamental right to
vote, strict scrutiny is the applicable framework. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
99. Strict scrutiny means that the policy is presumed unconstitutional and Respondents are imposed
with a heavy burden of justification and the classification will be closely scrutinized in light of its
asserted purpose. Respondents must not only show a “very substantial state interest”, but “[i]n pursuing
that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict
16
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
100. Again, as the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, a person’s right to vote is
“individual and personal in nature.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561.
101. There are two plausible arguments that Respondents may advance for negating third-
party challenges to mail-in and absentee ballots. The first relates to enhancing the franchise of the
electorate, which is not a state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. In advancing such
an argument, Respondents would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to uphold
and enforce the law, including the United States Constitution. Finally, Respondents would also be
asserting that certain voters are more equal than others, and would be arguing that the franchise of
mail-in and absentee voters are more important than Petitioner’s franchise and his Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection.
102. The second seemingly plausible argument relates to public health. In essence,
Respondents would be asserting that protecting the health of mail-in and absentee ballot canvassers is a
very substantial state interest that takes precedence over upholding and enforcing the law, including the
United States Constitution. In so doing, however, Respondents would also be asserting that the health of
certain election workers takes precedence over the health of others. For example, on election day, poll
workers were exposed to many different people – voters, other poll workers, and watchers. Poll workers
would transfer items countless times – ballots, folders, pens, poll books. Respondents would be
asserting that mail-in and absentee ballots could not be challenged for the sake of the election worker
tasked with processing those ballots, who would have no contact with the public, limited or no exposure
to other election workers, and extremely limited exposure to a theoretical third-party observer looking
17
to challenge. The preferential and illogical treatment of certain election workers on the purported basis
of public health is not a “very substantial state interest.” Also, according to the CDC, if a person is 69
years old or younger, it is projected that they have well over a 99% chance of survival (See Table 1,
Scenario 5).24 Respondents are selectively prohibiting constitutional rights under the guise of Covid,
which Respondent Wolf has admitted to doing in the past, and this situation is no different.25 26
103. For these reasons, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
104. Assuming either of these two interests qualify as “very substantial state interests”, for
the sake of argument, the first position would have to assert that mail-in and absentee voters have a
lesser opportunity to cure ballots that were disqualified on the basis of third-party challenges, so the
policy is in furtherance of enhancing the electorate’s franchise. Mail-in and absentee voters clearly have
the ability to cure under Section 1308(h)(2).
105. The policy of negating third-party challenges and disqualification for only mail-in and
absentee voters is not a substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
According to the Department of State’s website, there were 4,193,889 in-person voters in the 2020
General Election, and 2,616,012 mail-in and absentee voters. Enhancing the franchise of approximately
38.4% of the electorate while subjecting the rest to potential disenfranchisement cannot qualify as a
substantially effective or precise means. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
106. Similarly, the policy of negating third-party challenges and disqualification for only mail-
in and absentee voters is not a substantially effective or precise means of protecting the public health.
There are far more polling locations in Pennsylvania than there are canvassing locations, and all
4,193,889 in-person voters showed up at the polls on election day, and all were subject to third-party
24
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
25
https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/pennsylvania-gov-tom-wolf-i-know-it-was-inconsistent-violate-
guidelines-protest
26
https://www.wpxi.com/news/investigates/confidential-agreement-uncovered-allowed-car-show-happen-
despite-covid-19-restrictions/BUN43H7C3ZDCJJ2MIIEYXRN6AU/
18
challenge and disqualification, including Petitioner. It cannot be said that disallowing a few third-party
canvass observers at any given location from challenging mail-in and absentee ballots is a substantially
effective or precise means of protecting the public health, especially when third-party challenges were
allowed for the overwhelming majority of voters who physically showed up on election day.
108. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that wholesale
negation of third-party challenges to mail-in ballots only is narrowly tailored to the purposes of
promoting franchise. For example, a narrowly tailored policy would be to simply follow the law and
allow the mail-in or absentee voter six days to cure pursuant to Section 1308(h)(2) of the Election Code.
Or, simply allow mail-in and absentee voters the same opportunity to cure that Respondents may allege
they lack in comparison to in-person voters. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
109. Provisional votes are also subject to third-party challenge and disqualification pursuant
to 25 P.S. § 3050(a.4)(4). Which, Respondents acknowledge on page 4 of their October 1 Provisional
Voting Guidance.27
110. Similarly, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that wholesale negation of
third-party challenges to mail-in ballots is narrowly tailored to the purpose of promoting public health.
For example, a narrowly tailored policy would simply provide for the installation of transparent barriers
at mail-in ballot canvassing locations. The same sort of barriers that may be found at any grocery or
liquor store, any gas station, or in most courtrooms. If its safe to walk into a Fine Wine and Spirits, select
a bottle of whisky, hand it to the state worker behind the barrier, pay, and have it handed back, the
State should not be concerned with an election worker being exposed to much less contact in the
context of citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.
27
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/PADOS_ProvisionalBallots_guidance_1.
0.pdf
19
112. Nevertheless, to complete the analysis, for the sake of argument, Petitioner will prevail
on the merits because there are less drastic or less onerous means to advance either interest that
doesn’t unnecessarily burden or restrict Petitioner’s constitutionally protected right to vote. For
example, Respondents could have simply allowed mail-in and absentee voters the same opportunity to
cure that they may allege those voters lack in comparison to in-person voters. Or, third-party challenges
could have been negated for all voters, subjecting none to potential disqualification, including
Petitioner, not just mail-in and absentee voters, and it would have enhanced the electorates franchise
and health. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
Count III of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review – Debasement and Dilution
113. Petitioner did not vote for Democrat Presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden and Vice-
Presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris.
114. Phil Waldron, a retired Army Colonel and operations officer who served for 30 years,
testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that 1,823,148 mail-in and absentee ballots were mailed
out; that 2,589,242 mail-in/absentee ballots were counted; that the Secretary’s Office took the
2,589,242 number off its website; and, that the approximately 700,000 mail-in ballots that were
counted but never sent out constitute a pretty big discrepancy. Colonel Waldron testified that
Pennsylvania voting systems were built to be manipulated and rig elections. Colonel Waldron testified
that his team of experts and other academics believe that up to 1.2 million Pennsylvania votes could
have been altered or fraudulent. Colonel Waldron testified that Pennsylvania voting system operators
can assign votes to write-in ballots, blank-ballots, or error-ballots, in large numbers so that they can be
directed toward one candidate or another at the operator’s or supervisor’s discretion. Colonel Waldron
testified that Pennsylvania voting systems allow authorized and unauthorized users to cancel votes, shift
votes, preload votes, vote blank ballots, all in real time and in large numbers. Colonel Waldron testified
20
that Pennsylvania voting machines provide little or no audit trails, little or no transparency of how the
votes are processed, where they go, or where they’re stored. Colonel Waldron testified that
Pennsylvania voting systems have a common DNA, that SGO Smartmatic sold Sequoia voting system to
Dominion in 2010 and that the Debold company spun off Premier Election systems to Dominion as the
result of an anti-trust suit.28
115. Gregory Stenstrom, a retired Navy Officer, data scientist, forensic computer scientist,
and an expert in security and fraud, testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that he personally
witnessed individuals in the City of Chester, Delaware County, insert USB devices into voting machines
over 24 times, and that at least 47 USB devices are missing. Mr. Stenstrom testified that he had to obtain
a court order to gain access to a back room at the counting center, and that he discovered
approximately 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots therein. Mr. Stenstrom testified that in his expert
opinion 100,000 to 120,000 ballots cannot be verified. Mr. Stenstrom testified that the manner in which
the votes were processed and counted was forensically destructive. Mr. Stenstrom testified that in all
cases he observed the chain of custody of ballots was broken. Mr. Stenstrom testified that the Delaware
County Board of Election did not follow its election procedures.29
116. Mr. Stenstrom has executed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury to the same
effect.30
117. According to the Department of States’ website, mail-in and absentee ballots between
the two main candidates in Delaware County went to Biden/Harris at a ratio of 5:1.31
28
https://www.rev.com/transcript-
editor/shared/a4vuzVnmrvt65swosv6s4b9fIh80DBGRYA3SJ7AqhrjQ1CUDlLdFEa8599_JEYstnbNHaRZyp6j3CG4HlrcI
CqgSCYc?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=4126.62
29
30
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/tex_electcase_stenstrom_affidavit_photos.pdf
31
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Delaware&ElectionID=undefined&Elect
ionType=G&IsActive=undefined
21
118. A group of Pennsylvania state lawmakers, led by Representative Frank Ryan of the 101st
legislative district, extensively analyzed Pennsylvania’s 2020 General Election data and determined that
202,377 more ballots were cast than there were registered voters (“Ryan Analysis”).32
119. Representative Ryan’s team further determined that 170,830 more ballots were
counted than there were registered voters.
120. It is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the 202,377 over-votes were not cast by
individuals who walked into a polling location, had their signature verified against non-extant voter
registration information by the election official in charge of the poll book, withstood third-party
challenges to voter qualification, and were allowed to vote. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the
202,377 over-votes were cast by mail-in and absentee ballot.
121. On a state-wide level, mail-in and absentee ballots between the two main candidates
went to Biden/Harris at a ratio of 3:1, with larger ratios in favor of the Democrat candidates in
predominantly Democrat urban areas.
122. It is reasonable to conclude that 100% voter turnout is highly unlikely, practically
impossible, and has never legitimately occurred in any Commonwealth Election. Nevertheless, the Ryan
Analysis indicates that according to the Respondents’ data, every single registered voter in the entire
Commonwealth cast a vote in the 2020 General Election, and then 202,377 additional votes were cast,
without consideration as to voters who are registered and shouldn’t be, e.g., dead voters, voters that
moved out of state, etc.
123. Representative Ryan produced a separate report wherein he analyzed Pennsylvania’s
election data and concluded the following (“Ryan Report”): 33
a. 8,163 ballots were mailed to voters on November 1, 2, or 3;
32
http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don
33
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7896/file-10839.pdf?cb=725c2e
22
b. 9,005 ballots did not indicate a date upon which they were mailed;
c. 58,221 ballots were returned on or BEFORE the date they were mailed;
d. 51,200 ballots were returned one day after they were mailed;
e. 1,532 mail-in ballots were cast by voters over the age of 100;
f. 41 ballots were mailed to people in Allegheny County who are 220 years old;
g. 245 mail ballots were cast by voters with no date of birth.
124. It is highly improbable that 8,163 mail-in ballots were mailed to voters, received, and
returned in the 48-hour period leading up to election day. Ignoring the 9,005 ballots that do not indicate
the date upon which they were mailed, the 1,532 cast by centenarians, the 41 cast by double-
centenarians, and the 245 cast by improperly registered voters, it is impossible for 58,221 mail ballots to
be returned before they were mailed. Moreover, it is extremely improbable that 51,200 ballots were
mailed to a voter, received, executed, and returned to the county boards of election the day after they
were mailed.
125. On a state-wide level, mail-in and absentee ballots between the two main candidates
went to Biden/Harris at a ratio of 3:1, with larger ratios in favor off the Democratic candidates in
predominantly Democratic urban areas. For example, according to Respondents’ data, mail-in and
absentee ballots between the two main candidates went to Biden/Harris at a ratio of over 4:1 in
Allegheny County.34
126. The Ryan Report observed that “[a]t the county level the pattern of inconsistencies is
easily seen. For instance, over-vote in Philadelphia County – on November 4th at 11:30am, the DOS
posted updated mail in vote counts for Philadelphia County. The number of ballots reported to have
been counted was an impossible 508,112 ballots despite the fact that only 432,873 ballots had been
34
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Allegheny&ElectionID=undefined&Elec
tionType=G&IsActive=undefined
23
issued to voters in that county. Later that day, the ballots counted number was reduced but this begs
the question, who had the authority to add and subtract votes on the ballot counts reported to the
Department of State? Even if this was simply a data entry error, the lack of internal controls over such
reporting necessitates a review of the number, the process and system access.”
127. According to the Department of State’s website, in Philadelphia County, 339,403 mail-in
and absentee ballots went to Biden/Harris, 29,115 went to Trump/Pence, and 1,843 went to
Jorgensen/Cohen. Mail-in and absentee ballots between the two main candidates went to Biden/Harris
at a ratio of well over 10:1 in Philadelphia.35
128. Additionally, the Ryan Report notes, “in 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.”
129. The Department of State’s website, under the “How do I request my mail ballot?” tab,
accurately notes that the Election Code requires that mail-in and absentee ballot “[r]equest forms must
have been received by your county election board or other designated location by 5 pm on October 27,
2020.”36
130. Finally, the Ryan Report finds, “[i]t is also important to note that the Department of
State removed all election data from the PA Open Data platform in Mid-November 2020. They provided
no explanation for removing the data. That is part of the issue – the data changed over time despite the
35
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Philadelphia&ElectionID=83&ElectionT
ype=G&IsActive=1
36
https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx
24
fact that the number of ballots mailed should not have changed after November 2nd and the number of
mail ballots received/cast should not have changed after November 3.”
131. Jesse Morgan, a truck driver employed by a United States Postal Service contractor,
testified that he transported 24 large cardboard containers37 of completed mail-in ballots, from a USPS
facility in New York, to Harrisburg, and then to Lancaster, on October 21, 2020.38
132. Mr. Morgan testified that his trailer containing the ballots disappeared overnight.
133. Mr. Morgan executed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury to the same effect.39
134. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a retired Lt. Col., and CIA-trained intelligence operations officer
with 35 years of experience in global and national security, testified that in his opinion, the 24 large
cardboard containers transported by Mr. Morgan from New York, to Harrisburg, and then to Lancaster,
contained between 144,000 and 288,000 mail-in ballots.
135. No explanation has been provided as to why 24 large cardboard containers filled with
completed mail-in ballots were collected, packaged together, and shipped, in bulk, from New York State
to Pennsylvania. There has similarly been no explanation as to where Mr. Morgan’s trailer disappeared
to.
136. In the alternative, if Mr. Morgan is lying, it should be extremely easy to prove, as there is
ample opportunity to procure dispositive evidence. For example, Mr. Morgan’s truck and trailer must be
fitted with GPS locators pursuant to federal law, which will show where Mr. Morgan, his truck, and his
trailer were at any particular time, including after it disappeared. USPS will have the data associated
with the shipment, including video of Mr. Morgan’s truck entering and leaving USPS facilities, and
including video showing whether Mr. Morgan’s trailer actually disappeared. Again, Mr. Morgan
executed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.
37
https://www.packagingprice.com/gaylord-containers.html
38
https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/schaffer-election-fraud/
39
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7896/file-10836.pdf?cb=d7f3cc
25
137. Ingmar Njus, a retired Naval Officer possessing 25-years’ experience with the United
States Postal Service, executed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury in support of Mr. Morgan’s
assertions.40
138. A report produced by hereisthevidence.com finds that the following information was
recently changed on the Commonwealth’s data.pa.gov41 website (“HETE REPORT”): 42
a. 161,774 mail-in ballot records were changed between the Nov. 10 version and the Dec.
16 version.
b. Of the 161,774 changes between November 10th and December 16th, 116,840 ballots
were given new dates.
c. 69,004 ballots were marked “Returned” after election day on November 3.
i. Noting that the Respondents reported that only 10,000 ballots were received
after November 3.43
ii. And noting that the Respondents asserted that same 10,000 number to the
Supreme Court of the United States.44
d. 19,660 ballots were marked “Returned” after November 6th.
e. 13,450 ballots have been deleted since November 10th, 2020.
f. 10,415 ballots have a Returned date with no Mailed date.
g. 5,052 ballot applications were returned after the ballot was mailed.
40
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7896/file-10837.pdf?cb=d7ae48
41
https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-
Departm/mcba-yywm
42
https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/
43
https://wjactv.com/news/election-results/boockvar-estimated-10000-ballots-received-in-days-after-election
44
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-
542/162063/20201130140620945_RPP%20Opp%20Cert%20v.FINAL.pdf
26
139. Dr. Peter Navarro, a highly-esteemed academic who earned his Ph.D. in economics from
Harvard, produced an initial report (“Immaculate Deception Report”) finding that:45
a. Candidate Joseph R. Biden was behind 555,189 votes in Pennsylvania at midnight on
election day, November 3, 2020;
b. Pennsylvania exhibited some evidence of outright voter fraud, noting some evidence of
fake ballot manufacturing and destruction of legally cast ballots, dead voters and
“ghost” voters, counting ballots multiple times, illegal out of state voters, and noting
that 25,000 ballots were requested from nursing home residents in Pennsylvania at the
same time;
c. Pennsylvania exhibited wide-spread evidence of outright voter fraud, noting evidence of
wide-spread signature match check abuses, wide-spread “naked ballots” lacking outer
envelopes being counted, and wide-spread instances of broken chain of custody and
unauthorized ballot handling or movements;
d. Pennsylvania exhibited wide-spread evidence of contestable process fouls, noting
evidence of wide-spread abuses of poll watchers and observers, wide-spread mail-in
and absentee balloting procedures which contradicted state law, some evidence of
illegal campaigning at the polls, some evidence of un-registered voters being allowed to
vote, and wide-spread evidence of ballots being cured by poll workers contrary to state
law; and,
e. Pennsylvania exhibited wide-spread evidence of equal protection clause violations,
noting higher standards of certification and I.D. verification applied to in-person voters,
differing standards of ballot curing, and differential and partisan poll watcher treatment.
45
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/be36dc6d-0df4-4c20-addf-
fca72be46150/The%20Immaculate%20Deception%2012.15.20.pdf
27
140. Dr. Navarro produced a second report (“Art of the Steal Report”) finding that:46
a. “Key methods used by the Democrat party to strategically game America’s presidential
election included changes in the law approved by State Legislatures; rule changes and
new guidance initiated by Secretaries of State or other election officials; court rulings
and interventions; and the aggressive use of so-called ‘public-private partnerships’ to
commandeer and manipulate the election process in key Democrat strongholds”. (p.2).
b. “Prong One of the Democrat Party’s Grant Strategy used seven basic gambits to
dramatically INCREASE the flood of absentee and mail-in ballots; relaxing mail-in and
absentee ballot rules; sending absentee or mail-in ballots or applications for such ballot
to every voter (universal mailing); increasing both the legal and illegal use of drop boxes;
ballot harvesting; and the use of corrupted voting machines.” (p.2).
c. “Prong Two of the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy used five additional gambits to
dramatically DECREASE the level of scrutiny of the new flood of absentee and mail-in
ballots into the battleground states: relaxation of ID verification; reduced signature
matching requirements; illegally counting naked ballots to increase ballot curing – both
legal and illegal; and reduced poll watching and observing.” (p.2).
d. “Democrat Party operatives frequently hid behind the shield of the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) virus and resultant pandemic to further their goals of boosting the absentee
and mail-in ballot counts in the key battleground states.” (p.3).
e. “Key political operatives assisting the Democrat Party included Wall Street oligarch
George Soros, Silicon Valley oligarch and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Marc
Elias, former Hillary Clinton Campaign General Counsel”. (p.3).
46
fca72be46150/The%20Art%20of%20the%20Steal%201.5.21%20FINAL.pdf
28
f. “The poster children for this problem [Guidance Issued by Secretaries of State] – and
two shining examples of the corrosive effects of the oligarch George Soros on the
integrity of American elections – are Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and
Pennsylvania’s Democrat Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar. Both of these liberal
extremist puppets were elected with the help of the so-called ‘Secretary of State
Project,’ a political action committee funded by George Soros and members of the
Democracy Alliance.” (p. 12).
g. “More broadly, Boockvar appeared to exhibit a total disregard for the sanctity of our
legal system when she submitted clearly unlawful guidance a few days before the
November 3 election that allowed voters missing proof of identification to have their
mail-in ballots cured until November 12 – nine days after the election. This did indeed
break the law; and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, finding that Boockvar
lacked statutory authority to take that step. Yet it was a clear and blatant attempt by a
Soros puppet to rig the election.” (p.12).
h. “George Soros certainly got his money’s worth as Boockvar also sought to extend
deadlines for mail-in ballots, citing concerns over delivery times involving the United
States Postal Service. Republicans opposed the action. Said Pennsylvania Senate
majority Leader Jake Corman (Republican): ‘The issue is [that] . . . Secretary [Boockvar is]
trying to influence this process by sending out guidance at the 11th hour.’ He also
expressed that the (Pennsylvania) State Department had been ‘weaponized’ and
influenced by partisan attempts to sway the vote.” (p. 12 – 13).
i. “Zuckerberg money – nearly half a billion dollars – helped engineer what was effectively
a hostile Democrat Party ‘public-private partnership’ takeover of what should otherwise
29
be a nonpartisan election process in key Democrat strongholds such as Wayne County,
Michigan and Dane County, Wisconsin, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.” (p. 16).
j. “It is worth noting that there is only one degree of separation between Soros and
Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) was founded in 2012 and
is staffed by people that worked at the New Organizing Institute, a now defunct
organization that was funded in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.” (p.
16).
k. “Pennsylvania received over $12 million from CTCL. Fully $10 million of those funds
poured into the Democrat-dominated Philadelphia to help boost turnout and count
ballots. The strings attached to these funds required the city to open no fewer than 800
new polling places, thereby dramatically changing how Philadelphia managed its
General Election processes.” (p.16).
l. “[B]allots were illegally dumped into drop boxes at Nazareth, Pennsylvania, ballot drop
box center, in violation of state law. Another witness in Pennsylvania with video and
photo evidence caught a man coming out of an unmarked Jeep extracting ballots from
an unsupervised ballot drop box to be brought into a ballot counting center. It’s not just
that these drop boxes were illegally deployed. They were disproportionately deployed in
urban areas with high Democrat registration, favoring Joe Biden.” (p. 21).
m. “In July of 2019, the nonprofit group Fair Fight Action issued a report claiming that
another system – Election Securities and Software (ES&S) – has demonstrated
‘systematic disregard for basic security best practices a complete lack of competence in
the manufacturing of reliable voting machines.’ The report also cited ‘large-scale
negligence [that] exposed personal data of millions of voters, left tens of thousands of
names off rolls and led to massive delays in vote counts across the country.’ Moreover,
30
numerous US Senators ‘have expressed national security concerns after ES&S lied to
federal lawmakers, refused to reveal which states were sent critically flawed machines,
and vigorously fought attempts to reveal reliability information.” (p. 22).
n. “In 2019, Pennsylvania installed Dominion in fourteen of Pennsylvania’s sixty-seven
counties, resulting from guidance issued by the Soros puppet Secretary of State
Boockvar. In 2020, 33 counties in Pennsylvania also installed the ES&S system. These
counties included the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia and Montgomery.” (p. 22).
141. Dr. Navarro produced a third and final report (“The Receipts Report”) finding:47
a. “While it is now politically correct in progressive circles and the mainstream media to
demand that all Americans submit and confess to the ‘truth’ of what may well be the
fiction of a free and fair election for the sake of ‘unity’ and ‘harmony,’ such a
Kafkaesque demand in the face of the evidence in this report will likely have the
opposite effect. To wit: almost half the country now believes that there were significant
irregularities in the 2020 presidential race; and the failure to fully investigate these
irregularities will only increase the number of Americans who have such doubts. This
will be particularly true if the suppression of what necessarily must be a search for truth
is facilitated by the authoritarian – nay fascist – behavior of a small group of social
media oligarchs who have taken it upon themselves to de-platform and censor tens of
millions of pro-Trump Americans who now find themselves victims, rather than
consumers, of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.” (p.2).
b. “In considering these truths, let us never forget two things: (1) The Democrat party and
its operatives stole the 1960 Presidential Election – it happened then and it can happen
47
fca72be46150/The%20Navarro%20Report%20Volume%20III%20Final%201.13.21-0001.pdf
31
again; and (2) it took decades for historians to finally acknowledge the 1960 version of
the Immaculate Deception in the face of the same kind of virtue-signaling and cancel
culture pressure we are witnessing today. (p. 2).
c. Dr. Navarro notes that there were 992,467 possible illegal votes counted in
Pennsylvania. (p. 3).
d. “By far the largest category of potentially illegal ballots – over 680,000 – is associated
with poll observer abuses. Certified Republican poll observers were kept at distances
the length of a football field. They were prevented from accessing back rooms where
tens of thousands of ballots were being processed, and they were rounded up into
restricted areas when trying to fulfill their legal duty to observe the ballot counting
process. Without meaningful observation of the ballot counting process, it is impossible
to verify the legality of absentee and mail-in ballots.” (p.9).
e. “State Representative Frank Ryan, along with several other members of the State
Legislature, found that over 202,000 more ballots were cast than actual registered
voters in the state. In addition, there were 58,221 absentee ballots counted that were
returned on or before the postmarked date on the envelope. 9,005 additional ballots
were counted without a postmark on the envelope, in clear violation of state election
law.” (p. 9).
f. “There were also over 14,300 absentee ballots cast from addresses in which registered
voters did not legally reside, over 7,400 registered voters from other states that
successfully cast ballots in the state of Pennsylvania, over 8,000 likely dead voters
according to an analysis of state records and publicly available obituaries, and over
1,500 suspect votes in the names of persons over 100 years old). (p. 9).
32
g. “That’s why clearing the air about the 2020 presidential election is not just about
Donald J. Trump but rather about something much larger and of far more import – the
future of our election system, the public perception of that system, and ultimately the
future of our free and democratic Republic.” (p. 12).
142. Steven J. Miller, a college mathematics professor holding a Ph.D. in mathematics from
Princeton University, produced an expert report which concluded that between 37,001 and 58,914 mail
ballots were requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that voter, and that
between 38,910 and 56,483 ballots were requested and returned by a registered Republican but not
counted (“Miller Report”). Moreover, Professor Miller found that there were 165,412 voters that SURE
notes as having requested a ballot, but that such ballots had not arrived to be counted as of November 16,
2020.48
143. A report focusing on improbable and suspicious vote dumps (“Vote Dump Report”),
produced by a number of qualified experts, analyzed election data from 14 states, including
Pennsylvania, and concluded the following: 49
a. “A ‘Net Vote Dump’ for most of the above states is defined as a 25,000+ vote differential
between the 2020 Presidential candidates, at one time. All were for Biden, as we were
not able to find any cases for Trump that met this criteria. (If any can be documented,
we’d be glad to do an update and include them). AZ, PA & VA are exceptions to our
arbitrary 25k rule, PA and VA (unlike most other states) have too many over 25k. AZ has
just two standouts. As a result, the PA threshold is 60k and AZ &VA are 100k.”
b. “Evidently Pennsylvania and Virginia were engaged in a contest to see which state could
produce the most convoluted election data. After struggling to make heads or tails of
48
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-
11/Miller_DeclarationAndAnalyisPA_GOP_BallotRequestData_2020_Final.pdf
49
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/suspicious-biden-ballot-dumps/
33
both, we think it’s a draw. In the case of Pennsylvania, it’s impossible to provide
meaningful graphs in our Report – as multiple speculative assumptions would have to
be made. To give the reader a grasp of what we faced, below (Table 4) is a list of all the
large differentials (i.e., Biden minus Trump results at individual time stamps). A major
problem is that there were multiple examples where someone ‘corrected’ the data – by
making huge subtractions. Whether these are justified or accurate is anyone’s guess.
Rather than take on the impossible task of sorting this all out, we selected four time
periods that we believe are representative of suspicious Biden minus Trump differentials
(See Table 1).”
c. Table 4 on page 20 of the Vote Dump Report summarizes nineteen suspicious vote
dumps analyzed in Pennsylvania, including four vexatious negative vote dumps, with an
emphasis on four dumps that occurred following the close of the polls on election day:
(1) Biden – 70,565, Trump – 4,218, (2) Biden – 73,945, Trump – 8,543, (3) Biden –
88,865, Trump – 23,713, (4) Biden – 62,445, Trump – 1,159.
144. The Vote Dump Report presents strong circumstantial evidence of illegal Biden/Harris
ballots being injected, counted, and tabulated due to the statistically improbable nature of their
distribution.
145. The experts that produced the Vote Dump Report also produced an earlier report, which
includes links to their impressive credentials, focusing solely on Pennsylvania, and concluded the
following (“Voting Analysis Report”):50
a. “Based on this variability, it is not probable that the final Biden Count would end up
being extremely close (within about 1%) of the final Trump count by chance alone. The
50
https://www.scribd.com/document/487657522/Pennsylvania-2020-Voter-Analysis-Report
34
two final counts would be expected to differ by more if third parties had no mechanism
for tracking or adjusting the Biden counts to Trump Counts.” (p. 8).
b. “The high vote for Biden counties are doubly unusual (i.e. are outliers) relative to
previous presidential elections and relative to the remaining PA counties. Eleven such
counties were identified. Together they report an excess of ~300,000 votes over
expectation. The top five report about 216,000 votes over expectation. These increases
in Vote counts are statistically unusual, as most counties provide similar vote counts
from Presidential election to Presidential election” (p. 9).
c. “Among the majority of PA counties, Biden’s total was 70%+/- of registered Democratic
voters. Among the ten anomaly counties (after elimination of Allegheny), Biden’s total
was 101%+/- of registered Democratic voters. That differential is highly suspicious.” (p.
9).
d. “Statistically impossible jumps in the Biden vote counts were found in the time series of
election results. The existence of these jumps is evident from the rate at which votes
were added. The largest of these jumps (PA election, +60,448 votes for Biden added
during a single time interval around Nov. 4, 10:54:36), its odds of happening are in in 1
in 1087, a vanishingly small probability.” (p. 35).
e. “The second largest jump (+12,401 votes are Nov. 4, 02:16:43) has odds of 1 in 1023 of
happening. We also found systematic bias in the way votes were counted (rate of votes
added), favoring Biden. With high certainty, Trump vote counts were depressed (or,
possibly, Biden vote counts were inflated, or both). This bias was confirmed using
multiple statistical methods. These statistically unlikely events in the PA election all
favored Biden. Our analysis is statistical and based on the Edison time series. We
recommend further investigations of the root causes of these observed results.” (p. 35).
35
f. “The primary takeaway is that ALL of these experts came to the same conclusions:
i. There are some major statistical aberrations in the PA voting records, that are
extremely unlikely to occur in a normal (i.e. un-manipulated) setting.
ii. The anomalies almost exclusively happened with the Biden votes. Time and
again, using a variety of techniques, the Trump votes look statistically normal.
iii. Eleven (out of 67) Pennsylvania counties stood out from all the rest. These
counties (see p 11) showed distinctive signs of voting abnormalities – again, all
for Biden.
iv. The total number of PA suspicious votes is 300,00+/- which greatly exceeds the
reported margin of Biden votes over Trump. See the next page for an outline of
the several analyses and our conclusion of how many suspicious votes there are.
v. These statistical analyses do not prove fraud, but rather provide scientific
evidence that the reported results are highly unlikely to be an accurate
reflection of how Pennsylvania citizens voted.” (p. 51).
146. A report produced by revolver.news similarly presents strong circumstantial evidence of
statistical improbability surrounding a suspicious batch of 90,022 mail-in/absentee ballots counted in
Montgomery County on November 5, 2020 (“Revolver Report A”):51
a. “We find considerable evidence consistent with the possibility of electoral fraud in vote
counts in Montgomery County, PA.”
b. “On Thursday November 5 at 9:09am a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get
added that has over 95% support for Biden, but total votes to go up by only 9,534,
implying that in-person votes actually went down by 80,488. On its own, this is a very
51
https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/explosive-new-data-from-rigorous-statistical-analysis-points-to-voter-
fraud-in-montgomery-county-pa/
36
strange irregularity, as ballots cannot disappear, and in-person ballots cannot become
mail ballots. Something is wrong in the reported date, the only question is what.”
c. “The new batch of 90,022 mail ballots looks nothing like existing mail ballots. If the update
is a data error, it must be a complicated error along multiple dimensions and is unlikely to
be a simple typo. The new batch is improbable on four separate dimensions”.
d. “Adding all this evidence together, there is a strong case for the following interpretation:
i. Some time after election night, a very large batch of mail ballots were counted
that show an enormous advantage for Biden – this batch looks nothing like the
mail ballots counted up to that point in the NYT data, and also looks different
from the mail ballots counted later in each precinct as measured using the
county’s own data
ii. The batch looks implausible on its own face, in terms of relative vote shares of
Libertarian and Republican votes
iii. The updates are difficult to reconcile with simple data errors like genuine mail
ballots being mis-classified as in-person, or a single candidate total being
incorrectly entered as a typo.”
147. A preliminary report, dated December 13, 2020, developed by Russell James Ramsland,
Jr., of Allied Security Operations Group, LLC, summarizes the results of ASOG’s court-ordered forensic
audit of Dominion Voting Systems equipment used in Antrim County, Michigan (“Ramsland Report”): 52
a. “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and
purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and
influence election results. The system intentionally generates an
52
https://www.depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[reda
cted].pdf
37
enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then
transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk
adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit
trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we
conclude that the Dominion Voting System should not be used in
Michigan. We further conclude that the results from Antrim County
should not have been certified.” (p. 1, B. 2).
b. “The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election
Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed
an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error
in security and election integrity.” (p. 2, B. 6).
c. “It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots
into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots
sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication
files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR)
terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates
(i.e., votes) the ballot batch.” (p.3, B. 11).
d. “Because the intentional high error rate generates large numbers of ballots to be
adjudicated by election personnel, we must deduce that bulk adjudication occurred.
However, because files and adjudication logs are missing, we have no yet determined
where the bulk adjudication occurred or who was responsible for it.” (p.4, B. 20).
e. “The election day outcomes were calculated using the original software programming
on November 3, 2020. On November 5, 2020 the township clerk was asked to re-run the
Central Lake Township ballots and was given no explanation for this unusual request. On
38
November 6, 2020 the Antrim County Clerk, Sheryl Guy issued the second version of the
software to re-run the same Central Lake Township ballots and oversaw the process.
This resulted in greater than a 60% change in voting results, inexplicably impacting every
single election contest in the township with less than 1500 voters. These errors far
exceed the ballot error rate standard of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%) as required by
federal election law [HAVA].” (p.11, D. 15).
f. “For examples, there were 1,222 ballots reversed out of 1,491 total ballots cast, thus
resulting in an 81.96% rejection rate.” (p.17, J. 2).
g. “A high ‘error rate’ in election software (in this case 68.05%) reflects an algorithm used
that will weight one candidate greater than another (for instance, weight a specific
candidate at a 2/3 to approximately 1/3 ratio). In the logs we identified that the RCV or
Ranked Choice Voting algorithm was enabled (see image below from the Dominion
manual). This allows the user to apply a weighted numerical value to candidates and
change the overall result. The declaration of winners can be done on a basis of points,
not votes.” (p.18, J.3).
148. Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a Ph.D. in Management of Engineering and Technology with
advanced training from the Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security
Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, executed a
sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, which concludes as follows (“K-N Report”): 53
a. “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
53
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf
39
than 400,000 mostly absentee ballots cannot be accomplished in a short time frame
(i.e., 2-3 hours) without illegal vote count alteration. . . These distributions are cause for
concern and indicate fraud.”
b. “I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all
battleground states resulting in 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 [Dominion Voting
Systems], Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to
achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and
incontrovertible.”
149. On January 24, 2020, Texas Deputy Secretary of State, Jose A. Esparza, issued a “Report
of Review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A,” and thereby denied certification of the
voting system, finding, in part, as follows: 54 55
a. “The examiner reports identified multiple hardware and software issues that preclude
the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite
5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas
Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the
Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently
and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation. Therefore,
the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system and corresponding hardware devices do not meet the
standards for certification prescribed by Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code.”
54
https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/laws/dominion.shtml
55
https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf
40
150. Investigative reporting into the background of certain Pennsylvania voting systems
further supports the evidence presented herein.56
151. A certain voting systems company refused to testify before the Pennsylvania
legislature.57
152. Another report produced by revolver.news presents strong circumstantial evidence of
fraud surrounding Pennsylvania voter birthdays (“Revolver Report B”), finding that: 58
a. “In particular, we consider what would happen if the ten counties who scored above the
98th percentile of suspicious birthdays under the conservative distribution were instead to
be merely exactly at the 98th percentile. This would still leave these counties looking very
suspicious, but merely less so. Even this minor change would result in an additional
predicted 76,600 votes for Trump and the same number fewer for Biden.”
b. “These results suggest strongly the presence of abnormal birthday distributions consistent
with a large number of fraudulent voter registrations. They also provide strong evidence
that the presence of such abnormal birthdays is positively associated with more votes for
Biden, including at historically anomalous levels. Finally, the magnitude of these suspicious
birthdays is plausibly large enough to affect the entire statewide outcome of the
Pennsylvania presidential election vote.”
153. A final report produced by revolver.news finds that candidate Joseph R. Biden’s vote
share is implausible relative to both historical voting patterns in the counties of the pertinent states, and
with demographic trends in the 2020 election: 59
56
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2020/12/29/cracking-dominions-source-code-a-national-
security-threat-since-2003/
57
https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/pennsylvania/pa-lawmakers-criticizing-dominion-voting-systems-after-it-
backs-out-of-hearing/article_6020da90-2ba1-11eb-8420-534f51eeb494.html
58
https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/pennsylvania-election-fraud-exposed-by-suspicious-birthdays/
59
https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/statistical-model-indicates-trump-won-landslide/
41
a. “This analysis has made formal an intuition that many people have had on an informal
basis – namely, the contested states where Biden narrowly won showed strange voting
patterns relative to what one might generally expect for those states, and relative to
what one might expect on the basis of the final results in other key swing states (or
plausibly even a sufficiently large number of ‘swing counties’). Our results show that this
intuition can be made concrete – in the contests states of PA, WI, GA, AZ, and NV
Biden’s vote share is implausible relative to both historical voting patterns in counties in
those states, and with demographic trends in the 2020 election.”
b. “Either the inhabitants of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and (to a lesser extent) the
three other contested swing states are totally unlike other Americans, and exempt from
the statistical regularities that bind them, or rogue elements in the Democratic party
have committed fraud on a scale that will permanently destroy America’s faith in
elections unless their crime is quickly reversed and the guilty parties punished.”
154. In the 2018 General Election, when election officials were permitted to review, and
candidates and parties were permitted to challenge absentee ballots, an average of 4.5% of the ballots
were disallowed across Pennsylvania, with an even higher percentage, generally between 4.3 and 8.0
percent, in larger Democrat controlled counties (such as Montgomery and Philadelphia).60
155. In contrast, in the 2020 general election with approximately 2.6 million persons voting
by mail – almost all for the first time – when neither election officials or candidates were permitted to
review or contest the signatures, address, and date during the canvassing of the mail ballots, for the first
time in Pennsylvania’s history, less than 0.28% were disqualified according to public sources, 1/16th the
rate from the 2018 election.61
60
https://dig.abclocal.go.com/ccg/interactives/mail-ballots-rejected-map/index.html
61
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Analysis_of_rejected_ballots
42
156. Justin Kweder, an attorney and certified GOP canvass observer, testified before the
Pennsylvania legislature that observers were not able to challenge any decision or determination being
made about processing mail-in ballots at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Mr. Kweder testified that
he was corralled behind a fence at least 10-feet away from the processing of ballots. Mr. Kweder
testified that there was no civilian oversight over hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, zero
opportunity for observers to observe, challenge, or inspect the mail-in ballots being opened. Mr. Kweder
testified that he witnessed thousands of ballots being duplicated without observation.62
157. Dave Stisogis, an attorney and former district attorney, testified before the Pennsylvania
legislature that the Allegheny County Board of Elections changed and/or implemented a significant rule
that disqualified 20-25 election monitors out of the 70 or so his team had assembled, the Friday before
the election. Mr. Stisogis testified that the local election boards, day in and day out, were changing rules
to make the monitoring process next to impossible. Mr. Stisogis testified that he was herded into a
corral and that the closest anybody could get to a ballot processor was 15-20 feet, and the farthest away
were perhaps 150 feet. Mr. Stisogis testified that his organization had no idea where the envelope
opening was taking place, and that the ballots were being divided from the secrecy envelopes. Mr.
Stisogis testified that the County Solicitor told him that there was no written protocol for handling and
counting ballots.63
158. Olivia Jane Winters, a registered Democrat and minority inspector in Philadelphia’s 3615
Ward, testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that she witnessed the judge of elections leave the
polling place for over 45 minutes. Ms. Winters testified that the majority inspector threatened to slap
62
CqgSCYc?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=2244
63
43
her and that the situation would become a “racial issue”. Ms. Winters testified that she witnessed the
majority inspector vote illegally. Ms. Winters testified that a poll worker, who was also electioneering,
demanded to see her credentials then refused to return them. Ms. Winters testified that Ward 3615 was
not following proper procedures for receiving mail-in ballots or casting provisional ballots until
instructed by a deputy sheriff.64
159. Gloria Lee Snover, Chairman of the North Hampton County Republican Committee,
testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that the election rules in North Hampton County were ever-
changing, drop boxes were not supervised, and that there was mass confusion regarding the mail-in
ballot system. Ms. Snover testified that she received reports that voters were receiving mail-in ballots
that hadn’t requested them. Ms. Snover testified that the registrar threatened to turn her over to the
district attorney for posting a picture of a voter ballot-harvesting a large bag of ballots at a North
Hampton County drop box. Ms. Snover testified to unlawful pre-canvassing before election day, that
certain voters were allowed to cure disqualified naked ballots, and that there was no ability to properly
witness the canvass of the mail-in ballots or see the actual ballots. Ms. Snover testified that the Solicitor
told her that there is absolutely no law that allows her to see the counting or to see the ballots. Ms.
Snover testified that scores of people, on the Pennsylvania SURE system, that had not voted since the
1990’s, more than 22 years ago, were now reactivated and receiving mail-in ballots. Finally, Ms. Snover
testified that she found more than 1500 votes where mail-in ballots were received by the election office
on a date prior to being mailed.65
64
65
44
160. Elizabeth Preate Havey, an attorney and Chair of the Montgomery County Republican
Committee, testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that the Montgomery County Republican
Committee was not provided meaningful view of the mail-in ballot processing at any time. Ms. Havey
testified that she was not provided with regular, detailed information about the mail-in ballots over the
course of the election. Ms. Havey testified that the Montgomery County Republican Committee was not
provided with the changes in rules by the County to allow the curing of mail-in ballots in a timely
manner. Ms. Havey testified that she was told she could not directly check the mail-in ballots. Ms. Havey
testified that by removing the signature check for existing voters, there was no way to protect against
someone fraudulently voting for a registered voter. Ms. Havey testified that at least 188 deceased
people voted in Montgomery County in the 2020 General Election.66
161. Julia Vahey, the Executive Director of the Montgomery County Republican Committee,
testified before the Pennsylvania legislature that she was supposed to be an observer of the pre-canvass
and canvass of the mail-in ballots, and trained over 100 volunteers to inspect and monitor the counting
of ballots, in Montgomery County. Ms. Vahey testified that no watchers were permitted to inspect or
even see the outside envelope of the ballot. Ms. Vahey testified that she was corralled into a holding
area that was too far away to meaningfully observe the ballot processing and counting.67
162. Leah Hoopes, a poll watcher from Delaware County, testified before the Pennsylvania
legislature that there were no observers allowed in certain counting areas, and that she was met with
complete resistance from election night and every day thereafter. Ms. Hoopes testified that even after
obtaining an injunction, the setup consisted of sitting in a chair 20 feet from any physical ballot. Ms.
66
67
45
Hoopes testified that private grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, owned by Google and
Mark Zuckerberg, was used to erect pop-up voter sites in heavily democrat cities, including Chester and
Upper Darby, but not in republican and independent areas. Ms. Hoopes testified that the grant money
from CTCL was used to pay for electioneering, and that these activities and benefits were not occurring
in heavily republican and independent areas. Ms. Hoopes testified that 2.1 million dollars was spent to
move the counting center from the courthouse in Media, where counting had occurred for decades, to
the wharf in Chester.68
163. Kim Peterson, a Republican canvasser in Pittsburgh, testified before the Pennsylvania
legislature that she was corralled at least 15 to 20 feet from any representative, and was unable to
meaningfully observe the mail-in ballot processing and counting.69
164. In September of 2020, within the context of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party suing
Democrat Respondent Boockvar, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court contravened the Constitutionally
enacted Election Code, despite opposition from Legislators, and permitted county boards of election to
accept hand-delivered mail-in and absentee ballots at locations other than the respective offices of the
boards of election, including through the use of drop-boxes arbitrarily located throughout the county;
and, it extended the deadline for receipt of absentee and mail-in ballots by three days from 8:00 p.m. on
Election day to 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020; and, it established the presumption that ballots which
have an illegible postmark or are completely devoid of a postmark are timely and to be counted. The
Respondents argued that naked ballots should be counted, despite the law clearly stating otherwise.
The Supreme Court didn’t give them that one. Ironically, the Court prefaced its opinion by citing article I,
68
69
46
Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, “elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or
military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage”, recognizing that
it was “specifically intended to equalize the power of voters in our Commonwealth’s election process.”
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020, 2020 WL 5554644(Pa. Sept. 17, 2020).
165. In July of 2020 the Department of State announced it would pay all postage for mail-in
and absentee ballots.70
166. Respondents actually began laying the groundwork for county boards of election to
implement drop boxes and satellite offices at least as early as January 10, 2020, as evidenced the
following guidance:71
a. “As allowed under existing law, county election boards may provide for mail-in and
absentee application processing and balloting at more than one CEO located with
county boarders.” (p.4).
b. “[C]ounties may want to select accessible locations near heavy traffic areas such as
commercial corridors, large residential areas, major employers and public
transportation routes.” (p. 5).
c. “[If a county decides to provide for other ballot collection locations, the county should
consider the following best practices:] Utilize a secure ballot collection receptacle that is
designed for this specific purpose. Note: Please contact the Department for guidance on
factors, best practices, and examples for these receptacles.” (p.5-6).
70
https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/State-
Details.aspx?newsid=391&link_id=99&can_id=3ce03c3d77033bbeb4c4bf7ba04c984c&source=email-voting-rights-
roundup-trump-sabotages-postal-service-and-census-to-rig-elections-in-2020-and-
beyond&email_referrer=email_878714&email_subject=voting-rights-roundup-trump-sabotages-postal-service-
and-census-to-rig-elections-in-2020-and-beyond
71
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/PADOS_Act%2077_Absentee%20and%
20Mail-in%20Guidance.pdf
47
167. On August 19, 2020, the Department issued the following clearly illegal guidance that
explicitly acknowledged the Department’s Constitutional obligations, which has since been removed
from its website:72
a. “It is the Department’s position that naked ballots should be counted pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Election Code, furthering the Right to Vote under the Pennsylvania and
United States Constitutions.” (p. 2).
168. Then, the following month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rebuked the Department’s
position as to ballot curing in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020.
169. Nevertheless, the Deputy Secretary for Elections and Commissions at the Department of
State, Jonathan Marks, sent an e-mail to County Election Directors, the night before the election,
advising them to facilitate mail-in and absentee ballot curing, for ballots which should not be inspected
or rejected prior to the time they are legally allowed to be canvassed on election day, and which are not
legally allowed to be cured, as affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court a month prior.73
170. A Berks County Election Director executed an affidavit attesting to receiving Mr. Marks’
e-mail, and affirming that ballots in Berks County were not cured.74 This is a clear example of the
Department violating the law and effectuating a number of equal protection violations.
171. The vice-Chairman of the Westmoreland County Board of Elections executed an affidavit
that ballots were not cured in his county.75
172. Philadelphia County illegally canvassed and effectuated the curing of mail-in and
absentee ballots prior to election day.76
72
https://www.senatorhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PADOS_NakedBallotGuidance_08-19-2020.pdf
73
74
75
76
48
173. A resident of Philadelphia County executed an affidavit and provided evidence that her
ballot was illegally canvassed and that she was illegally contacted to cure it.77
174. Montgomery County illegally canvassed and effectuated the curing of mail-in and
absentee ballots prior to election day.78
175. Building on its holding that state law did not permit signature verification or permit
challenges of mail ballots during the canvassing process beginning on election day, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court held that the requirements of the election code that representatives be allowed “to be
present” and “to remain in the room” during the canvassing process – 25 P.S. §§ 3146.8(b),
3146.8(g)(1.1) – did not actually require meaningful observation. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted
trial court evidence that the Philadelphia Board of Election erected waist-high security fence to separate
observers from board employees that was 15-18 feet away from the first row of canvassers and that the
trial court found the testimony of an attorney/observer credible who testified to not being able to read
the declarations on the ballot envelopes. In re Canvassing Observation, No. 30 EAP 2020 (November 17,
2020), reported at 2020 Pa. LEXIS 5879, 2020 WL 6737895.
176. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then determined that the statutory requirement that
mail voters “shall then fill out, date, and sign” the declaration on the outer envelope, was not
mandatory, despite being explicit in the Election Code. Paradoxically, the Court did not find the term “fill
out” ambiguous when it decided In Re: November 3, 2020 General Election a month prior. In re: Canvass
of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots of November 3, 2020 General Election, (Pa., Nos. 31-35 EAP 2020 and 29
WAP 2020, filed November 23, 2020) (Philadelphia/Allegheny).
77
78
http://stillwatertechservices.com/files/tms/Bush-v-Gore-
Violations/Email_Francis_Dean_Ballot_Curing_103120.pdf
49
177. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections had already dispensed with many of the
mail-in and absentee ballot requirements prior to the Supreme Court’s November 23 decision, and
counted the following illegal ballots:79
a. 1,211 ballots where the outer envelope was signed, but nothing else was filled out;
b. 1,259 ballots where the outer envelope was not dated;
c. 533 ballots where the voter didn’t print their name;
d. 860 ballots where the voter didn’t print their address;
e. 4,466 ballots where the voter didn’t print their name or street address.
178. J.R. Carlson of Stillwater Technical Solutions produced a report detailing the methods
employed by the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“Carlson Report”): 80
a. “A review of data for the 2020 CTCL grant-making actions in Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, along with 2016 presidential election voting records for recipients of CTCL
grants reveals a distinct pattern of greater funder to jurisdictions where candidate
Hillary Clinton won versus grant-receiving jurisdictions where candidate Donald Trump
won. While CTCL maintains that it is a non-partisan organization and its grants are
available to all local jurisdictions, the grant pattern is understood to have a distinct color
of partisanship.” (p. 10).
b. “CTCL awarded seven grants in Pennsylvania. Three of these grants were awarded to the
cities of Philadelphia ($10,016,074); Erie ($148,729); and Lancaster ($474,202). Five
grants were awarded to counties: Wayne County ($25,000); Northumberland County
($44,811); Center County ($863,828); Delaware County ($2,200,000); and Allegheny
County ($2,052,251). A total of $13,063,828 (94.7%) went to jurisdictions where
79
80
https://got-freedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HAVA-and-Non-Profit-Organization-Report-FINAL-W-
Attachments-and-Preface-121420.pdf
50
candidate Hillary Clinton won in the 2016 presidential election; only $692,742 (5.3%)
went to jurisdictions where Donald Trump won in 2016.” (p. 10).
179. The Carlson Report further concludes that CTCL’s involvement in the electoral process
was unnecessary at best:
a. “As of November 23, 2020, Pennsylvania reported surplus CARES funds
of $953,839.” (p. 3).
b. “Because adequate funding for elections administration was available in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the CTCL narrative that it needed to provide funding for
safe and secure election was at best naïve, and at worst, an outright falsehood. The
presence of ample sources of public funding rendered the infusion of any private
funding unjustified, unnecessary, and disruptive to electoral processes.” (p. 3).
180. The Carlson Report explains that documents obtained through court order reveal
communications between the City of Philadelphia and CTCL emphasizing that CTCL paid election officials
in Philadelphia, including election judges.
181. The Carlson Report indicates that CTCL was the impetus behind the consolidation of
ballot counting centers which justified the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and
the marginalization of republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management,
handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised.
182. The Carlson Report finds that CTCL mandated that Philadelphia increase polling
locations, drop boxes, and mobile ballot pick up units.
183. The Carlson Report finds that Zuckerberg monies allowed Philadelphia to “cure”
absentee ballots in a manner not provided for in republican areas of the state.
51
184. The Carlson Report finds that in Delaware county, there was a drop box every 4 sq.
miles, and for every 4,000 voters. Whereas, in the 59 Trump Counties of Pennsylvania, there was a drop
box every 1,100 sq. miles, and for every 72,000 voters.
185. Indeed, Philadelphia’s executed CTCL grant agreement, which includes a memo from a
Deputy Commissioner that explicitly acknowledged coordination with the Governor’s Office on election
implementation, provided for $10,016,074 in funding, with a claw-back provision if violated, to fund the
following:81
a. Satellite offices;
b. Ballot drop boxes;
c. Increased polling locations (800);
d. Training for election workers; and,
e. Election judges, inspectors, staff, clerks, machines, and machine operators.
186. Chester County executed a similar agreement, and Delaware, Centre, and Berks
Counties acknowledge approving and receiving the grants.82 83 84 85
187. It has been reported that Allegheny County, Erie County, Lancaster County received
CTCL grants as well.86 87 88
81
https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/images/stories/execution_copy_philadelphia_ctcl_grant_ad_signed-
082120.pdf
82
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20404695-chester-co-pa-ctcl
83
https://www.delcopa.gov/publicrelations/releases/2020/safeelectionsgrant.html
84
https://centrecountypa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09242020-875
85
https://www.co.berks.pa.us/Dept/Commissioners/MeetingMinutes/Commissioners_10_29_2020_Minutes.pdf
86
https://nextpittsburgh.com/latest-news/allegheny-county-gets-2-million-grant-to-help-with-rising-costs-of-the-
nov-3-election/
87
https://www.yourerie.com/news/erie-county-election-board-announces-148000-grant/
88
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-county-gets-half-a-million-dollar-grant-to-offset-election-
costs/article_93219d0c-0424-11eb-8761-f33259ab5c34.html
52
188. The Center for Tech and Civic Life, under the “What kind of election expenses do the
grant funds cover?” tab, admits that it pays for elections workers, machines, and to promote mail-in
voting.89
189. In October of 2019, Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law, which implemented no-
excuse mail-in voting, and thereby expanded the potential universe of mail-in and absentee ballots
significantly.90
190. After the presidential election controversy in 2000, a bipartisan commission, headed by
former Democrat President Jimmy Carter and former Republican Secretary of State James baker, found
that mail ballots are “the largest source of potential voter fraud.” (p. 46).91
191. By letter dated December 13, 2019, the Democrat Auditor General of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Eugene A. Depasquale, issued to Respondent Wolf a Performance
Audit Report of the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors. The
Performance Audit Report was conducted pursuant to an Interagency Agreement between the
Pennsylvania Department of State and the Pennsylvania Department of Auditor General. The
Performance Audit Report contained seven Findings, to wit:92
a. Finding One: As a result of the Department of State’s denial of access to

critical documents and excessive redaction of documentation, the
Department of the Auditor general was severely restricted from
meeting its audit objectives in an audit which the Department of State
itself had requested.
b. Finding Two: Data analysis identified tens of thousands of potential
duplicate and inaccurate voter records, as well as voter records for
nearly three thousand potentially deceased voters that had not been
removed from the SURE system.
c. Finding Three: The Department of State must implement leading
information technology security practices and information technology
89
https://www.techandciviclife.org/our-work/election-officials/grants/
90
https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-election-reform-bill-including-new-mail-in-
voting/
91
https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/3034/files/378056?module_item_id=188418
92
https://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/Department%20of%20State_SURE%20Audit%20Report%2012-19-19.pdf
53
general controls to protect the SURE system and ensure the reliability of
voter registration.
d. Finding Four: Voter record information is inaccurate due to weakness in
the voter registration application process and the maintenance of voter
records in the SURE system.
e. Finding Five: Incorporating edit checks and other improvements into the
design of the replacement system for SURE will reduce data errors and
improve accuracy.
f. Finding Six: A combination of a lack of cooperation by certain county
election offices and PennDOT, as well as source documents not being
available for seventy percent of our test sample, resulted in our inability
to form any conclusions as to the accuracy of the entire population of
voter records maintained in the SURE system.
g. Finding Seven: The Department of State should update current job aids
and develop additional job aids and guidance to address issues such as
duplicate voter records, records of potentially deceased voters on the
voter rolls, pending applications, and record retention.
192. Democrat Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, in the December 13,
2019 letter he directed to Respondent Wolf and attached to the Performance Audit
Report, stated:
a. “Significant scope limitations caused by a lack of cooperation and a
failure to provide the necessary information by DOS, the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and four county election
offices (counties), substantially impacted our ability to obtain sufficient
appropriate evidence to fully achieve all audit objectives as described
below and within.”
b. “DOS’ denial of access to critical documents and excessive redaction of
documentation resulted in DAG being unable to fully achieve three of
the eight audit objectives. Specifically, DAG was unable to accomplish
the following: (1) Objective 1, the accuracy of the records maintained in
SURE; (2) Objective 3, the review of security protocols for the sure
54
system, and (3) Objective 6, review the external controls, methodology
for external audits and external audits review process.”
c. “This sustained refusal to cooperate with our information requests was
done without DOS providing any plausible justification for their
noncooperation. Accordingly, DAG was unable to establish with any
degree of reasonable assurance that the SURE system is secure and that
Pennsylvania voter registration records are complete, accurate, and in
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and related guidelines.”
d. “Based on data analysis that we were able to perform, despite the
substantial scope limitations noted above, we identified tens of
thousands of potential duplicate and inaccurate voter records, as well as
voter records for nearly three thousand potentially deceased voters that
had not been removed from SURE. We found that voter record
information is inaccurate due to weaknesses in the voter registration
application process and the maintenance of voter records in SURE.
e. “We are very discouraged by management’s response to our draft
findings. We were quite surprised that DOS’ response indicates that it
strongly disagrees with many of our findings and mischaracterizes
information that was provided, or not provided to us in many instances,
during the course of our audit.”
193. Respondent Boockvar is quoted on page 12 of Rock the Vote’s 2018 Annual Report,
“Rock the Vote’s web tool was connected to our system, making the process of registering through their
online programs, and those of their partners, seamless for voters across Pennsylvania.”93
93 https://www.rockthevote.org/wp-content/uploads/Rock-the-Vote-2018-Annual-Report.pdf
55
194. Rock the Vote is a progressive Democrat non-government organization.
195. Secretary Boockvar, in an April 2020 letter to the Election Assistance Commission,
admits that the Department of State directed all Counties to procure new voting systems in April of
2018. Respondents again acknowledges it is obligated to comply with HAVA, and that the
Commonwealth received HAVA funding in 2020.94
196. In late October of 2020, Democrat candidate Joseph R. Biden confessed, on video, to
having put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American
politics.95
197. On Oct. 31, 2020, a few days before the election, Democrat Attorney General Josh
Shapiro tweeted, “If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose.”96
198. Democrat Lt. Governor John Fetterman believes that citizens do not have the right to
speak about Democrats having stolen Pennsylvania’s 2020 General Election.97
199. Democrat Governor Tom Wolf, on January 6, 2021, is quoted as stating, “Republican
members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation plan to object to the counting of Pennsylvania’s
electoral votes by claiming the election was compromised, and that our electoral votes are suspect. This
is an outrageous lie, and they are undermining our democracy by recklessly repeating that lie to deceive
the American people.”98
200. “When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right
to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in
94
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Documents/EAC-PA-20101001-HAVA-Program-Narrative-and-Budget-
Outline.pdf
95
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-
voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/
96
https://www.dailywire.com/news/pa-dem-attorney-general-boasts-if-they-count-all-pa-votes-trump-will-lose
97
https://hbg100.com/2021/01/15/lt-gov-fetterman-idea-of-rigged-or-stolen-election-is-not-protected-speech-
and-should-be-deleted-on-social-media/
98
https://www.abc27.com/live-streams/governor-wolf-and-secretary-of-state-kathy-boockvar-to-hold-a-press-
conference-to-discuss-the-2020-election/
56
the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore, 531
U.S. 98, 104, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added).
201. Petitioner has a fundamental right to vote, and he did not vote for Democrat candidates
Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris.
202. Democrat voters did vote for Democrat candidates Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D.
Harris.
203. The one-person, one-vote principle requires counting valid votes and not counting
invalid votes. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554-55; Bush, 531 U.S. at 103 (“the votes eligible for inclusion in the
certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements”).
204. The properly established legal requirements are the requirements established by the
State Legislature pursuant to Article II, §1, cl.2 of the United States Constitution.
205. The U.S. Constitution places crucial and inviolate prohibitions on judicial rewriting of the
Election Code. The Electors Clause directs that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct,” electors for President and Vice President. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
The Electors Clause in particular “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the
legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S.
1, 27 (1892). “Thus, the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the
States, takes on independent significance.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 112–13 (Rehnquist, J., concurring). “A
significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal
constitutional question,” including when such departure is carried out by the state judiciary. Id. at 113.
“[W]ith respect to a Presidential election,” state courts must be “mindful of the legislature’s role under
Article II in choosing the manner of appointing electors.” Id. at 114, see also Case of Electoral Coll., 8 F.
Cas. 427, 432–33 (C.C.D.S.C. 1876) (“When the legislature of a state, in obedience to [Article II, § 1], has
by law directed the manner of appointment of the electors, that law has its authority solely from the
57
Constitution of the United States. It is a law passed in pursuance of the Constitution.”). For this reason,
the Court may not deviate from the plain text or rewrite the Election Code.
206. “[T]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is
hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 107 (citing
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1, 89 S. Ct. 1493 (1969).
207. Petitioner was classified, in effect, by the Commonwealth and Respondents as a non-
Democrat voter.
208. Petitioner’s vote was accorded less weight than that of a Democrat voter’s.
209. The Commonwealth and Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of having a
debased and diluted vote, to the exclusion of Democrat voters.
210. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional. As detailed herein, Democrats
knew that Democrat voters would predominantly vote by mail-in and absentee ballot, and as it turns
out, they overwhelmingly did, as reflected in the Department of State’s data. In furtherance of ensuring
a Democrat victory in the 2020 Presidential race, Democrat organizations, including the Democratic
Party of Pennsylvania, initiated friendly lawsuits against the Democrat Secretary Kathy Boockvar.
Respondent Boockvar even petitioned for, and successfully invoked, extraordinary “King’s Bench
jurisdiction” in furtherance of advancing discriminatory policies. These lawsuits resulted in the 5-2 (or
perhaps 6-1) Democrat supermajority Supreme Court of Pennsylvania judicially re-writing the Election
Code and usurping the Constitutionally prescribed role of the Legislature - often in spite of protest from
the Legislature.99 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania allowed county boards of election to utilize drop
boxes and satellite offices; allowed mail ballots to be counted after the date and time provided by the
Election Code; established the presumption that a ballot was timely if its postmark was illegible or
entirely missing; negated signature verification for mail-in and absentee ballots; negated the ability of
99
https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_Supreme_Court
58
third-parties to challenge mail-in and absentee ballots for any reason; held that mail-in and absentee
voters don’t have to “fill out” the envelope as explicitly required by the Election Code because the term
“fill out” is ambiguous; and held that there was no right to meaningfully observe the canvassing of mail-
in and absentee ballots.
211. Moreover, the Democrat Respondents violated the United States Constitution,
Pennsylvania’s Constitution, HAVA, the State HAVA Plan, and the Election Code.
212. Respondents provided pre-paid postage for all mail ballots; issued discriminatory and
illegal “Guidance” directing county boards of election to count naked ballots, illegally cure and count
ballots, not verify signatures on mail ballots, disallow challenges to mail ballots, and encouraged the use
of satellite offices and mail ballot drop boxes; failed to maintain the SURE system as required by HAVA,
the State HAVA Plan, and State law – as noted by a Democrat Auditor General; illegally mandated the
use of, and certified, the Commonwealth’s ‘voting’ machines; refused to investigate well-founded
allegations of irregularities, presumably because of where that investigation would lead; and, knowingly
certified and ascertained false election results in flagrant violation of 25 P.S. § 3154.100
213. Each and every illegal vote, as defined by the State Legislature pursuant to the United
States Constitution, dilutes the weight of every legal vote. President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania
Senate, Jake Corman, joined by many other Senators, issued a letter to leaders of the United States
Congress, noting that Respondents’ and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s conduct contravened their
Constitutional authority, and implored them to refrain from certifying the election results so that these
matters could be investigated.101
100
101
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/spl/electoral-college-certification-pennsylvania-senate-letter-
20210106.html
59
214. In this case, overwhelmingly, votes that were illegally cast, illegally counted, illegally
cured, illegally altered, and illegally certified, inured to the benefit of Democrat voters as demonstrated
at length herein.
215. To briefly reiterate some concrete examples:
a. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections explicitly acknowledged having counted the
following illegal ballots which were not sufficient pursuant to 25 P.S. §§ 3146.6(a),
§3150.16(a), and §3146.8(g)(3), to say nothing of the ballots which the Board should not
have counted but for the Secretary’s directive negating signature verification:102
i. 1,211 ballots where the outer envelope was signed, but nothing else was filled
out;
ii. 1,259 ballots where the outer envelope was not dated;
iii. 533 ballots where the voter didn’t print their name;
iv. 860 ballots where the voter didn’t print their address;
v. 4,466 ballots where the voter didn’t print their name or street address.
b. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Counting of the following illegal ballots in
In re Canvassing Observation:
i. 8,329 mail-in and absentee ballots without sufficient declarations in
Philadelphia County;
ii. 2,349 mail-in and absentee ballots without sufficient declarations in Allegheny
County;
216. According to the Department of State’s website, in Philadelphia County, mail-in and
absentee ballots between the two main candidates went to Biden/Harris at a ratio of well over 10:1, and
102
60
in Allegheny County mail-in and absentee ballots between the two main candidates went to
Biden/Harris at a ratio of over 4:1.103 104
217. Thus, in applying these conservative ratios to the illegal ballots concretely set forth,
Petitioner, as a voter that did not vote for Biden/Harris, has undeniably demonstrated that his vote was
debased and diluted.
218. In the 2018 General Election, when election officials were permitted to review, and
candidates and parties were permitted to challenge absentee ballots, an average of 4.5% of the ballots
were disallowed across Pennsylvania, with an even higher percentage, generally between 4.3% and
8.0%, in larger Democrat controlled counties (such as Montgomery and Philadelphia).105
219. In contrast, in the 2020 general election with approximately 2.6 million persons voting
by mail – almost all for the first time – when neither election officials or candidates were permitted to
review or contest the signatures, address, and date during the canvassing of the mail ballots, for the first
time in Pennsylvania’s history, less than 0.28% were disqualified according to public sources, 1/16th the
rate from the 2018 election.106
220. Applying the 2020 mail-in ballots cast to the state-wide ratio of 3:1 between the main
candidates for Biden (10:1 in Philadelphia), to the 2018 rejection rates, further demonstrates the severe
dilution of Petitioner’s vote
221. Moreover, it is absolutely appalling that the Respondents and the Attorney General’s
Office have not gotten to the bottom of Jesse Morgan’s allegations. There is a man claiming to have
103
ype=G&IsActive=1
104
105
https://dig.abclocal.go.com/ccg/interactives/mail-ballots-rejected-map/index.html
106
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Analysis_of_rejected_ballots
61
hauled a tractor-trailer full of completed mail-in ballots, in bulk, from New York to Pennsylvania, and
then exposed himself to criminal liability by signing a sworn affidavit. 107 Colonel Shaffer estimated that
the trailer contained between 144,000 – 288,000 mail-in ballots.
222. To expand, as evidenced herein, observers in Philadelphia, Allegheny, Delaware, and
Montgomery Counties were prohibited from observing and challenging the canvassing of mail-in and
absentee ballots as provided by law and as such, each and every mail-in and absentee ballot which was
counted is illegal.
223. In Philadelphia County, 339,403 mail-in and absentee ballots went to Biden/Harris,
29,115 went to Trump/Pence, and 1,843 went to Jorgensen/Cohen. Each and every one of those ballots
is illegal.108
224. In Montgomery County, 200,541 mail-in and absentee ballots went to Biden/Harris,
40,418 went to Trump/Pence, and 1,872 went to Jorgensen/Cohen. Each and every one of those ballots
is illegal.109
225. In Allegheny County, 273,080 mail-in and absentee ballots went to Biden/Harris, 66,575
went to Trump/Pence, and 3,076 went to Jorgensen/Cohen. Each and every one of those ballots is
illegal.110
107
https://twitter.com/OGJesseMorgan/status/1342563326916747265/photo/1
108
ype=G&IsActive=1
109
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Montgomery&ElectionID=undefined&E
lectionType=G&IsActive=undefined
110
62
226. In Delaware County, 107,643 mail-in and absentee ballots went to Biden/Harris, 20,295
went to Trump/Pence, and 874 went to Jorgensen/Cohen. Each and every one of those ballots is
illegal.111
227. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted trial court evidence showing that the
Philadelphia Board of Elections erected waist-high security fence to separate observers from board
employees that was 15-18 feet away from the first row of canvassers and that the trial court found the
testimony of an attorney/observer credible who testified to not being able to read the declarations on
the ballot envelopes and explicitly held that there was no meaningful right to observe the canvassing of
mail-in ballots. In re Canvassing Observation, No. 30 EAP 2020 (November 17, 2020).
228. It must be noted that the Democrat areas which exhibited the most flagrant violations
are the areas that received CTCL grants for election administration.
229. Petitioner will not dwell on topic of voting systems other than to note that Respondents
initiated the procurement of them in advance of the 2020 General Election, and that a variety of highly
skilled experts, as well as the state of Texas, concur that they are not reliable, do not produce accurate
election results, and should not be used.
230. To touch on one final point, the Ryan Analysis showing 200,000 over-votes, together
with the Ryan Report showing at least 100,000 extremely suspect ballots, the HETE Report, the findings
of the Democrat Auditor General’s attempted audit of the SURE system, Respondent Boockvar’s
admission to having granted Rock the Vote access to SURE, Jesse Morgan’s truck full of 144,000 to
288,000 ballots, and Colonel Waldron’s testimony, all clearly evidence further vote dilution when
applied to the Biden/Harris state-wide and county-specific mail-in ballot ratios.
111
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Delaware&ElectionID=undefined&Elect
ionType=G&IsActive=undefined
63
231. “It must be remembered that ‘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.’” Bush, 531 U.S. at 105, (citing Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506, 84 S.
Ct. 1362 (1964).
232. Petitioner has now demonstrated that his fundamental right to vote was infringed
because benefits and burdens were unequally distributed amongst voters and that Petitioner was
disadvantaged. See Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986).
233. Specifically, Petitioner has demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of illegal votes
inured to the benefit of Democrat Presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden and Vice-Presidential
candidate Kamala D. Harris, for whom Petitioner did not vote.
234. Because it has been shown that Respondents impinged upon Petitioner’s fundamental
right to vote, strict scrutiny is the applicable framework. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
235. Strict scrutiny means that the policy is presumed unconstitutional and Respondents are
imposed with a heavy burden of justification and the classification will be closely scrutinized in light of
its asserted purpose. Respondents must not only show a “very substantial state interest”, but “[i]n
pursuing that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
64
237. The only reasonable argument that Respondents may advance for their behavior, which
includes their directives to count illegal mail-in ballots, their discriminatory conduct writ large, their
illegal certification of machines, their failure to maintain the SURE system, their failure to enforce the
law, and their illegal certification of false results, relates to enhancing the franchise of the electorate,
which is not a state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. Further, in advancing such an
argument, Respondents would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to uphold
and enforce the law, including the United States Constitution. Finally, in advancing such an argument,
Respondents would be asserting that some voters are more equal than others, and would be arguing
that the franchise of mail-in and absentee voters, who overwhelmingly voted Democrat, are more
important than Petitioner’s franchise and his right to have his vote counted. For these reasons,
Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
238. Assuming that interest qualifies as a “very substantial state interest”, for the sake of
argument, such a position would have to assert that mail-in and absentee voters have a lesser
opportunity to cure, so those votes shouldn’t be negated for failing to comply with the law, i.e., they
can’t be observed or challenged, signatures don’t need to be verified, declarations don’t need to be
sufficient, naked ballots should be counted, ballots can be harvested, etc., all in furtherance of
enhancing the electorate’s franchise. The problem is that law provides that mail-in ballots can be cured,
the Democrats just aren’t popular so they stuffed the ballot box because they couldn’t win legitimately,
and so there’s nobody to come and cure any ballots found defective.
239. Such an argument is clearly fallacious. Respondents cannot enhance the electorate’s
franchise by destroying it. The policy of negating the laws of the Commonwealth, which in this context
are Constitutional in nature, only as they relate to mail-in and absentee voters, is not a substantially
effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise. According to the Department of
State’s website, there were 4,193,889 in-person voters in the 2020 General Election, and 2,616,012
65
mail-in and absentee voters.112 Enhancing the franchise of approximately 38.4% of the electorate, while
destroying the franchise of everyone else, cannot qualify as a substantially effective or precise means.
For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
240. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that the
wholesale negation of laws associated with mail-in ballots and inexcusable dereliction of duty is
narrowly tailored. It just can’t be. A narrowly tailored policy would be to simply allow mail-in and
absentee voters the same opportunity to cure that Respondents may allege they lack in comparison to
in-person voters. Or, to issue one piece of discriminatory guidance, or intentionally fail in one duty, or
negate or break one law, not many. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
on the merits because there are less drastic or less onerous means that don’t unnecessarily burden or
restrict Petitioner’s constitutionally protected right to vote. For example, Respondents could have
simply allowed mail-in and absentee voters the same opportunity to cure that Respondents may allege
they lack in comparison to in-person voters. Or, everyone could have been allowed to vote as many
times as they like. Or, the election laws could have been negated entirely, not just as they pertain to
mail-in and absentee (Democrat) voters, subjecting none to potential disqualification, including
Petitioner. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
Count IV - More Time to Vote
242. If Petitioner was not at the polling place by 8 p.m. on election day, Petitioner would not
have been able to vote, and would have been disenfranchised.
243. In September of 2020, within the context of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party suing
Democrat Respondent Boockvar, the Democrat-majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court contravened the
Constitutionally enacted Election Code, despite opposition from Legislators, and extended the deadline
112
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov
66
for receipt of absentee and mail-in ballots by three days from 8:00 p.m. on Election day to 5:00 p.m. on
November 6, 2020, and, established the presumption that ballots which have an illegible postmark or
are completely devoid of a postmark are timely and to be counted. Respondents advocated for this
policy before the Court. Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020, 2020 WL
5554644(Pa. Sept. 17, 2020).
244. The extension of time in conjunction with the presumption of timeliness and the ability
to hand-deliver to county boards of election, including satellite offices and drop boxes, effectively
provided mail-in and absentee voters more time to vote than in-person voters like Petitioner.
245. As detailed previously, Respondents announced they would pay all postage for mail-in
and absentee ballots.
246. Respondents issued contradictory and illegal guidance to the county boards of election
on October 28, 2020, that instructed the county boards that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision
remained the law, but that ballots received after 8 p.m. on election day should be segregated.113
247. As detailed in the HETE Report, the Commonwealth’s data showed that 69,004 ballots
were marked returned after November 3, 2020, and 19,660 were marked returned after November 6.
248. Supreme Court Justice Alito issued an Order on November 6, 2020, stating the
following:114
a. “Until today, this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which
had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the
ballots in question, had been modified. The application received today also informs the
Court that neither the applicant nor the Secretary has been able to verify that all boards
113
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Documents/2020-10-
28-Segregation-Guidance.pdf
114
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf
67
are complying with the Secretary’s guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally binding on
them.”
249. Petitioner was classified by Respondents, in effect, as a non-mail-in and non-absentee
voter.
250. Respondents conferred mail-in and absentee voters the benefit of having more time to
vote, to the exclusion of Petitioner.
251. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of having less time to vote, to the
exclusion of voters they classified as mail-in and absentee voters.
253. Respondents issued discriminatory and illegal guidance to county boards of election and
argued for, and succeeded in, obtaining the policy in litigation.
254. Justice Alito’s Order shows that the Secretary failed in her Duty to ensure uniform
election practices.
the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104
(emphasis added).
256. Additionally, “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the
franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right
to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and separate treatment, value one person’s
vote over that of another.” Bush, 531 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added) (See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of
Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665, 16 L. Ed. 2d 169, 86 S. Ct. 1079 (1966) (“Once the franchise is granted to the
68
257. Petitioner has shown that his fundamental right to vote was infringed because benefits
and burdens were unequally distributed amongst voters and Petitioner was disadvantaged. See Attorney
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
261. The only plausible argument that Respondents may advance for giving mail-in and
absentee voters more time to vote relate to enhancing the franchise of the electorate, which is not a
state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. Further, in advancing such an argument,
Respondents would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to uphold and enforce
the law, including the United States Constitution. Finally, in advancing such an argument, Respondents
would also be asserting that certain voters are more equal than others, and would be arguing that the
franchise of mail-in and absentee voters are more important than Petitioner’s franchise and his
69
Fourteenth amendment right to equal protection. For these reasons, Petitioner will prevail on the
merits.
262. Assuming that interest qualifies as a “very substantial state interest”, for the sake of
argument, such a position would assert that mail-in and absentee voters do not have any control over
the mail and may be disqualified through no fault of their own, so the policy is in furtherance of
enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
263. The policy of providing only mail-in and absentee voters more time to vote is not a
substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise. According to the
Department of State’s website, there were 4,193,889 in-person voters in the 2020 General Election, and
2,616,012 mail-in and absentee voters. Enhancing the franchise of approximately 38.4% of the
electorate, at most, considering mail-in ballots could be delivered to county boards of election, including
satellite offices and drop boxes, cannot qualify as a substantially effective or precise means while over
60% of the electorate may be disenfranchised if they are unable to make it to the polls on election day
through no fault of their own. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
264. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that wholesale
extensions of time for mail-in and absentee voters is narrowly tailored. For example, a narrowly tailored
policy would simply provide for mail-in and absentee ballots that missed the statutory deadline explicitly
because of carrier error or issue to be counted. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
on the merits because there are less drastic or less onerous means that don’t unnecessarily burden or
restrict Petitioner’s constitutionally protected right to vote. For example, in-person voters, like
Petitioner, who couldn’t make it to the polls on election day due to no fault of their own could also have
been provided more time. For this reason, Petitioner will prevail on the merits.
70
Count V – Opportunity and Ease of Registering to Vote
266. Petitioner does not live in an urban area.
267. There were no satellite offices of the York County Board of Elections.115
268. J.R. Carlson of Stillwater Technical Solutions produced a report detailing the methods
employed by the Center for Tech and Civic Life:116
a. “A review of data for the 2020 CTCL grant-making actions in Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, along with 2016 presidential election voting records for recipients of CTCL
grants reveals a distinct pattern of greater funder to jurisdictions where candidate
Hillary Clinton won versus grant-receiving jurisdictions where candidate Donald Trump
won. While CTCL maintains that it is a non-partisan organization and its grants are
available to all local jurisdictions, the grant pattern is understood to have a distinct color
of partisanship.” (p. 10).
b. “CTCL awarded seven grants in Pennsylvania. Three of these grants were awarded to the
cities of Philadelphia ($10,016,074); Erie ($148,729); and Lancaster ($474,202). Five
grants were awarded to counties: Wayne County ($25,000); Northumberland County
($44,811); Center County ($863,828); Delaware County ($2,200,000); and Allegheny
County ($2,052,251). A total of $13,063,828 (94.7%) went to jurisdictions where
candidate Hillary Clinton won in the 2016 presidential election; only $692,742 (5.3%)
went to jurisdictions where Donald Trump won in 2016.” (p. 10).
269. The Carlson Report further concludes that CTCL’s involvement in the electoral process
was unnecessary at best:
115
https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/2020/10/14/why-york-countys-mail-ballot-drop-box-isnt-enough-
me/3650625001/
116
https://got-freedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HAVA-and-Non-Profit-Organization-Report-FINAL-W-
Attachments-and-Preface-121420.pdf
71
a. “As of November 23, 2020, Pennsylvania reported surplus CARES funds
of $953,839.” (p. 3).
b. “Because adequate funding for elections administration was available in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the CTCL narrative that it needed to provide funding for
safe and secure election was at best naïve, and at worst, an outright falsehood. The
presence of ample sources of public funding rendered the infusion of any private
funding unjustified, unnecessary, and disruptive to electoral processes.” (p. 3).
270. The Carlson Report finds that CTCL mandated that Philadelphia increase polling
locations, drop boxes, and mobile ballot pick up units.
271. The Carlson Report finds that in Delaware county, there was a drop box every 4 sq.
miles, and for every 4,000 voters. Whereas, in the 59 Trump Counties of Pennsylvania, there was a drop
box every 1,100 sq. miles, and for every 72,000 voters.
272. Indeed, Philadelphia’s executed CTCL grant agreement, which includes a memo from a
Deputy Commissioner that explicitly acknowledging coordination with the Governor’s Office on election
implementation, provided for $10,016,074 in funding, with a claw-back provision if violated, to fund the
following:117
a. Satellite offices;
b. Ballot drop boxes;
c. Increased polling locations (800);
d. Training for election workers; and,
e. Election judges, inspectors, staff, clerks, machines, and machine operators.
117
https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/images/stories/execution_copy_philadelphia_ctcl_grant_ad_signed-
082120.pdf
72
273. Chester County executed a similar agreement, and Delaware, Centre, and Berks
Counties acknowledge approving and receiving the grants.118 119 120 121
274. It has been reported that Allegheny County, Erie County, Lancaster County received
CTCL grants as well.122 123 124
275. The Center for Tech and Civic Life, under the “What kind of election expenses do the
grant funds cover?” tab, admits that it pays for elections workers, machines, and to promote mail-in
voting.125
276. Leah Hoopes, a poll watcher from Delaware County, testified before the Pennsylvania
legislature that private grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, owned by Google and Mark
Zuckerberg, was used to erect pop-up voter sites in heavily democrat cities, including Chester and Upper
Darby, but not in republican and independent areas. Ms. Hoopes testified that the grant money from
CTCL was used to pay for electioneering, and that these activities and benefits were not occurring in
heavily republican and independent areas. Ms. Hoopes testified that 2.1 million dollars was spent to
move the counting center from the courthouse in Media, where counting had occurred for decades, to
the wharf in Chester.126
277. Respondents failed to uphold and enforce the law and allowed an oligarch to seize
control of election administration in Democrat areas to ensure a state-wide Democrat victory.
118
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20404695-chester-co-pa-ctcl
119
https://www.delcopa.gov/publicrelations/releases/2020/safeelectionsgrant.html
120
https://centrecountypa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09242020-875
121
https://www.co.berks.pa.us/Dept/Commissioners/MeetingMinutes/Commissioners_10_29_2020_Minutes.pdf
122
https://nextpittsburgh.com/latest-news/allegheny-county-gets-2-million-grant-to-help-with-rising-costs-of-the-
nov-3-election/
123
https://www.yourerie.com/news/erie-county-election-board-announces-148000-grant/
124
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-county-gets-half-a-million-dollar-grant-to-offset-election-
costs/article_93219d0c-0424-11eb-8761-f33259ab5c34.html
125
https://www.techandciviclife.org/our-work/election-officials/grants/
126
73
278. The purpose of the claw back provisions in the CTCL grants was coercion of the County
Boards of Election.
279. This can’t be disputed, the grants are the grants, and not every county received a grant
which provided for satellite offices, pop-up voter sites, drop boxes, increased polling locations, and
additional training for poll workers.
280. The Respondents allowed the imposition of a two-tier election system wherein urban
(Democrat) areas were conferred benefits, to the exclusion of the overwhelming majority of the state
which is non-urban.
281. Petitioner was classified by Respondents, in effect, as a non-urban voter.
282. Respondents conferred urban voters the benefit of having increased opportunity and
ease of registering to vote, to the exclusion of Petitioner.
283. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of decreased opportunity and ease of
registering to vote, to the exclusion of urban voters.
284. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional, as evidenced by Philadelphia’s
CTCL grant agreement, which shows that Respondent Wolf was aware of the circumstances surrounding
election administration in Philadelphia. Moreover, it is not coincidental that the urban areas which were
allowed to receive private grant money tend to vote Democrat, while the rest of the state, including
York County where Petitioner resides, do not.
(emphasis added).
74
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
291. There are two not-so plausible arguments that Respondents may advance for allowing
the injection of private monies (with strings attached) into Pennsylvania elections so that urban voters
have increased opportunity and ease of registering to vote. The first relates to enhancing the franchise
75
of the electorate, which is not a state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. Preliminarily,
if that were a very substantial State interest, Respondents would have to explain why the policy was
enacted by a third-party rather than by the State itself. Further, in advancing such an argument,
Respondents would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to maintain control over
election administration and uphold and enforce the law, including the United States Constitution.
Finally, in advancing such an argument, Respondents would also be asserting that certain voters are
more equal than others, and would be arguing that allowing the injection of private monies into election
administration to enhance the franchise of urban voters is more important than Petitioner’s franchise
and his Fourteenth amendment right to equal protection.
Respondents would be asserting that allowing the injection of private monies into election
administration for public health reasons is a very substantial state interest that takes precedence over
maintaining control over election administration and upholding and enforcing the law, including the
United States Constitution. Again, if that were a very substantial State interest, Respondents would have
to explain why the policy was enacted by a third-party rather than by the State itself. Respondents
would also be asserting that the health of election workers in certain counties takes precedence over
the health of others. The preferential and illogical treatment of certain election workers on the
purported basis of public health is not a “very substantial state interest.”
294. Assuming these two interests qualify as “very substantial state interests”, for the sake of
argument, the first argument would travel along the lines of urban areas being disadvantaged in some
way and therefore additional funding is necessary to further the interest of enhancing the electorate’s
franchise. The policy of allowing the injection of private monies (with strings attached) into election
administration is not a substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
76
As has been demonstrated herein, the areas that received these grants are the areas that effectuated
arguably the worst civil rights violations the Commonwealth has ever seen. These are the areas that
prohibited poll watchers and mail-in ballot observers, destroyed ballot chain of custody, had poll
workers electioneering and threatening watchers, counted illegal ballots, experienced anomalous vote
spikes, exhibited over-votes, and ‘lost’ election materials. Respondents will not be able to show that
allowing the injection of private monies into the Commonwealth’s election administration is a
substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise. They have, however,
demonstrated that it is a substantially effective and precise means of rigging an election.
295. The second argument would essentially have to assert that allowing the injection of
private monies into election administration is a substantially effective and precise means of protecting
public health. The provisions contained in these grant agreements primarily relate to election
administration, not public health, and include claw back provisions, all of which cannot reasonably be
asserted are substantially effective and precise means of achieving the stated goal. The dictates of the
agreements require additional election workers and additional locations. Everything the State has done
thus far in the name of public health, based on science, has been shut-down oriented. The State has
been in ‘telework status’ since March of 2019. Moreover, if election workers fell ill and the election
locations required by the grant had to close, it would put the municipalities in default subject to the
claw back provision which would result in an even worse situation in regard to the municipality being
able to provide for the public health. It cannot logically be said that allowing the injection of private
monies into exclusively urban areas for election administration is a substantially effective or precise
means of protecting the public health.
297. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that allowing the
injection of private funds for election administration with strings attached is narrowly tailored to the
77
purpose of promoting the electorate’s franchise. For example, a narrowly tailored policy would simply
provide for a public awareness campaign, debates, or pushing out reminders for deadlines, with state
funds - not allowing urban municipalities to accept large sums of money to open and staff election
offices in violation of state law, on a contingent basis. It’s hard to argue that any sort of program with a
claw back provision is narrowly tailored.
298. Similarly, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that allowing the injection of
private funds with strings attached is narrowly tailored to the purpose of promoting public health. For
example, a narrowly tailored policy would simply provide for private funding of PPE, or telework
equipment, with no strings attached, unrelated to enhancing voter registration or turnout. It’s quite an
uphill battle to say that a policy is narrowly tailored, especially to the purposes of protecting public
health, when it requires that many employees be hired to staff many physical locations, subject to a
claw back provision upon violation.
example, public funds, of which there were a surplus, could have been equitably distributed amongst
the Counties to enhance the electorate’s franchise by funding awareness campaigns, debates, or
reminders, and protecting public health by funding PPE for election workers. All of which would have
been a substantially more effective and precise means of effectuating the goals of enhancing the
electorate’s franchise or promoting public health.
Count VI – Opportunity and Ease of Voting
301. To be brief, Count VI of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review is substantially similar
to Count V, but the equal protection violation is discrete.
78
302. There was one drop box in York County and it was located outside the County Board of
Elections.
303. CTCL grants provided funding for, and required, many more polling locations.
304. Petitioner was classified by Respondents, in effect, as a non-urban voter.
305. Respondents conferred urban voters the benefit of having increased opportunity and
ease of voting, to the exclusion of Petitioner.
306. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of having decreased opportunity and
ease of voting, to the exclusion of urban voters.
307. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional, as evidenced by Philadelphia’s
CTCL grant agreement, which shows that Respondent Wolf was aware of the circumstances surrounding
election administration in Philadelphia. Moreover, it is not coincidental that the urban areas which were
allowed to receive private grant money tend to vote Democrat, while the rest of the state, including
York County where Petitioner resides, do not.
(emphasis added).
79
Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).
314. There are two not-so plausible arguments that Respondents may advance for allowing
the injection of private monies (with strings attached) into Pennsylvania elections so that urban voters
have increased opportunity and ease of voting. The first relates to enhancing the franchise of the
electorate, which is not a state interest, let alone a “very substantial state interest”. Preliminarily, if that
were a very substantial State interest, Respondents would have to explain why the policy was enacted
by a third-party rather than by the State itself. Further, in advancing such an argument, Respondents
would be asserting that it is not a “very substantial state interest” to maintain control over election
administration and uphold and enforce the law, including the United States Constitution. Finally, in
80
advancing such an argument, Respondents would also be asserting that certain voters are more equal
than others, and would be arguing that allowing the injection of private monies into election
administration to enhance the franchise of urban voters is more important than Petitioner’s franchise
and his Fourteenth amendment right to equal protection.
Respondents would be asserting that allowing the injection of private monies into election
administration for public health reasons is a very substantial state interest that takes precedence over
maintaining control over election administration and upholding and enforcing the law, including the
United States Constitution. Preliminarily, if that were a very substantial State interest, Respondents
would have to explain why the policy was enacted by a third-party rather than by the State itself.
Respondents would also be asserting that the health of election workers in certain counties takes
precedence over the health of others. The preferential and illogical treatment of certain election
workers on the purported basis of public health is not a “very substantial state interest.”
317. Assuming these two interests qualify as “very substantial state interests”, for the sake of
argument, the first argument would travel along the lines of urban areas being disadvantaged in some
way and therefore additional funding is necessary to further the interest of enhancing the electorate’s
franchise. The policy of allowing the injection of private monies (with strings attached) into election
administration is not a substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
As has been demonstrated herein, the areas that received these grants are the areas that effectuated
arguably the worst civil rights violations the Commonwealth has ever seen. These are the areas that
prohibited poll watchers and mail-in ballot observers, destroyed ballot chain of custody, had poll
workers electioneering and threatening watchers, counted illegal ballots, experienced anomalous vote
spikes, exhibited over-votes, and ‘lost’ election materials. Respondents will not be able to show that
81
allowing the injection of private monies into the Commonwealth’s election administration is a
substantially effective or precise means of enhancing the electorate’s franchise.
318. The second argument would essentially have to assert that allowing the injection of
private monies into election administration is a substantially effective and precise means of protecting
public health. The provisions contained in these grant agreements primarily relate to election
administration, not public health, and include claw back provisions, all of which cannot reasonably be
asserted are substantially effective and precise means of achieving the stated goal. The dictates of the
agreements require additional election workers and additional locations. Everything the State has done
thus far in the name of public health, based on science, has been shut-down oriented. The State has
been in ‘telework status’ since March of 2019. Moreover, if election workers fell ill and the election
locations required by the grant had to close, it would put the municipalities in default subject to the
claw back provision which would result in an even worse situation in regard to the municipality being
able to provide for the public health. It cannot logically be said that allowing the injection of private
monies into exclusively urban areas for election administration is a substantially effective or precise
means of protecting the public health.
320. Taking it a step further, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that allowing the
injection of private funds for election administration with strings attached is narrowly tailored to the
purpose of promoting the electorate’s franchise. For example, a narrowly tailored policy would simply
provide for a public awareness campaign, or putting on debates, or pushing out reminders for deadlines,
with state funds. Not, allowing urban municipalities to accept large sums of money to open and staff
election offices in violation of state law, on a contingent basis.
321. Similarly, for the sake of argument, it cannot be asserted that allowing the injection of
private funds with strings attached is narrowly tailored to the purpose of promoting public health. For
82
example, a narrowly tailored policy would simply provide for private funding of PPE, or telework
equipment, with no strings attached, unrelated to enhancing voter registration or turnout. It’s quite an
uphill battle to say that a policy is narrowly tailored, especially to the purposes of protecting public
health, when it requires that many employees be hired to staff many physical locations, subject to a
claw back provision upon violation. As a second example, setting legality aside, an example of a narrowly
tailored policy would be to allow for a public-private partnership to fund just drop boxes, no strings
attached.
example, public funds, of which there were a surplus, could have been equitably distributed amongst
the Counties to enhance the electorate’s franchise by funding awareness campaigns, debates, or
reminders, and protecting public health by funding PPE for election workers. All of which would have
been a substantially more effective and precise means of effectuating the goals of enhancing the
electorate’s franchise for promoting public health.
Count VII – Equal Protection – Right to Freedom of Association
324. Petitioner has a fundamental First Amendment right to Freedom of Association.
325. The test for determining whether a particular right is fundamental is whether the right is
“explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.” San Antonio Ind. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 1, 33-34 (1973).
326. “Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was
considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government based upon the
consent of an informed citizenry – a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the
83
preservation of liberty. U.S. Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association
for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States.” Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-523,
(1960).
327. “Justice Kennedy explained the First Amendment association injury deriving from a
partisan gerrymander in his concurring opinion in Vieth, 541 U.S. 267. Representative democracy, Justice
Kennedy pointed out, is today unimaginable without the ability of citizen to band together to advance
their political beliefs.” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) (Kagan, J., concurring).
328. “That means significant First Amendment concerns arise when a State purposely
subjects a group of voters or their party to disfavored treatment.” Id.
329. “The right of association, like the right of belief, is more than the right to attend a
meeting; it includes the right to express one’s attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by
affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion,
and, while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment, its existence is necessary in making the
express guarantees fully meaningful.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965).
330. Petitioner is not a Democrat and does not share the political beliefs of the Democrat
Party.
331. Respondents classified Petitioner, in effect, as a non-Democrat.
332. Respondents imposed upon Petitioner the burden of being unable to elect a candidate
who will advance his political beliefs, to the exclusion of Democrats.
333. Respondents conferred Democrats the benefit of being able to elect a candidate that
will advance their political beliefs, to the exclusion of Petitioner.
84
334. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional. As detailed herein, Democrats
knew that Democrat voters would predominantly vote by mail-in and absentee ballot, and as it turns
out, they overwhelmingly did, as reflected in the Department of State’s data.
335. In furtherance of ensuring a Democrat victory in the 2020 Presidential race, Democrat
organizations, including the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania, initiated friendly lawsuits against the
Democrat Secretary Kathy Boockvar. Respondents even petitioned for, and successfully invoked,
extraordinary “King’s Bench jurisdiction” in furtherance of advancing discriminatory policies that benefit
Democrats.
336. These lawsuits resulted in the 5-2 (or perhaps 6-1) Democrat supermajority Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania judicially re-writing the Election Code and usurping the Constitutionally prescribed
role of the Legislature - often in spite of protest from the Legislature.
337. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania allowed county boards of election to utilize drop
boxes and satellite offices; allowed mail ballots to be counted after the date and time provided by the
Election Code; established the presumption that a ballot was timely if its postmark was illegible or
entirely missing; negated signature verification for mail-in and absentee ballots; negated the ability of
third-parties to challenge mail-in and absentee ballots for any reason; held that mail-in and absentee
voters don’t have to “fill out” the envelope as explicitly required by the Election Code because the term
“fill out” is ambiguous; and held that there was no right to meaningfully observe the canvassing of mail-
in and absentee ballots.
338. Essentially, Respondents succeeded in negating laws which would invalidate mail-in
votes that overwhelming went to the Democrat Presidential candidate.
339. Respondents provided Democrat non-government organizations such as Rock the Vote
direct access to Pennsylvania’s voter registration database.
85
340. Respondents allowed non-government organizations associated with Google and
Facebook Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to flood money into Democrat areas of the Commonwealth in
order to take control of election administration, boost Democrat voter registration, turn out the
Democrat vote in the election, take over the counting of the votes, exclude any opposition, and ensure
Democrat political victory.
341. The evidence shows Respondents mandated the use of rigged voting systems to ensure
Democrat victories.
342. Respondents changed the election data after the election to cover their tracks.
343. Respondents facilitated the casting of illegal votes, the counting of illegal votes, the
illegal curing of votes, the illegal altering of votes, and ultimately, illegally certified false election results.
right to associate, strict scrutiny is the applicable framework. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
345. Respondents’ conduct will not withstand strict scrutiny, and Petitioner will not belabor
the point.
Count VIII – Due Process – Right to Vote
347. When election practices reach “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” the
integrity of the election itself violates substantive due process. Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1077 (1st
Cir. 1978); Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 702 (5th Cir. 1981); Florida State Conference of N.A.A.C.P.
v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 2008); Roe v. State of Ala. By & Through Evans, 43 F.3d
574, 580-82 (11th Cir. 1995); Roe v. State of Ala., 68 F.3d 404, 407 (11th Cir. 1995); Marks v. Stinson, 19
F.3d 873, 878 (3rd Cir. 1994).
348. The absence of meaningful safeguards in an election violates the Due Process Clause.
Specifically, the three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions taken together (a) prohibit signature
86
verification by the boards of election and any third-party challenges to them, (b) remove the
requirement that voters fill out their address and date mail ballots, and (c) deny candidates their
statutory rights to meaningfully observe and challenge mail-in ballots, eliminated all meaningful
safeguards designed to protect against fraud in the mail-in ballot process – which has long been
recognized as the voting method most prone to fraud.
349. Petitioner has demonstrated that he was intentionally deprived of his fundamental right
to vote, by Respondents, who are officers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that Respondents
did not have adequate justification for their actions. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
350. Petitioner has demonstrated that he will prevail on the merits of this Fourteenth
Amendment Substantive Due Process claim.
Count IX – Due Process – Right to Freedom of Association
351. “Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was
considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government based upon the
consent of an informed citizenry – a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the
preservation of liberty. U.S. Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association
for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States.” Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-523,
(1960).
352. As detailed at length herein, Respondents deprived Petitioner of the ability to elect a
candidate who will advance his ideas and resolve his grievances.
353. Petitioner has demonstrated that he was intentionally deprived of his fundamental right
to associate, by Respondents, who are officers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that
Respondents did not have adequate justification for their actions. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
(1976).
87
354. Petitioner has demonstrated that he will prevail on the merits of this Fourteenth
Amendment Substantive Due Process claim.
Count X – First Amendment Freedom of Association Claim
355. “Justice Kennedy explained the First Amendment association injury deriving from a
partisan gerrymander in his concurring opinion in Vieth, 541 U.S. 267. Representative democracy, Justice
Kennedy pointed out, is today unimaginable without the ability of citizen to band together to advance
their political beliefs.” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) (Kagan, J., concurring).
356. “That means significant First Amendment concerns arise when a State purposely
subjects a group of voters or their party to disfavored treatment.” Id.
357. Petitioner, as a non-member and non-supporter of the Democrat party and their
ideology, was purposely subjected to disfavored treatment by the Respondents, as detailed at length
herein.
358. Respondents did not have adequate justification for their actions.
359. “As so formulated, the associational harm of a partisan gerrymander is distinct from
vote dilution. Consider an active member of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin who resides in a district
that a partisan gerrymander has left untouched (neither packed nor cracked). His individual vote carries
no less weight than it did before. But if the gerrymander ravaged the party he works to support, the he
indeed suffers harm, as do all other involved members of that party. This is the kind of burden to a
group of voters’ representational rights Justice Kennedy spoke of. Members of the ‘disfavored party’ in
the State, deprived of their natural political strength by a partisan gerrymander, may face difficulties
fundraising, registering voters, attracting volunteers, generating support from independents, and
recruiting candidates to run for office (not to mention eventually accomplishing their policy objectives).”
Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) (Kagan, J., concurring).
88
360. Petitioner has demonstrated that he will prevail on the merits of this First Amendment
Freedom of Association claim and he will not belabor the point.
Preliminary Injunction
361. Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate where necessary to restore the parties to
their status immediately prior to the wrongful conduct of which the movant complains. Commonwealth
v. Coward, 414 A.2d 91, 99 (Pa. 1980).
362. “The status quo to be maintained by a preliminary injunction is the last, actual,
peaceable, and lawful uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Valley Forge
Historical Soc’y v. Washington Mem’l Chapel, 426 A.2d 1123, 1129 (Pa. 1981).
363. A preliminary injunction is usually restrictive and prohibitory, but in unusual cases, it
may go beyond restraint and command action. Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen’s Club, 522 A.2d 1129,
1131 (Pa. Super. 1987).
364. There can be no doubt that this is an unusual case.
365. Under Pennsylvania law there are six essential prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.
366. First, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that an injunction is necessary
to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1001 (Pa. 2003).
367. Petitioner has shown that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent immediate,
flagrant, and irreparable harm to his Constitutional rights. Such harm literally cannot be compensated by
damages, and preliminary injunctive relief is absolutely essential for the preservation of Petitioner’s
Constitutional rights.
368. Second, the party must show that a greater injury would result from refusing an
injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, that issuance of an injunction will not substantially
harm other interested parties in the proceedings. Id.
89
369. To refuse this Application would be to eviscerate the Constitution and ratify
Respondents’ assertion that Petitioner’s civil rights are meaningless. It is indisputable that a greater
harm would result from refusing a preliminary injunction than from granting it.
370. Respondents will suffer no harm whatsoever if a preliminary injunction were granted.
Respondents should not have certified the election in the first place, and they actually violated the law
by doing so. 127
371. The electoral votes that were certified, cast, and counted were unconstitutional, as
detailed herein and further evinced by Senator Corman’s letter to Congress.
372. And, the Commonwealth is exposed to no monetary loss if the requested preliminary
injunction were granted, which is why Petitioner is requesting that the Court Order Petitioner to deposit
$5 legal tender with the Prothonotary pursuant to Pa.R.C.P §1531(b)(2).
373. Requiring Respondents to retract a wrongful act cannot cause harm to the Respondents.
374. Third, the party must show that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties
to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.
375. The last, actual, peaceable, and lawful uncontested status was the status that preceded
Respondent Wolf certifying the election and executing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Certificate
of Ascertainment of Presidential Electors and the issuance of certificates of election to the Presidential
Electors for Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris.128 A preliminary injunction commanding Respondent
Wolf to de-certify the election, withdraw the Certificate Ascertainment of Presidential Electors,
withdraw the certificates of election issued to the Presidential Electors for Joseph R. Biden and Kamala
D. Harris, and to refrain from re-certifying and re-issuing any election certificates pending further order
127
25 P.S. § 3154
128
https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-pennsylvania.pdf
90
of Court, would restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful
conduct.
376. Fourth, the party seeking an injunction must show that the activity it seeks to restrain is
actionable, that its right to relief is clear, and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words, must show
that it is likely to prevail on the merits. Id.
377. The evidence is overwhelming. Petitioner has conclusively demonstrated that he is
likely, if not certain, to prevail on each and every Count. Petitioner would prevail on Counts I & II, which
are egregious, simply by issuing Respondent Boockvar a Notice to Attend.
378. Fifth, the party must show that the injunction it seeks is reasonably suited to abate the
offending activity. Id.
379. A preliminary injunction does nothing more than restore the parties to the last, actual,
peaceable, and lawful uncontested status preceding Respondent Wolf’s illegal certification of clearly
false election results obtained in direct violation of Petitioner’s civil rights and the United States
Constitution. It is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity.
380. Sixth and finally, the party seeking an injunction must show that a preliminary injunction
will not adversely affect the public interest. Id.
381. It would adversely affect the public interest if the requested preliminary injunction were
not granted. That’s not to say it will be popular, doing the right thing rarely is, but it would nevertheless
serve to protect the public from their unwitting subjugation and to preserve this great Republic.
382. The evidence shows that the Democrat Governor, with the help of his Democrat
Secretary of State, the Democrat Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Democrat Attorney General, and
Democrat municipalities, successfully executed on a plan to steal this election. The Democrat candidate
who purportedly won, Joseph R. Biden, confessed, on video, to having put together the most extensive
91
and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.129 After the fact, the Democrat
Governor asserted that those who question the election are misleading the people. The Democrat Lt.
Governor asserted that citizens do not have the right to speak about Democrats having stolen the
election.130
383. The most troubling aspect of this situation is that not only does the evidence show the
Democrats working in concert, but it shows that they had support from third-party non-government
organizations131 132, the media133, social media134 135 136 137, large corporations138, the Chinese Communist
Party, and oligarchs139, such as George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg. Hunter Biden, the son of the soon-
to-be President of the United States, recorded himself admitting to working with a Chinese spy chief.140
They even telegraphed their plan in advance141 142 143, and moreover, evidence is beginning to mount
showing that the pretext for adopting expanded or universal mail-in voting, the primary means of
stealing the election, may not have originated as the media has thus far asserted.144
384. It’s not surprising that oligarch Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want people talking about the
election, the evidence shows he clearly played a pivotal role in it. As did oligarch George Soros, who
129
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-
voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/
130
https://hbg100.com/2021/01/15/lt-gov-fetterman-idea-of-rigged-or-stolen-election-is-not-protected-speech-
and-should-be-deleted-on-social-media/
131
https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project
132
https://ballotpedia.org/Democracy_Alliance
133
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/cnn-biden-blackout/
134
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/twitter-hires-ccp-fei-fei-li/
135
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/politics/2021/01/18/twitter-senior-executive-details-plans-for-
political-censorship-on-a-global-scale/
136
https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/biden-facebook-team/
137
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/facebook-removed-profiles-biden-request/
138
https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/fb-tech-conference-china/
139
https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis/cortes-republic-or-oligarchy/
140
https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/biden-recording-spy-chief-and-sdny/
141
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/soros-coup-playbook-street-fight/
142
https://thenationalpulse.com/?s=transition+integrity+project
143
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/transition-integrity-project-linked-to-obama-lawyers-hunter-biden/
144
https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/pompeo-reveals-intel-that-may-link-china-lab-to-covid-19/
92
fancies himself a god145, and who owns a mansion not too far from the USPS facility where Jesse Morgan
received a trailer full of mail-in ballots, and who hired the former Chairman of a certain voting machine
company to run his non-government organization.146 147 148
385. Americans speak with their votes. It has been said that the right of suffrage is a
“fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370
(1885). The evidence shows that the American people were silenced. The evidence shows they were
silenced by a small group of individuals hell-bent on re-taking power. Issuing the requested preliminary
injunction will not adversely affect the public interest because it will serve to preserve all rights of the
American people.
386. Petitioner respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue a preliminary injunction
without a hearing as provided by Pa.R.C.P §1531(a). It is absolutely essential for the preservation of
Petitioner’s constitutional rights, and it can’t be said that Petitioner hasn’t diligently been requesting a
hearing for weeks.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a Preliminary
Injunction commanding Respondent Wolf to de-certify the 2020 General Election, withdraw the
Certificate Ascertainment of Presidential Electors, withdraw the certificates of election issued to the
Presidential Electors for Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris, and to refrain from re-certifying and re-
issuing any election related certificates pending further order of Court; and any other command which
would restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct.
Additionally, Petitioner respectfully requests this court Order Petitioner to deposit $5 legal tender with
145
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-04-oe-ehrenfeld4-story.html
146
https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/george-soros-house/view/google/
147
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/soros-linked-smartmatic-chair-on-dominion/
148
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are/leadership/mark-malloch-brown
93
the Prothonotary pursuant to Pa.R.C.P §1531(b)(2), and schedule a preliminary hearing within the time
provided by Pa.R.C.P §1531(d).
Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of January, 2020.
By: /s/ Andrew Ioannidis

457 Pleasant View Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
ioannidisLaw@gmail.com
908-268-7571
Attorney ID: 326060
Petitioner
94
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREW IOANNIDIS, :
: 635 MD 2020
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
TOM WOLF, in his official capacity as :
Governor of the Commonwealth of :
Pennsylvania :
:
KATHY BOOKVAR, in her official capacity :
as Secretary of the Commonwealth of :
Pennsylvania :
:
Respondents :
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements contained in the foregoing Emergency Application for Preliminary
Injunction are true and correct to the best of my knowledge in part and information and belief in
part. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of January, 2021.
By: /s/ Andrew Ioannidis

457 Pleasant View Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
ioannidisLaw@gmail.com
908-268-7571
Petitioner
Attorney ID: 326060
95

Emergency Application For Preliminary Injunction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Emergency Application For Preliminary Injunction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emergency Application For Preliminary Injunction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received 1/19/2021 7:25:35 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Filed 1/19/2021 7:25:00 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

and avers as follows:

Mandamus and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Petitioner’s emergency application on December 28, recognizing it as an application for reconsideration.

reconsideration, and struck Petitioner’s misfiled Petitions for Review.

1028(c)(1). This emergency application for preliminary injunction ensues.

jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1).

the United States. 25 P.S. § 3191.

121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000) (per curiam).

and injured his fundamental right to vote by classification.

personal in nature.” Id. 377 U.S. at 561.

United States Constitution, which is a legally recognized protectable interest.

and injured his fundamental right to associate by classification.

10. Petitioner has a Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

11. Petitioner has a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

F.2d 157, 163 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

transmitted those votes to the President of the Senate.1

Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina.

was inaugurated on March 4, 1877.2 3

Biden as President and Kamala D. Harris as Vice-President of the United States.

ascertainment, is 80,555 votes.4

uncertain or contingent, is if this Honorable Court grants review.

26. Respondents will suffer no harm whatsoever if review is granted.

due process, and his fundamental rights to vote and associate.

discriminate against Petitioner.

pursuant to the Administrative Code. The Secretary is an agent of the Governor.7

Count I of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review – Signature Verification

31. Petitioner is a qualified voter in Pennsylvania.

35. Petitioner signed a poll book in order to vote.

book as provided by 25 P.S. §3050(a.3)(2).9

be disqualified unless he produced the evidence required by 25 P.S. §3050(d).

probably because Section 1308(g)(3) and 1302-D(c) clearly state otherwise.

and the Supreme Court obliged.

based solely on signature analysis.”11

General Election, 2020 WL 6252803 (Pa. Oct. 23, 2020).

whether the signature on the voter certificate is genuine.” Id.

imprecise standards.” Id.

was classified facially by Respondents as a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.

a non-mail-in and non-absentee voter.

was discriminated against.

54. Respondents’ discriminatory conduct was intentional.

initiated litigation to affirm and advance the discriminatory policy.

General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986).

Bumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, (1972).

personal in nature.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561.

candidate Jo Jorgensen received 24,783, according to the Department of State’s website.

prevail on the merits.

disqualification pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3050(a.4)(5)(i).

Petitioner will prevail on the merits.

Count II of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review – Third Party Challenges

3050(a.3)(2) & 3050(d).

required by 25 P.S. § 3050(d).

the basis of their qualifications. 25 P.S. § 2687(b).16 17

“Guidance Concerning Voter Privacy at the Polling Place.”18