United States

DOJ Letter Threatening Arizona Senate Audit – Chilling Effect on Legal Counsel (AZ)

Arizona, Featured, Intimidation, Judicial Malfeasance, Lawfare, Reasonable Inference, United States, Weaponization of Government /

Reasonable Inference The U.S. Department of Justice, through its Deputy Assistant Attorney General, transmitted a letter to Arizona Senate Majority Leader Karen Fann explicitly attempting to halt the Arizona Senate’s legislatively authorized forensic audit of Maricopa County election systems. This federal intrusion into a state legislative oversight function – using DOJ letterhead and implying federal

DOJ Letter Threatening Arizona Senate Audit – Chilling Effect on Legal Counsel (AZ) Read More »

Politically-Biased Pre-Election Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Changes – Election Rule Modifications Made Without Legislative Authorization (PA)

Judicial Malfeasance, Lawfare, Pennsylvania, Reasonable Inference, United States /

Reasonable Inference [Reasonable Inference – Appearance of impartiality concern] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a series of 2020 pre-election orders, extended mail ballot receipt deadlines (to November 6 for ballots postmarked by November 3), altered ballot-curing procedures, and modified signature-verification requirements – changes that were made by judicial order rather than by the legislature, which

Politically-Biased Pre-Election Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Changes – Election Rule Modifications Made Without Legislative Authorization (PA) Read More »

Pre-Election Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Changes – Election Rule Modifications Made Without Legislative Authorization (PA)

Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Lawfare, Pennsylvania, United States /

Established Fact [Established Fact – Orders were issued; legislative authority was not invoked] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a series of 2020 pre-election orders, extended mail ballot receipt deadlines (to November 6 for ballots postmarked by November 3), altered ballot-curing procedures, and modified signature-verification requirements – changes that were made by judicial order rather than

Pre-Election Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rule Changes – Election Rule Modifications Made Without Legislative Authorization (PA) Read More »

Dominion Cease-and-Desist Campaign – Systemic Chilling of Election Integrity Speech and Litigation (US)

Judicial Malfeasance, Lawfare, Reasonable Inference, United States /

Reasonable Inference The law firm Clare Locke, LLP, transmitted more than 150 cease-and-desist letters nationally on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems, including more than 30 to Michigan citizens, targeting private individuals who had publicly cited evidence of election irregularities involving Dominion systems. It is reasonable to infer that this campaign had a chilling effect upon

Dominion Cease-and-Desist Campaign – Systemic Chilling of Election Integrity Speech and Litigation (US) Read More »

Prohibition of evidence introduction in Coomer v Lindell (CO)

Colorado, Court Procedure, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact Defense counsel advocated for the admission of a broad range of evidence that Lindell relied on in forming his beliefs, including documentary films, news clips, expert reports, and social media posts about election security vulnerabilities—not just regarding Dr. Coomer, but also general warnings from public officials and election security experts. The defense specifically

Prohibition of evidence introduction in Coomer v Lindell (CO) Read More »

Prejudiced Jury Instructions in Coomer v Lindell (CO)

Colorado, Court Procedure, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact At trial in Coomer v. Lindell, the defense preserved multiple objections to the jury instructions as issued by Judge Wang. The defense objected that the adverse inference instruction regarding Tina Peters’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment improperly attributed inferences from a non-agent third party to Lindell, potentially prejudicing the jury’s view of him.

Prejudiced Jury Instructions in Coomer v Lindell (CO) Read More »

Prohibition of evidence introduction in Tina Peters Prosecution (CO)

Colorado, Court Procedure, Disputed Fact, Featured, Judicial Malfeasance, Mesa County, United States /

Disputed Fact At trial, the court excluded evidence of Tina Peters’ asserted statutory duty to preserve federal election records under 52 U.S.C. § 20701, her claimed belief that the May 2021 “Trusted Build” software installation would destroy those records, and her motive for arranging the forensic imaging of Mesa County’s Dominion election equipment server. The

Prohibition of evidence introduction in Tina Peters Prosecution (CO) Read More »

Prejudiced Jury Instructions in Tina Peters Prosecution (CO)

Colorado, Court Procedure, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Mesa County, United States /

Disputed Fact In People v. Peters, the Colorado Court of Appeals identified a constitutional error in Tina Peters’ sentencing: the trial court had imposed a lengthier sentence based in part on Peters’ post-offense public statements about election fraud rather than solely on her criminal conduct, violating the First Amendment principle that “a sentence based to

Prejudiced Jury Instructions in Tina Peters Prosecution (CO) Read More »

Wayne County Chief Judge routed all election cases to himself (MI)

Court Procedure, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States, Wayne County /

Established Fact Denied plaintiffs in civil lawsuits the opportunity to obtain a fair and unbiased trial. Judge Kenny presided over 2 election cases – Costantino v City of Detroit and Stoddard et al. v City Election Commission of the City of Detroit. He did not allow plaintiffs to pursue discovery in either case. By directing

Wayne County Chief Judge routed all election cases to himself (MI) Read More »

Near-Universal Denial of Discovery in Technically Complex Election Cases (US)

Court Procedure, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact In the vast majority of cases characterized as merits decisions, plaintiffs operated without access to any meaningful discovery process-unable to subpoena election records, machine logs, chain-of-custody documentation, or tabulation data. Plaintiffs were limited to affidavits, expert reports, and publicly available statistics, which courts then found insufficient. The structural asymmetry-election officials testifying how elections

Near-Universal Denial of Discovery in Technically Complex Election Cases (US) Read More »