Court Procedure

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, 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 »

Disparate Pleading Standards and Punitive Page Limits in King v. Whitmer (MI)

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

Disputed Fact While plaintiffs faced extreme judicial hostility for technical pleading errors and affidavits deemed hearsay without the benefit of any discovery to prove them, the court accommodated defendants’ aggressive litigation tactics-allowing the City of Detroit to file a 38-page brief explicitly seeking sanctions and disbarment against plaintiffs’ attorneys, prioritizing punitive procedural action over evidentiary

Disparate Pleading Standards and Punitive Page Limits in King v. Whitmer (MI) Read More »

Credibility Determinations Without Cross-Examination in Costantino v. Detroit (MI)

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

Established Fact Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny denied a preliminary injunction by making definitive credibility findings without an evidentiary hearing. He summarily dismissed sworn affidavits from multiple Republican poll challengers as “incorrect and not credible” while heavily crediting a single defense affidavit from Christopher Thomas, entirely bypassing the adversarial process of cross-examination. No

Credibility Determinations Without Cross-Examination in Costantino v. Detroit (MI) Read More »

Reversal of Discovery Authorization in Fulton County Ballot Inspection Case (GA)

Court Procedure, Established Fact, Georgia, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Established Fact In Favorito et al. v. Wan et al. (Henry County Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2020CV343938), Judge Brian Amero on May 21, 2021 entered an order purporting to unseal approximately 147,000 Fulton County absentee ballots for forensic inspection. The unsealing, however, was expressly contingent on the court issuing a further order establishing protocols

Reversal of Discovery Authorization in Fulton County Ballot Inspection Case (GA) Read More »

Prevention of discovery limited access to information necessary to prove election fraud (US)

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

Disputed Fact Only 3 of the “64 lawsuits” featured any discovery that would provide plaintiffs with access to materials otherwise not available to the general public. Of those 3, only 1 (Bailey v Antrim County) offered any substantive discovery. Notably, in his oral opinion that closed the case, Judge Kevin Elsenheimer specifically stated: “By deciding

Prevention of discovery limited access to information necessary to prove election fraud (US) Read More »