Judicial Malfeasance Analysis

1

31% of Election Cases Dismissed on Standing — Courts Never Reached the Evidence

Of 64 major post-2020 election cases, 20 (31%) were dismissed on standing or related procedural grounds, 14 (22%) were voluntarily withdrawn under Rule 11 sanctions threats, and only 30 (47%) were characterized as reaching the merits — a characterization that overstates substantive review because discovery was effectively absent even in so-called “merits” cases. Three of 64 cases permitted any discovery; one (Bailey v. Antrim County, MI) produced substantive discovery. In that lone case, the judge stated on record the county clerk “admitted there were challenges and problems” and closed the matter on remedial grounds, not absence of evidence. The durable public narrative that courts “found no evidence” is not what the docket shows — the evidence was never admitted. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley stated in writing that the 2020 rulings let “equity” override mandatory statutory requirements and created a framework in which unlawful procedures, implemented close enough to an election, always escape judicial review.

2

Ripeness-Mootness Trap Guaranteed No State Reached the Merits on Both Ends of the Election

In Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, courts deployed a bidirectional procedural bar: pre-election challenges to drop-box, absentee, and signature-verification procedures were dismissed as “not yet ripe,” and the identical post-election challenges were dismissed as “moot” once certification occurred. This sequence guaranteed that no court in those states ever adjudicated the constitutionality of the challenged procedures at either end of the election timeline. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in Trump v. Biden dismissed three of four claims on laches — and Waukesha County Circuit Court subsequently ruled in Teigen v. WEC that the drop boxes at the center of those dismissed claims were, in fact, illegal under Wisconsin law. The claims dismissed as procedurally untimely had substantive merit; the dismissal prevented that merit from ever being tested.

3

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Decided Case in Favor of Defendant Whose PAC Contributed $82,500 to Her Campaign

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s political fundraising entity, Michigan Legacy PAC, contributed $82,500 to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden’s campaign in April 2024 while Benson was the active named defendant in O’Halloran v. Benson — a case directly challenging the validity of Benson’s own election directives. Justice Bolden did not recuse and joined the August 2024 majority ruling in Benson’s favor. The contribution from a sitting defendant’s political apparatus to a sitting justice who then decided the case against that defendant’s challenger squarely implicates the due-process recusal standard established in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission declined to investigate; the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission declined discipline; the Michigan Supreme Court denied superintending control review on May 22, 2025 — leaving the pattern intact on the record.

4

Coordinated Attorney Sanctions and Disbarments Demonstrated That the Post-Election Legal Fail-Safe is Disarmable

Five of the most visible attorneys who filed 2020 election-integrity challenges — Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, Ellis, and DePerno — were subsequently disbarred, suspended, or referred for discipline. In King v. Whitmer, $175,250 in personal fee-shifting sanctions were imposed on plaintiffs’ counsel while the court simultaneously denied those attorneys any discovery to substantiate their pleadings. In Georgia, the state RICO statute was used to charge the drafting of legal memoranda and filing of a federal complaint as predicate criminal acts; all attorney-defendant RICO charges were dismissed in November 2025. The Sixth Circuit reversed the King v. Whitmer inherent-authority sanctions on First Amendment grounds; the Arizona Supreme Court overturned Maricopa sanctions in 2024. No comparable professional-discipline cascade followed the 62 federal suits filed after the 2016 election. What has been publicly demonstrated, at scale, is that the post-election legal-challenge system was probed across seven jurisdictions using every tool of professional discipline and criminal process — and bent.

5

Fulton County DA’s “Significant Appearance of Impropriety” and EOLDN Private Legal Defense Funded Resistance to Legislative Subpoenas

A sitting Fulton County Superior Court judge found that District Attorney Fani Willis created a “significant appearance of impropriety” through a personal financial relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired and paid $653,881 from public prosecution funds — in the largest state-level criminal prosecution arising from the 2020 election dispute. In Wisconsin, the Gableman Office of Special Counsel documented that the Election Officials Legal Defense Network, funded through channels linked to CEIR and the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, provided free legal counsel to Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine election officials, advising them to decline compliance with legislative subpoenas. Wisconsin’s election-bribery statute expressly prohibits giving “anything of value” to influence the performance of official duties; privately funded legal defense to resist legislative oversight falls within that statutory definition. The OSC investigation was simultaneously subjected to three Dane County Circuit Court lawsuits structured to exhaust its budget in litigation costs.