Clicky

Hearing To Ban Georgia's Dominion Voting System Marred By False AG Claims, Irrelevant Judge Interruptions

December 20, 2021
4 Comments
Views
Hearing To Ban Georgia's Dominion Voting System Marred By False AG Claims, Irrelevant Judge Interruptions

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR

In our 15th installment of our Georgia Election Integrity Series we explained how Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results (VOTERGA) and Rep. Philip Singleton filed a petition against the State of Georgia to permanently ban Georgia’s Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5 system.  The grounds are simple: Georgia’s system is unverifiable to the elector because it accumulates electors’ choices hidden in a Quick Response (QR) code that violates Georgia law. That finding comes directly from an October 11, 2020 U.S. District Court order in the Curling v. Raffensperger case. [pg. 81-82]

Georgia law is clear. Georgia’s voting system must:

“…print an elector verifiable paper ballot” [O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2(7.1]); 

“…produce paper ballots which are marked with the elector’s choices in a format readable by the elector” [O.C.G.A. § 21-2-300(a)(2]) 

Judge Amy Totenberg found in the Curling case:

“Plaintiffs and other voters who wish to vote in-person are required to vote on a system that does none of those things.”

On December 15th, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Esmond Adams held a hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss. The hearing began with Chris Carr’s Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Charlene McGowan arguing on behalf of the state to dismiss the complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity, laches and inadequate requested declaratory relief. All three of the arguments are based on the false claim that Petitioners want to challenge the original purchase of the system. In reality, the complaint simply seeks to ban the system from future use. Thus, there are no legitimate grounds to dismiss the case.

When it came time for Petitioner’s attorney Todd Harding to present his response, Judge Adams   interrupted him 8 times in 4 minutes with questions not relevant to the purpose of the hearing which was to consider the merits of the motion to dismiss. At the 20:00 minute mark of the hearing video, Adams went so far as to falsely accuse Harding of mischaracterizing Judge Totenberg’s ruling. Harding responded later in the hearing by quoting Judge Totenberg’s finding to her and referencing the above statutes that she cited as violations.

But the bizarre hearing was first marred by false claims from AAG McGowan. We think McGowan lied 3 times in the first 20 seconds and at least 14 times in her 12-minute argument but you watch the video and decide. Here is our point-by-point breakdown of the false statements and irrelevant interruptions.

AAG Charlene McGowan’s false statements:

02:10 False Statement #1

“Petitioners asked the court to enjoin the state’s electronic voting equipment that was selected by the General Assembly…

The General Assembly did not select voting equipment in HB316, the Secretary of State selected the specific, current voting system

02:20 False Statement #2

and replace the system with hand marked paper ballots”

The VoterGA petition asks the court to ban the system, it does not advocate for any specific replacement

02:25 False Statement #3

“Not only that, it is contrary to Georgia law”

The petition conforms to Georgia law that requires the system to “print an elector verifiable paper ballot that is “…marked with electors choices in a format readable by the elector.”

05:40 False Statement #4

Their complaint really comes down to the fact that the machine-readable code also exists on the paper ballots”

The petition does not complain that the machine-readable code exists on the paper, only that it contains voter choices that cannot be verified according to Georgia law

05:45 False Statement #5

“This is their entire argument. This is what the case is about”

The Petitioner’s “entire argument” is not related to the existence of the QR code but the illegality of the QR code containing voter choices as determined by the U.S. District Court 

06:30 False Statement #6

“The only sensible reading of the election code is there has to be some sort of machine readable coding on the paper ballot”

The election code does not require machine-readable coding on any ballot

06:40 False Statement #7

“The scanner has to read some sort of code”

A voting system scanner does not have to read some sort of QR code to tabulate votes. Two of the four voting systems proposed for Georgia use digital mark sense techniques for tabulation 

07:25 False Statement #8

The legislation really requires the use of a QR code”

The HB316 enabling legislation for Ballot Marking Devices does not require the use of a QR code

07:30 False Statement #9

“…there has to be a code that can be read by the scanners”

An electronic system of voting does not require a coding system because the scanner can use optical or digital character recognition to determine voter choices

07:50 False Statement #10

This is an unfounded concern because when the paper ballot is scanned by the scanner it then produces an audit report

The voter’s concern is legitimate because the voter has no access to the scanning “audit report” and thus it cannot provide a voter with any sense of security

09:45 False Statement #11

“…The Georgia system does comply with every relevant aspect of the election code”

The U.S. District Court already found that the Georgia system does not comply with two separate code sections of Georgia law: O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2(7.1), O.C.G.A. § 21-2-300(a)(2)

10:35 False Statement #12

“…There is no legal basis for any court to order counties to use paper ballots…

The Petitioners’ complaint seeks no mandatory remedy for hand marked paper ballots or other alternatives, it only seeks to ban the existing system that was found to be illegal

13:30 False Statement #13

There is no excuse for a t4wo-year delay in filing this action

The Petitioners’ waited only until a few months after Judge Totenberg found the system to be illegal when they filed their complaint

14:15 False Statement #14

“…the remedy that the Plaintiffs seek is simply not lawful

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-334 and O.C.G.A. § 21-2-366 provide lawful means of voting without relying on the current illegal voting system

Judge Adams’ Irrelevant Interruptions: 

15:50 Interrupt #1

Are you complaining about the system or complaining that it is not paper?

This is not a hearing for Petitioners’ complaint, it is about the merits of the state’s motion to dismiss

16:30 Interrupt #2

Doesn’t your argument totally ignore the evidence…?

No evidence has been introduced in the case yet because discovery has not been initiated

17:20 Interrupt #3

Isn’t the point of the text to provide notice to the voter as to what is contained in the QR code?

The question is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing

17:55 Interrupt #4

Question I have for you… Do you have any evidence that the summary does not purport …”

How can the Petitioners have evidence when discovery has not even been opened?

18:35 Interrupt #5

So you just disregard the technology… “

Technology is unrelated to the state’s motion that involves prospective relief sought by Petitioners

19:05 Interrupt #6

Again, it suggests that you are discounting the information that the voter receives which is a printout…”

Whether a voter receives a printout has nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing

19:30 Interrupt #7

So it sounds like you suggest that there is some type of intricate system…”

No intricate system is needed and this has nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing

20:05 Interrupt #8

I think you are misrepresenting Judge Totenberg’s ruling

Georgia law is clear. Georgia’s voting system must:

“…print an elector verifiable paper ballot” [O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2(7.1]); 

“…produce paper ballots which are marked with the elector’s choices in a format readable by the elector” [O.C.G.A. § 21-2-300(a)(2]) 

Judge Amy Totenberg found in the Curling case:

“Plaintiffs and other voters who wish to vote in-person are required to vote on a system that does none of those things.”

So who is misrepresenting Judge Totenberg’s ruling?

Propose order were submitted to the judge on Friday after the hearing and a ruling on the motion to dismiss is expected as early as this week.

CDMedia is being targeted and obviously too effective! We need your support to put more reporters in the field! Help us here!      

SHARE

4 comments on “Hearing To Ban Georgia's Dominion Voting System Marred By False AG Claims, Irrelevant Judge Interruptions”

  1. It is absolutely insane to expect a fair hearing from these America hating pieces of Filth. These Soros backed prosecutors and judges are not there to dispense Justice within our constitutional system. They are there to overturn our constitutional system, and Destroy Justice. They want to destroy America. That is the entire reason this woman is sitting on the bench. Not to comport with the Constitution. But, to destroy it.

  2. Vote by paper ballot
    The electronic interference with tallying operations are easily in violation of one person one vote

    Throw the machines away

    1. The cheating started the day they started using computers in the election. All for TV ratings, because people are too impatient to wait for the votes to be read and tallied correctly. Americans have allowed the beast to enter, but it's time to expel the beast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.