• True the Vote
  • Posts
  • New Filing by Lake and Finchem: 2020 and 2022 Elections in Maricopa “No More Reliable than a Ouija Board”

New Filing by Lake and Finchem: 2020 and 2022 Elections in Maricopa “No More Reliable than a Ouija Board”

Plaintiffs in a new motion filed by Attorney Kurt Olsen claim Maricopa County’s 2020 and 2022 elections “have not been shown to be any more reliable than a Ouija board.” Olsen, whose business has become protecting America’s elections, filed the Motion in Federal Court in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Kari Lake and Mark Finchem.

This filing revisits issues raised in the summer of 2022 regarding evidence of false statements on the part of Maricopa County and confirmation that the County’s machines were using uncertified, untested software in both 2020 and 2022.

Plaintiffs in the case now have evidence to claim the court dismissed a previous case that has now been discovered to have been based on “two false claims about the safeguards” that purportedly protected Maricopa County’s elections. The motion argues the Court made its decision based on EAC-certified machines and Logic and Accuracy testing (L & A testing) that were materially misrepresented by election officials in Maricopa County.

The filing states, “New evidence produced by Maricopa shows that Maricopa uses illegally altered election software that is neither EAC-certified nor certified for use in Arizona, thus violating A.R.S. §16-442(A)-(B). Further violating Arizona law, Maricopa does not conduct L&A testing on any tabulators actually used in its elections, thus violating A.R.S. §16-449(A)-(B).”

According to the motion, “The Court’s reliance on these two misrepresentations arose from Maricopa and the SoS—initially Katie Hobbs, now Adrian Fontes—repeating them at least fourteen times in briefing to the district court and this Court. Add:50a-53a (Exhibit A to Appellants’ April 2, 2024 letter to Appellees’ counsel). Moreover, in opposing Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Maricopa submitted the sworn testimony of its Co-Director of Maricopa Elections, Scott Jarrett, who testified to these two issues.”

The Article lll injuries are both demonstrably “imminent and particularized, not speculative and generalized,” according to the motion. Plaintiffs want the Court to “recall its previous mandate, reverse and remand” to hear the case expeditiously with the full evidence in hand.

According to the motion, “System log (“SLOG”) files show that Maricopa used illegally altered election software that” was neither certified by the EAC nor was it approved by the SoS. Additionally, “Maricopa did not perform L&A testing on any tabulators actually used in the elections.”

Clay Parikh, an expert witness in the case, stated in his declaration that “the Dominion election software Maricopa County used in the 2020 and 2022 General Elections is an uncertified home-brew version that inserts Democracy Suite software version 5.10 MBS into the approved and certified Democracy Suite 5.5B. This configuration has not been tested by the VSTL Pro V&V, nor been certified by the EAC, and has not been certified for use in Arizona by the Secretary of State.”

Below please find a screenshot of Parikh’s referenced software deficiency:

Pro V&V failed to validate or verify the tabulator election software/configuration which is stored on the tabulator memory cards, according to Parikh.

According to the case, Maricopa claims to have verified that it was the true and correct software by hashing the files. However, both Clay Parikh and Ben Cotton testified the software hash values do not match. If Maricopa did in fact perform hash validation, it proves they knew the software was altered.

In addition, Maricopa’s pre-election L&A testing was not conducted according to statute in “its vote center tabulators prior to the November 2020 election.” The County instead “tested only five spare tabulators.” The County did the same thing ahead of the 2022 election.

No corrections were ever filed by Maricopa even though they were asked to do so if needed. Therefore, the Court based its denial on unambiguous and materially false information. As a result of the false representations, Plaintiffs claim Maricopa County allegedly “committed fraud on the Court, calling into question the very legitimacy of the judgment.”

For this reason, Plaintiffs believe recalling the mandate is not only justified but warranted to restore justice. As the motion states, recalling a mandate is an “extraordinary remedy” that is used in “exceptional circumstances” where injustice has occurred. Maricopa County’s election misconduct violated due process and injured voters in the process. The motion continues,

“Exposing voters’ and candidates’ fundamental electoral rights to an unreliable, untested, and illegal system nullifies the right to vote, which is the type of “arbitrary or irrational’ government action that supports Article lll standing.”

Voters in Maricopa’s 2020 and 2022 elections were told to trust election machines. They were also told election officials properly maintained and tested them and “found them accurate.” It turns out the statements from Maricopa County officials were completely false. Maricopa not only failed to provide accurate, properly certified, and tested machines, but the County seems to have actively “covered up [the] facts.”