Ashe in America live-tweeted the Hanks v. Griswold hearing (Jena Griswold is the infamous Colorado Sec of State)... Griswold has been demonizing county clerks doing their job:
Attorney for the Plaintiffs is speaking now.
Attorney is arguing the destruction of records violates the statutes.
Also argued the certification process.
Connecting Griswold to Obama.
Claiming new evidence with the Elbert county image.
Asking for forensic audit of Elbert and Douglas.
Talking about what Tina Peters did — I imagine this is going the route of “we can compare Elbert and Mesa”
On standing: Must have suffered injury. May provide the requisite harm. Judge reading from a decision (Marks) against Sec Gessler (R) back in the day
Defense saying Marks is not relevant
Judge asks defense if they have an argument as to whether the system met the VSS 👀
(VSS = Voting Systems Standards)
I can’t believe this!!! He asked what the remedy is if true.
Defense: There’s lots of remedy with the Secretary of State.
Judge: If the Secretary fails to take action?
Judge: Does anyone other than the Secretary have standing and, if not why?
Defense: it has to be timely
WHOA.
Judge: so what’s the 35 day trigger?
Defense quoted statute that a verified petition would ...
State’s timing and standing arguments are destroyed by attorney Case!
Time limit is moot because Sec of State Griswold has repeatedly ignored evidence. She has the Mesa reports. Instead of investigating, she demonized clerk Peters, then clerk Schroeder, then clerk Klotz.
But didn’t look at the evidence.
Now he is arguing administrative procedures — Jena’s assumed emergency rules.
Clerks are harmed when the SecState deletes their Election Data
Jena has prohibited clerks from hiring experts (emergency rules) which requires the Clerks to trust the SOS office.
Attorney Case: “What is she hiding?”
Nailed it.
Secretary could have prevented this and failed to act. What were her motive?
Judge: so what’s the 35 day trigger?
Defense quoted statute that a verified petition would be an available remedy and the judge agreed.
Booooom!! #logfileslivesmatter
Sounds like the clerks are going to have standing.
Judge: Do you agree the clerks have the duty to hold the data for 22 months?
Defense: No
Judge: a little more specificity?
Defense: You’re asking me to expand upon their allegations.
Judge just took his glasses off. In my head, it’s a good sign 😆❤️
Judge says SecState doesn’t have responsibility to preserve data to preserve records.
Judge: if they have a duty how do they not have standing
Defense: The law provides they have a duty but they are filing under the Apa which has different regulations.
Going for the technicality approach.
Ok judge questions for Case now.
Defense declines to say anything
Defense rests.
Judge to Case: We’re here to determine if there is standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Claim on rules (6th judicial review) arguably constrains the clerk and recorders. Do you believe the commissioners have standing?
Case: Yes, because they purchase the equipment. Purchasing decision means they can be harmed
Judge: obligation ends at funding
Case: Duties and responsibilities… and DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Ok judge just said “oh actually, I understand your position.”
“Politics has no place in this courtroom and we will get to this as soon as possible.”
#recess
No comments:
Post a Comment