100 Percent Fed Up reports – S
The suit states Wayne County election officials allowed illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent processing of votes cast in last Tuesday’s election. Numerous witnesses have filed sworn affidavits under oath attesting to the fraudulent activities they observed directly. These acts disenfranchised lawful voters and potentially changed the outcome of the election.
From the Great Lakes Justice Center filing:
An attorney and former Michigan Assistant Attorney General was a certified poll challenger at the TCF Center (Exhibit A – Affidavit of Zachary Larsen).
15. As Mr. Larsen watched the process, he was concerned that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was an eligible voter in the poll book because of information he had received from other poll challengers (Exhibit A).
16. Mr. Larsen reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system, where it appeared that the voter had already been counted as having voted. An official operating the computer then appeared to assign this ballot to a different voter as he observed a completely different name that was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed ballots on the right side of the screen (Exhibit A).
17. Mr. Larsen was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers indicated that a ballot was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll book or the supplemental poll book. From his observation of the computer screen, the voters were not in the official poll book. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters whose ballots he personally observed being scanned (Exhibit A).
18. Because of Mr. Larsen’s concern, he stepped behind the table and walked over to a spot behind where the first official was conducting her work. Understanding health concerns due to COVID-19, he attempted to stand as far away from this official as he reasonably could while also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes (Exhibit A).
19. As soon as Mr. Larsen moved to a location where he could observe the process by which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first official immediately stopped working and glared at him. He stood still until she began to loudly and aggressively tell him that he could not stand where he was standing. She indicated that he needed to remain in front of the computer screen where he could not see what the worker was doing (Exhibit A).
20. Both officials then began to tell Mr. Larsen that because of COVID, he needed to be six feet away from the table. He responded that he could not see and read the supplemental poll book from six feet away, and that he was attempting to keep his distance to the extent possible (Exhibit A).
21. Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor had explained that the rules allowed Mr. Larsen to visually observe what he needed to see and then step back away. Likewise, on Election Day, he had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, he remained in a position to observe the supplemental poll book (Exhibit A).
22. Both officials indicated that Mr. Larsen could not remain in a position that would allow him to observe their activities; the officials indicated they were going to get their supervisor (Exhibit A).
23. When the supervisor arrived, she reiterated that Mr. Larsen was not allowed to stand behind the official with the supplemental poll book, and he needed to stand in front of the computer screen. Mr. Larsen told her that was not true, and that he was statutorily allowed to observe the process, including the poll book (Exhibit A).
24. The supervisor then pivoted to arguing that Mr. Larsen was not six feet away from the first official. Mr. Larsen told her that he was attempting to remain as far away as he could while still being able to read the names on the poll book (Exhibit A).
25. The supervisor then stood next to the chair immediately to the left of the first official and indicated that Mr. Larsen was “not six feet away from” the supervisor and that she intended to sit in the chair next to the official with the poll book, so he would need to leave (Exhibit A).
26. This supervisor had not been at the table at any time during the process, and she had responsibility for numerous ACVBs. Further, the supervisor’s choice of chairs was approximately three feet to the left of the first official and therefore in violation of the six-foot distance rule (Exhibit A).
27. Accordingly, Mr. Larsen understood that this was a ruse to keep him away from a place where he could observe the confirmation of names in the supplemental poll book. The supervisor began to repeatedly tell him that he “needed to leave” so he responded that he would go speak with someone else and fill out a challenge form (Exhibit A).
28. After Mr. Larsen observed and uncovered the fraud that was taking place and had the confrontation with the supervisor, he left the counting room to consult with another attorney about the matter around 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Exhibit A).
29. It was at this point that election officials stopped permitting any further poll challengers to enter the counting room, including Mr. Larsen (Exhibit A).
30. Election officials never allowed Mr. Larsen to re-enter the counting room to fulfill his duties as a poll challenger after he had discovered the fraud which was taking place.
Mr. Larsen’s experiences are not unique. Several GOP Poll Challengers, including myself, experienced the same or similar issues while attempting to witness absentee ballots’ processing and tabulation at the TCF Center in Detroit.