Last week we reported that Georgia’s creepy Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had petitioned the court to request that the state of Georgia not have to provide paper ballots in an audit requested and awarded by the court.
Advertisement - story continues below
Yesterday, creative destruction media, listed seven instances in Raffensperger’s letter that are just plain false:
- The brief falsely claims that Petitioners did not articulate legal justification to unseal the ballots while it totally ignores the most important point of relevant law that any court can unseal ballots for any reason under O.C.G.A. 21-2-500. If the controversies surrounding the Nov 3rd 2020 election do not justify reasons to unseal the ballots then what would?
- The brief falsely portrays the lawsuit as only Open Records Request Act claims when in reality, most are Equal Protection and Due Process claims that justify unsealing of the ballots as part of discovery for evidence to adjudicate the claims;
- The brief restates the oft-repeated false claims that there are overwhelming security and privacy issues involving the ballots. The ballots contain no voter identifiable information and will remain in the custody of Fulton Co. during the inspection according to the most recently filed inspection plan;
- The brief falsely implies that recently signed Act 9 of the Georgia General Assembly, passed as SB202, prevents ballots from being unsealed. No such language exists as any reader can see by reviewing the bill language or our analysis of it in the sixth installment of our Georgia Election Integrity series. A recent Raffensperger press release claimed he “worked with the Georgia legislature to make sure ballot images could be made available to the public for review” when in reality, his Elections Director Chris Harvey and legal counsel Ryan Germany misled county elections directors in Emails by falsely claiming the AG office had issued an opinion that ballot images could not be made public;
- The brief falsely attempts to use a 2007 Smith V. Dekalb case as precedent for ballot images when that case referenced the old DRE voting system that never produced paper ballot images.
- The brief falsely states that lawsuit contains “baseless” claims when the claims are actually based on four sworn affidavits from seasoned poll managers stating they handled counterfeit ballots during the November 14th and 15th hand count audit
- The brief falsely states that there was no unlawful activity at the State Farm Area when mail-in ballots were processed during the night of November 3rd and 4th 2020. The video shows a curved room that impaired monitor visibility, ballots being hidden under skirted tables, the same ballots being scanned more than once and scanning re-initiated after an announcement was made that scanning would stop for the night according to two sworn affidavits. All of these activities and conditions are violations of Georgia laws contrary to voting system implementation manager Gabriel Sterling who claimed it was “normal ballot processing” (O.C.G.A. 21-2-406, 21-2-483(b) 2-2-492, 21-2-493)
What is Raffensperger so scared about that he would intentionally disregard the truth in his letter to the court?