In an article posted at CD Media, there were many false statements and interruptions by the judge that showed she didn’t understand the case or subject matter.
CD Media reports today on the case:
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.
We reported on the hearing last week and noted that Judge Adams already made a ruling regarding the drop boxes in Georgia that was questionable at best. So it’s not surprising that she disregards or misunderstands the legalities in this case.
Below is a list of five of the first false statements made by the Asst. AG who spoke during the case as reported by CDMedia. See more at their site here:
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 elector’s 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