Outrageous! Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Does Not Have to Testify in Upcoming Case Challenging Georgia Election Machines

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gabe Sterling chief operating officer (COO) in the office of the Georgia Secretary of State.

On Tuesday, the almost 7-years long pending federal case challenging the use of election machines in the State of Georgia will begin.  And one name will be notably absent from the witnesses called to testify:  the chief election supervisor, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

The case, Curling v. Raffensperger, was initially filed in August 2017 when the State of Georgia was using Diebold Voting machines and has been pending ever since.  The case challenges the use of voting machines as an infringement on voters’ rights because they can be hacked, as demonstrated in a thorough report submitted in the case and recently unsealed by Univ. of Michigan computer science expert, Professor J. Alex Halderman, and do not create a voter-verifiable paper ballot, among other claims.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in late December, SOS Raffensperger was ordered by Judge Amy Totenberg to testify in the case, however, he immediately appealed that decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yesterday afternoon, the 11th Circuit ruled that Raffensperger cannot be compelled to testify.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Order reads:

Under the apex doctrine, “a district court should rarely, if ever, compel the attendance of a high-ranking official in a judicial proceeding…”…High-ranking “officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for taking official actions.”…Specifically, to compel such an official’s testimony, there must be “a special need or situation” that overcomes the presumption against requiring a high-ranking official’s testimony.

The Secretary has a clear and indisputable right to the writ because he has established that the district court clearly erred in determining that the Plaintiffs have a “special need” for the Secretary’s testimony…A “special need” may exist when “the information sought from the [official] is essential to the case” and the information “cannot be obtained in any other way.”  But the Plaintiffs have not identified any information that is both essential to their claims and that cannot be gleaned from other witnesses.  Although the Plaintiffs point to public statements the Secretary has made about the litigation, the Secretary’s public statements do not in themselves create an extraordinary circumstance that requires his personal testimony.

Despite the severe vulnerabilities pointed out in the Halderman Report, SOS Raffensperger has refused to update their voting system with the recommended “patch” until after the 2024 Presidential Election, even though Prof. Halderman does not believe it would be of much benefit to rectifying the vulnerabilities.  Last month, Raffensperger cited the necessity for “90,000 man-hours” to update more than 34,000 piece of equipment.

Photo of author
Follow me at Rumble.com/CannCon, CannCon.Locals.com and @CannCon on TruthSocial

You can email Brian Lupo here, and read more of Brian Lupo's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!