Welcome to Liberty Jam
A Government Accountability Project
Click a topic below
Additional Legal Findings
VERY IMPORTANT – THIS IS ALL RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF MANDATORY PROVISIONS. SEE ADDITIONAL NOTES ON VOIDABLE ELECTION CASE LAW. VERY EXCITING!
V. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS
Government-led audits are no substitute for or correction of misconduct and/or fraud committed by government officials.
Voting actions the Complainant is forced to take in their rightful elective franchise in the county are being conducted as a result of a state contract with apparent illegal provisions. Fraud does not automatically void a contract but rather renders it voidable at the election of the injured party. OCGA § 13–5–5.
The State of Georgia claims that they use risk-limiting audits to notice any numerical discrepancies between ballot paper and the system. However, this trail of data is not auditable. Dr. Philip B. Stark, Dept. of Statistics, University of California, inventor of the Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) stated in report that “Auditing elections that were conducted primarily using Ballot Marking Devices are meaningless: an audit could easily confirm an incorrect outcome, because a BMD-generated paper trail is not a trustworthy record of voter intent.” This is exactly what was done throughout Georgia in the five days following the general election. A fractional RLA of batches hand-picked by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State, which has access to all of the data, is not an adequate remedy because it appears that 100% of the voting qualified electors are disenfranchised, and 100% of the citizenry is counting on their good choices.
State imposition does not qualify as legislated power; the Secretary of State cannot overstep the Laws and Constitution of Georgia. —
“… The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislatures to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.” J. Gorsuch, West Virginia v. EPA, U.S. 20-1530, (2022).
This is a voidable election. —
Case law renders the strong precedent rendering the election void, when the election is conducted with an absolute and complete disregard for the law. Williams v. Cox, 214 Ga. 354 (1958).
“It has long been the rule in this State that where there is no authority to hold the election, or where statutory requirements pertaining to the holding of an election are not complied with, the election is void” Kemp v. Mitchell County Democratic Executive Committee, 216 Ga. 276 (1960).
“An act done in violation of a mandatory provision is void, whereas an act done in violation of a directory provision, while improper, may be valid.” 29 C.J.S. Elections § 214(2). There are numerous mandatory provisions not being upheld herein.
General Assembly, in adding additional ground which would avoid an election when enacting new Election Code, intended that Election Code supersede rulings of courts voiding or not voiding elections depending on whether violations of election laws involved mandatory or directory provision when neither kind was defined or spelled out by statute. Code, § 34–1703. Hollifield v. Vickers 162 S.E.2d 905, 909, Ga.App.
“In an election contest, the determination of whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory depends upon certain criteria: (a) whether the statutory scheme expressly or impliedly provides that failure to follow the provision shall render the election void; (2) whether the failure interfered in any way with the result of the election; (3) whether any person legally entitled to vote was not permitted to do so; (4) whether the polling place was chosen for an improper motive; and (5) whether any fraud occurred in or as a result of the selection of the improper method.” Bryan, slip op. at 7-8, (quoting Cann, 218 N.E.2d at 836).
Provisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose, but after election, provisions should be held directory only, in support of the result, unless of a character to effect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote, or to ascertainment of the result, unless the provisions affect an essential element in the election, or unless it is expressly declared by the statute, that particular act is essential to validity of election or that its commission renders it void. Laite v. Stewart 146 S.E.2d 553, 555, Ga.App.
The County Board of Commissioners nor Election Officials took recommended, immediate steps to remedy the illegal situations provided in the Urgent Verified Election Notice, sent to them on Dec 5, 2022, by public record.
Complainant knows that the state or county government cannot legally force him/her to commit illegal acts within an illegal voting system. Complainant resents being forced to vote in an illegal manner in order to exercise her right to the elective franchise.
Urgent Verified Election Notice
Dec 5, 2022
RE: VERIFIED NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING VOIDABLE ELECTION THAT YOUR STATE ELECTIONS BOARD AND COUNTIES ARE ENDEAVORING TO CONDUCT WITH AN ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE LAW CONTAINED IN O.C.G.A. Title 21, Ch. 2, Art. 4
County Election Superintendents and Designated Election Officials,
This is the Monday before an election, and, in the interest of your duty to serve your citizens by protecting the Article IX Home Rule provisions of the Georgia Constitution and to uphold our most basic civil liberties, this letter is for your immediate consideration and action. Citizens have a duty to know the law and inform you that:
Georgia counties and municipalities appear to be universally under significant legal risk and in nearly 20 years of considerable violation because of the extraordinary fact that they did not vote at the local level, per required referendum, to move from paper ballot voting to any mechanical or electronic voting machine system under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-320 & 321. You operate with what is perceived to be a uniform “state system mandate.”
It appears that your predecessors and the administrations of current and former Secretaries of State of Georgia, since 2002, are responsible. Yet today, you could accept the opportunity and find the courage to lawfully lead a resolution to conduct a referendum of your qualified electors to bring you in alignment with the laws of Georgia and immediately remedy the run-off election tomorrow.
The law requires an elections referendum to determine:
- Whether to authorize the use of voting machines – At legislation of this law, electronic voting machines had not yet been conceived, but the legislative intent is clearly to obtain the consent of the people for anything other than the paper ballot of the past 100+ years in most local jurisdictions. And, in keeping with the law, that ballot shall be conducted on
- Whether the indebtedness of the county should be increased sufficiently to pay for voting machines – Ga Const. Art. IX, Sect V, Para. I states “No such county, municipality or other political subdivision shall incur any new debt without the assent of a majority of the qualified voters of such county, municipality, or political subdivision voting in an election held for that purpose as provided by law.”
>> The following annotation to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-321 clears up any questions regarding whether this law applies to counties: Separate questions on ballot. — The question of whether to authorize the use of voting machines in a county and the question of whether the indebtedness of the county should be increased sufficiently to pay for voting machines should be separately placed on the ballot and may not be combined. 1984 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 84-75.
ADDITIONAL CASE LAW:
The Secretary of State has no lawful authority over county election officials. –
In Pearson v. Kemp, No. 1:20-cv-4809-TCB, in which Secretary Raffensperger was also a defendant, the defendant’s counsel argued, “the Secretary of State has no lawful authority over county election officials,” citing Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1256-58 (11th Cir. 2020).
A local government agency cannot independently grant the authority required by law to be delegated to the people. —
- Eskridge, Interpreting Law: A Primer on How To Read Statutes and the Constitution 288 (2016) (“Even if Congress has delegated an agency general rulemaking or adjudicatory power, judges presume that Congress does not delegate its authority to settle or amend major social and economic policy decisions.”). Cited in the significant West Virginia v. EPA, U.S. 20-1530, (2022) and fundamental to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding government powers at all levels.
Eager state imposition does not qualify as legislated power; the Secretary of State cannot overstep the laws and Constitution of Georgia. —
“… The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislatures to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” Fletcher
- Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.” J. Gorsuch, West Virginia v. EPA, U.S. 20-1530, (2022).
Election void when conducted with complete disregard for law. —
While failure to observe some of the requirements of the provisions of this former article might be mere irregularities not rendering the election void, when the election is conducted with an absolute and complete disregard for the law contained in that article, the election is void.
Williams v. Cox, 214 Ga. 354, 104 S.E.2d 899, 1958 Ga. LEXIS 423 (1958) (decided under
former Code 1933, Ch. 34-19).
Failure to comply with statutory requirements makes an election void. —
It has long been the rule in this State that where there is no authority to hold the election, or where statutory requirements pertaining to the holding of an election are not complied with, the election is void” Kemp v. Mitchell County Democratic Executive Committee, 216 Ga. 276 (1960).
This required referendum vote never happened in Cherokee and Morgan county as admitted in public meetings. And, when the City of Statesboro was recently asked to provide documents indicating when it caused such questions to be printed upon ballots for city-wide referendum, they did not provide any records responsive to this request. Instead, they provided a 5o-year terms of service and financial agreement. This agreement was made in 2011 with Bulloch County for administration of their municipal elections using the ”standard voting equipment used at the time by the Board [of Elections and Registration] and the County.” It is likely that all county corporations and most municipalities corporations are out of compliance.
If you find that your county is in 20-year non-compliance with the aforementioned laws requiring a referendum, it appears that it behooves you to honor the covenant commitment to serving the people of your county in a lawful manner by immediately:
Employing the emergency provisions of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-281 and 21-2-334: “If, for any reason, at any primary or election the use of voting machines wholly or in part is not practicable [or legal], the superintendent may arrange to have the voting for such candidates or offices or for such questions conducted by paper ballots.” According to Ga. Const. Art. II, § II, Para. II, “a run-off election shall be a continuation of the general election.”
Employing the emergency provision of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-371 (b) “If any optical scanning voting system being used in any primary or election shall become out of order during such primary or election, … but, in case such repair or substitution cannot be made, the ballots may be voted manually.”
Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-290 reads: The superintendent shall provide, for each precinct in which a primary or election is to be held, a sufficient number of ballots equal to the number of active registered voters. The ballots you provide must be “Official Ballots” in accordance with Code Section 21-2-280 (see P.S. below). You should already be ready.
At this time, you have an opportunity to uphold the fundamental constitutional rights of the qualified electors of your county. Neither the State of Georgia nor any of its agencies provide funding to our county for the operation of elections, thereby making this involving our county election property. Property and
equipment for elections is the responsibility of the county. Workers are paid out of county funds. All must be used toward the legal securing of our ballots, involving casting, counting, tabulation, canvassing, and certification.
By classical American Jurisprudence, failure to make available to voters official ballots, or ballots conforming to requirements, directly affects the validity of elections of public officers, 165 A.L.R. 1263. Citizens must always be assured of a true and perfect return of elections, and that its officials have rejected the involvement of known fraud and deceit that vitiates all connected acts. This is your duty as an oath-sworn and duty-bound Election Superintendent Board or Probate Judge. The local election employees designated in your county, who rely on you to present them lawful election systems in which to work, are also counting on you.
Based on this information, a move from the illegal Dominion ImageCast X voting system for the run-off election would not cause additional expense nor hardship to the county Election Superintendent and would save the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in each county. The nation of France seems to have no difficulty counting paper ballots on Election Day, and Georgia also has the easy capacity entrenched in its nearly 270 years of doing so.
You can act swiftly to comply with the law and get the copy machines going, or it appears that you risk significant legal accountability for knowing and willful acts.
P.S. The ballots you are presenting to qualified electors do not appear to meet the statutory requirements of GA law. These ballots contain, on their face, a non-human readable and unverifiable image. As confirmed in federal guidelines describing our specific electronic system “No verification of the scanned paper record is performed in the above approach” (VVSG 1.0, Section C.1.2.4).
In accordance with Section 3.1 of the Master Solution Agreement made between Georgia and Dominion Voting Systems (2019), a ballot paper that is not fully readable and verifiable is fed into the ImageCast X scanner unit by trusting electors. However, this scanner only interprets the barcode, and not the ‘summary’ they are asked to verify. Directly from the contract: “The printed ballot contains a written summary of the voter’s choices, as well as a 2D barcode which is read by Dominion’s ImageCast Precinct or Central tabulators.”
It is NOT A QR code, which is standard open source. These sacred choices are quietly sent directly through proprietary software in the scanner which can only be interpreted by other proprietary software. This contracted arrangement appears to directly violate VVSG
1.0 for barcodes, because they must be industry standard format and shall be able to be read using readily available commercial technology and VVSG 2.0 requires that encoded data uses a publicly available, no-cost method. The barcode can be scanned by no known qualified elector or election official in the state of Georgia with any device or optical scanner that they can openly own or acquire. Simply put, we don’t have the decoder for our own ballot papers. Only the Dominion Voting Systems corporation, by contract, maintains the technological systems power to interpret and tabulate our votes secretly from us, effectively maintaining the ultimate power of our vote. They give us reports. And, our system is hackable system, per federal advisory: https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/current-activity/2022/06/03/cisa-releases-security-adviso ry-dominion-voting-systems-democracy.
The act and right of voting in the United States requires full human cognizance and the use of human vision, with disability exceptions only. At this time, there is no method available prior to, or at the time of casting a ballot by any elector, for verifying, for a fact, with the instrument of their human vision that his or her selections are accurately represented in the computer generated, unencrypted marking. This form requires one to trust and assume that their votes are scanned and cast correctly which is directly stated in VVSG 1.0, Section C.1.2.4. This appears to directly violate the citizens’ basic right to a lawful franchise and the candidates’ right to hold office.
Finally, the ballots you present to voters contain a variable beyond the scope of precinct, office, candidate, or this chapter may require per O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.5, 21-2-585. This chapter does not require a barcode, shown by the fact that the term is mentioned ZERO times in the entire GA Election Code, and is therefore not legislated. The ballots shall vary in form only as the names of precincts, offices, candidates, or this chapter may require, stated in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-284(f).
Per O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2 and 21-2-579(2), the BALLOT you present to qualified electors must be a definitive “OFFICIAL BALLOT” meeting all statutory requirements when in functional use within a required constitutionally protected voting system. The
Secretary of State only has authority as to the form and arrangement of this paper, not the ability to insert new items upon it, which he appears to have done.
The system you have been asked to administer does not appear to be in compliance with stringent federal and state voting laws. In order for qualified electors to exercise their right, you appear to be requiring them to vote and cast an unofficial ballot that welcomes consequences contained in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-280 & 21-2-598. Under these circumstances, you are not serving the people, you appear to be acting instead to assist them in the smooth process of forfeiting their right to vote to a contracted corporate system imposed by our state. And, a right shall never be converted to a crime in the United States.
Statutory Requirements appear to not be met in:
GA Title 1, Ga Code 21-2-2(7.1), O.C.G.A. § 21-2-280, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-285, O.C.G.A. §
21-2-300(a)(2), O.C.G.A. § 21-2-372, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-375, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.22, O.C.G.A. §
21-2-379.23, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.5, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-579, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-585
Critical word missing from the Curling V Raffesperger Order
According to an affirmative statement by Judge Amy Totenberg, “The statutory provisions mandate voting on “electronic ballot markers” that: (1) [shall*] use “electronic technology to independently and privately mark a paper ballot at the direction of an elector, interpret ballot selections, communicate such interpretation for elector verification, and print an elector verifiable paper ballot;” and (2) [shall]”produce paper ballots which are marked with the elector’s choices in a format readable by the the elector.” O.C.G.A. § 21‐2‐2(7.1); O.C.G.A. § 21‐2‐300(a)(2). Curling v. Raffensperger, 493 F.Supp.3d 1264, 1308-09 (2020).
* The word “shall” appears in the code, but is missing from the quotation in the order.
Here are the necessary documents for this iniative - Click items below to expand
Click HERE to download and share
The Complaint has been updated.
A recent court finding was just discovered that caused a need for us to update the complaint.
**FYI, Paul voted early last Friday and took two pictures of his ballot while he was at the machine and then walked out with it in his hands. He was questioned about his actions, but no action was taken.
I have the scan of his ballot.
11/7/2022 10:46:15 PM Page 1 of 1
Explanation of the Plan - short version - download and share!
Click here to download and share
Voting Integrity Advocates,
A couple of us have come up with a plan for Election Day. Our idea is very simple, but we believe it will be very effective, and best of all, it includes you… the disenfranchised voter.
Pursuant to 21-2-412, there is to be at least one judge of each CIRCUIT on duty the day of the election from 7 AM until at least 10 PM (there are 49 Circuits). Their duties for that one day are:
… to secure a free, fair, and correct computation and canvass of votes cast at such primary or election. During such period the court shall issue process, if necessary, to enforce and secure compliance with the primary or election laws and shall decide such other matters pertaining to the primary or election as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter.
With that statutory remedy in mind, we have come up with a pleading which we believe will force a judge to allow ballots to be printed by the Dominion Ballot Marking Devices, but will force a judge to enjoin the use of machine counting devices and order the hand counting of all ballots in Georgia for this November 8th, 2022 elections.
We have started the process of uploading the necessary documents to a website so that if anyone wishing to participate in this effort, will have ready access to the pleadings and other documents necessary to effectively carry out this effort state wide. Feel free to forward this notice and the weblinks to other likeminded souls.
All anyone will have to do is download the documents, read them so you know what you are attesting too, and fill-in the necessary blanks in the pleading (there are only 5) with all the named Exhibits are attached – a total of 8 pages. Once you have filled in the few blanks for each Circuit’s own jurisdiction along with their information, and take it to the judge, in chambers or in open court who should order the clerk to file it (without a filing fee we believe).
At any rate, J. Gregory Howard (the other conspirator) and I shall be on a conference call at 6 PM Wednesday evening to provide a detailed overview of the process, the rules of practice and procedure, the URL location of the files to download and print, and provide an overview of potential problems that may arise (given that poll workers are not that well trained in the Law). That should not take more than 15-20 minutes, but we have reserved an hour in case some of you have questions. Also, we will be simultaneously live streaming on Facebook, Rumble and thru a few other podcasters for your convenience.
So, if you know anyone who would like to ENFORCE their right to a free and fair election, please let all your friends, family, and neighbors know that the time has arrived for Americans, yearning to be free, to stand up and throw off the chains of political slavery from our shoulders. As the old African proverb goes, “Walk softly and carry a big stick. You will go far.”
We do not need to boast or make verbal threats for folks to be aware of our power and resolve; we just need to wield the “big stick” of the Rule of Law in a civilized manner, and seek out only those who are willing to serve us, not themselves.
Hope to see you Wednesday, 6 PM.
Replay available at https://LibertyJam.org
Election 2022 Ballot Challenge Overview - PRINT
Print this document!
01. Election 2022 – Ballot Challenge Overview (2022-11-08)-1
Ballot Challenge Strategy for the November 8 Election
The Plan for Nov. 8 election in Georgia with citations to authorities.
· Attend to your voting preferences. When you have printed out YOUR ballot and WHILE you
are still standing in the voting booth, look to see if your ballot has the QR code printed on it,
· 1. You can take your Ballot and leave, or (and for most people the following is suggested)
· 2. While you are still in the Voting Booth, take out your cell phone and take a picture of
YOUR ballot ONLY – without the Dominion Ballot Marking Device in the picture if possible,
-CAUTION: If you arrested or threatened with arrest for doing this. O.C.G.A. 21-2-598,
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-413 (e) [poll manager discretion], O.C.G.A. § 21-2-568.2. You can ask the
Polling Manager for permission, but do not count on it.
IF THREATENED. Your defense is: There is a standing Federal Injunction against enforcement
from the case: Coalition For Good Governance v. Kemp, 558 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1393 (2021), “the Court
GRANTS the Motion with respect to Photography Rule II … . State Defendants are hereby enjoined
from enforcing Photography Rule II until further order of the Court.”). The Court has not yet issued a
rescission of said order.
If arrested, it will be an illegal act and violates 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 and 245 (Federal) , and
O.C.G.A. 16-8-2, 16-10-1 and 16-10-93 (Georgia).
· Leave the polling location with YOUR phone and the photo evidence of your ballot and
proceed to the court house in your Circuit.
-(Take the same action as to the possibility of arrest as above O.C.G.A. 21-2- 574),
· Go directly to the Superior Court Judge on duty in your county (O.C.G.A. 21-2-412) with the
photo of your ballot as evidence and file the Petition (attached) challenging the “legality of the
ballot,” the void nature of the original Ga – Dominion Contract (attached), and the voiding of
the “2D barcode” provision.
-(Contract, Exhibit B, par. 3.1 which would require judge to order an injunction and hand-
Also, it should be pointed out to the Judge to find paragraph 3.1 provision “void ab initio”.
-A voiding of that contract provision, and the further enforcement of said provision, from the
date of perfection.
-This will void all prior elections back to 2019; as all of the ballots cast in-person will be
deemed illegitimate. (Meaning we have not conducted a legal election since 2019, nor are
there any sitting legally elected officials).
Federal Judge Totenberg has already found the law and the facts as to paragraph 3.1 of the
-Exhibit B in the case of Curling v. Raffensperger, 493 F.Supp.3d 1264, 1309 (2020) which is
highlighted in yellow on the 34th page of the included document stating that the resulting ballot
was not in conformance with O.C.G.A. 21-2-2(7.1) or 21-2-300.
NOTE: IF Arrested, you MUST be taken immediately before the Circuit Superior Court Judge (21-2-
412)! This is where you present all of the above information as to the illegality of the ballot, the election
and your arrest.
Case law authority, Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975) [Court held that the Fourth Amendment
requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended pretrial
detention following a warrantless arrest.]. Failure of officer to take you to judge FIRST violates his
Oath of Office, 16-10-1 (This is a 5-year felony).
Strength in Number. Go to the polls with as many like minded individuals as possible. This will help to
deter the Polling Manger from taking any action.
If ANYBODY obstructs your rights, petition the judge for a warrant for their arrest!!
If you decide to do this, you will need all of the attached documents saved to your mobile device to
introduce as evidence.
Our goal is to have hundreds of Citizens step forward and help force this issue for Ballot Integrity this
election day. Thank you. Paul & Gregory.
NOTE: The printed material you should have to present to the Judge and in court will be the Complaint
(4 pages) and the 4 pages from the Dominion Contract (1,47, 49, and 55) included as Exhibits to the
And remember, if they dare to place you under arrest and take you go to jail, you’ll be in good company
with others that have stood up to tyranny, John the Baptist, Jesus, the Maid of Orleans, Gandhi, and Dr.
King, and potentially dozens of other Patriotic Justice Seekers this day, just to name a few
Election 2022 Ballot Strategy Potential Problems - PRINT
Print this Document!
02. Challenge Strategy – Potential Problems (2022-11-08)-1
Ballot Challenge Strategy for the November 8 Election
The Plan for Nov. 8 election in Georgia with citations to authorities.
Photo of YOUR Ballot
- 21-2-413 (e) No using electronic monitoring or recording devices, but poll manager may permit.
- 21-2-568.2 no use of cellular Telephones, except as authorized by law (no BMD or VOTED ballot.
Pic of your ballot: see Federal Injunction in Coalition For Good Gov. v. Kemp allowing such.
Taking YOUR Ballot out of the Polling Location
- 21-2-574 – Any person, other than an officer charged by law with the care of ballots or a person entrusted by any such officer with the care of the same for a purpose required by law, who has in his or her possession outside the polling place any official ballot shall be
guilty of a felony. (See: 2016 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 16-2 – “mere possession” )
- 21-2-560 thru 604. Frauds and crimes by poll officers (587 frauds by pol officers)
Law for Poll Workers
- 21-2-598. Violations of chapter.
Except as otherwise provided by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
- 21-2-603. Conspiracy to commit election fraud.
A person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit election fraud when he or she conspires for agrees with another to commit a violation of this chapter. …
- 21-2-604. Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; penalties.
Election 2022 Ballot Challenge Complaint - PRINT
Print and Fill In this document!
03. Challenge Strategy – Voter’s Complaint 01 (2022-11-08)-2 – with Exhibits
2022 ELECTION BALLOT COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the undersigned Complainant and seeks the relief of this Honorable Court.
- JURISDICTIONAL AND VENUE ALLEGATIONS
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to O.C.G.A. 21-2-412 for the purpose of securing
… a free, fair, and correct computation and canvass of votes cast at such primary or election. During such period the court shall issue process, if necessary, to enforce and secure compliance with the primary or election laws and shall decide such other matters pertaining to the primary or election as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter.
Election 2022 Case Law Pugh and Brady - SAVE
Download this document, save the link for easy reference!
1975-02-18 – Pugh and Brady
420 U.S. 103, 114, 125 (1975)
PUGH ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 25, 1974.
Reargued October 21, 1974.
Decided February 18, 1975.
Coalition for Good Governance V Kemp - SAVE
Download this document for easy reference and save the link
2021-08-20 – CFGG v Kemp – Order
Curling V Raffensperger - SAVE
Download this document for easy reference and save the link
2020-10-11 – Curling v Raffensperger Totenberg
Dominion Contract - SAVE
Download this file for easy reference and save the link
2019-07-29 – Dominion Voting Contract – SIGNED
Find your Superior Court Clerk AND Judicial Circuit Map
CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR CLERK
You may have to call every county in your circuit.
Send us a message when you find one.
Click to download the Circuits map