A Historic Class Election Civil Rights Lawsuit “The Christmas Complaint” Was Filed On Behalf Of All Voters

A few days before Christmas, there was an unexpected surprise, for a number of organizations and individuals who thought they were on the rise. As snow blanketed the country for families and people readying for the holiday, meanwhile process servers had a special delivery on the way. A number of Americans had decided to take action against the combination of manipulations and rights violations that were perpetrated during the 2020 Presidential election. A lawsuit the likes that had never been seen before was underway that could forever change our country. People standing up for their rights and taking action against those who might infringe upon them.

Attorney’s Gary Fielder and Ernest Walker have filed a class action election lawsuit on behalf of voters across the country in an effort to combat election fraud and manipulation. With a dozen plaintiffs and several defendants ranging from Governors and Secretaries of State to Mark Zuckerberg, Dominion Voting Systems, and the Zuckerberg Chan foundation named, the historic lawsuit ranges in allegations from inappropriate use of donation funds, manipulation of election legislature, and more.

After extensive research by the plaintiffs and attorney’s, it was concluded that there was adequate evidence of election manipulation and tampering with reasonable motives. A complaint was organized and the documentation filed. Individuals that held the offices of Governor’s and Secretaries of State ranging from places such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and more were named along with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Priscilla Chan. As were organizations such as Dominion Voting Systems, The Zuckerberg Chan Foundation, and the Center for Tech & Civic Life.

Speaking with Attorney Gary Fielder about the case he said, “The defendants appear to have engaged in conduct that directly conflicts with and violates the freedoms given to all American voters. This is the type of conduct that no man or organization should be allowed to get away with. It undermines the very foundation of our nation and constitution. After reviewing the circumstances, it seemed my obligation, both as an attorney sworn to uphold our constitution, and as an American citizen with the ability, to do something about it.”.

When catching up with Ernest Walker about his thoughts he said, “I’ve always had a passion for law and our constitution, so deciding to move forward was easy. The facts related to the case appear to show clear signs of election manipulation in an effort to sway a number of votes in favor of a specific candidate. This is clearly a violation of constitutional and civil liberties, executed by a number of organizations and individuals in a position of power, and trust. Those violations have led to national conflicts, the undermining of our Presidential office, and the defacing of electoral systems behind it. None of this is acceptable.”

Read the full complaint below in the embedded file.

O’Rourk V Dominion Facebook Zuckerberg The Christmas Complaint

The Christmas Complaint O'Rourk V Dominion Facebook

 

The Christmas Complaint was filed on December 22nd, 2020 following the 2020 Presidential Election and the class action election lawsuit behind it is underway. If you want to learn more about the lawsuit then go to www.dominionclassaction.com.

Election Watch Logo

Here is a full text copy of the complaint.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-3747
KEVIN O’ROURKE, NATHANIEL L. CARTER,
LORI CUTUNILLI, LARRY D. COOK,
ALVIN CRISWELL, KESHA CRENSHAW,
NEIL YARBROUGH, and AMIE TRAPP,
Plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and of a class of similarly
situated persons,
vs.
DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC.,
a Delaware corporation, FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, CENTER FOR TECH
AND CIVIC LIFE, an Illinois non-profit organization,
MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, individually,
PRISCILLA CHAN, individually,
BRIAN KEMP, individually, BRAD
RAFFENSPERGER, individually, GRETCHEN WHITMER,
individually, JOCELYN BENSON, individually,
TOM WOLF, individually, KATHY BOOCKVAR,
individually, TONY EVERS, individually,
ANN S. JACOBS, individually, MARK L. THOMSEN,
individually, MARGE BOSTELMAN, individually,
JULIE M. GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON,
individually, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR,
individually, and DOES 1-10,000,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
______________________________________________________________________________
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, through counsel, on behalf of themselves and of a class of
similarly situated persons, and bring this Complaint for damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief against the Defendants, and each of them, and, in support thereof, hereby state as follows:
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 84
2
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is a civil rights case brought by citizens of the United States of America,
from different states across the Union, against the Defendants for, among other things, burdening
the voting rights of 160 million people.
2. The Plaintiffs allege the following on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated against Defendants for damages, declaratory relief, and to enjoin them from further
unconstitutional and unlawful acts, omissions, orders, agreements and certifications concerning
the Plaintiffs’ rights of due process, equal protection, and to vote and speak freely.
3. Plaintiffs, as citizens of the United States of America (American Citizen(s)), bring
this action to halt, and seek redress from the unconstitutional acts and omissions of the
Defendants enforced pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 & 1988
(Civil Rights Act), and the Constitution of the United States of America.
4. At all material times, the Defendants engaged in concerted action to interfere with
the 2020 presidential election through a coordinated effort to, among other things, change voting
laws without legislative approval, use unreliable voting machines, alter votes through an
illegitimate adjudication process, provide illegal methods of voting, count illegal votes, suppress
the speech of opposing voices, disproportionally and privately fund only certain municipalities
and counties, and other methods, all prohibited by the Constitution.
5. The Plaintiffs have been damaged and, unless the Defendants are enjoined, will
continue to suffer the loss of their individual right to vote, freedom of speech, due process and
equal protection under the laws and Constitution of the United States of America (Constitution).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 84
3
II. PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
6. Plaintiff, Kevin O’Rourke, is a natural person, Virginian, American citizen,
certified public accountant and independent auditor, having a place of abode and registered to
vote in Virginia. The Affidavit of Kevin Patrick O’Rourke is attached hereto as Exh. 1, as though
fully contained herein.
7. Plaintiff, Nathaniel L. Carter, is a natural person, Michigander, African-American
citizen, married, having a place of abode and registered to vote in Michigan. The Affidavit of
Nathaniel L. Carter is attached hereto as Exh. 2, as though fully contained herein.
8. Plaintiff, Lori Cutunilli, is a natural person, Coloradan, American citizen,
business owner, having a place of abode and registered to vote in Colorado. The Affidavit of Lori
Cutunilli is attached hereto as Exh. 3 is, as though fully contained herein.
9. Plaintiff, Alvin Criswell, is a natural person, Alaskan, American citizen, retired,
having a place of abode and registered to vote in Alaska. The Affidavit of Alvin Criswell is
attached hereto as Exh. 4, as though fully contained herein.
10. Plaintiff, Larry D. Cook, is a natural person, Californian, American citizen,
author, having a place of abode and registered to vote in California. The Affidavit of Larry Cook
is attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exh. 5, as though fully contained herein.
11. Plaintiff, Kesha Crenshaw, is a natural person, Michigander, African-American
citizen, having a place of abode and registered to vote in Michigan. The Affidavit of Kesha
Crenshaw is attached hereto as Exh. 6, as though fully contained herein.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 84
4
12. Plaintiff, Neil Yarbrough, is a natural person, Coloradan, African-American
citizen, licensed real estate agent, having a place of abode and registered to vote in Colorado.
The Statement of Neil Yarbrough is attached hereto as Exh. 7, as though fully contained herein.
13. Plaintiff, Amie Trapp, is a natural person, Alabamian, American citizen, mother
of nine, having a place of abode in the state of Alabama, after having recently moved from the
state of Missouri, where the Plaintiff voted as a registered voter in Missouri. The Statement of
Amie Trapp is attached hereto as Exh. 8, as though fully contained herein.
DEFENDANTS
14. Defendant, DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC. (Dominion), is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, doing business at 1201 18th Street, Suite 210,
Denver, CO 80202-1421.
15. Defendant, FACEBOOK, INC. (Facebook), is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware, a publicly traded company, doing business at 1601 Willow Road,
Menlo Park, CA 94025. Facebook’s businesses are in technologies that facilitate digital
communications, including Facebook Blue, which provides personal social networking;
Instagram, which provides personal social networking; Facebook Messenger, which provides
mobile messaging services; and, WhatsApp, which provides mobile messaging services.
16. Defendant, MARK E. ZUCKERBERG (Mr. Zuckerberg), is a resident of
California and the chief executive officer of Facebook.
17. Defendant, PRISCILLA CHAN (Ms. Chan), is a resident of California.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 84
5
18. Defendant, CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE (CTCL), is a non-profit
organization, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principle offices at 233
North Michigan Ave, No. 1800, Chicago, IL 60601.
19. Defendant, BRIAN KEMP (Mr. Kemp), is a resident of Georgia, personally liable
for his individual conduct, acting under color of his official authority as Governor of the State of
Georgia.
20. Defendant, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER (Mr. Raffensperger), is a resident of
Georgia, personally liable for his individual conduct, acting under color of his official authority
as Secretary of State of the State of Georgia.
21. Defendant, GRETCHEN WHITMER (Ms. Whitmer), is a resident of Michigan,
personally liable for her individual conduct, acting under color of her official authority as
Governor of the State of Michigan.
22. Defendant, JOCELYN BENSON (Ms. Benson), is a resident of Michigan,
personally liable for her individual conduct, acting under color of her official authority as
Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.
23. Defendant, TOM WOLF (Mr. Wolf), is a resident of Pennsylvania, personally
liable for her individual conduct, acting under color of his official authority as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
24. Defendant, KATHY BOOCKVAR (Ms. Boockvar), is a resident of Pennsylvania,
personally liable for her individual conduct, acting under color of her official authority as
Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 84
6
25. Defendant, TONY EVERS (Mr. Evers), is a resident of Wisconsin, personally
liable for his individual conduct, acting under color of his official authority as Governor of the
State of Wisconsin.
26. Defendants, ANN S. JACOBS, MARK L. THOMSEN, MARGE BOSTELMAN,
JULIE M. GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON, and ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR., are all residents
of Wisconsin, personally liable for their individual conduct, acting under color of their official
authority as members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC Defendants).
27. DOES 1 – 10,000 are herein named as co-conspirators, agents, employees or
contractors, as their involvement is discovered though the course of this action.
III. JURISDICTION
28. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under from Article III, Section 2 of The
Constitution of the United States of America (Constitution). U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2.
29. Plaintiffs, as representatives of the people, have standing to exercise all rights
reserved thereto under the Constitution. U.S. Const., amend IV, X.
30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, wherein state laws or actions violating federal rights are invalid and subject to
declaratory judgment. U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
31. Jurisdiction over the Defendants arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) (federal
question), 1332 (diversity), 1343(a) (civil rights), and 2201-02 (declaratory judgment); and,
under the Constitution.
32. This Court also has jurisdiction over any common law claims pursuant to this
Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 84
7
33. This Court is authorized to issue permanent injunctive relief requested under Rule
65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
34. Jurisdiction of this Court in vindication of rights arises under 42 U.S.C § 1983,
1985, 1986 and 1988, which also authorizes the Court to issue injunctive relief.
35. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) & (b), because a substantial part
of the acts and omissions occurred within the District of Colorado.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
DOMINION
36. Dominion is one of three election technology vendors that currently make up
more than 80 percent of the voting machines in the United States.1
37. Dominion’s technology, in various forms, reached 71 Million Voters, and is
involved in 1635 jurisdictions in the United States as of 2016. 2
1 Ben Popken, Voting Machine Makes Face Questions from House Lawmakers—But More
Remain, NBCNews.com, Jan. 9, 2020.
2 Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative, The Business of Voting, Market Structure and
Innovation in the Election Technology Industry, University of Pennsylvania, 2017.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 84
8
38. Dominion is owned by DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORP. (Dominion
Corp), a Canadian corporation, established in 2003.
39. In 2018, Dominion Corp was acquired by its senior management team and
STAPLE STREET CAPITAL GROUP, L.L.C. (Staple Street).
40. On December 6, 2019, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, and other members of the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Staple Street requesting
information about the role private equity investment in Dominion has played in the creation and
perpetuation of concerns regarding “vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency in the election
technology industry.”3
41. In an April 2020 letter in response to the request made by the House Committee
Administration, CEO of Dominion Corp, John Poulos, confirmed that the corporation is 75.2%
owned by Staple Street, and that he, a Canadian citizen, holds a 12% stake, with no other
investor owning more than a 5% stake in the corporation.4
3 In the letter, the Senators expressed concern about the “secretive and ‘trouble-plagued
companies,’ owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining
voting machines and other election administration equipment, ‘having long skimped on security
in favor of convenience,’ leaving voting systems across the country ‘prone to security
problems.’” Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan Investigate Vulnerabilities and
Shortcomings of Election Technology Industry with Ties to Private Equity, December 10, 2019.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G.%20McCarthy,%20&%20Staple%20Street
%20letters.pdf See Jessica Huseman, The Market for Voting Machines Is Broken. This Company
Has Thrived in It, ProPublica, October 28, 2019. See also Frank Bajak, US Election Integrity
Depends on Security-Challenged Firms, Associated Press, October 28, 2019.
4 Ali Swenson, Family of Hugh Chavez Does Not Own Dominion Voting System, Associated
Press, December 1, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 84
9
42. Scholars and industry experts have concluded that ballot-marking devices,
generally, including the voting machines used by Dominion:
a. produce ballots that do not necessarily record the vote expressed by the voter
when they enter their selections on the touchscreen;
b. are associated with known risks, which include hacking, bugs and configuration
errors that can cause the voting machine to print votes that differ from what the
voter entered and verified electronically;
c. are not defensible, because there is no way to generate convincing public
evidence that reported outcomes are correct despite any malfunctions that might
have occurred;
d. are not software independent, and can mark a ballot after the voter has inspected
it;
e. the original transaction, i.e., the voter’s expression of the votes, is not
documented in a verifiable way; and,
f. cannot ensure through an audit that the reported outcome is correct.
Andrew W. Appel, Richard A. DeMillo, Philip B. Stark, Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs)
Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters, Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy,
Vol. 19, No. 3, September 17, 2020.
43. In early 2020, the Dominion voting system was rejected by the Texas Board of
Elections, after the “examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5A
system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from
fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.”5
44. Other experts have opined that Dominion’s software is vulnerable to data
manipulation by unauthorized means, and permits data to be altered in states across the country:
5 Secretary of State Ruth R. Hughs, Report of Review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy
Suite 5.5-A, State of Texas, January 24, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 84
10
I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all
battleground states resulting in hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for
President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were
the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE
Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired
results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.6
FACEBOOK
45. Facebook is the largest social media platform for real-time interaction and
dissemination of information across the internet.
46. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Facebook is the world’s
dominant online social network with more than three billion people regularly using Facebook’s
services to connect to friends and family.7
47. According to the FTC, Facebook and its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
Zuckerberg, have maintained a monopoly position through anti-competitive means reflecting Mr.
Zuckerberg’s view that “it is better to buy the competition than to compete.”8
48. Additionally, Facebook has come under scrutiny by the scheduled October 28,
2020, Congressional Hearing related to its status as a neutral media platform under Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act.9
6 See Declaration of Dr. Navid Keshavarez-Nia (Doc. No. 1, Exh. 19), King, et al., v. Whitmer, et
al., case 2:20-cv-13134-LVB (E. D. Mich. filed Nov. 25, 2020), p. 9.
7 See Federal Trade Comm., v. Facebook, Inc., Case 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C. 2020).
8 Id. at ¶ 5.
9 Press Release, Committee to Hold Hearing with Big Tech CEOs on Section 230, U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, Oct. 16, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 84
11
49. Facebook asserts protection from civil liability for its “Good Samaritan” blocking
of content it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. 47 U.S.C.
§ 230(c)(2)(A).
50. Although Mr. Zuckerberg appeared supportive of changes to Section 230,
Facebook continues to censor conservative voices and coverage related to election irregularities.
51. At all material times, Facebook has burdened the Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech,
free press, and online assembly, based upon the favored political and health related preferences
of Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan.
52. At all material times, Facebook has actively disseminated political and health
related content that supports the narrow cultural views of the Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and
Ms. Chan, and the executives and employees of Facebook.
53. Facebook employs algorithms to automatically censor posts based upon words
that Defendant, Mr. Zuckerberg, and his employees find offensive to their political agenda,
which create pop-up notifications that allegedly fact-check the post, with a warning label.
54. The conduct of Facebook precludes protection under the “publisher” exclusion
set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
MARK ZUCKERBERG
55. Defendant, Mr. Zuckerberg, is only the third person on Earth to exceed a net
worth of $100 Billion.
10
10 Tanza Loudenback, Liz Knueven and Taylor Niclole Rogers, Mark Zuckerberg just became
the third person on Earth worth over $100 billion. Here’s how the Facebook CEO makes and
spends his fortune, Business Insider, Aug. 6, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 84
12
56. Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, have used their alter-ego, Facebook,
to dominate the competition in business, and now in politics, by funding their political ideology
through alleged philanthropic charities, and other civic minded entities, such as CTCL11.
57. Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, have pledged 99 percent of their
shares and profits from Facebook to their philanthropic efforts, which include extraordinary
donations to non-profit organization that share their political ideologies.12

11 Nicholas Riccardi, Mark Zuckerberg Donates $100M More to Help Election Offices, Assoc.
Press, October 13, 2020 (“The contribution brings the total funding for the election from
Zuckerberg and Chan to $400 million — the same amount that Congress allocated in March to
help fund election offices as they dealt with the difficulties of adapting to new voting behavior
during the coronavirus pandemic.”)
12 Reuters Staff, Facebook’s Zuckerberg to give 99 percent of shares to charity, Reuters, Dec. 1,
2015.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 84
13
58. In 2020, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan donated over $400 million to Defendant,
CTCL, and the other organization, such as, the Center for Election Innovation and Research and
the Chan and Zuckerberg Initiative.
59. Here, after receiving the funds from Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, CTCL in turn
granted millions of dollars to select cities and counties, across the country.13
60. As a non-profit, CTCL represents to the public that it is “bi-partisan.”
61. CTCL’s executive directors and board members are progressives, and primarily
register Democrat.14
62. As a reporter for the New York Times observed:
The prospect of election administrators tapping large pools of private money has raised
new legal and political questions. That is partly because it is unusual for elections to be
subsidized by nongovernment funding at this level, but also because most of the cash is
coming from nonprofit groups that have liberal ties, and the biggest source of the cash,
Mr. Zuckerberg, has drawn fire from across the political spectrum.
Kenneth P. Vogel, Short of Money to Run Elections, Local Authorities Turn to Private Funds,
New York Times, September 25, 2020.
63. Through their donations to CTCL, and other entities, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms.
Chan have created a scheme and an organized device to provide funding to pursue their political
ideology, which is used as a part of the governmental function of holding an election—while
stifling the speech of the political opposition on Facebook.
13 Scott Walter, What is Mark Zuckerberg’s Election Money Doing in Georgia? The Federalist,
December 7, 2020.
14 The founders of CTCL, Ms. Tiana Epps-Johnson, Donny Bridges and Whitney May, were coworkers at the New Organizing Institute, dissolved in 2015, and described as “the Democratic
Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.” Brian Fung, Inside the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for
Digital Wizardry, Washington Post, April 24, 2019.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 84
14
64. The founder and Executive Director of CTCL, Ms. Tiana Epps-Johnson, holds a
Fellowship with the Obama Foundation, was a director of the progressive New Organizing
Institute, a Democratic grassroots election training group, and sits on the Board of Directors for
the Center for Civic Design.15
65. The actions of Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, have been coordinated
to use private donations to the CTCL, and other alter-egos, to fund public functions in a scheme
that deprives the people in unfunded areas of equal protection under law.
66. Senior Facebook Engineer, Brian Amerige, posted to an internal employee
message board, “We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views.”16
67. Other employees have been pressured to leave Facebook for contributing to
political organization that are in opposition to the ideals of Mr. Zuckerberg and the senior
leadership of Facebook.17
68. The funds received from Facebook, Zuckerberg and Chan, and funneled through
CTCL, and others, were administered and directed to the most effective counties, as determined
by certain secretaries of state, with knowledge of their agenda and the impact it would have on
the 2020 presidential election.
15 See Scott Walter, Georgia Election Officials, a Billionaire, and the “Nonpartisan” Center for
Tech & Civic Life, Capital Research Center, November 27, 2020.
16 Kate Conger and Sheera Frenkel, Dozens at Facebook Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’
Liberal Culture, New York Times, Aug. 28, 2018 (“We claim to welcome all perspectives, but
are quick to attack-often in mobs- anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to
left-leaning ideology.”
17 Nick Wingfield, Oculus Founder Plots a Comeback With a Virtual Border Wall, New York
Times, June 4, 2017.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 84
15
69. The unconstitutional acts and omissions of the other Defendants would not have
been possible without the funding provided by Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, which was
funneled through their alter-ego, CTCL, and others, for the intended purpose of influencing the
2020 presidential election to benefit themselves, and others supportive of their political ideology.
70. Through the combination of the censorship by Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook, and
the use of alter-egos to fund Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan’s political ideology through
extraordinary donations to local counties and election administrators, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms.
Chan have directly funded a scheme to unlawfully and unconstitutionally interfere with a
presidential election, in violation of the Constitution and multiple state election laws.18
71. At all relevant times, Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan and CTCL,
inextricably wove themselves into the presidential election, which effected all the states in the
Union, qualifying their concerted conduct as actionable under the Civil Rights Act.
72. CTCL was instrumental in providing vote-by-mail funding, from donations
received from Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, their alter-ego, Facebook, and others in the
technology industry, under the false excuse of COVID-19 pandemic relief.
73. These grants were also considered additional “support” to city and county
election offices, who were primarily involved in the unlawful conduct asserted by the State of
Texas in their Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, filed with the Supreme Court.19
18 The Director of CTCL also serves as the Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerks
Association with direct access to the Colorado County Voting apparatus, and sits on the board of
another of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan’s donee’s, Center for Election Innovation and
Research. The Executive Director and President of CTCL leads a “team that is doing
groundbreaking work to make US elections more inclusive and secure.”
19 Texas v. Pennsylvania, case 22O155 (U.S. filed Dec. 7, 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 84
16
74. A general break down of the grants awarded in the relevant states, herein, include:
a. Georgia Counties: Cobb ($5.6M), Fulton (6M), Gwinnett (4.2M),
Dougherty (300K), Macon-Bibb (557K);
b. Michigan Counties: Wayne (3.5M), Ann Arbor (417K), Flint (467K),
Lansing (443K), Muskegon (433K), Pontiac (405K), and Saginaw (402K);
c. Pennsylvania Counties: Alleghany (2.02M), Berks (471K), Centre (863K),
Delaware (2.2M), and the City of Philadelphia (10M);
d. Wisconsin Counties: Cities Milwaukie (2.15M), Madison (1.27M), Green
Bay (1.09M), Kenosha (862K), Racine (942K), and Janesville (183K).20
75. The unconstitutional conduct of these Defendants includes, but is not limited to:
a. funding unmanned ballot boxes in violation of state and federal law to
bypass and intercept the United States Mail;
b. unequally funding wage increases and bonuses for poll workers and
canvassers;
c. facilitating the purchase of voting machines, software, high speed vote
tabulators, and voting booths;
d. the training and recruitment of poll workers, many of whom participated in a
conspiracy to influence the presidential election, but all of whom owed a
duty to perform a governmental function of providing a free and fair
election for the people of the United States—not the political favorite of Mr.
Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan and others; and,
e. actively suppressing the speech of others who disagree with the views held
by the monoculture of Facebook, its chief executive officer and others, both
before and after the 2020 presidential election.
76. This conduct in furtherance of a conspiracy, scheme, and device, that burdens the
rights of every registered voter in America, was implemented in municipalities and counties
where documented election fraud and irregularities have occurred.
20 https://ballotpedia.org/Non-profits_providing_vote_by_mail_support_to_
city_and_county election_offices.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 84
17
77. Prior to the election, Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, censored
important information that would have exposed misdeeds, scandal, and possible involvement of
their preferred candidate, which violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
21
78. This pre-election censorship is now under federal investigation.22
79. The Media Research Center conducted a poll of voters related to eight specific
issues involving Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg’s preferred candidates, and determined that 17%
of said voters would have changed their vote had they been aware of the censored information.23
80. Facebook and Zuckerberg continue to censor election information including, any
post related to President Trump, and any user on Facebook that uses the phrase “voter fraud” or
“election fraud” is similarly censored.
81. Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in such conduct as part of a larger
scheme and device to interfere with a federal election—which continued after election night, and
presently continues as an unconstitutional effort to sway the electorate in a presidential election.
82. A private corporation can be fairly be said to be a state actor for purposes of the
Civil Rights Act, if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action
of the private entity, so that the action of the latter may fairly be treated as that of the state itself.
Blum v. Yaretshy, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982).
21 Marl Moore, Post’s Expose on Hunter Biden Soars Online Despite Social Media Censorship,
N.Y. Post, October 20, 2020.
22 Evan Perez and Pamela Brown, Federal Criminal Investigation into Hunter Biden Focuses on
His Business Dealing in China, CNN Politics, December 10, 2020.

23 Jordan Davidson, Poll: One in Six Would Have Changed Their Vote if They Had Known About
Scandals Suppressed By Media, The Federalist, November 24, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 84
18
CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE
83. Defendant, CTCL, is a non-profit organization providing federal election grants to
local governments.
84. On its website, CTCL’s mission includes training public election officials in
communication and technology and to inform and mobilize voters.
85. CTCL states it is “a team of civic technologists, trainers, researchers, election
administration and data experts working to foster a more informed and engaged democracy, and
helping to modernize elections.”
86. The founders of CTCL all previously worked at the New Organizing Institute
(NOI), a center dedicated to training progressive groups and Democrat campaigns in digital
campaigning strategies.
87. NOI’s executive director, Ethan Roeder, led the data departments for the Obama
presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012.
88. Funders of CTCL include groups such as the Skoll Foundation, the Democracy
Fund, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation.
89. CTCL is associated with Rock the Vote, who despite their non-partisan claims,
has regularly featured progressive policies in its efforts to mobilize young people in elections.
90. Along with Rock the Vote and The Skoll Foundation, CTCL also lists Facebook
as a partner in their efforts.
91. CTCL is a progressive organization that targets urban cities for its private federal
election grants to turn out the progressive vote in those urban cities.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 84
19
92. On or after September 1, 2020, CTCL received approximately $250 million from
Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan.
93. CTCL used that money for federal election grants to local election offices as
“COVID- 19 response grants.”
94. On its website, CTCL stated:
(CTCL) is excited to expand our COVID- 19 Response Grant program to all U.S.
local election jurisdictions. Backed by a generous $250M contribution, CTCL will
provide grants to local election jurisdictions across the country to help ensure you
have the staffing, training, and equipment necessary so this November every
eligible voter can participate in a safe and timely way and have their vote counted.
95. In 2020, Defendant, CTCL provided private federal election grants to cities and
counties in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.
96. Said states do not accept CTCL’s private elections grants.
97. To accomplish its objectives, Defendant, CTCL, circumvented these state’s
legislatures, and recruited local governments to apply and agree to accept CTCL’s private federal
election grants.
98. CTCL’s private federal election grants to counties and cities in Michigan,
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia were not approved by Congress, nor by the respective
state legislatures of the states, herein listed.
99. In the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Congress left discretion to the states on
how to implement federal elections.
24
100. HAVA preempts CTCL’s private federal election grants to the cities and counties.
24 See 52 USC §§ 20901-21145.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 84
20
101. Under HAVA, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, CTCL’s private
federal election grants are not legally authorized by federal law, nor the laws of the states, herein.
102. Public-private partnerships are constitutionally impermissible in federal elections.
103. CTCL private federal elections grants are a constitutionally impermissible publicprivate partnership.
104. The entanglement of public and private interests involved with cities and counties
accepting and using CTCL’s private federal election grant are unconstitutionally impermissible.
105. Federal and state governments exclusively fund federal elections to eliminate
undue influence and the appearance of undue influence by private parties.
106. CTCL’s private funding of federal elections appeared to and, in fact, did unduly
influence the 2020 presidential election.
107. Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)25 to create
“national procedures for voter registration for elections for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 20503.
108. NVRA requires states to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote
at the same time that they apply for, or renew a driver’s license, and requires states to forward the
completed application to the appropriate state or local election official. 52 U.S.C. § 20504.
109. NVRA provides that citizens can register to vote by mail using mail-in forms
developed by each state and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). 52 U.S.C. § 20505.
110. The purpose of the NVRA was to coordinate federal and state administration of
voter registration for federal elections, and to create legally authorized, nationwide, and uniform
standards for voter registration.
25 See 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501-20511.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 84
21
111. NVRA does not legally authorize local governments to accept private federal
election grants for voter registration.
112. NVRA’s preemption prohibits local governments from accepting private federal
election grants for voter registration.
113. Under NVRA, the EAC is to be bi-partisan and work with all the states in a bipartisan way on voter registration for federal elections.
114. The CTCL’s private federal election grants circumvent the EAC and the states,
and thus conflicts with NVRA.
115. CTCL’s private federal election grants to local governments lead to deviations
from the federally-approved and state-approved election voter registration administration plans
and budgets—thus, conflicting with NVRA.
116. The federal and state money distributed to county and city clerks that conduct
voter registration are distributed pursuant to a legally authorized method, that is approved by the
states under the guidance of EAC, so the counties and cities receive a state-approved share for
voter registration.
117. Local governments accepting CTCL’s private federal election grants, violate
NVRA by injecting money into federal election voter registration, which is not approved by the
EAC, or the states.
118. States are not allowed to deviate from the NVRA.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 84
22
THE ELECTION
119. On November 3, 2020, a presidential election was held in every state of the Union
(Election).
120. Leading up to the Election, the Defendants conspired to change election laws,
without consent of the people acting through their respective state legislatures.
121. At all relevant times prior to and after the Election, in violation of the
Constitution, Facebook, at the direction of Mr. Zuckerberg, censored certain media, press
releases, articles, opinions and posts concerning the Election.
122. During the late evening of November 3, 2020, many of the so-called “swing
states,” where reporting election results in favor of the incumbent presidential candidate.
123. Thereafter, a number of states prematurely stopped counting ballots.
124. During the early morning hours of November 4, 2020, the Defendants’ preferred
presidential candidate received a statistically impossible spike in votes.
125. Dominion voting machines were used in over 1600 counties across the United
States, many of which were set to flag a high rate of ballots for adjudication, which could then be
used to alter or delete votes in favor of one candidate.
126. The combination of unconstitutional acts and omission by the Defendants, as
described herein, has created a constitutional crisis, destroyed the people’s faith in elections,
violated the rights of millions of people, weakened national security, triggered financial
uncertainty and mental anguish, and increased the possibility of civil and world war, all of which
has proximately caused damage to the Plaintiffs, and every registered voter similarly situated.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 84
23
MICHIGAN
127. In 2018, the Michigan constitution was amended to allow all registered voters the
right to request and vote by absentee ballot without giving a reason. Mich. Const. art. 2, § 4.
128. On May 19, 2020, Defendant, Ms. Benson, announced that the secretary of state
would send unsolicited absentee-voter ballot applications by mail to all 7.7 million registered
Michigan voters, prior to the primary and general elections.
129. Ms. Benson’s acts and omissions failed to ensure that Michigan’s election
systems and procedures were adequate to ensure the accuracy and legality of the historic flood of
mail-in votes.26
130. In fact, Ms. Benson’s acts and omissions “did away with protections designed to
deter voter fraud.” Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 81.
131. As alleged by the State of Texas, joined by 20 other states in the Union,
Ms. Benson’s “flooding of Michigan with millions of absentee ballot applications prior to the
2020 general election violated” Michigan law. Id.
132. M.C.L. § 168.759(3), states:
An application for an absent voter ballot under this section may be made in any of
the following ways:
a. By a written request signed by the voter;
b. On an absent voter ballot application form provided for that purpose by the clerk
of the city or township; and,
c. On a federal postcard application.
26 See Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, Texas v. Pennsylvania, case 22O155, (U.S.
filed Dec. 7, 2020) (Texas v. Pennsylvania), ¶ 81.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 84
24
133. The Michigan Legislature did not include the secretary of state as a means for
distributing unsolicited absentee ballots without application by a voter. Id. at § 168.759(3)(b).
134. Under the statute’s plain language, the Legislature explicitly gave only local
clerks the power to distribute absentee voter ballots, upon application. Id.
135. Because the Legislature declined to explicitly include the secretary of state as a
vehicle for distributing absentee ballots applications, Defendant, Ms. Benson, “lacked authority
to distribute even a single absentee voter ballot application—much less the millions of absentee
ballot applications Secretary Benson chose to flood across Michigan.” Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶
84.
136. In June 2020, Defendant, Ms. Benson, also violated Michigan law when she
launched a program allowing absentee ballots to be requested online, without signature
verification as expressly required under Michigan law. Id. at ¶ 85.
137. The Michigan Legislature did not approve or authorize Ms. Benson’s unilateral
actions. Id.
138. MCL § 168.759(4) states in relevant part:
An applicant for an absent voter ballot shall sign the application. Subject to section
761(2), a clerk or assistant clerk shall not deliver an absent voter ballot to an applicant
who does not sign the application.
139. Further, MCL § 168.761(2) states in relevant part:
The qualified voter file must be used to determine the genuineness of a signature on an
application for an absent voter ballot, and if the signatures do not agree sufficiently or [if]
the signature is missing the ballot must be rejected.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 84
25
140. Ms. Benson’s “unconstitutional modifications of Michigan’s election rules
resulted in the distribution of millions of absentee ballot applications without verifying voter
signatures as required by MCL §§ 168.759(4) and 168.761(2).” Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 89.
141. Democrats in Michigan voted by mail at a ratio of approximately two to one
compared to Republican voters.
142. Defendant, Ms. Benson, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated
Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.” Id.
at ¶ 79.
143. Michigan’s Legislature has not ratified these changes, and Michigan’s election
laws do not include a severability clause.” Id.
144. Michigan also requires that poll watchers and inspectors have access to vote
counting and canvassing. M.C.L. §§ 168.674-.675. Id. at ¶ 90.
145. Local election officials in Wayne County made a conscious and express policy
decision not to follow M.C.L. §§ 168.674-.675 for the opening, counting, and recording of
absentee ballots. Id. at ¶ 91.
146. Michigan also has strict signature verification requirements for absentee ballots,
including that the Elections Department place a written statement or stamp on each ballot
envelope where the voter signature is placed, indicating that the voter signature was in fact
checked and verified with the signature on file with the State. See MCL § 168.765a(6).
147. However, Wayne County made the policy decision to ignore Michigan’s statutory
signature verification requirements for absentee ballots. Id. at ¶ 93.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 84
26
148. Thus, one presidential candidate, over the rest, materially benefited from those
unconstitutional changes to Michigan’s election law, who happens to be the choice of those
involved in the scheme and device to interfere with the federal election process.
149. As is outlined in Texas v. Pennsylvania, numerous poll challengers and an
Election Department employee whistleblower have testified that the signature verification
requirement was ignored in Wayne County. Id. at ¶ 94.27
150. In Johnson v. Benson, Jesse Jacob, a decades-long City of Detroit employee
assigned to work in the Elections Department for the 2020 election testified that:
a. absentee ballots that were received in the mail would have the voter’s
signature on the envelope;
b. while I was at the TCF Center, he was instructed not to look at any of the
signatures on the absentee ballots; and that,
c. he was instructed not to compare the signature on the absentee ballot with the
signature on file.28
151. The TCF was the only facility within Wayne County authorized to count ballots
for the City of Detroit. Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 95.
152. These non-legislative modifications to Michigan’s election statutes resulted in a
number of constitutionally tainted votes that far exceeds the margin of voters separating the
presidential candidates in Michigan. Id. at ¶ 96.
27 See Johnson v. Benson, Petition for Extraordinary Writs & Declaratory Relief, Case No.
162286, (Mich. 2020), ¶ 71, 138-39, App. 25a-51a.
28 Id., Affidavit of Jessy Jacob, App. 14 at ¶ 15.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 84
27
153. Additional, public information confirms the material adverse impact on the
integrity of the vote in Wayne County, caused by these unconstitutional changes to Michigan’s
election law. Id. at ¶ 97.
154. For example, the Wayne County Statement of Votes Report lists 174,384 absentee
ballots out of 566,694 absentee ballots tabulated (about 30.8%) as counted without a registration
number for precincts in the City of Detroit. Id., Cicchetti Decl. at ¶ 27, App. 8a.
155. The number of votes not tied to a registered voter by itself exceeds the margin of
victory of the announced winner of the presidential election by more than 28,377 votes. Id. at ¶
97.
156. The extra ballots cast most likely resulted from the phenomenon of Wayne
County election workers running the same ballots through a tabulator multiple times, with
Republican poll watchers obstructed or denied access, and election officials ignoring poll
watchers’ challenges, as documented by numerous declarations. Id. at ¶ 97, and App. 25a-51a.
157. After the election, “County Board of Canvassers (“Canvassers Board”), William
Hartman, determined that 71% of Detroit’s Absent Voter Counting Boards (“AVCBs”) were
unbalanced—i.e., the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots
cast—without explanation.” Id. at ¶ 99, and App. 25a-51a, at ¶ 29.
158. On November 17, 2020, the Canvassers Board deadlocked 2-2 over whether to
certify the results of the presidential election based on numerous reports of fraud and unanswered
material discrepancies in the county-wide election results. Id. at ¶ 100.
159. A few hours later, the Republican Board members reversed their decision and
voted to certify the results after severe harassment, including threats of violence. Id.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 84
28
160. The following day, the two Republican members of the Board rescinded their
votes to certify the vote and signed affidavits alleging they were bullied and misled into
approving election results and do not believe the votes should be certified until serious
irregularities in Detroit votes are resolved. Id. at ¶ 100, Cicchetti Decl. at ¶ 27, App. 8a.
161. As determined by the State of Texas and many other states in support thereof,
“[r]egardless of the number of votes that were affected by the unconstitutional modification of
Michigan’s election rules, the non-legislative changes to the election rules violates the Electors
Clause.” Id. at ¶ 100.
162. “There exists sufficient evidence to place in doubt [Michigan’s] presidential
election results in identified key counties, including issues with transparency, fraudulent
changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and
irregularities.”29
163. Additionally, Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan and their alter-egos,
Facebook and CTCL, funneled approximately $9.8 million to ten different, predominately
Democrat, counties across the state of Michigan.
164. This infusion of private money created an unfair, two-tier election system, which
caused disparate treatment of voters and thus violated the civil and constitutional rights of millions
of Michiganders and American citizens.30
29 Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1), Bally v. Whitmer, case
1:20-cv-1088 (W.D. Mich. filed Nov. 11, 2020), ¶ 44.
30 See Petition for Extraordinary Writs & Declaratory Relief, Johnson v. Benson, case MSC No.
162286 (Mich. filed Nov. 26, 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 84
29
165. The money paid by Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, through CTCL, was used to:
a. Pay ballot harvesters;
b. Fund mobile ballot pick-up units;
c. Deputize and pay political activists to manage ballots;
d. Pay poll workers, election judges, i.e., inspectors and adjudicators;
e. Establish drop-boxes to bypass and intercept the United States Mail.
f. Establish other satellite offices;
g. Pay local election officials and agents “hazard pay” to recruit cities
recognized as Democrat Party strongholds to apply for the non-profit grants;
h. Consolidate counting centers to facilitate the movement of hundreds of
thousands of questionable ballots, without legally required observation;
i. Implement a two-tiered ballot curing plan that unlawfully counts ballots in
Democrat Party strongholds, while spoiling similar ballots in Republican
areas; and,
j. Subsidize and design a scheme to remove poll watchers from one political
party so that the critical responsibility of counting the ballots could be done
without oversight.31
166. After an election, the secretary of state “on the receipt of the certified copies of the
statements of votes given in the several counties,” lays “before the board the statements received
by [her] of the votes given at such election in the several counties.” Mich. Code § 168.843.
167. Thereafter, the Board of State Canvassers examines the statements received by the
secretary of state of the votes cast in the several counties, and prepares a statement showing the
total number of votes cast for all candidates. Mich. Code §§ 168.841-845.
31 Id., Expert Report of James Carlson, App. 245-276.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 84
30
168. According to a Republican board member, the Board of State Canvassers duty is
“ministerial,” and there’s “nothing in the law that gives me the authority to request an audit or
block certification.”32
169. On November 23, 2020, the board-certified Michigan’s election.
170. The members of the board are executive officers under the supervision of the
Governor, the latter of which is elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution.
171. On November 23, 2020, Defendant, Ms. Whitmer, with knowledge of the
numerous election irregularities and unconstitutional behavior of officers in her administration,
released the following statement after the Michigan State Board of Canvassers voted to certify
the results of the November 2020 election:
I commend the three members of the State Board of Canvassers who voted to follow the
law and certify the 2020 election results today. The people of Michigan have spoken.
President-elect Biden won the State of Michigan by more than 154,000 votes, and he will
be our next president on January 20th. I also want to thank Secretary of State Jocelyn
Benson and the local clerks across Michigan who made sure this year’s election was free,
fair and secure, and the voters who turned out in record numbers to make their voices
heard. Now, it’s time to put this election behind us and come together as a state to
defeat our common enemy: COVID-19.
172. Thereafter, on December 14, 2020, Michigan’s 16 electoral college delegates
unanimously voted in support of the Democrat candidates for president and vice-president.
33
32 Ari Beerman, In a Blow to Trump, Michigan’s Canvassing Board Certifies Election Results,
Mother Jones, Nov. 23, 2020.
33 Dave Boucher, Michigan’s Electoral College delegates cast all 16 votes for Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris, Detroit Free Press, Dec. 14, 2020. See also Pat Droney, Governor Whitmer Has
Police, 200 Troops Block Republican Electors From Michigan State Capital, Law Enforcement
Today, December 14, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 84
31
173. On that same day, Allied Security Operations Group “(ASOG”), released a report
of an audit of the Dominion voting machines and software used in Antrim County, Michigan, in
the 2020 election (“ASOG Report”).
34 A copy of the Revised Preliminary Summary V2 is
attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exh. 9, as though fully contained herein.
174. The ASOG Report concludes:
Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent
errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system
intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic
ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk
adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This
leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The
Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that
the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.
175. Said report was generated after a Michigan voter petitioned the court for a
temporary restraining order requiring Antrim County to preserve the Dominion machines and
electronic data in the county, and to allow expert auditors to inspect the sequestered machines.
176. On December 1, 2020, a memo from the Michigan Bureau of Elections, an agency
overseen by Ms. Benson, ordered Michigan county clerks to ‘“delete Electronic Poll Book
software and associated’ even as calls to audit the election persist.”35
177. On December 4, 2020, said Michigan court granted the petitioning voter the right to
have his experts inspect the Dominion Voting Machines and contributing date.
34 William Bailey v. Antrim County, case 2020-CZ-9238 (13th Cir.Ct. Mich. filed Dec. 13, 2020).
35 Frank Salvato, Michigan Secretary of State Issues Order to Delete Election Data Amid Audit
Calls, National File, December 4, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 84
32
178. On December 9, 2020, Defendant, Ms. Benson, moved for a protective order to
conceal the results of the examination—which was initially granted, but later removed by the court.
179. On December 13, 2020, the Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nessel, tweeted:
180. Due to the unconstitutional acts of Defendant, Ms. Benson, and others, said
statements from the several counties were constitutionally tainted and, thus, all of Ms. Benson’s
conduct involving the certification of Michigan’s federal election is unconstitutional.
181. As the United States Supreme Court has held many times:
[T]he Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a
claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…
when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal
Constitution, he ‘comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character
and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The
State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States.’
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237 (1974) (quoting ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-
160 (1908).
182. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Defendant, Ms.
Benson, was stripped of her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Michigan.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 84
33
183. As such, Defendant, Ms. Benson, was acting outside the scope of her official
capacity when she certified said results of the presidential election.
184. Defendant, Ms. Whitmer, as the state’s chief executive officer, is responsible for
the constitutional execution of the state’s laws.
185. The governor of Michigan is responsible for transmitting the state’s results of an
election to the United States for transmission to Congress and, by state law, to the United States
secretary of state. See 3 U.S.C. § 6. Mich. Code § 168.46.
186. This ministerial task has been unconstitutionally corrupted by her subordinate
executive officers and other election officials, and Ms. Whitmer’s “failure to meaningfully
investigate and determine the proper lawful vote counts when the general election was marked
with inaccuracy and loss of integrity over absentee ballots and other serious statutory violations
such as failure to require bipartisan oversight at absent voting counting boards.”36
187. In allowing the board and secretary of state to certify an unconstitutional
presidential election, as described herein, Ms. Whitmer was stripped of her official capacity as
Governor of the State of Michigan.
188. As such, Ms. Whitmer was acting outside the scope of her official capacity, when
the results of the Election were certified, as above.
189. Said certification of the Election is ultra vires and unconstitutional.
190. Said certification of the Election is void ab initio.
36 See Petition for Extraordinary Writs & Declaratory Relief, Johnson v. Benson, filed Nov. 26,
2020, MSC No. 162286 (Mich. filed Nov. 26, 2020), ¶ 38.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 84
34
GEORGIA
191. In 2017, Georgia voters and a voting rights organization brought separate § 1983
actions, later consolidated, against Georgia state officials alleging that the state’s reliance on a
direct recording electronic (“DRE”) voting system burdened their 14th Amendment rights to due
process and equal protection.37
192. Thereafter, on or about April 4, 2019, behind closed doors, Mr. Kemp signed a
bill that, among other things, granted Dominion an estimated $150 million contract to replace
Georgia’s voting machines.38
193. An expert witness in the Curling case in Georgia, Harri Hursti, observed
Georgia’s June 9, 2020, statewide primary, and August 11 runoff, and participated in a Rule 34
inspection of the ongoing updating of Dominion software in Fulton County, Georgia.39
194. In a 48-page affidavit, Mr. Hursti noted “a wide range of well-known and publicly
disclosed vulnerabilities.”40
37 Curling, et al., v. Raffensperger, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:17-cv-2989-AT, (N.D. Ga.)
(“Curling case”). See also Johnny Kaufman, Federal Court Asked to Scrap Georgia’s 27,000
Electronic Voting Machines, NPR, September 12, 2018.
38 Ben Nadler, Georgia Gov. Kemp Signs New Touchscreen Voting Machines Bill, Associated
Press, April 4, 2019. See also, Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse, Georgia Governor Inks Law to
Replace Voting Machines, The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, June 14, 2019(“In a statement by
[Fair Fight, a voting rights organization started by Stacey Abrams], the group called it
“corruption at its worst.”).
39 See Declaration of Harri Hursti, October 4, 2020, Curling case, Doc. 942, Exh. A. See also
Id., Docs. 680-1, 800-2, 809-3, 860-1, 877, and 923-2 (prior declarations of Mr. Hursti).
40 See Declaration of Harri Hursti (Doc. 809-3, Exh. 2), Curling case, August 24, 2020, ¶ 36.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 84
35
195. The security risks outlined in Mr. Hursti’s affidavit, including, the “operating
system risks, the failure to harden the computers, performing operations directly on the operating
systems, lax control of memory cards, lack of procedures, and potential remote access, are
extreme and destroy the credibility of the tabulations and output of the reports coming from a
voting system.” Id. at ¶ 49.
196. On October 4, 2020, Mr. Hursti signed a supplemental affidavit concerning his
observation and inspection “to review the ongoing software updating of the Dominion software
for Fulton County ballot marking device (‘BMD’) touchscreen units to ICX software version
5.5.10.32.”41
197. Based upon Mr. Hursti expert opinion, the “methods and processes of adopting
and installing this software change is completely unacceptable.” Id. at ¶ 20.
198. The “methods and processes adopted by Dominion in Fulton County do not meet
national standards for managing voting system technical problems and remedies, and should not
be accepted for use in a public election under any circumstances.” Id.
199. As is outlined in Texas v. Pennsylvania:
a. Georgia law prohibited the opening of absentee ballots until after the polls
open on Election Day. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(2).
b. Georgia law authorized and required a single registrar or clerk—after
reviewing the outer envelope—to reject an absentee ballot if the voter: failed
to sign the required oath or to provide the required information; the
signature appears invalid; the required information does not conform with
the information on file; or, if the voter is otherwise found ineligible to vote.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B)-(C).
41 Declaration of Harri Hursti (Doc. 942, ¶ 3), Curling case, Oct 2, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 84
36
c. Georgia law provided absentee voters the chance to “cure a failure to sign
the oath, an invalid signature, or missing information” on a ballot’s outer
envelope by the deadline for verifying provisional ballots (i.e., three days
after the election). O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C), 21-2-419(c)(2).
d. To facilitate cures, Georgia law required the relevant election official to
notify the voter in writing: “The board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk
shall promptly notify the elector of such rejection, a copy of which
notification shall be retained in the files of the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk for at least two years.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B).
e. On March 6, 2020, Georgia’s Secretary of State entered a Compromise
Settlement Agreement and Release with the Democratic Party of Georgia
(the “Settlement”) to materially change the statutory requirements for
reviewing signatures on absentee ballot envelopes to confirm the voter’s
identity by making it far more difficult to challenge defective signatures
beyond the express mandatory procedures set forth at O.C.G.A. § 21-2-
386(a)(1)(B).
42
f. Among other things, before a ballot could be rejected, the Settlement
required a registrar who found a defective signature to now seek a review by
two other registrars, and only if a majority of the registrars agreed that the
signature was defective could the ballot be rejected but not before all three
registrars’ names were written on the ballot envelope along with the reason
for the rejection. Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 71.
g. These cumbersome procedures are in direct conflict with Georgia’s statutory
requirements, as is the Settlement’s requirement that notice be provided by
telephone (i.e., not in writing) if a telephone number is available. Finally,
the Settlement purports to require State election officials to consider issuing
guidance and training materials drafted by an expert retained by the
Democratic Party of Georgia. Id.
h. Georgia’s legislature has not ratified these material changes to statutory law
mandated by the Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release, including
altered signature verification requirements and early opening of ballots. Id.
at ¶ 72.
i. This unconstitutional change in Georgia law materially benefitted one
presidential candidate, over another. Id. at ¶ 74.
42 See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Raffensperger, case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR (N.D.
Ga.).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 84
37
j. According to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, the Democrat’s
nominee for president had almost double the number of absentee votes
(65.32%) as the incumbent candidate. (34.68%). Id., Cicchetti Decl. at ¶ 25,
App. 7a-8a.
k. The effect of this unconstitutional change in Georgia election law, which
made it more likely that ballots without matching signatures would be
counted, had a material impact on the outcome of the election. Id. at ¶ 65.
l. Specifically, there were 1,305,659 absentee mail-in ballots submitted in
Georgia in 2020. There were 4,786 absentee ballots rejected in 2020. This is
a rejection rate of .37%. In contrast, in 2016, the 2016 rejection rate was
6.42% with 13,677 absentee mail-in ballots being rejected out of 213,033
submitted, which more than seventeen times greater than in 2020. Id.,
Cicchetti Decl. at ¶ 24, App. 7a.
m. If the rejection rate of mailed-in absentee ballots remained the same in 2020
as it was in 2016, there would be 83,517 less tabulated ballots in 2020. Id. at
¶ 76.
n. The statewide split of absentee ballots was 34.68% for Trump and 65.2% for
Biden. Id.
o. Rejecting at the higher 2016 rate with the 2020 split between Trump and
Biden would decrease Trump votes by 28,965 and Biden votes by 54,552,
which would be a net gain for Trump of 25,587 votes. Id.
p. This would be more than needed to overcome the Biden advantage of
12,670 votes, and Trump would win by 12,917 votes. Id.
q. Regardless of the number of ballots affected, the non-legislative changes to
the election rules violated the Electors Clause. Id.
200. After the Election, local attorney, L. Lin Wood, Jr., Esq., filed a verified
complaint against Georgia’s Secretary of State, Defendant, Mr. Raffensperger.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 84
38
201. The complaint sued the secretary of state in his official capacity, wherein
Attorney Wood accused Mr. Raffensperger of unilaterally abrogating Georgia law
governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.
43
202. On November 25, 2020, former U.S. Attorney, Sidney Powell, Esq.
(Attorney Powell), on behalf of a group of Georgia voters, filed a complaint in federal court
for emergency relief to “de-certify the results of the General Election for the Office of
President.” (Pearson Complaint).44
203. In the Pearson Complaint, the Plaintiff’s alleged that Georgia’s certification
of the Election was unconstitutional, based upon:
a. the conduct of Defendant, Mr. Raffensperger, acting in his official authority
as the chairman of the State Election Board, wherein said board adopted
Secretary of State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15, Processing Ballots Prior to
Election Day, in direct conflict with O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(2);
b. the unconstitutional conduct of certain Georgia county election officials,
who, after Defendant, Mr. Raffensperger, instructed Georgia counties to
conduct an audit of said federal election in a manner consistent with
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498, did not provide certain political parties and candidates
meaningful access and an opportunity to review the validity of mail-in
ballots during the pre-canvassing meetings and, specifically, mishandled
many other ballots—which established a pattern showing the absence of
mistake. Id. at ¶¶ 64-91.
c. specific acts of fraud, including the counting of certain absentee ballots in
Fulton County, Georgia, without observers, due to a false claim of a “pipe
burst,” which resulted in the tabulation center “shutting down” for 2 ½
hours, while said ballots were unlawfully counted, without observers
present. Id. at ¶¶ 111-114.
43 See Verified Amended Complaint, Woods v. Raffensperger (Doc. No. 5), Case 1:19-cv-05028-
WMR (N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2020).
44 Complaint for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 1),
Pearson, et al., v. Kemp., Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 84
39
d. specific acts of fraud, including the identification of the Voting Systems
Officer of Strategy and Security of the company that manufactured said
voting machines, Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, who publicly
made derogatory remarks about the incumbent, Presidential candidate, and
has documented ties to a domestic terrorist organization. Id. at ¶ 120.
e. numerous public records, expert reports and witness statements evidencing
the Defendants’ “egregious misconduct, including ignored legislative
mandates concerning mail-in and ordinary ballots [that] led to
disenfranchisement of an enormous number of Georgia voters.” Id. at ¶ 122.
f. statistical analysis performed by experts established: “lost votes;” “a pattern
of widespread fraud;” votes casts by persons who have moved out of
Georgia or had “fraudulent residence addresses;” analysis that established a
“platykurtic distribution;” thousands of “missing and unlawful ballots;” and
“data breaches in the Dominion software permitting rogue actors to
penetrate and manipulate the software during the recent general election.”
Id. at ¶¶ 122-131.45
g. the software used by the voting machines in Georgia, which allowed
operators of the machines to: accept or discard batches of votes; mark
certain ballots as “problem ballots” for discretionary determination; and,
view and delete individual ballot scans—without “guarantee that electronic
ballots accurately reflect the choices of voters because there’s no paper
backup to verify results,” contrary to 50 U.S.C. § 20701. Id. at ¶¶ 92-102.
h. evidence that said software used by the voting machines in Georgia was
created to rig elections, facilitate vulnerability and to “allow a select few to
determine which votes will be counted in any election.” Id. at ¶ 103.
i. evidence of a common scheme, plan and modus operandi, concerning the
creation of said software to manipulate elections, worldwide, e.g. in
Venezuela. Id. at ¶103.
j. the foreign connections and ownership of said software and voting
machines, used throughout Georgia. Id. at ¶104-105.
45 See, An Analysis of Surveys Regarding Absentee Ballots Across Several States by William M
Biggs (Doc. No. 1-1), Pearson Complaint, Nov. 25, 2020. See also Declaration of Eric Quinnell
(Doc. No. 1-27), Pearson Complaint, Nov. 25, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 84
40
k. the numerous reports, articles and statements made by prominent political
figures, newspaper articles, television news shows, and multiple interviews
over the last fifteen years indicating the unreliability of said software and
voting machines, many of which included warnings that the software and
voting machines, herein used, created a treat to the national security of the
United States. Id. at ¶¶ 104-115.
l. analysis concluding that said system and software “have been accessible and
were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China.” Id. at
¶¶ 111-114.
204. Also, within “the State of Georgia, private non-profits, state officials and local
elected officials acted to systematically eviscerate Georgia’s Election Law contrary to Title
21 of the Official Code of Georgia—failing to protect election integrity.”46
205. For example, as a part of the scheme herein described, Defendant, CTCL, using
money given to it by Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, granted $6.3 million dollars to
Fulton County, Georgia, which was primarily used to:
a. pay ballot harvesters;
b. fund mobile ballot pick-up units;
c. deputize and pay political activists to manage ballots;
d. pay election judges and poll workers;
e. establish satellite offices, and fund drop-boxes to bypass and intercept United
States Mail;
f. pay local election officials and agents to recruit cities recognized as
democratic strongholds to recruit other cities to apply for the grants from nonprofits;
46 Petition for Election Contest, Wood v. Raffensperger, case 2020CV342959 (Ga. Super. Ct.
filed November 25, 2020), pp. 1-2.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 84
41
g. consolidate counting centers to facilitate the movement of hundreds of
thousands of questionable ballots, without legally required observation;
h. initiate and implement a two-tiered ballot “curing” plan that unlawfully
counts ballots in Democrat Party strongholds, while spoiling similar ballots in
Republican areas; and,
i. pay for and help design the plan to remove the poll watchers from one
political party so that the critical responsibility of determining the validity of
the ballot and the validity of the count could be conducted without
oversight.47
206. On November 20, 2020, Defendant, Mr. Raffensperger, unconstitutionally
certified the Election, under color of O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-502, and his official authority.
207. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Defendant, Mr.
Raffensperger, was stripped of his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Georgia.
208. As such, Mr. Raffensperger was acting individually, outside the scope of his
official capacity, when he certified said results of the Election, as described herein.
209. On November 20, 2020, Defendant, Mr. Kemp, unconstitutionally certified the
election, under color of O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-502, and his official authority.
210. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Mr. Kemp was
stripped of his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia.
211. As such, Mr. Kemp was acting individually, outside the scope of his official
capacity, when he certified said results of the Election, as described herein.
212. Said certifications of the Election are ultra vires and unconstitutional.
213. Said certifications of the Election are void ab initio.
47 Id., Harding Decl., Exh. A, B, C and F, to the original petition, ¶ 25, App. 7a-8a.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 84
42
PENNSYLVANIA
214. In 2019, Pennsylvania enacted bipartisan election reforms that, among other
things, set a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on election day for a county board of elections to receive a
mail-in ballot. 25 Pa. Stat. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c).
215. Later, the Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court extended that deadline to three days
after Election Day, and adopted a presumption that even non-postmarked ballots were
presumptively timely.48
216. On August 7, 2020, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, and others,
filed a complaint against Defendant, Ms. Boockvar, in her official capacity, and other local
election officials, seeking “a declaratory judgment that Pennsylvania existing signature
verification procedures for mail-in voting” were unlawful for a number of reasons.49
217. The Pennsylvania Department of State quickly settled with the plaintiffs,
issuing revised guidance on September 11, 2020, stating in relevant part:
The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to
set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by
the county board of elections.
218. This guidance is contrary to Pennsylvania law, and unconstitutional.50
48 Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020).
49 League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT (E.D. Pa. filed
Aug. 7, 2020).
50 Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶¶ 41-63.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 84
43
219. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, filed after the election in the U.S. Supreme Court, the
Attorney General of the State of Texas averred:
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative approval,
unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification
for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these
changes, and the legislation did not include a severability clause.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 43.
220. As outlined in Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint:
a. Prior to the election, Secretary Boockvar sent an email to local election
officials urging them to provide opportunities for various persons—
including political parties—to contact voters to “cure” defective mail-in
ballots. This process clearly violated several provisions of the state election
code;
b. Section 3146.8(a) requires: “The county boards of election, upon receipt of
official absentee ballots in sealed official absentee ballot envelopes as
provided under this article and mail-in ballots as in sealed official mail-in
ballot envelopes as provided under Article XIII-D,1 shall safely keep the
ballots in sealed or locked containers until they are to be canvassed by the
county board of elections;”
c. Section 3146.8(g)(1)(ii) provides that mail-in ballots shall be canvassed (if
they are received by eight o’clock p.m. on election day) in the manner
prescribed by this subsection.
d. Section 3146.8(g)(1.1) provides that the first look at the ballots shall be “no
earlier than seven o’clock a.m. on election day.” And the hour for this “precanvas” must be publicly announced at least 48 hours in advance. Then the
votes are counted on election day.
e. By removing the ballots for examination prior to seven o’clock a.m. on
election day, Secretary Boockvar created a system whereby local officials
could review ballots without the proper announcements, observation, and
security. This entire scheme, which was only followed in Democrat majority
counties, was blatantly illegal in that it permitted the illegal removal of
ballots from their locked containers prematurely.
Id. at ¶¶ 50-51.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 84
44
221. As a result of Ms. Boockvar’s unconstitutional acts, state and local election
officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties violated Pennsylvania’s election law by
adopting different standards for voters in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, with the intent to
favor one presidential candidate, over another. Id. at ¶ 52.51
222. As a result of said unconstitutional acts by Ms. Boockvar, absentee and mail-in
ballots in Pennsylvania were evaluated under an illegal standard regarding signature verification.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶ 53.
223. As stated by Texas, “It is now impossible to determine which ballots were
properly cast and which ballots were not.” Id.
224. The changed process allowing the curing of absentee and mail-in ballots in
Allegheny and Philadelphia counties is a separate basis resulting in an unknown number of
ballots being treated in an unconstitutional manner, inconsistent with Pennsylvania statute. Id. at
¶ 54.
225. In addition, a great number of ballots were received after the statutory deadline,
and yet were counted by virtue of the fact that Pennsylvania did not segregate all ballots received
after 8:00 pm on November 3, 2020. Id. at ¶ 55.
226. As stated by Texas:
Boockvar’s claim that only about 10,000 ballots were received after this deadline
has no way of being proven since Pennsylvania broke its promise to the Court to
segregate ballots and co-mingled perhaps tens, or even hundreds of thousands, of
illegal late ballots.
Id.
51 See also Verified Complaint (Doc. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, case
4:20-cv-02078-MWB (M.D. Pa. filed Nov. 18, 2020), ¶¶ 3-6, 9, 11, 100-143.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 84
45
227. On December 4, 2020, fifteen members of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives, led by Rep. Francis X. Ryan, issued a report to U.S. Congressman Scott Perry
(Ryan Report).52
228. The Ryan Report states:
The general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was fraught with inconsistencies,
documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, precanvassing, and canvassing that the reliability of the mail-in votes in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to rely upon.
Ryan Report, Texas v. Pennsylvania, App. 139a-144a.
229. The Ryan Report’s findings include:
a. Ballots with NO MAILED date total is 9,005;
b. Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed Date total is 58,221; and,
c. Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date. That total is 51,200.
Id. at App. 143a.
230. The State of Texas plead to the U.S. Supreme Court that these “nonsensical
numbers alone total 118,426 ballots and exceed” the margin of votes that determined
Pennsylvania’s presidential election. Id. at ¶ 58.
231. The Ryan Report also states:
[I]n a data file received on November 4, 2020, the Commonwealth’s PA Open Data
sites reported over 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out. The CSV file from the state
on November 4 depicts 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out but on November 2, the
information was provided that only 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. This
discrepancy of approximately 400,000 ballots from November 2 to November 4 has
not been explained.
Id. at 143a-44a.
52 Texas v. Pennsylvania, App. 139a-144a.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 84
46
232. In its Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, the State of Texas stated:
a. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative
approval, unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring
signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s
legislature has not ratified these changes, and the legislation did not include
a severability clause;
b. These non-legislative modifications to Pennsylvania’s election rules appear
to have generated an outcome-determinative number of unlawful ballots that
were cast in Pennsylvania;
c. In 2020, Pennsylvania received more than 10 times the number of mail-in
ballots compared to 2016, which were “treated in an unconstitutionally
modified manner that included: (1) doing away with the Pennsylvania’s
signature verification requirements; (2) extending that deadline to three days
after Election Day and adopting a presumption that even non-postmarked
ballots were presumptively timely; and (3) blocking poll watchers in
Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in violation of State law;”
d. Local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties decided not
to follow Pennsylvania law, which requires that poll-watchers be granted
access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots;
e. By removing the ballots for examination prior to seven o’clock a.m. on
election day, Secretary Boockvar created a system whereby local officials
could review ballots without the proper announcements, observation, and
security;
f. This entire scheme, which was only followed in Democrat majority
counties, was blatantly illegal in that it permitted the illegal removal of
ballots from their locked containers prematurely;
g. The number of votes affected by the various constitutional violations
exceeds the margin of votes separating the candidates; and that,
h. The blatant disregard of statutory law renders all mail-in ballots
constitutionally tainted and cannot form the basis for appointing or
certifying Pennsylvania’s presidential electors to the Electoral College.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶¶ 43-61.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 84
47
233. On October 31, 2019, Defendant, Mr. Wolf, signed Act 77,53 which implemented
sweeping reforms to the elections process in Pennsylvania.54
234. As outlined in Kelly v. Commonwealth, Act 77:
a. created a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse;
b. allowed voters to request and submit mail-in or absentee ballots up to 50
days before an election; and,
c. established a semi-permanent mail-in and absentee ballot voter list.
Kelly v. Commonwealth, ¶ 55.
235. The Election was administered by Pennsylvania election officials pursuant to Act
77, which included allowing for universal, no-excuse mail-in ballots to be counted in violation of
the Pennsylvania constitution. Id. at ¶ 62.
236. The Plaintiffs in Kelly v. Commonwealth argued that Act 77 was unconstitutional,
because it expanded the scope of absentee voting to all voters, which, in effect:
a. created an entire class of electors who are shown to have received a mail-in
ballot, despite never actually receiving a mail-in ballot; and,
b. similarly produced a whole class of voters who received unsolicited or
unrequested mail-in ballots that never voted via mail-in ballot and never
intended to vote by mail.
Id. at ¶ 56-57.
53 Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (“Act 77”). See also 25 Pa.Stat. §§ 3146.6(c),
3150.16(c).
54 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, The Honorable Mick Kelley v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Case 620 MD 2020 (“Kelly v. Commonwealth”),
(Commonwealth Ct. of Penn. filed November 21, 2020), ¶ 54.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 84
48
237. Act 77 does not provide Pennsylvania voters any meaningful method of disputing
a mail-in or absentee ballot that has been submitted in their name, even where a ballot is
improperly submitted by another individual. Id. at ¶ 58.
238. Even under circumstances wherein the voter insists that he or she did not submit a
mail-in ballot, “if the voting records suggest that such a ballot has purportedly been received
from that voter, the voter is effectively deprived of their right to cast a vote as a direct and
proximate result of the enactment of Act 77.” Id. at ¶ 58.
239. Based upon these facts, as alleged by bar members, state representatives, experts
and states of the Union, no reasonable person could disagree that, in the light most favorable the
Plaintiffs, the actions of Defendants, Ms. Boockvar, Mr. Wolf, and others, herein described, was
unconstitutional.
240. Governors and secretaries of state do not act unconstitutionally.
241. All acts performed by a governor or secretary of state, in their official capacity,
are performed on behalf of the state.
242. States do not act unconstitutionally—unless they are in rebellion or insurrection.
243. Unconstitutional acts and omissions of state actors strip those persons of their
official and representative character and, thus, subjects them to the consequences of their
individual conduct. See ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-160 (1908).
244. As in the other states, Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, engaged in a
scheme in Pennsylvania with Defendant, CTCL, and others, to use their enormous wealth to
unconstitutionally favor one presidential candidate, over the others, by, among other things:
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 84
49
a. privately contracting with municipalities to accept grants that require the
recipient to expend the grant money for the express purposes set forth in the
grants;
b. unlawfully paying the salaries of election officials;
c. Employing the use of illegal drop boxes to intercept and bypass the United
States Mail; and,
d. Utilizing unauthorized mobile voting vehicles.
55
245. The State of Pennsylvania also contracts with Dominion to provide voting
services for approximately 1.3 million voters whose ballots were tabulated by Dominion.56
246. On November 20, 2020, Dominion cancelled a scheduled appearance to discuss
voting irregularities with a state government committee.
247. After the cancelation, Pennsylvania House Republicans tweeted:
Transparency is key for our election security. Dominion Voting Software is asking
us to give them only blind trust. We’re very disappointed in Dominion’s last-minute
cancelation in today’s hearing.
248. After the Election, the President of the United States tweeted:
55 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1), Pennsylvania Voters Alliance, v.
Centre County, case 4:20-cv-01761 (M.D. Penn. filed Sept. 25, 2020).
56 Hank Berrien, Pennsylvania GOP Slams Dominion Systems For Canceling On
Giving Testimony, Dailywire, Nov. 20, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 84
50
249. On November 24, 2020, Defendant, Ms. Boockvar, unconstitutionally certified
said election, under color of law and her official authority.
250. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Ms. Boockvar was
stripped of her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Pennsylvania.
251. As such, Ms. Boockvar was acting individually, outside the scope of her official
capacity, when she certified said results of the Election.
252. On November 20, 2020, Defendant, Mr. Wolf, unconstitutionally certified said
election, under color of law and his official authority.
253. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Mr. Wolf was
stripped of his official capacity as Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.
254. As such, Mr. Wolf was acting individually, outside the scope of his official
capacity, when he certified said results of the Election, as described herein.
255. An “unconstitutional state enactment is void and…any action by a state official
that is purportedly authorized by that enactment cannot be taken in an official capacity since the
state authorization for such is a nullity.” Pasasin v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986).
256. Said certification of the Election in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional.
257. Said certification of the Election in Pennsylvania is void ab initio.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 84
51
WISCONSIN
258. On December 14, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that certain
county clerks had erroneously interpreted Wisconsin election law.57
259. Wisconsin allows voters to declare themselves indefinitely confined, provided
they meet the statutory requirements. See also Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a).
260. On March 25, 2020, the Dane and Milwaukee County Clerks issued guidance on
Facebook suggesting all voters could declare themselves confined because of the pandemic and
the governor’s then-existing Safer-at-Home Order.58
261. Wisconsin’s highest court concluded that the emergency order issued by the
county clerks did not render Wisconsin electors “indefinitely confined,” which obviated the legal
requirement of valid photo identification to obtain absentee ballots.
262. On March 31, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously deemed that
advice incorrect, and the “county clerks immediately updated their advice in accordance with our
decision.” Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 90, ¶ 7.
263. A blanket invalidation of votes casts by Wisconsin citizens receiving a ballot after
claiming indefinitely confined status, “without regard to whether any individual voter was in fact
indefinitely confined has no basis in reason or law; it is wholly without merit.” Id. at ¶8.
264. Nonetheless, the number of indefinitely confined voters surged from just under
70,000 voters in 2019 to over 200,000 in 2020.
57 Jefferson v. Dade County, 2020 WI 90 (Wis. 2020).
58 Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91 (Wis. 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 84
52
265. According to a report prepared by Director of the Office of Trade and
Manufacturing Policy and Assistant to the President, Peter Navarro, the “130,000 vote increment
of new indefinitely confined voters is more than five times” the margin of victory in Wisconsin.
The Navarro Report, The Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities,
Dec. 17, 2020, p. 10, a copy of which is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exh. 10, as though fully
contained herein.
266. During this same time period, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, funneled millions of
dollars in private money, through CTCL, and others, to unlawfully and unconstitutionally
circumvent Wisconsin’s absentee ballot laws—using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to
create an exception to Wisconsin’s photo identification requirements.
267. Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, through CTCL, and others, granted over six
million dollars to the cities of Racine, Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukie.
268. The use of private funding from Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan, Facebook, CTCL,
and many others, undermines the existing Help America Vote Act (HAVA),59 which requires
state election plans be submitted for approval by federal officials to, among other things,
preserve the equal protection and due process rights of registered voters across the country.60
269. The National Voter’s Registration Act (NVRA) also preempted CCTCL’ private
federal election grants.61
59 See 52 USC §§ 20901-21145.
60 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. City of
Racine, case 1:20-cv-01487 (E.D. Wis), ¶¶ 127-149.
61 Id. at ¶¶ 150-173. See 52 USC §§ 20501-20511.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 84
53
270. The private funding from Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan, Facebook and CTCL was
utilized to place illegal ballot drop boxes in disparate proportion based upon Democrat
concentrations, encouraging targeted demographics as a method of increasing voter turnout, and
the suppression of political opposition.
271. In Wisconsin, the margin of victory in the Election was slightly over 20,000
votes.
272. In Wisconsin, the reported results of the Election are in invalid based upon the
following facts:
62
a. In the 2020 general election, 1,275,019 mail-in ballots were returned, nearly
a 900 percent increase over 2016
b. Leading up to the 2020 general election, in contravention of Wisconsin law,
the Wisconsin Elections Commission (“WEC”), and other local officials
unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws that weakened, or did
away with, established security procedures and photo ID requirements put in
place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.
c. For example, the WEC undertook a campaign to position hundreds of drop
boxes to collect absentee ballots—including the use of unmanned drop
boxes.
d. The mayors of Wisconsin’s five largest cities—Green Bay, Kenosha,
Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, which all have Democrat majorities—
joined in this effort, and together, developed a plan use purportedly “secure
drop-boxes to facilitate return of absentee ballots.”63
62 Texas v. Pennsylvania, ¶¶ 104-108.
63 See Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020, Submitted to CTCL, June 15, 2020, by the Mayors of
Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay available at:
https://www.techandciviclife.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Approved-Wisconsin-SafeVoting-Plan-2020.pdf
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 84
54
e. In a summary of resources needed, the plan outlined a need for
$6,324,567;64
f. In August 2020, CTCL announced that it had donated $6.3 million dollars to
five cities in Wisconsin, meant to ensure that Wisconsin has a “safe,
inclusive, and secure election.”65
g. Over five hundred unmanned, illegal absentee ballot drop boxes were used
in the Election in Wisconsin.66
64 Id. at p. 5.
65 CTCL Announces COVID-19 Response Rural Grants Program, Center for Tech and Civic
Life, August 7, 2020, available at: https://www.techandciviclife.org/covid-19-rural-grants/.
66 See Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump, Candidate for President of the United States of
America v. The Wisconsin Election Commission, Case 2:20-cv-01785-BHL (E.D. Wisc. filed
Dec. 2, 2020), ¶¶ 188-89.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 84
55
h. The use of any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by
Wisconsin statute.67
i. Any alternate absentee ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or
the executive director of the board of election commissioners, or employees
of the clerk or the board of election commissioners.” Wis. Stat. 6.855(3);
j. “In a municipality in which the governing body has elected to an establish
an alternate absentee ballot sit under s. 6.855, the municipal clerk shall
operate such site as though it were his or her office for absentee ballot
purposes and shall ensure that such site is adequately staffed.” Wis. Stat.
7.15(2m).
k. Unmanned absentee ballot drop-off sites are prohibited by the Wisconsin
Legislature as they do not comply with Wisconsin law expressly defining
“[a]lternate absentee ballot site[s]”. Wis. Stat. 6.855(1), (3);
l. The use of drop boxes for the collection of absentee ballots, positioned
predominantly in Wisconsin’s largest cities, is directly contrary to
Wisconsin law providing that absentee ballots may only be “mailed by the
elector, or delivered in person to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or
ballots.” Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b);
m. The fact that other methods of delivering absentee ballots, such as through
unmanned drop boxes, is not permitted by Wisconsin law, which mandates
that “[a]ny ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may
not be counted.” Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6).
n. “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions
may not be counted. Ballots counted in contravention of the procedures
specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of
any election.” Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2);
o. Through Facebook, WEC and local election officials encouraged voters to
unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined”—which under
Wisconsin law allows the voter to avoid security measures like signature
verification and photo ID requirements;
67 The Wisconsin legislature specifically described in their Election Code “Alternate absentee
ballot site[s],” and detailed the procedure by which the governing body of a municipality may
designate a site or sites for the delivery of absentee ballots “other than the office of the municipal
clerk or board of election commissioners as the location from which electors of the municipality
may request and vote absentee ballots and to which voted absentee ballots shall be returned by
electors for any election.” Wis. Stat. 6.855(1).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 84
56
p. Specifically, registering to vote by absentee ballot requires photo
identification, except for those who register as “indefinitely confined” or
“hospitalized.” Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a), (3)(a);
q. Registering for indefinite confinement requires certifying confinement
“because of age, physical illness or infirmity or [because the voter] is
disabled for an indefinite period.” Id. § 6.86(2)(a).
r. Should indefinite confinement cease, the voter must notify the county clerk,
id., who must remove the voter from indefinite-confinement status. Id. §
6.86(2)(b);
s. On May 13, 2020, the Administrator of WEC issued a directive to the
Wisconsin clerks prohibiting removal of voters from the registry for
indefinite-confinement status if the voter is no longer “indefinitely
confined;”
t. Said directive violates Wisconsin law, which provides that “any
[indefinitely confined] elector [who] is no longer indefinitely confined …
shall so notify the municipal clerk” who “shall remove the name of any
other elector from the list upon request of the elector or upon receipt of
reliable information that an elector no longer qualifies for the service.” Wis.
Stat. § 6.86(2)(a)&(b);
u. According to statistics kept by the WEC, nearly 216,000 voters said they
were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly a fourfold increase
from nearly 57,000 voters in 2016;
v. In Dane and Milwaukee counties, more than 68,000 voters said they were
indefinitely confined in 2020, a fourfold increase from the roughly 17,000
indefinitely confined voters in those counties in 2016;
w. The fourfold increase in absentee ballots under the “indefinitely confined”
interpretation creates sufficient illegal ballots to exceed the Wisconsin final
ballot margin.
x. Under Wisconsin law, voting by absentee ballot requires voters to complete
a certification, including their address, and have the envelope witnessed by
an adult who also must sign and indicate their address on the envelope. Wis.
Stat. § 6.87;
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 84
57
y. The sole remedy to cure an “improperly completed certificate or [ballot]
with no certificate” is for “the clerk [to] return the ballot to the elector[.]”
Wis. Stat. § 6.87(9);
z. “If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be
counted.” Wis. Stat. § 6.87(9);
aa. However, in a training video issued April 1, 2020, the Administrator of the
City of Milwaukee Elections Commission unilaterally declared that a
“witness address may be written in red and that is because we were able to
locate the witnesses’ address for the voter” to add an address missing from
the certifications on absentee ballots. The Administrator’s instruction
violated Wisc. Stat. § 6.87(6d);
bb. The WEC issued similar guidance on October 19, 2020, in violation of this
statute as well.
cc. In the Wisconsin Trump Campaign Complaint, it is alleged, supported by
the sworn affidavits of poll watchers, that canvas workers carried out this
unlawful policy, and acting pursuant to this guidance, in Milwaukee used
red-ink pens to alter the certificates on the absentee envelope and then cast
and count the absentee ballot, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6d);
dd. Wisconsin’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and its election laws
do not include a severability clause.
ee. In addition, a box truck delivery driver subcontracted to the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) to deliver truckloads of mail-in ballots to the sorting center
in Madison, WI, testified that USPS employees were backdating ballots
received after November 3, 2020.68
ff. This same USPS subcontractor testified how a senior USPS employee told
him on November 4, 2020 that “[a]n order came down from the
Wisconsin/Illinois Chapter of the Postal Service that 100,000 ballots were
missing” and how the USPS dispatched employees to “find…the ballots.”
Id. ¶¶ 8-10.
68 See Motion for Expedited Consideration, Texas v. Pennsylvania, Decl. of Ethan J. Pease, App.
149a-151a, ¶¶ 3-13.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 84
58
273. On November 20, 2020, the WEC Defendants unconstitutionally certified the
Election, under color of Wis. Stat 7.70(5), and their official authority.
274. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, said WEC
Defendants were stripped of their official capacity as members of the Wisconsin Elections
Commission.
275. As such, Defendants, WEC Defendants were acting individually, outside the
scope of their official capacity, when they participated in certifying said results of the Election,
as described herein.
276. On November 20, 2020, Defendant, Mr. Evers, unconstitutionally certified said
election under color of Wis. Stat. § 7.70(5)(b), and his official authority.
277. In acting in said unconstitutional manner, as described herein, Mr. Evers was
stripped of his official capacity as Governor of the State of Wisconsin.
278. As such, Mr. Evers was acting individually, outside the scope of his official
capacity, when he certified said results of the Election.
279. The “theory of [ex parte Young] was that an unconstitutional enactment is ‘void’
and therefore does not ‘impart to [the officer] any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
authority of the United States.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 475 U.S. 89,
102 (1984) (quoting ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908)(“Since the State could not authorize
the action, the officer was ‘stripped of his official or representative character and [was] subjected
in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.’ Ibid.”)
280. Said certification of the Election in Wisconsin is ultra vires and unconstitutional.
281. Said certification of the Election in Wisconsin is void ab initio.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 84
59
282. As in Georgia, on December 1, 2020, Attorney Powell, on behalf of two
Wisconsin voters, filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory, emergency and
permanent injunctive, naming Defendants, herein, WEC Defendants and Mr. Evers, in their
official capacity (Feehan Complaint).69
283. The Feehan Complaint “brings to light a massive election fraud” and
“multiple violations of the Wisconsin Election Code.” Feehan Complaint, p. 1.
284. In attached affidavits, experts on statistical and data analysis, opined, among other
things, that:
a. Wisconsin’s database for the Election showed 96,711 voters whom the state
marked as having requested and been sent an absentee ballot, who did not return
it;
b. of those 96,711, at least 16,316 people did not request an absentee ballot;
c. of those 96,711, at least 13,991 of those did in fact mail back an absentee ballot
to the clerk’s office; and, accordingly,
d. there are 29,594 “troublesome ballots in Wisconsin.”70
285. The Feehan Complaint includes the affidavit of Seth Keshel, who noted:
New York Times live vote reporting shows a dump of 168,541 votes at 3:42:20 (a.m.)
on November 4, 2020. Of those votes, 143,378 (85.07%) went to Biden, and just
25,163 (14.93%) went for Trump. This dump was enough to flip the race with almost
no transparency to the viewing public. The live graph showing this vote dump
(circled) is attached as Exhibit D to this document.
69 Complaint for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 1),
Feehan., v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Case 2:20-cv-1771 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 25, 2020).
70 See William M. Briggs, PhD, An Analysis of Surveys Regarding Absentee Ballots In
Wisconsin, Feehan Complaint, Exh. 4. See also Matthew Braynard, Expert Report of Matthew
Braynard, Feehan Complaint, Exh. 9 (as filed in Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin
Elections Commission, case 2020PA1930 (Wis. filed Nov. 24, 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 84
60
Feehan Complaint (Doc. 1-16), Declaration of Seth Keshel, ¶ 7.
286. The Feehan Complaint further contained evidence that senior management of
Dominion had public expressed hostility to the incumbent president, and opposition to his
election.71
287. Dr. Eric Coomer is listed as the co-inventor of several patents on ballot adjudication
and voting machine-related technology, all of which were assigned to Dominion. See Feehan
Complaint, ¶ 93, fn. 10.
288. In an affidavit, Dr. Coomer is documented as: having admitted that Dominion
Voting machines can be manipulated; making previous public statements that are “highly
partisan;” and, assuring a group that, “Trump is not going to win. I made f—ing sure of that.”72
71 Feehan Complaint (Doc. 1-16), Declaration of Seth Keshel, ¶ 7.
72 Feehan Complaint (Doc. 1-13), Affidavit of Joseph T. Oltmann, p. 2.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 84
61
289. On December 14, 2020, Phill Kline of the Amistad Project of the non-partisan
Thomas More Society released a report that “alleged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his
wife made $419.5 million in contributions to non-profits organizations during the 2020 election
cycle–$350 million to the ‘Safe Election’ Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life
and another 69.5 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research—that, ‘improperly
influence[d] the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party.’”73 A
copy of J.P. Carlson’s, The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding in Federal and State
Electoral Processes, is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11, as though fully contained herein.
290. Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated as
registered voters have suffered individualized, concrete injuries and damage, caused by the
unlawful and unconstitutional acts and omission of the Defendants, which has damaged the
reputation of the country, violated the civil rights of hundreds of millions of people, includes
incalculable financial loss due to lack of productivity and mental anguish, destroyed the people’s
faith in their government and elected officials, caused massive internal strife inside the United
States and, among many other things, has increased the risks of civil war, and other violent and
uncivil behavior.
291. Judgement in favor of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will redress the
Plaintiffs’ injuries and allow them to enjoy their rights to legally authorized, uniform and fair
presidential elections guaranteed under federal law and the Constitution.
73 Michael Patrick Leahy, Report: Mark Zuckerberg’s $419 Million Non-Profit Contributions
‘Improperly Influenced 2020 Presidential Election,’ Brietbart, Dec. 18, 2020.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 84
62
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
U.S. Const. art. II § 1, cl. 2, & Amend. XIV, § 2
As enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 & 1988
Violation of Electors Clause
Unconstitutional Burden on the Fundamental Right
to Vote for the President and Vice-President of the United States of America
(All Defendants)
292. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.
293. The Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits any person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a State, subjects any citizen of the United
States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
294. Every person who subjects, or causes to subject, any citizen of the United States
to said deprivation “shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress…” Id.
295. The Electors Clause mandates that each state appoint, in such manner as the
legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which a state may be entitled in the Congress. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
296. None of the Defendants, herein named, are part of any state legislature, nor do
any have legislative power.
297. The Supremacy Clause ensures that local governments do not act contrary to
federal and state law regarding federal elections. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 84
63
298. The historic events that shaped America include the unanimous Declaration of
Independence of the original thirteen states that enshrined the rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, which thereafter instituted a government among those who pledged their
lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the United States of America.
299. Later, under the Constitution, all rights not granted to the United States, in trust,
were reserved to the states and the people.
300. The most fundamental right in creation of a representative government is the
people’s right to choose their representatives.
301. The continuing method of preserving the will of the people necessarily includes
the right of assembly, free speech, free press, and to the redress of grievances.
302. No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the
election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.
303. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
(“Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, [voting is a] privilege…regarded as a
fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights”).
304. A person’s right to vote is individual and personal in nature, thus voters who
allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue to remedy
that disadvantage. Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018).
305. This Complaint involves the protection of a right to vote for the President,
Commander-in-Chief, and Vice President, under a process enumerated by the Constitution.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 84
64
306. This right is further supported through Public Laws, federal election laws, and by
the legal administration of elections by the states, for as long as the latter is not administered in
contravention with federal law or the Constitution.
307. In that regard, the conduct and actions of the Defendants, acting under color of
law and official capacity, violated the rights of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
individually, as every registered voter has an interest in selecting the president and vicepresident.
308. Governors, secretaries and election officials of Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and
Pennsylvania, do not legislate, nor do they engage in unconstitutional behavior.
309. Accordingly, the state actors herein named stepped out of their official capacity and
are personally liable for violating the voting rights of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
310. Defendants, Facebook, Dominion, CTCL, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, having
so inextricably woven their interests into the presidential election process and said state actors,
they are thus defined as persons subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1988.
311. The Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert with each other, and other
persons, to unconstitutionally legislate rules, change procedures, and implement a scheme and
device to interfere and manipulate the Election, with their common goal to remove the
incumbent, by any means necessary.
312. The Supreme Court has “found state action present in the exercise of a private
entity of powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison
Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 84
65
313. Defendant, CTCL, acting under the influence of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan,
induced other Defendants to use grant funding from CTCL, and to solicit other municipalities to
apply for and use the same—creating a symbiotic relationship between and among the parties
sufficient to make them state actors. Luger v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982).
314. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are
acting under color of law for purposes of the Civil Rights Act.
315. To act under color of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the
State,” as it “is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its
agents.” United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966).
316. Even assuming the private defendants did not take specific action to qualify them
as state actors, the conspired actions between the parties to achieve the desired result holds them
within the context of parties conspiring against rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 241.74
317. This claim is not a generalized grievance.
318. As established by the facts averred, and with forthcoming evidence, the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated were personally harmed, and continue to suffer financial damages
required to protect their rights through this lawsuit.
319. The evidence establishes that the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to dilute the
votes of some, and count illegal ballots to the benefit of another. This hurts every registered voter
in the country, no matter whose side the voter is on. Other than the nefarious, the honest American
voter wants every vote counted to legally determine the president and vice-president.
74 https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 84
66
320. Because illegal votes and unconstitutional procedures dilute the votes of the legally
registered voter, persons that create policies and procedures that authorize, encourage, and coverup unconstitutional behavior are liable for the damages they cause to Plaintiffs with proper
standing.
321. The criminal laws of the United States make it illegal for administrative employees
of the United States, the States, their political subdivisions and municipalities, to use their official
authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any
candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate,
Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident
Commissioner. See 18 U.S.C. § 595.
322. Additional penalties under federal criminal law support and restrict actions taken
under color of law and conspiracy against rights, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242.
323. Recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that appropriate relief includes claims for
money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 140 S. Ct 861, (2020).
324. The principle of the “Private Attorney General” was codified into law with the
enactment of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
325. The actions of the Defendants were and are the direct and proximate cause of the
violations of Plaintiffs’ rights, injury, pain, suffering, mental distress, anguish, humiliation, loss
of liberty, loss of income, and legal expenses.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiff’s
Prayer for Relief, below.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 66 of 84
67
COUNT II
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1 & Amend. XV, § 1
As enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 & 1988
Violation of Equal Protection
(All Defendants)
326. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.
327. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have certain
inalienable and civil rights protected by the Constitution, federal and state statutes.
328. The Defendants listed herein are persons, subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986
and 1988.
329. The Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for the actions of their
employees, agents, or attorneys under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
330. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits persons
acting under color of law from abridging or burdening the rights or immunities of citizens of the
United States. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
331. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of differential standards in the
treatment and tabulation of ballots within a State. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
332. One-person, one-vote jurisprudence arises when persons acting under color of
authority influence arbitrary and disparate treatment among voters of different jurisdictions.
333. Acting under the color of law and authority, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights,
privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution, and guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 67 of 84
68
334. The Defendants, and each of them, have participated in conduct and actions
resulting in, among other things, unconstitutional agreements, illegal modifications of election
law, illegal administration of the federal election process, the unconstitutional certification of the
Election, all of which has damaged the Plaintiffs, but, more broadly, every registered voter in
America, all of whom have an interest in free and fair elections to determine the President of the
United States of America.
335. Among other things, the Defendants have funded, influenced, and participated in
acts of subterfuge and other manipulations aimed directly at the election machinery including the
unequal distribution of unsecured ballot boxes with the intent to bypass the United States Post
Office, and to otherwise intercept ballots that should have been mailed, or dropped off at polling
stations, primarily in certain demographic areas—which, when inevitably discovered, was
designed to defend any challenge thereto as “racist.”
336. The Fifteenth Amendment forbids the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on
account of race or ethnicity. U.S. Const. amend. XV.
337. Because a discriminatory motive may hide behind legislation that appears neutral
on its face, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated several non-exhaustive factors to inform an
analysis of discriminatory intent: 1) evidence that defendants’ decision bears more heavily on
one race than another; 2) the historical background of the decision; 3) the specific sequence of
events leading up to the decision; 4) departures from the normal procedural sequence; 5)
substantive departures; and, 6) legislative history, including “contemporary statements by
members of the decision making body, minutes of its meetings, or reports. See Vill. of Arlington
Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–28 (1977).
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 68 of 84
69
338. Both constitutional protections guard against any deprivation of the right to vote
that is motivated by race. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 621–25 (1982).
339. An official action taken for the purpose of discriminating on account of race has
no legitimacy under the U.S. Constitution. City of Richmond, Va. v. U.S., 422 U.S. 358, 378–79
(1975).
340. Defendants acts and omissions contribute to a scheme or device aimed at
camouflaging their election interference behind certain areas of concentrated demographic and
racial groups, under the deception, as here, to promote a belief that to challenge the scheme
would be tantamount to disparaging the racial group.
341. Demonstrating intentional discrimination “does not require a plaintiff to prove
that the challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes.” Arlington Heights v.
Metropolitan Housing and Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977).
342. Instead, the plaintiff’s burden is to show that the discriminatory purpose was a
motivating factor, rather than the primary or sole purpose. Id. at 265–66.
343. By the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the President and Vice
President, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the
weight of votes cast by citizens of other states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth
in the Constitution.
344. The Defendants, and each of them, have conspired together, and with other
persons known and unknown, to carry out their actions with concerted and orchestrated effort,
the effect of which is actionable under the Civil Rights Act.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 69 of 84
70
345. The Defendants, and each of them, have used electronic communication and mail
to send and receive documents to and from each other, and to the separate election officials
across the states of the Union, and others, beyond the borders of their respective states.
346. At all relevant times herein, the Defendants, and each of them, engaged in a
pattern of unconstitutional behavior and obfuscation, which Plaintiffs have recently discovered
through public reports, news articles, complaints and affidavits filed by other persons, regarding
the Election.
347. Defendants, and unknown DOES 1-10,000, had knowledge of the wrongs done or
about to be committed, and having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of
the same, neglected and failed to do so. 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
348. Defendants, and each of them, have conspired and acted in concert to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated in the free exercise or
enjoyment of their rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution, and the laws of the
United States, or because of having so exercised the same. 18 U.S.C. § 241
349. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have been injured by the actions of the
Defendants, as related to rights secured to them by Constitution, herein described.
350. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered concrete and particularized
damages, injuries and losses, as a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ unconstitutional
conduct, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiff’s
Prayer for Relief, below.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 70 of 84
71
COUNT III
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1
As enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 & 1988
Violation of Due Process
(All Defendants)
351. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.
352. Voting is a fundamental right, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
353. A state, having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, may not later by
arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.
354. The Constitution protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote in a federal
election. Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 554 (1964).
355. The right to vote can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a
citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Id. at 555.
356. All qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, and to have his
or her vote count. ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 665 (1884). See also United States v.
Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386 (1915).
357. The conduct of the Defendants violated the rights of the Plaintiffs and all
registered voters in the United States, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. U.S. Const., Amend XIV.
358. As a result of the Defendants’ collusive, concerted, unlawful and unconstitutional
conduct, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are deprived of their right to substantive due
process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 71 of 84
72
359. When election practices reach “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” the
integrity of the election itself violates substantive due process. Griffen v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065,
1077 (1st Cir. 1978).
360. Under Supreme Court precedents on procedural due process, not only intentional
failure to follow election law as enacted by a state’s legislature, but also unauthorized acts and
omissions by persons acting under color of official law and capacity, and their designees in local
government can violate the Due Process Clause.
361. The Defendants, and each of them, acted unconstitutionally to lower election
standards and miscalculate votes with the express intent to not only favor one candidate, but, more
obviously, to defeat an incumbent, with who they so vehemently oppose.
362. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ collusive, concerted, unlawful
and unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiffs were and are being deprived of their right to procedural
due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, and
have and continue to suffer damages, mental distress, anguish, humiliation, loss of liberty and
legal expenses.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiff’s
Prayer for Relief, below.
COUNT IV
U.S. Const. Amend. I & Amend. XIV, § 1
As enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 & 1988
Burden on Political Speech, Right to Associate and Freedom of Press
(Defendants Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg)
363. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully contained herein.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 72 of 84
73
364. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have a right to speak, associate,
assemble, and act independently and collectively with others, whether said speech is politically
motivated, or not.
365. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have a right to a free press, with access
to information, which includes print, radio, television and all related journalistic media.
366. The named Defendants, herein, provide interactive computer services to the
internet by various platforms for real-time public input.
367. Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, deny that they are publishers or
content providers, and assert that they are immune from civil liability for the content posted by
others, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2) (Section 230).
368. Section 230 allows the Defendants to block and screen offensive material,
through the use of enabling tools and means to filter, screen, allow and disallow content, pick,
choose, analyze or digest content for the purpose of transmission, receipt, display, forwarding,
cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize or translate such content.
369. However, at all times material hereto, Facebook, under the direction and control
of Mr. Zuckerberg, intentionally censored non-offensive, politically relevant, journalistic articles
and opinion, posted by users for other users, with the intention to limit the exposure thereof.
370. The Congressional intent of Section 230 was to promote and expand the
dissemination of educational, informative, cultural and entertainment material to stimulate
diversity of political discourse and other intellectual activity.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 73 of 84
74
371. In pursuance thereof, Section 230 also sought to limit exposure of illegal content
for the purpose of ensuring “vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish
trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” Section 230(b)(5).
372. Here, Facebook, under the control and direction of Mr. Zuckerberg,
unconstitutionally relied upon Section 230 to suppress the 1st Amendment rights of others having
a different political and cultural ideology than Mr. Zuckerberg, and monoculture of the leftleaning agents and employees of Facebook.
373. At all relevant times, Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, through his
agents, third party contractors, fact checkers, and employees, censored news articles, opinions,
editorials, and other content by setting specific parameters, algorithms and other methods to
suppress content related to the Election, including threats or actions to ban or terminate
individual users or groups or Pages who did not comply with the censorship rules.
374. The named Defendants, and each of them, and others identified as DOES 1-
10,000, intended to censor, block, delete, screen, disallow, qualify or otherwise interfere with the
content posted to Facebook and its affiliates by unilaterally determining that such content was
“offensive” to the Defendants’ political ideology.
375. The named Defendants specifically and intentionally acted in direct contravention
of the Congressional intent of Section 230 by censoring, filtering, blocking and deleting content
that was contrary to their political ideology.
376. The named Defendants have intentionally determined that all statements related to
the ongoing investigations into election misconduct would be filtered and censored.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 74 of 84
75
377. The Defendants have participated in conduct and actions resulting in, among other
things, unconstitutional suppression of Plaintiffs’ right to a free press, right to assemble, speak
and hear the legitimate thoughts and ideas of others.
378. Defendants knowingly and intentionally, created, utilized, and conspired to
implement policies, procedures, algorithms and other means to suppress the 1st Amendment
rights of its users, with knowledge that this would impact the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated, whether the voter is a user of Facebook, or not.
379. Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, conspired with others, herein
identified as DOES 1-10,000, to cooperate in the censorship and join in the labeling and banning
of certain political ideology in opposition to that shared by Mr. Zuckerberg, in which he had
invested so much.
380. By becoming intricately involved in the funding of the non-profit organizations
that worked closely with targeted cities and counties, against state law and with federal
regulation, which involved the machinery of the elections, themselves, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms.
Chan, may fairly be treated as the state itself.
381. Private persons “jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are
acting `under color’ of law for purposes of § 1983.” Dennis v. Spark, 449 U.S. 24, 28 (1980).
382. Ordinarily, a state pays for the costs of an election.
383. Defendant, Mr. Zuckerberg, voluntarily became part of a state mechanism, while
he used his personal control over the largest social media platform in the world to suppress the
speech of those, with whom he disagreed.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 75 of 84
76
384. Said behavior, coupled with the clearly documented and overwhelming evidence
of unconstitutional behavior, called out, by name, by 20 Attorneys General across the country,
amounts to probable evidence of concerted action between the Defendants, and many others.
385. The suppression by Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg of the First
Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated was part of a greater plan to
influence the Election.
386. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally engaged in this unconstitutional
conduct with malice aforethought, believing that no one would do anything about it.
387. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ collusive, concerted, unlawful
and unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiffs were and are being deprived of their rights, in violation
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, and have and continue to suffer
damages, mental distress, anguish, humiliation, loss of liberty and legal expenses.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiffs’
Prayer for Relief, below.
COUNT V
Constitutional Challenge
47 U.S.C. 230(c), as applied
(Defendants Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg)
388. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully contained herein.
389. The unlawful and unconstitutional actions of Defendants, Facebook, and Mr.
Zuckerberg, their agents and employees, in violation of, among other things, Plaintiffs’ protected
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 76 of 84
77
right of free speech, free press, and right to assemble has caused an ongoing and imminent threat
of the loss of Plaintiffs’ rights, and of all others similarly situated.
390. This ongoing contravention of rights has burdened the Plaintiffs’ right to vote, as
well.
391. The Supreme Court has held that if a private party is “a willful participant in joint
activity with the State or its agents,” then state action is present. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970).
392. As has been demonstrated, Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, utilized
Defendant, CTCL, as the conduit to interact with, and fund select municipalities and counties.
393. Defendants, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan, derived the money to fund their
political agenda from their alter-ego, Defendant, Facebook.
394. Defendant, Facebook, at the direction of Mr. Zuckerberg, uses the exemption
from civil liability, provided under Section 230, to label and censor content that opposes their
preferred cultural and political ideology, as offensive, harassing, and violent.
395. Additionally, Defendant Facebook, at the direction of Mr. Zuckerberg, publishes
their own content to support their political ideology and, thus, preserve their investment in the
Election.
396. Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, have participated in overt and covert
acts to block and restrict access and availability of material in a politically motivated and biased
manner.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 77 of 84
78
397. Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg, by publishing and providing their
own politically charged content, lost their immunity and protection as a “Good Samaritan” in
contravention of Section 230.
398. Plaintiffs seek review of the constitutionality of Section 230, as applied to
Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg.
399. Plaintiffs’ claims are supported by ongoing congressional review of Facebook’s
censorship and blocking conduct, especially as it relates to the intentional manipulation and
interference in the public election process, nationwide.
400. Plaintiff’s claims are supported by substantial evidence being disclosed that
Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg, and others herein identified as DOES 1-10,000, interfered in the
public election process, by blocking and censoring content in opposition to, and by actively
publishing content in support of one political ideology—which disparately impacted the
incumbent candidate, and his supporters.
401. Therefore, good cause exists for this Court to determine the constitutionality of 47
U.S.C. § 230(c), as applied to the Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg.
402. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer irreparable harm
without legal remedy from the civil liability shield created by said “Good Samaritan” protection.
403. Plaintiffs are informed and aware of the notice requirements of F.R.C.P. 5.1, and
shall provide all notices required by law, and hereby seek certification by the Court, pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a), of the following question:
Whether the “Good Samaritan” protection, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), applies
to the acts and omissions of Facebook.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 78 of 84
79
COUNT VI
REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
42 U.S.C. § 1988
28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65
(Against all Defendants)
404. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.
405. Defendants, each of them, acted in contravention to the limitations imposed by the
Constitution and the laws related to a federal presidential election to the injury of Plaintiffs.
406. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment for all unconstitutional acts, which shall be
evidenced and established by these proceedings.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiff’s
Prayer for Relief, below.
COUNT VII
PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Against all Defendants)
407. Plaintiffs incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully contained herein.
408. Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants to enjoin them
from continuing to burden the rights of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated registered voters.
409. Federal courts have broad discretion for an award of equitable relief. Fitzgerald v.
Sirloin Stockade, Inc., 624 F.2d 945, 957 (10th Cir. 1980).
Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that the Court grant the relief as described in the Plaintiff’s
Prayer for Relief, below.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 79 of 84
80
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The people created the Constitution to protect themselves from the loss of liberty. In that
manner, certain rights were delegated to the states and federal government, the latter of which
has the exclusive power to declare war, create money and interpret the laws of the land.
Corporations are creations of a state, and often hold enormous power and wealth. The
Constitution protects the people from the states and their corporate creations. The Constitution
guarantees a republican form of government and prohibits Congress, and the states, from unduly
burdening free speech and the right of assembly. No state shall violate the constitutional rights of
the people, which include rights to due process, equal protection and, for some, to vote. These
are fundamental rights, which must be protected by the people, federal government and the
states—in that order.
Here, a multi-billionaire, his corporation and many others, infused hundreds of millions
of dollars into a presidential election. These persons became personally and voluntarily involved
in the most important function of government, granted to the states through the Constitution.
Having done so, even through alter-egos and non-profits, Mr. Zuckerberg, and others, became
inextricably woven into the functioning of government, and thus owed a duty to the people to
conduct themselves within the boundaries of public law and the Constitution.
It is not satire to suggest that Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan are not the Masters of the
Universe. They are U.S. Citizens and are no more important than any other person in the United
States. No one is above the law. How many times have the people heard that? Yet, it is true. No
matter how much money certain persons have, and no matter who is cooperating with those
persons, free and fair elections are the most scared right of the people.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 80 of 84
81
Everyone has a right to free speech, but not everyone can vote. That right is bestowed
upon a citizen as a civil right, granted by the authority of the created state. Once granted, that
right becomes a fundamental right of the individual.
Collectively, the people have been voting since before the Revolution. Only through a
right to vote can the people elect those who will honestly protect their liberties. Without fair
elections, inevitably, tyranny will prevail. In such an event, all of the people’s rights are at risk.
The Defendants acting under color of their official authority are personally liable for the
damages caused to the Plaintiffs. Suffice it to say, the violation of a person’s constitutional rights
carry a monetary value, to be determined by the jury. More importantly, however, those persons
must be enjoined from any further unconstitutional behavior that, if not enjoined, they will
commit in future presidential elections, conducted in their respective states.
On the other hand, Defendants, Dominion, Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan, Facebook, CTCL,
and others herein listed as DOES 1-10,000, collectively, have enormous wealth. Just the
contracts between Dominion and the several states, herein, are in excess of one hundred million
dollars in public funds. Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Chan, Facebook, CTCL and others, are sued herein
precisely because these Defendants used their almost unlimited financial resources to unlawfully
interfere with the Election.
Their conduct has negatively affected the entire World. However, the Plaintiffs represent
a designated class of persons that have standing to sue, i.e., the registered voter. The Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated have birth certificates, driver licenses, social security cards and are
on the jury rolls. These registered voters have an interest in choosing the President of the United
States, as the chief executive officer, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 81 of 84
82
Although a voter may cast a ballot in a state holding a lawful and fair election, when
other actors operate an unconstitutional presidential election in another state, every registered
voter has an interstate interest in that matter, and is potentially harmed by the unlawful conduct.
Here, the damages are continuing. The shared, foreboding feeling of impending doom is
presently felt by tens of millions of people. All across the country there is a fear that the people
are losing their liberty. Those who support the challenger need only suffer a loss in the House of
Representatives, pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, to feel the anguish being endured by those
who support the incumbent. Unfair elections have a way of devolving in that manner. Thus, this
lawsuit is being filed to give the people a civil mechanism to redress their grievances.
In a products liability case where, say, a ladder was defectively designed and thousands
were hurt, the manufacturer and others would likely be sued, and the rest would learn from it.
The Plaintiffs have fallen off the ladder, and the damage is done. Now, their goal is to ensure that
ladders manufactured in the future don’t have the same defects—or at least have a warning label
on the top step.
With that, there must be a substantial monetary judgment imposed upon certain
Defendants liable for the damages caused to the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
A nominal amount of $1,000 per registered voter equals damages in the approximate
amount of $160 billion dollars. The Defendants, and others likely to be added, referenced herein
as DOES 1-10,000 (some of which are foreign countries), can easily pay such a judgment, and
would serve to discourage this behavior in the future.
Accordingly, a judgment of such an amount, or more, is the price of doing business.
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 82 of 84
83
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered against the Defendants, and
that the Court grant the following:
a. Certification of the constitutional question, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5.1 and 28
U.S.C.§ 2403;
b. Declare Defendant, Facebook, is not protected by the “Good Samaritan”
provision in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c);
c. Declare that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) is unconstitutional, as applied, to the actions
of Defendants, Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg;
d. Declare the actions of the Defendants, as herein described, as
unconstitutional and ultra vires, thereby making them legal nullities;
e. Declare the unconstitutional actions of the Defendants have stripped them of
their official character;
f. Permanently restrain the Defendants from any further unconstitutional
behavior, as herein described;
g. Determine that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and/or (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and direct that reasonable notice of this action, as provided by
Rule 23(c)(2), be given to the Class, and declare Plaintiffs as the
representatives of the Class; Assume jurisdiction over the action;
h. Enter judgment against Defendants in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class;
i. Award the Class damages, that is, three times their damages, in an amount to
be determined at trial;
j. Award actual, compensatory, statutory, and consequential damages;
k. Award equitable monetary relief, including restitution and disgorgement of
all ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of a constructive trust upon, or
otherwise restricting the proceeds of Defendant’s ill-gotten gains, to ensure a
remedy;
l. Grant permanent injunctive relief to remedy the ongoing effects of
Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct;
Case 1:20-cv-03747 Document 1 Filed 12/22/20 USDC Colorado Page 83 of 84
84
m. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed
by law;
n. Award Plaintiffs and the class their costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees as provided by law; and,
o. Award such other relief as is just and proper, and any other equitable relief as
the Court deems appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all claims so triable as a matter of right.
Dated: December 22, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary D. Fielder___________
Gary D. Fielder (CO 19757)
LAW OFFICE OF GARY FIELDER
2325 W. 72nd Ave.
Denver, CO 80221
(303) 650-1505
criminaldefense@fielderlaw.net
/s/ Ernest J. Walker
Ernest J. Walker (MI P58635)*
ERNEST J. WALKER LAW OFFICE
3368 Riverside Road
Benton Harbor, Michigan
(pro hac vice forthcoming)*