Nevada Election Fraud Hearing Transcript December 3

Judge Russell: (00:00) ... in respect to this matter, Mr. Hamilton, you want to make a very short argument? I've read your motion. I've also read the opposition, so just go ahead and make a short argument in respect to your motion to strike. Mr. Hamilton: (00:16) Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for the opportunity to appear remotely. And just for the record, Bradley Trager, local council, is on the line as well, and my partner Mark Elias is as well. Mr. Kamzol's supplemental declaration should be rejected for three different reasons, Your Honor. First, it's untimely. Expert disclosures are to be accompanied by a written report at the time the disclosure is made. Your Honor set that deadline for last Friday. There was no such supplemental report filed. In fact, it was not even produced to the defendants until after the deadline for filing all of the evidence to be considered by the court here today. So for that reason, it should be excluded. Mr. Hamilton: (01:04) Number two, and we addressed it in some length in the trial brief. Mr. Kamzol in not a qualified expert by any stretch. He, by his own admission and as visibly demonstrated in his CV, he has spent the majority of his career working for the Republican National Committee as a political operative. He has never taught, has no advanced degrees at any college and university, is not familiar with scholarly use of statistics, and in fact didn't do most of the mail work himself that underlies this analysis. Mr. Hamilton: (01:46) And finally, Your Honor, for the third reason, the declaration's simply irrelevant and unreliable because it has no sound methodological foundation, and by his own admission, the supplemental declaration falls far short of satisfying the requirements that might allow it to be admitted. There's a matching between certain files produced by the Department of Motor Vehicles and voter files, but even he admits that it fully matched on part of the name, so a single member of the household could be a non U.S. citizen living with several other U.S. citizens, and Mr. Kamzol has no way of distinguishing between any of them. So for all three reasons, Your Honor, I think the supplemental declaration should be protected by the court. Judge Russell: (02:41) Mr. Binnall? Mr. Binnall: (02:50) Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court, Jesse Binnall on behalf of the contestant. The motion to strike should be denied for the reasons that we laid out in our filings on this matter. As to the specific positions just laid out by the defendant, I'll also start on the timeliness of the filing. The information that this was based on that Mr. Kamzol's supplemental affidavit is based on is data that was retrieved from the Department of Motor Vehicles at about 2:00 PM on Monday pursuant to a subpoena. Mr. Binnall: (03:29) This is one of the few instances where it's data that was discovered not by extrajudicial discovery in our case, but actually using more of a formal discovery process, because that's the only way we could receive this information. And as soon as we receive this information, it was passed along to the data scientist for comparison with the list of people who had voted. What we of course learned then is that approximately, it appears in the actual report, about 4,000 non-citizens voted this election, 4,000 additional people that are not authorized to vote in the 2020 election. Mr. Kamzol- Judge Russell: (04:15) What about the court's ruling that basically all witnesses had to be disclosed by the contestors by 5:00 on November 25th, 2020? Mr. Binnall: (04:26) Your Honor- Judge Russell: (04:26) I understand stuff comes up. I understand that things do come up, but is it fair to the defense then to suddenly bring this in at the last minute? Mr. Binnall: (04:35) Your Honor, it was information that there's no other way that we could have gotten, and there's the idea that you only seasonally supplement, and that's exactly what we did in this case. This litigation is especially truncated, and it has to be that way. We understand that. But data that there is no way for us to have had at that deadline that the court set, that's why the court has discretion in these situations to say that since there's no possible way that we could have had this information by November the 25th, there's no way that we could have produced this specific information. We did tell them that Jesse Kamzol was going to be a witness in this case, and indeed he did give deposition testimony in this case. He gave a deposition testimony in this case on other data information that came out within I think about ... Well, at roughly the same exact time as this information was produced to us by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Judge Russell: (05:43) What about the requirements of NRS 293.415 that makes it that this matter be heard upon a deposition and argument, they have no ability basically to cross-examine this new digital material, no ability at all to question his methods or methodology in respect to that new material. Is that fair? Mr. Binnall: (05:59) Your Honor, I understand the court's position on that, and I would say that the better remedy that would meet the interest of justice on this is to allow them to do just that. After this, after argument, we can do that tomorrow. We can do that this evening, and then we can submit the deposition supplementally to the court for its decision. That would be something that could meet the interest of justice to still allow them to cross-examine Mr. Kamzol on these issues without denying us any reasonable means of bringing this to the court's attention, since there's no other way that we could have gotten this and to submitted it to them any earlier. We literally submitted this at the earliest moment we could have in order of getting the data, comparing the data, producing a very short report, explaining how the data was compared and then providing to the defendants. Mr. Binnall: (06:52) They should have the ability. They certainly have the resources available in a document subpoena situation to use their own experts, their own resources, to compare this data and say if they think that we've got anything wrong, that it's fewer than 4,000 non-citizens who voted in this case. They haven't done that yet. They've had, at this point, a similar amount of time that we've had to do this, and they haven't done that. But if they want the opportunity to depose Mr. Kamzol now, we'll make him available for a very short deposition after this. We can submit it to the court supplementally without further argument. Judge Russell: (07:35) Mr. Hamilton. Any final comment on this issue? Mr. Hamilton: (07:41) Your Honor, the words out of my mouth, the statute, and they haven't been presented by deposition and argument of counsel. That hasn't happened here. This contest was filed on November 17th. That's quite a while ago, and counsel had plenty of time to secure whatever data he needed and to produce the declaration or expert testimony. Your Honor gave clear deadlines. If there were was some issue, the counsel certainly could have filed an emergency motion for this court for leave or even approached us for how to deal with that. He did neither. The court has indulged counsel at every turn by providing ample opportunity for discovery, but this is both inconsistent with the statute and fundamentally unfair to the court and to the defendant, so we'd ask that it be stricken. Judge Russell: (08:36) By the order of the court, go ahead and strike the supplemental declaration of Jesse Kamzol, I believe, for the reasons I clearly indicated [inaudible 00:08:49] when we had a disclosure deadline November 25, 2020, which I might add none of the other experts by [inaudible 00:08:58] were even disclosed on that day. They were all disclosed later [inaudible 00:09:06] disclosure reports were not done until November 30th, I believe. Let's check that, but I'm going to allow all of that. I'm not striking anything other than this [inaudible 00:09:16] declaration for two reasons. One is under NRS 293.415. I declared to this court that I am basically limited the depositions and argument in respect to making a determination in this case. Judge Russell: (09:34) The exact reason for that is clearly in a court [inaudible 00:09:34] ability to cross-examine and verify the information and make sure basically it's fair to both sides. So, I want to move forward with respect to that. I planned ahead to give each side approximately an hour. We make take a break somewhere along the way in respect to this matter. In regards to that, you can reserve part of your time for rebuttal if you decide. You have an hour, but it's over. [inaudible 00:10:02] 30 minutes and reserve your time, that's fine with the court. However you want to do with respect to that, that's fine. Judge Russell: (10:07) I do have one other question that the court thinks is important to start with, and that is what is the evidentiary standard that applies with respect to this matter? I think it's important that we go through the evidence so that we can understand what the standard is that we're going to apply. Is it a clear and convincing standard, or is a reasonable doubt standard? So given all that, Mr. Binnall, if you want to comment on that, [inaudible 00:10:35] short. I've read all the briefs [inaudible 00:10:37]. I'm not making a decision which way, I just kind of wanted to get a flavor for everybody in what the court's going to look at. Mr. Binnall: (10:39) And I understand that that will be an important point for the court to consider is because the statute itself is silent on the standard of proof that would be required in a case like this. The defendants have cited law in other jurisdictions, but of course since this is a creature of statute in Nevada, it be more appropriate to look at how Nevada handles situations like this. The default is always in a civil case preponderant to the evidence. That is the default burden in a civil case, and this is a civil case. It's an unusual case, and it's understandable why there wouldn't be a lot of case law defining some of this. But short of any intent of the legislature, and we're aware of no other intention of the legislature to increase the burden of proof to a clear and convincing standard as the defendants purport to do. Mr. Binnall: (11:56) The right thing to do is go back to the civil standard that we're very familiar with, which is preponderant to the evidence. From a policy perspective, that's the right answer, too. We are trying, as the court said when the court took the bench, to determine whether every vote was properly counted. Every legal vote was counted in an election like this. There is no reason to give more deference to one side or the other in that determination. The proper thing to do is to weigh the evidence to see whether or not the decision to certify the electors for Vice President Biden was appropriate. And so, consequently, since there's no reason to favor the defendants more or the contestants more, the preponderance of evidence standard is the appropriate use here. Judge Russell: (12:51) What about NRS 291.410, which talks about reasonable doubt? If you should have a reasonable doubt throughout that, in my discoveries throughout, is that similar to preponderance of evidence or is that a higher standard? Mr. Binnall: (13:07) That's an interesting use of the reasonable doubt in that statute, because it's not the reasonable doubt, very clearly, that we're used to in a criminal case. It could be read to offer a standard much more favorable to the contestants, quite honestly, of saying that if there's a reasonable doubt in the outcome, that the contest should be granted. It's difficult to see exactly how that would work in the civil setting, Your Honor, and that's why I think it's more appropriate for me and quite honestly hopefully gives me a little bit more credibility to you to say, I don't have to just throw up, as somebody sitting on this side of the courtroom who has burden, some burden. That I just have to have almost like a probable cause type standard. Mr. Binnall: (14:03) I think it does have to be more than that. It has to be that we do have a burden to me here, a burden that we will meet, that we're very confident we will meet, and I think the way a reasonable reading of the reasonable doubt language in 210 means that it's similar to the preponderance of the evidence standard that otherwise that the court would use in the setting. Judge Russell: (14:29) Mr. Hamilton? Mr. Hamilton: (14:34) Your Honor, I agree with [inaudible 00:14:40] to the extent that the Supreme Court did not yet define clearly the burden of proof required in an election contest, but an election contest by its nature is asking a court to do an ordinary thing, which is overturn the results of certified elections. So for that reason, courts around the country typically embrace a clear and convincing evidence standard. California, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Oregon a variety of states. We've cited them all in the brief. So obviously if the statue set a standard, that would be the standard that would apply. If the Nevada court had spoken, that would be obviously controlling. Mr. Hamilton: (15:29) Here we don't have that, so we have to look at ... I'd submit that two things guide the standard. First would be how are election contest treated elsewhere on similar statutory schemes? And that is they use a higher clear and convincing evidence of the standard. Secondly, more of a functional approach. The cause of action sounds, at least in part, in fraud, and fraud, under other Nevada and the law of virtually every state requires a higher evidentiary standard. So for both reasons, I think that the clear and convincing evidence standard is the one that needed to be applied by the court here. Ultimately, and I know you don't want me to argue the rest of the American [inaudible 00:16:15]. Ultimately, I'm not sure this is positive here, because I think the claim fails under even a more relaxed preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt standard, Your Honor. Judge Russell: (16:26) Thank you. [inaudible 00:16:28] makes it a kind of difficult issue in regards to this and may or may not make much difference in the ruling. The other question I have is there was a similar case with the election results by the Nevada Supreme Court. Does that have an impact on this hearing, and again, if you look at the statute and the timetables that things have to be done in Nevada law and you do have time periods in which the trial of contest was filed improperly for the time period. So I'm not sure it technically has any impact, so just a final comment. Mr. Binnall: (17:07) Your Honor, I think that's a very good question, something that we looked at. Judge Russell: (17:10) I like to hear that. I asked a very good question. Mr. Binnall: (17:17) It's from the very nature of the fact it came from the bench, I know. Your Honor, the contest statute is, I think, quite clear about the timing and the fact that the ministerial action of certification by the secretary of state and then the governor does not take away the court's ability to enter an order on a contest. Of course, just by the timing that the general assembly has laid out on that I think is very clear. Up until, matter of fact, the law actually is that you can see from the legislative history on the contest statute that it is anticipated that the timing has to be so truncated because no one is able to take the oath of their position until the contest is decided. Mr. Binnall: (18:28) And so that is the important timeframe to look at for the contest position is to actually go down to the legislative history. If we haven't cited that, we can get that and provide that to the court, that the important thing is whether they've taken their oath to actually then begin their terms, and they can't take those until the contest is actually decided. And so that would be separate and apart from the certification process, by the secretary of state. Otherwise, the timing laid out by the legislature just would be impossible for there being an election contest at all. It would render the entire statute null. Judge Russell: (19:07) Thank you. Mr. Hamilton? Mr. Hamilton: (19:11) Your Honor, I think the [inaudible 00:19:13] NRS 234.17 Sub 4, whenever an election is annulled or set aside by the court and the court does not declare some candidate elected, the certificate of election commission, if any has been issued, is void in the opposite statement. So I think, without having spent a lot of time thinking about it, that the action by the Nevada Supreme Court does not prevent this matter from going forward to judgment. Judge Russell: (19:48) Thank you. I agree with both of you. Thank you with respect to this matter regarding that. So at this time, basically the court's prepared to go ahead. Mr. Binnall, if you want to start with the argument, we're kind of limiting everybody's time. You can use whatever time you want. The law clerk is keeping track. She's very diligent, so. And I want you to know that I read all the briefs. I've gone through the briefs up to that, and I've read as much of that as I possible could from 5:00 until noon today in respect to that. Because, you see, [inaudible 00:20:30] but I concentrated primarily on [inaudible 00:20:33]. I read primarily the depositions of the experts in regards to this respect. I did kill time going through that, and I felt that was probably the most important place to start. With that, go ahead. Mr. Binnall: (20:47) Your Honor, we understand that there is a substantial amount of submissions in this case and very truncated position to get it all forward for the court. I was reminded of the old adage that if I had more time, it would have been shorter. In this case, we think that almost everything that we have given to the court is something that is important for the resolution of this matter. It is all critical information that we've been able to gather in a month, and we appreciate the court's consideration of that and taking up all the time that the court has in looking at everything. We actually also just put together something this morning that we thought might be helpful, and that is an additional exhibit index that gives the particular exhibit and which binder it's in for our binders. Can we hand that up to the court? Judge Russell: (21:47) Yes. Absolutely. I'd like to have that. Thank you very much. Mr. Binnall: (21:53) Thank you, and we will make sure, and we get one of those to opposing counsel currently as well if it hasn't already. And, Your Honor, I'm going to go for about 35 minutes right now, and then I'm going to withhold the rest of my time for rebuttal if, I can do math. Mr. Binnall: (22:27) Your Honor, this case is about the failure of the electoral system in an election, and no one ever wants to say that, but it's true. The evidence proves that. The questions are how did this happen, who's responsible, and what do we do about it? Our free, fair and open elections are a source of national pride. We spend untold millions of dollars around the world preaching the benefits of election integrity. We make sure that elections are decided by the people who vote in them and not by outside actors trying to influence the results, voters who are the ones that are legally able to cast those votes and the importance that every voter gets only one vote. Mr. Binnall: (23:31) The evidence that we have submitted is compelling. It shows that election officials planned and implemented an election that would be highly susceptible to fraud, that it would ignore the best practices developed over the years and skew meaningful observation. This was made worse as Mr. Gessler's expert testimony makes clear by the legislature's decision to adopt AB4 and take us to a system of universal mail voting at very much the last minute, without a sufficient amount of time to clean the voter rolls and implement a point down to ensure voter integrity. Judge Russell: (24:28) Let me ask you about that. That's basically the vote counting machine that they did in respect to the ballots? Is that correct? Mr. Binnall: (24:37) Are you talking about the Agilist machine in Clark County, Your Honor? Judge Russell: (24:40) Yeah. Mr. Binnall: (24:40) Yes, Your Honor. Judge Russell: (24:46) Wasn't that issue determined by Judge Wilson in Clark's case and the other cases that have been filed throughout the state of Nevada? And I'm raising that because it tends to raise an issue clue, and we're probably going to get to that at some point in time. I basically [inaudible 00:25:04] to this, is that something I should even consider? Mr. Binnall: (25:05) Your Honor, I think the clearest answer or the reason why the answer is no is that Judge Wilson decided that there wasn't standing to bring that challenge, and anything decided without standing is null and can't have [inaudible 00:25:20] effect. There were other reasons for his decision, but since we would be looking at ... Well, regardless if we'd be looking at issue preclusion or claim preclusion, the lack of standing would be dispositive on that particular issue. You also do have the fact that the parties are different between the two contests, so for res judicata purposes, that would have an effect. And the reason that standing was so important and why you wouldn't have a res judicata or collateral estoppel issue come up here is because essentially the argument wasn't ripe yet. We didn't know at that point if it was going to be a problem. Mr. Binnall: (26:05) And so you can't really say on one hand, "Well, we don't know if this problem yet, because it happened in pre-election," and so the electric actually comes, we see it as a problem, and then say, "Well, it's already decided when they said it wasn't right." That kind of reasoning doesn't really work for a preclusion narrative. So the primary issue that we're going to see with the use of the Agilist machine here is one that's purely statutory as far as the legal problem, and then what flows from that is going to be the evidentiary problems. Which there's not going to the conclusive issues on the evidentiary problems, because even if the Agilist machine had already been determined to be legal by Judge Wilson's previous ruling, the issues at play is whether the authenticated signatures, whether they were authenticated by a human or by a machine, whether they were properly authenticated, whether they went through fraudulent votes. Mr. Binnall: (27:15) And we do have evidence that we've submitted to the court that says that the answer that we've been able to determine without really any use of civil discovery and certainly not what you would normally get in a fraud investigation of this sort is that yes, the signature verification system, machine, human, whatever led through bad votes. So the statutory issue is going to break down, and I if you don't mind ... Well, we're there, so I'm just going to address it if it is easier for the court. The statutory issue is that even in AB4, which was, of course, just passed this past summer by the legislature, it decided and required that signatures be verified by the clerk for the clerk's employee. Clark County's a little bit different because there's a county statute that specifically says that the role of the clerk is assigned to the registrar when it comes to election matters. And so that statute for Clark County purposes, which is the only places that uses this Agilist machine, means that simply the registrar voters or his employee has to verify the signatures. And then it says, there is another statute that says, and I think it's Section 25, that says that ... I might be wrong in that. That computers can be used except as otherwise provided forth. So this is one of those specific versus general and expressio unius. I'll try to remember my Latin on that, but when you name one thing with a similar category, things of a different category necessarily exclude it. So using our statutory construction can't receive the legislature for signature verification, specifically wanted to exclude computers being able to do that work by requiring it be the registrar/clerk or an employee. This makes sense. It makes sense that knowing that there would have to be this signature authentication process with universal voting in AB4 that they would want to have, which ended up not happening, a robust signature verification system and process. So that's why if you look at the statute ... Mr. Binnall: (30:03) So that's why if you look at the statute, it's very clear that this cannot be done by computer. It had to be done by people. So aside from any of the other factual issues with the machine, just the very nature of the statute means that it was improper to use it to authenticate signatures, especially for the fact that you had universal voting without really cleaning the voter rolls sufficiently beforehand. The preclusion issue there, since the decision before wasn't right that there was no standing, the parties are different, there is no preclusion here and that is still proper for the court to consider. Hope I've answered the courts question on that. Speaker 1: (31:01) [inaudible 00:00:58]. Mr. Binnall: (31:09) Thank you. Having that time to clear the voter rolls and implement that plan for election integrity and voter ballot integrity, it became a real problem in this election. And it was not an unforeseeable problem. It was a problem that people were making clear all along, that there was going to be issues if we didn't take robust efforts in order to make sure that every voter was only voting once. As a result, there was a system that was ripe for the picking when it came to fraud, and the fraud came. I need to address the elephant in the room. There's a narrative that everybody here has heard. It's a narrative that's been repeated in the media time and time again, traditionally media, electronic media, social media. There's this beating of the drum saying that there's no voter fraud, there's no widespread voter fraud. It seems that if people think they say it often enough, it will make it so. They just say it simply doesn't exist. And they chalk eye witness testimony up to one-offs. Sometimes they just ignore evidence completely. Mr. Binnall: (32:49) They also ignore the fact that fraud cases usually are prosecuted when it comes to something like voter fraud. Oftentimes, it might be a federal prosecution, state prosecution. It's investigated by law enforcement for months, years. The prosecutor's go in with Grand Jury subpoenas, the FBI subpoenas for documents, and they're able to have the full availability of almost whatever evidence they want, as long as it's not subject to some privilege. And over a long amount of time of doing that, they can actually bring in a case for voter fraud or for any other type of mail fraud, wire fraud, fraud for getting people into colleges, whatever it might be. In this case, what the contestants have done is one month. One month ago was the election day. In that short amount of time, using few resources, some very dedicated people, they have put together a robust body of evidence showing the voter fraud that came in this case. Mr. Binnall: (34:21) They did it without the discovery tools that are normally used in civil cases, without law enforcement support, and unfortunately with a great amount of obstruction and stonewalling from people who should have known better. And the contestants developed in that time specific evidence of widespread voter fraud, enough to account for up to about four times the deficit between the two candidates for president. And when we look at fraud in what needs to be proved, some of this is just outright fraud. Dead people aren't voting of their own volition. It just doesn't happen. People don't accidentally submit two votes. It's difficult to see how it would happen that somebody would innocently submit two votes. And some of them are perhaps we can call them more irregularities that should have been accounted for to make sure that the system had integrity, that it regardless of the intent of the individual voter, that regardless of the intent, it was improper for that vote to be counted. Mr. Binnall: (36:04) For instance, you only get to vote if you're a Nevadan, and that means a Nevada resident. If you live out of Nevada, the statutes in Nevada have a very specific purpose of what you do. Now, I myself might feel like a Nevadan at this point. I've been lucky enough to be with Nevadans for the past almost seven weeks of my life, which has been great. And it's been very gracious for this court to allow me to appear before it pro hac vice. But I'm not a Nevadan. I'm in Virginia. And as much as I might rather pay Nevada taxes and vote in a swing state, I have to do that in Virginia. Just because people may want to vote in a swing state, and because they might've once lived in Nevada, and maybe they still have family in Nevada, doesn't mean they get to do that. So regardless of whether they know that particular law or not... Mr. Binnall: (37:17) Normally with fraud, we go back to those elemental definitions, whether that level of intent is involved. That is an improper vote. That is a vote that is irregular, that should not have been counted. That we have ways to make sure that the voter rolls are clean to make sure that those people, once they have moved out of Nevada, are no longer voting in Nevada's elections. So this body of evidence, these data, this information that we have given and presented to the court shows that there is a large number of sometimes outright fraud and sometimes these irregularities, however you want to categorize them, that both result in the same outcome. They're votes that shouldn't have been counted. They shouldn't have affected the result. Mr. Binnall: (38:15) This is especially important because every time you have a fraudulent vote that is cast, an improper vote that is cast, you have just canceled out the vote of a legal voter, you disenfranchised a legal voter. And the more fraud irregular votes that are counted, the more Nevadan voters you've also disqualified them from voting, disenfranchised them from voting. And the facts before this court that happened in Nevada, not anywhere else, everything that we have that we can show that happened in Nevada, point too many, many thousands of votes that were improperly counted, which means many, many thousands of Nevadans whose votes were disenfranchised. And of course, much of the evidence of voter fraud is in the hands of government and election officials. And as I mentioned, we've had to do much of our work with using hard work, some elbow grease, and problem solving in order to get the evidence that we need without the normal civil discovery methods. Mr. Binnall: (39:54) As a litigator, it's been a challenge and it's been somewhat rewarding to think outside of the box for how you get information to present to a court without being able to send out document requests and document subpoenas early, and interrogatories, and take depositions all through a long period. We of course in this case, we came, filed it on November 17th, last Tuesday that the court gave us the green light to start the discovery process with the depositions, which in almost all of our depositions were of our own witnesses. The only subpoena that we ended up getting from an outside party returned for documents, I believe... One of the only ones was from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Almost all the other evidence is stuff that we were able to gather ourselves in that timeframe, which was why it was particularly troubling that other evidence that we knew was there, it was hard to get and hard to get in time to present to this court in a timely way, being the limitations of what we have available. Mr. Binnall: (41:03) We can't just go knock on the government's door and ask them for that information without some sort of legal tool. An example is that when the court gave us the opportunity to start discovery, we promptly got out a subpoena for the Registrar of voters in Clark County, Joe Gloria. They closed and locked their offices so that we couldn't serve it. We tried to serve Mr. Gloria personally at his house. He spent several days avoiding service, knowing where he was, but we couldn't get actual service on him. While he was doing that, the deposition testimony will show he was meeting with the defendants. He was working with them on putting together their case where he was the government official that's supposed to be impartial, supposed to be ensuring the integrity of elections, was stonewalling the contestants being able to serve subpoenas. Mr. Binnall: (42:05) That's very unfortunate and it goes to the problems that we see in this case and why it's so important that we have true transparency in elections, why it's so important that we have impartiality. The court is going to see in Clark County, unfortunately that didn't happen. And we have one witness, I believe it's Doe One, although I'll verify that in a moment, who says that Mr. Gloria was inspecting voting sites with a Biden pin, wearing a Biden pin. This is from a County employee, a whistleblower who came forward and gave deposition testimony in this case. It is difficult for the voters to know that this election has integrity when you have situations like that, very, very unfortunate decisions like that, where you have situations where we are given a very short timeframe and have a problem getting the evidence that we need in order to bring it before this court because people know of that short timeframe and think they can simply run out the clock. Mr. Binnall: (43:29) Nonetheless, even with that, we have given to the court the compelling evidence that we've given the court. Expert testimony from former Secretary of State, Scott Gessler, that goes into great detail into the failings of the election administrators, the problems with trying to administer a vote by mail system, the way it was done. Testimony from poll workers about the lack of any meaningful security for physical and electronic ballots. Data gathered and narrowed in less than a month showing thousands and thousands of specific instances of fraud and irregularity. Testimony from technical workers who managed the electronic voting machines that people cast their battles on. And this is testimony, and again, that's... Doe One, right? Doe One. The Doe One deposition is compelling and we ask the court to pay special attention to it. Mr. Binnall: (44:56) The Doe One testimony shows, and it's supported by other evidence as well from another whistleblower in more evidence submitted to the court, that you had no cyber security, no physical security on the voting machines, on these electronic machines that people went to to cast their votes when they decide to vote in person or when they decided to vote early in-person, either on Election Day or earlier sometime. And the fact that those disks. In each of these voting machine, you would put a USB disk and that USB disk was not encrypted or didn't have security on it. And the voting machines themselves were essentially not password protected. And they were hooked up to laptops, then where the laptops themselves could have been compromised. And in the middle of the night, what they would do is they would log these disks in and out. Good practice. And the disks had a specific serial number on them. Mr. Binnall: (46:33) And numerous times, a disk would be logged out with one vote total on it and logged back in the next morning during the early vote period with a different number on it, sometimes more, sometimes less. What that means is that literally in the dead of night, votes were appearing and votes were disappearing on these machines. And we have tried extremely hard, and the court gave us an order earlier this week that allowed some inspection on the digital devices used in this election, to find out how this could happen. And no one can tell us how it can happen other than the fact that we know that there wasn't any incorruption on the disks. You would plug this disk into a computer and you can access all the votes on it. You could change totals, you could change columns for the voters. That much we know. Mr. Binnall: (47:42) And the unfortunate thing is we can't have access to these machines in such a way that we can inspect them to verify that these machines are doing what they're supposed to do. Instead, the manufacturer of the machines rests on claims of intellectual property for the code and whatnot that they have. That's a problem. When it comes to voting, we can't have people hiding what could be malicious code or bad code, maybe it's only accidentally bad, maybe it's purposely bad, behind intellectual property, then having no way to be able to ensure that the results this machine is putting out has any form of integrity with it. So we know the problem. We can't get to the exact solution because we can't get the full inspection. But what we do know with these machines, what we are sure about, what we have testimony to, is that in the dead of night, votes disappear and votes reappear without explanation. And there's no good explanation for votes being cast on a machine, on a disk that is unplugged from the machine in the middle of the night. Speaker 1: (49:18) In reference to that issue, what element are you specifically relying on, which specific individual, whatever? The court would like to know this. Mr. Binnall: (49:28) Doe One, Your Honor. Doe One testified about that and there is another declaration that we've submitted to the court from the separate whistleblower that supports that. The declaration is... What exhibit is the second one? It's exhibit 62, which is binder four, Your Honor. Speaker 1: (50:02) Thank you. Mr. Binnall: (50:05) Your Honor, we've also produced testimony from people taking advantage of underrepresentitive communities, evidence that shows that bad actors executed a scheme of incentivizing individual people to vote, going to some of the reservations in Nevada and incentivizing people to vote, where it was a very clear tit for tat. You had to show that you voted and if you voted, you would get things like raffle tickets, and many people were getting cash cards, gift cards, televisions, more. Speaker 1: (50:54) How many votes are we talking about? I thought it was like 500 from my view of the information in the deposition for that. It wasn't a huge amount of vote though, was it? Mr. Binnall: (51:07) Your Honor, we don't know because we haven't been able to get some of the exact discovery on the exact number of votes that were actually counted using that system. Speaker 1: (51:16) Out of your information, it was 500 or so? Mr. Binnall: (51:18) Correct. 500 is how much we've been able to... I believe that's right, Your Honor. I think that it's that number. And so that is... Of course, some of our numbers are bigger than others. This is a particularly important one because it's at least 500. It's not something that would otherwise be in our care, custody, or control to come up with without more formalized discovery. But we do know what we've submitted to the court on that. That's in clear violation of the law. And in addition, the same campaign, that was being used to... Mr. Binnall: (52:03) I understand. The wonders of modern technology. Speaker 1: (52:05) [inaudible 00:52:06]. Speaker 2: (52:05) [inaudible 00:52:08]. Mr. Binnall: (52:05) Thank you. The same campaign that was incentivizing people to come out and vote in violation of state and federal law, that same campaign was also directly involved in encouraging people to come out and vote for the Biden vote, the Biden-Harris ticket. We of course don't have information that those people were paid by the Biden-Harris campaign, but it was still a part of show up and vote, we're going to give you something to value, and in several parts, sometimes the same part of the campaign, sometimes separate, oh, also make sure that you vote for Biden-Harris. This is something that can never be able to stand in an honest election. We have evidence that is more direct when it's tied to the Biden-Harris campaign, evidence from a whistleblower, there were three, of individuals at a Biden-Harris bus, this bus was close to a polling location, an early vote polling location. Mr. Binnall: (53:52) And at the early voting polling location, as she was on her lunch break, she would take walks around the center on her lunch break. And as she was on her walk, she noticed unusual activity happening at the Biden-Harris van. She was a poll worker. She knew what ballots look like. She saw people taking handfuls of ballots, multiple people, and filling them out on the side of the Biden-Harris van, not one, not two, but multiple ballots being filled out. Everyone gets, again, exactly one vote, no more, no less. There is no reason why anyone at any place would be filling out more than one ballot. And for people to bring handfuls of ballots to one location where they're then... And there's also statutory requirements about when you can help a voter fill out his or her ballot and what you're supposed to do if you do that. Mr. Binnall: (55:10) And in that case, Your Honor, the whistleblower circled back around again and saw them actually putting the ballots into the pink and white envelopes, which of course are the color, that she was able to get close and see that she would know because she's a poll worker, the return envelopes that people would use to return their ballots. You can never do that. There's never an instance where that would be an acceptable thing to do. She reported this. She reported this incident to her supervisor, who called the County, who called the people in the Registrar's Office. And they were told, "Oh, no. Vote harvesting is not illegal." This of course is not vote harvesting. Vote harvesting has its own problems, but the Legislature has in its discretion decided to make it legal. Mr. Binnall: (56:16) This is vote planning. This is ballot box stuffing, pure and simple. There is never a reason where a person can fill out more than one ballot, and it was happening this election. That takes us back to the data that we talked about and why the data is so important in this case. This is data we got from [Mr. Camsall 00:26:44] as an expert witness, that he was able to testify to to a reasonable degree of certainty about what he does in his normal course of work in order to take and compare lists, compared the list of people who voted with other lists that are available so we can actually see if the people who voted are people who are voting legally. The numbers he came up with were striking. Speaker 1: (57:14) The defendants don't think Mr. Camsall has the credibility or the qualifications to even testify based upon his lack of education, lack of statistical analysis ability, lack of publication, lack of ever testifying, lack of... He goes on and on and on. So again, there's an issue in respect to his credibility and under basically Nevada law. Obviously, Nevada law, we look at the Hallmark case on whether or not he meets the qualifications even as an expert. I'm raising it because the defendants raise it a lot in respect to his testimony. Mr. Binnall: (57:49) And it's certainly an important issue for the court to consider, is whether he's an appropriate witness. And of course, using Hallmark, using the system that Nevada uses to qualify experts, there is always the difference about weight versus admissibility of experts. And it is not the situation where you can only put college professor on the witness stand or someone in academia to testify as an expert. When it comes to expert testimony, you often look at the experience of the particular individual and what kind of experience the individual has had in coming up with these particular methods. And someone that had worked in data science and analytics for as long as he has is somebody that has that experience that helps the court, is helpful to the court, not in giving legal conclusions, much of the questions that they asked Mr. Camsall are just legal conclusions which of course would never be acceptable as expert testimony, but the methods that he actually takes in order to compare one list to another. Speaker 1: (59:08) He comes up with a lot of different numbers. I went through his numbers and the data in trying to understand them. Does he ever make a determination in respect to his numbers where he says X number of these votes would have gone to basically Donald Trump? He doesn't. Mr. Binnall: (59:25) No. And let me explain why we can't do that. Speaker 1: (59:27) [inaudible 00:59:27] Doesn't that become an issue though? Because it's very difficult because the... We look at the two-part test in regards to NRS 293.12 A, and there's the different ones that you go through. And you have to be able to show the differentiation in respect to the votes, a sufficient number of votes to get over, I think in this case, 33,596 votes. And he never says that. Because I went through that [inaudible 00:59:56] looking for that determination. He could have said, "These are the things that we think may have happened. We think-" Judge Russell: (01:00:03) These are the things that we think may have happened. We think these things happened that are bad, and I'm not saying there's no right or wrong, I'm just saying at the end of the day, when you get done with this analysis, we don't know where those votes would have gone. Or if those votes went one way they shouldn't have gone. There is no ability for him to make that determination, reviewing his deposition. At least I took that away from this deposition. Mr. Binnall: (01:00:27) If that were the standard, that you had to be able to tell which contested votes would go to candidate A and which contested vote would go to candidate B, it would make any election contest impossible. Judge Russell: (01:00:38) Yeah, I don't disagree. Is that part of the test? Mr. Binnall: (01:00:44) I think that that's not exactly part of the test. Here's where I would disagree with the court on this. I think the test is whether there is enough votes that shouldn't have been cast that would span the margin between the candidates. That's what we look at. And that's because of secret ballot. It's also why, this is another reason why it's so important to have these protections on the front end, why you have to be able to protect election integrity on the front end, because short of an election contest that we're doing right now, there's no way to do it on the back end. To be able to tell X number of these votes would have gone for Joe Biden. X number of these, wide number of these votes would have gone for Donald Trump. Mr. Binnall: (01:01:32) Once the vote, there's two different ways in Nevada this year that votes are cast. They are cast on electronic machine, where they're cast in mail-in ballot. Once the vote, if it's cast by mail, is taken out of its envelope, that is something we called separation. And because the envelope includes all the voter information on it. And what is supposed to be done then to provide for security is that envelope in that ballot never again will meet. They can never be matched back up to each other because if they can be matched up to each other again, it's not a secret ballot. So once that ballot comes out of the envelope and it goes into the voter pool, if it's a poisonous ballot, it's poisoning the entire pool. Mr. Binnall: (01:02:27) And so yes, there is no way for us to be able to tell which of these people voted for which candidate, because we hold the secret ballot so sacrosanct. But that's why that's you should not read the contest statute to be able to say that you have to tell how many bad ballots went for candidate A and how many went for candidate B, because if you do that, you make an election contest impossible. Mr. Binnall: (01:02:58) Mr. Kamcol's long experience does allow him to identify specific voters to a reasonable degree of certainty. And he took his various universes and found that over 8,111 voters voted from fake addresses. 15,681 voters voted from vacant addresses and commercial addresses. This is especially important. This is these irregularities that we talked about. You can't do that. You can't vote from a fake address. You can't vote from a vacant address. You can't vote from a commercial address because it has to be where you live, because that is where you are represented. You're represented where you live. Mr. Binnall: (01:03:45) 1,506 votes from dead voters. 19,218 votes from non-Nevadans. And particularly striking is 42,284 votes from double voters. That number right there is more than the gulf between vice-president Biden and President Trump, in this case. Mr. Binnall: (01:04:10) Now the... Judge Russell: (01:04:10) You have about 15 minutes more to go. Mr. Binnall: (01:04:15) I understand. I run horribly, again. Judge Russell: (01:04:16) It's been 35 minutes. I just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Mr. Binnall: (01:04:20) Thank you, Your Honor, and I have also been made aware by my co-counsel. I'm going to wrap up at this point and I'll be back for rebuttal. And the double voting happens because the voter rolls aren't clean. And we have evidence that we've submitted to the court where people, good people, honest people have taken that and said, "Look, I've got two ballots here. Maybe it's one of my maiden name and one in my married name." You don't clean the voter rolls, stuff like that happens. Honest people do what happened here. In some cases, bringing them to us, not voting them, destroying them, whatever it might be. But in a presidential election, perhaps this presidential election where the most passions were high, people felt very strongly and we have 42,284 instances of people voting twice. We have the poll that we've submitted showing that of the people who submitted mail votes, approximately 1% of those people say they didn't cast a ballot at all. Mr. Binnall: (01:05:27) Again, something that without the tools of the prosecutor, it's one of the few ways that we can actually test that. So people are taking other people's ballots. And there's been stories about that that has happened. Where people are having their votes specifically stolen. And people that may wish to abstain and not vote at all they're voting because somebody else decides to vote for them. Mr. Binnall: (01:05:51) Your Honor, every single one of these instances that we've identified has resulted again in the votes of honest Nevadans being disenfranchised. The only thing to do with this, to avoid the debasement and pollution that comes with the vote fraud and irregularities is to grant the contest and to strike the Biden voters from representing Nevada in the electoral college. Mr. Binnall: (01:06:28) We understand that this is an unusual situation, but what we can't do is turn a blind eye to voter fraud. We're going to keep being the beacon of representative democracy of the world. When it goes bad, and here, it went bad, we can't just turn a blind eye to it. That's not what we do in America. We make it right. We're asking the court to make it right. And the way to do that is to make sure that improperly elected electors don't represent Nevada in the electoral college. Mr. Binnall: (01:07:03) I reserve the rest of my time. Thank you. Judge Russell: (01:07:12) We'd like to just take a short break. About 10 minutes. We'll come back and proceed on that basis. Thank you. So Harold, don't go anywhere. Judge Russell: (01:07:12) [crosstalk 01:07:41]. Speaker 4: (01:07:12) ... 11. That's what recording at it... Bailiff: (01:07:42) Where's your access [crosstalk 01:09:42]. Speaker 4: (01:07:42) I don't like this. I can't hear a [crosstalk 01:10:07]. Bailiff: (01:11:29) They're having trouble hearing the podium mic next door. Speaker 3: (01:11:44) Oh, really. Bailiff: (01:11:58) Sounds good to me. Speaker 3: (01:11:59) Yeah. Bailiff: (01:11:59) [inaudible 01:11:39]. Bailiff: (01:11:59) Oh. How are you doing? Speaker 4: (01:11:59) Do you know who the [inaudible 01:11:55]? Bailiff: (01:11:59) Do what? Speaker 4: (01:11:59) Do you know who the [inaudible 01:11:52]. Speaker 3: (01:11:59) Yeah, it just said [inaudible 01:12:30]. Speaker 3: (01:11:59) [crosstalk 01:12:46]. Speaker 4: (01:11:59) We're going to just employ at the table. Bailiff: (01:11:59) You want to hear the table? Speaker 3: (01:11:59) Yeah. Speaker 4: (01:12:07) We're going to present a [inaudible 01:12:07] Speaker 3: (01:12:11) Sir, yes. How's it all going? [crosstalk 01:12:11] You got to save them all sometime. I've been asking about that. [crosstalk 01:12:24]. Bailiff: (01:12:29) Yeah, it just said [inaudible 01:12:29] Speaker 3: (01:12:52) [crosstalk 01:12:52] How are you doing? Speaker 5: (01:12:52) Good, good, fine. Speaker 3: (01:12:52) Oh, good. Bailiff: (01:12:52) You're plugged in. Speaker 3: (01:12:52) I'm plugged in. Speaker 5: (01:13:07) I see [inaudible 01:13:07] Speaker 3: (01:13:07) Correct. Speaker 5: (01:13:07) See. To make sure you hold to your story. We need to do this so we really repeat the quote right away. The story. Oh, oh, oh. You know. I could give you a hard time. Spare me with that one stoke, that one that I [crosstalk 01:13:24]. Speaker 6: (01:13:07) Thanks for assistance. Seven minutes up to the [crosstalk 01:13:28]. Speaker 5: (01:13:29) You know basically he quit, right? He was talking to wrong state senator yesterday. They asked E.C. to then run for governor. Yeah, he quit. You know him. That's basically the end of [Claren 01:13:36]. Bailiff: (01:13:29) [crosstalk 01:13:40]. Speaker 5: (01:13:29) I absolutely told him to go and use some stuff. I don't know. Shot's up. It's all good. Speaker 3: (01:13:29) [inaudible 01:13:55]. Speaker 5: (01:14:08) Yeah. [crosstalk 01:14:08] Well, they won it though, check it out, basically. If you look at the post-show, all legislators are really [inaudible 01:15:02] primary endorsed. They all want a single outline. So for some reason [crosstalk 01:15:02] Speaker 3: (01:15:02) Derek over here. Speaker 5: (01:15:02) You have two back there. Speaker 3: (01:15:02) I'm okay with that. [crosstalk 01:14:49]. Bailiff: (01:15:02) He's a great guy to work for. Speaker 3: (01:15:03) It seems like that. Bailiff: (01:15:03) Yeah. He's awesome. I've been called a phone call [crosstalk 01:15:03] I get really into work. [crosstalk 01:15:03] In fact, he told me that [crosstalk 01:15:03] We're going to cop school. It's great. Good seeing you. Yes, sir.[Crosstalk 01:15:55]. Okay, thanks for doing it. [crosstalk 01:16:38] Speaker 7: (01:15:03) Counsel? You ready? Mr. Binnall: (01:15:03) I'm ready. Bailiff: (01:15:12) All rise. Okay, proceed. Judge Russell: (01:17:04) We're back on the record respect to page number 20, row C here. We're at line six three. Hamilton, you are ready to proceed with your argument? Kevin Hamilton: (01:17:15) I am your honor. Judge Russell: (01:17:16) Go ahead, sir. Kevin Hamilton: (01:17:20) Thank you again, Kevin Hamilton on behalf... I appreciate that the court set... 15 minutes per side for argument. I hope not to pass that limit or the court's patient. Kevin Hamilton: (01:17:37) On November 3rd, 2020, the voters of Nevada and the nation as a whole elected Joe Biden as President of the United States. In Nevada, the margin was 33,596 votes, as Your Honor noted. Those results have been carefully canvassed, audited, and certified by county data officials, including the Nevada Supreme court. Two weeks after that election on November 17, the contestants filed their statement of contest and the content seeks breathtaking relief. An order from this court overturning the election and declaring President Trump the winner in Nevada and certifying contestants of the state duly elected electors. Kevin Hamilton: (01:18:24) Or in the alternative, holding that the November 3rd election be upheld, and enjoining Nevada from certifying any electors from the state of Nevada, entirely balancing the vote and void the 1.4 million Nevada voters in the election of the President of the United States. It's difficult to imagine a more shocking and fundamentally non-democratic act than to ask the court to overturn the express will of an entire state simply because the contestant's preferred candidate didn't win the election. No court in the history of the United States has ever entered a relief. Kevin Hamilton: (01:19:14) Now, one would imagine that any contestant seeking such unprecedented and breathtaking relief would approach this court cautiously. At the United States district court, the Middle District of Pennsylvania noted just two weeks ago, one might expect the contestant seeking to overturn the results from the Presidential election would come formidably armed with compelling legal argument and factual proof of rampant corruption such that the court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed release, despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens post-vote. Kevin Hamilton: (01:19:57) Not these contestants. It's difficult to imagine that even they take this claim seriously. From the start to the jumbled end, this contest appears to be nothing more than part of a larger extra-divisional effort to disparage hard-working state and county local election officials across the country and cast doubt on the outcome of election all in the service of some larger political agenda. Kevin Hamilton: (01:20:23) Nothing about the contest even remotely warrants the relief the contestants seek. First, from the very outset, the statement contest falls woefully short satisfying the requirements of NRS-293.410, raising [inaudible 01:20:40] grounds for an election contest. The claims relating to the Clark County use of the Agilis machine have been considered and soundly rejected by several different Nevada courts including this court, and was thus barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. And that the claim that could and should have been brought long ago, the laches also bars the claim. And none of the claim alleged in the contest actually faulted in the very limited ground enumerated by a contest statute. So the contest has stumbled at the very courthouse door. And for that reason, we move to dismiss the case. Kevin Hamilton: (01:21:19) But second, if the court even considers the contest on the merit, the closer one examines the claim and the supposed supporting evidence, the more the case simply falls apart. Contestant evidence of examination and built on nothing more than speculation, conspiracy theory, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral process in Nevada. None of this comes close to satisfying contest-heavy burden of proof, none of this is sufficient to overturn the results of the election, and none of it justifies the astonishing relief sought by the contestant. Kevin Hamilton: (01:22:01) So let me start with the bases outlined in the motion to dismiss that we filed on November 23rd. First, to the extent that the contestants based the contest on Clark County's use of the Agilis machine or the failure to allow meaningful observation. Both of those issues have been raised multiple times, fully litigated, and soundly rejected by this court. In Kraus versus Cegavske, the court considered these issues over a 10 hour evidentiary hearing complete with live testimony and nine witnesses, and legal argument from counsel for the contestant himself, Mr. Binnall. Judge Wilson, considered and rejected those claims in a thoughtful 14-day ruling. It's truly down a lack of standing, but those were alternatives that they need for a decision. Kevin Hamilton: (01:22:56) And the contestants here, as Trump electors, are obviously being privy with the claimants there, which was the Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican party and are thus bound by the decision there. So all of the factors we've submitted for issue preclusion. But even if the claim were technically barred by the issue preclusion because of the Kraus decision, that decision is certainly persuasive authority for the proposition that nothing about the Agilis machine or how it was used by Clark County wasn't even remotely improper. And since the election, three different district court judges in Clark County, Judge Atkin in the Rodimer versus Gloria case, Judge Sturman in the Marchant versus Gloria case, and Judge Hardy in the Becker versus Gloria case, as well as Judge Gordon on the US Court of Appeals, I'm sorry, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada have flatly rejected similar claims. None of them have reached contrary conclusions. Kevin Hamilton: (01:24:06) Second, the contestant's challenge to the Clark County use of the Agilis machine is barred by the doctrine of laches. The county purchase of Agilis machine was not a secret. It was reviewed by, and even subsidized by, the Nevada Secretary of State's office. Contestants could have and should have brang any concerns that they had about the use of that machine literally months ago, prior to its deployment in the county. Indeed, the county used the Agilis machine during the June primary. No controversy, no complaint, no issue. Contestants could have and should have raised any claims they had that then, prior to the use in that election, or at the very least in the ensuing five months before the general election. But then instead... Speaker 4: (01:24:58) [inaudible 01:25:07]. Judge Russell: (01:25:09) Hamilton, we can't hear you, we lost you. Speaker 4: (01:25:10) Judge, the phone is disconnected. Judge Russell: (01:25:11) Huh? Speaker 4: (01:25:11) The phone disconnected. Judge Russell: (01:25:11) The phone got disconnected. If you hang on one moment. Judge Russell: (01:25:11) (silence) Automated voice: (01:25:46) Please enter your [inaudible 01:25:46] followed by the pound. To enable audio control, please enter your office PIN and push the pound. Speaker 4: (01:25:59) See if it's ringing. Nothing is ringing. Judge Russell: (01:25:59) Hamilton, can you hear me? Kevin Hamilton: (01:26:10) I can, Your Honor. Judge Russell: (01:26:16) Thank you. We can hear you again. If you can go back and start, I think you were at the end of the laches argument. Go ahead. Kevin Hamilton: (01:26:32) Right. Thank you, Your Honor, and I apologize for the technical issues on my... hopefully the technology god will be with us for the rest of the argument. Judge Russell: (01:26:40) We aren't sure what happened but go ahead. I apologize to you. It's on our end. Kevin Hamilton: (01:26:46) All right. Thank you. The point is that the contestants should have raised complaint about the use of the Agilis machine well prior to the general election and well before hundreds of thousands of ballots had been processed by that machine, allowing them to sandbag more than 1.4 million Nevada voters by waiting until after they voted and after the votes had been counted and certified by county election officials, and then asking this court in one year judicial wave of the arm to reject them all is the very definition of prejudice. And so for that reason the doctrine of laches would preclude re-litigating this claim again. Kevin Hamilton: (01:27:35) And then finally, the claim fails for failing to comply with Nevada law. The Nevada election contest statute requires that the ground of the contest be alleged with sufficient certainty to inform the defendant of the charges the defendant is required to meet. That's NRS-293.410 sub one. But the claims in this context or anything but clear and certain. They can hardly be called anything but vague and undefined. Judge Russell: (01:28:09) Well let me ask you- Kevin Hamilton: (01:28:09) In the path of the contest that certain- Judge Russell: (01:28:15) Can I ask you a question in respect to that? Obviously, if you look at the general civil procedure 8A, basically we're a notice pleading state. And I guess the question I would ask, I understand your argument with respect to sufficient certainty, but if we're a notice pleading state and you go back and read the statement on claims, do I make in correlation over to the Nevada rules of civil procedure in light of the statute, or can I just look at the NRS-293.410? Or don't I have to also look at basically the nine rules of civil procedure a little bit to correlate things? Kevin Hamilton: (01:28:55) Well, Your Honor, of course the Nevada rules of civil procedures would be applicable to the extent that they're not inconsistent with the election statute. But election contest is unique. A proceeding that's defined by Nevada law and where the statute calls out a specific pleading standard that is sufficient certainty, then of course, that would trump by very Latin maxim counsel just described a moment ago, that would trump the generalized application in the Nevada rule. Kevin Hamilton: (01:29:29) And the point here is because the Nevada election content is such a short timeframe thing, you don't bring this kind of a lawsuit unless you have the evidence to make a claim with sufficient certainty to inform the defendant of the charges. So it's not enough that it's a certain category. You have to name voters. And that's exactly where this complaint fails. It fails to identify even a single voter... Kevin Hamilton: (01:30:03) ... failed. It failed to identify even a single voter who in any of these categories who cast an unlawful vote. It failed to allege with certainty which voters voted twice, which voters voted after they were dead, which voters voted after moving out of state, or even for whom those alleged ballots were cast or whether they even voted in the presidential election. I'm just going to pause there. Council makes the argument that, "Well, golly, you can't prove that because the envelopes and the ballots are separated." And that completely misunderstands the election contest, Your Honor. If you're alleging an individual, John Smith, voted twice, you have to name John Smith and prove for whom he voted. That's not impossible. Kevin Hamilton: (01:30:58) In fact, in 2004 and 2005 there was an election contest over the governor of the state of Washington. It was a two week trial held up in Washington, and I represented the governor in that state. And in fact, there were four depositions of four voters in that case, all convicted felons, who should not have been voting in the election. We took their deposition. Of course, you can ask them how they voted because they were illegal voters. They broke the law and committed a felon by passing those ballots. It's easy to do that. You just have to do it specifically because that's the only way this court has an evidentiary record to making conclusions, to reach a conclusion that illegal votes were cast and for whom they were cast and by how many. Kevin Hamilton: (01:31:50) And so there's a pleading problem at the front end of this case and an evidentiary problem with back end. Let me finish on the front end. Having failed to identify, specifically in pleaded, specifically the claim failed as a matter of pleading, and that and [inaudible 01:32:09] a contest action. And so the case should be dismissed at the threshold. But if the court goes on to consider the contents on the merit, the result is same. The content fails as a result of an utter collapse of proof. The contestant's case is simply a calamity, and the contestant can barely contend otherwise. [inaudible 00:02:33]. Kevin Hamilton: (01:32:30) And contestants spill a lot of it attempting to make up their patent lack of admissible evidence with enthusiasm and overstatement. But their zeal rather dramatically outstrips their evidence. And in a court of law, it's evidence that counts, not Tweets or social media bluster, not hearsay or speculation. It's evidence, and that's what's missing in the record before the court. I just listened to counsel talk for the better part of 40 minutes with very few references to any actual evidence before the court, and so I think that it's worth taking each specific claim in turn. Kevin Hamilton: (01:33:19) The first is the Agilis machine. The contestants claim that Clark County violated the law by using that to sort ballots and verify signatures. That seems to be an invocation of NRS 293-410, 2(f), which allows a challenge if a contestant can prove that quote, there was a malfunction of any voting device or electronic tabulator counting device or computer in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election, close quote. Again, that's 410, 2(f). This is not a new allegation, Your Honor. As I mentioned earlier, no fewer than five Nevada courts have considered this claim. Judge Wilson [inaudible 01:34:10] hearing to explore it in Kraus. Every court, state and federal, has rejected this claim without exception and without hesitation. Kevin Hamilton: (01:34:22) And it's not actually all that surprising. The Agilis machine is widely used by some of the largest counties and metropolitan areas in the United States, Cincinnati, Ohio; Tallahassee, Florida; Pueblo County, Colorado; San Francisco, California; Salt Lake City, and dozens of others, counties where Democrats are in charge, counties where Republicans are in charge, most importantly, counties toward Americans are in charge. Contestant appeared to raise three separate challenges to the machine. First day they allege Clark County should never have used it at all and that, if used in processing signatures violates Nevada law. You heard that already just a moment ago. That's part is the easiest to dismiss. 84 specifically authorizes the county election's officials to process and to count ballots by electronic means. That's Section 12-2-2(a) bill. Kevin Hamilton: (01:35:26) Second, contestant alleged that the Agilis machine was improperly utilized because they've got the threshold at 40 rather than using a threshold setting of 50 that the machine is set on when delivered from the manufacturer. But that claim too has been thoroughly examined and thoroughly rebutted. First, and it's before using the testimony of Jeff Ellington, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Runbeck, the company who makes the Agilis machine. We took his deposition; the transcript is before you. He testified that the company recommends that the elections equipment threshold set using a test deck of sample ballots to ensure that the machine accepts only obviously matched signatures. Jeff Ellington... Kevin Hamilton: (01:36:19) Second, Joe Gloria, the court approved registrar of voters, testified that's exactly what he did. He used a test stack of ballots to ensure that only obviously matched signatures were accepted and that all other ballots were rejected by the machine and subject to human review. The result is 30% of the ballots were accepted by the machine and 70% reviewed by election department personnel. And maybe most surprisingly, contestant's own expert mentioned earlier in this very courtroom, Scott Gessler, admitted on cross-examination in his deposition that Clark County's use of the Agilis machine was entirely proper and even consistent with what he termed best practices. That's contestant's expert. Against that clear, specific, and undisputed evidence, contestants offer literally nothing. They stand empty handed without any evidence to suggest that there was anything wrong in Clark County, accusing the Agilis machine for how it was adjusted or how it was employed, but the claim simply fails for want of proof. Judge Russell: (01:37:29) Mr. Gessler made a comment in his deposition, something to the effect that 40%, which is what Clark County used, was appropriate. Is that correct? Kevin Hamilton: (01:37:49) That is exactly right, Your Honor. In fact, he called it best practice. The third attack on the Agilis machine relates to the Clark County database of exemplar signatures, which in some cases includes signatures from the Department of Motor Vehicles that were poor quality. Specifically, the contestant contends that the Agilis machine requires images to be at least 200 dots per square inch, or DPI, and that the DMV signatures were only 100 DPI and unreadable. So this fails for the same reasons, really. Mr. Ellington, again, the President of the Runbeck, the manufacturer, confirmed that while it's true the Agilis requires a 200 DPI signature to match a signature, he testified that if the machine couldn't read it because it was a poor quality exemplar, then it rejected the ballot, which means it falls to human review. He emphatically testified that the Agilis would not match a signature when the exemplar was low quality. And Mr. Gloria testified to same thing. If the Agilis machine couldn't find a high quality image against which to match the signature on the envelope, then it would reject the envelope for human review. Kevin Hamilton: (01:39:08) And again, here, contestant has no contrary evidence. There's no countervailing expert, no technical operator, no other counties or states operators testifying that something was amiss here, nothing but bald allegations and speculation. They offer hearsay evidence from people who thought certain signatures looked strange. And I don't doubt that people could have differences of opinions about signatures, but that's not enough, by a far cry, to sustain contestant's [inaudible 01:39:42]. So the Agilis machine claim fails from start to finish, top to bottom. There's simply nothing there. And that, of course, is why every court who has considered the claim has rejected it without exception. So, whether you consider the case, the crowd's case, to bar the claim for issue preclusion or you bar the claim based on the failure to raise it sooner, you look for merit. There's simply nothing there, Your Honor. Kevin Hamilton: (01:40:14) The next category of claims advanced in the contest is illegal or improper votes. Under Nevada law, an election can be contested on the grounds of, quote, illegal or improper votes that were cast and counted, or conversely legal or proper that were not counted. And in either case, [inaudible 01:40:38] equal to or greater than the margin between the contestant and the defendant or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise a reasonable contest to the outcome of the election. That's NRS 293-410, 2(c). And, Your Honor, this is where the wheels truly come off the train. [inaudible 01:41:01] with no evidence of any illegal votes, much less evidence of which voters they contend cast those votes, or even more fundamentally for whom those ballots were cast. They fall far short of demonstrating 33,596 votes, the margin. There's no evidence to support these allegations, no specific evidence, no specific voters or ballots, no knowledgeable witnesses with relevant and admissible testimony, expert or otherwise. Kevin Hamilton: (01:41:37) First, they contend in the contest that same day registrants were permitted to register by providing mere proof of the Department of Motor Vehicle appointments rather than photo IDs, or were allowed to cast provisional ballot even if they couldn't satisfy voting requirements, or that provisional ballots were counted even if not [inaudible 01:41:59], or that mail ballots were found from voters who didn't cast them. But there's no evidence to support any of that. The contestants offer a handful of witnesses to support the claim, but they largely concede in their depositions that they can't, that it's speculation. Doe Three, for example, testified that voters who only provided proof of DMV appointments were given vertical ballots and conceded that she didn't know how many ballots fell in that category and whether those ballots were counted. Couldn't identify the names of those voter, couldn't identify whether those voters had voted in the presidential election, or for whom those ballots had been cast. Kevin Hamilton: (01:42:44) Doe Two testified that some signatures looked suspicious, and questioned out of state ballots, and felt that supervisors had unrestrained access to ballots, but agreed in her words in her deposition under oath it was all just speculation. Doe One, which was mentioned a moment ago, I would encourage the court to read that deposition with particular attention to page 66 and page 77. Page 66, Doe One admits that there's no evidence of any different between the paper audit trail and the vote totals on the machine. At page 77, Doe One admits that he's not aware of anyone tampering with any USB drives. Kevin Hamilton: (01:43:40) The contestant alleged that no less than 500 provisional ballots were counted without the issues that renders them provisional having been resolved, but they provide no evidence that this actually occurred. You, Your Honor, and I, and members of the public are left to guess who these 500 voters were. Joe Gloria was asked about that allegation in his deposition, and he specifically denied it. He said, "Absolutely not. Provisional ballots were treated in accordance with the rules, and only those that were [inaudible 01:44:16] to Nevada law were counted." So, that's the specific evidence that they come forward with, and it fails rather dramatically short of the mark. They then fall back- Judge Russell: (01:44:33) Let me ask you one question. One of the things they raised in the brief was that Joseph Gloria made a statement to the Clark County Commission on November 16, 2020, that his staff discovered discrepancies that we cannot explain and cannot remediate without a recount. Are you aware of that statement? Kevin Hamilton: (01:44:55) I am, Your Honor. Judge Russell: (01:45:01) Okay. Can you explain that and the context it was given, or maybe it was taken out of context. I just found that interesting. Kevin Hamilton: (01:45:09) It is. Your Honor, the truth of the matter is, and it's not unique to Nevada, it's not unique in 2020, and it's not unique into a general election, every election will have minor anomalies and irregularities that just happen. It's not like when you're getting anywhere from 1.4 million ballots, those instances in which there are minor discrepancies in the numbers. For example, in poling places, in the United States, we rely on the volunteers and temporary workers to staff our polling places. That's how we do it. We don't have to do that. We could have a Federal election organization, but in the United States, historically we've relied on citizens to come forward. And a lot of those people work long, a lot of those people are tired. Kevin Hamilton: (01:46:15) They're your father, your mother, your uncle, your brother. Those are the people that run our polling places and make our democracy work, and they work long hours. At the end of the day, they have to fill out ballot accountability sheets. How many ballots do you have on hand? How many were spoiled? How many were voted? And you know what? Sometimes they make mistakes at the end of a 14 hour day. Those are the kinds of discrepancies Mr. Gloria was referring to. Those are the kinds of things that happen in every election, but you know what they're not? They're not proof that anybody voted illegally. That's a much more serious allegation and requires much more serious proof. So Mr. Gloria's statement, I think, is being blown way out of proportion for what it actually was. Does that answer your question, Your Honor? Judge Russell: (01:47:06) Yeah, thank you. Kevin Hamilton: (01:47:06) The second way they approach this is with expert testimony, particularly Mr. [Campbell 00:01:47:21], and they used a sort of a broad brush category approach where Mr. Campbell refers to them as universes of ballots improperly channeled. [inaudible 00:01:47:37]... Your Honor, there's some background noise. I'm not sure what that is. Judge Russell: (01:47:43) [inaudible 01:47:43] You're fine. Kevin Hamilton: (01:47:49) Okay. Mr. Campbell's analysis collapses upon even minimal scrutiny. He is hardly a credible expert. As I mentioned earlier, he spent his entire career as a political operative for the Republican National Committee, admits that he didn't actually perform the data matching upon which his analysis depends. He doesn't know the rate of false positives. He doesn't know the narrow range revealed in that exercise. Kevin Hamilton: (01:48:16) He claims that ballot [inaudible 01:48:19], but didn't supervise or direct those efforts, and has no idea what that work demonstrated or the error rates they uncover. And then based on that testimony, that contestant's claim that thousands of Nevada voters committed felony voting twice, voting illegally after moving out of the state, or cast ballots in the name of dead voters, but Mr. Campbell's analysis doesn't begin to prove that. For starters, Nevada voters who moved out of state but maintain their residency are most certainly entitled to vote in Nevada election, college students, for example, military personnel, citizens seeking medical treatment out of state, citizens assisting aging relatives in times of need, citizens spending winters or summers on vacation properties, serving in Congress, or living temporarily out of state for a million other reasons. Kevin Hamilton: (01:49:21) Mr. Campbell can't control for any of that, and he admits it. Voters who passed away obviously can't vote, unless they cast their ballots prior to their death. But Mr. Campbell offers the court no evidence with respect to the date of death of the voters he identifies here or fundamentally. He doesn't, in fact, identify even a single voter whose ballot was cast after he or she passed away. Not one. And yet he claimed that there are thousands. You'd think he would attach them to a declaration, that he would come forward with a report, that he'd name even one. The same is true of Mr. Campbell's allegations of voters who voted twice. He didn't do the critical data file matching, can't testify for the match rate of the false positives or the error rate. This is precisely why courts across the country have routinely rejected this sort of slipshod analysis and absolutely insufficient in voting rights and voter registration cases. Kevin Hamilton: (01:50:36) This is the one that I'm familiar with, Your Honor. I dare say that in a intellectual property or technical case, Mr. Campbell would never be admitted as an expert. But perhaps most fundamentally, the contestants never identify the supposed thousands or even tens of thousands of illegal voters. They allege in their statement that 15,000 Nevada voters voted both in Nevada and in other states, but they don't identify a single one. I go back to my very first point, Your Honor. This is a failure to identify with certainty. If they identified a specific voter, sure, then the defendant or anyone else could go ask that voter and determine whether, in fact, they cast a ballot in two different states. A categorical accusation doesn't make it through in court. Kevin Hamilton: (01:51:29) Same thing with respect to the allegation that votes arrived after the deadline for mail ballots were counted. Who? Which ones? They alleged that 500 votes were submitted at polling places by individuals other than the proper voters, again, without identifying a single one. They alleged that letter carriers violated USPS policies by delivering ballots to homes where voters didn't live, but they don't identify any of them. Your Honor, this is trial by allegation, not proof, and it falls far short of the heavy burden Nevada law places on those seeking to contest the outcome of a certified statewide election. Voting fraud in the United States, thankfully, is vanishingly rare, as Professor Aaron testified. Yet contestant stand before you and boldly allege the wildly implausible, that over 42,000 Nevada citizens committed felony by voting twice in this selection. 42,000... You'd think that anyone leveling that sort of charge would have powerful proof, but contestant don't. They can't even name them, or perhaps they don't want to name them because of fear of liability of accusing somebody of a crime that's obviously inflammatory. Kevin Hamilton: (01:52:55) They can't prove that any of those individuals even voted in the presidential election, and they certainly can't prove for whom those ballots were cast. This is an utter failure of proof on every level. Charitably, one might call it junk science, unreliable [inaudible 00:23:09], and offered by an expert who is no such thing. But even taken at face value, it fails to prove that which Nevada law demands, that illegal votes were counted in an amount equal to or larger than the margins between the candidates. So again, the claim failed for want of proof and should be dismissed on that basis. Kevin Hamilton: (01:53:33) The third category involves allegations of misconduct by the Biden campaign itself. Contestant suggests that various groups or individuals affiliated with the Biden-Harris engaged in this conduct, that they provided [inaudible 01:53:49] prove that allegation. Doe Three, for example, claimed, and you heard a rendition of this just a moment ago, that unnamed and unidentified individuals gathered around the Biden bus in a parking lot polling center in broad daylight to engage in ballot stuffing. But in addition to being patently ludicrous, that witness admits to having no idea of whether these supposed votes or ballots were ever cast let alone counted. That admission is devastating to this claim. And the contestant's point to the Nevada Native Vote Project, which undertook voting fraud this year and argued that the Biden campaign bribed voters, but the only link they have between that group and the Biden campaign itself are hats, t-shirts, and socks. [Inaudible 01:54:51] is not implicated and is not responsible by anything a supporter does while wearing his or her t-shirt or hat. In any event, fundamentally, they offer not a single witness who observed this event who can authenticate their photo, not a shred of evidence to suggest that anyone is offering something of value to manipulate a vote, and not a single thing that would indicate those individuals were acting on behalf of Biden. The entire allegation is simply a [inaudible 01:55:24] attack on an organization that promotes Native American voter turnout without any basis in fact or law. Kevin Hamilton: (01:55:33) The last category, your honor, claimed that involved active malfeasance or influence from other... And again, Nevada law allows the contest on the grounds that, quote, election board or any member thereof was guilty of malfeasance, close. That's NRS 293-410, sub 2a. There's no evidence to support this abroad and entirely unwarranted attack on Nevada's hardworking election officials. First, the contestants claim they were not granted meaningful observation opportunity, but they utterly failed to demonstrate this was willful misconduct, much less, anything more than routine regulations of observer during the canvas of an election, and regulation that was particularly important during raging local pandemic. That's precisely why Judge Wilson in the Kraus case rejected the same claim. Kevin Hamilton: (01:56:32) And the only other allegation of malfeasance is use of the Agilis machine, and that fails for the same reason mentioned before. State law authorizes the processing and counting of ballots by electronic means. This isn't malfeasance, Your Honor. This is nothing more than regular routine and professional administration of this election by Joe Gloria, and his team in Clark County, and all the election administrators across the great state of Nevada. Mr. Gloria is one of the most experienced and highly respective election administrators in the entire country. Kevin Hamilton: (01:57:08) So let me just wrap up it all. Last week, the Third Circuit wrote, "Voters not lawyers chose the President. Ballots not briefs decide election." That's not something that a court should have to remind litigants, but since the election one month ago we've seen the same pattern all across this country, baseless lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who simply not accept the fact that their favorite candidate lost the election to Joe Biden. But that's the decision the people of the state of Nevada made and are entitled to make, and that's a choice that can only be reversed or thrown out by this court on the very most powerful of showing with clear and overwhelming evidence of widespread fraud, malfunctioning machine that in fact distorted the true inaccurate vote polls or proof of official malfeasance. Kevin Hamilton: (01:58:13) Simply put breathtaking relief demands breathtaking evidence, but contestant stand before you with nothing of the sort. This court has indulged contestant at every turn allowing 15 depositions on extraordinary work noted, compelling examination of the sealable election material, entering protective orders, allowing witnesses to testify anonymously, and otherwise largely allowing contestant free range to collect whatever evidence they wished in whatever manner they thought. It's now clear that despite this flurry of last minute activity, it was all for naught. Contestants are bereft of evidence to support their outlandish claims, and instead they offer hearsay that even on its face doesn't support their claims. They offer big numbers, but without support, without names, and without proof of any specific illegal mail ballot being cast, not one. Kevin Hamilton: (01:59:15) None of this is remotely sufficient to justify the contest, much less the jaw-dropping invitation to this court to overturn the expressed will of 1.4 million Nevada voters. This election was fair, the votes were counted correctly, and Joe Biden won. It's time for the contestant to accept that, and it's time for this meritless case to come to an end. So with respect, Your Honor, defendant asks this court to dismiss the contest without further proceeding, to enter judgment for defendant so that Nevada may have its voice heard when the Electoral College meets to vote for and elect the President of the United States. Thank you for listening, Your Honor. Thank you for allowing me to appear remotely. I appreciate it. Judge Russell: (01:59:58) Mister... Kevin Hamilton: (02:00:00) Thank you, I appreciate it. Judge Russell: (02:00:01) Mr. Binnall take about ten minutes. Jesse Binnall: (02:00:07) Your Honor, could I ask the court for another few minutes to put together our rebut? Judge Russell: (02:00:12) As long as we don't lose Mr. Hamilton. We'll go ahead and take a short break. Jesse Binnall: (02:00:18) Thank you very much, Your Honor, I appreciate it. Clerk: (02:08:19) All rise. Judge Russell: (02:08:22) Please be seated. Judge Russell: (02:08:27) In the matter of records the case number 20-OC-00163. Mr Hamilton, can you hear me? Kevin Hamilton: (02:08:27) Yeah, I can, Your Honor. Thank you. Judge Russell: (02:08:33) Thank you. Now if you want to make your final comments. There's better pickup on the mic if you just stay seated. So it's no disrespect to me or anything else and I don't take it as being disrespectful and I won't hold it against you. Jesse Binnall: (02:08:57) I appreciate that and I thought that might've been easier, but I appreciate you covering that. Your Honor, this is breathtaking case and the evidence that we put forward, and there's no other word for it. I want to discuss some of the items that the counsel brought up in his argument. Talking about how ballots decide elections and that is the way it's supposed to be, but there is nothing more part of our represented democracy than one person, one vote in limiting elections of the citizens of that state. Jesse Binnall: (02:09:47) Only legal votes should count, but every legal vote should count. In order to make sure that we are in a system that that promise is kept. We have made sure that there's an equal observation. The record is clear and you can look at DOS one, two, three, almost all the DOS one through seven to see the failings that happened in transparency. Transparency is not political. Transparency is something that is necessary for us to have a democratic election. To have integrity in that election, so that we know that it is a candidate chosen by the voters that is the one actually elected. Jesse Binnall: (02:10:42) As far as the pleading status. When you read the statute and the specific requirements of the statute and part of the statute they're citing is saying that the contest is not normally supposed to be struck for lack of form. It would make no sense for that sentence to be read as increasing the value. Notice pleading requirements. It was read to put them on notice of the plaintiffs, it did just that. We have it, the contest went through and did point out. We gave notice for everything we would bring up to the court, the staff who we met the stated statute, as much as they may wish to add that requirement, Nevada law does not. Jesse Binnall: (02:11:35) Likewise, they have tried to add to the requirement of Nevada law by requiring, as supposedly put in the various specific voters that we think cast along the votes. Now, of course they objected any depositions. They objected to 15 depositions. We certainly couldn't take 40,000 depositions. We couldn't take 130,000 depositions. We put forward the evidence and with our data scientists and shooting and putting it into the record, much of the data that was relied upon, we have shown exactly the methodology used to prove the unlawful voters and the defendants may certainly want to wish to raise the bar more than the legislature in Nevada did, but they should not be allowed to do so. Jesse Binnall: (02:12:44) In fact, it's quite honest that they can't attack the data itself. So instead they tried to attack the data scientists and they have a deposition where counsel testified a lot about what council may wish the data scientist to the things like error rates. But of course they have no actual testimony that those error rates are something that would affect the result. They have even though, Mr. Campbell provided the exact methodology and the exact databases that he used to do the matching, so that they can recreate it so that they can go through and test his conclusions. They bring nothing to say that those conclusions are wrong and specifically, it must be pointed out that the most striking number is the over 40,000 people that voted twice, and the best response they can come up with Nevada is, "Wow, that sounds like a really high number, must not be right", but when we have the situation that we have here, where ballots are being sent all through Nevada and often more than one ballot to a person, and often to people who have changed their names because they've gotten married or for other reasons, we see that in the passion of the moment, people have voted twice. And that is why that number, while striking, is important. Jesse Binnall: (02:14:22) Mr. Campbell used and explained the methodology that he uses in his profession and he has used for well over a decade. He's used it in political data when he does it, he used it, not for purposes of being an expert witness in political data, but to make sure that when using a campaign or that when executing a campaign, they have the information they want to have on voters. That this is the methods they use. He's also used it on behalf of corporations. He testified to that in the deposition. It has to be something that is testable. In the deposition he goes into great length the methods he uses to come up with these and so that he can come and form his conclusions to a degree of reasonable certainty. He's met the standards of being an expert, met and exceeded them. Any other arguments they have simply go to his to wait not to the admissibility and the wait should be, I think that they're attacks on the data themselves are quite honestly. Jesse Binnall: (02:15:33) Regarding Doe three. I'm sorry. Regarding the Doe one. They said that there was no evidence that Doe one actually saw people changing votes. This is the very nature, this is probably the best example I've ever seen of circumstantial evidence. When we talk about circumstantial evidence, and we're going to try to explain it to a law class, this would be the example you use. You don't actually see somebody changing the votes, but at night has one number on it and in the morning it has another. Circumstantial evidence that sometime in the night, something happened to change those numbers. That is circumstantial evidence and that is striking. They talk about Doe three and they can't impeach credibility, they can't impeach what she saw. They just said that it's crazy that it happened. It is crazy that this is happening in this election. It is so unfortunate that this election was administered in such a way that it was ripe for fraud, such as people packing the ballot box. And they say they don't know that she packed, that those ballots that she saw were packed. Well of course she didn't follow them to the mail box and she didn't see what they did, but she saw them putting them into the return envelopes. And when she put that in and that of course, there was no reason for someone to fill out a ballot, put it into the ballot return envelope. There's no good reason to do that when you're stuffing ballot boxes. It's clear that again, maybe circumstantial evidence, but it's striking. And of course the circumstantial evidence is [inaudible 02:17:30] especially not with someone whose credibility is so strong. Jesse Binnall: (02:17:38) Your Honor, the RMS they make on the Agilis machine. The most important thing about the Agilis machine is something that they can't answer and that's the fact that the use of it just wasn't authorized by the statute. And then you take a look at the other evidence of what happens as a result of that. Not just as a result of the Agilis machine, but as the result of the people that were hand matching signatures. Of course, you see in the evidence, the machine was matching about 30% of signatures and it took human beings to match up the other 70%. But there's all this pressure, you see it here from Doe two to Doe three. There was all this pressure to push through the signatures to just authenticate them. Jesse Binnall: (02:18:54) You see evidence of stars and shapes being used to authenticate a signature. And when a poll worker then takes and brings it to their supervisor's attention, that says, "This is a star, it's not a signature." Jesse Binnall: (02:19:07) They're told, "push it through", and when you see such a low error rate on the signature matching, you understand why it is so critical that there was not a robust effort to match signatures. They were putting more emphasis on their employees to get it done quick, then to get it done right. And you want an election of integrity, if you won an election that you know, that the person with the amount of votes in the end is being reported is the person who had the most votes cast for them. You have to make sure it's done in a way that ensures the integrity and the evidence is they failed to do that. Jesse Binnall: (02:19:53) They wanted to push it through. There's evidence, time and time in these depositions in reading the depositions of the whistleblowers and the depositions of the whistleblower's is so critically important. Jesse Binnall: (02:20:08) In one month, we have put together striking evidence that because of the lack of transparency, because things were rushed, this election was unfortunately stolen. That the court ask the question about knowing who voted for who. While we know that the vast majority of the problems came from our county. We know the vote difference between the two candidates in Clark County, that would be one way to reach that conclusion. We also know that all the evidence of fraud we brought to the court's attention, all the evidence of fraud that know of in Nevada has only come from one side, from Biden's side. Jesse Binnall: (02:20:54) We cannot turn a blind eye with striking evidence like this. We cannot allow an election to be stolen. We cannot pretend that these voter irregularities and this vote fraud didn't happen. We ask the court [inaudible 02:21:13] we appreciate the court. Judge Russell: (02:21:17) Hamilton, do you have any final comments? Kevin Hamilton: (02:21:23) No, Your Honor. I think that they [inaudible 02:21:24] Judge Russell: (02:21:24) Thank you. First of all, given the time constraints involved in this matter, I'd like to thank the parties for their briefs and their arguments. I know this wasn't an easy case by anybody. Especially the [inaudible 02:21:45] for the defendants given the short time in the period which was involved. And again, the court tried to accommodate everybody as quickly as I possibly could with respect to all the issues and motions I was getting. I tried to go as quickly as I possibly could, considering all the other matters going on with the court, to be honest with you. Judge Russell: (02:22:05) Again, given the nature and importance of this the court would like to review the evidence and the arguments made [inaudible 02:22:14]. Judge Russell: (02:22:20) Would like to verify and take a look at, to be honest with you. The court orders each party to provide the proposed order, which includes findings to facts, conclusions of law, and the decision by 10:00 AM tomorrow morning for the court's consideration. Now I pick that time because it's Friday 10 o'clock so that the court can get the decision out so that there's time to go to the Supreme Court. If anybody wants to go to the Supreme Court in respect of this particular matter. Again, it's most important that we look at the reliable credible evidence in the rule of law, looking at earnest 2-9-3-4 before 10. Judge Russell: (02:22:58) And again, and this comment goes to primarily to the defendants, it's the court's preference to really decide this matter on the merit, not on just dismissing, based upon a claim that basically there was not sufficient certainty alleged in respect to that. I'm not saying that's not a valid claim or not. It's just my preference when you do your findings of fact provision of law, that you go through the merits more than anything. So again, thank you on behalf of the court, and I appreciate it very much. Thank you.