Arizona Legal professional Basic Mark Brnovich

Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend has filed one other 1487 request to Arizona Legal professional Basic Mark Brnovich’s workplace searching for solutions to the questions raised by the Arizona audit.

In August, State Senator Sonny Borrelli used this similar legislation which requires the Legal professional Basic to analyze a possible violation of the legislation and withhold 10% of state shared funds if the violation shouldn’t be corrected inside 30 days.

Arizona Legal professional Basic Mark Brnovich delivered, forcing the County to settle with The Arizona Senate over Senate subpoenas.

The questions raised over the past six months concerning the 2020 election stay unanswered and after the newest audit report, Townsend needs the solutions.

NOT MAKING HEADLINES: AZ Audit May Not Discover the Id of 86,391 Voters – They Don’t Seem to Exist and 73.8% Are Democrat or No Occasion Affiliation

Townsend: Right this moment, Senator Paul Boyer despatched an e mail to his colleagues claiming the Audit proved the Joe Biden gained, and that if there was any fraud, we might have seen one thing the very first thing this morning. Maybe it is a little late for him, nonetheless I’ve chosen to submit a 1487 grievance to the Legal professional Basic’s workplace asking for a proper investigation into the unanswered questions that have been raised by the Summer time audit preliminary report, in addition to final Friday’s ultimate report. As a result of it is a 1487 request, it’s required by legislation for these inquiries to be investigated and answered inside 30 days. I did ask a mess of questions, nonetheless I imagine we have already got the solutions that have been obtained by the audit committee. It shouldn’t take the complete 30 days, but it surely if does and takes longer, I’ll reissue a brand new 1487 to reset the clock for the extra time-consuming points. I’m not glad with unanswered questions and unreported points. I need to know what legal guidelines have been damaged, who broke them, and who shall be held accountable.
Please see under a full checklist of what was requested of the Legal professional Basic at this time. I stay up for his response.
Appendix A
Poll Paper Points –
A.R.S. § 16-468(2) and A.R.S. § 16-502(A).
1. It has come to my consideration that there might have been a number of varieties of paper used that weren’t approved. Please present proof of all the varied papers that have been bought and used from an organization that gives such legally approved paper.
2. Who have been the suppliers of paper for each Runbeck printed ballots and the day of election ballots of an form?
3. Did Dominion provide any paper for ballots? If that’s the case, please present buy orders to indicate the place this paper got here from and if it met the requirements of our statutes.
4. At any time did any precinct want to purchase paper that ran out on Election Day? If that’s the case, which precincts ran out of paper and the place did Maricopa County procure extra paper? Who was accountable for supplying that paper and do we’ve got rationalization as to why it ran out?
5. Maricopa County stated they used VoteSecure paper by Roland. Please present buy orders and which VoteSecure paper that have been used and the place.
6. If these processes relating to using poll safe paper weren’t adopted appropriately and by state legislation, who could be held accountable for these violations?
7. As a member of the Arizona Senate, I obtained data relating to irregular ballots that have been inserted among the many different ballots. These ballots have been being logged and tracked in an official log e-book. Please report again what number of of those anomalies have been discovered, and what do the logs say about them. Moreover, what have been the vote tallies on these ballots?
8. Within the preliminary report, we obtained data that the ballots had bled by way of and brought on overvotes, regardless of the Legislature being instructed that these points wouldn’t occur as a consequence of poll safe paper that was impermeable from Sharpie ink. Please report again any data obtained relating to the county having ballots that had bleed by way of and what impact that had on adjudication charge.
9. If various kinds of poll paper have been used for various precincts and voters, and infrequently non poll safe paper was used creating bleed by way of and overvote / artifact, resulting in adjudication charges being excessive amongst some voters and never others, would that represent an unequal utility of coverage / election safety and a 14th Modification violation of the voter’s civil rights?
Signature / Envelope Points
A.R.S.16-550(A)
1. Did Maricopa County fulfill statutory necessities for signature verification on all counted ballots included within the official canvass?
2. Signature points have been reported within the latest Audit performed by the Senate. They included the next issues:
1. Fully clean signature
2. Almost clean signature
3. Scribbled signature that didn’t match
If there are ballots included within the official canvass that have been counted with out complying with A.R.S.16-550(A), what number of have been included that didn’t meet this authorized threshold?
3. Who could be accountable for permitting unlawful ballots to be counted that didn’t meet the authorized threshold of A.R.S.16-550(A)?
4. Poll envelopes have been reported within the audit with a “Verified and accepted” stamp showing BEHIND the envelope graphic of a triangle. How did these photographs of the verified and accepted stamp print from behind the triangle picture on the envelope?
5. What number of of those envelopes with irregular printing of the “verified and accepted” or different stamp behind the unique graphics of the envelope have been uncovered, and have been the ballots contained therein counted within the official canvass?
Duplicate ballots
1. Within the Dr. Shiva presentation of the Arizona audit, it was reported that there have been 17,322 duplicate voter envelopes submitted within the ultimate canvass of the election.
a. What’s the occasion affiliation of these voters? Can we contact them and ask them who they
voted for?
b. Did they knowingly submit too many ballots and can they be held accountable if that’s the case?
c. Why have been these voters allowed to maintain their duplicate ballots / votes as a part of the official c
canvass? Who was accountable for eradicating the duplicates and can they be held accountable?
2.There have been 255,326 votes mismatched between the VM55 and EV33 information. Which file matched the hand rely?
3. Whether it is 255k votes over the hand rely, does that match with any of the fallacious paper utilization?
4. If the discrepancy can’t be accounted for, what’s the correct and authorized plan of action?
Chain of Custody
ARS 16-621.E
1. Please present proof that each one chain of custody paperwork required by legislation have been adhered to and preserved for inspection and audit.
2. If these paperwork don’t exist or are usually not out there, who’s accountable legally for that failure?
Information Safety (Usernames & Passwords) –
2019 Elections Procedures Guide, p. 209 (Part 2, Subsection a., quantity 2)
1. The elections procedures guide requires that “The applying shall present distinct safety roles, with separate usernames and safe passwords for every person or station.” Please present proof that this requirement was adopted in Maricopa County because it pertains to all login and password necessities, systemwide.
2. Who’s accountable for guaranteeing that is maintained, and what consequence/recourse does the state have for such a breach of protocol?
3. Is the grasp/administrative password that has not been launched by Maricopa County or Dominion in compliance with State legislation?
4. Do nameless logins of any form violate the 2019 Elections Process Guide?
Web Historical past
1. Had been the EMS Server, EMS Shopper workstations, REWEB 1601 & 1602 related to the web?
2. In the event that they have been related to the web, is that this a violation of A.R.S.16 and the Elections process guide?
3. Do the Dominion voting tabulation machines have the potential to connect with the web?
4. Was at any time the voting machines related to the web?
5. Who could be accountable and held accountable if any legal guidelines on this part have been damaged?
Calibration –
52 U.S.C. § 21081(b)(1)
1. Within the preliminary audit report we obtained data that the machines in some places weren’t calibrated and that the ballots have been offset considerably. Please report again as to what data is on the market relating to the miscalibration of the machines that brought on the offset reported to us relating to the work by Jovan Pulitzer.
2. Did the calibration issues come from particular voting machines or have been they random?
3. In the event that they have been particular machines, what precincts had the machines that have been grossly mis-calibrated?
4. Have these machines been recognized and despatched for restore, or will they get replaced by the newly bought machines?
5.Who’s accountable for the calibration of the machines?
6. With a purpose to establish the machines which might be grossly mis-calibrated, which poll on Demand programs or printers have been used to print ballots both for early votes, day of, and duplicate votes? The place have been they positioned, and mannequin/registration quantity and repair quantity of the particular machine.
7. Is there a GPS tracker on every machine, and if that’s the case, what’s the information on every of these machines?
Adjudicated Ballots
A.R.S.16-621(B)3(a)
1. Within the audit, we discovered that a few of the adjudicated ballots have been lacking serial numbers, had fallacious serial numbers, or had obstructed serial numbers. What number of ballots didn’t meet the necessities of A.R.S.16-621(B)3(a)?
2. Who’s accountable for guaranteeing that this legislation is abided by, and what’s the recourse for voters when this legislation shouldn’t be adhered to, but the unlawful ballots have been counted within the official canvass?
Deleted information –
52 USC 20701
1. Please examine all experiences of deleted information at Maricopa County for the 2020 Basic election. The County has defined that these deleted information have been relating to a distinct election and have been being archived. Please confirm the validity of this data.
2. Please present proof these information exist in archive.
3. Did the auditors or subcontractors discover that there was a program created to particularly take away and purge information of the 2020 election? If that’s the case, who applied it?
4. If we’re unable to indicate that these information have been archived and certainly deleted and never associated to a distinct election, does that present intent to tamper with proof?
5. Is it regular process to create a particular program to archive information on the Maricopa County Recorder;s workplace?
6. Please present an in depth report of this particular program used to “archive” or delete information on 02/01/2021 on the Maricopa County Recorder’s workplace referenced within the audit report, a duplicate of this system and an evidence of what it’s designed to do.
7. Who designed this system?
Unsealed Packing containers
A.R.S.16-564(C)
1. Why have been the poll bins delivered to the Senate auditors unsealed?
2. Who eliminated the seals off and when? Please present all documentation out there that’s required to be stored upon opening bins.
3. Who’s accountable for compliance with this state legislation, and is it potential to find who opened the bins based mostly on video recording?
Ineligible Voters Allowed to Forged Votes –
A.R.S. 16 Articles 1, 1.1, and a couple of, Elections Procedures Guide
1. Had been ineligible voters allowed to forged votes within the Maricopa County 2020 Basic election?
2. If there are votes included within the official canvass of the 2020 Basic election, it’s to be concluded that the election carried out was an unlawful election and must be nullified and repeated? Please touch upon the right way to proceed, based mostly on any findings of yours that set up unlawful completion of a safe election in Maricopa County.
Redacted Maricopa County Audit Particulars –
NOTE: This considerations data obtained relating to the actions of the Maricopa County Recorder’s workplace found by way of the Senate Auditors. If not 100% of the knowledge obtained was launched, the general public won’t obtain solutions to what data was obtained through an audit that was paid for, partly, by public funds. Due to this fact, the following questions requested are salient and acceptable for this 1487 grievance to make sure that all of the forementioned legal guidelines have been abided by.
1. Does there exist details about Maricopa County that was found through audit this 12 months that has been omitted and never reported to the general public and if that’s the case, what was that data?
2. Who requested that data to be omitted and why?
3. Had been there any threats of cancelation of contract and removing of indemnity ought to any found data be reported to the general public?
4. Was there an settlement to settle the debt of the audit bills with a provision that sure data was omitted? If that’s the case who made that requirement?

BREAKING: Arizona Legal professional Basic Mark Brnovich Releases Assertion – “I Will Take Vital Actions That Are Supported by Proof and The place I Have Authorized Authority”

More Related News:

WOODWARD PRAISES MILLEY, WILLIAMS SAYS GOP SENS ‘PUT THE SICK IN SYCOPHANT’