ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

KARI LAKE, No.

Appellant,
No. 2CA-CV23-0144

v. Transferred from Court of Appeals

Division One
No. 1CA-CV23-0393
KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity
as the Secretary of State; et al., Maricopa County Superior Court
No. CV2022-095403
Appellees.

APPENDIX TO PETITION

Bryan James Blehm (023891) OLSEN LAW, P.C.

Blehm Law PLLC Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279 (pro hac vice)
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 103-256 Suite 700
Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Washington, DC 20036
(602) 752-6213 (202)408-7025
[email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Appellant

Appx0001
 CONTENTS

No. Date Document Clerk’s Page

Index No.
#
1 5/15/23 Under Advisement Ruling 301 0004

2 5/22/23 Under Advisement Ruling 317 0012

3 5/26/23 Order re Motion for Sanctions, Motion to 329 0018

Strike and Judgment
4 3/01/23 Petition for Review -- 0021

5 5/09/23 Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Motion for Relief from 277 0044
Judgment; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities
6 5/10/23 Maricopa County Defendant’s Response 285- 0307
Opposing Lake’s Motion for Relief from 286
Judgment and Ex A Declaration of Scott
Jarrett
7 5/11/23 Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Consolidated Reply in 296 0334
Support of Motion for Relief from Judgment
8 5/25/23 Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Response to Defendant’s 327 0361
Motion for Sanctions
9 5/18/23 Trial Transcript of Proceedings Day 2 AM -- 0438

10 5/18/23 Trial Transcript of Proceedings Day 2 PM -- 0730

11 7/13/23 Second Supplemental Declaration of Clay U. -- 0877

Parikh

Appx0002
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of July 2023.

By: /s/ Bryan Blehm

Blehm Law PLLC
Bryan Blehm

OLSEN LAW, P.C.

Kurt Olsen (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Appellant

Appx0003
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
05/15/2023 7:30 PM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

CLERK OF THE COURT

HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON I. Ostrander
Deputy

KARI LAKE BRYAN JAMES BLEHM

v.

KATIE HOBBS, ET AL.

CRAIG A MORGAN
THOMAS PURCELL LIDDY

JUDGE THOMPSON

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has considered the filings of the parties: Governor Katie Hobbs Renewed
Motion to Dismiss, the Maricopa County Defendants’ Memorandum of Law Supplementing Their
Motion to Dismiss, and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support
of Motion to Dismiss, along with the associated response and replies. The Court has also
considered Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, along with the associated
responses and reply. The Court has considered the arguments of the parties at the hearing on May
12, 2023.

The Court considers each request for relief in turn.

BACKGROUND
This case was returned on remand from the Arizona Supreme Court. This Court’s dismissal
of Counts I, II, and IV – X were affirmed, and this Court’s dismissal of Count III on the ground of
laches was vacated and remanded. The mandate of the Arizona Supreme Court, as relevant here,
states:

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 1

Appx0004
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

It is further ordered remanding to the trial court to determine whether the claim that
Maricopa County failed to comply with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) fails to state a claim
pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for reasons other than laches, or, whether
Petitioner can prove her claim as alleged pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 and establish
that “votes [were] affected ‘in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the
election’” based on a “competent mathematical basis to conclude that the outcome
would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of
uncertainty.

(alterations in original) (quoting Lake v. Hobbs, 525 P.3d 664, 668, ¶ 11 (App. 2023)). It is with
this mandate in mind that the Court proceeds.

I. Motions to Dismiss
This Court will grant a motion to dismiss based on a Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted when, as a matter of law, the Plaintiff is not “entitled to relief under
any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356,
¶ 8 (2012). In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court must assume all well-
plead allegations are true and “indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but mere
conclusory statements are insufficient.” State ex rel. Brnovich v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 250 Ariz.
127, 130, ¶ 7 (2020) (citation omitted).

A Plaintiff need only provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8. Arizona follows a notice pleading standard,
meaning that the opponent need only be given “fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and
indicate generally the type of litigation involved.” Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417,
419, ¶ 6 (2008).

Defendants raise problems with Count III that broadly fall into three (loosely) defined
areas. First, Defendants challenge the form of the allegations. The Secretary raises the issue of
whether the verification of the Complaint was proper. This argument was waived by not being
raised on the initial motion to dismiss and by proceeding to trial in December. Michael Weller,
Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 126 Ariz. 323, 326 (App. 1980). After a full trial and appeals
process, Defendants cannot now raise the issue of a defective verification for the first time on
remand.

Similarly, the Governor argues that Lake fails to allege that any specific mail-in ballots
were illegally counted. This argument fails first because Arizona is a notice pleading state, as
noted above, and the Complaint generally alleges a violation of the EPM and A.R.S. § 16-550 by

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 2

Appx0005
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

failure to cure or reconcile signatures. In her Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff concedes
that she is not contesting the signature verification process for specific ballots. Lake now clarifies
for the first time that, under the widest possible reading of Count III, she is contending that election
officials failed to comply with the EPM and A.R.S. § 16-550 by not performing ANY steps to
comply with level 2 or level 3 screening or notification of electors to cure ballots where level 1
screeners found signatures were inconsistent. Lake argues those ballots were counted in sufficient
numbers to affect the outcome of the election. While the wording of Count III does not state this
allegation clearly, it can be read broadly enough that Lake’s argument fits under notice pleading
requirements. The response and oral argument have further narrowed this claim sufficient for the
Defendants to be on notice as to what violation Lake is arguing.

The second area Defendants attack is the legal sufficiency of the allegations. Maricopa
County makes the compelling argument that Lake’s challenge to signatures on mail-in ballot
envelopes seeks relief beyond that which the legislature has provided. Simply put, the County
argues that because a party representative can challenge ballot signature reconciliation as it is
taking place, the legislature has provided an exclusive remedy for the challenge that Lake brings.
See A.R.S. § 16-552. It is true that where the legislature has provided for a right “and also provides
a complete and valid remedy for the right created the remedy thereby given is exclusive.” Valley
Drive-In Theatre Corp. v. Super. Ct. In and For Pima Cnty., 79 Ariz. 396, 400 (1955). The Court
agrees with the County that the legislature statutorily limited a party’s recourse for challenging
individual signatures for consistency – which would otherwise completely cripple the election
system. But this relief at the level of individual ballots does not preclude a claim that the County
Recorder failed entirely to perform ANY level 2 or level 3 signature verification on ballots where
level 1 screeners found signatures were not similar. See Reyes v. Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91 (App.
1997). This is in sharp contrast to an allegation that the Recorder or designee improperly exercised
his or her discretion within the policy.

Additionally, the Governor argues that it is now simply too late to litigate Count III because
Governor Hobbs has been in office for five months. But A.R.S. § 16-676 imposes no time limit
on when, assuming all other procedural requirements are timely met, the Court may grant relief.
Granted, the statute as written does not appear to take into consideration a fulsome appeals process
resulting in a trial on remand – but the Court must give effect to each word of the statute as written.
See McCaw v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort, 254 Ariz. 221, 226, ¶ 16 (App. 2022). Subsection (C) states
simply that if the court determines “that a person other than the contestee has the highest number
of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected” and further nullify the certificate of
election of the person whose office is contested. The Court sees no requirement that appeal and
remand take place within a certain time for Lake to be eligible for this relief, and cannot read such
a requirement into the statute so as to expand its provisions. City of Tempe v. Fleming, 168 Ariz.
454, 457 (App. 1991); see also Lake, 525 P.3d at 667, ¶ 5 (“We are not permitted to read into the
election contest statute what is not there.”) (quoting Grounds v. Lawe, 67 Ariz. 176, 187 (1948)).
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 3

Appx0006
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

In this second area, Maricopa County argues that because Lake does not simultaneously
allege both misconduct and illegal vote grounds under Count III that she cannot prevail. See A.R.S.
§ 16-672(A)(1), (4). But this argument is not persuasive. If Maricopa County is right, any
challenger under Section 16-672 would be required to double-up and allege (A)(4) grounds
whenever they bring any challenge under (A)(1), (A)(3), or (A)(5) as these grounds rest on the
assumption that some number of ballots were illegally placed in or out of the correct column. The
Court reads the statute as providing five discrete reasons that a challenger may seek relief. It may
have been more prudent to allege more than one ground for each set of facts that Lake brings in
her complaint, but the Court will not dismiss the Count on the grounds that her failure to do so
leaves Defendants lacking notice as to what her claims are. Indeed, her complaint at Paragraph
151 specifically notes that “[t]o be lawful and eligible for tabulation, the signature on the affidavit
accompanying an early ballot must match the signature featured on the elector’s registration
record.” A.R.S. § 16-550. This is sufficient to put Maricopa County on notice of Lake’s objections.

The third and last area focuses on the substance or completeness of the allegations. The
Secretary objects that Lake has not stated in her complaint exactly how many ballots were
improperly admitted. But Lake is not required to do so in her complaint: Arizona is a notice
pleading state, and the Court finds that while she must raise the nature of the violation of election
rules for which she seeks relief, she does not need to plead a precise number of ballots. Put another
way, Lake must prove a competent mathematical basis to win at trial, but she need not plead a
specific number of votes in her complaint under notice pleading. See Verduzco v. Amer. Valet, 240
Ariz. 221, 225, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (“Under Arizona’s notice pleading rules, ‘it is not necessary to
allege the evidentiary details of plaintiff’s claim for relief.’”) (quoting Daniel J. McAuliffe &
Shirley J. McAuliffe, Arizona Civil Rules Handbook at 21 (2015 ed.)).

The Defendants also argue that these claims are at least in part based on reports and
allegations related to the 2020 election. This is an evidentiary argument for trial rather than a basis
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim wholesale. Any expert opinions based on the 2020 election analysis
must be based upon adequate foundation for not only their reliability but their relevance to the
2022 election. Even where admitted at trial, such opinions would only be entitled to the weight
deemed appropriate based upon their foundation.

In her response and at oral argument, Lake conceded that she is not challenging the process
of signature review as to any specific ballot(s), whether any given signature matches a voter’s
record, or that the process was effective. She is instead alleging misconduct by the Maricopa
County Defendants through a wholesale failure at the “higher-tier signature verification process”
to reconcile non-conforming signatures, or to cure signatures pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-550. She
alleges that Maricopa County entirely failed to perform the signature matching required by statute.
As Lake put it in her response, she “brings a Reyes claim, not a McEwen claim. She challenges
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 4

Appx0007
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

Maricopa’s failure to act, not its action on any particular ballot.” (citing McEwen v. Sainz, No. CV-
22-163 (Santa Cruz Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2022)). Taking Lake’s concession, she has stated a claim.

As was said in this Court’s order of December 19, 2022, whether Maricopa County
complied with the EPM and statutes governing elections is a question of fact. Lake has narrowed
her claim to that complained of in Reyes, and she must demonstrate at trial pursuant to her
concessions that Maricopa County’s higher level signature reviewers conducted no signature
verification or curing and in so doing had systematically failed to materially comply with the law.
This is, of course, in addition to the requirement that she prove that this alleged complete failure
to conduct signature verification resulted in a change in the outcome of the gubernatorial election
proven by “competent mathematical basis.” All of this must be done by clear and convincing
evidence. Lake, 525 P.3d at 668, ¶ 10.

The renewed motions to dismiss as to Count III are denied.

II. Motion for Relief from Judgment

Lake moves for Rule 60 relief as to Counts II, V, and VI on grounds of newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b)(1), fraud on the court, and the catch-all “any other reason justifying
relief.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3), (6).

To the extent that the civil rules can apply without contradiction to an election challenge,
they do apply. This includes Rule 60. The Court will not rehash arguments going back to the
motion to dismiss order. While, admittedly, the election challenge statutes do not show a great
deal of consideration for post-trial rules of civil procedure, had the legislature wanted to abrogate
or accelerate the rules for an election challenge so as to preclude Rule 60 relief they would have
done so. The Court finds the motion is timely.

However, the merits of the motion are another matter. The dismissed Count II alleged that
“[t]he [Ballot on Demand] printers involved in the tabulator problems . . . are not certified and
have vulnerabilities that render them susceptible to hacking . . . .” Lake attempts to rescue Count
II by arguing that evidence now shows that Maricopa County reinstalled software on memory cards
used in the ballot tabulators without performing logic and accuracy testing. Assuming that this
evidence could not have been discovered before trial, it goes to a completely different set of
election day processes than that alleged in Count II – suggesting that the tabulators were
maliciously configured to not read ballots is different in kind from alleging that the printers could
not write the ballots correctly. The time to amend a complaint is before the matter goes to trial,
not after. In fact, the law does not permit amendments of election contest complaints at any time
after the contest filing deadline has passed, even to conform to the evidence. See Kitt v. Holbert,

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 5

Appx0008
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

30 Ariz. 397, 406 (1926) (holding “a statement of contest in an election contest may not be
amended, after the time prescribed by law for filing such contest has expired” to fix the failure to
allege the contestant was a proper elector).

While the difference between a tabulator-based claim and a printer-based claim may seem
like a subtle distinction, it is not. Count II was fully litigated at trial and this Court’s disposition
was affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court. This is not newly
discovered evidence that goes to the claim as presented to the Court in December and reviewed on
appeal, it is a wholly new claim, and therefore Count II remains unrevived.

Lake also takes issue with the testimony of Scott Jarrett, who testified that the voting center
difficulties faced on election day were minor in scope. Lake, needless to say, disagrees, and offers
additional evidence in an attempt to demonstrate fraud or misconduct. Lake took this same
position at trial and even recalled Scott Jarrett in her case in chief. But evidence that is merely
cumulative that would not have changed the result is not sufficient to revive a claim under Rule
60. Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589, 595, ¶ 17 (App. 2007). Nor is it
enough to disagree with a witness or find evidence contradicting a witness to prevail under Rule
60. Scienter – a knowing falsehood – is what is required to find fraud. See Est. of Page v.
Litzenburg, 177 Ariz. 84, 94 (App. 1993) (affirming Rule 60 grant on basis of “conspicuous
inference that [non-movant] engaged in knowing or deliberate misconduct”). Mere contradiction
is not enough to prevail on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, and this is all Lake offers now.

The allegation of fraud also leaps over a substantial gap in the evidence presented. The
Court notes that counsel’s representation of what the McGregor report would show is 180 degrees
from what the report actually says. Rather than demonstrating that Mr. Jarrett lied, it actually
supports his contention that the machine error of the tabulators and ballot printers was a mechanical
failure not tied to malfeasance or even misfeasance. At trial in December 2022, Plaintiff presented
the purely technical evaluation of Clay Parikh which found the only possible cause of the
malfunctions on election day could be willful and intentional systemic manipulation to create the
errors encountered. However, those conclusions were undermined completely by the very next
witness at trial, David Betencourt. The testimony of Mr. Betencourt, who was called by Plaintiff,
was summarized previously by this Court:

“Mr. Betencourt testified that there were, in fact, multiple technical issues
experienced on election day. He testified that these were solved by means such as:
1) taking out toner and/or ink cartridges and shaking them, 2) cleaning the corona
wire, 3) letting the printers warm up, 4) cleaning the tabulators, and 5) adjusting
settings on the printer. It is of note that, apart from 5), none of these solutions
implicates the ballot in a manner suggesting intent. Mr. Betencourt testified that
each of these on-site actions were successful to varying degrees, with shaking the
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 6

Appx0009
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

toner cartridge being the most effective. It is worth repeating that ballots that could
not be read by the tabulator immediately because of printer settings – or anything
else – could be deposited in Door 3 of the tabulator and counted later after
duplication by a bipartisan adjudication board.

Mr. Betencourt testified that, not only did he lack knowledge of any T-Tech (or
anyone else) engaging in intentional misconduct, but further testified that the T-
Techs he worked with diligently and expeditiously trouble-shot each problem as
they arose, and they did so in a frenetic Election Day environment. Plaintiff’s own
witness testified before this Court that the BOD printer failures were largely the
result of unforeseen mechanical failure.”

Interestingly, months later after extensive review, testing, and evaluation of the equipment
involved under secure conditions, the report by Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth
McGregor came to the same conclusions. Plaintiff now seeks to allege fraud based upon the same
type of purely technical evaluations presented in the first trial. This is not evidence of fraud, but
additional evidence offered to support the view that error codes can prove intent and state of mind,
exclusive of all other theories. The Court is not required to accept that premise, especially on
remand after a full trial and appeal.

Ignoring Defendants’ view of the testimony and taking all inferences in favor of Plaintiff,
even if Lake may have demonstrated that Mr. Jarrett was mistaken on the first day of trial, that is
not sufficient for Rule 60 relief. Even Mr. Parikh conceded that ballots which were not read by
tabulators at the voting centers were transposed to new ballots and counted at Maricopa County’s
downtown central facility later.

Additionally, the Court notes that counsel’s representation in the Motion to the effect that
the Parikh Declaration supports a finding that 8,000 ballots “maliciously misconfigured to cause a
tabulator rejection, were not counted” is not supported by a Declaration that 8,000 ballots were
“affected” by an error. The oral arguments presented on May 12, 2023, clarified that error codes
do not correspond to votes not counted. Counsel cannot leap a gap in proof with unsupported bare
assertions.

Finally, the Court notes with respect to Lake’s request to reconsider dismissal of Counts V
and VI – pertaining to alleged equal protection and due process violations – the motion does not
grapple at all with the reason the Court dismissed those claims in its December 19, 2022, minute
entry. These counts are simply bootstrapped constitutional arguments “tak[ing] the verified
statement beyond the remedies provided by the election contest statute, which is impermissible.”
(citing Donaghey v. Att’y Gen., 120 Ariz. 93, 95 (1978)). The reply’s suggestion that the “issues”

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 7

Appx0010
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/15/2023

be revived independent of the “counts” does not remedy this issue. Reconsideration of them is not
warranted.

This is a claim which was fully litigated at trial and on appeal over seven months since the
November 8, 2022, election. The evidence presented falls far below what is needed to establish a
basis for fraud. It is important to remember that this is an election challenge and focuses on votes
affected which would change the outcome of the election. Plaintiff has not established a basis for
relitigating the previously adjudicated counts.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reaffirming the trial dates set forth in this court’s May 8,
2023, minute entry setting the matter for trial on Count III.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to File Amicus Curae Brief submitted
by a third party and opposed by all parties to this litigation.

The Court notes the Amicus Brief is essentially a refiling of the Amicus Curae Briefs filed
at the Arizona Court of Appeal and Arizona Supreme Court. Those issues have been ruled upon
by those courts.

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 8

Appx0011
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
05/22/2023 6:45 PM

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

CLERK OF THE COURT

HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON I. Ostrander
Deputy

KARI LAKE BRYAN JAMES BLEHM

v.

KATIE HOBBS, ET AL. ALEXIS E DANNEMAN

THOMAS PURCELL LIDDY

EMILY M CRAIGER
CRAIG A MORGAN
JUDGE THOMPSON

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has heard and considered the arguments and evidence presented at the hearing
on May 17-19, 2023, on Count III of Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Statement of Election Contest. The
Court rules as follows on this claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff brings a claim of misconduct under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1). She must prove, by
clear and convincing evidence, “misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof
in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass
for a state election.” Id. She must prove that this misconduct affected the result of the election.
Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 33, 179 Ariz. 178, 180 (1994). And she must do so
by “a competent mathematical basis . . . not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.” Lake
v. Hobbs, 525 P.3d 664, 668 (App. 2023).

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 1

Appx0012
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

As narrowed by Plaintiff at argument and in her response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff
brings a claim under Reyes v. Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91, 94 (App. 1997). The Court understands this
to be a purposeful concession: rather than trying to cast doubt on a specific number of ballots (a
herculean evidentiary endeavor in these circumstances), she attempts to prove that the signature
review process for Maricopa County was not conducted pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-550(A) or the
EPM. More to the point, she was obligated to prove that the process for submitting and processing
early ballots did not occur. To do so would prove misconduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-676(A)(1).
Whether this would require a setting aside of the election outright under A.R.S. § 16-676(B) or a
proportional reduction followed by a confirmation or setting aside under Grounds v. Lawe, 67
Ariz. 176 (1948), is unclear. In any event, crafting an appropriate remedy is unnecessary.

DISCUSSION

The evidence the Court received does not support Plaintiff’s remaining claim. First, Ms.
Onigkeit’s testimony makes abundantly clear that level one and level two signature review did
take place in some fashion. She expressed her concern that this review was done hastily and
possibly not as thoroughly as she would have liked – but it was done. Mr. Myers’s testimony
similarly revealed that he participated in both a level one review and curing process. Mr.
Valenzuela testified that four levels of signature verification took place: two levels of verification
per se and two levels of auditing. The result was the timely verification and or/curing of about 1.4
million voter signatures.

Mr. Valenzuela’s testimony, elicited by both parties, is most helpful to the Court, and the
most credible. This is not merely for reasons of honesty (the Court makes no finding of dishonesty
by any witness – and commends those signature reviewers who stepped forward to critique the
process as they understood it). While Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers have ground level experience
with signature review, Mr. Valenzuela provided the Court with both a hands-on view based on the
1,600 signatures reviewed by him personally in November 2022 and a broad overview of the entire
process based upon his 33 years of experience.

As he testified, the human element of signature review consisted of 153 level one
reviewers, 43 level two reviewers, and two ongoing audits. This evidence is, in its own right, clear
indicia that the comparative process was undertaken in compliance with the statute, putting us
outside the scope of Reyes. 191 Ariz. at 92. There is clear and convincing evidence that the
elections process for the November 8, 2022, General Election did comply with A.R.S. § 16-550
and that there was no misconduct in the process to support a claim under A.R.S. § 16-672.

At trial, Plaintiff’s case attempted to overcome the barriers created by the bar to her
complaints about the process that could have been brought before trial but were not. See A.R.S. §§
16-552(D); 16-591. She conceded that she was not challenging signature matches for any
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 2

Appx0013
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

individual ballots by making a Reyes claim. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to
Dismiss argues:

Maricopa violated A.R.S. § 16-550(A) and did not, and could not, perform
signature verification given the influx of 1.3 million ballots during the voting period
for the November 2022 General Election. The Complaint sufficiently alleges this
process was not followed by MCEC because in the 2022 election, Maricopa County
officials, instead of attempting to cure ballots, systematically pushed mismatched
ballots through for tabulation without following the required procedures.”

Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments do not clear the bar. Plaintiff’s strategy shifted shortly
thereafter to attempting to prove that time per signature verification per signature is deficient.
Plaintiff argues that 274,000 signatures (or so) were compared in less than two seconds. Plaintiff
then zeroes in on 70,000 1 – the number of ballots that she claims were given less than one second
of comparison. Plaintiff argues that this is so deficient for signature comparison that it amounts to
no process at all. 2 Accepting that argument would require the Court to re-write not only the EPM
but Arizona law to insert a minimum time for signature verification and specify the variables to be
considered in the process.

Plaintiff asks the Court to interpret the word “compare” in A.R.S. § 16-550(A) to require
the Court to engage in a substantive weighing of whether Maricopa County’s signature verification
process, as implemented, met some analytical baseline. But there are several problems with this.
First, no such baseline appears in Section 16-550. Not one second, not three seconds, and not six
seconds: no standard appears in the plain text of the statute. No reviewer is required by statute or
the EPM to spend any specific length of time on any particular signature. Second, the Court takes
seriously the directive of the Arizona Supreme Court concerning statutory interpretation: to
“effectuate the text if it is clear and unambiguous,” reading words in statutes in their context, and
giving “meaning to every provision so that none is rendered superfluous.” In re McLauchlan, 252
Ariz. 324, 325 ¶ 6 (2022) (citations omitted).

1
The Court notes that, even if the Court had a basis for disqualifying 70,000 ballots, under the
proportional reduction method prescribed by Grounds v. Lawe, given the mathematical
computation set forth in her Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff would not
prevail.
2
Plaintiff asserted in argument that the signature verification was the only safeguard against
fraudulent ballots being counted. The Court disagrees and takes notice of the processes employed
by Maricopa County to sanitize early voting lists, address verification, and voter name correlation
to ballot envelopes as Mr. Valenzuela testified.
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 3

Appx0014
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

Accordingly, the Court will not give weight to Lake’s definition of “compare” to the
exclusion of the rest of the statute, which is helpful revisiting here:

[O]n receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the
county recorder . . . shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the
elector on the elector's registration record. If the signature is inconsistent with the
elector’s signature on the elector's registration record, the county recorder . . . shall
make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent
signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent
signature. . . .

A.R.S. § 16-550(A). Put another way, the recorder or other official must make some
determination as to whether the signature is consistent or inconsistent with the voter’s record. The
Court finds that looking at signatures that, by and large, have consistent characteristics will require
only a cursory examination and thus take very little time. Mr. Valenzuela testified that a level one
signature reviewer need not even scroll to look at other writing exemplars (beyond the most recent
one provided) if the signatures are consistent in broad strokes.

That said, there is an even more important clause ahead:

If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of
elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed
affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.

Id. The question after the comparison is whether the signatures are consistent to the
satisfaction of the recorder, or his designee. This, not the satisfaction of the Court, the satisfaction
of a challenger, or the satisfaction of any other reviewing authority is the determinative quality for
whether signature verification occurred. It would be a violation of the constitutional separation of
powers – see Ariz. Const. art. III – for this Court, after the recorder has made a comparison to
insert itself into the process and reweigh whether a signature is consistent or inconsistent.

Even if the Court assumes in the alternative that it must consider whether the comparison
was adequate, the Court finds that Mr. Valenzuela provided ample evidence that – objectively
speaking – a comparison between voter records and signatures was conducted in every instance
Plaintiff asked the Court to evaluate.

It bears noting that this case is based on completely different facts than in Reyes, where the
county recorder had done no signature verification whatsoever. See Reyes, 191 Ariz. at 93
(describing Yuma County Recorder’s failure as “complete non-compliance” with the statute).
Plaintiff may find fault with the process as applied to some number of ballots, but the Court finds
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 4

Appx0015
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

that the process of comparison did take place in compliance with the statute, defeating a Reyes
claim under misconduct.

While Plaintiff did not demonstrate any lack of compliance with statute or the EPM, she
did bring in a signature verification expert who testified what he believed to be necessary for
signature verification in his line of work. But there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that
a specific amount of time be applied to review any given signature at any level of review. Giving
all due weight to Mr. Speckin’s signature verification expertise, his analysis and preferred
methodology is not law, and a violation of law is what Plaintiff was required to demonstrate.
Further, exhibit 47, the chart created by others for Mr. Speckin, depicts his interpretation of data
derived from a public records request and was not admitted except as demonstrative to permit him
to opine generally.

Mr. Valenzuela testified that the final canvass was accurate. No clear and convincing
evidence, or even a preponderance of evidence, contradicts him.

The Court having weighed all the evidence, argument, and legal memoranda and having
assessed the credibility and demeanor of witnesses presenting testimony at trial, now enters the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Therefore:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As to Count III – Signature Verification:

a. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

b. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a
canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

c. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election by
a competent mathematical basis.

Therefore:

IT IS ORDERED: confirming the election of Katie Hobbs as Arizona Governor pursuant

to A.R.S. § 16-676(B).

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 5

Appx0016
 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2022-095403 05/22/2023

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that no further matters remain pending, except for costs,
if any, sought by Defendants. In order that an expedited appeal might be taken, Defendants are
ordered to submit a proposed form of judgment with finality language pursuant to Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c) by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 23, 2023. Any objection to the proposed
form of judgment and/or statement of costs must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 24,
2023. The Court will then enter the judgment required by A.R.S. § 16-676 forthwith.

Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 6

Appx0017
Appx0018
Appx0019
Appx0020
Appx0021
 ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

KARI LAKE, Court of Appeals

Plaintiff/Appellant, Division One
v. No. 1 CA-CV 22-0779
KATIE HOBBS, et al., No. 1 CA-SA 22-0237
(CONSOLIDATED)
Defendants/Appellees.

KARI LAKE, Maricopa County

Petitioner, Superior Court
No. CV2022-095403
v.
THE HONORABLE PETER
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
THOMPSON, Judge of the SUPERIOR
SPECIAL ACTION DECISION OF
COURT OF THE STATE OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ARIZONA, in and for the County of
MARICOPA,
ARCAP 23(a), ARPSA 8(b)
Respondent Judge,
KATIE HOBBS, personally as
Contestee; ADRIAN FONTES, in his
official capacity as Secretary of State;
STEPHEN RICHER, in his official
capacity as Maricopa County Reporter,
et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.

Kurt B. Olsen (admitted pro hac vice) Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar #023891
Olsen Law PC Blehm Law PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 700 10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
Washington, DC 20036 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tel: 202-408-7025 Tel: 602-753-6213
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Petitioner

Appx0022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii

Petition for Review ....................................................................................................1

Issues Presented for Review ......................................................................................2

Material Facts.............................................................................................................4

Chain of Custody .............................................................................................4

L&A Testing ....................................................................................................6

Signature Verification......................................................................................8

Equal Protection and Due Process...................................................................8

Reasons Petition Should Be Granted .........................................................................8

I. The court of appeals erred by applying the wrong standards of review. ........8

A. The court of appeals’ erred by applying the clear-and-convincing

standard, which directly conflicts with Division Two and is
inconsistent with this Court’s decisions. ...............................................9

1. Presumptions of good faith and honesty do not aid

Maricopa. ..................................................................................11

2. Presumptions cannot aid Runbeck............................................11

B. The Opinion contradicts this Court’s holdings in Hunt and

Huggins for electoral manipulation not susceptible to
quantification.......................................................................................12

II. The court of appeals erred by ratifying Maricopa’s disregard of

Arizona’s COC and L&A testing laws. .........................................................13

A. Maricopa’s COC violations are actionable. ........................................13

B. Maricopa’s L&A testing violations are actionable. ............................14

III. The court of appeals erred in dismissing Counts III, V, and VI on the
pleadings. .......................................................................................................14

i
Appx0023
 A. The court of appeals erred in dismissing the signature-verification
claim (Count III) by misconstruing the alleged violation. ..................15

B. The panel erred in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due

Process claims (Counts V and VI) as duplicative, without
considering how constitutional elements modify the other claims. ....16

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Abbey v. Green,
28 Ariz. 53 (1925)..........................................................................................11
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa Cty.,
208 Ariz. 286 (2004) .....................................................................................10
Ariz. Bd. of Regents v. Phx. Newspapers,
167 Ariz. 254 (1991) .............................................................................4, 9, 13
Averyt v. Williams,
8 Ariz. 355 (1904)..........................................................................................10
Bonas v. Town of N. Smithfield,
265 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2001)............................................................................16
Buzard v. Griffin,
89 Ariz. 42 (1960)............................................................................................9
Castaneda v. Partida,
430 U.S. 482 (1977).......................................................................................16
Coleman v. City of Mesa,
230 Ariz. 352 (2012) ...............................................................................14, 16
Findley v. Sorenson,
35 Ariz. 265 (1929)................................................................................ 2-4, 12
Garcia v. Sedillo,
70 Ariz. 192 (1950).................................................................................. 10-11
Golonka v. GMC,
204 Ariz. 575 (App. 2003).............................................................................11

ii
Appx0024
Griffin v. Buzard,
86 Ariz. 166 (1959)........................................................................................14
Huggins v. Superior Court,
163 Ariz. 348 (1990) .....................................................................................12
Hunt v. Campbell,
19 Ariz. 254 (1917)................................................................................2, 9, 12
Jenkins v. Hale,
218 Ariz. 561 (2008) .......................................................................................9
Jennings v. Woods,
194 Ariz. 314 (1999) .....................................................................................13
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coal. v. Vizcaino,
190 Ariz. 1 (1997)............................................................................................9
Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 33,
179 Ariz. 178 (1994) ....................................................................... 2, 9, 12-14
Nicaise v. Sundaram,
245 Ariz. 566 (2019) .....................................................................................10
Parker v. City of Tucson,
233 Ariz. 422 (App. 2013)....................................................................... 2-3, 9
Pedersen v. Bennett,
230 Ariz. 556 (2012) .......................................................................................7
Profitness Physical Therapy Ctr. v. Pro-Fit Orthopedic & Sports Physical
Therapy P.C., 314 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................15
Reyes v. Cuming,
191 Ariz. 91 (App. 1998)...............................................................................15
Service v. Dulles,
354 U.S. 363 (1957).......................................................................................16
Silva v. Traver,
63 Ariz. 364 (1945)........................................................................................11
Young v. Bishop,
88 Ariz. 140 (1960)..........................................................................................4
Statutes
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1, cl. 3 ..........................................................................16
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1, cl. 4 ..........................................................................16

iii
Appx0025
Ariz. Const. art. 2, §21 ...............................................................................................2
A.R.S. §16-121.01......................................................................................................9
A.R.S. §16-449.......................................................................................................1, 3
A.R.S. §16-449(A) ...............................................................................................6, 14
A.R.S. §16-452(C) .....................................................................................................1
A.R.S. §16-550(A) .....................................................................................................8
A.R.S. §16-621(E) .....................................................................................................1
A.R.S. §23-364(B) ...................................................................................................11
A.R.S. §25-814(C) ...................................................................................................11
Rules, Regulations and Orders
Ariz.R.Evid. 201 ........................................................................................................7
Ariz.R.Evid. 301 ......................................................................................................11
Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2019 Elections Procedures Manual...................1, 3, 5-6, 13-14
Other Authorities
Maricopa County, Notice of Solicitation, Request for Proposal for: Elections
Tabulation System ¶ 2.1.1 (System Support Services) (04/04/2019) ......... 6-7

iv
Appx0026
 PETITION FOR REVIEW

The court of appeals’ Opinion denying petitioner Kari Lake’s appeal ruled

that Arizona election laws don’t matter. The panel ignored this Court’s precedents

for reviewing election contests and ratified Maricopa officials’ decision to ignore

Arizona’s ballot chain-of-custody (“COC”) and logic and accuracy testing (“L&A

testing”) requirements set forth in Arizona’s Election Procedures Manual (“EPM”),

and A.R.S. §§16-621(E), 16-449, 16-452(C). Further, the Opinion effectively

immunizes election officials’ noncompliance with Arizona’s election laws by

incorrectly holding that the clear-and-convincing standard of proof applies to all

election contests.

The consequences of Maricopa’s violations are stark:

x Maricopa’s COC violations include the injection of 35,563 unaccounted-for

ballots by Maricopa’s third-party ballot processor, Runbeck Election

Services, before Runbeck returned ballots to the Maricopa County Tabulation

and Election Center (“MCTEC”) for tabulation.

x Maricopa’s failure to perform mandated L&A testing led to tabulators

rejecting ballots at nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s 223 vote centers over

7,000 times every thirty minutes, beginning at 6:00 am and continuing past

8:00 pm—causing massive disruptions, hours-long lines and disenfranchising

thousands of predominantly Republican voters on Election Day.

1
Appx0027
 The Opinion directly contradicts this Court’s admonition that “election

statutes are mandatory, not ‘advisory,’ or else they would not be law at all.” Miller

v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 33, 179 Ariz. 178, 180 (1994). Further, by

requiring clear-and-convincing evidence of outcome-determinative vote swings, the

Opinion conflicts with the longstanding requirement that violations “affect the

result, or at least render it uncertain” under Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 269

(1929), and Hunt v. Campbell, 19 Ariz. 254, 265-66 (1917).

If allowed to stand, the Opinion will make commonplace the type of official

arrogance exemplified by Maricopa’s blaming of Republicans for voting on Election

Day: “you reap what you sow.” Appx:720-21 (Tr. 273:23-274:16). Public trust in

elections is at an all-time low. Decisions such as the Opinion only serve to further

erode that trust. The Legislature did not intend election officials to have this degree

of insulation: “All elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military,

shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” Ariz.

Const. art. 2, §21. The undisputed facts, and the violations of law, show that

Maricopa’s 2022 election must be set aside. Trust must be restored. This Court

should grant review to correct this manifest error.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Did the panel err in deciding that a century of precedent applies the clear-and-

convincing standard to all aspects of election contests, contrary to Parker v.

2
Appx0028
 City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 436 n.14 (App. 2013), in which Division Two

recognized that the evidentiary standard remains an open question in cases—

like this— where there is neither express statutory standard nor an allegation

of fraud?

2. Given the EPM’s requirement that “the number of ballots inside the container

shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form” “[w]hen the secure ballot

container is opened,” EPM, Chapter 2, §I.7.h.1, did the panel err in holding

that the EPM does not “impos[e] any express time requirement” for “when”

to count ballots and that “an initial estimate” of ballots is all that the law

requires?

3. Did the panel err when it ignored the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted

for ballots were added to the total number of ballots at a third party processing

facility—an amount far exceeding the vote margin between Hobbs and

Lake—holding that fact was insufficient to show the election’s outcome was

at least “uncertain” under Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269?

4. Did the panel err when it ignored the fact that Maricopa did not perform L&A

testing as required by EPM and A.R.S. §16-449?

5. Did the panel err when it ignored the evidence that Maricopa’s failure to

perform L&A testing caused massive disruptions to voting on Election Day

disenfranchising thousands of Republican voters, and rejecting evidence that

3
Appx0029
 the chaos made the election outcome at least “uncertain” under Findley, 35

Ariz. at 269?

6. Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches

mischaracterizing Lake’s claim as a challenge to existing signature

verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow

these polices during the 2022 general election?

7. Did the panel err in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due Process claims

on the pleadings as “duplicative” of Count II, without considering the

additional issues that equal-protection and due-process review add to

Maricopa’s misconduct, such as the targeting of Republican voters and the

“patent and fundamental unfairness” of targeted election disruptions?

MATERIAL FACTS

For the dismissed claims, “all well-pleaded material allegations of the

[complaint] are to be taken as true.” Young v. Bishop, 88 Ariz. 140, 143 (1960). For

the tried claims, de novo review applies to “findings of fact that are induced by an

erroneous view of the law [and] findings that combine both fact and law when there

is an error as to law.” Ariz. Bd. of Regents v. Phx. Newspapers, 167 Ariz. 254, 257

(1991) (internal quotations omitted).

Chain of Custody

Arizona law unambiguously requires election officials to count “the number

4
Appx0030
of ballots” and “note[]” the number on the retrieval form” “[w]hen the secure

container is opened….”, EPM Chapter 2, §I(I)(7)(h) (Appx:112), see also A.R.S.

§16-621(E).1 However, Maricopa admitted in its appellate brief, that “[a]fter the

close of polls on election day, due to the large volume of early ballot packets dropped

at polling places that day,” it did not follow these mandatory COC procedures

regarding drop-box ballots retrieved on Election Day (“EDDB ballots”). Appx:150.

Instead of “counting” the EDDB ballots when the secure containers were opened at

MCTEC as required by the EPM, Maricopa admitted that the EDDB ballots were

simply “sorted and placed in mail trays.” Id. Maricopa then estimated it sent

“275,000+” ballots to Runbeck, its third-party vendor for signature scanning.

Opinion ¶23.

Unlike Maricopa, Runbeck recorded the exact number of EDDB ballots

received from Maricopa on “MC Inbound—Receipt of Delivery” forms (263,379

EDDB ballots), Appx:732-740, and the number of EDDB ballots that it scanned and

sent back to MCTEC on “MC Incoming Scan Receipts” (298,942 EDDB ballots).

Appx:742-70. In other words 35,563 more ballots were inserted at Runbeck and sent

back to MCTEC for tabulation, an unlawful discrepancy far exceeding the margin

1
Accord id. Chapter 9, §VIII(B)(2)(g) (“Election Day…close-out duties”
include mandate to determine the “number of ballots cast” including counting of
drop-box ballots retrieved on Election Day when secure containers arrive at “the
central counting place to be counted there.”) (Appx:124-25).

5
Appx0031
between Hobbs and Lake. A Runbeck whistleblower testified that Runbeck allowed

employees to insert ballots into the system, which is illegal and further establishes

COC violations. Appx:356 (Honey Tr., 199:9-13), 728-30 (Marie Declaration).

L&A Testing

Arizona law mandates that counties conduct L&A testing on “all of the

county’s deployable voting equipment,” including using ballots printed on the

ballot-on-demand (“BOD”) printers used at Maricopa’s 223 vote centers, “to

ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all

offices and on all measures” A.R.S. §16-449(A); EPM, Chapter 4, II, Appx:117,

122-23.

The undisputed evidence shows that Maricopa did not perform the mandatory

L&A testing. Instead, Maricopa performed “stress testing”—Appx:209-10 (Tr:

52:17-53:04), 212-13 (id. 55:21-56:1), 771 (stating “Despite stress testing the

printers before Election Day”). However, “stress testing” is not L&A testing and

does not test to ensure that tabulators will read all ballots and correctly count the

votes cast. A.R.S. §16-449(A). Instead “stress testing” only “ensure[s] that all

components [of the voting system] will properly process the volume of materials and

data similar to volumes the County expects during an election.”2

2
Excerpt of Maricopa County, Notice of Solicitation, Request for Proposal for:
Elections Tabulation System, at ¶2.1.1 (System Support Services) (04/04/2019)

6
Appx0032
 On Election Day, BOD printers at nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s 223 vote

centers printed misconfigured and defective ballots, causing tabulators to reject

those ballots. As more than 200 witnesses testified, chaos ensued with hours-long

wait lines causing voters to give up waiting or to simply not vote at nearly two-thirds

of Maricopa’s 223 vote centers. Appx:772-77, 778-79. A Republican attorney

observer—part of a group of Republican attorneys covering 115 of 223 vote centers

on Election Day—testified there was “pandemonium out there everywhere” with

“lines out the door, which did not—you did not see during the Primary…. [and]

angry and frustrated voters.” Appx:422-23, 425 (Tr. 265:02-266:25, 268:01-10).

The evidence and testimony presented at the Arizona Senate Committee on

Elections meeting on January 23, 2023, showed more than 7,000 ballots being

rejected by vote center tabulators every 30 minutes from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm—

totaling over 217,000 rejected ballot insertions on a day with approximately 248,000

votes cast.3 Had Maricopa performed L&A testing, the BOD printer and tabulator

issues would have been discovered prior to Election Day and fixed. Appx:208 (Tr.

(available at https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64680/190265-
Solicitation-Addendum-2-04-09-19).
3
See https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?eventID=2023011091 at 2:13:20-
2:14:37. As in the court of appeals, Lake requests judicial notice of these facts as
publicly available records on the Legislature’s website. Ariz.R.Evid. 201; Pedersen
v. Bennett, 230 Ariz. 556, 559, ¶15 (2012).

7
Appx0033
51:5-12).

Signature Verification

Count III alleges that “a material number of early ballots … were transmitted

in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that the Maricopa County Recorder or

his designee determined did not match the signature in the putative voter’s

‘registration record,’” and that Maricopa did not cure those ballots and “accepted a

material number of these early ballots for processing and tabulation” in violation of

A.R.S. §16-550(A). Compl. ¶¶150-151 (Appx:75-76).

Equal Protection and Due Process

Counts V and VI assert Equal Protection and Due Process claims related to

the Election Day chaos, based on the fact that Republicans disproportionately favor

voting on Election Day, Compl. ¶89 (Republican-versus-Democrat disparity of

58.6% to 15.5%) (Appx:54-55) and that—even among the Republican-heavy

cohort of Election-Day voters—the chaos targeted Republican voters. Compl. ¶165

(tabulator problems burdened Republican Election-Day voters more than 15

standard deviations more than they burdened non-Republican Election-Day voters)

(Appx:78).

REASONS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY APPLYING THE WRONG

STANDARDS OF REVIEW.

The court of appeals required proving outcome-determinative numbers of

8
Appx0034
votes by clear-and-convincing evidence. Opinion ¶¶9-11. Both facets require this

Court’s review to avoid immunizing electoral misconduct. Because legal error

infects the lower courts’ factual determinations, this Court reviews the facts de novo.

Phx. Newspapers, 167 Ariz. at 257.

A. The court of appeals’ erred by applying the clear-and-convincing

standard, which directly conflicts with Division Two and is
inconsistent with this Court’s decisions.

The court of appeals relied on a series of decisions beginning with Oakes v.

Finlay, 5 Ariz. 390, 398 (1898), to find the clear-and-convincing standard generally

applicable to election contests. Opinion ¶¶9-10. However, those cases all involve

either statutes expressly adopting the clear-and-convincing standard or fraud.4 In

2013, Division Two correctly recognized that the evidentiary standard is an open

question for election cases—like this—with no express statutory standard or

allegation of fraud. Parker, 233 Ariz. at 436 n.14. Combined with the presumptions

that election officers act in good faith, elevated evidentiary standards would

effectively immunize election officials from suit, even if their intentional

misconduct or gross negligence impairs elections. Only this Court can referee the

dispute between Division One and Division Two as to whether a clear-and-

4
Hunt, 19 Ariz. at 268 (fraud); Buzard v. Griffin, 89 Ariz. 42, 50 (1960) (same);
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coal. v. Vizcaino, 190 Ariz. 1, 3 (1997) (A.R.S.
§16-121.01); Jenkins v. Hale, 218 Ariz. 561, 566 (2008) (same).

9
Appx0035
convincing standard applies to all election contests.

First, election contests do not require proof of fraud, Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180,

and the election-contest statute is silent on evidentiary standards, see A.R.S. §§16-

671-16-678, so the Opinion’s supporting authorities are inapposite.

Second, without statutory revision, a preponderance-of-evidence standard

applies in civil ligation. Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa Cty., 208 Ariz.

286, 291 (2004). Indeed, under the canon against surplusage,5 the occasional clear-

and-convincing exceptions prove that default rule. If a clear-and-convincing

standard applied to all election contexts, the Legislature would not have expressly

enacted that standard for some election contexts. While plaintiffs bear the initial

burden of proof, Garcia v. Sedillo, 70 Ariz. 192, 198 (1950), showing illegality can

shift the burden to defendants:

[N]oncompliance does not necessarily make the ballots

inadmissible in evidence, but the burden of proof in such
case is cast upon the party offering to introduce them in
evidence to show that the ballots offered are the identical
ballots cast at the election, and that there is no reasonable
probability that the ballots have been disturbed or
tampered with[.]

Averyt v. Williams, 8 Ariz. 355, 359 (1904). Here, Lake has clearly shown

5
Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566, 568, ¶11 (2019) (statutes should be read
to give meaning to every provision and to avoid rendering any provision
superfluous).

10
Appx0036
noncompliance with Arizona law. Thus, rather than a clear-and-convincing standard

against Lake, this Court’s Williams decision should shift the evidentiary burden to

defendants.

Third, the preponderance-of-evidence test applies to quo warranto actions to

remove officeholders. Abbey v. Green, 28 Ariz. 53, 60 (1925). It would be strange

to apply less-strict review to removing officers than to installing them.

1. Presumptions of good faith and honesty do not aid

Maricopa.

The same principles above apply to presumptions favoring election officials.

Opinion ¶6. When the Legislature wants to adopt clear-and-convincing thresholds

for its presumptions, it knows how. A.R.S. §§25-814(C), 23-364(B). Absent a statute

or rule, default principles apply to presumptions. Ariz.R.Evid. 301. “Whenever

evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the presumption vanishes.”

Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 368 (1945); Golonka v. GMC, 204 Ariz. 575, 589-90,

¶48 (App. 2003) (discussing “bursting bubble” treatment of presumptions).

Evidence of Maricopa’s bad faith eliminated Maricopa’s presumptions.

2. Presumptions cannot aid Runbeck.

Even if Maricopa preserved its entitlement to presumptions of good faith, its

private third-party contractor Runbeck lacks such presumptions. Sedillo, 70 Ariz. at

200 (“the officials in this election were not public officials where we can say that

there is a presumption that they acted in good faith”).

11
Appx0037
 B. The Opinion contradicts this Court’s holdings in Hunt and
Huggins for electoral manipulation not susceptible to
quantification.

The panel relied on language from Miller defining the Findley “uncertainty”

test to mean “in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election.” Opinion

¶11 (quoting Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180). The Miller gloss on “uncertainty” was

expressly “[i]n the context of this case.” Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180. This Court has not

insulated unquantifiable electoral manipulations, such as the Election Day debacle

with massive tabulator ballot rejections at nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s vote

centers, from review:

Their effect cannot be arithmetically computed. It would

be to encourage such things as part of the ordinary
machinery of political contests to hold that they shall avoid
only to the extent that their influence may be computed.
So wherever such practices or influences are shown to
have prevailed, not slightly and in individual cases, but
generally, so as to render the result uncertain, the entire
vote so affected must be rejected.

Hunt, 19 Ariz. at 265-66 (interior quotation marks omitted, emphasis added); cf.

Huggins v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 348, 350 (1990) (“it hardly seems fair that as

the amount of illegal voting escalates, the likelihood of redressing the wrong

diminishes”) (interior quotation marks omitted). If nonquantifiable impacts “affect

the result, or at least render it uncertain,” Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269, that suffices to

overturn an election. This error requires this Court’s review.

12
Appx0038
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY RATIFYING MARICOPA’S
DISREGARD OF ARIZONA’S COC AND L&A TESTING LAWS.

The panel reviewed the trial court’s rejection of Lake’s COC and L&A testing

claims under the clearly-erroneous standard, without recognizing that the trial

court’s erroneous legal standard undermined its factual determinations. See Opinion

¶¶13-24; Phx. Newspapers, 167 Ariz. at 257. The panel also erred by requiring

outcome-changing results, see Section I.B, supra (unquantifiable electoral

manipulation is reviewable) and by ignoring this Court’s holding in Miller that

“election statutes are mandatory, not ‘advisory,’ or else they would not be law at

all.” Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180. These errors require the Court’s review.

A. Maricopa’s COC violations are actionable.

Under EPM §I.7.h, “[w]hen the secure ballot container is opened … the

number of ballots inside the container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval

form.” The panel incomprehensibly held these unambiguous mandates do not

“impos[e] any express time requirement” to count the ballots, and further that the

requirement to count “the number of ballots” is satisfied by “an initial estimate.”

Opinion ¶¶22-23.

Absent a statutory definition, dictionary definitions suffice. Jennings v.

Woods, 194 Ariz. 314, 322, ¶33 (1999). There is no need for a dictionary here

because the EPM’s requirements to begin counting “when the secure ballot container

is opened” and “the number of ballots shall be counted” (i.e., not estimated) are

13
Appx0039
unambiguous. If allowed to stand, the panel’s rewrite would gut the EPM’s clear-cut

mandates. Allowing Maricopa to mask Runbeck’s unaccounted-for injection of

35,563 ballots underscores how the Opinion, if not vacated, will nullify COC

requirements and ratify the insertion of illegal votes into elections.

B. Maricopa’s L&A testing violations are actionable.

The panel ignored Maricopa’s failure to perform L&A testing as mandated by

A.R.S. §16-449(A) and the EPM, in direct contravention of the Court’s holding in

Miller. Instead, the panel focused on whether the Election Day debacle at nearly

two-thirds Maricopa’s vote centers “had any potential effect on election results.”

¶16. Putting aside the fact that the panel ignored the sworn testimony of over 200

witnesses and disregarded expert testimony, the Opinion contradicts this Court’s

long-standing precedent that nonquantifiable election interference is reviewable. See

Section I.B, supra.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING COUNTS III,

V, AND VI ON THE PLEADINGS.

Affirming dismissal of Counts III, V, and VI on the pleadings was error

“unless the relief sought could not be sustained under any possible theory.” Griffin

v. Buzard, 86 Ariz. 166, 169-70 (1959); accord Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz.

352, 355, ¶7 (2012). Because courts can grant relief under Counts III, V, and VI, this

Court should either grant that relief or vacate and remand for further proceedings.

14
Appx0040
 A. The court of appeals erred in dismissing the signature-verification
claim (Count III) by misconstruing the alleged violation.

Although Lake alleged that Maricopa violated signature verification

procedures and thereby accepted a material number of illegal ballots with signature

mismatches, Compl. ¶¶150-151 (Appx:75-76), the panel incorrectly interpretated

Lake’s challenge to the election procedures themselves, and there by barred under

laches for failing to file before the election. Opinion ¶26.

However, Lake’s claim is not that the signature verification procedures are

unlawful. Rather, Lake challenges Maricopa’s misconduct in failing to follow

signature verification procedures in the 2022 election. Compl. ¶¶54-62, 151

(Appx:32-36, 76). “Without the proper signature of a registered voter on the outside,

an absentee ballot is void and may not be counted.” Reyes v. Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91,

94 (App. 1998). Lake could not have brought her claim earlier than when the

whistleblowers conducting signature verification at MCTEC came forward with the

evidence that Maricopa disregarded Arizona law and allowed tens of thousands of

uncured ballots with nonmatching signatures to be counted. “One cannot be guilty

of laches until his right ripens into one entitled to protection.” Profitness Physical

Therapy Ctr. v. Pro-Fit Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy P.C., 314 F.3d 62,

70 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation omitted).

The Court should reinstate Count III.

15
Appx0041
 B. The panel erred in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due
Process claims (Counts V and VI) as duplicative, without
considering how constitutional elements modify the other claims.

Although the panel affirmed the dismissal of the constitutional claims as

merely “duplicative” of Lake’s tabulator claims, Opinion ¶31, the claims add several

actionable dimensions to Maricopa’s misconduct.

First, Counts V and VI state claims against Maricopa’s chaotic election: “the

Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses protect against government action that is

arbitrary, irrational, or not reasonably related to furthering a legitimate state

purpose.” Coleman, 230 Ariz. at 362. Government must follow its own rules. Service

v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 372 (1957). Maricopa’s violations are actionable.

Second, Maricopa’s election chaos was not only intentional but also targeted.

See Compl. ¶¶89, 165 (almost 3.78:1 Republican-versus-Democrat disparity in

Election-Day voters and—among Election-Day voters—Republican voters affected

to a statistically improbable degree if disruption were random) (Appx:54-55, 78);

Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 496 n.17 (1977). Levels of scrutiny aside,

targeting voters—by race or by left-handedness—clearly is actionable. Targeting

Republicans is no different.

Third, due-process claims require “patent and fundamental unfairness,” but

that “lies in the eye of the beholder,” so “each case must be evaluated on its own

facts.” Bonas v. Town of North Smithfield, 265 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir. 2001).

16
Appx0042
Erroneously finding constitutional claims unnecessarily cumulative, the lower courts

never considered the facts.

CONCLUSION

The Petition for Review should be granted.

Dated: March 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bryan James Blehm

Kurt B. Olsen (admitted pro hac vice) Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar #023891
Olsen Law PC Blehm Law PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 700 10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
Washington, DC 20036 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tel: 202-408-7025 Tel: 602-753-6213
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Petitioner

17
Appx0043
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
T. Hays, Deputy
5/9/2023 11:39:47 PM
Filing ID 15958878
1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
2
Blehm Law PLLC
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279
6 admitted pro hac vice
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
7
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
8 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
9 [email protected]
10
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

13 IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

14 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403

15
Contestant/Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF KARI LAKE’S MOTION
16 FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT;
vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
17 AUTHORITIES
18 KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity (ASSIGNED TO HON. PETER
19 as the Secretary of State; et al., THOMPSON)
20
Defendants. (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Appx0044
 1 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
2 Pursuant to ARCP 60(b)(2)-(3) and (6), Plaintiff Kari Lake respectfully moves for
3
relief from judgment of the Court’s orders dismissing her claims concerning the Illegal
4
BOD Printer/Tabulator Configurations.1
5

6 On October 11, 2022, Maricopa County certified that its election equipment,
7 including 446 tabulators used at Maricopa’s 223 vote centers passed logic and accuracy
8
(“L&A”) testing in accordance with A.R.S. §16-449(A) and the procedures set forth in the
9
Election Procedures Manual (“EPM”). New and compelling evidence shows, among other
10

11 things, that Maricopa falsely certified it passed L&A testing, and afterwards, secretly tested
12 all 446 vote center tabulators on October 14th, 17th, and 18th, and knew that 260 of the
13
vote center tabulators would fail on Election Day. New and compelling evidence also shows
14
that Maricopa County Director of Elections Scott Jarrett gave false testimony at trial
15

16 concerning the ballot on demand (“BOD”) printer failures that caused tabulators to
17 malfunction at nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s vote centers on Election Day.
18
For these reasons, as well as those set forth more fully below, Contestant hereby
19
moves for relief from judgment on the following grounds permitted by Rule 60(b):
20

21 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)(1);
22
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
23

24
1
Although Lake’s new evidence and Maricopa’s misrepresentations relate directly to
25 Count II, this motion also seeks relief from judgment with respect to Counts V (equal
protection) and VI (due process) as applied to logic-and-accuracy testing and the tabulator
26
issues that hampered voting on Election Day, as argued previously. Alternatively, the Court
27 could allow pressing those constitutional provisions as the bases for finding misconduct in
Count II.
28
1

Appx0045
 1 or other misconduct of an opposing party
2 ***
3
(6) any other reason justifying relief.
4
ARCP 60(b)(2)-(3), (6). This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of
5
Points and Authorities and by the Declaration of Clay U. Parikh attached as Exhibit A.
6

7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

8 I. INTRODUCTION
9 As described in the Parikh Declaration, Plaintiff Kari Lake continued diligently to
10
investigate and analyze information regarding the ballot on demand (“BOD”) printer and
11
tabulator failures at nearly two thirds of Maricopa vote centers on Election Day, November
12

13 8, 2022. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. The new information upon which this motion is based includes
14 voluminous electronic data and records produced by Maricopa pursuant to multiple public
15
records requests under A.R.S. §§ 39-121 through March 2023, and an analysis of the
16
findings and observations set forth in the Maricopa County 2022 General Election Ballot-
17

18 on-Demand Printer Investigation” Report (hereafter, “Maricopa BOD Report”) issued on

19 April 10, 2023 by former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court Ruth V. McGregor.
20
Among other things, new and disturbing evidence shows that Maricopa violated
21
Arizona law and did not perform L&A testing on any vote center tabulators used on Election
22

23 Day. Further, after Maricopa certified it passed L&A testing on October 11, 2022, Maricopa

24 secretly tested all 446 vote center tabulators on October 14th, 17th, and 18th, and knew that
25
260 of the vote center tabulators would fail on Election Day. In addition, the new evidence
26
shows that Maricopa Co-Director of Elections Scott Jarrett gave false testimony with
27

28 respect to the issue of 19-inch ballot images being printed on the 20-inch ballot paper (called
2

Appx0046
 1 “fit to print” or “fit to page”). Jarrett’s testimony that this issue occurred at only three vote
2
centers, and was caused by temporary technicians changing printer settings in attempt to fix
3
printer problems on Election Day is false.
4

5 This new evidence directly addresses the Court’s finding that Lake had not shown

6 intentional misconduct on the part of Maricopa officials. In addition, contrary to the Court’s
7
finding thousands of ballots rejected at vote centers were not counted at MCTEC central
8
count. As such, Count II should be reinstated and this claim should proceed to trial along
9
10 with Count III (Signature Verification).

11 II. BACKGROUND
12 A. Mr. Parikh’s testimony and the Court’s December 24, 2022 Order
13
At trial, Plaintiff’s cyber expert, Clay Parikh, testified that the day before trial, he
14
inspected a sampling of ballots from six Maricopa vote centers pursuant to A.R.S. §16-677.
15

16 Parikh Tr. 90:15-20.2 Parikh further testified that he found 19-inch ballot images printed on

17 20-inch ballot paper at all six vote centers from which he inspected ballots; and that the 19-
18
inch ballot issue affected 48 of 113 of the combined spoiled3 and duplicated original ballots4
19
he had inspected, 42 percent of spoiled and duplicated original ballots. Id. 91:08-98:06.
20

21

22 2
Excerpts of Day 1 Trial Transcript are attached as Exhibit B, and excerpts of Day 2
23 Trial Transcript are attached as Exhibit C.
3
24 “Spoiled” ballots are ballots that a voter returns back to an election judge in return
for a new ballot and are not counted. A.R.S. § 16-585.
25
4
“Duplicated” ballots are original ballots that are damaged or cannot be processed by
26
the tabulator thereby requiring a separate duplicate ballot be created to be counted by the
27 tabulator. The original ballot must be duplicated with witnesses present and both the
original and duplicate must be labeled with the same serial number. A.R.S. § 16-621(A).
28
3

Appx0047
 1 Parikh testified further that the printing of a 19-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper
2
could only happen two ways: either the printer settings were set to override the ballot
3
definition programmed into the voting system, or two different ballot images were illegally
4

5 programmed into the voting system. Id. 99:13-102:06. Either way, a 19-inch ballot image

6 projected on 20-inch ballot paper would be rejected by any tabulator and require
7
duplication. Id. 102:11-103:20. Parikh also testified that this misconfiguration could only
8
be done by a deliberate act. Id. 100:17-101:05. Lastly, Parikh testified that Maricopa did
9
10 not keep duplicate ballot combined with the original ballot and thus there was no way to

11 tell how the duplicate ballot was actually voted. Id. 92:14-93:21.
12
In its December 24, 2022 Order dismissing Count II, with respect to the testimony
13
of Parikh, the Court stated:
14

15 [Parikh’s] primary contention was that the printer errors he saw reflected in
the A.R.S. § 16-677 ballot review he conducted – the printing of a 19-inch
16 ballot on a 20-inch ballot paper – must have been done intentionally, either
by overriding the image file that was sent from the laptop to the printer, or
17
from the ballot image definition side. However, if the ballot definitions were
18 changed, it stands to reason that every ballot for that particular definition
printed on every machine so affected would be printed incorrectly. As
19 Plaintiff’s next witness indicates, that was not the case on Election Day. In
20 either event, Mr. Parikh acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of
any intent behind what he believes to be the error.
21
***
22
Plaintiff’s own expert acknowledged that a ballot that was unable to be read
23
at the vote center could be deposited by a voter, duplicated by a bipartisan
24 board onto a readable ballot, and – in the final analysis – counted. Thus,
Plaintiff’s expert on this point admitted that the voters who suffered from
25 tabulator rejections would nevertheless have their votes counted. This, at a
26 minimum, means that the actual impact element of Count II could not be
proven. The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the
27 election.
28
4

Appx0048
 1 Order at 6 (italic emphasis in original, bold italic emphasis added).
2
Under section entitled “intentional misconduct standard”, the Court stated:
3
The Court makes the following observations about Plaintiff’s case as a
4 general matter. Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses – and for that matter,
5 Defendants’ witnesses as well – was asked about any personal knowledge of
both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the
6 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any
personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation
7
or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence.
8
Order at 8 (Dec. 24, 2022).
9
B. Maricopa Co-Director of Elections Scott Jarrett’s Testimony
10

11 On the first day at trial, Jarrett testified that extensive L&A testing is performed to

12 ensure the tabulators can properly read all ballots, including BOD printed ballots, on
13
Election Day. Day 1 Jarrett Tr. 50:22-53:10. Jarrett also testified that Maricopa’s tabulators
14
were configured to only read a 20-inch ballot image in the 2022 general election. Id. 51:13-
15

16 54:1-8. Any other sized ballot image could not be read by a tabulator and would be rejected.

17 Id. 55:2-10. Jarrett testified at least four times that he did not know of, nor did he hear of,
18
a 19-inch ballot image projected onto 20-inch paper in the 2022 general election. Jarrett
19
testified as follows:
20

21 Q. Sir, I want to go back to the earlier question about the 19-inch ballot image
being placed on a 20-inch paper. Did you hear of any reports of that occurring
22 in the 2022 General Election?
23 A. I did not.
24
Q. Okay. If that occurred, would that be a failure of Maricopa County’s
25 election process?

26 A. I’m not aware of it occurring, and I’d be surprised if there was a ballot
on a printer that had a 19-inch ballot on it.
27

28 ***
5

Appx0049
 1 Q. And so I’ll go back to my question again. If a 19-inch ballot image was
2
put on a 20-inch paper in the 2022 General Election, would that be a failure
of your election process?
3
A. It would -- if something like that happened, which I don’t know how it
4 would, yes, it would have been a mistake.
5 Q. Could that have also been a deliberate act?
6
A. Again, you’re asking me to speculate about things that I have no
7 knowledge of occurring, so I don’t know if it could have been a deliberate
act or not. I don’t believe that that occurred.
8
Id. 68:24-69:09, 70:02-13 (emphasis added).5
9
10 Defendants called Jarrett back to the stand the next day. Despite denying the day
11 before that 19-inch ballots could be printed on 20-inch ballot paper, on the “day two” direct
12
examination by Maricopa counsel, Jarrett testified that: just after Election Day, Maricopa
13
discovered that 19-inch ballots were found at three vote centers purportedly caused by
14

15 certain onsite technicians changing BOD printer settings to a “shrink to fit” setting (also
16 called “fit to print”); and that Maricopa was performing a root cause analysis of this issue,
17
and that “temporary technicians” had caused this issue. Day 2 Jarrett Tr: 178:23-181:17.
18
On cross-examination, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Jarrett why he had not disclosed the
19

20 new “shrink to fit” setting excuse when he testified the day before that 19-inch
21 misconfigured ballot images on 20-inch ballot paper never happened. Jarrett claimed he did
22
not “know the exact measurements of a fit to -- fit-to-paper printing”, that “he wasn’t asked”
23
about “a slightly smaller image of a 20-inch image on a 20-inch paper ballot—despite the
24

25

26 5
Id. 55:09-10 (“there was no 19-inch ballot images installed on ballot on-demand
27 printers.”); Id. 77:14-24 (“Your first question [how a 19-inch ballot could be printed on 20-
inch paper] asks if I have any idea how it could occur and I said I do not.”).
28
6

Appx0050
 1 fact that 19 inches is clearly “smaller” than 20 inches. [Day 2, Jarrett Tr.: 206:20-207:25,
2
208:08-209:07]
3
Jarrett also admitted that Maricopa had not disclosed the “shrink to fit” issue to the
4

5 public. Id. at 213:06-16. Nor was the “shrink to fit” issue discussed in Maricopa’s

6 November 26, 2022 written response to the Arizona Attorney General’s inquiry into the
7
Election Day chaos.6 Lastly, despite denying four times the prior day that a smaller ballot
8
image such as a 19-inch ballot could ever be imposed on larger ballot paper such as a 20-
9
10 inch ballot, Jarrett also testified that the “fit-to-print” issue also “happened in August 2020

11 Primary Election, the November 2020 General Election, and the August 2022 Primary
12
Election.” Id. 217:06-19.
13
III. BASIS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
14
Lake seeks relief from judgment based on new evidence demonstrating Maricopa’s
15

16 misrepresentations during the bench trial on Count II. See ARCP 60(b)(2)-(3). She also
17 seeks relief under the equitable “catch-all” for “other reason[s] justifying relief.” See ARCP
18
60(b)(6). The substantive bases for her claims are set forth in Section IV, infra. This section
19
sets forth the procedural bases for her claims.
20

21 A. New Evidence under Rule 60(b)(2)

22 Motions for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence must meet
23
three criteria:
24
(1) the newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered before the
25 granting of judgment despite the exercise of due diligence, (2) the evidence
26 would probably change the result of the litigation, and (3) the newly

27
6
Trial Exhibit 91 attached hereto as Exhibit D.
28
7

Appx0051
 1 discovered evidence was in existence at the time of the judgment.
2 Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., 168 Ariz. 207, 212 (App. 1990); In re Cruz,
3
516 B.R. 594, 605 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014) (citing Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875,
4
878 (9th Cir. 1990)) (same); Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996,
5

6 1005 (9th Cir. 2007).7

7 Here, much of the evidence that existed at the time of judgment did not become
8
available to Lake until Maricopa responded to public record requests and even the system
9
log files that were available to Lake at the time of judgment required extensive analysis and
10

11 benefited from additional evidence that Lake’s team acquired by public records requests
12 after the judgment. See Section III.D, supra (discussing the Parikh Declaration and
13
timeliness). Moreover, some of the evidence became available only quite recently,
14
including the Maricopa BOD Report issued on April 10, 2023 and Maricopa’s responses to
15

16 public record requests delivered through March 2023. See id.

17 Finally, relief from the judgment on Count II would allow Lake to produce evidence
18
of additional votes lost, which would add to the votes at issue under the remanded Count
19
III, thereby contributing to the materiality of Maricopa’s violations of L&A testing at issue
20

21 here.

22

23

24

25
7
Arizona courts follow federal procedural rulings on the federal rules on which the
26
Arizona rules are based. “Arizona courts give great weight to federal court interpretations
27 of the rules of procedure.” Estate of Page v. Litzenburg, 177 Ariz. 84, 93 (App. 1993) (citing
Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283 (1971)).
28
8

Appx0052
 1 B. Party Misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3)
2 Motions for relief from judgment based on an opposing party’s misrepresentation or
3
other misconduct include even accidental omissions:8
4
“Misconduct” within the rule need not amount to fraud or misrepresentation,
5
but may include even accidental omissions. Because Federal Rule 60(b) is
6 remedial and to be construed liberally, and because of the comprehensive
sweep of 60(b)(3) any fraud, misrepresentation, circumvention or other
7 wrongful act of a party in obtaining a judgment so that it is inequitable for
8 him to retain the benefit thereof, constitute grounds for relief within the
intendment of 60(b)(3).
9
Estate of Page, 177 Ariz. at 93 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Norwest
10

11 Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington, 197 Ariz. 181, 186 (App. 2000) (“misconduct …

12 include[s] discovery violations, even when such violations stem from accidental or
13
inadvertent failures to disclose material evidence”); cf. Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch.
14
Dist. No. 33, 179 Ariz. 178, 179 (1994) (election contests do not require proof of fraud).
15

16 Even if a misrepresentation was “inadvertent” and “not motivated by bad faith,” the

17 “failure is enough to warrant a finding of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence”

18
for purposes of “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3). Norwest Bank, 197 Ariz. at 186.
19
The movant also bears the burden of establishing substantial interference with the
20

21 “ability fully and fairly to prepare for, and proceed at, trial,” which the movant can meet

22 “by establishing the material’s likely worth as trial evidence” or by “demonstrat[ing] that
23
the misconduct was knowing or deliberate,” thereby shifting to the nonmovant to make “a
24
clear and convincing demonstration that the consequences of the misconduct were [trivial].”
25

26
8
27 If “new evidence” also shows the opposing party’s misconduct, courts evaluate the
evidence under both (b)(2) and (b)(3). Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 97-98, ¶ 17 (2006).
28
9

Appx0053
 1 Estate of Page, 177 Ariz. at 93 (interior quotation marks omitted); accord Breitbart-Napp
2
v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74, 80 (App. 2007). Intent can be inferred from Maricopa’s surreptitious
3
means. See, e.g., State v. Rood, 11 Ariz. App. 102, 104 (App. 1969) (“surreptitious means
4

5 might support such an inference” of intent); Mezey v. Fioramonti, 204 Ariz. 599, 609 (App.

6 2003) (intent inferable of facts showing concealment), overruled in part on other grounds,
7
Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 468, ¶ 28 (2003).9
8
Here, Maricopa’s misrepresentations are widespread and significant. See Parikh
9
10 Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 (failure to conduct L&A Testing); id. ¶¶ 16-25 (advance knowledge of failures

11 of ballot tabulators); id. ¶¶ 8, 11-13, (false testimony about L&A testing). These
12
misrepresentations clearly interfered with Lake’s ability to present her case for two reasons.
13
First, this Court and the appellate courts relied on the presumptions favoring election
14

15 officials. Order at 2 (Dec. 19, 2022); Order at 2 (Dec. 24, 2022); Ct. App. Opinion ¶¶ 6, 10.

16 Absent a statute or rule, default principles apply to presumptions. Ariz.R.Evid. 301.

17
“Whenever evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the presumption
18
vanishes.” Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 368 (1945); Golonka v. GMC, 204 Ariz. 575, 589-
19

20 90, ¶48 (App. 2003) (discussing “bursting bubble” treatment of presumptions). Evidence of

21 Maricopa’s misconduct eliminates the presumptions on which this Court and the appellate
22

23 9
See also In re Glimcher, 458 B.R. 544, 548 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2011) (“bad faith can
24 be inferred from intentional concealment”); United States v. Harris, 185 F.3d 999, 1006
(9th Cir. 1999) ([i]ntent could be inferred from the tricks and deceptions [defendant] used
25 to cover up what he did”); State v. Quatsling, 24 Ariz. App. 105, 108 (App. 1975)
(discussing “circumstantial evidence to sustain a finding of intent based upon …
26
surreptitious means”); Jackson v. Am. Credit Bureau, 23 Ariz. App. 199, 202 (App. 1975)
27 (“[t]here must be some positive act of concealment done to prevent detection”); State v.
Belyeu, 164 Ariz. 586, 591 (App. 1990) (intent can be inferred from circumstances).
28
10

Appx0054
 1 courts relied to uphold the 2022 general election in Maricopa, requiring relief from
2
judgment under Rule 60(b)(3).
3
Second, Maricopa’s intentional misconduct puts the burden on it to demonstrate that
4

5 its engineered trainwreck of an Election Day did not have the effect of depressing Election

6 Day voter turnout in material numbers. Estate of Page, 177 Ariz. at 93.
7
C. Equitable Reasons under Rule 60(b)(6)
8
Generally, the catch-all provision in Rule 60(b)(6) applies only when one of the other
9
five provisions of Rule 60(b) do not apply:
10

11 To obtain relief under Rule 60(c) (6), …a party must make two showings.
First, the reason for setting aside the judgment or order must not be one of the
12 reasons set forth in the five preceding clauses. Second, the “other reason”
13 advanced must be one that justifies relief. Furthermore, the subsection applies
only when our systemic commitment to finality of judgments is outweighed
14 by “‘extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.’” Id. (quoting
Webb, 134 Ariz. at 187, 655 P.2d at 11).
15

16 Panzino v. City of Phoenix, 196 Ariz. 442, 444-45 (2000) (internal quotation marks,

17 citations, and alterations omitted, emphasis in original). But Arizona’s “jurisprudence

18
[under Rule 60(b)(6)] is not a model of clarity or consistency,” Gonzalez v. Nguyen, 243
19
Ariz. 531, 534 (2018), and courts have found Rule 60(b)(6) to apply even in addition to
20

21 the other provisions in Rule 60(b): “even when relief might have been available under one

22 of the first five clauses …, this does not necessarily preclude relief under clause (6) if the
23
motion also raises exceptional additional circumstances” warranting “relief in the interest
24
of justice.” Amanti Elec., Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., 229 Ariz. 430, 433 (App.
25

26 2012). Lake’s new evidence of secret testing and the knowledge that the election system

27 would fail on Election Day certainly qualify as exceptional. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377
28
11

Appx0055
 1 U.S. 533, 562 (1964) (“‘the political franchise of voting’ [is] “a fundamental political
2
right, because preservative of all rights’”) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370
3
(1886)). Election officials cannot set out to thwart the electorate.
4

5 This Court need not decide whether Rule 60(b)(6) extends to matters covered by

6 Rule 60(b)’s other provisions because evidence that did not exist at the time of the prior
7
judgment does not fall under Rule 60(b)(2). Boatman, 168 Ariz. at 212; Fantasyland Video,
8
505 F.3d at 1005. Neither the Maricopa BOD Report nor the admissions in the Maricopa
9
10 BOD Report existed at the time of trial and so must be evaluated under the catch-all in Rule

11 60(b)(6).
12
D. Timeliness under Rule 60(c)(1)
13
Motions for relief from judgment must be brought within a “reasonable time” and—
14
for motions under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)—within 6 months of the underlying action. ARCP
15

16 60(c)(1). The 6-month condition is met because the Court acted in the first instance on
17 December 19, 24, or 27, all of which are less than 6 months ago.
18
The timing of Lake’s motion is reasonable under the circumstances, vis-à-vis both
19
the timing of the Arizona Supreme Court’s remand of Count III and the complexity of the
20

21 evidentiary issues with analyzing the forensic computer evidence of Maricopa’s violations

22 of the L&A testing requirements and its misrepresentations to this Court and the appellate
23
courts. See Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Moreover, some of the evidence became available only
24
quite recently, including the Maricopa BOD Report on April 10, 2023 and certain Maricopa
25

26 responses to public record requests. Id. ¶¶ 6-7.

27

28
12

Appx0056
 1 Rule 60(b)(6) “applies only when our systemic commitment to finality of judgments
2
is outweighed by extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.” Panzino, 196 Ariz.
3
at 445 (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks omitted). Significantly, the short
4

5 timelines available in election contests do not preclude resort to relief from judgment under

6 Rule 60. Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 97, ¶ 16 (2006). Because Lake still can bring a
7
federal action—mirroring Counts V and VI—for the substantive violations at issue in Count
8
II, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983,10 the results of the 2022 gubernatorial election and this litigation
9
10 are not so “final” that this Court can disregard the illegality and unconstitutionality of

11 Maricopa’s election. In the end, the federal Constitution is supreme to Arizona’s election-
12
contest statute: “When there is an unavoidable conflict between the Federal and a State
13
Constitution, the Supremacy Clause of course controls.” Sims, 377 U.S. at 584 (citing U.S.
14

15 CONST. art. VI, cl. 2). Accordingly, Lake’s motion is timely.

16 Under abstention principles, the option of suing in federal court would not become
17
viable until after this state proceeding resolves. While Arizona and its election-contest
18
statute envision expeditious resolution of election disputes, expedition cannot—or at least
19

20 should not—take the place of accuracy and justice. Given the viability of suing in federal

21 court under § 1983 once this suit is finished, Arizona’s interest is better served by deciding
22
this case correctly—whomever wins—so that resort to § 1983 becomes unnecessary.
23

24

25 10
Because § 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, federal courts look to
state law limitation periods for personal injury, which is two years. Douglas v. Noelle, 567
26
F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of
27 limitations for personal injury actions, applying Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations in
A.R.S. § 12-542).
28
13

Appx0057
 1 IV. ARGUMENT
2 A. Maricopa Violated Arizona Law and Did Not Test the Vote Center
3 Tabulators For Logic and Accuracy

4 L&A testing is expressly identified in A.R.S. § 16-449(A) with the purpose being
5 “to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all
6
offices and on all measures” prior to each election. The EPM sets forth detailed instructions
7
for conducting L&A testing. Among other things, the EPM mandates “that all of the
8

9 county’s deployable voting equipment must be tested.”11

10 On October 11, 2022, Maricopa certified it had passed all L&A testing. Parikh Decl.
11
¶ 12. However, as Parikh testified, the internal system log files for the Maricopa vote center
12
tabulators (and other internal documents produced by Maricopa) show that Maricopa did
13

14 not perform L&A testing on a single one of the 446 vote center tabulators in violation of
15 Arizona law. Id. ¶¶ 8(a), 11-13. Maricopa’s false certification set the first stage of the
16
Election Day debacle.
17
B. Maricopa Unlawfully and Secretly Tested the Vote Center Tabulators
18
After The October 11th L&A Certification And Knew That 260 Vote
19 Center Tabulators Would Fail on Election Day
20 These same tabulator system log files, and other internal documents show that after
21
Maricopa falsely certified it passed L&A testing on October 11, 2022, Maricopa set the
22
second stage of the Election Day debacle by secretly testing the 446 vote center tabulators
23

24 on October 14th, 17th, and 18th in violation of, inter alia, the requirements for public notice

25

26

27
11
EPM, section F, “County L&A Testing.”
28
14

Appx0058
 1 and observers set forth in A.R.S. § 16-449(A).12 Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 14, 20-25. These secret
2
tests consisted of running an average of nine ballots through each tabulator. The system log
3
files show that 260 of the 446 vote center tabulators failed this unlawful “test” generally
4

5 with the same “Ballot Misread” and paperless “Paper-Jam” errors that plagued voters on

6 Election Day. Id. ¶ 8(c). Maricopa officials thus not only knew Election Day would bring
7
chaos.
8
C. The So-Called “Fit-to-Page” Errors Were Caused By A Malicious and
9 Intentional Act
10
An event recounted in Maricopa BOD Report contradicts Jarrett’s testimony that the
11
“fit-to-page” issue that arose on Election Day was caused by technicians changing printer
12

13 settings on Election Day at three vote centers.

14 Another printing anomaly occurred at several vote centers, where ballots were
re-sized as “fit to page,” a process that entirely changed the location of the
15
timing marks on the ballots and assured that neither the on-site tabulators nor
16 the central count tabulators could read the ballots. We could not determine
whether this change resulted from a technician attempting to correct the
17 printing issues, the most probable source of change, or a problem internal
18 to the printers. During our testing, four printers randomly printed one or a
few “fit to page” ballots in the middle of printing a batch of ballots. None
19 of the technical people with whom we spoke could explain how or why that
error occurred.
20

21 Maricopa BOD Report at 12 (Ex. E).

22 This astonishing event occurred during the testing conducted by Chief Justice’s
23
McGregor’s team. The 19-inch ballot configuration on Election Day could only be due to
24

25

26 12
The public notice of the October 11, 2022 L&A testing is found here:
27 https://elections.maricopa.gov/news-and-information/elections-news/public-notice-view-
logic-and-accuracy-tests-on-october-11.html.
28
15

Appx0059
 1 malicious code, malware, or remote configuration changes. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 36, 49. The
2
“randomly printed … ‘fit to page’ ballots” observed by Justice McGregor’s team proves the
3
validity of Parikh’s testimony that this was an intentional act, testimony that this Court
4

5 previously rejected. See Order at 6 (Dec. 24, 2022). “Moreover, the tabulator system log

6 files internal records show that the so-called “fit-to-page” issue—first disclosed by Jarrett
7
on the second day of trial—occurred at 110 voter centers, not three vote centers as Jarrett
8
testified.
9
10 D. Maricopa Vote Center Tabulators Rejected Ballots More Than 7,000
Times Every Half Hour During the Election
11
Jarrett downplayed the debacle on Election Day and even refused to agree that there
12

13 was “a disruption in the election process.” Day 1, Jarrett Tr. 64:18-21. In fact, on Election

14 Day vote center tabulators were rejecting ballots more than 7,000 times every 30 minutes
15
beginning at 6:30am continuing to the vote centers closed. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 46-48. The
16
evidence disproves Jarrett’s attempt to sweep aside the debacle on Election Day, which
17

18 Maricopa officials knew about in advance of Election Day due to their unlawful secret

19 testing of the tabulators as discussed above.

20
E. Thousands of Rejected Ballots Were Not Counted
21
Lastly, as discussed above, the Court held in its December 24, 2022 Order that voters
22
who suffered from tabulator rejections still had their votes counted. The evidence shows
23

24 otherwise. In fact, the evidence shows that over 8,000 ballots, maliciously misconfigured

25 to cause a tabulator rejection, were not counted. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 36, 38-39.
26

27

28
16

Appx0060
 1 V. CONCLUSION
2 The evidence shows that not only did Maricopa officials knowingly violate the law
3
mandating L&A testing, but that they knew about and planned the Election Day debacle.
4
Further, Jarrett’s demonstrably false and conflicting testimony shows that Maricopa
5

6 officials are attempting to cover up their misconduct. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff
7 respectfully requests that the court grant her relief from the judgment on Count II and her
8
tabulator and logic-and-accuracy testing claims.
9
Date: May 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted
10

11
/s/ Bryan James Blehm
__________________________________
12 Kurt B. Olsen (admitted pro hac vice) Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar #023891
13 Olsen Law PC Blehm Law PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 700 10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
14 Washington, DC 20036 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tel: 202-408-7025 Tel: 602-753-6213
15
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
16
Counsel for Plaintiff-Contestant
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
17

Appx0061
 1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
2
Blehm Law PLLC
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279
6 admitted pro hac vice
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
7
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
8 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
9 [email protected]
10
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

13 IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

14 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403

15
Contestant/Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER
16
vs. (ASSIGNED TO HON. PETER
17 THOMPSON)
18 KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity
19 as the Secretary of State; et al.,
20
Defendants.
21

22
On considering “Plaintiff Kari Lake’s Motion for Relief from Judgment,” the
23

24 materials filed in opposition to and support thereof, and the entire record herein, the Court

25 finds that the motion is well taken and it is hereby

26
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and her Verified
27
Petition to Inspect Ballots are GRANTED;
28

Appx0062
 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dismissal of Count II is vacated;
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dismissal of Counts V and VI is vacated as
3
those counts related to tabulator problems experienced on El3ection Day and to logic-and-
4

5 accuracy testing;

6 SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: ______________________, 2023
8

9
10

11 PETER A. THOMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2

Appx0063
 1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
2
Blehm Law PLLC
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279
6 admitted pro hac vice
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
7
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
8 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
9 [email protected]
10
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

13 IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

14 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403

15
Contestant/Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
16
vs. (ASSIGNED TO HON. PETER
17 THOMPSON)
18 KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity
19 as the Secretary of State; et al.,
20
Defendants.
21

22
I certify that, on May 9, 2023, I electronically filed with the Arizona Superior Court
23

24 for Maricopa County, using the AZ Turbo Court e-filing system, Plaintiff Kari Lake’s

25 Motion for Relief from Judgment. On that date, I also caused a copy of the same to be
26
emailed to:
27

28

Appx0064
 1 Honorable Peter Thompson
2
Maricopa County Superior Court
c/o Sarah Umphress
3 [email protected]
4 Alexis E. Danneman
Austin Yost
5
Samantha J. Burke
6 Perkins Coie LLP
2901 North Central Avenue
7 Suite 2000
8 Phoenix, AZ 85012
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
[email protected]
10
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
11
and
12
Abha Khanna*
13 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
14 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
15 [email protected]
Telephone: (206) 656-0177
16

17 and

18 Lalitha D. Madduri*
Christina Ford*
19 Elena A. Rodriguez Armenta*
20 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
250 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 400
21 Washington, D.C. 20001
[email protected]
22
[email protected]
23 [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
24
and
25

26

27

28
2

Appx0065
 1 Craig A. Morgan
2
SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
4 Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
5
and
6
Sambo Dul
7 STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER
8205 South Priest Drive, #10312
8
Tempe, Arizona 85284
9 [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
10
and
11

12 Thomas P. Liddy
Joseph La Rue
13 Joseph Branco
Karen Hartman-Tellez
14
Jack L. O’Connor
15 Sean M. Moore
Rosa Aguilar
16 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
17 225 West Madison St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
18 [email protected]
[email protected]
19
[email protected]
20 [email protected]
[email protected]
21 [email protected]
22 [email protected]
Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
23
and
24
Emily Craiger
25
The Burgess Law Group
26 3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 224
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
27 [email protected]
28 Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
3

Appx0066
 1 /s/ Bryan James Blehm
Bryan James Blehm
2
Counsel for Plaintiff-Contestant Kari Lake
3

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
4

Appx0067
 







y,//d
Appx0068
 'HFODUDWLRQRI&OD\83DULNK
, &/$< 8 3$5,.+ GHFODUH XQGHU SHQDOW\ RI SHUMXU\ WKDW WKH IROORZLQJ LV WUXH DQG
FRUUHFW

 , KDYH SHUVRQDO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH PDWWHUV VHW IRUWK EHORZ DQG ZRXOG WHVWLI\

FRPSHWHQWO\WRWKHPLIFDOOHGXSRQWRGRVR

 ,KDYHD0DVWHURI6FLHQFHLQ&\EHU6HFXULW\&RPSXWHU6FLHQFHIURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\

RI $ODEDPD LQ +XQWVYLOOH , KDYH D %DFKHORU RI 6FLHQFH LQ &RPSXWHU 6FLHQFH 6\VWHPV

0DMRUIURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQDDW:LOPLQJWRQ,Q)HEUXDU\,REWDLQHG

WKH &HUWLILHG ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6\VWHPV 6HFXULW\ 3URIHVVLRQDO &,663 FHUWLILFDWLRQ DQG KDYH

FRQWLQXDOO\ PDLQWDLQHG JRRGVWDQGLQJ , DOVR KROGWKH IROORZLQJ FHUWLILFDWLRQV &HUWLILHG

(WKLFDO+DFNHU&(+DQG&HUWLILHG+DFNLQJ)RUHQVLF,QYHVWLJDWRU&+),

 6LQFH 'HFHPEHU  , KDYH FRQWLQXDOO\ ZRUNHG LQ WKH DUHDV RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ

$VVXUDQFH,$,QIRUPDWLRQ6HFXULW\DQG&\EHU6HFXULW\,KDYHSHUIRUPHGFRXQWOHVV5RRW

&DXVH$QDO\VHV5&$WRGHWHUPLQHWKHURRWFDXVHVRIHTXLSPHQWPDOIXQFWLRQVV\VWHP

DQGQHWZRUNLVVXHV,DOVRKDYHD,7,QIUDVWUXFWXUH/LEUDU\,7,/YFHUWLILFDWLRQIRFXVHG

RQ D JOREDO IUDPHZRUN RI EHVW SUDFWLFHV IRU V\VWHPDWLF ULVN PDQDJHPHQW FXVWRPHU

UHODWLRQVDQGGHOLYHU\RIVWDEOHVFDODEOHDGDSWDEOHRUJDQL]DWLRQDO,7HQYLURQPHQWV

 )URPWR,ZRUNHGWKURXJKDSURIHVVLRQDOVWDIILQJFRPSDQ\IRUVHYHUDO

WHVWLQJ ODERUDWRULHV WKDW WHVWHG HOHFWURQLF YRWLQJ PDFKLQHV 7KHVH ODERUDWRULHV LQFOXGHG

:\OH/DERUDWRULHVZKLFKZDVODWHUDFTXLUHGE\1DWLRQDO7HFKQLFDO6\VWHPV176DQG


KWWSVZZZFLRFRPDUWLFOHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHLWLQIUDVWUXFWXUHOLEUDU\LWLOGHILQLWLRQDQG
VROXWLRQVKWPO

Appx0069
3UR 9 9 0\ GXWLHV ZHUH WR SHUIRUP VHFXULW\ WHVWV RQ YHQGRU YRWLQJ V\VWHPV IRU

FHUWLILFDWLRQ RI WKRVH V\VWHPV E\ HLWKHU WKH (OHFWLRQ $VVLVWDQFH &RPPLVVLRQ ($& WR

)HGHUDO9RWLQJ6\VWHP6WDQGDUGV966RU9ROXQWDU\9RWLQJ6\VWHP*XLGHOLQHV996*

RUWRDVSHFLILFVWDWH¶V6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWH¶VUHTXLUHPHQWV

 ,KDYHUHDGWKH³0DULFRSD&RXQW\*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQ%DOORWRQ'HPDQG3ULQWHU

,QYHVWLJDWLRQ´UHSRUWKHUHDIWHU³0DULFRSD%2'5HSRUW´,KDYHUHDGWKHWUDQVFULSWRI

Lake v. Hobbs, CV 2022-095403 Evidentiary Hearing,KDYHDOVR UHDGPXOWLSOHHPDLOV

UHFHLYHGDVUHVSRQVLYHGRFXPHQWVWR3XEOLF5HFRUGV5HTXHVW355WKDWZHUHVXEPLWWHG

WR0DULFRSD&RXQW\,DOVRKDYHUHDGVHYHUDOUHSRUWVRIDQDO\VLVRIORJGDWDIURP0DULFRSD

&RXQW\YRWLQJV\VWHPVXVHGLQWKH*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQUHFHLYHGUHVSRQVLYHWR355DQG

KDYH SHUVRQDOO\ UHYLHZHG WKH GDWD XVHG WR FUHDWH WKH UHSRUWV , PDNH WKH IROORZLQJ

REVHUYDWLRQV

([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\

 ,QUHVSRQVHWRD3XEOLF5HFRUGV5HTXHVW0DULFRSD&RXQW\UHWXUQHGWKHV\VWHPORJ

ILOHVIRUYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVXVHGLQWKH1RYHPEHUWKHOHFWLRQRQRUDERXW

'HFHPEHUWK$WKRURXJKPRQWKVORQJDQDO\VLVRIWKHWDEXODWRUV\VWHPORJVZDV

FRQGXFWHGDVSDUWRIRXULQYHVWLJDWLRQ7KHPHWLFXORXVGDWDPRGHOGHVLJQDQGLQWHOOLJHQFH

LVRODWLRQH[HUFLVHVLQFOXGHGRYHUWKLUW\PLOOLRQOLQHVaRIV\VWHPORJHQWULHV

7KH VFRSH RI WKLV HIIRUW HQFRPSDVVHG VHYHUDO WKRXVDQGPDQ KRXUV LQ UHVHDUFK GDWD


%\5XWK90F*UHJRU$SULO

Appx0070
DQDO\VLVLQWHUYLHZVWHVWLQJDQGFROODERUDWLRQ)XUWKHUFRPSOLFDWLQJWKLVWLPHFRQVXPLQJ

SURFHVVZHUHLQFRPSOHWHUHFRUGVZKLFKKDPSHUHGWKHHIILFLHQF\RIRXUUHYLHZ

 7RJDLQDQDFFXUDWHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIHYHQWVUHOHYDQWWRWKH1RYHPEHUJHQHUDO

HOHFWLRQLQ0DULFRSD&RXQW\PXOWLSOHVXEVHTXHQW3XEOLF5HFRUGV5HTXHVWV355ZHUH

PDGHDVZHOODVUHFHLYLQJGRFXPHQWVSURGXFHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\LQUHVSRQVHWRUHTXHVWV

VXFKDVWKH$UL]RQD6WDWH6HQDWHVXESRHQDLVVXHGE\6HQDWRU7RZQVHQG/DVWO\VSHFLILF

LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG GDWD SRLQWV VRXUFHG IURP WKH %DOORW 2Q 'HPDQG %2' SULQWHU

LQYHVWLJDWLRQ UHSRUW KHUHLQDIWHU ³0DULFRSD%2' 5HSRUW´ E\ &KLHI -XVWLFH 0F*UHJRU

FRQWULEXWHGPDWHULDOO\WRWKHILQGLQJVGHWDLOHGKHUHLQ

 7KURXJK WKHVH HIIRUWV ZH KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR GHILQLWLYHO\ PDNH WKH IROORZLQJ

GHWHUPLQDWLRQV

D 1RQHRIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVXVHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\LQ0DULFRSD

&RXQW\ ZHUH WHVWHG IRU /RJLF  $FFXUDF\ RQ 2FWREHU WK  LQ YLRODWLRQ RI

$UL]RQDODZ

E 7KHRQO\WHVWLQJRIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVZLWKWKHVDPHHOHFWLRQ

SURMHFW DV WKDW XVHG RQ (OHFWLRQ 'D\ RFFXUUHG RQ 2FWREHU  WK RU WK after

0DULFRSD&RXQW\DQGWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHERWKFHUWLILHGWKHPDFKLQHV

F 6XEMHFWHGWRDWHVWDYHUDJLQJEDOORWVRIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUV

IDLOHG WKH FODQGHVWLQH SRVWFHUWLILFDWLRQ WHVW ZLWK WKH VDPH ³%DOORW 0LVUHDG´ DQG

SDSHUOHVV³3DSHU-DP´HUURUVWKDWSODJXHGYRWHUVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\

G )ROORZLQJWKHWHVWVRI2FWREHUDQGDQGZLWKWKHIDLOHGVWDWHRIWKH

WDEXODWRUV SUHVHUYHG 0DULFRSD &RXQW\ NQRZLQJO\ DQG LQWHQWLRQDOO\ RU ZLWK

Appx0071
 UHFNOHVVGLVUHJDUGGLVWULEXWHGWKHWDEXODWRUVWRYRWLQJFHQWHUVIRUXVHRQ(OHFWLRQ

'D\

H 7KH³SULQWWRILW´LVVXHZDVQRWFDXVHGE\WKHUHDVRQVJLYHQQRWOLPLWHGWR

2NL%2'SULQWHUVQRUZDVWKHFRQGLWLRQLVRODWHGWRRQO\WKUHHYRWLQJFHQWHUV

I 7KH³SULQWWRILW´UHVL]HGEDOORWLPDJHVZHUH IRXQG E\WKH0DULFRSD%2'

UHSRUWWREHEHLQJSURGXFHGLQWHUPLWWHQWO\

J 9RWLQJ FHQWHU WDEXODWRU V\VWHP ORJV UHYHDO WKDW RYHU  EDOORWV ZHUH

UHMHFWHGIRUHUURUVXQLTXHWRWKHSULQWWRILWFRQGLWLRQZKLFKFRXOGQRWEHUHDGE\

HLWKHUYRWLQJFHQWHURUFHQWUDOFRXQWWDEXODWRUVDQGUHTXLUHGGXSOLFDWLRQ

K 7KHVSHFNOHGIDGHGSULQWLVVXHZDVDOVRQRWFDXVHGE\WKHUHDVRQVJLYHQE\

0DULFRSD&RXQW\

L 7KHFRPELQDWLRQRIERWKSULQWHUHUURUV\LHOGHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\EDOORW

UHMHFWLRQVHYHU\PLQXWHV$UDWHZKLFKSHUVLVWHGDQGZHQWXQPLWLJDWHGIURPWKH

WLPHWKHSROOVRSHQHGXQWLOWKH\ZHUHFORVHG


0DULFRSD¶V/ $7HVWLQJ'LG1RW&RPSO\:LWK$UL]RQD/DZ

 7KH(30VSHFLILFDOO\VWDWHV³7KH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUVRURIILFHULQFKDUJH

RIHOHFWLRQVLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUSHUIRUPLQJDQ / $WHVW RQDOOYRWLQJHTXLSPHQW SULRUWR

HDFKHOHFWLRQ7KHFRQGXFWRIWKHWHVWPXVWEHRYHUVHHQE\DWOHDVWWZRHOHFWLRQVVWDIIRU

LQVSHFWRUVRIGLIIHUHQWSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVDQGVKDOOEHRSHQWRREVHUYDWLRQE\UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV

RIWKHSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVFDQGLGDWHVWKHSUHVVDQGWKHSXEOLF

Appx0072
 1RQHRIWKH9RWLQJ&HQWHU7DEXODWRUV:HUH7HVWHGIRU/RJLF $FFXUDF\

 6\VWHPORJVDQG/ $UHFRUGVSURYLGHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\HVWDEOLVKWKDWQRYRWH

FHQWHU WDEXODWRUV 'RPLQLRQ ,&3 XVHG RQ (OHFWLRQ 'D\ ZHUH WHVWHG IRU /RJLF 

$FFXUDF\RQ2FWREHU$IDLOXUHWRWHVWDOOHTXLSPHQWWREHXVHGIRUWKHHOHFWLRQ

LVDIDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWK$56DQGWKH(30

 0DULFRSD &RXQW\ DQG WKH $UL]RQD 6HFUHWDU\ RI 6WDWH ERWK IDOVHO\ FHUWLILHG WKDW

/ $WHVWLQJZDVFRQGXFWHGLQDSXEOLFWHVWRQ2FWREHU6HH([KLELWZKHQQR

YRWHFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVKDGEHHQWHVWHG

 $ UHYLHZ DQG DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD DFTXLUHG YLD PXOWLSOH 355V VKRZ XQGHQLDEOH

HYLGHQFH WKDW / $ WHVWLQJ ZDV QRW SURSHUO\ SHUIRUPHG YLRODWLQJ $56 †  DQG

(30

$OO9RWLQJ&HQWHU7DEXODWRUV:HUH7HVWHG$IWHU+DYLQJ%HHQ&HUWLILHG


 7KHRQO\WHVWLQJRIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVZLWKWKHVDPHHOHFWLRQSURMHFW

DVWKDWXVHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\DVUHTXLUHGE\WKH(30RFFXUUHGRQ2FWREHUWKRU

WKDIWHU0DULFRSD&RXQW\DQGWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHKDGDOUHDG\VLJQHG/ $WHVWLQJ

FHUWLILFDWLRQVZKLFKPXVWQRZEHFRQVLGHUHGIUDXGXOHQW

 7KH0DULFRSD%2'5HSRUWGRHVQRWLGHQWLI\DQ\HYLGHQFHWKDWSUHHOHFWLRQ/ $

WHVWLQJZDVSHUIRUPHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK$UL]RQDVWDWXWHQRUZDVDQ\UHIHUHQFHPDGHWR

WKHSURFHVVRU/ $WHVWLQJUHVXOWV7KLVLVDQRWLFHDEOHRPLVVLRQDVWKHUHSRUWUHSHDWHGO\

UHIHUV WR ³VWUHVV WHVWLQJ´ GHVSLWH WKH DEVHQFH RI DQ\ ³VWUHVV WHVWLQJ´ GHILQLWLRQ RU

Appx0073
UHTXLUHPHQWVLQHLWKHU$UL]RQD5HYLVHG6WDWXWH$56RUWKH6WDWHRI$UL]RQD¶V(OHFWLRQV

3URFHGXUHV 0DQXDO (30  $UL] 5HY 6WDW †  UHTXLUHV WKH FRXQW\ ERDUG RI

VXSHUYLVRUVRU HOHFWLRQRIILFHUVRUIRUVWDWHIHGHUDOFDQGLGDWHHOHFWLRQVWKH 6HFUHWDU\RI

6WDWHWR³KDYHWKHDXWRPDWLFWDEXODWLQJHTXLSPHQWDQGSURJUDPVWHVWHG´DQGIXUWKHUVWDWHV

³(OHFWURQLFEDOORWWDEXODWLQJV\VWHPV³VKDOOKDYHWKHDXWRPDWLFWDEXODWLQJHTXLSPHQWDQG

SURJUDPVWHVWHGWRDVFHUWDLQWKDWWKHHTXLSPHQWDQGSURJUDPVZLOOFRUUHFWO\FRXQWWKHYRWHV

FDVWIRUDOORIILFHVDQGRQDOOPHDVXUHV´

 $UL]RQD ODZ UHTXLUHV ERWK FHQWUDO ,&& DQG YRWH FHQWHU WDEXODWRUV ,&3 WR EH

/ $WHVWHG0U-DUUHWWWHVWLILHGGXULQJWKH/DNHY+REEVFRXUWFDVHZKHQDVNHGDERXW

/ $ WHVWLQJ WKDW )RU WKH &RXQW\

V ORJLF DQG DFFXUDF\ WHVW WKDW LV WR UXQ WHVW EDOORWV

WKURXJK DQG IRU WKH &RXQW\

V WHVWV LW
V WKRXVDQGV RI WHVW EDOORWV WKURXJK RXU WDEXODWLRQ

HTXLSPHQWERWKWKHFHQWUDOFRXQWWDEXODWLRQHTXLSPHQWDVZHOODVWKHWDEXODWLRQHTXLSPHQW

WKDWZRXOGEHXVHGDWWKHYRWHFHQWHUVWRPDNHVXUHWKDWWKH\DUHDFFXUDWHO\SURJUDPPHG

WRWDEXODWHWKRVHEDOORWV

 7KH(30VWDWHVWKDWIRUDQ/ $WHVWWKHRIILFHULQFKDUJHRIHOHFWLRQVPXVW

³XWLOL]HWKHDFWXDOHOHFWLRQSURJUDPIRU(OHFWLRQ'D\QRWDFRS\´2QHUHFRUGWKDWH[LVWV

ZKLFKGRFXPHQWVDOOWDEXODWRUDFWLYLW\IRUWKHHOHFWLRQSURMHFWLQFOXGLQJDOOWHVWLQJWKURXJK

WKHFORVHRISROOVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\LVFDOOHGWKHWDEXODWRUV\VWHPORJDFRPSXWHUORJILOH

ZKLFKLVFUHDWHGDQGUHVLGHVRQWKHWDEXODWRUPHPRU\FDUGVDQGZKLFKLVRQHRIWKHORJ


$56
KWWSVZZZD]OHJJRYYLHZGRFXPHQW"GRF1DPH KWWSVZZZD]OHJJRYDUVKWP

'D\SJ/LQHV

Appx0074
ILOHV ZKLFK PXVW EH SUHVHUYHG DV DQ HOHFWLRQ UHFRUG  $ VFUHHQVKRW RI DQ H[FHUSW RI WKH

WDEXODWRU V\VWHP ORJ IRU WDEXODWRU $ DQ ,&& LV VKRZQ EHORZ

 7KHV\VWHPORJIRUWKHWDEXODWRULGHQWLILHGDV³$´EHJLQVRQ2FWREHUWK

DVLQGLFDWHGRQOLQH7KHVDPHV\VWHPORJVKRZVRQOLQHWKDWWKHSROOVZHUH

FORVHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\DWSPWKHUHE\FRQILUPLQJWKDWWKLVORJLVLQIDFWWKH³DFWXDO

HOHFWLRQ SURJUDP IRU (OHFWLRQ 'D\ QRW D FRS\´  ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKDW WKH ORJ

HQFRPSDVVHVDOODFWLYLW\IRUWKHHOHFWLRQSURMHFWEHJLQQLQJZLWKWKH2FWREHUWKWHVWLQJ

WKURXJKWKHFORVHRISROOVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\7KHWDEXODWRUORJGRHVQRWLQGLFDWHWKDWWKH

WDEXODWRU ZDV RSHUDWHG SULRU WR 2FWREHU   SUHFOXGLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH

WDEXODWRUZDVWHVWHGIRU/ $RQ2FWREHUWK7KHVDPHDOVRUHPRYHVDQ\SRVVLELOLW\RI

DQ\ WHVWLQJ FRQGXFWHG RQ RU SULRU WR 2FWREHU  XVLQJ WKH ³DFWXDO HOHFWLRQ SURJUDP´


7KHSUHFHGLQJVL[OLQHVLQWKHVKRZQORJILOHH[FHUSWLQGLFDWHDGDWHWLPHRI-DQ
ZKLFKLVDQDUWLIDFWRIWKHVWDUWXSRIWKHWDEXODWRUDQGUHIOHFWVDGHIDXOWGDWHWLPHSULRU
WRWKHWDEXODWRUXSGDWLQJLWVLQWHUQDOGDWHWLPHWRUHIOHFWWKHGDWDWLPHVHWWLQJVRQWKHFRQQHFWHG
FRPSXWHU

Appx0075
  $OO 9RWH &HQWHU WDEXODWRU ORJV KDYH WKH ILUVW LQLWLDOL]DWLRQ GDWH XVLQJ WKH VDPH

HOHFWLRQSURMHFWDVWKDWXVHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\RI2FWREHUWKWKRUWK7KLVLVDWOHDVW

WKUHHGD\VafterWKHFRXQW\DQGVWDWHFHUWLILHGWKH/ $WHVWV

RIWKH9RWLQJ&HQWHU7DEXODWRUV)DLOHG8QODZIXO3RVW&HUWLILFDWLRQ7HVWLQJ

 (YHU\RQHRIWKHWDEXODWRUVXVHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\ZHUHVXEMHFWWRVRPHW\SHRI

WHVWRQHLWKHU2FWREHUWKWKRUWKZKLFKLQFOXGHGDQDYHUDJHRIRQO\EDOORWVZKLFK

RIWKHWDEXODWRUVIDLOHGZLWKWKHVDPHHUURUVDVWKRVHH[SHULHQFHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\




 7KHWHVWGHVFULEHGDERYHZDVQRWRSHQWRWKHSXEOLFQRSXEOLFQRWLFHZDVLVVXHG

DQGQRSROLWLFDOSDUW\REVHUYHUVZHUHSUHVHQWDVUHTXLUHGE\$UL]5HY6WDW†DQG

WKH(30

Appx0076
  7KHUHLVQRUHFRUGRIPHPRU\FDUGVHDOVIRUDQ\RIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVRQ

DQ\RIWKH/ $&KHFNOLVWVLQYLRODWLRQRI$UL]RQD/DZ

7KH7DEXODWRUV:HUH'LVWULEXWHG)RU8VHRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\LQ7KHLU)DLOHG6WDWH

 7KH YRWH FHQWHU WDEXODWRU V\VWHP ORJV VKRZ QR VXEVHTXHQW DWWHPSWV WR UHVFDQ

WURXEOHVKRRWRUUHPHG\WKHFOHDUDQGREYLRXVIDLOXUHVZKLFKWKHWHVWLQJXQYHLOHG

 &RQVLGHULQJWKHRYHUZKHOPLQJIDLOXUHRIWKHYRWHFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVGXULQJWKHSRVW

FHUWLILFDWLRQ WHVWLQJ GHILQHG DERYH DORQJ ZLWK WKH DEVHQFH RI DQ\ DFWLRQV WR LGHQWLI\ RU

UHFWLI\WKHFDXVHRIWKHIDLOXUHWKHUHUHPDLQVQRORJLFDOH[SHFWDWLRQRWKHUWKDWWKDWZKLFK

ZDVH[SHULHQFHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\FRQWLQXHGIDLOXUH

 0DULFRSD &RXQW\ IDLOHG WR SURYLGH WKH UHVXOWV DJJUHJDWHG E\ WKH (OHFWLRQ

0DQDJHPHQW 6\VWHP (06 VHUYHU IRU WKH WHVWLQJ RI WKH YRWH FHQWHU WDEXODWRUV GHVSLWH

0DULFRSD&RXQW\¶VIDFWFKHFNSDJHFODLPLQJWKDWWKHSXUSRVHRI/ $ZDVWRFRQILUPWKH

DFFXUDF\RIWKRVH(06DJJUHJDWHGYRWHWDEXODWLRQUHVXOWV

7KH&HQWUDO&RXQW7DEXODWRUV&RXOG1RW2YHUFRPH3ULQWLQJ)DLOXUHV


 7KH ILUVW LVVXH WR SRLQW RXW IURP WKH IRRWQRWH LV WKH VWDWHPHQW WKDW ³WKH FHQWUDO

WDEXODWRUVUHDGDOOEDOORWV´WKLVLVQRWQHFHVVDULO\WUXH7KHFHQWUDOWDEXODWRUVGRDQGGLG

UHMHFWGHIHFWLYHEDOORWV7KLVZLOOEHSURYHQODWHU%XWILUVWLWLVLPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQG

Appx0077
KRZWKHFRQWHVWVHOHFWLRQVRQDSDSHUEDOORWDUHFRXQWHG7DEXODWRUVGRQRWFRXQWRU³UHDG´

GLUHFWO\IURPWKHSDSHUGRFXPHQWEXWLQVWHDGSURGXFHDQHOHFWURQLFLPDJHRIWKHEDOORW

7KH 'RPLQLRQ 9RWLQJ 6\VWHP KHUHDIWHU ³'RPLQLRQ´ VRIWZDUH RQERWK WKH ,PDJH&DVW

&HQWUDO ,&& XVHG IRU FHQWUDO VFDQQLQJ DQG WKH ,PDJH&DVW 3UHFLQFW ,&3

VFDQQHUWDEXODWRUVXVHGDWYRWHFHQWHUVFUHDWHWKHVDPHUHVROXWLRQLPDJH7KHLPDJHLV

UHVDPSOHGRQWKH,&&,&3LQWRHLWKHUEODFNDQGZKLWH% :RUJUD\VFDOHDWDSXUSRUWHG

UHVROXWLRQRIGRWVSHULQFKGSLGHSHQGLQJXSRQWKHMXULVGLFWLRQ¶VSUHIHUHQFHV

2QO\ DIWHU WKLVSURFHVV LV WKH EDOORW LPDJH SDVVHG WR WKH 'RPLQLRQ VRIWZDUH WR DQDO\]H

DXWKHQWLFDWHDQGWKHQFRXQWWKHFRQWHVWVHOHFWLRQVWKURXJKDVRIWZDUHFRQWUROOHGSURFHVV

ZKLFKGLJLWDOO\FRPSDUHVWKDWHOHFWURQLFEDOORWLPDJHZLWKDSUHGHWHUPLQHG³PDS´RIYRWH

FKRLFHORFDWLRQVWRLGHQWLI\YRWHPDUNVZLWKLQWKRVHSUHGHWHUPLQHGEDOORWYRWHFKRLFHDUHDV

HDFKRIZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGWRDXQLTXHPDFKLQHLGHQWLILHU,'ZLWKLQWKHHOHFWLRQSURMHFW

VRIWZDUH GDWDEDVH VR WKDW GHWHFWHG PDUNV YRWHV DUH WDEXODWHG LQ WKH GDWDEDVH DQG

FRUUHODWHG ZLWK YRWH FKRLFHV SHU EDOORW UDFH LVVXH RU PHDVXUH 7KH FDSDELOLWLHV RI WKH

VFDQQHU KDUGZDUH LWVHOI KDYH YHU\ PLQLPDO HIIHFW RQ WKH UHVXOWLQJ EDOORW LPDJH WKDW LV

WDEXODWHGE\WKH'RPLQLRQVRIWZDUH7KH,&&DQG,&3IXQFWLRQDQGSURFHVVDEDOORWLPDJH

LQ VXEVWDQWLDOO\ IXQFWLRQDOO\ LGHQWLFDO PDQQHU DV  FRQILUPHG E\ D IRUPHU 'RPLQLRQ

HPSOR\HHIDPLOLDUZLWKWKHWZRWDEXODWLRQV\VWHPV

7KH³3ULQWWR)LW´,VVXH:DV1RW,VRODWHGWRWKH2NL%2'3ULQWHUV

 7KHSURSHUIXQFWLRQLQJRI%2'SULQWHUVGXULQJDQHOHFWLRQLVYLWDOWR0DULFRSD¶V

9RWH &HQWHU PRGHO DQG SUHHOHFWLRQ WHVWLQJ RI ERWK (3ROOERRNV DQG %2' SULQWHUV LV



Appx0078
UHTXLUHGE\WKH(307KHUHIRUHWKRURXJKSUHHOHFWLRQWHVWLQJRIDOO%2'SULQWHUVPXVW

EHFRQGXFWHGWRHQVXUHPD[LPXPHIILFLHQF\ DQGDFFXUDF\RIDOOFRPSRQHQWV0DULFRSD

KDVDSSUR[LPDWHO\%2'SULQWHUV$SSUR[LPDWHO\RIWKRVHDUHWKH2.,PRGHO%

DQGDUHWKH/H[PDUNPRGHO&7KH2.,PRGHOPDNHVXSDERXWRIWKHSULQWHU

LQYHQWRU\DQGLVWKHPRVWZLGHO\XVHGSULQWHUGXULQJ(OHFWLRQ'D\

6PDOO7HVWLQJ6DPSOHV:HUH,QDGHTXDWH<HW6KRZHG8QPLWLJDWHG3UREOHPV

 7KHUHSRUWWKHQVWDWHVZLWKRXWFLWDWLRQ³EXWWKHDFWXDOEDOORWSDJHZDVFOHDUDQGQRW

GDPDJHG DV WR WKH EDOORW¶V RYHUDOO LQWHJULW\ 7KH FHQWUDO FRXQW WDEXODWRU VXFFHVVIXOO\

FRXQWHGDOOEDOORWVDVGLGDQRQVLWHWDEXODWRU´7KHUHSRUW¶VSUH*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQWHVWLQJ

PHQWLRQVDQRQVLWHWDEXODWRUKRZHYHUWKHSUH3ULPDU\WHVWLQJGRHVQRWPHQWLRQWHVWLQJ

WKH RQVLWH WDEXODWRUV )URP WKH SUH3ULPDU\ VHFWLRQ ³7KH FHQWUDO FRXQW WDEXODWRU

VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRXQWHG DOO WKH EDOORWV « $QG GXULQJ WKH SULPDU\ HOHFWLRQ WKH RQVLWH

WDEXODWRUVGLGVXFFHVVIXOO\SURFHVVPRUHWKDQEDOORWV´)RRWQRWHWZHOYHUHYHDOV

VHYHUDOLVVXHV2QHLVWKDWWKHRQVLWHWDEXODWRUVZHUHQRWWHVWHG³A suggestion of a problem

did occur during early voting in the primary. %DOORWVIURPHDUO\YRWLQJDUHUHWXUQHGWRWKH

0&7(&LQHQYHORSHVUHPRYHGE\ELSDUWLVDQWHDPVRIZRUNHUVDQGWDEXODWHGRQFHQWUDO

HTXLSPHQW Some of the workers noted flaking or speckling on some ballots and brought it


SS

SS



Appx0079
to the attention of supervisors. Because the central tabulators read all ballots, however,

the issue was not regarded as affecting the ability to count all ballots and no testing was

done using on-site tabulators. :KHWKHU VXFK WHVWLQJ ZRXOG KDYH GHWHFWHG WKH SUREOHP

H[SHULHQFHG RQ JHQHUDO HOHFWLRQ GD\ FDQQRW QRZ EH GHWHUPLQHG ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK 0&('

SHUVRQQHO´

 0DULFRSD&RXQW\RIILFLDOVUHIHUUHGWRFHQWUDOFRXQWWDEXODWRUV,&&EHLQJDEOHWR

SURSHUO\VFDQGHIHFWLYH%2'EDOORWVZKLFKWKH,&3VFDQQHUVZHUHXQDEOHWRSURSHUO\VFDQDQG

DWWULEXWHWKLVDELOLW\WRWKH,&&EHLQJPRUHSRZHUIXOFRPSDUHGWRWKH,&37KHWDEOHEHORZ

VKRZVWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIHUURUFRXQWVIURP,&&VDW0&7(&GXULQJWKHJHQHUDOHOHFWLRQ

7DE7\SH (UURU7\SH (UURU&QW

(' %DFN3DJH*ULG(UURU 
(' 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G7RS6LGH(UURU 
(' %DOORW,G1RW,Q'DWDEDVH 
(' )URQW3DJH*ULG(UURU 
(' 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G%RWWRP6LGH(UURU 
8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G6WRSSHG6FDQQLQJDV
(' 0LVUHDG 
(' 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G,PDJH(UURU 
(9 %DFN3DJH*ULG(UURU 
(9 )URQW3DJH*ULG(UURU 
(9 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G%RWWRP6LGH(UURU 
(9 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G7RS6LGH(UURU 
(9 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G,PDJH(UURU 
8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G6WRSSHG6FDQQLQJDV
(9 0LVUHDG 
(9 8QNQRZQ 
(9 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G2WKHU 
8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G6WRSSHG6FDQQLQJDV
35 0LVUHDG 
35 %DFN3DJH*ULG(UURU 
35 )URQW3DJH*ULG(UURU 


5HSRUWSJIRRWQRWH>,WDOLFL]HGIRUHPSKDVLV@



Appx0080
 35 8QUHFRJQL]DEOH%DOORW,G7RS6LGH(UURU 
  


 7KH(30VWDWHVLQVHFWLRQ³(UURUV'LVFRYHUHG'XULQJ7HVWLQJ´WKDWDQ³HUURUOHVVFRXQW

VKDOOEHPDGH´EHIRUHV\VWHPVDUHDSSURYHGIRUXVHLQHOHFWLRQV,WDOVRVWDWHVWKDWDOO

HUURUVRUIDLOXUHVPXVWEHUHSRUWHGWRWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWH7KHWHVWVWKDWZHUHFRQGXFWHG

RQ2FWREHUWKRUWKKDYHPDVVLYHIDLOXUHVHYHQWKRXJKWKHWHVWLQFOXGHGRQO\DQ

DYHUDJHRIQLQHEDOORWV2YHUKDOIRIWKHYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUVIDLOHGWKHPLVIHHG

UHTXLUHPHQW7KHUHVXOWLQJGHWDLOVDUHOLVWHGLQ([KLELW

 7KHUHZHUHRWKHULVVXHVZLWKWKH/ $WHVWV0DULFRSD&RXQW\SURYLGHGWDEXODWRUSROO

WDSHVDQGFKHFNOLVWVSXUSRUWHGO\IRU/ $WHVWLQJIRUWKH*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQVHH

([KLELW$SROOWDSHLVOLNHDFDVKUHJLVWHU¶VSDSHUUHFHLSWEXWIRUDWDEXODWRULWUHFRUGV



Appx0081
 WKHLGHQWLW\DQGWLPHWDJJHGVWDWXVDQGDFWLYLW\RIWKHWDEXODWRU2QHSROOWDSHLVSULQWHG

EHIRUHWKHSROOVRSHQFDOOHGD³]HURWDSH´ZKLFKVKRZVWKDWHDFKVSHFLILFDOO\LGHQWLILHG

PDFKLQHKDVFRXQWHG]HUREDOORWVDQGLVFRQILJXUHGZLWKDVSHFLILFVRIWZDUHYHUVLRQ$

VHFRQGSROOWDSHRQHFDOOHGDSROO³FORVLQJWDSH´LVSULQWHGDIWHUWKHSROOVFORVHQRUPDOO\

RQHOHFWLRQQLJKWH[FHSWIRUWKRVHSULQWHGGXULQJ/ $WHVWLQJDQGVKRZVWKHQXPEHURI

YRWHVWDEXODWHGIRUHDFKFDQGLGDWHRUVHOHFWLRQIRUHYHU\FRQWHVWLVVXHDQGPHDVXUHIURP

DOOEDOORWVVFDQQHGDQGWDEXODWHGRQWKDWVSHFLILFWDEXODWRU([KLELWKLJKOLJKWVVHYHUDO

LVVXHV)LUVWWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIEDOORWVWHVWHGLVRQO\$VGHILQHGHDUOLHUHDFKWDEXODWRU

LVUHTXLUHGWREHWHVWHGZLWKDPLQLPXPRIEDOORWVIRU/ $6HFRQGE\FXWWLQJWKH

WDSHVVKRUWWKHVHULDOQXPEHUGDWHWLPHVWDPSVRIWZDUHYHUVLRQSROOZRUNHUFHUWLILFDWLRQ

DQGSURWHFWLYHFRXQWHUQXPEHUVDUHDOOPLVVLQJZLWKRXWWKHVHGDWDHOHPHQWVWKHYHUDFLW\

RIWKHSROOWDSHFDQQRWDQGVKRXOGQRWEHDVVXPHG±LW¶VOLNHDGULYHU¶VOLFHQVHZLWKQR

QDPHRULVVXHGDWH7KHUHLVQRWKLQJVKRZQRQWKHWDSHVZKLFKFDQDVVRFLDWHDJLYHQSROO

WDSHWRDVSHFLILFWDEXODWRU1HDUO\DOOWKHWDSHVSURGXFHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\LQUHVSRQVH

WRWKH355DUHVLPLODUO\LQFRPSOHWH

 7KHWDSHVSURYLGHGLQUHVSRQVHWRD355IRU/ $WHVWLQJUHFRUGVVKRZHGDWHVWZKLFKZDV

SXUSRUWHGO\FRQGXFWHGIURP2FWREHUWKWKZKLFKZDVQRW/ $WHVWLQJ7KHRQO\GDWH

DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHWDSHVZDVRQWKHDFFRPSDQ\LQJFKHFNOLVWVDVWKHSROOWDSHVZHUHDOOFXW

VKRUWDVVKRZQLQ([KLELW6WUDQJHO\DQRWKHUVHWRILQFRPSOHWHWDSHVZDVDOVRSURYLGHG

IRULQVSHFWLRQLQUHVSRQVHWRWKHVDPH355DQGQHDUO\DOOKDGWKHVDPHVHDOVHULDOQXPEHUV

DVWKRVHIURPWKHILUVW³WHVW´7KHFRUUHVSRQGLQJSROOWDSHVHDFKVKRZHGRQO\RU

EDOORWVFDVW3ROOWDSHVGRQ¶WUHIOHFWWKHQXPEHURIPLVUHDGVQRUWKHQXPEHURIEDOORWV



Appx0082
 UHMHFWHGEXWWKHWDEXODWRUV\VWHPORJVUHYHDOHGHUURUVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKRVHJHQHUDWHGRQ

(OHFWLRQ'D\GXHWRERWK%2'SULQWHUSUREOHPV

´)LWWRSULQWLVVXHZDVDQLQWHQWLRQDOPDOLFLRXVDFW

 'XULQJWKH/DNHY+REEVFDVHHYLGHQWLDU\KHDULQJWHVWLPRQ\ZKHQTXHVWLRQHGDERXW

LVVXHVRQHOHFWLRQGD\ZLWKEDOORWRQGHPDQGSULQWHUV6FRWW-DUUHWWWHVWLILHG³$IHZRIWKH

RWKHULWHPVWKDWZH¶YHLGHQWLILHGWKRXJKDVIDUDVRXUEDOORWRQGHPDQGSULQWHUVZHGLG

LGHQWLI\WKUHHGLIIHUHQWORFDWLRQVWKDWKDGDILWWRSDSHUVHWWLQJWKDWZDVDGMXVWHGRQ

(OHFWLRQ'D\6RWKRVHZHUHDWRXU-RXUQH\&KXUFKLQDQRUWK*OHQGDOH3HRULDDUHDWKDW

KDGDERXWRUDOLWWOHRYHUEDOORWVKDGWKDWVHWWLQJRQLWRXWRIDERXWEDOORWV

YRWHGDWWKDWYRWLQJORFDWLRQ7KDWZRXOGEHWKHVDPHZLWKRXU*DWHZD\)HOORZVKLS

FKXUFKZKLFKLVDQHDVW0HVDYRWLQJORFDWLRQ7KDWKDGDERXWEDOORWVRXWRIMXVWVK\

RIEDOORWVYRWHGDWWKHYRWLQJORFDWLRQ$QGWKHQZHKDG/'6FKXUFK/DNHVKRUHLQ

WKHKHDUWRI7HPSHWKDWKDGDERXWEDOORWVRXWRI´-DUUHWWGHVFULEHVWKH´

LPDJHRQ´SDSHUDV³ILWWRSDSHU´LVVXH-DUUHWWVWDWHGWKDWWKHLVVXH³ZDVGXHWRRXU

WHPSRUDU\WHFKQLFLDQVZKHQWKH\ZHUHWU\LQJWRLGHQWLI\VROXWLRQVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\

DGMXVWLQJDVHWWLQJ´6R-DUUHWW¶VWHVWLPRQ\LPSOLHVWKDWWKLVILWWRSDSHULVVXHZDVOLPLWHG

LQVFRSHDQGZDVFDXVHGE\7WHFKVWURXEOHVKRRWLQJWKHVSHFNOHGEDOORWLVVXH7KLV

DVVHVVPHQWKDVVHYHUDOLQFRQVLVWHQFLHV


&9

3J/LQHV

3J/LQHV

³7WHFKV´DUH³WHPSRUDU\WHFKQLFDOZRUNHUV´DVGHVFULEHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\RIILFLDOVDQG
GHVFULEHGLQWKH0F*UHJRU5HSRUWKLUHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\WRDPRQJRWKHUUHVSRQVLELOLWLHV


Appx0083
  +RZHYHUWKHLQYHVWLJDWLYHUHSRUWVWDWHVWKLVLVDUDQGRPRFFXUUHQFH³'XULQJRXUWHVWLQJ

IRXUSULQWHUVUDQGRPO\SULQWHGRQHRUDIHZ³ILWWRSDJH´EDOORWVLQWKHPLGGOHRISULQWLQJD

EDWFKRIEDOORWV´3ULRUWRWKLVUHYHODWLRQLWZDVVWDWHGWKDW³:HFRXOGQRWGHWHUPLQH

ZKHWKHUWKLVFKDQJHUHVXOWHGIURPDWHFKQLFLDQDWWHPSWLQJWRFRUUHFWWKHSULQWLQJLVVXHV

WKHPRVWSUREDEOHVRXUFHRIFKDQJHRUDSUREOHPLQWHUQDOWRWKHSULQWHUV´7KHUHLVQR

PHQWLRQRIKRZWKH\WULHGWRGHWHUPLQHFDXVHRIWKH³ILWWRSDJH´LVVXH7KHUHSRUWRQO\

PHQWLRQVZKHQWKHLVVXHRFFXUUHGGXULQJWKHLUWHVWLQJWKDW³1RQHRIWKHWHFKQLFDOSHRSOH

ZLWKZKRPZHVSRNHFRXOGH[SODLQKRZRUZK\WKDWHUURURFFXUUHG´7KHUHSRUWGLGQRW

LGHQWLI\DQ\FDXVHIRUWKHUDQGRPSULQWLQJRIPLVFRQILJXUHGEDOORWV

 -DUUHWWWHVWLILHGWKDWWHFKVKDGPDGHFKDQJHVDQGFDXVHGWKHLVVXH7KHUHZHUHQR

WURXEOHVKRRWLQJFKDQJHVPDGHGXULQJWKHLQYHVWLJDWLYHWHVWLQJ7KHUHDUHQRVHWWLQJVDWHFK

RUDQ\RQHFRXOGPDNHRQWKHSULQWHUWRPDNHUDQGRPL]HGVL]HFKDQJHVWRDSULQWHU,IWKLV

LVSXUHO\DUDQGRPHUURUFDXVHGLQWHUQDOO\E\WKHSULQWHULWLVHLWKHUDVRIWZDUHEXJRU

H[WUHPHO\UDUHKDUGZDUHLVVXH7KHVRIWZDUHEXJZRXOGKDYHWKHPRVWOLNHOLKRRG

+RZHYHUWKHUHDUHQREXJIL[HVRUSDWFKHVOLVWHGE\WKHYHQGRU$SDWFKRUEXJIL[ZRXOG

PRVWOLNHO\H[LVWDVWKLVZRXOGDIIHFWHYHU\2NLSULQWHURIWKLVW\SH7KLVUDQGRPQHVVVWLOO

GRHVQRWKROGZDWHUDVIRRWQRWHLQWKHUHSRUWUHYHDOVWKDWWKLV³ILWWRSDJH´LVVXH

RFFXUUHGZLWKERWK2NLDQG/H[PDUNSULQWHUV,WLVLPSRVVLEOHWRKDYHWKHVDPH

UDQGRPO\RFFXUULQJLVVXHRQWZRGLIIHUHQWW\SHVPRGHOVDQGPDQXIDFWXUHUVRISULQWHUV

VHWXSDQGWHVW%2'SULQWHUVDWYRWHFHQWHUVDQGUHVSRQGWRWHFKQLFDOSUREOHPVZKLFKDULVH
GXULQJHOHFWLRQV

5HSRUW3JVHFRQGSDUDJUDSK

5HSRUWSJ



Appx0084
 7KHRQO\FDXVHRIWKLVLVHUURQHRXVFRGHPDOZDUHRUUHPRWHFRQILJXUDWLRQFKDQJHV

'XULQJKLVWHVWLPRQ\6FRWW-DUUHWWVWDWHGWKDWWKHILWWRSULQWLVVXHRFFXUUHGEHFDXVHWWHFKV

DGMXVWHGDSULQWHUVHWWLQJZKLOHWURXEOHVKRRWLQJWKH³VSHFNOHGEDOORW´LVVXHDWWKUHH

ORFDWLRQV+LVWHVWLPRQ\LVLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDOODYDLODEOHHYLGHQFHLQFOXGLQJWKH

0F*UHJRU5HSRUW¶VDGPLVVLRQWKDWVRPHRIWKHLUUDQGRPO\VHOHFWHGSULQWHUVUDQGRPO\

SULQWHG´EDOORWLPDJHVGXULQJWHVWLQJIRUXQNQRZQUHDVRQVDWXQSUHGLFWDEOHWLPHVDQG

LQWHUYDOVDQGWKHSULQWHUPDQXIDFWXUHU¶VWHFKQLFDOGDWDZKLFKLQGLFDWHVQRVHWWLQJRU

FRPELQDWLRQRIVHWWLQJZKLFKZRXOGDOORZRUFRXOGFDXVHWHFKQLFLDQVHWWLQJVDGMXVWPHQWV

WRFDXVHWKHSULQWLQJRI´EDOORWLPDJHVRQ´SDSHUPXFKOHVVIRUWKRVHVHWWLQJVWR

FDXVHRUDOORZWKHUDQGRPXQSUHGLFWDEOHSULQWLQJRIWKRVH´EDOORWLPDJHV7KH

0F*UHJRU5HSRUW¶VDGPLVVLRQWKDWWKH³ILWWRSULQW´LVVXHDURVHLQERWK2NLDQG/H[PDUN

SULQWHUVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\SUHFOXGHVWKHSRVVLELOLW\WKDWWKHLVVXHUHVXOWHGIURPDQRQSULQWHU

VHWWLQJRQWKH2NLSULQWHUVDQGWKDWWKHLVVXHZDVFDXVHGE\WHFKQLFLDQVWURXEOHVKRRWLQJ

WKHLVVXHRQ2NLSULQWHUV%HFDXVHWKHWZRSULQWHUVXVHGLIIHUHQWKDUGZDUHDQGVRIWZDUH

DQGEHFDXVHWKHLVVXHRFFXUUHG³UDQGRPO\´DQGXQSUHGLFWDEO\WKHPRVWOLNHO\FDXVHLVD

VRIWZDUHFRQWUROH[WHUQDOWRDOOWKHSULQWHUVIRUH[DPSOHHLWKHUPDOZDUHRUXQDXWKRUL]HG

FRQILJXUDWLRQRUVRIWZDUHRQWKH6LWH%RRNV7KDWSRVVLELOLW\ZDVQRWLQYHVWLJDWHGQRU

HYLGHQWO\DSSDUHQWWRRUFRQVLGHUHGE\WKH0F*UHJRU5HSRUWWHDPZKLFKFRPSOHWHO\

ODFNHGWKHF\EHUH[SHUWLVHQHFHVVDU\IRUVXFKDQLQYHVWLJDWLRQ

 %RWKWKH0F*UHJRUUHSRUWDQG0DULFRSD&RXQW\RIILFLDOVKDYHDGPLWWHGWKDWWKH³ILWWR

SULQW´´LPDJHRQ´SDSHUDIIHFWHGEDOORWVFRXOGQRWEHWDEXODWHGRQHLWKHUWKH,&&

RU,&3ZKLFKEHJVWKHTXHVWLRQRIEDOORWGXSOLFDWLRQ$VWKHH[SHUWZKRLQVSHFWHGWKH

EDOORWVIRUWKHSODLQWLIILQWKHWULDO,ZDVDOORZHGWRLQVSHFWWKHRULJLQDOEDOORWVZKLFKZHUH



Appx0085
 VXSSRVHGO\GXSOLFDWHGVRDVWRDOORZWKHLUPDFKLQHWDEXODWLRQKRZHYHU,ZDVQRW

SURYLGHGDQ\RIWKHGXSOLFDWHEDOORWV

 'XULQJWKHWULDOHYLGHQWLDU\KHDULQJ,ZDVDVNHGLIGXSOLFDWHGEDOORWVFRXOGEHGXSOLFDWHG

,UHVSRQGHG³,IWKH\DUHGXSOLFDWHGFRUUHFWO\DQGWKH\DUHFRQILJXUHGFRUUHFWO\\HV«´

+RZHYHUGXULQJP\LQVSHFWLRQRIWKHEDOORWVWKHSUHFHGLQJGD\,DVNHG-DUUHWWZKHUHWKH

GXSOLFDWHGEDOORWVZHUH-DUHWWUHVSRQGHGLQZRUGVRUVXEVWDQFHWKDW³,FDQ¶WSURGXFHWKRVH

WKLQJVULJKWQRZLWZRXOGWDNHPHRYHUDZHHNZLWKDOOP\WHFKV´%HFDXVH,ZDVQHYHU

SURYLGHGWKHGXSOLFDWHGEDOORWV,UHTXHVWHG,KDGDQGKDYHKDGQRZD\RINQRZLQJLIWKH

RULJLQDOEDOORWVZHUHGXSOLFDWHGDWDOOOHWDORQHGXSOLFDWHGDFFXUDWHO\OHWDORQHWDEXODWHG

DQGFRXQWHG

 6FRWW-DUUHWW¶VWHVWLPRQ\LQGLFDWLQJDOLPLWHGVFRSHRIWKUHHYRWHFHQWHUVDQG´

EDOORWVLVIDOVH7KHUHDUHIDUPRUHWKDQWKUHHYRWHFHQWHUVWKDWH[SHULHQFHG´EDOORW

LPDJHVEHLQJSULQWHGRQ´EDOORWSDSHU$OORIWKHVL[VLWHVIRUZKLFK,LQVSHFWHGEDOORWV

KDGLQVWDQFHVRI´EDOORWLPDJHVDQG-DUUHWW¶VWKUHHVLWHOLVWRQO\VKDUHGRQHVLWHZLWK

P\VL[VLWHOLVW-DUUHWW¶VDGPLVVLRQDQGP\SHUVRQDOLQVSHFWLRQFRQILUPDWOHDVWHLJKW

VLWHV7KHUDWHVRIRFFXUUHQFHRI´EDOORWLPDJHLVVXHVDQGQXPEHURIDIIHFWHGVLWHV

LPSO\DFRQVHUYDWLYHHVWLPDWHRIRUPRUH(OHFWLRQ'D\EDOORWVDIIHFWHGE\WKH´

EDOORWLPDJHLVVXH

 )RUH[DPSOHWKH9LFWRU\&KXUFKRQHRIWKHYRWHFHQWHUVEDOORWV,LQVSHFWHGFRQWDLQHGWKH

RULJLQDOVRIGXSOLFDWHV,UHFRUGHGWZRRIWKRVHQXPEHUVGRZQLQP\QRWHVLQFDVHQHHGHG

DWWULDO7KH\ZHUH'83DQG'839LDD355ZHDFTXLUHGDQ,WHPL]HG

'XSOLFDWLRQOLVWLGHQWLI\LQJWKHEDWFKHVRIEDOORWVGXSOLFDWHG,ZDVDEOHWRORFDWHWKHEDWFK

P\VDPSOHZDVGUDZQIURP,GUHZIURPDEDWFKRIEDOORWV



Appx0086
 
2XWRIWKH,GUHZZHUHWKH´LPDJHDQGRQHZDVVOLJKWO\WRUQ6RWKHVDPSOHVHW

ZDVGUDZQDWUDQGRPDQGZHUH´EDOORWLPDJHV7KHVDPSOHVHWLVMXVWRIRI

WKHWRWDOEDWFK7KHSUREDELOLW\LVKLJKWKDWZLWKLQWKLVEDWFKRIEDOORWVDORQHWKHUHDUH

PRUH´EDOORWV7KHUHZHUHPRUHGRRUEDOORWVWKDQWKHJLYHQE\0DULFRSDDOO

SURYHQE\DQDO\VLVRIWKHGDWDIURPWKHPXOWLSOH355UHTXHVWV

 &RXQW\RIILFLDOVDQQRXQFHGVRPHWLPHGXULQJ(OHFWLRQ'D\WKDWWKHUHPHG\RUWHPSRUDU\

IL[IRUWKHLVVXHZDVWRVHWDOOWKHWUD\VHWWLQJVIRU³PHGLDZHLJKW´WR³+HDY\´7KLVH[FXVH

GRHVQRWPDNHVHQVH+RZHYHUWKH0DULFRSD%2'5HSRUWDOVRPHQWLRQHGWKDWWKH³PHGLD

W\SH´VKRXOGEHFKDQJHGIURP³SODLQ´WR³FDUGVWRFN´0\WHDPZDVDEOHWRGXSOLFDWHWKH

VSHFNOHGHUURUVGXULQJEHQFKPDUNWHVWLQJDQGFRQILUPHGERWKVHWWLQJVFRPELQHGPXVWEH

VHWDSSURSULDWHO\7KHUHZHUHRWKHUVHWWLQJVZHGLVFRYHUHGVXFKDV(&2PRGHEHLQJRQ

(&20RGHDOORZVSULQWLQJWREHJLQEHIRUHWKHIXVHUUHDFKHVWKHVHWWHPSHUDWXUH:H

UHOLDEO\UHSHDWHGWKHVSHFNOHGEDOORWZLWK(&2PRGHDQGDPLQLPXPWLPHLQWHUYDORI

VHFRQGV$UHYLHZRI0DULFRSD&RXQW\¶VSULQWHUVHWWLQJVIRUWKH1RYHPEHU*HQHUDO

(OHFWLRQKDVUHYHDOHGWKDW(&20RGHZDVLQIDFWHQDEOHGRQDOOWKH2NL%SULQWHU



Appx0087
 FRQILJXUDWLRQUHFRUGVSURYLGHGE\0DULFRSD&RXQW\

 7KHZHLJKWVDQGWUD\VHOHFWLRQZHUHRWKHUDUHDVZHUHWKHVHWWLQJVZHUHLQFRUUHFW,QIDFW

WKH2.,XVHU¶VPDQXDOFRQWUDGLFWVWKHLQYHVWLJDWLYHUHSRUW7KHSULQWHUZDVQRWSXVKHGWR

H[WUHPHOLPLWV7KHSULQWHUZDVSXVKHGSDVWLWVFDSDELOLWLHVDQGOLPLWV'XSOH[SULQWLQJWKH

SDSHUZHLJKWVKRXOGQHYHUH[FHHGOEVHH([KLELW

 7KHSULQWHU(UURU0HVVDJHV6KRXOGKDYH$OHUWHG77HFKV'XULQJRXUEHQFKPDUNWHVWZH

ZHUHJLYHQHUURUVZKHQWU\LQJWRFRQILJXUHWKHSULQWHUVEH\RQGWKHLUFDSDELOLWLHV7KHVH

ZDUQLQJVDUHLPSRVVLEOHWRPLVV7KH\VKRXOGKDYHEHHQGHWHFWHGGXULQJFRQILJXUDWLRQDQG

LQLWLDOWHVWLQJDVZHOODVGXULQJDQ\VXEVHTXHQWWURXEOHVKRRWLQJE\WWHFKV



Appx0088
(UURU5DWHV

 7KH0DULFRSD%2'5HSRUWGLVFXVVHGWKHGLIIHUHQFHVLQHUURUUDWHVEHWZHHQWKH2NL

SULQWHUV+RZHYHU2NLDQG/H[PDUNSULQWHUVERWKH[SHULHQFHGWKH³ILWWRSDJH´LVVXH

0DULFRSD&RXQW\¶VHOHFWLRQKRWOLQHFDOOORJYLGHRHYLGHQFHDQG*ROGHQURGUHSRUWV

LGHQWLI\LQVWDQFHVRIWKH³ILWWRSDJH´LVVXHDWYRWHFHQWHUVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\2QH

H[DPSOHLV*DWHZD\)HOORZVKLS&KXUFKZKLFKRQO\KDG/H[PDUNSULQWHUV

 

7KH7WHFKVH[FKDQJHWH[WVVHHER[XSSHUOHIWFRUQHURIILJXUHDQGVHOHFWVWKH³8VHIXOO

SULQWDEOHDUHD´DQGWKHPLVUHDGHUURUVJRDZD\



Appx0089
 0DULFRSD&RXQW\¶VFODLPWKDWWKHODWHDIWHUQRRQIL[HVUHVROYHGWKHLVVXHVLVLQFRUUHFW7KH

JUDSKEHORZVKRZVWKRXVDQGVRIIDOVHSDSHUMDPHUURUVODVWLQJDOPRVWDOOGD\IURP

DPWRSP

 (OHFWLRQ'D\VKRZHGDZLGHVSUHDGFRQWLQXRXVSDWWHUQRI,&3VFDQQHUEDOORWLQVHUW

IDLOXUHV.7KHUHZDVDQDYHUDJHRIEDOORWLQVHUWIDLOXUHVHYHU\PLQXWHVIURPDP



Appx0090
 WRSP


 7KHIROORZLQJFKDUWUHSUHVHQWVWKHDJJUHJDWHGYRWLQJFHQWHUWDEXODWRUV\VWHPORJGDWDIURP

PDFKLQHVXVHGWRVFDQEDOORWVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\8VLQJDWKUHVKROGRIPLVIHHGVRIRYHU

WZHQW\QHDUO\WKUHHIRXUWKVRURIDOOEDOORWVVFDQQHGRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\ZHUH

LQYROXQWDULO\UHMHFWHG$UDWHRIUHMHFWLRQZLOGO\IDLOV($&VWDQGDUGVZKLFKOLPLWWKH

VFDQQHUWDEXODWRUPDFKLQHHUURUVWRRU7KHH[WUDRUGLQDULO\KLJKWKUHVKROGRI

WLPHVKLJKHUWKDQWKH($&VWDQGDUGZDVFKRVHQWRLOOXVWUDWHWKHEUHDGWKDQG



Appx0091
 PDJQLWXGHRIWKHVHIDLOXUHV

 7KHUDQGRP³ILWWRSDJH´LVVXH ILQGLQJVRIWKH0DULFRSD%2'UHSRUW FRQWUDGLFWV 6FRWW

-DUUHWW¶VH[SODQDWLRQDQGWHVWLPRQ\FRQFHUQLQJWKHLVVXH 7KHUHSRUWV¶ODFNRIDFRQFOXVLRQ

IRUWKHUDQGRPRFFXUUHQFHGHPRQVWUDWHVWKDWWKHUHSRUWZDVLQFRPSOHWH7KHLPSRVVLELOLW\

RI WZRGLIIHUHQWSULQWHUPDQXIDFWXUHUV KDYLQJWKHVDPHLQWHUQDOPDOIXQFWLRQ UHHQIRUFHVWKH

FRQFOXVLRQWKDWWKHIDLOXUHVRIWKHSULQWHUVRQ(OHFWLRQ'D\ZDVDQLQWHQWLRQDODFW 7KH

LVVXHVIRUWKH´LPDJHDUH HLWKHUIURPPDOZDUHRUUHPRWHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQFKDQJHV7KHUH

DUH$UL]RQD(OHFWLRQ3URFHGXUH0DQXDOYLRODWLRQVGHDOLQJZLWKWHVWLQJSURFHGXUHV

GRFXPHQWDWLRQ/ $WHVWLQJZDVQRWSURSHUO\FRQGXFWHG $ IXOOIRUHQVLFDXGLWVKRXOGEH



Appx0092
 FRQGXFWHGRQDOOWKHYRWLQJV\VWHPFRPSRQHQWVLQYROYHGZLWKWKLVSDVW*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQ

WRLQFOXGHWKH6LWH%RRNV%2'SULQWHUVDQGFRQWUDFWRUHTXLSPHQW

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFW

([HFXWHGRQWKLVBBBBGD\RI0D\ s/ 
 &OD\83DULNK



Appx0093
([KLELW


Appx0094
 ([KLELW


Appx0095
([KLELW


Appx0096
([KLELW


Appx0097
([KLELW


Appx0098
([KLELW


Appx0099
([KLELW


Appx0100
([KLELW


Appx0101
([KLELW


Appx0102
([KLELW


Appx0103
([KLELW


Appx0104
([KLELW


Appx0105
([KLELW


Appx0106
([KLELW


Appx0107
([KLELW


Appx0108
([KLELW


Appx0109
([KLELW


Appx0110
([KLELW


Appx0111
 ([KLELW

JPFRQYHUWVWRDGXSOH[SULQWLQJFDSDFLW\OLPLWRISRXQGSDSHU



Appx0112
([KLELW


Appx0113
 







y,//d
Appx0114
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

3 - - -

4 KARI LAKE, )
)
5 Contestant/Plaintiff, ) CV2022-095403
)
6 - vs - )
)
7 KATIE HOBBS, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
8 capacity as Secretary of )
State; Stephen Richer in his )
9 official capacity as Maricopa )
County Recorder; Bill Gates, )
10 Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, )
Thomas Galvin, and Steve )
11 Gallardo, in their official )
capacities as members of the )
12 Maricopa County Board of )
Supervisors; Scott Jarrett, )
13 in his official capacity as )
Maricopa County Director of )
14 Elections; and the Maricopa )
County Board of Supervisors, )
15 )
Defendants/Contestees. )
16 _____________________________

17
December 21, 2022
18 Courtroom 206, Southeast Facility
Mesa, Arizona
19

20 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON, J.

21
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
22
BENCH TRIAL - DAY 1
23

24 Reported by:

25 Robin G. Lawlor, RMR, CRR, FCRR

Official Court Reporter No. 50851

Appx0115
 48

1 As I've informed this Court, my audio and

2 video specialist and I did come to this courtroom and

3 test our audio video equipment on this Court's system,

4 Your Honor, and we used a cable that was attached in

5 this desk here that is no longer present. Everything

6 functioned perfectly at that test, Your Honor. And so

7 we came today and that cable is gone and we're using a

8 different cable. It's my understanding the staff is

9 working with the technical side to try and fix what's

09:59:45 10 happening, but I wanted the Court to be aware that we

11 did do our due diligence and we come before this Court

12 to do that.

13 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blehm. Okay.

14 Who would be your next witness?

15 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, Plaintiffs would

16 call Mr. Jarrett.

17 THE COURT: All right. Sir, if you'll make

18 your way in front of my clerk, she will swear you in.

19 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT,

20 called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified

21 as follows:

22 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. If you would

23 just make your way over to the witness stand.

24 As soon as you're ready, Mr. Olsen, you may

25 proceed.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0116

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 49

1 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

2 DIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. OLSEN:

4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jarrett.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. Could you please state your full name for the

7 record?

8 A. Yeah, Robert Scott Jarrett.

9 Q. And what is your occupation?

10:01:05 10 A. I am the Co-Elections Director. I oversee

11 in-person voting and tabulation.

12 Q. How long have you held that position?

13 A. So I was appointed by the Board of Supervisors,

14 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, in June 2019.

15 Q. Okay. Can you please explain to the Court what

16 your role is in overseeing elections in that capacity?

17 A. Yeah. So I oversee all in-person voting

18 operations, which -- for that I actually report up to

19 both the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the

10:01:37 20 Recorder, so that would be the early in-person, as well

21 as the Election Day operations. That includes

22 recruitment and training of poll workers, that includes

23 our warehouse operations for distributing all materials

24 and supplies out to voting locations, and then I also

25 oversee all tabulation functions.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0117

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 50

1 Q. When you say it includes all tabulation

2 functions, what do you mean by that?

3 A. So that would include tabulation at our central

4 count facility, so where we had about 84 percent of the

5 early ballots come through and be tabulated at central

6 count. That would also include at our voting locations

7 where we have an on-site tabulator as well. So it would

8 include the programming of that equipment or the staff

9 that do the actual programming. I oversee them and

10:02:26 10 supervise them, as well as any of the tabulation that

11 happens on-site, so the poll workers and the training on

12 how they would assist voters as they are inserting their

13 ballots into those tabulators.

14 Q. And are you following the procedures set forth in

15 the 2019 Election Procedure Manual when you're

16 performing the tests of the tabulators prior to an

17 election?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. And would that -- would those procedures require

10:02:52 20 you to perform logic and accuracy testing?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And what is logic and accuracy testing?

23 A. So a logic and accuracy test, that is a two

24 different sets of tests for a federal or a statewide

25 election that requires that a test be performed by the

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0118

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 51

1 County itself as well as a test performed by the

2 Secretary of State. So I don't oversee the Secretary of

3 State's logic and accuracy test, I have to make the

4 equipment available for the Secretary of State's logic

5 and accuracy test. For the County's logic and accuracy

6 test, that is to run test ballots through; and for the

7 County's tests, it's thousands of test ballots through

8 our tabulation equipment, both the central count

9 tabulation equipment as well as the tabulation equipment

10:03:36 10 that would be used at the vote centers, to make sure

11 that they are accurately programmed to tabulate those

12 ballots.

13 Q. And when you say that to make sure that they are

14 accurately programmed to tabulate those ballots, what

15 are you referring to being programmed?

16 A. So for every election, we have to design a unique

17 election program to tabulate the specific ballot,

18 because each ballot is unique or specific to an

19 election. In Maricopa County, we had over 12,000

10:04:03 20 different ballot styles, and so -- and that were for all

21 the various different precincts that we have in Maricopa

22 County, as well as our early ballot style or provisional

23 ballot style, and our Election Day ballot style. So,

24 essentially, making sure that the tabulation equipment

25 will then be able to read a ballot and then be able to

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0119

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 52

1 determine how that -- if a voter fills in that ballot

2 that it will accurately count the votes for those

3 ballots.

4 Q. So it's very important for the tabulator to read

5 the ballots, that it would be properly programmed with

6 respect to the ballot definition, correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. And Maricopa County uses ballot on-demand

9 printers, correct?

10:04:47 10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And what is a ballot on-demand printer?

12 A. So a ballot on-demand printer, we have two

13 different ballot on-demand printers, one is a Lexmark

14 printer and one is an OKI printer, and those allow us at

15 our voting locations to print any one of those 12,000

16 ballot styles.

17 Q. Prior to performing logic and accuracy testing

18 prior to the 2022 General Election, did you perform, or

19 did your office perform logic and accuracy testing with

10:05:18 20 test ballots from ballot on-demand printers in the

21 precinct-based tabulators?

22 A. So, yes, we did. We printed ballots from our

23 ballot on-demand printers, and those were included in

24 the tests that the Secretary of State did. We also

25 performed stress testing before the logic and accuracy

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0120

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 53

1 tests with ballots printed from our ballot on-demand

2 printers that went through both central count tabulation

3 equipment as well as our precinct-based tabulators for

4 the voting locations.

5 Q. And how are those test ballots configured in

6 terms of the size of the ballot?

7 A. They were the exact same size of the ballot that

8 we were using in -- in the General Election.

9 Q. And what size was that, sir?

10:06:02 10 A. 20-inch ballot.

11 Q. 20-inch ballot.

12 What would happen if a ballot was printed out of

13 a ballot on-demand printer at the vote center if it was

14 printed with a 19-inch image on 20-inch paper and run

15 through the tabulator?

16 A. You need to be more specific with your question.

17 Q. So we talked about the ballot definition, and for

18 the 2022 General Election, Maricopa was operating with a

19 20-inch ballot image, correct?

10:06:47 20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And the tabulators at the vote center were

22 programmed for -- to accept and read a ballot with a

23 20-inch image, correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. What would happen if the ballot on-demand printer

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0121

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 54

1 printed out a 19-inch image on the 20-inch paper and ran

2 it through the tabulation?

3 A. We do not specifically test for that, because in

4 this specific election, because none of the ballots on

5 our ballot on-demand printers had a 19-inch ballot, they

6 all had a 20-inch ballot. So I can answer a question

7 about our testing related to the 20-inch ballot that was

8 installed on all of our ballot on-demand printers.

9 Q. If a 19-inch image was installed -- or strike

10:07:40 10 that. If a 19-inch ballot image was printed out on a

11 print -- a ballot on-demand printer and run through the

12 tabulation that was configured for the 2022 General

13 Election, would that tabulator accept that ballot or

14 reject it?

15 MR. LARUE: Objection, Your Honor. First,

16 this calls for speculation, and, second, I think the

17 witness just said he hasn't run that test. I don't --

18 THE COURT: I got your objection,

19 speculation, without speaking objection.

10:08:09 20 So, Mr. Jarrett, if you've understood the

21 question, you can answer it. If you haven't understood

22 the question, you can ask to have it rephrased; or if

23 you don't know, don't guess. Just tell us you don't

24 know.

25 So, do you want the question re-asked or

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0122

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 55

1 rephrased, sir, before you answer?

2 THE WITNESS: So I'm willing to say that I

3 don't know specifically for this 2020 Election. I know

4 based on my historical -- or the 2022 Election. I know

5 based on my historical knowledge, the timing marks on

6 the ballot matter, and it would need a 20-inch ballot to

7 run through that tabulation equipment; but we did not

8 specifically test a 19-inch ballot through the 2022

9 tabulation equipment because there was no 19-inch ballot

10:08:59 10 images installed on ballot on-demand printers.

11 BY MR. OLSEN:

12 Q. Prior to the 2022 General Election, did Maricopa

13 County employ a 19-inch ballot image?

14 A. Yes, we did.

15 Q. And when did Maricopa County employ a 19-inch

16 image just prior to the 2022 General Election?

17 A. The most recent election would be the August 2022

18 Primary Election.

19 Q. Did Maricopa County perform logic and accuracy

10:09:27 20 testing -- strike that.

21 What evidence exists that shows the results of

22 the logic and accuracy testing that you say was

23 performed in connection with the 2022 General Election?

24 A. So the stress testing, we have a report that

25 summarizes that stress testing that we performed of --

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0123

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 56

1 so I'm aware of that. That would be documentation. I

2 also know that the Secretary of State produces a

3 summary-level report for their testing that they

4 performed using those ballot on-demand printers, 20-inch

5 ballot on our precinct-based tabulators or vote center

6 tabulators.

7 Q. So if we were to issue a subpoena or a discovery

8 request, would your office be able to produce such

9 testing results?

10:10:24 10 A. I can produce them for the ones that -- Maricopa

11 County has that information, yes.

12 Q. Yes. Mr. Jarrett, I would like to introduce what

13 has been marked as Defendants' Exhibit 3 -- or excuse

14 me, 2 -- which is the 2022 Elections Plan. And it's up

15 on the screen, if you can see that.

16 A. I can see it.

17 Q. Is this a document that you oversaw the creation

18 of?

19 A. That's correct.

10:11:24 20 Q. And what's the purpose of this document, sir?

21 A. This purpose was to establish the guidance that

22 the Elections Department would use in carrying out the

23 August Primary Election and the November General

24 Election, and it is to present that information to the

25 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors so then they can

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0124

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 57

1 approve the plan, and then our team within the Elections

2 Department will implement that plan based on this

3 document.

4 Q. How much effort is put in by your office in

5 creating this plan?

6 A. Significant amount of effort.

7 Q. And why such a significant amount of effort?

8 A. Because carrying out elections in the second

9 largest voting jurisdiction with millions of different

10:12:12 10 voters and hundreds of different voting locations and

11 then tabulating millions of different ballots takes a

12 significant amount of planning and preparations.

13 Q. And part of that is because you want these

14 elections to go off without a hitch, all things

15 considered, correct?

16 A. I'd say there's no perfect election, but yes, to

17 minimize the issues and then be able to have redundancy

18 plans to be able to respond to those issues.

19 Q. I'd like to go to the page that's Bates stamped

10:12:46 20 last three digits 041, which is page 11 of the actual

21 document.

22 While we're doing that, sir, do you have any

23 reason to not believe that this is a true and accurate

24 copy of the 2022 Election Plan?

25 A. I have no reason to believe. I take your word

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0125

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 58

1 for that.

2 Q. And this is your counsel's production, so do you

3 have any reason to disbelieve?

4 A. No, I do not.

5 MR. OLSEN: And, Your Honor, at this time, I

6 would like to move to enter this exhibit into the

7 record.

8 THE COURT: Exhibit 2?

9 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

10:13:30 10 THE COURT: Any objection?

11 MS. KHANNA: No objection, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Exhibit 2 is admitted.

13 Thank you.

14 BY MR. OLSEN:

15 Q. Sir, at Bates number last three digits 041, which

16 is, again, page 11 of actual document, you'll see at the

17 top there's a section entitled: 2.0 - Forecasting

18 Turnout and Reducing Wait Times.

19 Do you see that?

10:13:56 20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. What is the purpose of forecasting turnout?

22 A. It is to guide us on resource planning to

23 determine how many poll workers we need to hire, how

24 many poll workers -- sorry -- not just poll workers, but

25 temporary workers that work at MCTEC, how much training

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0126

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 59

1 we need to provide, how many voting locations that we

2 need to identify and find, how many check-in stations

3 that we will need in each of our voting locations, how

4 much paper we need to procure. So all of those types of

5 information are based off the forecast.

6 Q. How much of an effort does your office place on

7 producing an accurate forecast in order to plan for the

8 election?

9 A. So every election is unique, so we go back to

10:14:43 10 historical elections, similar or like-type elections, to

11 try to identify how many people participate in those

12 different elections, because that's the best guidepost.

13 So usually it's the most recent-liked elections, so in

14 this case it would have been the 2018 Gubernatorial

15 Election or the 2014 Gubernatorial Election, but then we

16 also use other factors, other similar and close

17 elections, so the 2020 elections; differences in how a

18 -- the difference in the turnout between a gubernatorial

19 election and the subsequent presidential election, how

10:15:18 20 that impacts turnout. And then we also went back to

21 decades and decades of turnout rates and ranges to

22 identify.

23 So a significant amount of effort goes into

24 forecasting turnout.

25 Q. And is that performed -- is that analysis

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0127

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 60

1 performed in-house, or do you outsource it to, you know,

2 an outside?

3 A. It's performed in-house.

4 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you rely on

5 those forecasts in planning for the election, correct?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. And a significant amount of money is expended by

8 the County in reliance on this forecast, correct?

9 A. That's correct.

10:16:00 10 Q. And you generally trust those forecasts before

11 you promulgate them in this document, before you, you

12 know, go ahead and start actually undertaking actual

13 efforts to -- to manage the election?

14 A. We understand that they are forecasts.

15 Q. Correct.

16 A. So they are not exact, yes, but we use those

17 forecasts to make decisions.

18 Q. I'd like to turn to the page that is Bates

19 stamped last three digits 043, it's actually page 13 of

10:16:37 20 the actual document.

21 Do you see that, sir?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. Do you see where it says, The First Forecast

24 Model - 2022 November General Election?

25 A. I do.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0128

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 61

1 Q. And under 2022, projected voters for Election Day

2 turnout, the forecast was for 291,863, correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. And if we turn to the next page, Bates stamped

5 044, you'll see a second forecast model.

6 Do you see that, sir?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. And the projected turnout under the second

9 forecast model was a lower number of 251,615, correct?

10:17:26 10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Why did you do two forecast models?

12 A. Again, because you're looking at historical

13 elections, and variances can occur. So the first

14 forecast model looked at 2014 and 2018. My

15 recollection, 2014 was a historically low turnout year.

16 2018 was one of the higher turnout years. So we

17 expanded this model to look at more and broader number

18 of elections to include in that forecast model. So it

19 was the two combined, which gave us a guiding. And when

10:18:01 20 I look at this 251,615, we had 248,000 in-person voters

21 on Election Day, so very close.

22 Q. So this document was put out prior to the 2022

23 Primary Election, correct?

24 A. In May of 2022.

25 Q. And how was the turnout for the Election Day

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0129

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 62

1 turnout for the Primary for the 2022 Primary Election?

2 A. I don't remember the specific, but it was, I

3 think, right around 106 or 108,000, which was in line

4 with our turnout forecast for the August Primary as

5 well.

6 Q. And if we turn back to the page that's Bates

7 stamped, the preceding page 043, and you see the first

8 forecast model for the 2022 August Primary Election,

9 that's 108,080, correct?

10:19:10 10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And that's associated with the first forecast

12 model which was the higher turnout, correct?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. So the second forecast model, which had a lower

15 Election Day turnout for the Primary, was not the most

16 accurate, correct?

17 A. It was within the range of both. But, yes, this

18 first forecast model for the August Primary aligned

19 closer with the turnout for August or the in-person

10:19:49 20 turnout for the August Primary.

21 Q. Part -- did the forecast -- well, strike that.

22 You recall that there were issues with ballots

23 being rejected on November 8, 2022, in the Election Day,

24 correct?

25 A. I don't recall ballots -- issues with ballots

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0130

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 63

1 being rejected.

2 Q. Do you recall tabulators rejecting ballots at, at

3 least, 70 vote centers during Election Day?

4 A. Yes, I recall that there's about 70 voting

5 locations that we sent technicians out to change printer

6 settings at because our tabulators were not reading

7 those ballots in.

8 Q. Okay. And did -- did your forecast model for the

9 -- for the second forecast where you forecasted 251,615

10:20:55 10 Election Day turnout figures, do you see that?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Did that take into account the problems you just

13 mentioned in terms of the tabulators at 70 locations

14 having issues to reject ballots?

15 A. What is your specific question?

16 Q. So was the Election Day issues that we just

17 discussed, and by the County's own admission occurred at

18 70 vote centers, was that event factored into or an

19 event like it, factored into the second forecast model?

10:21:36 20 A. So, first, let me clarify. I didn't acknowledge

21 that there were 70 vote centers that had printer issues.

22 I acknowledged that we sent out 70 technicians to 70

23 voting locations.

24 Now, for this forecast was just based off of

25 prior historical models turnout. There was no analysis

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0131

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 64

1 to include if there was an issue on-site at any voting

2 location.

3 Q. So there was no analysis in the second forecast

4 model of 251,000 projected turnout that took into

5 account a disruption in the election on Election Day

6 November 8, 2022?

7 A. None of the forecast models include that type of

8 analysis.

9 Q. Okay. Would a disruption, such as what was

10:22:21 10 experienced -- I mean, would you agree with me there's a

11 disruption on November 8, 2022, in the election?

12 A. I would say that we had some printers that were

13 not printing some tiny marks on our ballots dark enough

14 to be read in by our tabulation equipment. Voters had

15 legal and ballot options to still be able to participate

16 within our voting locations, so I don't agree and would

17 not couch it as a disruption.

18 Q. So you don't believe that what happened on

19 November 8th was not a disruption in the election

10:22:53 20 process?

21 A. I do not couch it as that.

22 Q. Are you aware that Supervisor Gates came out on

23 Election Day and said 20 percent of all vote centers

24 were affected by these issues with ballots being

25 rejected by the tabulators?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0132

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 65

1 A. Again, we didn't have ballots rejected by

2 tabulators, they weren't being read in by tabulators;

3 but that's not a disruption when voters still had valid

4 options to participate in ballots in our Secure Door

5 Number 3, which is a similar process that eight other

6 counties use as their only option for voters to be able

7 to return their ballots.

8 Q. Sir, you're not answering my question. My

9 question isn't what other options existed for other

10:23:40 10 voters, my question is: Would you agree there's a

11 disruption of at least 20 percent of the vote centers in

12 Maricopa that caused delays in the voting process?

13 MR. LARUE: Objection, Your Honor. The

14 witness has already answered this question as to whether

15 he characterizes it as a disruption.

16 THE COURT: I'll overrule. If you can

17 answer it, you may, sir.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm not changing my response.

19 BY MR. OLSEN:

10:24:06 20 Q. Okay. Is it -- do you believe that -- did you

21 hear of any reports of wait times to vote of over

22 60 minutes?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. And what is the target wait time for in your --

25 in your model? Do you know?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0133

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 66

1 A. On average, a half an hour.

2 Q. Please turn to Bates number 047, that's page 17.

3 THE COURT: Still Exhibit 2, correct?

4 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 BY MR. OLSEN:

7 Q. Do you see the section entitled: Time Needed to

8 Vote a Ballot, Mr. Jarrett?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10:24:57 10 Q. And do you see the second paragraph under that

11 section where it says, "on average, we estimate that it

12 will take voters between 4.4 and 6.4 minutes to vote in

13 the 2022 Primary ballot and between 8.5 and 10.5 minutes

14 to vote the 2022 November General Election ballot"?

15 A. That's to complete and fill out the ballot.

16 Q. So is it your testimony then that 30 minutes is

17 the time allotted projected for a normal election to

18 enter into the vote center, cast your ballot and leave?

19 A. No. Our average was 30 minutes in line to check

10:25:42 20 in, and then to -- a few minutes to receive their

21 ballot, upwards of 8.5 to 10.5. So on the 2020 General

22 Election, 8.5 to 10.5 minutes to complete the ballot,

23 and there could be some time to then wait in line at the

24 tabulator to put in their ballot and feed it into a

25 tabulator.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0134

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 67

1 Q. Did you ever become aware of multiple reports at

2 various vote centers in Maricopa County where wait times

3 exceeded two hours?

4 A. Exceeded two hours, no.

5 Q. You were not aware of that?

6 A. Our data shows that we had some voting locations

7 approaching two hours, but not exceeding.

8 Q. Even at some locations approaching two hours,

9 would you consider that a disruption?

10:26:34 10 A. That's why we post wait times on our website,

11 which was highly publicized and advertised. And all of

12 those locations, we had close-by locations.

13 So, for example, Biltmore was approaching two

14 hours in the last hour of the voting day. With two

15 miles away at Faith Lutheran there was a voting location

16 that had a one-minute wait time, during that same time,

17 the longest time, that last hour of the day.

18 So there were options for voters to participate

19 even at those other voting locations.

10:27:06 20 Q. What are you basing your report, the accuracy of

21 the reported wait times on?

22 A. Information that poll workers returned to us, so

23 it's the number of voters in line at that point in time.

24 They report those every 15 minutes, and then we can

25 calculate the wait time based on how long it would take

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0135

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 68

1 someone to check in at a voting location.

2 Q. So if those poll workers were testifying under

3 oath of wait times over -- exceeding two hours at

4 multiple locations, how would that square with what the

5 County was reporting on its system? Are they just

6 mistaken or --

7 A. Saying people can make estimates, but unless they

8 are actually timing them they could be inaccurate. Our

9 wait times are based off exactly how long it takes a

10:27:57 10 voter to check in through that process and have a ballot

11 printed, and based off those numbers of voters that are

12 standing in line at that point in time.

13 Q. And how is that figure calculated? You say it's

14 based off that number, how do you calculate it?

15 A. Based off prior elections. So we can gauge how

16 long it takes a voter to get checked in, then we can

17 also see how many voters are checking in at a voting

18 location throughout the day.

19 Q. Okay. So you're basing the wait time calculation

10:28:24 20 on prior elections, not on what's actually happening on

21 scene at the day of election?

22 A. Based on how quickly a voter can check in through

23 that process, that's correct.

24 Q. Sir, I want to go back to the earlier question

25 about the 19-inch ballot image being placed on a 20-inch

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0136

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 69

1 paper.

2 Did you hear of any reports of that occurring in

3 the 2022 General Election?

4 A. I did not.

5 Q. Okay. If that occurred, would that be a failure

6 of Maricopa County's election process?

7 A. I'm not aware of it occurring, and I'd be

8 surprised if there was a ballot on a printer that had a

9 19-inch ballot on it.

10:29:21 10 Q. I understand that, sir.

11 A. And the reason why is we did not design a 2022

12 General Election on a 19-inch ballot. That ballot does

13 not exist. The only ballot that exists is a 20-inch

14 ballot.

15 Q. Okay. And when you say "we designed," who

16 designed the ballot? Is that outsourced to another

17 company, or is that done in-house by Maricopa?

18 A. In-house by Maricopa County staff.

19 Q. Who -- what department would that staff fall

10:29:47 20 under? Is there a specific name for it?

21 A. Our Ballot Tabulation Team, so reports to me.

22 Q. And do you maintain records as to the ballot

23 definition that was created for the 2022 General

24 Election?

25 A. Yes, we have records of all the ballots that were

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0137

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 70

1 designed.

2 Q. And so I'll go back to my question again.

3 If a 19-inch ballot image was put on a 20-inch

4 paper in the 2022 General Election, would that be a

5 failure of your election process?

6 A. It would -- if something like that happened,

7 which I don't know how it would, yes, it would have been

8 a mistake.

9 Q. Could that have also been a deliberate act?

10:30:41 10 A. Again, you're asking me to speculate about things

11 that I have no knowledge of occurring, so I don't know

12 if it could have been a deliberate act or not. I don't

13 believe that that occurred.

14 Q. How involved are you in creating the ballot

15 definition?

16 A. So my team does, and then I overview it, and I'll

17 review examples of those, yes.

18 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Jarrett. I don't

19 have any further questions at this time.

10:31:15 20 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

21 MR. LARUE: Your Honor, a quick clarifying

22 question as to how the Court would like us to proceed.

23 We intend to call Mr. Jarrett in our case in chief

24 tomorrow, and so if the Court would like me to reserve

25 all questions for him until tomorrow, we are happy to do

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0138

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT/CROSS 71

1 that. However, I would like to ask him a few questions

2 directed just to what was just discussed during the

3 direct examination of Mr. Jarrett.

4 THE COURT: You can choose to do it either

5 way you wish. I won't dictate how you try your case,

6 but you need to stay within the time.

7 MR. LARUE: Understood, Your Honor. I have

8 just a very brief cross then.

9 THE COURT: Very well.

10:32:00 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. LARUE:

12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jarrett. Thank you for being

13 here today.

14 A. Thanks, Joe.

15 Q. Just a few very quick questions.

16 I believe you testified that your Election Day

17 Plan called for, you know, assumed an average wait time

18 of a half hour for each vote center.

19 Was that what you testified?

10:32:28 20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Okay. Do you know what the actual average wait

22 time was?

23 A. It was less than a few minutes on Election Day,

24 average for all of our vote centers.

25 Q. Average for all vote centers were less than a few

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0139

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 72

1 minutes on Election Day, is that what you said?

2 A. That's correct. In our Canva's presentation, we

3 have the exact number. I don't recall it off the top

4 right now.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jarrett.

6 Are you aware that one of the political parties

7 urged their voters to forgo early voting and vote in

8 person on Election Day?

9 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.

10:33:02 10 Q. Okay. You're aware of that today?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. All right. Were you aware of that when you

13 prepared your analysis for the Election Day Plan?

14 A. No, I was not.

15 Q. Okay. So I'm assuming that -- you tell me,

16 please, this urging by a political party was not

17 factored into your Election Day Plan; is that correct?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Okay. Thank you.

10:33:26 20 Prior to each election -- strike that.

21 Are you familiar with the term EMS?

22 A. Yes, Election Management System.

23 Q. The Election Management System. What does the

24 Election Management System do?

25 A. So it is our tabulation system. So it's what we

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0140

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 73

1 use to program and design all the ballots. It is also

2 the system that as we're running ballots through our

3 tabulators that it's then counting those ballots. It's

4 also then what sends ballots to be sent to our

5 electronic adjudication system. Then it also holds the

6 application for our results tallying and reporting.

7 So everything that was related to the ballot

8 creation, to tabulating the ballots, to reporting

9 results, is housed within our Election Management

10:34:17 10 System.

11 Q. Okay. How many elections can be housed within

12 the EMS?

13 A. Well, multiple elections can be housed. Given

14 the number of ballots that Maricopa County has to

15 tabulate, we usually only have, especially for a General

16 Election, we will only have one housed on our Election

17 Management System at a time.

18 Q. Okay. So for the 2022 General, did you only have

19 the 2022 General on the EMS?

10:34:45 20 A. That's correct. That's what my understanding is.

21 We only had those and all the data related to those

22 files.

23 Q. What happens to the other data, the 2022 Primary?

24 What happened to it?

25 A. So we transferred those to backup archived

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0141

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 74

1 storage devices and store those. We have one storage

2 device onsite within our tabulation center and one

3 offsite.

4 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Jarrett, you testified earlier

5 that I believe you said you did not design a 19-inch

6 ballot for the 2022 General Election; is that correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. So if it was not designed for the 2022 General

9 Election, does it stand to reason that there would not

10:35:25 10 have been a 19-inch ballot on the EMS?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And if there was no 19-inch ballot on the EMS,

13 does that also mean that there would have been no

14 19-inch ballot programmed into the ballot on-demand

15 printers?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jarrett.

18 You were asked about deliberate acts with regard

19 to the printers. Mr. Jarrett, I'm going to ask you a

10:35:50 20 very direct question: Did you personally do anything to

21 any ballot on-demand printer to cause it to print too

22 lightly to be read by a precinct-based tabulator?

23 A. No, I did not.

24 Q. Did you give an order to any of your personnel to

25 do any such thing?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0142

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS/REDIRECT 75

1 A. I did not.

2 Q. Are you aware of any order like that being given?

3 A. I'm not aware of that.

4 Q. Are you aware of any of your personnel engaging

5 in such an act?

6 A. I am not aware.

7 Q. Are you aware of anybody engaging in such an act

8 on any of our ballot on-demand printers used in the

9 2020 -- 2022 General Election?

10:36:26 10 A. I'm not aware.

11 MR. LARUE: That's all I have, Your Honor.

12 Thank you.

13 THE COURT: Very well. May we excuse the

14 witness?

15 MR. OLSEN: Brief recross, sir?

16 THE COURT: Recross?

17 MR. OLSEN: Well, redirect, excuse me. I'll

18 be brief, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Very well.

10:36:41 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Mr. Jarrett, I believe you were just asked if

23 questions about whether or not members of a political

24 party encouraged their constituents, the Republican

25 party, to come out and vote on Election Day.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0143

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 76

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And was that event factored into your forecast

4 for turnout on Election Day?

5 A. When we made the initial forecast for the plans

6 that were mentioned to the Board in May, no, it was not.

7 Q. So your estimates in the forecast would

8 necessarily be low because they didn't take into account

9 that factor, correct?

10:37:32 10 A. Our forecast forecasts 251,000, our lowest model,

11 and there's 248,000. So I think they pretty accurately

12 forecasted how many people turned out in person on

13 Election Day.

14 Q. Well, tell me how that squares when, you know,

15 counsel just asked you a question, you know, were you

16 aware that members of the Republican party were telling

17 Republican voters to come out on Election Day, and you

18 didn't account for that, how does that square with a

19 lower forecast number?

10:38:07 20 A. Well, we had record turnout -- near record

21 turnout for the 2022 General Election, so 64 percent.

22 You have -- the only turnout in the recent several

23 decades that exceeded that was actually 2018, which was

24 64-point-something percent turnout as well.

25 So our forecast model was forecasting at

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0144

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 77

1 potentially the highest turnout percentage that the

2 voters would turn out, so that's why it captured and

3 forecasted 251,000 which was very close to 248,000.

4 Q. Actually, your forecast model, you had the other

5 one, forecasted over 290,000, correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. And that model didn't take into account

8 Republican leaders telling their -- their Republicans to

9 come out on Election Day and vote, correct?

10:38:57 10 A. It did not. It factored in 2020 Presidential and

11 2016 Presidential factors, which usually a presidential

12 election is much higher, so that's why it was ranging up

13 to 290,000.

14 Q. Counsel asked you some questions about a 19-inch

15 ballot image being projected onto a 20-inch paper.

16 Do you recall that I asked you questions about

17 that?

18 A. Yes, I recall that.

19 Q. Do you have any idea how that could occur?

10:39:52 20 A. I do not.

21 Q. Would it require two different ballot definitions

22 to be installed on the EMS?

23 A. Your first question asks if I have any idea how

24 it could occur and I said I do not.

25 Q. Okay. Do you know what a site book is?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0145

 ROBERT SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 78

1 A. Yes, that's our check-in station.

2 Q. And the site book pulls up the vote -- voter,

3 correct?

4 A. Yes, it's connected to our -- the Recorder's

5 voter registration system through a virtual private

6 network secure, so that when a voter checks in, it pulls

7 up their specific information, and would alert our

8 ballot on-demand printer which ballot style to print.

9 Q. So where does the ballot definition reside then?

10:40:37 10 A. So it's on a laptop that's connected to our

11 ballot on-demand printers.

12 MR. OLSEN: Thank you. I have nothing

13 further.

14 THE COURT: May we excuse the witness?

15 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

16 MS. KHANNA: Subject to recall tomorrow in

17 our case in chief, of course.

18 THE COURT: Very well. Thank you, Mr.

19 Jarrett. Please step down, sir.

10:41:01 20 (Witness excused.)

21 THE COURT: I've allocated some time to take

22 a midmorning break, some of that has to do with my court

23 reporter. So we do need to take a recess for that.

24 Who would you be calling as your next

25 witness?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0146

 79

1 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, as a matter of fact,

2 I was just talking with counsel about asking the Court

3 for a short break. I want to reassess given the time,

4 and so if I may.

5 THE COURT: Yes. You certainly may because

6 I'm going to have a midmorning break here. So what I'm

7 trying to assess, though, is whether I can shave five

8 minutes off of that or not.

9 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, whatever you --

10:41:59 10 THE COURT: Do you need a full 15 minutes?

11 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes. We'll be

13 back on the record then. We'll stand in recess.

14 COURTROOM ASSISTANT: All rise.

15 (Recess taken, 10:42 a.m.)

16 (Proceedings resume, 10:53 a.m.)

17 THE COURT: All right. We're back on the

18 record in CV2022-095403, Lake v. Hobbs. Present for the

19 record are parties and counsel, their representatives

10:53:38 20 and counsel.

21 I was just going to bring up a moment -- a

22 matter of housekeeping. You okay with Mr. Blehm not

23 being here, Mr. Olsen?

24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: All right. Okay. At the risk

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0147

 80

1 of OSHA violations from my court reporter, I'm -- what I

2 would like to do is try and maximize the amount of time

3 we have. Rather than starting at 1:30, we'll start back

4 at 1 o'clock. So we'll go from 12:00 to 1:00, cutting

5 30 minutes off of the lunch break. So we'll do that

6 today. And tomorrow I'd like to start at 8:30 tomorrow

7 rather than 9 o'clock, if we can, stretch a little more

8 out of the day. But I think by 4:30 -- you know, I

9 don't want to burn the midnight oil on this. I think

10:54:36 10 that we need to have focus and attention and be

11 clear-minded by, I think, starting at 8:30, coming back

12 early from lunch that I'm not taxing anybody's mental

13 capacity with that.

14 Do you agree, Plaintiffs?

15 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Defendants?

17 MS. KHANNA: Yes, Your Honor.

18 MR. LARUE: County agrees, Your Honor.

19 MR. GOANA: Fine with the Secretary, Your

10:54:59 20 Honor.

21 THE COURT: So that's what we'll do.

22 All right. Are you prepared for your next

23 witness?

24 MR. BLEHM: Yes, Your Honor.

25 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. We call Clay

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0148

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 81

1 Parikh.

2 THE COURT: Very well, sir.

3 Mr. Parikh, if you could come forward, sir,

4 and stand in front of my clerk to be sworn, sir.

5 CLAY UDAY PARIKH,

6 called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified

7 as follows:

8 THE COURT: Sir, if you could make your way

9 around to the witness stand and have a seat. As soon as

10:55:31 10 your witness is situated you may begin. Are you doing

11 the questioning, Mr. Olsen?

12 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. BLEHM:

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Parikh. Could you please state

16 your full name for the record?

17 A. My name is Clay Uday Parikh.

18 Q. And where do you currently work?

19 A. I work at Northrop Grumman, a defense contractor.

10:55:52 20 Q. And what do you do with Northrop Grumman?

21 A. I'm an information security officer. I,

22 basically, spend my week auditing classified systems,

23 making sure the systems are functioning properly,

24 looking for insider threats and those such actions.

25 Q. And do you have any experience with electronic

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0149

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 82

1 voting systems?

2 A. Yes, sir, I do. I have nine years of experience

3 in three voting labs. It's actually two physical sites,

4 because while I transferred the NTS laboratories,

5 national testing lab, and then at Pro V & V.

6 Q. Does this relate to -- are you familiar with

7 what's called is the EAC, the Election Assistance

8 Commission?

9 A. Yes, sir, I am. In 2008, my very first tasking

10:56:38 10 was to evaluate Wyle Laboratories test procedures in

11 which I had to evaluate the voting system guidelines.

12 Q. And did you perform testing on electronic voting

13 systems in order to certify them in accordance with EAC

14 guidelines?

15 A. Yes, sir, I was.

16 Q. And you did that for how long?

17 A. For nine years.

18 Q. And that was through Pro V & V, a voting system

19 testing lab?

10:57:04 20 A. I was through a professional staffing company,

21 and that's how I was -- I was contracted on, because

22 they had -- none of the labs had a permanent security

23 specialist on -- on the payroll. I was the only one.

24 Q. And when you say you refer to the labs, in this

25 case Pro V & V, what is a voting system testing lab?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0150

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 83

1 A. The voting system testing lab is where a vendor

2 submits to the EAC a test plan. It gets submitted to

3 the EAC. It gets approved and they go to a voting

4 system test lab, there's a project that's done up, and

5 they get tested. These tests can go either by the EAC

6 for federal certification or they can go by the

7 Secretary of the State, that depends on the state's

8 requirements under their laws as far as their

9 certification efforts.

10:57:54 10 Q. Do you know what voting system testing lab

11 certifies the electronic voting machines used in

12 Maricopa County?

13 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor.

14 Relevance. I believe this line of question about

15 certification is no longer on the table given the

16 Court's ruling earlier this week.

17 THE COURT: Yeah, I'll allow the question

18 for certification, I mean, qualifications purposes. So

19 I'll give a little bit of leeway. You can answer the

20 question if you're able to, Mr. Parikh.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's Pro V & V.

22 BY MR. OLSEN:

23 Q. Do you have a background in cyber security, Mr.

24 Parikh?

25 A. I have about 20 years experience in cyber

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0151

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 84

1 security.

2 Q. Can you, you know, just briefly go through some

3 of your qualifications with the Court in cyber security?

4 A. Yes, sir, I can. I have a Master of Science in

5 cyber security, which it's on a computer science track.

6 Also I have a bachelor's in computer science systems

7 major. I have Certified Information Systems Security

8 Professional certification, I've had that for since the

9 beginning of 2007. That is the gold standard as far as

10:59:00 10 security certifications are considered. I'm also a

11 Certified Ethical Hacker and I'm also a Certified

12 Hacking Forensic Investigator.

13 Q. What is a Certified Hacking Forensic

14 Investigator?

15 A. That means, you go in, you do a forensic analysis

16 specifically looking for malicious malware, you do root

17 cause analysis; you find out what the malware was, how

18 it infected. These are not your standard forensics-type

19 approaches that most law enforcement agencies would use.

10:59:35 20 Their standard is a little bit slower because of the

21 evidentiary stuff; but if you're in an incident response

22 center, as I've helped run in the past, when you have an

23 emergency or something happens, you have to react then.

24 And these are the type of actions that you learn. You

25 learn to get in, do the analysis quickly, make sure

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0152

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 85

1 you're secure in your analysis, because you have to come

2 up with remediation efforts.

3 Q. Prior to -- how long have you been at Northrop

4 Grumman?

5 A. Just about three years.

6 Q. So prior to working with Northrop Grumman, did

7 you work in cyber capacity for the U.S. government?

8 A. Yes, I have.

9 Q. Could you -- could you describe some of your

11:00:22 10 positions starting, you know, for the past 15 years, 20

11 years, that you've been involved in and what you did,

12 just briefly?

13 A. I've worked in anywhere from midsize companies

14 that dealt with cyber security information assurance to

15 as large as some of the larger ones. I've worked with

16 Lockheed Martin, which is a good tenure of my time.

17 Leidos Corporation, VAE Systems, and in all those

18 capacities, I did inform assurance, cyber security. Had

19 one stint with a smaller company I was to perform threat

11:00:55 20 for an agency within the United States Army.

21 Q. Did you ever work with the Marshall Space Flight

22 Center?

23 A. Yes, I was. I was the IT security manager for

24 the enterprise operations.

25 Q. And just briefly what -- what does the IT

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0153

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 86

1 security manager do?

2 A. I'm in charge of making sure the vulnerability

3 scans were done, that all the security configurations,

4 that all the governance and compliance that NASA

5 developed for their security postures in daily

6 operations and continuity of operations were followed.

7 Q. Did you ever work for the Army Corps of

8 Engineers?

9 A. Yes, sir. I was the deputy cyber manager for

11:01:34 10 their enterprise operation, which includes 52 major

11 sites throughout the world.

12 Q. And in that capacity, what were your job

13 responsibilities?

14 A. I was the deputy cyber manager, and because of my

15 certification and qualifications, I helped the security

16 operation center manager, handled his task in

17 monitoring, and I also helped the security incident

18 response manager in her functions, because they were the

19 ones that react to when the Army Corps is attacked, and

11:02:08 20 they are attacked a lot.

21 Q. Do you possess a security clearance, Mr. Parikh?

22 A. Yes, sir, I do. I'm currently a Top Secret

23 cleared, but I've held SCI levels before.

24 Q. Okay. Were you -- did you ever work with the

25 Army Threat Systems Management Office?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0154

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 87

1 A. Yes, sir, that's where I played threat. I attack

2 systems, and -- whether it was an information systems, a

3 medical system or a weapon system.

4 Q. Do you have any other certifications besides

5 CISSP or the certified forensic -- Certified Hacking

6 Forensic Investigator or Certified Ethical Hacker?

7 A. Yes, sir. I have an ITIL 3 certification, which

8 is an international process for handling IT service

9 management. It's much like the Six Sigma, several

11:03:02 10 companies like Lockheed Martin have their own, that's

11 called LM21, these are all process improvements to

12 refine and affect the quality output and service that

13 you provide.

14 Q. Have you ever -- are you familiar with the phrase

15 of root cause analysis?

16 A. I am very familiar with root cause analysis.

17 Q. Could you please just briefly explain what root

18 cause analysis refers to?

19 A. In simple -- in simple terms, it's basically

11:03:27 20 troubleshooting, but you have to find what caused the

21 initial issue to happen. Sometimes this can be very

22 complicated. Sometimes it can be fairly easy, but you

23 have to have an intense understanding of the overall

24 process involved in any organization. And this root

25 cause analysis could be done from what's called a

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0155

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 88

1 governance perspective, where you look at documentation

2 process and procedures, because faults within those can

3 produce the issue, or it can be from a technical

4 finding. I've done hundreds to probably thousands of

5 root cause analyses in all different types of

6 environments.

7 Q. Could you give an example of an actual event in

8 which you led the effort for a root cause analysis and

9 just kind of a quick overview?

11:04:21 10 A. I've done one for the Navy Marine Corps internet,

11 which is the world's largest WAN, which has tens of

12 thousands of workstations. There was an issue that

13 resolved. They were having after upgrades of the

14 operating systems, they had technical issues. And based

15 on those type of issues, I analyzed and know what was

16 going on. I requested that the bios data be provided

17 and that ended up the root cause, because the problem

18 systems have that, because they did not properly manage

19 the bios. That's a low-level technical one.

11:04:54 20 There's been others involved where the Air Force

21 had what's -- I would say world facing internet site.

22 It was on the internet, got pulled down because a

23 vulnerability was found. And I did the root -- I was

24 put in charge to do the root cause analysis to find out

25 how the system was compromised, what happened, and

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0156

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 89

1 suggested the mitigation efforts.

2 Q. Have there ever been any criminal prosecutions

3 that have resulted from your work?

4 A. Yes, both federally and from -- privately from an

5 employer.

6 Q. So the federal government relied on your

7 assessment of a situation in order to bring criminal

8 charges against somebody?

9 A. Several times. Some of those I cannot talk about

11:05:37 10 because of the nature and the classification.

11 Q. Did you do an analysis of the events that took

12 place in the Election Day operations in Maricopa County?

13 A. Yes, sir, I did.

14 Q. And what did you do in terms of your assessment

15 of that situation?

16 A. I do like I do with any system that's involved

17 with electronic voting systems, I look at the state

18 statutes and what they reported to the federal

19 government. As in this case, Arizona follows HAVA, and

11:06:25 20 that's in their laws and statutes. Then I go from that,

21 look at the systems they use, then I look at the

22 procedures. I downloaded the Secretary of State's

23 Elections Manual, the Maricopa Elections Manual. I've

24 read through testimony, declarations. I reviewed the

25 EAC certification of the electronic voting system, the

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0157

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 90

1 test reports from Pro V & V concerning the election

2 system. I read -- I downloaded and read the applicable

3 Title 16 part of the Arizona statutes, which covers the

4 election systems. Then I read a lot of testimony, I

5 watched a lot of the video televised meetings that

6 Maricopa conducted and a lot of the video testimonies.

7 Q. Okay. And did you interview or speak with any

8 Election Day workers, like technicians, who

9 participated, retained by Maricopa, to work at the

11:07:24 10 various vote centers on November 8, 2022?

11 A. Yes, sir, I did. I had spoken with a -- after

12 seeing the declaration and interview conducted for the

13 declaration, I asked to interview them and asked

14 specific questions.

15 Q. Did you perform an inspection of the ballots on

16 behalf of Plaintiff in connection with an inspection

17 pursuant to A.R.S. 16-677?

18 A. Yes, sir, I did.

19 Q. And when did that inspection take place?

11:08:02 20 A. That was just yesterday.

21 Q. And without saying what your conclusion was from

22 that inspection, did you reach a conclusion?

23 A. It confirmed my initial -- my initial assumptions

24 on the possible effects of what caused the technical

25 issues, yes, sir.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0158

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 91

1 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this time, we'd

2 like to offer Mr. Parikh as an expert.

3 THE COURT: Arizona doesn't do that.

4 Basically, you can ask the questions and then it's an

5 objection as to foundation, so --

6 MR. OLSEN: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.

7 BY MR. OLSEN:

8 Q. Mr. Parikh, you examined the ballots and the

9 inspection performed at MCTEC yesterday, correct?

11:08:49 10 A. Yes, I was allowed to select a sampling, per the

11 request in the Court's instruction.

12 Q. Did you have a plan going into that inspection

13 with what ballots you wanted to select and inspect?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Could you describe that plan?

16 A. Through a FOIA request the cast vote records were

17 publicly available. I reviewed those, analyzed the data

18 and selected the roundness based so I could follow the

19 Court's directions for the petition. So I knew exactly

11:09:23 20 what to request, because it was time-consuming and

21 Maricopa County was gracious enough to give us that

22 time, and I wanted to use it wisely and make my decision

23 quickly and accurately.

24 Q. Approximately do you know how many vote centers

25 you were able to inspect ballots from?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0159

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 92

1 A. I was allowed to inspect from six vote centers.

2 Q. Were you able to execute on your plan after you

3 went into MCTEC to select ballots?

4 A. There were some modifications to the plans

5 because the Election Day ballot data, the cast vote

6 records, which would be referred to as a system of

7 record, because it has to be maintained in its

8 integrity, was no longer valid due to the recounts.

9 Q. When you say it was no longer valid, what do you

11:10:18 10 mean?

11 A. The ballots had been -- they had been

12 re-tabulated for the recounts, thus they -- Maricopa

13 County was unable to map those back.

14 Q. And were some of the ballots that you inspected

15 duplicated ballots?

16 A. Yes, sir, they were.

17 Q. And what are duplicated ballots?

18 A. Duplicated ballots are when there's an issue with

19 the ballot and it cannot be ran through the tabulation

11:10:44 20 system; therefore, it is duplicated and then that

21 duplication is run through the system.

22 Q. And is that duplication then the ballot that is

23 actually tabulated and counted?

24 A. Yes, sir. The way the process works is the

25 original ballot has to have the duplication ID attached

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0160

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 93

1 to it, which Maricopa did. The part where they filled

2 in the statute is, according to the standards, that

3 duplication ballot is supposed to be easily relatable to

4 the original ballot. They said they could not find --

5 let me correct that -- they could not find the

6 duplicated ballot which was tabulated.

7 Q. So you inspected the original ballot that was

8 duplicated?

9 A. Yes, sir.

11:11:28 10 Q. And do I understand correctly that under -- your

11 understanding of Arizona law is that the -- the

12 duplicate ballot and the original ballot are supposed to

13 be maintained together physically?

14 A. Yes, sir. That's -- that's the EAC requirement.

15 That's -- that's a standard. When duplication is done.

16 Q. And the duplicate ballot which is the ballot that

17 was counted?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. Was not available for you to inspect because of

11:11:56 20 that?

21 A. No, sir, it was not.

22 Q. Why would there be -- could you tell me again why

23 there might be a duplicated ballot situation?

24 A. It would be because it physically -- it was

25 physically damaged. I did see torn ballots. They could

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0161

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 94

1 have coffee stains on them. They could have ink marks,

2 or they could just be improperly configured.

3 Q. How long did you take to conduct your inspection?

4 A. We were there all day except for a 45-minute

5 lunch break. It took the morning because of not being

6 able to track the selected ballots that I wanted to look

7 at. We worked together and found the samplings, and

8 that took all morning to get that sorted out.

9 Q. And did you take notes contemporaneously with

11:12:52 10 your inspection?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. Approximately how many ballots did you inspect?

13 A. There were 348 that were set aside, and then

14 there were approximately 25, because we did not finish

15 because of the time restraint.

16 Q. And out of that 348 that were set aside, how many

17 were ballots printed from that ballot on-demand printer?

18 A. In what I analyzed, between the six vote centers,

19 I specifically -- and then there were the spoiled

11:13:30 20 ballots that could be examined, I requested that the

21 spoiled ballots be from those same vote centers. This

22 allows me a more accurate response to look at a spoiled

23 ballot and see it's the same ballot ID and the same

24 actual ballot style as another ballot within that same

25 voting center. The one thing that I have to point out

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0162

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 95

1 is out of all the spoiled ballots and the duplicated

2 original ballots, there were a total of 113 ballots

3 examined. 48 of those existed because there was a

4 19-inch image of a ballot printed on 20-inch paper.

5 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor. Move to

6 strike as non-responsive. I'm not sure what question he

7 was answering.

8 THE COURT: Well, I don't know that it was

9 non-responsive. I'll overrule it. You can

11:14:26 10 cross-examine.

11 MS. KHANNA: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 BY MR. OLSEN:

13 Q. So, Mr. Parikh, it's your testimony upon

14 inspection of these ballots that you determined that

15 there was a 19-inch ballot image projected onto the

16 20-inch paper; is that accurate?

17 A. Yes, that is accurate. That's one of the initial

18 things when I initially reviewing evidence that was

19 presented, and in the public, I saw that the ballots --

11:14:54 20 and it was, to me, it was easily identifiable.

21 Q. Okay. And is this something that's going into

22 this inspection you had seen evidence of?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And what evidence was that?

25 A. That was a photograph of a spoiled ballot right

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0163

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 96

1 next to the reprinted ballot from a vote center, and

2 that's included in my declaration.

3 Q. When you say that's included, do you mean the

4 photographs?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. So when you were inspecting the ballots yesterday

7 and you determined that the duplicated ballots and the

8 spoiled ballots -- strike that.

9 How many duplicated ballots did you inspect?

11:15:35 10 A. Fifteen total.

11 Q. And out of that -- and duplicated, again, means

12 that the ballot was not -- was rejected by the

13 tabulation for some reason?

14 A. Yes, sir. It could not be tabulated either at

15 ICP2's, which are at the vote center, or the ICC at

16 MCTEC.

17 Q. Out of that 15, how many of those contained a

18 19-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper?

19 A. Fourteen.

11:16:05 20 Q. Fourteen. What about the other remaining?

21 A. It was physically defective. It was slightly

22 torn.

23 Q. Slightly torn. Can you explain to the Court how

24 a 19-inch ballot image -- strike that.

25 How did you determine that it was a 19-inch

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0164

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 97

1 ballot image projected on to 20-inch paper?

2 A. Because these ballot images are a PDF file, which

3 gets stored along with configuration settings. That's

4 what makes up the ballot style and the ballot

5 definition, which is created usually on that EMS, which

6 the actual application that does the ballot style was

7 called EED, right? That's the application that actually

8 does the ballot style. It's usually installed on the

9 EMS servers. That application creates that style, the

11:17:00 10 definition, because it needs those things because it

11 gets loaded on the tabulator, that's how it's evaluated

12 when the image is created, and that's the print job, to

13 use a common term, that gets sent to the printer.

14 Q. And how could an -- how did you determine that it

15 was actually a 19-inch image projected on to a 20-inch

16 paper?

17 A. I can -- I can determine that 100 percent of all

18 the ballots are rejected because the mechanics of a

19 printer, the feeds are not always accurate. On the

11:17:37 20 20-inch ballots, you can see the same -- I refer to them

21 as tick marks, but they are actually the borders of the

22 image that is sent. And on the 20-inch ballot, you'll

23 see at the very corner above the borders where there's

24 misfeed. On the 19-inch ballots, they were well

25 viewable in the margins. They are 90-degree right

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0165

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 98

1 angles at each corner of the page, of the image.

2 Q. And did you physically measure the ballots to

3 determine that?

4 A. Yes, sir, I did. I requested a ruler and

5 Maricopa graciously got me one, and they got one of the

6 other inspectors a ruler.

7 Q. How could a 19-inch ballot image appear -- well,

8 strike that.

9 You've heard previous testimony, were you here

11:18:26 10 for Mr. Jarrett's testimony?

11 A. Yes, sir, I was.

12 Q. And did you hear Mr. Jarrett testify that in the

13 November 2022 General Election a 20-inch ballot was

14 used?

15 A. Yes, sir, I did.

16 Q. And did you hear Mr. Jarrett testify that it

17 would be a failure of the system if a 19-inch ballot

18 image was projected on to a 20-inch paper?

19 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor. That

11:18:53 20 misstates the testimony of the prior witness, as to the

21 word failure.

22 THE COURT: I'm assuming you're going to

23 follow up with a question. For an opinion, I think you

24 can frame it as a hypothetical without arguing about --

25 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0166

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 99

1 THE COURT: Go ahead. Rephrase.

2 BY MR. OLSEN:

3 Q. In an election which is purportedly designed to

4 take place with a 20-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper,

5 how could a 19-inch ballot image appear?

6 MS. KHANNA: Objection. Calls for

7 speculation.

8 THE COURT: Let's ask a question first. Yes

9 or no, if you can tell. Ask him if he can tell, and

11:19:40 10 then the objection, and you can re-ask the question.

11 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

12 BY MR. OLSEN:

13 Q. Mr. Parikh, given your experience and training

14 particularly with electronic voting systems, nine years,

15 can you tell what the cause of a 19-inch ballot image

16 being projected on 20-inch paper would be?

17 A. Yes, I can. I can give you both the technical

18 ways that it could happen. There are only two ways that

19 it can happen.

11:20:14 20 Q. Can you tell the Court the two ways that that can

21 happen?

22 A. One way is by changing the printer adjustments

23 that would make the printer adjustments and settings

24 override the image file that was sent. The other is

25 from the application side, or the operating system side.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0167

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 100

1 This is the same for anybody who ever prints anything at

2 home. Your Microsoft Word can send the settings or it

3 can use the default settings of the printers. The

4 application doing it, in this case, as it's a ballot,

5 would have to be that there was a 19-inch image ballot

6 definition.

7 Q. And where does that definition reside?

8 A. That can vary depending on the system. But from

9 what I heard in the testimony, it resides on the laptop

11:21:05 10 that's connected to the printer, which would -- I've

11 seen it referred to as a control printer, but this is

12 actually what would be called a print spooler, and it

13 controlled the print jobs to allow the printer to take

14 on the load. And as there were multiple site books,

15 this would be the technical use that that laptop should

16 be used for.

17 Q. Is there any way, in your opinion, for a 19-inch

18 ballot image to be projected on a 20-inch ballot by

19 accident?

11:21:31 20 A. No, sir.

21 Q. Why not?

22 A. Because the settings and the configurations and

23 the procedures that are used cannot allow that. These

24 are not a bump up against the printer and the settings

25 changed. They are security configurations. I've

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0168

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 101

1 reviewed the evidence and the printers are configured

2 via script which, by any large organization that has to

3 do multiple systems, is a standard. This takes away the

4 human error of somebody miscoding in the instructions

5 either on the printer.

6 Q. Prior to an election, would the -- strike that.

7 Prior to an election, would it be detectable that

8 a 19-inch ballot image had been projected onto 20-inch

9 paper?

11:22:31 10 A. Yes. If logic and accuracy tested that all

11 voting styles or ballot definitions were included, which

12 a standard logic and accuracy testing should test every

13 style that's available and there should be a listing of

14 such styles.

15 Q. Is it -- you performed testing for EAC

16 certification, correct?

17 A. Yes, sir, I have.

18 Q. Is it permissible to have two different ballot

19 definitions in the same election with respect to the

11:23:08 20 size of the ballot image?

21 A. No, sir. If, for example, if you live in an

22 apartment building and your neighbor and you have the

23 same school board district, you have the same precinct,

24 all the jurisdictions for whether it's local, county,

25 state or federal are basically the same, that

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0169

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 102

1 ballot-style definition, the ID for it, should be

2 singular. If you do not, then you have two different

3 styles, you're assessing them differently. That can

4 also produce forgery. There's only supposed to be one

5 ballot style per those voting options, and that --

6 that's what controls it.

7 Q. The 19-inch ballot image that you observed in

8 your inspection on multiple ballots including duplicated

9 and spoiled ballots, correct?

11:23:56 10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. What effect would a 19-inch ballot image

12 projected on a 20-inch piece of paper used in the

13 election in Maricopa for November 2022 have when it was

14 placed into one of these vote center tabulators?

15 A. It would cause it to be rejected. According to

16 the Dominion's documentation, they performed somewhere

17 between 200 and 300 checks on the actual physical paper

18 ballot that gets inserted into the system. They state,

19 and this is according to Dominion, the vendor who

11:24:33 20 created the application, that it can reject the ballot

21 for any one of those. A 19-inch image being on 20-inch

22 paper increases the margin. Once the timing marks are

23 seen and they are evaluated, the actual physical printer

24 that created the image is saying by the application

25 telling it, you're done, but there's a remaining inch of

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0170

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 103

1 paper in there, so it would assume there's a paper jam.

2 And to detect, I specifically asked, there were paper

3 jams to where he opened up and there was no paper.

4 So from a programming perspective, the machine

5 would throw the paper jam error, but yet there would be

6 no paper.

7 Q. And you're referring to a tech, you said you

8 spoke to a tech, would that be Aaron Smith?

9 A. Yes, sir.

11:25:15 10 Q. Okay. And what did Mr. Smith tell you -- first

11 of all, who is Aaron -- who is your -- what is your

12 understanding of Mr. Smith's role during the

13 November 2022 election?

14 A. I think he repeatedly followed all the procedures

15 that he was instructed to follow. He put a good solid

16 effort forward to resolve the issues. It finally became

17 to where the issue could not be resolved, according to

18 the procedures, and he had to actually request a

19 replacement tabulator, which so happened to be

11:25:52 20 mis-configured.

21 Q. Do you know why Aaron wanted to testify today?

22 A. I think --

23 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

24 for speculation, lack of foundation.

25 THE COURT: That's going to call for

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0171

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 104

1 speculation.

2 MR. OLSEN: Withdraw the question, Your

3 Honor.

4 BY MR. OLSEN:

5 Q. You mentioned that there are only two

6 possibilities for how a 19-inch image could be

7 configured onto the system to be put on a 20-inch piece

8 of paper, correct?

9 A. Yes. My assessment applies to anything that is

11:26:38 10 printed, not just -- not just the specifics of this, but

11 to anything that's printed. These are the way the

12 technology functions.

13 Q. But you testified that there's only two ways --

14 A. Yes, there is.

15 Q. -- this situation could arise?

16 A. There are only two.

17 Q. What would it take for you to determine which of

18 the two possibilities is what occurred?

19 A. Specifically, as I did yesterday, inspecting the

11:27:11 20 ballots. There were some ballots that were spotty, but

21 the spottiness was also on batches from the vote centers

22 that were correctly tabulated, so that confused me. And

23 the stuff that was mentioned about the fusers and the

24 heating, because, too, they first said it was a toner

25 issue, which it was not, it's a tray weight issue, which

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0172

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 105

1 affects the heat of the fusers.

2 The mechanical function of a fuser and heater

3 from what I observed from the spottiness did not match

4 what is a standard error or example that would be

5 demonstrated. There were one or two occasions that were

6 exactly that way, but that was about two ballots out of

7 all that I examined.

8 Q. But if you were to try to determine whether it

9 was a printer issue, configuration issue, or an issue

11:27:59 10 with the ballot definition with respect to how a 19-inch

11 image was projected onto 20-inch paper, what would you

12 need to do?

13 A. I would need to see the ballot styles and the

14 ballot definitions. In totality, if there's 15,000 of

15 them, all of them should be examined.

16 Q. Do you have -- obviously you have been practicing

17 in the cyber field for two decades, correct?

18 A. Yes, sir, and it includes everything to include

19 printers.

11:28:41 20 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. Can you --

21 do you work with printers? Do you understand how

22 printers function and work, and at what level is your

23 experience?

24 A. To a detailed level to where I actually caused

25 one of the government agencies in the missile defense

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0173

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 106

1 side to get highly upset, because I understand the

2 protocols that run. And it's not just printers, there

3 are multifunctional devices, MFDs as we refer to them,

4 because they can scan, they can print, they can send

5 file transfers. And I've evaluated protocols, I've also

6 done root cause analysis, because classified printers

7 have -- they could print classified data even when they

8 are not supposed to because of the rollers, and this is

9 one thing I called -- refer to as ghost printing. I did

11:29:31 10 see that repeatedly on the early vote ballots that were

11 printed by Runbeck, because in my opinion the ink was a

12 little bit too deep and too shiny for that, and that --

13 and I did. I was able to even see candidates' names in

14 white space. It's very light gray, but that's why I

15 refer to it as ghost printing.

16 Q. Um-hum. What would you recommend be done with

17 the ballots currently stored at MCTEC now, given your

18 findings from the inspection?

19 MS. KHANNA: Objection to relevance. Lack

11:30:13 20 of foundation. Speculation.

21 THE COURT: You need to rephrase the

22 question. I'm going to sustain it.

23 BY MR. OLSEN:

24 Q. Do you have any concerns regarding the security

25 of the ballots, given your findings from your inspection

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0174

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 107

1 yesterday that a 19-inch image was projected onto the

2 samples from six different vote centers that you

3 examined of 20-inch paper?

4 A. Yes, I can. If it's okay with the Court, I have

5 to answer this in two ways. They are both pertinent.

6 But, first, I observed while ballots were being pulled

7 out and sampled, and they obliged in every direction,

8 whether top, middle, or that, that they were provided.

9 I observed more improperly imaged ballots that were not

11:31:16 10 inspected that were there.

11 Now, to answer the question, those should be

12 secured. I will state in my capacity I handle

13 everything from physical security to accrediting

14 buildings for classified information storage. I've been

15 a classified courier, which means I'm authorized to

16 transport classified information. As a forensic

17 investigator, I fully understand chain of custody. And

18 what I will cite is that the facility and the security

19 and chain of custody at the vault and the tabulation

11:31:52 20 center are highly inaccurate, and those ballots could be

21 tampered with. They should be -- they should be sealed

22 and appropriate actions.

23 For example, security seals were only placed on

24 the boxes that we inspected, and that was due to the

25 court order, and they wanted to ensure that the proper

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0175

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 108

1 security was done.

2 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor. I'm

3 going to move to strike as non-responsive. I'm not

4 sure, again, what question that was answering.

5 THE COURT: That was non-responsive to the

6 questions and beyond the scope, so -- of what's before

7 the Court, so --

8 MS. KHANNA: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: -- strike the last part of his

11:32:34 10 answer dealing with the security measures.

11 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, just a point of

12 clarification. You said strike the last part and --

13 THE COURT: His answer, he had two parts to

14 his answer. He said, first, he observed ballots,

15 improperly imaged ballots beyond what was sampled. That

16 was part 1. Part 2 is the commentary about the

17 continued or ongoing storage, and the -- it's all right,

18 I've been accused of soft-spoken. Part 2 was the

19 testimony that related to the ongoing security concerns.

11:33:13 20 That's the part that is not relevant to the issues that

21 are before the Court today.

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

23 BY MR. OLSEN:

24 Q. Mr. Parikh, you mentioned that you saw other

25 ballots that you could see -- do I understand that

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0176

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 109

1 correctly -- had a 19-inch ballot image projected onto

2 20-inch paper?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And how could you tell that?

5 A. Because the difference in the margin, as they

6 were being taken out of the box and placed on the table

7 and shuffled around, it was obvious. It was apparent to

8 me.

9 Q. Okay. Is there -- when -- on these ballots with

11:33:46 10 a 19-inch image, are there marks that kind of -- that

11 are different around the corners than the 20-inch

12 ballots?

13 A. Yes, sir. You will see the corner edges of the

14 image, which would be considered, you know, the actual

15 size of the paper. Those right-angle marks at each --

16 the top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right, are

17 within the margin space. They are clearly visible.

18 Q. Did you -- you mentioned that you kept notes --

19 A. Yes, sir.

11:34:17 20 Q. -- of your inspection. Did you draft a report

21 that summarized those notes with conclusions?

22 A. Yes, sir, I did.

23 Q. If the Court were to ask you for it, would you be

24 able to provide it to the Court?

25 A. Yes, sir, I would.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0177

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 110

1 Q. And would that report be -- would you swear to

2 the accuracy of your conclusions in that report?

3 A. Yes, I would.

4 Q. And would you swear to the accuracy of your --

5 the results of your inspection in that report?

6 A. Yes, sir, I would.

7 Q. You testified earlier that having a 19-inch

8 ballot image projected on a 20-inch ballot as you

9 observed appearing from ballots cast in six different

11:35:23 10 vote centers --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- duplicated ballots, spoiled ballots, that

13 could only arise from -- could it be by accident or is

14 it?

15 A. No, sir, it could not be by accident. Those are

16 configuration changes they are administrative level on

17 the printer aren't -- with a ballot style or ballot

18 definition file, and those are done on the EMS system,

19 which has password security and everything else. The

11:35:54 20 EED application is actually the one that creates the

21 ballot style. That's what's used. It's commonly --

22 it's commonly put on the EMS server because that's,

23 like, the centerpiece, and those two systems are

24 controlled access.

25 Q. You testified earlier that you have been involved

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0178

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 111

1 in other assessments of failures relating to

2 cyber-related issues, correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And that we call that a root cause analysis,

5 correct?

6 A. Yes, sir. I was part of the working group that

7 established what was called the IARA process, which is a

8 risk analysis and assessment process for the missile

9 defense agency years ago. It's a standard risk analysis

11:36:42 10 and assessment, and in order to do that, that's the

11 basis of how you analyze threat and then you also,

12 that's why you conduct root cause analysis, because you

13 have to be specific when you assess risk -- risk, excuse

14 me.

15 Q. In the performance, in your experience, and you

16 testified earlier that the federal government -- was it

17 the federal government that had actually criminally

18 prosecuted people based on your findings in a root cause

19 analysis?

11:37:13 20 A. Yes, sir, and sometimes they ignored my analysis,

21 but that's beyond.

22 Q. Given your opinion that -- strike that.

23 Given your opinion and your knowledge of how

24 ballot definitions are configured and how printers work,

25 does your finding of a 19-inch image, ballot image base

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0179

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 112

1 placed on 20-inch paper, does that implicate violations

2 of criminal law?

3 MS. KHANNA: Objection.

4 THE COURT: Wait. Hold on before you answer

5 that.

6 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

7 for speculation. Lack of foundation, and it calls for

8 legal conclusion.

9 THE COURT: It does call for a legal

11:38:17 10 conclusion.

11 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, the witness has

12 testified that --

13 THE COURT: I heard.

14 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. I'll sit down.

15 BY MR. OLSEN:

16 Q. Based on what you have determined on your

17 physical examination of these ballots, your experience

18 both in the industry as a Certified Forensic Hacking

19 Investigator, your CISSP, your skills with, I believe,

11:38:53 20 you called it IRAP, is that --

21 A. It's IARA, that's the acronym that does it. They

22 are different -- and this is specifically for technical

23 risk and assessment. This is one of the issues when I

24 worked for the voting system test labs to get all the

25 vendors, I've dealt with over seven of them to my

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0180

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - DIRECT 113

1 memory, right, none of them performed it. The labs

2 didn't perform it. I eventually convinced one lab to do

3 this, because this is vital to when you're doing system

4 testing let alone security system testing, and this

5 applies not just to an electronic voter systems, this is

6 to all information systems, all technology. These are

7 standard engineering principles.

8 Q. Is there any way you could be wrong about a

9 19-inch image being placed on 20-inch paper?

11:39:43 10 A. No, sir. I give the technical options that are

11 there. There are two ways that this can happen, and

12 based on this system and the controls in place, this

13 could not have been an accident, and there are only two

14 options. It would take further investigation, further

15 forensic examination for me to determine exactly which

16 one it was.

17 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Parikh.

18 Cross.

19 THE COURT: Cross-exam, will that be you,

11:40:20 20 Mr. Liddy?

21 MS. KHANNA: Your Honor, I think we're going

22 to break up the cross-examination, if possible. One

23 from the County and one for the Governor-Elect Hobbs as

24 well, and if we could do the County's first, I think we

25 might get to the other one after lunch.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0181

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 114

1 THE COURT: Mr. Liddy?

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. LIDDY:

4 Q. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that as some

5 of these allegations go directly to the conduct of the

6 election by my client Maricopa County.

7 Mr. Parikh, is that correct pronunciation?

8 A. Yes, sir, it is.

9 Q. And where do you reside, Mr. Parikh?

11:40:57 10 A. I reside in Huntsville, Alabama.

11 Q. You traveled up to Maricopa County for this

12 proceeding?

13 A. Yes, sir, I did.

14 Q. And who paid for your travel?

15 A. The attorney fund.

16 Q. The attorney fund. What's the attorney fund?

17 A. It's the legal fund. I believe it's -- it's for

18 all the attorneys associated with this.

19 Q. With this particular litigation?

11:41:23 20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And did the attorney fund pay for lodging as

22 well? Paid for your lodging?

23 A. Yes, lodging is always considered travel.

24 Q. And are you being paid for your time?

25 A. Yes.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0182

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 115

1 Q. And what is the rate at which you're being paid

2 for your time?

3 A. $250 an hour.

4 Q. That's also coming from the attorney fund?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Are you familiar with an event called Michael

7 Lindell's Moment of Truth?

8 A. Yes, I spoke at the event.

9 Q. You appeared and spoke at the event?

11:41:54 10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And where was that event held?

12 A. In Missouri.

13 Q. In Missouri. And was your travel from Alabama to

14 Missouri paid for by someone other than yourself?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And who paid for that?

17 A. That, I assume, would be Michael Lindell. All

18 the travel was arranged. He asked me to speak at the

19 event and I spoke.

11:42:17 20 Q. And that would be true for your time, did you

21 also get paid for your time there?

22 A. I did not charge for my time.

23 Q. And your lodging?

24 A. That's considered travel that was provided to me.

25 Q. And when you say Mr. Lindell, you're referring to

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0183

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 116

1 the My Pillow guy?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. And you are a cyber security professional?

4 A. Yes, sir, I am.

5 Q. During your investigation of this election, did

6 you detect any hacking involved in the '22 General

7 Election in Maricopa County?

8 A. No, sir.

9 Q. I believe you testified that yesterday you were

11:43:15 10 down at MCTEC performing the court-ordered inspection of

11 the ballots; is that correct?

12 A. Yes, sir, I was.

13 Q. And you were asked to select batches of ballots?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You were asked to identify them. Did you use a

16 highlighter and highlight the boxes?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 Q. Did you observe the custodian of those ballots

19 opening those boxes?

11:43:40 20 A. Yes.

21 MR. OLSEN: Objection.

22 THE WITNESS: They opened them in front of

23 all the inspectors. There was a court report inspected,

24 there was the other inspector for the other, the

25 gentleman sitting over there that says he was an

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0184

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 117

1 attorney. We all were there as they went through.

2 BY MR. LIDDY:

3 Q. Did the individual who opened the box break the

4 seal?

5 A. By seal, are you referring to the red tape, which

6 is simply red tape and not a security seal?

7 Q. Well, I'm asking you what you observed.

8 A. I would not categorize what closed the boxes as a

9 seal.

11:44:13 10 Q. Did you see the serial numbers on it?

11 A. There were no serial numbers.

12 Q. So in your professional opinion, the ballots were

13 not sealed?

14 A. The ballots did not have an appropriate security

15 seal on the boxes.

16 Q. That's -- so, okay, fine. My question was: Were

17 the ballots sealed?

18 A. They were closed with tape.

19 Q. And where were they stored?

11:44:41 20 A. In the vault and in the tabulation center.

21 Q. Now, would you say in your profession, details

22 are important?

23 A. Yes, they are highly important.

24 Q. And you said that you reviewed the statutes prior

25 to initiating this investigation?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0185

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 118

1 A. I always have to do that, because it's relevant,

2 especially if a state has a statute.

3 Q. So that's a yes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you also reviewed federal statutes?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. HAVA, I think you said?

8 A. I go as far back as the 1990 FEC standards. I

9 reviewed them all, every version of the VVSG.

11:45:33 10 Q. And you downloaded Title 16?

11 A. Yes, I like to have references for when they are

12 referred to, because they have been referred to. And in

13 the Secretary of State's manual, they were referred to

14 in the Maricopa manuals and procedures. So I like to

15 actually read what's referred to, to ensure that it's

16 accurate.

17 Q. And when you read those documents, you pay close

18 attention to detail, because that's required by your

19 profession; is that correct?

11:45:58 20 A. I'm not a legal attorney, and so I read the laws

21 for what they state and how they are.

22 Q. Now, you testified that you reviewed some

23 documents that were provided to the Lake campaign by a

24 FOIA request; is that accurate?

25 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. I don't

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0186

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 119

1 believe he ever testified to that.

2 THE COURT: Well, it's cross-exam, so he can

3 answer the question, if he understands it. If you don't

4 understand the questions, Mr. Parikh --

5 THE WITNESS: No, these were public record

6 requests. They came from me from other technical

7 professionals.

8 BY MR. LIDDY:

9 Q. So they were not FOIA requests?

11:46:36 10 A. Those records were obtained via FOIA requests.

11 Q. Are you familiar with FOIA? Can you tell me what

12 F-O-I-A stands for?

13 A. It's the Freedom of Information Act.

14 Q. Is that statute a federal statute or a state

15 statute?

16 A. That depends on what you're requesting the FOIA

17 for. That's categorized at the federal level and state

18 levels, to my knowledge.

19 Q. So a FOIA can either be a state or a federal, in

11:47:00 20 your understanding?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And federal was FOIA and state was a public

23 records request under the Arizona statute, that would be

24 a detail that doesn't interest you?

25 A. That -- if -- if the data was illegally obtained

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0187

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 120

1 --

2 Q. That's not the question. The question is: Is

3 the detail, the difference between a federal statute and

4 a state statute, of interest to you?

5 A. When I'm provided evidence, I always ask the

6 source of it. And I have received, in my experience, I

7 have received evidence from law enforcement officials

8 that, in my opinion, were not properly attained. And as

9 a forensic investigator who understands chain of custody

11:47:44 10 and all the legal ramifications, because for the court's

11 record, the majority of that deals with the statutes.

12 For example, the lock picks that I own as part of

13 my security thing, in my state, I have to have a private

14 investigator license. These are the statutes that a

15 forensic investigator handling evidence has to be aware

16 of.

17 Q. Thank you. And when you're working with your

18 security thing, as you said it, are you familiar with

19 federal statutes and state statutes?

11:48:10 20 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. I'm not

21 sure about the question.

22 THE COURT: Well, if he's confused --

23 MR. LIDDY: I'll withdraw the question, Your

24 Honor.

25 THE COURT: Thank you. Next question.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0188

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 121

1 BY MR. LIDDY:

2 Q. You just testified that you receive information

3 from law enforcement that's both federal and state law

4 enforcement; is that correct?

5 A. I didn't say that. I said it was law enforcement

6 and I --

7 Q. And you testified both federal law enforcement

8 and state law enforcement; is that correct?

9 A. What I just told you is I said I received it from

11:48:39 10 law enforcement.

11 Q. Well, when you receive information in your

12 profession from law enforcement, are you familiar

13 whether the law enforcement is federal or state?

14 A. Yes, when they provide me the evidence, yes.

15 Q. Is that a detail that's important to you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I believe you testified that you examined some

18 ballots that had been duplicated; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

11:49:06 20 Q. And you testified that you examined the

21 originals, but not the duplicates; is that correct?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. And you examined -- and you testified that the

24 duplicates were not kept next to the duplicate -- the

25 duplicates were not kept next to the originals; is that

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0189

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 122

1 correct?

2 A. That's correct. They are supposed to be

3 traceable and easily identifiable. Mr. Jarrett said

4 that he would have to get his techs busy and it would

5 take them over a week to try and find them.

6 Q. That's your recollection of what Mr. Jarrett

7 said?

8 A. That is what Mr. Jarrett said.

9 Q. And if the ballots, the originals and the

11:49:51 10 duplicates, were in the boxes right next to each other,

11 would that surprise you?

12 A. The duplicates that I was shown, because they

13 were duplicated, were part of, one, of the vote centers,

14 and he opened both those boxes; and, two, because they

15 couldn't identify some of the original duplicates, they

16 had to run and count them so they could try to map them

17 back to which site they belonged to.

18 Q. So that's your recollection of what Mr. Jarrett

19 said when you asked to see the originals of the

11:50:24 20 duplicates?

21 A. No.

22 Q. That's a detail that's important. You're telling

23 this Court that when you asked Mr. Jarrett to view the

24 duplicates of the originals that he told you it would

25 take six hours?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0190

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 123

1 A. To clarify, I did not ask to see duplicates.

2 They were part of the vote center, and they provided the

3 entirety of what they had for the vote center. They

4 could not provide what was --

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parikh. I think the important

6 point, and I want to ask you this to make sure that I

7 understand it correctly, is that you did not ask to see

8 the duplicates?

9 MR. OLSEN: Objection. Misstates his prior

11:51:02 10 testimony. Argumentative.

11 THE COURT: This is cross. Just for

12 reference, on all cross, if he doesn't understand the

13 question, he can have it rephrased; but particularly

14 with an expert witness, I think he's capable of

15 answering. If you don't understand, you can have him

16 rephrase. If you do understand, you can go ahead and

17 answer.

18 Would you like the question restated to you?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, if you would.

11:51:24 20 THE COURT: Please, Mr. Liddy.

21 BY MR. LIDDY:

22 Q. Mr. Parikh, is it your recollection that when you

23 asked Mr. Jarrett to see the duplicates and the

24 originals that he told you it would take six hours to

25 get them?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0191

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 124

1 A. One, I did not ask to see them. They were --

2 Q. That's the answer to my question, Mr. Parikh.

3 You did not ask to see them.

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if I may --

5 THE COURT: Wait. There's just -- your

6 counsel will have redirect.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

8 THE COURT: So just answer his questions.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I just want to

11:52:09 10 state we were following --

11 THE COURT: Wait.

12 MR. LIDDY: I have another question, if it's

13 appropriate.

14 THE COURT: Please.

15 BY MR. LIDDY:

16 Q. You've testified that you have a working theory

17 that some of the ballots for the 2022 General Election

18 were on 20-inch paper but were printed at 19 inches; is

19 that correct?

11:52:31 20 A. 19-inch image printed on 20-inch paper, it is not

21 a theory.

22 Q. Okay. So it was 20-inch paper, the ballot was

23 20 inches, correct?

24 A. The paper was 20 inches.

25 Q. And the image was 19 inches, according to your

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0192

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 125

1 testimony, correct?

2 A. The ballot image was 19 inches, yes.

3 Q. Are you familiar with a shrink-to-fit setting on

4 a printer?

5 A. Yes, I am.

6 Q. Could a shrink-to-fit setting account for some of

7 the ballots you observed being 19 inches on 20-inch

8 paper?

9 A. That is a possibility, but it would -- it would

11:53:08 10 violate the configuration settings they had for the

11 voting systems and the tabulators.

12 Q. And you've testified that you're familiar with

13 the election process?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. And you testified that if one were to take a

16 20-inch ballot that's shrunk to 19 inches and put it

17 into a vote center precinct tabulator, it would not get

18 tabulated?

19 A. It would not get tabulated at any tabulator.

11:53:38 20 Q. Any tabulator?

21 A. That encompasses ICP or ICCs at central.

22 Q. So if it went down to central, according to your

23 understanding, and it was tried to run through the tower

24 tabulators, it would also not be tabulated; is that

25 correct?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0193

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 126

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. And you've just testified that you observed some

3 duplicated ballots. Is it your understanding that a

4 ballot that cannot be tabulated by precinct-based

5 tabulator and cannot be tabulated by a tower-configured

6 tabulator at central would then be duplicated?

7 A. It would have to be, because it wouldn't be

8 tabulated, so it would require duplication.

9 Q. And after duplication, what would happen to that

11:54:18 10 ballot?

11 A. The duplicated ballot, which is supposed to be

12 marked with a specific ID, and that ID must be recorded

13 on the original, and I saw those stickers on the

14 originals.

15 Q. The question is: What would happen to that

16 ballot?

17 A. Then the ballot would be re-run through the --

18 the duplicated ballot would be run through the

19 tabulator.

11:54:38 20 Q. So it would be tabulated, is that your testimony?

21 A. The duplicated ballot would be tabulated, yes, it

22 should be.

23 Q. Okay. So if a voter walked into a vote center on

24 Election Day, filled out a ballot, maybe had a

25 shrink-to-fit setting on it so it wouldn't be counted on

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0194

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 127

1 the tabletop, would go into Door Number 3, goes on down

2 to MCTEC. They put it into a tower -- tower tabulator,

3 it doesn't get counted, and then it gets duplicated and

4 then it gets counted, so that voter's ballot was voted

5 and tabulated; is that your understanding?

6 A. But you started -- you started --

7 Q. Is that your understanding?

8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can't answer

9 that question the way he asked the question because it's

11:55:23 10 inaccurate.

11 THE COURT: If you don't understand, you can

12 say I don't understand and he can rephrase it so you can

13 understand. But if you don't like the way it's phrased,

14 that's something that your counsel has to clear up.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Your Honor, if I

16 may address the Court?

17 THE COURT: No.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm provided for technical

19 expertise and give those options. And if the technical

11:55:50 20 scenario is inaccurate, I cannot answer the question.

21 MR. LIDDY: Let me try again.

22 BY MR. LIDDY:

23 Q. Ms. Lake right here in this room, bona fide

24 candidate for Governor of the Grand Canyon state,

25 hundreds of thousands of voters would love to have had

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0195

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 128

1 her as the next governor. One of them chooses not to

2 vote in the 26 days of early voting or mail-in voting,

3 or emergency vote center voting, but chooses to show up

4 on Election Day, gets a ballot from a ballot on-demand

5 printer, and somebody either intentionally or

6 inadvertently has hit the shrink-to-fit setting, and

7 this 20-inch ballot paper comes out 19 inches, this

8 voter fills it out. Kari Lake, wanting her bid to be

9 next governor, throws it into the precinct tabulator.

11:56:49 10 It comes out, goes into Door Number 3, goes down to

11 MCTEC, the much more sensitive tabulators, according to

12 you, it would not count it. It would then go to

13 duplication, it would be duplicated, then it would be

14 tabulated.

15 Is that your understanding of the elections in

16 Maricopa County?

17 A. Your technical description is not possible.

18 Q. I apologize. I wasn't attempting to give a

19 technical description. I was just saying what happens.

11:57:25 20 Based on your testimony, so you're saying in that

21 scenario, that voter who wanted to vote for Kari Lake

22 would never have that vote tabulated; is that your

23 testimony?

24 A. My testimony is that a shrink-to-fit setting

25 would rely at the application level, which would reside

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0196

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 129

1 on the EMS, which Mr. Jarrett just testified sends the

2 print job to the printer. Therefore, it can't be

3 accidental as all the employees that man the EMS are

4 trained.

5 Q. Whether it's accidental or inadvertent --

6 A. I gave the two options, sir.

7 Q. Please allow me to ask the question, and I'll

8 allow you to answer.

9 Whether it's accidental or inadvertent, if the

11:58:11 10 shrink-to-fit 19-inch ballot has to be duplicated, once

11 it's duplicated, would it be tabulated, to your

12 understanding?

13 A. There are two technical ways that that image

14 would be there. None of the ways you --

15 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor --

16 THE WITNESS: It's not possible, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: I understand what you're saying,

18 Mr. Parikh. That's not responsive to his question. If

19 you are able to answer his question, you can do that.

11:58:45 20 BY MR. LIDDY:

21 Q. Sir, are you able to answer the question?

22 A. I'm unable to answer your question.

23 Q. Okay. Let me ask a different question.

24 Are duplicated ballots tabulated, Maricopa County

25 General Election, 2022?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0197

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - CROSS 130

1 A. If they are duplicated correctly and they are

2 configured correctly, yes, they should be.

3 MR. LIDDY: Thank you. No further

4 questions, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Okay. We're at the point where

6 we need to break. We're going to take a one-hour, not

7 one-and-a-half-hour recess. So we'll be back here at

8 1 o'clock to resume. So just come back at 1 o'clock,

9 Mr. Parikh, and we'll resume where we left off.

11:59:33 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. And I realize I'm

11 still under oath, sir.

12 THE COURT: You read my mind.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

14 THE COURT: Thank you very much.

15 (Recess taken, 11:59 a.m.)

16 (Proceedings resume, 12:58 p.m.)

17 THE COURT: All right. This is

18 CV2022-095403. This is Lake v. Hobbs, et al.

19 Continuation of the hearing on the election challenge.

13:00:16 20 Present for the record are parties -- are party

21 representatives and their respective counsel. We have

22 Mr. Parikh still on the witness stand under oath, and we

23 are ready to continue with the cross examination. This

24 will be by, Ms. Khanna, I believe.

25 MS. KHANNA: With the opportunity to

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0198

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 131

1 streamline over the lunch break, we have no further

2 questions at this time.

3 THE COURT: Well then. Thank you.

4 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I have very brief

5 redirect to clear up a few points, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: No, that is fine. You get

7 redirect. I'm smiling because I have a lawyer

8 characterizing something as brief and --

9 MR. OLSEN: I do my best, Your Honor.

13:00:53 10 THE COURT: Excuse my smile.

11 But there is redirect, Mr. Olsen. You may

12 proceed.

13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. OLSEN:

15 Q. Mr. Parikh, Mr. Liddy asked you some questions

16 about duplicate ballots. And kind of like, hey, if

17 there was a shrink-to-fit that that was no big deal

18 because the duplicate would be captured or accepted by

19 the tabulator.

13:01:21 20 What happens during the duplication process?

21 A. The original ballot is examined, another clean

22 ballot is set beside it and the ballot is duplicated.

23 All those votes are transferred and verified.

24 Q. In the duplicated -- duplication process, could

25 the image of a 19-inch image from the original be

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0199

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 132

1 transposed onto a 20-inch ballot?

2 A. As the duplicated ballot?

3 Q. Yes. In other words, if you had a 19-inch image

4 on 20-inch paper, the original image, and then the

5 ballot is duplicated and run through the scanner, could

6 the duplicated ballot be brought up to a 20-inch image

7 or --

8 A. Yes, it should be if the ballot was originally a

9 20-inch ballot, the blank ballot that they would bring

13:02:18 10 to put the votes transfer the votes to would be 20-inch,

11 so yes, it would be -- it would be tabulated.

12 Q. It would necessarily be moved to a 20-inch image

13 in order to be tabulated?

14 A. Yes, that's the only way it could be tabulated.

15 Q. Yes. And at the point of duplication, anything

16 could happen to alter, or not, the original ballot,

17 correct, if you're duplicating a ballot?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What's to stop somebody from altering the ballot

13:02:53 20 from its original --

21 MS. KHANNA: Objection, Your Honor. My

22 apologies. This is beyond the scope of direct and

23 cross, I believe. He's asking for new opinions that he

24 never offered.

25 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, if I may? Mr. Liddy

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0200

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 133

1 is the one who brought up duplication and then it was no

2 big deal. This is directly relevant to his examination

3 and implication that duplication means that no harm, no

4 foul.

5 THE COURT: I agree with you in terms of the

6 scope of redirect. I'm a little concerned about

7 foundation, but --

8 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: -- go ahead and ask whatever

13:03:32 10 questions.

11 Mr. Liddy, you're standing.

12 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor. I

13 apologize. The duplication process is in Title 16, it's

14 a very important part of the process. I would never and

15 have never characterized it as no big deal, and I object

16 as mischaracterization of my description of that

17 important process.

18 THE COURT: Not a problem, so noted.

19 Mr. Olsen, do you have another question,

13:03:55 20 please?

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Mr. Parikh, Mr. Liddy asked you if you had asked

23 for the duplicated ballots, and you said in the

24 beginning of your testimony is that you had asked Mr.

25 Jarrett and were given an answer that there was no way

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0201

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 134

1 to trace. And then subsequent to that when you were

2 asked the question again, you said you did not ask.

3 What was the distinction that you were drawing in

4 terms of asking for the duplicated ballot?

5 A. I thought Mr. Liddy was asking me if I had

6 planned on -- if it was in my plan of what I selected

7 and wanted to see, as far as the sample size, and I did

8 not plan that. I did not plan that. It was made clear

9 there was time taken to ensure that all the inspectors

13:04:50 10 were aware of how the process would be, the amounts we

11 were allowed, and all that. And they -- they were --

12 they were provided to us. And when they were, I asked

13 were the duplicates -- I did ask where the duplicated

14 were, but that was part of the court order process to

15 look at those, yes.

16 Q. And when you -- so that the record is clear, when

17 you asked for the duplicated ballot while you were there

18 at MCTEC, and what was the -- and who did you ask again,

19 Mr. Jarrett?

13:05:19 20 A. Mr. Jarrett, yes.

21 Q. And what was his response?

22 A. He said they would have to get techs and it would

23 take up to a week to trace that down.

24 Q. Okay. And you heard Mr. Jarrett testify that

25 there was no way that a 19-inch image was placed on

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0202

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 135

1 20-inch paper in the November 2022 General Election,

2 correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And is there any way that a 19-inch ballot image

5 placed on 20-inch paper in this election in Maricopa,

6 whether it was tabulated by the vote center tabulator or

7 the tabulators at MCTEC, that that 19-inch ballot image

8 would be accepted by the tabulator?

9 A. There is no way a 19-inch image on 20-inch paper

13:06:10 10 could be accepted by the tabulator.

11 Q. You also examined early votes, correct?

12 A. Yes, sir, I did.

13 Q. And you testified that those were votes that were

14 printed by Runbeck?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Did you see out of any of those early votes that

17 you inspected or observed a 19-inch image on 20-inch

18 paper?

19 A. No, sir, I did not.

13:06:35 20 Q. So the 19-inch image on 20-inch paper was only an

21 existing condition on the ballot on-demand printed

22 ballots, which were the day of the election; is that

23 accurate?

24 A. Yes, sir, that's accurate.

25 Q. You took a picture of those ballots side by side

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0203

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 136

1 in your report, correct?

2 A. I did not take the picture physically. The

3 photograph was provided to me.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. When I initially saw it, it may not to a normal

6 voter or user to pick this up; but again, I examine all

7 types of media in all types of way, and it jumped out at

8 me. And I requested to get a copy of that image,

9 because to me that -- that was very damning. And then

13:07:40 10 that photograph was an overlay, and it did confirm my

11 conclusions that it was a shrinkage and that it was a

12 19-inch image printed on a 20-inch ballot.

13 Q. Should there ever be, as Mr. Liddy characterized,

14 a shrink-to-fit ballot that comes out for some people's

15 ballots and not others?

16 A. I'm here to state the technical scientific facts.

17 I gave the options. Mr. Liddy's assumptions of a

18 shrink-to-fit is inaccurate, and to boot -- or to

19 further on add -- that if the ballot definition is

13:08:17 20 20 inches and you print it on 20-inch paper,

21 shrink-to-fit will do nothing. The margins will be

22 exactly the same as they are on a regular ballot, and

23 they should be tabulated. But what he referred to

24 cannot happen. The only other technical possibility for

25 that happening is if somebody messed with the print

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0204

 CLAY UDAY PARIKH - REDIRECT 137

1 drivers and made -- even though 20-inch paper was

2 loaded -- made the printer think it was 19 inches and

3 that would cause the shrink-to-fit. Those are the only

4 technical -- that's the only technical option that would

5 address Mr. Liddy's scenario.

6 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Parikh. No

7 further questions, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Well, may we excuse the witness?

9 MS. KHANNA: Yes, Your Honor.

13:09:07 10 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Parikh. You are

12 excused, sir.

13 (Witness excused.)

14 THE COURT: Mr. Blehm, Mr. Olsen, who is

15 your next witness?

16 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this time, we

17 would like to call Aaron Smith.

18 MS. KHANNA: Your Honor, I'm not sure that

19 we have Mr. Smith on the witness list.

13:09:39 20 MR. OLSEN: Absolutely was disclosed.

21 MS. KHANNA: On the witness list that you

22 filed with the Court yesterday?

23 MR. OLSEN: I have to look, but I know that

24 we disclosed him.

25 THE COURT: I don't see a Mr. Smith on the

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0205

 







y,//d
Appx0206
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

3 - - -

4 KARI LAKE, )
)
5 Contestant/Plaintiff, ) CV2022-095403
)
6 - vs - )
)
7 KATIE HOBBS, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
8 capacity as Secretary of )
State; Stephen Richer in his )
9 official capacity as Maricopa )
County Recorder; Bill Gates, )
10 Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, )
Thomas Galvin, and Steve )
11 Gallardo, in their official )
capacities as members of the )
12 Maricopa County Board of )
Supervisors; Scott Jarrett, )
13 in his official capacity as )
Maricopa County Director of )
14 Elections; and the Maricopa )
County Board of Supervisors, )
15 )
Defendants/Contestees. )
16 _____________________________

17
December 22, 2022
18 Courtroom 206, Southeast Facility
Mesa, Arizona
19

20 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON, J.

21
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
22
BENCH TRIAL - DAY 2
23

24 Reported by:

25 Robin G. Lawlor, RMR, CRR, FCRR

Official Court Reporter No. 50851

Appx0207
 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 170

1 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Valenzuela.

2 You're excused, sir.

3 (Witness excused.)

4 THE COURT: County's next witness, please.

5 MS. HARTMAN-TELLEZ: Your Honor, we call

6 Scott Jarrett.

7 THE COURT: Go ahead and take the stand.

8 (Witness previously sworn.)

9 THE COURT: Mr. Jarrett, you remain under

13:28:49 10 oath from your previous appearance. Do you understand

11 that, sir?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Thank you. You may proceed,

14 Counsel.

15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

16 BY MS. CRAIGER:

17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jarrett. Could you please

18 state your name?

19 A. Yeah, Robert Scott Jarrett.

13:29:01 20 Q. And where do you currently work, Mr. Jarrett?

21 A. I work for the Maricopa County Elections

22 Department.

23 Q. What is your current position?

24 A. So I am the Co-Director of the Elections

25 Department. I oversee in-person voting and tabulation

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0208

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 171

1 operations.

2 Q. How long have you held this position?

3 A. I was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in

4 2019.

5 Q. And could you just briefly describe your job

6 duties in that position?

7 A. Yes. So I oversee all in-person voting

8 operations, so that includes early in-person voting that

9 I report up to the Maricopa County Recorder for, that

13:29:37 10 does include drop boxes.

11 I also then oversee in-person voting on Election

12 Day, as well as -- so that will be all the recruiting

13 and training of poll workers, recruiting of temporary

14 staff that work at MCTEC or the Maricopa County

15 Elections and Tabulations Center; and then I would also

16 oversee warehouse operations then all tabulation

17 functions, including at the central count facility as

18 well as at the voting locations.

19 Q. And what's your educational background?

13:30:08 20 A. So I have a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from

21 the Arizona State University.

22 Q. What did you do before you were the Co-Elections

23 Director?

24 A. So I was an internal auditor with Maricopa County

25 and then also had some time with the Maricopa County

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0209

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 172

1 Community College District auditing performance,

2 auditing risk management, risk mitigation, as well as

3 compliance audits.

4 Q. So we're just going to generally discuss how

5 elections are conducted in Maricopa County on Election

6 Day.

7 To start, what was the total voter turnout in

8 Maricopa County for the 2022 General Election?

9 A. So voter turnout was 64 percent or 1,562,000

13:30:57 10 voters, or approximately there.

11 Q. And how did that compare to previous midterm

12 elections?

13 A. So it was one of the higher percentages. If you

14 go back for several decades, all the way back to the

15 '70s, it was actually the second highest as far as voter

16 turnout; 2018 only exceeded it by a small percentage.

17 And then even more recently, the three -- the average of

18 the three midterm elections was about 54 percent, so

19 that would be 2018, 2014, and then 2010. So turnout in

13:31:35 20 2022 was about 10 percentage points higher.

21 Q. So we've talked about vote centers. Just briefly

22 explain how the vote center model works?

23 A. Yes. So a vote center model works is it allows a

24 voter to vote at any location that Maricopa County is

25 offering. We offer 223 vote centers in the 2022 August

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0210

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 173

1 -- or, sorry -- November General Election. That was an

2 increase over the August Primary, which we had 200 --

3 210, so -- and it was also an increase over 2020, which

4 we had 175 vote centers.

5 So we're able to offer that option through our

6 site book check-in station. So that will confirm if a

7 voter is registered, confirm that they have not voted

8 previously, and then it will allow us, in conjunction

9 with our ballot on-demand technology, our printers, to

13:32:30 10 print that specific ballot for that voter. Maricopa

11 County had over 12,000 different ballot styles, so we

12 cannot offer a vote center model without that ballot

13 on-demand technology.

14 Q. So, thank you. How does the Elections

15 Department -- well, actually, what's the average

16 distance between vote centers? What was the average

17 distance in the 2022 general?

18 A. So we perform that calculation actually based off

19 the August Primary where we had 210 vote centers, and

13:33:08 20 that average distance was just under two miles per vote

21 center, 1.98. We did add then those 13 additional vote

22 centers for the General Election, so that actually

23 distance would be smaller, but I don't have that

24 specific calculation.

25 Q. Okay. So on Election Day when people are voting,

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0211

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 174

1 and at times waiting in line to vote at certain vote

2 centers, how does the Elections Department communicate

3 with the public about the wait times that are at the

4 various vote centers?

5 A. So when we're tracking this information through

6 our site books, our poll workers are going, gathering

7 the number of voters in line, and they will go count all

8 the way until the end of those lines. They report that

9 back to us through that site book. Then we post that

13:33:52 10 information onto our website that is updated about every

11 15 minutes from every one of our voting locations, so

12 voters will know when they are attempting or driving to

13 a voting location, what is that wait time at that

14 location. We advertise that through -- we have many

15 different press conferences leading up to the election

16 informing voters to use that website. All in-person

17 voters are also provided a sample ballot, and on that

18 sample ballot, it directs voters. It provides their

19 closest location, but also they could go to locations at

13:34:25 20 maricopa.vote website to identify what are all their

21 voting options, and in-person voting locations.

22 Q. So based on Maricopa County's calculations, which

23 -- well, let's start with you heard Dr. Mayer's

24 testimony earlier today regarding his analysis of wait

25 times; is that right?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0212

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 175

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. And did you agree with his description of the way

3 that Maricopa County makes that calculation?

4 A. So we make our calculation based off of how many

5 voters are in line and how quickly they are able to

6 check in to those voting locations, so that is how long

7 it's taking them, from the end of the line, to be able

8 to check in to then receive their ballot; and that's

9 based off historical knowledge, as well as the

13:35:19 10 throughput, how many voters are getting through and

11 checking in at a site book.

12 Q. And I think you heard -- or I recall Dr. Mayer

13 testifying about people's perceptions sometimes being

14 incorrect about the length of time. What are some of

15 the things that you've observed or experienced impacting

16 that perception or misperception, perhaps?

17 A. Yeah, I think when someone is making an estimate

18 about how long they've waited in line, they may be

19 making that off of when they arrived. They parked at

13:35:52 20 the voting location, right, whether they've then stood

21 in line, right, to be checked in at the voting location,

22 how long it took them to get their ballot, but also then

23 how long it would take them to actually vote their

24 ballot. And that can vary greatly, right? So some

25 voters we had in Maricopa County, one of the longest

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0213

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 176

1 ballots ever, on average over 85 contests. So some

2 voters come in very, very prepared, right? They may

3 even bring a sample ballot with them, and that can help

4 them expedite and fill out that ballot much more

5 quickly. Some voters may come in and they'll see the

6 contest and they only want to vote a few, so that might

7 only take them a minute, or fewer, to even complete that

8 ballot. But then some voters, and this is in -- we

9 allow this, we encourage voters to be able to do this,

13:36:37 10 we want them to be informed. So they will go get a

11 publicity pamphlet and they may investigate and read all

12 the different information about each individual contest

13 and then make their decisions in that voting booth. For

14 example, one day in early voting, we had a voter show

15 up, our voting location closed at 5:00, they showed up

16 at about shortly before 4:00 p.m., and that voter didn't

17 end up leaving the voting booth until close to 7:00 p.m.

18 So they did not wait in any line to check in,

19 they did not wait in any line to get their ballot

13:37:11 20 printed out on ballot on-demand printer, but they spent

21 several hours in the voting booth completing their

22 ballot then put that into an affidavit envelope to be

23 returned to the Elections Department. So when voters

24 calculate the time that they spent voting, it's all

25 based on some of their choices, their own choices that

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0214

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 177

1 they make, and how long they are going to complete their

2 ballot, or whether they are going to put their ballot

3 into a tabulator or drop it into Door Number 3, a secure

4 ballot box.

5 Q. So based on the County's analysis, what were the

6 longest wait times on Election Day?

7 A. So we had at about 16 locations wait times

8 approaching about two hours or between 90 minutes and

9 two hours, and that was not for the entire day, that was

13:38:00 10 intermittent; some of those were towards the end of the

11 day. But in every one of those instances, we have

12 locations that were close by where a voter could be able

13 to choose a different option to be able to drive to, and

14 some of those cases it was less than one minute wait

15 times.

16 Q. And just to reiterate earlier, that's all

17 communicated and publicly available to the public on the

18 County's websites?

19 A. That's correct. They could sort on our website

13:38:28 20 not only by entering in their address, they can sort by

21 wait times as well. And we had more than 85 percent of

22 our voting locations on Election Day never had a wait

23 time in excess of 45 minutes, and it was, I believe, it

24 was over 160 locations, never had a wait time over

25 30 minutes.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0215

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 178

1 Q. So this -- this information that you just

2 provided, was this part of the analysis that was

3 provided in the report to the Attorney General that was

4 discussed yesterday?

5 A. Yes, that's correct. So I drafted that report.

6 It was based off of all the information that we had, the

7 data that we had in the Maricopa County Elections

8 Department, so every aspect of that. And regarding wait

9 times, it's based off that very systematic approach in

13:39:18 10 how we train voters, or how we train our poll workers to

11 enter that data, based on the number of voters in line.

12 Q. So is it your belief that the information in that

13 report was accurate and correct?

14 A. That's correct, I believe that it was accurate.

15 And what I communicated to the Attorney General through

16 that report, was done with integrity and was accurate.

17 Q. Okay. So let's move on to actually Election Day.

18 And you talked about the ballot on-demand printers and

19 you discussed that more than 12,000 ballot styles

13:39:54 20 Maricopa County has, and that's why those ballot

21 on-demand printers are required, right?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. Okay. On Election Day in 2022, were there issues

24 with some of the County's ballot on-demand printers?

25 A. Yes, there were some issues with some of our

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0216

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 179

1 printers.

2 Q. And can you describe what those issues were?

3 A. So we are in the middle of our root cause

4 analysis still on this, but we have identified a few

5 items that contributed to the printer issues. The first

6 was our -- what we would have our smaller printers, or

7 OKI printer, and that was we had -- it was not printing

8 ballot timing marks on the back of the timing mark dark

9 enough, or some of them were speckled, and that was due

13:40:41 10 to what we identified was the printer settings or the

11 heat settings on the fuser, and we needed to adjust

12 those printer settings to all be consistent at the

13 highest heat setting.

14 Now, we had used these heat settings for prior

15 elections in 2020 as well as the August 2022 Primary,

16 the exact same heat settings. We had gone through

17 stress testing and identified that this was not an issue

18 or was not identified through that testing; but on

19 Election Day, we identified that due to the variants and

13:41:13 20 the number of ballots being printed through, as well as

21 the affidavit envelope, as well as the control slip, we

22 needed to change those heat settings to be consistent

23 for all three types of items being printed from those

24 printers to be at the highest heat setting or the heavy

25 heat setting.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0217

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 180

1 A few of the other items that we've

2 identified, though, as far as our ballot on-demand

3 printers, we did identify three different locations that

4 had a fit-to-paper setting that was adjusted on Election

5 Day. So those were at our Journey Church in a north

6 Glendale/Peoria area, that had about 200 or a little

7 over 200 ballots had that setting on it out of about

8 1,500 ballots voted at that voting location. That would

9 be the same with our Gateway Fellowship church, which is

13:42:02 10 an east Mesa voting location. That had about 900

11 ballots out of just shy of 2,000 ballots voted at the

12 voting location. And then we had LDS church, Lakeshore,

13 in the heart of Tempe, that had about 60 ballots out of

14 1,500.

15 So just shy of 1,300 ballots, and that was

16 due to our temporary technicians, when they were trying

17 to identify solutions on Election Day, adjusting a

18 setting -- now this was not direction that we provided

19 from the Maricopa County Elections Department -- but

13:42:35 20 adjusting that setting to a fit-to-paper setting, and

21 that was -- that was one of the vote centers that was

22 reviewed in the inspection by -- by the Plaintiffs in

23 this trial on Monday.

24 Q. So that --

25 A. Or was that Tuesday? I forget the day. I've

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0218

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 181

1 been working every day through the weekend.

2 Q. So -- so if I'm understanding you, on Election

3 Day, when there was troubleshooting trying to identify

4 this ballot on-demand printer issue, one of the T Techs,

5 or some of the T Techs, adjusted that setting and that

6 impacted some of the ballots that were cast at that --

7 at those three locations; is that right?

8 A. That's correct, and that was a -- not a 19-inch

9 ballot, right? When that happens, it's a 20-inch

13:43:23 10 ballot, a definition of a 20-inch ballot that's loaded

11 on the laptop from -- that is connected to the ballot

12 on-demand printer that gets printed onto then a 20-inch

13 piece of paper; but because of the fit-to-paper setting,

14 that actually shrinks the size of that ballot. And then

15 that ballot would not be tabulated onsite at the voting

16 location and also cannot be -- tabulated onsite at

17 central count.

18 Q. So if it couldn't be tabulated at the voting

19 location and at central count through the regular

13:43:55 20 tabulators, what happened to those ballots?

21 A. So those ballots came back to the central count

22 facility, and then we had hired duplication boards, a

23 bipartisan team, Republicans and Democrats, to duplicate

24 that ballot. So they first affix a marrying number to

25 that ballot, so that would then be able to identify that

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0219

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 182

1 ballot back to then the ballot that gets duplicated

2 onsite at the Elections Department so it can marry those

3 two up, and all the votes get -- get transferred to the

4 duplicated ballot that gets counted and tabulated.

5 Q. So ultimately all of those ballots were

6 tabulated?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. So just to sort of close the loop on this, there

9 were heat settings that had been identified so far in

13:44:43 10 your investigation; there were the T Techs who had

11 changed the fit-to-page setting, and that impacted some

12 of the ballots that were printed on Election Day. Were

13 there any other issues that you discovered at this point

14 that impacted the ability for some tabulators at vote

15 centers to be able to read ballots that were cast on

16 Election Day?

17 A. So there's a few other instances that we've

18 identified. One is the use of a very thin writing

19 utensil, such as a ballpoint pen, and then voters using

13:45:17 20 checkmarks or X's, and that is because our

21 precinct-based tabulators, or vote center tabulators

22 that are onsite, they cannot read an ambiguous mark,

23 right?

24 So if a voter has ambiguous mark on their ballot,

25 the tabulator alerts the voter there is an ambiguous

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0220

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 183

1 mark, right? And then that voter is given the option to

2 either spoil that ballot and vote a new ballot, or to

3 put that ballot into the secure Door Number 3, the drop

4 box, so then that can then be returned to the Elections

5 Department and duplicated. So we did identify about

6 10 percent of those Door Number 3 ballots were the cause

7 of having an ambiguous mark on the ballot.

8 We also did identify in our Door Number 3 as well

9 some early ballots that were inserted into that, so that

13:46:02 10 was an indication that a voter took the early ballot out

11 of the affidavit envelope, attempted to insert those

12 into the vote center tabulator, which is not unusual.

13 That happens every election. We also identified a few

14 provisional ballots as well. So that's when a voter

15 would be issued a provisional ballot onsite, they take

16 it out of the envelope and then attempt to insert that

17 into the tabulator as well.

18 So our poll workers are trained not to look at

19 the voter's ballot to see how they voted, but they work

13:46:31 20 with the voter to identify, okay, this ballot is not

21 reading, and then if they were issued a provisional, ask

22 them where's your affidavit envelope, you need to insert

23 that into the affidavit envelope. But at that point in

24 time it becomes the voter's choice. Do they want to

25 insert it back into the affidavit envelope, do they want

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0221

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 184

1 to drop it into Door Number 3?

2 Q. And to be clear, can the onsite -- I think you've

3 testified to this, but just to be clear, can the onsite

4 tabulators read early ballots?

5 A. They cannot read early ballots or provisional

6 ballots, they are specifically programmed not to read

7 those ballots as a control measure to prevent double

8 voting.

9 Q. So we've talked now about the issue that arose.

13:47:15 10 I want to talk a little bit about, sort of, the timing

11 of when you learned that this was happening and the

12 process that the County took to try and identify a

13 resolution that you said was identified. At about what

14 point in the day did you determine -- did you learn that

15 there were some issues with tabulation?

16 A. We received our first call from our first vote

17 centers starting about 6:20 to 6:30. And that point in

18 time, we once we started receiving those calls, we

19 alerted the poll workers to follow their training, which

13:47:50 20 was to -- a couple options -- one was to have those

21 voters and give them the option to drop their ballot

22 into that secure Door Number 3, or drop box, a practice

23 that we've used in Maricopa County since the '90s,

24 right, ever since we first introduced onsite tabulators

25 at those voting locations.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0222

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 185

1 Again, voters being able to put their ballots in

2 that secured drop box at -- there's 15 counties in

3 Maricopa County -- eight of them, so if you go to the

4 five largest counts in Arizona, Pima County, slightly

5 Democratic leaning; you look at Pinal County, the third

6 largest, slightly Republican leaning; you look at

7 Yavapai County, again slightly Republican leaning; and

8 Mohave County, all of those don't offer onsite

9 tabulation. They only offer a secure ballot drop box.

13:48:43 10 So we alerted our voters to be able -- or our

11 poll workers, remind voters that they had that option to

12 drop off their ballot in that secure ballot drop box.

13 We also reminded them that they can have those voters

14 spoil that ballot, check in again, get a new ballot.

15 And then we had also implemented a cleaning procedure

16 for this election for our troubleshooters, and so we had

17 some of our troubleshooters start cleaning those

18 precinct-based tabulators, so that was right away at

19 about 6:20 to 6:30 point.

13:49:12 20 We also deployed T Techs, or technicians, out

21 into the field. We had over 90 of them deployed on

22 Election Day, and they started investigating and

23 troubleshooting the issue. So that took us about a

24 couple hours to rule out that it was not a tabulator

25 issue. So at that point in time, those first couple

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0223

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 186

1 hours, we were -- was it a tabulator issue? Was it a

2 printer issue? We started getting reports back by about

3 8:30 that it was the timing marks on the ballots

4 themselves, that they were not printed dark enough. So

5 at that point in time, we needed to determine why that

6 was, because all of our stress testing at that point in

7 time had never identified this as being an issue.

8 So once we went through and were investigating

9 that, we were working with our print vendor. They had

13:49:59 10 members out in the field deployed as well. We also had

11 members from our tabulation company out in the field

12 investigating as well.

13 So by about 10:15, we identified the solution, or

14 a potential solution, and that was to change those heat

15 settings. At that point in time, we need to replicate

16 it. So then it took us about another hour at several

17 different sites to replicate that that would be the

18 solution on Election Day. Once we had identified that

19 solution between then, I think it was around 11:30 all

13:50:32 20 the way through 7:00 p.m., which that's the time that's

21 referenced in the Attorney General's report, the

22 7:00 p.m. timeline, we were making -- and going out and

23 changing those heat settings on those tabulators.

24 Q. So just to take a step back. Some of the vote

25 centers at Maricopa County are also early voting

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0224

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 187

1 locations; is that right?

2 A. That's correct. We use a phased-in opening

3 approach for our vote centers.

4 Q. So why is it that this issue with the ballot

5 on-demand printers wouldn't have been discovered through

6 the early voting process?

7 A. Well, because we didn't have any onsite

8 tabulators at any of our early voting locations. So all

9 of the timing -- the timing marks that were printed, so

13:51:15 10 the lighter timing marks, all of those were able to

11 actually be read through our central count tabulation

12 equipment. So during early voting, a voter puts in

13 their ballot into an affidavit envelope and brings it

14 back to central count. Those get then run through our

15 central count tabulation equipment. So those were

16 running fine, we had no issues.

17 So only ones, actually, that weren't running

18 through our central count or our tabulator were the ones

19 that were the fit-to-page setting for those printers,

13:51:45 20 and none of those were occurring during early voting as

21 well.

22 Q. So, Mr. Jarrett, do you have any reason to

23 believe that the issues that occurred on Election Day

24 was some ballot on-demand prints was caused by

25 intentional misconduct?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0225

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 188

1 A. I have no knowledge or no reason to believe that.

2 Q. Okay. We're going to switch gears a little and

3 talk about chain-of-custody documents.

4 So you heard Mr. Valenzuela talking about the

5 Early Ballot Transport Statements. You're familiar with

6 those documents, correct?

7 A. That's correct, because I oversee the in-person

8 voting operations.

9 Q. And what are -- just to reiterate, what are those

13:52:26 10 documents used for?

11 A. So those are used by our bipartisan courier teams

12 to go out to vote centers and drop boxes used during

13 early voting, the early voting period all the way up

14 until the day before Election Day, to retrieve early

15 ballots that are in that affidavit envelope, and to

16 document how they are transferred from those vote

17 centers back to the central count tabulation center. So

18 documents all the tamper-evident seals, who those

19 individuals were, as well as once they get back to the

13:52:58 20 central count facility the count of the number of early

21 ballots that were transported.

22 Q. So then that gets us to the day before Election

23 Day, right? Let's talk about Election Day and the

24 chain-of-custody documents that are used on Election

25 Day. Can we put Plaintiff's Exhibit 85, please?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0226

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 189

1 So I believe, Your Honor, that this has

2 already been admitted into evidence.

3 THE COURT: I believe you're correct, right?

4 82 --

5 MS. CRAIGER: Okay. So, thank you, Your

6 Honor. I'll take some -- a minute to establish the

7 foundation for this document.

8 BY MS. CRAIGER:

9 Q. Mr. Jarrett, do you recognize this document?

13:53:43 10 A. Yes, this is an example of one of our precinct

11 ballot reports that are completed -- well, first, the

12 seal numbers that are here are actually during our logic

13 and accuracy tests. When we're scanning those in, those

14 seal numbers are for the tabulators that are onsite at

15 every voting location. So some of this information is

16 populated by the Elections Department. Pre to it

17 occurring on Election Day, we deliver all of these

18 precinct ballot reports to our inspectors, so those are

19 the supervisors at every voting location, and then the

13:54:15 20 inspectors, along with their fellow poll workers, will

21 complete these documents onsite at the voting location.

22 Some of those tasks are done during the opening

23 procedures; some of those tasks are done during the

24 closing procedures.

25 Q. So let's walk through section by section what's

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0227

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 190

1 on here. So you talked the purpose of this is for the

2 inspector and some of the poll workers on Election Day

3 to -- to document what's -- what's occurred at that

4 location. So what is the first section that's

5 identified as opening polls? What information is

6 provided in that section?

7 A. Well, so I will say there is a name of the

8 facility that was just higher up on the voting location.

9 So each one of our facilities has this report, so it

13:55:11 10 identifies the location of the facility. The next

11 section talks about the tabulators and our accessible

12 voting device. So this is to document that each door or

13 port on that tabulator has a seal number affixed, right?

14 Those seals were affixed by the Elections Department

15 employees prior to or during the logic and accuracy

16 test, and those are what the poll workers use to verify

17 that those tabulators have not been tampered with

18 between the time that the Elections Department affixed

19 those seals and when the poll workers are opening up the

13:55:45 20 voting location and opening the polls on Election Day.

21 You also have information related to the

22 accessible voting device. You have a lifetime counter

23 that is -- that is being added to the -- the right there

24 beginning lifetime counter under the accessible voting

25 device. And then if there were any beginning total

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0228

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 191

1 ballots printed, the accessible voting device is not

2 widely used at all of our different voting locations.

3 So it's not unusual for them not to have a ballot count

4 on that next line, the Beginning Total Ballots Printed.

5 Q. Okay. And I think you said that the inspectors

6 and the poll workers are completing these documents.

7 What, just briefly, kind of training do the inspectors

8 get prior to having that role at the vote centers on

9 Election Day?

13:56:37 10 A. So we go into in-depth in-person training on this

11 form for all of our poll workers on how to complete

12 this, not only our inspectors; but it's covered through

13 a PowerPoint presentation that goes through what is

14 their responsibilities. We also provide a training

15 manual that details exactly how this form should be

16 completed, and then there's different checklists in our

17 training manual for assignments on what the different

18 poll workers and the roles of the poll workers play in

19 completely this form.

13:57:07 20 Q. So there's two tabulators at every location,

21 correct?

22 A. That's correct. We had two tabulators at every

23 location, except for one, which is our DACA village

24 location, which is actually to get there, we have to go

25 through Pinal County and it serves the Tohono O'odham

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0229

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 192

1 Nation.

2 Q. So --

3 A. Every other vote center had two tabulators.

4 Q. Thank you. So if we could scroll down a little

5 further on the document.

6 So let's talk about the closing poll section in

7 the middle. What information is provided in that

8 section and when is that -- well, let's start with what

9 information is provided?

13:57:48 10 A. So at the end of the night after the polls have

11 closed, all voters have finished voting and left the

12 voting location, the poll workers start their closing

13 operations, and then they start getting and compiling

14 some information. Some of that information comes from

15 the tabulators themselves, so that's what we see, the

16 ballot count on tabulator screen. So there's the two

17 different tabulators, so then they'll log how many

18 ballots were counted on each tabulator. They'll then

19 check off as they are performing some specific tasks,

13:58:18 20 whether they removed the memory cards, so those memory

21 cards are what are going to be read in on election night

22 to report results. So they are going to be removing

23 those, they are going to be taking off the

24 tamper-evidence seal. Actually they are going to be

25 affixing that tamper-evidence seal to the back of this

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0230

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 193

1 form, and then they are going to then take those memory

2 cards, put them into what we call a bubble pack that's

3 going to be in a container, so that those memory cards

4 can be securely and safely transported back from the

5 voting locations.

6 After both memory cards from the two different

7 tabulators onsite are in those -- those bubble packs,

8 those are then affixed with a tamper-evidence seal as

9 well, which is logged here in this information.

13:58:59 10 Q. And that I believe is the second or the next page

11 of this exhibit under seals. Is that what you're

12 describing?

13 A. That's correct. So they tape the actual seal

14 itself, and then they'll affix it to the back of the

15 form.

16 Q. So let's then move down to the bottom section.

17 It says, security seals. What information is being

18 provided in that section?

19 A. So here is where we're documenting the chain of

13:59:30 20 custody of items being returned back from the voting

21 location. So if they have a black bag, so those black

22 canvas bags, those are what the poll workers use to

23 return the voted ballots, so those live loose ballots

24 that are not in an affidavit envelope so they'll put

25 those in a black canvas bag, then they'll affix a

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0231

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 194

1 tamper-evidence seal to those bags, and then they'll log

2 that information here.

3 Now, every voting location has two black bags

4 that we issue to it. Sometimes the voters will only use

5 one of the precinct-based tabulators, so they only take

6 out the ballots from one of those locations, put it into

7 that black canvas bag, so there will only be one seal

8 that's logged, they are logging here.

9 The other information here is a red box, our red

14:00:16 10 box seal, so those are the forms that are being returned

11 to us from the voting location. So it's a secure

12 container that is able -- has a closing lid, and then

13 they'll be able to affix tamper-evident seals to those,

14 and then log that information here on this form. And

15 then those blue box seals, those are the transport

16 containers that we're delivering the early ballots that

17 are in those affidavit envelopes back to the elections

18 department. So it's very clear, they are not loose

19 ballots at this point in time. They are in a sealed

14:00:46 20 green affidavit envelope with a unique Piece ID on that

21 affidavit envelope. Those go into these blue bins and

22 they got logged -- the seals on those get logged onto

23 this form, and this is what documents the secure

24 transport from the voting location from the poll workers

25 to the Elections Department.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0232

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 195

1 Q. So before we talk about how all of this

2 information and all of these items make their way back

3 to MCTEC, Scott, in your position, are you familiar with

4 the Elections Procedures Manual?

5 A. Yes, I am.

6 Q. And in talking about this section on the blue box

7 seals and the process that you just described for

8 putting those green affidavit envelopes that were

9 collected on Election Day into those boxes and sealing

14:01:36 10 them, is that consistent with the requirements of the

11 Elections Procedures Manual?

12 A. Yes, it is. Chapter 9, subsection 8, subpart

13 B -- I believe it's on page 192 -- it describes that at

14 the end during -- that's closing procedures for our

15 elections -- elections boards at our voting locations.

16 So they will -- it provides for them to be able to put

17 those -- those early ballot affidavit envelopes with the

18 ballots sealed inside into a secured container. It does

19 not require that we count those at the voting location.

14:02:10 20 It just requires that we put those into a secure

21 container -- container, affix that with tamper-evident

22 seals, and return it back to the Elections Department.

23 MS. CRAIGER: Your Honor, before we move to

24 that, I would like to move Plaintiff's Exhibit 85 into

25 evidence?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0233

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 196

1 THE COURT: Any objection?

2 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

3 MR. OLSEN: No objection, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: All right. 85 is admitted.

5 BY MS. CRAIGER:

6 Q. If we can go to -- it's page 192 that Mr. Jarrett

7 just referenced.

8 Mr. Jarrett, is this the section that you were

9 referring to?

14:03:06 10 A. That's correct -- correct, on that subpart B,

11 Election Board Close-Out Duties, and if you go -- so you

12 can see that on the left page 192, on the right

13 page 193, it's actually that bullet G, the number of

14 early ballots received by the voting location. So it

15 asks that -- we document that on the -- what we call our

16 Precinct Ballot Report, unless the ballots are

17 transported in a secure sealed transport container to

18 the central counting place.

19 Q. And that's the practice of Maricopa County?

14:03:33 20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. So once the form is completed, what happens next

22 with the items that are documented on there and the

23 forms?

24 A. So those secure containers will then be

25 transported one of two ways. One will be by the poll

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0234

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 197

1 workers directly to MCTEC, our central counting

2 facility, if it's one of the locations that's close by,

3 the central counting facility. So most of those are

4 within central Phoenix.

5 If it is a more remote location, then we set up a

6 receiving site that has sheriff deputies onsite, we have

7 bipartisan teams, we have truck drivers at those voting

8 locations, so -- and then those would be receiving sites

9 where the poll workers then will deliver all the items,

14:04:23 10 including the ballots, those loose ballots, that are in

11 a black canvas bag that are sealed, the memory cards,

12 the red transport containers and the blue transport

13 containers.

14 Once they arrive onsite, we have bipartisan teams

15 filling out chain-of-custody documents receiving all

16 those items, so documenting them coming into that

17 receiving site. We're also then for the first time now

18 scanning those items, so all those tamper-evident seals

19 have a little barcode can be scanned, so we're scanning

14:04:49 20 all those items that are coming in from the voting

21 location to the receiving site.

22 They get loaded up, so all of the different

23 receiving sites that are close by, so if we have one,

24 like, at Surprise City Hall, all the voting locations

25 that are close by to Surprise City Hall drive there,

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0235

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 198

1 deliver their items. Those will then be escorted from

2 two different patrol deputies from the Maricopa County

3 Sheriff's Office, those trucks, all the way back to

4 MCTEC.

5 Once they arrive back at MCTEC, we're then

6 scanning in all of those seals again, documenting that

7 transfer of chain of custody from the truck drivers to

8 MCTEC.

9 Then once all those seals are scanned, then for

14:05:29 10 those early ballots that are in those blue transport

11 containers, we send them through our bipartisan teams,

12 which we call our blue line. So that's where those --

13 those seals will finally be broken, once they get to the

14 Elections Department, and then we will begin sorting

15 them. So what will be in there are green affidavit

16 envelopes, so those would be any of the early ballot

17 drop-offs. There could be some of those white

18 envelopes, those counter ballots that were still there

19 from the night before so on that Monday, during

14:06:01 20 emergency voting, if voters had participated, or there

21 could be provisional ballots in all of those.

22 So that blue line team is now sorting those into

23 different mail trails -- trays by ballot type. So, and

24 then, those will then be going into secure cages, and in

25 those secure cages, we're able to estimate and provide

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0236

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 199

1 an estimate of the number of ballots that are in each of

2 those trays as well as those -- those secure cages. We

3 then have a bipartisan team then in a truck deliver

4 those to Runbeck on election night.

5 We also employ a two-member team at Runbeck. So

6 when we are delivering that first ballot, those first

7 ballots, those early ballots, again, in a green

8 affidavit envelope, there's a team onsite at Runbeck.

9 One of them is a permanent employee. That permanent

14:06:56 10 employee has a County-issued cell phone so they can take

11 pictures of forms that are being scanned through and

12 counts and numbers documenting the exact numbers that

13 are being scanned in by Runbeck.

14 We also had a temporary staff member that was

15 appointed by the County chairman for the -- for the

16 Republican party that was also onsite during this whole

17 process. Those members are signing those Inbound Scan

18 Receipt Forms, so as they are going through and being

19 counted by those high-capacity scanners counting those

14:07:29 20 green affidavit envelopes on election night, all the way

21 through until the next day, which was not completed

22 until actually 5:00 p.m., or just shortly after

23 5:00 p.m., they were scanning each one of those, and

24 they would be able to scan them by ballot types. So

25 here's the number of green affidavits that were in spec,

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0237

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 200

1 right? So some of them are underweight, so we're even

2 documenting how many of those ballots were underweight.

3 How many of those ballots were overweight, how many of

4 those ballots actually didn't have a valid ID number.

5 Those are a voter returning to us in a green affidavit

6 envelope. There may be primary ballot or their 2020

7 ballot, and so we're documenting all of those. So once

8 they are scanned in, we have a one-for-one tracking for

9 every one of those affidavit envelopes, but we also have

14:08:18 10 a total count, and we had a total count of 291,890 early

11 ballots scanned in and the Elections Department with our

12 vendor -- best-in-class vendor, Runbeck, certified

13 vendor -- was performing those counts under the direct

14 supervision and observation of Maricopa County

15 employees, and we signed every single one of those

16 inbound scanned forms as they were coming in. They

17 documented the start time of the scan; they documented

18 the end time of the scan. That's how we maintained

19 chain of custody for every one of those early ballots

14:08:54 20 all the way through the process until we transferred it

21 over to Runbeck; and then we had a one-for-one, that

22 Piece ID on every affidavit envelope, so we would know

23 if a ballot was inserted or rejected or lost in any one

24 part of that process, we would know it.

25 Q. Thank you, Scott.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0238

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 201

1 So I just want to be clear on the number. So

2 this 291,890 are the number of ballot or, I mean, early

3 ballot packets that came in on election night; is that

4 right?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. So earlier Mr. Valenzuela talked about the need

7 to use the high-speed scanners at Runbeck to be able to

8 process a number that high; is that correct?

9 A. That's correct, and that's why we had a team,

14:09:43 10 right, following that chain of custody all the way

11 through the process until we got to Runbeck, and then

12 even after Runbeck, we had teams hired by Maricopa

13 County to maintain that custody until it was transferred

14 and we had an actual count of those ballots.

15 Q. So could we pull up Defendants' Exhibit 33,

16 please?

17 So this is a little challenging to read, Scott,

18 but do you recognize this document?

19 A. Yes, I do.

14:10:15 20 Q. And is this the inbound receipt of delivery forms

21 that you were talking about?

22 A. That's correct. So that is a Runbeck, it's a

23 three-part form that's completed, and then you can see

24 and not in the best image quality, but you can see right

25 under where you can see the grid or the boxes, there's

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0239

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 202

1 some staff member's signatures that are being signed

2 right there, and those are the Maricopa County

3 employees.

4 MS. CRAIGER: Sorry. Just a little

5 housekeeping, Your Honor, did we admit Exhibit

6 Number 85? Plaintiff's Exhibit 85, I believe?

7 THE COURT: Today, yes, it was.

8 BY MS. CRAIGER:

9 Q. Okay. Sorry, Scott.

14:11:11 10 So, I'm sorry, so we started -- these are the

11 ones that are used on election night I believe you just

12 said?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Okay. So let's talk about the information that's

15 documented on here starting at the top.

16 A. So it will be identifying the date and the

17 operator at Runbeck that's running their equipment,

18 right, and then we have an election number that's

19 assigned for every election, so that's documented at the

14:11:37 20 very top of this.

21 The next items are going to be the batch ID

22 that's assigned by Runbeck and that's being scanned

23 through their inbound scanning equipment, and then the

24 next pieces of information start counting the number of

25 green affidavit envelopes that are being scanned in

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0240

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 203

1 through their equipment. So the inbound scan here

2 showing there's 9,940 inbound scanned green affidavit

3 envelopes. Also will then show the number of

4 provisionals, and here I can't read it on -- on this

5 equipment because the image quality. It will also show

6 the number of early ballot affidavit envelopes that are

7 overweight, so that could be that the voter kept the

8 instructions in that green affidavit envelope. It will

9 show then the number of green affidavit envelopes that

14:12:25 10 are underweight, so maybe that's an empty affidavit

11 envelope, or maybe the ballot is damaged inside, is not

12 a complete ballot. It will also show then the number of

13 ballots that didn't have or had an invalid ID, so those

14 are potentially the green affidavit envelopes that are

15 from the primary election, right? Or then if it's

16 unreadable, so there are some times where there's a

17 damaged green affidavit envelope or that affidavit

18 envelope can't be read, so we're taking that image and

19 those will go through special handling, be turned over

14:12:56 20 to the Recorder's Office in the early voting team to

21 document that transfer of the custody.

22 Q. And I think you testified before that at all

23 times of this process from when these are taken out of

24 the blue bins, placed into the trays, into the cages,

25 transported to Runbeck, that is all done under the

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0241

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 204

1 observation of Maricopa County permanent employees; is

2 that right?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Okay. And so if you look at this document again,

5 and it's hard to see it on here, but where do you see

6 that the County employees have signed off and verified

7 the information on here?

8 A. So it's that -- those signatures just below that

9 grid, and you can see two different signatures. One of

14:13:38 10 those is one of our permanent employees, and one of

11 those was then that temporary employees; and by the way,

12 it was a Democrat and a Republican there so that we had

13 that bipartisan representation as well.

14 And then our permanent employee with their

15 County-issued cell phone after each one of these were

16 scanned in, they would take a -- they take a picture of

17 that, and then they send that via e-mail to me, Mr.

18 Valenzuela, and a few of the other election directors,

19 or assistant election directors within so we had then an

14:14:07 20 accounting for these via image as well.

21 Q. And just to be clear, the temporary employee that

22 you were referred to as appointed by --

23 A. The County Republican Chair for the Maricopa

24 County Republican Party.

25 Q. Thank you. And then once this process is

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0242

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT 205

1 completed, then these go -- am I correct that these go

2 through then the signature verification process like Mr.

3 Valenzuela described in his testimony; is that right?

4 A. That's correct. So these ballots would then be

5 secured and stored in an vault. Right under them we

6 have security guard onsite, a Maricopa County employee

7 security guard onsite for 24 hours a day. And then once

8 they are completed with the signature verification

9 process, then they won't be transferred back to the

14:14:58 10 County until that's completed, and all of those are

11 documented through those forms that Rey, or Mr.

12 Valenzuela, went through.

13 MS. CRAIGER: Your Honor, I would like to

14 move Defendants' Exhibit 33 into evidence, please.

15 THE COURT: Any objection?

16 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: 33 is admitted.

18 BY MR. CRAIGER:

19 Q. All right. One last point, Scott. During the

14:15:23 20 course of this process we've heard suggestions of the

21 275,000-plus estimate that was made after voting was

22 completed on Election Day. Can you explain how that

23 number -- how that estimate gets made on election night?

24 A. So those were based off -- all those green

25 affidavit envelopes coming back through those blue

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0243

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - DIRECT/CROSS 206

1 transfer bins that we broke the tamper-evident seals on

2 inserting -- taking those out and organizing them into

3 those mail trays. So at that point, it's just an

4 estimate. And so then Mr. Recorder Richer, he made an

5 estimate early in the day following Election Day, on

6 11/9, the day after. We had not finished our

7 scanning-in process. That wasn't completed until much

8 later in the evening, just shortly after 5:00 p.m. when

9 we had that full accounting for all those 290,000 early

14:16:26 10 ballots. So that estimate was released earlier in the

11 day to just give an indication of there was going to be

12 275,000-plus early ballots that still needed to be

13 counted.

14 MS. CRAIGER: Thank you, Scott. One moment.

15 All right. Thank you, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Cross?

17 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

18 CROSS-EXAMINATION

19 BY MR. OLSEN:

14:17:03 20 Q. Mr. Jarrett, do you recall your testimony

21 yesterday?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And yesterday you testified that a 19-inch ballot

24 image being imprinted on a 20-inch ballot did not happen

25 in the 2022 General Election.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0244

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 207

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes, I recall that there was not a 19-ballot

3 definition in the 2022 General Election.

4 Q. But that wasn't my question, sir. I asked you

5 specifically about a 19-inch ballot image being

6 imprinted on a 20-inch piece of paper.

7 So are you changing your testimony now with

8 respect to that?

9 A. No, I'm not. I don't know the exact measurements

14:17:43 10 of a fit to -- fit-to-paper printing. I know that it

11 just creates a slightly smaller image of a 20-inch image

12 on a 20-inch paper ballot.

13 Q. Slightly smaller image. How come you didn't

14 mention that yesterday?

15 A. I wasn't asked about that.

16 Q. Well, I was asking you is 19 inches smaller than

17 20 inches? It is, isn't it? Sure.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So when I said, you know, asked you questions

14:18:14 20 about a 19-inch ballot image being imprinted on a

21 20-inch piece of paper, and you denied that that

22 happened in the 2022 General Election, did you not think

23 it would be relevant to say, hey, by the way, you know,

24 there was this fit-to-print image issue that we

25 discovered?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0245

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 208

1 MS. CRAIGER: Your Honor, I object. Counsel

2 is misstating Mr. Jarrett's testimony from yesterday.

3 THE COURT: Okay. Once again, if he's able

4 to understand the question and answer it, he can do so.

5 If you don't understand or need it rephrased, you can do

6 that as well, Mr. Jarrett. If you're able to answer,

7 please do so.

8 THE WITNESS: What I recall from yesterday's

9 questioning was that there was a 19-inch definition,

14:18:58 10 which that did not occur, ballot definition.

11 BY MR. OLSEN:

12 Q. So if your testimony reflects my question or --

13 strike that -- if the back and forth between our

14 question and answer shows me asking you specifically

15 about a 19-inch ballot image being printed on a 20-inch

16 piece of paper, you are now saying that you interpreted

17 that as a ballot definition issue?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. And you wouldn't think it would be relevant, even

14:19:36 20 in that circumstance to say, hey, we learned about this

21 fit-to-print issue? Did you know about the -- when did

22 you learn about this fit-to-print issue?

23 A. When we started doing the audit reconciliation of

24 those Door 3 ballots, we identified some of those

25 ballots had then a fit-to-paper issue.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0246

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 209

1 Q. And when was that?

2 A. I don't remember the exact dates, but a few days

3 after Election Day.

4 Q. And who told you about that?

5 A. Our ballot tabulation team and our -- our audit

6 review team that was then doing -- doing the inspection

7 of the Door 3 ballots.

8 Q. So, and I believe your testimony was that you

9 discovered this only in three vote center locations,

14:20:29 10 correct?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. So did you look at the other locations to see if

13 this so-called fit-to-print issue arose at other

14 locations?

15 A. We looked at all the Door 3 misread ballots that

16 were in the secured Door 3, and we didn't identify any

17 of those that a fit-to-paper issue.

18 Q. Fit-to-paper issue.

19 So if evidence showed up that there was a 19-inch

14:21:00 20 ballot imprinted on a 20-inch piece of paper out of the

21 Anthem location, that's not one of the locations that

22 you identified, is it?

23 A. I did not identify that at -- from Anthem.

24 Q. When did this so-called adjustment to the printer

25 settings happen on Election Day that gave rise to this

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0247

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 210

1 fit-to-print issue?

2 A. I don't have the specific time, but it was during

3 the course of Election Day.

4 Q. And was this fit-to-print issue, how did those

5 settings get changed? Was it at the direction of

6 somebody from Maricopa or just somebody on their own

7 doing it?

8 A. It was not at the direction of anyone from

9 Maricopa County.

14:21:51 10 Q. So was the change in the settings in response to

11 tabulator issues?

12 A. So we believe at least at one of the sites one of

13 the technicians was attempting to troubleshoot and then

14 made that change.

15 Q. So if other sites, if the tabulator issues arose

16 immediately before any technician made any changes to

17 the print settings, then your theory of a fit-to-print

18 issue would not be correct, yes?

19 A. No, I disagree.

14:22:22 20 Q. So when would the changes to the printer settings

21 have been made?

22 A. So the reason I know it didn't occur prior is

23 because during our test prints prior to Election Day

24 there was no identified fit to paper setting issue.

25 Q. And when was that?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0248

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 211

1 A. We do that during -- when we're setting up each

2 voting location, we run test prints on all of the

3 printers.

4 Q. And how would you know that it didn't arise?

5 A. It was never reported back through our chain of

6 custody from the technicians to -- up to me, which they

7 would have reported that to me.

8 Q. Why do you think they would have reported it to

9 you?

14:22:59 10 A. Because I meet with the team routinely and

11 throughout the day, and I've even asked them

12 subsequently, and they have said that they never

13 identified it during any of the setups.

14 Q. So did you have a meeting with all these

15 technicians and ask them this question?

16 A. I had a meeting with our command center teams.

17 Q. Were all the technicians asked about this

18 fit-to-print issue?

19 A. I don't know if all the technicians were.

14:23:25 20 Q. Is there any documentation of any inquiry about

21 this fit-to-print issue?

22 A. I don't know if there's any documentation.

23 Q. So you said you performed a root cause analysis

24 to determine the -- how these problems arose on Election

25 Day?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0249

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 212

1 A. We're in the process of performing a root cause

2 analysis.

3 Q. And as part of that root cause analysis, you

4 determined that there was this fit-to-print issue at

5 three locations, correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Is there any documentation preceding yesterday's

8 testimony that identifies this issue?

9 A. As part of -- yes, there is some documentation.

14:24:06 10 Q. What documentation?

11 A. So some of our audit reconciliation forms that

12 identified the three locations.

13 Q. And what do those audit reconciliation forms

14 show?

15 A. They show the number of check-ins from voting

16 locations. They show the number of Door 3 ballots and

17 then notes based off our audit reconciliation.

18 Q. Does it say fit-to-print issue was the cause, or

19 words to that effect on those forms?

14:24:33 20 A. It actually is using the term shrink-to-fit, not

21 fit-to-shrink.

22 Q. Shrink-to-fit, shrink-to-fit. And was that

23 determined to be the cause, or is that a -- was that an

24 assumption as a possibility?

25 A. It was determined to be the cause for those three

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0250

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 213

1 locations, for the ones wouldn't be read at the voting

2 location and then be read at central count.

3 Q. And, again, you did not mention this in your

4 testimony yesterday, did you?

5 A. I did not.

6 Q. Did you publish anywhere that there was this

7 shrink-to-fit issue after the election?

8 A. I believe not.

9 Q. So you didn't tell the public, hey, we've

14:25:22 10 discovered -- I mean, you're performing your root cause

11 analysis and you find out that there was this

12 shrink-to-fit issue that gave rise to problems in the

13 tabulators, and you did not inform the public about

14 this?

15 A. We're still in the process of our root cause

16 analysis.

17 Q. With respect to the chain-of-custody issues that

18 you testified to, does Maricopa County know the exact

19 number of ballots that come in -- Election Day ballots,

14:25:51 20 not early vote ballots -- do they know the number of

21 ballots that come in to MCTEC on Election Day, the exact

22 number?

23 A. Through our memory cards or what are read in from

24 that memory cards we have an accounting for what gets

25 reported.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0251

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 214

1 Q. And how this memory card is generated with the

2 ballots, where do the numbers come from on them?

3 A. From our vote center tabulators, those onsite

4 tabulators. So every ballot that gets read into a vote

5 -- a vote center tabulators get logged, and then those

6 results are read on to that memory card.

7 Q. Before they are sent to the tabulator, aren't the

8 ballots sent up to Runbeck for scanning and processing?

9 A. Are you referring to Election Day ballots?

14:26:38 10 Q. Yes.

11 A. The ones that are tabulated onsite, no.

12 Q. No, not tabulated onsite, that are -- aren't they

13 ballots envelopes delivered to Runbeck for scanning and

14 processing then sent back to MCTEC?

15 A. I'm sorry. When you say Election Day ballots,

16 you didn't say the early ballots that were dropped off

17 on Election Day, so I misunderstood.

18 So can you repeat your question?

19 Q. The Election Day ballots, does Maricopa County

14:27:05 20 maintain an exact count of them before they are shipped

21 to Runbeck?

22 A. So you're referring to, again, the early ballots

23 that are dropped off on Election Day, are those the

24 ballots that you're referring to?

25 Q. No. I'm referring to the ballots that come in on

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0252

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS 215

1 Election Day that are dropped off?

2 A. I don't understand your question, because the

3 Election Day ballots, we refer to those as the ballots

4 that are tabulated onsite. So I'm asking you, the ones

5 that go to Runbeck are the early ballots that are in

6 affidavit envelopes that get transferred at Runbeck, so

7 that's what I'm asking you. Are those the ballots that

8 your referring to?

9 Q. What about the ballots that are dropped off in

14:27:43 10 drop boxes on Election Day?

11 A. Yes. So those are the early ballots in the green

12 affidavit envelopes. Those go to Runbeck to be counted

13 by our -- and then we have a team onsite when that

14 accounting happens.

15 Q. So Maricopa does not maintain an exact count of

16 those ballots prior to them being transferred to

17 Runbeck?

18 A. That's not true.

19 Q. You do?

14:28:04 20 A. Because we have employees onsite that entire

21 time.

22 Q. Onsite where?

23 A. At Runbeck.

24 Q. So why would somebody from MCTEC -- strike that.

25 Is it your testimony that the printer set changes

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0253

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - CROSS/REDIRECT 216

1 that gave rise to this so-called shrink-to-fit issue,

2 was that done on Election Day?

3 A. That's correct.

4 MR. OLSEN: Thank you. I have no further

5 questions.

6 MS. CRAIGER: Thank you, Your Honor. I just

7 have a couple questions.

8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MS. CRAIGER:

14:28:56 10 Q. Scott, to be clear, the question you were asked

11 yesterday was whether or not there was an 19-inch

12 definition in the Election Management System; is that

13 correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. The

16 record will speak for itself in terms of what question

17 he was asked and whether there was -- it was asked with

18 the question of a definition.

19 THE COURT: Fair. Overruled. I'll let him

14:29:18 20 answer and you can both argue. Go ahead.

21 BY MS. CRAIGER:

22 Q. Scott, was that your understanding of the

23 question that was being asked of you?

24 A. Yes, that was my understanding.

25 Q. And that was true yesterday and that's true

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0254

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 217

1 today; is that right?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. There were no 19-inch definitions in the Election

4 Management System?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. So this fit-to-print issue that we're talking

7 about, has this ever happened before in any previous

8 elections?

9 A. Yes, it has.

14:29:45 10 Q. When did it happen before?

11 A. So it happened in August 2020 Primary Election,

12 the November 2020 General Election, and the August 2022

13 Primary Election.

14 Q. So is it safe to say that this, you know, falls

15 into the category of, you know, an Election Day hiccup

16 and it's related to a human error on that day trying to

17 resolve a problem related to the printers; is that

18 right?

19 A. That's correct.

14:30:14 20 Q. Okay. And you testified before the total number

21 of ballots that were impacted by this shrink-to-print --

22 fit -- I'm sorry -- fit-to-print issue. What was that

23 total number?

24 A. That was just -- I don't have that exact count,

25 it was just under 1,300.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0255

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 218

1 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified before, but

2 what's the process then for once those are identified so

3 that those ballots can get tabulated?

4 A. So then those would go to a bipartisan

5 duplication board, and then they together would make

6 determinations to -- on voter intent for each contest on

7 the ballot. Those would then get duplicated, that

8 ballot would be printed and that ballot would then be

9 run through a central count tabulator to be counted and

14:30:59 10 then reported.

11 Q. And the bipartisan adjudication board process, is

12 that observed?

13 A. That is by political parties.

14 Q. Okay. And you testified that there were a few --

15 thus far in the root cause analysis, there had been a

16 few different issues that have been identified that

17 caused some ballots to be placed into Door 3; is that

18 right?

19 A. That's correct.

14:31:20 20 Q. Okay. And have you -- is the root cause analysis

21 completed?

22 A. No, it's not.

23 Q. Have you presented it publicly to the Board of

24 Supervisors yet?

25 A. We have not.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0256

 R. SCOTT JARRETT - REDIRECT 219

1 MS. CRAIGER: I have no further questions,

2 Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: All right. May the witness be

4 excused?

5 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

6 MS. CRAIGER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Jarrett. You're

8 excused, sir.

9 (Witness excused.)

14:31:46 10 THE COURT: Okay. County have another

11 witness? Does defense?

12 MS. DUL: Bo Dul on behalf of the Secretary

13 of State. With Your Honor's permission, I would like to

14 call Ryan Macias and put him on from counsel table.

15 He'll be appearing remotely so that he can see me while

16 I'm examining him.

17 MR. BLEHM: From counsel table?

18 THE COURT: She's going to sit there rather

19 than be at the podium.

14:32:12 20 MR. BLEHM: Oh, yeah. That's fine.

21 THE COURT: Not a problem. So you're

22 calling Mr. Macias?

23 MS. DUL: Yeah, I believe he's in the

24 waiting room, Your Honor.

25 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, I just want to point

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0257

 







y,//d
Appx0258
 The Vote Center Model
During the 2022 General Election, Maricopa County offered 223 Vote Anywhere Vote Centers located
throughout the county at an average distance of less than 1.8 miles apart. The Vote Center model is a very
popular option, with 756,780 voters (over 48%) visiting a Vote Center to cast a ballot in person or drop off an
early ballot during the 2022 General Election. On Election Day, over 540,000 voters visited a site, which is more
Election Day voters than all prior General Elections since 2008.

Nationally, one of the top complaints made by in-person voters is arriving at a voting location to find out they are
at the wrong site. A Vote Center model eliminates this issue for voters. Other universal and frequent voter
complaints include long lines, voting provisionally, and arriving at an unexpectedly closed location. In the 2022
General Election, Election Day voters waited in line an average of six minutes. If you include the voters that
skipped the line to drop off their early ballots, the wait-time average is below 3 minutes. Maricopa County also
provided a large number of in-person voting options beginning 27 days before the election (E27), in which voters
experienced an average wait time of less than one minute. See below for the wait-times by voting phase.
- 1 2 Votee Centers were open 27-Days before Election Day (Average Wait Time E27 – E12: 0 Minutes)
- 56
6 Votee Centers were open 12-Days before Election Day (Average Wait Time E12 – E1: 0 Minutes)
- 128
8 Votee Centers were open 1-Day before Election Day (Average Wait Time E1: Less Than 1 Minutes)
- 223
3 Votee Centerss were open on Election Day (Average Wait Time: 6 Minutes)
While a few 1 2022 General Election locations encountered 80-115 minute wait-times on Election Day, Maricopa
County posted these wait-times on our website (Locations.Maricopa.Vote) informing voters of other nearby
options that had shorter wait-times. The Locations.Maricopa.Vote website was highly publicized leading up to
and on Election Day. It was also referenced on the sample ballot mailer sent to all voters that had not requested
an early ballot. As shown in the table below, the longest wait-time for 85% of Maricopa County Vote Centers
ranged between 0 and 45 minutes.
Table 1: Vote Center Wait-Times
Longestt Reported
d # off Votee
Commentt
Wait--Time Centers
0 – 15 Minutes 114 (51%) 23 of 114 had a confirmed printer issue
16 – 30 Minutes 47 (21%) 8 of 47 had a confirmed printer issue
31 – 45 Minutes 28 (13%) 8 of 28 had a confirmed printer issue
46 – 60 Minutes 18 (8%) 4 of 18 had a confirmed printer issue
Over an Hour 16 (7%) 6 of 16 had a confirmed printer issue

1
Seven Locations experienced a wait time between 80 minutes – 115 minutes. Those locations include Asante Library in
Surprise (81 minute avg. during 6pm hour), ASU West (95 minute avg. during 6pm hour), Biltmore Fashion Park (98-minute avg.
during 5pm hour), Church of Jesus Christ LDS – Southern (88 Minute avg. during 5pm hour), Desert Hills Community Church (85
minute avg. during 3pm hour) Living Word Bible Church in Ahwatukee (114 minute avg. during 5pm hour), Red Mountain
Community College (80 minute avg. during 4pm hour). Each of these locations had one or more nearby Vote Centers within a
few miles that had a wait-time ranging from 1 minute to 25 minutes during the period they were experiencing their longest
wait-times.
1

Appx0259
ME - AA1 - 010715
In addition to providing more convenience for voters, the Vote Center model also significantly reduces
provisional ballots and adds a layer of redundancy if a voting location becomes inoperable due to power outages
or other unforeseen situations. Prior to the Vote Center model, Maricopa County routinely issued tens or
hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots during a General Election. In 2022, Maricopa County issued 6,915
provisional ballots on Election Day, a significant reduction from prior years as shown by the table below.

Table 2: Vote Center vs. Precinct Voting

Comparison of Provisional Ballots Casts 2014 – 2022
# Provisionals (%
Year # Voting Locations / Model
of ED Voters)
2022 6,915 (3%) 223 Vote Centers
2020 18,310 (10%) 175 Vote Centers
2018 16,409 (6%) 40 Vote Centers and 457 Precinct Locations
2016 52,173 (13%) 671 Precinct Locations
2014 39,577 (19%) 651 Precinct Locations

With over 12,000 ballot styles used in Maricopa County for the 2022 General Election, the only option for providing
a Vote Center model is to print ballots on-demand at the voting location.

B allot-on-Demand
d Printers
While our root cause analysis review is still underway, we can confirm that all printers used in the 2022 had
updated firmware, were installed with uniform settings, and used the same settings that were used in prior
Elections, including in the August 2022 Primary, November 2020 General, and the August 2020 Primary Elections.

Ballot-on-Demand Printer Fleet

In 2021, the County made significant investments
to upgrade its ballot-on-demand printer fleet. Lexmark C4150 Oki B432
The County replaced two older printer models,
the Oki 9650 and the Lexmark 923 with Lexmark
C4150 printers. In 2020, the County retrofitted
its Oki B432 printers turning them into a Ballot-
on-Demand printer. During the 2022 August
Primary and November General Elections, the
County used two Ballot-on-Demand printers, the
Oki B432 and the Lexmark C4150. These are
shown to the right.

Appx0260
ME - AA1 - 010716
2022 General Election Day

Despite stress testing the printers before Election Day, installing the latest firmware, using uniform printer
settings, and using the same settings as programmed in prior elections, the Oki B432 printer experienced an
issue affecting the ability of the on-site tabulators to accept the ballot. If an on-site tabulator could not read
the ballot, the voter was instructed to deposit the ballot into a secure ballot box (“Door 3”) to be counted at
Maricopa County’s central counting facility. These 16,724 Door 3 ballots represent 1% of the total ballots issued
to voters during the 2022 General Election

Using the central counting facility to tabulate Election Day ballots is common. So common that every Arizona
county either uses it as their only method of counting Election Day ballots or as a backup plan like Maricopa
County.
- Counties that place all Election Day ballots in a secure container at the voting location and tabulate
those ballots at Central Count: Apache Co., Coconino Co., Gila Co., Mohave Co., Pima Co., Pinal Co.,
Santa Cruz Co., Yavapai Co.;
- Counties that use Central Count as a back-up plan to tabulate Election Day ballots: Cochise Co.,
Graham Co., Greenlee Co., La Paz Co., Maricopa Co., Navajo Co., Yuma Co.

On Election Day, our poll workers began reporting issues to our hotline around 6:30 a.m. We immediately
began troubleshooting the issue and, consistent with the training, directed poll workers to have voters place
their ballots into the secure ballot box below the tabulator (Door 3). The County also met with media outlets
and published content on its social media platforms to inform voters of their voting options (Exhibit: #COUNTY
ANNOUNCEMENT).

The secure Door 3 option has been a decades-long practice in Maricopa County. Despite this being a legal,
secure, and reliable voting option, many high profile and influential individuals instructed voters to not deposit
their ballots in Door 3 (Exhibit: #DOOR 3). Consequently, some voters refused to use this viable voting option.

As the morning progressed, County IT staff and technicians from our printer vendor worked in tandem both
within our hotline and out in the field to troubleshoot and identify a solution. The techs tested a change to the
printer heat settings so that the timing marks printed darker.

Our preliminary root cause analysis shows the issue was not with the ink or toner, instead it was the fuser. The
printers have three profiles, one for each item that we print for voters, the ballot, receipt, and envelope. The
ballot “media weight” setting was set to heavy, as recommended, and the receipt and envelope were on a
lighter setting, as recommended. These settings were exactly the same as in prior elections. The solution
implemented on Election Day for the 2022 General Election was to set all three “media weight” settings to
heavy.

Once identified, we began guiding poll workers to make this change over the phone and dispatching technicians
to make changes at the sites with reported issues. The changes had to be completed onsite at the Vote Center
and could not be made remotely. We also asked technicians to proactively make these changes at other sites
that had not yet reported an issue. By mid-afternoon, most sites were no longer experiencing the printer issue.
See the timeline on the next page.

Appx0261
ME - AA1 - 010717
 Table 3: Election Day Response Timeline
Time Activity
6:20-6:30 am A few Vote Centers begin informing the hotline that tabulators were not reading
ballots. The County reminded poll workers of the Door 3 option.
6:25-9am County dispatches T-techs, tabulation technicians, and printer technicians into
the field to troubleshoot the issue. Techs report back that installed printer
settings were the uniform approved settings used in prior elections and stress
tested (Fuser Settings: Control Slip Media Weight = Medium; Ballot Media Weight
= Heavy; Envelope Media Weight = Medium) - (See Exhibits: # 2022 GE LOAD
BALLOT OKI 458, # 2022 GE PREP OKI 458, # 2022 PE PREP OKI 458)
8:30-9am Technicians begin reporting that some of the impacted sites were experiencing
lighter or speckled timing marks printed on the back of the ballot. The County
concludes it is not a tabulator issue and continues troubleshooting to find a
solution to the printers.
8:30-10:45am Hotline technicians and printer technicians work in tandem to test potential
solutions.
10:14am Printer technicians identified a potential solution to adjust printer settings. (Fuser
Settings: Control Slip Media Weight = Heavy; Ballot Media Weight = Heavy;
Envelope Media Weight = Heavy). Confirmed successful print and tabulation at
one site.
10:15- Begin testing the proposed solution of using the Heavy settings for all media
11:30am weights at additional sites to verify the solution could be successfully
implemented at other Vote Centers.
11:30am Issued guidance to all technicians in the field to make setting changes to the Oki
printers.
11:30am – Visited 71 impacted sites to make changes to printer settings.
7:00pm

In total, our in-progress analysis has found that we responded to calls and changed the printer settings at 71
vote centers, which represents 31% of the 223 Vote Centers that were open on Election Day.

However, not all the 71 Vote Centers were experiencing a printer issue. During the Elections Department’s in-
progress review, 43 Vote Centers have been confirmed to have experienced an intermittent printer issue. We
have also identified other common in-person voting factors that resulted in ballots being deposited into Door 3.

One of these other factors that resulted in ballots being deposited into Door 3 was the combined use of
ballpoint pens and ovals completed with checkmarks. On nearly 1,600 of the 16,724 Door 3 ballots, we have
found that the use of a ball point pen in combination with a checkmark or other thin mark on the ballot resulted
in an oval not being sufficiently completed. This resulted in an ambiguous mark on the ballot. Ambiguous marks
cannot be read by the Vote Center tabulator and result in the voter needing to either spoil and re-vote their
ballot or place their ballot into secure Door 3. We found this occurred at over 180 vote centers. There were 19
Vote Centers that had between 20 and 40 ballots with ambiguous marks and this was likely the sole reason why
those ballots were not being read by the tabulators at these locations.
4

Appx0262
ME - AA1 - 010718
The Elections Department has expanded its analysis to include 84 total Vote Centers, of which 21 have been
ruled out as having a printer issue (Exhibit: #VOTE CENTER LOG).

When onsite tabulation became Maricopa County’s process in the 1990s, Maricopa County recognized that
printer and tabulator issues are routine Election Day issues that can occur. To overcome these challenges,
Maricopa County implemented a redundant, legal, and secure process for voters to drop their ballots into the
secure ballot box (Door 3).

While Maricopa County’s printer issue in 2022 impacted more Vote Centers than normal, every voter was
afforded the ability to legally and securely cast their ballot.

Election Day Check-out Process

Maricopa County uses a SiteBook (e-Pollbook) to check-in voters at voting locations. This technology allows
voters to check-in, prove their identity, print their specific ballot, and to spoil their ballot if they make a
mistake and need a new one. Voters commonly ask to spoil their ballots and poll workers are very familiar
with the process of issuing them a new ballot. The ability to spoil a ballot using the SiteBook is covered during
all in-person training courses and included on pages 115 of the training manual (Exhibit: #PW TRAINING
MANUAL).

For the 2022 General Election, the Elections Department added additional SiteBook programming to allow a
voter to check-out of a SiteBook and vote at an alternative voting location. This added functionality was
implemented as a voter centric precaution if a voter needed to spoil their ballot and return to another,
potentially more convenient, Vote Center later in the day.

To ensure poll workers were aware of the check-out procedure, we covered this topic during November 2022
General Election in-person trainings. We also included the check-out procedure (Exhibit: # CHECKOUT
PROCEDURE) in every Inspector’s packet of materials. The County provided weekly Inspector workshops
where the check-out procedure was covered in detail. These weekly Inspector workshops provided in-depth
training beyond standard in-person training and provide the Inspectors more hands-on opportunities to
troubleshoot issues.

There were a total of 206 voters that checked-in at one location and then voted at a second location. Of these
206 voters, 84 successfully checked-out of the first voting location and checked-in at the second location.
Since these 84 voters successfully checked out of their first location, they were issued a standard ballot at the
second location. As shown in the chart on the next page, poll workers were aware of this check-out procedure
and were able to implement it early in the day on Election Day.

Appx0263
ME - AA1 - 010719
 T ablee 4 : Voterss thatt s u ccessfullyy c h eckee d--outt off theirr f i rstt v o tingg
l o cationn andd weree issued d a s tandard d b a llott att theirr s econd d l o cation
T imeframe N umberr off Voterss thatt Successfullyy
C hecked--outt off Firstt Votee Center
6-8am 19 Voters
8-10am 28 Voters
10am-Noon 20 Voters
Noon-2pm 9 Voters
2pm-4pm 5 Voters
After 4pm 3 Voters
Total 84 Total Voters

The remaining 122 voters that voted at two locations on Election Day did not check out at their first location
and were issued a provisional ballot at their second location. For these 122 voters, the Elections Department
performed a review to confirm if there was a printer issue at the first location and if there was a variance in
the number of check-ins as compared to the number of ballots tabulated.

After this review, the Elections Department determined that the provisional ballot should count for 109 of the
122 voters. There were two additional voters that the Elections Department would have counted their ballot,
but the voter did not insert the provisional ballot into the provided envelope and then drop their envelope in
the onsite early/provisional ballot box. The ballots for the remaining 11 voters were not counted because the
Elections Department could not verify that a printing issue occurred at the voter’s first location and/or that
there was a variance between the number of check-ins and the number of ballots counted at the first voting
location.

S ecure Ballot Box (Door 3) Reconciliation

As described in the Ballot-on-Demand Printer section above, the Elections Department has used a secure
ballot box (Door 3) as a reliable, legal, backup option for decades. In every election, there is a possibility that a
tabulator or printer may experience an issue. These issues are not uncommon and can be caused by a variety
of reasons including poll workers locking themselves out of the tabulator when they have entered the
password too many times, a faulty outlet causing the tabulator to not have sufficient power to operate, or a
printer misalignment occurring after replacing ballot paper. If an issue does occur, Door 3 provides voters with
the option to drop their ballot into a secure ballot box until the issue can be resolved or for the ballot to be
read at Central Count.

We train workers and instruct them that Door 3 ballots are segregated from the ballots read by the tabulator
by a divider within the ballot box. When polls close, poll workers complete a Precinct Ballot Report (Exhibit:
#PBR) that logs the number of ballots cast at the voting location, the number of misread ballots, and spoiled
ballots. Poll workers return Door 3 ballots in a sealed envelope.

During the November 2022 General Election, the Elections Department provided direction to poll workers that
they could use one of the two black ballot transport canvass bags that each Vote Center was provided to
transport the Door 3 ballots if the quantity exceeded the capacity of the envelope. All ballots transported in

Appx0264
ME - AA1 - 010720
the black canvass bags were sealed inside with the use of tamper evident seals. The seal numbers were logged
on the Precinct Ballot Reports.

The following information is documented on the Precinct Ballot Report.

- Tamper Evident Seal Numbers
- Asset Tags
- Beginning Lifetime Tabulator Count balances
- Polls Closing Tabulator Counts on Screen
- Quantity of Misread Ballots, Spoiled Ballots, and Unused Ballot Stock

In addition to the Precinct Ballot Report, each tabulator in use at a Vote Center prints an opening and closing
polls tally receipt. The opening tally receipts confirm and document that no votes were on the tabulator when
the polls opened. The closing tally receipt confirms and documents the number of ballots and votes tabulated
on each tabulator when the poll is closed. Poll workers sign these tally receipts and return them to the
Elections Department. These receipts are hundreds of feet long and cannot be easily digitized. Both the
Precinct Ballot Reports and the tally receipts are available for in-person review at the Elections Department.

As a decades-long practice and as required by the Elections Procedures Manual (see Chapter 10, Section II,
Subsection H), the Elections Department performs an audit of check-ins, ballots received, and information
from the Precinct Ballot Reports. If the Elections Department identifies variances, the Election Department is
required to investigate and resolve those variances.

Variances between check-ins and ballots received are not uncommon. Some common causes for variances
include the following:
- Fled Voter: A voter checks-in, receives a ballot and for some unexplained reason they
choose not to vote the ballot (e.g., leave to get glasses, forgot their completed sample ballot
at home, encounter a technical issue, and choose not to come back and vote). If this occurs,
poll workers are trained to check the voter out of the SiteBook, however, voters do not
always inform poll workers when they leave. If a voter does not alert the poll worker so they
can be checked out, this will result in a variance.
- Provisional Ballots Inserted into Door 3: A voter is issued a provisional ballot. The voter may
prefer not to have that ballot sent back to the Elections Department for research. That
voter may attempt to insert their provisional ballot into the Vote Center tabulator. The Vote
Center tabulator is programmed not to accept provisional ballots. When this occurs, the poll
workers will ask the voter to insert the ballot into the provisional envelope that they
received to have it researched and possibly counted by the Elections Department. At this
point, it is the choice of the voter to place the ballot in the provisional envelope, spoil the
ballot, or insert it into Door # 3. If the voter spoils the ballot or inserts the ballot into Door 3
without the envelope, this will create a variance.
- Early Ballot Voter with an Election Day Check-in: A voter may bring in their Early Ballot to
use as a guide for completing their Election Day ballot at a Vote Center. Upon beginning to
complete their Election Day ballot, the voter decides to insert their Early Ballot into the
tabulator instead of the Election Day ballot. As a control to prevent double voting, our Vote

Appx0265
ME - AA1 - 010721
 Center tabulators are designed to reject early ballots. At this point the voter is given the
option to complete their Election Day ballot. If the voter chooses not to complete their
Election Day ballot and they do not check out of the SiteBook, this will create a variance.

For the 2022 General Election, the Officer in Charge of Elections oversaw an audit reconciliation procedure to
identify every location that had a variance between the number of check-ins and the number of ballots
counted onsite at each Vote Center. The audit reconciliation was observed by members of the political
parties 2 and included the following procedures.

1. Compare the number of check-ins with ballots reported by Vote Center (on memory cards from each
tabulator) plus the number of ballots inserted into Door 3.
2. If the number of check-ins at a Vote Center equals the number of ballots reported on the memory
cards for the tabulators at the Vote Center plus the number of ballots inserted into Door 3, accept
the official results reported on Election Night along with the additional ballot scanned from Door 3.
3. If the number of check-ins at a Vote Center does not equal the number of voters reported on the memory
drives for the tabulators at the Vote Center plus the number of ballots inserted into Door 3, audit the
vote count from the Vote Center by comparing the number of check-ins against the returned ballots.

The results of the audit reconciliation are summarized below (Exhibit: #RECONCILIATION)
- 158 Vote Centers with no variance
- 35 Vote Centers with a variance of 1
- 16 Vote Centers with a variance of 2 – 3
- 14 Vote Centers with a variance of greater than 3 (and none greater than 22)

Two Vote Centers did not separate their Door 3 ballots and the ballots that were counted by the Vote Center
tabulator. For these two Vote Centers 3, the Elections Department backed out the results that were reported
Election Night and retabulated the entire batch of ballots to ensure that no ballot was double counted and that all
ballots cast at the Vote Center were counted.

V otee Centerr Auditt Reconciliation

n Comparison
When compared to other elections, the audit reconciliation for the 2022 General Election had a lower variance as a
percent of Election Day voters than previous Primary and General Elections. See chart on the next page for
comparison to prior elections.

2
As required by the Chapter 10 of the Elections Procedures Manual, the audit reconciliation was performed under the
observation of political party appointees (2 Democrat Observers appointed by the County Party, 2 Republican Observers
appointed by the County Party, 1 Republican Observer appointed by the “For Prop 309” Committee, and a “Republican
Observer from the U.S. Congressional Delegation”.

3
Church of Jesus Christ of LDS Gilbert, Desert Hills Community Church.
8

Appx0266
ME - AA1 - 010722
 Table 5: Comparison of Fled Voters, Early Voters with Check-ins, and Provisionals with Prior
Elections

# of Sites Total Variance (Fled, Early,

# of Reconciling
Year / Election with a Provisional) / % of Election
Sites
Variance Day Ballots Cast
2020 August Primary 62 of 100 (62%) 39 of 100 100 (.0019%)
2020 November General 122 of 210 (58%) 53 of 175 188 (.0011%)
2022 August Primary 92 of 210 (44%) 118 of 210 210 (.0019%)
2022 November General 155 of 223 (69%) 68 of 223 170 (.0007%)

Appx0267
ME - AA1 - 010723
 







y,//d
Appx0268
Maricopa County 2022 General Election
Ballot-on-Demand Printer Investigation

Submitted By
Ruth V. McGregor
April 10, 2023

Appx0269
 Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2
Summary ............................................................................................................... 2
Investigation Team ................................................................................................ 3
Sources of Information .......................................................................................... 4
History of Ballot on Demand Printers in Maricopa County ..................................... 5
Pre-Election Testing of BOD Printers ...................................................................... 7
Printer Testing On Site ........................................................................................... 8
Assignment and Tracking of Printers ...................................................................... 8
Changes Between Primary and General Elections .................................................. 9
Election Day Printer Issues ................................................................................... 10
Testing Procedure ................................................................................................ 12
Selection of Printers............................................................................................. 12
Printer Test Settings............................................................................................. 13
Testing Results ..................................................................................................... 15
Paper Weight ....................................................................................................... 15
Lexmark Printers .................................................................................................. 16
Media Weight and Media Type Settings .............................................................. 16
Sequential and Interval Testing............................................................................ 18
Printing Order ...................................................................................................... 19
Paper Length ........................................................................................................ 20
Pattern of Printer Failures.................................................................................... 20
Testing for Faulty Printers .................................................................................... 21
Recommendations and Conclusions .................................................................... 23

1 Appx0270
 Introduction
On general election day in November 2022, a substantial number of ballot-
on-demand (BOD) printers at vote centers in Maricopa County produced ballots
that could not be tabulated by on-site tabulators. Most of the printers had been
used during the August 2022 primary election, as well as in prior elections,
without experiencing similar problems.1
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) retained me to conduct a
focused, fact-specific independent review to determine why printers that
performed successfully during the primary election evidenced problems during
the general election. Specifically, the MCAO asked the investigative team to
determine what factor or factors caused the printing problems on general
election day; why the problems had not occurred on primary election day; and
whether and how Maricopa County can prevent similar problems from occurring
in future elections. I was also asked to review the chain-of-custody policies
affecting BOD printers and consider whether the election day issues resulted from
human error or process and equipment issues.
The MCAO and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors made it clear at the
outset that this investigation should be independent and free of any outside
influence. We have encountered nothing during the investigation that appeared
intended to or that did undermine the independence of the investigation. Both
the Maricopa County Election Department (MCED or the Department) and the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office personnel have provided all documents and
assistance requested.
Summary
During February and March 2023, our investigative team printed and
tabulated 9,100 ballots on randomly selected printers and tabulators. We
interviewed, often on multiple occasions, seventeen Maricopa County and

1
Although this investigation examines only the possible explanations for the printer malfunctions on election day, I
note that subsequent proceedings have established that all votes were counted, with most of the misprinted
ballots being transported to the more powerful election central tabulators, which tabulated them without issue.
Lake v. Hobbs, CV 2022-095403 (“Plaintiff’s own expert acknowledged that a ballot that was unable to be read at
the vote center could be deposited by a voter, duplicated by a bipartisan board onto a readable ballot, and – in the
final analysis – counted.”), affirmed, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1 CA-CV 22-0779, review denied, Arizona Supreme
Court, CV-23-0046-PR (March 22, 2023).

2 Appx0271
Runbeck Elections Systems employees involved with preparing, testing, deploying
and operating printers and tabulators. We consulted with several persons who
are experts in election procedures, and reviewed thousands of pages of
documents. Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we
concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20-
inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki B432
printers perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be
reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers. Although we further
concluded that nothing in the printers’ past performance or pre-election stress
testing indicated that such a failure was likely, we recommend several alternative
approaches that could minimize the likelihood of a similar failure in future
elections, including the use of more robust stress testing designed to mimic on-
site circumstances.
Investigation Team
With the approval of the MCAO, I added several subject matter experts to
the investigation team. Two of them have broad experience and expertise in
conducting elections, specifically elections that use vote centers and BOD
printers. Neal Kelley served more than 15 years as Registrar of Voters in Orange
County, California, the fifth largest voting jurisdiction in the country and similar in
size and complexity to Maricopa County. Mr. Kelley presided over the transition
from neighborhood polling places to vote centers in Orange County. He has been
recognized for his work with county, state and national efforts to improve
election administration. Lynn Constabile served as the Elections Director for
Yavapai County, Arizona, from 2004 until 2022. During her tenure, Yavapai
County transitioned to vote centers.2 Ms. Constabile is intimately familiar with
Arizona’s election procedures and laws. I asked Mr. Kelley and Ms. Constabile to
analyze Maricopa County’s procedures and training programs related to the
testing and use of the BOD printers, with the goals of identifying factors that may
have contributed to the failure to anticipate the printer problems encountered in
2022 and of recommending steps that could be taken to prevent similar problems
in future elections. Each worked independently; each provided us valuable

2
Yavapai County, as is true of Apache, Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, transports all
ballots from its vote centers to its central election office to be tabulated, rather than use on-site tabulators as does
Maricopa County.

3 Appx0272
information about election systems and each assisted us in identifying areas for
consideration.
We retained the services of Doug Meyer, owner and president of Meyer
Enterprises, Inc., operating under the name CTS Office Supply, in Cottonwood,
Arizona. For many years, Mr. Meyer has provided and maintained the BOD
printers used by Yavapai County, Arizona, including Oki printers similar to those
used in Maricopa County. His company also provides Oki printers to the Salt River
Materials Group in their various operations in five states.3 Mr. Meyer oversaw the
print tests we conducted using Oki B432 and Lexmark C4150 printers that had
been used in the primary and general elections in Maricopa County and analyzed
print test results. His business partner, Barbara Meyer, served as a technician
throughout the testing.
Finally, I associated attorney Sandra Thomson, who recently retired after
serving nearly twenty years as a permanent judicial law clerk at the Arizona Court
of Appeals, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Thomson assisted in all aspects of the
investigation.
Sources of Information
Although the focus of this investigation is narrowly centered on the
performance of the BOD printers in the 2022 general election, understanding all
the factors that could have affected their performance required that we have a
broad understanding of election procedures. To learn about the procedures
followed in preparing and testing the BOD printers, we spoke on multiple
occasions with Scott Jarrett, Co-Director of Elections for Maricopa County. We
conducted in-person interviews with employees in charge of IT for the MCED and
the Recorder’s Office, the Department’s vote center manager and head of the
election day command center, tabulation manager, tabulation analyst lead, help
desk supervisor, and the personnel in charge of printer preparation and testing.
We also interviewed several temporary technical workers involved in both
the 2022 primary and general elections. For the 2022 general election, Maricopa
County hired approximately 60 temporary technical workers, referred to as t-

3
Maricopa County is not part of the area served by Mr. Meyer’s company.

4 Appx0273
techs. Among other responsibilities, the t-techs set up and test the BOD printers
after they are installed at the vote centers; they also respond to technical
problems that arise during the elections. We spoke with five experienced t-techs,
who had been present for both the primary and general elections and who were
retained until December 2022 to assist in post-election testing, about their
training, the procedure followed in setting up vote centers, and their experiences
on general election day, as well as with those responsible for training and
supervising the t-techs. We also spoke with experienced poll workers.
Maricopa County’s election system depends in several ways upon services
and assistance provided by Runbeck Election Services. To understand Runbeck’s
role, both before and during the primary and general elections, we spoke with Jeff
Ellington, CEO of Runbeck Election Services, and Anthony Paiz, who has now
retired from his position as Vice President, Field Services.
In addition, we reviewed the following documents: 2022 Elections Plans for
the August Primary and November General; November General Election Canvass;
2022 November General Election Training; 2022 General Election Poll Worker
Training; 2022 Vote Center Technical Procedures, including Auditor Checklist, ICX
Set-up Guide, Quality Control Checklist for Vote Centers, Tabulator Setup, and T-
Tech Training; Maricopa County’s November 27, 2022 Response Report to the
Attorney General; 2022 General Election Printer Assignments; Printer
Configuration Quality Assurance Documents; 2022 Spanish Sample Quality
Assurance; General Election Reporting System Tickets from Vote Centers on
Election Day; and Runbeck reports of election day technical assistance.
History of Ballot on Demand Printers in Maricopa County
Prior to 2018, Maricopa County utilized a precinct model, under which
voters were assigned to a single precinct on election day and could vote only at
that location. In 2018, the County used a hybrid model consisting primarily of
precinct locations in conjunction with a small number of vote centers using BOD
printers for ballots and receipts and separate printers for envelopes. In 2020, the
MCED fully implemented an in-person “vote anywhere” vote center model to
provide more convenience for voters.4 Under that model, a voter can vote at any
center regardless of the precinct in which the voter resides. Because Maricopa
4
Maricopa County Elections Department 2022 Elections Plan, p.7.

5 Appx0274
County must make available at each center thousands of ballot styles to assure
that a voter can obtain a ballot specific to the voter’s precinct, BOD printers,
which can print any of the more than 12,000 ballot styles required during the
2022 general election, provide the only realistic option for making all those forms
available at each center.5
The County made significant investments to upgrade its BOD printer fleet.
In 2017, the County had acquired commercial off the shelf Oki B432 printers to
use with the Oki 9650 BOD printers.6 In 2020, the County retrofitted the Oki B432
printers, which previously printed only voter envelopes, to function as BOD
printers, capable of printing ballots, control slips, and envelopes. In 2021, the
County replaced two older BOD printer models, the Oki 9650 and the Lexmark
923, with Lexmark C4150 printers.7
During the 2022 August primary and November general elections, the
County used the retrofitted Oki B432 and the Lexmark C4150 BOD printers at the
vote centers. These printers had updated firmware and were installed with
uniform settings that were the same settings as those used in the 2020 August
primary and November general elections.8 During the general election, the
Department initially assigned 591 printers to the 223 voting centers.9
During the 2022 general election, Maricopa County increased the ballot
length from 19 inches, which was used for the primary election ballot, to 20
inches. Due to the number of contests, the number of propositions, the language
used to describe them, and the Spanish translation, the ballot could not fit on a
typical 19-inch ballot.10

5
Interview with Scott Jarrett, Co-Director of Elections (Election Day and Emergency Voting), Maricopa County.
6
Id.
7
Interview with Jeff Ellington.
8
Id.
9
MCED 2022 General Printer Assignments.
10
Interview with Scott Jarrett. Maricopa County’s ballot is complex, as the county includes portions of eight of
Arizona’s congressional districts and 22 of 30 of the state’s legislative districts. Because results must be reported
by precinct, a ballot must be available for each voter that reflects not only the appropriate congressional district
and legislative district but also all federal, state, municipal, school district, supervisory district, precinct, and fire
district races, in addition to the propositions presented and their descriptions, and all available in both English and
Spanish. As a result of these requirements, the ballot for one precinct included 80 separate races and decisions
and Maricopa County required more than 12,000 distinct ballots for the 2022 general election. Interview with
MCED lead tabulation analyst, who prepares the ballot in accord with statutory requirements.

6 Appx0275
 Pre-Election Testing of BOD Printers
August 2022 Pre-Primary Election Testing
In April 2022, prior to the August primary election, the MCED tested 100-
pound ballot paper, which would be used for the first time in the primary
election. The Department selected a sample of Oki B432 and Lexmark C4150 BOD
printers and ran more than three hundred test prints consisting of a 19-inch
ballot, a receipt, and an envelope through each selected machine. The test results
showed no smearing or flaking on the ballot, receipt, or envelope. The central
count tabulator successfully counted all the ballots. Accordingly, the MCED
concluded that the Oki and Lexmark printers would function effectively with the
change to 100-pound paper.11 And, during the primary election, the on-site
tabulators did successfully process more than 100,000 ballots.12
November 2022 Pre-General Election Testing
In September 2022, prior to the November general election, the MCED
conducted an extensive stress test on the Oki B432 and Lexmark C4150 BOD
printers. The Department randomly selected four Oki and four Lexmark printers
for testing. Two tests used 100-pound paper and a ballot that was increased in
length from 19 inches to 20 inches to accommodate the number of contests, the
number of propositions, and the Spanish translations. In the first test, one
hundred double-sided ballots were run through each test machine without the
envelope or receipt. In the second test, the same number of ballots were run,
along with an envelope and receipt. In both tests, the prints were run
sequentially, but not intermittently. The media weight settings on the Oki printers
were set to heavy for the ballot and medium for the envelope and receipt. The
media weight was set to normal on the Lexmark printers for all three settings. The
results indicated that two of the Oki printers showed speckling at the edge of the

11
Maricopa Recorder Ballot on Demand Printer Testing document, p. 12.
12
A suggestion of a problem did occur during early voting in the primary. Ballots from early voting are returned to
the MCTEC in envelopes, removed by bi-partisan teams of workers, and tabulated on central equipment. Some of
the workers noted flaking or speckling on some ballots and brought it to the attention of supervisors. Because the
central tabulators read all ballots, however, the issue was not regarded as affecting the ability to count all ballots
and no testing was done using on-site tabulators. Whether such testing would have detected the problem
experienced on general election day cannot now be determined. Interview with MCED personnel.

7 Appx0276
ballot, but that the actual ballot page was clear and not damaged as to the
ballot’s overall integrity. The central count tabulator successfully counted all
ballots, as did an on-site tabulator. In light of the successful primary election
experience using 100-pound ballot paper and its additional tests, the Department
concluded that the Oki and Lexmark printers would successfully print the new
100-pound, 20-inch ballot in the general election.13
Printer Testing On Site
In addition to the pre-election testing of printers conducted at the MCED, t-
techs run test prints on site following the set-up of a vote center. The t-tech first
does a speed check to determine that the SiteBooks are properly connected to
the printers. The t-tech then runs test prints, printing from each SiteBook to each
printer. The test prints at a minimum contain two envelopes, one “test
successful” ballot, one Provisional Paper, and one ICX Paper (Accessible Voting
Device). The t-tech visually inspects the test ballots, checking for flaking or
speckling, and also rubs the test ballots to ensure the print is dry and doesn’t
smear. At the completion of the test, the t-tech spoils the ballot and places it in a
secure bag identified by printer, to be returned to the MCTEC. Finally, the t-tech
completes a “Site Setup: Completion Checklist” verifying the steps taken, which is
then signed and dated by an Auditor.14
Assignment and Tracking of Printers
Scott Jarrett, Maricopa County Co-Director of Elections, and the vote center
manager decide which printers are assigned to each vote center location. In
making the assignments, they consider the size of the room, because Lexmark
printers are larger than the Oki printers, as well as historic voter turnout. In
general, then, they assign the Lexmark printers to the vote centers that are open
for the most days for early voting, have sufficient space to accommodate the
Lexmark printers, and traditionally experience heavy voter participation.15 For
most vote centers, the County sends two Lexmark printers or three Oki printers,
four if the Oki printers will be used in a heavy turnout area.

13
Id. pp. 13-15 and Supporting Document 13 #2022, Extensive Stress Test Executive Summary.
14
Interview with t-tech; Maricopa County Election Department Site Setup: Completion Checklist.
15
Interview with vote center manager.

8 Appx0277
 Each printer and its associated laptop is assigned a bar code that is on a
label fixed to the equipment. The bar code is scanned and assigned to a vote
center at the warehouse, scanned again as the printers and laptops are loaded
onto a truck for transport, again as the equipment is unloaded at a vote center,
and finally when the equipment returns to the warehouse. All the data is scanned
into an internal database. In addition, the County places port protectors and a
socket lock on each printer for added security. As Mr. Kelley noted in his review
of the chain of custody for the printers and laptops, these steps constitute good
practices. While Mr. Kelley recommended added layers of protection that could
provide even more security,16 there was no indication of tampering with any
printer or laptop, and all port protectors remained in place at the close of the
election.17
Changes Between Primary and General Elections
Maricopa County made several changes between the 2020 and 2022
elections and between the 2022 primary and general elections that could have
affected the performance of the printers. We designed our tests to determine
whether any of these variables, or a combination of them, caused the printer
malfunction that occurred during the 2022 general election.
The first variable considered was the weight of the ballot paper. Prior to
2020, Maricopa County’s ballots were printed on 110-pound paper. In 2020,
Maricopa County purchased a new type of on-site tabulator that could use either
80-pound or 100-pound paper. As a result of pandemic-induced supply issues,
only 80-pound paper could be obtained in sufficient quantities for the March 17,
2020 Presidential Primary Election (PPE).18 The PPE, which involved a single race
and a one-sided ballot, experienced no issues with the BOD ballots. During the
2020 general election, however, on some ballots, the ink from the “Sharpie” pens
provided at the vote centers bled through the paper.19 Because voting bubbles
are offset on the front and back of ballots, any bleed-through cannot actually

16
Mr. Kelly suggested, for instance, that serialized tamper seals by be placed over the port protectors and that the
serial numbers be included in chain of custody documents.
17
Interview with MCED personnel.
18
Interview with Scott Jarrett, Director of Elections (Election Day and Emergency Voting), Maricopa County.
19
Maricopa County preferred that voters use these pens because the ink dries quickly, as opposed to ballpoint ink,
which takes more time to dry and thus can transfer onto the tabulator and cause the tabulator to reject ballots
because it “reads” the transferred ink and detects it as a fault.

9 Appx0278
affect the correct tabulation of votes, and all votes can be counted even if bleed-
through occurs.20
Within hours of the polls closing, however, a claim went viral over social
media asserting that certain ballots filled out with Sharpies could not be read by
vote-scanning machines in Maricopa County, a theory colloquially known as
“SharpieGate.”21 Although the theory was unfounded, to allay voter concerns and
prevent bleed-through in future elections, Maricopa County election officials
decided to use heavier, 100-pound paper during 2021 and for the 2022 primary
and general elections.22
Maricopa County also changed the length of the ballot, which was 19
inches for the primary election. Due to the number of federal, state, municipal,
school district, and precinct contests, the number of propositions and the
language used to describe them, and the required Spanish translations, the ballot
for the 2022 general election could not comply with required guidelines23 unless it
was extended to 20 inches.24
One other factor changed between the primary and general elections.
During the primary election, the BOD printers printed first a ballot and then the
control slip that identified the voter. Because poll workers indicated it would be
more convenient for them if the order were reversed, the settings for the general
election changed to request that the control slip be printed first, followed by the
related ballot.25
Election Day Printer Issues
Beginning almost immediately on the morning of election day, the MCTEC
command center received calls from poll workers reporting that some of the
tabulators were not accepting ballots. Each call was memorialized as an Election
Reporting System (ERS) ticket by the person receiving the call. If an issue could
not be resolved by advice from the command center, a t-tech or Runbeck

20
Interview with Scott Jarrett.
21
See, e.g., azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/05/sharpiegate-hasnt-halted-arizona-count-but-
theory-persists/6180778002/.
22
Interview with Scott Jarrett
23
A.R.S. section 16-502.
24
See footnote 9 above.
25
Interview with Scott Jarrett.

10 Appx0279
employee went to the affected vote center to attempt to resolve the reported
problem. Runbeck and County technical workers travelled to approximately 70
vote centers to troubleshoot the reports of problems with the BOD printers.26
At the outset, Maricopa County and Runbeck identified the cause of the
reported problem as being either the on-site tabulators or the BOD printers. As t-
techs and Runbeck personnel had more opportunities to examine the problematic
ballots, it became clear that the ballots in question could not be read by the
tabulator because the print was not properly adhering to the ballot. As a result,
some print flaked off, leaving the timing marks27 needed for the tabulator to
record the ballot too faint to serve their purpose. The flaking print also could
accumulate on the face of the tabulator, making it unable to read even properly
printed ballots until it was cleaned.
After consultation among Maricopa County and Runbeck personnel, the
County concluded that the printing issue was being caused by a failure of the
printer fuser to maintain a heat sufficient to fuse the toner onto the paper. As
explained by Mr. Meyer, the fuser consists of an upper (hollow, Teflon-coated
steel) cylinder and lower (silicone) pressure roller that are supported in the fuser
frame by sleeves of bearings. Heat is produced by a halogen lamp or heating grid
inside the upper fuser roller and temperature is controlled by a thermistor
(temperature sensor). When the printer is powered on, the fuser is energized and
heats until it reaches the set temperature of approximately 190 degrees. The
paper with a latent image then passes between the upper and lower rollers. The
heat and pressure from the upper and lower rollers heat and press the latent
toner into the paper fiber, and fusing is complete. If the fuser does not maintain
an appropriate heat, the toner will not properly adhere to the paper, causing
flaking and speckling.
After trying several approaches to resolve the issue, Maricopa County
concluded that the most promising approach involved setting all media weight
settings to “heavy,” theorizing that the fuser would then maintain a high
temperature at all times and would properly fuse the toner to the paper, and

26
Settings were not changed at most sites that operated without issues. And, as we found during testing, settings
were not successfully changed at all sites that reported problems.
27
Timing marks are the black horizontal lines along the sides of a ballot that allow a tabulating machine to “read”
the ballot.

11 Appx0280
instructed its t-techs to make that change when called to a vote center. In
addition to that change, Runbeck personnel called to vote centers changed the
media type, or paper, setting from plain to cardstock for ballots.28
Another printing anomaly occurred at several vote centers, where ballots
were re-sized as “fit to page,” a process that entirely changed the location of the
timing marks on the ballots and assured that neither the on-site tabulators nor
the central count tabulators could read the ballots. We could not determine
whether this change resulted from a technician attempting to correct the printing
issues, the most probable source of change, or a problem internal to the printers.
During our testing, four printers randomly printed one or a few “fit to page”
ballots in the middle of printing a batch of ballots. None of the technical people
with whom we spoke could explain how or why that error occurred. The ballots
mis-sized on election day were delivered to bi-partisan teams that duplicated the
votes on a ballot that was then tabulated at the central facility.29
Testing Procedure
Selection of Printers
On the basis of the calls received and information from the t-techs and
Runbeck personnel on site, Maricopa County identified approximately 60 vote
centers that experienced the printer problems described above.30 Because print
jobs from the SiteBooks at each vote center enter a queue for printing by one of
the available printers, Maricopa County could not determine which printer caused
problems at each site. Hence, if a vote center experienced problems, workers
were instructed to change the media weight settings on all printers at that site. In
selecting printers to test, therefore, we could not select from among printers that
had been individually identified as causing problems; we could only select
between sites that experienced problems and those that did not.

28
Interview with Jeff Ellington.
29
Interviews with MCED personnel. Unlike the problems involving the toner/fuser issue, the “print to fit” issue
occasionally arose on election day with both Oki and Lexmark printers.
30
The number may have been somewhat higher, based on our review of the election report logs. Whatever the
precise number, we can fairly state that although approximately two-thirds of the vote centers did not experience
printer issues, a substantial number of the vote centers utilizing Oki B432 printers experienced problems and were
not able to tabulate some ballots on site.

12 Appx0281
 We designed the test of printers to utilize, at least initially, 12 printers: five
Oki B432 printers from sites with known problems; five Oki B432 printers from
sites with no known problems; and two Lexmark printers for comparison
purposes. Maricopa County had already tested ten Oki B432 printers as part of its
extensive post-election testing and review. To avoid duplicate testing, we first
removed the printers tested by Maricopa County from the pool of printers and
then randomly selected printers that had been used in both the primary and
general elections. We also randomly selected two Lexmark printers.31
Following the November general election, Maricopa County election
workers placed all the printers in a secure room at the MCTEC. All remained
secured at the time we began this investigation. I selected the group of printers
for testing and was present as they were removed from the secure room and
placed in a conference room in the MCED offices. Access to the conference room
was limited to those admitted when I or a member of my team was present, and I
was present for all four days of testing. We recorded all results in hard copy and
on free-standing laptop computers, thus avoiding use of the County internet
system. At the close of each day, I placed a security tape on the conference room
door. The door is also monitored by 24-hour security cameras.32 No unauthorized
person accessed or attempted to access the room during the course of the
investigation. After we completed our testing, under my supervision all
equipment used during our tests was labelled and removed to a secure area, as
were the test ballots, all closed in envelopes fastened with security tape.33
Printer Test Settings
We designed the printer tests to determine the impact of the change from
80-pound to 100-pound paper, as well as the impact of changes between the
primary and general elections to the length of the ballot and the order of printing.
We tested two additional factors that may have affected the failure rate of the
printers.

31
No Lexmark printers produced ballots that could not be read by the on-site tabulators on election day due to
flaking or speckling. We therefore selected two printers at random from the entire group of Lexmark printers
rather than from specific sites.
32
To further avoid any suggestion that a person other than the investigative team had access to the ballots tested,
as an additional precaution we removed the ballots from the MCED offices to another secure location until all
ballots had been tabulated and visually examined.
33
The actual ballots from the 2022 election have been stored and preserved as required by A.R.S. section 16-624.

13 Appx0282
 The first involved the method used to print the ballots to be tested. In the
pre-election tests done before the 2022 elections, and indeed for elections in
prior years, Maricopa County tested batches of ballots run sequentially, i.e.,
without any pause between ballots. On election day, however, the printers
typically do not run constantly. Rather, they print ballots as voters send
information to the printer queue and therefore experience pauses between print
jobs. The interval between print jobs creates a demand for the printer alternately
to heat to print and cool to idle. During the time required for the fuser to recover
to optimal heat after idling, the printer could experience an inability to properly
fuse the toner to the paper, which in turn would result in the flaking and speckling
observed on some of the printed ballots.34 We therefore added a program that
incorporated short pauses between prints to allow tests of ballots produced by
interval, rather than sequential, printing. For sequential printing, each “ballot
batch” consisted of 50 ballots; for interval printing, each batch consisted of 25
ballots.
Finally, we tested the impact of the changes in settings that were made on
election day in an attempt to improve the performance of the printers. Two
settings are involved. When the printers left the Maricopa County warehouse, the
media weight setting, which affects the heat produced by the fuser, was set to
medium for control slips and envelopes and heavy for ballots; the media type,
which is the type of paper used, was set to plain for all three types of documents.
As discussed above, County technical staff who were called to vote centers
experiencing printer problems changed the media weight setting to heavy for
control slips and envelopes, resulting in all three document types being set to a
heavy media weight. Runbeck personnel also changed the media type to
cardstock. We therefore compared the performance of each printer when set as it
left the warehouse (WH) to its performance with the change of media weight (CH)
and to its performance with changes to both media weight and media type (CH+),
as well as against the other variables noted above. In total, we printed and tested
9,100 ballots, using the Maricopa County “famous names” ballot for all tests.35

34
Some high-volume printers utilize multiple heaters and sensors to recover more quickly and maintain more
consistent fuser heat, but the Oki B432 is constructed as a low to mid-volume printer, which can be a weakness
when used as a BOD printer. Interview with Doug Meyer.
35
The famous names ballot was designed to mimic the 2022 general election ballot and included federal, state,
and local races, as well as propositions. The difference, of course, is in the names: the candidates for President, for

14 Appx0283
 We used eight randomly-selected on-site tabulators to test the ballots.
Because a tabulator will reject a ballot that does not have any of the selection
“bubbles” filled, a group of MCED employees assisted us by filling in thousands of
ballot bubbles. In addition, MCED employees who are expert in the operation of
tabulators operated those for us.
After the rejected ballots from each printer were separated from those
accepted by the tabulator, Mr. Meyer visually inspected each rejected ballot to
determine the cause of the rejection. As reported below, we found multiple
issues that affected the tabulator’s ability to read some ballots.
Testing Results
Attachments A through C set out our findings in detail. As explained below,
the weight of the paper had the greatest impact on printer failures in our tests
and printer failures were greatest when 100-pound paper was used with a 20-inch
ballot. Other variables impacted results to some degree. Testing also revealed
that conducting interval tests of the printers, rather than sequential tests, is more
likely to identify printers that will fail under election-day conditions.
Paper Weight
Maricopa County printed its ballots on 80-pound paper for the 2020
primary and general elections. During those elections, MCTEC received no reports
of flaking that caused misprinted ballots. To compare 80-pound with 100-pound
paper, we first tested 500 19-inch and 500 20-inch ballots using 80-pound paper
on the ten test Oki printers, using the warehouse settings for media weight and
type and conducting both sequential and interval printing. We recorded just one
misread36 from the 1,000 test ballots. In addition, although this was not the focus
of our investigation, we saw no evidence of bleed-through when we filled out
ballots using the pens provided by Maricopa County during the 2022 elections.
These results, coupled with the earlier positive experience of Maricopa County in
using 80-pound paper, led us to conclude that additional tests of 80-pound paper
were not required. We concluded that the Oki B432 printers can print either 19-

instance, are George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and Sandra Day O’Connor is among the
judicial candidates in retention elections.
36
As used in this report, “misread” refers to a ballot that cannot be tabulated due to faulty printing.

15 Appx0284
inch or 20-inch ballots on 80-pound paper without causing printing or tabulation
issues.

Lexmark Printers
The results of our tests using Lexmark printers replicated the performance
of those printers during the 2022 general election. We tested two randomly-
selected Lexmark printers and printed 300 ballots on each, using warehouse
settings, 19-inch and 20-inch ballots, and sequential and interval printing. All
ballots printed could be read by the on-site tabulators. Because the Lexmark
printers performed without issue using warehouse settings, we had no reason to
conduct additional tests using the change settings applied in the field on election
day. 37
Media Weight and Media Type Settings
Table 1 summarizes the test results set out in detail in Attachment A. The
headings in the top row define the printing sequences and setting used:
Warehouse sequential (WH Seq) and warehouse interval (WH Int), which used a
media weight of heavy for ballots and medium for control slips and envelopes and
used plain paper for all; change sequential (CH Seq) and change interval (CH Int),
which maintained the plain paper setting but set the media weight to heavy for
control slips and envelopes as well as for ballots; and change sequential plus (CH
Seq+) and change interval plus (CH Int+), which used a heavy media weight for all
three types of documents and also changed the media type for ballots from plain
to cardstock. Group A consists of the Oki B432 printers from sites that did not
report issues; Group B consists of the Oki B432 printers from sites that did report
printer issues. Finally, Table 1 reports the results from tests that used a print
order of control slip and then ballot, the setting used during the general election.

37
As noted, the Lexmark printers printed all ballots without problem, and the Oki B432 printers produced only one
faulty ballot when using 80-pound paper. Because those tests did not help identify the source of printing problems,
we excluded those results from the information set out in Attachments A and B and examined the factors that did
affect or could have affected ballots printed on 100-pound paper. Attachment C includes all results from Oki B432
printers, including the results from testing ballots printed on 80-pound paper.

16 Appx0285
 Table 1
WH Seq WH Int CH Seq CH Int CH + Seq CH + Int

19-inch
Misreads
Group A 0 0 0 0 18/250 6/125
Group B 9/250 27/125 8/250 13/125 17/250 17/125
20-inch
Misreads
Group A 14/250 2/125 6/250 20/125 2/250 9/125
Group B 67/250* 36/125 31/250 7/125 9/250 16/125

19-inch
Percent
Misreads
Group A 0 0 0 0 7.2 4.8
Group B 3.6 21.6 3.2 10.4 6.8 13.6
20-inch
Percent
Misreads
Group A 5.6 1.6 2.4 16 .8 7.2
Group B 26.8* 24 12.4 5.6 3.6 12.8

The test results indicate that the changes made to increase the media
weight and to change the media type had some impact in reducing the number of
faulty ballots, but in no instance did either change eliminate the problem. In some
cases, the change in settings actually resulted in an increase in faulty ballots. The
negative impact of the changes is evident in the results for the Group A printers:
while both the change in media weight and media type reduced the number of
errors for ballots printed sequentially, the errors for ballots printed using interval
printing actually increased.
The changes in settings generally did improve the performance of the
Group B printers, lending support to the possibility that the fusers on these
printers were less likely than those in Group A to reach the heat level required to

17 Appx0286
cause the toner to adhere to the paper under warehouse setting conditions, thus
making it more likely that changes to the heat setting would improve fuser
performance.
The test results are consistent with reports from the vote centers on
election day. Although initially the County and Runbeck believed that the change
in settings had resolved, at least to a considerable degree, the issue with faulty
ballots, the command center continued to receive reports of printers not
operating correctly throughout election day, although the reports diminished
from the volume reported in the morning.38
Sequential and Interval Testing
We anticipated that the tests would reveal more misreads using interval
printing, and for the most part that was true.39 The numbers noted with an
asterisk in Table 1 appear to have skewed the results for this small sample of
printers. Printer 404 produced 44 of 50 misread ballots in the warehouse
sequential setting, a result that may reflect a transfer of ink to the tabulator,
causing subsequent misreads independent of the condition of the ballots being
tested. The extreme result from that one printer tends to mask the fact that, for
every other printer in both groups, the misreads in the warehouse interval setting
exceeded the misreads in the warehouse sequential setting. See results in
Attachment A.
The test results show that, for both groups of printers, using interval
printing generally resulted in the printers producing a greater number of faulty
ballots. As the results in Table 1 show, the increased misreads for Group B
printers on the interval setting using 19-inch ballots are striking: from 3.6 percent
on the warehouse sequential setting to 21.6 on the interval setting and from 3.2
percent on the change sequential setting to 10.4 on the change interval setting.40

38
Our review of the Election Reporting System summary reveals reports about print quality and misreads from at
least 38 votes centers during the afternoon of election day.
39
The exceptions occurred on the Group A warehouse sequential setting, although both numbers are relatively
small, and the Group B change sequential setting.
40
Another unexpected result involved the Group A 19-inch ballot results. That group of printers produced no
misreads on 19-inch ballots, except for the printing done after changes were made to both media weight and
media type. In this case, the changes, designed to improve printer success, actually resulted in a substantial
number of failures.

18 Appx0287
Using only sequential testing thus tends to mask difficulties the printers can
experience during field printing.

Printing Order
We also tested using the alternate order of printing used in the primary
election, setting the printers to print first the ballot and then the control slip.
Because we were testing only whether that change in order could have caused
failures on election day, we limited our testing to warehouse and change settings.
Table 2 summarizes those results, which are fully set out in Attachment B.
Table 2
Groups A and B Average Misreads: Ballot/Control Slip
WH Seq WH Int CH Seq CH Int

19-inch Misreads
Group A 9/250 6/125 11/250 8/125
Group B 6/250 4/125 0/250 6/125
20-inch Misreads
Group A 11/250 27/125 19/250 20/125
Group B 25/250 33/125 41/250 50/125

19-inch Percent Misreads

Group A 3.6 4.8 4.4 6.4
Group B 2.4 3.2 0 4.8
20-inch Percent Misreads
Group A 4.4 21.6 7.6 16.
Group B 10. 26.4 16.4 40.

Several differences in result are apparent. First, printing with the ballot first
generally resulted in more faulty ballots in Group A, the printers from sites with
no reported issues, when compared with printing the control slip first. The
percent of misreads also tends to be greater overall in the ballot-first test, as
compared with the control slip-first test, particularly with regard to interval
printing. The results confirmed that the change in order for the general election is

19 Appx0288
not likely to have caused more printer failures in the general election and may
actually have helped printer performance.

Paper Length
With relatively few exceptions, using 20-inch, 100-pound paper resulted in
more failures than did using 19-inch, 100-pound paper. See Attachment A. For
the Group A printers, for instance, no failures resulted from printing ballots on 19-
inch paper in the warehouse sequential setting; 14 resulted from printing on 20-
inch paper. The warehouse interval setting caused only two misreads in total,
both of those on 20-inch paper. The change interval setting did show a significant
difference, as it resulted in no misreads using 19-inch paper and 20 using 20-inch
paper.
For the Group B printers, those from sites that experienced issues, ballots
printed on the warehouse sequential setting on 19-inch paper resulted in nine
misreads, while those on 20-inch paper resulted in 67. The results varied
relatively little on the change interval setting: 13 on 19-inch paper and 18 on 20-
inch paper.
Our tests revealed more misreads using a 20-inch ballot, across categories
and in both groups of Oki B432 printers. These results are consistent with the
suggestion that the fusers on some Oki printers could not maintain an adequate
temperature. When heavier paper is used, the fuser heat dissipates more quickly.
The impact of the heat variation becomes more pronounced as the length of the
ballot and therefore the area of printing increases. The combined effect of the
increased ballot length and 100-pound paper on the ability of the fuser to
maintain optimum fusing temperature with stability helps explain the difference
between the primary and general election results.41
Pattern of Printer Failures
During our interviews, we heard varying descriptions of the type of print
failure seen on the misprinted ballots: some observers reported that the failure

41
Interview with Doug Meyer.

20 Appx0289
occurred only on the bottom of the first page printed, others that the problem
was more widespread. To determine the pattern of print failure and consider
whether that pattern helps explain the problems seen on election day, we
conducted a visual examination of all the ballots rejected during our tests.42
Our examination revealed that the poor fusing identified as the source of
the misprints was not limited to one portion of the ballots: poor fusing produced
misprints on the first side, second side, and both sides of affected ballots. 43 As
noted above, the poor fusing causes toner to remain on the heat roller and
become “offset,” or applied further down the page or on successive pages. As a
result, many of the ballots also exhibited toner offset and toner misting. The
extent of printing errors varied substantially. On some ballots, the printing failure
is immediately obvious, even to the untrained eye. On others, only a close
examination reveals the location and extent of the failure. These results are
consistent with our conclusion that some Oki B432 printers did not initially reach
the optimum temperature or did not maintain sufficient, consistent heat to allow
proper printing of 20-inch ballots printed on 100-pound paper.
Testing for Faulty Printers
Although most of our test printers produced faulty ballots, it is important to
keep in mind the fact that, on general election day, the large majority of Oki B432
printers performed well and produced few faulty ballots. Two-thirds of the
general election vote centers reported no issues with misprinted ballots;
approximately 94 percent of election day ballots were not faulty. In addition,
none of the tested printers produced only faulty ballots.44 In one sense, that fact
speaks well of the general capability of the Oki B432 printer. In another, the
variation among printers makes designing a test procedure sufficient to detect
faulty printers more difficult.
One of the most striking findings in our tests involved the considerable
differences among printers. At the extremes, one printer (Printer 406), printed

42
To maintain consistency of observation, only Doug Meyer and Barbara Meyer reviewed the ballots.
43
Of the misprints, approximately 11 percent occurred just on the first side of the ballot, 47 percent on the second
side of the ballot, and 42 percent on both sides of the ballot.
44
As Attachment A sets out, the average misprints for the Group B printers for 20-inch ballots on the warehouse
interval setting was 13 and on the change interval setting was 4, with misprints varying by printer from 0 to 13. For
Group A, the averages are <1 and 4, respectively, with misprints varying by printer from 0 to 11.

21 Appx0290
850 ballots at all settings with only one misread ballot. Printer 491 did almost as
well, with only 13 misread ballots. In contrast, Printer 404 produced 92 misread
ballots and Printer 323 produced 72. All printers are the same model Oki printer;
all were tested using the same settings and same paper; all the ballots were
tabulated using the same model on-site tabulators.45 The wide range of
performance among printers makes random testing of these printers an
unreliable predictor of the success of any particular printer.
If the County were to test a sufficient number of printers to be confident
that the group tested is representative of the printers as a whole, the County
would also need to define the level of performance deemed acceptable. In the
2022 general election, 6.7 percent of the ballots were placed in Door 3 for secure
transport to and tabulation at the MCTEC.46 That percent was substantially higher
than the percent of ballots placed in Door 3 in recent prior elections. 47 Assuming
for discussion that the percent of ballots placed in Door 3 approximates the
percent of ballot misread due to printer failure, the question is whether a five or
six percent printer failure rate is acceptable or whether a higher level of
performance should be required.
Assuming also that all or at least a sufficient number of printers could be
tested before being used in an election, our testing indicates that a substantial
number of the Oki B432 printers would fail to meet a standard that requires a
failure rate of five percent or less. Among the Group A printers, two (Printers 332
and 407) had failure rates exceeding five percent on the 20-inch warehouse
sequential setting (10 percent and 16 percent, respectively), although both
succeeded on the interval testing. Among the Group B printers, we found
substantial levels of failure. Among the printers in that group, two had more than
five percent failures when tested on the warehouse sequential setting: Printer
404, 88 percent failure on 20-inch ballots and Printer 323, with a ten percent

45
The differences also cannot be explained by comparing total pages printed. The expected print-life for the Oki
B432 printers is 100,000 pages; none of the printers exceeded 20,000 by the end of the 2022 election. Interview
with Scott Jarrett.
46
Although most of these ballots resulted from printer misprints, a misprinted ballot did not cause all those
rejections. In any election, ballots can be rejected or otherwise placed in Door C for several reasons: the voter used
a checkmark or an x rather than fill in the ballot balloon; the voter made ambiguous marks on the ballot; the
printer printed the ballot as fit-to-page; or the tabulator did not function. Interview with Scott Jarrett.
47
In the 2022 primary election, for instance, the percent was .6; in the 2020 general election 1.2 percent; in the
2018 general election .16 percent. Id.

22 Appx0291
failure rate on 19-inch ballots and a 34 percent failure rate on 20-inch ballots.
Four printers in Group B failed on the warehouse interval test, using both 19 and
20-inch ballots. (Printer 215, failure rates of 28 percent on 19-inch and 48 percent
on 20-inch; Printer 404, 28 percent on 19-inch and 40 percent on 20-inch; Printer
323, 40 percent on 19-inch and 36 percent on 20-inch; and 529, 12 percent on 19-
inch and 20 percent on 20-inch.) As is apparent, even if the acceptable standard
were set at ten percent, these printers would fail to meet the standard.
We printed 25 ballots for each interval test. That number of ballots was
sufficient to identify the relatively high failure rate of four of the five test printers
that came from vote centers with reported issues. Whether such testing is
possible on a large scale and whether the County has sufficient printers to serve
all vote centers if a decision is made that only printers that meet the adopted
standard should be used are questions of policy.
Recommendations and Conclusions
We began this investigation understanding that, on general election day,
some of Maricopa County’s Ballot-on-Demand printers at a number of vote
centers produced ballots that could not be read by the on-site tabulators. Our
task was to define the potential cause or causes of that failure and to recommend
steps to take to prevent a similar failure in future elections.
During our investigation, we spoke with multiple election workers who
prepared for, participated in, and conducted a post-election analysis of election
procedures. In addition to the printer tests we conducted, we questioned all
those interviewed about their understanding of the causes of printer failures and
asked for their recommendations for reducing or eliminating similar problems in
future elections. I was impressed, as were other members of the investigative
team, by the knowledge and dedication the election workers bring to their jobs
and by their willingness to revise practices and procedures to prevent future
issues.
Two factors proved to be of primary importance in explaining the Oki B432
printer failures that occurred during the general election but not the primary
election: the increased length of the general election ballot, coupled with the use
of 100-pound paper for the ballot. Maricopa County’s experience during the
primary election amply demonstrated that printing ballots on 100-pound paper

23 Appx0292
does not exceed the capacity of the Oki B432 printer. The experience during the
general election tells us that, when 100-pound paper was coupled with a
lengthier, 20-inch ballot, the task being asked of the Oki B432 printer simply
exceeded the capacity of many, although clearly not all or even most, of the
printers.48 The combined effect of the heavy paper, longer ballot, and
intermittent burst of print demand pushed the printers to perform at the very
edge of or past their capability, so that any decrease in fuser performance in an
individual printer could result in problems.49 The distinct difference in
performance from one printer to another suggests that the fuser on some of the
printers is not capable of recovering quickly enough to maintain optimum fusing
temperature during on-site interval printing.50
The fuser inadequacy on some printers is not a problem easily remedied, as
the fuser on the Oki B432 cannot be separately replaced.51 That problem is
further exacerbated by the fact that the Oki B432 manufacturer, which has
withdrawn from the North and South American markets, has established
December 31, 2025 as the end of life for these printers, after which repair parts
and consumables will no longer be manufactured.52 Any decision about remedial
actions obviously must take these factors into account.
Our team has identified several approaches that, based on our findings,
would eliminate or greatly reduce the printer problems experienced during the
general election. All involve policy issues and considerations that are beyond the
scope of this report.
One approach would be to return to using 80-pound paper for ballots. Both
Maricopa County’s past experience and our test of the printers demonstrate the
ability of the Oki B432 printers to produce readable ballots using 80-pound paper,
whether the ballot is 19 or 20 inches long.53 Given the prior “SharpieGate”
experience, however, whether that change can be made without reducing public

48
According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the Oki B432 should have been able to print the 20-inch ballots on
100-pound paper by using custom settings. Interview with IT manager.
49
Interview with Doug Meyer.
50
County and Runbeck employees, as well as Mr. Meyer, have extensive experience with Oki printers. None had
experienced any issues with quality control in Oki printers, specifically with the fusers.
51
Interview with Doug Meyer.
52
Interview with Jeff Ellington.
53
If the ballot were to exceed 20 inches, further stress testing would be required.

24 Appx0293
confidence is an issue for the Board of Supervisors, the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office, and the MCED. Our test experience with the pens used during
the 2022 general election and 80-pound paper suggests that bleed-through would
not be a problem, although additional testing designed to evaluate that factor
would be advantageous.
Another approach is to eliminate the use of on-site tabulators. Maricopa
County could return to its earlier practice, and that used in half of Arizona’s
counties,54 and transport the ballots from vote centers to the MCTEC for
tabulation in the more powerful central count tabulators. During the 2022 general
election, that procedure permitted tabulation of the misprinted ballots in
Maricopa County.
Replacing the Oki B432 printers with other printers is another option that
could eliminate or substantially reduce the printer issues seen during the general
election. During our tests, the Lexmark printers used during the general election
successfully printed the 20-inch ballots on 100-pound paper without requiring any
adjustment to the printer warehouse settings. If the County decides that the Oki
B432 printers cannot be relied upon during future elections, deciding whether
making the required expenditure to purchase new printers is the best course
presents another policy issue.
If the Oki B432 printers are retained for use in future elections, the MCED
should undertake more robust stress testing of printers before sending them out
to vote centers. Testing using interval printing and on-site tabulators rather than
sequential printing and the central count tabulators would more fairly represent
election day conditions than does the sequential printing used in the past, and
doing so would detect more faulty printers. As noted above, however, given the
substantial variation among printers, such testing would have to be conducted on
a large scale to achieve confidence that faulty printers are detected.
Additional steps could be taken if the Oki B432 printers are retained for
future use. We found that the change in weight and media settings reduced, but
did not eliminate, the production of faulty ballots. Given that limitation in
achieving better results, the County could determine that a certain level of ballot

54
As noted earlier, Apache, Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties transport
ballots from vote centers to their central election offices for tabulating.

25 Appx0294
errors is acceptable and undertake efforts to better educate voters about the
possibility of receiving a misprinted ballot and alternatives to on-site tabulation.
The County also could provide additional training to poll workers so they could
better anticipate the possibility of misprinted ballots and could better reassure
voters that a ballot that cannot be read on-site will be stored securely and
tabulated at the central facility.55
I note one additional element that could affect vote center equipment.
Several persons with whom we spoke reported that some sites have relatively
limited power sources. Because limited power can affect the operation of all the
equipment at a vote center, site assessment should include an assessment of the
adequacy of the available power.
Finally, we were asked to determine whether the problems occurring on
election day were the result of human error, procedural shortcomings, or
equipment failure. Although separating related causes is always difficult, in my
judgment, the primary cause of the election day failures was equipment failure.
Despite the assurances of the manufacturer, many of the Oki B432 printers were
not capable of reliably printing 20-inch ballots on 100-pound paper under
election-day conditions.
Any failure in process or human error relates to a failure to anticipate and
prepare for the printer failures experienced. But nothing we learned in our
interviews or document reviews gave any clear indication that the problems
should have been anticipated. MCED leadership and staff were uniformly
confident that the general election would run smoothly, and there was reason for
their confidence: the Oki B432 printers had performed reliably in the past, both in
Maricopa County and elsewhere; the County’s experience with 100-pound paper
had been positive in the primary election; and the printer stress tests with 20-inch
ballots on 100-pound paper revealed no problems.
As is often the case, hindsight allows us to define changes in process that
might have prevented or alleviated the printer issues encountered. But while pre-
election testing that used interval testing and on-site tabulators would have been

55
The training materials for poll workers anticipate most issues that can occur during an election and provide steps
to take to remedy the issues. The unanticipated nature of the printing problems encountered in 2022 explains the
lack of training in how to respond to the issue.

26 Appx0295
more likely to detect the printer shortcomings, nothing in the County’s past
experience or that of the employees at Runbeck suggested such testing was
needed. Similarly, had the County anticipated the printer issues that occurred,
specific training of poll workers about how to respond to the issue could have
reduced the amount of voter confusion and concern.
The problems encountered in the 2022 general election have identified
issues affecting the printing and tabulation of vote center ballots. I trust that this
analysis and that undertaken by the County will help to prevent similar problems
from arising in future elections.

27 Appx0296
 ATTACHMENT A
Printer Order: Control Slip/Ballot
Printer Groups A and B
Paper Weight: 100-pound
Ballot Length: 19 and 20-inch
Settings: WH, CH, CH+
WH:
Media Weight: Heavy for ballots; medium for control slip and envelopes
Media Type: Plain for all

CH:
Media Weight: Heavy for all
Media Type: Plain for all

CH+
Media Weight: Heavy for all
Media Type: Cardstock for ballots; plain for control slips and envelopes

Print Sequence: Sequential and Interval

Appx0297
 Control Slip/Ballot: Group A: No Printer Fuser Issues Reported
Printer WH Seq: WH WH WH Int: CH Seq: CH Seq: CH Int: Ch Int: Ch + Ch+: Ch+: Int: Ch+ Int:
Number Seq: Interval: Percent Number Percent Number Percent Seq: Seq: Number Percent
and Per- Number Misread and Misread and Misread Number Percent and Misread
Misread cent and Misread Misread and Misread Misread
Mis- Misread Misread
read
332
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/16 32 25/3 12
100/20 50/5 10 25/0 0 50/3 6 25/1 4 50/2 4 25/2 8
491
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/1 2 25/0 0
100/20 50/0 0 25/2 8 50/2 4 25/5 20 50/0 0 25/4 16
407
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/1 2 25/3 12
100/20 50/8 16 25/0 50/1 2 25/11 44 50/0 0 25/2 8
183
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/1 2 25/0 0 50/0 25/2 8 50/0 0 25/1 4
406
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0

100/20 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/1 4 50/0 0 25/0 0

Total 19- 0/250 0/125 0/250 0/125 18/250 6/125 24/1125

inch
2.13
Total 20- 6/250 2/125 6/250 20/125 2/250 9/125 45/1125
inch
4.0
Ballots A 14/50 2/250 6/500 20/250 20/250 15/250
100-lb 500 0 250 .8 500 1.2 250 8.0 500 8.0 250 6.0
2.8

Appx0298
Control Slip/Ballot: Group B: Fuser Issues Reported
Printer WH Seq: WH Seq: WH Int: WH Int: Ch. Seq: CH Seq: CH Int: CH Int: Ch+ Ch+ Ch+ Int: Ch+ Int:
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Seq: Seq: Number Percent
and Misread and Misread and Misread and Misread Number Percent and Misread
Misread Misread Misread Misread and Misread Misread
Misread
215
100/19 50/0 0 25/7 28 50/2 4 25/3 12 50/7 14 25/5 20
100/20 50/4 8 25/12 48 50/7 14 25/12 48 50/1 2 25/6 24
404
100/19 50/3 6 25/7 28 50/1 2 25/1 4 50/2 4 25/1 4
100/20 50/44 88 25/10 40 50/20 40 25/1 4 50/1 2 25/1 4
323
100/19 50/5 10 25/10 40 50/5 10 25/9 36 50/8 16 25/2 8
100/20 50/17 34 25/9 36 50/1 2 25/1 4 50/7 14 25/2 8
408
100/19 50/1 2 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/1 2 25/2 8
100/20 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/2 8 50/0 0 25/2 8
529
100/19 50/9: fit 0 25/3 12 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/3 6 25/7 28
to page
100/20 50/2 4 25/5 20 50/3 6 25/4 16 50/1 0 25/5 20
One fit
to page

Total 9/250 27/125 8/250 13/125 21/250 17/125 95/1125

19-inch
8.44
Total 67/250 36/125 31/250 19/125 9/250 16/125 178/1125
20-inch
15.82
Ballots 500 76/500 250 63/250 500 39/500 250 32/250 500 30/500 250 33/250
B 100- 15.2 25.2 7.8 12.8 6.0 13.2
lb

Total A 1,000 90/1000 500 65/500 1,000 45/1000 500 52/500 1,000 50/1000 500 48/500
and B 9.0 13.0 4.5 10.4 5.0 9.6

Appx0299
 ATTACHMENT B
Printer Order: Ballot/Control Slip
Printer Groups A and B
Paper Weight: 100-pound
Ballot Length: 19 and 20-inch
Settings: WH, CH
WH:
Media Weight: Heavy for ballots; medium for control slip and envelopes
Media Type: Plain for all

CH:
Media Weight: Heavy for all
Media Type: Plain for all

Appx0300
 Ballot/Control Slip: Group A: No Printer Fuser Issues Reported
Printer WH Seq: WH Seq: WH WH Int: CH Seq: CH Seq: CH Int: Ch Int: Total
Number Percent Interval: Percent Number Percent Number Percent by 19
and Misreads Number Misreads and Misreads and Misreads and
Misreads and Misreads Misreads 20-
Misreads inch
332
100/19 50/9 18 25/5 20 50/11 22 25/7 28
100/20 50/4 8 25/13 42 50/10 20 25/12 48
491
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/1 2 25/3 12 50/0 25/3 12
407
100/19 50/0 0 25/1 4 50/0 0 24/1 4
100/20 50/6 12 25/10 40 50/8 16 25/4 16
183
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/1 fit 0 25/1 4 50/0 25/1 4
to page
406
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/1 2 25/0 0

Total 19 inch 9/250 6/125 11/250 8/125 34/750

4.53
Total 20 inch 11/250 27/125 19/250 20/125 77/750

10.26
Ballots 20/500 33/250 30/500 28/250
A 100-lb 500 4.0 250 13.2 500 6.0 250 11.2

Appx0301
 Ballot/Control Slip: Group B: Fuser Issues Reported
Printer WH Seq WH Seq: WH Int: WH Int: Ch. Seq: CH Seq: CH Int: CH Int: Total by
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 19 and
and Misreads and Misreads and Misreads and Misreads 20-inch
Misreads Misreads Misreads Misreads
215
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/7 14 25/3 12 50/17 34 25/6 24
404
100/19 50/1 2 25/2 4 50/0 25/2 8
100/20 50/4 8 25/2 4 50/2 4 25/19 76
Toner
fused to
ballot
323
100/19 50/0 0 25/0 0 50/0 0 25/1 4
100/20 50/8 16 25/3 12 50/7 14 25/8 32

408
100/19 50/5 10 25/1 4 50/0 0 25/0 0
100/20 50/0 0 25/3 12 50/8 16 25/6 24
529
100/19 50/0 0 25/1 4 50/4 8 25/3 12
100/20 50/1 2 25/22 88 50/7 14 25/11 44

19-inch 5/250 12/125 4/250 6/125 27/750

3.6
20-inch 20/250 33/125 41/250 50/125 144/750

19.2
Ballots B 100- 25/500 45/250 45/500 56/250
lb 500 5.0 250 18.0 500 9.0 250 22.4
Total Ballots,
B/CS 1000 500 1000 500

Appx0302
 ATTACHMENT C
All Printers and Groups

Appx0303
Appx0304
Appx0305
Appx0306
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
T. Hays, Deputy
5/10/2023 11:39:37 PM
RACHEL H. MITCHELL Filing ID 15965425
1
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
2
By: THOMAS P. LIDDY (Bar No. 019384)
3 JOSEPH J. BRANCO (Bar No. 031474)
JOSEPH E. LA RUE (Bar No. 031348)
4 KAREN J. HARTMAN-TELLEZ (Bar No. 021121)
JACK L. O’CONNOR (Bar No. 030660)
5 SEAN M. MOORE (Bar No. 031621)
ROSA AGUILAR (Bar No. 037774)
6 Deputy County Attorneys
[email protected]
7 [email protected]
[email protected]
8 [email protected]
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
[email protected]
10 Deputy County Attorneys
MCAO Firm No. 0003200
11
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
12 225 West Madison Street
13 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone (602) 506-8541
14 Facsimile (602) 506-4316
[email protected]
15

16 Emily Craiger (Bar No. 021728)

[email protected]
17 THE BURGESS LAW GROUP
3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 224
18 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Telephone: (602) 806-2100
19
Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
20
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
21
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
22
KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403
23
Contestant/Petitioner, MARICOPA COUNTY DEFENDANTS’
24 RESPONSE OPPOSING LAKE’S
vs. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
25
JUDGMENT
26 KATIE HOBBS, et al.,
Defendants. (Expedited Election Matter)
27

28 (Honorable Peter Thompson)

MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003

Appx0307
 1 Pursuant to Rule 7.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P., and this Court’s May 8, 2023 Minute Entry
2 Order, the Maricopa County Defendants file this Response Opposing Lake’s Motion for
3 Relief From Judgment and urge this Court to deny Lake’s Motion.
4 INTRODUCTION
5 It is important to remember why we are here, and the two “first principles” that guide
6 this proceeding. The first is that this is an election contest, governed by the election contest
7 statutes. Arizona held an election for governor on November 8, 2022. At the canvass of the
8 election, Governor Katie Hobbs was shown to have earned 17,117 more votes than candidate
9 Kari Lake. [Lake v. Hobbs, No. CV2022-095403, Under Advisement Ruling (December 24,
10 2022) (“Ruling”), at 3.] Lake then filed the instant election contest, which is a creation of
11 statute and is governed by the election contest statute. Fish v. Redeker, 2 Ariz. App. 602,
12 605 (1966); Griffin v. Buzard, 86 Ariz. 166, 168 (1959). Consequently, everything that
13 happens in this election contest must fit within the parameters allowed by statute for election
14 contests. That is the first “first principle.”
15 The second “first principle” is this: in an election contest, it is not enough to prove
16 that misconduct occurred; the contestant must prove that the misconduct was outcome
17 determinative. The Court of Appeals recently stated that rule when it decided the appeal of
18 this matter, and it is the law of the case moving forward. Lake v. Hobbs, 525 P.3d 664, 668
19 ¶ 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023); review of decision on counts I-II, IV-X denied, No. CV-23-0046-
20 PR, Order, at 2 (Sup. Ct., Mar. 22, 2023); see also Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist.
21 No. 33, 179 Ariz. 178 (1994) (sustaining election contest where misconduct affecting
22 outcome of election was shown). As explained below, Lake has not shown misconduct and
23 cannot show misconduct because none occurred. But even if she could show misconduct,
24 that would not be enough: Lake would have to show that the alleged misconduct actually
25 changed the outcome of the gubernatorial election. And she has not done that.
26 Those are the two first principles that govern the consideration of Lake’s Motion for
27 Relief from Judgment (the “Motion”). And when those first principles are kept in focus, it
28 is clear that this Court should deny the Motion.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0308
 1 ARGUMENT
2 I. Lake Has Not Alleged Misconduct That Could Affect the Outcome of the
3 Election.
4 A. Lake’s Allegations About Tabulators are False and also Insufficient for
5 Rule 60 Relief.
6 Lake’s first basis for requesting relief from judgment is her assertion that the County
7 failed to perform required testing on its tabulators; instead, performed “secret” testing that
8 its tabulators failed; and did not tabulate (i.e., count) all the ballots cast in the 2022 general
9 election. Each of these spurious allegations is false.
10 1. The County Performed the Required Logic and Accuracy Testing.
11 Lake’s first asserts that Maricopa County “did not perform L&A testing on any vote
12 center tabulators used on Election Day.” [Motion at 2, 14.] This assertion is based on Clay
13 Parikh’s Declaration, in which he baldly asserts that his review of Maricopa County’s
14 tabulator logs establish that none of the tabulators underwent logic and accuracy testing. [Id.
15 at 14 (citing Ex. A to the Motion, Parikh Decl., ¶¶ 8(a), 11-13.] But the evidence directly
16 contradicts him.
17 First, the Secretary of State’s representatives attested on the State’s official Logic &
18 Accuracy Certificate that the required logic and accuracy testing occurred on October 11,
19 2022. [Ex. 1 to Parikh’s Decl., Secretary of State’s Logic & Accuracy Equipment
20 Certificate.] One of those representatives was Kori Lorick, the State Elections Director.
21 [Id.] Second, Maricopa County Elections Department employees and political party
22 observers signed the County’s official Certificate attesting that the logic and accuracy testing
23 occurred on October 11, 2022. [Id., Maricopa County Elections Department Certificate of
24 Accuracy.] This included Kevin Gallagher, a Republican Party Precinct Committeeman for
25 LD14, as well as Janice Bryant, another Republican Party Observer. And Scott Jarrett,
26 Maricopa County’s Co-Director of Elections, submits his contemporaneously-filed
27 Declaration, which is Exhibit A to this Response, in which he testifies that the logic and
28 accuracy testing occurred on October 11, 2022 and that it included tabulators use in vote
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
2
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0309
 1 centers. [Ex. A, Jarrett Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, 12-13.]
2 In order for Parikh’s analysis to be true—which, it is not—several Secretary of State
3 officials, several Maricopa County officials, several members of the Democratic Party, and
4 several members of the Republican Party would have to be in cohoots together, and would
5 have to have agreed to lie on official documents, falsely claiming that the logic and accuracy
6 testing occurred. This makes no sense, and it did not happen.
7 But, even if—contrary to all logic, and contrary to fact—the State Elections Director,
8 Maricopa County personnel, and members of the Democratic and Republican parties had
9 taken a blood oath and agreed to falsely sign official documents, come what may—even if
10 that had really happened—that “misconduct” would not have affected the outcome of the
11 2022 gubernatorial election. This Court has already determined that all ballots cast in that
12 election were tabulated. [Ruling at 6, 7.] So Lake’s contrary-to-fact assertion, that the logic
13 and accuracy testing did not occur, would not be grounds to set aside the election even if it
14 were true—which, as explained, it is not.
15 2. No “Secret” Testing Occurred.
16 Next, Lake falsely alleges that the County conducted “secret” testing of the vote
17 center tabulators used on Election Day on October 14, 17 and 18, and that 260 of the 446
18 tabulators failed this secret testing. [Motion at 2, 14-15; see also id. at 10 (stating that
19 “[i]ntent can be inferred from Maricopa’s surreptitious means”).] Besides being laughable,
20 this allegation is flat-out wrong. As Scott Jarrett explains in his Declaration, on October 14,
21 17, and 18, the County installed new memory cards, containing the certified Election
22 Program that had undergone the logic and accuracy testing, on each of its tabulators. [Ex. A
23 to this Response, Jarrett Decl., ¶ 14.] This process was conducted under the live stream
24 video cameras in the County’s Ballot Tabulation Center (the “BTC”) in the Maricopa County
25 Tabulation and Election Center (“MCTEC”). [Id.] When installing the memory cards, the
26 County tabulated a small number of ballots on each tabulator to be certain that the memory
27 cards had been properly inserted. [Id., ¶ 15.] This, too, was done under the live stream video
28 cameras. [Id.] This was not done in secret; it was not “testing;” and it was not misconduct.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0310
 1 Lake notes that the County provided no public notice for this “testing” (which, of
2 course, wasn’t really testing no matter Lake’s claim), and then claims that the lack of public
3 notice violated A.R.S. § 16-449(A). [Motion at 14-15.] Wrong again. That statute refers to
4 the required logic and accuracy testing, and commands that public notice be made prior to
5 that required test. The loading of memory cards is not logic and accuracy testing, and no
6 public notice was required.
7 Nor did any tabulator “fail” this “testing,” as Lake alleges. [Motion at 15.] Lake
8 makes this assumption because the tabulator logs that Parikh examined contained “Ballot
9 Misread” and “Paper-Jam” errors. [Id.] But as Scott Jarrett explains, “a tabulator misreading
10 a ballot does not necessarily indicate a tabulator is malfunctioning, accordingly a review of
11 the tabulator logs for misread ballots is not an appropriate method for identifying if a
12 tabulator failed a logic and accuracy test.” [Ex. A to this Response, Jarrett Decl., ¶ 17.]
13 Rather, many situations can lead to those log entries. For example, a ballot inserted slightly
14 askew can produce them. Similarly, a ballot inserted immediately after cleaning the
15 tabulator, if a small piece of the cleaning linen was left on the tabulator, can produce them.
16 These entries do not indicate failure; rather, they are a normal part of both testing tabulators
17 and voting on them. [Id.]
18 None of what Lake alleged about this supposedly “secret” “test” is correct. And
19 because nothing “surreptitious” occurred, no “intent” of misconduct should be inferred,
20 despite Lake’s hope that it will be. [Motion at 10.] But even if, contrary to fact, Lake’s
21 allegation here were true—even if the County had conducted a “secret” “test,” without public
22 notice, and tabulators failed it—that would not have changed the outcome of the election
23 because every ballot cast in the election was tabulated. [Ruling at 6, 7.] So Lake’s contrary-
24 to-fact assertion, that “secret” “testing” occurred, would not be grounds to set aside the
25 election even if it were true—which, as explained, it is not.
26 3. All Ballots Cast in the 2022 General Election Were Tabulated.
27 Next, Lake asserts that “a malicious and intentional act” caused the “fit-to-page”
28 errors. [Motion at 15-16.] She bases this assertion on Justice McGregor’s BOD Report, in
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
4
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0311
 1 which the former Justice notes that during her testing four printers randomly printed fit-to-
2 page ballots. [Id. at 15.] The McGregor BOD Report explained, however, that the cause of
3 this occurrence was unknown. [Id.] An unknown cause does not mean that it must be a
4 “malicious” or “intentional” one. But nonetheless, Lake asserts that this “could only be due
5 to malicious code, malware, or remote configuration changes.” [Id. at 16.] This claim is
6 plainly wrong: the cause is, at the moment, unknown. But regardless, as with Lake’s prior
7 allegations, so here: even if it were true, the outcome of the election would not be changed
8 because all ballots cast in the election (including the “fit-to-page” ballots) were tabulated.
9 [Ruling at 6-7.]
10 Next, Lake alleges that the County’s tabulators rejected more than 7,000 ballots every
11 half hour. [Motion at 16.] Lake must not mean that 7,000 different voters inserted 7,000
12 different ballots into the tabulators and had them rejected every half hour, which would be
13 an impossible statistic, but rather that several voters attempted to insert their same ballot
14 multiple times, totaling 7,000 rejections. Undersigned counsel is unsure whether even that
15 is correct. And undersigned counsel is confident that the vast majority of the County’s
16 tabulators did not experience that rejection rate. But again, even if that were true, it would
17 not have affected the outcome of the election—every ballot cast in the election was counted.
18 Finally, Lake claims that “over 8,000 ballots” were rejected by tabulators and not
19 counted. But as explained below, that claim is simply false. [See infra at 9-11.] Every ballot
20 cast in the election was counted, as this Court found. [Ruling at 6-7.] The Court of Appeals
21 affirmed this Court, and the Supreme Court denied review of everything except whether the
22 Recorder failed to follow his signature verification procedures, as challenged in Count III.
23 As just demonstrated, Lake’s claim of misconduct by unidentified Maricopa County
24 personnel is false: no misconduct occurred. And because all the ballots cast in the election
25 were counted, her alleged misconduct, even if it had happened, would not affect the outcome
26 of the election. Lake therefore cannot prevail on Counts II, V, and VI, and this Court should
27 deny the Motion.
28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
5
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0312
 1 B. Lake’s Allegations About Scott Jarrett’s Trial Testimony are False and
2 also Insufficient for Rule 60 Relief.
3 Lake’s second basis for requesting relief from judgment is an assertion that “new
4 evidence” shows that Scott Jarrett gave what Lake incorrectly calls “false testimony”
5 concerning the issue of 19-inch ballot images being printed on 20-inch ballot paper. [Motion
6 at 2-3.] As explained below, Jarrett’s testimony was truthful. It is Lake’s accusations about
7 Jarrett that are false.
8 Lake’s claimed “new evidence” is the following quote from former Chief Justice Ruth
9 McGregor’s Ballot on Demand (“BOD”) report:
10 Another printing anomaly occurred at several vote centers, where ballots were
re-sized as “fit to page,” a process that entirely changed the location of the timing
11
marks on the ballots and assured that neither the on-site tabulators nor the central
12 count tabulators could read the ballots. We could not determine whether this
change resulted from a technician attempting to correct the printing issues,
13 the most probable source of change, or a problem internal to the printers.
14 During our testing, four printers randomly printed one or a few “fit to page”
ballots in the middle of printing a batch of ballots. None of the technical people
15 with whom we spoke could explain how or why that error occurred.
16 [Motion at 15-16 (citing Maricopa BOD Report at 12 (Lake’s Ex. E).] Lake outrageously
17 asserts, with no logical or evidentiary basis, that this statement “proves” Parikh’s theory that
18 this “fit to page” problem must have been caused by an “intentional act.” [Motion at 16.1]
19 This is nonsense: Plaintiff’s claim is absurd on its face.
20 Parikh’s theory concerning the genesis of the “fit to page” issue, as correctly
21 articulated by this Court in its December 24, 2022 Ruling, is that the printing of the “fit to
22 page” ballots “must have been done intentionally, either by overriding the image file that
23 was sent from the laptop to the printer, or from the ballot image definition side.” [Ruling at
24
1
25 The Motion also includes what it frames as if it were a quote—but without an ending
quotation mark and with no citation to the record, the following: “‘Moreover, the tabulator
26 system log files internal records show that the so-called “fit-to-page” issue—first disclosed
by Jarrett on the second day of trial—occurred at 110 vote centers, not three voter (sic)
27 centers as Jarrett testified.” [Motion at 16.] This purported quotation has no support
anywhere in the record, so far as the County has been able to determine, and the County is
28 unaware of any basis for this claim that 110 vote centers were impacted.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
6
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0313
 1 6.] That is Parikh’s claim. And Justice McGregor’s report makes no such finding, nor does
2 it even remotely address either of these erroneous theories repeatedly asserted by Parikh.
3 Moreover, Parikh’s voluminous declaration, attached to the Motion, is completely devoid of
4 any testimony that he has any personal knowledge whatsoever of any intent behind this
5 alleged error. [Ex. A to the Motion.] So, nothing has changed: as was the case when the
6 Court issued its December 24, 2022 Ruling, all Lake has presented this Court is speculation.
7 And “[t]he Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing
8 evidence.” [Ruling at 8.]
9 Further, there is nothing—and, never has been anything—inconsistent or inaccurate
10 about Jarrett’s testimony concerning the ballot images. This issue has been addressed ad
11 nauseam, including at trial and in the appellate briefing on this issue. It is disappointing—
12 but also, telling—that Lake continues to misrepresent Jarrett’s testimony and wrongly assert
13 that he “falsely” testified. [Motion at 2-3.] It is likewise disappointing and telling that Lake
14 continues to wrongly assert—despite this issue being repeatedly explained—that the “fit to
15 page” issue caused a 19-inch ballot image to be printed, instead of a 20-inch ballot image.
16 [Id.] These accusations are false, and compel the Maricopa County Defendants to explain
17 matters one more time.
18 Words have meaning, and in election administration parlance a “ballot image” refers
19 to the ballot PDFs generated by a voting system’s programming, establishing the ballot
20 definition, for a given election. For the 2022 General Election, the Maricopa County
21 Elections Department used the Election Management System to generate a 20-inch ballot
22 definition with over 12,000 different “styles”—elections-administration nomenclature for
23 ballots designed with contests for each different jurisdiction in Maricopa County, allowing
24 each voter to receive a ballot appropriate for where they live. [See Dec. 21, 2022 Tr. at
25 51:19–23, 69:10–21; Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 230:15–17.] “Ballot definitions are used to
26 program the voting systems” and generate ballot PDFs—i.e., ballot images, which are
27 utilized to print the ballots. [Dec. 22, 2022 at 230:224–231:5.] Because Maricopa County
28 had a 20-inch ballot definition, the ballot PDF was a 20-inch image, which remained true
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
7
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0314
 1 even when the image was printed by printers set to “fit to page.” What those printers printed
2 was a slightly shrunk version of the 20-inch ballot image. It was, however, still a 20-inch
3 ballot image, but shrunk smaller on the page.
4 Turning to Jarrett’s testimony, Lake’s incorrect belief that 19-inch ballot images had
5 been printed apparently led Lake’s counsel to consistently ask Jarrett about “19-inch ballot
6 images,” and Jarrett just as consistently denied that there had been any such PDF ballot
7 images created for the 2022 general election. Jarrett also consistently testified that some 20-
8 inch ballot images had been printed by printers set to “fit to page”, which caused the 20-inch
9 images to print slightly smaller than they should have.
10 On the first day of trial, when Lake’s counsel asked Jarrett whether “for the 2022
11 General Election, Maricopa was operating with a 20-inch ballot image, correct?” Jarrett
12 replied, “That’s correct.” (Dec. 21, 2022 Tr. at 53:17–19.) When asked whether he had
13 heard any reports about a “19-inch ballot image being placed on 20-inch paper[,]” Jarrett
14 answered, “I did not.” (Dec. 21, 2022 Tr. at 68:24–69:4.) And in response to further
15 questioning about whether there had been a 19-inch ballot image printed by any printer for
16 the 2022 general election, Jarrett stated that “the reason why” he was confident that there
17 was not “a printer that had a 19-inch ballot on it” was because “we did not design a 2022
18 General Election on a 19-inch ballot. That ballot does not exist. The only ballot that exists
19 is a 20-inch ballot.” (Dec. 21, 2022 Tr. at 69:7–14.)
20 At no time on the first day of the trial did any attorney ask Jarrett about the “fit to
21 page” problem. He was never asked whether the printers at three of the vote centers had
22 their settings changed to “fit to page”, nor was he ever asked whether some ballots at those
23 three vote centers had shrunken, 20-inch ballot images printed. Accordingly, there was no
24 reason for Jarrett to discuss the “fit to page” problem.
25 Parikh testified after Jarrett. Parikh focused on his incorrect assumptions about there
26 being “only two ways” for a ballot to be printed smaller than it was supposed to be.
27 The next day, Jarrett was called by the Defendants. Asked to identify the printer
28 problems the County experienced, Jarrett addressed the faint-ink problem and then testified:
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
8
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0315
 1 “we did identify three different locations that had a fit-to-paper setting that was adjusted on
2 Election Day[,]” which affected “just shy of 1,300 ballots[.]” [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 180:3–
3 15.] Jarrett also testified that ballots from one of those vote centers had been included in the
4 ballots inspected by Parikh. [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 180:21–23.] And he further testified: “that
5 was a -- not a 19-inch ballot,” but “a 20-inch ballot, a definition of a 20-inch ballot that’s
6 loaded on the laptop from -- that is connected to the ballot on-demand printer that gets printed
7 onto then a 20-inch piece of paper; but because of the fit-to-paper setting, that actually
8 shrinks the size of that ballot.” [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 181:8–14.] And Jarrett testified that
9 all of the affected ballots were ultimately duplicated and tabulated at the central count
10 facility. [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 181:21–182:7.]
11 On cross, Lake’s counsel asked Jarrett whether he remembered previously testifying
12 that “a 19-inch ballot image being imprinted on a 20-inch ballot did not happen in the 2022
13 General Election[,]” and Jarrett answered, “Yes, I recall that there was not a 19-inch ballot
14 definition in the 2022 General Election.” [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 206:23–207:3.] Lake’s
15 counsel then stated, “But that wasn’t my question, sir.” [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 207:4.]
16 But that was his question. Lake’s counsel had repeatedly asked about 19-inch ballot
17 images, and Jarrett had consistently testified that there was no such thing created for the
18 2022 general election. The next exchange typifies this disconnect. Lake’s counsel asked:
19 “I asked you specifically about a 19-inch ballot image being imprinted on a 20-inch piece of
20 paper. So are you changing your testimony now with respect to that?”—to which Jarrett
21 replied, “No, I’m not[,]” and then explained, “I don’t know the exact measurements of a fit
22 to -- fit-to-paper printing. I know that it just creates a slightly smaller image of a 20-inch
23 image on a 20-inch paper ballot.” [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 207:4–12 (emphasis added).]
2
24 This is the testimony that Lake claims was “false.” But Jarrett’s testimony was
25 accurate, truthful and consistent. Jarrett testified that no 19-inch ballot images were used in
26 2
Notably, Lake made this exact assertion on appeal, asserting Jarrett gave “conflicting”
27 testimony. [Lake’s Pet. for Sp. Act., December 30, 2022, at 9-13 and 31-32.] Lake’s
assertion of the exact same argument, post unsuccessful appeal, is improper and a further
28 waste of judicial resources.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
9
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0316
 1 the 2022 general election in Maricopa County—because they weren’t. He also testified that
2 a few printers were incorrectly set to “fit to page” causing 20-inch ballot images to be slightly
3 shrunk when they printed—because that is what happened. Lake’s arguments to the contrary
4 are false.
5 Finally, Parikh appears to imply that the impacted ballots were either not properly
6 duplicated or not tabulated at all. Specifically, Lake asserts that “Parikh testified that
7 Maricopa did not keep duplicate ballot combined with the original ballot and thus there was
8 no way to tell how the duplicate ballot was actually voted.” [Motion at 4.] And Lake
9 ascribes to Parikh a claim that “the evidence shows that over 8,000 ballots, maliciously
10 misconfigured to cause a tabulator rejection, were not counted.” [Id. at 16 (citing Parikh
11 Decl., ¶¶ 36, 38-39).] But this, too, is false: not only were the ballots placed in Door 3
12 tabulated, but Parikh never said that they were not tabulated. Lake here has not only
13 misrepresented the actual facts, she has misrepresented the testimony of her own witness.
14 Here is the truth about what happened. As set forth in Parikh’s Declaration, during
15 the 8-hour court ordered ballot inspection preceding the trial, Parikh requested the duplicated
16 ballots so that he could, presumably, compare the original and the duplicated ballots. [Ex.
17 A to the Motion, Parikh Decl., ¶ 38.] This was the first time that Parikh or the Lake team
18 had made this request, despite Jarrett having offered Lake’s team the opportunity to pre-
19 select the batches of ballots that they wanted to examine. [Ex. A to this Response, Jarrett
20 Decl., ¶ 19.] When Parikh made his request, Jarrett explained to Parikh that, at this late time,
21 there was insufficient time to locate those duplicated ballots. [Id., ¶ 21.] Parikh
22 acknowledges this in his Declaration. [Ex. A to the Motion, Parikh Decl., ¶ 38.] However,
23 because Parikh did not see the duplicated ballots (because he had not requested them in
24 sufficient time), he testified in his Declaration that he “had no way of knowing if the original
25 ballots were duplicated at all, let alone duplicated accurately, let alone tabulated and
26 counted.” [Id.]
27 That is what Parikh testified at paragraph 38 of his Declaration: he had no way of
28 knowing if the ballots under discussion were duplicated, tabulated, and counted. But Lake
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
10
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0317
 1 falsely claims that Parikh testified far more than that. She claims that Parikh’s testimony at
2 paragraph 36, 38, and 39 of his Declaration was that these ballots “were not counted.”
3 [Motion at 16.] But paragraphs 36 and 39 do not discuss this matter, and as just shown,
4 paragraph 38 does not say what Lake claims. Rather, Parikh stated that he did not know
5 whether the ballots had been tabulated. Lake’s conjecture about this—i.e., because Parikh
6 does not know whether tabulation occurred, it must not have occurred—is not evidence, may
7 not be considered by the Court, and is insufficient to grant Rule 60 relief. And to top it off,
8 Lake’s conjecture is wrong. As Jarrett testified in his Declaration, Maricopa County retains
9 the original ballot as well as the duplicated ballot, separated and segregated from other
10 ballots, and the Elections Department could have provided Parikh the duplicated ballots if it
11 had been provided the time to do so. [Ex. A, Jarrett Decl., ¶¶ 18, 22.]
12 Moreover, the actual evidence presented in this case shows that ballots that could not
13 be read by the tabulators in the vote centers were taken to the central count facilities, where
14 they were (a) tabulated by the tabulators there or (b) duplicated by bi-partisan teams onto a
15 new ballot, which were then tabulated. [Dec. 22, 2022 Tr. at 119:10–23 (testimony of Dr.
16 Kenneth Mayer); id. at 181:18–182:7 (testimony of Scott Jarrett).]
17 Finally, even if it were true, which it is not, that the election ballots impacted by the
18 “fit to page” setting were never duplicated or duplicated incorrectly or never tabulated—all
19 of which is demonstrably false—the total number of election day ballots that were
20 duplicated, for any reason, was 2,656 ballots. Of these, 1,282 ballots were impacted by the
21 “fit to page” problem; unquestionably, an insufficient number to change the outcome of the
22 election. These ballots were duplicated and tabulated, as the evidence in this matter
23 conclusively shows. But even if the County had not duplicated and tabulated them, the
24 outcome of the election would remain the same.
25 Lake’s assertions about new evidence regarding the “fit to page” setting are either
26 false or based on pure speculation. They are therefore insufficient to grant Lake’s requested
27 Rule 60 relief. And even if, contrary to fact, Lake’s allegations were true—which, they are
28 not—the number of ballots at issue are too few to affect the outcome of the election, so
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
11
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0318
 1 another trial on these claims would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. For all these
2 reasons, the Motion must be denied.
3 II. Lake Has Not Made a Proper Rule 60 Motion for Relief From Judgment.
4 A trial court has limited jurisdiction and discretion when handling a matter on
5 remand following a mandate from the Court of Appeals. Following the issuance of the
6 mandate, the trial court’s jurisdiction is limited to that which is consistent with the mandate
7 and the decision of the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court. Harbel Oil Co. v.
8 Superior Ct. of Maricopa Cnty., 86 Ariz. 303, 306 (1959) (“the trial court's jurisdiction on
9 remand is delimited by the terms of the mandate”). On remand, the trial court loses much
10 of its discretion, and it cannot act contrary to the word or the spirit of the appellate court’s
11 decision and mandate. See State v. Boykin, 112 Ariz. 109, 113 (1975) (“the trial court is
12 restricted in its discretion when faced with a mandate containing specific directions.”). The
13 determinations made on appeal are final and cannot be revisited by the trial court. Tucson
14 Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Ct. In & For Pima Cnty., 9 Ariz. App. 210, 213 (1969) (“The
15 Supreme Court has adopted the view that its decisions are the law of the particular case.”);
16 Tovrea v. Superior Ct. In & For Maricopa Cnty., 101 Ariz. 295, 297 (1966) (“the trial court
17 is absolutely bound by the decision and mandate of an appellate court and that it is not within
18 the jurisdiction of the trial court to review the appellate court's determination”). A trial court
19 which attempts to exercise jurisdiction beyond that granted to it in the mandate is subject to
20 immediate reversal via special action. Cabanas v. Pineda in & for Cnty. of Maricopa, 246
21 Ariz. 12, 17, 433 P.3d 560, 565 (App. 2018) (“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when
22 the superior court has acted contrary to this court's mandate.”).
23 Here, the Supreme Court’s Order and Mandate very clearly limit the issues on
24 remand to only Count Three of Lake’s Complaint. Specifically, the Supreme Court’s Order
25 states that this Court may only consider: “whether the claim that Maricopa County failed to
26 comply with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) fails to state a claim pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
27 for reasons other than laches, or, whether Petitioner can prove her claim as alleged pursuant
28 to A.R.S. § 16-672 and establish that “votes [were] affected ‘in sufficient numbers to alter
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
12
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0319
 1 the outcome of the election’” based on a “competent mathematical basis to conclude that the
2 outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of
3 uncertainty.” [Order, Lake v. Hobbs, No. CV-23-0046-PR (Ariz. S. Ct., March 22, 2023) at
4 3-4.] This limitation is further confirmed by the Mandate which states that the Supreme
5 Court only reversed the Court of Appeals insofar as it dismissed Count Three on the basis
6 of laches and further instructs this Court to only hold such proceedings “as shall be required
7 to comply with [the Supreme Court’s] decision. [Mandate (Ariz. S. Ct., May 4, 2023) at
8 2]. Therefore, this Court categorically lacks jurisdiction to consider any issue beyond that
9 limited ground explicitly stated in the Supreme Court’s Order. If this Court (1) takes any
10 action relating to Lake’s Motion for Relief from Judgment other than outright denial; (2)
11 allows Lake to present any claim other than Count Three; or (3) admits any evidence not
12 directly relevant to Count Three, then such action would exceed this Court’s jurisdiction and
13 it would be subject to immediate reversal via special action.
14 Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider specific issues which were
15 conclusively resolved at trial and on appeal and are now the law of the case as a result. See
16 Tucson Gas & Elec. Co., 9 Ariz. App. at 213. Specifically, this Court found that, regardless
17 of the tabulator issues, every single legally cast ballot was tabulated, [Ruling at 6, 7], and
18 the Court of Appeals explicitly affirmed this finding. Lake, 525 P.3d at 669 ¶ 15. The Court
19 of Appeals similarly affirmed the finding that Lake conclusively could not prove that the
20 alleged tabulator issue caused any issue which would have affected the results of the
21 election. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, so they are now law
22 of the case and cannot be collaterally attacked as Lake is attempting to do here. Kadish v.
23 Arizona State Land Dep’t, 177 Ariz. 322, 327 (App. 1993) (“‘Law of the case’ concerns the
24 practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same
25 court or a higher appellate court.”). Plaintiff cannot now challenge these dispositive findings
26 and, as discussed, her “new evidence” would not alter these findings in any case. Therefore,
27 it would be improper for the Court to revive these conclusively resolved issues now.
28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
13
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0320
 1 III. The Election Contest Statutes Have Strict Timeframes and Do Not Allow the
2 Relief the Motion Seeks.
3 A. Rule 60 Motions Cannot Fit Within the Parameters of the Election
4 Contest Statutes.
5 When this Court harmonizes the Rules of Civil Procedure and the election contest
6 statutes, as it must—and, as it has done previously—the result is that Rule 60 motions for
7 relief from judgment are unavailable to election contest litigants.
8 Rule 60(c)(1), Ariz. R. Civ. P., requires a party to file a Rule 60(b) motion “within a
9 reasonable time,” while capping a motion brought under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) at six months
10 from the “judgment or order or date of proceeding, whichever is later.” Lake contends that
11 her Motion is timely because she filed it in a reasonable time and within the six months after
12 the entry of the Court’s judgment. [Motion at 12.] But the effect of granting Lake’s Motion
13 would necessitate this Court holding a trial, and issue a judgment, on Counts II, V and VI.
14 And that cannot be squared with the election contest statutes, which require that election
15 contests must be fully adjudicated in the trial court within twenty-five days of the canvass
16 of the election. A.R.S. §§ 16-673(A) (requiring election contests to be filed within five days
17 of the canvass of the election); -676(A) (requiring the trial court to conclude the evidentiary
18 hearing no later than fifteen days after the date the election contest was filed); -676(B)
19 (requiring the trial court to pronounce judgment no later than five days after the conclusion
20 of the evidentiary hearing).
21 This Court previously was asked by Plaintiff for expedited discovery—something
22 that does not fit neatly (or rather, at all) within the parameters of the election contest statutes.
23 [Lake v. Hobbs, No. CV2022-095403, Minute Entry (concerning Lake’s Motion to Expedite
24 Discovery), at 1 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2022).] In considering that motion, the
25 Court explained that, to decide Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery, “it must harmonize
26 conflicting rules and statutes[,] State v. Fell, 249 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (citation
27 omitted),” [id. at 3], and “absent a conflict with the governing statute, this court must apply
28 the civil rules to election contests.” [Id. at 2.] But “in a case where a constitutionally enacted
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
14
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0321
 1 substantive statute conflicts with a procedural rule, the statute prevails. Albano v. Shea
2 Homes Ltd. P’ship, 227 Ariz. 121, 127, ¶ 26 (2011).” [Id.]
3 Regarding the discovery request, this Court explained that “[i]n the case of an election
4 contest, the timelines of which are compressed far beyond an ordinary civil contest, it is not
5 merely difficult to comply with both the statute and civil rules—it is conceptually impossible
6 to do so.” [Id.] So “the tight timelines and absence of opportunity for discovery – without
7 which a dispute of this type could not conclude on-time – prevail over the ordinary civil rule
8 of procedure.” [Id.] Accordingly, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for expedited
9 discovery. [Id. at 4.]
10 Here, if the Court were to grant the Motion, this Court would have to hold a trial and
11 render judgment well beyond the timeframe expressly commanded by A.R.S. § 16-676.
12 Unlike with Count III, where the Supreme Court issued a Mandate ordering this Court to
13 make specific determinations, there would be no authority compelling this Court to hold a
14 trial beyond the statutory deadline. This Court should not do so.
15 Just as the Civil Procedure Rules concerning discovery conflict with the requirements
16 of the election contest statutes, so do Rule 60 motions for relief from judgment. The statute
17 must prevail. Rule 60 relief is not available to Lake, and this Court must deny the Motion.
18 B. Newly Discovered Evidence Cannot Fit Within the Parameters of the
19 Election Contest Statutes.
20 Additionally, allowing the parties to present “newly discovered evidence” that was
21 gathered months after the time parameters established by the election contest statutes is not
22 allowed, either. This is evident from the fact that the contestant must set forth in her
23 statement of contest the reasons for the contest, A.R.S. § 16-673(A)(4), and may not assert
24 additional grounds for her contest after the deadline to file has passed. Donaghey, 120 Ariz.
25 at 95 (stating that “[t]he failure of a contestant to an election to strictly comply with the
26 statutory requirements is fatal to his right to have the election contested,” and observing that
27 “[t]he rationale for requiring strict compliance with the time provisions for initiating a
28 contest is the strong public policy favoring stability and finality of election results”); Kitt v.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
15
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0322
 1 Holbert, 30 Ariz. 397, 406 (1926) (“[W]e are constrained both by reason and authority to
2 hold that a statement of contest in an election contest may not be amended, after the time
3 prescribed by law for filing such contest has expired, by adding thereto averments of a
4 jurisdictional nature.”).
5 The same fundamental principle, concerning stability and finality of election results,
6 prevents parties from attempting to offer additional evidence that they gathered after the
7 statutory time for hearing election contests has expired. Pursuant to their authorizing
8 statutes, election contests must be filed within five days after the completion of the canvass
9 of the election. A.R.S. § 16-673(A). The trial court must set the evidentiary hearing to
10 commence within ten days after the date the contest was filed, and the hearing cannot
11 generally go past the fifteenth day after the contest was filed. A.R.S. § 16-676(A). The
12 Court of Appeals explained that the short time period for election contests is by deliberate
13 design: “[t]he purpose of the time limitation is to ensure a resolution of the contest as soon
14 as possible so that the winner can take the office to which he was rightfully elected.” Babnew
15 v. Linneman, 154 Ariz. 90, 92 (Ct. App. 1987). Thus, from start to finish, an election contest
16 must be completed within twenty days of the canvass of the election, before the new terms
17 of elected officials commence. And so, all evidence to be presented in an election contest
18 must be gathered within that same period of time.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the Motion.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
16
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0323
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of May, 2023.
1

2 RACHEL H. MITCHELL
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
3

4 BY: /s/Joseph E. La Rue

Thomas P. Liddy
5 Joseph J. Branco
Joseph E. La Rue
6
Karen J. Hartman-Tellez
7 Jack L. O’Connor
Sean M. Moore
8 Rosa Aguilar
9 Deputy County Attorneys

10 THE BURGESS LAW GROUP

Emily Craiger
11

12 Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants

13

14

15
ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED
16
this 10th day of May, 2023, with
17 AZTURBOCOURT, and copies e-served / emailed to:

18 HONORABLE PETER THOMPSON

19 MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Sarah Umphress, Judicial Assistant
20 [email protected]
21 Bryan J. Blehm
22 BLEHM LAW PLLC
10869 North Scottsdale Road Suite 103-256
23 Scottsdale Arizona 85254
24
[email protected]

25 Kurt Olsen
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
26 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
27 Washington, DC 20036
[email protected]
28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
17
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0324
 1
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
2
Alexis E. Danneman
3 Samantha J. Burke
4 PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
5 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
[email protected]
6
[email protected]
7
Abha Khanna
8 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
9 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
10 [email protected]
11
Lalitha D. Madduri
12 Christina Ford
Elena A. Rodriguez Armenta
13 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
14 250 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20001
15 [email protected]
[email protected]
16
[email protected]
17
Attorneys for Contestee Katie Hobbs
18

19 Craig A. Morgan
Shayna Stuart
20 Jake Tyler Rapp
SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
21 201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
22 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
23 [email protected]
24
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
25

26
27 /s/Joseph E. La Rue

28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
18
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0325
Exhibit A

Appx0326
 RACHEL H. MITCHELL
1 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
2 By: THOMAS P. LIDDY (Bar No. 019384)
JOSEPH J. BRANCO (Bar No. 031474)
3 JOSEPH E. LA RUE (Bar No. 031348)
KAREN J. HARTMAN-TELLEZ (Bar No. 021121)
4 JACK L. O’CONNOR (Bar No. 030660)
SEAN M. MOORE (Bar No. 031621)
5 ROSA AGUILAR (Bar No. 037774)
Deputy County Attorneys
6 [email protected]
[email protected]
7 [email protected]
[email protected]
8 [email protected]
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
Deputy County Attorneys
10 MCAO Firm No. 0003200
11
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
12 225 West Madison Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
13 Telephone (602) 506-8541
14 Facsimile (602) 506-4316
[email protected]
15
Emily Craiger (Bar No. 021728)
16 [email protected]
THE BURGESS LAW GROUP
17 3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 224
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
18 Telephone: (602) 806-2100
19 Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
20 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
21 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
22 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403
23 DECLARATION OF SCOTT JARRETT
Contestant/Petitioner,
IN SUPPORT OF THE MARICOPA
24 COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
vs. OPPOSING LAKE’S MOTION FOR
25 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
KATIE HOBBS, et al.,
26 (Expedited Election Matter)
Defendants.
27
(Honorable Peter Thompson)
28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003

Appx0327
 1 I, Scott Jarrett, declare as follows:
2 1. During the 2022 general election, I was the Co-Director of the Maricopa
3 County Elections Department (the “Elections Department”). My official title was the
4 Director of In-Person Voting and Tabulation.
5 2. I have first-hand knowledge of the events about which I testify in this
6 Declaration, and if called upon to testify to these matters at trial I would provide competent
7 testimony.
8 3. I am over the age of 18 and suffer from no impairments that would affect my
9 testimony, either in this Declaration or at trial.
10 LOGIC AND ACCURACY TESTING.
11 4. I have reviewed the portion of Lake’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and
12 the portion of Clay Parikh’s Declaration that allege that Maricopa County failed the
13 November 2022 General Election Logic and Accuracy test and that the County conducted
14 subsequent, “secret” logic and accuracy testing. [Motion at 14-15.] These allegations are
15 false.
16 5. All Election Tabulation Programs used in the November 2022 General
17 Election were tested as part of the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy Test that occurred
18 on October 11, 2022.
19 6. This declaration describes Maricopa County’s testing process that was used
20 for the 2022 General Election to ensure tabulators were accurate and that testing met
21 statutory and operational requirements. The testing process described below is consistent
22 with the testing that the County has completed for previous election cycles, with the
23 following exceptions: (a) . the County expanded the testing to include more testing before
24 the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy testing and (b) the County now includes over
25 13,000 ballot styles, which consists of early ballot, provisional and election day ballots, in
26 its statutorily required Logic and Accuracy test. The inclusion of more than 13,000 ballot
27 styles is more than thirteen times the amount of ballots that state law requires to be included
28 in the Logic and Accuracy test.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0328
 1 7. From October 4 through 10, 2022, the Elections Department thoroughly
2 tested every Vote Center tabulator that would be used or that was prepared as a backup that
3 could be used on Election Day at the 223 Vote Centers. This test included running more
4 than 11,000 different Election Day ballot styles through the 446 Vote Center tabulators and
5 the 54 backup tabulators. In addition to standard voted ballots, the testing included
6 accessible voting device ballots, ballots with overvotes, and blank ballots. As the tabulator
7 reads these ballots it creates a log of the inserting and reading of the ballot. The logs for
8 these ballots could be interpreted as the ballot being “misread” or “returned” by the tabulator.
9 However, the tabulator is operating as it is certified and programed to perform.
10 8. This testing that occurred on October 4 through the 10 was in addition to the
11 testing we performed on the Central Count Tabulators and the stress testing of the Ballot on
12 Demand printers and tabulators that occurred during the months of September and early
13 October of 2022. It was also in addition to the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy tests
14 that occurred on October 11.
15 9. During the testing from October 4 through 10, we recognized that we had not
16 programmed the Vote Center tabulators to reject early and provisional ballots. It is not a
17 statutory requirement that we do so. However, this is a security feature that Maricopa
18 County has used since 2020. Such programming prevents a voter from being able to cast
19 and have more than one ballot counted in a single election.
20 10. Upon recognizing that we had inadvertently omitted this programming, we
21 reprogrammed the Vote Center tabulators to reject early and provisional ballots. The
22 tabulators were programed to accurately accept and count Election Day ballots. This
23 reprogramming occurred on October 10, prior to the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy
24 test.
25 11. Because Maricopa County uses a Vote Center model, all of the Vote Center
26 tabulators have the exact same programming. As a result, any tabulator deployed to any
27 Vote Center could read any of the 4,312 Election Day ballot styles that were used during the
28 2022 General Election.
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
2
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0329
 1 12. As required by statute, the November 2022 General Election program that
2 was installed on every Central Count and Vote Center tabulator and used to tabulate every
3 ballot cast in the November 2022 General Election was tested at the statutorily required
4 Logic and Accuracy tests performed by the Secretary of State and the County on October
5 11, 2022. The Logic and Accuracy test was publicly advertised, and the County Political
6 Parties were in attendance.
7 13. The County’s October 11, 2022, statutorily required Logic and Accuracy test
8 consisted of running 13,837 early and election day ballots through a combination of the
9 Central Count and Vote Center tabulators. The Secretary of State’s test consisted of running
10 1,186 early and election day ballots through a combination of the Central Count and
11 randomly-selected Vote Center tabulators. The County successfully passed both the
12 Secretary of State’s and the County’s Logic and Accuracy tests on October 11, 2022, and
13 the tabulation equipment and program were certified for use in the November 2022 General
14 Election.
15 14. Because the County made a program change on October 10, 2022, prior to the
16 Logic and Accuracy test, the encrypted pair of memory cards that were initially inserted in
17 each of the Vote Center tabulators during the October 5 – 10 testing process needed to be
18 reformatted with the certified election program that underwent the statutorily required Logic
19 and Accuracy testing on October 11, 2022. The reformatted cards needed to be reinserted
20 into each of the tabulators. As part of the certified build, this reformatting overwrites any
21 subsequent recorded logs from the memory cards. Accordingly, any logs predating October
22 14 are stored on the internal storage device located within the Vote Center tabulator. Those
23 logs were not requested by Lake or included in Parikh’s review. Beginning on October 14
24 and occurring through October 18, Maricopa County installed the new memory cards that
25 had the certified Election Program. Due to the reformatting, the logs from the memory cards
26 would have a start date of either October 14, 17, or 18, the date they were reinserted into the
27 Vote Center tabulators and they do not reflect the prior testing that occurred, as explained
28 above. The process to reinsert the memory cards that had the certified program that
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0330
 1 underwent logic and accuracy testing was conducted under the live video streaming cameras
2 within the County’s Ballot Tabulation Center. It was not completed in secret as implied by
3 Plaintiff’s court filing.
4 15. When installing the new memory cards, the County tabulated a small number
5 of ballots through each tabulator to ensure that the memory cards were properly inserted and
6 that the ballots would tabulate. Similar to the test that occurred on October 4 – 10, the test
7 deck of ballots included accessible voting device ballots, ballots with overvotes, and blank
8 ballots, which could appear in the log files as a misread ballot. After the running of the test
9 ballots, the tabulators were zeroed to ensure no votes were stored on the memory cards. The
10 tabulators were affixed with tamper evident seals and prepared for delivery to each Vote
11 Center. Again, all of this was done under the live video streaming cameras, which were
12 operational and streaming this event to anyone who wanted to watch it.
13 16. The Poll Workers working in the vote centers performed a verification to
14 ensure that there are not ballots recorded on the tabulator and that all results equal zero. They
15 performed this by running a zero report when opening the polls on election day.
16 17. Finally, a tabulator misreading a ballot does not necessarily indicate a
17 tabulator is malfunctioning, accordingly a review of the tabulator logs for misread ballots is
18 not an appropriate method for identifying if a tabulator failed a logic and accuracy test.
19 There can be common situations for a ballot to be logged as being misread when being
20 initially inserted into the tabulator. One situation is when a ballot is inserted slightly askew,
21 which will result in an initial misread of the ballot. However, upon reinserting the ballot in
22 a more aligned direction, the tabulator will accept and accurately count the ballot. This is not
23 a failure or error of the tabulator, is a common occurrence during both testing and voting and
24 would not result in a finding that a tabulator has failed a logic and accuracy test. Another
25 common issue that can create a misread during testing is when running test ballots after the
26 tabulators have been cleaned. In some instances the cleaning process may leave a small
27 piece of material or lint on the tabulator. The first attempt(s) to insert a ballot after cleaning
28 can result in the tabulator not accepting the ballot and a misread ballot being recorded in the
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
4
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0331
 1 logs. When this occurs, it is not a failure or error created by the tabulator. Typically,
2 inserting a ballot a second or third time resolves the issue, and any subsequent ballots are
3 accepted normally. As part of the Elections Department’s pre-election testing procedures,
4 we clean every tabulator.
5

6 DUPLICATE BALLOTS.
7 18. For the November 2022 General Election, Maricopa County duplicated a total
8 of 11,918 ballots. Of the 11,918, there were a total of 2,656 Election Day ballots. Of the
9 2,656 Election Day ballots, 1,282 came from three Vote Centers (999 - Gateway Fellowship,
10 215 - Journey Church, 68 - LDS Church Lakeshore) that were identified as having a “fit-to-
11 page” setting inadvertently turned on at a Vote Center. The duplication process was
12 performed in accordance with state statute and the Elections Procedures Manual. This
13 included the duplication process being completed by bi-partisan teams and the assigning of
14 marrying numbers to match the duplicated ballots with the original ballots. Maricopa
15 County segregates the storage of the original ballots and the storage of the duplicated ballots
16 after they are tabulated. The combination of the marrying number and the segregated storage
17 allows for the matching of the original ballot with the duplicated ballot. Every duplicated
18 ballot was tabulated and the vote tallies included in the final results.
19 19. While preparing for the inspection of the ballots that was ordered by this
20 Court in this matter in December, 2022, I recognized that there were over 1,562,000 ballots
21 stored on 60 separate pallets. I offered, through the County’s attorneys, the opportunity for
22 plaintiff’s inspector to pre-select the batches of ballots so on the date of the inspection
23 (December 20, 2022), there would be more time to perform the inspection of ballots.
24 Despite that offer, to my knowledge, the Plaintiff’s attorneys never provided a list of
25 preselected batches.
26 20. On the date of the court ordered ballot inspection, I met with ballot inspectors
27 and attorneys for both parties and the court appointed ballot inspector. The purpose of the
28
MARICOPA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
5
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 WEST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
Appx0332
Appx0333
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
T. Hays, Deputy
5/11/2023 11:48:51 PM
Filing ID 15972300
1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
2
Blehm Law PLLC
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279
6 admitted pro hac vice
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
7
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
8 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
9 [email protected]
10
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

13 IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

14 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403

15
Contestant/Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF KARI LAKE’S
16 CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN
vs. SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
17 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT*
18 KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity (ASSIGNED TO HON. PETER
19 as the Secretary of State; et al., THOMPSON)
20
Defendants. (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)
21

22

23

24
*
This replies to the coordinated filing of three oppositions by Defendants to Plaintiff’s
25 motion for relief from judgment. For the Court’s convenience, the positions raised in those
oppositions are addressed in one filing instead of three. Throughout, the opposition filed by
26
the Maricopa County Defendants is referred to as “County Opp’n,” the opposition filed by
27 the Arizona Secretary of State is referred to as “Sec’y of State Opp’n,” and the opposition
filed by Katie Hobbs is referred to as “Hobbs Opp’n.”
28

Appx0334
 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Petitioner Kari Lake respectfully files this consolidated reply to Defendants’
3
oppositions of her motion for relief from judgment. As an initial matter, a shocking
4
admission by Maricopa in its opposition by itself would justify the Court relieving Lake
5

6 from judgment. Specifically, in response to Lake’s cyber expert’s extensive analysis of the
7 new evidence, Maricopa now admits, seven months after the fact, that it swapped out the
8
memory cards and election software with new “reformatted memory cards” that purportedly
9
contained the previously Certified Election Program on its 446 vote center tabulators
10

11 between October 14-18, 2022. Maricopa made this undisclosed swap after its purported
12 certified logic-and-accuracy (“L&A”) testing on October 11, 2022.
13
Contrary to Arizona law, Maricopa did not perform logic and accuracy testing on the
14
446 vote center tabulators after installing these reformatted memory cards and new
15

16 software. Maricopa’s actions are a direct violation of A.R.S. § 16-449(A) governing logic
17 and accuracy testing which plainly requires “the automatic tabulating equipment and
18
programs [be] tested to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the
19
votes cast for all offices and on all measures.” Id. (emphasis added); note 8, infra. That
20

21 failure alone invalidated the tabulators for use in the November 2022 General Election.

22 Maricopa did this new election software installation and reformatted memory cards
23
without notifying the public. What is worse, Maricopa now concedes it performed
24
contemporaneous spot testing averaging 9-10 ballots per tabulator and that the log files of
25

26 260 of the 446 voting center tabulators tested (58%) experienced the same error codes

27 memorializing the Election Day debacle at 59.2% of Maricopa’s vote centers on Election
28
1

Appx0335
 1 Day as testified to by over two hundred sworn declarations. Parikh Decl. ¶ 8(c) (May 9,
2
2023); Lake Complaint ¶ 68; Jarrett Decl. ¶ 17 (May 10, 2023).
3
Maricopa kept silent about its swapping out memory cards and software through
4

5 relevant inquiries by the media and the Attorney General investigating the Election Day

6 debacle. Lake Complaint ¶ 71, n.6. By disclosing this bombshell now, only after being
7
called out, Maricopa raises the inference that its surreptitious conduct was intentional. See
8
Pl.’s Mot. 10 & n.9. Maricopa’s new admission further supports Lake’s motion.
9
10 As discussed below, none of Defendants’ remaining arguments have merit.

11 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

12 When a party raises a debatable issue, the court can find that the opposing party’s
13
failure to respond confesses error. See State v. Greenlee County Justice Court, 157 Ariz.
14
270, 271 (App.1988); In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, 201 Ariz. 114, 117, ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (failure
15

16 to respond to argument deemed confession of error).

17 III. FACTS1
18
Maricopa’s new admissions show that it violated fundamental mandatory L&A
19
testing requirements and knew or recklessly disregarded that 260 of Maricopa’s 446 vote
20

21 tabulators would malfunction on Election Day.

22 A. Contrary to Defendants’ misleading arguments, Maricopa did not

conduct mandatory L&A testing.
23

24 As Plaintiff stated in her opening brief, Maricopa did not perform L&A testing in

25 accordance with the express requirement in the 2019 Elections Procedures Manual (“EPM”)
26

27
1
All “¶” references are to the Complaint unless otherwise stated.
28
2

Appx0336
 1 that “all of the county’s deployable voting equipment” be tested. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 8(a), (b),
2
11-13. As a consequence, Election Day chaos ensued, disenfranchising thousands of
3
predominantly Republican voters. Hobbs and Maricopa both argue falsely that the record
4

5 shows Maricopa performed L&A testing in accordance with A.R.S. §16-449(A) and the

6 L&A testing procedures set forth in the EPM.

7
L&A testing is test expressly identified in A.R.S. §16-449(A) with the purpose being
8
“to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all
9
10 offices and on all measures” prior to each election, which includes scanning all ballot styles.

11 The EPM sets forth detailed instructions for conducting L&A testing. EPM 86-95. The EPM
12
distinguishes L&A test procedures for the Secretary of State versus for Arizona counties.
13
The Secretary of State is responsible only for L&A testing “selected voting
14

15 equipment…[from] 10-20 precincts for a large county” such as Maricopa. EPM, section

16 D.2, “Selection of Precincts and Test Ballots”); EPM at 86. In addition, “[i]f a county will
17
use preprinted ballots and ballots through a ballot-on-demand printer, the officer in charge
18
of elections must provide ballots generated though both printing methods.” EPM 89.
19

20 In contrast, counties “must substantially follow the L&A testing procedures

21 applicable to the Secretary of State, except that all of the county’s deployable voting
22
equipment must be tested.” EPM 94-95 (emphasis added). In other words, all BOD printers
23
and all tabulators used at each of Maricopa’s 223 vote centers using BOD printed ballots
24

25 were required to be L&A tested—and to pass L&A testing—before the election.2

26
2
27 Maricopa falsely claims that the Public Records Request did not seek the log files.
Compare Jarrett Decl. ¶ 14 with Exhibit A (requesting “All S-logs” (i.e., system log files).
28
3

Appx0337
 1 B. Maricopa’s new explanation admits a violation of election law
2 Although Maricopa does not expressly say that it did the statutorily required L&A
3
testing, see Jarrett Decl. ¶ 8 (alluding to testing “in addition to the statutorily required Logic
4
and Accuracy tests that occurred on October 11”); id. ¶ 13 (describing the scope of the
5

6 required L&A testing), but that is no longer relevant. Maricopa admits that it altered its
7 voting center tabulators on October 14-18, 2022, after the purported L&A testing on
8
October 11, 2022. That violates the clear command to test tabulators and their programs.
9
See A.R.S. § 16-440(A); note 8, infra. While Maricopa quibbles about what error codes
10

11 mean, it does not dispute that its limited post-revision testing yielded the same error codes
12 that hampered Election Day on more than 58% of the voting center tabulator fleet. Compare
13
Parikh Decl. ¶ 8(c) with Jarrett Decl. ¶ 17.
14
C. Maricopa knew Election Day would be a debacle
15

16 Maricopa’s new admission is remarkable both in what it says and what it attempts to

17 hold back. First, it admits what is a clear violation Arizona law and the legally enforceable
18
EPM by conducting an election on modified, untested equipment. See A.R.S. § 16-449(A);
19
note 8, infra. Indeed, the equipment was not merely untested. Maricopa’s minimal testing
20

21 revealed significant problems that Maricopa failed to report to the Secretary of State. But

22 Maricopa also attempts to downplay its problem as lint or merely someone who possibly
23
inserted a test ballot crookedly—in 260 tabulators. Jarrett Decl. ¶ 17 (stating “a tabulator
24
misreading a ballot does not necessarily indicate a tabulator is malfunctioning” but not
25

26 denying these 260 tabulators did malfunction) (emphasis added). As Parikh will testify, the

27 errors that Maricopa experienced are unique and match those on Election Day. See Parikh
28
4

Appx0338
 1 Decl. ¶¶ 8(c). 20-25.
2
IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
3
The procedural history refutes Defendants’ law-of-the-case and mandate claims.
4
This Court rejected Count II on the merits, Order 6-7, 9 (Dec. 24, 2022), after ruling that
5

6 Lake must prove that election officials’ misconduct not only affected the election’s outcome
7 but also intended that effect. Id. 3. The Court also rejected the due-process and equal-
8
protection claims as either wholly outside the election-contest statute or merely cumulative
9
of the substantive election-law allegations. Order 9 (Dec. 19, 2022)
10

11 The Court of Appeals affirmed, Ct. App. Opinion ¶¶ 14-18, but rejected the holding
12 that officials must have acted with intent to affect the election. Id. ¶ 12 (“something less
13
than intentional misconduct may suffice”). The Court of Appeals rejected the constitutional
14
counts for failing to show intentionality. Id. ¶ 31 (“these claims were expressly premised
15

16 on an allegation of official misconduct in the form of interference with on-site tabulators”).

17 The Supreme Court affirmed with respect to Counts II, V, and VI, but acknowledged
18
that federal issues were present. Ariz. S. Ct. Order 2 (“Petitioner’s challenges on these
19
grounds are insufficient to warrant the requested relief under Arizona or federal law”)
20

21 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court’s mandate is silent with respect to how this Court

22 would address issues other than the remand of Count III. See Ariz. S. Ct. Mandate 1-2 (May
23
4, 2023). Although Fontes suggests that the Arizona Supreme Court denied reconsideration,
24
Fontes Opp’n 5, Lake did not seek reconsideration of Count II.
25

26

27

28
5

Appx0339
 1 V. ARGUMENT
2 A. Lake’s motion falls within Rule 60(b)
3
Lake’s motion meets all of the criteria for relief under Rule 60(b)(2)-(3) and (6).
4
1. Maricopa’s challenged conduct is “extraordinary”
5
Although Hobbs would confine Rule 60(b) to “extraordinary circumstances,” Hobbs
6

7 Opp’n 1 (citing Francine C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 249 Ariz. 289, 298 ¶ 23 (App. 2020)),
8 Lake’s motion does raise extraordinary circumstances. The facts show that Maricopa
9
intentionally installed new software on its voting-center tabulators after Maricopa purports
10
to have conducted L&A testing on October 11, 2022, then saw a massive failure rate of 260
11

12 out of 446 tabulators (%58) failed in an average of nine test ballots in limited spot testing,
13 Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 8(c), 20, then Maricopa failed to cure or report those errors or even
14
acknowledge them to this Court until Lake filed her motion. While it will be up to the Court
15
to decide—after a bench trial—whether Maricopa intended to create the Election Day
16

17 debacle or merely intended to alter its voting equipment in violation of A.R.S. § 16-449(A),
18 thereby causing an Election Day debacle, it is simply too implausible to suppose the chain
19
of unlikely events and surreptitious conduct for the past seven months occurred by
20
negligence.
21

22 2. Lake has a Rule 60(b)(2) claim for new evidence

23 In trying to defeat Lake’s claim under Rule 60(b)(2), Defendants argue (1) that the
24
newly discovered evidence Lake puts forth is “merely cumulative,” Sec’y of State Opp’n at
25
7:20, (2) that the evidence did not exist at time of trial, Sec’y of State Opp’n at 7:22-23,
26

27 and, paradoxically, (3) that Lake’s newly discovered evidence is not actually new, because

28 it involves testimony from an expert who testified at trial, Sec’y of State Opp’n at 8:3-5.
6

Appx0340
 1 Under Arizona law, evidence is considered cumulative only when it is redundant or
2
corroborates evidence already presented. State v. Villavicencio, 95 Ariz. 199 (Ariz. 1964).
3
Here, Defendants confuse the cumulative vote total Lake seeks to prove with cumulative
4

5 evidence. Further, Defendants suggest that Lake’s new evidence is cumulative merely

6 because it was introduced from testimony of a witness who has already testified. Sec’y of
7
State Opp’n at 8:10-15. This entirely ignores the fact Parikh’s testimony is based on
8
responses to public records requests and the Maricopa BOD Report issued April 10, 2023,
9
10 neither of which were yet available to Lake or Parikh at the time of trial, as well as analyses

11 of log files that were unable to be completed by the time of trial, despite due diligence. See
12
Pl.’s Mot. 8. Further, Defendants ignore the fact that the subject of Parikh’s testimony is
13
one that the court had not previously considered—i.e., the documentary evidence of the
14

15 scope of printer/tabulator issues. Indeed, if the evidence were merely cumulative, Maricopa

16 would likely not have admitted its software changes on October 14-18, 2022.
17
Similarly, Defendants argue that the evidence is not actually newly available, for
18
much the same reason (i.e. that Parikh already testified at trial). Defendants are mistaken.
19

20 The mere fact that the particular witness has testified is irrelevant when the witness testifies

21 about something neither he nor the Plaintiff had any ability to know at the time of trial.
22
Defendants’ claim that evidence is not newly discovered simply because the witness is not
23
new is supported nowhere in the law.
24

25 While Defendants decry the use of Public Record Requests as a form of discovery,

26 Sec’y of State Opp’n 9, the absence of discovery is no excuse for parties to withhold
27
information during testimony at a bench trial. Indeed, “recanted testimony may qualify as
28
7

Appx0341
 1 newly discovered evidence” under 60(b)(2). State v. Orta, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0223-PR, at
2
*3 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 18, 2016).
3
Lastly, Defendants’ contention that the evidence did not exist at the time of trial is
4

5 specious. All of the records upon which Parikh relies are records pertaining to the November

6 2022 election that existed at the time of trial. See Lake Mo. at 8.
7
Defendant Fontes also suggests that the fact that discovery is not permitted in
8
election contests means that evidence obtained through procedures he regards as analogous
9
10 to discovery (i.e. a public records request) cannot be considered “newly discovered.” Sec’y

11 of State Opp’n at 9:3-12. This concept is legally unsupported and, indeed, unsupportable,
12
as in every instance, newly discovered evidence must necessarily be procured outside the
13
ordinary scope of litigation.
14

15 Defendants’ arguments that Lake has not shown the existence of newly available

16 evidence fail, and Lake has met the criteria required to prevail under Rule 60(b)(2), as
17
identified in Boatman v. Samarian Health Servs., Inc. 168 Ariz. 207, 212 (App. 1990).
18
3. Lake has a Rule 60(b)(3) claim for misrepresentation
19
Typical of their deflection and distractions, Defendants argue that Lake has not
20

21 established fraud or even fraud on the court.3 Sec’y of State Opp’n 10. As Lake argued,

22 however, misrepresentation under Rule 60(b)(3) includes even inadvertent omissions. See
23
Pl.’s Mot. 9 (citing Estate of Page v. Litzenburg, 177 Ariz. 84, 93 (App. 1993); Norwest
24
Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington, 197 Ariz. 181, 186 (App. 2000)). In challenging
25

26

27
3
The latter is more serious because it would involve Defendants’ counsel.
28
8

Appx0342
 1 aspects of Rule 60(b)(3) that Lake does not assert (namely, fraud), Defendants do not
2
dispute that Rule 60(b)(3)’s broad scope includes inadvertent omissions. Their failure to
3
respond concedes Rule 60(b)(3)’s applicability here. See Greenlee County Justice Court,
4

5 157 Ariz. at 271; 1996 Nissan Sentra, 201 Ariz. at 117, ¶ 8. Certainly, Maricopa failed to

6 tell this Court that Maricopa changed the software on its voting-center tabulators on October
7
14-18, 2022, after Maricopa purportedly conducted L&A testing on October 11, 2022. The
8
Court likely would have considered that material because the revision voids Maricopa’s
9
10 purported testing and made its tabulators unreliable for an election. See A.R.S. § 16-449(A);

11 note 8, infra (citing EPM provisions on § 16-449).

12
4. Lake has a claim for “other relief” under Rule 60(b)(6)
13
Although the McGregor Report does not fully root out what happened on Election
14
Day and why or how, the Report rebuts Maricopa’s core claim. See Pl.’s Mot. 15 (quoting
15

16 McGregor Report 12). As such, because “new evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2) does not
17 include evidence not in existence at the time of judgment,4 Pl.’s Mot. 11-12, Rule 60(b)(6)
18
necessarily applies, allowing this Court to review its judgment against the new facts.
19
B. Lake’s motion is timely under Rule 60(c)(1)
20

21 Plaintiff filed the motion for a new trial on May 9, 2023, within 15 days of the

22 Supreme Court’s ruling on the matters before it, with 6 months of this Court’s original
23
judgment in December of 2022, and within a reasonable time of acquiring the new evidence.
24

25

26 4
Defendants do not dispute this aspect of Lake’s Rule 60(b)(6) argument, thus
27 conceding it. See Greenlee County Justice Court, 157 Ariz. at 271; 1996 Nissan Sentra, 201
Ariz. at 117, ¶ 8.
28
9

Appx0343
 1 Accordingly, Lake’s motion was timely filed, nothing in title 16 bars such a motion, either
2
directly or indirectly.
3
1. Courts interpret Rule 60 liberally
4
The court’s finding in Moreno is in keeping with the consistent pattern of Arizona
5

6 courts interpreting Rule 60’s timing requirements. “Ariz.R.Civ.P. 60(c) … must be given
7 liberal construction because the interests of justice are best served by a trial on the merits.”
8
Walker v. Kending, 107 Ariz. 510, 513 (Ariz. 1971). Here, the court failed to consider
9
crucial evidence regarding the printing and tabulation of ballots—a central claim in
10

11 Plaintiff’s lawsuit—because that evidence was newly discovered and improperly withheld
12 from the court. Especially in light of the fact that the integrity of the democratic process is
13
at stake, the interest in hearing Plaintiff’s claims on the merits is extremely high.
14
2. The election-contest statute does not bar resort to Rule 60(b)
15

16 Fontes cites Bohard for the proposition that “the time elements in election statutes

17 [must] be strictly construed.” 213 Ariz. 480, 482 ¶ 6 (2006); Fontes Response at 2:12.
18
However, Rule 60 is not an election statute but rather a general statute of civil procedure.
19
Defendant correctly observed that a time-limitation imposed by an election statute would
20

21 prevail over the procedural limitation in Rule 60, but then cites no such election statute

22 barring relief from judgment or, in any way, imposing a time-bar on bringing a motion for
23
relief from judgment. Sec’y of State Opp’n at 2:12-5:23. In fact, the sole statute imposing
24
any time bar that Fontes cites is A.R.S. §§ 16-673(A), -676(A), which provides that a
25

26 contest must begin “within five days after the completion of the canvas” and that the hearing

27 must be held “not later than ten days [thereafter].” Sec’y of State Opp’n at 4:19-21. All of
28
10

Appx0344
 1 those requirements have been met here: Count III was filed timely when Lake filed her
2
complaint. The statute says nothing of relief from judgment, which would allow the issue
3
to be litigated in the same forum, dating back to the original filing date.
4

5 Additionally, Fontes misconstrues the holding in Moreno when he claims that

6 “Moreno does not generally support the proposition that a Rule 60(b) motion is always
7
permitted in an election context.” Fontes Response at 5:7-8. Quite correct. However, the
8
court in Moreno precisely identified the circumstances in which in which a Rule 60(b)
9
10 motion is permitted:

11 Moreno did not make his Rule 60(c) motion simply to introduce evidence he
had failed to uncover earlier. Moreno instead sought to prove that Jones had
12
made misrepresentations to the court in his July 3 testimony. The false
13 testimony that Jones had personally obtained all the signatures he verified
other than those dated April 17 clearly influenced the trial court’s initial
14 ruling. In these circumstances, [Rule 60(c) is appropriate].”
15
Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, 97-98 (2006) (emphasis added). In other words, Rule 60
16
is appropriately raised whenever misrepresentations are made to the court and those
17

18 misrepresentations influence the court. This is clearly the case here, as both this court and

19 the appellate court ruled against Plaintiff entirely based on the evidence presented.
20
Therefore, this case is directly within the scope of the rule from Moreno.
21
C. Rule 60(b) relief is available in election contests
22
Fontes disingenuously argues that Arizona’s election contest statutes supplant the
23

24 entire body of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and suggests that a Motion for Relief

25 from Judgment is barred. Sec’y of State Opp’n at 2-3.

26
1. The election-contest statute does not bar resort to Rule 60(b)
27
Fontes’ argument assumes that the election-contest statute—specifically, A.R.S. §§
28
11

Appx0345
 1 16-673(A), -676(A)—bar any procedure requiring additional hearings (or, presumably,
2
causing any delay of an ultimate determination in excess of fifteen days after an election).
3
Based on Fontes’ flawed arguments, a Motion to Dismiss would be similarly barred,
4

5 however Defendants filed motions to dismiss outside the deadline they now claim is

6 required. However, Arizona courts have already resolved the issue of whether motions
7
allowed under the civil rules are permitted in election contests. See Griffin v. Buzard, 86
8
Ariz. 166, 169-70 (1959) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) to an election contest despite statute
9
10 requiring a hearing), Camboni v. Brnovich, 2016 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 127, at *5 (Ct.

11 App. Feb. 2, 2016) (finding no authority for the proposition that civil rules did not apply to
12
election contest and applying rule 12(b)(6)).5
13
Fontes is correct, “‘time elements in election statutes [must] be strictly construed’”
14

15 and where “time elements ‘conflict[] with a procedural rule, the statute prevails[.]’” Sec’y

16 of State Opp’n at 2:10-12 (citations omitted)(emphasis added). Critically, however, there is

17
nothing in title 16 that conflicts with the rules of procedure over motions for relief from
18
judgment, or even timely appeals. In fact, Maricopa County Superior Court recently held
19

20 that the “Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure ‘govern procedure in all civil actions and

21 proceedings in the superior court of Arizona.’ An election contest is a ‘proceeding in the

22
superior court of Arizona.’” Under Advisement Ruling, Finchem v. Fontes, Maricopa Co.
23
Sup. Ct. No. CV2022-053927 (Dec. 16, 2022) at 3 (quoting Ariz. R. Civ. Pro. 1)(emphasis
24

25

26 5
Unpublished decision cited pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 111. Available at
27 https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2016/1%20CA-CV%2015-
0014.pdf (last accessed May 11, 2023).
28
12

Appx0346
 1 in original).6 Similarly, nothing in title 16 provides a statutory right to appeal, rather, that
2
right to appeal comes from the Arizona’s Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 8(a)); likewise,
3
those rules permit a motion for relief from judgment (Rule 60).
4

5 2. Setting the rules for reconsideration is a court function

6 Even if this Court were inclined to agree that the time elements of the election
7 contests must be strictly construed against granting relief from judgment or new trials,
8
Arizona’s Supreme Court has found otherwise in similar circumstances, distinguishing
9
between jurisdictional timelines and directory timelines:
10

11 Fitzgerald argues that Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 583 P.2d 906 (1978),
held that the time elements in the election statutes were to be construed
12 strictly. Bedard, however, deals with the time requirements for elector filing
13 and is thus jurisdictional, whereas the time requirement appellee refers to is
concerned with the superior court hearing a matter within its jurisdiction. We
14 hold that the ten day requirement for action by the superior court is directory
and not mandatory.
15

16 Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 456 (1984) (emphasis provided). Fontes’ error

17 confuses statutory rules governing when election contests must be filed (which are
18
jurisdictional statutes of limitations and repose, and thus mandatory) with those providing
19
guidance as to when a court must hold the trial of such a contest (which are directory).7
20

21 The latter category of rule is outside of the legislature’s power to prescribe and cannot

22 override the civil rules mandated by the Supreme Court. See Ariz. Const. art. 6 § 5(5)
23
6
24 available at
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4395/6380682112
25 40100000 (last accessed May 11, 2023).
26 7
Although Fontes would equate Lake’s motion as akin to bringing a new—and
27 untimely—election contest, which could be jurisdictionally barred, Fontes Resp. at 13:3-4,
Lake raised all of the pertinent issues in the original contest. See Complaint (Dec. 9, 2022).
28
13

Appx0347
 1 (vesting the Arizona Supreme Court with the power to make rules relative to all procedural
2
matters in any court). While the Legislature has not attempted to limit the application of
3
Rule 60(b) in election contests, it is debatable from a separation-of-powers standpoint
4

5 whether the Legislature could do so. But this Court need not reach that question. It is

6 enough that the Legislature has not barred resort to Rule 60(b).
7
D. Lake’s motion does not violate the appellate mandate
8
Defendants argue that this Court’s granting relief from judgment would violate the
9
Supreme Court’s mandate. See Hobbs Opp’n __; Sec’y of State Opp’n __; Maricopa Opp’n
10

11 __. An appellate mandate does not preclude a trial court’s revisiting an issue based on new
12 or additional evidence under Rule 60(b). See US West Communs. v. Ariz. Dept of Revenue,
13
199 Ariz. 101, 103-04, ¶¶ 6-8 (2000) (citing Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17
14
(1976). To be sure, prior to the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in US West
15

16 Communications, Defendants may have had a point, but US West Communications removed
17 an appellate mandate’s control over a trial court’s discretion to address new evidence. Id. at
18
103-04, ¶ 8. In Standard Oil, the movant sought to “set aside [summary judgment] on the
19
basis of alleged misconduct by Government counsel and by a material witness. Standard
20

21 Oil, 429 U.S. at 17. Here, the evidence mostly did exist at the time of trial, but Maricopa

22 withheld it from this court and—intentionally or not—misled this Court. See Pl.’s Mot. __.
23
Because the Court dismissed Count II based on the evidence and the evidence alone, the
24
discovery of new evidence obviously requires revisiting that decision.
25

26 E. The relief requested would affect the outcome of the election

27 Count II adequately pleads that Maricopa’s tabulator problems—whether engineered

28
14

Appx0348
 1 as an intentional roadblock to Election Day voters or merely negligence—impacted enough
2
Arizona voters to affect the election. During the bench trial, this Court found various
3
evidence unconvincing, but there were two key differences now:
4

5 x This Court required that the negative impact be intentional, but the Court of Appeals

6 rejected that standard. Compare Order __ (Dec. 19, 2022) with Ct. App. Opinion ¶
7
__.
8
x Lake has now provided evidence that suggests that the Election Day disruptions were
9
10 indeed intentional.

11 Both factors require this Court to revisit its findings in a new trial, with a new opportunity
12
for Lake to present evidence of the factual effect of the disruption on the election, given
13
her legal arguments that the unquestionable effect—even if unquantifiable—requires a
14

15 new election without Maricopa’s interference. Moreover, unlike when this matter was

16 before the Court in December, Count III has now been restored so that even some votes
17
from Count II would cumulate with votes from Count III to alter the election’s outcome.
18
1. By installing new software without conducting post-installation
19 L&A Testing of the new tabulator and software, Maricopa made
20 its electronic voting equipment invalid for use in an election.

21 Maricopa now admits that it changed software and memory cards on its voting-center
22 tabulators on October 14-18, 2022, after Maricopa purportedly did its L&A Testing on
23
October 11, 2022. Under Arizona law, changing software or memory cards voids the voting
24
system for use in elections without new L&A Testing. See A.R.S. § 16-449(A) (subjecting
25

26 the “tabulating equipment and programs” to L&A testing) (emphasis added); cf. 52 U.S.C.
27

28
15

Appx0349
 1 § 21081(b)(1) (equipment defined to include software).8
2
As with “mailing versus hand delivery” of ballots, tested versus untested tabulators
3
go to the heart of voting integrity: “This is not a case of mere technical violation or one of
4

5 dotting one’s ‘i’s’ and crossing one’s ‘t’s.’ At first blush, mailing versus hand delivery may

6 seem unimportant. But in the context of [computer] absentee voting, it is very important.”
7
Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 33, 179 Ariz. 178, 180 (1994). The question is
8
whether the provisions advance constitutional goals “by setting forth procedural safeguards
9
10 to prevent undue influence, fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation.” Id. Like

11 signature-verification requirements, the certification of electronic voting equipment is

12
“non-technical,” so that “impracticability” cannot excuse noncompliance because the
13
statutory requirements provide “procedural safeguards to prevent undue influence, fraud,
14

15 ballot tampering, and intimidation.” Reyes v. Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91, 93 (App. 1998)

16 (quoting Ariz. Const. art. VII §1).

17
2. Ballots omitted from the vote count because of the tabulator
18 errors would cumulate with ballots stricken under Count III to
contribute to revising the election result
19
New evidence available as a result of public records requests and the Maricopa-BOD
20

21 Report, neither of which were available when Mr. Parikh testified before this court earlier

22 this year, provide evidence that approximately 8,000 ballots were wrongfully rejected due
23

24
8
See also EPM 87 (“officer in charge of elections must test precinct voting equipment
25 and central count equipment within 30 days of an election”); id. 94 (“errorless count shall
be made before the voting equipment and programs are approved for use in the election”);
26
id. 88 (“officer in charge of elections may not deploy any electronic voting equipment in a
27 federal, statewide, or legislative election that has not successfully passed the Secretary of
State’s L&A test”).
28
16

Appx0350
 1 to tabulator errors. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 36, 38-39. While 8,000 ballots is fewer than the
2
approximately 17,000 vote margin for victory, and is not, of itself, “outcome
3
determinative,” these errors are entirely separate and distinct from the verification errors
4

5 alleged in Count III of Lake’s complaint. If this Court finds that a similar number of votes

6 were affected as a result of problems in signature verification, the total would easily exceed
7
the margin for victory. Moreover, because Jarrett was in a position to know the number of
8
votes affected by printer/tabulator errors and failed to disclose this information at trial,
9
10 reconsideration of this issue is available pursuant to both subsections 2 and 3 of Rule 60(b).

11 Relief is available pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) because all of the evidence upon which
12
Mr. Parikh relied and upon which Ms. Lake now bases her Motion existed at the time of
13
trial but was solely in the possession of County Defendants who did not disclose it. [Add
14

15 facts about due diligence in trying to discover this evidence]. Moreover, as addressed

16 hereinabove, 8,000 votes, in conjunction with the other irregularities considered by this
17
court are more than sufficient to be “outcome determinative” in the 2022 Arizona
18
gubernatorial election.
19

20 Moreover, relief is available pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) because Jarrett, as Co-

21 Director of Maricopa County Elections Department, had direct access to and, indeed, was
22
ideally situated to testify about the extent of the printer/tabulator errors on Election Day,
23
but nevertheless attempted to sweep aside the issues and claimed that there had been no
24

25 disruption in the election process, even going so far as to deny knowing that the ballot

26 misprinting (19-inch ballot images projected onto 20-inch paper) had occurred at all. Day
27
1, Jarrett Tr. 64:18-21, 68:24-69:09, 70:02-13. Jarrett then changed that testimony the very
28
17

Appx0351
 1 next day. Day 2 Jarrett Tr: 178:23-181:17. This is especially inexcusable as the newly
2
discovered evidence shows that Jarrett knew about the full extent of these issues but testified
3
otherwise. Because Jarrett effectively acted as gatekeeper to crucial election information to
4

5 which Ms. Lake had no independent access and because he knowingly withheld information

6 that likely would have altered the verdict, Ms. Lake was prevented from fairly presenting
7
her case. Therefore, Ms. Lake is entitled to relief under both subsections 2 and 3 of Rule
8
60(b).
9
10 3. An engineered assault on the electorate would require a new
election under Hunt
11
The Arizona Supreme Court has long reasoned that electoral manipulations with
12

13 unquantifiable impacts on an election are not immune from review, merely because their

14 impact cannot be quantified:

15
There is a distinction between particular illegal votes the effect of which may
16 be proven and exactly computed and fraudulent combinations, coercion, and
intimidation. It can never be precisely estimated how far the latter extends.
17 Their effect cannot be arithmetically computed. It would be to encourage such
18 things as part of the ordinary machinery of political contests to hold that they
shall avoid only to the extent that their influence may be computed. So
19 wherever such practices or influences are shown to have prevailed, not
slightly and in individual cases, but generally, so as to render the result
20
uncertain, the entire vote so affected must be rejected.
21
Hunt v. Campbell, 19 Ariz. 254, 265-66 (1917) (interior quotation marks omitted,
22
emphasis added); cf. Huggins v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 348, 350 (1990) (“it hardly
23

24 seems fair that as the amount of illegal voting escalates, the likelihood of redressing the

25 wrong diminishes” (quotation marks omitted)).

26
This Court rejected Hunt in December because it read “fraudulent combinations,
27
coercion, and intimidation” to include fraud for each component. Order 6 (Dec. 19, 2022).
28
18

Appx0352
 1 But the “series-qualifier canon” cannot take the place of clear intent, S. Tucson v. Bd. of
2
Supervisors, 52 Ariz. 575, 584 (1938) (“clear intent … takes precedence as a canon of
3
construction of all grammatical rules”), so the adjective “fraudulent” modifies only the noun
4

5 “combinations.” While fraudulent coercion or fraudulent intimidation may exist, the injury

6 that a scheme inflicts on an electorate can be real without being fraudulent. See, e.g., Patton
7
v. Coates, 41 Ark. 111, 124-26 (1883) (interpreting the same treatise phrase to include not
8
only fraud but also actual intimidation). Because the Legislature has never repudiated Hunt,
9
10 the decision remains central to defining the type of widespread malfeasance in an election

11 that justifies invalidating elections in toto, rather than leaving contestants to quantify votes.
12
4. The supplemental evidence supplies the intentionality that the
13 prior decisions found missing for constitutional purposes
14 Defendants object to reviving the constitutional issues presented in Counts V and
15
VI, Fontes Opp’n 2 n.3; Hobbs Opp’n 2, and Lake agrees that the Court need not revive
16
those counts. It would suffice to recognize—as the appellate courts did—that federal issues
17

18 such as intentionally inflicting equal-protection or due-process injury are “misconduct.”

19 Under Lake’s new evidence, the intentionality inferred from Maricopa’s engineering
20
the Election Day harm to that cohort of voters implicates the Equal Protection and Due
21
Process Clauses. See Compl. ¶¶89, 165 (almost 3.78:1 Republican-versus-Democrat
22

23 disparity in Election-Day voters and—among Election-Day voters—Republican voters

24 affected to a statistically improbable degree if disruption were random); Castaneda v.

25
Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 496 n.17 (1977). Levels of scrutiny aside, targeting voters—by race
26
or by left-handedness—clearly is actionable. Targeting Republicans is no different.
27

28
19

Appx0353
 1 F. Hobbs improperly seeks to inflate the page limit for motions and to
2
avoid the requirement to brief her arguments.

3 Although Hobbs seeks to incorporate by reference her prior briefing, Hobbs. Opp’n

4 3, Rule 7.1 requires that motions “be accompanied by a memorandum indicating, as a

5
minimum, the precise legal points, statutes and authorities relied on, citing the specific
6
portions or pages thereof.” ARCP 7.1(a)(2). Although not relevant to Hobbs’ short
7

8 opposition, Rule 7.1 further limits motions and memoranda to 17 pages. Id. Because the

9 incorporation by reference of prior briefing violates—or can violate—both facets of Rule

10
7.1, courts often deny parties’ attempt to adopt that process by stipulation. See, e.g., Emmett
11
McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima Cty., 2001 Ariz. Super. LEXIS 166, *1-2 (May 3, 2001).
12

13 Lake opposes the procedural shortcut of incorporating documents by reference.

14 VI. CONCLUSION
15 This Court should relieve Lake from the judgment of dismissal of Count II and add
16
the tabulator and logic-and-accuracy testing issues to the trail set for May 17, 2023.
17
Date: May 11, 2023 Respectfully submitted
18

19
/s/ Bryan James Blehm
__________________________________
20 Kurt B. Olsen (admitted pro hac vice) Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar #023891
21 Olsen Law PC Blehm Law PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 700 10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
22 Washington, DC 20036 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tel: 202-408-7025 Tel: 602-753-6213
23
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
24
Counsel for Plaintiff-Contestant
25

26

27

28
20

Appx0354
 1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
2
Blehm Law PLLC
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279
6 admitted pro hac vice
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
7
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
8 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 408-7025
9 [email protected]
10
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

13 IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY

14 KARI LAKE, No. CV2022-095403

15
Contestant/Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
16
vs. (ASSIGNED TO HON. PETER
17 THOMPSON)
18 KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee;
ADRIAN FONTES in his official capacity
19 as the Secretary of State; et al.,
20
Defendants.
21

22
I certify that, on May 11, 2023, I electronically filed with the Arizona Superior Court
23

24 for Maricopa County, using the AZ Turbo Court e-filing system, Plaintiff Kari Lake’s

25 Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Relief from Judgment, and the accompanying
26
Exhibit: A. On that date, I also caused a copy of the same to be emailed to:
27

28

Appx0355
 1 Honorable Peter Thompson
2
Maricopa County Superior Court
c/o Sarah Umphress
3 [email protected]
4 Alexis E. Danneman
Austin Yost
5
Samantha J. Burke
6 Perkins Coie LLP
2901 North Central Avenue
7 Suite 2000
8 Phoenix, AZ 85012
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
[email protected]
10
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
11
and
12
Abha Khanna*
13 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
14 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
15 [email protected]
Telephone: (206) 656-0177
16

17 and

18 Lalitha D. Madduri*
Christina Ford*
19 Elena A. Rodriguez Armenta*
20 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
250 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 400
21 Washington, D.C. 20001
[email protected]
22
[email protected]
23 [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
24
and
25

26

27

28
2

Appx0356
 1 Craig A. Morgan
2
SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
4 Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
5
and
6
Sambo Dul
7 STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER
8205 South Priest Drive, #10312
8
Tempe, Arizona 85284
9 [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
10
and
11

12 Thomas P. Liddy
Joseph La Rue
13 Joseph Branco
Karen Hartman-Tellez
14
Jack L. O’Connor
15 Sean M. Moore
Rosa Aguilar
16 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
17 225 West Madison St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
18 [email protected]
[email protected]
19
[email protected]
20 [email protected]
[email protected]
21 [email protected]
22 [email protected]
Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
23
and
24
Emily Craiger
25
The Burgess Law Group
26 3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 224
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
27 [email protected]
28 Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
3

Appx0357
 1 /s/ Bryan James Blehm
Bryan James Blehm
2
Counsel for Plaintiff-Contestant Kari Lake
3

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
4

Appx0358
EXHIBIT A

Appx0359
 Timothy A. La Sota, PLC
2198 East Camelback Road, Suite 305
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
602-515-2649
[email protected]

November 28, 2022

VIA EMAIL:

The Honorable Bill Gates

Chairman
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: Public Records Request

Dear Chairman Gates:

Pursuant to the Arizona public records law, Arizona Revised Statutes § 39-121 et seq., I
hereby make the following public records request. I aver that the following request is for non-
commercial purposes, as that phrase is defined in the Arizona public records law. I am willing to
pay for reproduction costs if there are any.

Please produce the following public records, in whatever format they are kept:

1. All cast vote records

2. All tabulator logs

3. All S-logs.

4. All chain of custody forms.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

TIMOTHY A. LA SOTA PLC

Timothy A. La Sota

Appx0360
 Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
M. Farrow, Deputy
5/25/2023 4:34:02 PM
Filing ID 16040123

1 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891

Blehm Law PLLC
2
10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
4 [email protected]
5
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
6 Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279*
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
7 Washington, DC 20036
8 (202) 408-7025
[email protected]
9 *to be admitted pro hac vice
10 Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
11
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT
12
MARICOPA COUNTY
13
KARI LAKE, ) No. CV2022-095403
14 )
Contestant/Plaintiff, )
) PLAINTIFF KARI LAKE’S
15
v. ) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
16 ) MOTIONS TO FOR SANCTIONS1
KATIE HOBBS, personally as Contestee and )
17 in her official capacity as the Secretary of ) (Assigned to Hon. Peter Thompson)
State; et al., )
18 )
Defendants. )
19 )
)
20
21
22
23
24
1
25 This response is to the Maricopa County’s Motion for Sanctions. Defendant Hobbs and the
Secretary of State Joined in Maricopa County’s Motion for Sanctions. Throughout, the brief
26 filed by Maricopa County is referred to as “Maricopa Br.”
27
28 Appx0361
 1 INTRODUCTION
2
Defendant Maricopa County, joined by Contestee/Governor Hobbs and the Secretary of
3
State, seek sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349 based on Plaintiff Kari Lake’s: (1) Motion for Relief
4
5 from Judgment (the “Rule 60 Motion”); and (2) claims under Count III related to signature

6 verification required under A.R.S. § 16-550(A). Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion, the signature
7
verification claim presented at trial on Count III (violation of A.R.S. § 16-550(A)), and
8
statements by counsel in connection with these claims, were legally sound and supported by
9
10 expert testimony analyzing Maricopa’s own documents and computer log files. These claims

11 were thus neither legally groundless nor were they brought in bad faith or for purposes of
12
harassment, a required showing under Arizona law to justify sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349.
13
First, the Rule 60 Motion, including statements by Plaintiff’s counsel at oral argument on
14
15 May 12, 2023, were supported by the Declaration of Clay Parikh, an expert in cyber security,

16 who also testified at the first trial in this matter. Parikh’s declaration, and his expert opinions and
17
findings therein, are based on, among other things: internal documents and computer log files
18
produced by Maricopa; statements and testimony of Maricopa officials; and the findings and
19
20 statements in the McGregor Report. Maricopa’s argument that Lake’s Rule 60 Motion

21 “intentionally misrepresented material facts” is false.

22
Second, Maricopa’s argument that the “claim ‘no signature verification was conducted’
23
was frivolous” deliberately misstates Plaintiff’s claim to justify its motion for sanctions.
24
25 Specifically, Plaintiff presented evidence and expert testimony at trial and argued at closing, that

26 Maricopa did not perform voter signature verification, as required by A.R.S. § 16-550(A), with
27
-1-
28 Appx0362
 1 respect to approximately 276 thousand ballots for which the voters’ signatures were purportedly
2
“compared” in less than 3 seconds per ballot—and approximately 70 thousand ballots for which
3
were “compared” in less than two seconds per ballot. Plaintiff’s expert opined that it is not
4
5 possible to perform a “comparison” in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) at less than three

6 seconds. Plaintiff argued that under Reyes v. Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91 (App. 1998), these 276
7
thousand ballots were illegally counted. Contrary to Maricopa’s argument, Plaintiff never argued
8
that “no signature verification was conducted” on all 1.3 million mail-ballots. Maricopa is simply
9
10 making this claim up to justify its frivolous motion for sanctions.

11 In sum, Maricopa’s motion for sanctions is meritless, based on misstatements and

12
mischaracterizations of the record, and should be denied.
13
ARGUMENT
14
15 I. Standard of Review

16 Defendants assert that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is justified under A.R.S. § 12-
17
349 arguing that Plaintiff “misrepresented facts.” Maricopa Br. at 6 citing A.R.S. § 12-349. As
18
demonstrated below, Plaintiff’s claims were substantiated, brought in good faith, and further are
19
20 a matter of great public concern. Defendants do not point to a single case analogous to this case

21 that would justify sanctions.

22
As stated in Fisher on Behalf of Fisher v. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co., 192 Ariz. 366 (App. 1998),
23
to award sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349 “the court must determine that the party's claim: (1)
24
25 constitutes harassment; (2) is groundless; and (3) is not made in good faith. All three elements

26 must be shown and the trial court must make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of
27
-2-
28 Appx0363
 1 law.” Id. at 370 (denying motion for sanctions) (citations omitted).
2
The recent case of Goldman v Sahl is illustrative. There, the trial court awarded Sahl
3
attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 in connection with an abuse of process claim, finding that
4
5 Goldman's claim was “clearly groundless” because his position that an absolute privilege applies

6 only to the content of a bar charge and not the act of filing a bar charge was "directly contrary to
7
long-standing and well-established case law.” Goldman v. Sahl, 248 Ariz. 512, 531, 462 P.3d
8
1017 (Ct. App. 2020). The trial court also found that Goldman did not act in good faith because
9
10 he continued to pursue the abuse-of-process claim based on the bar charge after Sahl “cited

11 binding legal authority establishing that the claim was meritless and even though Goldman
12
admitted that the claim was likely barred as a matter of law in an email to Sahl’s counsel.” Id.
13
The trial court made a finding of harassment but did not find that the action was solely or
14
15 primarily brought for the purposes of harassment. Id.

16 The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even where an attorney believes where his
17
clients’ claim is “likely barred as a matter of law” and “a long shot” such sanctions are not
18
appropriate where a party and their attorneys have advanced “thoughtful, well-reasoned, and
19
20 well-supported – positions on the law.” Id. Such is the case here.

21 II. Plaintiff Made No Misrepresentations of Material Fact in Connection With The

Rule 60 Motion
22
23 As stated in the Declaration of Clay Parikh, Plaintiff’s cyber expert, two distinct issues

24 arose with Maricopa’s ballot on demand (“BOD”) printers that caused massive tabulator ballot
25
rejections at nearly two-thirds of Maricopa’s 223 vote centers on Election Day: (1)
26
27
-3-
28 Appx0364
 1 speckled/faded printing ballots; and (2) 19 inch ballot images printed on the 20 inch ballot paper
2
referred to generally as the “print-to-fit” or “fit-to-page” issue.2
3
Defendants contend that Plaintiff made misrepresentations of material fact in connection
4
5 with her Rule 60 Motion with respect to Plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that: (1) certain statements

6 and observations found at page 12 of the McGregor Report contradicted Scott Jarrett’s testimony
7
at trial, and provided evidence that the so-called “fit-to-paper” issue was caused by malware or
8
a remote access operation; (2) Scott Jarrett gave false testimony related to the so-called “fit-to-
9
10 paper” issue; (3) 8,000 “fit-to-paper” ballots were improperly rejected and not counted in the

11 2022 General Election; and (4) that the evidence presented in the Parikh Declaration showed the
12
2022 General Election was “rigged.”
13
A. Plaintiff did not misstate the McGregor Report’s findings and observations as
14 contradicting Jarrett’s testimony.
15
Maricopa claims that “Lake and her counsel misstated the contents of the McGregor
16
Report to the Court” Maricopa Br. 2, 7. Maricopa’s claim is false. Plaintiff cited certain
17
18 statements at page 12 of the McGregor Report as contradicting Jarrett’s unequivocal testimony
19 at trial that on-site technicians at three vote centers changing printer settings on Election Day
20
21
22
23
24 2
Declaration of Clay Parikh (Parikh Decl.”) attached to Plaintiff’s motion for relief from
25 judgment at ¶¶ 8(e)-(i). In this case, this issue has also been referred to as the “shrink-to-fit” or
“fit-to-paper.” Regardless, all of these terms refer to the issue of 19 inch ballot images being
26 printed on 20 inch ballot paper thereby causing the tabulator to reject the ballot.
27
-4-
28 Appx0365
 1 caused of the “fit-to-page” issue. 3 As Plaintiff pointed out, the McGregor Report stated “[w]e
2
could not determine whether this change resulted from a technician attempting to correct the
3
printing issues, the most probable source of change, or a problem internal to the printers.”
4
5 McGregor Report at 12 (emphasis added). In other words, after approximately three months of

6 investigation, the McGregor Report “could not determine” that what Jarrett testified to was true.
7
Critically, the McGregor Report observed an event that Plaintiff showed directly contradicted
8
Jarrett’s testimony.
9
10 Specifically, the McGregor Report reported the sudden “random” printing of “fit-to-page”

11 ballots in the middle of testing—an event that no “technical people . . . could explain.” Id. That
12
jaw dropping event is the basis for the McGregor Report’s statement that the cause of the fit-to-
13
page issue could be explained by “a problem internal to the printers.” The fact that McGregor
14
15 Report inexplicably did not follow up and seek an explanation for this “random” event does not

16 make it any less significant. This real-time random event—directly observed by the McGregor
17
team—contradicts Jarrett’s statement that the fit-to-page issue was caused by a technicians
18
changing “printer settings” on Election Day.
19
20 As Plaintiff’s cyber expert, Clay Parikh, testified, the random fit-to-page printing could

21 only be caused by malware or remote access. That observed event disproves Jarrett’s explanation
22
that technicians changing printer settings on Election Day caused the fit-to-page issue. ¶¶ 8(e)-
23
24
25
3
Plaintiff’s opening brief in support of her motion for relief from judgment (Pl. Op. Br.”) at 15
citing December 2022 trial transcript, Day 2, Jarrett Tr. 178:23-181:17, 209:24-211:03. The trial
26 transcripts are attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s opening brief.
27
-5-
28 Appx0366
 1 (f), 33-36; 44, 49. Indeed, based on the observations in the McGregor Report, Parikh was able
2
to rule out Jarrett’s explanation stating:
3
The McGregor Report’s admission that the ‘fit-to-print’ issue arose in both Oki
4 and Lexmark printers on Election Day precludes the possibility that the issue
5 resulted from an on-printer setting on the Oki printers, and that the issue was
caused by technicians troubleshooting the issue on Oki printers.
6
Parikh Decl. ¶ 36.
7
In his concluding statement, Parikh stated that “[t]he random ‘fit to page’ issue findings of the
8
9 [McGregor Report] contradicts Scott Jarrett’s explanation and testimony concerning the issue.”
10 Id. at ¶ 49.
11
In addition, contrary to Jarrett’s testimony that the “fit-to-page” issue occurred at only three
12
vote centers, newly produced evidence, including Maricopa County’s election hotline call log,
13
14 video evidence and Goldenrod reports, identify the “fit to page” issue at 127 vote centers on
15 Election Day, not three vote centers as Jarrett testified to in the December 2022 trial. Id. at ¶
16
44.
17
In its May 15, 2023 Under Advisement Ruling (the “UAR”), the Court stated that:
18
19 counsel’s representation of what the McGregor report would show is 180 degrees
from what the report actually says. . . . [and that the Report] actually supports
20 [Jarrett’s] contention that the machine error of the tabulators and ballot printers
21 was a mechanical failure not tied to malfeasance or even misfeasance.

22 Id. at 6.
23
Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court is mistaken. As explained above, for the
24
McGregor Report to support Jarrett’s testimony, it would have “determined” that the explanation
25
26 given by Jarrett was the cause of the “fit-to-page” ballots. The McGregor Report did not. The

27
-6-
28 Appx0367
 1 observed random fit-to-page printing the McGregor Report noted as occurring during their
2
testing is hard evidence of malware or remote configuration changes as Parikh testified as
3
opposed to the “[i]nterviews with MCED personnel” and testimonial evidence provided by
4
5 Jarrett.4 This hard evidence directly contradicts Jarrett’s testimony that technicians changing

6 printer settings on Election Day caused the fit-to-page issue, and cannot be reconciled with the
7
McGregor Report’s non-data-based statement that “a technician attempting to correct the
8
printing issues [was] the most probable source of change.”5
9
10 In addition, in the UAR, the Court cited the testimony of David Bettencourt at the December

11 2022 trial as support undermining Parikh’s conclusions at trial regarding “intentional systemic
12
manipulation to create the errors encountered.” Id. at 6. However, Bettencourt was a T Tech
13
hired by Maricopa to set up vote center sites before the election, and is not a cyber expert like
14
15 Parikh.6 Further, Bettencourt testified that: he “didn’t have quite as many issues” at the vote

16 center he worked; the fixes the T Techs attempted they tried did not always work; and he did not
17
“have any personal knowledge whether the printing errors were the result of an intentional
18
scheme to undermine the election” (emphasis added).7 Bettencourt gave no specific testimony
19
20
4
21 McGregor Report p. 12, n.29.

22 5
As here, Plaintiff included the entire quote from page 12 of the McGregor Report in Plaintiff’s
Rule 60 Motion opening brief. Thus, it cannot be argued that Plaintiff left out the full context of
23 the McGregor Report’s statement as to the “most probable source of change.”
24 6
Bettencourt Tr. 248:6-23. The transcript of Bettencorps testimony in the December 2022 trial
25 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
26 7
Id. 255:12-17, 256:4-9, 261:1-3.
27
-7-
28 Appx0368
 1 about “fit-to-page” ballots, nor did Bettencourt have access to Maricopa’s system log files and
2
other Maricopa data that underpin the cyber expert opinions in the Parikh Declaration.
3
It is also noteworthy that Maricopa’s tabulator system log files and other documents qualify
4
5 Bettencourt’s recollection on the extent of the tabulator ballot rejection issues, and show that

6 Maricopa’s vote center tabulators rejected ballots more than 7,000 times every 30 minutes on
7
Election Day, beginning at 6:30am continuing to the vote centers closed. Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 46-48.
8
In sum, Plaintiff accurately stated that the McGregor Report’s statements at page 12
9
10 contradict Jarrett’s testimony regarding the fit-to-page issue being caused by a technicians

11 changing “printer settings” on Election Day. Further, the falsity of Jarrett’s statement is
12
supported by statements and hard evidence found in the McGregor Report as explained in the
13
Parikh Declaration. There is no basis to award sanctions.
14
15 B. Maricopa falsely states that Plaintiff misstate Jarrett’s prior testimony and
“intentionally confused the ideas of creating ballot definitions in the election
16 management system with the ‘fit-to-paper’ option when printing.”
17
Maricopa claims that “Lake and her counsel intentionally misstated the content of Scott
18
Jarrett’s prior testimony [and] . . . . re-urged the spurious claim that Jarrett lied in his testimony
19
20 and caused the first judgment to be obtained via fraud.” Maricopa Br. 3-4. Maricopa’s argument

21 is false. In her Rule 60 Motion opening brief, Plaintiff quoted Jarrett’s testimony from the
22
December 2022 trial and stated “Jarrett testified at least four times that he did not know of, nor
23
did he hear of, a 19-inch ballot image projected onto 20-inch paper in the 2022 general election.”
24
25 Pl. Op. Br. 5-6.

26 As discussed in Section II.A. above, Plaintiff then compared Jarrett’s testimony to the
27
-8-
28 Appx0369
 1 new evidence found in the McGregor Report and discussed in the Parikh Declaration and stated
2
this new evidence “contradicted” Jarrett’s prior testimony. At oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel
3
argued that this new evidence showed that Jarrett “falsely stated” that the fit-to-page issue was
4
5 caused by that on-site technicians at three vote centers changing printer settings on Election

6 Day. 8 Contrary to Maricopa’s claim, Plaintiff’s counsel never stated in briefing or at oral
7
argument “that Jarrett lied in his testimony and caused the first judgment to be obtained via
8
fraud.” Maricopa Br. 3-4 (emphasis added). Maricopa is deliberately making these statements
9
10 up to support its motion for sanctions. There is a difference between false statements and lies or

11 fraudulent statements. Under Rule 60(b)(3), “misconduct … include[s] discovery violations,

12
even when such violations stem from accidental or inadvertent failures to disclose material
13
evidence.” Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington, 197 Ariz. 181, 186 (App. 2000).
14
15 Plaintiff merely called out his false testimony, without attributing the additional elements of

16 intentionality that were not necessary under Rule 60(b)(3).

17
Notably, Maricopa also misleadingly states that “Lake and her counsel misrepresented
18
the nature and process of ballot printing and intentionally confused the ideas of creating ballot
19
20 definitions in the election management system with the “fit-to-paper” option when printing—

21 two separate issues that Lake and her counsel repeatedly and deliberately conflate.” Maricopa
22
Br. 3-4. Again, Maricopa is deliberately making this statement up, without any support in the
23
record, claiming as a back of the hand justification “[w]ithout rehashing the whole discussion,
24
25 8
Plaintiff does not have a transcript of the oral argument held on May 12, 2023. But Plaintiff’s
26 counsel has a clear recollection of what he said on this issue.
27
-9-
28 Appx0370
 1 in essence.” Id. at 4. As is clear from Jarrett’s testimony cited by Plaintiff in her Rule 60 Motion
2
opening brief, Plaintiff did not “conflate” or “intentionally confuse” issues relating “ballot
3
definitions” with the “fit-to-paper” issue. Maricopa, again, is simply making this up.
4
5 C. Plaintiff’s statement that 8,000 “fit-to-page” ballots were rejected and not
tabulated is materially accurate.
6
Maricopa argues that “Lake and her counsel misled the Court about the contents of their
7
8 own declarant’s declaration to prop up her frivolous claim that 8,000 [fit-to-page ballots] ‘were
9 not counted.’” Maricopa Br. 7-8 (citing UAR at 7). Maricopa’s claim is false.
10
Specifically, in her Rule 60 Motion opening brief, Plaintiff stated that “the evidence shows
11
that over 8,000 ballots, maliciously misconfigured [“fit-to-page”] to cause a tabulator rejection,
12
13 were not counted.” Pl. Op. Br. 16 citing Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 36, 38-39. Plaintiff’s statement is based
14 on three facts. First, as the McGregor Report noted, fit-to-page ballots must be duplicated in
15
order to be tabulated.9 Second, Jarrett testified that less than 1,300 ballots had the fit-to-page
16
issue, but could not produce them when asked to do so by Parikh during the ballot inspection
17
18 telling Parikh that “I can’t produce those things right now it would take me over a week with all
19 my techs.” Parikh Decl. ¶ 39. However, producing these purportedly duplicated ballots would
20
be easy to do if the requirements for maintaining and tracking duplicated ballots found at A.R.S.
21
§ 16-621(B)(3) were followed.10 Further, Jarrett testified that original and duplicated ballots are
22
23
24 9
McGregor Report at page 12 (stating “neither the on-site tabulators nor the central count
25 tabulators could read the [fit-to-page] ballots.”)

26 10
A.R.S. § 16-621(B)(3) states:
27
- 10 -
28 Appx0371
 1 “affix[ed] a marrying number to that ballot, so that [Maricopa can] identify that ballot back to
2
the[] the ballot that gets duplicated onsite at the Elections Department so it can marry those two
3
up.”11
4
5 Third, given that Jarrett testified there were “just shy of 1,300 ballots” with the fit-to-page

6 issue which were purportedly duplicated, that necessarily means that any fit-to-page ballots in
7
excess of the 1,300 fit-to-page ballots Jarrett testified to were not duplicated because neither
8
Maricopa nor Jarrett has ever acknowledged the existence of at least an additional 6,700 fit-to-
9
10 page ballots as evidenced by the tabulator system log files and other Maricopa documents.12 A

11 fortiori, Maricopa cannot duplicate and tabulate fit-to-page ballots that Maricopa does not
12
acknowledge exist. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that at least 8,000 fit-to-page ballots
13
were not counted is supported by the record and evidence. See also Supplemental Declaration of
14
15 Clay Parikh (“Parikh Supp. Decl.”) at ¶¶ 17-18.

16 D. Plaintiff’s statement that the “evidence” in Parikh’s Declaration showed that

the “election was rigged” is supported by Maricopa’s own system log files and
17
expert testimony.
18
The electronic vote adjudication process used by the electronic vote adjudication
19
board shall provide for:
20 (a) A method to track and account for the original ballot and the digital duplicate
of the ballot created by the electronic vote adjudication feature that includes a
21 serial number on the digital image that can be used to track electronic vote
22 adjudication board actions.
(b) The creation and retention of comprehensive logs of all digital duplication
23 and adjudication actions performed by an electronic vote adjudication board.
(c) The retention of the original ballot and the digital duplicate of the ballot.
24
11
25 December 2022 Trial Day 2, Jarrett Tr. 181:182-4.
26 12
December 2022 Trial Day 2, Jarrett Tr. 180:1-23, 181:2-182:7; Parikh Decl ¶ 39.
27
- 11 -
28 Appx0372
 1
Maricopa claims that “Lake’s counsel falsely claimed at oral argument that ‘the election
2
3 was rigged.’ Lake and her counsel then failed to introduce any evidence during the three day
4 trial to support this wrongful statement.” Maricopa Br. 8-9. Maricopa again misstates the record.
5
First, Plaintiff was not able to present this evidence at trial because the Court denied Plaintiff’s
6
Rule 60 Motion. Thus, Maricopa’s claim that Plaintiff “failed to introduce any evidence during
7
8 the three day trial to support this wrongful statement” is a non sequitur.
9 Second, Plaintiff’s counsel stated “this evidence would support our allegation that this
10
election was rigged” referring to the evidence in Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel
11
did not simply say “the election was rigged” as Maricopa claims. That evidence includes
12
13 Maricopa’s tabulator system log files and other Maricopa documents showing that “after
14 Maricopa certified it passed L&A testing on October 11, 2022, Maricopa secretly tested all 446
15
vote center tabulators on October 14th, 17th, and 18th, and knew that 260 of the vote center
16
tabulators would fail on Election Day.”13
17
18 Further, the new evidence showed Maricopa performed contemporaneous spot testing
19 averaging 9-10 ballots per tabulator and that the system log files of 260 of the 446 voting center
20
tabulators tested (58%) reflect the same error codes memorializing the Election Day debacle at
21
59.2% of Maricopa’s vote centers on Election Day pled in Plaintiff’s complaint filed on
22
23 December 9, 2022. The near 1:1 correlation between the pre-election failures in percentage and

24
25 13
Pl. Op. Br. 2. See also id. 14-15; Plaintiff’s reply brief in support the Rule 60 Motion at 1-2,
26 4-6; Parikh Decl. ¶¶ 8(b)-(d), 14-25.
27
- 12 -
28 Appx0373
 1 error codes is startling. There system log files show that Maricopa did not fix the issues giving
2
rise to these error codes in its pre-Election Day testing. Parikh Decl. ¶ 23. The evidence shows
3
that Maricopa knew the Election Day debacle would happen. As Parikh stated in his declaration:
4
5 Considering the overwhelming failure of the vote center tabulators during the post
certification testing defined above, along with the absence of any actions to
6 identify or rectify the cause of the failure, there remains no logical expectation
other than that which was experienced on Election Day- continued failure.
7
8 Parikh Decl. ¶ 24 (emphasis added).
9 Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement that the “this evidence would support our allegation that this
10
election was rigged” is supported by Maricopa’s own system log files and expert testimony.
11
For purposes of “misconduct,” it does not matter Maricopa election officials intentionally created
12
13 the long lines at some voting centers or merely allowed them to happen unremedied after learning
14 that the malfunctions would occur. Either option qualifies as the type of qualitative interference
15
or intimidation that the Arizona Supreme Court has indicated could void an election, even if the
16
results could not be quantified. Hunt v. Campbell, 19 Ariz. 254, 265-66 (1917).
17
18 Remarkably, when confronted with this evidence, Maricopa disclosed, seven months
19 after the fact, that it had swapped out the memory cards and election software with new
20
“reformatted memory cards” that purportedly contained the previously Certified Election
21
Program on its 446 vote center tabulators between October 14-18, 2022.14 Maricopa made this
22
23
24
25
14
See Declaration of Scott Jarrett In Support of The Maricopa County Defendants’ Response Opposing
Lake’s Motion For Relief From Judgment (“Jarrett Decl.”) ¶¶ 9-10, 14-15.
26
27
- 13 -
28 Appx0374
 1 undisclosed swap after it purportedly certified logic-and-accuracy (“L&A”) testing on October
2
11, 2022.
3
Moreover, as Plaintiff’s evidence showed, Maricopa admitted that after it installed the
4
5 new memory cards beginning on October 14, 2022, it “tabulated a small number of ballots

6 through each tabulator to ensure that the memory cards were properly inserted and that the ballots
7
would tabulate.” Jarrett Decl. ¶ 15. Maricopa claims this was test was not done secretly because
8
the testing was done under the live stream video cameras—but Maricopa never disclosed this
9
10 testing to the public. But Maricopa kept silent about its swapping out memory cards and software

11 even in the face of inquiries by the media and the Attorney General investigating the Election
12
Day debacle. See Plaintiff’s reply brief in support the Rule 60 Motion (“Pl. Reply Br.”) at 2.
13
As Plaintiff showed in her reply brief in support the Rule 60 Motion, Maricopa’s actions
14
15 were a direct violation of A.R.S. § 16-449(A) governing logic and accuracy testing which plainly

16 requires “the automatic tabulating equipment and programs [be] tested to ascertain that the
17
equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures”—
18
prior testing of the election software does not satisfy the express requirement under A.R.S. § 16-
19
20 449(A) that the equipment and the software must be tested together. Id. (emphasis added) Pl.

21 Reply. Br. 2-3. See also Parikh Supp Decl.¶¶¶. Maricopa’s belated admission of these
22
modifications to the 446 tabulators after certification of their L&A testing is evidence of
23
misconduct and supports Plaintiff’s claim.
24
25 Maricopa’s only rebuttal to the misfeed errors in the 260 tabulators was Jarrrett’s

26 statement that “a tabulator misreading a ballot does not necessarily indicate a tabulator is
27
- 14 -
28 Appx0375
 1 malfunctioning.” Jarrett Decl. ¶ 17 (emphasis added). First, by qualifying the misfeed error code
2
it stating “does not necessarily indicate a tabulator is malfunctioning” does not mean that the
3
error codes were not malfunctions—just as occurred on Election Day. Second, Maricopa
4
5 attempts to explain away these error codes on 260 of the 446 tabulators—the same ones that

6 occurred during the Election Day debacle—could possibly be due to the ballots being inserted
7
“slightly askew” or “lint on the tabulator.” Id. However, these tabulators have guide rods that
8
prevent ballots from being inserted “skewed” and the tabulators themselves self-correct any
9
10 skewing that gets passed the guide rods. See Parikh Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 12-15.

11 As stated above, near 1:1 correlation between the pre-election failures in percentage and
12
error codes with the Election Day debacle is powerful evidence supporting Plaintiff’s counsel
13
statement that the evidence showed election was rigged. “Rigged” here does not mean only the
14
15 miscounting of votes; it also includes an Election Day process that was designed to fail in the

16 form of massive lines that discourage voting (as the pre-testing on October 14, 17, and 18
17
coupled with Maricopa’s secrecy and failure to address the problem strongly suggest). There is
18
no basis for sanctions as Maricopa claims.
19
20 III. Maricopa Intentionally Misstates Plaintiff’s Signature Verification Claim To
Argue For Sanctions
21
Maricopa claims that “the basis of Lake’s signature verification claim is refuted by Lake’s
22
23 own fact witnesses, supposed “whistleblowers.” Her witnesses’ testimony—known to her and

24 her counsel prior to trial—confirmed that signature verification occurred and that Lake’s claim
25
was therefore frivolous.” Maricopa Br. at 8. Maricopa deliberately misstates Plaintiff’s claim to
26
27
- 15 -
28 Appx0376
 1 justify its motion for sanctions.
2
Lake’s complaint and argument acknowledge that Level 1 review occurred for some ballot
3
envelopes, which does not mean that that review occurred for all ballot envelopes. Similarly, she
4
5 acknowledges that higher-Level review occurred for some ballot envelopes, which does not

6 mean that that review occurred for all ballot envelopes. Specifically, Plaintiff presented evidence
7
at trial and argued at closing, that Maricopa did not perform voter signature verification, as
8
required by A.R.S. § 16-550(A), with respect to approximately 276 thousand ballots for which
9
10 the voters’ signatures were purportedly “compared” in less than 3 seconds per ballot—and

11 approximately 70 thousand ballots for which were “compared” in less than two seconds per
12
ballot. Plaintiff’s expert opined that it is not possible to perform a “comparison” in accordance
13
with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) at less than three seconds. 15 Plaintiff argued that under Reyes v.
14
15 Cuming, 191 Ariz. 91 (App. 1998), these 276 thousand ballots were illegally counted. Contrary

16 to Maricopa’s argument, Plaintiff never argued that “no signature verification was conducted”
17
on all 1.3 million mail-ballots.
18
That 276 thousand ballot figure far exceeds the 17,117 vote margin between Plaintiff Kari
19
20 Lake and Contestee/Governor Hobbs. Plaintiff argued that this evidence, supported by expert

21 testimony, satisfied the Arizona’s Supreme Court’s order to establish that “votes [were] affected
22
‘in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election’” based on a “competent mathematical
23
basis to conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered
24
25 15
See Exhibit C, Speckin Tr. 6:24-7:3, 8:2-7, 8:19-22, 9:18-22, 10:7-11:22, 63:14-67:12
26 discussing opinions and referencing Ex. 47 admitted as a demonstrative exhibit.
27
- 16 -
28 Appx0377
 1 assertion of uncertainty.” March 22, 2023 Order at 3-4. Maricopa’s deliberate
2
mischaracterization of Plaintiff’s claim to justify its motion for sanctions warrants sanctions
3
being imposed on Maricopa.
4
5 CONCLUSION

6 Maricopa’s motion for sanctions, joined by Contestee/Governor Hobbs and the Secretary
7
of State, is not supported by case law or the record. Trust in the elections is not furthered by
8
punishing those who bring legitimate claims as Plaintiff did here. In fact, sanctioning Plaintiff
9
10 would have the opposite effect. There is no basis in the record to show that Plaintiff’s claims

11 constitute harassment, are groundless, and were not made in good faith. Plaintiff’s claims are
12
supported by actual documents and log files produced by Maricopa and expert testimony. For
13
the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants’ motion.
14
15 DATED this 25th day of May 2023.

16
17
/s/Bryan James Blehm
18 Bryan James Blehm, Ariz. Bar No. 023891
Blehm Law PLLC
19 10869 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 103-256
20 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(602) 752-6213
21 [email protected]
22
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
23 Kurt Olsen, D.C. Bar No. 445279*
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 700
24 Washington, DC 20036
25 (202) 408-7025
[email protected]
26 *to be admitted pro hac vice
27
- 17 -
28 Appx0378
 1
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Contestant
2
3 ORIGINAL efiled and served via electronic
means this 25th day of May, 2023, upon:
4
Honorable Peter Thompson
5 Maricopa County Superior Court
c/o Sarah Umphress
6 [email protected]
7
Alexis E. Danneman
8 Austin Yost
Samantha J. Burke
9 Perkins Coie LLP
10 2901 North Central Avenue
Suite 2000
11 Phoenix, AZ 85012
[email protected]
12
[email protected]
13 [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
14
and
15
16 Abha Khanna*
ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
17 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
18
[email protected]
19 Telephone: (206) 656-0177
20 and
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 18 -
28 Appx0379
 1 Lalitha D. Madduri*
Christina Ford*
2
Elena A. Rodriguez Armenta*
3 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
250 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 400
4 Washington, D.C. 20001
5 [email protected]
[email protected]
6 [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Katie Hobbs
7
8 and

9 Craig A. Morgan
SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
10 201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
12 Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
13 and
14
Sambo Dul
15 STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER
8205 South Priest Drive, #10312
16 Tempe, Arizona 85284
17 [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Secretary of State Adrian Fontes
18
and
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 19 -
28 Appx0380
 1 Thomas P. Liddy
Joseph La Rue
2
Joseph Branco
3 Karen Hartman-Tellez
Jack L. O’Connor
4 Sean M. Moore
5 Rosa Aguilar
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
6 225 West Madison St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
7
[email protected]
8 [email protected]
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
10 [email protected]
[email protected]
11 [email protected]
Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
12
13 and

14 Emily Craiger
The Burgess Law Group
15 3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 224
16 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
[email protected]
17 Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants
18
19 /s/Bryan James Blehm
20 Bryan James Blehm
Counsel for Plaintiff-Contestant Kari Lake
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 20 -
28 Appx0381
EXHIBIT A

Appx0382
 Supplemental Declaration of Clay U. Parikh
I, CLAY U. PARIKH, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and would testify competently to

them if called upon to do so.

2. I have a Master of Science in Cyber Security, Computer Science from the University of

Alabama in Huntsville. From 2008 to 2017, I worked through a professional staffing company for

several testing laboratories that tested electronic voting machines. My duties were to perform

security tests on vendor voting systems for certification of those systems by either the Election

Assistance Commission (EAC), to Federal Voting System Standards (VSS) or Voluntary Voting

System Guidelines (VVSG), or to a specific state’s Secretary of State’s requirements. Further

details about my qualifications are attached as Exhibit 7.

3. I am submitting this supplemental declaration to support my original. I have read Scott

Jarrett’s declaration.1 I have read the Maricopa County defendant’s response opposing Lake’s

motion for relief from judgement. I make the following observations.

4. Mr. Jarrett states the inclusion of more than 13,000 ballot styles is “more than thirteen

times the amount of ballots that state law requires to be included in the Logic and Accuracy test.”2

This is an incorrect statement. Arizona state law requires all ballot styles to be tested during Logic

and Accuracy (L&A) testing. Arizona Rev. Stat. § 16-449 states that testing should correctly count

the votes cast for all offices and on all measures. This means that all ballot styles are required to

be tested.

1 No. CV2022-095403, Exhibit A. DECLARATION OF SCOTT JARRETT IN SUPPORT OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE OPPOSING LAKE’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
2 Pg. 1, Lines 27-28 of declaration

Appx0383
 5. Jarrett states that the election department conducted testing from October 4 through 10,

2022. He states that “It was also in addition to the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy tests

that occurred on October 11.”3 There is no evidence that the Voting Center (VC) tabulators were

tested on the October 11th test date; in fact, available evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

Mr. Jarrett also mentions testing in September as well as early October. The Arizona Elections

Procedure Manual (EPM) states that “The officer in charge of elections must test precinct voting

equipment and central count equipment within 30 days of an election. 4” Therefore, all this previous

testing is irrelevant to the statutory L&A testing of October 11th. All other testing was not

performed with proper public notice, observed by at least two election inspectors, open to

representatives of the political parties, candidates, the press, and the public, and other requirements

prescribed by both the EPM and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-449. He further states that during the testing

from October 4 through 10, (Maricopa County records indicate that this testing occurred between

October 5 through 8) that they recognized that they had not programmed the VC tabulators to

reject early and provisional ballots. Jarrett states that upon recognizing that they omitted this

programming that they reprogrammed the VC tabulators. “This reprogramming occurred on

October 10, prior to the statutorily required Logic and Accuracy test. 5” Mr. Jarrett states that they

reprogrammed the tabulators. For a tabulator to be considered “programmed” requires that election

program data be on the CompactFlash cards and inserted into the tabulator. Reprogramming the

vote center tabulators require Logic & Accuracy testing to begin anew for two separate reasons:

1. The EPM states: "If any error is detected during L&A testing:

• The cause shall be ascertained

3 Pg. 2, Lines 13-14 of declaration

4 Pg. 87 of EPM
5 Pg. 2, Lines 22-24 of declaration

Appx0384
 • An errorless count shall be made before the voting equipment and programs are

approved for use in the election;"6

2. The EPM also states that for L&A testing, the officer in charge of elections must “Utilize

the actual election program for Election Day (not a copy)”.

6. Jarrett also stated earlier in section 7 of his declaration that the Elections Department ran

more than 11,000 different Election Day ballot styles through the 446 VC tabulators, as well as 54

backup tabulators. However, the L&A test results only show 45 election day ballots being ran. See

the figure7 below. Either the Election Management System (EMS) server tally of L&A testing

reflected in the figure is grossly inaccurate, which would indicate a problem that Maricopa County

should have immediately reported to the Secretary of State, or Jarrett’s declaration is inaccurate.

7. Another issue concerning the early October testing is that proper security requirements

were not applied to the voting system equipment in accordance with the EPM and A.R.S. § 16-

445(C). The Maricopa Elections Procedure Manual states voting systems “Must be sealed with

6Pg. 94 of EPM
7Pg.3 (PreTestCert_Results_10112022.pdf) Maricopa County Elections Department Certificate of Accuracy General
Election November 8, 2022

Appx0385
tamper-resistant or tamper-evident seals once programmed; The seal number must be logged as

corresponding with particular voting equipment and the election media that has been sealed in the

voting equipment. The log should be preserved with the returns of the election. In the event of a

recount or re-tally of votes, the officer in charge of elections should be prepared to submit an

affidavit confirming that the election program and any election media used in the election have not

been altered.8”

8. The tabulators are supposed to have a security seal placed over the administrator

compartment after testing to ensure election media is not altered. Exhibit 1 contains screenshots

of multiple VC tabulators from early October testing and the testing of October 14, 17 and 18.

None had security seals placed on them. Further evidence of this violation is shown in Exhibit 2.

The same tabulator is shown tested on two different dates. Ballots were inserted as shown on the

tapes, yet the seal numbers are the same and there is still no administrator compartment seal

recorded. This is not an administrative issue; the entire purpose of the L&A testing is to ensure

that the voting systems are properly programmed to ensure accuracy in scanning, tabulating, and

reporting the vote totals from voters’ cast ballots. Without the safeguard of timely and correctly

applied seals and documentation supporting the election administrators’ assertion, Maricopa

County has not only violated the law but broken chain of custody with respect to CompactFlash

cards and the election program they contain.

9. Jarrett, in response to there not being any log data for the VC tabulators on October 11 th,

states that the reason is because Maricopa County had to reformat the VC tabulators’

CompactFlash media reinserted them into the tabulators. He then states “Accordingly, any logs

predating October 14 are stored on the internal storage device located within the Vote Center

8 Pg. 96 of EPM

Appx0386
tabulator. Those logs were not requested by Lake or included in Parikh’s review. 9” First, the logs

were requested; item two listed in Exhibit 3 clearly states “All” tabulator logs. Second, logs are

not stored internally, they are written to the CompactFlash cards. The internal storage device is for

the tabulator firmware. The storage space is limited. The tabulator firmware installation on internal

media is even hashed as required for the trusted build. See pages 8 and 11 of Exhibit 4.

10. In his declaration Jarrett then goes into explaining the process of reinserting the memory

cards. “When installing the new memory cards, the County tabulated a small number of ballots

through each tabulator to ensure that the memory cards were properly inserted and that the ballots

would tabulate.10” He avoids saying the word test. He even uses the word “Similar” to start the

next sentence. The quotation above is the description of a testing event. However, the small number

of ballots does not satisfy the requirement for adequate L&A testing under ARS § 16-449.

Additionally, during the October 14 event, Maricopa County personnel filled out L&A checklists.

Again, there were no security seal numbers for the administrator compartment recorded. The

defense’s response even stated, “This was not done in secret; it was not "testing;" and it was not

misconduct,11” despite the fact that Maricopa County personnel conducted the “event” without

public scrutiny, after changing the programming of the tabulators after the public L&A test

certification, and used the L&A checklists to document their actions. Also, if this was just to check

if the memory cards were inserted properly, this can be done by checking on the tabulator’s screen;

no ballots need be run through the tabulator, and the quantity of ballots they ran through the

tabulator not only showed ballot scanning errors which would have to be reported to the Secretary

9 Pg. 3, Lines 21-23 of declaration

10 Pg. 4, Lines 4-6 of declaration
11 Pg. 3, Line 28 of Maricopa’s Response

Appx0387
of State and which would preclude legal use of the tabulators for an election, but would be

insufficient to satisfy ARS § 16-449, even had the testing been public.

11. Jarrett then goes on to state “After running test ballots, the tabulators were zeroed to ensure

no votes were stored on the memory cards;” The use of “test ballots” and the post-test procedure

to “zero” the tabulators both clearly indicate not only that the event was “testing,” but that

Maricopa County personnel were aware that it was testing tabulators.

12. Next in the declaration Jarrett attempts to explain how misreads are indicative of failure.

“Finally, a tabulator misreading a ballot does not necessarily indicate a tabulator is malfunctioning,

accordingly a review of the tabulator logs for misread ballots is not an appropriate method for

identifying if a tabulator failed a logic and accuracy test. 12” This is incorrect. While there may be

a small number of rejections due to misreading ballots during an L&A test, they should not be to

the percentage levels shown in Exhibit 5; which indicate a misread rate more than an order of

magnitude larger than that permissible by voting system certification standards. The figure below

is an excerpt from the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. It shows that misfeeds, rejections are

12 Pg. 4, Lines 16-18 of declaration

Appx0388
all considered the same.

13. Jarrett tries to explain away “misreads” rejections as “common situations”. “One situation

is when a ballot is inserted slightly askew, which will result in an initial misread of the ballot. 13”

This is an incorrect statement, in that misreads due to skewed ballot feeds are rare. The VC

tabulator is an ICP2 model which has paper guides built in on the hardware which make it easy to

insert a ballot correctly and difficult to insert a ballot askew; consequently, few ballots are inserted

askew in normal use. Also, all scanners that have automatic feeds have correction mechanisms

which can compensate for slight misalignments. He continues “However, upon reinserting the

ballot in a more aligned direction, the tabulator will accept and accurately count the ballot. This is

not a failure or error of the tabulator, is a common occurrence during both testing and voting and

would not result in a finding that a tabulator has failed a logic and accuracy test. 14” This is neither

13 Pg. 4, Lines 20-21 of declaration

14 Pg. 4, Lines 21-23 of declaration

Appx0389
a common nor acceptable occurrence. If the rejection or misfeed rate exceeds .002, the tabulator

fails its certification requirement.

14. Mr. Jarrett also mentions how cleaning the tabulator can cause rejections. Again, he asserts

that it is okay to have a ballot rejected multiple times. “Typically, inserting a ballot a second or

third time resolves the issue, and any subsequent ballots are accepted normally. 15” It is not an

acceptable standard to reinsert a ballot three times; there is no provision in the certification

standards for voters or users to be required or expected to reinsert ballots multiple times, and would

be no different than rationalizing that a touch-screen ballot-marking device user might have to

touch a vote choice multiple times in order for that choice to register; both would be incorrect.

15. The errors produced during the post-certification testing are consistent with the errors

produced on Election Day due to defectively printed ballots. Arizona state law requires an

“errorless” test before election equipment can be used for an election. No matter if Maricopa

County now tries to recharacterize the only testing of the vote center tabulators utilizing the actual

election program as that used on Election Day (not a copy), 260 tabulators produced errors.

16. The resized ballot issue, otherwise known as “print to fit” resulted in the tabulators not

being able to read those ballots.16 The resized ballots required duplication so they could be scanned

and counted.

17. Our analysis of both tabulator system logs17 and Maricopa County’s Hotline call logs has

found in excess of 8,000 print to fit ballots which were produced from nearly half of the 223

15 Pg. 5, Lines 1-3 of declaration

16 Testimony of Scott Jarrett during Lake v. Hobbs trial on December 22, 2022 (transcript at 181); McGregor Report
at 12
17 https://www.scribd.com/document/648168800/Hotline-Calls-PRR-1379

Appx0390
Election Day vote centers. The print to fit ballots required duplication, but the duplication log

does not account for some 6,700 ballots that could not otherwise have been counted. 18

18. Because the Defendants have mischaracterized my analysis, positive identification of the

print to fit issue, and how we were able to determine that thousands of print to fit ballots were not

counted, I provide to the court a more detailed explanation and example as to how the conclusions

and determinations of my Declaration pertaining to the 8,000 fit to print ballots were made.

19. In his declaration Jarrett then moves on to explaining the duplication process and how the

“fit-to-page” issue was handled. “Maricopa County segregates the storage of the original ballots

and the storage of the duplicated ballots after they are tabulated. 19” Having all duplicated ballots

in their own box and the originals in another makes sense as the duplicated ballots must be

tabulated, segregated storage does not make sense“The combination of the marrying number and

the segregated storage allows for the matching of the original ballot with the duplicated ballot.”

Jarrett’s statement makes no logical sense. He stated it would take his whole entire crew a full

week to locate duplicates from just the one box of ballots I inspected. For the record, as the county

could not produce the duplicated ballots to compare to the originals, I could not verify that

duplication had occurred.

20. At the close of Jarrett’s declaration, he states “We offered the inspector the option to choose

how to proceed and if he wanted to continue with the inspection of the duplicated ballots. The

plaintiff's inspector chose to inspect the spoiled ballots rather than the duplicated ballots 20.” Jarrett

is trying to infer that a decision made during the ballot inspection has some bearing on the issues

of duplicated ballots. This is a distraction and a totally inaccurate statement. There were only 45

18 Exhibit 6
19 Pg. 5, Lines 14-17 of declaration
20 Pg. 6, Lines 13-16 of declaration

Appx0391
ballots remaining from the total ballots selected that did not get inspected. Additionally, the choice

I made would not have affected anything concerning my findings concerning the 19-inch image or

“fit-to-page” issue. The following is proof of my assertion. In Jarrett’s declaration, he names just

three sites as having the issue and only one of those was included in the six sample sites I selected.

I found the issue in all six sites. How could Jarrett have missed the other sites during the duplication

process.

21. The independent investigation report referenced in my first declaration contained

admissions of misconduct and violations of Arizona statutes as it pertains to L&A testing. Jarrett’s

declaration, exhibit A, of the defense’s response to opposing Lake’s motion for relief from

judgement is full of technical inaccuracies and admissions to violation of Arizona statutes as well.

There are Arizona Election Procedure Manual violations dealing with testing procedures and

required documentation. Logic and Accuracy testing was not properly conducted. Based on these

observations and my professional experience, I find the causes for most of these issues to be

intentional because Maricopa County personnel modified the programming of their tabulators after

their public, certified, inadequate L&A test, then conducted “public” testing, without notice to the

public, which they deem to not be testing but documented as testing, which also did not meet

statutory standards for pre-election L&A testing, and which exhibited an error rate that required

notification to the Secretary of State, and which violated the certification standards of the voting

systems, precluding their use in an election. A full forensic audit should be conducted on all the

voting system components involved with this past General election, to include the SiteBooks, BOD

printers and contractor equipment (Runbeck) to conduct a proper analysis and root cause of these

issues.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

10

Appx0392
Executed on this _24_ day of May 2023. s/
Clay U. Parikh

11

Appx0393
 Exhibit 1

Sample of L&A checklist without security seal numbers.

12
Appx0394
Exhibit 2

13
Appx0395
Exhibit 3

14
Appx0396
Exhibit 4

15
Appx0397
Exhibit 4

16
Appx0398
Exhibit 4

17
Appx0399
Exhibit 4

18
Appx0400
Exhibit 4

19
Appx0401
Exhibit 4

20
Appx0402
Exhibit 4

21
Appx0403
Exhibit 4

22
Appx0404
Exhibit 4

23
Appx0405
Exhibit 4

24
Appx0406
Exhibit 4

25
Appx0407
Exhibit 4

26
Appx0408
Exhibit 4

27
Appx0409
Exhibit 4

28
Appx0410
Exhibit 4

29
Appx0411
Exhibit 4

30
Appx0412
Exhibit 4

31
Appx0413
Exhibit 4

32
Appx0414
 Exhibit 5

The error rate levels for a tabulator should never go over one percent.

33
Appx0415
Exhibit 6

34
Appx0416
Exhibit 6

35
Appx0417
Exhibit 6

36
Appx0418
 Exhibit 7

1. I have a Master of Science in Cyber Security, Computer Science from the University of Alabama in

Huntsville. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Systems Major from the University of North

Carolina at Wilmington. In February 2007 I obtained the Certified Information Systems Security Professional

(CISSP) certification and have continually maintained good standing. I also hold the following certifications:

Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) and Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI).

2. Since December 2003 I have continually worked in the areas of Information Assurance (IA), Information

Security and Cyber Security. I have performed countless Root Cause Analyses (RCA) to determine the root causes

of equipment malfunctions, system, and network issues. I also have a IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL)v3

certification, focused on a global framework of best practices for systematic risk management, customer relations,

and delivery of stable, scalable, adaptable organizational IT environments.21

3. From 2008 to 2017, I worked through a professional staffing company for several testing laboratories that

tested electronic voting machines. These laboratories included Wyle Laboratories, which was later acquired by

National Technical Systems (NTS), and Pro V&V. My duties were to perform security tests on vendor voting

systems for certification of those systems by either the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to Federal Voting

System Standards (VSS) or Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), or to a specific state’s Secretary of

State’s requirements.

21 https://www.cio.com/article/272361/infrastructure-it-infrastructure-library-itil-definition-and-solutions.html
37
Appx0419
EXHIBIT B

Appx0420
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

3 - - -

4 KARI LAKE, )
)
5 Contestant/Plaintiff, ) CV2022-095403
)
6 - vs - )
)
7 KATIE HOBBS, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
8 capacity as Secretary of )
State; Stephen Richer in his )
9 official capacity as Maricopa )
County Recorder; Bill Gates, )
10 Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, )
Thomas Galvin, and Steve )
11 Gallardo, in their official )
capacities as members of the )
12 Maricopa County Board of )
Supervisors; Scott Jarrett, )
13 in his official capacity as )
Maricopa County Director of )
14 Elections; and the Maricopa )
County Board of Supervisors, )
15 )
Defendants/Contestees. )
16 _____________________________

17
December 21, 2022
18 Courtroom 206, Southeast Facility
Mesa, Arizona
19

20 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON, J.

21
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
22
BENCH TRIAL - DAY 1
23

24 Reported by:

25 Robin G. Lawlor, RMR, CRR, FCRR

Official Court Reporter No. 50851

Appx0421
 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 247

1 witness?

2 MR. BLEHM: I excuse the witness.

3 THE COURT: Defendants?

4 MR. LARUE: No objection, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Ma'am, you're excused.

6 (Witness excused.)

7 THE COURT: Your next witness. I think

8 we're okay. Your next witness will be?

9 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, our next witness is

15:43:21 10 Bradley Bettencourt, please.

11 THE COURT: Sir, if you could just stand

12 there in front of my clerk, she'll swear you in.

13 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT,

14 called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified

15 as follows:

16 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. If you'll make

17 your way around to the witness stand and have a seat,

18 please. Who is going to do this examination?

19 MR. OLSEN: I am, Your Honor.

15:44:36 20 THE COURT: Whenever you're ready, Mr.

21 Olsen.

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. OLSEN:

25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bettencourt. Could you

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0422

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 248

1 please state your full name for the record?

2 A. Bradley David Bettencourt.

3 Q. What is your occupation?

4 A. Well, I generally work with real estate and have

5 my own company and work with my dad.

6 Q. Okay. Did you have occasion to be hired by

7 Maricopa County for any elections?

8 A. Yes, I decided to work as a T Tech with them.

9 They reached out, I applied, and they reached out after.

15:45:08 10 Q. And when did they reach out to you?

11 A. A little over a month before the election.

12 Q. And you're referring to the 2022 General

13 Election?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Or the Primary?

16 A. The General Election.

17 Q. Okay. And what is a T tech?

18 A. Well, we would set up the sites beforehand and

19 site watch on the days of polling.

15:45:34 20 Q. And in terms of setting up the sites beforehand,

21 what kind of work were you doing?

22 A. Well, we focus mainly on the site books, the

23 printers, and the MoFi, which is like a WiFi, basically.

24 Q. And the site books are the device that's used to

25 check in a voter and have their ballot directed towards

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0423

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 249

1 whatever precinct they are in?

2 A. Correct, yes.

3 Q. And did you have -- did you participate in the

4 election prior to Election Day in any kind of fashion?

5 A. I was working with them for about a month

6 approximately, and we set up sites beforehand, some of

7 the early polling sites. And we also site watched

8 early, and we actually created a T Tech group, a text

9 group, to stay in touch while we were site watching.

15:46:26 10 Q. How was that group set up? Was it through your

11 supervisor or --

12 A. Yeah, it was through the supervisor.

13 Q. And who was that?

14 A. That was Jose.

15 Q. Do you have a last name?

16 A. Jose Luis Arpaio.

17 Q. Is a he an employee of Maricopa County?

18 A. He's a permanent employee, yes.

19 Q. What's his function at Maricopa County?

15:46:46 20 A. Well, he was basically our supervisor for the T

21 Techs. He had been a T Tech previously as a temporary

22 employee, and he wound up getting a permanent position.

23 Q. And how many T Techs were in this group that he

24 set up?

25 A. Well, there was him as the supervisor and then 15

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0424

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 250

1 T Techs.

2 Q. And approximately how many vote centers would be

3 covered by these 15 T Techs of which I assume you were

4 one of them?

5 A. Correct, yes. I was a T Tech.

6 So on Election Day, if that's what you're

7 referring to, we all started out at one location. Some

8 of us stayed at that location the whole day and other

9 ones moved around to multiple locations. If you

15:47:27 10 actually look in one of the exhibits on the text

11 messages one person had well over 100 miles driving

12 around to probably about five or six sites throughout

13 the day.

14 Q. Do you have an estimate as to how many vote

15 centers were covered by the 15 T Techs, approximately?

16 A. I would say a minimum of 20 to 30. That's a bare

17 minimum.

18 Q. Um-hum. And at this point, I would like to bring

19 up Exhibit 58, Your Honor. And Exhibit 58 is a series

15:48:15 20 of about over 54 pages of text messages.

21 Do you recognize this document, sir?

22 A. Absolutely, yes.

23 Q. And what is it?

24 A. It's the group text from that day, the Election

25 Day.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0425

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 251

1 Q. And is this a group text chats from your phone?

2 A. Yes. Yes, sir.

3 Q. And did you provide a declaration in this case?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you swore under oath under the penalty of

6 perjury to tell the truth, correct?

7 A. Absolutely, correct.

8 Q. And did you, in connection with this declaration,

9 provide screenshots of your text messages with the other

15:48:55 10 T Techs, the other 15 T Techs that day?

11 A. Yes, correct.

12 Q. Do you believe this to be, and you can scroll

13 through some, does this appear to be a true and accurate

14 copy of your text messages?

15 A. Yes, sir, it does. There are a lot of issues

16 that came up throughout the day, and including at times

17 they would -- people, T Techs, would say that the

18 ballots look pristine, but the tabulators aren't reading

19 them. So that would really not have to do with the

15:49:43 20 printers from our point of view, and that wasn't just

21 one person. There were other persons that said similar

22 things.

23 Q. Do these text messages represent communications

24 that were happening as they were occurring on Election

25 Day?

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0426

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 252

1 A. Yes. Yes, in real-time, absolutely.

2 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this point, we

3 would like to move for Exhibit 58 to be entered into the

4 record as evidence. It is hearsay; however, under

5 present impression and excited utterance, you will see

6 some of them. For example, if we could go to -- go to

7 page Bates number 367, and at the bottom you'll see,

8 Your Honor, it says, I'm having a 9-1-1. I would say

9 that there are a number of -- as you just can scroll

15:50:42 10 through would classify or qualify as either an excited

11 utterance or present sense impression, certainly. So we

12 would move to have them admitted in the record under

13 those exceptions, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Any objections?

15 MS. FORD: Your Honor, Christina Ford on

16 behalf of the Governor-Elect. We do object to these

17 coming in. There are more than, I believe, 50 pages of

18 these texts and one -- one text out of 50 pages that

19 potentially qualifies for an excited utterance doesn't

15:51:17 20 make up for 50 pages of texts from this day of otherwise

21 out-of-court statements that they are trying to enter

22 for the truth of the matter.

23 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I --

24 THE COURT: Go ahead.

25 MR. OLSEN: -- I also submitted them, sir,

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0427

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 253

1 with the -- under the present sense impression. These

2 are real-time messages, text messages, that are being

3 typed in as the events are unfolding the day of

4 Election, and I believe it falls under that exception as

5 well.

6 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to allow them

7 because I think that they represent the correspondence

8 back and forth between the techs who were working with

9 their immediate impressions of trying to resolve

15:51:54 10 problems. So go ahead. So what you're offering, what's

11 the number again?

12 MR. OLSEN: It's 58, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: 58. So I'll admit 58 over

14 objection.

15 MS. FORD: Thank you, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Go ahead.

17 BY MR. OLSEN:

18 Q. Mr. Bettencourt, can you describe what was going

19 on with -- between you and your other T Techs on

15:52:15 20 Election Day, if you had to characterize it?

21 A. Yeah, it was we were consistently talking back

22 and forth trying to solve the problems, and this group

23 was really trying hard, because there were a lot of

24 issues that popped up. And actually our main fix turned

25 out to be walk up to the printer, open up the printer,

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0428

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 254

1 take out the ink cartridge and shake it, so that was our

2 main fix. That was the big one we were tending to do.

3 I know the official County statement was that changed

4 the printer settings; but I would say based on the techs

5 I saw, that was probably about 10 to 20 percent of the

6 issue there, so that I would say that would be an

7 incomplete description of the issues, from my point of

8 view, seeing the techs.

9 Q. Did the situation resolve very quickly, or did it

15:53:17 10 last throughout the day with the problems?

11 A. It depended on the location. Some got better and

12 some kept having issues. I mean, we had issues, I

13 believe, there was one even after closing time where

14 they were asking someone to go over to Biltmore, I

15 believe it is. You can confirm towards the end there.

16 Q. How long have you -- how old are you, sir?

17 A. I'm 34 years old.

18 Q. Okay. And how long have you been in Arizona?

19 A. Well, I've been off and on. I actually lived in

15:53:46 20 five states, but overall a little over a decade in

21 Arizona in total.

22 Q. So you've been voting for how long?

23 A. Well, I've been voting for 16 years, you know, in

24 some different states, but mostly in Arizona during that

25 time.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0429

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 255

1 Q. How would you characterize the events on Election

2 Day that you observed personally and also communicated

3 with the fellow T Techs that were servicing between 20

4 and 30 vote centers compared to elections that you even

5 just participated in as a voter?

6 A. It felt a bit chaotic. I have people from the

7 other places I've lived reaching out and saying, what's

8 going on in Maricopa County down there? So it felt a

9 little chaotic, I would say.

15:54:31 10 Q. Were these problems that continued throughout the

11 day at many of these vote centers?

12 A. Yeah, and like I said, we tried to shake the ink

13 cartridge. They cleaned the Corona wire. They would

14 have the inspector call over the troubleshooter, try and

15 clean the tabulation, because like I said, sometimes in

16 there the prints looked good, but the tabulator wasn't

17 taking them anyway.

18 Q. Did you hear of any long lines outside of the

19 vote centers?

15:55:05 20 A. Yeah, there were a lot of long lines, and in

21 there actually describes at least one in there that

22 describes -- and I know of other locations where they

23 completely wound up shutting down for a certain amount

24 of time -- and they were basically sending people to

25 other locations.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0430

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 256

1 Q. How upset were voters that you interacted with or

2 heard about?

3 A. Well, they -- well, I heard some people being

4 very upset, more so at other locations. We didn't have

5 quite as many issues at our location, but it did shut

6 down for about five to ten minutes at one point with

7 both tabulators being down, and that actually happened

8 because one lady had put in a ballot and I was standing

9 there when I saw this, the tabulator took it through.

15:55:53 10 It didn't reject it. I took it through, but it didn't

11 have the green checkmark or say that it can be

12 successfully cast. So I hadn't seen that on anything

13 else, so we called the inspector over and she called the

14 hotline. And they said she should open up the blue bin

15 where the tabulator is, pull out the ballots. They were

16 going to count those downtown and then restart,

17 basically, from zero, restart counting the ballots that

18 go into that tabulator from that point on.

19 Q. Did the problems with the tabulators, did they,

15:56:32 20 in your opinion, create the long lines that you heard

21 about from different T Techs?

22 A. I would say it made it worse because we have

23 lines to begin the day, and once those tabulator issues

24 start happening, you know, the lines just backed up

25 more.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0431

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT 257

1 Q. And were there lines outside of the voting

2 center?

3 A. Oh, yeah. At our place, there was a line outside

4 the door all day and, you know, we had less problems

5 than a lot of other places.

6 Q. And do you understand the check-in process?

7 A. That's more the polling worker side of it, the

8 site book area. That's more the poll worker is

9 responsible for that. I wasn't responsible for that

15:57:14 10 part of it.

11 Q. Okay. Did you hear about long lines extending

12 past 8:00 o'clock at night?

13 A. Yes, it's in the texts. I know at least one or

14 two places, and then I know someone who wasn't in this

15 group, because this was the East Valley group, and there

16 was a West Valley group as well. So I know someone in

17 the West Valley, he didn't get home -- I left my site at

18 about 10:00 and we had had a short line, you know, at

19 the end of the night, probably wrapped up about

15:57:50 20 8:00 p.m., and then this other guy from the west group

21 had left about 10:30, 10:45 and I know there was at

22 least one or two people in this group that left later

23 than me.

24 Q. Do you -- do you know whether or not any people

25 who were waiting in line just simply gave up waiting in

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0432

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - DIRECT/CROSS 258

1 line or saw things on the news and decided not that they

2 just didn't have the time to come out and vote?

3 MR. GOANA: Objection, Your Honor.

4 Speculation, foundation.

5 THE COURT: He can answer it yes or no. He

6 was asked do you know. Sir, if you're able to, you can

7 answer yes or no.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't know that

9 personally. As I said, my site had less problems than

15:58:31 10 the others, so I can only speak for my site, and I don't

11 have any knowledge of that specifically.

12 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Bettencourt.

13 THE COURT: Cross-exam.

14 CROSS-EXAMINATION

15 BY MS. FORD:

16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bettencourt.

17 A. Good afternoon.

18 Q. I understand from your testimony and from your

19 declaration in this case that you helped set up

15:59:01 20 equipment in preparation for Election Day?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. You didn't intentionally cause the tabulators to

23 reject ballots, correct?

24 A. No. Actually, we weren't even specifically

25 focused on the tabulators with our position.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0433

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - CROSS 259

1 Q. And you don't know of any T Techs who

2 intentionally caused the issue?

3 A. They were temporary employees, so I don't know of

4 any T Techs that caused that issue, no.

5 Q. And you said here today that you were hired along

6 with your other T Techs to help resolve problems that

7 were occurring at polling locations, correct?

8 A. Yes, that was part of it, the setting up of sites

9 along with resolving problems when they arose.

15:59:52 10 Q. And then you were, in fact, employed to help

11 resolve these issues when they did spike up, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you agree with me that sometimes tabulators

14 cannot read a ballot due to the way that the voter marks

15 the ballot?

16 A. Yes, and I actually wrote that in my declaration

17 as well. That's part of it, but that wasn't the whole

18 part. So I could specify that definitely wasn't the

19 whole part. There was some that looks very good and the

16:00:21 20 voters had marked them very well and they weren't being

21 read.

22 Q. Okay. Well, I wanted to go through some of

23 those. So I understand from your declaration that you

24 and your fellow T Techs sometimes found that cleaning

25 the Corona wire in the printer would sometimes help fix

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0434

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - CROSS 260

1 the tabulator issue; is that correct?

2 A. Yes, and the Corona wire that was on the older

3 printers, I actually had the new Lexmarks in the

4 location that I was at, so that wasn't part of the

5 location I was at.

6 Q. Okay. And the group also found that changing the

7 toner, shaking the toner, could sometimes make

8 improvements to the tabulators?

9 A. Yeah, shaking the toner actually worked a decent

16:01:01 10 amount. It wasn't perfect, but it helped at times.

11 Q. Okay. And then you also found that letting the

12 printer warm up could also improve the situation?

13 A. I would have to go back through the texts and

14 confirm that. I don't recall that specifically, but

15 there were a lot of techs in there, so I don't recall

16 every text that we had.

17 Q. Okay. You have no personal knowledge as to

18 whether the printing and tabulator errors changed the

19 outcome of the collection -- sorry -- the outcome of the

16:01:35 20 election, correct?

21 A. I don't see how there's any way I could prove

22 that one way or the other.

23 Q. But you have no personal knowledge?

24 A. I believe I just said I can't prove anything one

25 way or another by myself.

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0435

 BRADLEY BETTENCOURT - CROSS 261

1 Q. Okay. So you similarly don't have any personal

2 knowledge whether the printing errors were the result of

3 an intentional scheme to undermine the election?

4 A. Well, I was just a temporary employee doing what

5 I was employed to do there.

6 MS. FORD: Okay. Thank you. No further

7 questions.

8 MR. OLSEN: Nothing further, Your Honor.

9 Nothing further, Your Honor.

16:02:25 10 THE COURT: Nothing further. Okay. Can we

11 excuse the witness?

12 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

13 MS. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: You're free to go.

15 (Witness excused.)

16 THE COURT: Next witness?

17 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, we next call Mark

18 Sonnenklar.

19 THE COURT: Mr. Sonnenklar, if you could

16:03:34 20 just come over in front of the clerk and be sworn in,

21 sir.

22 MARK SONNENKLAR,

23 called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified

24 as follows:

25 THE COURT: If you could just have a seat

Robin G. Lawlor - CR No. 50851 Appx0436

EXHIBIT C

Appx0437
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

4 In the Matter re: )

)
5 Kari Lake, )
)
6 Contestant/Plaintiff,)
)
7 vs. ) CV2022-095403
)
8 Katie Hobbs, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
9 as the Secretary of State; )
et al., )
10 )
Defendants. )
11 _______________________________)

12

13

14

15
Phoenix, Arizona
16 May 18, 2023 - PM

17

18
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
19 TRIAL (day 2)
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER THOMPSON
20

21

22
REPORTED BY:
23 LUZ FRANCO, RMR, CRR
Certificate No. 50591 (Copy)
24

25

Appx0438
 2

1 COUNSEL APPEARING:

2 OLSEN LAW, P.C.

By: Mr. Kurt Olsen (pro hac vice)
3
BLEHM LAW, PLLC
4 By: Mr. Bryan Blehm

5
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
6

7 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: Ms. Alexis E. Danneman
8
ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
9 By: Ms. Elena Rodriguez Armenta

10 BURGESS LAW GROUP

By: Ms. Emily Craiger
11
SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC
12 By: Mr. Craig Morgan
Mr. Jake Rapp
13 Ms. Shayna Stuart

14 Maricopa County Attorney's Office

By: Mr. Thomas Liddy
15 Mr. Joseph LaRue
Ms. Karen Hartman-Tellez
16 Mr. Jack L. O'Connor
Ms. Rosa Aguilar
17

18 Attorneys for Defendants

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0439
 3

1 I N D E X O F E X A M I N A T I O N

2 WITNESS PAGE

3 ERICH SPECKIN, Having been called on behalf of the

Plaintiffs (Cont'g)
4
Cont'g Direct Examination by Mr. Olsen 4
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan 14
Cross-examination by Mr. LaRue 45
6 Redirect Examination by Mr. Olsen 52

7
RAY VALENZUELA, Having been called on behalf of the
8 Defendants (Not Concl'd)

9 Direct Examination by Mr. Liddy 86

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0440
 4

1 Phoenix, Arizona
May 18, 2023
2

3 (The following proceedings are had in open

4 court:)

6 THE COURT: All right. We are continuing in

7 CV2022-095403. This is the trial of Lake versus Hobbs, et

8 al.

9 Present for the record are either the

10 parties, the parties' representatives, or appearances

11 being waived with counsel for the respective parties being

12 present.

13 We are in the process of the continued

14 direct examination of Mr. Speckin, who is under oath and

15 continues on the witness stand.

16 So, Mr. Olsen?

17 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

18

19 CONTINUING DIRECT EXAMINATION

20

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Speckin. Back to Exhibit 47

23 that we've been looking at --

24 A. It got removed from my table.

25 THE CLERK: I had to inventory it. It's

Appx0441
 5

1 right here.

2 THE COURT: You can retrieve it right there

3 and give it back to him.

4 Mr. Olsen, I'm sorry we had to take it.

5 BY MR. OLSEN:

6 Q. And, Mr. Speckin, just to -- to recap since we're

7 starting after lunch, where it says verifications in less

8 than 5 seconds and 3 seconds and 2 seconds at the top

9 column, that means, in simple terms, in less than 6

10 seconds where it says 5, and then 3 means in less than 4

11 seconds, and then where the column says in less than or

12 equal to 2 seconds, that means less than 3 seconds in

13 simple terms, correct?

14 A. In simple terms, that's what it means, correct.

15 Q. Let's pick a couple -- and this table is sorted

16 by user number, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. So, if we took user number 20, can you

19 tell me what this data reflects?

20 A. Yes. So you would read across for the data

21 associated with that user. So 55,888 determinations,

22 verifications, conclusions, whatever you want to say, that

23 were inputted by that user. 96.39 percent of those

24 would've been approvals or passes, or like we talked about

25 earlier, I -- I hated the word excepted for the reasons

Appx0442
 6

1 that we talked about. So pass.

2 Q. Okay. And then continuing on.

3 A. As you go to the right, under the column that

4 simply stated less than 6 seconds, there were 36,086

5 instances where that user did that. In those instances,

6 the pass rate of those was 99.65 percent.

7 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. Again,

8 what I'm hearing here is a summary of a document -- or I

9 should say, of -- a CD-ROM leading to what I'm hearing is

10 statistical conclusions. Again, I think we've made our

11 record, and I just wanted to --

12 THE COURT: True. The objection should be

13 foundation, I believe, as to if he's going to use a

14 number --

15 MR. MORGAN: Correct.

16 THE COURT: -- he can do the math and

17 show -- show his work. So that's the objection on

18 foundation.

19 So how did he get the 99.65 percent for the

20 last thing he testified to, that's the objection. If you

21 could have him show his math.

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

23 BY MR. OLSEN:

24 Q. Mr. Speckin, with respect to the 99.65 percent,

25 with this table, we're just talking just average, correct,

Appx0443
 7

1 average -- averages and percentages, correct?

2 A. Not even average. Just percentage on this table.

3 Correct, yes.

4 Q. Where does the 99.65 percent derive from?

5 A. That's the number of passes or accepted

6 signatures, good signatures, compared to the overall

7 number of determinations made.

8 So, in simple terms, if they made two

9 determinations and one of them was a pass, 50 percent; if

10 they made two determinations and two different

11 determinations were passes, a hundred percent. If they

12 made 10 and one was a pass, 10 percent. It's super easy.

13 THE COURT: Next question.

14 BY MR. OLSEN:

15 Q. Continuing on with -- in simple terms, the column

16 which is less than 4 seconds, can you just continue to the

17 right with user number 20 as to what this data shows?

18 A. Yes. So, for that user, 24,904 were done at that

19 speed or faster. In other words, the less than 4 seconds.

20 So, obviously, the ones that are included in that column

21 were previously included in the one where we had a larger

22 time that we were analyzing. This is the smaller subset

23 of the same data.

24 And of those, the approval rate, 99.87. So

25 we get 13 out of a thousand are not included, 9,987 -- I'm

Appx0444
 8

1 sorry, out of 10,000, 9,987 out of 10,000 were passed.

2 Q. Continue on to the column, less than 3 seconds.

3 A. So that total number of instances where

4 comparisons were done where the key strokes were entered

5 in that amount of time is 13,749 and 99.88 percent, simple

6 conversion, 12 out of 10,000 were not passed. The rest

7 were.

8 Q. If we selected number -- let's take user number

9 31, could you go through the same recitation that you just

10 did with respect to that user as to what this table

11 reflects?

12 A. Sure. Same principles apply. They did 46,854

13 determinations. The overall, call it, approval

14 percentage, passing percentage, 97.23 percent at the time

15 of less than 6 seconds. Of those 46,000 instances, 37,588

16 of them were done at that rate of less than 6 seconds, and

17 for that, the approval percentage for that subset 99.37

18 percent.

19 Moving to the right, less than 4 seconds,

20 29,751 instances approval percentage, 99.72, so it picks

21 up, and then even faster rate of less than 3 seconds,

22 21,471, approval percentage 99.84.

23 Q. Let's -- if you would to move over to the third

24 page with user 72 -- or strike that.

25 Let's go to user 79.

Appx0445
 9

1 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, objection. The

2 witness is testifying to these numbers as if they are

3 admitted for their truth. They're not admitted for the

4 truth in this case.

5 THE COURT: No. These are his opinions

6 based upon what he's reviewed.

7 MS. DANNEMAN: His -- okay.

8 THE COURT: So overruled for that. Go

9 ahead.

10 BY MR. OLSEN:

11 Q. So user 79, Mr. Speckin.

12 A. Same takeaway for 79. 54,298 in total, the total

13 body at work. 98.9 percent approvals. You go to the next

14 column of what we're calling less than 6 seconds, 45,217

15 approved at 99.91. So, in simple terms, 9 out of 10,000

16 would not be approved.

17 At the next fastest rate of less than 4

18 seconds, 37,524, 99.97. And the last column of 3 seconds

19 or less, 27,196 instances with a hundred percent approval

20 rating -- approval percentage.

21 Q. Looking at the approval ratings, going from less

22 than 6 seconds to less than 3 seconds, what -- what do you

23 see about the approval rating?

24 A. Well, they're all very high for this user, but

25 the faster they go, the more they get approved, the higher

Appx0446
 10

1 the rate for this user.

2 Q. Does that seem unusual to you?

3 A. It definitely seems counterintuitive. It's also

4 against my experience. The faster you go, it would be a

5 rejection. It's easier to tell something doesn't match

6 when you're doing a comparison, not that it does match.

7 Q. Turning to the last page, Mr. Speckin, and the

8 total verifications, under the total, can you read the

9 totals for the various columns, less than 6, less than 5,

10 less than 4, less than 3?

11 A. Well, we only have three columns, so we have less

12 than 6, less than 4, and less than 3. And the first one,

13 less than 6, 779,330, 779,330. The next fastest time

14 512,597, and the fastest time on the table, less than 3

15 seconds, 321,495 instances, or times, that occurred.

16 Q. And my recollection is there is a -- a lower

17 figure for comparisons at less than 3 seconds around

18 276,000?

19 A. Well, my opinion for the comparisons that were

20 actually done in less than 3 seconds is less than the

21 325 -- 321,495 number because user 26 and user 9 had some

22 activity that appears to be inputted through a computer by

23 some algorithm or some script. I didn't think it was fair

24 to count them or it would be misleading if I did count

25 them if, indeed, they were put in through a computer or

Appx0447
 11

1 some algorithm as saying that the key strokes were done in

2 that time. If I'm wrong, the number would go up for my

3 opinion to what's on the chart. I just believe that's

4 what was inputted.

5 Q. So your opinion, would that subtract the number

6 of ballots processed by user 9 and 26 from the total of

7 321,495?

8 A. Yes. So, for the rate -- the count, or the

9 instances, for the rates, I think it would be correct to

10 subtract that number to arrive at a smaller number. As I

11 said, 321 minus 44, or it might be 45 when you add them

12 up, 45,670, from that number.

13 Q. Did you assess any rate of less than 2 seconds?

14 A. I did. I ran the search further out than shows

15 on this table, yes.

16 Q. And what did the data reflect?

17 A. There were about 70,000 instances excepting, or

18 removing, the 26 and 9 that I just talked about that were

19 lightning quick, removing that roughly 70,000.

20 Q. So roughly 70,000 signatures processed in less

21 than 2 seconds?

22 A. No. I would use the word compared.

23 Q. Compared. Excuse me.

24 A. Process would be a bigger number because you

25 would include 26 and 9. Compared would be the lower

Appx0448
 12

1 number, yes.

2 Q. And do you recall any figures with respect to the

3 approval rating?

4 A. So I did look at the users that had over a

5 thousand instances of that less than 2 seconds comparison,

6 and 7 of them had a hundred percent. I remember that.

7 Q. What is your expert opinion as to the physical

8 ability to compare a signature for consistency in less

9 than 3 seconds?

10 A. I don't believe it can be done. I -- I look at

11 this all day, every day. This is what I do and I've done

12 for 30 years, and running in signatures. I'm not going to

13 sit here and tell the Court no one in the world is going

14 to be better than me.

15 But I really do believe I'm at the top of

16 the pyramid of who can do this and how to do it. If I

17 can't do it, I don't see how anyone can do it on a mass

18 scale, day after day after day, hour after hour, at these

19 rates. It can't be so.

20 Q. And how are you using the term "compare"?

21 A. Well, "compare" to me -- this morning, I just

22 Googled "what does compare mean," and it says to look at

23 carefully to see similarities and differences between two

24 items. Obviously, in this case, we're talking signatures.

25 That's what it means to me anyway, but to give you the

Appx0449
 13

1 definition that I read this morning, that's what it said.

2 Q. And what is your understanding of the stat- --

3 Arizona statute that governs signature verification

4 16-550?

5 A. Well, it says that they should be compared, and

6 then it infers after that, for consistencies or

7 inconsistencies, based on this is the path for an

8 inconsistency, it uses the word compare.

9 The standards that I use in my field and the

10 standards that are written use comparison and compare.

11 The training manual use it that was -- at least had input

12 from someone like me. I don't want to drag her down to

13 that level if she feels differently but someone with

14 similar background to me. It's a common word that we use

15 in the English language, and it's no different in my

16 industry what the word "compare" means.

17 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this time, we

18 have no further questions.

19 THE COURT: Very well. Who will be

20 conducting the cross?

21 MR. MORGAN: I will, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Morgan, go ahead and proceed

23 as soon as you are ready, sir.

24 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

25 May I use the podium?

Appx0450
 14

1 THE COURT: You may use the podium, sir.

2 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. MORGAN:

7 Q. I want to make sure I say your name right because

8 I'm not particularly great with names. Speckin?

9 A. That's actually right. I was going to say, use

10 Erich if you feel comfortable, but Speckin is correct,

11 yes.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Speckin.

13 You agree with me, in your profession,

14 detail is a thing. It's important, right?

15 A. Absolutely.

16 Q. Devil's in the detail, as they say, right?

17 A. Well, that's an overused phrase in our language,

18 but I don't disagree.

19 Q. All right. And you'll agree with me then that,

20 in connection with the signatures that we were just

21 hearing you testify about in Exhibit 47, which is a

22 demonstrative, you didn't personally do any of these

23 signature comparisons yourself, correct?

24 A. That's right. I wasn't the level I reviewer or

25 level II or whatever.

Appx0451
 15

1 Q. You haven't seen any of those signatures,

2 correct?

3 A. Correct. I haven't seen one.

4 Q. And you'll agree with me then, in the realm of

5 possibility, it's entirely possible that many of those

6 signatures completely matched?

7 A. Oh, I suspect some would've, yes.

8 Q. Okay. Now, again, I want to talk about details.

9 Earlier in your testimony, my colleague brought up a case

10 in Hong Kong.

11 Do you remember that case?

12 A. I remember it very well.

13 Q. It's Nina Kung versus Wang Din Shin.

14 Does that sound about right?

15 A. That sounds correct to me, more or less, yes.

16 Q. More or less.

17 All right. You had testified that there was

18 an opinion from a higher appellate court that essentially

19 said the intermediate, or the lower appellate court, got

20 it wrong with respect to you; is that right?

21 A. I said the initial trial court. I didn't say the

22 lower appellate court.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. There was an intermediate appellate decision, but

25 I didn't say anything about that.

Appx0452
 16

1 Q. And you -- if I understood your testimony -- and

2 I'm summarizing -- you feel like that appellate decision

3 vindicated you, essentially?

4 A. No. I'm saying it backs up the fact that the

5 judge copied what the other side wrote.

6 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Well, I would like to

7 show the witness, Your Honor -- I'd like to approach the

8 clerk and have this marked as the next exhibit. It's the

9 court case that he mentioned in his direct, Your Honor.

10 May I approach?

11 THE COURT: You can mark it, and you can

12 approach him with it right now.

13 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

14 THE COURT: We'll talk about admissibility

15 later.

16 MR. MORGAN: Would you like a copy, too?

17 It's hefty.

18 THE COURT: If you've got another copy.

19 MR. MORGAN: I do, Your Honor.

20 May I?

21 THE COURT: Please.

22 MR. MORGAN: Thank you. Thank you.

23 BY MR. MORGAN:

24 Q. I've just handed you what's been marked as, I

25 believe, Exhibit 48. Do you have that in front of you.

Appx0453
 17

1 A. I do. It doesn't say 48 but -- oh, yeah, it

2 does. I have it, yeah.

3 Q. Okay. I want you to turn with me. There's some

4 numbers there at the bottom. Okay? I want you to turn

5 with me to page 91.

6 Would you let me know when you're there?

7 A. I'm there.

8 Q. All right. I'm going to read aloud paragraph

9 452. Okay?

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. This is the decision from this appellate court in

12 Hong Kong.

13 I do not find these arguments excusing the

14 judge convincing. Not only was the evidence ink dating

15 wholly unsatisfactory, Mr. Speckin himself was wholly

16 discredited as an expert witness for, among other things,

17 claiming professional credentials that he lacked, claiming

18 acceptance of his methods by the scientific community when

19 that was false and having been trapped in demonstrating

20 that his opinions were quite unreliable. It would,

21 therefore, have been wholly perverse for Yam J to do

22 anything other than to reject that evidence; however, even

23 then Yam J did so by copying verbatim almost the whole of

24 the appellant's admission inviting such rejection.

25 Did I read that correctly?

Appx0454
 18

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. And you'll agree with me then is that what the

3 appellate court is saying is that the judge got it right?

4 A. I don't believe that's what's in the entire

5 opinion.

6 Q. Well, let's talk about what I read. I only want

7 to talk about what I read.

8 A. For that one paragraph does it say that?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Of course.

11 Q. If you like, you can take a moment to point to me

12 anywhere in the opinion where the judge vindicates what

13 you did and says you did a good job.

14 A. I don't have one that says exactly that, but we

15 have wholesale copying and an unfair trial is paragraph

16 445.

17 Q. Sure.

18 A. And paragraph 90.

19 Q. Yeah. But the paragraph we read said, to declare

20 anything other than you falsified your credentials would

21 be perverse.

22 Those are his words, not mine, correct?

23 A. Those were the words of the person who wrote

24 that, yes.

25 Q. Okay.

Appx0455
 19

1 A. I'm saying there are other paragraphs that don't

2 say the same thing is what I'm telling you.

3 Q. Can you point me to one that contradicts that

4 paragraph?

5 A. I just does did. 445 on page --

6 THE COURT: Let's -- gentleman. Gentlemen,

7 slow down. My court reporter is trying to keep up.

8 BY MR. MORGAN:

9 Q. Now, you recall testifying earlier about your

10 involvement in a case called EEOC versus Ethan Ellen.

11 Do you recall that?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. And that's in the federal district court in the

14 Northern District of Ohio, correct?

15 A. It was, yeah. It's 20-some years old.

16 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, would I -- do you

17 want me to ask every time. Can I have free permission --

18 THE COURT: You can approach the exhibits

19 but ask about approaching the witness, please.

20 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 BY MR. MORGAN:

24 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 40.

25 Do you see that?

Appx0456
 20

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Okay. Let's talk about Exhibit 40.

3 Is this the case that you were giving

4 testimony as an expert in?

5 A. I never gave testimony as an expert. I gave a

6 deposition but never --

7 Q. That's right, because you were excluded as an

8 expert in that case, correct?

9 A. Correct. That's what I said.

10 Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about this case for a

11 minute. You gave a statistical opinion in that case,

12 didn't you?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. And the Court discredited you based on your lack

15 of qualifications to give a statistical analysis, correct?

16 A. I don't believe so, but you could point me to the

17 paragraph that says that.

18 Q. Sure. I'm -- I'm happy to do it. Let's take a

19 look at page 6. I'll read it aloud.

20 Many of the criticisms leveled at Speckin by

21 the Wang court could also serve as a basis for this

22 Court's conclusion that based on the standards imposed by

23 Daubert, Speckin's testimony is inadmissible in this case.

24 Ultimately, however, the Court finds two particular

25 grounds especially compelling and independently sufficient

Appx0457
 21

1 to justify its conclusion and the first being Speckin's

2 statistical analysis is deeply suspect.

3 Now, I ask you again. You were excluded

4 from testifying in that case because your statistical

5 analysis was suspect, correct?

6 A. The analysis at one standard deviation, yes. I

7 thought you asked me because of my knowledge.

8 Q. It's a yes/no. You're fine.

9 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, I'd move Exhibits

10 40 and 48 into evidence.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Any objection?

12 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay. They're admitted.

14 BY MR. MORGAN:

15 Q. Now, let's walk through -- I want to revisit the

16 Wang case, and let's walk through the information that the

17 trial court said, and that the appellate court found it

18 would be perverse to have concluded that you could be an

19 expert otherwise.

20 They conclude in the Wang case, he did

21 not --

22 MR. MORGAN: Well, actually, may I approach

23 the witness, Your Honor?

24 THE COURT: You may.

25 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Appx0458
 22

1 BY MR. MORGAN:

2 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 43.

3 Exhibit 43 is a copy of a decision from the Court of First

4 Instance in the Wang case.

5 Do you see that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Can you please turn to page 211. Just let me

8 know when you're there.

9 A. I'm there.

10 Q. Now, at paragraph 29.5, the trial court in Hong

11 Kong said: He did not study statistics either in his BA

12 degree, and that is why he was not awarded a BSC degree.

13 He's plainly deficient in his knowledge of statistics in

14 chromatography disciplines one would've thought essential

15 for an analytical chemist, essentially one who offers

16 himself to the court as an expert, even more so for one

17 who claims to be one of the world's leading experts in one

18 particular branch of analytical chemistry, i.e.

19 econalysis.

20 Did I read that correctly?

21 A. I did.

22 Q. And do you agree with that?

23 A. Absolutely.

24 Q. Let's go to 29.8, same page.

25 He attempted to magnify his experience by

Appx0459
 23

1 claiming to have examined over 100,000 documents. When

2 the sheer mathematical impossibility of this was pointed

3 out to him as it would've taken him 274 years to do it, he

4 claimed that simply flicking over pages looking for

5 something else amounted to an examination.

6 You remember giving that testimony?

7 A. Absolutely not what I said.

8 Q. You didn't tell the court that, in your opinion,

9 that flipping over the pages amounts to an examination?

10 A. That's absolutely correct. I did not say that.

11 Q. Okay. It goes on to read: Obviously, has

12 examined many documents in his short experience, but

13 there's no way that this court can evaluate the extent or

14 depth of that experience. This lack of experience may

15 account for the reason why neither he himself nor his

16 laboratory are included in ASTMs Directories of Scientific

17 Technical Consultants and Expert Witnesses.

18 Did I read that correctly?

19 A. You did.

20 Q. Now, other courts have taken issue with what they

21 consider to be misrepresentations about your experience,

22 correct?

23 A. I can recall one court that sent me a letter.

24 Q. Uh-huh.

25 A. And I clarified with the judge by replying, but

Appx0460
 24

1 that's the only time I can think of that.

2 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Your Honor, I move into

3 evidence exhibits 43.

4 THE COURT: Any objection on 43?

5 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Forty-three will be

7 admitted.

8 MR. MORGAN: May I approach the witness,

9 Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: You may.

11 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

12 BY MR. MORGAN:

13 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 41.

14 Do you recognize Exhibit 41?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. Is this the letter you were just referring to?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And this is a letter that was sent to you from

19 the 13th Judicial Circuit from a Judge Philip E. Rodgers,

20 Jr., circuit court judge.

21 Do you see that?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. And this was a case called People versus Douglas

24 William Adrian, correct?

25 A. Yes.

Appx0461
 25

1 Q. And you were appointed as an expert by the Court

2 in that case, correct?

3 A. Yes. The Court appointed me as the expert,

4 that's exactly correct.

5 Q. Right.

6 And this is a letter by the Court that

7 appointed you?

8 A. That's exactly right.

9 Q. Okay. And the first sentence says: The Court

10 authorized your retention to provide expert witness

11 services to this defendant.

12 Next paragraph: However, I was extremely

13 disappointed in your presentation. While I initially

14 found you barely qualified to offer an expert opinion in

15 this case, upon the completion of your examination, I came

16 to the conclusion that I had made an error.

17 Last paragraph on that page says: You also

18 needed to address the issues associated with your resumé.

19 You certainly did the defendant no good whatsoever when

20 you were confronted with an affidavit to which a lawyer's

21 weakly article had been attached. This was a clear

22 indication to the court and the jury that you countenanced

23 an overblown statement of your credentials as they related

24 to your work with the IRS and the Secret Service.

25 Do you recall reading that when you saw

Appx0462
 26

1 it -- or when you received it?

2 A. Of course.

3 MR. MORGAN: I move Exhibit 41 into

4 evidence, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Any objection?

6 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Forty-one is admitted.

8 BY MR. MORGAN:

9 Q. Now, you testified earlier, I think I heard

10 correctly, that you were a part -- you gave testimony

11 before one or both chambers of the legislature in Arizona?

12 A. Yes. I said I wasn't sure. I thought it was --

13 Q. Yeah. Of course.

14 A. I thought it was both at the same time.

15 Q. Yeah. One or both.

16 A. Yes, I said that.

17 Q. And that was when?

18 A. I don't remember the date. A couple months ago.

19 Q. Okay. And that was in connection with work that

20 you performed for an audit in 2020, right?

21 A. I don't know if I would say audit. It was work

22 that I'd performed on 2020 ballots.

23 Q. Was that related to what might be commonly

24 referred to the Cyber Ninjas Audit? Does that sound

25 familiar?

Appx0463
 27

1 A. Well, it was completely different from what they

2 were doing. It was happening at the same period of time.

3 So in that sense related. I mean, I wasn't working for

4 them, and they weren't working for me.

5 Q. And your ultimate conclusion in connection with

6 your findings was that you couldn't really make the

7 conclusion. You needed more information, correct?

8 A. I wouldn't say that, no.

9 MR. MORGAN: Okay. May I approach the

10 witness, Your Honor?

11 THE COURT: You may.

12 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 BY MR. MORGAN:

14 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 38.

15 Do you recognize this?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. Did you create this?

18 A. I did.

19 Q. And this is your executive summary related to the

20 work we're discussing now, correct?

21 A. Right. I just cited more districts in front of

22 Arizona, but specifically related to what happened in

23 Arizona, yes, this is the summary.

24 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Your Honor, I move

25 Exhibit 38 in evidence.

Appx0464
 28

1 THE COURT: Any objection?

2 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

3 MR. MORGAN: Okay.

4 THE COURT: Thirty-eight is admitted.

5 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

6 BY MR. MORGAN:

7 Q. Okay. Can we please turn to the second of the

8 last page of this exhibit.

9 A. It's two-sided. Do you mean -- what is the first

10 word at the top?

11 Q. The first word at the top is going to be "when

12 the contents of the box were examined."

13 A. I'm there.

14 Q. You're there.

15 All right. Let's go to the bottom. You see

16 the section that says: Summary and discussion of further

17 forensic review?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Based on the forensic findings, it is my opinion

20 that further work and review of the ballots, or the images

21 at a minimum, should be conducted to determine what

22 significance these findings have on the whole of the

23 ballots cast, as well as possible statistical significance

24 of the votes contained for particular ballot item.

25 Did I read that correctly?

Appx0465
 29

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. And this is your conclusion?

3 A. Well, that's one of many, but you read that

4 correctly.

5 Q. Your conclusion then was that more work needed to

6 be done?

7 A. Well, it's my conclusion I would do more work.

8 Q. Okay. Now, the testimony -- and I'm calling "the

9 testimony" loosely. I understand. I don't know whether

10 you were under oath. I wasn't there. And you didn't say

11 you were.

12 But the testimony you gave recently in front

13 of the legislature -- okay? Are you with me so far?

14 A. Yeah. I know what you're talking about.

15 Q. All right. Good.

16 You were invited by whom to give that

17 testimony? Liz Harris?

18 A. No.

19 Q. No?

20 A. Sunny something.

21 Q. Sunny Borrelli?

22 A. That sounds right.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Yes, I think so. I think that's the name.

25 Q. And when you were there, you told the legislature

Appx0466
 30

1 you couldn't determine for sure if any votes in that

2 election that you were reviewing were illegally counted,

3 fair?

4 A. I don't recall saying that, but I would say that

5 if I were asked the question now, I don't have independent

6 recollection to that statement, but it's a fair statement.

7 Q. Yeah.

8 And based on what you've reviewed in

9 connection with the opinion you've given today with the

10 2022 general election, that would also be your answer,

11 correct? You can't say with any certainty that an

12 improper vote was illegally counted or rejected?

13 A. I can't say one way or the other. I'm not

14 drawing opinions that it was or was not.

15 Q. Okay. Are you aware that after that hearing you

16 testified at, a representative was eventually expelled

17 from the House of Representatives for that hearing?

18 A. I heard something in my travels this week that

19 someone came in and was -- I don't know what the word is.

20 Maybe you have the better word than me. Ultra excited.

21 And I don't know. I wasn't there, and I haven't seen it.

22 I'm not trying to be funny. I just don't want to use an

23 inflammatory word.

24 Q. Sure.

25 A. But something like that. And then the person who

Appx0467
 31

1 invited him got in big trouble. I didn't know the extent

2 of the trial, or I didn't maybe remember it, but I heard

3 something about it.

4 Q. Now, forensic, okay, that word, that means the

5 application of scientific principles to legal cases,

6 right?

7 A. That's what it means to me in forensic science,

8 yes.

9 Q. Okay. Now, ultimately, the opinions you gave

10 today through your testimony, they are based on a set of

11 assumptions, fair?

12 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. Would

13 ask that the witness lay -- or counsel lay a foundation

14 for what assumptions he's referring to.

15 THE COURT: Well, he can answer if he

16 understands. If he doesn't understand, we can have it

17 rephrased.

18 THE WITNESS: I understand the question.

19 I'm just taking time to think what the assumptions could

20 be because I don't have --

21 BY MR. MORGAN:

22 Q. Yeah. Take your time.

23 A. Give me just a second?

24 Q. Sure. Take your time.

25 MR. OLSEN: And, Your Honor, may I also ask

Appx0468
 32

1 that counsel stop interrupting the witness and let him

2 finish his answer.

3 MR. MORGAN: If I'm doing that, Your Honor,

4 I apologize. I'll be better.

5 THE COURT: For the sake of my court

6 reporter, too, please.

7 MR. MORGAN: And I'll be slower.

8 THE COURT: Both question and answer need to

9 slow down, please.

10 MR. MORGAN: Of course.

11 THE WITNESS: I think I'm equally at fault

12 for the pace, so we can share it.

13 BY MR. MORGAN:

14 Q. We all have better places to be, Mr. Speckin.

15 A. I agree with you.

16 I'm at a loss as to what an assumption would

17 be. I'm not saying there aren't any.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. But I can't think of one, and I'm not sure if I'm

20 missing an obvious one, but perhaps, you can --

21 Q. Sure?

22 A. -- give me an example, and I can run from there.

23 Q. Well, your opinion assumes the information you

24 were given is adequate, correct?

25 A. Oh. In other words what was -- what was asked

Appx0469
 33

1 for is what was given by the County? That's an

2 assumption, yes, that's true.

3 Q. Okay. And it assumes the people you spoke with

4 told you the truth, for example?

5 A. I would say -- yeah, I see where you're going.

6 It would assume that the totality, not only of the people

7 that I spoke to, but the other witnesses, the videos and

8 all that, would corroborate one another, which I believe

9 it does, but could there be one aspect that doesn't? I --

10 I can't say.

11 Q. In general, the assumption then is that the

12 information that you've relied on, that you testified to

13 today that you relied on in forming your opinion here, the

14 assumption is that all of that is accurate, it's reliable.

15 Is that a fair statement?

16 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. I just

17 don't know what opinion he's referring to. I would just

18 ask that he would clarify and be specific.

19 THE COURT: Okay. If there's a specific

20 opinion, you can rephrase it. If you mean all of the

21 opinions --

22 MR. MORGAN: I mean every one of them,

23 Judge.

24 THE COURT: Then re-ask the question --

25 MR. MORGAN: Sure.

Appx0470
 34

1 THE COURT: -- so that he understands that.

2 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 BY MR. MORGAN:

4 Q. With respect to every opinion you've given here

5 today, whatever it may be, you'd agree with me that an

6 underlying assumption, as I've been using the term, that a

7 foundation, if you will, to the accuracy of your opinion,

8 is that the information you relied on to form that opinion

9 was accurate and reliable.

10 Is that a fair statement?

11 A. That the foundation for that specific opinion --

12 Q. Correct.

13 A. -- would be. Not everything that you gave me

14 that I said I evaluated is the foundation for every

15 opinion.

16 Q. We're on the same page. It was a general

17 question. I think we're on the same page.

18 So it must follow then that if -- with

19 respect to any specific information you relied on in

20 connection with any specific opinion you gave today, if

21 that information is unreliable, then your opinion is

22 unreliable to that extent, as well, correct?

23 A. To whatever limited extent or large extent,

24 depending on the nature of the unreliability or question,

25 it could have a small to negligible impact to a large

Appx0471
 35

1 impact. That is correct. It would be variable as to the

2 exact situation.

3 Q. And you'll agree with me -- and I think you said

4 this a moment ago, and I appreciate the candor -- at this

5 point, with respect to this case and your opinion on the

6 2022 -- or 2022 general election, you really can't say one

7 way or the other, based on what you've reviewed, whether a

8 single vote was improperly counted, one way or the other,

9 fair?

10 A. I'm not here to draw that opinion, and I'm not

11 saying that.

12 Q. You're not here -- so you're not giving an

13 opinion on that?

14 A. I have not, and I intend not to, if at all

15 possible, that is correct.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you.

17 You agree with me that one relevant factor

18 in your analysis here today with respect to your opinion

19 as it relates to Exhibit 48, 48 --

20 A. The table?

21 Q. The table. Is that Exhibit 48?

22 MR. OLSEN: Seven.

23 MR. MORGAN: Forty-seven. Thank you.

24 BY MR. MORGAN:

25 Q. Exhibit 47. Okay. You'd agree with me that,

Appx0472
 36

1 with respect to your opinion as it relates to Exhibit 47,

2 one factor relevant to that is the number of employees,

3 either full time or part time, that Maricopa County had

4 engaged or hired to do the ballot signature comparison,

5 fair?

6 A. I'm not sure about one factor. I mean, the more

7 they employed, the more pieces of paper it took up, if you

8 mean that. If they had less, it would be smaller table.

9 If they had more, it would be a bigger table.

10 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

11 Do you know how many employees Maricopa

12 County hired to engage in ballot signature comparisons in

13 the 2022 election?

14 A. For ballot signature comparisons?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Based on the data and the testimony was 155.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. And I specifically mean the testimony of

19 Mr. Valenzuela -- or Ray as he asked to be referred to.

20 155 and the numbers jive.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. Or align, I should say.

23 Q. Okay. Now, I don't know if I heard this on

24 direct. Who retained you to give testimony in this

25 action?

Appx0473
 37

1 A. My retainer agreement is with Mr. Olsen.

2 Q. Kurt Olsen?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Counsel?

5 A. Yes. The person who was asking me the questions.

6 Q. Okay. And you're being paid for your testimony?

7 A. I'm being paid for my time away from my family

8 and my time away involved in the case.

9 Q. As you should be.

10 How much are you being paid?

11 A. The hourly rate my firm bills is $600 an hour for

12 my time.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. For every minute spent, whether it's in travel or

15 here. I'm not charging for the time that I'm sleeping and

16 things like that.

17 Q. And you'll agree with me that your -- your job,

18 essentially your gig, is you're a professional expert

19 witness, fair?

20 A. I would -- I wouldn't pigeonhole myself that

21 narrow that that's what my whole life is about, but that

22 is a source of where I go to work every day, and that is

23 what I do for the hours in the day when I'm not being a

24 husband, father, and that sort of thing, yes.

25 Q. Right.

Appx0474
 38

1 And you testified you're a forensic document

2 analyst.

3 Did -- am I saying that right?

4 A. Yes. I said forensic document analyst and

5 chemist.

6 Q. Okay. And chemist, your undergraduate degree,

7 now, remind me, that's a Bachelor of Arts?

8 A. Yes, from the College of Natural Science with a

9 major in chemistry.

10 Q. Not a Bachelor of Science?

11 A. Not a Bachelor of Science.

12 Q. And now, forensic document analyst, is that a

13 title you just gave yourself?

14 A. No. It's a common title that's used by people in

15 my profession with a similar background and training that

16 I have.

17 Q. And no regulatory organization gave you that

18 title, correct?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. And there's no specific licensing requirement to

21 call oneself a forensic document analyst, correct?

22 A. I agree, yes.

23 Q. And you weren't conferred a forensic document

24 analyst by any organization or school, correct?

25 A. I would say no, I was not would be fair, yes. I

Appx0475
 39

1 mean, I've been called that by organizations but not

2 conferred that. So the answer to the question is I have

3 not, that's correct.

4 Q. But you'll agree with me that, essentially, in

5 your line of work, you can call yourself whatever you

6 want, right?

7 A. Could I call myself whatever I want? Sure.

8 Q. All right.

9 A. I mean, in court, the object is you have to be

10 proven to back that up, which I have hundreds of times,

11 but yes, I could call myself what I want, I think. I

12 mean, I don't -- I wouldn't call myself a doctor or a

13 lawyer, but I mean, related, yes.

14 Q. You're related to a doctor or a lawyer? I'm

15 sorry.

16 A. No. No. Related to what I do.

17 Q. Because my condolences if you are.

18 A. I don't think I am. That's not what I meant.

19 I'm sorry.

20 Q. You don't have a formal degree in any sort of

21 document analysis, fair?

22 A. Fair and true.

23 Q. And true.

24 And you're not certified as a document

25 examiner or a signature comparison person, fair?

Appx0476
 40

1 A. Fair and true, yes.

2 Q. And you are -- have you heard of the American

3 Board of Forensic Document Examiners?

4 A. I have.

5 Q. And do they give a certification of any kind for

6 forensic document analysts?

7 A. I think they call it forensic document examiners

8 based on the name. I don't have that, but I believe

9 that's what they call it.

10 Q. And you don't have that, as well, correct?

11 A. Correct. I do not.

12 Q. Okay. Now, at one point, were you a member of

13 the American Academy of Forensic Scientists?

14 A. I was.

15 Q. An as a member, you had an ethics complaint

16 lodged against you.

17 Does that sound right?

18 A. I did.

19 Q. And shortly after that, you no longer continued

20 to be a part of that group. You didn't renew your

21 membership, correct?

22 A. That's exactly correct.

23 Q. Okay. How many -- you testified earlier that

24 you've taken some training courses.

25 Continuing education. Is that what they

Appx0477
 41

1 are?

2 A. Sorry. When you turn around, I have a hard time

3 hearing you in the middle of your sentence.

4 Q. No. That's fair. That's fair. My apologies.

5 I'm sorry.

6 A. That's all right.

7 Q. You testified earlier, I think, that you've taken

8 some training courses.

9 Did I hear that correctly?

10 A. Yes. Continuing education was the other thing.

11 Yeah, I agree with that.

12 Q. And none of those continuing education courses

13 were in connection with determining how long someone who

14 is working for an election department, state or county,

15 can or should take to review signatures in compliance with

16 the law.

17 Is that a fair statement?

18 A. That's fair.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. And true.

21 Q. How many of your training courses were

22 specifically on the speed it takes to verify signatures?

23 A. There were none of the training courses that I

24 had or have taken that that exact topic was covered.

25 Q. Okay.

Appx0478
 42

1 MR. MORGAN: May I have a moment, Your

2 Honor, to confer with counsel? I may be finished.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 BY MR. MORGAN:

6 Q. So I want to talk for a moment again about the

7 assumptions we were talking about earlier.

8 Do you remember that conversation?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. Now, you'll agree with me that a pretty critical

11 assumption, if you will, in connection with your testimony

12 related to the table exhibit.

13 Do you know what I'm talking about, the --

14 the table of the -- you call it the clip of your table?

15 A. I didn't call it that. I know what table you

16 mean because there's only been one.

17 Q. Right. Right.

18 A. But when you said "the critical assumption," I'm

19 not --

20 Q. I haven't gotten there yet.

21 A. Oh.

22 Q. I just want to make sure we're on the same page,

23 Mr. Speckin.

24 Are we on the same page so far?

25 A. Same page meaning I know the table that you're

Appx0479
 43

1 talking about, whatever title that you give it.

2 Q. Yes.

3 THE COURT: Exhibit whatever?

4 MR. MORGAN: Exhibit -- sorry, Your Honor.

5 Exhibit --

6 THE WITNESS: Forty-seven.

7 MR. MORGAN: -- 47, yes.

8 THE COURT: Thank you.

9 BY MR. MORGAN:

10 Q. You'll agree with me that a -- an important

11 assumption there, in the conclusions that you reached

12 based on that exhibit, is that, in fact, the act of a

13 signature verification, one way or the other, occurred --

14 I should say, signature comparison occurred?

15 A. Well, first, there's two -- there's one problem

16 with the question, and I'll just try to shortcut it, if

17 you'll let me.

18 Q. Of course.

19 A. And that is, you said my opinion was based on the

20 table, and that's not exactly true. As we know, it's a

21 demonstrative. So I had the opinion the table is

22 demonstrating it.

23 Q. Sure.

24 A. I'm not trying to be nitpicky. I'm just saying.

25 Q. That's fair.

Appx0480
 44

1 A. The second part is you said that it's -- I don't

2 totally understand it. That it's based on --

3 Q. Let me try again. If you don't mind.

4 A. Yes, please.

5 Q. Because it's my fault.

6 A. No. That's fine. That's fine.

7 Q. You'll agree with me that, in order to reach any

8 conclusion about the speed, one way or the other, with

9 respect to what's being shown in Exhibit 47, that assumes

10 that, in fact, the act of a signature comparison --

11 whether you agree with whether it was adequate or not, the

12 act of the signature comparison occurred?

13 A. I understand what you're saying. So yes, it does

14 assume that the key stroke that's being logged from the

15 computer and date and time-stamped is the action of some

16 sort. Whether it be a pass, a fail, a spousal exception,

17 signature curing, whatever, there's a lot of different

18 codes.

19 Q. Sure.

20 A. But it's entering a code that relates to the

21 signature verification process, and I was told in the

22 response, and that's what was asked for, but assuming

23 that's what it is. You're right.

24 MR. MORGAN: Perfect. Thank you.

25 Your Honor, for the Secretary of State,

Appx0481
 45

1 there are no further questions. I do believe Maricopa

2 County might have a couple.

3 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So,

4 Mr. LaRue, you have cross-examination, as well?

5 MR. LARUE: I do. Just very brief, Your

6 Honor.

7 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

9 CROSS-EXAMINATION

10

11 BY MR. LARUE:

12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Speckin. How are you?

13 A. I'm good.

14 Q. Good.

15 I have just a few questions for you, and I

16 just want to be sure that the record is clear is why I'm

17 asking them. You alluded to some of this earlier, but I'm

18 asking the direct questions because, as I said, I want to

19 be sure that it's in the record clearly.

20 You've never -- well, strike that.

21 Earlier, you were -- in your testimony, you

22 were talking about comparing signatures.

23 Do you remember using that terminology?

24 A. Yes. I remember the word compare many, many

25 times.

Appx0482
 46

1 Q. Okay. You've never compared signatures for

2 elections under A.R.S. 16-550, have you?

3 A. Correct. I have not.

4 Q. Okay. In fact, in general, when you're called to

5 give an expert opinion about signature comparison, it

6 generally has to do with fraud or areas such as that, not

7 elections; is that correct?

8 A. I've had plenty of election cases, but it is not

9 a large percent of my overall body of cases based on

10 handwriting. That's a true statement.

11 Q. Would you say that the majority of your cases

12 relate to fraud?

13 A. I'm not a fan of that term because it has a

14 predisposed connotation. Perhaps determining if there was

15 fraud, dishonesty, whatever. It's an inflammatory term,

16 and I try not to use that in my life, let alone when I'm

17 testifying. I get what you're saying, and I would answer

18 generally yes. I just don't like the term fraud, but I

19 know what you mean, and I do agree.

20 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

21 How would you describe it?

22 A. It's the trying to determine if forensic science

23 can assist the trier of the fact with a specific question,

24 whether somebody did or did not do something or whether

25 somebody did or did not write something as we're talking

Appx0483
 47

1 in this case.

2 In other cases, it could be when it was

3 written, altered, changed, added to, all those things that

4 I've talked about, but I don't think you want to rehash

5 them. But specific to handwriting, did they or did they

6 not. I don't use the word fraud in my opinion, like since

7 my opinion is this, it's a fraud. I would never do that.

8 Q. Okay. I understand.

9 I'm going to use the word fraud because we

10 both -- we -- I think you just testified you understand

11 what I'm meaning when I say that, even if it's not the --

12 your preferred term for -- for getting at this.

13 Is that -- is that correct?

14 A. I'm fine answering your questions as long as you

15 understand it's not a term that I would use, but I know

16 what you mean, and I'll do my best to answer it in that

17 context.

18 Q. Fair enough. Thank you.

19 Is there a set number of signature exemplars

20 that you are supposed to use when you do fraud

21 examinations?

22 A. Back to what we said about there's an argument

23 earlier about best practices or wish list or what to

24 haves.

25 Q. Uh-huh.

Appx0484
 48

1 A. There's an idea that I would like to get but not

2 a standard of must have. I mean, you must have one.

3 Q. Uh-huh.

4 A. Unless you're comparing multiple signatures at

5 issue to one another, like I talked about on a ballot or a

6 petition, which is a different scenario, but you can do it

7 with one.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. But I have a wish list personally, yes.

10 Q. Do you know if there's an industry best practices

11 standard?

12 A. Yes, there is.

13 Q. And what is that?

14 A. An amount sufficient to make a determination.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. So it's not a numerical amount just for the

17 reason that I said.

18 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that that --

19 strike that.

20 When you are doing a signature comparison

21 for purposes of a fraud determination, say for a bank or,

22 you know, on a check, or -- or whatever the case may be,

23 would you agree that the more exemplars you have, the

24 better?

25 A. Oh, absolutely. I mean, with obvious certain

Appx0485
 49

1 limitations and ridiculous exceptions, but as a general

2 term, 10 is better than five, six is better than three. I

3 agree.

4 Q. Okay. When you do that type of signature

5 comparison that you and I are talking about right now, for

6 a fraud examination, say, for a bank with -- with a check

7 that may have been fraudulently written, if you have 10

8 signature exemplars, is best practice is to look at all

9 10?

10 A. If you are satisfied that those 10 are known

11 signatures, absolutely.

12 Q. Would you agree with me that, if you're doing a

13 signature comparison and you look at 10 signatures, that

14 will take longer than if you look at two signatures?

15 A. It absolutely should.

16 Q. Okay. And you agree it would take longer than if

17 you look at one?

18 A. It absolutely should, yes.

19 Q. You may not know the answer to this, and it is

20 perfectly fine to say, I do not know. I'm not trying to

21 lead you to say something that you don't know. Okay?

22 But are you aware of whether, under Arizona

23 law, those who do signature comparison for early ballots

24 are required to look at a set number of exemplars?

25 A. Well, the only standards that I'm familiar would

Appx0486
 50

1 be the EPM and the 16-550(A), I believe.

2 You're nodding your head, so I think I got

3 that right.

4 And in those two, I'm not aware of a

5 numerical requirement, just like in the standards in my

6 field --

7 Q. Uh-huh.

8 A. -- that's set forth. You can surprise me and

9 tell me there is one that I didn't see, but I'm not aware

10 of one.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. I don't know if there's any other laws in Arizona

13 that pertain. So I have no way to answer that question

14 other than those two.

15 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Very good.

16 I want to -- I want to go back to the table

17 for just a moment, and it's the only table we've been

18 discussing. So you're aware of what table I'm -- I'm

19 speaking of, correct?

20 A. I gotcha, yes.

21 Q. Okay. As you sit here right now, can you say

22 with a hundred percent certainty that any of the workers

23 that were identified in -- in column 1 failed to conduct

24 signature verification?

25 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. The

Appx0487
 51

1 table has a number of references.

2 Are you referring to the whole table or with

3 respect to certain grades?

4 MR. LARUE: I'm referring to the table as a

5 whole.

6 Sorry. I turned around, and I realize my

7 voice may trail off.

8 BY MR. LARUE:

9 Q. I'm referring to the table as a whole. The left

10 column has workers, and there were a number of workers

11 listed, and then there were lines going across saying, you

12 know, less than so many signatures -- or less than so many

13 seconds, less than so many seconds, less than so many

14 seconds.

15 My question is, the table, as a whole, the

16 workers on that table, can you say, as you sit here, with

17 100 percent certainty that any of those workers did not

18 conduct signature verification, any of them?

19 A. I don't believe any of my opinions today are

20 expressed to a hundred percent certainty nor can I think

21 of any in the last 30 years that I've expressed to 100

22 percent certainty. Generally, I don't like the

23 inflammatory term. I like to stay away from 100 percent,

24 as well.

25 Q. Okay. And I realize, based on the -- the answer

Appx0488
 52

1 you just gave, I know what you're next answer will be, but

2 so that the record is clear --

3 MR. LARUE: And then I'm done, Your Honor.

4 BY MR. LARUE:

5 Q. -- as you sit here today, can you say with 100

6 certainty that no signature verification occurred in

7 Maricopa County for the 2022 general election?

8 A. I would say the same answer for the same reasons,

9 meaning no, I would not say that.

10 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Is there any other

12 examination by any other defendant?

13 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Very well. Okay. Redirect, Mr.

15 Olsen?

16 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

17

18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

19

20 BY MR. OLSEN:

21 Q. Mr. Speckin, you were asked a number of questions

22 where your answer was cut off regarding some cases in

23 which you had been criticized.

24 Was there anything that you wanted to say

25 that you are not able to say?

Appx0489
 53

1 A. Well, yes. Like, for instance, the letter from

2 the judge that he read from the 13th Circuit, he skipped

3 over the paragraph that says: You clearly have some

4 specialized knowledge and training with regard to ink

5 identification and document examination. Your experience

6 in grease analysis -- which I was appointed as an expert

7 in that case -- is woefully lacking.

8 I never disputed it in that trial. I don't

9 dispute it today. I'm not an expert in grease. In that

10 case, I testified to FTIR results. As a chemist, that's

11 what I look at. I was trained in that. That was part of

12 my education. I do that. It was a very simple analysis.

13 The judge didn't like the bill and wrote me

14 this letter. I wrote a letter back. That was the end of

15 the issue.

16 I've testified in this jurisdiction again.

17 I mean, and the judge even says here, I have specialized

18 knowledge -- skipping ahead -- to document examination.

19 It was unfair the way it was read, and I understand it's

20 cross-examination, but that's how it goes.

21 Q. Any of the other cases that were presented in

22 front of you that you'd like to comment on? One of the

23 opinions was quite lengthy.

24 A. Well, the Hong Kong opinion, I got thrown a court

25 of appeals opinion that's this thick, double-sided, and

Appx0490
 54

1 asked if I could point to a paragraph that said something

2 to the opposite. Obviously, I can't, as I sit here right

3 now. I read one, because I knew where it was.

4 Q. And what -- could you read that again and --

5 A. I'm not sure I can -- oh, this is the wrong one.

6 Let me correct my answer and say this is the one that was

7 handed to me from the court of final appeal, not --

8 Q. Which exhibit number is that, sir?

9 A. This is 48. And there are -- are -- I'm not an

10 expert in legal opinions, especially from Hong Kong, nor

11 am I from the United States, but definitely not Hong Kong.

12 I can tell you that it appears that different judges wrote

13 different things, like our supreme court does in some

14 occasions.

15 I don't know that for certain. That's just

16 way I take it. But the paragraph that I read just says:

17 An extraordinarily large portion consisted of pages copied

18 verbatim from its omissions.

19 Like in one of the paragraphs that he read

20 from the opinion, it had number 2, which he didn't read,

21 because it's not an audible sound because it had actually

22 copied a typo from the previous ones.

23 It talked about a testimony of a hundred

24 thousand examinations. It isn't at all what I said. It

25 was quoting a testimony from a case in Tulsa, Oklahoma,

Appx0491
 55

1 called Utica Square versus Renberg that I testified on in

2 1998 about a case that I had looked at for General Motors,

3 and there were 100,000 documents involved in the case.

4 Then they twist the words, without including

5 the transcript, and put it in their submission to the

6 judge, and the judge photocopied it. It's completely

7 unfair. It's from over 20 years. I mean, I don't know

8 what else to say. It's demeaning and upsetting, and it's

9 not at all a reflection of what happened. But that's just

10 my opinion.

11 Q. Any other opinions that were put in front of you

12 that you'd like to comment on?

13 A. The last one was the EEOC opinion, and if you

14 read the last part of the opinion, it wasn't that I'm not

15 an expert at all.

16 It says -- I'll just read it exactly so I

17 don't paraphrase it incorrectly.

18 Speckin's deposition testimony suggests

19 there may be other methods to determine age that would be

20 admissible in this case, but it -- and go on to say I'll

21 just paraphrase and say -- but I didn't have them in that

22 case. There's only one method, and the judge said that

23 method was not allowable, keeping in mind that's what

24 everybody uses today, by the way.

25 Q. You've qualified as an expert I believe -- I

Appx0492
 56

1 don't want to go through everything, but you qualified as

2 an expert in hundreds of cases, correct?

3 A. Multiple hundreds of cases, in court, yes.

4 Q. And that's with respect to forensic document

5 examination and handwriting analysis?

6 A. Yes. And ink dating, yes.

7 Q. And you've also been retained by various

8 government agencies to --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- give opinions about forensic document analysis

11 and handwriting analysis?

12 A. Yes. And continue to be.

13 Q. Counsel asked you some questions about the

14 touches with respect to the data that Maricopa provided.

15 Do you recall -- so that's what I want to

16 refer to.

17 And I believe you probably seen in some of

18 the testimony yesterday, there is the notion that the

19 signature verifier will go back and check the batch of

20 signatures that they have already compared as part of

21 the -- the crosscheck.

22 Do you recall that?

23 A. I remember that testimony, yes. That was from

24 Mr. Valenzuela.

25 Q. Yeah.

Appx0493
 57

1 And when the -- when the reviewer --

2 verifier is going back, does that result in a change

3 that's reflected in the data?

4 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. I think

5 this is beyond the scope of my cross-examination.

6 THE COURT: I don't believe it is.

7 MR. MORGAN: Fair enough.

8 THE COURT: Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: No. The request was for key

10 strokes of determinative outcomes, good signature, bad

11 signature, in simple terms, and there's others, and a date

12 and time stamp associated with those. It's not date/time

13 stamping, left and right arrows, scrolling, things like

14 that.

15 But you do see, when people are going very

16 fast, times where there's 200 seconds with nothing that

17 could very well be that time when someone might be

18 scrolling back in 150 seconds, 200 seconds, whatever the

19 case may be.

20 And it's not logging the key stroke for

21 that. It's just a long period of time where it doesn't

22 log any key strokes because there were no determinative

23 outcomes.

24 BY MR. OLSEN:

25 Q. So, if a signature verifier is going back to --

Appx0494
 58

1 to review their work and not making any changes but just

2 going back quickly without making changes, that activity

3 is not reflected in the data that Maricopa County

4 provided?

5 A. Other than the increase in time for those two

6 sequential key stroke entries of the last one before they

7 scroll back and the first one perhaps when they started a

8 new batch or changed one very far in the batch. I mean, I

9 don't know what they did. But it's only by a lag of

10 seconds. It's not date/time stamping those right/left

11 scrolling, clicks, whatever you want to call that.

12 Q. So does the act of going back without making a

13 change affect the rate of comparison as reflected in your

14 analysis and in what was reflected in Exhibit 47?

15 A. No. Forty-seven is not affected at all by

16 whether someone did or did not scroll back, how fast they

17 scrolled back, nothing like that.

18 MR. OLSEN: Okay. I'd like to pull Exhibit

19 21. And, Your Honor, if I may, can I get that exhibit and

20 give a hardcopy to the witness? It may be just easier.

21 This is the -- I believe this is a set of e-mails.

22 THE COURT: If you can -- you want to use

23 Exhibit 21 to show him?

24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. I want to make

25 sure it's the right number.

Appx0495
 59

1 THE COURT: Sure.

2 MR. OLSEN: May I approach, Your Honor?

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 BY MR. OLSEN:

5 Q. Mr. Speckin, you've just been handed Exhibit 21,

6 which the first two pages are the original of the records

7 request sent to Maricopa County on February 3rd, 2023,

8 which underpins the -- the data that was ultimately

9 received in PR 1482, which underpins the data that you

10 have drawn for your opinion, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you seen this document before?

13 A. I have.

14 Q. Is there anything in this document that assures

15 you that the data that Maricopa sent was complete for

16 purposes of your analysis and opinion?

17 A. Yes. There are multiple responses to the

18 request, saying this fulfills your request, this is what

19 it is -- to that effect, that it fulfills the request of

20 what you're requesting, and nothing to the contrary.

21 Q. And what was the data that was being requested as

22 it relates to the opinions you have offered here today and

23 the data that is reflected in Exhibit 47?

24 A. The data that's reflected in 47 is the unique

25 identifier. So that would be the worker -- the

Appx0496
 60

1 anonymized -- anonymized -- yeah, anonymized user number

2 for the worker and the calculation from the date and time

3 stamp as to how much time elapsed between successive

4 entries of data and time stamp and then what the

5 disposition is. That's where the percentage comes from.

6 What percentage --

7 Q. Are you okay?

8 A. Yeah. I have a new hip and it just popped out.

9 I think it just popped back in. So we're okay. I just

10 didn't feel good for a second. Sorry.

11 THE COURT: Okay. If it's your hip --

12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. No. I'm fine now.

13 THE COURT: You want to stand up and

14 stretch?

15 THE WITNESS: I think that's the last thing

16 I want to do, Your Honor but, thank you.

17 THE COURT: Well, hold on a second.

18 Want to take a break?

19 THE WITNESS: No. Thank you. It just got

20 me for a second there.

21 THE COURT: You got me.

22 THE WITNESS: Stabbing pain. Sorry. I

23 wasn't trying to give anyone a panic.

24 THE COURT: I just want to make sure, A,

25 number 1, you're okay --

Appx0497
 61

1 THE WITNESS: I'm okay, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: -- you're not under distress and

3 you don't need a break because I'll give you one if you

4 want one.

5 THE WITNESS: No. I'm good now. Thank you.

6 THE COURT: We'll just continue.

7 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry before that,

8 what was the question, I don't remember.

9 THE COURT: You don't need to apologize.

10 He's going to ask another question.

11 BY MR. OLSEN:

12 Q. The data that you -- that Maricopa produced in

13 connection with PR 1482, you were referring to certain

14 data. If you turn to the page identified at the bottom

15 right-hand corner Lake 21-896 and then 897, we'll move to

16 that, as well.

17 And this is a document that's in reverse

18 chron order, right, the e-mail string?

19 A. Right. It's the e-mail string with the newest at

20 the top of the front.

21 Q. Okay. And do you see at -- where it says Lake

22 21-896 at the bottom right-hand corner?

23 A. Yes, I'm there.

24 Q. Okay. And if you move to the top of the page, do

25 you see that it's cutting off, and so it's -- as you go in

Appx0498
 62

1 reverse chron order and you flip to -- forward to 895

2 where it has at the bottom of 895 a date on 5/4/23 PRNCR

3 wrote: Good afternoon, We The People?

4 A. Yes. I see that. I see that.

5 Q. So -- so flip back over. Do you see that on 896,

6 that's part of the -- Maricopa's response to We The

7 People?

8 A. Right. The May 4th 3:47 response continues onto

9 the top of 896. I follow.

10 Q. And do you see the five items of data?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. Is this the -- the data, or at least some

13 of it, the data that underpins your opinions and the data

14 reflected in Exhibit 47?

15 A. Yes. Specifically points 2, 3, and 4.

16 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the data

17 in points 2, 3, and 4, that Maricopa provided was not

18 complete and accurate?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Turning to the -- Exhibit 47, Mr. LaRue asked you

21 some questions about the overall chart that was displayed

22 here and your opinions thereon and said, can you, you

23 know, say with a hundred percent certainty that every

24 vote -- I forgot his exact words, but the -- not every

25 vote was properly counted or some such.

Appx0499
 63

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. I remember the two questions about a hundred

3 percent, yes.

4 Q. Okay. Are you offering an opinion as to whether

5 or not a signature can be compared in 6 seconds or less?

6 A. I didn't express such an opinion. I have one,

7 but I didn't express that, no.

8 Q. But you didn't offer and express an opinion on

9 that?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Are you offering an opinion as to whether or not

12 a signature can be compared in 4 seconds or less?

13 A. No. I didn't offer an opinion on that.

14 Q. The opinion that you offered was with respect to

15 comparing a signature -- I think as we used before -- in

16 simple terms, less than 3 seconds, correct?

17 A. That was the opinion that I expressed and -- and

18 furthered with less than 2 seconds you asked me, as well.

19 Q. And your opinion was that it was not possible to

20 compare signatures in less than 3 seconds in the context

21 of why we're here today, correct?

22 A. On the mass scale context, I said it cannot be

23 done. Could you pick one time out of 10,000 where someone

24 could do that? Maybe you could. But not on a mass scale

25 like in the thousands and thousands, no. It's my opinion

Appx0500
 64

1 you cannot do that. You cannot do a comparison in that

2 time.

3 Q. Mr. LaRue asked you some questions about the --

4 having more than one reference signature.

5 Do you recall that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Is your opinion predicated on the existence of

8 more than one reference signature, or that it is one -- a

9 signature from a ballot envelope compared to one reference

10 signature?

11 A. Well, my opinion is not predicated on either. If

12 you -- I gave the benefit of the doubt saying the time of

13 only comparing one. Clearly, in 2 seconds you're not

14 scrolling and finding three and comparing all three in 2

15 seconds. That's even more preposterous. But that wasn't

16 what the opinion was based on. It's that -- you can't

17 even compare one in that time.

18 Obviously, if it follows, you can't compare

19 two, three or four because, as I answered his question,

20 that obviously takes more time.

21 Q. And what do you base your opinion on the

22 inability to compare two signatures in the context of the

23 system that Maricopa County has employed for the 2022

24 general election?

25 A. My education, training, and experience. I mean,

Appx0501
 65

1 that manual or the training program does a nice job of

2 spelling out the basics of what you would look for in

3 handwriting. It's what I would look for. I know what to

4 look for. I do this every day.

5 I can't believe there could be thousands of

6 people -- and I'm not trying to be offensive when I say

7 this -- in Maricopa County that don't do this every day

8 and had a four-hour training or a 40-hour training that

9 could do it so much faster than I ever could. I don't

10 believe that, no.

11 Q. In terms of the training that you saw Maricopa

12 gives signature verification workers to compare

13 handwriting, do you recall that?

14 A. I recall the training, yes.

15 Q. Are you saying that the time to compare a

16 signature for a signature verifier would have to follow,

17 for example, all 11 steps in order to be a valid

18 comparison?

19 A. No. I'm not assuming they would have to follow

20 all 11 steps. I mean, it's a guideline. I have

21 guidelines in my industry in which case, in certain

22 instances, you might not follow all 11 or all the steps.

23 I -- I understand that.

24 Specifically, if you have an exception --

25 I'm not going to say that word. If you have a fail, if

Appx0502
 66

1 you see that two are drastically different, very quickly,

2 that can be a fail quickly. I understand that.

3 What is in this table and what we're talking

4 about are the times and the percentages where it's

5 passing, where people are saying they compared, and

6 they're consistent.

7 Q. When you say "they," you mean they compare the

8 two signatures and came to a determination that the two

9 signatures were consistent?

10 A. Right. The ballot envelope and whether it be one

11 or more, but at least one of the historical exemplars I

12 think is what people call them, reference exemplars.

13 Q. And when you use the term "compare," you're --

14 are you using that in the -- in the sense of what we see

15 or talked about the steps of signature comparison or as

16 the term "compare" is used in the normal English language

17 under the definition -- I'm saying Webster's -- of

18 compare?

19 A. So, when I say "compare," I'm not saying you have

20 to follow the 11-step procedure to make a comparison. I'm

21 using the word "compare" as you use in the English

22 language, but it's also the same that I use or in the

23 standards in my industry of comparing, to look closely to

24 determine if two things, or in this case signatures, are

25 similar or dissimilar, or in the form of 1550, consistent

Appx0503
 67

1 or inconsistent, is the way it's phrased there.

2 Q. So merely because two signatures flash up on a

3 screen, is that a comparison in your mind?

4 A. That's my point. It's not.

5 Q. And why is that?

6 A. It would be like thumbing through this opinion

7 like this and saying, I just read it. You're going to --

8 I say I read it, and you say you didn't, and we're

9 arguing. There's -- the simple fact is no one could read

10 it that fast. No one that I've ever encountered in my

11 life could read it that fast. So the answer is you did

12 not read it.

13 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I must hesitate to

14 this say, but I just say thank you. We have no further

15 questions at this time.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Can we excuse the

17 witness?

18 MR. MORGAN: I have nothing further for the

19 witness, Your Honor. Thank you.

20 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Speckin.

21 Are you okay to stand up?

22 THE WITNESS: We're going to know in just a

23 second.

24 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. We're not doing it

25 that way. Let's not just see and find out. Let's -- if

Appx0504
 68

1 you need --

2 THE WITNESS: I'm okay. I'm good. I had a

3 good doctor. That's fine. Thank you for the concern, but

4 I'm surprisingly okay.

5 THE COURT: Watch your step.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, would the Court

8 like me to retrieve the exhibits and put them back?

9 THE COURT: Yes, please.

10 MR. MORGAN: May I approach?

11 THE COURT: Yes, you can do that.

12 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: You can do that.

14 Do you have any other witnesses?

15 MR. OLSEN: We do not, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. So plaintiffs rest.

17 MR. OLSEN: We do, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Coincidently, this is the time

19 we'll take the afternoon recess, okay, for 15 minutes.

20 And then we'll come back, and I'll address defendants.

21

22 (Recess taken.)

23

24 THE COURT: Okay. This is CV2022-095403.

25 This is Kari Lake versus Katie Hobbs, et al, the

Appx0505
 69

1 continuation of trial in this matter.

2 Present for the record are either parties,

3 their designated representatives, or their presence having

4 been waived, and we have counsel for each of the

5 respective parties.

6 So for defendants -- plaintiffs have rested.

7 Defendants?

8 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Your Honor, Elena

9 Rodriguez Armenta for Governor Hobbs.

10 We would now move the Court for a judgment

11 of directed verdict characterized by the Arizona Rules of

12 Civil Procedure under 52(c) as a motion for a judgment on

13 partial findings.

14 THE COURT: Go ahead.

15 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, we would oppose, of

16 course. And -- I couldn't -- my hearing --

17 THE COURT: Is that your motion?

18 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No, Your Honor.

19 MR. OLSEN: I'm sorry.

20 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No worries.

21 Your Honor, may I ask, would you prefer I

22 address you from the lectern or?

23 THE COURT: It doesn't matter to me as long

24 as you're in front of a microphone.

25 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Great.

Appx0506
 70

1 Ms. Lake has rested her case in chief and

2 for the second time before this Court has failed to meet

3 her burden. Based on this Court's two orders and the

4 Arizona Supreme Court's order granting remand as to this

5 one issue, in order to succeed, Ms. Lake was required to

6 prove this week by clear and convincing evidence her

7 allegations that no signature verification was conducted

8 as to level I, in addition to allegations at level II and

9 3 verifications did not occur and establish that votes

10 were affected in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome

11 of the election based on a competent and mathematical

12 basis.

13 Because Ms. Lake has been fully heard on an

14 issue during a nonjury trial, Governor Hobbs, Secretary of

15 State Fontes, and Maricopa County jointly move this Court

16 to enter judgement on partial findings against Ms. Lake on

17 her signature verification claim pursuant to Arizona Rule

18 of Civil Procedure 52(c) as Ms. Lake has failed to meet

19 her burden regardless --

20 THE COURT: Slow down.

21 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Sure. Certainly.

22 THE COURT: I follow you but the court

23 reporter --

24 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Thank you.

25 -- as Ms. Lake has failed to meet her

Appx0507
 71

1 burden. Regardless of what defendants may offer in their

2 own case in chief, this Court should deny Ms. Lake's count

3 3 and dismiss this case.

4 Simply put, the testimony of Lake's

5 witnesses cannot support a finding that no signature

6 verification was conducted at levels I, II, and III.

7 Ms. Lake called six witnesses total,

8 including co-director of elections for Maricopa County,

9 Mr. Ray Valenzuela. Neither the testimony of Lake's

10 witnesses nor any admitted exhibits can support a fining

11 that Maricopa County did not conduct any signature

12 verification and any curing at levels I, II, and III.

13 Indeed, the testimony at trial thus far supports a finding

14 of just the opposite.

15 Beginning with Ms. Jacqueline Onigkeit and

16 Mr. Andrew Myers. Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers both worked

17 as level I signature verification workers during the 2022

18 general election.

19 Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers testified that

20 they did conduct signature verification and curing as

21 level I workers. Ms. Onigkeit, in fact, testified that

22 she performed her job well, and that she was focused on

23 quality over quantity.

24 Both Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers also

25 provided testimony as to the signature verification and

Appx0508
 72

1 curing conducted at higher levels of review. Both

2 individuals described a process consistent with Arizona

3 signature verification law and offered no testimony

4 supporting a finding that Maricopa County failed to

5 conduct any signature verification at levels I, II, and

6 III.

7 Mr. Handsel, the data technology director

8 for We The People Arizona Alliance was called to

9 authenticate public records requests made to Maricopa

10 County, which shows the time spent by nonsignature

11 verification workers on signature verification.

12 Mr. Handsel offered no testimony supporting

13 a finding that Maricopa County did not conduct any

14 signature verification and curing at levels I, II, and

15 III.

16 Ms. Busch, the chairman of the We The People

17 Arizona Alliance, was called primarily authenticate a

18 video purporting to show a signature verification worker

19 working too quickly to actually be verifying signatures.

20 Ms. Busch had no personal knowledge of the

21 event taking place in the video. Ms. Busch ultimately

22 offered no testimony supporting a finding that Maricopa

23 County failed to conduct any signature verification at

24 levels I, II, and III.

25 Mr. Ray Valenzuela testified in detail as to

Appx0509
 73

1 the multi-level signature verification and curing process

2 in Maricopa County, including the signature verification

3 and curing at levels I, II, and III conducted during the

4 2022 general election.

5 Mr. Valenzuela testified as to the possible

6 contents in the video shown at Exhibit 19, including, one,

7 testifying that every single person is required, upon

8 finishing their signature verification batch of 250, to

9 click back through their batch as part of finishing their

10 work at level I and including, two, that a signature

11 verification worker, who was found to be performing his

12 duties incorrectly by Maricopa County, was reassigned to a

13 different post for the 2022 general election.

14 Mr. Valenzuela testified as to the movement

15 of signatures from levels I to II and further testified as

16 to level III, which is a randomized audit designed to

17 serve as a check against other levels of review and ensure

18 accuracy.

19 Mr. Valenzuela also testified that it was

20 possible for a signature verification to be performed at

21 an average rate of a couple of seconds.

22 And finally, Mr. Valenzuela also testified

23 that he himself performed signature verification of

24 approximately 16 hundred affidavit signatures during the

25 2022 -- 2022 general election, excuse me, Your Honor.

Appx0510
 74

1 Finally, Mr. Erich Speckin. Mr. Speckin

2 offered no testimony supporting a finding that Maricopa

3 County did not conduct any signature verification or

4 curing at levels I, II, and III.

5 For those reasons, Your Honor, Governor

6 Hobbs, Secretary of State Fontes, and Maricopa County

7 jointly move this Court to enter judgment on partial

8 findings against Ms. Lake on her signature verification

9 claim pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure

10 52(c).

11 Thank you, Your Honor.

12 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 May I approach the podium?

14 THE COURT: You may.

15 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, the supreme court

16 mandate was that Plaintiff Lake was required to establish

17 that vote -- quote, votes were affected in a sufficient

18 number -- sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the

19 election based on a competent mathematical analysis to

20 conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been

21 different, not simply an untethered assertion of

22 uncertainty.

23 The issue in this case has been A.R.S.

24 16-550 about signature verification and the associated

25 EPM. Counsel for the defendants just say, signature

Appx0511
 75

1 verification occurred.

2 Well, what exactly is signature verification

3 as required by that statute?

4 And signature verification is not just

5 simply whatever we think it is. It's not simply sitting

6 in front of a desk and tapping on a keyboard and scrolling

7 through signatures.

8 The statute is very specific. 550 uses the

9 word "shall compare," and that's further -- the two

10 signatures, and that's further modified by the finding of

11 the verifier that the signature -- whether or not it is

12 consistent.

13 Supreme court case law in Arizona states

14 that the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary

15 meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise

16 that a different meaning is intended.

17 Shall compare. Webster's dictionary defines

18 compare as, quote, to examine the character or qualities

19 of especially in order to discover resemblances or

20 differences.

21 Webster's dictionary defines consistency as

22 marked -- quote, marked by harmony, regularity, or steady

23 continuity free from variation or contradiction.

24 Even Mr. Valenzuela said yesterday that you

25 could not compare a signature in a half a second. He

Appx0512
 76

1 thought it could be in 2.54 seconds.

2 So defendants -- and Mr. Valenzuela is not a

3 handwriting expert. He's not an expert in signature

4 comparison. He was simply recognizing the obvious, that

5 you cannot just throw two signatures up on a screen and do

6 a comparison.

7 What is the purpose of the Arizona

8 legislature in mandating signature verification in the

9 first place? It's the first level of security to ensure

10 that illegal or fraudulent ballots aren't being injected

11 into the system.

12 As I mentioned at the opening, the

13 Carter/Baker Commission found that mail-in fraud is the --

14 excuse me, mail-in ballots are the single greatest --

15 greatest risk of fraud.

16 And it's that check of the signature,

17 through which Maricopa County puts its employees through

18 some fairly significant training in order to recognize the

19 differences in handwriting and to be able to assess

20 whether or not a signature is consistent and in order to

21 compare them.

22 Defendants would have this Court believe

23 that the word compare has no meaning. That is not in the

24 context of the statute and the intended purpose. That's a

25 critical distinction, Your Honor.

Appx0513
 77

1 The issue here is not whether two signatures

2 flashed up on a screen or that there was somebody seated

3 at a desk and just tapping on a keyboard like we saw in

4 the video.

5 We have offered concrete evidence, which

6 defendants don't dispute, and that's key, Your Honor.

7 This was their own data. They had it. They've known

8 about it for -- at least since Friday when we disclosed,

9 in our expert disclosure, that 1482 would be one of the

10 bases of his opinion.

11 If there was something wrong with that data,

12 don't you think they would've come and said, hey,

13 plaintiffs are wrong, the data doesn't show that 70,000 --

14 more than 70,000 signatures were approved in less than two

15 seconds. That's a range, Your Honor. That's less than 2

16 seconds from 1 second to a half a second, that over -- as

17 plaintiffs' expert testified, that over 274,000 ballots

18 were verified -- I want to say approved, but verified,

19 compared, in less -- less than 3 seconds.

20 And, Your Honor, as noted in that table and

21 as testified to by Mr. Speckin, this isn't simply a

22 comparison where you had a very obvious rejection. These

23 were at a rate of 99 to a hundred percent -- a hundred

24 percent approval. And so it takes longer to approve, to

25 find that they're consistent, that it does to reject a

Appx0514
 78

1 signature.

2 We had -- as Mr. Speckin testified, at 2

3 seconds -- less than 2 seconds, 70,000 ballots were

4 approved. The rates of the top seven were a hundred

5 percent. That's not signature verification, Your Honor.

6 This is the first line of defense that gives people

7 confidence in the system. That's what this is about, and

8 that's what's been lost.

9 Mrs. Onigkeit, when she teared up on the

10 stand -- she came here from Colorado to give her testimony

11 and to testify what she saw. The confidence, the laws --

12 16-550 is designed to give people confidence in the

13 system. It isn't simply anything goes with respect to

14 signature verification.

15 The issue, Your Honor, was not disputed by

16 defendants. They didn't put up an expert to say, well,

17 you can compare a signature, as that term is commonly

18 defined by Webster's, to determine whether it's -- the

19 signature is consistent or not. They had their

20 opportunity. They knew it was coming. They didn't

21 dispute it. That is fatal, Your Honor.

22 If anybody were to take, as Mr. Speckin

23 demonstrated on the stand, and flip through pages and say,

24 I read it, that's not reading.

25 For the same reasons, to say that a

Appx0515
 79

1 comparison is being conducted, there is a standard. And

2 in fact, Maricopa recognizes this standard. That's why

3 they put their employees through this training, to

4 determine whether the signature is consistent or not.

5 The issue under Reyes is whether or not

6 the -- the law is being followed. Statutes are

7 interpreted or read by their plain meaning.

8 Here, the undisputed evidence shows that you

9 cannot compare a signature to determine consistency in

10 less than 3 seconds, and we can even take it in less than

11 2 seconds, and Mr. Valenzuela would agree that you can't

12 do it, in his words, half a second. He kind of just

13 pulled that out.

14 The other issue with respect to the evidence

15 that plaintiffs presented from the whistleblowers that

16 counsel didn't mention is we talked about the flood of

17 ballots that were coming in.

18 Undisputed testimony that the level II

19 reviewers were so overwhelmed, that rather than conduct

20 any signature verification, they would kick the ballots

21 back to -- or the signatures back to level I to be

22 re-reviewed when they'd already been rejected. That's not

23 signature comparison, Your Honor.

24 I would also note that getting back to the

25 statutory requirement to compare -- and the case, Your

Appx0516
 80

1 Honor, that -- that I'd like to cite for terms being given

2 their ordinary meaning is State V Miller, 100 Arizona 288,

3 1966. Long-held precedent.

4 Maricopa County hired a signature expert to

5 train its worker, Kathleen Nicolaides. Why didn't they,

6 as they could've put an expert up to say, well, yeah, I

7 believe you can compare a signature. None could. That's

8 just a fact, Your Honor. It's an undisputed fact at the

9 moment because they didn't put anybody up.

10 It was their -- Maricopa County is required

11 to show that they complied with the statute. The

12 undisputed evidence shows they did not.

13 The numbers are outcome determinant.

14 Whether it's 274,000 or 70,000 -- if you could pull up a 2

15 second -- Your Honor, may I just show a quick

16 demonstration to show what 2 seconds looks like to flash

17 on the screen?

18 (Whereupon a recording is played after which

19 the following proceedings are had in open court:)

20 MR. OLSEN: That's 2 seconds, Your Honor.

21 70,000 ballots approved at nearly a hundred percent

22 acceptance rate.

23 That doesn't work. That's not signatures

24 verification. I don't care what they -- they can't just

25 call it that. We have proven our case because, A, it fits

Appx0517
 81

1 with common sense, just as you just saw, but B, the

2 defendants have not offered any rebuttal to it, and the

3 fact that they didn't rebut the evidence from their own

4 log files, which underpins our expert's testimony, says

5 everything, Your Honor.

6 This is a data-backed case. It goes to one

7 of the most critical issues concerning the integrity of

8 elections. There has been a massive push -- even

9 Mr. Liddy back in December, if you recall, blamed

10 Republicans -- primarily Republicans that came out on

11 election day for having the vulgarity to want to cast

12 their vote on election day. His statement was, you reap

13 what you sew.

14 That's the attitude here. The idea with the

15 increased usage of mail-in ballot makes the -- the

16 importance and the significance of having security

17 measures as outlined and stated clearly by the Arizona

18 legislature to give the public confidence that their votes

19 are being cast, and that the elected officials have been

20 rightfully elected is paramount.

21 And, Your Honor, with that, I submit we have

22 met our burden. The directed verdict should be denied.

23 Judgment should be granted in plaintiffs' favor, and this

24 election should be set aside.

25 Thank you, Your Honor.

Appx0518
 82

1 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Your Honor, may I

2 briefly?

3 First, as a point of procedure and --

4 actually, a couple of points of procedure and also some

5 references to the basic rules of evidence. I note that

6 the chart Mr. Olsen repeatedly referred to is not in

7 evidence.

8 Second, I note that no, we have not

9 technically disputed anything. We have not yet put our

10 case in chief on because we are presently before the Court

11 on our joint 52(c) motion which rests on partial findings.

12 And now, Your Honor, briefly again, before I

13 offer other defendants' counsel an opportunity to speak on

14 our joint motion, we are not here before the Court to

15 argue statutory construction. If we were, just like we

16 need to read the statute, Arizona case law has also said

17 that we cannot read into a statute that which is not

18 there.

19 The statute does not call for specific set

20 of seconds to review, it does not call for a specific set

21 of levels beyond that first to review. And beyond that,

22 we are not here on a process challenge as we and the Court

23 have repeatedly reminded plaintiff.

24 And respectfully, nothing Mr. Olsen has just

25 said changes the evidence presently before the Court and

Appx0519
 83

1 that which is actually in the record, which is not nearly

2 sufficient to show that the outcome in the selection would

3 have been different based on a competent mathematical

4 basis.

5 Respectfully, again, I refer the Court back

6 to the testimony and the record which I have just briefly

7 reviewed, showing that Ms. Lake did not meet her burden as

8 articulated by this Court and by the Arizona Supreme

9 Court.

10 I renew my motion for motion on partial

11 findings, and I would like to provide other defendants'

12 counsel the opportunity to speak.

13 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, Maricopa County

14 joins the Rule 52 motion. Supreme court said that

15 plaintiffs and -- rather, this Court, rather, said that

16 Lake must prove by competent mathematical basis to win at

17 trial, but she need not plead specific numbers in order to

18 meet the 12(b)(6), but she did need a competent

19 mathematical basis with specificity to prevail in this

20 hearing.

21 Not a single witness put forth by Challenger

22 Lake put forth any mathematical basis at all, competent or

23 otherwise, that the signature verification process did not

24 occur.

25 Many of the witnesses gave specific

Appx0520
 84

1 information that it did occur. And his -- and her opinion

2 witness testified as to a table, if you will, for lack of

3 other terminology, that he testified he created from data

4 received from Maricopa County that was built within their

5 computers during this signature verification process.

6 But for an acknowledgment that the signature

7 verification process occurred, there would be no data upon

8 which he could put this piece of paper together.

9 And I would say, Your Honor, that Reyes is a

10 case in which both parties stipulated that there was no

11 signature verification. And many months ago, just to

12 correct the record and preserve my own integrity, if you

13 will, I never blamed any voters for voting on election

14 day. I blamed Kari Lake's Get Out The Vote coordinator

15 and her campaign manager for malpractice, and they did

16 reap what they sewed.

17 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: That's all we have,

18 Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Very well. Rule 50 -- 52(c)

20 contemplates judgment on partial findings, and in the

21 middle of the language in the -- clearly, in the rule, it

22 says: The Court may decline to render any judgment until

23 the close of the evidence.

24 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Otherwise known as directed

Appx0521
 85

1 verdict in a trial.

2 At this particular time, I'm going to

3 exercise the discretion to decline rendering a judgment

4 until the close of everything, because, otherwise, I'm

5 ruling from the bench, as well, and as much as you might

6 want me to do that, I'm not going to do that.

7 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Your Honor.

8 Thank you for your consideration.

9 THE COURT: So do defendants wish to present

10 any case?

11 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, we will, Your

12 Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay. And I didn't mean this to

14 be a comment either way on anything. Okay? I'm reserving

15 until I hear everything where this comes out.

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Understood, Your

17 Honor. I think we all understand.

18 THE COURT: Very well. Defendants, who

19 would you like to call as a witness?

20 I think you got Mr. Valenzuela is the only

21 one you've got listed.

22 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Mr. Valenzuela.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I don't see -- there he

24 is.

25 Okay. All right. Mr. Valenzuela, you

Appx0522
 86

1 remain under oath. I'm not going to have you sworn in

2 again, sir. If you'll come up to the podium.

3 I will ask you, you do understand that you

4 remain under oath, correct, sir?

5 THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Thank you.

7 Very well. Who will be conducting the

8 direct examination of Mr. Valenzuela?

9 MR. LIDDY: It will be Mr. Liddy, Your

10 Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

12 Okay. Please proceed when you're ready,

13 Mr. Liddy.

14 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor.

15

16 RAY VALENZUELA,

17 having been previously duly sworn,

18 is examined and testifies as follows:

19

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION

21

22 BY MR. LIDDY:

23 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, we have met before?

24 A. We have.

25 Q. In fact, I represent your -- you and your

Appx0523
 87

1 colleagues on a variety of matters and have for many

2 years?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. And I'm not going to go through the normal early

5 litany of direct examination because you've already

6 testified, and you've given your name and your employer

7 and your background. We're just going to go through a

8 couple of things, see if we can't get this thing wrapped

9 up.

10 You mentioned earlier that you were CERA

11 certified; is that correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. And how long did it take to get CERA

14 certification?

15 A. The average is between four to six years.

16 Q. Okay. And is that something that requires

17 renewal?

18 A. It requires every three years renewal and --

19 through CLE and other classing.

20 Q. And would you remind me what CERA stands for and

21 what CERA certification is?

22 A. CERA stands for Certified Election Registration

23 Administrator.

24 Q. During the 2022 general election, were you

25 involved in verifying signatures on early ballot

Appx0524
 88

1 envelopes?

2 A. I was.

3 Q. Let's cut to the chase, Ray. Did you conduct

4 level I signature verification during the general election

5 in 2022?

6 And would you please look at the judge when

7 you answer, not me.

8 A. I did.

9 Q. And did you conduct level II signature

10 verification during the general election in 2022?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. And did you, in fact, in addition, conduct level

13 III signature verification in accordance with the law and

14 the requirements of the Recorder's Office during the

15 general election in 2022?

16 A. I did.

17 Q. And to your knowledge, was there anybody else on

18 the Maricopa County Recorder's team that also participated

19 in signature verification during the general election of

20 2022?

21 A. Yes. As identified even in the plaintiffs, there

22 are a total of 155 users, if you will, that participated

23 in signature verification.

24 Q. And those 155 were all trained and qualified to

25 do level I certification at least, correct?

Appx0525
 89

1 A. At the very least, yes.

2 Q. And among those 155, there were other

3 participants in the general election 2022 signature

4 verification process of Maricopa County that were also

5 trained and participated in signature verification level

6 II; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct. There were 43 total.

8 Q. Forty-three total.

9 So, if somebody attempted to put forth with

10 competent -- in competent mathematical basis, some sort of

11 calculation that would stand for the proposition that

12 Maricopa County could not do the signature verification in

13 the amount of time allotted, 1.3 million early voters, and

14 they use the variable of 25 level I reviewers and only

15 three level II, that would yield the result that would be

16 inaccurate based on your personal knowledge of how many

17 people participated in the 2022 general election signature

18 verification in Maricopa County?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Because you don't have to be a mathematical

21 genius to know when you switch the variables from 25 to

22 155 and from 3 to 43, you're going to get a bigger number,

23 right, Ray?

24 A. As far as an ability to review those, yes.

25 Q. Okay. Briefly, what does -- what does a level I

Appx0526
 90

1 signature review employee do?

2 A. They are tasked with exactly that, user level,

3 entry level, and I'll use the term, do no harm, ability to

4 basically filter to pass/fail, good, exception, whatever

5 term pleases the Court, but in ours, it's good and

6 exception. They can do no harm, they can not reject.

7 So the term -- using the term "reject" is

8 not proper and they -- not a single level I user could

9 reject. They can only exception, and move that to a level

10 II. They could make good and move that into the potential

11 audit, 2 percent random audit, of that queue.

12 Q. Ray, you're getting kind of inside baseball on

13 me, right?

14 A. I apologize.

15 Q. So they get a computer screen in front of them,

16 right, provided by Maricopa County?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. And they have the ability to pull up digitalized

19 images of the green affidavit envelope that's used in

20 Maricopa County for a mail-in voter?

21 A. So add a little clarity, that is pulled up for

22 them. They log in. A batch of 250 is provided to them

23 with the three exemplars and the clipped image of the

24 voter's signature.

25 Q. So on the screen it comes up. There's the

Appx0527
 91

1 signature that they used in 2022 to verify their ballot

2 packet or affidavit envelope, and there are the last three

3 signatures in the Recorder's computer for their record; is

4 that correct?

5 A. That is correct. And just as a point of

6 reference, they are ranged by lateral. So the latest

7 signature on file for the voter is the first signature

8 that appears, and just for another point of clarification,

9 it was never trained to that you must look at all three

10 exemplars and scroll. I just wanted to make sure that the

11 idea that that is the most recent signature appearing

12 first in front of that level I user.

13 Q. Thank you, Ray. Don't get ahead of me.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Thank you, though.

16 So you've done level I review yourself?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you have also produced training, materials,

19 that have been used for people that have been hired,

20 trained, and have actually done level I ballot review?

21 A. I've been participatory in crafting training,

22 yes.

23 Q. Okay. Now, let's say there was a -- a live

24 signature right here from 2022, and over here I have the

25 last three.

Appx0528
 92

1 The law says you have to look to see if

2 they're -- if they're not similar, right? You have to

3 compare them to see if they're not similar?

4 A. You -- actually, if we continue to read as

5 16-550(A) is being referenced, it's compared for -- for

6 consistency.

7 Q. It's -- it's compared to see if the signature is

8 inconsistent?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. So you have to compare to see if they're in- --

11 what was it, in?

12 A. Inconsistency.

13 Q. Right.

14 A. Not stop and compare and see if it is

15 inconsistent.

16 Q. So not dissimilar and not match and not

17 identical, but you look at the one from 2022, you look at

18 the other three, they're right there in front of you, and

19 you're looking to see if they're dissimilar?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. What do you do if they all look the same?

22 A. They are consistent. Then they match -- meet

23 that criteria for then to be dispositioned as a good

24 signature.

25 Q. And how long does that take for someone who's

Appx0529
 93

1 done this for a while that's experienced?

2 There's the one from 2022 for green

3 envelope, a digitalized image, and there's the last three?

4 Are they dissimilar? How long does that

5 take?

6 A. Again, as mentioned, you're not required to

7 scroll through three. If the first lateral signature on

8 file, vetted, verified signature, is an exact match --

9 we'll use that -- then that can take 1 to 2 seconds.

10 Q. Because if it's an exact match, it's pretty clear

11 that it's not inconsistent to sue the language of the

12 statute?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. So, in fact, you don't even have to read the 2022

15 signature and then read the signature from 2020, 2018,

16 2016.

17 If they match, you know that they're not

18 dissimilar as the statute requires, right?

19 A. That is part of the training. That is correct.

20 Only one exemplar is required to be referenced if -- but

21 the others are provided for those that may be subjective.

22 Q. Okay. If a level I signature reviewer in

23 Maricopa County in 2022 looks at those exemplars and says,

24 well, I think they might be dissimilar because

25 instantaneously, it doesn't look like a match to me, I'm

Appx0530
 94

1 going to look a little bit closer, and then that

2 individual does look a little bit closer and just says,

3 you know, I can't determine that it's -- that it's not

4 inconsistent, I actually see some inconsistencies there,

5 what does that level I signature reviewer do?

6 A. Again, with the inability to reject, they would

7 exception, and that -- using that case in point as an

8 example, the -- Reynaldo Valenzuela's packet signed by

9 Frank Johnson. That's very dissimilar, not consistent,

10 there is no need to go through broad characteristics,

11 local characteristics, or to even go past the first

12 exemplar. So that would be a 1- to 2-second exception.

13 Q. And where would that signature then go, or where

14 would that comparison go?

15 A. That would then go to the manager's level, the 43

16 managers that were available to task to review that

17 second, to concur that that is, indeed, not a consistent

18 signature.

19 Q. Is that level II, Ray?

20 A. That is level II, manager's queue, I apologize,

21 but level II.

22 Q. No. That's okay. Level II.

23 So it goes to level II?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So that could be pretty quick, too?

Appx0531
 95

1 A. As far as reaching the review in level II?

2 Q. Identifying -- no.

3 Identifying that they're inconsistent, move

4 it to level II?

5 A. Yes. That could be one of the ones that is,

6 indeed, to also include -- I may be overstepping -- also a

7 no signature. There is no 11 broad characteristics to

8 look at for a no signature. That could be 1 second, as

9 well.

10 Q. Okay. But let's go back to just two that, at

11 first look, might be the same name, probably are the same

12 name, the first name is about the same distance. They

13 both have a middle initial, they both have a period, they

14 both have a last name with a big fancy letter in the

15 front, but something is just not right. It's not a match.

16 You could figure it out pretty quickly,

17 couldn't you?

18 A. And we're actually trained to. Our -- our level

19 I users actually have emphasized there's quality, and if

20 they don't feel that indeed, we ask them to exception so

21 it can go through that higher level review.

22 Q. Now, in your experience, Ray, doctors aren't the

23 only Americans who got bad handwriting; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Some voters do, too?

Appx0532
 96

1 A. Including myself.

2 Q. And then there's people that are maybe in a hurry

3 in life, and they don't use perfect penmanship when they

4 sign their name, they just kind of do a little scribble

5 that they think is kind of cool, right?

6 A. That is correct. And it is those that you are

7 exactly are mentioning are the ones that have some

8 similarities that go beyond the 3 seconds, 5 seconds, 6

9 seconds, even 20 seconds at that level I to look at all

10 three exemplars because they have similarities, but

11 they're not exactly consistent. Then those are the ones

12 that would take longer than 2, 3, 4 seconds to review.

13 Q. Well, what if that little scribble was an exact

14 match? How long would that take?

15 A. As mentioned already, that if it was an exact

16 same flourishes, hand strokes that would take between 2

17 seconds to 4 seconds to infer and look at that to say

18 those are similar and consistent.

19 Q. So in fact -- so if there was a voter who was an

20 anesthesiologist and wrote all kinds of weird stuff in his

21 name, you may never be able to decipher the name of that

22 doctor. You might still have exemplars that match, and

23 you'd never actually read the name, but you would match

24 the signatures, correct?

25 A. Under the --

Appx0533
 97

1 MR. BLEHM: Object, Your Honor. He's

2 leading the witness.

3 THE COURT: Sustained. It's leading.

4 BY MR. LIDDY:

5 Q. I think you previously testified that you have

6 seen signatures that you were unable to read; is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Were you able to determine whether they were

10 similar or dissimilar from the exemplars provided in the

11 Registrar's record?

12 A. In the managers, level II, where we have a

13 repository of every official registration record to

14 include registration form, past affidavits -- and a lot of

15 folks may not be aware, but when you check into the

16 polling place, you sign a roster, show ID that has a

17 vetted signature. That, too, is available to that manager

18 level II reviewer.

19 Q. In your experience, does level II review take

20 longer than level I?

21 A. Absolutely. It's intended to, other than --

22 again, another folklore -- demonizing the 1 second, 2

23 second, is that if I am a level I and I send up a no

24 signature and it took me 2 seconds, one it should be to

25 establish that's no signature. A manager should be able

Appx0534
 98

1 to look at that and concur in 1 second that that is a no

2 signature. There's nothing there to -- local or broad

3 characteristics to review.

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I?

5 THE COURT: You may.

6 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

7 THE COURT: You may.

8 What exhibit is it?

9 MR. LIDDY: Exhibit 23, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Thanks.

11 BY MR. LIDDY:

12 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you do you recognize the document

13 you have in front of you?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. And do you see a green tag on that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you confirm for me the exhibit number of

18 that?

19 A. Exhibit Number 23.

20 Q. Would you take a moment and just peruse that

21 document, not to read it but just to see if you recognize

22 what it is?

23 A. I do recognize it, yes.

24 Q. And what is that document, Mr. Valenzuela?

25 A. It is a -- a printout of our Power Point training

Appx0535
 99

1 that's provided to all of our signature verification

2 staff.

3 Q. And was this document used for the classroom

4 training which you previously testified before while you

5 were under examination from the contestor that was

6 provided to the level I signature reviewers in 2022?

7 A. This is our level I user training material, or a

8 portion thereof. There are also guides that are provided

9 for reference.

10 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move this exhibit

11 into evidence.

12 THE COURT: Any objection to 23?

13 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: We'll -- who's doing the

15 examination for this witness?

16 MR. BLEHM: I am, Your Honor. No objection.

17 THE COURT: Thank you. Twenty-three is

18 admitted.

19 MR. LIDDY: May I approach again, Your

20 Honor?

21 THE COURT: You may.

22 MR. LIDDY: Actually, Your Honor, should I

23 leave it up here in case I need to refer to it.

24 THE COURT: I don't mind as long as, at the

25 end of the day, it makes its way back to the clerk.

Appx0536
 100

1 Which number is it, Mr. Liddy?

2 MR. LIDDY: It's 24. It's identical to 1.

3 It's already been admitted.

4 THE COURT: One's been admitted. I'm told

5 24 is a duplicate of 1. One's been admitted.

6 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 BY MR. LIDDY:

8 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you've answered several questions

9 about level II, which you said officially is called

10 manager level; is that correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Can we talk about dispositioned ballots? What is

13 a dispositioned ballot?

14 A. A disposition is a particular status code that we

15 set to a given record to identify which -- which way we

16 want to sort that physical packet to to direct it down its

17 proper path.

18 Q. Okay. So, by "physical packet," you don't mean a

19 ballot, and you don't mean a mirror affidavit envelope,

20 the green -- the ubiquitous green envelope that we've

21 discussed a lot over the last couple of days, but you mean

22 a combination of the two; is that correct?

23 A. The ballot sealed.

24 Q. Sealed?

25 A. Is to be and remains until it reaches our citizen

Appx0537
 101

1 board for processing, but yes, the packet is how we refer

2 to in early ballot so as to not confuse that we're sorting

3 ballots. We're actually dispositioning packets and that

4 affidavit.

5 Q. So that's why the professionals use the term

6 packet rather than ballot?

7 A. Correct. So that somebody says, oh, I was

8 sorting ballot, that sounds a little bit nefarious or

9 injecting ballots where you could be injecting a packet

10 into the stream for signature verification is what is

11 happening.

12 Q. So, just for clarification, a packet has the

13 affidavit envelope, which you could see the affidavit on

14 it, and the signature, if there is one, because sometimes

15 you forget, and a date; is that correct?

16 A. That is correct, plus an option for the voter to

17 list their phone number.

18 Q. Phone number.

19 And that is all visible on the outside of

20 the packet?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. You can kind of hold it and see if there's

23 something inside, right, but you don't really know what's

24 inside?

25 A. Actually, part of our process is that, but I

Appx0538
 102

1 won't get into the weeds, but yes, we can -- we can tell

2 if there's something within it.

3 Q. And we're all hopeful that that thing that's

4 within it is a ballot?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Your experience, is it always a ballot?

7 A. Not always.

8 Q. Just saying.

9 So all of this review is done without the

10 reviewer actually seeing the ballot?

11 A. Not only do they not see the ballot, they only

12 see that -- it's a clipped image that the user 1 -- level

13 I is looking at, and it contains the voter signature and

14 the voter's information, if you will, their name and

15 address.

16 Q. So these reviewers don't even get their hands on

17 the packet?

18 A. Not until they reach the curing post

19 dispositioning as good, bad, or otherwise.

20 Q. So where are the ballots at this level I and

21 level II time?

22 A. So.

23 Q. Where are the packets? Sorry.

24 A. So the process, at sort of high level, was that

25 we picked those up, our couriers, our staff picked those

Appx0539
 103

1 up from the U.S. post office. Two members of different

2 parties take it to Runbeck where they inbound scan to

3 capture that image and also account by that unique piece

4 ID. Every packet that is sent to a voter, registered

5 voter, you have to be -- unlike election day where you

6 don't have. But I digressed.

7 A packet goes to the voter. It comes back.

8 We inbound scan those, capture that image, and those are

9 placed in a vault never to be seen or touched again until

10 we turn that file with a disposition codes set.

11 Q. That's where I was going. So I want to get back

12 to that. They're actually in a vault locked up at the

13 time of the level I, level II review; is that correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Nobody gets to touch them?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. So if there's an evil doer somewhere in Maricopa

18 County, at MCTEC that wants to play games, they can't go

19 and figure out what's inside the -- the envelope and make

20 a disposition decision that way, correct?

21 A. It would not be the normal path either way for

22 that packet to get to the citizen board processing. It

23 has to be through that stream of disposition audit sheet

24 and audit report.

25 Q. My question is, they wouldn't even have their

Appx0540
 104

1 hands on it, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. There's no way they can tell if there's a ballot

4 in there or what that ballot -- what's marked on that

5 ballot, correct?

6 A. During that signature verification process.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 And that's the tech -- that's the process

9 that was used during the general election signature

10 verification in 2022, correct?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. And you know that because you were there,

13 correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And you saw that, correct?

16 A. And participated, as well, yes.

17 Q. You participated, as well.

18 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

19 THE COURT: You may.

20 Which exhibit?

21 MR. LIDDY: Exhibit 25, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you've had an opportunity to

25 glance at Exhibit 25?

Appx0541
 105

1 A. I have.

2 Q. Do you recognize it?

3 A. I do.

4 Q. What is it?

5 A. It is one of our signature verification user

6 guides -- or guides for -- this one particularly is for

7 our user level employees.

8 Q. And was this -- to your knowledge, was this used

9 to train the level I signature reviewers, the 155 of

10 them --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- that were used in general election 2022?

13 A. It is a supplemental document that's part of the

14 training that was originally presented and something

15 that's a takeaway. They actually maintain this as a user

16 level I worker.

17 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move for the

18 admission of Exhibit 25.

19 THE COURT: Any objection?

20 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Twenty-five is admitted.

22 BY MR. LIDDY:

23 Q. So I see three columns.

24 Do you see those three columns on this

25 document?

Appx0542
 106

1 A. I do.

2 Q. And the middle column says disposition, EBRT,

3 slash, EB2016.

4 Do you see that?

5 A. I do.

6 Q. Would you explain to the Court what that is?

7 A. This is, as mentioned, one of the disposition

8 codes, good, that can be set, and this is a visual, an

9 example, of what a user level I may see and what

10 disposition would fit that category.

11 Q. And what does good mean?

12 A. Good means that it's consistent signature with

13 those that they reviewed or the signature they looked at

14 when -- at a level I initial review.

15 Q. Okay. Now, if you go over to column number 1, it

16 says exemplar on the affidavit signature image, and if

17 you'll drop down to the middle there, it says, quote,

18 verified and approved MCTEC stamp.

19 Do you follow me there?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Can you explain to the Court what that means?

22 A. That is a packet that went through, as an

23 example, exception. The level I user initially said, I

24 don't see this to be consistent, and they sent it on to a

25 manager, manager level II, concurred. It's not

Appx0543
 107

1 consistent, so it's sent for curing.

2 So those thousands of -- that are then

3 contacted by -- or the voter is given the opportunity to

4 cure, to authenticate their identity, and when they do

5 contact, we would document that on the affidavit, and we

6 stamp upon that, verify and approved, and resend that back

7 through for two things, not only archive and retention to

8 scan that packet, but also to reverify in the system that

9 it's a good sig, meaning it's followed its path of

10 exception, could be a no sig, could've been a questionable

11 sig, but it's been cured, and that curing will have that

12 stamp, and our level I board workers are trained, told

13 when they see that, that's a 1- to 2-second cure. There

14 is nothing to scroll through. This has been verified by

15 the voter.

16 Q. So that's really fast.

17 A. Yes. You see that stamp. You see -- following

18 the logic, you see no signature, that should be 1 second

19 or less. You see this verified and approved, that should

20 be trained to that is good to go, next.

21 Q. So if I was trying to figure out an average time

22 it would take to do a signature review and no high-level

23 math, let's just say sixth-grade-level math, maybe

24 something I learned from my father, somebody might learn

25 from their dad or their mom, I learned mine from my mom,

Appx0544
 108

1 not my dad, but it's just figuring out an average, right?

2 So if I were doing that and I had some

3 numbers from my universe from which I'm going to fill out

4 an average, that were zero or near zero because they've

5 got the stamp on it --

6 MR. BLEHM: I'm going to object --

7 MR. LIDDY: -- that's -- let me finish the

8 question. Let me finish the question.

9 BY MR. LIDDY:

10 Q. -- that's going to affect the average

11 calculation, isn't it?

12 MR. LIDDY: Now go ahead.

13 MR. BLEHM: I object, Your Honor. He's not

14 a signature verification expert.

15 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, this only calls for

16 sixth grade math.

17 MR. BLEHM: He's not a signature

18 verification expert. They haven't laid any foundation for

19 his ability to determine how long it should take to do a

20 signature verification.

21 MR. LIDDY: That's not the question, Your

22 Honor.

23 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

24 You're objecting that he's not -- qualified to do --

25 MR. BLEHM: I'm objecting that he's not a

Appx0545
 109

1 signature verification expert because he's talking about

2 doing averages about how long it should take to do each of

3 these signatures. And that's -- that's -- they don't have

4 an expert for that, Your Honor.

5 Furthermore, I'll throw in the kitchen sink

6 as they did, he's not a statistician. He has no

7 background in that. I believe he testified to that fact,

8 Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Rephrase it.

10 MR. LIDDY: I'll withdraw the question, Your

11 Honor. And I'll get to it another way.

12 THE COURT: Fine.

13 BY MR. LIDDY:

14 Q. Ray, do you know what it means to calculate an

15 average?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. If I want to calculate the average of 10 numbers

18 and say two of them were very, very low because those two

19 come from a universe that's different than the other

20 eight. Let's say they had verified stamp approvals on

21 them, and so I didn't have to examine them, I just knew

22 right away we'd move them on, so I have two -- 20 percent

23 really low numbers.

24 Is that going to affect the overall average

25 of my calculation of the average of 10 by moving it lower?

Appx0546
 110

1 A. Obviously, using the term grading on a curve or

2 anything you would eliminate those that will affect your

3 average similar to these 1- to 2- second review

4 dispositions or categories.

5 Q. So let's say I'm the assistant coach on a Little

6 League baseball team and I'm calculating the average of 10

7 players on our team, but it's early in the season, early

8 in the game, and two of them haven't even had bats yet

9 because one was sick and the other was out of town and

10 they didn't play the first two games. So now we have

11 eight with batting averages and two with 000, and if I add

12 them all together, I'm not really going to get a look at

13 what the average ability of our team is to bat because two

14 of them are outliers, and I should throw them out if I

15 want to get an accurate number, right?

16 A. Yes, that is correct. To remove outliers, that

17 would affect that average.

18 Q. And would you agree with me that if some of these

19 review packets I had to verify, approve, and stamp on

20 them, but the amount of time that's going to take, that's

21 going to be very, very low?

22 A. That is correct.

23 MR. BLEHM: I'm going to object, Your Honor,

24 on the basis that he's, again, not a signature

25 verification expert.

Appx0547
 111

1 THE COURT: Are you asking him based on his

2 personal experience, or are you asking him on another

3 basis?

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I'm asking him on

5 his personal experience.

6 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, he's also

7 speculating.

8 THE COURT: As to what?

9 MR. BLEHM: As to whether or not if

10 something contains a stamp, the average time is going to

11 be very, very low.

12 THE COURT: Well, that's why I asked him if

13 he's asking based on his personal experience. He

14 testified earlier he actually reviewed and verified 16

15 hundred at level I in the last election. So, based on his

16 experience, he can answer.

17 BY MR. LIDDY:

18 Q. Can you answer the question?

19 A. Based on my personal experience of not just

20 reviewing 16 hundred but probably close to hundreds of

21 thousands over my 20 years of actually doing this and this

22 being a consistent practice, yes, I can say that if -- in

23 my personal experience, looking at this as is trained to

24 all level I users, that I would take less than a second to

25 see that verified and approved, and I would hit approved.

Appx0548
 112

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 BY MR. LIDDY:

5 Q. Exhibit 26.

6 Mr. Valenzuela, do you recognize that

7 document?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. What is it?

10 A. It is similar to our user level, but it is our

11 signature verification job aid for managers.

12 Q. And was this document used, in part, among

13 others, and during the general election period -- prior to

14 the general election 2022 to train the level II or

15 managerial level document reviewers?

16 A. I did. And also as a reference takeaway guide.

17 Q. How is this document used?

18 A. Similar to the other document, but it has that

19 level II disposition options available, which on the

20 screen, when they showed, you'll see the first three

21 categories are the same, the good, good, good, based on a

22 verified and approved --

23 Q. If I -- if I may, you're referring to the middle

24 column of this exhibit, correct?

25 A. Correct.

Appx0549
 113

1 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt. Continue.

2 A. But if -- in this particular document, it moves

3 into the next level manager disposition availability

4 options such as no sig.

5 So at level I, a level I we're not asking

6 them to make decisions other than exception. It's a --

7 and then it moves to level II with multiple amounts of

8 exemplars, but in the case of you'll see the no sig is

9 enabled option for a manager, because it clearly is a no

10 sig, the need packet.

11 There's several different dispositions that

12 we, at the managers level, can, to include you think it is

13 an inconsistent, let us look at the 2,444 signature

14 exemplars on file and see if we can concur.

15 Q. So the level I reviewers have only two options?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Good sig and exception?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. No pass or no pass?

20 A. No good -- no no sig, no need packet, no any

21 exceptional or --

22 Q. No rejection?

23 A. No rejection whatsoever.

24 Q. That's a point of emphasis. It's impossible for

25 level I reviewer to reject a signature?

Appx0550
 114

1 A. Similar to our wanting to -- in early voting, to

2 call it a packet, not a ballot, and exception, not

3 rejection, because we don't reject at level I.

4 Q. We could move beyond the level I, level II, level

5 III signature review process, and I want to ask you a few

6 questions about something that I heard in testimony

7 yesterday and today. That's the curing process.

8 Are you familiar with what it means, the

9 curing in Maricopa County document review?

10 A. I am.

11 Q. Before I get to curing, in your personal

12 experience, when you have seen -- have you ever seen a

13 checkmark in the box on the affidavit envelope rather than

14 a signature?

15 A. Absolutely.

16 Q. Or another indicia of a marker saying X?

17 A. Correct. As identified in the user guide, we do

18 have a group -- or a population, demographics, that may

19 have some physical dis- -- incapacitation that requires,

20 and then there are process procedures, how we go about to

21 either cure or register them with that identifier.

22 Q. So those voters would make a mark rather than

23 place in that signature area what we would all call a

24 signature?

25 A. But just, if I may point of privilege, once

Appx0551
 115

1 again, is they can make a mark, but it has to be

2 consistent with their registration file that that is on

3 file as such.

4 Q. So if you're a level I reviewer and in comes the

5 image and it's just a mark, how long does it take to

6 determine that?

7 A. If it's consistent, it's an X and an X, then,

8 again, as much as looking at a piece of art. If it's the

9 same, it's the same drawing, it's the same drawing, it

10 takes -- it can be under a second to 2 seconds.

11 Q. No reading involved?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Just comparing two marks?

14 A. No 11 local or broad characteristics, no swoops,

15 swooshes, and strokes. Just looking at that.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 So would you explain for the Court, please,

18 what is the curing process?

19 A. So the curing process is behind the signature

20 verification process. So, when somebody, at a level I,

21 does set a record as exception, it goes to a manager.

22 That manager concurs that it is, indeed, inconsistent

23 signature, then it goes into a status or another

24 disposition, sometimes referred to as a preliminary

25 question, PQ, using these acronyms, or QS, question

Appx0552
 116

1 signature.

2 That allows us to take it down a path to

3 begin the contact using that phone number that's on the

4 voter's reg- -- on the affidavit, using e-mail, using a

5 ballot subscription service where, if you sign up to say,

6 tell me your ballot status to include when it's mailed,

7 when it's received and the disposition, then we'll

8 instantly send you a text that says your ballot has been

9 questioned, call our call center.

10 Q. Why does the Maricopa County Recorder's Office

11 have a process for curing early ballots?

12 A. It's required in law that we make a reasonable

13 effort. I think we go beyond reasonable, which is

14 voter-centric, but make at least a reasonable effort, as

15 required in statute, to contact the voter to -- in that

16 same section, 16-550(A) that if it's inconsistent, that we

17 will make that effort.

18 Q. So, in your opinion, Maricopa County Recorder's

19 signature verification and curing team goes beyond that

20 which is required by law?

21 A. Absolutely, based on some of our cure rates, if

22 you will.

23 Q. Why is it important to you, as a professional in

24 this area, to go beyond what the law requires in order to

25 give voters an opportunity to cure an infirmity in their

Appx0553
 117

1 affidavit envelope?

2 A. Again, having done this 32 years -- and I know my

3 oath of office was brought into question and my integrity

4 as to if I would. We look at this and take this seriously

5 to know that we're about to disenfranchise a voter if we

6 are not making that effort.

7 So that's why we -- post election, we --

8 298,000 ballot drop-off, we threw all hands on deck

9 because we need to contact those voters that fall into

10 that curing so they have time to cure. So we take it very

11 seriously and make sure that we are as voter-centric as

12 possible regardless.

13 Again, all I see is the packet that says

14 John Doe on it. I don't know that am I curing this. I'm

15 curing it for the sake of being voter-centric.

16 Q. So does Recorder Richer and your team, do they

17 document the efforts they make throughout the curing

18 process?

19 A. We do. So we are identifying that it is in the

20 system. There's two different processes. In the system,

21 all of what this raw data that we saw, we are noting that

22 it's been an exception. We are noting that it's set as a

23 question signature.

24 Then that contact is made, but we are not

25 returning that into the system, but we are actually

Appx0554
 118

1 physically, upon the actual packet, when you ask what

2 happens when we send that disposition to Runbeck, we're

3 sorting those good sigs, but we're also sorting those need

4 packets, questionable, all of the different dispositions.

5 We will take those no sigs, those

6 questionables, and we will put an affidavit label, or

7 we'll put a label on there that has different action items

8 that the -- that the curing team would document what

9 they've done.

10 I contact the voter, left voicemail, a

11 letter was sent. All of those things are maintained, and

12 those are trade, ready, and left in alpha order, some of

13 the tasks that I think was mentioned by some of the temps

14 that were witnesses, that are ready to be cured and in --

15 documented through that action label.

16 Q. And is it your understanding that the law in

17 Arizona places a strict timeline and the ability of you

18 and your team to assist those voters in curing those

19 ballot packages?

20 A. It doesn't set a timeline for us to cure them.

21 It sets a deadline for the voter to reach back to us,

22 using the 2022, as an example. It's five business days,

23 which usually ends up being seven calendar. There was a

24 holiday on November 8th. So we moved it to November 16th.

25 So we are curing, and that's why we take

Appx0555
 119

1 it -- the urgency to -- by November 11th, we had cured all

2 those because we threw resources at it to contact those

3 voters to give them the option so that we're not calling

4 them on November 16 at -- at 4:59 to say, you have to

5 cure, and it's -- that extra effort is put towards that.

6 Q. So, in 2022, there was a holiday?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. That -- was that Veterans Day?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Are you sure --

11 A. Or Memorial -- whatever November 11th. I

12 apologize.

13 Q. And that was 2022?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you remember that?

16 A. Yes, because we -- it's a rare circumstance, and

17 we had to push, just as law requires, anytime that

18 something falls on a holiday, you must extend that

19 deadline, and we did. The whole State of Arizona with all

20 15 counties.

21 Q. So there really was signature review in Maricopa

22 County in 2022?

23 A. Yes. For us to have curing, we would have to

24 have those reviewed to put into that queue.

25 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

Appx0556
 120

1 Exhibit 26.

2 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Twenty-six is admitted then.

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

5 THE COURT: You may.

6 BY MR. LIDDY:

7 Q. Exhibit 27.

8 Mr. Valenzuela, would you take a moment and

9 look at the document I just handed to you.

10 A. I'm familiar with it.

11 Q. What is it?

12 A. It is basically our -- if you will, a procedural

13 document that identifies early voting contacting, curing

14 process, and what its purpose is that we provide to staff

15 or even as an out- -- you know, outreach resource

16 document.

17 Q. Now, you just testified in some detail about the

18 curing process for people that mail in their ballots that

19 are on there or what have you.

20 But there are also early voters that don't

21 use the postal service; is that correct?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And what if one of those forgets to sign that

24 affidavit envelope? What happens then?

25 A. So there -- again, there's different deadlines

Appx0557
 121

1 for no signature, and the Arizona Revised Statute requires

2 that it's done by 7:00 p.m. on election night, cured,

3 still cured, but it has to be done by that deadline.

4 Q. They don't get the five days and the holiday?

5 A. They do not. They are -- they are required, and

6 we still make a reasonable effort to reach out to those

7 voters through all the various contact methods as outlined

8 in this document, the two different dates, one for

9 questionable signature, one for no signatures.

10 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

11 Exhibit 27.

12 THE COURT: Any objection?

13 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Twenty-seven is admitted.

15 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

16 THE COURT: You may.

17 BY MR. LIDDY:

18 Q. Exhibit 28.

19 Mr. Valenzuela, have you had a chance to

20 look at that document?

21 A. I have.

22 Q. Do you recognize it?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. What is it?

25 A. It is our voter contact label guide we give to

Appx0558
 122

1 staff. It is basically those individuals that are tasked

2 with the curing process, what they are to do, what these

3 acronyms on the label that's shown on there, bottom

4 left-hand corner, actions circle.

5 And it's just a legend of what -- if they

6 left a voicemail, if they left a message, if a letter was

7 sent, no voicemail, tons of different guides -- or contact

8 actions that are tracked by -- and the date that that was

9 done by that particular staff member.

10 Q. So LS means letter sent?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. WN, wrong number?

13 A. Correct. All the way down to the last one,

14 verified, which would then have that verified and approved

15 stamp re-sent through, adds to the integer of that log

16 file, but it's re-sent through and re-reviewed in 1 to 2

17 seconds because it has that stamp verified and approved.

18 So all of those packets that would have been

19 cured by the voter would be rescanned, re-reviewed, and

20 again, known to me that it would take less than 1 to 2

21 seconds to disposition that as good.

22 Q. Because it's already been stamped?

23 A. And it's already been reviewed, and it's already

24 been validated. It's now just for miniscule kind of

25 duties we're capturing and archiving that image.

Appx0559
 123

1 Q. So all the time that it would take to review

2 that, verify it, and stamp it would -- that time wouldn't

3 count back in that earlier document where the contestor is

4 saying -- trying to figure out the averages of how quickly

5 everybody does it?

6 A. Correct. That would --

7 MR. BLEHM: Object, Your Honor. That was

8 exceptionally leading.

9 THE COURT: That was leading.

10 BY MR. LIDDY:

11 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, does it take a lot more time to

12 cure an affidavit envelope and having it all the way down

13 to the code SR -- I'm sorry, VER, verified action

14 selected, when the voter verifies a signature than it

15 would look at two signatures and figure out if they're

16 similar or not?

17 A. It takes umpteenth amounts of time because of the

18 fact that it is reaching out to the voter. We have shifts

19 that will be doing specifically that, and it could days,

20 quite frankly.

21 Q. Takes days.

22 But once that's completed, there's a stamp

23 placed on that one, right?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. And then it goes all the way back to level I,

Appx0560
 124

1 correct?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. And then that machine in Maricopa County that

4 sent the data to the contestor here is going to have a

5 really low number because when they looked and saw the

6 stamp, it was just a really low number, right?

7 A. That exact user ID could have been categorized as

8 an exception that took 5 seconds, could've gone to

9 manager's level that took 12 seconds to concur, and then,

10 when it came back, that third scan would be 1 second to

11 disposition it as verified.

12 Q. To see that stamp could take only 1 second?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Or maybe less, possible?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And so if you took -- so my question to you is,

17 all the time it took to get that verified stamp on there,

18 none of that would be reflected in the mathematical

19 calculation that you saw earlier today put forth as

20 alleged evidence that there was no signature review

21 process done --

22 MR. BLEHM: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. -- is that correct?

25 THE COURT: Wait.

Appx0561
 125

1 MR. BLEHM: Leading, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Okay. It is leading.

3 BY MR. LIDDY:

4 Q. Now, you previously testified, Mr. Valenzuela,

5 that it takes a lot of time for the Maricopa County

6 Recorder's signature verification team to cure a ballot

7 all the way such down that it gets to the verified stamp

8 on it, correct?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. And you have also testified that the time

11 reflected in that is not accounted for in the document

12 that was produced by the contestor, Kari Lake's team,

13 which they presented in the court while you were watching,

14 correct?

15 MR. BLEHM: Objection. Foundation, Your

16 Honor. I believe Mr. Valenzuela previously testified he

17 doesn't -- he's not even had personal knowledge of the

18 contents on CD-ROM other than approving their disclosure

19 to us. He hasn't looked at the data. He's admitted that.

20 He hasn't reviewed the data. He's admitted that.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Rephrase it then. If you

22 got another way of --

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, were you in the courtroom earlier

25 today?

Appx0562
 126

1 A. I was.

2 Q. Did you see -- did you hear and watch the

3 testimony of the alleged expert put forth by plaintiff?

4 A. I did.

5 Q. Did you see up on that screen there when they put

6 that document up there that he was testifying about?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Did you understand that the amount of time it

9 takes to verify an affidavit envelope under the curing

10 process was not included in that data?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. BLEHM: He's still leading, Your Honor.

14 And my objection is renewed again with respect to his

15 fundamental understanding of the very data that chart was

16 based upon.

17 THE COURT: It's -- the question was asked

18 to the exhibit. I'll just note for the record all the

19 objections as to leading are new in this case. The other

20 side extended the courtesy of never objecting once to

21 anything leading throughout the entire presentation of

22 plaintiffs' case. But if you insist on objecting on

23 leading, I can sustain those.

24 It's -- you have to rephrase it differently.

25 Just pointing it out as a matter of professional courtesy,

Appx0563
 127

1 but it is something that typically is true.

2 MR. BLEHM: If -- if -- Your Honor, if I

3 heard you right, you asked him to rephrase or -- asked and

4 answered anyway, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: I didn't understand what you

6 just said, Mr. Blehm.

7 MR. BLEHM: Oh, I -- I could not hear the --

8 too much in front of me. If you said something about

9 rephrase it.

10 THE COURT: He can rephrase anything. If

11 you're objecting to leading, some of the leading in -- in

12 the case has to do with the streamlining.

13 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, my response was

14 asked and answered, so...

15 THE COURT: Understood. Understood. But

16 we're at the end of the day.

17 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, for clarification,

18 the last response that he gave, is that in the record, or

19 you if taken that out because you've ruled that the

20 question was leading?

21 THE COURT: No. It's -- the question was

22 leading. So I sustained the objection. I was just noting

23 for the record that it's just -- it can be rephrased and

24 asked a different way. It's just -- that's fine.

25 MR. BLEHM: If I may, Your Honor?

Appx0564
 128

1 THE COURT: Say again?

2 MR. BLEHM: If I may, asked and answered so

3 I'll withdraw the objection to that specific question.

4 MR. LIDDY: Thank you for the professional

5 courtesy. I appreciate it.

6 THE COURT: Very well. Go ahead.

7 Next question.

8 BY MR. LIDDY:

9 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, are all level I reviewers trained

10 to question the checkmark stamp?

11 A. If it is inconsistent with what is on the

12 official voter registration record, absolutely.

13 Q. And that would go for an X also?

14 A. If there's an X or any mark that is inconsistent

15 with what is on file of the official registration, they

16 are, indeed, asked to make that an exception.

17 Q. Are level I reviewers trained to reverify

18 signatures bearing the checkmark stamp?

19 A. I wouldn't say that they're asked to reverify.

20 All of them are asked to relook at their sub batch of 250

21 to see their status so if they originally set that as

22 exception, they should confirm that in their backwards

23 review of that.

24 Q. So, when a level I signature verifier completes a

25 batch of 250 signature verifications, the protocol is for

Appx0565
 129

1 them, before they submit it, to go back and review each

2 one?

3 A. And -- and I may add, again, for edification, not

4 review in the same level of I've looked at three

5 exemplars, I deem this to not be the same, that they are

6 identifying that I've set this as an exception before I

7 commit the batch, I'm going to look at that and yes,

8 indeed, I don't redo the three-level scrolling, or if it's

9 a good sig, they're just reconfirming.

10 Q. If your experience, that's much faster than the

11 initial review?

12 A. It's much faster, and again, it's not logged

13 because it's not a disposition set.

14 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

15 Exhibit 28.

16 THE COURT: Any objection?

17 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Twenty-eight is admitted.

19 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, now would be an

20 appropriate time to break for the afternoon.

21 THE COURT: All right. Very well. We will

22 do that. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.,

23 and we will be adjourned until that time.

24

25 (Whereupon proceedings are concluded.)

Appx0566
 130

4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

8 STATE OF ARIZONA )

9 COUNTY OF MARICOPA )

10

11 I, Luz Franco, an official reporter in the Superior

12 Court of the state of Arizona, in and for the county of

13 Maricopa, hereby certify that the foregoing pages

14 constitute a true and accurate transcript of my

15 stenographic notes taken at said time and date, all done

16 to the best of my skill and ability.

17 Dated this 18th day of May, 2023.

18

19

20

21 ___/s/Luz Franco__________

22 Luz Franco, RMR, CRR

CR No. 50591
23 Official Court Reporter

24

25

Appx0567
 1

$ 18 [2] - 1:16, 4:1 128:20, 128:25 45,670 [1] - 11:12 9

18th [1] - 130:17 26 [6] - 10:21, 11:6, 452 [1] - 17:9
$600 [1] - 37:11 19 [1] - 73:6 11:18, 11:25, 112:5, 46,000 [1] - 8:15 9 [5] - 9:15, 10:21,
1966 [1] - 80:3 120:1 46,854 [1] - 8:12 11:6, 11:18, 11:25
/ 1998 [1] - 55:2 27 [2] - 120:7, 121:11 47 [11] - 4:22, 14:21, 9,987 [2] - 7:25, 8:1
27,196 [1] - 9:19 35:25, 36:1, 43:7, 90 [1] - 18:18
/s/Luz [1] - 130:21 2 274 [1] - 23:3 44:9, 58:14, 59:23, 91 [1] - 17:5
274,000 [2] - 77:17, 59:24, 62:14, 62:20 96.39 [1] - 5:23
0 2 [29] - 1:19, 5:8, 5:12, 80:14 48 [7] - 16:25, 17:1, 97.23 [1] - 8:14
11:13, 11:21, 12:5, 276,000 [1] - 10:18 21:10, 35:19, 35:21, 98.9 [1] - 9:13
000 [1] - 110:11 54:20, 62:15, 62:17, 28 [2] - 121:18, 129:15 54:9 99 [1] - 77:23
63:18, 64:13, 64:14, 288 [1] - 80:2 4:59 [1] - 119:4 99.37 [1] - 8:17
1 77:15, 78:2, 78:3, 29,751 [1] - 8:20 4th [1] - 62:8 99.65 [4] - 6:6, 6:19,
79:11, 80:14, 80:16, 29.5 [1] - 22:10 6:24, 7:4
1 [19] - 50:23, 60:25, 80:20, 90:11, 93:9,
77:16, 93:9, 94:12,
29.8 [1] - 22:24 5 99.72 [1] - 8:20
96:12, 96:16, 97:22, 298,000 [1] - 117:8 99.84 [1] - 8:22
95:8, 97:22, 98:1, 97:24, 110:3, 5 [5] - 5:8, 5:10, 10:9, 99.87 [1] - 7:24
100:2, 100:5, 115:10, 122:16, 96:8, 124:8
102:12, 106:15, 122:20
3 99.88 [1] - 8:5
5/4/23 [1] - 62:2 99.91 [1] - 9:15
107:13, 107:18, 2,444 [1] - 113:13 3 [24] - 5:8, 5:10, 5:12, 50 [2] - 7:9, 84:19 99.97 [1] - 9:18
110:3, 122:16, 2-second [2] - 94:12, 8:2, 8:21, 9:18, 9:22, 50591 [2] - 1:23,
122:20, 124:10, 9:00 [1] - 129:22
107:13 10:10, 10:12, 10:14, 130:22
124:12 2.54 [1] - 76:1 10:17, 10:20, 12:9, 512,597 [1] - 10:14
1.3 [1] - 89:13 20 [6] - 5:18, 7:17, 62:15, 62:17, 63:16, 52 [2] - 3:6, 83:14
A
10 [10] - 7:12, 49:2, 55:7, 96:9, 109:22, 63:20, 70:9, 71:3, 52(c [4] - 69:12, 70:18, a.m [1] - 129:22
49:7, 49:9, 49:10, 111:21 77:19, 79:10, 89:22, 82:11, 84:19 A.R.S [2] - 46:2, 74:23
49:13, 109:17, 20-some [1] - 19:15 96:8, 96:12 52(c) [1] - 74:10 ability [8] - 12:8,
109:25, 110:6 200 [2] - 57:16, 57:18 30 [2] - 12:12, 51:21 54,298 [1] - 9:12 89:24, 90:3, 90:18,
10,000 [5] - 8:1, 8:6, 2016 [1] - 93:16 31 [1] - 8:9 55,888 [1] - 5:21 108:19, 110:13,
9:15, 63:23 2018 [1] - 93:15 32 [1] - 117:2 550 [1] - 75:8 118:17, 130:16
100 [5] - 51:17, 51:21, 2020 [3] - 26:20, 321 [1] - 11:11 able [5] - 52:25, 76:19,
51:23, 52:5, 80:2 26:22, 93:15
100,000 [2] - 23:1,
321,495 [3] - 10:15, 6 96:21, 97:9, 97:25
2022 [32] - 30:10, 35:6, 10:21, 11:7 absolutely [14] -
55:3 36:13, 52:7, 64:23, 6 [12] - 5:9, 6:4, 8:15,
325 [1] - 10:21 14:15, 18:1, 22:23,
11 [5] - 65:17, 65:20, 71:17, 73:4, 73:13, 8:16, 9:14, 9:22,
36,086 [1] - 6:4 23:7, 23:10, 29:1,
65:22, 95:7, 115:14 73:25, 87:24, 88:5, 10:9, 10:12, 10:13,
37,524 [1] - 9:18 48:25, 49:11, 49:15,
11-step [1] - 66:20 88:10, 88:15, 88:20, 20:19, 63:5, 96:8
37,588 [1] - 8:15 49:18, 97:21,
11th [2] - 119:1, 89:3, 89:17, 91:1, 38 [2] - 27:14, 27:25 114:15, 116:21,
119:11
12 [2] - 8:6, 124:9
91:24, 92:17, 93:2, 3:47 [1] - 62:8 7 128:12
93:14, 93:23, 99:6, 3rd [1] - 59:7 Academy [1] - 40:13
12(b)(6 [1] - 83:18 104:10, 105:12, 7 [1] - 12:6 acceptance [2] -
13 [1] - 7:25 112:14, 118:22, 70,000 [8] - 11:17,
13,749 [1] - 8:5 119:6, 119:13,
4 11:19, 11:20, 77:13,
17:18, 80:22
accepted [1] - 7:5
13th [2] - 24:19, 53:2 119:22 4 [13] - 3:4, 5:10, 7:16, 77:14, 78:3, 80:14, accordance [1] -
14 [1] - 3:5 2023 [4] - 1:16, 4:1, 7:19, 8:19, 9:17, 80:21
88:13
1482 [3] - 59:9, 61:13, 59:7, 130:17 10:10, 10:12, 62:15, 72 [1] - 8:24
account [2] - 23:15,
77:9 21 [3] - 58:19, 58:23, 62:17, 63:12, 96:12, 779,330 [2] - 10:13 103:3
15 [2] - 68:19, 119:20 59:5 96:17 79 [3] - 8:25, 9:11, accounted [1] -
150 [1] - 57:18 21,471 [1] - 8:22 40 [3] - 19:24, 20:2, 9:12 125:11
155 [7] - 36:16, 36:20, 21-896 [2] - 61:15, 21:10 7:00 [1] - 121:2 accuracy [2] - 34:7,
88:22, 88:24, 89:2, 61:22 40-hour [1] - 65:8 73:18
89:22, 105:9 211 [1] - 22:7 41 [3] - 24:13, 24:14, 8 accurate [5] - 33:14,
1550 [1] - 66:25 23 [3] - 98:9, 98:19, 26:3 34:9, 62:18, 110:15,
16 [4] - 73:24, 111:14, 99:12 43 [7] - 22:2, 22:3, 86 [1] - 3:9
130:14
111:20, 119:4 24 [2] - 100:2, 100:5 24:3, 24:4, 89:7, 895 [2] - 62:1, 62:2
acknowledgment [1] -
16-550 [4] - 13:4, 46:2, 24,904 [1] - 7:18 89:22, 94:15 896 [2] - 62:5, 62:9
84:6
74:24, 78:12 25 [5] - 89:14, 89:21, 44 [1] - 11:11 897 [1] - 61:15
acronyms [2] -
16-550(A [3] - 50:1, 104:21, 104:25, 445 [2] - 18:16, 19:5 8th [1] - 118:24
115:25, 122:3
92:5, 116:16 105:18 45 [2] - 3:5, 11:11 act [4] - 43:12, 44:10,
16th [1] - 118:24 250 [4] - 73:8, 90:22, 45,217 [1] - 9:14 44:12, 58:12

Appx0568
 2

action [5] - 36:25, 35:3, 35:17, 35:25, anonymized [3] - 60:1 107:19, 111:25, 42:7
44:15, 118:7, 37:17, 38:22, 39:4, answer [18] - 30:10, 112:22, 122:14, assures [1] - 59:14
118:15, 123:13 41:11, 42:10, 43:10, 31:15, 32:2, 32:8, 122:17 ASTMs [1] - 23:16
actions [2] - 122:4, 44:7, 44:11, 46:19, 39:2, 46:17, 47:16, approving [1] - 125:18 attached [1] - 25:21
122:8 48:18, 48:23, 49:3, 49:19, 50:13, 51:25, archive [1] - 107:7 attempted [2] - 22:25,
activity [2] - 10:22, 49:12, 49:16, 79:11, 52:1, 52:8, 52:22, archiving [1] - 122:25 89:9
58:2 110:18 54:6, 67:11, 88:7, area [2] - 114:23, attitude [1] - 81:14
actual [1] - 118:1 agreement [1] - 37:1 111:16, 111:18 116:24 Attorney's [1] - 2:14
add [4] - 11:11, 90:21, Aguilar [1] - 2:16 answered [5] - 64:19, areas [1] - 46:6 Attorneys [2] - 2:5,
110:11, 129:3 ahead [7] - 9:9, 13:22, 100:8, 127:4, argue [1] - 82:15 2:18
added [1] - 47:3 53:18, 69:14, 91:13, 127:14, 128:2 arguing [1] - 67:9 audible [1] - 54:21
addition [2] - 70:8, 108:12, 128:6 answering [1] - 47:14 argument [1] - 47:22 audit [7] - 26:20,
88:12 aid [1] - 112:11 anytime [1] - 119:17 arguments [1] - 17:13 26:21, 73:16, 90:11,
address [4] - 25:18, al [3] - 1:9, 4:8, 68:25 anyway [2] - 12:25, ARIZONA [2] - 1:1, 103:23, 103:24
68:20, 69:22, 102:15 Alexis [1] - 2:7 127:4 130:8 Audit [1] - 26:24
adds [1] - 122:15 algorithm [2] - 10:23, apologies [1] - 41:4 Arizona [25] - 1:15, authenticate [3] -
adequate [2] - 32:24, 11:1 apologize [5] - 32:4, 4:1, 13:3, 26:11, 72:9, 72:17, 107:4
44:11 align [1] - 36:22 61:9, 90:14, 94:20, 27:22, 27:23, 49:22, authorized [1] - 25:10
adjourned [1] - 129:23 allegations [2] - 70:7, 119:12 50:12, 69:11, 70:4, AVA [1] - 120:19
Administrator [1] - 70:8 appeal [1] - 54:7 70:17, 72:2, 72:8, availability [1] - 113:3
87:23 alleged [2] - 124:20, appeals [1] - 53:25 72:17, 74:9, 75:13, available [3] - 94:16,
admissibility [1] - 126:3 appearances [1] - 76:7, 80:2, 81:17, 97:17, 112:19
16:14 Alliance [2] - 72:8, 4:10 82:16, 83:8, 118:17, average [18] - 6:25,
admissible [1] - 55:20 72:17 appearing [1] - 91:11 119:19, 121:1, 7:1, 7:2, 73:21,
admission [2] - 17:24, allotted [1] - 89:13 APPEARING [1] - 2:1 130:12 87:15, 107:21,
105:18 allowable [1] - 55:23 appellant's [1] - 17:24 Armenta [2] - 2:9, 69:9 108:1, 108:4,
admit [3] - 119:25, allows [1] - 116:2 appellate [8] - 15:18, ARMENTA [14] - 108:10, 109:15,
121:10, 129:14 alluded [1] - 45:17 15:19, 15:22, 15:24, 52:13, 69:8, 69:18, 109:17, 109:24,
admitted [17] - 9:3, almost [1] - 17:23 16:2, 17:11, 18:3, 69:20, 69:25, 70:21, 109:25, 110:3,
21:13, 24:7, 26:7, alone [1] - 46:16 21:17 70:24, 82:1, 84:17, 110:6, 110:13,
28:4, 71:10, 99:18, aloud [2] - 17:8, 20:19 application [1] - 31:5 84:24, 85:7, 85:11, 110:17, 111:10
100:3, 100:4, 100:5, alpha [1] - 118:12 apply [1] - 8:12 85:16, 85:22 averages [4] - 7:1,
105:21, 120:3, alter [2] - 70:10, 74:18 appointed [4] - 25:1, arrive [1] - 11:10 109:2, 110:11, 123:4
121:14, 125:19, altered [1] - 47:3 25:3, 25:7, 53:6 arrows [1] - 57:13 awarded [1] - 22:12
125:20, 129:18 American [2] - 40:2, appreciate [2] - 35:4, art [1] - 115:8 aware [6] - 30:15,
Adrian [1] - 24:24 40:13 128:5 article [1] - 25:21 49:22, 50:4, 50:9,
affect [5] - 58:13, Americans [1] - 95:23 approach [17] - 16:7, articulated [1] - 83:8 50:18, 97:15
108:10, 109:24, amount [6] - 8:5, 16:10, 16:12, 19:18, Arts [1] - 38:7
110:2, 110:17 48:14, 48:16, 89:13, 19:21, 21:22, 24:8, aside [1] - 81:24 B
affected [3] - 58:15, 110:20, 126:8 27:9, 59:2, 68:10, aspect [1] - 33:9
70:10, 74:17 amounted [1] - 23:5 74:13, 98:6, 99:19, assertion [1] - 74:21 BA [1] - 22:11
affidavit [17] - 25:20, amounts [3] - 23:9, 104:18, 112:2, assess [2] - 11:13, Bachelor [3] - 38:7,
73:24, 90:19, 91:2, 113:7, 123:17 120:4, 121:15 76:19 38:10, 38:11
100:19, 101:4, analysis [14] - 20:15, approaching [1] - assist [2] - 46:23, backed [1] - 81:6
101:13, 106:16, 21:2, 21:5, 21:6, 19:19 118:18 background [4] -
107:5, 114:13, 35:18, 39:21, 53:6, appropriate [1] - assistant [1] - 110:5 13:14, 38:15, 87:7,
116:4, 117:1, 118:6, 53:12, 56:5, 56:10, 129:20 associated [4] - 5:21, 109:7
120:24, 123:12, 56:11, 58:14, 59:16, approval [11] - 7:24, 25:18, 57:12, 74:24 backs [1] - 16:4
126:9 74:19 8:13, 8:17, 8:20, assume [2] - 33:6, backwards [1] -
affidavits [1] - 97:14 analyst [5] - 38:2, 8:22, 9:19, 9:20, 44:14 128:22
afternoon [5] - 4:22, 38:4, 38:12, 38:21, 9:21, 9:23, 12:3, assumes [3] - 32:23, bad [3] - 57:10, 95:23,
45:12, 62:3, 68:19, 38:24 77:24 33:3, 44:9 102:19
129:20 analysts [1] - 40:6 approvals [3] - 5:24, assuming [2] - 44:22, ballot [31] - 28:24,
age [1] - 55:19 analytical [2] - 22:15, 9:13, 109:20 65:19 36:4, 36:12, 36:14,
agencies [1] - 56:8 22:18 approve [2] - 77:24, assumption [8] - 48:5, 64:9, 66:10,
ago [3] - 26:18, 35:4, analyzing [1] - 7:22 110:19 32:16, 33:2, 33:11, 81:15, 87:25, 91:1,
84:11 AND [1] - 1:2 approved [15] - 9:15, 33:14, 34:6, 42:11, 91:20, 100:13,
agree [26] - 14:13, Andrew [1] - 71:16 9:16, 9:25, 77:14, 42:18, 43:11 100:19, 100:23,
14:19, 15:4, 18:2, anesthesiologist [1] - 77:18, 78:4, 80:21, assumptions [4] - 101:2, 101:6, 101:8,
22:22, 32:15, 34:5, 96:20 106:18, 107:6, 31:11, 31:14, 31:19, 102:4, 102:6,

Appx0569
 3

102:10, 102:11, 116:13, 116:19, 43:9, 45:11, 51:8, category [1] - 106:10 chromatography [1] -
104:3, 104:4, 104:5, 116:24 52:4, 52:20, 57:24, CD [2] - 6:9, 125:18 22:14
114:2, 116:5, 116:6, big [2] - 31:1, 95:14 59:4, 61:11, 86:22, CD-ROM [2] - 6:9, chron [2] - 61:18, 62:1
116:8, 117:8, bigger [3] - 11:24, 97:4, 98:11, 100:7, 125:18 circle [1] - 122:4
118:19, 125:6 36:9, 89:22 104:23, 105:22, center [1] - 116:9 Circuit [2] - 24:19,
ballots [18] - 11:6, bill [1] - 53:13 108:9, 109:13, centric [3] - 116:14, 53:2
26:22, 28:20, 28:23, bills [1] - 37:11 111:17, 112:4, 117:11, 117:15 circuit [1] - 24:20
49:23, 76:10, 76:14, bit [3] - 94:1, 94:2, 120:6, 121:17, CERA [5] - 87:10, circumstance [1] -
77:17, 78:3, 79:17, 101:8 123:10, 124:23, 87:13, 87:20, 87:21, 119:16
79:20, 80:21, blamed [3] - 81:9, 125:3, 125:23, 128:8 87:22 cite [1] - 80:1
100:12, 101:3, 84:13, 84:14 certain [5] - 48:25, cited [1] - 27:21
101:9, 102:20, BLEHM [24] - 2:3, C 51:3, 54:15, 61:13, citizen [2] - 100:25,
116:11, 120:18 97:1, 99:16, 105:20, 65:21 103:22
bank [2] - 48:21, 49:6 108:6, 108:13, calculate [2] - 109:14, certainly [2] - 25:19, Civil [2] - 69:12, 70:18
barely [1] - 25:14 108:17, 108:25, 109:17 70:21 claim [2] - 70:17, 74:9
base [1] - 64:21 110:23, 111:6, calculating [1] - 110:6 certainty [7] - 30:11, claimed [1] - 23:4
baseball [2] - 90:12, 111:9, 120:2, calculation [5] - 60:2, 50:22, 51:17, 51:20, claiming [3] - 17:17,
110:6 121:13, 123:7, 89:11, 108:11, 51:22, 52:6, 62:23 23:1
based [28] - 9:6, 13:7, 124:22, 125:1, 109:25, 124:19 certificate [1] - 1:23 claims [1] - 22:17
20:14, 20:22, 28:19, 125:15, 126:13, calendar [1] - 118:23 CERTIFICATE [1] - clarification [3] - 91:8,
30:8, 31:10, 35:7, 127:2, 127:7, campaign [1] - 84:15 130:4 101:12, 127:17
36:16, 40:8, 43:12, 127:13, 127:25, candor [1] - 35:4 certification [4] - 40:5, clarified [1] - 23:25
43:19, 44:2, 46:9, 128:2, 129:17 cannot [7] - 63:22, 87:14, 87:21, 88:25 clarify [1] - 33:18
51:25, 64:16, 70:3, Blehm [2] - 2:4, 127:6 64:1, 71:5, 76:5, Certified [1] - 87:22 clarity [1] - 90:21
70:11, 74:19, 83:3, board [3] - 101:1, 79:9, 82:17 certified [2] - 39:24, classing [1] - 87:19
89:16, 111:1, 103:22, 107:12 capture [2] - 103:3, 87:11 classroom [1] - 99:3
111:13, 111:15, Board [1] - 40:3 103:8 certify [1] - 130:13 CLE [1] - 87:19
111:19, 112:21, body [2] - 9:13, 46:9 capturing [1] - 122:25 chairman [1] - 72:16 clear [5] - 25:21,
116:21, 126:16 Borrelli [1] - 29:21 care [1] - 80:24 challenge [1] - 82:22 45:16, 52:2, 70:6,
bases [1] - 77:10 bottom [6] - 17:4, carefully [1] - 12:23 Challenger [1] - 83:21 93:10
basic [1] - 82:5 28:15, 61:14, 61:22, Carter/Baker [1] - chambers [1] - 26:11 clearly [6] - 45:19,
basics [1] - 65:2 62:2, 122:3 76:13 chance [1] - 121:19 53:3, 64:13, 81:17,
basis [9] - 20:21, box [2] - 28:12, 114:13 case [50] - 9:4, 12:24, change [2] - 57:2, 84:21, 113:9
70:12, 83:4, 83:16, branch [1] - 22:18 15:9, 15:11, 16:9, 58:13 CLERK [1] - 4:25
83:19, 83:22, 89:10, break [3] - 60:18, 19:10, 20:3, 20:8, changed [2] - 47:3, clerk [2] - 16:8, 99:25
110:24, 111:3 61:3, 129:20 20:10, 20:11, 20:23, 58:8 click [1] - 73:9
bat [1] - 110:13 brief [1] - 45:5 21:4, 21:16, 21:20, changes [3] - 58:1, clicks [1] - 58:11
batch [9] - 56:19, briefly [4] - 82:2, 22:4, 24:23, 25:2, 58:2, 82:25 clip [1] - 42:14
58:8, 73:8, 73:9, 82:12, 83:6, 89:25 25:15, 35:5, 37:8,
character [1] - 75:18 clipped [2] - 90:23,
90:22, 128:20, broad [4] - 94:10, 47:1, 48:22, 53:7,
characteristics [5] - 102:12
128:25, 129:7 95:7, 98:2, 115:14 53:10, 54:25, 55:2,
94:10, 94:11, 95:7, close [3] - 84:23, 85:4,
bats [1] - 110:8 brought [2] - 15:9, 55:3, 55:20, 55:22,
98:3, 115:14 111:20
batting [1] - 110:11 117:3 57:19, 65:21, 66:24,
characterized [1] - closely [1] - 66:23
bearing [1] - 128:18 Bryan [1] - 2:4 70:1, 71:2, 71:3,
69:11 closer [2] - 94:1, 94:2
BEFORE [1] - 1:19 BSC [1] - 22:12 74:23, 75:13, 79:25,
charging [1] - 37:15 co [1] - 71:8
begin [1] - 116:3 built [1] - 84:4 80:25, 81:6, 82:10,
chart [4] - 11:3, 62:21, co-director [1] - 71:8
beginning [1] - 71:15 82:16, 84:10, 85:10,
burden [5] - 70:3, 82:6, 126:15 coach [1] - 110:5
behalf [2] - 3:3, 3:7 94:7, 99:23, 113:8,
70:19, 71:1, 81:22, chase [1] - 88:3 code [3] - 44:20,
behind [1] - 115:19 126:19, 126:22,
83:7 check [6] - 48:22, 100:14, 123:13
bench [1] - 85:5 127:12
BURGESS [1] - 2:10 49:6, 56:19, 73:17, codes [3] - 44:18,
benefit [1] - 64:12 cases [9] - 31:5, 46:8,
Busch [3] - 72:16, 76:16, 97:15 103:10, 106:8
best [5] - 47:16, 47:23, 46:9, 46:11, 47:2,
72:20, 72:21 checkmark [3] - COIE [1] - 2:7
48:10, 49:8, 130:16 52:22, 53:21, 56:2,
business [1] - 118:22 114:13, 128:10, coincidently [1] -
better [7] - 12:14, 56:3
BY [46] - 1:22, 4:21, 128:18 68:18
30:20, 32:4, 32:14, cast [3] - 28:23, 81:11,
5:5, 6:23, 7:14, 9:10, chemist [4] - 22:15, colleague [1] - 15:9
48:24, 49:2 81:19
14:6, 16:23, 19:8, 38:5, 38:6, 53:10 colleagues [1] - 87:1
between [4] - 12:23, categories [2] - 110:4,
19:23, 21:14, 22:1, chemistry [2] - 22:18,
112:21 College [1] - 38:8
60:3, 87:15, 96:16 24:12, 26:8, 27:13, 38:9
categorized [1] - Colorado [1] - 78:10
beyond [8] - 57:5, 28:6, 31:21, 32:13, chief [3] - 70:1, 71:2,
124:7 column [13] - 5:9,
82:21, 96:8, 114:4, 34:3, 35:24, 42:5, 82:10

Appx0570
 4

5:11, 6:3, 7:15, 7:20, 83:18, 83:22, 89:10 42:11, 61:13 6:2, 7:15, 40:25, 104:15, 110:16,
8:2, 9:14, 9:18, complaint [1] - 40:15 connotation [1] - 41:10, 41:12 110:22, 112:24,
50:23, 51:10, 106:2, complete [2] - 59:15, 46:14 CONTINUING [1] - 112:25, 113:16,
106:15, 112:24 62:18 consider [1] - 23:21 4:19 113:18, 114:17,
columns [4] - 10:9, completed [1] - consideration [1] - continuity [1] - 75:23 119:7, 120:21,
10:11, 105:23, 123:22 85:8 contradiction [1] - 120:22, 122:11,
105:24 completely [3] - 15:6, consisted [1] - 54:17 75:23 122:13, 123:6,
combination [1] - 27:1, 55:6 consistencies [1] - contradicts [1] - 19:3 123:24, 124:1,
100:22 completes [1] - 13:6 contrary [1] - 59:20 124:2, 124:13,
comfortable [1] - 128:24 consistency [4] - conversation [1] - 124:15, 124:24,
14:10 completion [1] - 25:15 12:8, 75:21, 79:9, 42:8 125:8, 125:9,
coming [2] - 78:20, compliance [1] - 92:6 conversion [1] - 8:6 125:14, 126:11
79:17 41:15 consistent [20] - 66:6, convincing [2] - correctly [7] - 17:25,
comment [3] - 53:22, complied [1] - 80:11 66:9, 66:25, 72:2, 17:14, 70:6 22:20, 23:18, 26:10,
55:12, 85:14 computer [5] - 10:22, 75:12, 76:20, 77:25, cool [1] - 96:5 28:25, 29:4, 41:9
Commission [1] - 10:25, 44:15, 90:15, 78:19, 79:4, 92:22, coordinator [1] - corroborate [1] - 33:8
76:13 91:3 94:9, 94:17, 96:11, 84:14 could've [3] - 80:6,
commit [1] - 129:7 computers [1] - 84:5 96:18, 106:12, copied [3] - 16:5, 107:10, 124:8
common [3] - 13:14, concern [1] - 68:3 106:24, 107:1, 54:17, 54:22 COUNSEL [1] - 2:1
38:14, 81:1 concerning [1] - 81:7 111:22, 115:2, 115:7 Copy [1] - 1:23 counsel [11] - 4:11,
commonly [2] - 26:23, Concl'd [1] - 3:8 constitute [1] - 130:14 copy [3] - 16:16, 31:13, 32:1, 37:4,
78:17 conclude [2] - 21:20, construction [1] - 16:18, 22:3 42:2, 56:13, 69:4,
community [1] - 17:18 74:20 82:15 copying [2] - 17:23, 74:25, 79:16, 82:13,
compare [33] - 12:8, concluded [2] - 21:18, Consultants [1] - 18:15 83:12
12:20, 12:21, 12:22, 129:25 23:17 corner [3] - 61:15, count [5] - 10:24,
13:8, 13:10, 13:16, conclusion [9] - Cont'g [1] - 3:3 61:22, 122:4 11:8, 71:2, 123:3
45:24, 63:20, 64:17, 20:22, 21:1, 25:16, cont'g [1] - 3:4 correct [116] - 5:13, counted [4] - 30:2,
64:18, 64:22, 65:12, 27:5, 27:7, 29:2, contact [10] - 107:5, 5:14, 5:16, 5:17, 30:12, 35:8, 62:25
65:15, 66:7, 66:13, 29:5, 29:7, 44:8 116:3, 116:15, 6:15, 6:25, 7:1, 7:3, countenanced [1] -
66:16, 66:18, 66:19, conclusions [3] - 117:9, 117:24, 11:9, 14:10, 14:23, 25:22
66:21, 75:9, 75:17, 5:22, 6:10, 43:11 118:10, 119:2, 15:2, 15:3, 15:15, counterintuitive [1] -
75:18, 75:25, 76:21, concrete [1] - 77:5 121:7, 121:25, 122:7 18:22, 19:14, 20:8, 10:3
76:23, 78:17, 79:9, concur [4] - 94:17, contacted [1] - 107:3 20:9, 20:15, 21:5, counties [1] - 119:20
79:25, 80:7, 92:3, 98:1, 113:14, 124:9 contacting [1] - 23:10, 23:22, 24:24, county [2] - 41:14,
92:10, 92:14 concurred [1] - 106:25 120:13 25:2, 25:4, 27:7, 130:12
compared [14] - 7:6, concurs [1] - 115:22 contained [1] - 28:24 27:20, 30:11, 32:24, County [40] - 2:14,
11:22, 11:23, 11:25, condolences [1] - contains [2] - 102:13, 34:12, 34:22, 35:1, 33:1, 36:3, 36:12,
13:5, 46:1, 56:20, 39:17 111:10 35:15, 38:18, 38:21, 45:2, 52:7, 58:3,
63:5, 63:12, 64:9, conduct [12] - 50:23, contemplates [1] - 38:24, 39:3, 40:10, 59:7, 64:23, 65:7,
66:5, 77:19, 92:5, 51:18, 71:11, 71:20, 84:20 40:11, 40:21, 40:22, 70:15, 71:8, 71:11,
92:7 72:5, 72:13, 72:23, contents [3] - 28:12, 46:3, 46:7, 47:13, 72:4, 72:10, 72:13,
comparing [7] - 45:22, 74:3, 79:19, 88:3, 73:6, 125:18 50:19, 54:6, 56:2, 72:23, 73:2, 73:12,
48:4, 63:15, 64:13, 88:9, 88:12 Contestant/Plaintiff 59:10, 63:10, 63:16, 74:3, 74:6, 76:17,
64:14, 66:23, 115:13 conducted [6] - 28:21, [2] - 1:6, 2:5 63:21, 84:12, 86:4, 80:4, 80:10, 83:13,
comparison [25] - 70:7, 71:6, 72:1, Contestee [1] - 1:8 87:3, 87:11, 87:12, 84:4, 88:18, 89:4,
10:6, 12:5, 13:10, 73:3, 79:1 contestor [4] - 99:5, 88:25, 89:6, 89:7, 89:12, 89:18, 90:16,
36:4, 39:25, 43:14, conducting [2] - 123:3, 124:4, 125:12 89:19, 90:17, 91:4, 90:20, 93:23,
44:10, 44:12, 46:5, 13:20, 86:7 context [6] - 47:17, 91:5, 92:9, 92:20, 103:18, 114:9,
48:20, 49:5, 49:13, 63:20, 63:22, 64:22, 93:13, 93:19, 95:23, 116:10, 116:18,
confer [1] - 42:2
49:23, 58:13, 64:1, 75:15, 76:24 95:24, 96:6, 96:24, 119:22, 124:3, 125:5
conferred [2] - 38:23,
65:18, 66:15, 66:20, continuation [1] - 97:7, 97:8, 100:10, COUNTY [2] - 1:2,
39:2
67:3, 76:4, 76:6, 69:1 100:11, 100:22, 130:9
confidence [4] - 78:7,
77:22, 79:1, 79:23, continue [6] - 7:16, 101:7, 101:15, couple [7] - 5:15,
78:11, 78:12, 81:18
94:14 8:2, 56:12, 61:6, 101:16, 101:21, 26:18, 45:2, 73:21,
confirm [2] - 98:17,
comparisons [6] - 8:4, 92:4, 113:1 102:5, 103:13, 82:4, 87:8, 100:21
128:22
10:17, 10:19, 14:23, continued [2] - 4:13, 103:14, 103:16, couriers [1] - 102:25
confronted [1] - 25:20
36:12, 36:14 40:19 103:20, 104:1, course [6] - 18:10,
confuse [1] - 101:2
compelling [1] - 20:25 continues [2] - 4:15, 104:2, 104:5, 26:2, 26:13, 32:10,
connection [8] -
competent [8] - 70:11, 62:8 104:10, 104:11, 43:18, 69:16
14:20, 26:19, 27:5,
74:19, 83:3, 83:16, continuing [6] - 4:6, 104:13, 104:14, courses [5] - 40:24,
30:9, 34:20, 41:13,

Appx0571
 5

41:8, 41:12, 41:21, 25:9, 68:7, 69:10, 114:9, 114:11, declare [1] - 18:19 determinations [6] -
41:23 70:2, 70:15, 71:2, 115:18, 115:19, decline [2] - 84:22, 5:21, 7:7, 7:9, 7:10,
court [32] - 4:4, 15:18, 74:7, 76:22, 82:10, 116:11, 116:19, 85:3 7:11, 8:13
15:19, 15:21, 15:22, 82:14, 82:22, 82:25, 117:10, 117:14, deem [1] - 129:5 determinative [2] -
16:9, 17:11, 18:3, 83:5, 83:8, 83:9, 117:15, 117:17, deeply [1] - 21:2 57:10, 57:22
19:7, 19:13, 20:21, 83:15, 84:22, 90:5, 118:8, 118:18, defendant [3] - 25:11, determine [12] -
21:17, 22:10, 22:16, 106:6, 106:21, 118:25, 119:23, 25:19, 52:12 28:21, 30:1, 46:22,
23:8, 23:13, 23:23, 115:17, 130:12, 120:13, 120:18, defendants [12] - 55:19, 66:24, 78:18,
24:20, 25:22, 32:5, 130:23 122:2, 126:9 68:20, 69:6, 69:7, 79:4, 79:9, 94:3,
39:9, 53:24, 54:7, Court's [3] - 20:22, curve [1] - 110:1 71:1, 74:25, 76:2, 97:9, 108:19, 115:6
54:13, 56:3, 70:22, 70:3, 70:4 cut [2] - 52:22, 88:3 76:22, 77:6, 78:16, determining [2] -
74:15, 75:13, 80:19, courtesy [3] - 126:20, cutting [1] - 61:25 81:2, 85:9, 85:18 41:13, 46:14
83:14, 125:13 126:25, 128:5 CV2022-095403 [3] - Defendants [3] - 1:10, deviation [1] - 21:6
COURT [119] - 1:1, courtroom [1] - 1:7, 4:7, 68:24 2:18, 3:8 devil's [1] - 14:16
4:6, 5:2, 6:12, 6:16, 125:24 Cyber [1] - 26:24 defendants' [2] - dictionary [2] - 75:17,
7:13, 9:5, 9:8, 13:19, courts [1] - 23:20 82:13, 83:11 75:21
13:22, 14:1, 16:11, covered [1] - 41:24 D defense [1] - 78:6 differences [3] -
16:14, 16:18, 16:21, CR [1] - 130:22 deficient [1] - 22:13 12:23, 75:20, 76:19
19:6, 19:18, 19:22, crafting [1] - 91:21 dad [2] - 107:25, 108:1 defined [1] - 78:18 different [22] - 7:10,
21:11, 21:13, 21:24, Craig [1] - 2:12 DANNEMAN [2] - 9:1, defines [2] - 75:17, 13:15, 27:1, 44:17,
24:4, 24:6, 24:10, Craiger [1] - 2:10 9:7 75:21 48:6, 54:12, 54:13,
26:5, 26:7, 27:11, create [1] - 27:17 Danneman [1] - 2:7 definitely [2] - 10:3, 66:1, 73:13, 74:21,
28:1, 28:4, 31:15, created [1] - 84:3 data [36] - 5:19, 5:20, 54:11 75:16, 83:3, 103:1,
32:5, 32:8, 33:19, credentials [3] - 7:17, 7:23, 11:16, definition [2] - 13:1, 109:19, 113:11,
33:24, 34:1, 42:3, 17:17, 18:20, 25:23 36:16, 56:14, 57:3, 66:17 117:20, 118:4,
43:3, 43:8, 45:3, Criminal [1] - 74:9 58:3, 59:8, 59:9, degree [4] - 22:12, 118:7, 120:25,
45:7, 52:11, 52:14, criteria [1] - 92:23 59:15, 59:21, 59:23, 38:6, 39:20 121:8, 122:7, 127:24
57:6, 57:8, 58:22, critical [4] - 42:10, 59:24, 60:4, 61:12, differently [2] - 13:13,
demeaning [1] - 55:8
59:1, 59:3, 60:11, 42:18, 76:25, 81:7 61:14, 62:10, 62:12, 126:24
demographics [1] -
60:13, 60:17, 60:21, 62:13, 62:16, 72:7, digitalized [2] - 90:18,
criticisms [1] - 20:20 114:18
60:24, 61:2, 61:6, 77:7, 77:11, 77:13, 93:3
criticized [1] - 52:23 demonizing [1] -
61:9, 67:16, 67:20, 81:6, 84:3, 84:7, digressed [1] - 103:6
CROSS [2] - 14:4, 97:22
67:24, 68:5, 68:9, 117:21, 124:4, Din [1] - 15:13
45:9 demonstrated [1] -
68:11, 68:13, 68:16, 125:19, 125:20, Direct [2] - 3:4, 3:9
Cross [1] - 3:5 78:23
68:18, 68:24, 69:14, 126:10, 126:15 direct [7] - 4:14, 16:9,
cross [5] - 3:5, 13:20, demonstrating [2] -
69:17, 69:23, 70:20, data-backed [1] - 81:6 36:24, 45:18, 86:8,
45:4, 53:20, 57:5 17:19, 43:22
70:22, 74:14, 84:19, date [8] - 26:18, 44:15, 87:5, 100:16
CROSS- demonstration [1] -
84:25, 85:9, 85:13, 57:11, 60:2, 62:2,
EXAMINATION [2] - 80:16 DIRECT [2] - 4:19,
85:18, 85:23, 86:6, 101:15, 122:8,
14:4, 45:9 demonstrative [2] - 86:20
86:11, 97:3, 98:5, 130:15
Cross-examination 14:22, 43:21 directed [3] - 69:11,
98:7, 98:10, 99:12, date/time [2] - 57:12,
[1] - 3:5 denied [1] - 81:22 81:22, 84:25
99:14, 99:17, 99:21, 58:10
cross-examination [4] deny [1] - 71:2 director [2] - 71:8,
99:24, 100:4, Dated [1] - 130:17
- 3:5, 45:4, 53:20, department [1] - 41:14 72:7
104:19, 104:22, dates [1] - 121:8
57:5 deposition [2] - 20:6, Directories [1] - 23:16
105:19, 105:21, dating [2] - 17:14,
crosscheck [1] - 55:18 dis [1] - 114:19
108:23, 109:9, 56:6
56:21 depth [1] - 23:14 disagree [1] - 14:18
109:12, 111:1, Daubert [1] - 20:23
CRR [2] - 1:23, 130:22 derive [1] - 7:4 disappointed [1] -
111:8, 111:12, days [5] - 100:21,
cure [10] - 107:4, describe [1] - 46:21 25:13
112:3, 120:3, 120:5, 118:22, 121:4,
107:13, 114:21, described [1] - 72:2 disciplines [1] - 22:14
121:12, 121:14, 123:19, 123:21
116:21, 116:25, designated [1] - 69:3 disclosed [1] - 77:8
121:16, 123:9, deadline [3] - 118:21,
124:25, 125:2, 117:10, 118:20, designed [2] - 73:16, disclosure [2] - 77:9,
119:5, 123:12, 125:6 119:19, 121:3 125:18
125:21, 126:17, 78:12
cured [6] - 107:11, deadlines [1] - 120:25 discover [1] - 75:19
127:5, 127:10, desk [2] - 75:6, 77:3
118:14, 119:1, December [1] - 81:9 discredited [2] -
127:15, 127:21, detail [4] - 14:14,
121:2, 121:3, 122:19 decipher [1] - 96:21 17:16, 20:14
128:1, 128:6, 14:16, 72:25, 120:17
curing [30] - 44:17, decision [5] - 15:24, discretion [1] - 85:3
129:16, 129:18, details [1] - 15:8
71:12, 71:20, 72:1, 16:2, 17:11, 22:3, discussed [1] -
129:21 determinant [1] -
72:14, 73:1, 73:3, 103:20 100:21
Court [30] - 12:13, 80:13
74:4, 102:18, 107:1, decisions [1] - 113:6 discussing [2] -
20:14, 20:24, 22:3, determination [3] -
107:11, 114:7, deck [1] - 117:8 27:20, 50:18
25:1, 25:3, 25:6, 48:14, 48:21, 66:8

Appx0572
 6

discussion [1] - 28:16 23:12, 55:3 55:13 entered [1] - 8:4 53:20, 56:5, 57:5,
disenfranchise [1] - Doe [1] - 117:14 effect [1] - 59:19 entering [1] - 44:20 86:8, 87:5, 99:5,
117:5 doer [1] - 103:17 effort [6] - 116:13, entire [2] - 18:4, 99:15
dishonesty [1] - 46:15 done [21] - 7:18, 8:4, 116:14, 116:17, 126:21 examinations [2] -
dismiss [1] - 71:3 8:16, 10:20, 11:1, 117:6, 119:5, 121:6 entirely [1] - 15:5 47:21, 54:24
displayed [1] - 62:21 12:10, 12:11, 29:6, efforts [1] - 117:17 entries [2] - 58:6, 60:4 examine [2] - 75:18,
disposition [16] - 52:3, 63:23, 91:16, eight [4] - 28:4, entry [1] - 90:3 109:21
60:5, 100:14, 91:20, 93:1, 102:9, 109:20, 110:11, envelope [14] - 64:9, examined [4] - 23:1,
103:10, 103:20, 117:2, 118:9, 121:2, 129:18 66:10, 90:19, 91:2, 23:12, 28:12, 86:18
103:23, 106:2, 121:3, 122:9, either [8] - 4:9, 22:11, 93:3, 100:19, examiner [1] - 39:25
106:7, 106:10, 124:21, 130:15 36:3, 64:11, 69:2, 100:20, 101:13, Examiners [1] - 40:3
112:19, 113:3, double [1] - 53:25 85:14, 103:21, 103:19, 114:13, examiners [1] - 40:7
115:24, 116:7, double-sided [1] - 114:21 117:1, 120:24, example [7] - 32:22,
118:2, 122:21, 53:25 elapsed [1] - 60:3 123:12, 126:9 33:4, 65:17, 94:8,
124:11, 129:13 doubt [1] - 64:12 elected [2] - 81:19, envelopes [1] - 88:1 106:9, 106:23,
dispositioned [3] - Douglas [1] - 24:23 81:20 EPM [2] - 50:1, 74:25 118:22
92:23, 100:12, down [10] - 13:12, election [33] - 30:2, equal [1] - 5:12 excepted [1] - 5:25
100:13 19:7, 32:9, 70:20, 30:10, 35:6, 36:13, equally [1] - 32:11 excepting [1] - 11:17
dispositioning [2] - 100:16, 106:17, 41:14, 46:8, 52:7, ERICH [1] - 3:3 exception [19] - 44:16,
101:3, 102:19 116:2, 122:13, 64:24, 70:11, 71:18, Erich [2] - 14:10, 74:1 65:24, 90:4, 90:6,
dispositions [3] - 123:12, 125:7 73:4, 73:13, 73:25, error [1] - 25:16 90:9, 94:7, 94:12,
110:4, 113:11, 118:4 drag [1] - 13:12 74:19, 81:11, 81:12, especially [3] - 20:25, 95:20, 106:23,
dispute [3] - 53:9, drastically [1] - 66:1 81:24, 84:13, 87:24, 54:10, 75:19 107:10, 113:6,
77:6, 78:21 draw [1] - 35:10 88:4, 88:10, 88:15, essential [1] - 22:14 113:17, 114:2,
disputed [3] - 53:8, drawing [3] - 30:14, 88:19, 89:3, 89:17, essentially [5] - 15:18, 115:21, 117:22,
78:15, 82:9 115:9 103:5, 104:9, 16:3, 22:15, 37:18, 124:8, 128:16,
dissimilar [8] - 66:25, drawn [1] - 59:10 105:12, 111:15, 39:4 128:22, 129:6
92:16, 92:19, 93:4, drop [2] - 106:17, 112:13, 112:14, establish [3] - 70:9, exceptional [1] -
93:18, 93:24, 94:9, 117:8 117:7, 121:2 74:16, 97:25 113:21
97:10 drop-off [1] - 117:8 Election [1] - 87:22 et [3] - 1:9, 4:7, 68:25 exceptionally [1] -
distance [1] - 95:12 duly [1] - 86:17 elections [4] - 46:2, Ethan [1] - 19:10 123:8
distinction [1] - 76:25 duplicate [1] - 100:5 46:7, 71:8, 81:8 ethics [1] - 40:15 exceptions [1] - 49:1
distress [1] - 61:2 during [13] - 70:14, Elena [2] - 2:9, 69:8 evaluate [1] - 23:13 excited [1] - 30:20
district [1] - 19:13 71:17, 73:3, 73:24, ELIAS [1] - 2:8 evaluated [1] - 34:14 excluded [2] - 20:7,
District [1] - 19:14 84:5, 87:24, 88:4, eliminate [1] - 110:2 event [1] - 72:21 21:3
districts [1] - 27:21 88:10, 88:14, 88:19, Ellen [1] - 19:10 eventually [1] - 30:16 excuse [4] - 11:23,
doctor [4] - 39:12, 104:6, 104:9, 112:13 Emily [1] - 2:10 evidence [18] - 17:14, 67:16, 73:25, 76:14
39:14, 68:3, 96:22 duties [2] - 73:12, emphasis [1] - 113:24 17:22, 21:10, 24:3, excusing [1] - 17:13
doctors [1] - 95:22 122:25 emphasized [1] - 26:4, 27:25, 70:6, executive [1] - 27:19
document [41] - 6:8, 95:19 77:5, 79:8, 79:14, exemplar [3] - 93:20,
38:1, 38:4, 38:12, E employed [2] - 36:7, 80:12, 81:3, 82:5, 94:12, 106:16
38:21, 38:23, 39:21, 64:23 82:7, 82:25, 84:23, exemplars [15] -
39:24, 40:6, 40:7, e-mail [3] - 61:18, employee [1] - 90:1 99:11, 124:20 47:19, 48:23, 49:8,
53:5, 53:18, 56:4, 61:19, 116:4 employees [5] - 36:2, evil [1] - 103:17 49:24, 66:11, 66:12,
56:10, 59:12, 59:14, e-mails [1] - 58:21 36:11, 76:17, 79:3, exact [8] - 35:2, 41:24, 90:23, 91:10, 93:23,
61:17, 98:12, 98:21, early [11] - 49:23, 105:7 62:24, 93:8, 93:10, 96:10, 96:22, 97:10,
98:24, 99:3, 105:13, 87:4, 87:25, 89:13, employer [1] - 87:6 96:13, 96:15, 124:7 113:8, 113:14, 129:5
105:25, 107:5, 101:2, 110:7, 114:1, enabled [1] - 113:9 exactly [10] - 18:14, exercise [1] - 85:3
112:7, 112:12, 116:11, 120:13, encountered [1] - 25:4, 25:8, 40:22, exhibit [16] - 16:8,
112:15, 112:17, 120:20 67:10 43:20, 55:16, 75:2, 28:8, 42:12, 43:3,
112:18, 113:2, easier [2] - 10:5, 58:20 end [3] - 53:14, 99:25, 90:2, 96:7, 96:11 43:4, 43:5, 43:12,
114:9, 117:17, easy [1] - 7:12 127:16 EXAMINATION [5] - 54:8, 58:19, 98:8,
118:8, 120:9, EB2016 [1] - 106:3 ends [1] - 118:23 4:19, 14:4, 45:9, 98:17, 98:19, 99:10,
120:13, 120:16, EBRT [1] - 106:2 engage [1] - 36:12 52:18, 86:20 104:20, 112:24,
121:8, 121:20, econalysis [1] - 22:19 engaged [1] - 36:4 Examination [3] - 3:4, 126:18
123:3, 125:11, 126:6 edification [1] - 129:3 English [3] - 13:15, 3:6, 3:9 Exhibit [35] - 4:22,
Document [1] - 40:3 education [5] - 40:25, 66:16, 66:21 examination [18] - 3:5, 14:21, 16:25, 19:24,
documented [1] - 41:10, 41:12, 53:12, ensure [2] - 73:17, 3:5, 4:14, 23:5, 23:9, 20:2, 22:2, 22:3,
118:15 64:25 76:9 25:15, 45:4, 49:6, 24:13, 24:14, 26:3,
documents [3] - 23:1, EEOC [2] - 19:10, enter [2] - 70:16, 74:7 52:12, 53:5, 53:18, 27:14, 27:25, 35:19,

Appx0573
 7

35:21, 35:25, 36:1, 109:7, 123:18 findings [9] - 27:6, 40:13

G
44:9, 58:14, 58:18, factor [3] - 35:17, 28:19, 28:22, 69:13, forget [1] - 101:15
58:23, 59:5, 59:23, 36:2, 36:6 70:16, 74:8, 82:11, forgets [1] - 120:23 game [1] - 110:8
62:14, 62:20, 73:6, fail [3] - 44:16, 65:25, 83:11, 84:20 forgot [1] - 62:24 games [2] - 103:18,
98:9, 104:21, 66:2 fine [9] - 21:8, 44:6, form [3] - 34:8, 66:25, 110:10
104:25, 105:18, failed [6] - 50:23, 70:2, 47:14, 49:20, 60:12, 97:14 General [1] - 55:2
112:5, 120:1, 120:7, 70:18, 70:25, 72:4, 68:3, 109:12, 127:24 formal [1] - 39:20 general [23] - 30:10,
121:11, 121:18, 72:23 fining [1] - 71:10 forming [1] - 33:13 33:11, 34:16, 35:6,
129:15 fair [24] - 10:23, 30:3, finish [3] - 32:2, forth [6] - 50:8, 83:21, 46:4, 49:1, 52:7,
exhibits [4] - 19:18, 30:6, 31:11, 33:15, 108:7, 108:8 83:22, 89:9, 124:19, 64:24, 71:18, 73:4,
24:3, 68:8, 71:10 34:10, 35:9, 36:5, finished [1] - 42:2 126:3 73:13, 73:25, 87:24,
Exhibits [1] - 21:9 36:10, 37:19, 38:25, finishing [2] - 73:8, forty [6] - 24:6, 26:7, 88:4, 88:10, 88:15,
existence [1] - 64:7 39:21, 39:22, 39:25, 73:9 35:23, 43:6, 58:15, 88:19, 89:3, 89:17,
expelled [1] - 30:16 40:1, 41:4, 41:17, firm [1] - 37:11 89:8 104:9, 105:12,
experience [19] - 10:4, 41:18, 43:25, 46:20, first [21] - 10:12, 21:1, forty-one [1] - 26:7 112:13, 112:14
22:25, 23:12, 23:14, 47:18, 50:15, 57:7 25:9, 28:9, 28:11, forty-seven [3] - generally [3] - 46:6,
23:21, 53:5, 64:25, fairly [1] - 76:18 43:15, 58:7, 59:6, 35:23, 43:6, 58:15 46:18, 51:22
95:22, 97:19, 102:6, fall [1] - 117:9 76:9, 78:6, 82:3, forty-three [2] - 24:6, genius [1] - 89:21
111:2, 111:5, falls [1] - 119:18 82:21, 91:7, 91:12, 89:8 gentleman [1] - 19:6
111:13, 111:16, false [1] - 17:19 93:7, 94:11, 95:11, forward [1] - 62:1 gentlemen [1] - 19:6
111:19, 111:23, falsified [1] - 18:20 95:12, 110:10, foundation [8] - 6:13, gig [1] - 37:18
114:12, 129:10 familiar [4] - 26:25, 112:20 6:18, 31:13, 34:7, given [9] - 30:9, 32:24,
experienced [1] - 93:1 49:25, 114:8, 120:10 First [1] - 22:3 34:11, 34:14, 33:1, 34:4, 75:14,
Expert [1] - 23:17 family [1] - 37:7 fit [1] - 106:10 108:18, 125:15 80:1, 87:6, 100:15,
expert [32] - 12:7, fan [1] - 46:13 fits [1] - 80:25 four [3] - 64:19, 65:8, 107:3
17:16, 20:4, 20:5, fancy [1] - 95:14 five [5] - 49:2, 62:10, 87:15 glance [1] - 104:25
20:8, 21:19, 22:16, far [6] - 29:13, 42:24, 105:21, 118:22, four-hour [1] - 65:8 Googled [1] - 12:22
25:1, 25:3, 25:10, 58:8, 71:13, 89:24, 121:4 FRANCO [1] - 1:23 gotcha [1] - 50:20
25:14, 37:18, 46:5, 95:1 flash [2] - 67:2, 80:16 Franco [3] - 130:11, government [1] - 56:8
53:6, 53:9, 54:10, fast [5] - 57:16, 58:16, flashed [1] - 77:2 130:21, 130:22 Governor [3] - 69:9,
55:15, 55:25, 56:2, 67:10, 67:11, 107:16 flicking [1] - 23:4 Frank [1] - 94:9 70:14, 74:5
76:3, 77:9, 77:17, faster [7] - 7:19, 8:21, flip [3] - 62:1, 62:5, frankly [1] - 123:20 governs [1] - 13:3
78:16, 80:4, 80:6, 9:25, 10:4, 65:9, 78:23 fraud [12] - 46:6, grade [2] - 107:23,
108:14, 108:18, 129:10, 129:12 flipping [1] - 23:9 46:12, 46:15, 46:18, 108:16
109:1, 109:4, fastest [3] - 9:17, flood [1] - 79:16 47:6, 47:7, 47:9, grades [1] - 51:3
110:25, 126:3 10:13, 10:14 flourishes [1] - 96:16 47:20, 48:21, 49:6, grading [1] - 110:1
expert's [1] - 81:4 fatal [1] - 78:21 focused [1] - 71:22 76:13, 76:15 granted [1] - 81:23
experts [1] - 22:17 father [2] - 37:24, folklore [1] - 97:22 fraudulent [1] - 76:10 granting [1] - 70:4
explain [3] - 106:6, 107:24 folks [1] - 97:15 fraudulently [1] - 49:7 grease [2] - 53:6, 53:9
106:21, 115:17 fault [2] - 32:11, 44:5 follow [8] - 34:18, free [2] - 19:17, 75:23 great [2] - 14:8, 69:25
express [3] - 63:6, favor [1] - 81:23 62:9, 65:16, 65:19, Friday [1] - 77:8 greatest [2] - 76:14,
63:7, 63:8 February [1] - 59:7 65:22, 66:20, 70:22, front [14] - 16:25, 76:15
expressed [3] - 51:20, federal [1] - 19:13 106:19 27:21, 29:12, 53:22, green [5] - 90:19,
51:21, 63:17 few [2] - 45:15, 114:5 followed [2] - 79:6, 55:11, 61:20, 69:24, 93:2, 98:15, 100:20
extend [1] - 119:18 field [2] - 13:9, 50:6 107:9 75:6, 90:15, 91:12, grounds [1] - 20:25
extended [1] - 126:20 figure [6] - 10:17, following [3] - 4:3, 92:18, 95:15, 98:13, group [2] - 40:20,
extent [5] - 23:13, 95:16, 103:19, 80:19, 107:17 127:8 114:18
31:1, 34:22, 34:23 107:21, 123:4, follows [2] - 64:18, FTIR [1] - 53:10 GROUP [2] - 2:8, 2:10
extra [1] - 119:5 123:15 86:18 fulfills [2] - 59:18, guide [3] - 112:16,
extraordinarily [1] - figures [1] - 12:2 Fontes [2] - 70:15, 59:19 114:17, 121:25
54:17 figuring [1] - 108:1 74:6 full [1] - 36:3 guideline [1] - 65:20
extremely [1] - 25:12 file [8] - 91:7, 93:8, FOR [1] - 1:2 fully [1] - 70:13 guidelines [1] - 65:21
103:10, 113:14, foregoing [1] - 130:13 fundamental [1] - guides [4] - 99:8,
F 115:2, 115:3, forensic [14] - 28:17, 126:15 105:6, 122:7
122:16, 128:15 28:19, 31:4, 31:7, funny [1] - 30:22
fact [17] - 16:4, 43:12, files [1] - 81:4 38:1, 38:4, 38:12, furthered [1] - 63:18 H
44:10, 46:4, 46:23, 38:21, 38:23, 40:6,
fill [1] - 108:3 furthermore [1] -
67:9, 71:21, 79:2, 40:7, 46:22, 56:4,
filter [1] - 90:4 109:5 hac [1] - 2:2
80:8, 81:3, 86:25, 56:10
final [1] - 54:7 half [3] - 75:25, 77:16,
88:12, 93:14, 96:19,
finally [2] - 73:22, 74:1 Forensic [2] - 40:3, 79:12

Appx0574
 8

hand [4] - 61:15, 54:10, 54:11 HOWARD [1] - 2:11 important [3] - 14:14, 30:23, 46:15, 51:23
61:22, 96:16, 122:4 Honor [134] - 4:17, hundred [15] - 7:11, 43:10, 116:23 information [9] -
handed [4] - 16:24, 6:7, 6:22, 9:1, 13:17, 9:19, 12:6, 50:22, imposed [1] - 20:22 21:16, 27:7, 32:23,
54:7, 59:5, 120:9 13:21, 13:24, 14:2, 51:20, 54:23, 62:23, impossibility [1] - 33:12, 34:8, 34:19,
handing [4] - 19:24, 16:7, 16:9, 16:19, 63:2, 73:24, 77:23, 23:2 34:21, 84:1, 102:14
22:2, 24:13, 27:14 19:16, 19:20, 19:21, 78:4, 80:21, 111:15, impossible [1] - initial [4] - 15:21,
hands [3] - 102:16, 21:9, 21:12, 21:23, 111:20 113:24 95:13, 106:14,
104:1, 117:8 21:25, 24:2, 24:5, hundreds [4] - 39:10, improper [1] - 30:12 129:11
Handsel [2] - 72:7, 24:9, 26:4, 26:6, 56:2, 56:3, 111:20 improperly [1] - 35:8 injected [1] - 76:10
72:12 27:10, 27:12, 27:24, hurry [1] - 96:2 IN [2] - 1:1, 1:2 injecting [2] - 101:9
handwriting [9] - 28:2, 28:5, 31:12, husband [1] - 37:24 inability [2] - 64:22, ink [3] - 17:14, 53:4,
46:10, 47:5, 56:5, 31:25, 32:3, 33:16, 94:6 56:6
56:11, 65:3, 65:13, 34:2, 42:2, 42:4, I inaccurate [1] - 89:16 input [1] - 13:11
76:3, 76:19, 95:23 43:4, 44:25, 45:6, inadmissible [1] - inputted [3] - 5:23,
happy [1] - 20:18 50:25, 52:3, 52:10, i.e [1] - 22:18 20:23 10:22, 11:4
hard [1] - 41:2 52:13, 52:16, 57:4, ID [3] - 97:16, 103:4, inbound [2] - 103:2, inside [4] - 90:12,
hardcopy [1] - 58:20 58:19, 58:24, 59:2, 124:7 103:8 101:23, 101:24,
harm [2] - 90:3, 90:6 60:16, 61:1, 67:13, idea [3] - 48:1, 81:14, incapacitation [1] - 103:19
harmony [1] - 75:22 67:19, 68:7, 68:12, 91:11 114:19 insist [1] - 126:22
Harris [1] - 29:17 68:15, 68:17, 69:8, identical [2] - 92:17, include [5] - 11:25, instance [1] - 53:1
Hartman [1] - 2:15 69:15, 69:18, 69:21, 100:2 95:6, 97:14, 113:12, Instance [1] - 22:4
Hartman-Tellez [1] - 73:25, 74:5, 74:11, identification [1] - 116:6 instances [11] - 6:5,
2:15 74:12, 74:15, 76:25, 53:5 included [5] - 7:20, 8:3, 8:15, 8:20, 9:19,
77:6, 77:15, 77:20, identified [4] - 50:23, 7:21, 7:25, 23:16, 10:15, 11:9, 11:17,
hated [1] - 5:25
78:5, 78:15, 78:21, 61:14, 88:21, 114:17 126:10 12:5, 65:22
haves [1] - 47:24
79:23, 80:1, 80:8, identifier [2] - 59:25, instantaneously [1] -
head [1] - 50:2 including [6] - 55:4,
80:15, 80:20, 81:5, 114:21 93:25
hear [4] - 41:9, 85:15, 71:8, 73:2, 73:6,
81:21, 81:25, 82:1, identifies [1] - 120:13 instantly [1] - 116:8
126:2, 127:7 73:10, 96:1
82:12, 83:13, 84:9, identify [1] - 100:15
heard [8] - 26:9, inconsistencies [2] - integer [1] - 122:15
84:18, 84:24, 85:7, identifying [4] - 95:2,
30:18, 31:2, 36:23, 13:7, 94:4 integrity [3] - 81:7,
85:12, 85:17, 86:5, 95:3, 117:19, 129:6
40:2, 70:13, 114:6, inconsistency [2] - 84:12, 117:3
86:10, 86:14, 97:1, identity [1] - 107:4
127:3 13:8, 92:12 intend [1] - 35:14
98:4, 98:6, 98:9, II [33] - 14:25, 70:8,
hearing [8] - 6:8, 6:9, inconsistent [11] - intended [3] - 75:16,
99:10, 99:13, 99:16, 71:6, 71:12, 72:5,
14:21, 30:15, 30:17, 67:1, 92:8, 92:15, 76:24, 97:21
99:20, 99:22, 100:6, 72:14, 72:24, 73:3,
41:3, 69:16, 83:20 93:11, 94:4, 95:3, intermediate [2] -
104:18, 104:21, 73:15, 74:4, 79:18,
hefty [1] - 16:17 113:13, 115:22, 15:19, 15:24
105:17, 105:20, 88:9, 89:6, 89:15,
held [1] - 80:3 116:16, 128:11, interpreted [1] - 79:7
108:13, 108:15, 90:10, 94:19, 94:20,
hereby [1] - 130:13 128:14 interrupt [1] - 113:1
108:22, 109:4, 94:21, 94:22, 94:23,
hesitate [1] - 67:13 incorrectly [2] - 55:17, interrupting [1] - 32:1
109:8, 109:11, 95:1, 95:4, 97:12,
high [3] - 9:24, 73:12 inventory [1] - 4:25
110:23, 111:4, 97:18, 97:19, 100:9,
102:24, 107:22 increase [1] - 58:5 invited [2] - 29:16,
111:6, 112:2, 102:21, 103:13,
high-level [1] - 107:22 increased [1] - 81:15 31:1
119:25, 120:2, 106:25, 112:14,
higher [4] - 9:25, indeed [8] - 10:25, inviting [1] - 17:24
120:4, 121:10, 112:19, 113:7, 114:4
15:18, 72:1, 95:21 71:13, 94:17, 95:6, involved [4] - 37:8,
121:13, 121:15, III [10] - 71:6, 71:12,
himself [4] - 17:15, 95:20, 115:22, 55:3, 87:25, 115:11
123:7, 124:22,
22:16, 23:15, 73:23 72:6, 72:15, 72:24, 128:16, 129:8 involvement [1] -
125:1, 125:16,
73:3, 73:16, 74:4, independent [1] - 30:5 19:10
hip [2] - 60:8, 60:11 126:13, 127:2,
88:13, 114:5 independently [1] - IRS [1] - 25:24
hired [4] - 36:4, 36:12, 127:4, 127:13,
illegal [1] - 76:10 20:25 issue [10] - 23:20,
80:4, 91:19 127:17, 127:25,
illegally [2] - 30:2, indication [1] - 25:22 48:5, 53:15, 70:5,
historical [1] - 66:11 129:14, 129:17,
30:12 indicia [1] - 114:16 70:14, 74:23, 77:1,
hit [1] - 111:25 129:19
image [8] - 90:23, individual [1] - 94:2 78:15, 79:5, 79:14
Hobbs [6] - 1:8, 4:7, HONORABLE [1] -
93:3, 102:12, 103:3, individuals [2] - 72:2, issues [2] - 25:18,
68:25, 69:9, 70:14, 1:19
103:8, 106:16, 122:1 81:7
74:6 hopeful [1] - 102:3
115:5, 122:25 industry [4] - 13:16, item [1] - 28:24
hold [2] - 60:17, hour [4] - 12:18,
images [2] - 28:20, 48:10, 65:21, 66:23 items [3] - 12:24,
101:22 37:11, 65:8
90:19 infer [1] - 96:17 62:10, 118:7
holiday [4] - 118:24, hourly [1] - 37:11
impact [2] - 34:25, infers [1] - 13:6
119:6, 119:18, 121:4 hours [1] - 37:23
35:1 infirmity [1] - 116:25
Hong [6] - 15:10, House [1] - 30:17
importance [1] - 81:16 inflammatory [3] -
17:12, 22:10, 53:24,

Appx0575
 9

54:10, 54:11 123:8, 123:9, 95:18, 95:21, 96:9, line [2] - 39:5, 78:6
J
Kung [1] - 15:13 124:22, 125:1, 97:12, 97:18, 97:19, lines [1] - 51:11
Jack [1] - 2:16 Kurt [2] - 2:2, 37:2 125:2, 126:13, 97:20, 97:23, 99:6, list [3] - 47:23, 48:9,
Jacqueline [1] - 71:15 126:19, 126:21, 99:7, 100:9, 100:10, 101:17
Jake [1] - 2:12 L 126:23, 127:11, 102:12, 102:20, listed [2] - 51:11,
jive [1] - 36:20 127:20, 127:22 102:21, 102:24, 85:21
job [5] - 18:13, 37:17, label [5] - 118:6, League [1] - 110:6 103:13, 105:7, litany [1] - 87:5
65:1, 71:22, 112:11 118:7, 118:15, learn [1] - 107:24 105:9, 105:16, live [1] - 91:23
John [1] - 117:14 121:25, 122:3 learned [2] - 107:24, 106:9, 106:14, Liz [1] - 29:17
Johnson [1] - 94:9 laboratory [1] - 23:16 107:25 106:23, 106:25, LLC [1] - 2:11
joins [1] - 83:14 lack [3] - 20:14, 23:14, least [7] - 13:11, 107:12, 107:22, LLP [2] - 2:7, 2:8
joint [2] - 82:11, 82:14 84:2 62:12, 66:11, 77:8, 107:23, 111:15, local [3] - 94:11, 98:2,
jointly [2] - 70:15, 74:7 lacked [1] - 17:17 88:25, 89:1, 116:14 111:24, 112:10, 115:14
Joseph [1] - 2:15 lacking [1] - 53:7 leave [1] - 99:23 112:14, 112:15, locked [1] - 103:12
lag [1] - 58:9 lectern [1] - 69:22 112:19, 113:3, lodged [1] - 40:16
Jr [1] - 24:20
laid [1] - 108:18 left [7] - 51:9, 57:13, 113:5, 113:7, log [4] - 57:22, 81:4,
judge [13] - 16:5,
Lake [17] - 1:5, 4:7, 118:10, 118:12, 113:12, 113:15, 90:22, 122:15
17:14, 18:3, 18:12,
61:15, 61:21, 68:25, 122:4, 122:6 113:25, 114:3,
23:25, 24:20, 53:2, logged [2] - 44:14,
70:1, 70:5, 70:13, left-hand [1] - 122:4 114:4, 115:4,
53:13, 53:17, 55:6, 129:12
70:16, 70:18, 70:25, legal [2] - 31:5, 54:10 115:20, 123:25,
55:22, 88:6 logging [1] - 57:20
71:7, 74:8, 74:16, legend [1] - 122:5 124:9, 128:9,
Judge [2] - 24:19, logic [1] - 107:18
83:7, 83:16, 83:22 legislature [5] - 26:11, 128:17, 128:24,
33:23 long-held [1] - 80:3
Lake's [5] - 71:2, 71:4, 29:13, 29:25, 76:8, 129:4, 129:8
judgement [1] - 70:16 look [35] - 12:4, 12:10,
71:9, 84:14, 125:12 81:18 leveled [1] - 20:20
judges [1] - 54:12 12:22, 20:19, 49:8,
language [6] - 13:15, lengthy [1] - 53:23 levels [11] - 71:6,
judgment [7] - 69:10, 49:13, 49:14, 49:17,
14:17, 66:16, 66:22, less [57] - 5:7, 5:9, 71:12, 72:1, 72:5,
69:12, 74:7, 81:23, 49:24, 53:11, 65:2,
84:21, 93:11 5:10, 5:11, 5:12, 6:4, 72:14, 72:24, 73:3,
84:20, 84:22, 85:3 65:3, 65:4, 66:23,
large [4] - 34:23, 7:16, 7:19, 8:2, 8:15, 73:15, 73:17, 74:4,
Judicial [1] - 24:19 88:6, 91:9, 92:1,
34:25, 46:9, 54:17 8:16, 8:19, 8:21, 82:21
jurisdiction [1] - 53:16 92:17, 92:21, 93:25,
larger [1] - 7:21 9:14, 9:17, 9:19, licensing [1] - 38:20
jury [1] - 25:22 94:1, 94:2, 95:8,
LaRue [5] - 2:15, 3:5, 9:21, 9:22, 10:9, LIDDY [46] - 83:13,
justify [1] - 21:1 95:11, 96:9, 96:17,
45:4, 62:20, 64:3 10:10, 10:11, 10:12, 86:9, 86:14, 86:22,
98:1, 110:12,
LARUE [7] - 45:5, 10:13, 10:14, 10:17, 97:4, 98:4, 98:6,
K 113:13, 117:4,
45:11, 51:4, 51:8, 10:20, 11:13, 11:20, 98:9, 98:11, 99:10,
120:9, 121:20,
52:3, 52:4, 52:10 12:5, 12:8, 15:15, 99:19, 99:22, 100:2,
Karen [1] - 2:15 123:15, 129:7
last [18] - 6:20, 9:18, 15:16, 36:8, 51:12, 100:6, 100:7,
Kari [4] - 1:5, 68:25, looked [5] - 55:2,
10:7, 25:17, 28:8, 51:13, 63:5, 63:12, 104:18, 104:21,
84:14, 125:12 106:13, 124:5,
51:21, 55:13, 55:14, 63:16, 63:18, 63:20, 104:23, 105:17,
Kathleen [1] - 80:5 125:19, 129:4
58:6, 60:15, 91:2, 77:14, 77:15, 77:19, 105:22, 108:7,
Katie [2] - 1:8, 68:25 looking [8] - 4:23,
91:25, 93:3, 95:14, 78:3, 79:10, 107:19, 108:9, 108:12,
keep [1] - 19:7 9:21, 23:4, 92:19,
100:21, 111:15, 111:24, 122:20, 108:15, 108:21,
keeping [1] - 55:23 102:13, 111:23,
122:13, 127:18 124:14 109:10, 109:13,
key [8] - 8:4, 11:1, 115:8, 115:15
lateral [2] - 91:6, 93:7 letter [11] - 23:23, 111:4, 111:17,
44:14, 57:9, 57:20, looks [2] - 80:16,
latest [1] - 91:6 24:16, 24:18, 25:6, 112:2, 112:4,
57:22, 58:6, 77:6 93:23
LAW [4] - 2:2, 2:3, 2:8, 53:1, 53:14, 95:14, 119:25, 120:4,
keyboard [2] - 75:6, loosely [1] - 29:9
2:10 118:11, 122:6, 120:6, 121:10,
77:3 loss [1] - 32:16
law [13] - 41:16, 49:23, 122:10 121:15, 121:17,
kick [1] - 79:20 lost [1] - 78:8
level [92] - 13:13, 123:10, 124:23,
kind [7] - 40:5, 79:12, 72:3, 75:13, 79:6, low [6] - 109:18,
14:24, 14:25, 70:8, 125:3, 125:23,
90:12, 96:4, 96:5, 82:16, 88:13, 92:1, 109:23, 110:21,
71:17, 71:21, 73:1, 127:17, 128:4,
101:22, 122:24 116:12, 116:20, 111:11, 124:5, 124:6
73:10, 73:16, 76:9, 128:8, 129:14,
kinds [1] - 96:20 116:24, 118:16, lower [5] - 10:16,
79:18, 79:21, 88:4, 129:19
119:17 11:25, 15:19, 15:22,
kitchen [1] - 109:5 Liddy [6] - 2:14, 3:9,
laws [2] - 50:12, 78:11 88:9, 88:12, 88:25, 109:25
knowledge [9] - 21:7, 81:9, 86:9, 86:13,
lawyer [2] - 39:13, 89:5, 89:14, 89:15, LS [1] - 122:10
22:13, 53:4, 53:18, 100:1
39:14 89:25, 90:2, 90:3, lunch [1] - 5:7
72:20, 88:17, 89:16, life [4] - 37:21, 46:16,
lawyer's [1] - 25:20 90:8, 90:9, 91:12,
105:8, 125:17 67:11, 96:3 LUZ [1] - 1:23
lay [2] - 31:13 91:16, 91:20, 93:22,
known [4] - 49:10, lightning [1] - 11:19 Luz [2] - 130:11,
lead [1] - 49:21 94:5, 94:15, 94:19,
77:7, 84:25, 122:20 limitations [1] - 49:1 130:22
leading [17] - 6:9, 94:20, 94:21, 94:22,
Kong [6] - 15:10, limited [1] - 34:23
22:17, 97:2, 97:3, 94:23, 95:1, 95:4,
17:12, 22:11, 53:24,

Appx0576
 10

104:4 mentioned [7] - 16:9, 35:23, 35:24, 42:1, 74:15, 80:20, 83:13,
M
marker [1] - 114:16 76:12, 87:10, 93:6, 42:4, 42:5, 43:4, 86:9, 86:14, 86:22,
machine [1] - 124:3 marks [1] - 115:13 96:15, 106:7, 118:13 43:7, 43:9, 44:24, 97:1, 97:4, 98:4,
magnify [1] - 22:25 mass [3] - 12:17, mentioning [1] - 96:7 57:4, 57:7, 67:18, 98:6, 98:9, 98:11,
mail [8] - 61:18, 61:19, 63:22, 63:24 merely [1] - 67:2 68:7, 68:10, 68:12 99:10, 99:13, 99:16,
76:13, 76:14, 81:15, massive [1] - 81:8 message [1] - 122:6 Morgan [3] - 2:12, 3:5, 99:19, 99:22, 100:2,
90:20, 116:4, 120:18 match [12] - 10:5, met [2] - 81:22, 86:23 13:22 100:6, 100:7,
mail-in [4] - 76:13, 10:6, 92:16, 92:22, method [2] - 55:22, morning [3] - 12:21, 104:18, 104:21,
76:14, 81:15, 90:20 93:8, 93:10, 93:17, 55:23 13:1, 129:22 104:23, 105:17,
mailed [1] - 116:6 93:25, 95:15, 96:14, methods [3] - 17:18, most [2] - 81:7, 91:11 105:20, 105:22,
mails [1] - 58:21 96:22, 96:23 55:19, 121:7 motion [7] - 69:12, 108:6, 108:7, 108:9,
maintain [1] - 105:15 matched [1] - 15:6 microphone [1] - 69:17, 82:11, 82:14, 108:12, 108:13,
maintained [1] - material [1] - 99:7 69:24 83:10, 83:14 108:15, 108:17,
118:11 materials [1] - 91:18 middle [6] - 41:3, Motors [1] - 55:2 108:21, 108:25,
major [1] - 38:9 math [5] - 6:16, 6:21, 84:21, 95:13, 106:2, move [20] - 8:23, 21:9, 109:10, 109:13,
majority [1] - 46:11 107:23, 108:16 106:17, 112:23 24:2, 26:3, 27:24, 110:23, 111:4,
malpractice [1] - mathematical [10] - might [10] - 11:11, 61:15, 61:24, 69:10, 111:6, 111:9,
23:2, 70:11, 74:19, 26:23, 45:2, 57:17, 70:15, 74:7, 90:9, 111:17, 112:2,
84:15
83:3, 83:16, 83:19, 65:22, 85:5, 93:24, 90:10, 95:3, 99:10, 112:4, 119:25,
manager [10] - 84:15,
83:22, 89:10, 89:20, 95:11, 96:22, 107:24 105:17, 109:22, 120:2, 120:4, 120:6,
97:17, 97:25,
124:18 Miller [1] - 80:2 114:4, 119:25, 121:10, 121:13,
100:10, 106:25,
Matter [1] - 1:4 million [1] - 89:13 121:10, 129:14 121:15, 121:17,
113:3, 113:9,
matter [3] - 69:1, mind [4] - 44:3, 55:23, moved [1] - 118:24 123:7, 123:10,
115:21, 115:22
69:23, 126:25 67:3, 99:24 movement [1] - 73:14 124:22, 124:23,
manager's [3] - 94:15,
matters [1] - 87:1 moves [2] - 113:2, 125:1, 125:3,
94:20, 124:9 mine [2] - 18:22,
113:7 125:15, 125:23,
managerial [1] - MCTEC [2] - 103:18, 107:25
moving [2] - 8:19, 126:13, 127:2,
112:15 106:18 minimum [1] - 28:21
109:25 127:7, 127:13,
managers [4] - 94:16, mean [28] - 12:22, miniscule [1] - 122:24
MR [168] - 4:17, 4:21, 127:17, 127:25,
97:12, 112:11, 27:3, 28:9, 33:20, minus [1] - 11:11
5:5, 6:7, 6:15, 6:22, 128:2, 128:4, 128:8,
113:12 33:22, 36:6, 36:8, minute [4] - 20:11,
6:23, 7:14, 9:10, 129:14, 129:17,
mandate [1] - 74:16 36:18, 39:1, 39:9, 37:14, 108:23
13:17, 13:21, 13:24, 129:19
mandating [1] - 76:8 39:12, 39:13, 42:16, minutes [1] - 68:19
14:2, 14:6, 16:6, MS [16] - 9:1, 9:7,
manual [2] - 13:11, 46:19, 47:16, 48:2, mirror [1] - 100:19
16:13, 16:16, 16:19, 52:13, 69:8, 69:18,
65:1 48:25, 53:17, 55:7, misleading [1] - 10:24
16:22, 16:23, 19:8, 69:20, 69:25, 70:21,
Maricopa [46] - 2:14, 58:8, 64:25, 65:20, misrepresentations
19:16, 19:20, 19:23, 70:24, 82:1, 84:17,
36:3, 36:11, 45:1, 66:7, 85:13, 100:18, [1] - 23:21
21:9, 21:12, 21:14, 84:24, 85:7, 85:11,
52:7, 56:14, 58:3, 100:19, 100:21, missing [1] - 32:20
21:22, 21:25, 22:1, 85:16, 85:22
59:7, 59:15, 61:12, 106:11 modified [1] - 75:10
24:2, 24:5, 24:8, multi [1] - 73:1
62:17, 64:23, 65:7, meaning [9] - 42:25, mom [2] - 107:25
47:11, 52:9, 75:15, 24:11, 24:12, 26:3, multi-level [1] - 73:1
65:11, 70:15, 71:8, moment [8] - 18:11,
75:16, 76:23, 79:7, 26:6, 26:8, 27:9, multiple [4] - 48:4,
71:11, 72:4, 72:9, 35:4, 42:1, 42:6,
80:2, 107:9 27:12, 27:13, 27:24, 56:3, 59:17, 113:7
72:13, 72:22, 73:2, 50:17, 80:9, 98:20,
means [13] - 5:9, 5:10, 28:2, 28:3, 28:5, must [7] - 34:18, 48:2,
73:12, 74:2, 74:6, 120:8
5:12, 5:14, 12:25, 28:6, 31:12, 31:21, 67:13, 83:16, 91:9,
76:17, 79:2, 80:4, months [2] - 26:18,
13:16, 31:4, 31:7, 31:25, 32:3, 32:7, 119:18
80:10, 83:13, 84:4, 84:11
106:12, 106:21, 32:10, 32:13, 33:16, Myers [4] - 71:16,
88:18, 89:4, 89:12, MORGAN [58] - 6:7,
109:14, 114:8, 33:22, 33:25, 34:2, 71:19, 71:24
89:18, 90:16, 90:20, 6:15, 13:21, 13:24,
93:23, 103:17, 122:10 34:3, 35:22, 35:23,
14:2, 14:6, 16:6,
114:9, 116:10, meant [1] - 39:18 16:13, 16:16, 16:19,
35:24, 42:1, 42:4, N
116:18, 119:21, measures [1] - 81:17 42:5, 43:4, 43:7,
16:22, 16:23, 19:8, name [13] - 14:7,
124:3, 125:5, 130:13 meet [6] - 70:2, 70:18, 43:9, 44:24, 45:5,
19:16, 19:20, 19:23, 29:24, 40:8, 87:6,
MARICOPA [2] - 1:2, 70:25, 83:7, 83:18, 45:11, 50:25, 51:4,
21:9, 21:14, 21:22, 95:11, 95:12, 95:14,
130:9 92:22 51:8, 52:3, 52:4,
21:25, 22:1, 24:2, 96:4, 96:21, 96:23,
Maricopa's [1] - 62:6 member [3] - 40:12, 52:10, 52:16, 52:20,
24:8, 24:11, 24:12, 102:14
mark [5] - 16:11, 40:15, 122:9 57:4, 57:7, 57:24,
26:3, 26:8, 27:9, names [1] - 14:8
members [1] - 103:1 58:18, 58:24, 59:2,
114:22, 115:1, 27:12, 27:13, 27:24,
59:4, 61:11, 67:13, narrow [1] - 37:21
115:5, 128:14 membership [1] - 28:3, 28:5, 28:6,
67:18, 68:7, 68:10, Natural [1] - 38:8
marked [9] - 16:8, 40:21 31:21, 32:3, 32:7,
68:12, 68:15, 68:17, nature [1] - 34:24
16:24, 19:24, 22:2, Memorial [1] - 119:11 32:10, 32:13, 33:22,
69:15, 69:19, 74:12, near [1] - 108:4
24:13, 27:14, 75:22, mention [1] - 79:16 33:25, 34:2, 34:3,

Appx0577
 11

nearly [2] - 80:21, 83:1 101:17, 101:18, offers [1] - 22:15 120:23, 121:8, 39:1
need [13] - 32:8, 61:3, 106:15, 110:15, office [2] - 103:1, 121:9, 122:13, original [1] - 59:6
61:9, 68:1, 82:16, 116:3, 122:12, 117:3 123:23, 129:2 originally [2] - 105:14,
83:17, 83:18, 94:10, 124:5, 124:6 Office [3] - 2:14, one's [2] - 100:4, 128:21
99:23, 113:10, Number [1] - 98:19 88:14, 116:10 100:5 otherwise [6] - 21:19,
113:20, 117:9, 118:3 numbers [10] - 9:2, official [5] - 1:8, ones [5] - 7:20, 54:22, 75:15, 83:23, 84:25,
needed [3] - 25:18, 17:4, 36:20, 70:10, 97:13, 128:12, 95:5, 96:7, 96:11 85:4, 102:19
27:7, 29:5 74:18, 80:13, 83:17, 128:15, 130:11 oneself [1] - 38:21 outcome [5] - 70:10,
nefarious [1] - 101:8 108:3, 109:17, Official [1] - 130:23 Onigkeit [6] - 71:15, 74:18, 74:20, 80:13,
negligible [1] - 34:25 109:23 officially [1] - 100:9 71:16, 71:19, 71:21, 83:2
never [12] - 20:5, 20:6, numerical [2] - 48:16, officials [1] - 81:19 71:24, 78:9 outcomes [2] - 57:10,
45:20, 46:1, 47:7, 50:5 Ohio [1] - 19:14 open [2] - 4:3, 80:19 57:23
53:8, 84:13, 91:9, Oklahoma [1] - 54:25 opening [1] - 76:12 outliers [2] - 110:14,
96:21, 96:23, 103:9, O old [1] - 19:15 opinion [58] - 10:19, 110:16
126:20 OLSEN [35] - 2:2, 11:3, 11:5, 12:7, outlined [2] - 81:17,
new [3] - 58:8, 60:8, O'Connor [1] - 2:16 4:17, 4:21, 5:5, 6:22, 15:18, 18:5, 18:12, 121:7
126:19 oath [5] - 4:14, 29:10, 6:23, 7:14, 9:10, 20:11, 23:8, 25:14, outreach [1] - 120:15
newest [1] - 61:19 86:1, 86:4, 117:3 13:17, 21:12, 24:5, 28:19, 30:9, 32:23, outside [1] - 101:19
next [10] - 7:13, 9:13, object [6] - 39:9, 97:1, 26:6, 28:2, 31:12, 33:13, 33:17, 33:20, overall [5] - 7:6, 8:13,
9:17, 10:13, 16:8, 108:6, 108:13, 31:25, 33:16, 35:22, 34:4, 34:7, 34:8, 46:9, 62:21, 109:24
25:12, 52:1, 107:20, 110:23, 123:7 50:25, 52:16, 52:20, 34:11, 34:15, 34:20, overblown [1] - 25:23
113:3, 128:7 objecting [5] - 108:24, 57:24, 58:18, 58:24, 34:21, 35:5, 35:10, overruled [1] - 9:8
nice [1] - 65:1 108:25, 126:20, 59:2, 59:4, 61:11, 35:13, 35:18, 36:1, overstepping [1] -
Nicolaides [1] - 80:5 126:22, 127:11 67:13, 68:15, 68:17, 43:19, 43:21, 46:5, 95:6
night [1] - 121:2 objection [27] - 6:7, 69:15, 69:19, 74:12, 47:6, 47:7, 53:24, overused [1] - 14:17
Nina [1] - 15:13 6:12, 6:17, 6:20, 9:1, 74:15, 80:20, 99:13 53:25, 54:20, 55:10, overwhelmed [1] -
Ninjas [1] - 26:24 21:11, 24:4, 26:5, Olsen [10] - 2:2, 3:4, 55:13, 55:14, 59:10, 79:19
nitpicky [1] - 43:24 28:1, 31:12, 33:16, 3:6, 4:16, 5:4, 37:1, 59:16, 63:4, 63:6, own [4] - 71:2, 77:7,
nobody [1] - 103:15 50:25, 57:4, 99:12, 37:2, 52:15, 82:6, 63:8, 63:11, 63:13, 81:3, 84:12
none [4] - 41:12, 99:16, 105:19, 82:24 63:14, 63:17, 63:19,
105:20, 120:2, omissions [1] - 54:18 63:25, 64:7, 64:11,
41:23, 80:7, 124:18
121:12, 121:13, 64:16, 64:21, 67:6,
P
nonjury [1] - 70:14 once [3] - 114:25,
124:22, 125:15, 123:22, 126:20 77:10, 84:1, 116:18 P.C [1] - 2:2
nonsignature [1] -
126:14, 127:22, one [87] - 7:9, 7:12, opinions [13] - 9:5, p.m [1] - 121:2
72:10
128:3, 129:16, 7:21, 10:12, 12:13, 17:20, 30:14, 31:9, pace [1] - 32:12
normal [3] - 66:16,
129:17 15:3, 18:8, 18:14, 33:21, 51:19, 53:23, packages [1] - 118:19
87:4, 103:21
objections [1] - 19:3, 21:6, 22:14, 54:10, 55:11, 56:10, packet [20] - 91:2,
Northern [1] - 19:14
126:19 22:15, 22:16, 22:17, 59:22, 62:13, 62:22 94:8, 100:16,
note [4] - 79:24, 82:5,
obvious [4] - 32:20, 23:23, 26:7, 26:11, opportunity [6] - 100:18, 101:1,
82:8, 126:18
48:25, 76:4, 77:22 26:15, 29:3, 30:13, 78:20, 82:13, 83:12, 101:6, 101:9,
noted [1] - 77:20
obviously [7] - 7:20, 32:19, 32:20, 33:8, 104:24, 107:3, 101:12, 101:20,
notes [1] - 130:15
12:24, 23:11, 54:2, 33:9, 33:22, 35:6, 116:25 102:17, 103:4,
nothing [7] - 57:16,
64:18, 64:20, 110:1 35:8, 35:17, 36:2, oppose [1] - 69:15 103:7, 103:22,
58:17, 59:20, 67:18,
occasions [1] - 54:14 36:6, 40:12, 42:16, opposite [2] - 54:2, 106:22, 107:8,
82:24, 98:2, 107:14
occur [3] - 70:9, 43:13, 43:15, 44:8, 71:14 113:10, 113:20,
noting [3] - 117:21,
83:24, 84:1 48:2, 48:5, 48:7, option [3] - 101:16, 114:2, 117:13, 118:1
117:22, 127:22
occurred [7] - 10:15, 49:17, 50:9, 50:10, 113:9, 119:3 packets [5] - 101:3,
notion [1] - 56:18
43:13, 43:14, 44:12, 53:22, 54:3, 54:5, options [3] - 112:19, 102:23, 110:19,
November [5] -
52:6, 75:1, 84:7 54:6, 54:19, 55:13, 113:4, 113:15 118:4, 122:18
118:24, 119:1,
OF [6] - 1:1, 1:2, 1:18, 55:22, 58:6, 58:7, order [12] - 44:7, PAGE [1] - 3:2
119:4, 119:11
130:4, 130:8, 130:9 58:8, 61:3, 61:4, 61:18, 62:1, 65:17, page [16] - 8:24, 10:7,
number [40] - 5:16,
offensive [1] - 65:6 63:6, 63:23, 64:4, 70:4, 70:5, 75:19, 17:5, 19:5, 20:19,
5:18, 6:14, 7:5, 7:7,
offer [5] - 25:14, 63:8, 64:8, 64:9, 64:13, 76:18, 76:20, 83:17, 22:7, 22:24, 25:17,
7:17, 8:3, 8:8, 10:21,
63:13, 71:1, 82:13 64:17, 66:10, 66:11, 116:24, 118:12 28:8, 34:16, 34:17,
11:2, 11:5, 11:10,
offered [8] - 59:22, 67:9, 67:10, 70:5, orders [1] - 70:3 42:22, 42:24, 42:25,
11:12, 11:24, 12:1,
63:14, 72:3, 72:12, 73:6, 77:9, 81:6, ordinary [2] - 75:14, 61:14, 61:24
36:2, 47:19, 49:24,
72:22, 74:2, 77:5, 85:21, 92:17, 93:2, 80:2 pages [6] - 23:4, 23:9,
51:1, 51:10, 52:21,
81:2 93:20, 95:5, 97:24, organization [2] - 54:17, 59:6, 78:23,
54:8, 54:20, 58:25,
offering [2] - 63:4, 101:14, 105:5, 38:17, 38:24 130:13
60:1, 60:25, 74:18,
63:11 105:6, 106:7, 110:9, organizations [1] - paid [3] - 37:6, 37:7,
89:22, 98:17, 100:1,

Appx0578
 12

37:10 6:6, 6:19, 6:24, 7:4, piece [3] - 84:8, 103:3, Power [1] - 98:25 11:24, 44:21, 72:2,
pain [1] - 60:22 7:9, 7:11, 7:12, 8:5, 115:8 PQ [1] - 115:25 73:1, 82:22, 83:23,
panic [1] - 60:23 8:14, 8:18, 9:13, pieces [1] - 36:7 PR [2] - 59:9, 61:13 84:5, 84:7, 89:4,
paper [2] - 36:7, 84:8 9:19, 12:6, 46:9, pigeonhole [1] - 37:20 practice [2] - 49:8, 101:25, 102:24,
paragraph [13] - 17:8, 50:22, 51:17, 51:20, place [4] - 72:21, 76:9, 111:22 104:6, 104:8, 114:5,
18:8, 18:15, 18:18, 51:22, 51:23, 62:23, 97:16, 114:23 practices [2] - 47:23, 114:7, 114:20,
18:19, 19:4, 20:17, 63:3, 77:23, 77:24, placed [2] - 103:9, 48:10 115:18, 115:19,
22:10, 25:12, 25:17, 78:5, 80:21, 90:11, 123:23 precedent [1] - 80:3 115:20, 116:11,
53:3, 54:1, 54:16 109:22 places [2] - 32:14, predicated [2] - 64:7, 117:18, 120:14,
paragraphs [2] - 19:1, percentage [9] - 7:2, 118:17 64:11 120:18, 122:2,
54:19 8:14, 8:17, 8:20, plain [1] - 79:7 predisposed [1] - 124:21, 126:10
paramount [1] - 81:20 8:22, 9:20, 60:5, plainly [1] - 22:13 46:14 processed [2] - 11:6,
paraphrase [2] - 60:6 plaintiff [2] - 82:23, prefer [1] - 69:21 11:20
55:17, 55:21 percentages [2] - 7:1, 126:3 preferred [1] - 47:12 processes [1] -
part [13] - 26:10, 36:3, 66:4 Plaintiff [1] - 74:16 preliminary [1] - 117:20
40:20, 44:1, 53:11, perfect [2] - 44:24, plaintiffs [6] - 68:16, 115:24 processing [2] -
55:14, 56:20, 62:6, 96:3 69:6, 77:13, 79:15, preposterous [1] - 101:1, 103:22
73:9, 93:19, 101:25, perfectly [1] - 49:20 83:15, 88:21 64:15 produced [3] - 61:12,
105:13, 112:12 performed [5] - 26:20, Plaintiffs [1] - 3:3 presence [1] - 69:3 91:18, 125:12
partial [6] - 69:13, 26:22, 71:22, 73:20, plaintiffs' [3] - 77:17, present [4] - 4:9, 4:12, profession [2] - 14:13,
70:16, 74:7, 82:11, 73:23 81:23, 126:22 69:2, 85:9 38:15
83:10, 84:20 performing [1] - 73:11 plausibly [1] - 74:20 presentation [2] - professional [5] -
participants [1] - 89:3 perhaps [3] - 32:20, play [2] - 103:18, 25:13, 126:21 17:17, 37:18,
participated [6] - 46:14, 58:7 110:10 presented [4] - 53:21, 116:23, 126:25,
88:18, 88:22, 89:5, period [4] - 27:2, played [1] - 80:18 79:15, 105:14, 128:4
89:17, 104:16, 57:21, 95:13, 112:13 players [1] - 110:7 125:13 professionals [1] -
104:17 PERKINS [1] - 2:7 plead [1] - 83:17 presently [2] - 82:10, 101:5
participatory [1] - permission [1] - 19:17 pleases [1] - 90:5 82:25 program [1] - 65:1
91:21 person [5] - 18:23, plenty [1] - 46:8 preserve [1] - 84:12 proper [2] - 90:8,
particular [7] - 20:24, 30:25, 37:5, 39:25, PLLC [1] - 2:3 pretty [4] - 42:10, 100:17
22:18, 28:24, 85:2, 73:7 plus [1] - 101:16 93:10, 94:25, 95:16 properly [1] - 62:25
100:14, 113:2, 122:9 personal [9] - 72:20, PM [1] - 1:16 prevail [1] - 83:19 proposition [1] -
particularly [2] - 14:8, 89:16, 111:2, 111:5, podium [4] - 13:25, previous [1] - 54:22 89:11
105:6 111:13, 111:19, 14:1, 74:13, 86:2 previously [6] - 7:21, protocol [1] - 128:25
parties [6] - 4:10, 111:23, 114:11, point [13] - 18:11, 86:17, 97:5, 99:4, prove [2] - 70:6, 83:16
4:11, 69:2, 69:5, 125:17 19:3, 20:16, 35:5, 125:4, 125:16 proven [2] - 39:10,
84:10, 103:2 personally [3] - 1:8, 40:12, 54:1, 67:4, primarily [2] - 72:17, 80:25
parties' [1] - 4:10 14:22, 48:9 82:3, 91:5, 91:8, 81:10 provide [3] - 25:10,
pass [7] - 6:1, 6:6, 7:9, pertain [1] - 50:13 94:7, 113:24, 114:25 principles [2] - 8:12, 83:11, 120:14
7:12, 44:16, 113:19 peruse [1] - 98:20 Point [1] - 98:25 31:5 provided [11] - 56:14,
pass/fail [1] - 90:4 perverse [3] - 17:21, pointed [1] - 23:2 printout [1] - 98:25 58:4, 62:17, 71:25,
passed [2] - 8:1, 8:6 18:21, 21:18 pointing [1] - 126:25 privilege [1] - 114:25 90:16, 90:22, 93:21,
passes [3] - 5:24, 7:5, PETER [1] - 1:19 points [3] - 62:15, PRNCR [1] - 62:2 97:10, 99:1, 99:6,
7:11 petition [1] - 48:6 62:17, 82:4 pro [1] - 2:2 99:8
passing [2] - 8:14, Philip [1] - 24:19 polling [1] - 97:16 problem [1] - 43:15 public [2] - 72:9,
66:5 Phoenix [1] - 4:1 procedural [1] - 81:18
popped [2] - 60:8,
past [2] - 94:11, 97:14 phoenix [1] - 1:15 120:12 pull [3] - 58:18, 80:14,
60:9
path [5] - 13:7, phone [3] - 101:17, Procedure [3] - 69:12, 90:18
population [1] -
100:17, 103:21, 101:18, 116:3 70:18, 74:9 pulled [2] - 79:13,
114:18
107:9, 116:2 photocopied [1] - procedure [3] - 66:20, 90:21
portion [2] - 54:17,
penmanship [1] - 96:3 55:6 82:3, 82:4 purporting [1] - 72:18
99:8
People [5] - 24:23, phrase [1] - 14:17 possibility [1] - 15:5 procedures [1] - purpose [3] - 76:7,
62:3, 62:7, 72:8, phrased [1] - 67:1 114:20 76:24, 120:14
possible [8] - 15:5,
72:16 physical [4] - 12:7, proceed [2] - 13:22, purposes [2] - 48:21,
28:23, 35:15, 63:19,
people [13] - 33:3, 100:16, 100:18, 73:5, 73:20, 117:12, 86:12 59:16
33:6, 38:14, 57:15, 114:19 124:14 PROCEEDINGS [1] - pursuant [2] - 70:17,
65:6, 66:5, 66:12, physically [1] - 118:1 post [4] - 73:13, 1:18 74:9
78:6, 78:12, 89:17, pick [2] - 5:15, 63:23 102:18, 103:1, 117:7 proceedings [3] - 4:3, push [2] - 81:8,
91:19, 96:2, 120:18 picked [2] - 102:25 postal [1] - 120:21 80:19, 129:25 119:17
percent [28] - 5:23, picks [1] - 8:20 potential [1] - 90:10 process [27] - 4:13, put [21] - 10:25, 55:5,

Appx0579
 13

55:11, 68:8, 71:4, 77:23, 80:22 reasonable [4] - 112:23 remove [1] - 110:16
78:16, 79:3, 80:6, rates [4] - 11:9, 12:19, 116:12, 116:13, reflect [1] - 11:16 removed [1] - 4:24
80:9, 82:9, 83:21, 78:4, 116:21 116:14, 121:6 reflected [9] - 57:3, removing [2] - 11:18,
83:22, 84:8, 89:9, rather [6] - 79:19, reasons [4] - 5:25, 58:3, 58:13, 58:14, 11:19
118:6, 118:7, 119:5, 83:15, 101:6, 52:8, 74:5, 78:25 59:23, 59:24, 62:14, Renberg [1] - 55:1
119:24, 124:19, 114:13, 114:22 reassigned [1] - 73:12 124:18, 125:11 render [1] - 84:22
126:3, 126:5 rating [3] - 9:20, 9:23, rebut [1] - 81:3 reflection [1] - 55:9 rendering [1] - 85:3
puts [1] - 76:17 12:3 rebuttal [1] - 81:2 reflects [2] - 5:19, renew [2] - 40:20,
pyramid [1] - 12:16 ratings [1] - 9:21 recap [1] - 5:6 8:11 83:10
raw [1] - 117:21 received [4] - 26:1, reg [1] - 116:4 renewal [2] - 87:17,
Q Ray [10] - 36:19, 71:9, 59:9, 84:4, 116:7 regard [1] - 53:4 87:18
72:25, 88:3, 89:23, recent [1] - 91:11 regarding [1] - 52:22 renewed [1] - 126:14
QS [1] - 115:25 90:12, 91:13, 94:19, recently [1] - 29:12 regardless [3] - 70:19, repeatedly [2] - 82:6,
qualifications [1] - 95:22, 109:14 recess [1] - 68:19 71:1, 117:12 82:23
20:15 RAY [2] - 3:7, 86:16 Recess [1] - 68:22 register [1] - 114:21 rephrase [7] - 33:20,
qualified [5] - 25:14, re [7] - 1:4, 33:24, recitation [1] - 8:9 registered [1] - 103:4 109:9, 125:21,
55:25, 56:1, 88:24, 79:22, 122:15, recognize [9] - 24:14, Registrar's [1] - 97:11 126:24, 127:3,
108:24 122:16, 122:19 27:15, 76:18, 98:12, Registration [1] - 127:9, 127:10
qualities [1] - 75:18 re-ask [1] - 33:24 98:21, 98:23, 105:2, 87:22 rephrased [2] - 31:17,
quality [2] - 71:23, re-reviewed [3] - 112:6, 121:22 registration [5] - 127:23
95:19 79:22, 122:16, recognizes [1] - 79:2 97:13, 97:14, 115:2, replying [1] - 23:25
quantity [1] - 71:23 122:19 recognizing [1] - 76:4 128:12, 128:15 report [1] - 103:24
questionable [3] - re-sent [2] - 122:15, recollection [2] - regularity [1] - 75:22 REPORTED [1] - 1:22
107:10, 118:4, 121:9 122:16 10:16, 30:6 regulatory [1] - 38:17 reporter [4] - 19:7,
questionables [1] - reach [4] - 44:7, reconfirming [1] - rehash [1] - 47:4 32:6, 70:23, 130:11
118:6 102:18, 118:21, 129:9 reject [8] - 17:22, REPORTER [1] -
questioned [1] - 116:9 121:6 record [18] - 4:9, 6:11, 77:25, 90:6, 90:7, 130:4
questions [14] - 13:18, reached [1] - 43:11 45:16, 45:19, 52:2, 90:9, 94:6, 113:25, Reporter [1] - 130:23
37:5, 45:1, 45:15, reaches [1] - 100:25 69:2, 83:1, 83:6, 114:3 REPORTER'S [1] -
45:18, 47:14, 52:21, reaching [2] - 95:1, 84:12, 91:3, 97:11, rejected [2] - 30:12, 1:18
56:13, 62:21, 63:2, 123:18 97:13, 100:15, 79:22 repository [1] - 97:13
64:3, 67:15, 100:8, read [38] - 5:20, 10:8, 115:21, 126:18, rejection [6] - 10:5, represent [1] - 86:25
114:6 13:1, 17:8, 17:25, 127:18, 127:23, 17:24, 77:22, representative [1] -
queue [3] - 90:11, 18:6, 18:7, 18:19, 128:12 113:22, 113:23, 30:16
94:20, 119:24 20:19, 22:20, 23:11, Recorder [1] - 117:16 114:3 representatives [2] -
quick [3] - 11:19, 23:18, 28:25, 29:3, Recorder's [6] - relate [1] - 46:12 4:10, 69:3
80:15, 94:25 53:2, 53:19, 54:3, 88:14, 88:18, 91:3, related [9] - 25:23, Representatives [1] -
quickly [6] - 58:2, 54:4, 54:16, 54:19, 116:10, 116:18, 26:23, 27:3, 27:19, 30:17
66:1, 66:2, 72:19, 54:20, 55:14, 55:16, 125:6 27:22, 39:13, 39:14, Republicans [2] -
95:16, 123:4 67:7, 67:8, 67:9, recording [1] - 80:18 39:16, 42:12 81:10
quite [3] - 17:20, 67:11, 67:12, 78:24, records [2] - 59:6, relates [4] - 35:19, request [5] - 57:9,
53:23, 123:20 79:7, 82:16, 82:17, 72:9 36:1, 44:20, 59:22 59:7, 59:18, 59:19
quote [4] - 74:17, 92:4, 93:14, 93:15, REDIRECT [1] - 52:18 relevant [2] - 35:17, requested [1] - 59:21
75:18, 75:22, 106:17 96:23, 97:6, 98:21 redirect [2] - 3:6, 36:2 requesting [1] - 59:20
quoting [1] - 54:25 reading [3] - 25:25, 52:14 reliable [2] - 33:14, requests [1] - 72:9
78:24, 115:11 redo [1] - 129:8 34:9 required [12] - 49:24,
R ready [4] - 13:23, refer [4] - 56:16, 83:5, relied [4] - 33:12, 70:5, 73:7, 74:16,
86:12, 118:12, 99:23, 101:1 33:13, 34:8, 34:19 75:3, 80:10, 93:6,
ran [1] - 11:14 118:14 reference [7] - 64:4, relook [1] - 128:20 93:20, 116:12,
random [1] - 90:11 realize [2] - 51:6, 64:8, 64:9, 66:12, remain [2] - 86:1, 86:4 116:15, 116:20,
randomized [1] - 51:25 91:6, 99:9, 112:16 remains [1] - 100:25 121:5
73:16 really [10] - 12:15, referenced [2] - 92:5, remand [1] - 70:4 requirement [3] -
range [1] - 77:15 27:6, 35:6, 101:23, 93:20 remember [13] - 12:6, 38:20, 50:5, 79:25
ranged [1] - 91:6 107:16, 109:23, references [2] - 51:1, 15:11, 15:12, 23:6, requirements [1] -
Rapp [1] - 2:12 110:12, 119:21, 82:5 26:18, 31:2, 42:8, 88:14
rare [1] - 119:16 124:5, 124:6 referred [4] - 26:24, 45:23, 45:24, 56:23, requires [7] - 87:16,
rate [13] - 6:6, 7:24, realm [1] - 15:4 36:19, 82:6, 115:24 61:8, 63:2, 119:15 87:18, 93:18,
8:16, 8:21, 9:17, reap [2] - 81:12, 84:16 referring [8] - 24:16, remind [2] - 38:7, 114:19, 116:24,
10:1, 11:8, 11:13, reason [3] - 23:15, 31:14, 33:17, 51:2, 87:20 119:17, 121:1
37:11, 58:13, 73:21, 48:17, 62:16 51:4, 51:9, 61:13, reminded [1] - 82:23 rescanned [1] -

Appx0580
 14

122:19 reviewer [8] - 14:24, 103:8, 107:8, 124:10 Secret [1] - 25:24 117:22, 118:20,
resemblances [1] - 57:1, 93:22, 94:5, scenario [1] - 48:6 Secretary [4] - 1:9, 128:21, 129:6,
75:19 97:18, 102:10, school [1] - 38:24 44:25, 70:14, 74:6 129:13
resend [1] - 107:6 113:25, 115:4 science [2] - 31:7, section [2] - 28:16, sets [1] - 118:21
reserving [1] - 85:14 reviewers [9] - 79:19, 46:22 116:16 seven [7] - 35:22,
resource [1] - 120:15 89:14, 99:6, 102:16, Science [3] - 38:8, security [2] - 76:9, 35:23, 43:6, 58:15,
resources [1] - 119:2 105:9, 112:15, 38:10, 38:11 81:16 78:4, 118:23, 121:14
respect [17] - 6:24, 113:15, 128:9, Scientific [1] - 23:16 see [53] - 9:23, 12:17, several [2] - 100:8,
8:10, 12:2, 15:20, 128:17 scientific [2] - 17:18, 12:23, 19:25, 22:5, 113:11
34:4, 34:19, 35:5, reviewing [2] - 30:2, 31:5 24:21, 28:15, 33:5, sew [1] - 81:13
35:18, 36:1, 44:9, 111:20 Scientists [1] - 40:13 50:9, 57:15, 61:21, sewed [1] - 84:16
51:3, 56:4, 56:14, Revised [1] - 121:1 scope [1] - 57:5 61:25, 62:4, 62:5, shall [2] - 75:9, 75:17
63:14, 78:13, 79:14, revisit [1] - 21:15 screen [8] - 67:3, 62:10, 66:1, 66:14, share [1] - 32:12
126:14 Reyes [2] - 79:5, 84:9 76:5, 77:2, 80:17, 67:25, 85:23, 87:8, Shayna [1] - 2:13
respectfully [2] - Reynaldo [1] - 94:8 90:15, 90:25, 92:1, 92:3, 92:7, sheer [1] - 23:2
82:24, 83:5 Richer [1] - 117:16 112:20, 126:5 92:10, 92:14, 92:19, sheet [1] - 103:23
respective [2] - 4:11, ridiculous [1] - 49:1 scribble [2] - 96:4, 94:4, 98:15, 98:21, SHERMAN [1] - 2:11
69:5 right-hand [2] - 61:15, 96:13 101:13, 101:22, shifts [1] - 123:18
response [5] - 44:22, 61:22 script [1] - 10:23 102:11, 102:12, Shin [1] - 15:13
62:6, 62:8, 127:13, right/left [1] - 58:10 scroll [5] - 58:7, 105:23, 105:24, short [1] - 23:12
127:18 rightfully [1] - 81:20 58:16, 91:10, 93:7, 106:4, 106:9, shortcut [1] - 43:16
responses [1] - 59:17 risk [1] - 76:15 107:14 106:24, 107:13, shortly [1] - 40:19
rest [2] - 8:6, 68:16 RMR [2] - 1:23, 130:22 scrolled [1] - 58:17 107:17, 107:18, show [12] - 6:17, 6:21,
rested [2] - 69:6, 70:1 Rodgers [1] - 24:19 scrolling [6] - 57:13, 107:19, 111:25, 16:7, 58:23, 72:18,
rests [1] - 82:11 Rodriguez [2] - 2:9, 57:18, 58:11, 64:14, 112:20, 113:8, 77:13, 80:11, 80:15,
result [2] - 57:2, 89:15 69:9 75:6, 129:8 113:14, 117:13, 80:16, 83:2, 97:16
results [1] - 53:10 RODRIGUEZ [14] - sealed [2] - 100:23, 124:12, 126:2, showed [1] - 112:20
resume [1] - 129:22 52:13, 69:8, 69:18, 100:24 126:5, 128:21
showing [1] - 83:7
resumé [1] - 25:18 69:20, 69:25, 70:21, search [1] - 11:14 seeing [1] - 102:10
shown [3] - 44:9, 73:6,
retained [2] - 36:24, 70:24, 82:1, 84:17, season [1] - 110:7 seem [1] - 10:2 122:3
56:7 84:24, 85:7, 85:11, seated [1] - 77:2 selected [2] - 8:8, shows [5] - 7:17,
retainer [1] - 37:1 85:16, 85:22 second [25] - 28:7, 123:14 11:14, 72:10, 79:8,
retention [2] - 25:10, ROM [2] - 6:9, 125:18 31:23, 44:1, 60:10, selection [1] - 83:2 80:12
107:7 Rosa [1] - 2:16 60:17, 60:20, 67:23, send [3] - 97:23, sick [1] - 110:9
retrieve [2] - 5:2, 68:8 roster [1] - 97:16 70:2, 75:25, 77:16, 116:8, 118:2 side [2] - 16:5, 126:20
returning [1] - 117:25 roughly [2] - 11:19, 79:12, 80:15, 82:8, sense [3] - 27:3, sided [2] - 28:9, 53:25
reverify [3] - 107:8, 11:20 94:17, 95:8, 97:22, 66:14, 81:1
sig [9] - 107:9, 107:10,
128:17, 128:19 Rule [4] - 70:17, 74:9, 97:23, 98:1, 107:18, sent [13] - 23:23, 107:11, 113:4,
reverse [2] - 61:17, 83:14, 84:19 110:3, 111:24, 24:18, 59:7, 59:15, 113:8, 113:10,
62:1 rule [1] - 84:21 115:10, 124:10, 103:4, 106:24, 113:17, 113:20,
review [33] - 28:17, ruled [1] - 127:19 124:12 107:1, 118:11, 129:9
28:20, 41:15, 58:1, Rules [1] - 69:11 seconds [67] - 5:8, 122:7, 122:10,
sign [4] - 96:4, 97:16,
72:1, 73:17, 82:20, 5:10, 5:11, 5:12, 6:4, 122:15, 122:16,
rules [1] - 82:5 116:5, 120:23
82:21, 89:24, 90:1, 7:16, 7:19, 8:2, 8:15, 124:4
ruling [1] - 85:5 signature [155] - 12:8,
91:16, 91:20, 94:16, 8:16, 8:19, 8:21, sentence [2] - 25:9,
run [1] - 32:22 13:3, 14:23, 36:4,
95:1, 95:21, 96:12, 9:14, 9:18, 9:22, 41:3
Runbeck [2] - 103:2, 36:12, 36:14, 39:25,
97:19, 98:3, 102:9, 10:15, 10:17, 10:20, sequential [1] - 58:6 43:13, 43:14, 44:10,
118:2
103:13, 106:14, 11:13, 11:21, 12:5, seriously [2] - 117:4, 44:12, 44:17, 44:21,
running [1] - 12:12
107:22, 110:3, 12:9, 51:13, 51:14, 117:11 46:5, 47:19, 48:20,
110:19, 114:5, 57:16, 57:18, 58:10, serve [2] - 20:21, 49:4, 49:8, 49:13,
S 63:5, 63:12, 63:16, 73:17
114:9, 119:21, 49:23, 50:24, 51:18,
123:1, 124:20, sake [2] - 32:5, 117:15 63:18, 63:20, 64:13, Service [1] - 25:24 52:6, 56:19, 57:10,
128:23, 129:1, satisfied [1] - 49:10 64:15, 73:21, 76:1, service [2] - 116:5, 57:11, 57:25, 63:5,
129:4, 129:11 saw [9] - 25:25, 65:11, 77:15, 77:16, 77:19, 120:21 63:12, 63:15, 64:4,
reviewed [12] - 9:6, 77:3, 78:11, 81:1, 78:3, 79:10, 79:11, services [1] - 25:11 64:8, 64:9, 64:10,
30:8, 35:7, 79:22, 104:15, 117:21, 80:16, 80:20, 82:20, set [17] - 31:10, 47:19, 65:12, 65:16, 66:15,
83:7, 106:13, 124:5, 124:19 93:9, 96:8, 96:9, 49:24, 50:8, 58:21, 70:7, 70:17, 71:5,
111:14, 119:24, scale [3] - 12:18, 96:12, 96:17, 97:24, 81:24, 82:19, 82:20, 71:11, 71:17, 71:20,
122:16, 122:19, 63:22, 63:24 115:10, 122:17, 100:15, 103:10, 71:25, 72:3, 72:5,
122:23, 125:20 scan [4] - 103:2, 122:21, 124:8, 124:9 106:8, 115:21, 72:11, 72:14, 72:18,

Appx0581
 15

72:23, 73:1, 73:2, similar [12] - 13:14, 101:8, 118:3 60:13, 67:21, 78:10, 45:20, 48:19
73:8, 73:10, 73:20, 38:15, 66:25, 92:2, sound [4] - 15:14, 78:23, 89:11 string [2] - 61:18,
73:23, 74:3, 74:8, 92:3, 96:18, 97:10, 26:24, 40:17, 54:21 standard [5] - 21:6, 61:19
74:24, 74:25, 75:2, 110:3, 112:10, sounds [3] - 15:15, 48:2, 48:11, 79:1, stroke [3] - 44:14,
75:4, 75:11, 75:25, 112:18, 114:1, 29:22, 101:8 79:2 57:20, 58:6
76:3, 76:8, 76:16, 123:16 source [1] - 37:22 standards [6] - 13:9, strokes [6] - 8:4, 11:1,
76:20, 78:1, 78:5, similarities [3] - speaking [1] - 50:19 13:10, 20:22, 49:25, 57:10, 57:22, 96:16,
78:14, 78:17, 78:19, 12:23, 96:8, 96:10 specialized [2] - 53:4, 50:5, 66:23 115:15
79:4, 79:9, 79:20, simple [11] - 5:9, 5:13, 53:17 stands [2] - 87:20, Stuart [1] - 2:13
79:23, 80:4, 80:7, 5:14, 7:8, 7:15, 8:5, specific [14] - 33:18, 87:22 study [1] - 22:11
83:23, 84:5, 84:6, 9:15, 53:12, 57:11, 33:19, 34:11, 34:19, started [1] - 58:7 stuff [1] - 96:20
84:11, 88:4, 88:9, 63:16, 67:9 34:20, 38:20, 46:23, starting [1] - 5:7 sub [1] - 128:20
88:13, 88:19, 88:23, simply [9] - 6:4, 23:4, 47:5, 75:8, 82:19, stat [1] - 13:2 subjective [1] - 93:21
89:3, 89:5, 89:12, 71:4, 74:21, 75:5, 82:20, 83:17, 83:25, STATE [1] - 130:8 submission [1] - 55:5
89:17, 90:1, 90:24, 76:4, 77:21, 78:13 128:3 State [6] - 1:9, 44:25, submit [2] - 81:21,
91:1, 91:7, 91:11, single [5] - 35:8, 73:7, specifically [6] - 70:15, 74:6, 80:2, 129:1
91:24, 92:7, 92:24, 76:14, 83:21, 90:8 27:22, 36:18, 41:22, 119:19 subscription [1] -
93:7, 93:8, 93:15, sink [1] - 109:5 62:15, 65:24, 123:19 state [2] - 41:14, 116:5
93:22, 94:5, 94:13, sit [5] - 12:13, 50:21, specificity [1] - 83:19 130:12 subset [2] - 7:22, 8:17
94:18, 95:7, 95:8, 51:16, 52:5, 54:2 SPECKIN [1] - 3:3 statement [8] - 25:23, subtract [2] - 11:5,
97:17, 97:24, 97:25, sitting [1] - 75:5 Speckin [22] - 4:14, 30:6, 33:15, 34:10, 11:10
98:2, 99:1, 99:6, situation [1] - 35:2 4:22, 5:6, 6:24, 9:11, 41:17, 46:10, 81:12 succeed [1] - 70:5
101:10, 101:14, six [4] - 49:2, 71:7, 10:7, 14:8, 14:10, States [1] - 54:11 successive [1] - 60:3
102:13, 104:6, 87:15, 120:3 14:12, 17:15, 20:20, states [1] - 75:13 sue [1] - 93:11
104:9, 105:5, 105:9, sixth [2] - 107:23, 32:14, 42:23, 45:12, statistical [6] - 6:10, sufficient [6] - 20:25,
106:12, 106:13, 108:16 52:21, 59:5, 67:20, 20:11, 20:15, 21:2, 48:14, 70:10, 74:17,
106:16, 107:18, sixth-grade-level [1] - 74:1, 77:21, 78:2, 21:4, 28:23 74:18, 83:2
107:22, 108:14, 107:23 78:22 statistician [1] - 109:6 suggests [1] - 55:18
108:17, 108:20, skill [1] - 130:16 Speckin's [3] - 20:23, statistics [2] - 22:11, summarizing [1] -
109:1, 110:24, 21:1, 55:18
skipped [1] - 53:2 22:13 16:2
112:11, 113:13, speculating [1] -
skipping [1] - 53:18 status [4] - 100:14, summary [4] - 6:8,
113:25, 114:5, 111:7
slash [1] - 106:3 115:23, 116:6, 27:19, 27:23, 28:16
114:14, 114:23, speed [3] - 7:19,
sleeping [1] - 37:15 128:21 sunny [2] - 29:20,
114:24, 115:19, 41:22, 44:8
slow [3] - 19:7, 32:9, Statute [1] - 121:1 29:21
115:23, 116:1,
70:20 spelling [1] - 65:2 statute [12] - 13:3, super [1] - 7:12
116:19, 117:23,
slower [1] - 32:7 spent [2] - 37:14, 75:3, 75:8, 75:14, Superior [1] - 130:11
119:21, 121:1,
small [1] - 34:25 72:10 76:24, 80:11, 82:16, SUPERIOR [1] - 1:1
121:9, 123:14,
smaller [3] - 7:22, spousal [1] - 44:16 82:17, 82:19, 93:12, supplemental [1] -
124:20, 125:6,
11:10, 36:8 Square [1] - 55:1 93:18, 116:15 105:13
128:24, 128:25
so.. [1] - 127:14 SR [1] - 123:13 statutes [1] - 79:6 support [2] - 71:5,
signatures [42] - 7:6,
someone [8] - 13:12, stabbing [1] - 60:22 statutory [2] - 79:25, 71:10
11:20, 12:12, 12:24,
13:13, 30:19, 41:13, staff [5] - 99:2, 82:15 supporting [4] - 72:4,
14:20, 15:1, 15:6,
57:17, 58:16, 63:23, 102:25, 120:14, stay [1] - 51:23 72:12, 72:22, 74:2
41:15, 41:22, 45:22,
92:25 122:1, 122:9 steady [1] - 75:22 supports [1] - 71:13
46:1, 48:4, 49:11,
sometimes [2] - stamp [21] - 57:12, stenographic [1] - supposed [1] - 47:20
49:13, 49:14, 51:12,
101:14, 115:24 60:3, 60:4, 106:18, 130:15 Supreme [2] - 70:4,
56:20, 63:20, 64:22,
somewhere [1] - 107:6, 107:12, step [1] - 68:5 83:8
66:8, 66:9, 66:24,
103:17 107:17, 108:5, steps [4] - 65:17, supreme [4] - 54:13,
67:2, 72:19, 73:15,
soon [1] - 13:23 109:20, 110:19, 65:20, 65:22, 66:15 74:15, 75:13, 83:14
73:24, 75:7, 75:10,
sorry [15] - 5:4, 8:1, 111:10, 122:15, still [4] - 96:22, 121:3, surprise [1] - 50:8
76:5, 77:1, 77:14,
39:15, 39:19, 41:2, 122:17, 123:2, 121:6, 126:13 surprisingly [1] - 68:4
79:21, 80:23, 87:25,
41:5, 43:4, 51:6, 123:22, 124:6, stipulated [1] - 84:10 suspect [3] - 15:7,
91:3, 96:24, 97:6,
60:10, 60:22, 61:7, 124:12, 124:17, stop [2] - 32:1, 92:14 21:2, 21:5
109:3, 121:9,
69:19, 102:23, 125:7, 128:10, stream [2] - 101:10,
123:15, 128:18 sustain [1] - 126:23
113:1, 123:13 128:18 103:23
signed [1] - 94:8 sustained [2] - 97:3,
sort [6] - 37:24, 39:20, stamped [2] - 44:15, streamlining [1] -
significance [3] - 127:22
44:16, 89:10, 122:22 127:12
28:22, 28:23, 81:16 switch [1] - 89:21
100:16, 102:24 stamping [2] - 57:13, stretch [1] - 60:14
significant [1] - 76:18 swoops [1] - 115:14
sorted [1] - 5:15 58:10 strict [1] - 118:17
sigs [2] - 118:3, 118:5 swooshes [1] - 115:15
sorting [4] - 101:2, stand [6] - 4:15, strike [3] - 8:24, sworn [2] - 86:1,

Appx0582
 16

86:17 78:2, 84:2, 84:3, 100:4, 104:19, 124:19, 125:25 127:1, 130:14
system [8] - 64:23, 87:6, 97:5, 99:4, 104:22, 105:19, together [2] - 84:8, truth [3] - 9:3, 9:4,
76:11, 78:7, 78:13, 109:7, 111:14, 105:21, 108:23, 110:12 33:4
107:8, 117:20, 120:17, 125:4, 109:9, 109:12, tomorrow [1] - 129:22 try [3] - 43:16, 44:3,
117:25 125:10, 125:16 111:1, 111:8, tons [1] - 122:7 46:16
testifies [1] - 86:18 111:12, 112:3, took [7] - 5:18, 36:7, trying [9] - 19:7,
T testify [2] - 14:21, 120:3, 120:5, 97:24, 124:8, 124:9, 30:22, 43:24, 46:22,
78:11 121:12, 121:14, 124:16, 124:17 49:20, 60:23, 65:6,
table [30] - 4:24, 5:15, testifying [6] - 9:2, 121:16, 123:9, top [8] - 5:8, 12:15, 107:21, 123:4
6:25, 7:2, 8:10, 19:9, 21:4, 46:17, 124:25, 125:2, 28:10, 28:11, 61:20, Tulsa [1] - 54:25
10:14, 11:15, 35:20, 73:7, 126:6 125:21, 126:17, 61:24, 62:9, 78:4 turn [7] - 17:3, 17:4,
35:21, 36:8, 36:9, testimony [37] - 15:9, 127:5, 127:10, topic [1] - 41:24 22:7, 28:7, 41:2,
42:12, 42:14, 42:15, 16:1, 20:4, 20:5, 127:15, 127:21, total [10] - 8:3, 9:12, 61:14, 103:10
42:25, 43:20, 43:21, 20:23, 23:6, 26:10, 128:1, 128:6, 10:8, 11:6, 71:7, turned [1] - 51:6
50:16, 50:17, 50:18, 29:8, 29:9, 29:12, 129:16, 129:18, 88:22, 89:7, 89:8 turning [2] - 10:7,
51:1, 51:2, 51:4, 29:17, 31:10, 36:16, 129:21 totality [1] - 33:6 62:20
51:9, 51:15, 51:16, 36:18, 36:24, 37:6, therefore [1] - 17:21 totally [1] - 44:2 twenty [5] - 99:17,
66:3, 77:20, 84:2 42:11, 45:21, 54:23, thereof [1] - 99:8 totals [1] - 10:9 105:21, 120:3,
tag [1] - 98:15 54:25, 55:18, 56:18, thereon [1] - 62:22 touch [1] - 103:15 121:14, 129:18
takeaway [3] - 9:12, 56:23, 71:4, 71:9, they've [3] - 77:7, touched [1] - 103:9 twenty-eight [1] -
105:15, 112:16 71:13, 71:25, 72:3, 108:4, 118:9 touches [1] - 56:14 129:18
tapping [2] - 75:6, 72:12, 72:22, 74:2, thick [1] - 53:25 towards [1] - 119:5 twenty-five [1] -
77:3 78:10, 79:18, 81:4, third [2] - 8:23, 124:10 town [1] - 110:9 105:21
task [1] - 94:16 83:6, 114:6, 126:3 thirty [1] - 28:4 twenty-seven [1] -
tracked [1] - 122:8
tasked [2] - 90:2, text [1] - 116:8 thirty-eight [1] - 28:4 121:14
trade [1] - 118:12
122:1 THE [137] - 1:1, 1:2, Thomas [1] - 2:14 twenty-six [1] - 120:3
trail [1] - 51:7
tasks [1] - 118:13 1:19, 4:6, 4:25, 5:2, THOMPSON [1] - 1:19 twenty-three [1] -
train [3] - 80:5, 105:9,
team [10] - 88:18, 6:12, 6:16, 7:13, 9:5, thousand [3] - 7:25, 99:17
112:14
110:6, 110:7, 9:8, 13:19, 13:22, 12:5, 54:24 twist [1] - 55:4
trained [11] - 53:11,
110:13, 116:19, 14:1, 16:11, 16:14, thousands [5] - 63:25, two [42] - 7:8, 7:10,
88:24, 89:5, 91:9,
117:16, 118:8, 16:18, 16:21, 19:6, 65:5, 107:2, 111:21 12:23, 20:24, 28:9,
91:20, 95:18,
118:18, 125:6, 19:18, 19:22, 21:11, three [23] - 10:11, 43:15, 49:14, 50:4,
107:12, 107:20,
125:12 21:13, 21:24, 24:4, 24:6, 49:2, 64:14, 50:14, 58:5, 59:6,
111:23, 128:9,
teared [1] - 78:9 24:6, 24:10, 26:5, 64:19, 87:18, 89:8, 63:2, 64:19, 64:22,
128:17
tech [1] - 104:8 26:7, 27:11, 28:1, 89:15, 90:23, 91:2, 66:1, 66:8, 66:24,
training [22] - 13:11,
Technical [1] - 23:17 28:4, 31:15, 31:18, 91:9, 91:25, 92:18, 67:2, 70:3, 73:10,
38:15, 40:24, 41:8,
technically [1] - 82:9 32:5, 32:8, 32:11, 93:3, 93:7, 96:10, 75:9, 76:5, 77:1,
41:21, 41:23, 53:4,
technology [1] - 72:7 33:19, 33:24, 34:1, 99:17, 105:23, 77:14, 95:10,
64:25, 65:1, 65:8,
Tellez [1] - 2:15 42:3, 43:3, 43:6, 105:24, 112:20, 100:22, 103:1,
65:11, 65:14, 76:18,
temps [1] - 118:13 43:8, 45:3, 45:7, 129:4, 129:8 107:7, 109:18,
79:3, 91:18, 91:21,
term [18] - 12:20, 34:6, 52:11, 52:14, 57:6, three-level [1] - 129:8 109:22, 110:8,
93:19, 98:25, 99:4,
46:13, 46:15, 46:18, 57:8, 57:9, 58:22, threw [2] - 117:8, 110:10, 110:11,
99:7, 105:14
47:12, 47:15, 49:2, 59:1, 59:3, 60:11, 119:2 110:13, 113:15,
TRANSCRIPT [1] -
51:23, 66:13, 66:16, 60:12, 60:13, 60:15, throughout [2] - 115:13, 117:20,
1:18
78:17, 90:3, 90:5, 60:17, 60:19, 60:21, 117:17, 126:21 121:8, 123:15
transcript [2] - 55:5,
90:7, 101:5, 110:1 60:22, 60:24, 61:1, throw [3] - 76:5, two-sided [1] - 28:9
130:14
terminology [2] - 61:2, 61:5, 61:6, 109:5, 110:14 type [1] - 49:4
trapped [1] - 17:19
45:23, 84:3 61:7, 61:9, 67:16, thrown [1] - 53:24 typically [1] - 127:1
travel [1] - 37:14
terms [10] - 5:9, 5:13, 67:20, 67:22, 67:24, thumbing [1] - 67:6 typo [1] - 54:22
travels [1] - 30:18
5:14, 7:8, 7:15, 9:15, 68:2, 68:5, 68:6,
time-stamped [1] - TRIAL [1] - 1:19
57:11, 63:16, 65:11, 68:9, 68:11, 68:13,
68:16, 68:18, 68:24,
44:15 trial [12] - 4:7, 15:21, U
80:1 timeline [2] - 118:17, 18:15, 21:17, 22:10,
testified [34] - 6:20, 69:14, 69:17, 69:23, U.S [1] - 103:1
118:20 31:2, 53:8, 69:1,
15:17, 26:9, 30:16, 70:20, 70:22, 74:14, ubiquitous [1] -
title [4] - 38:13, 38:14, 70:14, 71:13, 83:17,
33:12, 38:1, 40:23, 84:19, 84:25, 85:9, 100:20
38:18, 43:1 85:1
41:7, 47:10, 53:10, 85:13, 85:18, 85:23, ultimate [1] - 27:5
today [15] - 30:9, trier [1] - 46:23
53:16, 55:1, 71:19, 86:5, 86:6, 86:11, ultimately [4] - 20:24,
31:10, 33:13, 34:5, trouble [1] - 31:1
71:21, 72:25, 73:5, 97:3, 98:5, 98:7,
34:20, 35:18, 51:19, true [10] - 6:12, 33:2, 31:9, 59:8, 72:21
73:14, 73:15, 73:19, 98:10, 99:12, 99:14,
52:5, 53:9, 55:24, 39:22, 39:23, 40:1, ultra [1] - 30:20
73:22, 77:17, 77:21, 99:17, 99:21, 99:24,
59:22, 63:21, 114:7, 41:20, 43:20, 46:10, umpteenth [1] -

Appx0583
 17

123:17 106:23, 112:10, 104:10, 105:5, 116:14, 117:11, 37:19, 58:20, 67:17,
unable [1] - 97:6 114:17, 124:7 108:14, 108:18, 117:15 67:19, 83:21, 84:2,
uncertainty [1] - 74:22 users [4] - 12:4, 108:20, 109:1, voters [10] - 84:13, 85:19, 97:2, 99:15
under [16] - 4:14, 6:3, 88:22, 95:19, 111:24 110:25, 112:11, 89:13, 95:25, witnesses [7] - 33:7,
10:8, 29:10, 46:2, uses [3] - 13:8, 55:24, 115:20, 116:19, 114:22, 116:25, 68:14, 71:5, 71:7,
49:22, 61:2, 66:17, 75:8 125:6 117:9, 118:18, 71:10, 83:25, 118:14
69:12, 79:5, 86:1, Utica [1] - 55:1 verifications [5] - 5:7, 119:3, 120:20, 121:7 Witnesses [1] - 23:17
86:4, 96:25, 99:5, 5:22, 10:8, 70:9, votes [5] - 28:24, 30:1, WN [1] - 122:12
115:10, 126:9 V 128:25 70:9, 74:17, 81:18 woefully [1] - 53:7
undergraduate [1] - verified [17] - 77:18, voting [3] - 84:13, word [18] - 5:25,
38:6 Valenzuela [28] - 93:8, 106:18, 114:1, 120:13 11:22, 13:8, 13:14,
underlying [1] - 34:6 36:19, 56:24, 71:9, 107:14, 107:19, vs [1] - 1:7 13:16, 28:10, 28:11,
underpins [4] - 59:8, 72:25, 73:5, 73:14, 109:20, 111:14, vulgarity [1] - 81:11 30:19, 30:20, 30:23,
59:9, 62:13, 81:4 73:19, 73:22, 75:24, 111:25, 112:22, 31:4, 45:24, 47:6,
understood [4] - 16:1, 76:2, 79:11, 85:20, 122:14, 122:17, W 47:9, 65:25, 66:21,
85:16, 127:15 85:22, 85:25, 86:8, 123:13, 124:11, 75:9, 76:23
undisputed [4] - 79:8, 86:23, 98:12, 98:24, 124:17, 125:7 wait [5] - 67:24, words [8] - 7:19,
79:18, 80:8, 80:12 100:8, 104:24, verifier [6] - 56:19, 108:23, 124:25 18:22, 18:23, 32:25,
unfair [3] - 18:15, 112:6, 120:8, 57:2, 57:25, 65:16, waived [2] - 4:11, 69:4 55:4, 62:24, 75:14,
53:19, 55:7 121:19, 123:11, 75:11, 128:24 walk [2] - 21:15, 21:16 79:12
unique [2] - 59:24, 125:4, 125:16, verifies [1] - 123:14 Wang [5] - 15:13, worker [6] - 59:25,
103:3 125:24, 128:9 verify [6] - 41:22, 91:1, 20:21, 21:16, 21:20, 60:2, 72:18, 73:11,
United [1] - 54:11 VALENZUELA [2] - 107:6, 110:19, 22:4 80:5, 105:16
universe [2] - 108:3, 3:7, 86:16 123:2, 126:9 wants [1] - 103:18 workers [10] - 50:22,
109:19 Valenzuela's [1] - 94:8 verifying [2] - 72:19, watch [2] - 68:5, 126:2 51:10, 51:16, 51:17,
unless [2] - 48:4, valid [1] - 65:17 87:25 watching [1] - 125:13 65:12, 71:17, 71:21,
75:15 validated [1] - 122:24 versus [6] - 4:7, 15:13, weakly [1] - 25:21 72:11, 107:12
unlike [1] - 103:5 variable [2] - 35:1, 19:10, 24:23, 55:1, Webster's [4] - 66:17, world [1] - 12:13
unreliability [1] - 89:14 68:25 75:17, 75:21, 78:18 world's [1] - 22:17
34:24 variables [1] - 89:21 Veterans [1] - 119:8 weeds [1] - 102:1 worries [1] - 69:20
unreliable [3] - 17:20, variation [1] - 75:23 vetted [2] - 93:8, 97:17 week [2] - 30:18, 70:6 would've [5] - 5:24,
34:21, 34:22 variety [1] - 87:1 vice [1] - 2:2 weird [1] - 96:20 15:7, 22:14, 23:3,
unsatisfactory [1] - various [3] - 10:9, video [4] - 72:18, whatsoever [2] - 77:12
17:15 56:7, 121:7 72:21, 73:6, 77:4 25:19, 113:23 wrapped [1] - 87:8
untethered [1] - 74:21 vault [2] - 103:9, videos [1] - 33:7 whistleblowers [1] - write [1] - 46:25
unusual [1] - 10:2 103:12 vindicated [1] - 16:3 79:15 written [3] - 13:10,
up [32] - 8:21, 11:2, VER [1] - 123:13 vindicates [1] - 18:12 whole [8] - 17:23, 47:3, 49:7
11:12, 15:9, 16:4, verbatim [2] - 17:23, visible [1] - 101:19 28:22, 37:21, 51:2, wrote [7] - 16:5,
19:7, 36:7, 39:10, 54:18 visual [1] - 106:8 51:5, 51:9, 51:15, 18:23, 53:13, 53:14,
60:13, 67:2, 67:21, verdict [3] - 69:11, voice [1] - 51:7 119:19 54:12, 62:3, 96:20
76:5, 77:2, 78:9, 81:22, 85:1 voicemail [3] - 118:10, wholesale [1] - 18:15
78:16, 80:6, 80:9, verification [65] - 122:6, 122:7 wholly [3] - 17:15, Y
80:14, 86:2, 87:9, 13:3, 43:13, 44:21, vote [6] - 30:12, 35:8, 17:21
90:18, 90:21, 90:25, 50:24, 51:18, 52:6, 62:24, 62:25, 74:17, William [1] - 24:24 Yam [2] - 17:21, 17:23
97:23, 99:23, 65:12, 70:7, 70:17, 81:12 win [1] - 83:16 years [10] - 12:12,
102:25, 103:1, 71:6, 71:12, 71:17, Vote [1] - 84:14 wish [3] - 47:23, 48:9, 19:15, 23:3, 51:21,
103:12, 116:5, 71:20, 71:25, 72:3, voter [22] - 90:20, 85:9 55:7, 87:2, 87:15,
118:23, 126:5, 126:6 72:5, 72:11, 72:14, 91:7, 96:19, 101:16, withdraw [2] - 109:10, 87:18, 111:21, 117:2
upsetting [1] - 55:8 72:18, 72:23, 73:1, 102:13, 103:4, 128:3 yes/no [1] - 21:8
urgency [1] - 119:1 73:2, 73:8, 73:11, 103:5, 103:7, 107:3, WITNESS [15] - 31:18, yesterday [3] - 56:18,
usage [1] - 81:15 73:20, 73:23, 74:3, 107:15, 116:14, 32:11, 43:6, 57:9, 75:24, 114:7
user [31] - 5:16, 5:18, 74:8, 74:24, 75:1, 116:15, 117:5, 60:12, 60:15, 60:19, yield [1] - 89:15
5:21, 5:23, 6:5, 7:17, 75:2, 75:4, 76:8, 117:11, 117:15, 60:22, 61:1, 61:5, yourself [4] - 14:23,
7:18, 8:8, 8:10, 8:24, 78:5, 78:14, 79:20, 118:10, 118:21, 61:7, 67:22, 68:2, 38:13, 39:5, 91:16
8:25, 9:11, 9:24, 80:24, 83:23, 84:5, 121:25, 122:19, 68:6, 86:5
10:1, 10:21, 11:6, 84:7, 84:11, 88:4, 123:14, 123:18, witness [22] - 3:2, Z
60:1, 90:2, 90:8, 88:10, 88:13, 88:19, 128:12 4:15, 9:2, 16:7,
91:12, 99:7, 102:12, 88:23, 89:4, 89:5, voter's [3] - 90:24, 17:16, 19:19, 19:21, zero [2] - 108:4
105:5, 105:7, 89:12, 89:18, 99:1, 102:14, 116:4 21:23, 24:8, 25:10,
105:15, 106:9, 101:10, 104:6, voter-centric [3] - 27:10, 31:13, 32:1,

Appx0584
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

4 In the Matter re: )

)
5 Kari Lake, )
)
6 Contestant/Plaintiff,)
)
7 vs. ) CV2022-095403
)
8 Katie Hobbs, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
9 as the Secretary of State; )
et al., )
10 )
Defendants. )
11 _______________________________)

12

13

14

15
Phoenix, Arizona
16 May 18, 2023 - AM

17

18
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
19 TRIAL (day 2)
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER THOMPSON
20

21

22
REPORTED BY:
23 LUZ FRANCO, RMR, CRR
Certificate No. 50591 (Copy)
24

25

Appx0585
 2

1 COUNSEL APPEARING:

2 OLSEN LAW, P.C.

By: Mr. Kurt Olsen (pro hac vice)
3
BLEHM LAW, PLLC
4 By: Mr. Bryan Blehm

5 Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff

6
PERKINS COIE LLP
7 By: Ms. Alexis E. Danneman

8 ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP

By: Ms. Elena Rodriguez Armenta
9
BURGESS LAW GROUP
10 By: Ms. Emily Craiger

11 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC

By: Mr. Craig Morgan
12 Mr. Jake Rapp
Ms. Shayna Stuart
13
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
14 By: Mr. Thomas Liddy
Mr. Joseph LaRue
15 Ms. Karen Hartman-Tellez
Mr. Jack L. O'Connor
16 Ms. Rosa Aguilar

17
Attorneys for Defendants
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0586
 3

1 I N D E X O F E X A M I N A T I O N

2 WITNESS PAGE

3 RAY VALENZUELA, Having been called on behalf of the

Plaintiffs (Cont'g)
4
Cont'g Direct Examination by Mr. Blehm 13
5
ERICH SPECKIN, Having been called on behalf of the
6 Plaintiffs (Not Conl'd)

7 Direct Examination by Mr. Olsen 54

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0587
 4

1 Phoenix, Arizona
May 18, 2023
2

3 (The following proceedings are had in open

4 court:)

6 THE COURT: All right. This is

7 CV2022-095403. This is Kari Lake versus Katie Hobbs, et

8 al.

9 And I will take appearances at the beginning

10 of the day.

11 MR. BLEHM: Good morning, Your Honor. Bryan

12 Blehm on behalf of Plaintiff Kari Lake.

13 THE COURT: Good morning.

14 MR. OLSEN: Good morning, Your Honor. Kurt

15 Olsen on behalf of Plaintiff Kari Lake.

16 THE COURT: Good morning.

17 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Good morning, Your

18 Honor. Elena Rodriguez Armenta for Governor Katie Hobbs.

19 THE COURT: Good morning.

20 MS. DANNEMAN: Alexis Danneman for Governor

21 Katie Hobbs.

22 MR. MORGAN: Good morning, Your Honor.

23 Craig Morgan from Sherman and Howard on behalf of the

24 Secretary of State. With me are my colleagues, Jake Rapp

25 and Shayna Stuart.

Appx0588
 5

1 MR. LIDDY: Good morning, Your Honor.

2 Thomas Liddy on behalf of the County defendants from the

3 Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

4 MS. CRAIGER: Good morning, Your Honor.

5 Emily Craiger from the Burgess Law Group on behalf of the

6 Maricopa County defendants.

7 THE COURT: Thank you.

8 MR. LIDDY: With me this morning, Your

9 Honor, is Joe La Rue from the Maricopa County Attorney's

10 Office, Jack O'Connor, and Rosa Aguilar, all from MCAO.

11 THE COURT: Thank you very much. And good

12 morning to all of you.

13 All right. There was -- there was one

14 matter that I wanted to address with you at -- at sidebar,

15 but the easier way to do the sidebar is -- I think what we

16 did yesterday is just have the clerk have the headphones

17 on, and we'll pause the live stream proceeding for just a

18 second, and we'll excuse everybody from the courtroom,

19 except the attorneys and the parties, and then I'll

20 address that one issue, and then we'll move forward.

21 Okay? So if we could do that at this time.

22 (Whereupon said parties are excused from the

23 courtroom.)

24 THE COURT: Please have a seat.

25 Okay. Yesterday I gave you a homework

Appx0589
 6

1 assignment to visit with your clients.

2 Is there -- what are your positions?

3 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, Plaintiff Kari Lake.

4 We have absolutely no objection to the Court continuing

5 with this matter.

6 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blehm.

7 MR. BLEHM: I have your written --

8 MR. OLSEN: Homework assignment.

9 MR. BLEHM: If we have to turn it in.

10 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on just a second.

11 Go ahead. Have a seat.

12 Mr. Olsen, did you have anything to add or?

13 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right. Any of the

15 defendants -- or each of the defendants, I should say?

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Good morning again,

17 Your Honor. Governor Katie Hobbs has no objection to

18 proceeding before this Court.

19 Thank you.

20 THE COURT: Thank you.

21 MR. MORGAN: Secretary of State has no

22 objection, Your Honor. Thank you.

23 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I personally spoken

24 with the actual elected representative of Maricopa County

25 and the Recorder's Office, and they each indicated they

Appx0590
 7

1 have the highest confidence in your ability to proceed

2 without any bias, so...

3 THE COURT: Thank you. Very well. All

4 right. I think I heard from everyone. Then I'll proceed.

5 My next question to you is this. Your jobs

6 are hard enough. If you want me to, I will seal this

7 portion of the discussion, which basically means that if

8 anybody wants any part of this, that they have to come

9 through me?

10 MR. BLEHM: We don't request that.

11 THE COURT: You don't care?

12 MR. BLEHM: No, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Defendants?

14 MR. MORGAN: We don't care, Your Honor.

15 From our perspective, this was more about alerting you to

16 what we alerted you to. So whatever you think needs to

17 happen is fine by us.

18 THE COURT: That's fine.

19 MR. LIDDY: Defer to you, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: I prefer openness, but in

21 excessive of caution, I wanted to offer that to you.

22 I'm ready to proceed in this matter. Then

23 we'll bring everybody in, and we'll resume and get started

24 forthwith here.

25 MR. BLEHM: Do we need to turn this in? I

Appx0591
 8

1 don't want to get an F, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: I think that -- I never had that

3 feeling of being able to tear up my homework in front of

4 the teacher.

5 MR. BLEHM: That was a big thumb's up.

6 Thank you for that, Your Honor.

7 (Whereupon the parties re-enter the

8 courtroom.)

9 THE COURT: Okay. The Court's been advised

10 that there was an exhibit that the parties wish to add on

11 the record. I want to address this.

12 So who's going to do that?

13 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

14 Your Honor, last night, in preparation for

15 today's testimony, we realized that Exhibit 18, which is

16 the data chart drawn from Exhibit 20, the document data

17 that was produced by Maricopa County pursuant to the

18 public records act request, that it had printed out

19 two-sided, and it was only scanned one-sided.

20 Exhibit 18, as it currently stands, the

21 summary, the totals, which are the most significant aspect

22 of it, are in Exhibit 18.

23 But, Your Honor, we would request a -- and

24 we also notified defendants as soon as we learned about

25 this this morning. We would request to add the complete

Appx0592
 9

1 exhibit numbered as Exhibit 47 now that we have prepared

2 for Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Thank you.

4 And, counsel for the defense, you've had the

5 opportunity to inspect Exhibit 47?

6 MR. MORGAN: We had an opportunity to look

7 at it, Your Honor. I think our position generally is that

8 we're going to object to its admissibility, but for

9 purposes of this discussion, I don't know if we need to go

10 there.

11 THE COURT: We're not admitting it right

12 now.

13 MR. MORGAN: Right. So I don't think we

14 object to having it included to the exhibits for the

15 purposes of completeness, but I just wanted to make the

16 Court aware we are absolutely objecting to its

17 admissibility at the moment.

18 THE COURT: I'm not asking anybody to

19 stipulate to admissibility at this point. We're simply

20 correcting an administrative problem in that Exhibit 18

21 was copied two-sided, and we're -- we're now correcting it

22 to be Exhibit 47. Admissibility will be addressed at the

23 proper time.

24 MR. MORGAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Okay.

Appx0593
 10

1 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor?

2 THE COURT: Yes?

3 MS. DANNEMAN: The Governor does object to

4 the inclusion of this exhibit this morning that we

5 received. We didn't get it before when all the other

6 exhibits were due. We don't know what it is. So we would

7 like to state for the record --

8 THE COURT: That's why I asked if you've

9 inspected it. So, if you want to look at it to make sure,

10 that's -- the other codefendants apparently believe that

11 it's the same thing but not two-copy sided.

12 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, I have no reason

13 to doubt -- to doubt that they're -- that they're not

14 being truthful about that, but it was late disclosed, and

15 we do object to the Court considering it in any form, but

16 that was just disclosed to the Court.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, Maricopa County is

19 in a unique position because this document purportedly

20 came from Maricopa County. So we've had it.

21 Oh, I'm sorry. Was 18 one that --

22 MR. OLSEN: Eighteen was the data chart from

23 Exhibit 20, which came from Maricopa County.

24 MR. LIDDY: But 18 was the one that was

25 created by your witness?

Appx0594
 11

1 MR. OLSEN: Correct.

2 MR. LIDDY: Okay. Pretend like I'm not even

3 here, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Okay. My only concern is, if

5 you want to look at it right now and compare it, I'll give

6 you the chance to do that because I'm being told it's a

7 technicality.

8 It's, basically, what was there before is

9 now being presented in different format with -- in other

10 words, one-sided copies versus two-sided copies. Nothing

11 has changed with regard to what's been previously

12 disclosed and marked. That's what's been represented to

13 me. If you're telling me that you haven't had the chance

14 to look at it, I'll let you look at it.

15 MS. DANNEMAN: My understanding, Your

16 Honor -- I apologize if I'm not stating this correctly --

17 is that the exhibit that was disclosed is every other page

18 of these -- of this chart, and now they have produced

19 every page of the chart.

20 If -- if that's the case, Your Honor, I

21 mean, I would still object. I don't know what these

22 numbers are. I assume there will be some testimony about

23 that, but you know, we didn't have this before.

24 THE COURT: Understood. And you're -- the

25 significance of the numbers of admissibility is something

Appx0595
 12

1 that we'll address later, but this is -- I don't want to

2 belabor this, but it's -- it appears to me to be a form of

3 a substance kind of thing. So I'm hesitant to overrule an

4 objection and say it's -- it's not admitted, but it's a

5 procedural step.

6 Put it this way. I'm going to allow them to

7 mark it. It's going to be in the record. If you look

8 over things later on and then you've got a problem with

9 the difference between the two, you can raise that

10 objection at the time it's proposed for admission.

11 MS. DANNEMAN: I understand, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: All right. I think we've dealt

13 with it.

14 Okay. Yesterday where we left off was we

15 had Mr. Valenzuela on the stand, and Mr. Blehm was

16 continuing with his direct examination of Mr. Valenzuela.

17 So, Mr. Valenzuela, sir, if you could please

18 come forward. You remain under oath. If you'll just go

19 ahead and have a seat up here to my right. There you are.

20 All right. Thank you.

21 All right. I believe he's situated. So,

22 Mr. Blehm, as soon as you're ready, you may continue.

23 MR. BLEHM: Thank you, Your Honor.

24

25 CONTINUING DIRECT EXAMINATION

Appx0596
 13

2 BY MR. BLEHM:

3 Q. Good morning, Ray.

4 A. Good morning.

5 MR. BLEHM: I've got some documents here

6 we're trying to get up on the ELMO, and I'm using these as

7 demonstrative exhibits, Your Honor. They are simply video

8 clips of signature verification by MCTEC.

9 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, object here.

10 Judge, I was aware of having been disclosed

11 the video we saw yesterday. I don't know what we're

12 looking at here. I heard him say "videos." I object to

13 using any of these videos in this proceeding.

14 THE COURT: Which exhibit?

15 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, these are -- these

16 are not exhibits. These are clips from videos. If they

17 want, I can play the entire video clip. I'm simply trying

18 to conserve time by using these images.

19 I'm going to ask Mr. Valenzuela what they

20 depict and whether or not they appear to be an accurate

21 representation of the signature verification room inside

22 MCTEC.

23 THE COURT: Okay. But they're not marked as

24 exhibits, and you're not intending to offer them as --

25 MR. BLEHM: I have no intention of offering

Appx0597
 14

1 them as exhibits, Your Honor. They're solely for

2 demonstrative purposes.

3 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, I -- I disclosed

4 and marked for exhibits my impeachment exhibits because

5 that's what we were told to do. This is not fair. He

6 cannot use things we've not seen and spring it on us or

7 our witness in the middle of a hearing for trial. These

8 can't be used.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Liddy?

10 MR. LIDDY: I would join that, and also,

11 Your Honor, that this is not being used as a

12 demonstrative. It is being used as evidence while this

13 witness is on. It's not what a demonstrative is used for.

14 MS. DANNEMAN: The Governor would join in

15 the objections by the other defendants. This is not a

16 demonstrative. He is offering it as evidence.

17 THE COURT: Okay. Demonstrative exhibits,

18 as I understand them, would be exhibits that would be

19 offered to demonstrate how something happens. In other

20 words -- well, I don't want to give seminar on

21 demonstrative exhibits.

22 But included within that would be things

23 such as writing on a chart while our witness is

24 testifying, explaining a calculation on a chart or

25 explaining a process.

Appx0598
 15

1 The previous clip that we used -- I don't

2 recall which exhibit it was. Somebody help me.

3 What was the exhibit that --

4 MR. LIDDY: Nineteen, Your Honor.

5 MR. BLEHM: Nineteen.

6 THE COURT: Nineteen. Thank you, all.

7 Exhibit 19 would serve the purpose of a

8 demonstrative exhibit that we used yesterday. This would

9 be cumulative in terms of demonstrative, and -- and it

10 hasn't been disclosed previously, and it's not marked as

11 an exhibit, so...

12 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Is there something unique about

14 this clip that demonstrates something completely different

15 than we saw on Exhibit 19?

16 MR. LIDDY: Well, this is actually used to

17 refresh Ray's recollection, Your Honor. Yesterday counsel

18 for defendants made specific representations to this Court

19 regarding this signature verification employee.

20 Mr. Valenzuela testified before this Court

21 that this gentleman was incompetent with technology -- and

22 I'm paraphrasing -- and as a result of that, Your Honor,

23 he was removed from the line. All right? And transferred

24 to a new job.

25 These demonstrative exhibits I intend to use

Appx0599
 16

1 to refresh Mr. Valenzuela and his recollection so that we

2 can more artfully discuss whether or not this individual

3 was removed from the line and whether they were aware of

4 his behavior during signature verification.

5 THE COURT: Okay. So what you're telling me

6 is it's impeachment evidence because refreshing

7 recollection, you have to have asked him a question first

8 for him to say, I either can or can't answer that.

9 MR. BLEHM: Okay.

10 THE COURT: But you'll also have to have

11 foundation within the question, because if it's going to

12 timestamp, if he has a statement, for instance, this

13 activity happened on this date, for -- well, for instance,

14 the person was removed on X date, it's impeachment as to

15 the memory or reference as when this person was removed.

16 MR. BLEHM: Understood.

17 THE COURT: And so if -- never mind.

18 We're going way beyond this. But it's the

19 cart before the horse, if you're using it for impeachment,

20 and what you're demonstrating is the impeachment.

21 So why don't you go ahead and ask the

22 questions you wish to ask him first, and then we'll

23 discuss what you can use it for related to impeachment.

24 BY MR. BLEHM:

25 Q. Ray, did you hear the witness testimony yesterday

Appx0600
 17

1 stating that they were basically relieved of their

2 responsibilities on November 11, 2022, following the

3 general election?

4 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor.

5 Counsel's referring to opening statement by counsel, not

6 to any testimony that was put in evidence.

7 MR. BLEHM: I -- I believe the whistleblower

8 witnesses who testified believed that they were told they

9 were no longer needed as of November 11, 2022.

10 THE COURT: No. Wait. Just to be clear, if

11 you're going to impeach this witness, it has to be this

12 witness' statement. This is not going to be --

13 MR. BLEHM: I'm going to ask him about his

14 statement, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Well, that's what I want you to

16 do --

17 MR. BLEHM: Okay.

18 THE COURT: -- is ask him what his statement

19 is so that we can address possible impeachment, not

20 someone else's statement, either in opening or a different

21 witness.

22 BY MR. BLEHM:

23 Q. All right. Ray, do you recall when this

24 particular user that was depicted in the video yesterday

25 was relieved of his duties as a level I signature

Appx0601
 18

1 verifier?

2 A. I do not.

3 Q. You do not.

4 Okay. Do you have any reason to believe it

5 was November 11?

6 A. I would not have that data to indicate.

7 Q. Do you have any reason to dispute that it was

8 November 11?

9 A. I have no reference material to know when he was

10 changed as far as job tasks.

11 Q. Okay. You just know his job was changed?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Okay. And he continued working for Maricopa

14 County; isn't that correct?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. In the elections department, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. In a different level of signature verification?

19 A. Not in a different level of signature

20 verification; in a different task such as curing, such as

21 special election boards. There are many tasks involved in

22 election process.

23 Q. Okay. What individuals would be responsible for

24 sitting in one of those little cubicles with green

25 affidavit envelopes, sorting them into two different

Appx0602
 19

1 piles, and then walking them over to a little stand and

2 dropping them in a green and a red box?

3 MR. LIDDY: Objection as to form, Your

4 Honor. There's been no testimony about anybody in a

5 cubicle sorting green affidavit packets and moving them

6 anywhere. This is --

7 THE COURT: You could stop at form. It was

8 multi-faceted. If you can break it down --

9 MR. BLEHM: Okay.

10 THE COURT: -- Mr. Blehm.

11 BY MR. BLEHM:

12 Q. What task are they performing when they sit in

13 their cubicles in the possession of green affidavit

14 envelopes?

15 A. The physical green affidavit envelopes, then they

16 are either in the process of curing, meaning alphabetizing

17 those packets so that when a voter calls we can locate

18 them, and/or they are packets that we needed that fall

19 into a category of deceased, moved, all of those

20 different -- we categorize them into different trays to

21 identify them as such.

22 Q. Okay. And so what was the last day you had most

23 of the temporary workers close their business with respect

24 to signature verification?

25 A. With respect to signature --

Appx0603
 20

1 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor.

2 Relevance.

3 THE COURT: I'll allow it. Go ahead.

4 THE WITNESS: As respect to signature

5 verification, we were completed by Friday, November 11th.

6 BY MR. BLEHM:

7 Q. By Friday November 11th?

8 A. Absolutely.

9 Q. Okay. And so it's entirely possible this

10 gentleman was still working in signature verification as

11 of November 11; isn't that correct?

12 A. More than likely not because, again, he was

13 reassigned a task. That last push would've been the very

14 last queue, if you will, so it wouldn't have been we're

15 done now, let's re-assign him. It would've been ahead of

16 that.

17 Q. Because of his performance?

18 A. I -- I don't say that it's because of his

19 performance. I indicated on -- a reason why many folks or

20 somebody could be moved out of a task, it could be

21 performance, it could be technical skill set, many other

22 things that could've lended [sic] to that.

23 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the video that is

24 Exhibit 19 has a date stamp of November 10?

25 A. I don't have the video in front of me, but I will

Appx0604
 21

1 trust that that -- if it has a date stamp, that that date

2 would be accurate.

3 Q. Okay. And so if he's working on November 10 and

4 now you're testifying that he was reassigned because he,

5 you know, was somehow incompetent with either his skill

6 set or his performance, then was he really reassigned, or

7 is that you simply trying to cover yourself?

8 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Form.

9 MR. LIDDY: Form.

10 MS. DANNEMAN: And objection. Relevance,

11 Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 MS. DANNEMAN: The issue is whether

14 signature verification was performed, not whether a

15 particular person was assigned at a particular time.

16 THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule on

17 relevance. I understand -- the form, although it's direct

18 examination, this is a witness who's party representative

19 of the other side. So I'll allow that it can be a leading

20 question.

21 The only issue is if -- Mr. Valenzuela, if

22 you understood the question and you can answer it, please

23 answer it. If you need it rephrased, you can ask it to be

24 rephrased. If you don't understand the question, please

25 do not guess.

Appx0605
 22

1 So, Mr. Liddy?

2 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, while formulating

3 the question, he accused our client of trying to deceive

4 the public to hide something that he did. That's

5 argumentative.

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 MR. LIDDY: And I object to that.

8 THE COURT: All right.

9 MR. LIDDY: And unfounded.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, the unfounded part,

11 we'll wait for his answer and if he's able to answer the

12 question.

13 As to argumentative, I'd imagine most

14 everything that Mr. Blehm has is argumentative with regard

15 to this -- the State's position.

16 Mr. Valenzuela, I believe, is capable of

17 understanding the implications of the way the question is

18 phrased. Okay? Argumentative I reserve for -- I -- I

19 will protect witnesses from being badgered or from being

20 harassed, but if they -- if I feel that they're capable of

21 answering the question --

22 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor. I

23 withdraw my objection.

24 THE COURT: That's fine.

25 Okay. Mr. Valenzuela, I'm sorry. It seems

Appx0606
 23

1 like it's been minutes since you were asked a question. I

2 can have Mr. Blehm re-ask it, if you need to.

3 Would that be helpful?

4 THE WITNESS: If I can have the question

5 repeated.

6 THE COURT: Mr. Blehm, please re-ask your --

7 your question.

8 BY MR. BLEHM:

9 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you testified that this gentleman

10 was reassigned, and you don't know why, so I will just

11 leave that, but had something to do with his performance,

12 whether skill-wise or -- or duty-wise that he was

13 reassigned.

14 Was that -- was that a way to simply protect

15 yourself and Maricopa County Elections Department in the

16 face of very negative evidence?

17 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

18 MR. LIDDY: And form.

19 THE COURT: Okay. I'll let him -- I'll

20 overrule on relevance. And we've already gone over form.

21 So if you can answer, please answer.

22 THE WITNESS: So to the question, if I'm

23 looking to protect myself and the County by -- by -- I'm

24 not sure what we're protecting ourselves. So we re-assign

25 somebody to a task because potentially they didn't have a

Appx0607
 24

1 skill set or the tool set, if you will that -- to apply.

2 I don't know how that's protecting ourselves or what

3 statement I made that would infer that.

4 BY MR. BLEHM:

5 Q. Okay. Have you -- have you provided this dataset

6 that's marked as Exhibit 20 to any media organizations

7 like ABC News and the Data Guru?

8 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

9 THE COURT: I'll give you a little bit of

10 leeway. I'm not sure where this is going, but this is

11 pretty far removed from the issues.

12 Do you want him -- you want to know whether

13 they disclosed this to any media?

14 MR. BLEHM: Yes, Your Honor, and the main

15 reason for that is the Data Guru on ABC News last night

16 had --

17 THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold

18 on. Hold on. Hold on. I'm not bringing in the news.

19 I'm not bringing in any kind of -- of media. We're going

20 to focus on this -- this courtroom. Okay? You can ask

21 him if he's aware of any other public records requests, if

22 you want to, by media, but that -- that --

23 BY MR. BLEHM:

24 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, are you aware of any public

25 records requests made by any members of the media with

Appx0608
 25

1 respect to the dataset that's been marked as Exhibit 20?

2 THE COURT: That's a yes-or-no.

3 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor.

4 Relevance and foundation. The --

5 THE COURT: Well, that's why it is a

6 yes-or-no.

7 MR. LIDDY: Mr. Valenzuela is not the

8 custodian of records for Maricopa County.

9 THE COURT: Given that that's the truth,

10 I'll allow him to ask -- answer the question, if you're

11 able to, Mr. Valenzuela.

12 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not aware.

13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Let's move

14 on.

15 BY MR. BLEHM:

16 Q. Are you aware at all if the dataset marked as

17 Exhibit 20 has been shared with any media outlets without

18 making a formal public records request?

19 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

20 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Foundation. This

21 witness has not seen that exhibit, Your Honor.

22 MR. BLEHM: Exhibit 20 is admitted, Your

23 Honor. It's Maricopa County's data. He represents

24 Maricopa County and every employee within that department.

25 THE COURT: That's fine. But I'm not going

Appx0609
 26

1 to hold any witness to photographic memory standards.

2 MS. CRAIGER: Your Honor, for clarification,

3 are you speaking about the dataset that Exhibit 20 --

4 MR. BLEHM: In Exhibit 20, the CD-ROM and

5 all the data contained therein.

6 MS. CRAIGER: Your Honor, I don't know how

7 he could possibly testify to that knowledge of the

8 entirety of Exhibit 20 AND the data -- the CD.

9 MR. BLEHM: I'm not asking him specifics

10 about the data, whether line 1,000,327 says X, Y, or Z,

11 Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 MR. BLEHM: I'm simply asking if the

14 totality of that dataset has been provided to any media

15 outlets in the absence of a formal public records request.

16 THE COURT: Here's the issue. You can ask

17 him as a private individual or -- he's not here as the

18 custodian of record. He's not here to testify as to the

19 entire organization's responses with regards to public

20 records requests. I'm struggling mildly with relevance.

21 MR. BLEHM: Well, I'll simply say, Your

22 Honor, that he's -- he's the designated representative for

23 the Maricopa County Elections Department. He's here every

24 day representing the people of the elections department

25 and their work.

Appx0610
 27

1 THE COURT: That may be true, but the apex

2 stuff -- this is not somebody -- this is like asking the

3 President of the United States about who stood guard last

4 night at the tomb of the unknown soldier.

5 I'm not -- I'm not going to infer that he

6 has photographic knowledge of everything. We're --

7 we're -- we're fast approaching -- well, put it this way.

8 I'm trying to be as lenient as possible with regard to

9 relevance, but now we're far afield of the issue in front

10 of the Court.

11 He's asked -- you've asked him one question

12 about whether he has any knowledge of the public records

13 request. He said no. If you want to ask him -- I'll let

14 you ask him one more question to the point of if he has

15 any knowledge of that information in that CD-ROM being

16 shared with somebody. This is his personal knowledge, not

17 the organization. Other than public records requests and

18 other than in this courtroom, you can ask him that.

19 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

20 BY MR. BLEHM:

21 Q. Ray, do you have any personal knowledge of anyone

22 sharing the contents of Exhibit 20 with anyone outside of

23 Maricopa County Elections Department in the absence of a

24 formal public records request?

25 A. As a representative of the Department, as soon as

Appx0611
 28

1 a public records request is fulfilled, that becomes public

2 records for any and all, media and anybody else who

3 requests it. So -- but for this particular dataset, I

4 would not -- I'm not aware of another public records

5 request as I haven't been in the office. I've been in

6 court.

7 Q. Exhibit 21. You're -- you're aware of Exhibit

8 21; isn't that correct?

9 A. I am not. Not just by the number.

10 Q. It's a public records request.

11 MR. BLEHM: May I, Your Honor?

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 BY MR. BLEHM:

14 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 21.

15 And can you tell the Court if you are aware

16 of that public records request.

17 A. I am.

18 Q. Okay. Did you help fill that public records

19 request?

20 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor.

21 Relevance.

22 THE COURT: Give you some leeway. We're

23 going somewhere quick with this.

24 MR. BLEHM: We're going quick.

25 THE COURT: All right. I'll take your word

Appx0612
 29

1 at it.

2 You can answer it, if you're able to,

3 Mr. Valenzuela.

4 THE WITNESS: So the question was, was --

5 did I assist? Yes, part and parcel to several elements of

6 this request, I assisted.

7 BY MR. BLEHM:

8 Q. Okay. So you actively assisted in the

9 fulfillment of this public records request?

10 A. That is correct.

11 MR. BLEHM: And I apologize, Your Honor. I

12 do not have the exhibit list in front of me.

13 THE COURT: When you're walking away and

14 talking, I can't hear you.

15 MR. BLEHM: Oh, I apologize, Your Honor.

16 I -- I'm looking -- okay. This has been admitted then,

17 correct? Okay. Then no need to offer for admission.

18 BY MR. BLEHM:

19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Valenzuela.

20 So your answer is you're completely unaware

21 then of any other disclosure of the documents you produced

22 in response to the Exhibit 21 records request?

23 A. As not being the custodian of records, I am not

24 aware.

25 Q. Do you have a formal custodian of records?

Appx0613
 30

1 A. We do, indeed.

2 Q. When did that start?

3 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

4 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that.

6 We're --

7 BY MR. BLEHM:

8 Q. All right. Let's switch gears here a little bit.

9 Signature verification -- and -- and I don't believed you

10 specifically asked this -- answered this question

11 yesterday, but can it be done in employees' homes?

12 A. The review is part of having to be logged into

13 our network.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. So it requires that that element of an individual

16 being onsite or at one of the Recorder's Offices at the

17 present.

18 Q. Okay. So there's no -- so it's not possible,

19 then what you're testifying, to log into your network to

20 conduct signature verification from home?

21 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Relevance, Your

22 Honor, to the extent that the question is formulated at

23 any information related to signature verification at any

24 time other than November of 2022.

25 THE COURT: This was discussed yesterday

Appx0614
 31

1 with him, and I think the very question that you asked --

2 MR. BLEHM: Understood.

3 THE COURT: -- yesterday was asked and

4 answered.

5 MR. BLEHM: My -- my specific questions,

6 just to massage their concerns, are specifically related

7 to the general election of November 2022 and whether or

8 not Maricopa County employees -- because he has not

9 answered this question yet, Your Honor -- are able to log

10 in to the County network and conduct signature

11 verification from home.

12 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Wait. Let me clarify to see if

14 I've understood.

15 You're asking him, is it possible for that

16 to happen?

17 MR. BLEHM: Yes.

18 THE COURT: Is that what you're asking?

19 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. This is

20 relevance. He's talking about process. We aren't here

21 trying the process. We're trying whether the existing

22 process happened.

23 MR. BLEHM: I -- I'm not trying the process,

24 Your Honor. Our next witness will present a great deal of

25 evidence --

Appx0615
 32

1 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, he's testifying.

2 MR. BLEHM: I'm not testifying. I'm making

3 an argument.

4 THE COURT: Offer of proof.

5 MR. BLEHM: And protecting the record.

6 THE COURT: No. You're making an offer of

7 proof.

8 MR. BLEHM: Offer of proof.

9 Okay. Our next witness is going to present

10 testimony that a lot of what is taking place is simply

11 button clicking, button clicking, button clicking.

12 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

13 MR. BLEHM: We want to know if that is

14 taking place outside of the public's purview, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

16 MR. BLEHM: That's what we want to know.

17 Because the law in Arizona --

18 THE COURT: And I thank you for your

19 clarification. He answered that yesterday, and I think

20 he -- you asked him if that was being done, and he said

21 no. You're asking today if it's possible for an employee

22 to log in from home to the computer system of the County.

23 MR. BLEHM: That's what I'm asking, Your

24 Honor, is it possible?

25 THE COURT: Not just that. That's poorly

Appx0616
 33

1 phrased. You're asking him, is it possible for an

2 employee to log in from home and do signature verification

3 from home, not just log in to the general County's

4 website.

5 MR. BLEHM: Correct, Your Honor. To log in

6 and perform signature verifications from home.

7 THE COURT: Okay.

8 MR. BLEHM: It's a yes-or-a-no-question,

9 Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: I gathered that.

11 Go ahead and answer, Mr. Valenzuela.

12 THE WITNESS: If I may take a point of

13 privilege. It is -- we do have remote capabilities for

14 several of our staff admin, and I can log into my PC, but

15 it is not a set standard or protocol to do so for

16 signature verification.

17 BY MR. BLEHM:

18 Q. So, if I understand the response correctly,

19 Maricopa County employees can log into the County system

20 and perform signature verification from home, correct, yes

21 or a no?

22 A. As a protocol, not a standard. Could they --

23 could -- yes. Could the clouds cover the sky and make

24 systems go down? We could have a lot of that. But

25 technically, they could log in. Admin could log in to our

Appx0617
 34

1 network.

2 Q. And conduct signature verification from home?

3 A. It's not a protocol that we have established for

4 that.

5 Q. Okay. Mr. Valenzuela, I'm just trying to make

6 sure the record is clear.

7 Yes-or-no-answer, Mr. Valenzuela. Is it

8 physically possible for Maricopa County employees to log

9 in and conduct signature verification from home?

10 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. Form,

11 relevance. This has been asked and answered. What are we

12 doing here?

13 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, he keeps saying

14 protocols, smotocol.

15 BY MR. BLEHM:

16 Q. It's a-yes-or-a-no question. Can they do it?

17 A. An employee can log in and access all of their --

18 their PC as if they were sitting in front of that PC

19 remotely.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. That are assigned those workstations. Not every

22 employee has such.

23 Q. Okay. Do you allow your temporary employees

24 remote access?

25 A. They do not have workstations assigned to them,

Appx0618
 35

1 nor are they provided that capability, no.

2 Q. Okay. Change gears a little bit.

3 Do you know someone by the name of Kathleen

4 Nicolaides?

5 A. I do, indeed.

6 Q. And who is she?

7 A. She is a certified forensic document examiner

8 who's certified by the ABFDE with those credentials, and

9 she is with -- associated Forensic Laboratories which is

10 the entity that provides the Secretary of State's training

11 to all 15 counties.

12 In addition to that, we have contracted with

13 her prior to the Secretary of State offering this service

14 to train and certify our FT -- our full-time employees,

15 our permanent employees, and certified election officers.

16 Q. Okay. And what is -- do you have a personal

17 relationship with her or anything?

18 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

19 MR. BLEHM: She -- she's the individual that

20 does all the training for signature verification, Your

21 Honor.

22 THE COURT: Right. And I think we're pretty

23 far afield at this point.

24 MR. BLEHM: I just -- I just want to

25 understand his relationship, Your Honor, with this

Appx0619
 36

1 individual who conducts their signature verification

2 training.

3 THE COURT: I don't understand the

4 relevance. So I'm not going to allow that.

5 MR. BLEHM: All right, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Sustained is another word for

7 that.

8 BY MR. BLEHM:

9 Q. All right. And so we talked yesterday about

10 Exhibit 1 and the standards, right, what people review.

11 And I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1 again.

12 Could you please turn to the page --

13 MR. BLEHM: And this we would like to use as

14 a demonstrative, Your Honor.

15 MR. LIDDY: Do you have a page number,

16 please.

17 MR. BLEHM: Exhibit 34, and the exhibits

18 have not been admitted yet. This is Exhibit 18, I think.

19 THE COURT: If we could point to a page in

20 one of the exhibits that you're about to use, then the

21 answer to your question is yes.

22 MR. BLEHM: I -- I believe it would be page

23 139.

24 THE COURT: Of Exhibit?

25 MR. BLEHM: And I'm looking for that.

Appx0620
 37

1 THE COURT: One?

2 MR. BLEHM: That is 10 -- or Exhibit 11,

3 page 139, and it should be -- it should be titled User

4 134.

5 BY MR. BLEHM:

6 Q. All right. So, Mr. Valenzuela, I -- I suppose I

7 should ask you, have you ever seen this data before?

8 A. I briefly have.

9 Q. Where?

10 A. In -- today when we were looking at some of the

11 numbers that potentially other witnesses had.

12 Q. Okay. I'm going to make some representations to

13 you with respect to number 130 -- user 134. User 134 --

14 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, this is a

15 document -- we don't know anything about this document,

16 who created it. It's not in evidence yet. We would ask

17 that --

18 MR. LIDDY: Foundation.

19 MS. DANNEMAN: Yeah. We would object on the

20 basis of foundation.

21 MR. BLEHM: I just want to ask him some

22 specific questions about the data. Then I'm going to show

23 a video of user 134 and ask him questions about that.

24 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, he's not allowed --

25 he needs to lay foundation.

Appx0621
 38

1 THE COURT: All right. So, first of all,

2 this is not data created by the witness?

3 MR. MORGAN: No, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Mr. Blehm?

5 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, this is data that's

6 contained in Exhibit Number 20.

7 MR. MORGAN: Which the witness testified --

8 THE COURT: Wait. I thought we were --

9 Exhibit 11, page 139, user 134.

10 MR. BLEHM: It should say user 134, Your

11 Honor.

12 THE COURT: No. But I have it down as

13 Exhibit 11, page 139.

14 Is that what it is?

15 MR. BLEHM: Yes. It should be page 135, I

16 believe.

17 THE COURT: Okay. And who's this --

18 MR. BLEHM: Excuse me?

19 THE COURT: Who is this data created by,

20 this witness or someone else?

21 MR. BLEHM: No. The data wasn't -- the data

22 was created by Maricopa County.

23 What this data represents, Your Honor, are

24 key strokes on user verification computers. So when a

25 user -- when a user logs into their workstation -- and

Appx0622
 39

1 that's how they know how everything we do at work.

2 They -- they hit a button that says to do something, and

3 that's recorded.

4 THE COURT: Okay. This sounds like you're

5 laying foundation by you testifying. But what I'm

6 concerned about is a demonstrative exhibit -- put it this

7 way. If you want to ask him a hypothetical question with

8 assumptions of certain things, you're able to do that.

9 MR. BLEHM: That's where I'm going, Your

10 Honor. I want to ask him a hypothetical question --

11 THE COURT: Then lay the foundation for your

12 hypothetical, please. You have to give him the specific

13 variables that you want him to consider, let's make

14 whatever you want him to assume, and then, if he's able to

15 offer an opinion, he can do that.

16 BY MR. BLEHM:

17 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, going back to the user that we

18 saw the video for, does -- does that look like it might

19 accurately represent his behavior on the signature

20 verification?

21 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Form.

22 THE COURT: Sustained on form because it

23 goes to foundation. It's assuming -- there's several

24 leaps in this. Please go back and lay the foundation.

25 BY MR. BLEHM:

Appx0623
 40

1 Q. Okay. Let's assume that this data accurately

2 represents user 34 and his approval of --

3 THE COURT: 134 or 34?

4 MR. BLEHM: I'm sorry. 134, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I please be

7 heard?

8 THE COURT: Go ahead.

9 MR. LIDDY: I'm objecting to foundation

10 because my understanding is, although I can't see it

11 because of the furniture in the courtroom, that there is

12 an exhibit in front of our -- my client, the witness, that

13 he's looking at. Okay. There.

14 This, as you can see what we have here from

15 this exhibit, it's a white page with black ink, red ink,

16 green ink on it. We have no idea what it is. We have no

17 idea who produced it, where it came from. I'm asking for

18 him to provide some foundation before he shows it to the

19 witness and asks him questions on it.

20 Thank you, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 MR. BLEHM: I think the foundation, Your

23 Honor, are the assumptions I'm trying to lay out right

24 now. I'm -- I'm asking him to assume certain facts.

25 THE COURT: Right. But I'm having a hard

Appx0624
 41

1 time following your hypothetical because I don't know what

2 you're asking him to assume. His opinion -- your question

3 and his answer to have any value, I need to understand the

4 basis for it.

5 MR. MORGAN: And objection -- sorry, Your

6 Honor. Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

7 An objection from us, Your Honor. I --

8 candidly, I'm lost. If we're going to start all over on

9 this issue and lay foundation, that would be great. I'm

10 honestly not able to follow along at this point.

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

12 BY MR. BLEHM:

13 Q. Okay. Mr. Valenzuela, are you a data analyst?

14 A. I am not.

15 Q. No?

16 Do you have any background at all in

17 analyzing datasets such as that contained in Exhibit 20?

18 A. Other than reviewing data and obviously tables

19 and that kind for statistics but not an expert in data

20 analysis.

21 Q. What is your background in statistics?

22 A. I have no background in statistics. It's

23 deriving statistics, example, turnout, early voting

24 participation, those kind of broad --

25 Q. Okay. And so you can do that math?

Appx0625
 42

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. How do you do that math? Tell us, how do

3 you compute turnout?

4 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor.

5 Relevance.

6 MR. LIDDY: Join.

7 MR. MORGAN: This witness is not an expert.

8 MR. BLEHM: Okay. He's not an expert?

9 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Wait. We're far

10 afield. Let's lay the foundation specifically for this

11 exhibit and then establish the parameters of your question

12 for him so that I understand the basis of what's being

13 asked.

14 BY MR. BLEHM:

15 Q. Okay. Mr. Valenzuela, do you have any reason to

16 dispute that this data accurately represents the time

17 performance of user 134 from the date he began employment

18 with Maricopa County on October 17, 2022, and ended his

19 signature verification responsibilities on November 11,

20 2022?

21 MR. LIDDY: Objection as to foundation to

22 the extent that counsel is referring to data on the

23 exhibit for which there's been no foundation laid.

24 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it. If --

25 I'm not going to tell you how to ask the question, but

Appx0626
 43

1 we're -- we don't have foundation to ask the question that

2 was posed to you.

3 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

4 Okay. I just wanted to -- one hypothetical

5 question to ask him because I have to ask him to assume,

6 Your Honor.

7 The assumption I'm asking him to assume is

8 this, that this user and his approval of ballot

9 information envelopes is represented by this line on this

10 graph, Your Honor, over time.

11 THE COURT: That's the question?

12 MR. BLEHM: The hypothetical is, if that is

13 consistent with Maricopa County's standards for approving

14 ballot affidavit signatures. That is my question.

15 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Foundation, Your

16 Honor, with regard to his digit on that right hand was

17 pointed to that exhibit for which no foundation has been

18 laid.

19 THE COURT: Okay. But hypothetically, what

20 you're asking him -- the problem is is you've been

21 thinking about this examination for a long time, and there

22 are things in your examination, the question you're asking

23 him, that are quantum leaps and assumptions that you're

24 not asking him to assume.

25 And so it lacks foundation. If you want to

Appx0627
 44

1 show him a picture not representing that it's anything

2 substantive from the case, but this is assuming -- and

3 I'm -- now I'm trying to tell you how to ask your

4 question.

5 MR. BLEHM: And, Your Honor, that's -- I'm

6 showing him this graph and just asking him to assume.

7 THE COURT: But is this a graph to show --

8 I -- as I look at this, I don't know what that graph is.

9 I don't know what any of the axes represent, and you're

10 asking him a hypothetical that doesn't -- you're -- you're

11 leaving out assumptions. You're not providing all the

12 data, and you're just saying --

13 BY MR. BLEHM:

14 Q. Mr. Valenzuela --

15 THE COURT: Look appropriate.

16 BY MR. BLEHM:

17 Q. -- what I would like to -- you to assume on this

18 graph, that this axis here represents the number of ballot

19 affidavit envelopes approved, and that this axis here

20 represents the time taken to approve.

21 Do you understand?

22 A. I understand that explanation, yes.

23 Q. Okay. So, if you had a signature verification

24 employee whose time to approve on average followed this

25 pattern, would you say that they are comparing signatures,

Appx0628
 45

1 or they're not comparing signatures?

2 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Foundation, Your

3 Honor. We don't know where this document came from, who

4 made it, what --

5 THE COURT: Okay. At this point in time,

6 Mr. Valenzuela, if you're able to understand the question

7 and you don't need any other information or clarification

8 and you're able to answer the question the way it's posed

9 to you, you can answer it. If you can't, you can tell me

10 you can't.

11 THE WITNESS: I don't believe I can

12 accurately answer. I can make some assumptions, like

13 you're asking me to, but I don't know that particular

14 data. I don't know who that user is.

15 But if you're asking, does that bar look

16 accurate as far as ups and downs, peaks and valleys, there

17 would, indeed, be peaks and valleys when somebody is doing

18 a disposition of no signature 1 second, no signature 1

19 second, an absolute consistent signature 2.4 seconds, or

20 one that is not consistent that needs further evaluation.

21 So we would see peaks and valleys in any user who reviews

22 signatures.

23 BY MR. BLEHM:

24 Q. Oh, okay. And so please explain to me what you

25 mean by peaks and valleys.

Appx0629
 46

1 Is this a peak?

2 A. I'm inferring that's what that is.

3 Q. You're inferring?

4 A. Because I'm looking at a chart that I don't --

5 I've never seen before, but assuming it goes up and down,

6 that that is indication, as you explained the axes to me.

7 Q. Understood.

8 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I -- I'm sorry,

9 please finish your questioned.

10 BY MR. BLEHM:

11 Q. Because we're both making assumptions, right?

12 A. You're asking me to make assumptions, and I am

13 following along.

14 Q. That's what I'm doing. I'm asking you to make

15 assumptions.

16 MR. LIDDY: Objection. Calls for

17 speculation.

18 BY MR. BLEHM:

19 Q. And that you, as the head of the elections

20 department who oversee all signature verification workers,

21 is this -- if this represented, user 134 represented an

22 actual Maricopa County signature verification employee,

23 would you say that that behavior is consistent with their

24 oath of office?

25 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor. It

Appx0630
 47

1 appears that counsel is using that as a demonstrative, and

2 he's asking the witness to make assumptions that it's

3 based on actual data from the '22 election for which no

4 foundation has been laid, and he then will argue to the

5 Court that, based on these assumptions, his answers are

6 evidence that somehow it should be used by the Court to

7 deliberate for the ultimate question.

8 This is completely improper, and it deprives

9 my client of their due process rights in this hearing.

10 THE COURT: Thank you.

11 All right. Is this a demonstrative?

12 MR. BLEHM: Let's get this out of the way.

13 THE COURT: Hold on, Mr. Blehm. There was

14 an objection.

15 Is that a demonstrative exhibit? You

16 started off by saying that that's a demonstrative exhibit.

17 MR. BLEHM: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Okay. That means that you've

19 got a witness that you will use to lay the foundation for

20 that.

21 MR. BLEHM: Okay.

22 THE COURT: Now, you can ask questions. In

23 fact, you already did yesterday, ask all the questions

24 about times for -- for performing the analysis of whether

25 signatures were similar and timing.

Appx0631
 48

1 But now you've apparently transposed that --

2 some representation of that onto that demonstrative

3 exhibit. It's not this witness' demonstrative exhibit.

4 And so, if you have a witness that you want

5 to lay the foundation for that demonstrative exhibit,

6 it -- it's not -- demonstrative exhibits don't come into

7 evidence.

8 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: They're -- they're there for

10 demonstrating more effectively to the trier of fact what

11 the witness is testifying to.

12 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: So this is not a proper use of a

14 demonstrative exhibit. You've already asked and had

15 answers to all of the questions related to the data

16 yesterday.

17 MR. BLEHM: Understood, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: So let's move on, please.

19 BY MR. BLEHM:

20 Q. Okay. So you testified that you did participate

21 in the production of that data that I represented to you

22 is represented by this chart I asked you to make

23 assumptions about, correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Okay. What was your role? What role did you

Appx0632
 49

1 play in producing that data?

2 A. I apologize because it's going to sound overly

3 broad, but I requested it of -- and gave them specifics of

4 what to pull for that data request.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. But I did not pull the data myself. I did not

7 analyze the data. I submitted the ticket under the public

8 records request.

9 Q. All right. Do you have the ability to analyze

10 this data?

11 A. I do. I have the raw data, but I don't have the

12 ability to -- properly to that degree, as, again, I

13 indicated I'm not a data analyst.

14 Q. Okay.

15 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

16 MR. BLEHM: Thank you.

17 THE COURT: It's asked and answered, so...

18 MR. BLEHM: All right. I'm going to -- I'm

19 done, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Cross-exam?

21 And I told you yesterday, you can either go

22 as far as you want -- because, as you all understand,

23 Arizona is not limited like the federal system on

24 cross-examination. You can go as broad as you want, if it

25 avoids calling the witness again in your case in chief, or

Appx0633
 50

1 you can stick to what you wish to in this case.

2 So who's doing the cross?

3 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, we will be calling

4 this witness as our only witness on direct.

5 THE COURT: That's your -- that's your

6 right.

7 MR. LIDDY: And I'm happy to do a minor

8 cross to clean this up. I can do that on direct. It's

9 really up to you, Your Honor, how you want to do this. I

10 don't know if you need a break now or --

11 THE COURT: It -- it's -- it's really not up

12 to me. It's your choice as to how you wish to try your

13 case. But I'm just emphasizing. You have that. I'm

14 signaling to you that I recognize that you have the right

15 to re-call this witness, if you wish to, in your case in

16 chief. So you can either conduct cross, as you see fit,

17 or not.

18 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, we're going to not

19 question this witness at this time and wait and do all of

20 our work on our redirect.

21 THE COURT: Very well.

22 MR. LIDDY: Our case.

23 THE COURT: All right. Without cross,

24 there's no rebuttal, and so can we -- I think somebody in

25 the back, are you taking pictures, sir? Sir, are you

Appx0634
 51

1 taking pictures?

2 A GENTLEMAN: I did, but I won't. I'm

3 sorry.

4 THE COURT: Pardon me? Pardon me? I didn't

5 hear your answer.

6 A GENTLEMAN: No. I won't be taking

7 pictures, no.

8 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, he said yes, he did,

9 but he won't anymore.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. All right.

11 There's just specific rules that are in place with regard

12 to that.

13 A GENTLEMAN: Yes, sir.

14 THE COURT: So I would just ask you to

15 delete that. I could have my staff review that. I'm not

16 going to have them come take your camera, but you already

17 get it. You're not going to take more pictures. If you

18 can just delete what you took in the courtroom, I'd

19 appreciate it.

20 A GENTLEMAN: Sure.

21 THE COURT: Thank you.

22 Okay. So we're going to -- let's see.

23 We've only been at this for an hour.

24 So, Mr. Valenzuela, we can excuse you to go

25 ahead and take your place in the courtroom, if you'd like,

Appx0635
 52

1 sir. Thank you.

2 Okay. Who is the next witness that you

3 would call? I think you only have one witness left that

4 you told me.

5 MR. OLSEN: Correct, Your Honor. That is

6 Mr. Speckin.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Are you ready to --

8 MR. BLEHM: Sorry, Your Honor. I --

9 THE COURT: Just returning the --

10 MR. BLEHM: Returning Exhibit 1.

11 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blehm, I

12 appreciate that.

13 Okay. We're going to continue because I

14 have to check with the court reporter. So we'll begin

15 with your -- your witness, Mr. Olsen, knowing that we'll

16 probably break around 10:30 for the midmorning break.

17 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. You want

19 to get your -- I think --

20 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, plaintiffs will call

21 Erich Speckin.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Speckin, come on forward,

23 sir. If you could raise your right hand and be sworn in,

24 sir.

25 (Whereupon the witness is sworn.)

Appx0636
 53

1 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Speckin. Have a

2 seat.

3 All right. Mr. Olsen, you may begin.

4 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, may I approach? I

5 just want to move that monitor.

6 THE COURT: Oh, the monitor?

7 MR. OLSEN: Yeah. Just to swing it.

8 THE COURT: Yeah. Right. That's just fine.

9 That's fine, sir.

10 Is that blocking anybody on the defense side

11 now?

12 MR. LIDDY: No, Your Honor.

13 MR. MORGAN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

14 THE COURT: We're good. Thank you.

15 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

16

17 ERICH SPECKIN,

18 having been first duly sworn,

19 is examined and testifies as follows:

20

21 DIRECT EXAMINATION

22

23 BY MR. OLSEN:

24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Speckin.

25 A. Good morning.

Appx0637
 54

1 Q. Could you please state your full name for the

2 record.

3 A. Erich Speckin. That's E-R-I-C-H, last name

4 Speckin, S-P-E-C-K-I-N.

5 Q. And, Mr. Speckin, where do you work?

6 A. I work for Speckin Forensics. Our main office is

7 in Michigan. I work primarily out of the Fort Lauderdale,

8 Florida, office, not Hollywood, Florida, I should say.

9 Q. And what does Speckin Forensics do?

10 A. We're a full-service forensic firm. We deal with

11 all aspects of forensic science. We deal with computer

12 data recovery, crime scene re- -- excuse me, crime scene

13 reconstruction, firearms and tool mark, fingerprints, DNA,

14 toxicology, but the section that I deal with is documents

15 and inks.

16 THE COURT: Mr. Speckin, do you need some

17 water? You coughed.

18 THE WITNESS: I have it ready. Thank you,

19 Your Honor. I have extra lined up for me, I think, too.

20 THE COURT: We're set.

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Do you also work in the field of handwriting

23 analysis?

24 A. Yes. So, under documents and inks, there are two

25 schools of thought. There's a document analyst that looks

Appx0638
 55

1 at just the document aspect, and then there's handwriting.

2 I do both.

3 In the United States, nearly everyone does

4 that does documents also does handwriting. In some

5 countries, they differentiate the two, but under document

6 examination, under that title, it would be document

7 examination, and handwriting would be part of that.

8 Q. And is signature verification subsumed within

9 handwriting analysis?

10 A. That would be another way to say it or an

11 application thereof from handwriting examination for

12 determination of authorship. That's the way I would say

13 it, but signature verification is saying the same thing,

14 in my opinion; it's just not a phrase that I normally use.

15 I would say determination of authorship, but it's the same

16 thing.

17 Q. And can you give me a more detailed description

18 of your job that you perform at forensic -- Speckin

19 Forensics?

20 A. So my primary functions, as it relates to work or

21 documents and inks, I mean, I have administrative

22 functions, as well, but nobody is probably interested in

23 those today.

24 So I deal with the examination of documents

25 and inks. So, in the examination of documents, I am to

Appx0639
 56

1 examine documents for alterations, additions, and

2 rewritings, has a document been altered, changed, added to

3 after the fact, and also perhaps when it was done, the

4 examination of photocopiers, facsimiles, printers for

5 determination of origin, date, time, associations.

6 The larger part, especially now because

7 we've had a death of one of our partners, is handwriting.

8 I've been doing handwriting now for 30 years, a little

9 over, and that is the determination of handwriting and

10 hand printing.

11 Of course, included in that is signatures

12 for determination of authorship. Did someone write

13 something or not, and the certainty to which you can

14 express that conclusion, and that's what I deal with on a

15 large scale. It seems like, if you ask my wife, every day

16 but six days a week probably.

17 Q. And so I believe you testified that you have

18 worked at Speckin Forensics for approximately the past 30

19 years?

20 A. Yes. I started in March of 1993, and now we're

21 in May of 2023, so 30 years and three months.

22 Q. How many employees are at Speckin Forensics

23 currently?

24 A. Between full and part time, you would say?

25 Q. Yes.

Appx0640
 57

1 A. Well, instead of testing my memory and count

2 every one, I'd say roughly a dozen.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. I could take a lot of time and give you an exact

5 answer but, if that's good enough for you, roughly a

6 dozen.

7 Q. Can you describe the education and training that

8 you have in the areas of expertise that you just described

9 with respect to document analysis, handwriting analysis?

10 A. Yes. I have a degree in chemistry. It's a

11 Bachelor of Arts from the College of Natural Science from

12 Michigan State University. That's my educational

13 background.

14 My training, I had a two-year training

15 program with Leonard Speckin. That's my father. It was

16 in the examination of documents and signatures. He's the

17 retired chief document examiner for the Michigan State

18 Police. He retired in December of 1989. He trained me

19 from 1993 to 1995 in the examination of documents and

20 handwriting for determination of authorship as it relates

21 to the handwriting.

22 I then had a one-year training program with

23 Richard Burnell. He's the retired deputy director of the

24 ATF Natural -- National Laboratory. He trained me from

25 1995 to 1996. That primarily focused on inks and papers,

Appx0641
 58

1 who manufactured an ink, when it came out, how long it's

2 been on a paper, and are two inks the same or different.

3 That's primary fast answer to what that was. And that was

4 from '95 to '96.

5 Q. Do you hold any licenses related to offering

6 expert opinions on handwriting analysis?

7 A. No. There's not a license, per se, that's

8 granted by a state or local body. I am a licensed private

9 investigator in the state of Michigan, which is required

10 under laws of some states. I don't think Arizona is one

11 of them, but I don't know for sure.

12 But you have to be a licensed private

13 investigator to store and maintain forensic data,

14 primarily related to computer cases and computer data. I

15 maintain that license in an abundant of caution, but it's

16 not something that really plays into my normal workday,

17 but I have it.

18 Q. Okay. You described two instances of the

19 training that you've undergone for handwriting analysis, I

20 believe.

21 A. Yes. My father and Richard Burnell.

22 Q. And do you maintain any -- or strike that.

23 Do you perform any proficiency tests, annual

24 tests that would allow you to show that you have

25 maintained proficiency in these areas?

Appx0642
 59

1 A. Yes. My laboratory, many years ago, I think in

2 2007 or 2008, at the decision of Roger Bolhouse, who was

3 our laboratory director at the time, decided that we would

4 all go in our laboratory, undergo proficiency testing.

5 So we have an outside proficiency testing

6 agency called CTS, Collaborative Testing Services.

7 They're the ones who provide a lot of testing for

8 government agencies, as well. That's what they do.

9 To be tested in handwriting and document

10 examination, for me, I was there -- DNA people are tested

11 in DNA, but that's what I'm tested in on an annual basis,

12 and we have occasional additional proficiency tests that

13 we'll be tested that are internal proficiency tests that

14 are created by staff at the laboratory, but the main one

15 is outside proficiency testing on an annual basis.

16 Q. And when -- when is the last time that you

17 completed your outside proficiency testing in handwriting

18 analysis?

19 A. With COVID, it changed things a little bit. So I

20 can't remember if it's one year or two years ago. And the

21 new one is coming up. So it's been ordered, but it hasn't

22 been delivered for 2023 yet.

23 Q. Have you participated in any workshops with

24 respect to scientific meetings on the issue of handwriting

25 analysis?

Appx0643
 60

1 A. Yes. I attended many workshops on handwriting

2 examination, expressing conclusions. Within that,

3 determination of handwriting on mass scales. They have

4 software in the forensic world for mass scale handwriting

5 comparisons.

6 I've looked at what they would say would be

7 more difficult cases like how to tell something that might

8 be more difficult a layperson wouldn't be able to see in

9 terms of forgeries and how it's done.

10 But that's probably one of the more frequent

11 workshops is the examination of handwriting in some form

12 or fashion because it's one of the more common things

13 that's encountered in my field by similar experts.

14 Q. Who puts on these workshops that you're

15 describing?

16 A. Generally speaking, it would be a relevant

17 scientific organization. So it might be -- I heard

18 someone say American Board of Forensic Document Examiners.

19 They don't actually have their own. But they have

20 American Academy of Forensic Sciences that they're related

21 to. They have workshops all the time. The American

22 Society of Questioning Document Examiners has workshops.

23 Here, you have the Southwestern Association

24 of Forensic Document Examiners, SAFDE. They will put on

25 workshops. There are other regional organizations similar

Appx0644
 61

1 to that, such as MAFs (phonetic) or SAFs (phonetic) or you

2 know -- for different geographical areas that will put on

3 workshops.

4 I've also attended workshops from

5 specialties. In other words, I've attended workshops at

6 Canon on how Canon printers, technologies, and toners

7 work. I've attended workshops on paper, on how paper is

8 made at various factories.

9 I've done workshops on ink, on how inks and

10 pens are made and ink is put in pens. Those are not the

11 norm, but those happen on occasion, and I always try to

12 make those.

13 Q. Are there workshops specifically related to the

14 issue of handwriting analysis?

15 A. Yeah. As I said, with various scientific bodies,

16 that's probably one of the most common types of workshops

17 that's available.

18 Q. And do you participate in those workshops, as

19 well, when made available to you, when schedule permits?

20 A. When schedule permits is exactly how I was going

21 to answer. Early on in my career, I attended a lot of

22 more frequently.

23 As I've gotten busier and had more children,

24 I've attended less frequently, but I still do attend, and

25 I also present. I mean, I'm a frequent presenter of

Appx0645
 62

1 papers and workshops at various scientific bodies on this

2 type of thing.

3 Q. How many cases involving handwriting and

4 signatures have you reviewed in your career?

5 A. So I only -- when I -- when we say cases, just to

6 be clear, I only keep track of a case by a submitter. So,

7 for instance, there could be a case with many, many

8 signatures that are involved, but it's only one case.

9 So, if we take one case by single submitter,

10 I would estimate it's probably, at this point in my

11 career, in the range of 3,000, 28 hundred to 33 hundred,

12 given a range, that I've examined as an examiner.

13 And I'd estimate, in my training period, I

14 had probably around 700 that I either reviewed through the

15 course of the work, or I was asked to review older cases

16 for specific purposes for training supplement.

17 Q. Have you testified as an expert witness with

18 respect to -- well, strike that.

19 How many cases have you testified as an

20 expert witness in your field?

21 A. I think the number is 413 today. This would be

22 the 413th time in my career, counting trials and

23 depositions. I don't have it broken down specifically,

24 but counting trials and depositions, sworn testimony, I

25 think this is around 413.

Appx0646
 63

1 Q. And of those cases, how many did you testify on

2 the issue of handwriting analysis signature verification?

3 A. I can't give you a breakdown that fine. I can

4 tell you it's the majority of them, but I don't know that

5 it's 297 or 350 or -- I can't give you a number that

6 specific. That would mislead to I say that I know that

7 specifically, and I don't. But the majority of them have

8 been handwriting-type cases.

9 Q. When you say "the majority of them," you mean the

10 majority of the 413 cases that you referred to earlier?

11 A. Correct. Over the majority, well over half is

12 what I mean.

13 Q. In all of the cases from which you testified as

14 an expert, have you ever been disqualified by any court?

15 A. There was one instance related to ink dating

16 where a court read an opinion that had been thrown out and

17 said, we're not going to have testimony on that issue, but

18 never with handwriting.

19 Q. So when you say "ink dating," what does that

20 refer to?

21 A. Well, the issue was a very, very narrow issue,

22 and it had to do with the estimation of age and the length

23 of time the ink had been on paper by the chemical drying

24 properties and comparing it to an ink from the same sample

25 that had been accelerated-aged in a laboratory and saying

Appx0647
 64

1 the extraction properties were different. That's the

2 technique, and that was in 2003.

3 Now every private laboratory I know uses

4 that use of heat to accelerate the age of inks, but in

5 2003, the judge wasn't ready to hear that at that time for

6 a myriad of reasons.

7 Q. You mentioned that a court relied on a case that

8 had been vacated.

9 Can you explain that further?

10 A. Yeah. So the case that I'm talking about where

11 the judge didn't allow testimony here in the United States

12 was EEOC versus Ethan Allen, Northern District of Ohio,

13 and I think it was 2002 or 2003.

14 They quoted an opinion from a Hong Kong case

15 that had a myriad of terrible things to say about me, and

16 it later came out that the judge didn't write that opinion

17 at all; he just copied it from what the other side had

18 written.

19 And the court of final appeal -- they call

20 it the CFA in Hong Kong -- threw the decision out because

21 the judge merely copied what the defense had written, and

22 I don't remember the exact language. It's been over 20

23 years. But something like he didn't apply an independent

24 thought or I don't remember exactly but something like

25 that. Or they couldn't be satisfied he applied an

Appx0648
 65

1 independent mind. I don't remember exactly, though.

2 Q. Can you describe to the Court the number of

3 different venues, jurisdictions, in which you have

4 testified as an expert in handwriting analysis?

5 A. Specific to handwriting? Let me think.

6 So I'm just starting --

7 Q. Well, let's -- let me back up for a moment.

8 A. Uh-huh.

9 Q. I'll withdraw the question.

10 Can you describe to the Court the number of

11 cases -- or strike that, the number of jurisdictions and

12 the names of the jurisdictions in which you have given

13 testimony as an expert in your field?

14 A. So, as an expert in the field, I can give the

15 fast answer of 30 states -- 37 states and 11 countries. I

16 can attempt to list most of the countries. The EULEX

17 court in Kosovo, England, Jamaica, Canada, Mexico, Japan,

18 Hong Kong, United States. I'm falling short on three.

19 Germany by submission, the Virgin Islands, and the last

20 one currently stumps me, but I'll probably have it before

21 I leave the witness stand, if anyone cares for the 11th.

22 Q. I believe you testified that you have offered

23 expert testimony in over 30 states?

24 A. Thirty-seven, I believe, is the count.

25 Q. And is Arizona one of those states in which you

Appx0649
 66

1 have offered expert testimony in your field of study?

2 A. Yes, Arizona is. The surrounding states,

3 California -- well, forgive if my geography is slightly

4 off. But when I say "surrounding states," I mean the ones

5 that are close. They might not touch but California,

6 Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado. I know Texas doesn't touch,

7 but it's kind of close if you're from the East Coast, and

8 then spreading all the way up to Washington State, Maine,

9 and Florida and everywhere in between. Missing 13 states

10 that I haven't.

11 Q. And can you give a -- just a general description

12 of the -- the clients that have retained you to give

13 expert testimony on their behalf.

14 Are they individuals? Are they companies?

15 A. So most of the clients that would retain me would

16 be lawyers representing a party. It could be a

17 governmental entity. It could be a company. It could be

18 an individual.

19 I do have some companies and some

20 organizations that have retained me directly: The NCAA,

21 the NBA, NHL players -- NHL Players Association, things

22 like that. Big companies with internal reviews of certain

23 issues, handwriting is a common one. Did someone write a

24 threatening letter, did someone write a note on a bathroom

25 wall. It's common that I'm retained by a company such as

Appx0650
 67

1 General Motors, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, that sort of thing,

2 in those instances, large banks.

3 I mean, anybody with big HR departments that

4 conduct their own investigations on threats, I see that

5 frequently, but still, the majority is attorneys that

6 represent a party that would retain my firm.

7 Q. What government agencies have retained you as an

8 expert?

9 A. As an expert, Florida Department of Law

10 Enforcement retained me to provide training to perform

11 analyses. Many U.S. attorneys' offices, prosecutors'

12 offices in many states, nationally relations board, the

13 DEA in forged prescription cases, SCC, and then usually it

14 would be the U.S. Attorney representing somebody. So it

15 might be a case, say, for an FBI prosecution, but the U.S.

16 Attorneys are who retain me.

17 So it wouldn't be directly from that agency.

18 It would a U.S. Attorney's Office or -- I forget the

19 national of the fish and wildlife, whatever that is. I've

20 been retained by the U.S. Attorney's Office in those type

21 of instances.

22 Q. And have you been retained by government agencies

23 particularly with respect to law enforcement for your

24 testimony regarding handwriting analysis?

25 A. Yes. I would say most of those were, with few

Appx0651
 68

1 exceptions. It might've only been regards to ink dating.

2 Like Orange County California's Prosecutor's Office

3 retained me, but it was only related to ink dating. Los

4 Angeles County Prosecutor's Office has retained me for

5 both. I mean, we could go on and on, but yes, generally,

6 it's both, but in some instances, it's only one of them.

7 Q. Have you ever testified in front of any

8 legislative bodies on the issue of the subject matters of

9 your expertise?

10 A. Yes, I have.

11 Q. Can you describe that?

12 A. I testified here in Arizona at a hearing -- I

13 think it was a joint session of the Senate and the House

14 together. It was a few months back. I've testified in

15 the state of Michigan to the -- I think it was the House

16 of Representatives. It might've been the Senate, as well.

17 I'm not for certain. Those are the only two times I can

18 think of.

19 Q. Have you been appointed by any court for the

20 defense in criminal cases?

21 A. Yes. I've been appointed by judges throughout

22 the country many times for my expertise.

23 Q. And did any of those appointments involve the

24 subject of handwriting analysis for your expertise?

25 A. Most all of them. That's the most common thing

Appx0652
 69

1 that you would see in government practice, and I would say

2 most of them, yes.

3 Q. In your career, have you offered opinions or

4 testified as an expert in election-related cases?

5 A. Offered opinions many times. I've testified in

6 election cases only a few. It doesn't normally come to

7 testimony on the broad spectrum of the cases that I see.

8 Obviously examined thousands and testified hundreds speaks

9 to that. But I've offered opinions many times, yes.

10 Q. Have you performed handwriting analysis in

11 connection with election-related cases?

12 A. The majority of election-related cases would be

13 related to handwriting, except for a few recent ones

14 regarding printing processes and so on, but historically

15 speaking, it was handwriting that I dealt with almost

16 exclusively, but most still are handwriting.

17 Q. Can you describe, when you're doing work related

18 to elections and handwriting analysis, what is -- what is

19 the work that you're doing?

20 A. So the most common thing that I've seen in the

21 past, when it relates to handwriting, is in nominating

22 petitions, re-call petitions, that sort of thing, that our

23 signatures require to put something on the ballot, either

24 a person or a referendum, or whatever that's called.

25 And I have to gather a certain number of

Appx0653
 70

1 signatures in order for that to be voted on, and I'm not

2 an expert in politics, but that is how I understand it.

3 Looking at those signatures to determine

4 more commonly not is it the exact person of that signature

5 but did one person sign a bunch of these names all

6 together, or is there, what we refer to, as a round robin

7 of eight people sitting around a table and person A signs

8 signature -- line 1 and then 2 and 3, and so on, and so

9 every eighth line, in general terms, is signed by the same

10 person.

11 So it's looking at overall characteristics

12 of handwriting to determine if there's common authorship

13 that can be determined on a rotating basis like that.

14 Not very often, in election matters, the way

15 that discovery works, are we provided signatures and known

16 signatures to compare to with people and be able to do it

17 in a manner that comports with the discovery rules in

18 election cases.

19 So I don't see that too often in election

20 cases like that. I have in the past, but that's

21 infrequent. Usually it's more on petitions and ballots.

22 Q. Are there other instances where you are tasked

23 with evaluating large numbers of signatures?

24 A. Sure. There's other applications, of course. I

25 mean, when I started -- well, not maybe exactly when I

Appx0654
 71

1 started, but early on in my career, long-distance slamming

2 was a big thing.

3 So you could go to a supermarket, and you

4 sign a piece of paper saying, change my long distance

5 carrier to this person, and they give you a $50 gift

6 certificate or a savings bond or whatever. I mean, they

7 have some -- toaster, whatever. They have some gimmick,

8 right?

9 And then these people say, I never changed

10 my long distance. Well, then the FCC -- FCC investigates

11 that and says, did this long distance carrier fraudulently

12 switch them to their service?

13 And in that case then, you get -- you have

14 to go do the research and get collected signatures from

15 DMVs in those states or voter applications -- voters

16 registrations, if you can get them, and then do the

17 comparison that way. So that's an instance of it being

18 done in a mass scale.

19 Mass tort cases where certain documents

20 signed by plaintiffs when there's -- the most recent one I

21 can think of with an affidavit was a Birmingham hip

22 replacement case, and there were hundreds of plaintiffs in

23 that case.

24 And the question was, were they signing

25 their updated disclosures of some sort, and I don't

Appx0655
 72

1 remember exactly which disclosure, but were those

2 signatures consistent with other documents they had signed

3 in the court proceedings to that point in time. And there

4 were hundreds of plaintiffs to look at and do that

5 comparison.

6 So it's something that I see regularly on

7 top of election cases in a mass tort -- or other related

8 settings.

9 Q. So, in this context, you have often performed an

10 analysis of signatures to compare with a record signature

11 to determine whether or not the signature is consistent or

12 matches, correct?

13 A. I would typically -- I would just modify the

14 question to say records signature is the most common. So

15 you usually have one, two, or three, two and three, you

16 know, four and five, whatever. You sometimes only have

17 one, but that's not the most common result of how many

18 signatures you have, but sometimes it could be one, yes,

19 and you do the comparison with what you have, absolutely.

20 Q. Mr. Speckin, are you familiar with the issues

21 related to signature verification that are being presented

22 in this case?

23 THE COURT: Hold on just a sec.

24 I sense a change of gears from foundation to

25 application. It's 10:30, and we need to take a break. So

Appx0656
 73

1 I'd rather not chop you off in the middle of what you're

2 attempting to do but take a break here, come back in the

3 15 minutes, and let you resume. Okay?

4 So we'll be taking our morning recess of 15

5 minutes.

7 (Recess taken.)

9 THE COURT: Very well. We are continuing on

10 the record in CV2022-095403, Lake versus Hobbs, et al.

11 Present for the record are party

12 representatives and/or parties and all respective counsel.

13 And we will resume with Mr. Speckin on the

14 stand with direct examination in progress, and we will

15 continue that.

16 Mr. Olsen?

17 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Please proceed when you're

19 ready.

20 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Mr. Speckin, you -- before we took a break, you

23 testified that you were involved in cases involving a

24 review of mass signatures in election-type matters, mass

25 tort cases, and the like.

Appx0657
 74

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. And typically, how would the review of mass

4 signatures be conducted?

5 A. So, if possible, my preferred method would be to

6 have someone in my office that's at a lesser hourly rate

7 prepare graphics that would have the signature at issue --

8 is what I call the question signature, but the signature

9 that's at issue at the top, a dark -- or if there's more

10 than one, two or three at the top, a dark black line, and

11 then the known signatures below with the dates so that I

12 can compare the relative time and know when they were from

13 on consecutive slides.

14 So, if I'm at my computer and I have my

15 monitor, a slide would come up on the screen, and I would

16 have the question signatures at the top, known signatures

17 at the bottom, and I would do my comparison from there.

18 Then I can click to the next slide and do my

19 comparison from there. And that's how I would go through

20 it, similar to what I've seen that Maricopa has. It's not

21 exactly the same, but it's substantially similar, setting

22 forth the questions and the knowns to compare.

23 If it's a very large scale, for limited

24 purposes, I would try to have someone in my office with

25 some training on handwriting -- I don't know what the word

Appx0658
 75

1 would be -- triage or initially review to determine: Are

2 there a lot of signatures that have problems, which ones

3 are they, and so on?

4 But I wouldn't remove any of the slides from

5 what I see, but I have notes on which ones they saw. That

6 is in a perfect world. That doesn't always -- the last

7 step doesn't always happen.

8 Q. And when you say "typically," you would maybe

9 have some individuals from your office perform the -- the

10 first cut? Would that be a fair way to characterize it,

11 when you say "triage"?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And would you train those individuals in what to

14 look for in terms of signature verification?

15 A. Well, they would've already been trained. So it

16 would be someone who's maybe a lower level -- hasn't been

17 doing it as long as me but has undergone the training or

18 has had a year or two of the training. That's an

19 advantage that we have at our disposal in my office that

20 other people don't, but clearly they've had training, yes.

21 Q. And speaking of training, did you hear the name

22 of Kathleen Nicolaides?

23 A. I -- I heard it in the question and the response

24 from Mr. Valenzuela, and I've seen it in some of the other

25 materials. I -- I know who that is.

Appx0659
 76

1 Q. And who is Kathleen Nicolaides?

2 A. She's an examiner -- a forensic document examiner

3 or analyst here in -- I think Phoenix but definitely in

4 the Phoenix area. She was trained by a guy named Bill

5 Flynn -- William Flynn. He's like my dad's age. I've

6 known him since I was a kid. And she trained I think -- I

7 think she's a little bit younger than me, as far as I

8 know, but I don't know a ton other than her professional

9 background.

10 Q. Is it your understanding that Ms. Nicolaides has

11 offered training at the employment of Maricopa County for

12 signature verification workers?

13 A. Yes. It's my understanding from one of the

14 witnesses that testified yesterday, Mr. Valenzuela today,

15 and I think she cites that in her own professional bio in

16 cases that I've seen that she has done such in -- in her

17 CV.

18 Q. Would you consider her a colleague or, you know,

19 in the same field that you are offering testimony in?

20 A. She's definitely in the same field and attends

21 the same types of meetings. Maybe we've not been to the

22 exact same one at the same time, but the organizations

23 that I talked about, she would attend those meetings, and

24 she would go to the same kind of workshops I talked about

25 and things like that, yes.

Appx0660
 77

1 Q. And you mentioned that you know her supervisor;

2 is that right?

3 A. I don't know supervisor is the right term now.

4 She's been doing it for quite a while, but the one who

5 trained her, I know Bill Flynn, yes.

6 Q. Okay. How do you know him?

7 A. Well, I first met him, I think, when I was a kid

8 before I even got in the examination, I had a meeting with

9 my dad, but as I got in the field, I would talk to him at

10 meetings. He's a -- he's a nice guy.

11 Q. Who -- who is Mr. Flynn?

12 A. I believe he retired from Philadelphia Police

13 Department as a forensic document analyst. He's

14 probably -- well, I'll just say roughly the same age as my

15 dad. I wouldn't want to offend him, but you know, he's

16 been around. He's contemporary with my father.

17 Q. Okay.

18 MR. LIDDY: Objection, Your Honor, to this

19 line of questioning as relevance.

20 THE COURT: You're done with that or?

21 MR. OLSEN: I think we're done with it

22 anyway, Your Honor, but it's just establishing his

23 background and particularly in relationship to similar

24 experts in Maricopa.

25 THE COURT: That's fine. We're moving on.

Appx0661
 78

1 That's fine.

2 MR. OLSEN: Yeah.

3 BY MR. OLSEN:

4 Q. Mr. Speckin, are you familiar with the -- the

5 issues in this case as they related to the review of

6 signatures -- voter signatures by Maricopa signature

7 verification workers?

8 A. Yes. I believe I've heard several days of it and

9 specifically testimony yesterday and today. I have a

10 pretty good -- at least working knowledge of it, yes.

11 Q. And what -- what is your understanding of the

12 variables at issue in this case?

13 A. My understanding is to determine if it was

14 physically possible to review and compare, as it is in the

15 statute, to compare samples to one another to determine if

16 they are consistent or inconsistent, and then, of course,

17 there's a disposition as to what to do, but I don't have

18 an opinion on that part of it, once it's deposed of.

19 THE COURT: Hold on.

20 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor.

21 Relevance. This goes to Reyes. Again, Judge, we've heard

22 foundation, I believe, for the expert's, I'll say,

23 background. Okay, Your Honor?

24 May I continue to speak? I don't want to

25 presume I can. Thank you.

Appx0662
 79

1 And, Your Honor, we've heard him talk about

2 how he analyzes signatures, and he has to have access to

3 signatures to look at the signatures to analyze how he

4 would do it.

5 First off, that's process.

6 Second, he doesn't have access to any of

7 these signatures.

8 Third, he can't testify about the process.

9 Nobody gets to take issue with the process today.

10 The question is, was it followed? And we

11 cannot have an expert here today testify beyond that

12 issue, and it sounds like they're going into something

13 that's completely inappropriate for this trial.

14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for clarifying

15 the objection, because there is a crossover here, and let

16 me make it clear so we don't have this popping up and down

17 through the entire spectrum of testimony provided by

18 Mr. Speckin.

19 The nature of the presentation by plaintiff,

20 as I understand it, is going back to the system being

21 overwhelmed and not performing the inspection at all.

22 This is not a revisit of how well it was

23 done. It's basically the -- the position that --

24 plaintiffs' position is that it's not physically possible

25 to perform even the rudimentary analysis, and so, as a

Appx0663
 80

1 matter of pleading and evidence, I've allowed them to

2 present the evidence that they have on that.

3 I understand and I will acknowledge that,

4 during the course of any of the testimony as there has

5 been up to this point, there's going to be crossover where

6 people are going to be talking about ideal situations or

7 would've been, could've been, should've been. Okay?

8 That's not the nature of the trial. The --

9 the nature of the trial that is before me is whether or

10 not it's physically possible to -- to do any inspection as

11 part of the proof, understanding I have been here for the

12 entire trial, and I have listened to all this. He

13 testified several days. It might've felt like several

14 days, but we've only actually been here a day and almost a

15 half.

16 MR. MORGAN: That's right, Your Honor.

17 I -- just for purposes of clarification

18 then, Judge, it would be cumulative, and here's why. We

19 had an entire day of testimony from their witnesses

20 testifying it actually happened. So, again, he's going to

21 process.

22 THE COURT: I understand your position.

23 Truly, I do. Okay? But I've already made the ruling. I

24 addressed this mostly in the motions before trial, and

25 it's -- it's not possible to completely clarify

Appx0664
 81

1 everything.

2 So I'm taking the time right now to say I'm

3 inclined to know -- let -- let him testify with regard to

4 these matters, knowing that there will be some wash-over,

5 if you want to call it that, that goes to process;

6 however, this is a bench trial. Okay?

7 And I've -- I tried to make that clear in my

8 ruling before trial and related to excluding witnesses

9 wholesale in that I believe that I'm capable of sifting

10 through that and discerning where the line is being

11 crossed. Okay?

12 Now, if we get too far afield, I have

13 absolute faith that you will step up and point that out to

14 me. Okay? So --

15 MR. MORGAN: Of course. Thank you, Judge.

16 THE COURT: -- this is a long-speaking

17 ruling on an objection that you're not used to, because I

18 have long-speaking objections, which I have allowed and

19 even encouraged.

20 Okay. Mr. Olsen, is there anything to add?

21 Did I get it?

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. I think you

23 got it.

24 THE COURT: Let's -- oh, and by the way,

25 what happened yesterday in terms of my willingness to

Appx0665
 82

1 accept any -- any defendant's objection as being joined by

2 all the rest of the defendants holds true today and

3 throughout the rest of the trial. Okay?

4 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor. You

5 know we don't feel good unless we're talking.

6 THE COURT: I'm the opposite.

7 Mr. Olsen, please proceed.

8 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I'm going to re-ask

9 the question because I'm not sure he answered it.

10 THE COURT: Thank you.

11 BY MR. OLSEN:

12 Q. Mr. Speckin, what is your understanding of the

13 variables at issue in this case with respect to signature

14 verification as performed by Maricopa County employees in

15 elections?

16 A. So, to be more specific, there's a statute that I

17 was provided, and it's been discussed, 5 -- 16-550, I

18 believe is the number, that says what is to happen under

19 law with early voting ballots, and it says they should

20 be -- they shall be compared.

21 So my understanding is: Were they compared,

22 could they be physically compared, under the definition of

23 compared, in the time that the data shows that they were

24 compared?

25 Q. Is there an issue with respect to something

Appx0666
 83

1 that's been called as an FBI black box cake -- black box

2 case that is relevant to any opinion you might offer here?

3 A. I don't know that it's relevant to the opinion.

4 It's relevant that I've been involved, and it would be

5 part of my training and experience. So it would naturally

6 factor into my opinion, but there's not a direct

7 correlation of study says A, and therefore B, but I have

8 knowledge, and it's part of my knowledge base.

9 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Relevance.

10 THE COURT: Well, I think he asked the

11 question, and I got the answer. Thank you.

12 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 BY MR. OLSEN:

14 Q. Have you published any papers on the subject of

15 handwriting and document examination?

16 A. Yes. I've published and presented papers,

17 including a chapter in an encyclopedia on the subject.

18 I've presented papers at meetings. I've presented as part

19 of workshops, the various organizations, primarily not on

20 doing the examination but on expressing terminology and

21 conclusions, perhaps, more directly. But the chapter in

22 the encyclopedia is on doing the work and how to detect

23 it.

24 Q. And, Mr. Speckin, have you reviewed any data

25 provided by Maricopa County with respect to timestamp log

Appx0667
 84

1 data on the performance of signature verification workers

2 in the 2020 -- 2022 general election?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And are you prepared to testify about your

5 conclusions and analysis drawn from that data?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Does that data directly relate to the ability of

8 a signature verifier to compare a -- to compare a

9 signature on a ballot envelope with the record signature

10 of the voter?

11 A. Yes. Based on the time that's spent or the

12 average time or however you want to phrase that, as to

13 whether that can physically be done. If there's a

14 limitation that you could actually compare, which is to

15 look at two or more things to see similarities and

16 differences -- that's what a compare is -- if that could

17 be done at the speed at which the data shows it was done.

18 Q. And what you're talking about is to compare

19 signatures?

20 A. To compare signatures because that's what -- the

21 question is whether that's what's being compared, one set

22 being the one at issue on the ballot envelope, the other

23 being one or more known signatures from some historical

24 retrieval process.

25 Q. And is it your understanding that the comparison,

Appx0668
 85

1 as that word is defined and used in A.R.S. 16-550, that

2 the determination is whether or not the signature is

3 consistent to?

4 A. Yes. If you read the statute, the next sentence

5 says, if it's inconsistent, this is what you do. So,

6 clearly, the selection process is consistent or

7 inconsistent based on that. It's either A or B. And

8 that's what the level I users have for inputs, it's A or

9 B. They have two.

10 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this time,

11 plaintiffs would move to admit Mr. Speckin as an expert to

12 testify on the ability of Maricopa's signature

13 verification workers.

14 THE COURT: Okay. Arizona doesn't do that.

15 MR. OLSEN: Oh, I apologize.

16 THE COURT: It's okay. I know some

17 jurisdictions do. Arizona just requires that you have

18 education, knowledge, training, or experience under Rule

19 702 to opine on a certain matter. The rest of it goes to

20 foundation.

21 I'm jumping over Daubert, gentlemen.

22 But the rest of it goes to foundation for

23 each question, so...

24 MR. MORGAN: For the record only, Your

25 Honor, and because the question was asked, we would object

Appx0669
 86

1 just to preserve the record, but I understand the Court

2 thinking --

3 THE COURT: I understand. And it's

4 preserved for all defendants.

5 So there won't be -- I just told you. We

6 don't do that. You just ask your questions, and then, if

7 they have an objection on foundation, they can raise it.

8 But let's proceed.

9 MR. OLSEN: Understood.

10 I have no further questions with this

11 witness at the time, Your Honor.

12 MR. MORGAN: May I, Your Honor?

13 THE COURT: You may.

14 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

15 Your Honor, can we have five minutes,

16 please, quick recess just to assess how much

17 cross-examination we may or may not need to do? I'm

18 willing to -- I'm willing to exceed the six to seven

19 minutes it will take of our time.

20 THE COURT: If five minutes is going to save

21 me 30.

22 MR. MORGAN: Correct. Could. It could. It

23 could.

24 THE COURT: Then I'm willing to give you the

25 five minutes.

Appx0670
 87

1 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Judge.

2 THE COURT: So we will recess for five

3 minutes and return.

5 (Recess taken.)

7 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, before he continues,

8 may I just make a statement for the record?

9 I believe there been --

10 THE COURT: Let me go back on the record

11 officially before we do this.

12 Okay. We are continuing back on the record

13 in CV2022-095403, Lake versus Hobbs, et al.

14 And present for the record are either

15 parties, party representatives, or their appearance being

16 waived, and counsel for all parties.

17 Mr. Olsen?

18 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

19 I just want to make it clear I was not

20 resting our case or dismissing this witness from our

21 standpoint.

22 When I originally offered him as an expert,

23 and Your Honor admonished that's not the way it's done

24 here, I was merely saying that I was done -- had no

25 further questions at this time, and so -- and then I was

Appx0671
 88

1 going to allow -- let the other side know that I had

2 nothing further at this time.

3 I believe that counsel may believe -- may be

4 arguing that we did not intend to call this witness for

5 any further questioning, and so I just want to make it

6 clear we're not done with questioning this witness on its

7 substantive opinions.

8 That's all, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Wait a minute. I need to

10 understand something. If you tell me that you have no

11 further questions on direct, if they have no questions on

12 cross, there's no redirect, and then you'd rest your case.

13 You don't have any other witnesses, correct?

14 MR. OLSEN: Well, but that was not my

15 intention, Your Honor.

16 MR. MORGAN: He said no further questions.

17 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Wait. I'm not

18 going to --

19 MR. MORGAN: I'm sorry.

20 THE COURT: Hold on a second. Explain to

21 me, Mr. Olsen.

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

23 All I was saying is that we were done at

24 this time because counsel was jumping up to question just

25 as he did. I just wanted to let him know that we were not

Appx0672
 89

1 done with -- we were done with the initial presentation to

2 allow them to voir dire the witness.

3 THE COURT: Oh, wait a minute. Okay.

4 MR. BLEHM: If -- if I may, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: No. One lawyer per -- per

6 person. But -- but with, all due respect, Mr. Blehm,

7 here's what I'm getting to.

8 If you're telling me that you are done

9 laying foundation for his qualifications to render

10 opinions, then I would expect that you'd proceed right

11 into his opinions in the case because when you tell me, I

12 have no further questions, that means I'm done with

13 direct.

14 Then it's their decision as to whether or

15 not they cross. If they don't cross, there's no redirect,

16 so the witness is done. And the only other way he comes

17 back to testify is if they put on a rebuttal case. If

18 they elect not to put on rebuttal, he doesn't come back

19 because there's nothing to rebut if they don't want on

20 anything further.

21 So I'm trying to -- I'm not trying to lay

22 anybody's strategy out here and flay it open, but I also

23 don't want some type of high-level chess going on with

24 somebody claiming later on the rug got pulled out from

25 underneath them.

Appx0673
 90

1 So either -- if you have questions of him

2 that relate to this case, and you can put them on at this

3 time, you have to put them on. Rebuttal is saved for

4 things that you didn't anticipate but were raised by the

5 other side in their case and then move on. I feel like

6 I'm teaching a seminar up here.

7 So have you --

8 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I do have further

9 questions of this witness.

10 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, I object. You are

11 teaching a seminar. It's not my fault they don't

12 understand basic procedure. He rested.

13 THE COURT: No. He didn't rest. He said, I

14 have no further questions for the witness.

15 MR. MORGAN: Fair. Fair. I'm using a term

16 of art. My apologies. He stopped -- he ceded the witness

17 to me.

18 THE COURT: Right.

19 MR. MORGAN: It's now my turn to cross or

20 not cross, and we proceed from that. That's how we do

21 this, Your Honor.

22 MR. OLSEN: I would ask the Court's

23 indigence. Given everything that has gone on, I clearly

24 was not done with the --

25 THE COURT: What happens -- what happens is

Appx0674
 91

1 this, and you, Mr. Morgan, I understand your position, but

2 you're also very familiar with a request to reopen that

3 somebody makes. You haven't spent your cross-examination,

4 and then, you know, put yourself in a position where I'm

5 re-allowing this.

6 At this particular time, it's -- it would be

7 a hyper application of procedure over substance to have

8 that happen.

9 MR. MORGAN: I understand the Court's --

10 THE COURT: I understand you do.

11 MR. MORGAN: Yeah.

12 THE COURT: I understand you do. And what

13 I'm trying to do, too, is to protect the argument because

14 I don't want an argument later that a request to reopen

15 should've been granted, and I'm not coming back, to be

16 blunt with you, seven months from now to find out somebody

17 took a different view than me.

18 MR. MORGAN: I understand completely.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MR. MORGAN: I do.

21 THE COURT: Now that we've addressed the

22 800-pound gorilla in the room. Okay?

23 MR. LARUE: Your Honor, before you rule, I

24 understand what Your Honor is about to rule, but may I

25 make my record very quickly?

Appx0675
 92

1 THE COURT: You absolutely may.

2 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 For the County, I join the Secretary of

4 State's objection, and I would add that, under our Rules

5 of Civil Procedure, an attorney admitted pro hac vice is

6 expected to understand our procedure and understand our

7 rules, and I disagree with Your Honor's ruling. I respect

8 it, but I disagree with Your Honor's ruling that he is

9 making.

10 Thank you, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you Mr. LaRue.

12 MS. DANNEMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 Just so the record reflects, the Governor

14 also joins in this objection and would request that no

15 further questions be asked of this witness.

16 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to take it

17 that every one of the defendants joins in what Mr. LaRue

18 just told me. If I'm mistaken in that, stand up and tell

19 me; otherwise, you're joining with Mr. LaRue.

20 I don't hear anybody telling me opposite.

21 Okay. Thank you.

22 MR. MORGAN: May I approach and retrieve my

23 exhibits?

24 THE COURT: Yes.

25 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

Appx0676
 93

1 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

2 BY MR. OLSEN:

3 Q. Mr. Speckin, is there a difference in verifying

4 an individual signature to determine if they are

5 consistent versus verifying signatures on a large scale to

6 determine if the signatures are consistent such as

7 occurred in the 2022 general election?

8 A. Yes. There's typically a difference, number 1,

9 in application. So, for instance -- for instance, if you

10 had just one signature, the consequences of that decision

11 could be extraordinary if it is a genuine signature or

12 not.

13 When you have 1.3 million, each individual

14 one, of course, has less consequences, and I'm not

15 discounting the argument yesterday of how important it is

16 for your right to vote. I value mine, like everyone else

17 does. I'm not saying that. I'm saying in a mass, it's

18 not as big a deal.

19 Number 2, the time to set up.

20 And number 3, the tools and technology and

21 staff at your disposal to set these up, such as we heard

22 about the process of how they're scanned and how other

23 records are located that are similar, how they're inputted

24 on the screen with user interface and so on.

25 That's not something that you would do if

Appx0677
 94

1 you just have one signature at issue. That wouldn't make

2 sense. So, of course, there's differences, yes.

3 Q. Are there differences in the way two signatures

4 would be compared, whether it's an individual one or a --

5 on a large scale?

6 A. I don't think there would be a substantive

7 difference in the way it's done. The level of detail and

8 amount of time would go proportionally down typically with

9 the amount of signatures at issue if we're talking about

10 the task and the consequences and the layout of the

11 individual matter.

12 But in a sense, what you would look for,

13 like the broad and local characteristics that were

14 discussed yesterday, those don't change. That's how a

15 comparison is done. You're looking for similarities and

16 differences. That's what it means to compare. I'm

17 looking to see if two things are the same or different.

18 Q. And are you familiar with the -- the system by

19 which Maricopa employs to verify signatures at the level I

20 signature verification worker status?

21 A. As far -- my familiarity, as far as what a level

22 I level worker would do, see, be presented with, I would

23 say I'm very familiar, as familiar as you can be without

24 sitting in front of the terminal.

25 As far as, like, how the -- was scanned in

Appx0678
 95

1 to get to them and who did it and where it came from, I

2 heard the talk yesterday, but I wouldn't say that I

3 totally understood that. In general terms, I do, but I

4 don't know the players like everyone else in the room

5 probably does.

6 Q. What did you do to familiarize yourself with how

7 signature verification is being performed in Maricopa, and

8 specifically in the 2022 general election?

9 A. Specific to 2022, I talked to people that were --

10 number 1, trained in the process. I investigated who did

11 the training, and it was someone that I was aware of.

12 Q. Who's that?

13 A. Kathleen Nicolaides that we talked -- and I may

14 be pronouncing her last name wrong 'cause -- it's not

15 intentional. I don't know her to that level, if I am.

16 I talked to people that did level I

17 signature review, including one of the witnesses that we

18 heard from yesterday. I heard Mr. Valenzuela at length

19 discuss the process of where it comes from, how it's done.

20 I've seen the video of people doing it.

21 I've seen other videos of people doing it, as well. It

22 wasn't just the clip that we saw in court. I've seen, I

23 don't know, maybe hours of different videos of people

24 doing this process screens flashing, things like that.

25 That's -- and of course, my own knowledge of

Appx0679
 96

1 how comparisons are done are consistent with what their

2 training was.

3 Q. Did you review any of the training materials that

4 had been provided by Maricopa County to signature

5 verification workers?

6 A. Yes, I believe there was one provided by Jackie

7 Onigkeit, I think is how you say it, or Jacqueline, and

8 there was another one attached to some discovery at some

9 point. I don't remember whose declaration it was about

10 training procedures. I've reviewed the EPM, the

11 procedures of Maricopa County, and I've reviewed the

12 training materials of the Secretary of State that have

13 been discussed that's a low-numbered exhibit. I think it

14 was 1 or 2.

15 Q. Have you operated the signature verification

16 system employed by Maricopa County?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Does that affect the opinions you would give

19 today?

20 A. I don't think so, no.

21 Q. Why not?

22 A. Because the inputs, what you're going to do, how

23 you're going to do it, and the basis of what I already

24 know is sufficient to draw the opinions that I did. If

25 someone were to ask me, what key stroke does what

Appx0680
 97

1 function, of course I don't know that, but that doesn't

2 factor into the opinions they've that I have.

3 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, objection.

4 Again, performance is not at issue. It's whether they

5 performed the analysis or not. Object on relevance

6 grounds.

7 THE COURT: I'm going to take that as a

8 continuing objection --

9 MS. DANNEMAN: Okay.

10 THE COURT: -- to all this line of

11 questioning for this witness, joined by every one of the

12 defendants.

13 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

14 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

15 MR. LIDDY: Thank you.

16 THE COURT: Mr. Olsen?

17 BY MR. OLSEN:

18 Q. And in forming your opinions, did you review data

19 provided by Maricopa County that is listed -- or contained

20 in plaintiffs' Exhibit 20?

21 A. I don't have the exhibit number positively to

22 memory, but if that's the CD-ROM that had the data related

23 to a public records request that was admitted, then yes,

24 that's what I reviewed.

25 Q. Okay. And can you describe what you did in

Appx0681
 98

1 assessing that data?

2 A. The first was to assess the amount of time that

3 each key stroke -- well, no. I should back up.

4 The first thing I did is look at the e-mail

5 chain describing what the data was, what was requested,

6 and what was provided.

7 So I looked at the chatter, if you will,

8 exchanges between the two ends of the terminal in

9 providing that data by link would -- that we're talking

10 about.

11 After that, then I looked at the data to

12 determine how it could be distorted and what could be

13 interpreted from that.

14 The main piece -- or the two main pieces

15 would be percentage, in other words, the percent of pass

16 or fail or what we'd called, I think, good signature or

17 exception. I -- I prefer not to use the word "exception"

18 today, not -- not because it's not a good word in the

19 English language or it doesn't fit the bill, but because

20 it sounds to too close to accept, and when someone is

21 taking it down or hearing it, they might mistake it, and I

22 don't want to be misinterpreted in what I say. So, for

23 purposes of this, if I just say pass or fail at level I, I

24 think we all know what I mean, I hope. But exception is

25 something that's -- I've had problems when people talk to

Appx0682
 99

1 me with that word.

2 And then calculate the time between each of

3 the successive key strokes to figure out how long each of

4 these data entries is taking to make the next 1.

5 In other words, from the time you draw a

6 conclusion on one set of signatures in front of you, to

7 how long you draw the conclusion on the next is what the

8 data is allowing to be determined.

9 So the very first one, when you log in, we

10 don't have a data point for that one, because there wasn't

11 something before that showing a decision was made in the

12 data logs. You just have the first one and then every

13 subsequent one of a determination to that.

14 Q. Did that -- are you familiar with the video that

15 was marked -- entered as Exhibit 19 of the gentleman

16 performing signature verification work?

17 A. Absolutely. I was here all day yesterday, and

18 I've seen it before that, as well.

19 Q. Is that activity represented in the data that you

20 reviewed that is Exhibit 20?

21 MS. DANNEMAN: Objection, Your Honor.

22 Vague.

23 THE COURT: Okay. If you've understood the

24 question, you can answer it, Mr. Speckin. If you don't

25 and need clarification, I'll have it rephrased. If you

Appx0683
 100

1 don't understand it, tell me. Don't guess. Ask for it to

2 be rephrased. If you're able to answer it, sir, you can

3 answer. If not, I'll have the question rephrased.

4 THE WITNESS: The answer would be yes, in

5 two parts. So it's there on a whole of what that data

6 looks like with repeated speed and also for that user at

7 specific points in time.

8 So the answer to the question is yes in two

9 different parts, the trend of what the data looks like for

10 someone clicking quickly like that, and then, secondly,

11 the data is present for that user at those time frames, as

12 best I can tell, keeping in mind the computer clock may

13 not be synced to the second with the video feed clock, but

14 it's close. You can determine who it is.

15 BY MR. OLSEN:

16 Q. Can you describe further what you did to analyze

17 the data provided by Maricopa County that is Exhibit 20?

18 A. Well, once those fields are created -- so the

19 data field that were already given of voter ID, user, date

20 and timestamp, and disposition are created, and then the

21 additional field that I just talked about with the amount

22 of time between key strokes is created -- then you can

23 query through Microsoft Access or similar databases, that

24 data, to look for what you would want to look for.

25 In other words, you can certify -- filter by

Appx0684
 101

1 a certain user, you can filter by a certain day, you can

2 filter by a certain speed, you can filter by all the users

3 at a specific time, you could filter by any sort of

4 if-then statements, if this, then provide it, or if not

5 this, then provide it, and you can use greater than, less

6 than, equal to, greater than or equal to, less than or

7 equal to, any of the numbers that we talked about.

8 So, for instance, you can say less than or

9 equal to 5 seconds or less than and equal to 2 seconds

10 between key strokes or greater than or equal to an hour,

11 if you wanted to see when someone took a break.

12 Whatever the case may be, you can use the

13 data through a database tool or database program like

14 Access to query a myriad, many, many, many, perhaps even

15 close to an unlimited number, of different reports or

16 ideas that you would want to see.

17 Q. Is this similar to --

18 THE COURT: Wait one second.

19 Mr. Speckin, you have a tendency to speak

20 fast.

21 THE WITNESS: I've heard that before, Your

22 Honor. I'll work on it today.

23 THE COURT: Well, for the sake of my court

24 reporter who doesn't want carpel tunnel, just speak

25 slower, and it will -- it will help the record.

Appx0685
 102

1 THE WITNESS: I will do that. I'm sorry.

2 BY MR. OLSEN:

3 Q. Is that similar to, for example, operating an

4 Excel spreadsheet?

5 A. Yes. In that Access is typically used for

6 datasets that are larger. So Excel doesn't necessarily

7 have a cutoff, that I'm aware of, or the number of

8 datasets, but when start getting into the thousands and

9 thousands and over a hundred thousand, it doesn't work as

10 well, and Access is a better tool, but it's similar

11 queries.

12 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor, to this

13 line of questioning and the question that was just asked.

14 There's been no foundation whatsoever laid for this

15 witness to be an expert in statistics, statistical

16 analysis, or in electronic databases. I would ask the

17 Court to -- to strike the testimony that we just heard.

18 THE COURT: Okay. All right.

19 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, may I before?

20 THE COURT: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Olsen.

21 MR. OLSEN: To lay foundation, there's no

22 particular expertise required to operate an Excel

23 spreadsheet. It's no different than the secretary

24 operating Microsoft Word. And I would like to lay the

25 foundation to that.

Appx0686
 103

1 THE COURT: All right. The response tells

2 me that you're not offering him as a person to do

3 statistical -- statistical analysis.

4 MR. OLSEN: Correct.

5 THE COURT: And I think it's much like

6 Mr. Valenzuela, who said, I can read a spreadsheet, I know

7 what the data is when you present it to me in a report

8 format. He does have some expertise in terms of

9 interpreting what that means.

10 And I may have mis -- I may have

11 underestimated or understated Mr. Valenzuela's

12 capabilities, but I believe I heard something similar.

13 So, to the extent that the witness is relying on

14 spreadsheet data, he can -- he can do that, subject to

15 your cross, but he's not being offered for an expert on

16 statistical analysis, per se, correct, Mr. Olsen?

17 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Then that's fine. Go ahead.

19 MR. MORGAN: Thank you for the

20 clarification, Judge.

21 THE COURT: Go ahead and proceed.

22 BY MR. OLSEN:

23 Q. Are the tools that were employed to access the

24 data on the -- that would've been produced by Maricopa

25 standard, off-the-shelf tools, common in -- common usage,

Appx0687
 104

1 in your opinion?

2 A. Yes. Access is a Microsoft product. I assume

3 you can buy it at Best Buy, or you can buy it online for

4 Microsoft. It's not -- it used to be packaged as part of

5 their Office Suite, but I don't know if it currently is.

6 I think you can buy it as such. I'm not in charge of

7 purchasing, so I can't tell you, but it's a very common

8 software that Microsoft makes for this application.

9 Absolutely.

10 Q. Did you work with anybody in accessing this data?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. Who?

13 A. I worked with Chris Handsel, the one who

14 testified yesterday about the receipt of the data.

15 Q. And what -- what did you do with Mr. Handsel?

16 A. We worked together to run reports for things that

17 I wanted to see. Typically, I would give him the inputs

18 and say, I want to see the data for X user with less than

19 these seconds or all users that had this type of activity,

20 whatever the query was.

21 And we used the wizard function, which is

22 part of the commercially available Access that creates the

23 process by which Access searches, which, in a sense, is a

24 foreign absolute that's used like basic programming is how

25 it looks.

Appx0688
 105

1 MR. MORGAN: Again, Your Honor, I'm going to

2 object for the record. What I'm hearing his testimony

3 about statistical analysis. I was just told by counsel

4 he's not being offered to give any opinion on -- or

5 testimony on statistical analysis. Yet here we are. I,

6 again, move to strike.

7 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to explain to

8 you my -- when I use the term "statistical analysis," I'm

9 talking about the interpretation of the data. If they're

10 talking about sorting data, I don't believe that's

11 statistical analysis.

12 MR. MORGAN: I agree.

13 THE COURT: And so, therefore, what I'm

14 hearing is the spreadsheet is being used as a program to

15 respond to specific queries that the witness has posed to

16 the person who's assisting him, give me the data sorted

17 for these criteria.

18 If that's the way that the system functions,

19 that's fine. Applying statistical analysis to that goes

20 beyond the scope, or its interpretation.

21 MR. MORGAN: I just -- sorry. I'm so sorry.

22 I apologize.

23 Yeah. No. I agree, Your Honor. I just

24 want to make sure I'm on the same page, too, because I did

25 object. It's one thing to sort tabs and testify that you

Appx0689
 106

1 did so. It's another thing to testify that the end

2 results you received, it's my opinion they're correct.

3 He's not a statistician. I think we've established that.

4 THE COURT: I don't follow the argument

5 that -- there's not an opinion in front of me that's been

6 offered.

7 MR. MORGAN: No. I agree. I felt like we

8 were getting there, and that's why I stood up.

9 THE COURT: And that's fine. When I get to

10 that point, if there's an application of statistical

11 analysis, I expect that you'll object at that point.

12 Right now, what I've got is data sorted by

13 categories and reports being run. In other words, he's

14 asked for -- if he asked for a report that says if it's in

15 the database, everybody named John, he would get that,

16 input. Statistically how that impacts his opinions,

17 different matter.

18 MR. MORGAN: Understood.

19 THE COURT: Okay?

20 So, at this point, that's as far as we are.

21 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, if it is sorting

22 the data, that is one thing, but he testified that is

23 making inquires or drafting queries to the Excel

24 spreadsheet. That sounds like something that that is

25 statistical analysis to me, and I would object to his --

Appx0690
 107

1 his testimony about whatever queries he's drafting.

2 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I would -- I

3 disagree with you. I would agree that if the question

4 were phrased that I used a program to generate statistical

5 analysis of the data, I would agree with you. But right

6 now, all I hear is data sorting, so...

7 MR. MORGAN: We're on the same page. Thank

8 you, Judge.

9 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

10 BY MR. OLSEN:

11 Q. Mr. Speckin, the data that -- strike that.

12 Can you describe again what you did with --

13 in working with Mr. Handsel to extract data?

14 A. So maybe it's easier if I just give an example.

15 So I would say let me see all the key strokes and

16 determinations that were made less than 3 seconds from the

17 time the last key stroke was made or determination was

18 made. That would tell me all the times that they did it.

19 From there, I can calculate which users did

20 it, how many times the users did it, how many times that

21 input was -- whatever the determination was, whether it

22 was passed, failed, whatever it was. You can determine

23 that from the answer that you get.

24 Q. And is that data that's been extracted under

25 those criteria just simply sorted by time?

Appx0691
 108

1 A. Perhaps filtering is a better adjective than

2 sorting. I'm not disagreeing with sorting, but I'd say

3 filtering.

4 Q. Is there any statistical analysis involved in

5 your opinion?

6 A. The only statistical analysis is calculation of

7 an average of certain set of numbers, like what's the

8 meaning. That's something that I think you don't need to

9 be a professional statistician to know you sum it up and

10 divide it by how many you had.

11 I think that's the only -- and if you count

12 a percentage outcome of statistics -- I wouldn't, but if

13 someone wanted to be super technical, how many were this

14 related to this, that's a simple division, but those would

15 be the only rudimentary statistics, but we're not talking

16 student T test or standard deviations or anything like

17 that. I'm not.

18 Q. You're talking about calculating an average,

19 which is what is done in sixth grade and requires no

20 special expertise, correct?

21 A. Or even before sixth grade, I a hundred percent

22 agree, yes.

23 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, we had, when we

24 started --

25 THE COURT: Okay.

Appx0692
 109

1 MR. OLSEN: -- talked how we were going to

2 have Exhibit 47, which was the complete version of 18. I

3 don't believe -- I have everything here. I don't believe

4 we've -- we haven't put anything in the record to submit

5 it.

6 THE COURT: Well, it hasn't been marked yet?

7 MR. OLSEN: Well, we have the blue sheets on

8 it, and it has not been marked yet, but it -- when we

9 submitted, Your Honor, the exhibits, Exhibit 18, as I

10 said, was -- every other page was not. So --

11 THE COURT: All right.

12 MR. OLSEN: -- I can use Exhibit 18 because

13 it doesn't change anything.

14 THE COURT: No. No. No. We're not doing

15 that, unless -- if you're going to admit 18 and you're not

16 going to put in 46, you can do that, but I thought the

17 whole purpose of marking the other exhibit was

18 completeness.

19 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Don't even suggest that you want

21 to use the half one then because you don't get to

22 duplicate. So, if you're going to use 46 right now, if

23 you're going to have it marked, I thought it was marked,

24 because I believe that I wanted a --

25 MR. MORGAN: You asked -- you did ask him to

Appx0693
 110

1 mark it this morning.

2 THE COURT: That's fine. You haven't got it

3 marked?

4 MR. BLEHM: I believe it's 47, Your Honor.

5 MR. OLSEN: Is it marked?

6 MR. MORGAN: It's 47.

7 THE COURT: Thank you. And my clerk tells

8 me that 47 has been marked, and she has it. It should be

9 up here.

10 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. My apologies.

11 THE COURT: You don't have anything

12 different in your hand, do you, than Exhibit 47?

13 MR. OLSEN: No.

14 THE COURT: Wonderful. That's good news.

15 So did you have questions about Exhibit 47

16 that you were going to ask?

17 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 MR. MORGAN: As long as what we're doing is

20 laying foundation, I'm okay with that. I can -- I can see

21 how it progresses. I just didn't know what we were doing.

22 THE COURT: Thank you.

23 Is that where we're at, Mr. Olsen?

24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Please then.

Appx0694
 111

1 Well, first, you're going to talk about

2 Exhibit 47. You're going into what it is. I was -- the

3 earlier objection that some of the State's counsel had was

4 that -- to the actual foundation as in custodian of

5 record, like this is the complete and accurate copy,

6 because the original exhibit, number 18, was missing every

7 other page --

8 MR. OLSEN: Yes.

9 THE COURT: -- because it was only copied

10 halfway. And as I recall the objection that counsel had

11 was this was late disclosed because we only had every

12 other page.

13 And so I had asked that 47 be made available

14 to them so that they could inspect it and look at it, and

15 I understood that the argument you were going to have is

16 that this is the data that came from them that's

17 transposed onto the exhibit.

18 MR. OLSEN: Yes.

19 THE COURT: So it's not something that's

20 newly discovered, but it's supposed to be something that's

21 marked and exchanged as an exhibit ahead of trial so that

22 they know -- everybody knows what the evidence may be, but

23 what's actually going to be presented is a different

24 thing. And so has -- has the State had the chance to

25 inspect Exhibit 47?

Appx0695
 112

1 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, only in so much

2 that I've got a copy of it, and I've looked at it, and

3 what I'll tell the Court is, one, it appears to be, again,

4 statistical conclusions, and one, based on the testimony I

5 just heard with respect to another exhibit, it appears

6 that this may not even have been created by this witness,

7 and we have foundational problems.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Then maybe I'm working

9 under a misunderstanding. I thought that Exhibit 47

10 represents nothing more than a physical printout in

11 written format of the data that was provided by the

12 County. If it's a product of analysis and a summary of

13 the witness, then, at this point in time, that makes sense

14 that you're laying the foundation by talking to the

15 witness about how the witness created it.

16 Is this something created by this witness?

17 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Now I understand.

19 Okay. All right. So we're going to go

20 through that with Mr. Olsen laying the foundation. So now

21 I understand it's not a custodian of record. It's he

22 created it, meaning he, meaning the witness, and you're

23 going to tell me the basis for it.

24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Let's get started.

Appx0696
 113

1 You wanted to play a video; is that right?

2 MR. OLSEN: We wanted to put the exhibit up

3 on the screen.

4 THE COURT: Oh, fine. It's not a jury

5 trial. It's a bench trial. So go ahead.

6 MR. OLSEN: And, Your Honor, may I approach

7 the witness and give a hardcopy.

8 THE COURT: You absolutely may, Mr. Olsen.

9 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, while he's doing

10 that, may I please move this television screen.

11 THE COURT: You may do so, absolutely,

12 Mr. Morgan.

13 In fact, if you want to --

14 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Judge.

15 THE COURT: All right. Now we're working

16 on -- just to be overkill here, we're working on Exhibit

17 47, right, everyone?

18 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

19 BY MR. OLSEN:

20 Q. Mr. Speckin, do you recognize what has been

21 marked for identification as Exhibit 47?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. And what is this document?

24 A. This is a summary table of the data related to

25 user number, how many total verifications they did over

Appx0697
 114

1 the period of time that was given for the data -- the

2 election cycle for the general is what was requested --

3 the verification rate to how many of the key stroke

4 entries were to what I said earlier, just quite simply, is

5 pass, or good signature, related to the other key strokes.

6 And then, as we move to the right, the speed at which

7 those verifications or comparisons or determinations were

8 done.

9 So, when we get to the first column, it says

10 in less than or equal to 5 seconds. Just to clarify,

11 that's an integer-based search. So it means if the

12 integer --

13 MR. LARUE: Your Honor, I'm sorry for

14 interrupting the witness, but he's testifying about what

15 this document says. The foundation has not been laid, and

16 we're still objecting on the basis of the foundation for

17 this, but he's beginning to offer testimony about what the

18 document says.

19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I may have

20 overlooked something. Let's go to how it was physically

21 created or who created it, if you would. I believe that's

22 where you're coming from.

23 MR. LARUE: That's correct, Your Honor.

24 Thank you.

25 THE COURT: Please.

Appx0698
 115

1 BY MR. OLSEN:

2 Q. Can you describe how this document that's been

3 marked for identification as Exhibit 47 was created?

4 A. Yes. It was created at my direction using

5 several different queries and Access tool to look at the

6 column headings that are present there. Of course, the

7 worker, or the user number, is a data field that was given

8 in the data. The others are generated from the

9 verifications or the key strokes that they gave, the

10 number of them, and I started saying what the other things

11 are, but it was created at my direction to demonstrate the

12 speed at which these comparisons were being made.

13 THE COURT: Mr. Morgan?

14 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, yeah. We -- we

15 still renew our objection here, Your Honor. This

16 foundation has established merely that someone else

17 created the document, and we have serious concerns with

18 the underlying data that was used.

19 We don't know where the data came from, who

20 uploaded it, where did they upload it, how did they --

21 what buttons did they push, how did they do it? I'm not

22 trying to do the foundational exam for Mr. Olsen, but at

23 the end of the day, just to help ease things along, those

24 are the issues with our objections -- or I should say,

25 that's what -- those are the underpinnings of our

Appx0699
 116

1 objection.

2 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, I would like to

3 add to this objection. Again, this witness is not a

4 statistician. He's not qualified as such. He was not

5 disclosed as a statistician. His disclosure says he will

6 respond to opinions -- or he will testify about signature

7 verification processes.

8 He is -- someone put together a spreadsheet

9 and asked to do math and percentages based on numbers that

10 we don't know where they came from. This is far beyond

11 the scope of his expertise.

12 THE COURT: I think I can summarize that

13 you're objecting to the foundation for who prepared it,

14 how they prepared it, when they prepared it and gave it to

15 him.

16 Unfortunately, I believe the answer to those

17 questions is Mr. Handsel, who was in the courtroom until

18 about two or a minute ago in terms of exclusion of

19 witnesses, but I think that -- but keep in mind, this is

20 something that you -- you're talking about the foundation

21 of where the data came from. Okay? If -- if the data

22 was -- well, subject to them calling the witness that

23 actually created the document, we can take the testimony,

24 but it's only as if -- it's only relevant and has zero

25 weight, unless you establish the foundation. Okay?

Appx0700
 117

1 This is doing it backwards, I agree. But I

2 think I'm capable of sifting that out. So that if you

3 require -- if you want them to call the person who

4 actually made the report and have that person testify

5 about how it was created, then we can do it, or you can --

6 they can either -- plaintiff can do it, or defendant can

7 do it, either one. Okay?

8 MR. LARUE: Your Honor, I appreciate Your

9 Honor's opinion and perspective. For the County

10 defendants, I want to again, say, on the record, that we

11 expect those who are admitted pro hac vice, and we

12 certainly expect Arizona attorneys to understand the rules

13 and how things are to be done.

14 I also want to say that I understand that

15 this is a bench trial, and I have the upmost confidence in

16 Your Honor's ability to separate these things and make

17 these distinctions.

18 But I remind Your Honor that this is being

19 live streamed.

20 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

21 MR. LARUE: And there are many people across

22 the county perhaps, perhaps across the state, perhaps

23 across America watching it, and they don't necessarily

24 make those distinctions that Your Honor is capable of

25 making.

Appx0701
 118

1 And it is prejudicial to our client, the --

2 the County Recorder, to have something shown and testified

3 about that the foundation has not been laid for.

4 We don't know what the underlying numbers

5 are. We have no idea whether it was entered correctly.

6 And this will become the story among the people who are

7 watching this.

8 THE COURT: Let me put your minds just at

9 rest for a little bit. This really isn't as unusual as

10 you're pointing out for the reason that expert witnesses

11 testify all of the time in court, and exhibits are

12 admitted without any more foundation than for the expert

13 to say, yes, I relied on that, yes, I relied on that, yes,

14 I relied on this.

15 And then, when it comes time for

16 cross-examination, the other side may attack and say, this

17 is a completely invalid piece of evidence that you

18 considered in your report and ask, doesn't that undermine

19 your idea, if all your opinions are predicated on

20 something that has no foundation?

21 So it does happen all the time, but I

22 appreciate the need for foundation if it's offered for the

23 truth of the matter asserted, but again -- and that

24 happens in jury trials, not just bench trials.

25 So evidence that experts rely upon that

Appx0702
 119

1 would will not otherwise be admissible can be admitted for

2 that limited purpose, and I appreciate the fact that there

3 may be people who are on live stream who draw wrong

4 conclusions or don't understand how the rules of evidence

5 work, the rules of procedure work.

6 All we can do here is follow the rules, and

7 I can do my very, very best, which is what I try to do to

8 make it that we follow the rules and have a fair

9 proceeding.

10 So, even if there is no foundation, this

11 witness can testify that he relied on it, and I will also

12 give you the opportunity -- and I'm sure I will hear an

13 able cross-examination on those issues --

14 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: -- to call the witness to lay

16 the foundation is up to the plaintiff, not this witness.

17 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, on that issue,

18 just, again -- so I didn't say anything about that. I

19 will object to that if and when it does occur.

20 THE COURT: You what?

21 MR. MORGAN: I will object to that if and

22 when it does occur. I want to be clear, I'm not asking

23 for anyone to call off a witness that -- a witness that's

24 already testified after the rule has been invoked, and

25 he's been in court. Different issue for later, but I just

Appx0703
 120

1 want make sure we're clear I didn't waive that.

2 THE COURT: You have not waived it.

3 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

4 THE COURT: They can -- I have always taken

5 the objections you are making now to the admission of the

6 exhibit as a unique standalone exhibit.

7 MR. MORGAN: Correct.

8 THE COURT: If they were -- what I explained

9 to you about experts relying upon it would be based on the

10 attorneys saying, I'm not offering it for the truth of the

11 matter asserted; I'm offering it for truth of what my

12 experts relied upon. Different animals. Okay?

13 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

14 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: With that, the look of the clock

16 says it all.

17 We've got -- well, we've got about seven

18 minutes. I'm just trying to make this thing move along,

19 and I want to use the seven minutes. So go ahead and ask

20 more questions, and we'll end at noon. Okay?

21 Are we on track to -- where do you think

22 we're going to be at the end of the day?

23 MR. OLSEN: I think we may be done, Your

24 Honor, at least with witnesses.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Now then that's them.

Appx0704
 121

1 Then you have a decision to make about what you want to

2 do, and that puts us pretty much on track for what I

3 allocated.

4 So thank you. Let's go ahead, Mr. Olsen.

5 Keep asking your questions, if you will.

6 BY MR. OLSEN:

7 Q. Mr. Speckin, you testified earlier that this was

8 a -- this document was made at your direction.

9 Did you actually participate in the creation

10 of it yourself?

11 A. Yes. I sat right there.

12 Q. And how did you participate in the creation of

13 this document?

14 A. I explained for this chart -- or this table, in

15 particular, exactly what I wanted for each column and how

16 to filter the data to get it.

17 Q. And do you under- -- do you understand that this

18 type of data is something that -- it's voluminous,

19 correct?

20 A. The raw data of Exhibit 19 or 20, whatever it is?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. It's huge. It's million -- 1.4 million lines of

23 text with four columns per piece. It's big.

24 Q. And if somebody wanted to arrive at the same

25 conclusions in terms of the interval between key strokes,

Appx0705
 122

1 that's something that would be -- you could do by hand.

2 It would just maybe take years?

3 MR. MORGAN: Objection. Form. Again, out

4 of an abundance of caution, I think I'm hearing a request

5 about mathematical certainties, calculations, and

6 statistics, Judge.

7 THE COURT: I heard the question to be

8 basically if he did -- if you performed the sort function

9 that Excel spreadsheet did, it would take you years.

10 Is that what you're asking?

11 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: If you did it by hand.

13 MR. MORGAN: Then foundation.

14 THE COURT: I don't know if he knows the

15 answer to that, how long it would take, but...

16 MR. OLSEN: I'm laying the foundation, Your

17 Honor. This has nothing to do with statistics. It's just

18 extracting data. That's all.

19 THE COURT: I can take judicial notice of

20 the fact that computers can do things faster than humans,

21 if you all want to do that, but...

22 MR. MORGAN: We'll stipulate to that, Judge.

23 MR. LARUE: Your Honor, the County

24 definitely stipulates to that. Thank you.

25 THE COURT: All right. Let's move on,

Appx0706
 123

1 please.

2 BY MR. OLSEN:

3 Q. Does Exhibit 47 appear to be a true and accurate

4 copy of the chart that was created with your participation

5 and at your direction regarding the data extracted from

6 what has been entered into evidence as Exhibit 20?

7 A. Yes. Other than I have a black and white

8 version, but yes, I think a couple numbers might've been

9 in color, but it's absolutely accurate, yes.

10 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I would like to move

11 that this exhibit be entered into evidence.

12 THE COURT: For purposes of what your expert

13 has reviewed or for purposes of admission outright?

14 MR. OLSEN: For purposes of what our expert

15 has reviewed.

16 THE COURT: Any objection?

17 MR. MORGAN: No.

18 MR. LARUE: No.

19 THE COURT: It's offered for that limited

20 purpose and admitted for that limited purpose. Thank you.

21 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

22 BY MR. OLSEN:

23 Q. Mr. Speckin, you were earlier testifying about

24 the top columns, headings, where it says verification rate

25 of 5 seconds -- or excuse me, verifications in less than

Appx0707
 124

1 or equal to the integer of five seconds.

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Can you explain, once again, what those columns

5 relate to?

6 A. Yes. So, when the data was received, the time

7 clock or the date stamp -- date/timestamp was only

8 resolved to the actual second in nearly all the instances.

9 A few half to the millisecond, I don't know

10 how reliable that was, but nearly all of them was just to

11 the second, which is reasonable. I'm not being critical.

12 What that means, if I say I did this event

13 at X time, 12 o'clock noon, 12 o'clock, zero minutes, and

14 zero seconds, and I did the next event when the clock is

15 at noon, 0 minutes, and 2 seconds, you can imagine that if

16 I would've started it at the very beginning of the zero

17 and ended it right before it hit 3, that's 2.999 seconds.

18 Or if I was at the end of the zero seconds

19 when I started it and the very beginning, it would be just

20 over 1. So there's a range that can happen.

21 What this means is the integer was 5 seconds

22 or less between the subtraction. In common terms -- and

23 I'm sorry that this could be misleading, but in common

24 terms, it means 6 seconds or less that we can say with

25 certainty, that the action was 6 seconds or less.

Appx0708
 125

1 Q. It actually means less than 6 seconds, correct,

2 because the integer goes up to 5.9999?

3 A. Depending on how that the data --

4 MR. MORGAN: Again, objection. Leading.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MR. OLSEN: I'll withdraw.

7 THE COURT: Technically, it's leading --

8 technically, it's leading, but it's a rephrase of what he

9 said. I think I understood the question and answer.

10 Do you have another question?

11 MR. OLSEN: Yes.

12 BY MR. OLSEN:

13 Q. Can you just go through the headings on this

14 exhibit and explain what they mean?

15 A. Sure. So the first -- the easiest one is worker.

16 That's the -- what I heard was the -- the term I think was

17 anonymized user number. I'm assuming so they didn't have

18 to give the names of the people, which I always

19 understand. So each person was assigned a anonymous user

20 number.

21 Then, for that person, what they did. So

22 verifications overall, that means the number of times that

23 they made a determination in some form or fashion about a

24 ballot envelope.

25 And then the percentage of those that are

Appx0709
 126

1 verified is the next column, so the number of times that

2 either passed versus something else. Doesn't mean versus

3 fail. It could be that it was a spousal exchange or --

4 there's a lot of different codes that they use that it

5 could be. It's just pass versus everything else.

6 Q. What is a spousal exchange?

7 MS. DANNEMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

8 Objection. He is now testifying to the document as if it

9 is true, and he is not testifying about his conclusions

10 based on his reliance on the document. It's outside the

11 scope of -- first of all, this document is being used for

12 purposes beyond what was admitted.

13 And, again, he's engaging in statistical

14 analysis of this data, which is beyond the scope of the

15 subjects on which he was disclosed, and it is extremely

16 prejudicial to our clients.

17 THE COURT: Okay. The first part you're

18 saying he's using the exhibit -- interpreting the exhibit

19 or using it to offer his opinions and the purpose for

20 which it was admitted.

21 The second objection is that he's making

22 statistical analysis of what's going on.

23 As far as what I'm hearing, I -- what I've

24 heard so far is this is sorting of data with regard to key

25 strokes and differentiation between the time and key

Appx0710
 127

1 strokes, and this is the data that was extracted into the

2 various columns, and now he's reading that data that was

3 requested, and now he's going to offer an opinion on it.

4 So, at this particular time, I don't see a

5 statistical analysis component to it, but I'll wait and --

6 and hear whatever further testimony there is.

7 But -- okay. That's fine.

8 Well, it's after noon. So -- I believe

9 we're on track. So I won't make you come back early. We

10 can come back at 1:30 to resume this.

11 But we'll come back at 1:30 and resume again

12 with Mr. Speckin on direct examination. Okay?

13 So thank you all.

14

15 (Lunch recess.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0711
 128

4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

8 STATE OF ARIZONA )

9 COUNTY OF MARICOPA )

10

11 I, Luz Franco, an official reporter in the Superior

12 Court of the state of Arizona, in and for the county of

13 Maricopa, hereby certify that the foregoing pages

14 constitute a true and accurate transcript of my

15 stenographic notes taken at said time and date, all done

16 to the best of my skill and ability.

17 Dated this 18th day of May, 2023.

18

19

20

21 __/s/Luz Franco_______

22 Luz Franco, RMR, CRR

CR No. 50591
23 Official Court Reporter

24

25

Appx0712
 1

$ 20:24, 99:15, 121:20 109:2, 110:4, 110:6, accelerated-aged [1] - 126:20

1989 [1] - 57:18 110:8, 110:12, 63:25 admitting [1] - 9:11
$50 [1] - 71:5 1993 [2] - 56:20, 57:19 110:15, 111:2, accept [2] - 82:1, admonished [1] -
1995 [2] - 57:19, 57:25 111:13, 111:25, 98:20 87:23
' 1996 [1] - 57:25 112:9, 113:17, access [5] - 34:17, advantage [1] - 75:19
1:30 [2] - 127:10, 113:21, 115:3, 123:3 34:24, 79:2, 79:6, advised [1] - 8:9
'22 [1] - 47:3 127:11 103:23 affect [1] - 96:18
'95 [1] - 58:4 5 Access [8] - 100:23, affidavit [7] - 18:25,
'96 [1] - 58:4 2 101:14, 102:5, 19:5, 19:13, 19:15,
5 [5] - 82:17, 101:9, 102:10, 104:2, 43:14, 44:19, 71:21
/ 2 [6] - 1:19, 70:8, 114:10, 123:25, 104:22, 104:23, afield [4] - 27:9, 35:23,
93:19, 96:14, 101:9, 124:21 115:5 42:10, 81:12
/s/Luz [1] - 128:21 124:15 5.9999 [1] - 125:2 accessing [1] - 104:10 age [4] - 63:22, 64:4,
2.4 [1] - 45:19 50591 [2] - 1:23, accurate [7] - 13:20, 76:5, 77:14
0 2.999 [1] - 124:17 128:22 21:2, 45:16, 111:5, aged [1] - 63:25
20 [18] - 8:16, 10:23, 54 [1] - 3:7 123:3, 123:9, 128:14 agencies [3] - 59:8,
0 [1] - 124:15 24:6, 25:1, 25:17, accurately [4] - 39:19, 67:7, 67:22
25:22, 26:3, 26:4, 6 40:1, 42:16, 45:12 agency [2] - 59:6,
1 26:8, 27:22, 38:6, accused [1] - 22:3 67:17
41:17, 64:22, 97:20, 6 [3] - 124:24, 124:25, acknowledge [1] - ago [3] - 59:1, 59:20,
1 [11] - 36:10, 36:11, 99:20, 100:17, 125:1 80:3 116:18
45:18, 52:10, 70:8, 121:20, 123:6 act [1] - 8:18 agree [7] - 105:12,
93:8, 95:10, 96:14, 2002 [1] - 64:13 7 action [1] - 124:25 105:23, 106:7,
99:4, 124:20 2003 [3] - 64:2, 64:5, actively [1] - 29:8 107:3, 107:5,
1,000,327 [1] - 26:10 64:13 700 [1] - 62:14
activity [3] - 16:13, 108:22, 117:1
1.3 [1] - 93:13 2007 [1] - 59:2 702 [1] - 85:19
99:19, 104:19 Aguilar [2] - 2:16, 5:10
1.4 [1] - 121:22 2008 [1] - 59:2 actual [5] - 6:24, ahead [16] - 6:11,
10 [3] - 20:24, 21:3, 2020 [1] - 84:2 8 46:22, 47:3, 111:4, 12:19, 16:21, 20:3,
37:2 2022 [10] - 17:2, 17:9, 124:8 20:15, 33:11, 40:8,
10:30 [2] - 52:16, 800-pound [1] - 91:22
30:24, 31:7, 42:18, add [6] - 6:12, 8:10, 51:25, 52:18,
72:25 42:20, 84:2, 93:7, 8:25, 81:20, 92:4, 102:20, 103:18,
11 [10] - 17:2, 17:9, 95:8, 95:9 A 116:3 103:21, 111:21,
18:5, 18:8, 20:11, 2023 [5] - 1:16, 4:1, 113:5, 120:19, 121:4
a-yes-or-a-no [1] - added [1] - 56:2
37:2, 38:9, 38:13, 56:21, 59:22, 128:17
34:16 addition [1] - 35:12 al [4] - 1:9, 4:8, 73:10,
42:19, 65:15 21 [4] - 28:7, 28:8,
A.R.S [1] - 85:1 additional [2] - 59:12, 87:13
11th [3] - 20:5, 20:7, 28:14, 29:22
ABC [2] - 24:7, 24:15 100:21 alerted [1] - 7:16
65:21 28 [1] - 62:11
ABFDE [1] - 35:8 additions [1] - 56:1 alerting [1] - 7:15
12 [2] - 124:13 297 [1] - 63:5
ability [7] - 7:1, 49:9, address [5] - 5:14, Alexis [2] - 2:7, 4:20
13 [2] - 3:4, 66:9
49:12, 84:7, 85:12, 5:20, 8:11, 12:1, Allen [1] - 64:12
130 [1] - 37:13
134 [10] - 37:4, 37:13,
3 117:16, 128:16 17:19 allocated [1] - 121:3
able [14] - 8:3, 22:11, addressed [3] - 9:22, allow [10] - 12:6, 20:3,
37:23, 38:9, 38:10, 3 [4] - 70:8, 93:20,
25:11, 29:2, 31:9, 80:24, 91:21 21:19, 25:10, 34:23,
40:3, 40:4, 42:17, 107:16, 124:17
39:8, 39:14, 41:10, adjective [1] - 108:1 36:4, 58:24, 64:11,
46:21 3,000 [1] - 62:11
45:6, 45:8, 60:8, admin [2] - 33:14, 88:1, 89:2
135 [1] - 38:15 30 [6] - 56:8, 56:18,
70:16, 100:2, 119:13 33:25 allowed [3] - 37:24,
139 [4] - 36:23, 37:3, 56:21, 65:15, 65:23,
absence [2] - 26:15, administrative [2] - 80:1, 81:18
38:9, 38:13 86:21
27:23 9:20, 55:21 allowing [2] - 91:5,
15 [3] - 35:11, 73:3, 33 [1] - 62:11
absolute [3] - 45:19, admissibility [5] - 9:8, 99:8
73:4 34 [3] - 36:17, 40:2,
81:13, 104:24 9:17, 9:19, 9:22, almost [2] - 69:15,
16-550 [2] - 82:17, 40:3
absolutely [10] - 6:4, 11:25 80:14
85:1 350 [1] - 63:5
9:16, 20:8, 72:19, admissible [1] - 119:1 alphabetizing [1] -
17 [1] - 42:18 37 [1] - 65:15
92:1, 99:17, 104:9, admission [4] - 12:10, 19:16
18 [14] - 1:16, 4:1,
113:8, 113:11, 123:9 29:17, 120:5, 123:13 alterations [1] - 56:1
8:15, 8:20, 8:22,
4 abundance [1] - 122:4 admit [2] - 85:11, altered [1] - 56:2
9:20, 10:21, 10:24,
abundant [1] - 58:15 109:15 AM [1] - 1:16
36:18, 109:2, 109:9, 413 [3] - 62:21, 62:25,
Academy [1] - 60:20 admitted [12] - 12:4, America [1] - 117:23
109:12, 109:15, 63:10
accelerate [1] - 64:4 25:22, 29:16, 36:18, American [3] - 60:18,
111:6 413th [1] - 62:22
accelerated [1] - 92:5, 97:23, 117:11, 60:20, 60:21
18th [1] - 128:17 46 [2] - 109:16, 109:22
63:25 118:12, 119:1, amount [4] - 94:8,
19 [5] - 15:7, 15:15, 47 [17] - 9:1, 9:5, 9:22, 123:20, 126:12, 94:9, 98:2, 100:21

Appx0713
 2

analyses [1] - 67:11 123:3 120:11 84:12, 108:7, 108:18 better [2] - 102:10,
analysis [38] - 41:20, appearance [1] - assess [2] - 86:16, avoids [1] - 49:25 108:1
47:24, 54:23, 55:9, 87:15 98:2 aware [14] - 9:16, between [10] - 12:9,
57:9, 58:6, 58:19, appearances [1] - 4:9 assessing [1] - 98:1 13:10, 16:3, 20:23, 56:24, 66:9, 98:8,
59:18, 59:25, 61:14, APPEARING [1] - 2:1 assign [2] - 20:15, 24:21, 24:24, 25:12, 99:2, 100:22,
63:2, 65:4, 67:24, application [6] - 23:24 25:16, 28:4, 28:7, 101:10, 121:25,
68:24, 69:10, 69:18, 55:11, 72:25, 91:7, assigned [4] - 21:15, 28:15, 29:24, 95:11, 124:22, 126:25
72:10, 79:25, 84:5, 93:9, 104:8, 106:10 34:21, 34:25, 125:19 102:7 beyond [6] - 16:18,
97:5, 102:16, 103:3, applications [2] - assignment [2] - 6:1, axes [2] - 44:9, 46:6 79:11, 105:20,
103:16, 105:3, 70:24, 71:15 6:8 axis [2] - 44:18, 44:19 116:10, 126:12,
105:5, 105:8, applied [1] - 64:25 assist [1] - 29:5 126:14
105:11, 105:19, apply [2] - 24:1, 64:23 assisted [2] - 29:6, B bias [1] - 7:2
106:11, 106:25, applying [1] - 105:19 29:8 big [6] - 8:5, 66:22,
107:5, 108:4, 108:6, appointed [2] - 68:19, assisting [1] - 105:16 Bachelor [1] - 57:11 67:3, 71:2, 93:18,
112:12, 126:14, 68:21 associated [1] - 35:9 background [7] - 121:23
126:22, 127:5 appointments [1] - Association [2] - 41:16, 41:21, 41:22, Bill [2] - 76:4, 77:5
analyst [5] - 41:13, 68:23 60:23, 66:21 57:13, 76:9, 77:23, bill [1] - 98:19
49:13, 54:25, 76:3, appreciate [5] - 51:19, associations [1] - 78:23 bio [1] - 76:15
77:13 52:12, 117:8, 56:5 backwards [1] - 117:1 Birmingham [1] -
analyze [4] - 49:7, 118:22, 119:2 assume [11] - 11:22, badgered [1] - 22:19 71:21
49:9, 79:3, 100:16 approach [3] - 53:4, 39:14, 40:1, 40:24, ballot [7] - 43:8, bit [6] - 24:9, 30:8,
analyzes [1] - 79:2 92:22, 113:6 41:2, 43:5, 43:7, 43:14, 44:18, 69:23, 35:2, 59:19, 76:7,
analyzing [1] - 41:17 approaching [1] - 43:24, 44:6, 44:17, 84:9, 84:22, 125:24 118:9
AND [2] - 1:2, 26:8 27:7 104:2 ballots [2] - 70:21, black [5] - 40:15,
Angeles [1] - 68:4 appropriate [1] - assuming [4] - 39:23, 82:19 74:10, 83:1, 123:7
animals [1] - 120:12 44:15 44:2, 46:5, 125:17 banks [1] - 67:2 BLEHM [107] - 2:3,
annual [3] - 58:23, approval [2] - 40:2, assumption [1] - 43:7 bar [1] - 45:15 4:11, 6:3, 6:7, 6:9,
59:11, 59:15 43:8 assumptions [11] - base [1] - 83:8 7:10, 7:12, 7:25, 8:5,
anonymized [1] - approve [2] - 44:20, 39:8, 40:23, 43:23, based [9] - 47:3, 47:5, 12:23, 13:2, 13:5,
125:17 44:24 44:11, 45:12, 46:11, 84:11, 85:7, 112:4, 13:15, 13:25, 15:5,
anonymous [1] - approved [1] - 44:19 46:12, 46:15, 47:2, 114:11, 116:9, 15:12, 16:9, 16:16,
125:19 approving [1] - 43:13 47:5, 48:23 120:9, 126:10 16:24, 17:7, 17:13,
answer [32] - 16:8, area [1] - 76:4 ATF [1] - 57:24 basic [2] - 90:12, 17:17, 17:22, 19:9,
21:22, 21:23, 22:11, areas [3] - 57:8, 58:25, attached [1] - 96:8 104:24 19:11, 20:6, 23:8,
23:21, 25:10, 29:2, 61:2 attack [1] - 118:16 basis [9] - 37:20, 41:4, 24:4, 24:14, 24:23,
29:20, 33:11, 34:7, argue [1] - 47:4 attempt [1] - 65:16 42:12, 59:11, 59:15, 25:15, 25:22, 26:4,
36:21, 41:3, 45:8, arguing [1] - 88:4 attempting [1] - 73:2 70:13, 96:23, 26:9, 26:13, 26:21,
45:9, 45:12, 51:5, argument [6] - 32:3, attend [2] - 61:24, 112:23, 114:16 27:19, 27:20, 28:11,
57:5, 58:3, 61:21, 91:13, 91:14, 93:15, 76:23 bathroom [1] - 66:24 28:13, 28:24, 29:7,
65:15, 83:11, 99:24, 106:4, 111:15 attended [6] - 60:1, become [1] - 118:6 29:11, 29:15, 29:18,
100:2, 100:3, 100:4, argumentative [4] - 61:4, 61:5, 61:7, becomes [1] - 28:1 30:4, 30:7, 31:2,
100:8, 107:23, 22:5, 22:13, 22:14, 61:21, 61:24 BEFORE [1] - 1:19 31:5, 31:17, 31:23,
116:16, 122:15, 22:18 attends [1] - 76:20 began [1] - 42:17 32:2, 32:5, 32:8,
125:9 ARIZONA [2] - 1:1, Attorney [1] - 67:14 begin [2] - 52:14, 53:3 32:13, 32:16, 32:23,
answered [7] - 30:10, 128:8 attorney [1] - 92:5 beginning [4] - 4:9, 33:5, 33:8, 33:17,
31:4, 31:9, 32:19, 114:17, 124:16, 34:13, 34:15, 35:19,
Arizona [12] - 1:15, Attorney's [5] - 2:13,
34:11, 49:17, 82:9 124:19 35:24, 36:5, 36:8,
4:1, 32:17, 49:23, 5:3, 5:9, 67:18,
answering [1] - 22:21 behalf [8] - 3:3, 3:5, 36:13, 36:17, 36:22,
58:10, 65:25, 66:2, 67:20
answers [2] - 47:5, 4:12, 4:15, 4:23, 5:2, 36:25, 37:2, 37:5,
68:12, 85:14, 85:17, attorneys [4] - 5:19,
48:15 5:5, 66:13 37:21, 38:5, 38:10,
117:12, 128:12 67:5, 117:12, 120:10
anticipate [1] - 90:4 behavior [3] - 16:4, 38:15, 38:18, 38:21,
Armenta [2] - 2:8, 4:18 Attorneys [3] - 2:5,
anyway [1] - 77:22 39:19, 46:23 39:9, 39:16, 39:25,
ARMENTA [2] - 4:17, 2:17, 67:16
apex [1] - 27:1 belabor [1] - 12:2 40:4, 40:22, 41:12,
6:16 attorneys' [1] - 67:11
apologies [2] - 90:16, below [1] - 74:11 42:8, 42:14, 43:3,
arrive [1] - 121:24 authorship [5] -
110:10 bench [4] - 81:6, 43:12, 44:5, 44:13,
art [1] - 90:16 55:12, 55:15, 56:12,
apologize [6] - 11:16, 113:5, 117:15, 44:16, 45:23, 46:10,
artfully [1] - 16:2 57:20, 70:12
29:11, 29:15, 49:2, 118:24 46:18, 47:12, 47:17,
Arts [1] - 57:11 available [4] - 61:17,
85:15, 105:22 best [3] - 100:12, 47:21, 48:8, 48:12,
aspect [2] - 8:21, 55:1 61:19, 104:22,
appeal [1] - 64:19 48:17, 48:19, 49:16,
aspects [1] - 54:11 111:13 119:7, 128:16
appear [2] - 13:20, 49:18, 52:8, 52:10,
asserted [2] - 118:23, average [4] - 44:24, Best [1] - 104:3

Appx0714
 3

89:4, 110:4 107:10, 113:19, 106:13 Civil [1] - 92:5 commonly [1] - 70:4
Blehm [14] - 2:4, 3:4, 115:1, 121:6, 123:2, categorize [1] - 19:20 claiming [1] - 89:24 companies [3] -
4:12, 6:6, 12:15, 123:22, 125:12 category [1] - 19:19 clarification [6] - 26:2, 66:14, 66:19, 66:22
12:22, 19:10, 22:14, caution [3] - 7:21, 32:19, 45:7, 80:17, company [2] - 66:17,
23:2, 23:6, 38:4, C 58:15, 122:4 99:25, 103:20 66:25
47:13, 52:11, 89:6 CD [4] - 26:4, 26:8, clarify [3] - 31:13, compare [14] - 11:5,
blocking [1] - 53:10 cake [1] - 83:1 27:15, 97:22 80:25, 114:10 70:16, 72:10, 74:12,
blue [1] - 109:7 calculate [2] - 99:2, CD-ROM [3] - 26:4, clarifying [1] - 79:14 74:22, 78:14, 78:15,
blunt [1] - 91:16 107:19 27:15, 97:22 clean [1] - 50:8 84:8, 84:14, 84:16,
board [1] - 67:12 calculating [1] - ceded [1] - 90:16 clear [9] - 17:10, 34:6, 84:18, 84:20, 94:16
Board [1] - 60:18 108:18 certain [11] - 39:8, 62:6, 79:16, 81:7, compared [7] - 82:20,
boards [1] - 18:21 calculation [2] - 40:24, 66:22, 68:17, 87:19, 88:6, 119:22, 82:21, 82:22, 82:23,
bodies [3] - 61:15, 14:24, 108:6 69:25, 71:19, 85:19, 120:1 82:24, 84:21, 94:4
62:1, 68:8 calculations [1] - 101:1, 101:2, 108:7 clearly [3] - 75:20, comparing [3] - 44:25,
body [1] - 58:8 122:5 certainly [1] - 117:12 85:6, 90:23 45:1, 63:24
Bolhouse [1] - 59:2 California [2] - 66:3, certainties [1] - 122:5 clerk [2] - 5:16, 110:7 comparison [7] -
bond [1] - 71:6 66:5 certainty [2] - 56:13, click [1] - 74:18 71:17, 72:5, 72:19,
bottom [1] - 74:17 California's [1] - 68:2 124:25 clicking [4] - 32:11, 74:17, 74:19, 84:25,
box [3] - 19:2, 83:1 camera [1] - 51:16 CERTIFICATE [1] - 100:10 94:15
break [8] - 19:8, Canada [1] - 65:17 128:4 client [4] - 22:3, 40:12, comparisons [4] -
50:10, 52:16, 72:25, candidly [1] - 41:8 certificate [2] - 1:23, 47:9, 118:1 60:5, 96:1, 114:7,
73:2, 73:22, 101:11 cannot [2] - 14:6, 71:6 clients [4] - 6:1, 66:12, 115:12
breakdown [1] - 63:3 79:11 certified [3] - 35:7, 66:15, 126:16 complete [3] - 8:25,
briefly [1] - 37:8 Canon [2] - 61:6 35:8, 35:15 clip [4] - 13:17, 15:1, 109:2, 111:5
bring [1] - 7:23 capabilities [2] - certify [3] - 35:14, 15:14, 95:22 completed [2] - 20:5,
bringing [2] - 24:18, 33:13, 103:12 100:25, 128:13 clips [2] - 13:8, 13:16 59:17
24:19 capability [1] - 35:1 CFA [1] - 64:20 clock [5] - 100:12, completely [7] -
broad [5] - 41:24, capable [5] - 22:16, chain [1] - 98:5 100:13, 120:15, 15:14, 29:20, 47:8,
49:3, 49:24, 69:7, 22:20, 81:9, 117:2, chance [3] - 11:6, 124:7, 124:14 79:13, 80:25, 91:18,
94:13 117:24 11:13, 111:24 close [6] - 19:23, 66:5, 118:17
broken [1] - 62:23 care [2] - 7:11, 7:14 change [5] - 35:2, 66:7, 98:20, 100:14, completeness [2] -
Bryan [2] - 2:4, 4:11 career [6] - 61:21, 71:4, 72:24, 94:14, 101:15 9:15, 109:18
bunch [1] - 70:5 62:4, 62:11, 62:22, 109:13 clouds [1] - 33:23 component [1] - 127:5
BURGESS [1] - 2:9 69:3, 71:1 changed [6] - 11:11, Coast [1] - 66:7 comports [1] - 70:17
Burgess [1] - 5:5 cares [1] - 65:21 18:10, 18:11, 56:2, codefendants [1] - compute [1] - 42:3
Burnell [2] - 57:23, carpel [1] - 101:24 59:19, 71:9 10:10 computer [6] - 32:22,
58:21 carrier [2] - 71:5, chapter [2] - 83:17, codes [1] - 126:4 54:11, 58:14, 74:14,
busier [1] - 61:23 71:11 83:21 COIE [1] - 2:6 100:12
business [1] - 19:23 cart [1] - 16:19 characteristics [2] - Collaborative [1] - computers [2] - 38:24,
but.. [2] - 122:15, case [30] - 11:20, 44:2, 70:11, 94:13 59:6 122:20
122:21 49:25, 50:1, 50:13, characterize [1] - colleague [1] - 76:18 concern [1] - 11:4
button [4] - 32:11, 50:15, 50:22, 62:6, 75:10 colleagues [1] - 4:24 concerned [1] - 39:6
39:2 62:7, 62:8, 62:9, charge [1] - 104:6 collected [1] - 71:14 concerns [2] - 31:6,
buttons [1] - 115:21 64:7, 64:10, 64:14, chart [10] - 8:16, College [1] - 57:11 115:17
buy [3] - 104:3, 104:6 67:15, 71:13, 71:22, 10:22, 11:18, 11:19, color [1] - 123:9 conclusion [3] -
Buy [1] - 104:3 71:23, 72:22, 78:5, 14:23, 14:24, 46:4, Colorado [1] - 66:6 56:14, 99:6, 99:7
78:12, 82:13, 83:2, 48:22, 121:14, 123:4 column [4] - 114:9, conclusions [7] -
BY [47] - 1:22, 13:2,
87:20, 88:12, 89:11, chatter [1] - 98:7 115:6, 121:15, 126:1 60:2, 83:21, 84:5,
16:24, 17:22, 19:11,
89:17, 90:2, 90:5, check [1] - 52:14 columns [4] - 121:23, 112:4, 119:4,
20:6, 23:8, 24:4,
101:12 chemical [1] - 63:23 123:24, 124:4, 127:2 121:25, 126:9
24:23, 25:15, 27:20,
cases [25] - 58:14, chemistry [1] - 57:10 coming [3] - 59:21, conduct [6] - 30:20,
28:13, 29:7, 29:18,
30:7, 33:17, 34:15, 60:7, 62:3, 62:5, chess [1] - 89:23 91:15, 114:22 31:10, 34:2, 34:9,
62:15, 62:19, 63:1, chief [3] - 49:25, commercially [1] - 50:16, 67:4
36:8, 37:5, 39:16,
63:8, 63:10, 63:13, 50:16, 57:17 conducted [1] - 74:4
39:25, 41:12, 42:14, 104:22
65:11, 67:13, 68:20, children [1] - 61:23 conducts [1] - 36:1
44:13, 44:16, 45:23, common [14] - 60:12,
46:10, 46:18, 48:19, 69:4, 69:6, 69:7, choice [1] - 50:12 confidence [2] - 7:1,
61:16, 66:23, 66:25,
53:23, 54:21, 73:21, 69:11, 69:12, 70:18, chop [1] - 73:1 117:15
68:25, 69:20, 70:12,
70:20, 71:19, 72:7, Conl'd [1] - 3:6
78:3, 82:11, 83:13, Chris [1] - 104:13 72:14, 72:17,
93:2, 97:17, 100:15, 73:23, 73:25, 76:16 connection [1] - 69:11
Chrysler [1] - 67:1 103:25, 104:7,
102:2, 103:22, categories [1] - consecutive [1] -
cites [1] - 76:15 124:22, 124:23

Appx0715
 4

74:13 80:7 7:20, 8:2, 8:9, 9:3, 109:11, 109:14, 49:20

consequences [3] - counsel [12] - 9:4, 9:11, 9:18, 9:25, 109:20, 110:2, cross-examination [5]
93:10, 93:14, 94:10 15:17, 17:5, 42:22, 10:2, 10:8, 10:17, 110:7, 110:11, - 49:24, 86:17, 91:3,
conserve [1] - 13:18 47:1, 73:12, 87:16, 11:4, 11:24, 12:12, 110:14, 110:18, 118:16, 119:13
consider [2] - 39:13, 88:3, 88:24, 105:3, 13:14, 13:23, 14:9, 110:22, 110:25, crossed [1] - 81:11
76:18 111:3, 111:10 14:17, 15:6, 15:13, 111:9, 111:19, crossover [2] - 79:15,
considered [1] - COUNSEL [1] - 2:1 16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 112:8, 112:18, 80:5
118:18 counsel's [1] - 17:5 17:10, 17:15, 17:18, 112:25, 113:4, CRR [2] - 1:23, 128:22
considering [1] - count [3] - 57:1, 19:7, 19:10, 20:3, 113:8, 113:11, CTS [1] - 59:6
10:15 65:24, 108:11 21:12, 21:16, 22:6, 113:15, 114:19, cubicle [1] - 19:5
consistent [12] - counties [1] - 35:11 22:8, 22:10, 22:24, 114:25, 115:13, cubicles [2] - 18:24,
43:13, 45:19, 45:20, counting [2] - 62:22, 23:6, 23:19, 24:9, 116:12, 117:20, 19:13
46:23, 72:2, 72:11, 62:24 24:17, 25:2, 25:5, 118:8, 119:15, cumulative [2] - 15:9,
78:16, 85:3, 85:6, countries [3] - 55:5, 25:9, 25:13, 25:25, 119:20, 120:2, 80:18
93:5, 93:6, 96:1 65:15, 65:16 26:12, 26:16, 27:1, 120:4, 120:8, curing [2] - 18:20,
constitute [1] - 128:14 country [1] - 68:22 28:12, 28:22, 28:25, 120:15, 120:25, 19:16
Cont'g [2] - 3:3, 3:4 County [41] - 2:13, 29:13, 30:5, 30:25, 122:7, 122:12, custodian [6] - 25:8,
contained [4] - 26:5, 5:2, 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, 31:3, 31:13, 31:18, 122:14, 122:19, 26:18, 29:23, 29:25,
38:6, 41:17, 97:19 6:24, 8:17, 10:18, 32:4, 32:6, 32:12, 122:25, 123:12, 111:4, 112:21
contemporary [1] - 10:20, 10:23, 18:14, 32:15, 32:18, 32:25, 123:16, 123:19, cut [1] - 75:10
77:16 23:15, 23:23, 25:8, 33:7, 33:10, 35:22, 125:5, 125:7, 126:17 cutoff [1] - 102:7
contents [1] - 27:22 25:24, 26:23, 27:23, 36:3, 36:6, 36:19, Court's [3] - 8:9, CV [1] - 76:17
Contestant/Plaintiff 31:8, 31:10, 32:22, 36:24, 37:1, 38:1, 90:22, 91:9 CV2022-095403 [4] -
[2] - 1:6, 2:5 33:19, 34:8, 38:22, 38:4, 38:8, 38:12, courtroom [9] - 5:18, 1:7, 4:7, 73:10,
Contestee [1] - 1:8 42:18, 46:22, 68:2, 38:17, 38:19, 39:4, 5:23, 8:8, 24:20, 87:13
68:4, 76:11, 82:14, 39:11, 39:22, 40:3, 27:18, 40:11, 51:18,
context [1] - 72:9 cycle [1] - 114:2
83:25, 92:3, 96:4, 40:5, 40:8, 40:21, 51:25, 116:17
continue [4] - 12:22,
96:11, 96:16, 97:19, 40:25, 41:11, 42:9, cover [2] - 21:7, 33:23
52:13, 73:15, 78:24
42:24, 43:11, 43:19, COVID [1] - 59:19
D
continued [1] - 18:13 100:17, 112:12,
117:9, 118:2, 122:23 44:7, 44:15, 45:5, CR [1] - 128:22 dad [2] - 77:9, 77:15
continues [1] - 87:7
county [2] - 117:22, 47:10, 47:13, 47:18, Craig [2] - 2:11, 4:23 dad's [1] - 76:5
CONTINUING [1] -
128:12 47:22, 48:9, 48:13, CRAIGER [3] - 5:4,
12:25 DANNEMAN [18] -
COUNTY [2] - 1:2, 48:18, 49:17, 49:20, 26:2, 26:6
continuing [5] - 6:4, 4:20, 10:1, 10:3,
128:9 50:5, 50:11, 50:21, Craiger [2] - 2:10, 5:5
12:16, 73:9, 87:12, 10:12, 11:15, 12:11,
County's [3] - 25:23, 50:23, 51:4, 51:10, created [22] - 10:25,
97:8 14:14, 21:10, 21:13,
33:3, 43:13 51:14, 51:21, 52:7, 37:16, 38:2, 38:19,
contracted [1] - 35:12 37:14, 37:19, 92:12,
couple [1] - 123:8 52:9, 52:11, 52:18, 38:22, 59:14,
copied [4] - 9:21, 97:3, 97:9, 99:21,
52:22, 53:1, 53:6, 100:18, 100:20,
64:17, 64:21, 111:9 course [11] - 56:11, 106:21, 116:2, 126:7
53:8, 53:14, 54:16, 100:22, 112:6,
copies [2] - 11:10 62:15, 70:24, 78:16, Danneman [2] - 2:7,
54:20, 72:23, 73:9, 112:15, 112:16,
Copy [1] - 1:23 80:4, 81:15, 93:14, 4:20
73:18, 77:20, 77:25, 112:22, 114:21,
copy [4] - 10:11, 94:2, 95:25, 97:1, dark [2] - 74:9, 74:10
78:19, 79:14, 80:22, 115:3, 115:4,
111:5, 112:2, 123:4 115:6 Data [2] - 24:7, 24:15
81:16, 81:24, 82:6, 115:11, 115:17,
correct [27] - 11:1, Court [18] - 6:4, 6:18, data [98] - 8:16, 10:22,
82:10, 83:10, 85:14, 116:23, 117:5, 123:4
18:12, 18:14, 18:15, 9:16, 10:15, 10:16, 18:6, 25:23, 26:5,
85:16, 86:3, 86:13, creates [1] - 104:22
18:16, 18:17, 20:11, 15:18, 15:20, 27:10, 26:8, 26:10, 37:7,
86:20, 86:24, 87:2, creation [2] - 121:9,
28:8, 29:10, 29:17, 28:15, 47:5, 47:6, 37:22, 38:2, 38:5,
87:10, 88:9, 88:17, 121:12
33:5, 33:20, 48:23, 65:2, 65:10, 86:1, 38:19, 38:21, 38:23,
88:20, 89:3, 89:5, credentials [1] - 35:8
48:24, 52:5, 63:11, 102:17, 112:3, 40:1, 41:13, 41:18,
90:13, 90:18, 90:25, crime [2] - 54:12
72:12, 86:22, 88:13, 128:12, 128:23 41:19, 42:16, 42:22,
91:10, 91:12, 91:19,
103:4, 103:16, court [14] - 4:4, 28:6, criminal [1] - 68:20 44:12, 45:14, 47:3,
91:21, 92:1, 92:11,
106:2, 108:20, 52:14, 63:14, 63:16, criteria [2] - 105:17, 48:15, 48:21, 49:1,
92:16, 92:24, 97:7,
114:23, 120:7, 64:7, 64:19, 65:17, 107:25 49:4, 49:6, 49:7,
97:10, 97:16, 99:23,
121:19, 125:1 68:19, 72:3, 95:22, critical [1] - 124:11 49:10, 49:11, 49:13,
101:18, 101:23,
correcting [2] - 9:20, 101:23, 118:11, cross [16] - 49:20, 54:12, 58:13, 58:14,
102:18, 102:20,
9:21 119:25 49:24, 50:2, 50:8, 82:23, 83:24, 84:1,
103:1, 103:5,
correctly [3] - 11:16, COURT [235] - 1:1, 50:16, 50:23, 86:17, 84:5, 84:7, 84:17,
103:18, 103:21,
33:18, 118:5 4:6, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19, 88:12, 89:15, 90:19, 97:18, 97:22, 98:1,
105:7, 105:13,
correlation [1] - 83:7 5:7, 5:11, 5:24, 6:6, 90:20, 91:3, 103:15, 98:5, 98:9, 98:11,
106:4, 106:9,
coughed [1] - 54:17 6:10, 6:14, 6:20, 7:3, 118:16, 119:13 99:4, 99:8, 99:10,
106:19, 107:2,
could've [2] - 20:22, 7:11, 7:13, 7:18, cross-exam [1] - 99:12, 99:19, 100:5,
108:25, 109:6,

Appx0716
 5

100:9, 100:11, 2:17 detail [1] - 94:7 discerning [1] - 81:10 57:16, 57:19, 71:19,
100:17, 100:19, defendants [13] - 5:2, detailed [1] - 55:17 disclosed [11] - 10:14, 72:2
100:24, 101:13, 5:6, 6:15, 7:13, 8:24, detect [1] - 83:22 10:16, 11:12, 11:17, done [34] - 20:15,
103:7, 103:14, 14:15, 15:18, 82:2, determination [12] - 13:10, 14:3, 15:10, 30:11, 32:20, 49:19,
103:24, 104:10, 86:4, 92:17, 97:12, 55:12, 55:15, 56:5, 24:13, 111:11, 56:3, 60:9, 61:9,
104:14, 104:18, 117:10 56:9, 56:12, 57:20, 116:5, 126:15 71:18, 76:16, 77:20,
105:9, 105:10, defense [4] - 9:4, 60:3, 85:2, 99:13, disclosure [3] - 29:21, 77:21, 79:23, 84:13,
105:16, 106:12, 53:10, 64:21, 68:20 107:17, 107:21, 72:1, 116:5 84:17, 87:23, 87:24,
106:22, 107:5, defer [1] - 7:19 125:23 disclosures [1] - 88:6, 88:23, 89:1,
107:6, 107:11, defined [1] - 85:1 determinations [2] - 71:25 89:8, 89:12, 89:16,
107:13, 107:24, definitely [3] - 76:3, 107:16, 114:7 discounting [1] - 90:24, 94:7, 94:15,
111:16, 112:11, 76:20, 122:24 determine [11] - 70:3, 93:15 95:19, 96:1, 108:19,
113:24, 114:1, definition [1] - 82:22 70:12, 72:11, 75:1, discovered [1] - 114:8, 117:13,
115:7, 115:8, degree [2] - 49:12, 78:13, 78:15, 93:4, 111:20 120:23, 128:15
115:18, 115:19, 57:10 93:6, 98:12, 100:14, discovery [3] - 70:15, doubt [2] - 10:13
116:21, 121:16, delete [2] - 51:15, 107:22 70:17, 96:8 down [8] - 19:8, 33:24,
121:18, 121:20, 51:18 determined [2] - discuss [3] - 16:2, 38:12, 46:5, 62:23,
122:18, 123:5, deliberate [1] - 47:7 70:13, 99:8 16:23, 95:19 79:16, 94:8, 98:21
124:6, 125:3, delivered [1] - 59:22 deviations [1] - discussed [4] - 30:25, downs [1] - 45:16
126:14, 126:24, demonstrate [2] - 108:16 82:17, 94:14, 96:13 dozen [2] - 57:2, 57:6
127:1, 127:2 14:19, 115:11 difference [4] - 12:9, discussion [2] - 7:7, drafting [2] - 106:23,
database [3] - 101:13, demonstrates [1] - 93:3, 93:8, 94:7 9:9 107:1
106:15 15:14 differences [4] - dismissing [1] - 87:20 draw [4] - 96:24, 99:5,
databases [2] - demonstrating [2] - 84:16, 94:2, 94:3, disposal [2] - 75:19, 99:7, 119:3
100:23, 102:16 16:20, 48:10 94:16 93:21 drawn [2] - 8:16, 84:5
dataset [6] - 24:5, demonstrative [21] - different [26] - 11:9, disposition [3] - dropping [1] - 19:2
25:1, 25:16, 26:3, 13:7, 14:2, 14:12, 15:14, 17:20, 18:18, 45:18, 78:17, 100:20 drying [1] - 63:23
26:14, 28:3 14:13, 14:16, 14:17, 18:19, 18:20, 18:25, dispute [2] - 18:7, due [3] - 10:6, 47:9,
datasets [3] - 41:17, 14:21, 15:8, 15:9, 19:20, 58:2, 61:2, 42:16 89:6
102:6, 102:8 15:25, 36:14, 39:6, 64:1, 65:3, 91:17, disqualified [1] - duly [1] - 53:18
date [10] - 16:13, 47:1, 47:11, 47:15, 94:17, 95:23, 100:9, 63:14 duplicate [1] - 109:22
16:14, 20:24, 21:1, 47:16, 48:2, 48:3, 101:15, 102:23, distance [4] - 71:1, during [2] - 16:4, 80:4
42:17, 56:5, 100:19, 48:5, 48:6, 48:14 106:17, 110:12, 71:4, 71:10, 71:11 duties [1] - 17:25
124:7, 128:15 department [4] - 111:23, 115:5, distinctions [2] - duty [1] - 23:12
date/timestamp [1] - 18:16, 25:24, 26:24, 119:25, 120:12, 117:17, 117:24 duty-wise [1] - 23:12
124:7 46:20 126:4 distorted [1] - 98:12
Dated [1] - 128:17 differentiate [1] - 55:5
dates [1] - 74:11
Department [6] - District [1] - 64:12 E
23:15, 26:23, 27:23, differentiation [1] - divide [1] - 108:10
dating [4] - 63:15, 27:25, 67:9, 77:13 126:25 division [1] - 108:14 e-mail [1] - 98:4
63:19, 68:1, 68:3 departments [1] - 67:3 difficult [2] - 60:7, DMVs [1] - 71:15 early [5] - 41:23,
Daubert [1] - 85:21 depict [1] - 13:20 60:8 DNA [3] - 54:13, 61:21, 71:1, 82:19,
days [4] - 56:16, 78:8, depicted [1] - 17:24 digit [1] - 43:16 59:10, 59:11 127:9
80:13, 80:14 deposed [1] - 78:18 dire [1] - 89:2 Document [3] - 60:18, ease [1] - 115:23
DEA [1] - 67:13 depositions [2] - direct [9] - 12:16, 60:22, 60:24 easier [2] - 5:15,
deal [7] - 31:24, 54:10, 62:23, 62:24 21:17, 50:4, 50:8, document [28] - 8:16, 107:14
54:11, 54:14, 55:24, deprives [1] - 47:8 73:14, 83:6, 88:11, 10:19, 35:7, 37:15, easiest [1] - 125:15
56:14, 93:18 deputy [1] - 57:23 89:13, 127:12 45:3, 54:25, 55:1, East [1] - 66:7
dealt [2] - 12:12, 69:15 deriving [1] - 41:23 Direct [2] - 3:4, 3:7 55:5, 55:6, 56:2, education [2] - 57:7,
death [1] - 56:7 describe [9] - 57:7, DIRECT [2] - 12:25, 57:9, 57:17, 59:9, 85:18
deceased [1] - 19:19 65:2, 65:10, 68:11, 53:21 76:2, 77:13, 83:15, educational [1] -
deceive [1] - 22:3 69:17, 97:25, direction [4] - 115:4, 113:23, 114:15, 57:12
December [1] - 57:18 100:16, 107:12, 115:11, 121:8, 123:5 114:18, 115:2, EEOC [1] - 64:12
decided [1] - 59:3 115:2 directly [4] - 66:20, 115:17, 116:23, effectively [1] - 48:10
decision [6] - 59:2, described [2] - 57:8, 67:17, 83:21, 84:7 121:8, 121:13, eight [1] - 70:7
64:20, 89:14, 93:10, 58:18 director [2] - 57:23, 126:8, 126:10, eighteen [1] - 10:22
99:11, 121:1 describing [2] - 60:15, 59:3 126:11 eighth [1] - 70:9
declaration [1] - 96:9 98:5 disagree [3] - 92:7, documents [13] - either [14] - 16:8,
defendant [1] - 117:6 description [2] - 92:8, 107:3 13:5, 29:21, 54:14, 17:20, 19:16, 21:5,
defendant's [1] - 82:1 55:17, 66:11 disagreeing [1] - 54:24, 55:4, 55:21, 49:21, 50:16, 62:14,
Defendants [2] - 1:10, designated [1] - 26:22 108:2 55:24, 55:25, 56:1, 69:23, 85:7, 87:14,

Appx0717
 6

90:1, 117:6, 117:7, England [1] - 65:17 Examination [2] - 3:4, 8:16, 8:20, 8:22, 9:1, 44:22
126:2 English [1] - 98:19 3:7 9:5, 9:20, 9:22, express [1] - 56:14
elect [1] - 89:18 enter [1] - 8:7 examination [25] - 10:23, 15:7, 15:15, expressing [2] - 60:2,
elected [1] - 6:24 entered [4] - 99:15, 12:16, 21:18, 43:21, 20:24, 24:6, 25:1, 83:20
election [19] - 17:3, 118:5, 123:6, 123:11 43:22, 49:24, 55:6, 25:17, 25:22, 26:3, extent [3] - 30:22,
18:21, 18:22, 31:7, entire [5] - 13:17, 55:7, 55:11, 55:24, 26:4, 26:8, 27:22, 42:22, 103:13
35:15, 47:3, 69:4, 26:19, 79:17, 80:12, 55:25, 56:4, 57:16, 28:7, 28:14, 29:22, extra [1] - 54:19
69:6, 69:11, 69:12, 80:19 57:19, 59:10, 60:2, 36:10, 36:11, 36:17, extract [1] - 107:13
70:14, 70:18, 70:19, entirely [1] - 20:9 60:11, 73:14, 77:8, 36:18, 36:24, 37:2, extracted [3] - 107:24,
72:7, 73:24, 84:2, entirety [1] - 26:8 83:15, 83:20, 86:17, 38:6, 38:9, 38:13, 123:5, 127:1
93:7, 95:8, 114:2 entity [2] - 35:10, 91:3, 118:16, 41:17, 52:10, 97:20, extracting [1] - 122:18
election-related [3] - 66:17 119:13, 127:12 99:15, 99:20, extraction [1] - 64:1
69:4, 69:11, 69:12 entries [2] - 99:4, EXAMINATION [2] - 100:17, 109:2, extraordinary [1] -
election-type [1] - 114:4 12:25, 53:21 109:9, 109:12, 93:11
73:24 envelope [3] - 84:9, examine [1] - 56:1 110:12, 110:15, extremely [1] - 126:15
elections [5] - 18:16, 84:22, 125:24 examined [3] - 53:19, 111:2, 111:25,
26:24, 46:19, 69:18, 62:12, 69:8 112:9, 113:16,
envelopes [5] - 18:25,
113:21, 115:3,
F
82:15 19:14, 19:15, 43:9, examiner [5] - 35:7,
Elections [3] - 23:15, 44:19 57:17, 62:12, 76:2 121:20, 123:3, 123:6 face [1] - 23:16
26:23, 27:23 EPM [1] - 96:10 Examiners [3] - 60:18, exhibits [18] - 9:14, faceted [1] - 19:8
electronic [1] - 102:16 equal [8] - 101:6, 60:22, 60:24 10:6, 13:7, 13:16, facsimiles [1] - 56:4
element [1] - 30:15 101:7, 101:9, example [3] - 41:23, 13:24, 14:1, 14:4, fact [6] - 47:23, 48:10,
elements [1] - 29:5 101:10, 114:10, 102:3, 107:14 14:17, 14:18, 14:21, 56:3, 113:13, 119:2,
Elena [2] - 2:8, 4:18 124:1 exceed [1] - 86:18 15:25, 36:17, 36:20, 122:20
ELIAS [1] - 2:8 ERICH [3] - 3:5, 53:17, Excel [5] - 102:4, 48:6, 92:23, 109:9, factor [2] - 83:6, 97:2
ELMO [1] - 13:6 54:3 102:6, 102:22, 118:11 factories [1] - 61:8
Emily [2] - 2:10, 5:5 Erich [2] - 52:21, 54:3 106:23, 122:9 existing [1] - 31:21 facts [1] - 40:24
emphasizing [1] - especially [1] - 56:6 except [2] - 5:19, expect [4] - 89:10, fail [3] - 98:16, 98:23,
50:13 69:13 106:11, 117:11, 126:3
establish [2] - 42:11,
employed [2] - 96:16, exception [3] - 98:17, 117:12 failed [1] - 107:22
116:25
103:23 98:24 expected [1] - 92:6 fair [5] - 14:5, 75:10,
established [3] - 34:3,
employee [8] - 15:19, 106:3, 115:16 exceptions [1] - 68:1 experience [2] - 83:5, 90:15, 119:8
25:24, 32:21, 33:2, excessive [1] - 7:21 85:18 faith [1] - 81:13
establishing [1] -
34:17, 34:22, 44:24, 77:22 exchange [2] - 126:3, expert [26] - 41:19, fall [1] - 19:18
46:22 126:6 42:7, 42:8, 58:6, falling [1] - 65:18
estimate [2] - 62:10,
employees [8] - 31:8, exchanged [1] - 62:17, 62:20, 63:14,
62:13 familiar [7] - 72:20,
33:19, 34:8, 34:23, 111:21 65:4, 65:13, 65:14,
estimation [1] - 63:22 78:4, 91:2, 94:18,
35:14, 35:15, 56:22, exchanges [1] - 98:8 65:23, 66:1, 66:13,
et [4] - 1:9, 4:7, 73:10, 94:23, 99:14
82:14 excluding [1] - 81:8 67:8, 67:9, 69:4,
87:13 familiarity [1] - 94:21
employees' [1] - 30:11 exclusion [1] - 116:18 70:2, 79:11, 85:11,
Ethan [1] - 64:12 familiarize [1] - 95:6
87:22, 102:15,
employment [2] - EULEX [1] - 65:16 exclusively [1] - 69:16 far [16] - 18:10, 24:11,
103:15, 118:10,
42:17, 76:11 evaluating [1] - 70:23 excuse [5] - 5:18, 27:9, 35:23, 42:9,
118:12, 123:12,
employs [1] - 94:19 evaluation [1] - 45:20 38:18, 51:24, 54:12, 45:16, 49:22, 76:7,
123:14
encountered [1] - event [2] - 124:12, 123:25 81:12, 94:21, 94:25,
expert's [1] - 78:22
60:13 124:14 excused [1] - 5:22 106:20, 116:10,
expertise [8] - 57:8,
encouraged [1] - everywhere [1] - 66:9 exhibit [37] - 8:10, 9:1, 126:23, 126:24
68:9, 68:22, 68:24,
81:19 evidence [17] - 14:12, 10:4, 11:17, 13:14, fashion [2] - 60:12,
102:22, 103:8,
encyclopedia [2] - 14:16, 16:6, 17:6, 15:2, 15:3, 15:8, 125:23
108:20, 116:11
83:17, 83:22 23:16, 31:25, 37:16, 15:11, 25:21, 29:12, fast [4] - 27:7, 58:3,
experts [5] - 60:13,
end [5] - 106:1, 47:6, 48:7, 80:1, 39:6, 40:12, 40:15, 65:15, 101:20
77:24, 118:25,
115:23, 120:20, 80:2, 111:22, 42:11, 42:23, 43:17, faster [1] - 122:20
120:9, 120:12
120:22, 124:18 118:17, 118:25, 47:15, 47:16, 48:3, father [3] - 57:15,
48:5, 48:14, 96:13, explain [6] - 45:24,
ended [2] - 42:18, 119:4, 123:6, 123:11 58:21, 77:16
97:21, 109:17, 64:9, 88:20, 105:7,
124:17 exact [4] - 57:4, 64:22, fault [1] - 90:11
111:6, 111:17, 124:4, 125:14
ends [1] - 98:8 70:4, 76:22 FBI [2] - 67:15, 83:1
111:21, 112:5, explained [3] - 46:6,
Enforcement [1] - exactly [7] - 61:20, FCC [2] - 71:10
113:2, 120:6, 120:8, 121:14
67:10 64:24, 65:1, 70:25, federal [1] - 49:23
123:11, 125:14, explaining [2] - 14:24,
enforcement [1] - 72:1, 74:21, 121:15 feed [1] - 100:13
126:18 14:25
67:23 exam [2] - 49:20, felt [2] - 80:13, 106:7
Exhibit [53] - 8:15, explanation [1] -
engaging [1] - 126:13 115:22 few [5] - 67:25, 68:14,

Appx0718
 7

69:6, 69:13, 124:9 58:13, 60:4, 76:2, 71:11 4:20, 6:17, 10:3, hardcopy [1] - 113:7
field [12] - 54:22, 77:13 frequent [2] - 60:10, 14:14, 92:13 Hartman [1] - 2:15
60:13, 62:20, 65:13, Forensic [4] - 35:9, 61:25 grade [2] - 108:19, Hartman-Tellez [1] -
65:14, 66:1, 76:19, 60:18, 60:20, 60:24 frequently [3] - 61:22, 108:21 2:15
76:20, 77:9, 100:19, Forensics [5] - 54:6, 61:24, 67:5 granted [2] - 58:8, head [1] - 46:19
100:21, 115:7 54:9, 55:19, 56:18, Friday [2] - 20:5, 20:7 91:15 headings [3] - 115:6,
fields [1] - 100:18 56:22 front [10] - 8:3, 20:25, graph [5] - 43:10, 123:24, 125:13
figure [1] - 99:3 forged [1] - 67:13 27:9, 29:12, 34:18, 44:6, 44:7, 44:8, headphones [1] - 5:16
fill [1] - 28:18 forgeries [1] - 60:9 40:12, 68:7, 94:24, 44:18 hear [9] - 16:25,
filter [6] - 100:25, forget [1] - 67:18 99:6, 106:5 graphics [1] - 74:7 29:14, 51:5, 64:5,
101:1, 101:2, 101:3, forgive [1] - 66:3 FT [1] - 35:14 great [2] - 31:24, 41:9 75:21, 92:20, 107:6,
121:16 form [15] - 10:15, 12:2, fulfilled [1] - 28:1 greater [3] - 101:5, 119:12, 127:6
filtering [2] - 108:1, 19:3, 19:7, 21:8, fulfillment [1] - 29:9 101:6, 101:10 heard [19] - 7:4, 13:12,
108:3 21:9, 21:17, 23:18, full [4] - 35:14, 54:1, green [6] - 18:24, 40:7, 60:17, 75:23,
final [1] - 64:19 23:20, 34:10, 39:21, 54:10, 56:24 19:2, 19:5, 19:13, 78:8, 78:21, 79:1,
fine [15] - 7:17, 7:18, 39:22, 60:11, 122:3, full-service [1] - 54:10 19:15, 40:16 93:21, 95:2, 95:18,
22:24, 25:25, 53:8, 125:23 full-time [1] - 35:14 grounds [1] - 97:6 101:21, 102:17,
53:9, 63:3, 77:25, formal [4] - 25:18, function [3] - 97:1, Group [1] - 5:5 103:12, 112:5,
78:1, 103:18, 26:15, 27:24, 29:25 104:21, 122:8 GROUP [2] - 2:8, 2:9 122:7, 125:16,
105:19, 106:9, format [3] - 11:9, functions [3] - 55:20, guard [1] - 27:3 126:24
110:2, 113:4, 127:7 103:8, 112:11 55:22, 105:18 guess [2] - 21:25, hearing [8] - 14:7,
fingerprints [1] - forming [1] - 97:18 furniture [1] - 40:11 100:1 47:9, 68:12, 98:21,
54:13 formulated [1] - 30:22 Guru [2] - 24:7, 24:15 105:2, 105:14,
finish [1] - 46:9 formulating [1] - 22:2 G guy [2] - 76:4, 77:10 122:4, 126:23
firearms [1] - 54:13 Fort [1] - 54:7 heat [1] - 64:4
firm [2] - 54:10, 67:6 forth [1] - 74:22 gather [1] - 69:25 H help [4] - 15:2, 28:18,
first [16] - 16:7, 16:22, forthwith [1] - 7:24 gathered [1] - 33:10 101:25, 115:23
38:1, 53:18, 75:10, forward [3] - 5:20, gears [3] - 30:8, 35:2, hac [3] - 2:2, 92:5, helpful [1] - 23:3
77:7, 79:5, 98:2, 12:18, 52:22 72:24 117:11 hereby [1] - 128:13
98:4, 99:9, 99:12, foundation [52] - general [10] - 17:3, half [4] - 63:11, 80:15, hesitant [1] - 12:3
111:1, 114:9, 16:11, 25:4, 25:20, 31:7, 33:3, 66:11, 109:21, 124:9 hide [1] - 22:4
125:15, 126:11, 37:18, 37:20, 37:25, 70:9, 84:2, 93:7, halfway [1] - 111:10 high [1] - 89:23
126:17 39:5, 39:11, 39:23, 95:3, 95:8, 114:2 hand [7] - 36:11, high-level [1] - 89:23
fish [1] - 67:19 39:24, 40:9, 40:18, General [1] - 67:1 43:16, 52:23, 56:10, highest [1] - 7:1
fit [2] - 50:16, 98:19 40:22, 41:9, 42:10, generally [3] - 9:7, 110:12, 122:1, hip [1] - 71:21
five [6] - 72:16, 86:15, 42:21, 42:23, 43:1, 60:16, 68:5 122:12 historical [1] - 84:23
86:20, 86:25, 87:2, 43:15, 43:17, 43:25, generate [1] - 107:4 handing [1] - 28:14 historically [1] - 69:14
124:1 45:2, 47:4, 47:19, generated [1] - 115:8 Handsel [4] - 104:13, hit [2] - 39:2, 124:17
flashing [1] - 95:24 48:5, 72:24, 78:22, gentleman [4] - 15:21, 104:15, 107:13, Hobbs [7] - 1:8, 4:7,
flay [1] - 89:22 85:20, 85:22, 86:7, 20:10, 23:9, 99:15 116:17 4:18, 4:21, 6:17,
Florida [4] - 54:8, 89:9, 102:14, GENTLEMAN [4] - handwriting [40] - 73:10, 87:13
66:9, 67:9 102:21, 102:25, 51:2, 51:6, 51:13, 54:22, 55:1, 55:4, hold [11] - 6:10, 24:17,
Flynn [4] - 76:5, 77:5, 110:20, 111:4, 51:20 55:7, 55:9, 55:11, 24:18, 26:1, 47:13,
77:11 112:14, 112:20, gentlemen [1] - 85:21 56:7, 56:8, 56:9, 58:5, 72:23, 78:19,
focus [1] - 24:20 114:15, 114:16, genuine [1] - 93:11 57:9, 57:20, 57:21, 88:20
focused [1] - 57:25 115:16, 116:13, geographical [1] - 58:6, 58:19, 59:9, holds [1] - 82:2
folks [1] - 20:19 116:20, 116:25, 61:2 59:17, 59:24, 60:1, Hollywood [1] - 54:8
follow [4] - 41:10, 118:3, 118:12, geography [1] - 66:3 60:3, 60:4, 60:11, home [9] - 30:20,
106:4, 119:6, 119:8 118:20, 118:22, Germany [1] - 65:19 61:14, 62:3, 63:2, 31:11, 32:22, 33:2,
followed [2] - 44:24, 119:10, 119:16, gift [1] - 71:5 63:8, 63:18, 65:4, 33:3, 33:6, 33:20,
79:10 122:13, 122:16 gimmick [1] - 71:7 65:5, 66:23, 67:24, 34:2, 34:9
following [4] - 4:3, foundational [2] - given [7] - 25:9, 62:12, 68:24, 69:10, 69:13, homes [1] - 30:11
17:2, 41:1, 46:13 112:7, 115:22 65:12, 90:23, 69:15, 69:16, 69:18, homework [3] - 5:25,
follows [1] - 53:19 four [2] - 72:16, 100:19, 114:1, 115:7 69:21, 70:12, 74:25, 6:8, 8:3
FOR [1] - 1:2 121:23 gorilla [1] - 91:22 83:15 Honda [1] - 67:1
Ford [1] - 67:1 frames [1] - 100:11 government [4] - 59:8, handwriting-type [1] - honestly [1] - 41:10
foregoing [1] - 128:13 Franco [3] - 128:11, 67:7, 67:22, 69:1 63:8 Hong [3] - 64:14,
foreign [1] - 104:24 128:21, 128:22 governmental [1] - happy [1] - 50:7 64:20, 65:18
forensic [8] - 35:7, FRANCO [1] - 1:23 66:17 harassed [1] - 22:20 Honor [194] - 4:11,
54:10, 54:11, 55:18, fraudulently [1] - Governor [6] - 4:18, hard [2] - 7:6, 40:25 4:14, 4:18, 4:22, 5:1,

Appx0719
 8

5:4, 5:9, 6:3, 6:13, 115:15, 116:2, improper [1] - 47:8 instances [6] - 58:18, J
6:17, 6:22, 6:23, 117:8, 117:18, IN [2] - 1:1, 1:2 67:2, 67:21, 68:6,
7:12, 7:14, 7:19, 8:1, 117:24, 119:14, inappropriate [1] - 70:22, 124:8 Jack [2] - 2:15, 5:10
8:6, 8:13, 8:14, 8:23, 119:17, 120:14, 79:13 instead [1] - 57:1 Jackie [1] - 96:6
9:2, 9:7, 9:24, 10:1, 120:24, 122:11, inclined [1] - 81:3 integer [5] - 114:11, Jacqueline [1] - 96:7
10:12, 10:18, 11:3, 122:17, 122:23, included [3] - 9:14, 114:12, 124:1, Jake [2] - 2:12, 4:24
11:16, 11:20, 12:11, 123:10, 123:21, 14:22, 56:11 124:21, 125:2 Jamaica [1] - 65:17
12:23, 13:7, 13:9, 126:7 including [2] - 83:17, integer-based [1] - Japan [1] - 65:17
13:15, 14:1, 14:3, Honor's [4] - 92:7, 95:17 114:11 job [4] - 15:24, 18:10,
14:11, 15:4, 15:12, 92:8, 117:9, 117:16 inclusion [1] - 10:4 intend [2] - 15:25, 18:11, 55:18
15:17, 15:22, 17:4, HONORABLE [1] - incompetent [2] - 88:4 jobs [1] - 7:5
17:14, 19:4, 20:1, 1:19 15:21, 21:5 intending [1] - 13:24 Joe [1] - 5:9
21:11, 22:2, 22:22, hope [1] - 98:24 inconsistent [3] - intention [2] - 13:25, John [1] - 106:15
24:14, 25:3, 25:21, horse [1] - 16:19 78:16, 85:5, 85:7 88:15 join [4] - 14:10, 14:14,
25:23, 26:2, 26:6, hour [2] - 51:23, indeed [3] - 30:1, intentional [1] - 95:15 42:6, 92:3
26:11, 26:22, 27:19, 101:10 35:5, 45:17 interested [1] - 55:22 joined [2] - 82:1,
28:11, 28:20, 29:11, hourly [1] - 74:6 independent [2] - interface [1] - 93:24 97:11
29:15, 30:4, 30:22, hours [1] - 95:23 64:23, 65:1 internal [2] - 59:13, joining [1] - 92:19
31:9, 31:12, 31:19, House [2] - 68:13, indicate [1] - 18:6 66:22 joins [2] - 92:14, 92:17
31:24, 32:1, 32:14, 68:15 indicated [3] - 6:25, interpretation [2] - joint [1] - 68:13
32:24, 33:5, 33:9, HOWARD [1] - 2:11 20:19, 49:13 105:9, 105:20 Joseph [1] - 2:14
34:10, 34:13, 35:21, Howard [1] - 4:23 interpreted [1] - 98:13
indication [1] - 46:6 judge [4] - 64:5,
35:25, 36:5, 36:14, HR [1] - 67:3 indigence [1] - 90:23 interpreting [2] - 64:11, 64:16, 64:21
37:14, 37:24, 38:3, huge [1] - 121:22 individual [10] - 16:2, 103:9, 126:18 Judge [10] - 13:10,
38:5, 38:11, 38:23, humans [1] - 122:20 26:17, 30:15, 35:19, interrupt [1] - 41:6 78:21, 80:18, 81:15,
39:10, 40:4, 40:6,
hundred [4] - 62:11, 36:1, 66:18, 93:4, interrupting [1] - 87:1, 103:20, 107:8,
40:20, 40:23, 41:6,
102:9, 108:21 93:13, 94:4, 94:11 114:14 113:14, 122:6,
41:7, 42:4, 43:3,
hundreds [3] - 69:8, individuals [4] - interval [1] - 121:25 122:22
43:6, 43:10, 43:16,
71:22, 72:4 18:23, 66:14, 75:9, invalid [1] - 118:17 judges [1] - 68:21
44:5, 45:3, 46:8,
hyper [1] - 91:7 75:13 investigated [1] - judicial [1] - 122:19
46:25, 47:17, 48:8,
hypothetical [7] - infer [2] - 24:3, 27:5 95:10 jumping [2] - 85:21,
48:12, 48:17, 49:19,
39:7, 39:10, 39:12, inferring [2] - 46:2, investigates [1] - 88:24
50:3, 50:9, 50:18,
41:1, 43:4, 43:12, 46:3 71:10 jurisdictions [4] -
51:8, 52:5, 52:8,
44:10 information [4] - investigations [1] - 65:3, 65:11, 65:12,
52:17, 52:20, 53:4,
hypothetically [1] - 27:15, 30:23, 43:9, 67:4 85:17
53:12, 53:13, 53:15,
43:19 45:7 investigator [2] - 58:9, jury [2] - 113:4, 118:24
54:19, 73:17, 73:20,
infrequent [1] - 70:21 58:13
77:18, 77:22, 78:20,
78:23, 79:1, 80:16, I initial [1] - 89:1 invoked [1] - 119:24 K
81:22, 82:4, 82:8, ink [12] - 40:15, 40:16, involve [1] - 68:23
ID [1] - 100:19 58:1, 61:9, 61:10, involved [5] - 18:21, Karen [1] - 2:15
83:12, 85:10, 85:25,
idea [4] - 40:16, 40:17, 63:15, 63:19, 63:23, 62:8, 73:23, 83:4, Kari [5] - 1:5, 4:7,
86:11, 86:12, 86:15,
118:5, 118:19 63:24, 68:1, 68:3 108:4 4:12, 4:15, 6:3
87:7, 87:18, 87:23,
ideal [1] - 80:6 inks [8] - 54:15, 54:24, involving [2] - 62:3, Kathleen [4] - 35:3,
88:8, 88:15, 88:22,
ideas [1] - 101:16 55:21, 55:25, 57:25, 73:23 75:22, 76:1, 95:13
89:4, 90:8, 90:10,
identification [2] - 58:2, 61:9, 64:4 Islands [1] - 65:19 Katie [5] - 1:8, 4:7,
90:21, 91:23, 91:24,
113:21, 115:3 input [2] - 106:16, issue [26] - 5:20, 4:18, 4:21, 6:17
92:2, 92:10, 92:12,
identify [1] - 19:21 107:21 21:13, 21:21, 26:16, keep [3] - 62:6,
93:1, 97:3, 97:13,
if-then [1] - 101:4 inputs [3] - 85:8, 27:9, 41:9, 59:24, 116:19, 121:5
97:14, 99:21,
101:22, 102:12, images [1] - 13:18 96:22, 104:17 61:14, 63:2, 63:17, keeping [1] - 100:12
102:19, 103:17, imagine [2] - 22:13, inputted [1] - 93:23 63:21, 68:8, 74:7, keeps [1] - 34:13
105:1, 105:23, 124:15 inquires [1] - 106:23 74:9, 78:12, 79:9, key [14] - 38:24, 96:25,
106:21, 107:9, impacts [1] - 106:16 inside [1] - 13:21 79:12, 82:13, 82:25, 98:3, 99:3, 100:22,
108:23, 109:9, impeach [1] - 17:11 inspect [3] - 9:5, 84:22, 94:1, 94:9, 101:10, 107:15,
109:19, 110:4, impeachment [7] - 111:14, 111:25 97:4, 119:17, 119:25 107:17, 114:3,
110:10, 110:17, 14:4, 16:6, 16:14, inspected [1] - 10:9 issues [6] - 24:11, 114:5, 115:9,
110:24, 112:1, 16:19, 16:20, 16:23, inspection [2] - 79:21, 66:23, 72:20, 78:5, 121:25, 126:24,
112:17, 112:24, 17:19 80:10 115:24, 119:13 126:25
113:6, 113:9, implications [1] - instance [8] - 16:12, kid [2] - 76:6, 77:7
113:18, 114:13, 22:17 16:13, 62:7, 63:15, kind [6] - 12:3, 24:19,
114:23, 115:14, important [1] - 93:15 71:17, 93:9, 101:8 41:19, 41:24, 66:7,

Appx0720
 9

76:24 lawyer [1] - 89:5 42:21, 43:15, 45:2, low-numbered [1] - 96:3, 96:12
knowing [2] - 52:15, lawyers [1] - 66:16 46:8, 46:16, 46:25, 96:13 math [3] - 41:25, 42:2,
81:4 lay [12] - 37:25, 39:11, 50:3, 50:7, 50:18, lower [1] - 75:16 116:9
knowledge [11] - 26:7, 39:24, 40:23, 41:9, 50:22, 51:8, 53:12, Lunch [1] - 127:15 mathematical [1] -
27:6, 27:12, 27:15, 42:10, 47:19, 48:5, 77:18, 97:15 LUZ [1] - 1:23 122:5
27:16, 27:21, 78:10, 89:21, 102:21, Liddy [4] - 2:14, 5:2, Luz [2] - 128:11, Matter [1] - 1:4
83:8, 85:18, 95:25 102:24, 119:15 14:9, 22:1 128:22 matter [9] - 5:14, 6:5,
known [5] - 70:15, laying [6] - 39:5, 89:9, likely [1] - 20:12 7:22, 80:1, 85:19,
74:11, 74:16, 76:6, 110:20, 112:14, limitation [1] - 84:14 M 94:11, 106:17,
84:23 112:20, 122:16 limited [5] - 49:23, 118:23, 120:11
knowns [1] - 74:22 layout [1] - 94:10 74:23, 119:2, MAFs [1] - 61:1 matters [4] - 68:8,
knows [2] - 111:22, layperson [1] - 60:8 123:19, 123:20 mail [1] - 98:4 70:14, 73:24, 81:4
122:14 leading [4] - 21:19, line [11] - 15:23, 16:3, main [5] - 24:14, 54:6, MCAO [1] - 5:10
Kong [3] - 64:14, 125:4, 125:7, 125:8 26:10, 43:9, 70:8, 59:14, 98:14 MCTEC [2] - 13:8,
64:20, 65:18 leaps [2] - 39:24, 70:9, 74:10, 77:19, Maine [1] - 66:8 13:22
Kosovo [1] - 65:17 43:23 81:10, 97:10, 102:13 maintain [3] - 58:13, mean [15] - 11:21,
Kurt [2] - 2:2, 4:14 learned [1] - 8:24 lined [1] - 54:19 58:15, 58:22 41:6, 45:25, 55:21,
least [2] - 78:10, lines [1] - 121:22 maintained [1] - 58:25 61:25, 63:9, 63:12,
L 120:24 link [1] - 98:9 majority [7] - 63:4, 66:4, 67:3, 68:5,
leave [2] - 23:11, list [2] - 29:12, 65:16 63:7, 63:9, 63:10, 70:25, 71:6, 98:24,
Laboratories [1] - 65:21 listed [1] - 97:19 63:11, 67:5, 69:12 125:14, 126:2
35:9 leaving [1] - 44:11 listened [1] - 80:12 manner [1] - 70:17 meaning [4] - 19:16,
Laboratory [1] - 57:24 leeway [2] - 24:10, live [3] - 5:17, 117:19, manufactured [1] - 108:8, 112:22
laboratory [6] - 59:1, 28:22 119:3 58:1 means [11] - 7:7,
59:3, 59:4, 59:14, left [2] - 12:14, 52:3 LLC [1] - 2:11 March [1] - 56:20 47:18, 89:12, 94:16,
63:25, 64:3 legislative [1] - 68:8 LLP [2] - 2:6, 2:8 Maricopa [38] - 2:13, 103:9, 114:11,
lacks [1] - 43:25 lended [1] - 20:22 local [2] - 58:8, 94:13 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, 6:24, 124:12, 124:21,
laid [6] - 42:23, 43:18, length [2] - 63:22, locate [1] - 19:17 8:17, 10:18, 10:20, 124:24, 125:1,
47:4, 102:14, 95:18 located [1] - 93:23 10:23, 18:13, 23:15, 125:22
114:15, 118:3 lenient [1] - 27:8 log [14] - 30:19, 31:9, 25:8, 25:23, 25:24, media [8] - 24:6,
Lake [7] - 1:5, 4:7, Leonard [1] - 57:15 32:22, 33:2, 33:3, 26:23, 27:23, 31:8, 24:13, 24:19, 24:22,
4:12, 4:15, 6:3, less [14] - 61:24, 33:5, 33:14, 33:19, 33:19, 34:8, 38:22, 24:25, 25:17, 26:14,
73:10, 87:13 93:14, 101:5, 101:6, 33:25, 34:8, 34:17, 42:18, 43:13, 46:22, 28:2
language [2] - 64:22, 101:8, 101:9, 83:25, 99:9 74:20, 76:11, 77:24, meeting [1] - 77:8
98:19 104:18, 107:16, logged [1] - 30:12 78:6, 82:14, 83:25, meetings [5] - 59:24,
large [6] - 56:15, 67:2, 114:10, 123:25, logs [2] - 38:25, 99:12 94:19, 95:7, 96:4, 76:21, 76:23, 77:10,
70:23, 74:23, 93:5, 124:22, 124:24, long-distance [1] - 96:11, 96:16, 97:19, 83:18
94:5 124:25, 125:1 71:1 100:17, 103:24, members [1] - 24:25
larger [2] - 56:6, 102:6 lesser [1] - 74:6 long-speaking [2] - 128:13 memory [4] - 16:15,
LARUE [11] - 91:23, letter [1] - 66:24 81:16, 81:18 MARICOPA [2] - 1:2, 26:1, 57:1, 97:22
92:2, 97:13, 107:9, level [13] - 17:25, look [21] - 9:6, 10:9, 128:9 mentioned [2] - 64:7,
114:13, 114:23, 18:18, 18:19, 75:16, 11:5, 11:14, 12:7, Maricopa's [1] - 85:12 77:1
117:8, 117:21, 85:8, 89:23, 94:7, 39:18, 44:8, 44:15, mark [3] - 12:7, 54:13, merely [3] - 64:21,
119:14, 122:23, 94:19, 94:21, 94:22, 45:15, 72:4, 75:14, 110:1 87:24, 115:16
123:18 95:15, 95:16, 98:23 79:3, 84:15, 94:12, marked [19] - 11:12, met [1] - 77:7
LaRue [4] - 2:14, license [2] - 58:7, 98:4, 100:24, 13:23, 14:4, 15:10, method [1] - 74:5
92:11, 92:17, 92:19 58:15 111:14, 115:5, 24:6, 25:1, 25:16, Mexico [2] - 65:17,
last [12] - 8:14, 19:22, licensed [2] - 58:8, 120:15 28:14, 99:15, 109:6, 66:6
20:13, 20:14, 24:15, 58:12 looked [4] - 60:6, 109:8, 109:23, Michigan [5] - 54:7,
27:3, 54:3, 59:16, licenses [1] - 58:5 98:7, 98:11, 112:2 110:3, 110:5, 110:8, 57:12, 57:17, 58:9,
65:19, 75:6, 95:14, LIDDY [43] - 5:1, 5:8, looking [11] - 13:12, 111:21, 113:21, 68:15
107:17 6:23, 7:19, 10:18, 23:23, 29:16, 36:25, 115:3 Microsoft [5] - 100:23,
late [2] - 10:14, 111:11 10:24, 11:2, 14:10, 37:10, 40:13, 46:4, marking [1] - 109:17 102:24, 104:2,
Lauderdale [1] - 54:7 15:4, 15:16, 17:4, 70:3, 70:11, 94:15, mass [9] - 60:3, 60:4, 104:4, 104:8
LAW [4] - 2:2, 2:3, 2:8, 19:3, 21:9, 22:2, 94:17 71:18, 71:19, 72:7, middle [2] - 14:7, 73:1
2:9 22:7, 22:9, 22:22, looks [4] - 54:25, 73:24, 74:3, 93:17 midmorning [1] -
law [3] - 32:17, 67:23, 23:18, 25:3, 25:7, 100:6, 100:9, 104:25 massage [1] - 31:6 52:16
82:19 25:20, 30:21, 31:12, Los [1] - 68:3 matches [1] - 72:12 might [7] - 39:18,
Law [2] - 5:5, 67:9 36:15, 37:18, 39:21, lost [1] - 41:8 material [1] - 18:9 60:7, 60:17, 66:5,
laws [1] - 58:10 40:6, 40:9, 42:6, low [1] - 96:13 materials [3] - 75:25, 67:15, 83:2, 98:21

Appx0721
 10

might've [4] - 68:1, 105:1, 105:12, 25:19, 25:20, 25:22, 105:1, 105:12, naturally [1] - 83:5
68:16, 80:13, 123:8 105:21, 106:7, 26:4, 26:9, 26:13, 105:21, 106:7, nature [3] - 79:19,
mildly [1] - 26:20 106:18, 107:7, 26:21, 27:19, 27:20, 106:18, 107:7, 80:8, 80:9
million [3] - 93:13, 109:25, 110:6, 28:11, 28:13, 28:20, 107:9, 107:10, NBA [1] - 66:21
121:22 110:19, 112:1, 28:24, 29:7, 29:11, 108:23, 109:1, NCAA [1] - 66:20
millisecond [1] - 113:9, 113:14, 29:15, 29:18, 30:3, 109:7, 109:12, nearly [3] - 55:3,
124:9 115:14, 119:17, 30:4, 30:7, 30:21, 109:19, 109:25, 124:8, 124:10
mind [4] - 16:17, 65:1, 119:21, 120:3, 31:2, 31:5, 31:12, 110:4, 110:5, 110:6, necessarily [2] -
100:12, 116:19 120:7, 120:13, 31:17, 31:19, 31:23, 110:10, 110:13, 102:6, 117:23
minds [1] - 118:8 122:3, 122:13, 32:1, 32:2, 32:5, 110:17, 110:19, need [15] - 7:25, 9:9,
mine [1] - 93:16 122:22, 123:17, 32:8, 32:13, 32:16, 110:24, 111:8, 21:23, 23:2, 29:17,
minor [1] - 50:7 123:21, 125:4 32:23, 33:5, 33:8, 111:18, 112:1, 41:3, 45:7, 50:10,
minute [3] - 88:9, morning [20] - 4:11, 33:17, 34:10, 34:13, 112:17, 112:24, 54:16, 72:25, 86:17,
89:3, 116:18 4:13, 4:14, 4:16, 34:15, 35:18, 35:19, 113:2, 113:6, 113:9, 88:9, 99:25, 108:8,
minutes [12] - 23:1, 4:17, 4:19, 4:22, 5:1, 35:24, 36:5, 36:8, 113:14, 113:18, 118:22
73:3, 73:5, 86:15, 5:4, 5:8, 5:12, 6:16, 36:13, 36:15, 36:17, 113:19, 114:13, needed [2] - 17:9,
86:19, 86:20, 86:25, 8:25, 10:4, 13:3, 36:22, 36:25, 37:2, 114:23, 115:1, 19:18
87:3, 120:18, 13:4, 53:24, 53:25, 37:5, 37:18, 37:21, 115:14, 117:8, needs [3] - 7:16,
120:19, 124:13, 73:4, 110:1 37:24, 38:3, 38:5, 117:21, 119:14, 37:25, 45:20
124:15 most [15] - 8:21, 38:7, 38:10, 38:15, 119:17, 119:21, negative [1] - 23:16
mis [1] - 103:10 19:22, 22:13, 61:16, 38:18, 38:21, 39:9, 120:3, 120:7, network [4] - 30:13,
misinterpreted [1] - 65:16, 66:15, 67:25, 39:16, 39:21, 39:25, 120:13, 120:14, 30:19, 31:10, 34:1
98:22 68:25, 69:2, 69:16, 40:4, 40:6, 40:9, 120:23, 121:6, Nevada [1] - 66:6
mislead [1] - 63:6 69:20, 71:20, 72:14, 40:22, 41:5, 41:12, 122:3, 122:11, never [5] - 8:2, 16:17,
72:17 42:4, 42:6, 42:7, 122:13, 122:16, 46:5, 63:18, 71:9
misleading [1] -
mostly [1] - 80:24 42:8, 42:14, 42:21, 122:22, 122:23,
124:23 new [2] - 15:24, 59:21
motions [1] - 80:24 43:3, 43:12, 43:15, 123:2, 123:10,
missing [2] - 66:9, New [1] - 66:6
Motors [1] - 67:1 44:5, 44:13, 44:16, 123:14, 123:17,
111:6 newly [1] - 111:20
move [12] - 5:20, 45:2, 45:23, 46:8, 123:18, 123:21,
mistake [1] - 98:21 news [2] - 24:18,
25:13, 48:18, 53:5, 46:10, 46:16, 46:18, 123:22, 125:4,
mistaken [1] - 92:18 110:14
85:11, 90:5, 105:6, 46:25, 47:12, 47:17, 125:6, 125:11,
misunderstanding [1] News [2] - 24:7, 24:15
113:10, 114:6, 47:21, 48:8, 48:12, 125:12
- 112:9 next [10] - 7:5, 31:24,
120:18, 122:25, 48:17, 48:19, 49:15, MS [23] - 4:17, 4:20,
modify [1] - 72:13 32:9, 52:2, 74:18,
123:10 49:16, 49:18, 50:3, 5:4, 6:16, 10:1, 10:3,
moment [2] - 9:17, 85:4, 99:4, 99:7,
moved [2] - 19:19, 50:7, 50:18, 50:22, 10:12, 11:15, 12:11,
65:7 124:14, 126:1
20:20 51:8, 52:5, 52:8, 14:14, 21:10, 21:13,
monitor [3] - 53:5, NHL [2] - 66:21
moving [2] - 19:5, 52:10, 52:17, 52:20, 26:2, 26:6, 37:14,
53:6, 74:15 nice [1] - 77:10
77:25 53:4, 53:7, 53:12, 37:19, 92:12, 97:3,
months [3] - 56:21, Nicolaides [5] - 35:4,
MR [311] - 4:11, 4:14, 53:13, 53:15, 53:23, 97:9, 99:21, 106:21,
68:14, 91:16 75:22, 76:1, 76:10,
4:22, 5:1, 5:8, 6:3, 54:21, 73:17, 73:20, 116:2, 126:7
Morgan [5] - 2:11, 95:13
6:7, 6:8, 6:9, 6:13, 73:21, 77:18, 77:21, multi [1] - 19:8
4:23, 91:1, 113:12, 78:2, 78:3, 78:20, night [3] - 8:14, 24:15,
6:21, 6:23, 7:10, multi-faceted [1] -
115:13 80:16, 81:15, 81:22, 27:4
7:12, 7:14, 7:19, 19:8
MORGAN [75] - 4:22, 82:4, 82:8, 82:11, nineteen [3] - 15:4,
7:25, 8:5, 8:13, 9:6, myriad [3] - 64:6,
6:21, 7:14, 9:6, 9:13, 83:9, 83:12, 83:13, 15:5, 15:6
9:13, 9:24, 10:18, 64:15, 101:14
9:24, 13:9, 14:3, 85:10, 85:15, 85:24, nobody [2] - 55:22,
10:22, 10:24, 11:1,
20:1, 21:8, 23:17, 86:9, 86:12, 86:14, 79:9
24:8, 25:19, 28:20,
11:2, 12:23, 13:2, N nominating [1] - 69:21
13:5, 13:9, 13:15, 86:22, 87:1, 87:7,
30:3, 31:19, 32:1, 87:18, 88:14, 88:16, name [5] - 35:3, 54:1, noon [4] - 120:20,
13:25, 14:3, 14:10,
34:10, 35:18, 37:24, 88:19, 88:22, 89:4, 54:3, 75:21, 95:14 124:13, 124:15,
15:4, 15:5, 15:12,
38:3, 38:7, 41:5, 90:8, 90:10, 90:15, 127:8
15:16, 16:9, 16:16, named [2] - 76:4,
42:4, 42:7, 49:15, 90:19, 90:22, 91:9, norm [1] - 61:11
16:24, 17:4, 17:7, 106:15
53:13, 78:20, 80:16, 91:11, 91:18, 91:20, normal [1] - 58:16
17:13, 17:17, 17:22, names [3] - 65:12,
81:15, 82:4, 83:9, 91:23, 92:2, 92:22, normally [2] - 55:14,
19:3, 19:9, 19:11, 70:5, 125:18
85:24, 86:12, 86:14, 92:25, 93:1, 93:2, 69:6
20:1, 20:6, 21:8, narrow [1] - 63:21
86:22, 87:1, 88:16, 97:13, 97:14, 97:15, Northern [1] - 64:12
21:9, 22:2, 22:7, national [1] - 67:19
88:19, 90:10, 90:15, 97:17, 100:15, note [1] - 66:24
22:9, 22:22, 23:8, National [1] - 57:24
90:19, 91:9, 91:11, 102:2, 102:12, notes [2] - 75:5,
23:17, 23:18, 24:4, nationally [1] - 67:12
91:18, 91:20, 92:22, 102:19, 102:21, 128:15
24:8, 24:14, 24:23, Natural [2] - 57:11,
92:25, 97:14, 103:4, 103:17, nothing [5] - 11:10,
25:3, 25:7, 25:15, 57:24
102:12, 103:19, 103:19, 103:22, 88:2, 89:19, 112:10,

Appx0722
 11

122:17 116:1, 116:3, 122:3, 78:3, 81:22, 82:8, one-sided [2] - 8:19, 125:22
notice [1] - 122:19 123:16, 125:4, 82:11, 83:12, 83:13, 11:10 overkill [1] - 113:16
notified [1] - 8:24 126:8, 126:21 85:10, 85:15, 86:9, one-year [1] - 57:22 overlooked [1] -
November [12] - 17:2, objections [4] - 14:15, 87:7, 87:18, 88:14, ones [5] - 59:7, 66:4, 114:20
17:9, 18:5, 18:8, 81:18, 115:24, 120:5 88:22, 90:8, 90:22, 69:13, 75:2, 75:5 overly [1] - 49:2
20:5, 20:7, 20:11, obviously [2] - 41:18, 93:1, 93:2, 97:17, Onigkeit [1] - 96:7 overrule [3] - 12:3,
20:24, 21:3, 30:24, 69:8 100:15, 102:2, online [1] - 104:3 21:16, 23:20
31:7, 42:19 occasion [1] - 61:11 102:19, 102:21, onsite [1] - 30:16 oversee [1] - 46:20
Number [1] - 38:6 occasional [1] - 59:12 103:4, 103:17, open [2] - 4:3, 89:22 overwhelmed [1] -
number [26] - 28:9, occur [2] - 119:19, 103:22, 107:10, opening [2] - 17:5, 79:21
36:15, 37:13, 44:18, 119:22 108:23, 109:1, 17:20 own [4] - 60:19, 67:4,
62:21, 63:5, 65:2, occurred [1] - 93:7 109:7, 109:12, openness [1] - 7:20 76:15, 95:25
65:10, 65:11, 69:25, October [1] - 42:18 109:19, 110:5, operate [1] - 102:22
82:18, 93:8, 93:19, 110:10, 110:13,
OF [6] - 1:1, 1:2, 1:18, operated [1] - 96:15 P
93:20, 95:10, 97:21, 128:4, 128:8, 128:9 110:17, 110:24, operating [2] - 102:3,
101:15, 102:7, off-the-shelf [1] - 111:8, 111:18, 102:24 P.C [1] - 2:2
111:6, 113:25, 103:25 112:17, 112:24, opine [1] - 85:19 packaged [1] - 104:4
115:7, 115:10, offend [1] - 77:15 113:2, 113:6, packets [3] - 19:5,
opinion [17] - 39:15,
125:17, 125:20, offer [11] - 7:21, 13:24, 113:18, 113:19, 19:17, 19:18
41:2, 55:14, 63:16,
125:22, 126:1 29:17, 32:4, 32:6, 115:1, 120:14, page [16] - 11:17,
64:14, 64:16, 78:18,
numbered [2] - 9:1, 32:8, 39:15, 83:2, 120:23, 121:6, 11:19, 36:12, 36:15,
83:2, 83:3, 83:6,
96:13 114:17, 126:19, 122:11, 122:16, 36:19, 36:22, 37:3,
104:1, 105:4, 106:2,
numbers [9] - 11:22, 127:3 123:2, 123:10, 38:9, 38:13, 38:15,
106:5, 108:5, 117:9,
11:25, 37:11, 70:23, offered [13] - 14:19, 123:14, 123:22, 40:15, 105:24,
127:3
101:7, 108:7, 116:9, 65:22, 66:1, 69:3, 125:6, 125:11, 107:7, 109:10,
opinions [15] - 58:6,
118:4, 123:8 69:5, 69:9, 76:11, 125:12 111:7, 111:12
69:3, 69:5, 69:9,
87:22, 103:15, Olsen [19] - 2:2, 3:7, PAGE [1] - 3:2
88:7, 89:10, 89:11,
4:15, 6:12, 52:15,
O 105:4, 106:6, 96:18, 96:24, 97:2, pages [1] - 128:13
118:22, 123:19 53:3, 73:16, 81:20, paper [5] - 58:2, 61:7,
97:18, 106:16,
o'clock [2] - 124:13 offering [8] - 13:25, 82:7, 87:17, 88:21, 63:23, 71:4
116:6, 118:19,
O'Connor [2] - 2:15, 14:16, 35:13, 58:5, 97:16, 102:20, papers [5] - 57:25,
126:19
5:10 76:19, 103:2, 103:16, 110:23, 62:1, 83:14, 83:16,
opportunity [3] - 9:5,
oath [2] - 12:18, 46:24 120:10, 120:11 112:20, 113:8, 83:18
9:6, 119:12
object [18] - 9:8, 9:14, office [8] - 28:5, 115:22, 121:4 parameters [1] - 42:11
opposite [2] - 82:6,
10:3, 10:15, 11:21, 46:24, 54:6, 54:8, once [3] - 78:18, paraphrasing [1] -
92:20
13:9, 13:12, 22:7, 74:6, 74:24, 75:9, 100:18, 124:4 15:22
Orange [1] - 68:2
37:19, 85:25, 90:10, 75:19 one [69] - 5:13, 5:20, parcel [1] - 29:5
order [1] - 70:1
97:5, 105:2, 105:25, Office [9] - 2:13, 5:3, 8:19, 10:21, 10:24, pardon [2] - 51:4
ordered [1] - 59:21
106:11, 106:25, 5:10, 6:25, 67:18, 11:10, 18:24, 27:11, part [15] - 7:8, 22:10,
organization [2] -
119:19, 119:21 67:20, 68:2, 68:4, 27:14, 30:16, 36:20,
27:17, 60:17 29:5, 30:12, 55:7,
objecting [4] - 9:16, 104:5 37:1, 43:4, 45:20,
organization's [1] - 56:6, 56:24, 78:18,
40:9, 114:16, 116:13 officers [1] - 35:15 52:3, 56:7, 57:2,
26:19 80:11, 83:5, 83:8,
objection [57] - 6:4, 57:22, 58:10, 59:14,
offices [2] - 67:11, organizations [5] - 83:18, 104:4,
6:17, 6:22, 12:4, 59:20, 59:21, 60:10,
67:12 24:6, 60:25, 66:20, 104:22, 126:17
12:10, 17:4, 19:3, 60:12, 61:16, 62:8,
Offices [1] - 30:16 76:22, 83:19 participate [4] - 48:20,
20:1, 21:8, 21:10, 62:9, 63:15, 65:20,
Official [1] - 128:23 origin [1] - 56:5 61:18, 121:9, 121:12
22:23, 23:17, 24:8, 65:25, 66:23, 68:6,
official [2] - 1:8, original [1] - 111:6 participated [1] -
25:3, 25:19, 25:20, 70:5, 71:20, 72:15,
128:11 originally [1] - 87:22 59:23
28:20, 30:3, 30:21, 72:17, 72:18, 74:10,
officially [1] - 87:11 otherwise [2] - 92:19, participation [2] -
31:12, 31:19, 34:10, 76:13, 76:22, 77:4,
often [3] - 70:14, 119:1 41:24, 123:4
35:18, 39:21, 41:5, 78:15, 84:21, 84:22,
70:19, 72:9 ourselves [2] - 23:24, particular [9] - 17:24,
41:7, 42:4, 42:21, 84:23, 89:5, 92:17,
Ohio [1] - 64:12 24:2 21:15, 28:3, 45:13,
43:15, 45:2, 46:16, 93:10, 93:14, 94:1,
older [1] - 62:15 outcome [1] - 108:12 91:6, 102:22,
46:25, 47:14, 49:15, 94:4, 95:17, 96:6,
OLSEN [77] - 2:2, outlets [2] - 25:17, 121:15, 127:4
77:18, 78:20, 79:15, 96:8, 97:11, 99:6,
4:14, 6:8, 6:13, 8:13, 26:15 particularly [2] -
81:17, 82:1, 83:9, 99:9, 99:10, 99:12,
10:22, 11:1, 52:5, outright [1] - 123:13 67:23, 77:23
86:7, 92:4, 92:14, 99:13, 101:18,
52:17, 52:20, 53:4, outside [6] - 27:22, parties [7] - 5:19,
97:3, 97:8, 99:21, 104:13, 105:25,
53:7, 53:15, 53:23, 32:14, 59:5, 59:15, 5:22, 8:7, 8:10,
102:12, 111:3, 106:22, 109:21,
54:21, 73:17, 73:20, 59:17, 126:10 73:12, 87:15, 87:16
111:10, 115:15, 112:3, 112:4, 117:7,
73:21, 77:21, 78:2, overall [2] - 70:11, partners [1] - 56:7
125:15

Appx0723
 12

parts [2] - 100:5, 70:10, 71:5, 89:6, 27:14, 33:12, 35:23, presume [1] - 78:25 76:8, 76:15, 108:9
100:9 103:2, 105:16, 36:19, 41:10, 45:5, pretend [1] - 11:2 proficiency [8] -
party [5] - 21:18, 117:3, 117:4, 62:10, 72:3, 80:5, pretty [4] - 24:11, 58:23, 58:25, 59:4,
66:16, 67:6, 73:11, 125:19, 125:21 81:13, 96:9, 99:10, 35:22, 78:10, 121:2 59:5, 59:12, 59:13,
87:15 personal [3] - 27:16, 106:10, 106:11, previous [1] - 15:1 59:15, 59:17
pass [4] - 98:15, 27:21, 35:16 106:20, 112:13 previously [2] - 11:11, program [5] - 57:15,
98:23, 114:5, 126:5 personally [2] - 1:8, pointed [1] - 43:17 15:10 57:22, 101:13,
passed [2] - 107:22, 6:23 pointing [1] - 118:10 primarily [4] - 54:7, 105:14, 107:4
126:2 perspective [2] - 7:15, points [1] - 100:7 57:25, 58:14, 83:19 programming [1] -
past [3] - 56:18, 69:21, 117:9 Police [2] - 57:18, primary [2] - 55:20, 104:24
70:20 PETER [1] - 1:19 77:12 58:3 progress [1] - 73:14
pattern [1] - 44:25 petitions [3] - 69:22, politics [1] - 70:2 printed [1] - 8:18 progresses [1] -
pause [1] - 5:17 70:21 poorly [1] - 32:25 printers [2] - 56:4, 110:21
PC [3] - 33:14, 34:18 Philadelphia [1] - popping [1] - 79:16 61:6 pronouncing [1] -
peak [1] - 46:1 77:12 portion [1] - 7:7 printing [2] - 56:10, 95:14
peaks [4] - 45:16, phoenix [1] - 1:15 posed [3] - 43:2, 45:8, 69:14 proof [4] - 32:4, 32:7,
45:17, 45:21, 45:25 Phoenix [3] - 4:1, 105:15 printout [1] - 112:10 32:8, 80:11
pens [2] - 61:10 76:3, 76:4 position [8] - 9:7, private [4] - 26:17, proper [2] - 9:23,
people [18] - 26:24, phonetic [2] - 61:1 10:19, 22:15, 79:23, 58:8, 58:12, 64:3 48:13
36:10, 59:10, 70:7, photocopiers [1] - 79:24, 80:22, 91:1, privilege [1] - 33:13 properly [1] - 49:12
70:16, 71:9, 75:20, 56:4 91:4 pro [3] - 2:2, 92:5, properties [2] - 63:24,
80:6, 95:9, 95:16, photographic [2] - positions [1] - 6:2 117:11 64:1
95:20, 95:21, 95:23, 26:1, 27:6 positively [1] - 97:21 problem [3] - 9:20, proportionally [1] -
98:25, 117:21, phrase [2] - 55:14, possession [1] - 12:8, 43:20 94:8
118:6, 119:3, 125:18 84:12 19:13 problems [3] - 75:2, proposed [1] - 12:10
per [5] - 58:7, 89:5, phrased [3] - 22:18, possible [14] - 17:19, 98:25, 112:7 prosecution [1] -
103:16, 121:23 33:1, 107:4 20:9, 27:8, 30:18, procedural [1] - 12:5 67:15
percent [2] - 98:15, physical [2] - 19:15, 31:15, 32:21, 32:24, Procedure [1] - 92:5 Prosecutor's [2] -
108:21 112:10 33:1, 34:8, 74:5, procedure [4] - 90:12, 68:2, 68:4
percentage [3] - physically [7] - 34:8, 78:14, 79:24, 80:10, 91:7, 92:6, 119:5 prosecutors' [1] -
98:15, 108:12, 78:14, 79:24, 80:10, 80:25 procedures [2] - 67:11
125:25 82:22, 84:13, 114:20 possibly [1] - 26:7 96:10, 96:11 protect [4] - 22:19,
percentages [1] - picture [1] - 44:1 potentially [2] - 23:25, proceed [9] - 7:1, 7:4, 23:14, 23:23, 91:13
116:9 pictures [4] - 50:25, 37:11 7:22, 73:18, 82:7, protecting [3] - 23:24,
perfect [1] - 75:6 51:1, 51:7, 51:17 practice [1] - 69:1 86:8, 89:10, 90:20, 24:2, 32:5
perform [7] - 33:6, piece [4] - 71:4, 98:14, predicated [1] - 103:21 protocol [3] - 33:15,
33:20, 55:18, 58:23, 118:17, 121:23 118:19 proceeding [4] - 5:17, 33:22, 34:3
67:10, 75:9, 79:25 pieces [1] - 98:14 prefer [2] - 7:20, 98:17 6:18, 13:13, 119:9 protocols [1] - 34:14
performance [8] - piles [1] - 19:1 preferred [1] - 74:5 proceedings [2] - 4:3, provide [5] - 40:18,
20:17, 20:19, 20:21, place [4] - 32:10, prejudicial [2] - 118:1, 72:3 59:7, 67:10, 101:4,
21:6, 23:11, 42:17, 32:14, 51:11, 51:25 126:16 PROCEEDINGS [1] - 101:5
84:1, 97:4 Plaintiff [3] - 4:12, preparation [1] - 8:14 1:18 provided [13] - 24:5,
performed [7] - 21:14, 4:15, 6:3 prepare [1] - 74:7 process [20] - 14:25, 26:14, 35:1, 70:15,
69:10, 72:9, 82:14, plaintiff [3] - 79:19, prepared [5] - 9:1, 18:22, 19:16, 31:20, 79:17, 82:17, 83:25,
95:7, 97:5, 122:8 117:6, 119:16 84:4, 116:13, 116:14 31:21, 31:22, 31:23, 96:4, 96:6, 97:19,
performing [4] - plaintiffs [5] - 52:20, prescription [1] - 47:9, 79:5, 79:8, 98:6, 100:17, 112:11
19:12, 47:24, 79:21, 71:20, 71:22, 72:4, 67:13 79:9, 80:21, 81:5, provides [1] - 35:10
99:16 85:11 present [10] - 30:17, 84:24, 85:6, 93:22, providing [2] - 44:11,
perhaps [7] - 56:3, Plaintiffs [2] - 3:3, 3:6 31:24, 32:9, 61:25, 95:10, 95:19, 95:24, 98:9
83:21, 101:14, plaintiffs' [2] - 79:24, 73:11, 80:2, 87:14, 104:23 public [19] - 8:18,
108:1, 117:22 97:20 100:11, 103:7, 115:6 processes [2] - 69:14, 22:4, 24:21, 24:24,
period [2] - 62:13, play [3] - 13:17, 49:1, presentation [2] - 116:7 25:18, 26:15, 26:19,
114:1 113:1 79:19, 89:1 produced [5] - 8:17, 27:12, 27:17, 27:24,
PERKINS [1] - 2:6 players [2] - 66:21, presented [7] - 11:9, 11:18, 29:21, 40:17, 28:1, 28:4, 28:10,
permanent [1] - 35:15 95:4 72:21, 83:16, 83:18, 103:24 28:16, 28:18, 29:9,
permits [2] - 61:19, Players [1] - 66:21 94:22, 111:23 producing [1] - 49:1 49:7, 97:23
61:20 plays [1] - 58:16 presenter [1] - 61:25 product [2] - 104:2, public's [1] - 32:14
person [16] - 16:14, pleading [1] - 80:1 preserve [1] - 86:1 112:12 published [2] - 83:14,
16:15, 21:15, 69:24, PLLC [1] - 2:3 preserved [1] - 86:4 production [1] - 48:21 83:16
70:4, 70:5, 70:7, point [17] - 9:19, President [1] - 27:3 professional [3] - pull [2] - 49:4, 49:6

Appx0724
 13

pulled [1] - 89:24 15:17, 16:1, 16:7 69:13, 69:17, 72:7, reporter [3] - 52:14,
R
purchasing [1] - 104:7 reconstruction [1] - 72:21, 78:5, 81:8, 101:24, 128:11
purportedly [1] - raise [3] - 12:9, 52:23, 54:13 97:22, 108:14, REPORTER [1] -
10:19 86:7 record [25] - 8:11, 113:24, 114:5 128:4
purpose [6] - 15:7, raised [1] - 90:4 10:7, 12:7, 26:18, relates [3] - 55:20, Reporter [1] - 128:23
109:17, 119:2, range [3] - 62:11, 32:5, 34:6, 54:2, 57:20, 69:21 REPORTER'S [1] -
123:20, 126:19 62:12, 124:20 72:10, 73:10, 73:11, relations [1] - 67:12 1:18
purposes [11] - 9:9, Rapp [2] - 2:12, 4:24 84:9, 85:24, 86:1, relationship [3] - reports [3] - 101:15,
9:15, 14:2, 62:16, rate [3] - 74:6, 114:3, 87:8, 87:10, 87:12, 35:17, 35:25, 77:23 104:16, 106:13
74:24, 80:17, 98:23, 123:24 87:14, 91:25, 92:13, relative [1] - 74:12 represent [3] - 39:19,
123:12, 123:13, rather [1] - 73:1 101:25, 105:2, relevance [23] - 20:2, 44:9, 67:6
123:14, 126:12 raw [2] - 49:11, 121:20 109:4, 111:5, 21:10, 21:17, 23:17, representation [2] -
pursuant [1] - 8:17 Ray [4] - 13:3, 16:25, 112:21, 117:10 23:20, 24:8, 25:4, 13:21, 48:2
purview [1] - 32:14 17:23, 27:21 recorded [1] - 39:3 25:19, 26:20, 27:9, representations [2] -
push [2] - 20:13, RAY [1] - 3:3 Recorder [1] - 118:2 28:21, 30:3, 30:21, 15:18, 37:12
115:21 Ray's [1] - 15:17 Recorder's [2] - 6:25, 31:20, 34:11, 35:18, representative [4] -
put [18] - 12:6, 17:6, re [11] - 1:4, 8:7, 30:16 36:4, 42:5, 49:15, 6:24, 21:18, 26:22,
27:7, 39:6, 60:24, 20:15, 23:2, 23:6, records [24] - 8:18, 77:19, 78:21, 83:9, 27:25
61:2, 61:10, 69:23, 23:24, 50:15, 54:12, 24:21, 24:25, 25:8, 97:5 Representatives [1] -
89:17, 89:18, 90:2, 69:22, 82:8, 91:5 25:18, 26:15, 26:20, relevant [5] - 60:16, 68:16
90:3, 91:4, 109:4, re-allowing [1] - 91:5 27:12, 27:17, 27:24, 83:2, 83:3, 83:4, representatives [2] -
109:16, 113:2, re-ask [3] - 23:2, 23:6, 28:1, 28:2, 28:4, 116:24 73:12, 87:15
116:8, 118:8 82:8 28:10, 28:16, 28:18, reliable [1] - 124:10 represented [7] -
puts [2] - 60:14, 121:2 re-assign [2] - 20:15, 29:9, 29:22, 29:23, reliance [1] - 126:10 11:12, 43:9, 46:21,
23:24 29:25, 49:8, 72:14, relied [6] - 64:7, 48:21, 48:22, 99:19
Q re-call [2] - 50:15, 93:23, 97:23 118:13, 118:14, representing [4] -
69:22 recovery [1] - 54:12 119:11, 120:12 26:24, 44:1, 66:16,
qualifications [1] - re-enter [1] - 8:7 red [2] - 19:2, 40:15 relieved [2] - 17:1, 67:14
89:9 read [3] - 63:16, 85:4, redirect [3] - 50:20, 17:25 represents [7] - 25:23,
qualified [1] - 116:4 103:6 88:12, 89:15 rely [1] - 118:25 38:23, 40:2, 42:16,
quantum [1] - 43:23 reading [1] - 127:2 refer [2] - 63:20, 70:6 relying [2] - 103:13, 44:18, 44:20, 112:10
queries [5] - 102:11, ready [6] - 7:22, 12:22, reference [2] - 16:15, 120:9 request [23] - 7:10,
105:15, 106:23, 52:7, 54:18, 64:5, 18:9 remain [1] - 12:18 8:18, 8:23, 8:25,
107:1, 115:5 73:19 referendum [1] - remember [6] - 59:20, 25:18, 26:15, 27:13,
query [3] - 100:23, realized [1] - 8:15 69:24 64:22, 64:24, 65:1, 27:24, 28:1, 28:5,
101:14, 104:20 really [5] - 21:6, 50:9, referred [1] - 63:10 72:1, 96:9 28:10, 28:16, 28:19,
questioned [1] - 46:9 50:11, 58:16, 118:9 referring [2] - 17:5, remind [1] - 117:18 29:6, 29:9, 29:22,
questioning [5] - reason [7] - 10:12, 42:22 remote [2] - 33:13, 49:4, 49:8, 91:2,
77:19, 88:5, 88:6, 18:4, 18:7, 20:19, reflects [1] - 92:13 34:24 91:14, 92:14, 97:23,
97:11, 102:13 24:15, 42:15, 118:10 refresh [2] - 15:17, remotely [1] - 34:19 122:4
Questioning [1] - reasonable [1] - 16:1 remove [1] - 75:4 requested [4] - 49:3,
60:22 124:11 refreshing [1] - 16:6 removed [5] - 15:23, 98:5, 114:2, 127:3
questions [24] - 16:22, reasons [1] - 64:6 regard [7] - 11:11, 16:3, 16:14, 16:15, requests [5] - 24:21,
31:5, 37:22, 37:23, reassigned [5] - 22:14, 27:8, 43:16, 24:11 24:25, 26:20, 27:17,
40:19, 47:22, 47:23, 20:13, 21:4, 21:6, 51:11, 81:3, 126:24 render [1] - 89:9 28:3
48:15, 74:22, 86:6, 23:10, 23:13 regarding [4] - 15:19, renew [1] - 115:15 require [2] - 69:23,
86:10, 87:25, 88:11, rebut [1] - 89:19 67:24, 69:14, 123:5 reopen [2] - 91:2, 117:3
88:16, 89:12, 90:1, regards [2] - 26:19, 91:14 required [2] - 58:9,
rebuttal [4] - 50:24,
90:9, 90:14, 92:15, 68:1 repeated [2] - 23:5, 102:22
89:17, 89:18, 90:3
110:15, 116:17, regional [1] - 60:25 100:6 requires [3] - 30:15,
receipt [1] - 104:14
120:20, 121:5 registrations [1] - rephrase [1] - 125:8 85:17, 108:19
received [3] - 10:5,
queue [1] - 20:14 71:16 rephrased [5] - 21:23, research [1] - 71:14
106:2, 124:6
quick [3] - 28:23, regularly [1] - 72:6 21:24, 99:25, 100:2, reserve [1] - 22:18
recent [2] - 69:13,
28:24, 86:16 relate [3] - 84:7, 90:2, 100:3 resolved [1] - 124:8
71:20
quickly [2] - 91:25, 124:5 replacement [1] - respect [15] - 19:23,
recess [4] - 73:4,
100:10 related [23] - 16:23, 71:22 19:25, 20:4, 25:1,
86:16, 87:2, 127:15
quite [2] - 77:4, 114:4 30:23, 31:6, 48:15, report [4] - 103:7, 37:13, 57:9, 59:24,
Recess [2] - 73:7, 87:5
quoted [1] - 64:14 58:5, 58:14, 60:20, 106:14, 117:4, 62:18, 67:23, 82:13,
recognize [2] - 50:14,
113:20 61:13, 63:15, 68:3, 118:18 82:25, 83:25, 89:6,
recollection [3] - 69:4, 69:11, 69:12, REPORTED [1] - 1:22 92:7, 112:5

Appx0725
 14

respective [1] - 73:12 ROM [3] - 26:4, 27:15, 116:11, 126:11, 99:6, 108:7 94:20, 95:7, 95:17,
respond [2] - 105:15, 97:22 126:14 setting [1] - 74:21 96:4, 96:15, 98:16,
116:6 room [3] - 13:21, screen [4] - 74:15, settings [1] - 72:8 99:16, 114:5, 116:6
response [4] - 29:22, 91:22, 95:4 93:24, 113:3, 113:10 seven [5] - 65:24, signatures [40] -
33:18, 75:23, 103:1 Rosa [2] - 2:16, 5:10 screens [1] - 95:24 86:18, 91:16, 43:14, 44:25, 45:1,
responses [1] - 26:19 rotating [1] - 70:13 se [2] - 58:7, 103:16 120:17, 120:19 45:22, 47:25, 56:11,
responsibilities [2] - roughly [3] - 57:2, seal [1] - 7:6 several [7] - 29:5, 57:16, 62:4, 62:8,
17:2, 42:19 57:5, 77:14 search [1] - 114:11 33:14, 39:23, 78:8, 69:23, 70:1, 70:3,
responsible [1] - round [1] - 70:6 searches [1] - 104:23 80:13, 115:5 70:15, 70:16, 70:23,
18:23 rudimentary [2] - seat [4] - 5:24, 6:11, shall [1] - 82:20 71:14, 72:2, 72:10,
rest [7] - 82:2, 82:3, 79:25, 108:15 12:19, 53:2 shared [2] - 25:17, 72:18, 73:24, 74:4,
85:19, 85:22, 88:12, Rue [1] - 5:9 sec [1] - 72:23 27:16 74:11, 74:16, 75:2,
90:13, 118:9 rug [1] - 89:24 second [11] - 5:18, sharing [1] - 27:22 78:6, 79:2, 79:3,
rested [1] - 90:12 rule [3] - 91:23, 91:24, 6:10, 45:18, 45:19, Shayna [2] - 2:12, 79:7, 84:19, 84:20,
resting [1] - 87:20 119:24 79:6, 88:20, 100:13, 4:25 84:23, 93:5, 93:6,
result [2] - 15:22, Rule [1] - 85:18 101:18, 124:8, sheets [1] - 109:7 94:3, 94:9, 94:19,
72:17 Rules [1] - 92:4 124:11, 126:21 shelf [1] - 103:25 99:6
results [1] - 106:2 rules [8] - 51:11, secondly [1] - 100:10 SHERMAN [1] - 2:11 signed [3] - 70:9,
resume [5] - 7:23, 70:17, 92:7, 117:12, seconds [16] - 45:19, Sherman [1] - 4:23 71:20, 72:2
73:3, 73:13, 127:10, 119:4, 119:5, 119:6, 101:9, 104:19, short [1] - 65:18 significance [1] -
127:11 119:8 107:16, 114:10, should've [2] - 80:7, 11:25
retain [3] - 66:15, ruling [5] - 80:23, 123:25, 124:1, 91:15 significant [1] - 8:21
67:6, 67:16 81:8, 81:17, 92:7, 124:14, 124:15, show [4] - 37:22, 44:1, signing [1] - 71:24
retained [9] - 66:12, 92:8 124:17, 124:18, 44:7, 58:24 signs [1] - 70:7
66:20, 66:25, 67:7, run [2] - 104:16, 124:21, 124:24, showing [2] - 44:6, similar [12] - 47:25,
67:10, 67:20, 67:22, 106:13 124:25, 125:1 99:11 60:13, 60:25, 74:20,
68:3, 68:4 Secretary [7] - 1:9, shown [1] - 118:2 74:21, 77:23, 93:23,
4:24, 6:21, 35:10, 100:23, 101:17,
retired [4] - 57:17, S shows [3] - 40:18,
102:3, 102:10,
57:18, 57:23, 77:12 35:13, 92:3, 96:12 82:23, 84:17
retrieval [1] - 84:24 S-P-E-C-K-I-N [1] - secretary [1] - 102:23 sic [1] - 20:22 103:12
retrieve [1] - 92:22 54:4 section [1] - 54:14 side [6] - 21:19, 53:10, similarities [2] -
return [1] - 87:3 SAFDE [1] - 60:24 see [24] - 31:13, 40:10, 64:17, 88:1, 90:5, 84:15, 94:15
returning [2] - 52:9, SAFs [1] - 61:1 40:14, 45:21, 50:16, 118:16 simple [1] - 108:14
52:10 sake [1] - 101:23 51:22, 60:8, 67:4, sidebar [2] - 5:14, simply [10] - 9:19,
review [12] - 30:12, sample [1] - 63:24 69:1, 69:7, 70:19, 5:15 13:7, 13:17, 21:7,
36:10, 51:15, 62:15, samples [1] - 78:15 72:6, 75:5, 84:15, sided [6] - 8:19, 9:21, 23:14, 26:13, 26:21,
73:24, 74:3, 75:1, sat [1] - 121:11 94:17, 94:22, 10:11, 11:10 32:10, 107:25, 114:4
78:5, 78:14, 95:17, satisfied [1] - 64:25 101:11, 101:16, sifting [2] - 81:9, single [1] - 62:9
96:3, 97:18 save [1] - 86:20 104:17, 104:18, 117:2 sit [1] - 19:12
reviewed [9] - 62:4, saved [1] - 90:3 107:15, 110:20, sign [2] - 70:5, 71:4 sitting [4] - 18:24,
62:14, 83:24, 96:10, savings [1] - 71:6 124:2, 127:4 signaling [1] - 50:14 34:18, 70:7, 94:24
96:11, 97:24, 99:20, saw [5] - 13:11, 15:15, selection [1] - 85:6 signature [67] - 13:8, situated [1] - 12:21
123:13, 123:15 39:18, 75:5, 95:22 seminar [3] - 14:20, 13:21, 15:19, 16:4, situations [1] - 80:6
reviewing [1] - 41:18 scale [6] - 56:15, 60:4, 90:6, 90:11 17:25, 18:18, 18:19, six [2] - 56:16, 86:18
reviews [2] - 45:21, 71:18, 74:23, 93:5, Senate [2] - 68:13, 19:24, 19:25, 20:4, sixth [2] - 108:19,
66:22 94:5 68:16 20:10, 21:14, 30:9, 108:21
revisit [1] - 79:22 scales [1] - 60:3 sense [5] - 72:24, 30:20, 30:23, 31:10, skill [5] - 20:21, 21:5,
rewritings [1] - 56:2 scanned [3] - 8:19, 94:2, 94:12, 104:23, 33:2, 33:6, 33:16, 23:12, 24:1, 128:16
Reyes [1] - 78:21 93:22, 94:25 112:13 33:20, 34:2, 34:9, skill-wise [1] - 23:12
Richard [2] - 57:23, SCC [1] - 67:13 sentence [1] - 85:4 35:20, 36:1, 39:19, sky [1] - 33:23
58:21 scene [2] - 54:12 separate [1] - 117:16 42:19, 44:23, 45:18, slamming [1] - 71:1
rights [1] - 47:9 schedule [2] - 61:19, serious [1] - 115:17 45:19, 46:20, 46:22, slide [2] - 74:15, 74:18
RMR [2] - 1:23, 128:22 61:20 serve [1] - 15:7 55:8, 55:13, 63:2, slides [2] - 74:13, 75:4
robin [1] - 70:6 schools [1] - 54:25 service [3] - 35:13, 70:4, 70:8, 72:10, slightly [1] - 66:3
RODRIGUEZ [2] - Science [1] - 57:11 54:10, 71:12 72:11, 72:14, 72:21, slower [1] - 101:25
4:17, 6:16 science [1] - 54:11 Services [1] - 59:6 74:7, 74:8, 75:14, smotocol [1] - 34:14
Rodriguez [2] - 2:8, Sciences [1] - 60:20 session [1] - 68:13 76:12, 78:6, 82:13, so.. [5] - 7:2, 15:11,
4:18 scientific [4] - 59:24, set [11] - 20:21, 21:6, 84:1, 84:8, 84:9, 49:17, 85:23, 107:6
Roger [1] - 59:2 60:17, 61:15, 62:1 24:1, 33:15, 54:20, 85:2, 85:12, 93:4, Society [1] - 60:22
role [2] - 48:25 scope [4] - 105:20, 84:21, 93:19, 93:21, 93:10, 93:11, 94:1, software [2] - 60:4,

Appx0726
 15

104:8 56:22, 57:15, 72:20, statement [8] - 16:12, 98:3, 107:17, 114:3 swing [1] - 53:7
soldier [1] - 27:4 73:13, 73:22, 78:4, 17:5, 17:12, 17:14, strokes [10] - 38:24, switch [2] - 30:8,
solely [1] - 14:1 79:18, 82:12, 83:24, 17:18, 17:20, 24:3, 99:3, 100:22, 71:12
someone [18] - 17:20, 85:11, 93:3, 99:24, 87:8 101:10, 107:15, sworn [4] - 52:23,
35:3, 38:20, 56:12, 101:19, 107:11, statements [1] - 101:4 114:5, 115:9, 52:25, 53:18, 62:24
60:18, 66:23, 66:24, 113:20, 121:7, States [4] - 27:3, 55:3, 121:25, 126:25, synced [1] - 100:13
74:6, 74:24, 75:16, 123:23, 127:12 64:11, 65:18 127:1 system [7] - 32:22,
95:11, 96:25, 98:20, SPECKIN [2] - 3:5, states [10] - 58:10, struggling [1] - 26:20 33:19, 49:23, 79:20,
100:10, 101:11, 53:17 65:15, 65:23, 65:25, Stuart [2] - 2:12, 4:25 94:18, 96:16, 105:18
108:13, 115:16, spectrum [2] - 69:7, 66:2, 66:4, 66:9, student [1] - 108:16 systems [1] - 33:24
116:8 79:17 67:12, 71:15 study [2] - 66:1, 83:7
sometimes [2] - speculation [1] - stating [2] - 11:16, stuff [1] - 27:2 T
72:16, 72:18 46:17 17:1 stumps [1] - 65:20
somewhere [1] - speed [5] - 84:17, statistical [18] - subject [6] - 68:8, table [3] - 70:7,
28:23 100:6, 101:2, 114:6, 102:15, 103:3, 68:24, 83:14, 83:17, 113:24, 121:14
soon [3] - 8:24, 12:22, 115:12 103:16, 105:3, 103:14, 116:22 tables [1] - 41:18
27:25 spent [2] - 84:11, 91:3 105:5, 105:8, subjects [1] - 126:15 tabs [1] - 105:25
sorry [15] - 10:21, spoken [1] - 6:23 105:11, 105:19, submission [1] - task [6] - 18:20, 19:12,
22:25, 40:4, 41:5, spousal [2] - 126:3, 106:10, 106:25, 65:19 20:13, 20:20, 23:25,
41:6, 46:8, 51:3, 126:6 107:4, 108:4, 108:6, submit [1] - 109:4 94:10
52:8, 88:19, 102:1, spreading [1] - 66:8 112:4, 126:13, submitted [2] - 49:7, tasked [1] - 70:22
105:21, 114:13, spreadsheet [8] - 126:22, 127:5 109:9 tasks [2] - 18:10,
124:23, 126:7 102:4, 102:23, statistically [1] - submitter [2] - 62:6, 18:21
sort [6] - 67:1, 69:22, 103:6, 103:14, 106:16 62:9 teacher [1] - 8:4
71:25, 101:3, 105:14, 106:24, statistician [4] - subsequent [1] - teaching [2] - 90:6,
105:25, 122:8 116:8, 122:9 106:3, 108:9, 116:4, 99:13 90:11
sorted [3] - 105:16, spring [1] - 14:6 116:5 substance [2] - 12:3, tear [1] - 8:3
106:12, 107:25 staff [4] - 33:14, statistics [9] - 41:19, 91:7 technical [2] - 20:21,
sorting [8] - 18:25, 51:15, 59:14, 93:21 41:21, 41:22, 41:23, substantially [1] - 108:13
19:5, 105:10, stamp [3] - 20:24, 102:15, 108:12, 74:21 technicality [1] - 11:7
106:21, 107:6, 21:1, 124:7 108:15, 122:6, substantive [3] - 44:2, technically [3] - 33:25,
108:2, 126:24 stand [5] - 12:15, 122:17 88:7, 94:6 125:7, 125:8
sound [1] - 49:2 19:1, 65:21, 73:14, status [1] - 94:20 subsumed [1] - 55:8 technique [1] - 64:2
sounds [4] - 39:4, 92:18 statute [3] - 78:15, subtraction [1] - technologies [1] -
79:12, 98:20, 106:24 standalone [1] - 120:6 82:16, 85:4 124:22 61:6
Southwestern [1] - standard [4] - 33:15, stenographic [1] - successive [1] - 99:3 technology [2] -
60:23 33:22, 103:25, 128:15 sufficient [1] - 96:24 15:21, 93:20
speaking [6] - 26:3, 108:16 step [3] - 12:5, 75:7, suggest [1] - 109:20 television [1] - 113:10
60:16, 69:15, 75:21, standards [3] - 26:1, 81:13 Suite [1] - 104:5 Tellez [1] - 2:15
81:16, 81:18 36:10, 43:13 stick [1] - 50:1 sum [1] - 108:9 temporary [2] - 19:23,
speaks [1] - 69:8 standpoint [1] - 87:21 still [7] - 11:21, 20:10, summarize [1] - 34:23
special [2] - 18:21, stands [1] - 8:20 61:24, 67:5, 69:16, 116:12 tendency [1] - 101:19
108:20 start [3] - 30:2, 41:8, 114:16, 115:15 summary [3] - 8:21, term [4] - 77:3, 90:15,
specialties [1] - 61:5 102:8 stipulate [2] - 9:19, 112:12, 113:24 105:8, 125:16
specific [13] - 15:18, started [10] - 7:23, 122:22 super [1] - 108:13 terminal [2] - 94:24,
31:5, 37:22, 39:12, 47:16, 56:20, 70:25, stipulates [1] - 122:24 Superior [1] - 128:11 98:8
51:11, 62:16, 63:6, 71:1, 108:24, stood [2] - 27:3, 106:8 SUPERIOR [1] - 1:1 terminology [1] -
65:5, 82:16, 95:9, 112:25, 115:10, stop [1] - 19:7 supermarket [1] - 71:3 83:20
100:7, 101:3, 105:15 124:16, 124:19 stopped [1] - 90:16 supervisor [2] - 77:1, terms [11] - 15:9, 60:9,
specifically [8] - starting [1] - 65:6 store [1] - 58:13 77:3 70:9, 75:14, 81:25,
30:10, 31:6, 42:10, STATE [1] - 128:8 story [1] - 118:6 supplement [1] - 95:3, 103:8, 116:18,
61:13, 62:23, 63:7, State [9] - 1:9, 4:24, strategy [1] - 89:22 62:16 121:25, 124:22,
78:9, 95:8 6:21, 35:13, 57:12, stream [2] - 5:17, 124:24
suppose [1] - 37:6
specifics [2] - 26:9, 57:17, 66:8, 96:12, 119:3 terrible [1] - 64:15
supposed [1] - 111:20
49:3 111:24 streamed [1] - 117:19 test [1] - 108:16
surrounding [2] -
Speckin [31] - 52:6, state [7] - 10:7, 54:1, strike [6] - 58:22, tested [4] - 59:9,
66:2, 66:4
52:21, 52:22, 53:1, 58:8, 58:9, 68:15, 62:18, 65:11, 59:10, 59:11, 59:13
sustain [2] - 30:5,
53:24, 54:3, 54:4, 117:22, 128:12 102:17, 105:6, testified [25] - 15:20,
42:24
54:5, 54:6, 54:9, State's [4] - 22:15, 107:11 17:8, 23:9, 38:7,
sustained [2] - 36:6,
54:16, 55:18, 56:18, 35:10, 92:4, 111:3 stroke [4] - 96:25, 48:20, 56:17, 62:17,
39:22

Appx0727
 16

62:19, 63:13, 65:4, 27:1, 28:12, 28:22, 118:8, 119:15, 103:23, 103:25 115:22, 120:18
65:22, 68:7, 68:12, 28:25, 29:4, 29:13, 119:20, 120:2, top [5] - 72:7, 74:9, tunnel [1] - 101:24
68:14, 69:4, 69:5, 30:5, 30:25, 31:3, 120:4, 120:8, 74:10, 74:16, 123:24 turn [4] - 6:9, 7:25,
69:8, 73:23, 76:14, 31:13, 31:18, 32:4, 120:15, 120:25, tort [3] - 71:19, 72:7, 36:12, 90:19
80:13, 104:14, 32:6, 32:12, 32:15, 122:7, 122:12, 73:25 turnout [2] - 41:23,
106:22, 118:2, 32:18, 32:25, 33:7, 122:14, 122:19, total [1] - 113:25 42:3
119:24, 121:7 33:10, 33:12, 35:22, 122:25, 123:12, totality [1] - 26:14 two [26] - 8:19, 9:21,
testifies [1] - 53:19 36:3, 36:6, 36:19, 123:16, 123:19, totally [1] - 95:3 10:11, 11:10, 12:9,
testify [15] - 26:7, 36:24, 37:1, 38:1, 125:5, 125:7, 126:17 totals [1] - 8:21 18:25, 54:24, 55:5,
26:18, 63:1, 79:8, 38:4, 38:8, 38:12, therefore [2] - 83:7, touch [2] - 66:5, 66:6 57:14, 58:2, 58:18,
79:11, 81:3, 84:4, 38:17, 38:19, 39:4, 105:13 toxicology [1] - 54:14 59:20, 68:17, 72:15,
85:12, 89:17, 39:11, 39:22, 40:3, therein [1] - 26:5 track [4] - 62:6, 74:10, 75:18, 84:15,
105:25, 106:1, 40:5, 40:8, 40:21, thereof [1] - 55:11 120:21, 121:2, 127:9 85:9, 94:3, 94:17,
116:6, 117:4, 40:25, 41:11, 42:9, they've [2] - 75:20, train [2] - 35:14, 75:13 98:8, 98:14, 100:5,
118:11, 119:11 42:24, 43:11, 43:19, 97:2 trained [7] - 57:18, 100:8, 116:18
testifying [12] - 14:24, 44:7, 44:15, 45:5, thinking [2] - 43:21, 57:24, 75:15, 76:4, two-copy [1] - 10:11
21:4, 30:19, 32:1, 45:11, 47:10, 47:13, 86:2 76:6, 77:5, 95:10 two-sided [3] - 8:19,
32:2, 39:5, 48:11, 47:18, 47:22, 48:9, third [1] - 79:8 training [24] - 35:10, 9:21, 11:10
80:20, 114:14, 48:13, 48:18, 49:17, thirty [1] - 65:24 35:20, 36:2, 57:7, two-year [1] - 57:14
123:23, 126:8, 126:9 49:20, 50:5, 50:11, thirty-seven [1] - 57:14, 57:22, 58:19, type [7] - 62:2, 63:8,
testimony [28] - 8:15, 50:21, 50:23, 51:4, 65:24 62:13, 62:16, 67:10, 67:20, 73:24, 89:23,
11:22, 16:25, 17:6, 51:10, 51:14, 51:21, Thomas [2] - 2:14, 5:2 74:25, 75:17, 75:18, 104:19, 121:18
19:4, 32:10, 62:24, 52:7, 52:9, 52:11, THOMPSON [1] - 1:19 75:20, 75:21, 76:11, types [2] - 61:16,
63:17, 64:11, 65:13, 52:18, 52:22, 53:1, thousand [1] - 102:9 83:5, 85:18, 95:11, 76:21
65:23, 66:1, 66:13, 53:6, 53:8, 53:14, thousands [3] - 69:8, 96:2, 96:3, 96:10, typically [7] - 72:13,
67:24, 69:7, 76:19, 54:16, 54:18, 54:20, 102:8, 102:9 96:12 74:3, 75:8, 93:8,
78:9, 79:17, 80:4, 72:23, 73:9, 73:18, threatening [1] - TRANSCRIPT [1] - 94:8, 102:5, 104:17
80:19, 102:17, 77:20, 77:25, 78:19, 66:24 1:18
105:2, 105:5, 107:1, 79:14, 80:22, 81:16,
81:24, 82:6, 82:10,
threats [1] - 67:4 transcript [1] - 128:14 U
112:4, 114:17, three [5] - 56:21, transferred [1] - 15:23
116:23, 127:6 83:10, 85:14, 85:16, U.S [5] - 67:11, 67:14,
65:18, 72:15, 74:10 transposed [2] - 48:1,
testing [6] - 57:1, 86:3, 86:13, 86:20, 67:15, 67:18, 67:20
threw [1] - 64:20 111:17
59:4, 59:5, 59:7, 86:24, 87:2, 87:10, ultimate [1] - 47:7
throughout [2] - trays [1] - 19:20
59:15, 59:17 88:9, 88:17, 88:20, unaware [1] - 29:20
68:21, 82:3 trend [1] - 100:9
Testing [1] - 59:6 89:3, 89:5, 90:13, under [13] - 12:18,
thrown [1] - 63:16 triage [2] - 75:1, 75:11
tests [4] - 58:23, 90:18, 90:25, 91:10, 49:7, 54:24, 55:5,
thumb's [1] - 8:5 trial [13] - 14:7, 79:13,
58:24, 59:12, 59:13 91:12, 91:19, 91:21, 55:6, 58:10, 82:18,
ticket [1] - 49:7 80:8, 80:9, 80:12,
Texas [1] - 66:6 92:1, 92:11, 92:16, 82:22, 85:18, 92:4,
timestamp [3] - 16:12, 80:24, 81:6, 81:8,
text [1] - 121:23 92:24, 97:7, 97:10, 107:24, 112:9,
83:25, 100:20 82:3, 111:21, 113:5,
THE [248] - 1:1, 1:2, 97:16, 99:23, 100:4, 121:17
timing [1] - 47:25 117:15
1:19, 4:6, 4:13, 4:16, 101:18, 101:21, underestimated [1] -
title [1] - 55:6 TRIAL [1] - 1:19
4:19, 5:7, 5:11, 5:24, 101:23, 102:1, 103:11
titled [1] - 37:3 trials [4] - 62:22,
6:6, 6:10, 6:14, 6:20, 102:18, 102:20, undergo [1] - 59:4
toaster [1] - 71:7 62:24, 118:24
7:3, 7:11, 7:13, 7:18, 103:1, 103:5, undergone [2] -
103:18, 103:21, today [12] - 32:21, tried [1] - 81:7
7:20, 8:2, 8:9, 9:3, 58:19, 75:17
105:7, 105:13, 37:10, 55:23, 62:21, trier [1] - 48:10
9:11, 9:18, 9:25, underlying [2] -
106:4, 106:9, 76:14, 78:9, 79:9, true [5] - 27:1, 82:2,
10:2, 10:8, 10:17, 115:18, 118:4
106:19, 107:2, 79:11, 82:2, 96:19, 123:3, 126:9, 128:14
11:4, 11:24, 12:12, undermine [1] -
108:25, 109:6, 98:18, 101:22 truly [1] - 80:23
13:14, 13:23, 14:9, 118:18
109:11, 109:14, today's [1] - 8:15 trust [1] - 21:1
14:17, 15:6, 15:13, underneath [1] -
109:20, 110:2, together [4] - 68:14, truth [4] - 25:9,
16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 89:25
110:7, 110:11, 70:6, 104:16, 116:8 118:23, 120:10,
17:10, 17:15, 17:18, underpinnings [1] -
110:14, 110:18, tomb [1] - 27:4 120:11
19:7, 19:10, 20:3, 115:25
110:22, 110:25, ton [1] - 76:8 truthful [1] - 10:14
20:4, 21:12, 21:16, understated [1] -
111:9, 111:19, toners [1] - 61:6 try [4] - 50:12, 61:11,
22:6, 22:8, 22:10, 103:11
112:8, 112:18, took [4] - 51:18, 74:24, 119:7
22:24, 23:4, 23:6, understood [19] -
112:25, 113:4, 73:22, 91:17, 101:11 trying [16] - 13:6,
23:19, 23:22, 24:9, 11:24, 15:12, 16:16,
113:8, 113:11, tool [5] - 24:1, 54:13, 13:17, 21:7, 22:3,
24:17, 25:2, 25:5, 21:22, 27:19, 30:4,
113:15, 114:19, 101:13, 102:10, 27:8, 31:21, 31:23,
25:9, 25:12, 25:13, 31:2, 31:14, 43:3,
114:25, 115:13, 115:5 34:5, 40:23, 44:3,
25:25, 26:12, 26:16, 46:7, 48:8, 48:12,
116:12, 117:20, tools [3] - 93:20, 89:21, 91:13,

Appx0728
 17

48:17, 86:9, 95:3, 25:11, 29:3, 29:19, voir [1] - 89:2 17:21, 21:18, 25:21, world [2] - 60:4, 75:6
99:23, 106:18, 33:11, 34:5, 34:7, voluminous [1] - 26:1, 31:24, 32:9, would've [6] - 20:13,
111:15, 125:9 37:6, 39:17, 41:13, 121:18 38:2, 38:7, 38:20, 20:15, 75:15, 80:7,
unfortunately [1] - 42:15, 44:14, 45:6, vote [1] - 93:16 40:12, 40:19, 42:7, 103:24, 124:16
116:16 51:24, 75:24, 76:14, voted [1] - 70:1 47:2, 47:19, 48:4, write [4] - 56:12,
unfounded [2] - 22:9, 95:18, 103:6 voter [5] - 19:17, 48:11, 49:25, 50:4, 64:16, 66:23, 66:24
22:10 Valenzuela's [1] - 71:15, 78:6, 84:10, 50:15, 50:19, 52:2, writing [1] - 14:23
unique [3] - 10:19, 103:11 100:19 52:3, 52:15, 52:25, written [4] - 6:7,
15:13, 120:6 valleys [4] - 45:16, voters [1] - 71:15 62:17, 62:20, 65:21, 64:18, 64:21, 112:11
United [4] - 27:3, 55:3, 45:17, 45:21, 45:25 voting [2] - 41:23, 86:11, 87:20, 88:4,
64:11, 65:18 value [2] - 41:3, 93:16 82:19 88:6, 89:2, 89:16, Y
University [1] - 57:12 variables [3] - 39:13, vs [1] - 1:7 90:9, 90:14, 90:16,
unknown [1] - 27:4 78:12, 82:13 92:15, 97:11, year [4] - 57:14, 57:22,
various [5] - 61:8, 102:15, 103:13, 59:20, 75:18
unless [3] - 82:5, W 105:15, 112:6,
109:15, 116:25 61:15, 62:1, 83:19, years [8] - 56:8, 56:19,
unlimited [1] - 101:15 127:2 wait [15] - 17:10, 112:13, 112:15, 56:21, 59:1, 59:20,
unusual [1] - 118:9 venues [1] - 65:3 22:11, 31:13, 38:8, 112:16, 112:22, 64:23, 122:2, 122:9
up [28] - 8:3, 8:5, verification [45] - 42:9, 50:19, 88:9, 113:7, 114:14, yes-or-a-no-
12:19, 13:6, 46:5, 13:8, 13:21, 15:19, 88:17, 89:3, 101:18, 116:3, 116:22, question [1] - 33:8
50:8, 50:9, 50:11, 16:4, 18:18, 18:20, 127:5 119:11, 119:15, yes-or-no [2] - 25:2,
54:19, 59:21, 65:7, 19:24, 20:5, 20:10, waive [1] - 120:1 119:16, 119:23 25:6
66:8, 74:15, 79:16, 21:14, 30:9, 30:20, waived [2] - 87:16, WITNESS [11] - 20:4, yes-or-no-answer [1]
80:5, 81:13, 88:24, 30:23, 31:11, 33:2, 120:2 23:4, 23:22, 25:12, - 34:7
90:6, 92:18, 93:19, 33:16, 33:20, 34:2, walking [2] - 19:1, 29:4, 33:12, 45:11, yesterday [25] - 5:16,
93:21, 98:3, 106:8, 34:9, 35:20, 36:1, 29:13 54:18, 100:4, 5:25, 12:14, 13:11,
108:9, 110:9, 113:2, 38:24, 39:20, 42:19, wall [1] - 66:25 101:21, 102:1 15:8, 15:17, 16:25,
119:16, 125:2 44:23, 46:20, 46:22, wants [1] - 7:8 witness' [2] - 17:12, 17:24, 30:11, 30:25,
updated [1] - 71:25 55:8, 55:13, 63:2, wash [1] - 81:4 48:3 31:3, 32:19, 36:9,
upload [1] - 115:20 72:21, 75:14, 76:12, wash-over [1] - 81:4 witnesses [11] - 17:8, 47:23, 48:16, 49:21,
uploaded [1] - 115:20 78:7, 82:14, 84:1, Washington [1] - 66:8 22:19, 37:11, 76:14, 76:14, 78:9, 81:25,
upmost [1] - 117:15 85:13, 94:20, 95:7, watching [2] - 117:23, 80:19, 81:8, 88:13, 93:15, 94:14, 95:2,
ups [1] - 45:16 96:5, 96:15, 99:16, 118:7 95:17, 116:19, 95:18, 99:17, 104:14
usage [1] - 103:25 114:3, 116:7, 123:24 water [1] - 54:17 118:10, 120:24 younger [1] - 76:7
user [26] - 17:24, verifications [6] - website [1] - 33:4 wizard [1] - 104:21 yourself [5] - 21:7,
37:13, 37:23, 38:9, 33:6, 113:25, 114:7, week [1] - 56:16 wonderful [1] - 110:14 23:15, 91:4, 95:6,
38:10, 38:24, 38:25, 115:9, 123:25, weight [1] - 116:25 word [7] - 28:25, 36:6, 121:10
39:17, 40:2, 42:17, 125:22 whatsoever [1] - 74:25, 85:1, 98:17,
43:8, 45:14, 45:21, verified [1] - 126:1 98:18, 99:1 Z
102:14
46:21, 93:24, 100:6, verifier [2] - 18:1, 84:8 Word [1] - 102:24
whistleblower [1] -
100:11, 100:19, verify [1] - 94:19 17:7 words [7] - 11:10, zero [5] - 116:24,
101:1, 104:18, verifying [2] - 93:3, white [2] - 40:15, 14:20, 61:5, 98:15, 124:13, 124:14,
113:25, 115:7, 93:5 99:5, 100:25, 106:13 124:16, 124:18
123:7
125:17, 125:19 version [2] - 109:2, workday [1] - 58:16
whoa [4] - 24:17
User [1] - 37:3 123:8 worker [4] - 94:20,
whole [2] - 100:5,
users [5] - 85:8, versus [9] - 4:7, 11:10, 94:22, 115:7, 125:15
109:17
101:2, 104:19, 64:12, 73:10, 87:13, workers [7] - 19:23,
wholesale [1] - 81:9
107:19, 107:20 93:5, 126:2, 126:5 46:20, 76:12, 78:7,
wife [1] - 56:15
uses [1] - 64:3 vice [3] - 2:2, 92:5, 84:1, 85:13, 96:5
wildlife [1] - 67:19
117:11 works [1] - 70:15
William [1] - 76:5
video [12] - 13:7, workshops [18] -
V willing [3] - 86:18,
13:11, 13:17, 17:24, 59:23, 60:1, 60:11,
86:24
vacated [1] - 64:8 20:23, 20:25, 37:23, 60:14, 60:21, 60:22,
willingness [1] - 81:25
vague [1] - 99:22 39:18, 95:20, 99:14, 60:25, 61:3, 61:4,
wise [2] - 23:12
VALENZUELA [1] - 100:13, 113:1 61:5, 61:7, 61:9,
wish [5] - 8:10, 16:22,
3:3 videos [5] - 13:12, 61:13, 61:16, 61:18,
50:1, 50:12, 50:15
Valenzuela [29] - 13:13, 13:16, 95:21, 62:1, 76:24, 83:19
withdraw [3] - 22:23,
12:15, 12:16, 12:17, 95:23 workstation [1] -
65:9, 125:6
13:19, 15:20, 16:1, view [1] - 91:17 38:25
witness [64] - 3:2,
21:21, 22:16, 22:25, Virgin [1] - 65:19 workstations [2] -
10:25, 14:7, 14:13,
23:9, 24:24, 25:7, visit [1] - 6:1 34:21, 34:25
14:23, 16:25, 17:11,

Appx0729
 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

4 In the Matter re: )

)
5 Kari Lake, )
)
6 Contestant/Plaintiff,)
)
7 vs. ) CV2022-095403
)
8 Katie Hobbs, personally as )
Contestee and in her official )
9 as the Secretary of State; )
et al., )
10 )
Defendants. )
11 _______________________________)

12

13

14

15
Phoenix, Arizona
16 May 18, 2023 - PM

17

18
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
19 TRIAL (day 2)
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PETER THOMPSON
20

21

22
REPORTED BY:
23 LUZ FRANCO, RMR, CRR
Certificate No. 50591 (Copy)
24

25

Appx0730
 2

1 COUNSEL APPEARING:

2 OLSEN LAW, P.C.

By: Mr. Kurt Olsen (pro hac vice)
3
BLEHM LAW, PLLC
4 By: Mr. Bryan Blehm

5
Attorneys for Contestant/Plaintiff
6

7 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: Ms. Alexis E. Danneman
8
ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP
9 By: Ms. Elena Rodriguez Armenta

10 BURGESS LAW GROUP

By: Ms. Emily Craiger
11
SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC
12 By: Mr. Craig Morgan
Mr. Jake Rapp
13 Ms. Shayna Stuart

14 Maricopa County Attorney's Office

By: Mr. Thomas Liddy
15 Mr. Joseph LaRue
Ms. Karen Hartman-Tellez
16 Mr. Jack L. O'Connor
Ms. Rosa Aguilar
17

18 Attorneys for Defendants

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0731
 3

1 I N D E X O F E X A M I N A T I O N

2 WITNESS PAGE

3 ERICH SPECKIN, Having been called on behalf of the

Plaintiffs (Cont'g)
4
Cont'g Direct Examination by Mr. Olsen 4
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan 14
Cross-examination by Mr. LaRue 45
6 Redirect Examination by Mr. Olsen 52

7
RAY VALENZUELA, Having been called on behalf of the
8 Defendants (Not Concl'd)

9 Direct Examination by Mr. Liddy 86

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Appx0732
 4

1 Phoenix, Arizona
May 18, 2023
2

3 (The following proceedings are had in open

4 court:)

6 THE COURT: All right. We are continuing in

7 CV2022-095403. This is the trial of Lake versus Hobbs, et

8 al.

9 Present for the record are either the

10 parties, the parties' representatives, or appearances

11 being waived with counsel for the respective parties being

12 present.

13 We are in the process of the continued

14 direct examination of Mr. Speckin, who is under oath and

15 continues on the witness stand.

16 So, Mr. Olsen?

17 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

18

19 CONTINUING DIRECT EXAMINATION

20

21 BY MR. OLSEN:

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Speckin. Back to Exhibit 47

23 that we've been looking at --

24 A. It got removed from my table.

25 THE CLERK: I had to inventory it. It's

Appx0733
 5

1 right here.

2 THE COURT: You can retrieve it right there

3 and give it back to him.

4 Mr. Olsen, I'm sorry we had to take it.

5 BY MR. OLSEN:

6 Q. And, Mr. Speckin, just to -- to recap since we're

7 starting after lunch, where it says verifications in less

8 than 5 seconds and 3 seconds and 2 seconds at the top

9 column, that means, in simple terms, in less than 6

10 seconds where it says 5, and then 3 means in less than 4

11 seconds, and then where the column says in less than or

12 equal to 2 seconds, that means less than 3 seconds in

13 simple terms, correct?

14 A. In simple terms, that's what it means, correct.

15 Q. Let's pick a couple -- and this table is sorted

16 by user number, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. So, if we took user number 20, can you

19 tell me what this data reflects?

20 A. Yes. So you would read across for the data

21 associated with that user. So 55,888 determinations,

22 verifications, conclusions, whatever you want to say, that

23 were inputted by that user. 96.39 percent of those

24 would've been approvals or passes, or like we talked about

25 earlier, I -- I hated the word excepted for the reasons

Appx0734
 6

1 that we talked about. So pass.

2 Q. Okay. And then continuing on.

3 A. As you go to the right, under the column that

4 simply stated less than 6 seconds, there were 36,086

5 instances where that user did that. In those instances,

6 the pass rate of those was 99.65 percent.

7 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. Again,

8 what I'm hearing here is a summary of a document -- or I

9 should say, of -- a CD-ROM leading to what I'm hearing is

10 statistical conclusions. Again, I think we've made our

11 record, and I just wanted to --

12 THE COURT: True. The objection should be

13 foundation, I believe, as to if he's going to use a

14 number --

15 MR. MORGAN: Correct.

16 THE COURT: -- he can do the math and

17 show -- show his work. So that's the objection on

18 foundation.

19 So how did he get the 99.65 percent for the

20 last thing he testified to, that's the objection. If you

21 could have him show his math.

22 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor.

23 BY MR. OLSEN:

24 Q. Mr. Speckin, with respect to the 99.65 percent,

25 with this table, we're just talking just average, correct,

Appx0735
 7

1 average -- averages and percentages, correct?

2 A. Not even average. Just percentage on this table.

3 Correct, yes.

4 Q. Where does the 99.65 percent derive from?

5 A. That's the number of passes or accepted

6 signatures, good signatures, compared to the overall

7 number of determinations made.

8 So, in simple terms, if they made two

9 determinations and one of them was a pass, 50 percent; if

10 they made two determinations and two different

11 determinations were passes, a hundred percent. If they

12 made 10 and one was a pass, 10 percent. It's super easy.

13 THE COURT: Next question.

14 BY MR. OLSEN:

15 Q. Continuing on with -- in simple terms, the column

16 which is less than 4 seconds, can you just continue to the

17 right with user number 20 as to what this data shows?

18 A. Yes. So, for that user, 24,904 were done at that

19 speed or faster. In other words, the less than 4 seconds.

20 So, obviously, the ones that are included in that column

21 were previously included in the one where we had a larger

22 time that we were analyzing. This is the smaller subset

23 of the same data.

24 And of those, the approval rate, 99.87. So

25 we get 13 out of a thousand are not included, 9,987 -- I'm

Appx0736
 8

1 sorry, out of 10,000, 9,987 out of 10,000 were passed.

2 Q. Continue on to the column, less than 3 seconds.

3 A. So that total number of instances where

4 comparisons were done where the key strokes were entered

5 in that amount of time is 13,749 and 99.88 percent, simple

6 conversion, 12 out of 10,000 were not passed. The rest

7 were.

8 Q. If we selected number -- let's take user number

9 31, could you go through the same recitation that you just

10 did with respect to that user as to what this table

11 reflects?

12 A. Sure. Same principles apply. They did 46,854

13 determinations. The overall, call it, approval

14 percentage, passing percentage, 97.23 percent at the time

15 of less than 6 seconds. Of those 46,000 instances, 37,588

16 of them were done at that rate of less than 6 seconds, and

17 for that, the approval percentage for that subset 99.37

18 percent.

19 Moving to the right, less than 4 seconds,

20 29,751 instances approval percentage, 99.72, so it picks

21 up, and then even faster rate of less than 3 seconds,

22 21,471, approval percentage 99.84.

23 Q. Let's -- if you would to move over to the third

24 page with user 72 -- or strike that.

25 Let's go to user 79.

Appx0737
 9

1 MS. DANNEMAN: Your Honor, objection. The

2 witness is testifying to these numbers as if they are

3 admitted for their truth. They're not admitted for the

4 truth in this case.

5 THE COURT: No. These are his opinions

6 based upon what he's reviewed.

7 MS. DANNEMAN: His -- okay.

8 THE COURT: So overruled for that. Go

9 ahead.

10 BY MR. OLSEN:

11 Q. So user 79, Mr. Speckin.

12 A. Same takeaway for 79. 54,298 in total, the total

13 body at work. 98.9 percent approvals. You go to the next

14 column of what we're calling less than 6 seconds, 45,217

15 approved at 99.91. So, in simple terms, 9 out of 10,000

16 would not be approved.

17 At the next fastest rate of less than 4

18 seconds, 37,524, 99.97. And the last column of 3 seconds

19 or less, 27,196 instances with a hundred percent approval

20 rating -- approval percentage.

21 Q. Looking at the approval ratings, going from less

22 than 6 seconds to less than 3 seconds, what -- what do you

23 see about the approval rating?

24 A. Well, they're all very high for this user, but

25 the faster they go, the more they get approved, the higher

Appx0738
 10

1 the rate for this user.

2 Q. Does that seem unusual to you?

3 A. It definitely seems counterintuitive. It's also

4 against my experience. The faster you go, it would be a

5 rejection. It's easier to tell something doesn't match

6 when you're doing a comparison, not that it does match.

7 Q. Turning to the last page, Mr. Speckin, and the

8 total verifications, under the total, can you read the

9 totals for the various columns, less than 6, less than 5,

10 less than 4, less than 3?

11 A. Well, we only have three columns, so we have less

12 than 6, less than 4, and less than 3. And the first one,

13 less than 6, 779,330, 779,330. The next fastest time

14 512,597, and the fastest time on the table, less than 3

15 seconds, 321,495 instances, or times, that occurred.

16 Q. And my recollection is there is a -- a lower

17 figure for comparisons at less than 3 seconds around

18 276,000?

19 A. Well, my opinion for the comparisons that were

20 actually done in less than 3 seconds is less than the

21 325 -- 321,495 number because user 26 and user 9 had some

22 activity that appears to be inputted through a computer by

23 some algorithm or some script. I didn't think it was fair

24 to count them or it would be misleading if I did count

25 them if, indeed, they were put in through a computer or

Appx0739
 11

1 some algorithm as saying that the key strokes were done in

2 that time. If I'm wrong, the number would go up for my

3 opinion to what's on the chart. I just believe that's

4 what was inputted.

5 Q. So your opinion, would that subtract the number

6 of ballots processed by user 9 and 26 from the total of

7 321,495?

8 A. Yes. So, for the rate -- the count, or the

9 instances, for the rates, I think it would be correct to

10 subtract that number to arrive at a smaller number. As I

11 said, 321 minus 44, or it might be 45 when you add them

12 up, 45,670, from that number.

13 Q. Did you assess any rate of less than 2 seconds?

14 A. I did. I ran the search further out than shows

15 on this table, yes.

16 Q. And what did the data reflect?

17 A. There were about 70,000 instances excepting, or

18 removing, the 26 and 9 that I just talked about that were

19 lightning quick, removing that roughly 70,000.

20 Q. So roughly 70,000 signatures processed in less

21 than 2 seconds?

22 A. No. I would use the word compared.

23 Q. Compared. Excuse me.

24 A. Process would be a bigger number because you

25 would include 26 and 9. Compared would be the lower

Appx0740
 12

1 number, yes.

2 Q. And do you recall any figures with respect to the

3 approval rating?

4 A. So I did look at the users that had over a

5 thousand instances of that less than 2 seconds comparison,

6 and 7 of them had a hundred percent. I remember that.

7 Q. What is your expert opinion as to the physical

8 ability to compare a signature for consistency in less

9 than 3 seconds?

10 A. I don't believe it can be done. I -- I look at

11 this all day, every day. This is what I do and I've done

12 for 30 years, and running in signatures. I'm not going to

13 sit here and tell the Court no one in the world is going

14 to be better than me.

15 But I really do believe I'm at the top of

16 the pyramid of who can do this and how to do it. If I

17 can't do it, I don't see how anyone can do it on a mass

18 scale, day after day after day, hour after hour, at these

19 rates. It can't be so.

20 Q. And how are you using the term "compare"?

21 A. Well, "compare" to me -- this morning, I just

22 Googled "what does compare mean," and it says to look at

23 carefully to see similarities and differences between two

24 items. Obviously, in this case, we're talking signatures.

25 That's what it means to me anyway, but to give you the

Appx0741
 13

1 definition that I read this morning, that's what it said.

2 Q. And what is your understanding of the stat- --

3 Arizona statute that governs signature verification

4 16-550?

5 A. Well, it says that they should be compared, and

6 then it infers after that, for consistencies or

7 inconsistencies, based on this is the path for an

8 inconsistency, it uses the word compare.

9 The standards that I use in my field and the

10 standards that are written use comparison and compare.

11 The training manual use it that was -- at least had input

12 from someone like me. I don't want to drag her down to

13 that level if she feels differently but someone with

14 similar background to me. It's a common word that we use

15 in the English language, and it's no different in my

16 industry what the word "compare" means.

17 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, at this time, we

18 have no further questions.

19 THE COURT: Very well. Who will be

20 conducting the cross?

21 MR. MORGAN: I will, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Morgan, go ahead and proceed

23 as soon as you are ready, sir.

24 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

25 May I use the podium?

Appx0742
 14

1 THE COURT: You may use the podium, sir.

2 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. MORGAN:

7 Q. I want to make sure I say your name right because

8 I'm not particularly great with names. Speckin?

9 A. That's actually right. I was going to say, use

10 Erich if you feel comfortable, but Speckin is correct,

11 yes.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Speckin.

13 You agree with me, in your profession,

14 detail is a thing. It's important, right?

15 A. Absolutely.

16 Q. Devil's in the detail, as they say, right?

17 A. Well, that's an overused phrase in our language,

18 but I don't disagree.

19 Q. All right. And you'll agree with me then that,

20 in connection with the signatures that we were just

21 hearing you testify about in Exhibit 47, which is a

22 demonstrative, you didn't personally do any of these

23 signature comparisons yourself, correct?

24 A. That's right. I wasn't the level I reviewer or

25 level II or whatever.

Appx0743
 15

1 Q. You haven't seen any of those signatures,

2 correct?

3 A. Correct. I haven't seen one.

4 Q. And you'll agree with me then, in the realm of

5 possibility, it's entirely possible that many of those

6 signatures completely matched?

7 A. Oh, I suspect some would've, yes.

8 Q. Okay. Now, again, I want to talk about details.

9 Earlier in your testimony, my colleague brought up a case

10 in Hong Kong.

11 Do you remember that case?

12 A. I remember it very well.

13 Q. It's Nina Kung versus Wang Din Shin.

14 Does that sound about right?

15 A. That sounds correct to me, more or less, yes.

16 Q. More or less.

17 All right. You had testified that there was

18 an opinion from a higher appellate court that essentially

19 said the intermediate, or the lower appellate court, got

20 it wrong with respect to you; is that right?

21 A. I said the initial trial court. I didn't say the

22 lower appellate court.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. There was an intermediate appellate decision, but

25 I didn't say anything about that.

Appx0744
 16

1 Q. And you -- if I understood your testimony -- and

2 I'm summarizing -- you feel like that appellate decision

3 vindicated you, essentially?

4 A. No. I'm saying it backs up the fact that the

5 judge copied what the other side wrote.

6 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Well, I would like to

7 show the witness, Your Honor -- I'd like to approach the

8 clerk and have this marked as the next exhibit. It's the

9 court case that he mentioned in his direct, Your Honor.

10 May I approach?

11 THE COURT: You can mark it, and you can

12 approach him with it right now.

13 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

14 THE COURT: We'll talk about admissibility

15 later.

16 MR. MORGAN: Would you like a copy, too?

17 It's hefty.

18 THE COURT: If you've got another copy.

19 MR. MORGAN: I do, Your Honor.

20 May I?

21 THE COURT: Please.

22 MR. MORGAN: Thank you. Thank you.

23 BY MR. MORGAN:

24 Q. I've just handed you what's been marked as, I

25 believe, Exhibit 48. Do you have that in front of you.

Appx0745
 17

1 A. I do. It doesn't say 48 but -- oh, yeah, it

2 does. I have it, yeah.

3 Q. Okay. I want you to turn with me. There's some

4 numbers there at the bottom. Okay? I want you to turn

5 with me to page 91.

6 Would you let me know when you're there?

7 A. I'm there.

8 Q. All right. I'm going to read aloud paragraph

9 452. Okay?

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. This is the decision from this appellate court in

12 Hong Kong.

13 I do not find these arguments excusing the

14 judge convincing. Not only was the evidence ink dating

15 wholly unsatisfactory, Mr. Speckin himself was wholly

16 discredited as an expert witness for, among other things,

17 claiming professional credentials that he lacked, claiming

18 acceptance of his methods by the scientific community when

19 that was false and having been trapped in demonstrating

20 that his opinions were quite unreliable. It would,

21 therefore, have been wholly perverse for Yam J to do

22 anything other than to reject that evidence; however, even

23 then Yam J did so by copying verbatim almost the whole of

24 the appellant's admission inviting such rejection.

25 Did I read that correctly?

Appx0746
 18

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. And you'll agree with me then is that what the

3 appellate court is saying is that the judge got it right?

4 A. I don't believe that's what's in the entire

5 opinion.

6 Q. Well, let's talk about what I read. I only want

7 to talk about what I read.

8 A. For that one paragraph does it say that?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Of course.

11 Q. If you like, you can take a moment to point to me

12 anywhere in the opinion where the judge vindicates what

13 you did and says you did a good job.

14 A. I don't have one that says exactly that, but we

15 have wholesale copying and an unfair trial is paragraph

16 445.

17 Q. Sure.

18 A. And paragraph 90.

19 Q. Yeah. But the paragraph we read said, to declare

20 anything other than you falsified your credentials would

21 be perverse.

22 Those are his words, not mine, correct?

23 A. Those were the words of the person who wrote

24 that, yes.

25 Q. Okay.

Appx0747
 19

1 A. I'm saying there are other paragraphs that don't

2 say the same thing is what I'm telling you.

3 Q. Can you point me to one that contradicts that

4 paragraph?

5 A. I just does did. 445 on page --

6 THE COURT: Let's -- gentleman. Gentlemen,

7 slow down. My court reporter is trying to keep up.

8 BY MR. MORGAN:

9 Q. Now, you recall testifying earlier about your

10 involvement in a case called EEOC versus Ethan Ellen.

11 Do you recall that?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. And that's in the federal district court in the

14 Northern District of Ohio, correct?

15 A. It was, yeah. It's 20-some years old.

16 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, would I -- do you

17 want me to ask every time. Can I have free permission --

18 THE COURT: You can approach the exhibits

19 but ask about approaching the witness, please.

20 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 BY MR. MORGAN:

24 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 40.

25 Do you see that?

Appx0748
 20

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Okay. Let's talk about Exhibit 40.

3 Is this the case that you were giving

4 testimony as an expert in?

5 A. I never gave testimony as an expert. I gave a

6 deposition but never --

7 Q. That's right, because you were excluded as an

8 expert in that case, correct?

9 A. Correct. That's what I said.

10 Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about this case for a

11 minute. You gave a statistical opinion in that case,

12 didn't you?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. And the Court discredited you based on your lack

15 of qualifications to give a statistical analysis, correct?

16 A. I don't believe so, but you could point me to the

17 paragraph that says that.

18 Q. Sure. I'm -- I'm happy to do it. Let's take a

19 look at page 6. I'll read it aloud.

20 Many of the criticisms leveled at Speckin by

21 the Wang court could also serve as a basis for this

22 Court's conclusion that based on the standards imposed by

23 Daubert, Speckin's testimony is inadmissible in this case.

24 Ultimately, however, the Court finds two particular

25 grounds especially compelling and independently sufficient

Appx0749
 21

1 to justify its conclusion and the first being Speckin's

2 statistical analysis is deeply suspect.

3 Now, I ask you again. You were excluded

4 from testifying in that case because your statistical

5 analysis was suspect, correct?

6 A. The analysis at one standard deviation, yes. I

7 thought you asked me because of my knowledge.

8 Q. It's a yes/no. You're fine.

9 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, I'd move Exhibits

10 40 and 48 into evidence.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Any objection?

12 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay. They're admitted.

14 BY MR. MORGAN:

15 Q. Now, let's walk through -- I want to revisit the

16 Wang case, and let's walk through the information that the

17 trial court said, and that the appellate court found it

18 would be perverse to have concluded that you could be an

19 expert otherwise.

20 They conclude in the Wang case, he did

21 not --

22 MR. MORGAN: Well, actually, may I approach

23 the witness, Your Honor?

24 THE COURT: You may.

25 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Appx0750
 22

1 BY MR. MORGAN:

2 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 43.

3 Exhibit 43 is a copy of a decision from the Court of First

4 Instance in the Wang case.

5 Do you see that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Can you please turn to page 211. Just let me

8 know when you're there.

9 A. I'm there.

10 Q. Now, at paragraph 29.5, the trial court in Hong

11 Kong said: He did not study statistics either in his BA

12 degree, and that is why he was not awarded a BSC degree.

13 He's plainly deficient in his knowledge of statistics in

14 chromatography disciplines one would've thought essential

15 for an analytical chemist, essentially one who offers

16 himself to the court as an expert, even more so for one

17 who claims to be one of the world's leading experts in one

18 particular branch of analytical chemistry, i.e.

19 econalysis.

20 Did I read that correctly?

21 A. I did.

22 Q. And do you agree with that?

23 A. Absolutely.

24 Q. Let's go to 29.8, same page.

25 He attempted to magnify his experience by

Appx0751
 23

1 claiming to have examined over 100,000 documents. When

2 the sheer mathematical impossibility of this was pointed

3 out to him as it would've taken him 274 years to do it, he

4 claimed that simply flicking over pages looking for

5 something else amounted to an examination.

6 You remember giving that testimony?

7 A. Absolutely not what I said.

8 Q. You didn't tell the court that, in your opinion,

9 that flipping over the pages amounts to an examination?

10 A. That's absolutely correct. I did not say that.

11 Q. Okay. It goes on to read: Obviously, has

12 examined many documents in his short experience, but

13 there's no way that this court can evaluate the extent or

14 depth of that experience. This lack of experience may

15 account for the reason why neither he himself nor his

16 laboratory are included in ASTMs Directories of Scientific

17 Technical Consultants and Expert Witnesses.

18 Did I read that correctly?

19 A. You did.

20 Q. Now, other courts have taken issue with what they

21 consider to be misrepresentations about your experience,

22 correct?

23 A. I can recall one court that sent me a letter.

24 Q. Uh-huh.

25 A. And I clarified with the judge by replying, but

Appx0752
 24

1 that's the only time I can think of that.

2 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Your Honor, I move into

3 evidence exhibits 43.

4 THE COURT: Any objection on 43?

5 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Forty-three will be

7 admitted.

8 MR. MORGAN: May I approach the witness,

9 Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: You may.

11 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.

12 BY MR. MORGAN:

13 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 41.

14 Do you recognize Exhibit 41?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. Is this the letter you were just referring to?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And this is a letter that was sent to you from

19 the 13th Judicial Circuit from a Judge Philip E. Rodgers,

20 Jr., circuit court judge.

21 Do you see that?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. And this was a case called People versus Douglas

24 William Adrian, correct?

25 A. Yes.

Appx0753
 25

1 Q. And you were appointed as an expert by the Court

2 in that case, correct?

3 A. Yes. The Court appointed me as the expert,

4 that's exactly correct.

5 Q. Right.

6 And this is a letter by the Court that

7 appointed you?

8 A. That's exactly right.

9 Q. Okay. And the first sentence says: The Court

10 authorized your retention to provide expert witness

11 services to this defendant.

12 Next paragraph: However, I was extremely

13 disappointed in your presentation. While I initially

14 found you barely qualified to offer an expert opinion in

15 this case, upon the completion of your examination, I came

16 to the conclusion that I had made an error.

17 Last paragraph on that page says: You also

18 needed to address the issues associated with your resumé.

19 You certainly did the defendant no good whatsoever when

20 you were confronted with an affidavit to which a lawyer's

21 weakly article had been attached. This was a clear

22 indication to the court and the jury that you countenanced

23 an overblown statement of your credentials as they related

24 to your work with the IRS and the Secret Service.

25 Do you recall reading that when you saw

Appx0754
 26

1 it -- or when you received it?

2 A. Of course.

3 MR. MORGAN: I move Exhibit 41 into

4 evidence, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Any objection?

6 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Forty-one is admitted.

8 BY MR. MORGAN:

9 Q. Now, you testified earlier, I think I heard

10 correctly, that you were a part -- you gave testimony

11 before one or both chambers of the legislature in Arizona?

12 A. Yes. I said I wasn't sure. I thought it was --

13 Q. Yeah. Of course.

14 A. I thought it was both at the same time.

15 Q. Yeah. One or both.

16 A. Yes, I said that.

17 Q. And that was when?

18 A. I don't remember the date. A couple months ago.

19 Q. Okay. And that was in connection with work that

20 you performed for an audit in 2020, right?

21 A. I don't know if I would say audit. It was work

22 that I'd performed on 2020 ballots.

23 Q. Was that related to what might be commonly

24 referred to the Cyber Ninjas Audit? Does that sound

25 familiar?

Appx0755
 27

1 A. Well, it was completely different from what they

2 were doing. It was happening at the same period of time.

3 So in that sense related. I mean, I wasn't working for

4 them, and they weren't working for me.

5 Q. And your ultimate conclusion in connection with

6 your findings was that you couldn't really make the

7 conclusion. You needed more information, correct?

8 A. I wouldn't say that, no.

9 MR. MORGAN: Okay. May I approach the

10 witness, Your Honor?

11 THE COURT: You may.

12 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 BY MR. MORGAN:

14 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 38.

15 Do you recognize this?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. Did you create this?

18 A. I did.

19 Q. And this is your executive summary related to the

20 work we're discussing now, correct?

21 A. Right. I just cited more districts in front of

22 Arizona, but specifically related to what happened in

23 Arizona, yes, this is the summary.

24 MR. MORGAN: Okay. Your Honor, I move

25 Exhibit 38 in evidence.

Appx0756
 28

1 THE COURT: Any objection?

2 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

3 MR. MORGAN: Okay.

4 THE COURT: Thirty-eight is admitted.

5 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

6 BY MR. MORGAN:

7 Q. Okay. Can we please turn to the second of the

8 last page of this exhibit.

9 A. It's two-sided. Do you mean -- what is the first

10 word at the top?

11 Q. The first word at the top is going to be "when

12 the contents of the box were examined."

13 A. I'm there.

14 Q. You're there.

15 All right. Let's go to the bottom. You see

16 the section that says: Summary and discussion of further

17 forensic review?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Based on the forensic findings, it is my opinion

20 that further work and review of the ballots, or the images

21 at a minimum, should be conducted to determine what

22 significance these findings have on the whole of the

23 ballots cast, as well as possible statistical significance

24 of the votes contained for particular ballot item.

25 Did I read that correctly?

Appx0757
 29

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. And this is your conclusion?

3 A. Well, that's one of many, but you read that

4 correctly.

5 Q. Your conclusion then was that more work needed to

6 be done?

7 A. Well, it's my conclusion I would do more work.

8 Q. Okay. Now, the testimony -- and I'm calling "the

9 testimony" loosely. I understand. I don't know whether

10 you were under oath. I wasn't there. And you didn't say

11 you were.

12 But the testimony you gave recently in front

13 of the legislature -- okay? Are you with me so far?

14 A. Yeah. I know what you're talking about.

15 Q. All right. Good.

16 You were invited by whom to give that

17 testimony? Liz Harris?

18 A. No.

19 Q. No?

20 A. Sunny something.

21 Q. Sunny Borrelli?

22 A. That sounds right.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Yes, I think so. I think that's the name.

25 Q. And when you were there, you told the legislature

Appx0758
 30

1 you couldn't determine for sure if any votes in that

2 election that you were reviewing were illegally counted,

3 fair?

4 A. I don't recall saying that, but I would say that

5 if I were asked the question now, I don't have independent

6 recollection to that statement, but it's a fair statement.

7 Q. Yeah.

8 And based on what you've reviewed in

9 connection with the opinion you've given today with the

10 2022 general election, that would also be your answer,

11 correct? You can't say with any certainty that an

12 improper vote was illegally counted or rejected?

13 A. I can't say one way or the other. I'm not

14 drawing opinions that it was or was not.

15 Q. Okay. Are you aware that after that hearing you

16 testified at, a representative was eventually expelled

17 from the House of Representatives for that hearing?

18 A. I heard something in my travels this week that

19 someone came in and was -- I don't know what the word is.

20 Maybe you have the better word than me. Ultra excited.

21 And I don't know. I wasn't there, and I haven't seen it.

22 I'm not trying to be funny. I just don't want to use an

23 inflammatory word.

24 Q. Sure.

25 A. But something like that. And then the person who

Appx0759
 31

1 invited him got in big trouble. I didn't know the extent

2 of the trial, or I didn't maybe remember it, but I heard

3 something about it.

4 Q. Now, forensic, okay, that word, that means the

5 application of scientific principles to legal cases,

6 right?

7 A. That's what it means to me in forensic science,

8 yes.

9 Q. Okay. Now, ultimately, the opinions you gave

10 today through your testimony, they are based on a set of

11 assumptions, fair?

12 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. Would

13 ask that the witness lay -- or counsel lay a foundation

14 for what assumptions he's referring to.

15 THE COURT: Well, he can answer if he

16 understands. If he doesn't understand, we can have it

17 rephrased.

18 THE WITNESS: I understand the question.

19 I'm just taking time to think what the assumptions could

20 be because I don't have --

21 BY MR. MORGAN:

22 Q. Yeah. Take your time.

23 A. Give me just a second?

24 Q. Sure. Take your time.

25 MR. OLSEN: And, Your Honor, may I also ask

Appx0760
 32

1 that counsel stop interrupting the witness and let him

2 finish his answer.

3 MR. MORGAN: If I'm doing that, Your Honor,

4 I apologize. I'll be better.

5 THE COURT: For the sake of my court

6 reporter, too, please.

7 MR. MORGAN: And I'll be slower.

8 THE COURT: Both question and answer need to

9 slow down, please.

10 MR. MORGAN: Of course.

11 THE WITNESS: I think I'm equally at fault

12 for the pace, so we can share it.

13 BY MR. MORGAN:

14 Q. We all have better places to be, Mr. Speckin.

15 A. I agree with you.

16 I'm at a loss as to what an assumption would

17 be. I'm not saying there aren't any.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. But I can't think of one, and I'm not sure if I'm

20 missing an obvious one, but perhaps, you can --

21 Q. Sure?

22 A. -- give me an example, and I can run from there.

23 Q. Well, your opinion assumes the information you

24 were given is adequate, correct?

25 A. Oh. In other words what was -- what was asked

Appx0761
 33

1 for is what was given by the County? That's an

2 assumption, yes, that's true.

3 Q. Okay. And it assumes the people you spoke with

4 told you the truth, for example?

5 A. I would say -- yeah, I see where you're going.

6 It would assume that the totality, not only of the people

7 that I spoke to, but the other witnesses, the videos and

8 all that, would corroborate one another, which I believe

9 it does, but could there be one aspect that doesn't? I --

10 I can't say.

11 Q. In general, the assumption then is that the

12 information that you've relied on, that you testified to

13 today that you relied on in forming your opinion here, the

14 assumption is that all of that is accurate, it's reliable.

15 Is that a fair statement?

16 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. I just

17 don't know what opinion he's referring to. I would just

18 ask that he would clarify and be specific.

19 THE COURT: Okay. If there's a specific

20 opinion, you can rephrase it. If you mean all of the

21 opinions --

22 MR. MORGAN: I mean every one of them,

23 Judge.

24 THE COURT: Then re-ask the question --

25 MR. MORGAN: Sure.

Appx0762
 34

1 THE COURT: -- so that he understands that.

2 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 BY MR. MORGAN:

4 Q. With respect to every opinion you've given here

5 today, whatever it may be, you'd agree with me that an

6 underlying assumption, as I've been using the term, that a

7 foundation, if you will, to the accuracy of your opinion,

8 is that the information you relied on to form that opinion

9 was accurate and reliable.

10 Is that a fair statement?

11 A. That the foundation for that specific opinion --

12 Q. Correct.

13 A. -- would be. Not everything that you gave me

14 that I said I evaluated is the foundation for every

15 opinion.

16 Q. We're on the same page. It was a general

17 question. I think we're on the same page.

18 So it must follow then that if -- with

19 respect to any specific information you relied on in

20 connection with any specific opinion you gave today, if

21 that information is unreliable, then your opinion is

22 unreliable to that extent, as well, correct?

23 A. To whatever limited extent or large extent,

24 depending on the nature of the unreliability or question,

25 it could have a small to negligible impact to a large

Appx0763
 35

1 impact. That is correct. It would be variable as to the

2 exact situation.

3 Q. And you'll agree with me -- and I think you said

4 this a moment ago, and I appreciate the candor -- at this

5 point, with respect to this case and your opinion on the

6 2022 -- or 2022 general election, you really can't say one

7 way or the other, based on what you've reviewed, whether a

8 single vote was improperly counted, one way or the other,

9 fair?

10 A. I'm not here to draw that opinion, and I'm not

11 saying that.

12 Q. You're not here -- so you're not giving an

13 opinion on that?

14 A. I have not, and I intend not to, if at all

15 possible, that is correct.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you.

17 You agree with me that one relevant factor

18 in your analysis here today with respect to your opinion

19 as it relates to Exhibit 48, 48 --

20 A. The table?

21 Q. The table. Is that Exhibit 48?

22 MR. OLSEN: Seven.

23 MR. MORGAN: Forty-seven. Thank you.

24 BY MR. MORGAN:

25 Q. Exhibit 47. Okay. You'd agree with me that,

Appx0764
 36

1 with respect to your opinion as it relates to Exhibit 47,

2 one factor relevant to that is the number of employees,

3 either full time or part time, that Maricopa County had

4 engaged or hired to do the ballot signature comparison,

5 fair?

6 A. I'm not sure about one factor. I mean, the more

7 they employed, the more pieces of paper it took up, if you

8 mean that. If they had less, it would be smaller table.

9 If they had more, it would be a bigger table.

10 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

11 Do you know how many employees Maricopa

12 County hired to engage in ballot signature comparisons in

13 the 2022 election?

14 A. For ballot signature comparisons?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Based on the data and the testimony was 155.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. And I specifically mean the testimony of

19 Mr. Valenzuela -- or Ray as he asked to be referred to.

20 155 and the numbers jive.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. Or align, I should say.

23 Q. Okay. Now, I don't know if I heard this on

24 direct. Who retained you to give testimony in this

25 action?

Appx0765
 37

1 A. My retainer agreement is with Mr. Olsen.

2 Q. Kurt Olsen?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Counsel?

5 A. Yes. The person who was asking me the questions.

6 Q. Okay. And you're being paid for your testimony?

7 A. I'm being paid for my time away from my family

8 and my time away involved in the case.

9 Q. As you should be.

10 How much are you being paid?

11 A. The hourly rate my firm bills is $600 an hour for

12 my time.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. For every minute spent, whether it's in travel or

15 here. I'm not charging for the time that I'm sleeping and

16 things like that.

17 Q. And you'll agree with me that your -- your job,

18 essentially your gig, is you're a professional expert

19 witness, fair?

20 A. I would -- I wouldn't pigeonhole myself that

21 narrow that that's what my whole life is about, but that

22 is a source of where I go to work every day, and that is

23 what I do for the hours in the day when I'm not being a

24 husband, father, and that sort of thing, yes.

25 Q. Right.

Appx0766
 38

1 And you testified you're a forensic document

2 analyst.

3 Did -- am I saying that right?

4 A. Yes. I said forensic document analyst and

5 chemist.

6 Q. Okay. And chemist, your undergraduate degree,

7 now, remind me, that's a Bachelor of Arts?

8 A. Yes, from the College of Natural Science with a

9 major in chemistry.

10 Q. Not a Bachelor of Science?

11 A. Not a Bachelor of Science.

12 Q. And now, forensic document analyst, is that a

13 title you just gave yourself?

14 A. No. It's a common title that's used by people in

15 my profession with a similar background and training that

16 I have.

17 Q. And no regulatory organization gave you that

18 title, correct?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. And there's no specific licensing requirement to

21 call oneself a forensic document analyst, correct?

22 A. I agree, yes.

23 Q. And you weren't conferred a forensic document

24 analyst by any organization or school, correct?

25 A. I would say no, I was not would be fair, yes. I

Appx0767
 39

1 mean, I've been called that by organizations but not

2 conferred that. So the answer to the question is I have

3 not, that's correct.

4 Q. But you'll agree with me that, essentially, in

5 your line of work, you can call yourself whatever you

6 want, right?

7 A. Could I call myself whatever I want? Sure.

8 Q. All right.

9 A. I mean, in court, the object is you have to be

10 proven to back that up, which I have hundreds of times,

11 but yes, I could call myself what I want, I think. I

12 mean, I don't -- I wouldn't call myself a doctor or a

13 lawyer, but I mean, related, yes.

14 Q. You're related to a doctor or a lawyer? I'm

15 sorry.

16 A. No. No. Related to what I do.

17 Q. Because my condolences if you are.

18 A. I don't think I am. That's not what I meant.

19 I'm sorry.

20 Q. You don't have a formal degree in any sort of

21 document analysis, fair?

22 A. Fair and true.

23 Q. And true.

24 And you're not certified as a document

25 examiner or a signature comparison person, fair?

Appx0768
 40

1 A. Fair and true, yes.

2 Q. And you are -- have you heard of the American

3 Board of Forensic Document Examiners?

4 A. I have.

5 Q. And do they give a certification of any kind for

6 forensic document analysts?

7 A. I think they call it forensic document examiners

8 based on the name. I don't have that, but I believe

9 that's what they call it.

10 Q. And you don't have that, as well, correct?

11 A. Correct. I do not.

12 Q. Okay. Now, at one point, were you a member of

13 the American Academy of Forensic Scientists?

14 A. I was.

15 Q. An as a member, you had an ethics complaint

16 lodged against you.

17 Does that sound right?

18 A. I did.

19 Q. And shortly after that, you no longer continued

20 to be a part of that group. You didn't renew your

21 membership, correct?

22 A. That's exactly correct.

23 Q. Okay. How many -- you testified earlier that

24 you've taken some training courses.

25 Continuing education. Is that what they

Appx0769
 41

1 are?

2 A. Sorry. When you turn around, I have a hard time

3 hearing you in the middle of your sentence.

4 Q. No. That's fair. That's fair. My apologies.

5 I'm sorry.

6 A. That's all right.

7 Q. You testified earlier, I think, that you've taken

8 some training courses.

9 Did I hear that correctly?

10 A. Yes. Continuing education was the other thing.

11 Yeah, I agree with that.

12 Q. And none of those continuing education courses

13 were in connection with determining how long someone who

14 is working for an election department, state or county,

15 can or should take to review signatures in compliance with

16 the law.

17 Is that a fair statement?

18 A. That's fair.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. And true.

21 Q. How many of your training courses were

22 specifically on the speed it takes to verify signatures?

23 A. There were none of the training courses that I

24 had or have taken that that exact topic was covered.

25 Q. Okay.

Appx0770
 42

1 MR. MORGAN: May I have a moment, Your

2 Honor, to confer with counsel? I may be finished.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 BY MR. MORGAN:

6 Q. So I want to talk for a moment again about the

7 assumptions we were talking about earlier.

8 Do you remember that conversation?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. Now, you'll agree with me that a pretty critical

11 assumption, if you will, in connection with your testimony

12 related to the table exhibit.

13 Do you know what I'm talking about, the --

14 the table of the -- you call it the clip of your table?

15 A. I didn't call it that. I know what table you

16 mean because there's only been one.

17 Q. Right. Right.

18 A. But when you said "the critical assumption," I'm

19 not --

20 Q. I haven't gotten there yet.

21 A. Oh.

22 Q. I just want to make sure we're on the same page,

23 Mr. Speckin.

24 Are we on the same page so far?

25 A. Same page meaning I know the table that you're

Appx0771
 43

1 talking about, whatever title that you give it.

2 Q. Yes.

3 THE COURT: Exhibit whatever?

4 MR. MORGAN: Exhibit -- sorry, Your Honor.

5 Exhibit --

6 THE WITNESS: Forty-seven.

7 MR. MORGAN: -- 47, yes.

8 THE COURT: Thank you.

9 BY MR. MORGAN:

10 Q. You'll agree with me that a -- an important

11 assumption there, in the conclusions that you reached

12 based on that exhibit, is that, in fact, the act of a

13 signature verification, one way or the other, occurred --

14 I should say, signature comparison occurred?

15 A. Well, first, there's two -- there's one problem

16 with the question, and I'll just try to shortcut it, if

17 you'll let me.

18 Q. Of course.

19 A. And that is, you said my opinion was based on the

20 table, and that's not exactly true. As we know, it's a

21 demonstrative. So I had the opinion the table is

22 demonstrating it.

23 Q. Sure.

24 A. I'm not trying to be nitpicky. I'm just saying.

25 Q. That's fair.

Appx0772
 44

1 A. The second part is you said that it's -- I don't

2 totally understand it. That it's based on --

3 Q. Let me try again. If you don't mind.

4 A. Yes, please.

5 Q. Because it's my fault.

6 A. No. That's fine. That's fine.

7 Q. You'll agree with me that, in order to reach any

8 conclusion about the speed, one way or the other, with

9 respect to what's being shown in Exhibit 47, that assumes

10 that, in fact, the act of a signature comparison --

11 whether you agree with whether it was adequate or not, the

12 act of the signature comparison occurred?

13 A. I understand what you're saying. So yes, it does

14 assume that the key stroke that's being logged from the

15 computer and date and time-stamped is the action of some

16 sort. Whether it be a pass, a fail, a spousal exception,

17 signature curing, whatever, there's a lot of different

18 codes.

19 Q. Sure.

20 A. But it's entering a code that relates to the

21 signature verification process, and I was told in the

22 response, and that's what was asked for, but assuming

23 that's what it is. You're right.

24 MR. MORGAN: Perfect. Thank you.

25 Your Honor, for the Secretary of State,

Appx0773
 45

1 there are no further questions. I do believe Maricopa

2 County might have a couple.

3 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So,

4 Mr. LaRue, you have cross-examination, as well?

5 MR. LARUE: I do. Just very brief, Your

6 Honor.

7 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

9 CROSS-EXAMINATION

10

11 BY MR. LARUE:

12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Speckin. How are you?

13 A. I'm good.

14 Q. Good.

15 I have just a few questions for you, and I

16 just want to be sure that the record is clear is why I'm

17 asking them. You alluded to some of this earlier, but I'm

18 asking the direct questions because, as I said, I want to

19 be sure that it's in the record clearly.

20 You've never -- well, strike that.

21 Earlier, you were -- in your testimony, you

22 were talking about comparing signatures.

23 Do you remember using that terminology?

24 A. Yes. I remember the word compare many, many

25 times.

Appx0774
 46

1 Q. Okay. You've never compared signatures for

2 elections under A.R.S. 16-550, have you?

3 A. Correct. I have not.

4 Q. Okay. In fact, in general, when you're called to

5 give an expert opinion about signature comparison, it

6 generally has to do with fraud or areas such as that, not

7 elections; is that correct?

8 A. I've had plenty of election cases, but it is not

9 a large percent of my overall body of cases based on

10 handwriting. That's a true statement.

11 Q. Would you say that the majority of your cases

12 relate to fraud?

13 A. I'm not a fan of that term because it has a

14 predisposed connotation. Perhaps determining if there was

15 fraud, dishonesty, whatever. It's an inflammatory term,

16 and I try not to use that in my life, let alone when I'm

17 testifying. I get what you're saying, and I would answer

18 generally yes. I just don't like the term fraud, but I

19 know what you mean, and I do agree.

20 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

21 How would you describe it?

22 A. It's the trying to determine if forensic science

23 can assist the trier of the fact with a specific question,

24 whether somebody did or did not do something or whether

25 somebody did or did not write something as we're talking

Appx0775
 47

1 in this case.

2 In other cases, it could be when it was

3 written, altered, changed, added to, all those things that

4 I've talked about, but I don't think you want to rehash

5 them. But specific to handwriting, did they or did they

6 not. I don't use the word fraud in my opinion, like since

7 my opinion is this, it's a fraud. I would never do that.

8 Q. Okay. I understand.

9 I'm going to use the word fraud because we

10 both -- we -- I think you just testified you understand

11 what I'm meaning when I say that, even if it's not the --

12 your preferred term for -- for getting at this.

13 Is that -- is that correct?

14 A. I'm fine answering your questions as long as you

15 understand it's not a term that I would use, but I know

16 what you mean, and I'll do my best to answer it in that

17 context.

18 Q. Fair enough. Thank you.

19 Is there a set number of signature exemplars

20 that you are supposed to use when you do fraud

21 examinations?

22 A. Back to what we said about there's an argument

23 earlier about best practices or wish list or what to

24 haves.

25 Q. Uh-huh.

Appx0776
 48

1 A. There's an idea that I would like to get but not

2 a standard of must have. I mean, you must have one.

3 Q. Uh-huh.

4 A. Unless you're comparing multiple signatures at

5 issue to one another, like I talked about on a ballot or a

6 petition, which is a different scenario, but you can do it

7 with one.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. But I have a wish list personally, yes.

10 Q. Do you know if there's an industry best practices

11 standard?

12 A. Yes, there is.

13 Q. And what is that?

14 A. An amount sufficient to make a determination.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. So it's not a numerical amount just for the

17 reason that I said.

18 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that that --

19 strike that.

20 When you are doing a signature comparison

21 for purposes of a fraud determination, say for a bank or,

22 you know, on a check, or -- or whatever the case may be,

23 would you agree that the more exemplars you have, the

24 better?

25 A. Oh, absolutely. I mean, with obvious certain

Appx0777
 49

1 limitations and ridiculous exceptions, but as a general

2 term, 10 is better than five, six is better than three. I

3 agree.

4 Q. Okay. When you do that type of signature

5 comparison that you and I are talking about right now, for

6 a fraud examination, say, for a bank with -- with a check

7 that may have been fraudulently written, if you have 10

8 signature exemplars, is best practice is to look at all

9 10?

10 A. If you are satisfied that those 10 are known

11 signatures, absolutely.

12 Q. Would you agree with me that, if you're doing a

13 signature comparison and you look at 10 signatures, that

14 will take longer than if you look at two signatures?

15 A. It absolutely should.

16 Q. Okay. And you agree it would take longer than if

17 you look at one?

18 A. It absolutely should, yes.

19 Q. You may not know the answer to this, and it is

20 perfectly fine to say, I do not know. I'm not trying to

21 lead you to say something that you don't know. Okay?

22 But are you aware of whether, under Arizona

23 law, those who do signature comparison for early ballots

24 are required to look at a set number of exemplars?

25 A. Well, the only standards that I'm familiar would

Appx0778
 50

1 be the EPM and the 16-550(A), I believe.

2 You're nodding your head, so I think I got

3 that right.

4 And in those two, I'm not aware of a

5 numerical requirement, just like in the standards in my

6 field --

7 Q. Uh-huh.

8 A. -- that's set forth. You can surprise me and

9 tell me there is one that I didn't see, but I'm not aware

10 of one.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. I don't know if there's any other laws in Arizona

13 that pertain. So I have no way to answer that question

14 other than those two.

15 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Very good.

16 I want to -- I want to go back to the table

17 for just a moment, and it's the only table we've been

18 discussing. So you're aware of what table I'm -- I'm

19 speaking of, correct?

20 A. I gotcha, yes.

21 Q. Okay. As you sit here right now, can you say

22 with a hundred percent certainty that any of the workers

23 that were identified in -- in column 1 failed to conduct

24 signature verification?

25 MR. OLSEN: Objection, Your Honor. The

Appx0779
 51

1 table has a number of references.

2 Are you referring to the whole table or with

3 respect to certain grades?

4 MR. LARUE: I'm referring to the table as a

5 whole.

6 Sorry. I turned around, and I realize my

7 voice may trail off.

8 BY MR. LARUE:

9 Q. I'm referring to the table as a whole. The left

10 column has workers, and there were a number of workers

11 listed, and then there were lines going across saying, you

12 know, less than so many signatures -- or less than so many

13 seconds, less than so many seconds, less than so many

14 seconds.

15 My question is, the table, as a whole, the

16 workers on that table, can you say, as you sit here, with

17 100 percent certainty that any of those workers did not

18 conduct signature verification, any of them?

19 A. I don't believe any of my opinions today are

20 expressed to a hundred percent certainty nor can I think

21 of any in the last 30 years that I've expressed to 100

22 percent certainty. Generally, I don't like the

23 inflammatory term. I like to stay away from 100 percent,

24 as well.

25 Q. Okay. And I realize, based on the -- the answer

Appx0780
 52

1 you just gave, I know what you're next answer will be, but

2 so that the record is clear --

3 MR. LARUE: And then I'm done, Your Honor.

4 BY MR. LARUE:

5 Q. -- as you sit here today, can you say with 100

6 certainty that no signature verification occurred in

7 Maricopa County for the 2022 general election?

8 A. I would say the same answer for the same reasons,

9 meaning no, I would not say that.

10 MR. LARUE: Thank you, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Is there any other

12 examination by any other defendant?

13 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Very well. Okay. Redirect, Mr.

15 Olsen?

16 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

17

18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

19

20 BY MR. OLSEN:

21 Q. Mr. Speckin, you were asked a number of questions

22 where your answer was cut off regarding some cases in

23 which you had been criticized.

24 Was there anything that you wanted to say

25 that you are not able to say?

Appx0781
 53

1 A. Well, yes. Like, for instance, the letter from

2 the judge that he read from the 13th Circuit, he skipped

3 over the paragraph that says: You clearly have some

4 specialized knowledge and training with regard to ink

5 identification and document examination. Your experience

6 in grease analysis -- which I was appointed as an expert

7 in that case -- is woefully lacking.

8 I never disputed it in that trial. I don't

9 dispute it today. I'm not an expert in grease. In that

10 case, I testified to FTIR results. As a chemist, that's

11 what I look at. I was trained in that. That was part of

12 my education. I do that. It was a very simple analysis.

13 The judge didn't like the bill and wrote me

14 this letter. I wrote a letter back. That was the end of

15 the issue.

16 I've testified in this jurisdiction again.

17 I mean, and the judge even says here, I have specialized

18 knowledge -- skipping ahead -- to document examination.

19 It was unfair the way it was read, and I understand it's

20 cross-examination, but that's how it goes.

21 Q. Any of the other cases that were presented in

22 front of you that you'd like to comment on? One of the

23 opinions was quite lengthy.

24 A. Well, the Hong Kong opinion, I got thrown a court

25 of appeals opinion that's this thick, double-sided, and

Appx0782
 54

1 asked if I could point to a paragraph that said something

2 to the opposite. Obviously, I can't, as I sit here right

3 now. I read one, because I knew where it was.

4 Q. And what -- could you read that again and --

5 A. I'm not sure I can -- oh, this is the wrong one.

6 Let me correct my answer and say this is the one that was

7 handed to me from the court of final appeal, not --

8 Q. Which exhibit number is that, sir?

9 A. This is 48. And there are -- are -- I'm not an

10 expert in legal opinions, especially from Hong Kong, nor

11 am I from the United States, but definitely not Hong Kong.

12 I can tell you that it appears that different judges wrote

13 different things, like our supreme court does in some

14 occasions.

15 I don't know that for certain. That's just

16 way I take it. But the paragraph that I read just says:

17 An extraordinarily large portion consisted of pages copied

18 verbatim from its omissions.

19 Like in one of the paragraphs that he read

20 from the opinion, it had number 2, which he didn't read,

21 because it's not an audible sound because it had actually

22 copied a typo from the previous ones.

23 It talked about a testimony of a hundred

24 thousand examinations. It isn't at all what I said. It

25 was quoting a testimony from a case in Tulsa, Oklahoma,

Appx0783
 55

1 called Utica Square versus Renberg that I testified on in

2 1998 about a case that I had looked at for General Motors,

3 and there were 100,000 documents involved in the case.

4 Then they twist the words, without including

5 the transcript, and put it in their submission to the

6 judge, and the judge photocopied it. It's completely

7 unfair. It's from over 20 years. I mean, I don't know

8 what else to say. It's demeaning and upsetting, and it's

9 not at all a reflection of what happened. But that's just

10 my opinion.

11 Q. Any other opinions that were put in front of you

12 that you'd like to comment on?

13 A. The last one was the EEOC opinion, and if you

14 read the last part of the opinion, it wasn't that I'm not

15 an expert at all.

16 It says -- I'll just read it exactly so I

17 don't paraphrase it incorrectly.

18 Speckin's deposition testimony suggests

19 there may be other methods to determine age that would be

20 admissible in this case, but it -- and go on to say I'll

21 just paraphrase and say -- but I didn't have them in that

22 case. There's only one method, and the judge said that

23 method was not allowable, keeping in mind that's what

24 everybody uses today, by the way.

25 Q. You've qualified as an expert I believe -- I

Appx0784
 56

1 don't want to go through everything, but you qualified as

2 an expert in hundreds of cases, correct?

3 A. Multiple hundreds of cases, in court, yes.

4 Q. And that's with respect to forensic document

5 examination and handwriting analysis?

6 A. Yes. And ink dating, yes.

7 Q. And you've also been retained by various

8 government agencies to --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- give opinions about forensic document analysis

11 and handwriting analysis?

12 A. Yes. And continue to be.

13 Q. Counsel asked you some questions about the

14 touches with respect to the data that Maricopa provided.

15 Do you recall -- so that's what I want to

16 refer to.

17 And I believe you probably seen in some of

18 the testimony yesterday, there is the notion that the

19 signature verifier will go back and check the batch of

20 signatures that they have already compared as part of

21 the -- the crosscheck.

22 Do you recall that?

23 A. I remember that testimony, yes. That was from

24 Mr. Valenzuela.

25 Q. Yeah.

Appx0785
 57

1 And when the -- when the reviewer --

2 verifier is going back, does that result in a change

3 that's reflected in the data?

4 MR. MORGAN: Objection, Your Honor. I think

5 this is beyond the scope of my cross-examination.

6 THE COURT: I don't believe it is.

7 MR. MORGAN: Fair enough.

8 THE COURT: Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: No. The request was for key

10 strokes of determinative outcomes, good signature, bad

11 signature, in simple terms, and there's others, and a date

12 and time stamp associated with those. It's not date/time

13 stamping, left and right arrows, scrolling, things like

14 that.

15 But you do see, when people are going very

16 fast, times where there's 200 seconds with nothing that

17 could very well be that time when someone might be

18 scrolling back in 150 seconds, 200 seconds, whatever the

19 case may be.

20 And it's not logging the key stroke for

21 that. It's just a long period of time where it doesn't

22 log any key strokes because there were no determinative

23 outcomes.

24 BY MR. OLSEN:

25 Q. So, if a signature verifier is going back to --

Appx0786
 58

1 to review their work and not making any changes but just

2 going back quickly without making changes, that activity

3 is not reflected in the data that Maricopa County

4 provided?

5 A. Other than the increase in time for those two

6 sequential key stroke entries of the last one before they

7 scroll back and the first one perhaps when they started a

8 new batch or changed one very far in the batch. I mean, I

9 don't know what they did. But it's only by a lag of

10 seconds. It's not date/time stamping those right/left

11 scrolling, clicks, whatever you want to call that.

12 Q. So does the act of going back without making a

13 change affect the rate of comparison as reflected in your

14 analysis and in what was reflected in Exhibit 47?

15 A. No. Forty-seven is not affected at all by

16 whether someone did or did not scroll back, how fast they

17 scrolled back, nothing like that.

18 MR. OLSEN: Okay. I'd like to pull Exhibit

19 21. And, Your Honor, if I may, can I get that exhibit and

20 give a hardcopy to the witness? It may be just easier.

21 This is the -- I believe this is a set of e-mails.

22 THE COURT: If you can -- you want to use

23 Exhibit 21 to show him?

24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Your Honor. I want to make

25 sure it's the right number.

Appx0787
 59

1 THE COURT: Sure.

2 MR. OLSEN: May I approach, Your Honor?

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 BY MR. OLSEN:

5 Q. Mr. Speckin, you've just been handed Exhibit 21,

6 which the first two pages are the original of the records

7 request sent to Maricopa County on February 3rd, 2023,

8 which underpins the -- the data that was ultimately

9 received in PR 1482, which underpins the data that you

10 have drawn for your opinion, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you seen this document before?

13 A. I have.

14 Q. Is there anything in this document that assures

15 you that the data that Maricopa sent was complete for

16 purposes of your analysis and opinion?

17 A. Yes. There are multiple responses to the

18 request, saying this fulfills your request, this is what

19 it is -- to that effect, that it fulfills the request of

20 what you're requesting, and nothing to the contrary.

21 Q. And what was the data that was being requested as

22 it relates to the opinions you have offered here today and

23 the data that is reflected in Exhibit 47?

24 A. The data that's reflected in 47 is the unique

25 identifier. So that would be the worker -- the

Appx0788
 60

1 anonymized -- anonymized -- yeah, anonymized user number

2 for the worker and the calculation from the date and time

3 stamp as to how much time elapsed between successive

4 entries of data and time stamp and then what the

5 disposition is. That's where the percentage comes from.

6 What percentage --

7 Q. Are you okay?

8 A. Yeah. I have a new hip and it just popped out.

9 I think it just popped back in. So we're okay. I just

10 didn't feel good for a second. Sorry.

11 THE COURT: Okay. If it's your hip --

12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. No. I'm fine now.

13 THE COURT: You want to stand up and

14 stretch?

15 THE WITNESS: I think that's the last thing

16 I want to do, Your Honor but, thank you.

17 THE COURT: Well, hold on a second.

18 Want to take a break?

19 THE WITNESS: No. Thank you. It just got

20 me for a second there.

21 THE COURT: You got me.

22 THE WITNESS: Stabbing pain. Sorry. I

23 wasn't trying to give anyone a panic.

24 THE COURT: I just want to make sure, A,

25 number 1, you're okay --

Appx0789
 61

1 THE WITNESS: I'm okay, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: -- you're not under distress and

3 you don't need a break because I'll give you one if you

4 want one.

5 THE WITNESS: No. I'm good now. Thank you.

6 THE COURT: We'll just continue.

7 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry before that,

8 what was the question, I don't remember.

9 THE COURT: You don't need to apologize.

10 He's going to ask another question.

11 BY MR. OLSEN:

12 Q. The data that you -- that Maricopa produced in

13 connection with PR 1482, you were referring to certain

14 data. If you turn to the page identified at the bottom

15 right-hand corner Lake 21-896 and then 897, we'll move to

16 that, as well.

17 And this is a document that's in reverse

18 chron order, right, the e-mail string?

19 A. Right. It's the e-mail string with the newest at

20 the top of the front.

21 Q. Okay. And do you see at -- where it says Lake

22 21-896 at the bottom right-hand corner?

23 A. Yes, I'm there.

24 Q. Okay. And if you move to the top of the page, do

25 you see that it's cutting off, and so it's -- as you go in

Appx0790
 62

1 reverse chron order and you flip to -- forward to 895

2 where it has at the bottom of 895 a date on 5/4/23 PRNCR

3 wrote: Good afternoon, We The People?

4 A. Yes. I see that. I see that.

5 Q. So -- so flip back over. Do you see that on 896,

6 that's part of the -- Maricopa's response to We The

7 People?

8 A. Right. The May 4th 3:47 response continues onto

9 the top of 896. I follow.

10 Q. And do you see the five items of data?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. Is this the -- the data, or at least some

13 of it, the data that underpins your opinions and the data

14 reflected in Exhibit 47?

15 A. Yes. Specifically points 2, 3, and 4.

16 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the data

17 in points 2, 3, and 4, that Maricopa provided was not

18 complete and accurate?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Turning to the -- Exhibit 47, Mr. LaRue asked you

21 some questions about the overall chart that was displayed

22 here and your opinions thereon and said, can you, you

23 know, say with a hundred percent certainty that every

24 vote -- I forgot his exact words, but the -- not every

25 vote was properly counted or some such.

Appx0791
 63

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. I remember the two questions about a hundred

3 percent, yes.

4 Q. Okay. Are you offering an opinion as to whether

5 or not a signature can be compared in 6 seconds or less?

6 A. I didn't express such an opinion. I have one,

7 but I didn't express that, no.

8 Q. But you didn't offer and express an opinion on

9 that?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Are you offering an opinion as to whether or not

12 a signature can be compared in 4 seconds or less?

13 A. No. I didn't offer an opinion on that.

14 Q. The opinion that you offered was with respect to

15 comparing a signature -- I think as we used before -- in

16 simple terms, less than 3 seconds, correct?

17 A. That was the opinion that I expressed and -- and

18 furthered with less than 2 seconds you asked me, as well.

19 Q. And your opinion was that it was not possible to

20 compare signatures in less than 3 seconds in the context

21 of why we're here today, correct?

22 A. On the mass scale context, I said it cannot be

23 done. Could you pick one time out of 10,000 where someone

24 could do that? Maybe you could. But not on a mass scale

25 like in the thousands and thousands, no. It's my opinion

Appx0792
 64

1 you cannot do that. You cannot do a comparison in that

2 time.

3 Q. Mr. LaRue asked you some questions about the --

4 having more than one reference signature.

5 Do you recall that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Is your opinion predicated on the existence of

8 more than one reference signature, or that it is one -- a

9 signature from a ballot envelope compared to one reference

10 signature?

11 A. Well, my opinion is not predicated on either. If

12 you -- I gave the benefit of the doubt saying the time of

13 only comparing one. Clearly, in 2 seconds you're not

14 scrolling and finding three and comparing all three in 2

15 seconds. That's even more preposterous. But that wasn't

16 what the opinion was based on. It's that -- you can't

17 even compare one in that time.

18 Obviously, if it follows, you can't compare

19 two, three or four because, as I answered his question,

20 that obviously takes more time.

21 Q. And what do you base your opinion on the

22 inability to compare two signatures in the context of the

23 system that Maricopa County has employed for the 2022

24 general election?

25 A. My education, training, and experience. I mean,

Appx0793
 65

1 that manual or the training program does a nice job of

2 spelling out the basics of what you would look for in

3 handwriting. It's what I would look for. I know what to

4 look for. I do this every day.

5 I can't believe there could be thousands of

6 people -- and I'm not trying to be offensive when I say

7 this -- in Maricopa County that don't do this every day

8 and had a four-hour training or a 40-hour training that

9 could do it so much faster than I ever could. I don't

10 believe that, no.

11 Q. In terms of the training that you saw Maricopa

12 gives signature verification workers to compare

13 handwriting, do you recall that?

14 A. I recall the training, yes.

15 Q. Are you saying that the time to compare a

16 signature for a signature verifier would have to follow,

17 for example, all 11 steps in order to be a valid

18 comparison?

19 A. No. I'm not assuming they would have to follow

20 all 11 steps. I mean, it's a guideline. I have

21 guidelines in my industry in which case, in certain

22 instances, you might not follow all 11 or all the steps.

23 I -- I understand that.

24 Specifically, if you have an exception --

25 I'm not going to say that word. If you have a fail, if

Appx0794
 66

1 you see that two are drastically different, very quickly,

2 that can be a fail quickly. I understand that.

3 What is in this table and what we're talking

4 about are the times and the percentages where it's

5 passing, where people are saying they compared, and

6 they're consistent.

7 Q. When you say "they," you mean they compare the

8 two signatures and came to a determination that the two

9 signatures were consistent?

10 A. Right. The ballot envelope and whether it be one

11 or more, but at least one of the historical exemplars I

12 think is what people call them, reference exemplars.

13 Q. And when you use the term "compare," you're --

14 are you using that in the -- in the sense of what we see

15 or talked about the steps of signature comparison or as

16 the term "compare" is used in the normal English language

17 under the definition -- I'm saying Webster's -- of

18 compare?

19 A. So, when I say "compare," I'm not saying you have

20 to follow the 11-step procedure to make a comparison. I'm

21 using the word "compare" as you use in the English

22 language, but it's also the same that I use or in the

23 standards in my industry of comparing, to look closely to

24 determine if two things, or in this case signatures, are

25 similar or dissimilar, or in the form of 1550, consistent

Appx0795
 67

1 or inconsistent, is the way it's phrased there.

2 Q. So merely because two signatures flash up on a

3 screen, is that a comparison in your mind?

4 A. That's my point. It's not.

5 Q. And why is that?

6 A. It would be like thumbing through this opinion

7 like this and saying, I just read it. You're going to --

8 I say I read it, and you say you didn't, and we're

9 arguing. There's -- the simple fact is no one could read

10 it that fast. No one that I've ever encountered in my

11 life could read it that fast. So the answer is you did

12 not read it.

13 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, I must hesitate to

14 this say, but I just say thank you. We have no further

15 questions at this time.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Can we excuse the

17 witness?

18 MR. MORGAN: I have nothing further for the

19 witness, Your Honor. Thank you.

20 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Speckin.

21 Are you okay to stand up?

22 THE WITNESS: We're going to know in just a

23 second.

24 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. We're not doing it

25 that way. Let's not just see and find out. Let's -- if

Appx0796
 68

1 you need --

2 THE WITNESS: I'm okay. I'm good. I had a

3 good doctor. That's fine. Thank you for the concern, but

4 I'm surprisingly okay.

5 THE COURT: Watch your step.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, would the Court

8 like me to retrieve the exhibits and put them back?

9 THE COURT: Yes, please.

10 MR. MORGAN: May I approach?

11 THE COURT: Yes, you can do that.

12 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: You can do that.

14 Do you have any other witnesses?

15 MR. OLSEN: We do not, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Okay. So plaintiffs rest.

17 MR. OLSEN: We do, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Coincidently, this is the time

19 we'll take the afternoon recess, okay, for 15 minutes.

20 And then we'll come back, and I'll address defendants.

21

22 (Recess taken.)

23

24 THE COURT: Okay. This is CV2022-095403.

25 This is Kari Lake versus Katie Hobbs, et al, the

Appx0797
 69

1 continuation of trial in this matter.

2 Present for the record are either parties,

3 their designated representatives, or their presence having

4 been waived, and we have counsel for each of the

5 respective parties.

6 So for defendants -- plaintiffs have rested.

7 Defendants?

8 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Your Honor, Elena

9 Rodriguez Armenta for Governor Hobbs.

10 We would now move the Court for a judgment

11 of directed verdict characterized by the Arizona Rules of

12 Civil Procedure under 52(c) as a motion for a judgment on

13 partial findings.

14 THE COURT: Go ahead.

15 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, we would oppose, of

16 course. And -- I couldn't -- my hearing --

17 THE COURT: Is that your motion?

18 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No, Your Honor.

19 MR. OLSEN: I'm sorry.

20 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: No worries.

21 Your Honor, may I ask, would you prefer I

22 address you from the lectern or?

23 THE COURT: It doesn't matter to me as long

24 as you're in front of a microphone.

25 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Great.

Appx0798
 70

1 Ms. Lake has rested her case in chief and

2 for the second time before this Court has failed to meet

3 her burden. Based on this Court's two orders and the

4 Arizona Supreme Court's order granting remand as to this

5 one issue, in order to succeed, Ms. Lake was required to

6 prove this week by clear and convincing evidence her

7 allegations that no signature verification was conducted

8 as to level I, in addition to allegations at level II and

9 3 verifications did not occur and establish that votes

10 were affected in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome

11 of the election based on a competent and mathematical

12 basis.

13 Because Ms. Lake has been fully heard on an

14 issue during a nonjury trial, Governor Hobbs, Secretary of

15 State Fontes, and Maricopa County jointly move this Court

16 to enter judgement on partial findings against Ms. Lake on

17 her signature verification claim pursuant to Arizona Rule

18 of Civil Procedure 52(c) as Ms. Lake has failed to meet

19 her burden regardless --

20 THE COURT: Slow down.

21 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Sure. Certainly.

22 THE COURT: I follow you but the court

23 reporter --

24 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Thank you.

25 -- as Ms. Lake has failed to meet her

Appx0799
 71

1 burden. Regardless of what defendants may offer in their

2 own case in chief, this Court should deny Ms. Lake's count

3 3 and dismiss this case.

4 Simply put, the testimony of Lake's

5 witnesses cannot support a finding that no signature

6 verification was conducted at levels I, II, and III.

7 Ms. Lake called six witnesses total,

8 including co-director of elections for Maricopa County,

9 Mr. Ray Valenzuela. Neither the testimony of Lake's

10 witnesses nor any admitted exhibits can support a fining

11 that Maricopa County did not conduct any signature

12 verification and any curing at levels I, II, and III.

13 Indeed, the testimony at trial thus far supports a finding

14 of just the opposite.

15 Beginning with Ms. Jacqueline Onigkeit and

16 Mr. Andrew Myers. Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers both worked

17 as level I signature verification workers during the 2022

18 general election.

19 Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers testified that

20 they did conduct signature verification and curing as

21 level I workers. Ms. Onigkeit, in fact, testified that

22 she performed her job well, and that she was focused on

23 quality over quantity.

24 Both Ms. Onigkeit and Mr. Myers also

25 provided testimony as to the signature verification and

Appx0800
 72

1 curing conducted at higher levels of review. Both

2 individuals described a process consistent with Arizona

3 signature verification law and offered no testimony

4 supporting a finding that Maricopa County failed to

5 conduct any signature verification at levels I, II, and

6 III.

7 Mr. Handsel, the data technology director

8 for We The People Arizona Alliance was called to

9 authenticate public records requests made to Maricopa

10 County, which shows the time spent by nonsignature

11 verification workers on signature verification.

12 Mr. Handsel offered no testimony supporting

13 a finding that Maricopa County did not conduct any

14 signature verification and curing at levels I, II, and

15 III.

16 Ms. Busch, the chairman of the We The People

17 Arizona Alliance, was called primarily authenticate a

18 video purporting to show a signature verification worker

19 working too quickly to actually be verifying signatures.

20 Ms. Busch had no personal knowledge of the

21 event taking place in the video. Ms. Busch ultimately

22 offered no testimony supporting a finding that Maricopa

23 County failed to conduct any signature verification at

24 levels I, II, and III.

25 Mr. Ray Valenzuela testified in detail as to

Appx0801
 73

1 the multi-level signature verification and curing process

2 in Maricopa County, including the signature verification

3 and curing at levels I, II, and III conducted during the

4 2022 general election.

5 Mr. Valenzuela testified as to the possible

6 contents in the video shown at Exhibit 19, including, one,

7 testifying that every single person is required, upon

8 finishing their signature verification batch of 250, to

9 click back through their batch as part of finishing their

10 work at level I and including, two, that a signature

11 verification worker, who was found to be performing his

12 duties incorrectly by Maricopa County, was reassigned to a

13 different post for the 2022 general election.

14 Mr. Valenzuela testified as to the movement

15 of signatures from levels I to II and further testified as

16 to level III, which is a randomized audit designed to

17 serve as a check against other levels of review and ensure

18 accuracy.

19 Mr. Valenzuela also testified that it was

20 possible for a signature verification to be performed at

21 an average rate of a couple of seconds.

22 And finally, Mr. Valenzuela also testified

23 that he himself performed signature verification of

24 approximately 16 hundred affidavit signatures during the

25 2022 -- 2022 general election, excuse me, Your Honor.

Appx0802
 74

1 Finally, Mr. Erich Speckin. Mr. Speckin

2 offered no testimony supporting a finding that Maricopa

3 County did not conduct any signature verification or

4 curing at levels I, II, and III.

5 For those reasons, Your Honor, Governor

6 Hobbs, Secretary of State Fontes, and Maricopa County

7 jointly move this Court to enter judgment on partial

8 findings against Ms. Lake on her signature verification

9 claim pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure

10 52(c).

11 Thank you, Your Honor.

12 MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 May I approach the podium?

14 THE COURT: You may.

15 MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, the supreme court

16 mandate was that Plaintiff Lake was required to establish

17 that vote -- quote, votes were affected in a sufficient

18 number -- sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the

19 election based on a competent mathematical analysis to

20 conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been

21 different, not simply an untethered assertion of

22 uncertainty.

23 The issue in this case has been A.R.S.

24 16-550 about signature verification and the associated

25 EPM. Counsel for the defendants just say, signature

Appx0803
 75

1 verification occurred.

2 Well, what exactly is signature verification

3 as required by that statute?

4 And signature verification is not just

5 simply whatever we think it is. It's not simply sitting

6 in front of a desk and tapping on a keyboard and scrolling

7 through signatures.

8 The statute is very specific. 550 uses the

9 word "shall compare," and that's further -- the two

10 signatures, and that's further modified by the finding of

11 the verifier that the signature -- whether or not it is

12 consistent.

13 Supreme court case law in Arizona states

14 that the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary

15 meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise

16 that a different meaning is intended.

17 Shall compare. Webster's dictionary defines

18 compare as, quote, to examine the character or qualities

19 of especially in order to discover resemblances or

20 differences.

21 Webster's dictionary defines consistency as

22 marked -- quote, marked by harmony, regularity, or steady

23 continuity free from variation or contradiction.

24 Even Mr. Valenzuela said yesterday that you

25 could not compare a signature in a half a second. He

Appx0804
 76

1 thought it could be in 2.54 seconds.

2 So defendants -- and Mr. Valenzuela is not a

3 handwriting expert. He's not an expert in signature

4 comparison. He was simply recognizing the obvious, that

5 you cannot just throw two signatures up on a screen and do

6 a comparison.

7 What is the purpose of the Arizona

8 legislature in mandating signature verification in the

9 first place? It's the first level of security to ensure

10 that illegal or fraudulent ballots aren't being injected

11 into the system.

12 As I mentioned at the opening, the

13 Carter/Baker Commission found that mail-in fraud is the --

14 excuse me, mail-in ballots are the single greatest --

15 greatest risk of fraud.

16 And it's that check of the signature,

17 through which Maricopa County puts its employees through

18 some fairly significant training in order to recognize the

19 differences in handwriting and to be able to assess

20 whether or not a signature is consistent and in order to

21 compare them.

22 Defendants would have this Court believe

23 that the word compare has no meaning. That is not in the

24 context of the statute and the intended purpose. That's a

25 critical distinction, Your Honor.

Appx0805
 77

1 The issue here is not whether two signatures

2 flashed up on a screen or that there was somebody seated

3 at a desk and just tapping on a keyboard like we saw in

4 the video.

5 We have offered concrete evidence, which

6 defendants don't dispute, and that's key, Your Honor.

7 This was their own data. They had it. They've known

8 about it for -- at least since Friday when we disclosed,

9 in our expert disclosure, that 1482 would be one of the

10 bases of his opinion.

11 If there was something wrong with that data,

12 don't you think they would've come and said, hey,

13 plaintiffs are wrong, the data doesn't show that 70,000 --

14 more than 70,000 signatures were approved in less than two

15 seconds. That's a range, Your Honor. That's less than 2

16 seconds from 1 second to a half a second, that over -- as

17 plaintiffs' expert testified, that over 274,000 ballots

18 were verified -- I want to say approved, but verified,

19 compared, in less -- less than 3 seconds.

20 And, Your Honor, as noted in that table and

21 as testified to by Mr. Speckin, this isn't simply a

22 comparison where you had a very obvious rejection. These

23 were at a rate of 99 to a hundred percent -- a hundred

24 percent approval. And so it takes longer to approve, to

25 find that they're consistent, that it does to reject a

Appx0806
 78

1 signature.

2 We had -- as Mr. Speckin testified, at 2

3 seconds -- less than 2 seconds, 70,000 ballots were

4 approved. The rates of the top seven were a hundred

5 percent. That's not signature verification, Your Honor.

6 This is the first line of defense that gives people

7 confidence in the system. That's what this is about, and

8 that's what's been lost.

9 Mrs. Onigkeit, when she teared up on the

10 stand -- she came here from Colorado to give her testimony

11 and to testify what she saw. The confidence, the laws --

12 16-550 is designed to give people confidence in the

13 system. It isn't simply anything goes with respect to

14 signature verification.

15 The issue, Your Honor, was not disputed by

16 defendants. They didn't put up an expert to say, well,

17 you can compare a signature, as that term is commonly

18 defined by Webster's, to determine whether it's -- the

19 signature is consistent or not. They had their

20 opportunity. They knew it was coming. They didn't

21 dispute it. That is fatal, Your Honor.

22 If anybody were to take, as Mr. Speckin

23 demonstrated on the stand, and flip through pages and say,

24 I read it, that's not reading.

25 For the same reasons, to say that a

Appx0807
 79

1 comparison is being conducted, there is a standard. And

2 in fact, Maricopa recognizes this standard. That's why

3 they put their employees through this training, to

4 determine whether the signature is consistent or not.

5 The issue under Reyes is whether or not

6 the -- the law is being followed. Statutes are

7 interpreted or read by their plain meaning.

8 Here, the undisputed evidence shows that you

9 cannot compare a signature to determine consistency in

10 less than 3 seconds, and we can even take it in less than

11 2 seconds, and Mr. Valenzuela would agree that you can't

12 do it, in his words, half a second. He kind of just

13 pulled that out.

14 The other issue with respect to the evidence

15 that plaintiffs presented from the whistleblowers that

16 counsel didn't mention is we talked about the flood of

17 ballots that were coming in.

18 Undisputed testimony that the level II

19 reviewers were so overwhelmed, that rather than conduct

20 any signature verification, they would kick the ballots

21 back to -- or the signatures back to level I to be

22 re-reviewed when they'd already been rejected. That's not

23 signature comparison, Your Honor.

24 I would also note that getting back to the

25 statutory requirement to compare -- and the case, Your

Appx0808
 80

1 Honor, that -- that I'd like to cite for terms being given

2 their ordinary meaning is State V Miller, 100 Arizona 288,

3 1966. Long-held precedent.

4 Maricopa County hired a signature expert to

5 train its worker, Kathleen Nicolaides. Why didn't they,

6 as they could've put an expert up to say, well, yeah, I

7 believe you can compare a signature. None could. That's

8 just a fact, Your Honor. It's an undisputed fact at the

9 moment because they didn't put anybody up.

10 It was their -- Maricopa County is required

11 to show that they complied with the statute. The

12 undisputed evidence shows they did not.

13 The numbers are outcome determinant.

14 Whether it's 274,000 or 70,000 -- if you could pull up a 2

15 second -- Your Honor, may I just show a quick

16 demonstration to show what 2 seconds looks like to flash

17 on the screen?

18 (Whereupon a recording is played after which

19 the following proceedings are had in open court:)

20 MR. OLSEN: That's 2 seconds, Your Honor.

21 70,000 ballots approved at nearly a hundred percent

22 acceptance rate.

23 That doesn't work. That's not signatures

24 verification. I don't care what they -- they can't just

25 call it that. We have proven our case because, A, it fits

Appx0809
 81

1 with common sense, just as you just saw, but B, the

2 defendants have not offered any rebuttal to it, and the

3 fact that they didn't rebut the evidence from their own

4 log files, which underpins our expert's testimony, says

5 everything, Your Honor.

6 This is a data-backed case. It goes to one

7 of the most critical issues concerning the integrity of

8 elections. There has been a massive push -- even

9 Mr. Liddy back in December, if you recall, blamed

10 Republicans -- primarily Republicans that came out on

11 election day for having the vulgarity to want to cast

12 their vote on election day. His statement was, you reap

13 what you sew.

14 That's the attitude here. The idea with the

15 increased usage of mail-in ballot makes the -- the

16 importance and the significance of having security

17 measures as outlined and stated clearly by the Arizona

18 legislature to give the public confidence that their votes

19 are being cast, and that the elected officials have been

20 rightfully elected is paramount.

21 And, Your Honor, with that, I submit we have

22 met our burden. The directed verdict should be denied.

23 Judgment should be granted in plaintiffs' favor, and this

24 election should be set aside.

25 Thank you, Your Honor.

Appx0810
 82

1 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Your Honor, may I

2 briefly?

3 First, as a point of procedure and --

4 actually, a couple of points of procedure and also some

5 references to the basic rules of evidence. I note that

6 the chart Mr. Olsen repeatedly referred to is not in

7 evidence.

8 Second, I note that no, we have not

9 technically disputed anything. We have not yet put our

10 case in chief on because we are presently before the Court

11 on our joint 52(c) motion which rests on partial findings.

12 And now, Your Honor, briefly again, before I

13 offer other defendants' counsel an opportunity to speak on

14 our joint motion, we are not here before the Court to

15 argue statutory construction. If we were, just like we

16 need to read the statute, Arizona case law has also said

17 that we cannot read into a statute that which is not

18 there.

19 The statute does not call for specific set

20 of seconds to review, it does not call for a specific set

21 of levels beyond that first to review. And beyond that,

22 we are not here on a process challenge as we and the Court

23 have repeatedly reminded plaintiff.

24 And respectfully, nothing Mr. Olsen has just

25 said changes the evidence presently before the Court and

Appx0811
 83

1 that which is actually in the record, which is not nearly

2 sufficient to show that the outcome in the selection would

3 have been different based on a competent mathematical

4 basis.

5 Respectfully, again, I refer the Court back

6 to the testimony and the record which I have just briefly

7 reviewed, showing that Ms. Lake did not meet her burden as

8 articulated by this Court and by the Arizona Supreme

9 Court.

10 I renew my motion for motion on partial

11 findings, and I would like to provide other defendants'

12 counsel the opportunity to speak.

13 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, Maricopa County

14 joins the Rule 52 motion. Supreme court said that

15 plaintiffs and -- rather, this Court, rather, said that

16 Lake must prove by competent mathematical basis to win at

17 trial, but she need not plead specific numbers in order to

18 meet the 12(b)(6), but she did need a competent

19 mathematical basis with specificity to prevail in this

20 hearing.

21 Not a single witness put forth by Challenger

22 Lake put forth any mathematical basis at all, competent or

23 otherwise, that the signature verification process did not

24 occur.

25 Many of the witnesses gave specific

Appx0812
 84

1 information that it did occur. And his -- and her opinion

2 witness testified as to a table, if you will, for lack of

3 other terminology, that he testified he created from data

4 received from Maricopa County that was built within their

5 computers during this signature verification process.

6 But for an acknowledgment that the signature

7 verification process occurred, there would be no data upon

8 which he could put this piece of paper together.

9 And I would say, Your Honor, that Reyes is a

10 case in which both parties stipulated that there was no

11 signature verification. And many months ago, just to

12 correct the record and preserve my own integrity, if you

13 will, I never blamed any voters for voting on election

14 day. I blamed Kari Lake's Get Out The Vote coordinator

15 and her campaign manager for malpractice, and they did

16 reap what they sewed.

17 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: That's all we have,

18 Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Very well. Rule 50 -- 52(c)

20 contemplates judgment on partial findings, and in the

21 middle of the language in the -- clearly, in the rule, it

22 says: The Court may decline to render any judgment until

23 the close of the evidence.

24 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Otherwise known as directed

Appx0813
 85

1 verdict in a trial.

2 At this particular time, I'm going to

3 exercise the discretion to decline rendering a judgment

4 until the close of everything, because, otherwise, I'm

5 ruling from the bench, as well, and as much as you might

6 want me to do that, I'm not going to do that.

7 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Your Honor.

8 Thank you for your consideration.

9 THE COURT: So do defendants wish to present

10 any case?

11 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, we will, Your

12 Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay. And I didn't mean this to

14 be a comment either way on anything. Okay? I'm reserving

15 until I hear everything where this comes out.

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Understood, Your

17 Honor. I think we all understand.

18 THE COURT: Very well. Defendants, who

19 would you like to call as a witness?

20 I think you got Mr. Valenzuela is the only

21 one you've got listed.

22 MS. RODRIGUEZ ARMENTA: Yes, Mr. Valenzuela.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I don't see -- there he

24 is.

25 Okay. All right. Mr. Valenzuela, you

Appx0814
 86

1 remain under oath. I'm not going to have you sworn in

2 again, sir. If you'll come up to the podium.

3 I will ask you, you do understand that you

4 remain under oath, correct, sir?

5 THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Thank you.

7 Very well. Who will be conducting the

8 direct examination of Mr. Valenzuela?

9 MR. LIDDY: It will be Mr. Liddy, Your

10 Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

12 Okay. Please proceed when you're ready,

13 Mr. Liddy.

14 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor.

15

16 RAY VALENZUELA,

17 having been previously duly sworn,

18 is examined and testifies as follows:

19

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION

21

22 BY MR. LIDDY:

23 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, we have met before?

24 A. We have.

25 Q. In fact, I represent your -- you and your

Appx0815
 87

1 colleagues on a variety of matters and have for many

2 years?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. And I'm not going to go through the normal early

5 litany of direct examination because you've already

6 testified, and you've given your name and your employer

7 and your background. We're just going to go through a

8 couple of things, see if we can't get this thing wrapped

9 up.

10 You mentioned earlier that you were CERA

11 certified; is that correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. And how long did it take to get CERA

14 certification?

15 A. The average is between four to six years.

16 Q. Okay. And is that something that requires

17 renewal?

18 A. It requires every three years renewal and --

19 through CLE and other classing.

20 Q. And would you remind me what CERA stands for and

21 what CERA certification is?

22 A. CERA stands for Certified Election Registration

23 Administrator.

24 Q. During the 2022 general election, were you

25 involved in verifying signatures on early ballot

Appx0816
 88

1 envelopes?

2 A. I was.

3 Q. Let's cut to the chase, Ray. Did you conduct

4 level I signature verification during the general election

5 in 2022?

6 And would you please look at the judge when

7 you answer, not me.

8 A. I did.

9 Q. And did you conduct level II signature

10 verification during the general election in 2022?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. And did you, in fact, in addition, conduct level

13 III signature verification in accordance with the law and

14 the requirements of the Recorder's Office during the

15 general election in 2022?

16 A. I did.

17 Q. And to your knowledge, was there anybody else on

18 the Maricopa County Recorder's team that also participated

19 in signature verification during the general election of

20 2022?

21 A. Yes. As identified even in the plaintiffs, there

22 are a total of 155 users, if you will, that participated

23 in signature verification.

24 Q. And those 155 were all trained and qualified to

25 do level I certification at least, correct?

Appx0817
 89

1 A. At the very least, yes.

2 Q. And among those 155, there were other

3 participants in the general election 2022 signature

4 verification process of Maricopa County that were also

5 trained and participated in signature verification level

6 II; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct. There were 43 total.

8 Q. Forty-three total.

9 So, if somebody attempted to put forth with

10 competent -- in competent mathematical basis, some sort of

11 calculation that would stand for the proposition that

12 Maricopa County could not do the signature verification in

13 the amount of time allotted, 1.3 million early voters, and

14 they use the variable of 25 level I reviewers and only

15 three level II, that would yield the result that would be

16 inaccurate based on your personal knowledge of how many

17 people participated in the 2022 general election signature

18 verification in Maricopa County?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Because you don't have to be a mathematical

21 genius to know when you switch the variables from 25 to

22 155 and from 3 to 43, you're going to get a bigger number,

23 right, Ray?

24 A. As far as an ability to review those, yes.

25 Q. Okay. Briefly, what does -- what does a level I

Appx0818
 90

1 signature review employee do?

2 A. They are tasked with exactly that, user level,

3 entry level, and I'll use the term, do no harm, ability to

4 basically filter to pass/fail, good, exception, whatever

5 term pleases the Court, but in ours, it's good and

6 exception. They can do no harm, they can not reject.

7 So the term -- using the term "reject" is

8 not proper and they -- not a single level I user could

9 reject. They can only exception, and move that to a level

10 II. They could make good and move that into the potential

11 audit, 2 percent random audit, of that queue.

12 Q. Ray, you're getting kind of inside baseball on

13 me, right?

14 A. I apologize.

15 Q. So they get a computer screen in front of them,

16 right, provided by Maricopa County?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. And they have the ability to pull up digitalized

19 images of the green affidavit envelope that's used in

20 Maricopa County for a mail-in voter?

21 A. So add a little clarity, that is pulled up for

22 them. They log in. A batch of 250 is provided to them

23 with the three exemplars and the clipped image of the

24 voter's signature.

25 Q. So on the screen it comes up. There's the

Appx0819
 91

1 signature that they used in 2022 to verify their ballot

2 packet or affidavit envelope, and there are the last three

3 signatures in the Recorder's computer for their record; is

4 that correct?

5 A. That is correct. And just as a point of

6 reference, they are ranged by lateral. So the latest

7 signature on file for the voter is the first signature

8 that appears, and just for another point of clarification,

9 it was never trained to that you must look at all three

10 exemplars and scroll. I just wanted to make sure that the

11 idea that that is the most recent signature appearing

12 first in front of that level I user.

13 Q. Thank you, Ray. Don't get ahead of me.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Thank you, though.

16 So you've done level I review yourself?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you have also produced training, materials,

19 that have been used for people that have been hired,

20 trained, and have actually done level I ballot review?

21 A. I've been participatory in crafting training,

22 yes.

23 Q. Okay. Now, let's say there was a -- a live

24 signature right here from 2022, and over here I have the

25 last three.

Appx0820
 92

1 The law says you have to look to see if

2 they're -- if they're not similar, right? You have to

3 compare them to see if they're not similar?

4 A. You -- actually, if we continue to read as

5 16-550(A) is being referenced, it's compared for -- for

6 consistency.

7 Q. It's -- it's compared to see if the signature is

8 inconsistent?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. So you have to compare to see if they're in- --

11 what was it, in?

12 A. Inconsistency.

13 Q. Right.

14 A. Not stop and compare and see if it is

15 inconsistent.

16 Q. So not dissimilar and not match and not

17 identical, but you look at the one from 2022, you look at

18 the other three, they're right there in front of you, and

19 you're looking to see if they're dissimilar?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. What do you do if they all look the same?

22 A. They are consistent. Then they match -- meet

23 that criteria for then to be dispositioned as a good

24 signature.

25 Q. And how long does that take for someone who's

Appx0821
 93

1 done this for a while that's experienced?

2 There's the one from 2022 for green

3 envelope, a digitalized image, and there's the last three?

4 Are they dissimilar? How long does that

5 take?

6 A. Again, as mentioned, you're not required to

7 scroll through three. If the first lateral signature on

8 file, vetted, verified signature, is an exact match --

9 we'll use that -- then that can take 1 to 2 seconds.

10 Q. Because if it's an exact match, it's pretty clear

11 that it's not inconsistent to sue the language of the

12 statute?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. So, in fact, you don't even have to read the 2022

15 signature and then read the signature from 2020, 2018,

16 2016.

17 If they match, you know that they're not

18 dissimilar as the statute requires, right?

19 A. That is part of the training. That is correct.

20 Only one exemplar is required to be referenced if -- but

21 the others are provided for those that may be subjective.

22 Q. Okay. If a level I signature reviewer in

23 Maricopa County in 2022 looks at those exemplars and says,

24 well, I think they might be dissimilar because

25 instantaneously, it doesn't look like a match to me, I'm

Appx0822
 94

1 going to look a little bit closer, and then that

2 individual does look a little bit closer and just says,

3 you know, I can't determine that it's -- that it's not

4 inconsistent, I actually see some inconsistencies there,

5 what does that level I signature reviewer do?

6 A. Again, with the inability to reject, they would

7 exception, and that -- using that case in point as an

8 example, the -- Reynaldo Valenzuela's packet signed by

9 Frank Johnson. That's very dissimilar, not consistent,

10 there is no need to go through broad characteristics,

11 local characteristics, or to even go past the first

12 exemplar. So that would be a 1- to 2-second exception.

13 Q. And where would that signature then go, or where

14 would that comparison go?

15 A. That would then go to the manager's level, the 43

16 managers that were available to task to review that

17 second, to concur that that is, indeed, not a consistent

18 signature.

19 Q. Is that level II, Ray?

20 A. That is level II, manager's queue, I apologize,

21 but level II.

22 Q. No. That's okay. Level II.

23 So it goes to level II?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So that could be pretty quick, too?

Appx0823
 95

1 A. As far as reaching the review in level II?

2 Q. Identifying -- no.

3 Identifying that they're inconsistent, move

4 it to level II?

5 A. Yes. That could be one of the ones that is,

6 indeed, to also include -- I may be overstepping -- also a

7 no signature. There is no 11 broad characteristics to

8 look at for a no signature. That could be 1 second, as

9 well.

10 Q. Okay. But let's go back to just two that, at

11 first look, might be the same name, probably are the same

12 name, the first name is about the same distance. They

13 both have a middle initial, they both have a period, they

14 both have a last name with a big fancy letter in the

15 front, but something is just not right. It's not a match.

16 You could figure it out pretty quickly,

17 couldn't you?

18 A. And we're actually trained to. Our -- our level

19 I users actually have emphasized there's quality, and if

20 they don't feel that indeed, we ask them to exception so

21 it can go through that higher level review.

22 Q. Now, in your experience, Ray, doctors aren't the

23 only Americans who got bad handwriting; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Some voters do, too?

Appx0824
 96

1 A. Including myself.

2 Q. And then there's people that are maybe in a hurry

3 in life, and they don't use perfect penmanship when they

4 sign their name, they just kind of do a little scribble

5 that they think is kind of cool, right?

6 A. That is correct. And it is those that you are

7 exactly are mentioning are the ones that have some

8 similarities that go beyond the 3 seconds, 5 seconds, 6

9 seconds, even 20 seconds at that level I to look at all

10 three exemplars because they have similarities, but

11 they're not exactly consistent. Then those are the ones

12 that would take longer than 2, 3, 4 seconds to review.

13 Q. Well, what if that little scribble was an exact

14 match? How long would that take?

15 A. As mentioned already, that if it was an exact

16 same flourishes, hand strokes that would take between 2

17 seconds to 4 seconds to infer and look at that to say

18 those are similar and consistent.

19 Q. So in fact -- so if there was a voter who was an

20 anesthesiologist and wrote all kinds of weird stuff in his

21 name, you may never be able to decipher the name of that

22 doctor. You might still have exemplars that match, and

23 you'd never actually read the name, but you would match

24 the signatures, correct?

25 A. Under the --

Appx0825
 97

1 MR. BLEHM: Object, Your Honor. He's

2 leading the witness.

3 THE COURT: Sustained. It's leading.

4 BY MR. LIDDY:

5 Q. I think you previously testified that you have

6 seen signatures that you were unable to read; is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Were you able to determine whether they were

10 similar or dissimilar from the exemplars provided in the

11 Registrar's record?

12 A. In the managers, level II, where we have a

13 repository of every official registration record to

14 include registration form, past affidavits -- and a lot of

15 folks may not be aware, but when you check into the

16 polling place, you sign a roster, show ID that has a

17 vetted signature. That, too, is available to that manager

18 level II reviewer.

19 Q. In your experience, does level II review take

20 longer than level I?

21 A. Absolutely. It's intended to, other than --

22 again, another folklore -- demonizing the 1 second, 2

23 second, is that if I am a level I and I send up a no

24 signature and it took me 2 seconds, one it should be to

25 establish that's no signature. A manager should be able

Appx0826
 98

1 to look at that and concur in 1 second that that is a no

2 signature. There's nothing there to -- local or broad

3 characteristics to review.

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I?

5 THE COURT: You may.

6 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

7 THE COURT: You may.

8 What exhibit is it?

9 MR. LIDDY: Exhibit 23, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Thanks.

11 BY MR. LIDDY:

12 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you do you recognize the document

13 you have in front of you?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. And do you see a green tag on that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you confirm for me the exhibit number of

18 that?

19 A. Exhibit Number 23.

20 Q. Would you take a moment and just peruse that

21 document, not to read it but just to see if you recognize

22 what it is?

23 A. I do recognize it, yes.

24 Q. And what is that document, Mr. Valenzuela?

25 A. It is a -- a printout of our Power Point training

Appx0827
 99

1 that's provided to all of our signature verification

2 staff.

3 Q. And was this document used for the classroom

4 training which you previously testified before while you

5 were under examination from the contestor that was

6 provided to the level I signature reviewers in 2022?

7 A. This is our level I user training material, or a

8 portion thereof. There are also guides that are provided

9 for reference.

10 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move this exhibit

11 into evidence.

12 THE COURT: Any objection to 23?

13 MR. OLSEN: No, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: We'll -- who's doing the

15 examination for this witness?

16 MR. BLEHM: I am, Your Honor. No objection.

17 THE COURT: Thank you. Twenty-three is

18 admitted.

19 MR. LIDDY: May I approach again, Your

20 Honor?

21 THE COURT: You may.

22 MR. LIDDY: Actually, Your Honor, should I

23 leave it up here in case I need to refer to it.

24 THE COURT: I don't mind as long as, at the

25 end of the day, it makes its way back to the clerk.

Appx0828
 100

1 Which number is it, Mr. Liddy?

2 MR. LIDDY: It's 24. It's identical to 1.

3 It's already been admitted.

4 THE COURT: One's been admitted. I'm told

5 24 is a duplicate of 1. One's been admitted.

6 MR. LIDDY: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 BY MR. LIDDY:

8 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you've answered several questions

9 about level II, which you said officially is called

10 manager level; is that correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Can we talk about dispositioned ballots? What is

13 a dispositioned ballot?

14 A. A disposition is a particular status code that we

15 set to a given record to identify which -- which way we

16 want to sort that physical packet to to direct it down its

17 proper path.

18 Q. Okay. So, by "physical packet," you don't mean a

19 ballot, and you don't mean a mirror affidavit envelope,

20 the green -- the ubiquitous green envelope that we've

21 discussed a lot over the last couple of days, but you mean

22 a combination of the two; is that correct?

23 A. The ballot sealed.

24 Q. Sealed?

25 A. Is to be and remains until it reaches our citizen

Appx0829
 101

1 board for processing, but yes, the packet is how we refer

2 to in early ballot so as to not confuse that we're sorting

3 ballots. We're actually dispositioning packets and that

4 affidavit.

5 Q. So that's why the professionals use the term

6 packet rather than ballot?

7 A. Correct. So that somebody says, oh, I was

8 sorting ballot, that sounds a little bit nefarious or

9 injecting ballots where you could be injecting a packet

10 into the stream for signature verification is what is

11 happening.

12 Q. So, just for clarification, a packet has the

13 affidavit envelope, which you could see the affidavit on

14 it, and the signature, if there is one, because sometimes

15 you forget, and a date; is that correct?

16 A. That is correct, plus an option for the voter to

17 list their phone number.

18 Q. Phone number.

19 And that is all visible on the outside of

20 the packet?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. You can kind of hold it and see if there's

23 something inside, right, but you don't really know what's

24 inside?

25 A. Actually, part of our process is that, but I

Appx0830
 102

1 won't get into the weeds, but yes, we can -- we can tell

2 if there's something within it.

3 Q. And we're all hopeful that that thing that's

4 within it is a ballot?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Your experience, is it always a ballot?

7 A. Not always.

8 Q. Just saying.

9 So all of this review is done without the

10 reviewer actually seeing the ballot?

11 A. Not only do they not see the ballot, they only

12 see that -- it's a clipped image that the user 1 -- level

13 I is looking at, and it contains the voter signature and

14 the voter's information, if you will, their name and

15 address.

16 Q. So these reviewers don't even get their hands on

17 the packet?

18 A. Not until they reach the curing post

19 dispositioning as good, bad, or otherwise.

20 Q. So where are the ballots at this level I and

21 level II time?

22 A. So.

23 Q. Where are the packets? Sorry.

24 A. So the process, at sort of high level, was that

25 we picked those up, our couriers, our staff picked those

Appx0831
 103

1 up from the U.S. post office. Two members of different

2 parties take it to Runbeck where they inbound scan to

3 capture that image and also account by that unique piece

4 ID. Every packet that is sent to a voter, registered

5 voter, you have to be -- unlike election day where you

6 don't have. But I digressed.

7 A packet goes to the voter. It comes back.

8 We inbound scan those, capture that image, and those are

9 placed in a vault never to be seen or touched again until

10 we turn that file with a disposition codes set.

11 Q. That's where I was going. So I want to get back

12 to that. They're actually in a vault locked up at the

13 time of the level I, level II review; is that correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Nobody gets to touch them?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. So if there's an evil doer somewhere in Maricopa

18 County, at MCTEC that wants to play games, they can't go

19 and figure out what's inside the -- the envelope and make

20 a disposition decision that way, correct?

21 A. It would not be the normal path either way for

22 that packet to get to the citizen board processing. It

23 has to be through that stream of disposition audit sheet

24 and audit report.

25 Q. My question is, they wouldn't even have their

Appx0832
 104

1 hands on it, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. There's no way they can tell if there's a ballot

4 in there or what that ballot -- what's marked on that

5 ballot, correct?

6 A. During that signature verification process.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 And that's the tech -- that's the process

9 that was used during the general election signature

10 verification in 2022, correct?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. And you know that because you were there,

13 correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And you saw that, correct?

16 A. And participated, as well, yes.

17 Q. You participated, as well.

18 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

19 THE COURT: You may.

20 Which exhibit?

21 MR. LIDDY: Exhibit 25, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, you've had an opportunity to

25 glance at Exhibit 25?

Appx0833
 105

1 A. I have.

2 Q. Do you recognize it?

3 A. I do.

4 Q. What is it?

5 A. It is one of our signature verification user

6 guides -- or guides for -- this one particularly is for

7 our user level employees.

8 Q. And was this -- to your knowledge, was this used

9 to train the level I signature reviewers, the 155 of

10 them --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- that were used in general election 2022?

13 A. It is a supplemental document that's part of the

14 training that was originally presented and something

15 that's a takeaway. They actually maintain this as a user

16 level I worker.

17 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move for the

18 admission of Exhibit 25.

19 THE COURT: Any objection?

20 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Twenty-five is admitted.

22 BY MR. LIDDY:

23 Q. So I see three columns.

24 Do you see those three columns on this

25 document?

Appx0834
 106

1 A. I do.

2 Q. And the middle column says disposition, EBRT,

3 slash, EB2016.

4 Do you see that?

5 A. I do.

6 Q. Would you explain to the Court what that is?

7 A. This is, as mentioned, one of the disposition

8 codes, good, that can be set, and this is a visual, an

9 example, of what a user level I may see and what

10 disposition would fit that category.

11 Q. And what does good mean?

12 A. Good means that it's consistent signature with

13 those that they reviewed or the signature they looked at

14 when -- at a level I initial review.

15 Q. Okay. Now, if you go over to column number 1, it

16 says exemplar on the affidavit signature image, and if

17 you'll drop down to the middle there, it says, quote,

18 verified and approved MCTEC stamp.

19 Do you follow me there?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Can you explain to the Court what that means?

22 A. That is a packet that went through, as an

23 example, exception. The level I user initially said, I

24 don't see this to be consistent, and they sent it on to a

25 manager, manager level II, concurred. It's not

Appx0835
 107

1 consistent, so it's sent for curing.

2 So those thousands of -- that are then

3 contacted by -- or the voter is given the opportunity to

4 cure, to authenticate their identity, and when they do

5 contact, we would document that on the affidavit, and we

6 stamp upon that, verify and approved, and resend that back

7 through for two things, not only archive and retention to

8 scan that packet, but also to reverify in the system that

9 it's a good sig, meaning it's followed its path of

10 exception, could be a no sig, could've been a questionable

11 sig, but it's been cured, and that curing will have that

12 stamp, and our level I board workers are trained, told

13 when they see that, that's a 1- to 2-second cure. There

14 is nothing to scroll through. This has been verified by

15 the voter.

16 Q. So that's really fast.

17 A. Yes. You see that stamp. You see -- following

18 the logic, you see no signature, that should be 1 second

19 or less. You see this verified and approved, that should

20 be trained to that is good to go, next.

21 Q. So if I was trying to figure out an average time

22 it would take to do a signature review and no high-level

23 math, let's just say sixth-grade-level math, maybe

24 something I learned from my father, somebody might learn

25 from their dad or their mom, I learned mine from my mom,

Appx0836
 108

1 not my dad, but it's just figuring out an average, right?

2 So if I were doing that and I had some

3 numbers from my universe from which I'm going to fill out

4 an average, that were zero or near zero because they've

5 got the stamp on it --

6 MR. BLEHM: I'm going to object --

7 MR. LIDDY: -- that's -- let me finish the

8 question. Let me finish the question.

9 BY MR. LIDDY:

10 Q. -- that's going to affect the average

11 calculation, isn't it?

12 MR. LIDDY: Now go ahead.

13 MR. BLEHM: I object, Your Honor. He's not

14 a signature verification expert.

15 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, this only calls for

16 sixth grade math.

17 MR. BLEHM: He's not a signature

18 verification expert. They haven't laid any foundation for

19 his ability to determine how long it should take to do a

20 signature verification.

21 MR. LIDDY: That's not the question, Your

22 Honor.

23 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

24 You're objecting that he's not -- qualified to do --

25 MR. BLEHM: I'm objecting that he's not a

Appx0837
 109

1 signature verification expert because he's talking about

2 doing averages about how long it should take to do each of

3 these signatures. And that's -- that's -- they don't have

4 an expert for that, Your Honor.

5 Furthermore, I'll throw in the kitchen sink

6 as they did, he's not a statistician. He has no

7 background in that. I believe he testified to that fact,

8 Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Rephrase it.

10 MR. LIDDY: I'll withdraw the question, Your

11 Honor. And I'll get to it another way.

12 THE COURT: Fine.

13 BY MR. LIDDY:

14 Q. Ray, do you know what it means to calculate an

15 average?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. If I want to calculate the average of 10 numbers

18 and say two of them were very, very low because those two

19 come from a universe that's different than the other

20 eight. Let's say they had verified stamp approvals on

21 them, and so I didn't have to examine them, I just knew

22 right away we'd move them on, so I have two -- 20 percent

23 really low numbers.

24 Is that going to affect the overall average

25 of my calculation of the average of 10 by moving it lower?

Appx0838
 110

1 A. Obviously, using the term grading on a curve or

2 anything you would eliminate those that will affect your

3 average similar to these 1- to 2- second review

4 dispositions or categories.

5 Q. So let's say I'm the assistant coach on a Little

6 League baseball team and I'm calculating the average of 10

7 players on our team, but it's early in the season, early

8 in the game, and two of them haven't even had bats yet

9 because one was sick and the other was out of town and

10 they didn't play the first two games. So now we have

11 eight with batting averages and two with 000, and if I add

12 them all together, I'm not really going to get a look at

13 what the average ability of our team is to bat because two

14 of them are outliers, and I should throw them out if I

15 want to get an accurate number, right?

16 A. Yes, that is correct. To remove outliers, that

17 would affect that average.

18 Q. And would you agree with me that if some of these

19 review packets I had to verify, approve, and stamp on

20 them, but the amount of time that's going to take, that's

21 going to be very, very low?

22 A. That is correct.

23 MR. BLEHM: I'm going to object, Your Honor,

24 on the basis that he's, again, not a signature

25 verification expert.

Appx0839
 111

1 THE COURT: Are you asking him based on his

2 personal experience, or are you asking him on another

3 basis?

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I'm asking him on

5 his personal experience.

6 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, he's also

7 speculating.

8 THE COURT: As to what?

9 MR. BLEHM: As to whether or not if

10 something contains a stamp, the average time is going to

11 be very, very low.

12 THE COURT: Well, that's why I asked him if

13 he's asking based on his personal experience. He

14 testified earlier he actually reviewed and verified 16

15 hundred at level I in the last election. So, based on his

16 experience, he can answer.

17 BY MR. LIDDY:

18 Q. Can you answer the question?

19 A. Based on my personal experience of not just

20 reviewing 16 hundred but probably close to hundreds of

21 thousands over my 20 years of actually doing this and this

22 being a consistent practice, yes, I can say that if -- in

23 my personal experience, looking at this as is trained to

24 all level I users, that I would take less than a second to

25 see that verified and approved, and I would hit approved.

Appx0840
 112

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 BY MR. LIDDY:

5 Q. Exhibit 26.

6 Mr. Valenzuela, do you recognize that

7 document?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. What is it?

10 A. It is similar to our user level, but it is our

11 signature verification job aid for managers.

12 Q. And was this document used, in part, among

13 others, and during the general election period -- prior to

14 the general election 2022 to train the level II or

15 managerial level document reviewers?

16 A. I did. And also as a reference takeaway guide.

17 Q. How is this document used?

18 A. Similar to the other document, but it has that

19 level II disposition options available, which on the

20 screen, when they showed, you'll see the first three

21 categories are the same, the good, good, good, based on a

22 verified and approved --

23 Q. If I -- if I may, you're referring to the middle

24 column of this exhibit, correct?

25 A. Correct.

Appx0841
 113

1 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt. Continue.

2 A. But if -- in this particular document, it moves

3 into the next level manager disposition availability

4 options such as no sig.

5 So at level I, a level I we're not asking

6 them to make decisions other than exception. It's a --

7 and then it moves to level II with multiple amounts of

8 exemplars, but in the case of you'll see the no sig is

9 enabled option for a manager, because it clearly is a no

10 sig, the need packet.

11 There's several different dispositions that

12 we, at the managers level, can, to include you think it is

13 an inconsistent, let us look at the 2,444 signature

14 exemplars on file and see if we can concur.

15 Q. So the level I reviewers have only two options?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Good sig and exception?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. No pass or no pass?

20 A. No good -- no no sig, no need packet, no any

21 exceptional or --

22 Q. No rejection?

23 A. No rejection whatsoever.

24 Q. That's a point of emphasis. It's impossible for

25 level I reviewer to reject a signature?

Appx0842
 114

1 A. Similar to our wanting to -- in early voting, to

2 call it a packet, not a ballot, and exception, not

3 rejection, because we don't reject at level I.

4 Q. We could move beyond the level I, level II, level

5 III signature review process, and I want to ask you a few

6 questions about something that I heard in testimony

7 yesterday and today. That's the curing process.

8 Are you familiar with what it means, the

9 curing in Maricopa County document review?

10 A. I am.

11 Q. Before I get to curing, in your personal

12 experience, when you have seen -- have you ever seen a

13 checkmark in the box on the affidavit envelope rather than

14 a signature?

15 A. Absolutely.

16 Q. Or another indicia of a marker saying X?

17 A. Correct. As identified in the user guide, we do

18 have a group -- or a population, demographics, that may

19 have some physical dis- -- incapacitation that requires,

20 and then there are process procedures, how we go about to

21 either cure or register them with that identifier.

22 Q. So those voters would make a mark rather than

23 place in that signature area what we would all call a

24 signature?

25 A. But just, if I may point of privilege, once

Appx0843
 115

1 again, is they can make a mark, but it has to be

2 consistent with their registration file that that is on

3 file as such.

4 Q. So if you're a level I reviewer and in comes the

5 image and it's just a mark, how long does it take to

6 determine that?

7 A. If it's consistent, it's an X and an X, then,

8 again, as much as looking at a piece of art. If it's the

9 same, it's the same drawing, it's the same drawing, it

10 takes -- it can be under a second to 2 seconds.

11 Q. No reading involved?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Just comparing two marks?

14 A. No 11 local or broad characteristics, no swoops,

15 swooshes, and strokes. Just looking at that.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 So would you explain for the Court, please,

18 what is the curing process?

19 A. So the curing process is behind the signature

20 verification process. So, when somebody, at a level I,

21 does set a record as exception, it goes to a manager.

22 That manager concurs that it is, indeed, inconsistent

23 signature, then it goes into a status or another

24 disposition, sometimes referred to as a preliminary

25 question, PQ, using these acronyms, or QS, question

Appx0844
 116

1 signature.

2 That allows us to take it down a path to

3 begin the contact using that phone number that's on the

4 voter's reg- -- on the affidavit, using e-mail, using a

5 ballot subscription service where, if you sign up to say,

6 tell me your ballot status to include when it's mailed,

7 when it's received and the disposition, then we'll

8 instantly send you a text that says your ballot has been

9 questioned, call our call center.

10 Q. Why does the Maricopa County Recorder's Office

11 have a process for curing early ballots?

12 A. It's required in law that we make a reasonable

13 effort. I think we go beyond reasonable, which is

14 voter-centric, but make at least a reasonable effort, as

15 required in statute, to contact the voter to -- in that

16 same section, 16-550(A) that if it's inconsistent, that we

17 will make that effort.

18 Q. So, in your opinion, Maricopa County Recorder's

19 signature verification and curing team goes beyond that

20 which is required by law?

21 A. Absolutely, based on some of our cure rates, if

22 you will.

23 Q. Why is it important to you, as a professional in

24 this area, to go beyond what the law requires in order to

25 give voters an opportunity to cure an infirmity in their

Appx0845
 117

1 affidavit envelope?

2 A. Again, having done this 32 years -- and I know my

3 oath of office was brought into question and my integrity

4 as to if I would. We look at this and take this seriously

5 to know that we're about to disenfranchise a voter if we

6 are not making that effort.

7 So that's why we -- post election, we --

8 298,000 ballot drop-off, we threw all hands on deck

9 because we need to contact those voters that fall into

10 that curing so they have time to cure. So we take it very

11 seriously and make sure that we are as voter-centric as

12 possible regardless.

13 Again, all I see is the packet that says

14 John Doe on it. I don't know that am I curing this. I'm

15 curing it for the sake of being voter-centric.

16 Q. So does Recorder Richer and your team, do they

17 document the efforts they make throughout the curing

18 process?

19 A. We do. So we are identifying that it is in the

20 system. There's two different processes. In the system,

21 all of what this raw data that we saw, we are noting that

22 it's been an exception. We are noting that it's set as a

23 question signature.

24 Then that contact is made, but we are not

25 returning that into the system, but we are actually

Appx0846
 118

1 physically, upon the actual packet, when you ask what

2 happens when we send that disposition to Runbeck, we're

3 sorting those good sigs, but we're also sorting those need

4 packets, questionable, all of the different dispositions.

5 We will take those no sigs, those

6 questionables, and we will put an affidavit label, or

7 we'll put a label on there that has different action items

8 that the -- that the curing team would document what

9 they've done.

10 I contact the voter, left voicemail, a

11 letter was sent. All of those things are maintained, and

12 those are trade, ready, and left in alpha order, some of

13 the tasks that I think was mentioned by some of the temps

14 that were witnesses, that are ready to be cured and in --

15 documented through that action label.

16 Q. And is it your understanding that the law in

17 Arizona places a strict timeline and the ability of you

18 and your team to assist those voters in curing those

19 ballot packages?

20 A. It doesn't set a timeline for us to cure them.

21 It sets a deadline for the voter to reach back to us,

22 using the 2022, as an example. It's five business days,

23 which usually ends up being seven calendar. There was a

24 holiday on November 8th. So we moved it to November 16th.

25 So we are curing, and that's why we take

Appx0847
 119

1 it -- the urgency to -- by November 11th, we had cured all

2 those because we threw resources at it to contact those

3 voters to give them the option so that we're not calling

4 them on November 16 at -- at 4:59 to say, you have to

5 cure, and it's -- that extra effort is put towards that.

6 Q. So, in 2022, there was a holiday?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. That -- was that Veterans Day?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Are you sure --

11 A. Or Memorial -- whatever November 11th. I

12 apologize.

13 Q. And that was 2022?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you remember that?

16 A. Yes, because we -- it's a rare circumstance, and

17 we had to push, just as law requires, anytime that

18 something falls on a holiday, you must extend that

19 deadline, and we did. The whole State of Arizona with all

20 15 counties.

21 Q. So there really was signature review in Maricopa

22 County in 2022?

23 A. Yes. For us to have curing, we would have to

24 have those reviewed to put into that queue.

25 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

Appx0848
 120

1 Exhibit 26.

2 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Twenty-six is admitted then.

4 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

5 THE COURT: You may.

6 BY MR. LIDDY:

7 Q. Exhibit 27.

8 Mr. Valenzuela, would you take a moment and

9 look at the document I just handed to you.

10 A. I'm familiar with it.

11 Q. What is it?

12 A. It is basically our -- if you will, a procedural

13 document that identifies early voting contacting, curing

14 process, and what its purpose is that we provide to staff

15 or even as an out- -- you know, outreach resource

16 document.

17 Q. Now, you just testified in some detail about the

18 curing process for people that mail in their ballots that

19 are on there or what have you.

20 But there are also early voters that don't

21 use the postal service; is that correct?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And what if one of those forgets to sign that

24 affidavit envelope? What happens then?

25 A. So there -- again, there's different deadlines

Appx0849
 121

1 for no signature, and the Arizona Revised Statute requires

2 that it's done by 7:00 p.m. on election night, cured,

3 still cured, but it has to be done by that deadline.

4 Q. They don't get the five days and the holiday?

5 A. They do not. They are -- they are required, and

6 we still make a reasonable effort to reach out to those

7 voters through all the various contact methods as outlined

8 in this document, the two different dates, one for

9 questionable signature, one for no signatures.

10 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

11 Exhibit 27.

12 THE COURT: Any objection?

13 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Twenty-seven is admitted.

15 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I approach?

16 THE COURT: You may.

17 BY MR. LIDDY:

18 Q. Exhibit 28.

19 Mr. Valenzuela, have you had a chance to

20 look at that document?

21 A. I have.

22 Q. Do you recognize it?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. What is it?

25 A. It is our voter contact label guide we give to

Appx0850
 122

1 staff. It is basically those individuals that are tasked

2 with the curing process, what they are to do, what these

3 acronyms on the label that's shown on there, bottom

4 left-hand corner, actions circle.

5 And it's just a legend of what -- if they

6 left a voicemail, if they left a message, if a letter was

7 sent, no voicemail, tons of different guides -- or contact

8 actions that are tracked by -- and the date that that was

9 done by that particular staff member.

10 Q. So LS means letter sent?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. WN, wrong number?

13 A. Correct. All the way down to the last one,

14 verified, which would then have that verified and approved

15 stamp re-sent through, adds to the integer of that log

16 file, but it's re-sent through and re-reviewed in 1 to 2

17 seconds because it has that stamp verified and approved.

18 So all of those packets that would have been

19 cured by the voter would be rescanned, re-reviewed, and

20 again, known to me that it would take less than 1 to 2

21 seconds to disposition that as good.

22 Q. Because it's already been stamped?

23 A. And it's already been reviewed, and it's already

24 been validated. It's now just for miniscule kind of

25 duties we're capturing and archiving that image.

Appx0851
 123

1 Q. So all the time that it would take to review

2 that, verify it, and stamp it would -- that time wouldn't

3 count back in that earlier document where the contestor is

4 saying -- trying to figure out the averages of how quickly

5 everybody does it?

6 A. Correct. That would --

7 MR. BLEHM: Object, Your Honor. That was

8 exceptionally leading.

9 THE COURT: That was leading.

10 BY MR. LIDDY:

11 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, does it take a lot more time to

12 cure an affidavit envelope and having it all the way down

13 to the code SR -- I'm sorry, VER, verified action

14 selected, when the voter verifies a signature than it

15 would look at two signatures and figure out if they're

16 similar or not?

17 A. It takes umpteenth amounts of time because of the

18 fact that it is reaching out to the voter. We have shifts

19 that will be doing specifically that, and it could days,

20 quite frankly.

21 Q. Takes days.

22 But once that's completed, there's a stamp

23 placed on that one, right?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. And then it goes all the way back to level I,

Appx0852
 124

1 correct?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. And then that machine in Maricopa County that

4 sent the data to the contestor here is going to have a

5 really low number because when they looked and saw the

6 stamp, it was just a really low number, right?

7 A. That exact user ID could have been categorized as

8 an exception that took 5 seconds, could've gone to

9 manager's level that took 12 seconds to concur, and then,

10 when it came back, that third scan would be 1 second to

11 disposition it as verified.

12 Q. To see that stamp could take only 1 second?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Or maybe less, possible?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And so if you took -- so my question to you is,

17 all the time it took to get that verified stamp on there,

18 none of that would be reflected in the mathematical

19 calculation that you saw earlier today put forth as

20 alleged evidence that there was no signature review

21 process done --

22 MR. BLEHM: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. -- is that correct?

25 THE COURT: Wait.

Appx0853
 125

1 MR. BLEHM: Leading, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Okay. It is leading.

3 BY MR. LIDDY:

4 Q. Now, you previously testified, Mr. Valenzuela,

5 that it takes a lot of time for the Maricopa County

6 Recorder's signature verification team to cure a ballot

7 all the way such down that it gets to the verified stamp

8 on it, correct?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. And you have also testified that the time

11 reflected in that is not accounted for in the document

12 that was produced by the contestor, Kari Lake's team,

13 which they presented in the court while you were watching,

14 correct?

15 MR. BLEHM: Objection. Foundation, Your

16 Honor. I believe Mr. Valenzuela previously testified he

17 doesn't -- he's not even had personal knowledge of the

18 contents on CD-ROM other than approving their disclosure

19 to us. He hasn't looked at the data. He's admitted that.

20 He hasn't reviewed the data. He's admitted that.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Rephrase it then. If you

22 got another way of --

23 BY MR. LIDDY:

24 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, were you in the courtroom earlier

25 today?

Appx0854
 126

1 A. I was.

2 Q. Did you see -- did you hear and watch the

3 testimony of the alleged expert put forth by plaintiff?

4 A. I did.

5 Q. Did you see up on that screen there when they put

6 that document up there that he was testifying about?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Did you understand that the amount of time it

9 takes to verify an affidavit envelope under the curing

10 process was not included in that data?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. BLEHM: He's still leading, Your Honor.

14 And my objection is renewed again with respect to his

15 fundamental understanding of the very data that chart was

16 based upon.

17 THE COURT: It's -- the question was asked

18 to the exhibit. I'll just note for the record all the

19 objections as to leading are new in this case. The other

20 side extended the courtesy of never objecting once to

21 anything leading throughout the entire presentation of

22 plaintiffs' case. But if you insist on objecting on

23 leading, I can sustain those.

24 It's -- you have to rephrase it differently.

25 Just pointing it out as a matter of professional courtesy,

Appx0855
 127

1 but it is something that typically is true.

2 MR. BLEHM: If -- if -- Your Honor, if I

3 heard you right, you asked him to rephrase or -- asked and

4 answered anyway, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: I didn't understand what you

6 just said, Mr. Blehm.

7 MR. BLEHM: Oh, I -- I could not hear the --

8 too much in front of me. If you said something about

9 rephrase it.

10 THE COURT: He can rephrase anything. If

11 you're objecting to leading, some of the leading in -- in

12 the case has to do with the streamlining.

13 MR. BLEHM: Your Honor, my response was

14 asked and answered, so...

15 THE COURT: Understood. Understood. But

16 we're at the end of the day.

17 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, for clarification,

18 the last response that he gave, is that in the record, or

19 you if taken that out because you've ruled that the

20 question was leading?

21 THE COURT: No. It's -- the question was

22 leading. So I sustained the objection. I was just noting

23 for the record that it's just -- it can be rephrased and

24 asked a different way. It's just -- that's fine.

25 MR. BLEHM: If I may, Your Honor?

Appx0856
 128

1 THE COURT: Say again?

2 MR. BLEHM: If I may, asked and answered so

3 I'll withdraw the objection to that specific question.

4 MR. LIDDY: Thank you for the professional

5 courtesy. I appreciate it.

6 THE COURT: Very well. Go ahead.

7 Next question.

8 BY MR. LIDDY:

9 Q. Mr. Valenzuela, are all level I reviewers trained

10 to question the checkmark stamp?

11 A. If it is inconsistent with what is on the

12 official voter registration record, absolutely.

13 Q. And that would go for an X also?

14 A. If there's an X or any mark that is inconsistent

15 with what is on file of the official registration, they

16 are, indeed, asked to make that an exception.

17 Q. Are level I reviewers trained to reverify

18 signatures bearing the checkmark stamp?

19 A. I wouldn't say that they're asked to reverify.

20 All of them are asked to relook at their sub batch of 250

21 to see their status so if they originally set that as

22 exception, they should confirm that in their backwards

23 review of that.

24 Q. So, when a level I signature verifier completes a

25 batch of 250 signature verifications, the protocol is for

Appx0857
 129

1 them, before they submit it, to go back and review each

2 one?

3 A. And -- and I may add, again, for edification, not

4 review in the same level of I've looked at three

5 exemplars, I deem this to not be the same, that they are

6 identifying that I've set this as an exception before I

7 commit the batch, I'm going to look at that and yes,

8 indeed, I don't redo the three-level scrolling, or if it's

9 a good sig, they're just reconfirming.

10 Q. If your experience, that's much faster than the

11 initial review?

12 A. It's much faster, and again, it's not logged

13 because it's not a disposition set.

14 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I move to admit

15 Exhibit 28.

16 THE COURT: Any objection?

17 MR. BLEHM: No objection, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Twenty-eight is admitted.

19 MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, now would be an

20 appropriate time to break for the afternoon.

21 THE COURT: All right. Very well. We will

22 do that. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.,

23 and we will be adjourned until that time.

24

25 (Whereupon proceedings are concluded.)

Appx0858
 130

4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

8 STATE OF ARIZONA )

9 COUNTY OF MARICOPA )

10

11 I, Luz Franco, an official reporter in the Superior

12 Court of the state of Arizona, in and for the county of

13 Maricopa, hereby certify that the foregoing pages

14 constitute a true and accurate transcript of my

15 stenographic notes taken at said time and date, all done

16 to the best of my skill and ability.

17 Dated this 18th day of May, 2023.

18

19

20

21 ___/s/Luz Franco__________

22 Luz Franco, RMR, CRR

CR No. 50591
23 Official Court Reporter

24

25

Appx0859
 1

$ 18 [2] - 1:16, 4:1 128:20, 128:25 45,670 [1] - 11:12 9

18th [1] - 130:17 26 [6] - 10:21, 11:6, 452 [1] - 17:9
$600 [1] - 37:11 19 [1] - 73:6 11:18, 11:25, 112:5, 46,000 [1] - 8:15 9 [5] - 9:15, 10:21,
1966 [1] - 80:3 120:1 46,854 [1] - 8:12 11:6, 11:18, 11:25
/ 1998 [1] - 55:2 27 [2] - 120:7, 121:11 47 [11] - 4:22, 14:21, 9,987 [2] - 7:25, 8:1
27,196 [1] - 9:19 35:25, 36:1, 43:7, 90 [1] - 18:18
/s/Luz [1] - 130:21 2 274 [1] - 23:3 44:9, 58:14, 59:23, 91 [1] - 17:5
274,000 [2] - 77:17, 59:24, 62:14, 62:20 96.39 [1] - 5:23
0 2 [29] - 1:19, 5:8, 5:12, 80:14 48 [7] - 16:25, 17:1, 97.23 [1] - 8:14
11:13, 11:21, 12:5, 276,000 [1] - 10:18 21:10, 35:19, 35:21, 98.9 [1] - 9:13
000 [1] - 110:11 54:20, 62:15, 62:17, 28 [2] - 121:18, 129:15 54:9 99 [1] - 77:23
63:18, 64:13, 64:14, 288 [1] - 80:2 4:59 [1] - 119:4 99.37 [1] - 8:17
1 77:15, 78:2, 78:3, 29,751 [1] - 8:20 4th [1] - 62:8 99.65 [4] - 6:6, 6:19,
79:11, 80:14, 80:16, 29.5 [1] - 22:10 6:24, 7:4
1 [19] - 50:23, 60:25, 80:20, 90:11, 93:9,
77:16, 93:9, 94:12,
29.8 [1] - 22:24 5 99.72 [1] - 8:20
96:12, 96:16, 97:22, 298,000 [1] - 117:8 99.84 [1] - 8:22
95:8, 97:22, 98:1, 97:24, 110:3, 5 [5] - 5:8, 5:10, 10:9, 99.87 [1] - 7:24
100:2, 100:5, 115:10, 122:16, 96:8, 124:8
102:12, 106:15, 122:20
3 99.88 [1] - 8:5
5/4/23 [1] - 62:2 99.91 [1] - 9:15
107:13, 107:18, 2,444 [1] - 113:13 3 [24] - 5:8, 5:10, 5:12, 50 [2] - 7:9, 84:19 99.97 [1] - 9:18
110:3, 122:16, 2-second [2] - 94:12, 8:2, 8:21, 9:18, 9:22, 50591 [2] - 1:23,
122:20, 124:10, 9:00 [1] - 129:22
107:13 10:10, 10:12, 10:14, 130:22
124:12 2.54 [1] - 76:1 10:17, 10:20, 12:9, 512,597 [1] - 10:14
1.3 [1] - 89:13 20 [6] - 5:18, 7:17, 62:15, 62:17, 63:16, 52 [2] - 3:6, 83:14
A
10 [10] - 7:12, 49:2, 55:7, 96:9, 109:22, 63:20, 70:9, 71:3, 52(c [4] - 69:12, 70:18, a.m [1] - 129:22
49:7, 49:9, 49:10, 111:21 77:19, 79:10, 89:22, 82:11, 84:19 A.R.S [2] - 46:2, 74:23
49:13, 109:17, 20-some [1] - 19:15 96:8, 96:12 52(c) [1] - 74:10 ability [8] - 12:8,
109:25, 110:6 200 [2] - 57:16, 57:18 30 [2] - 12:12, 51:21 54,298 [1] - 9:12 89:24, 90:3, 90:18,
10,000 [5] - 8:1, 8:6, 2016 [1] - 93:16 31 [1] - 8:9 55,888 [1] - 5:21 108:19, 110:13,
9:15, 63:23 2018 [1] - 93:15 32 [1] - 117:2 550 [1] - 75:8 118:17, 130:16
100 [5] - 51:17, 51:21, 2020 [3] - 26:20, 321 [1] - 11:11 able [5] - 52:25, 76:19,
51:23, 52:5, 80:2 26:22, 93:15
100,000 [2] - 23:1,
321,495 [3] - 10:15, 6 96:21, 97:9, 97:25
2022 [32] - 30:10, 35:6, 10:21, 11:7 absolutely [14] -
55:3 36:13, 52:7, 64:23, 6 [12] - 5:9, 6:4, 8:15,
325 [1] - 10:21 14:15, 18:1, 22:23,
11 [5] - 65:17, 65:20, 71:17, 73:4, 73:13, 8:16, 9:14, 9:22,
36,086 [1] - 6:4 23:7, 23:10, 29:1,
65:22, 95:7, 115:14 73:25, 87:24, 88:5, 10:9, 10:12, 10:13,
37,524 [1] - 9:18 48:25, 49:11, 49:15,
11-step [1] - 66:20 88:10, 88:15, 88:20, 20:19, 63:5, 96:8
37,588 [1] - 8:15 49:18, 97:21,
11th [2] - 119:1, 89:3, 89:17, 91:1, 38 [2] - 27:14, 27:25 114:15, 116:21,
119:11
12 [2] - 8:6, 124:9
91:24, 92:17, 93:2, 3:47 [1] - 62:8 7 128:12
93:14, 93:23, 99:6, 3rd [1] - 59:7 Academy [1] - 40:13
12(b)(6 [1] - 83:18 104:10, 105:12, 7 [1] - 12:6 acceptance [2] -
13 [1] - 7:25 112:14, 118:22, 70,000 [8] - 11:17,
13,749 [1] - 8:5 119:6, 119:13,
4 11:19, 11:20, 77:13,
17:18, 80:22
accepted [1] - 7:5
13th [2] - 24:19, 53:2 119:22 4 [13] - 3:4, 5:10, 7:16, 77:14, 78:3, 80:14, accordance [1] -
14 [1] - 3:5 2023 [4] - 1:16, 4:1, 7:19, 8:19, 9:17, 80:21
88:13
1482 [3] - 59:9, 61:13, 59:7, 130:17 10:10, 10:12, 62:15, 72 [1] - 8:24
account [2] - 23:15,
77:9 21 [3] - 58:19, 58:23, 62:17, 63:12, 96:12, 779,330 [2] - 10:13 103:3
15 [2] - 68:19, 119:20 59:5 96:17 79 [3] - 8:25, 9:11, accounted [1] -
150 [1] - 57:18 21,471 [1] - 8:22 40 [3] - 19:24, 20:2, 9:12 125:11
155 [7] - 36:16, 36:20, 21-896 [2] - 61:15, 21:10 7:00 [1] - 121:2 accuracy [2] - 34:7,
88:22, 88:24, 89:2, 61:22 40-hour [1] - 65:8 73:18
89:22, 105:9 211 [1] - 22:7 41 [3] - 24:13, 24:14, 8 accurate [5] - 33:14,
1550 [1] - 66:25 23 [3] - 98:9, 98:19, 26:3 34:9, 62:18, 110:15,
16 [4] - 73:24, 111:14, 99:12 43 [7] - 22:2, 22:3, 86 [1] - 3:9
130:14
111:20, 119:4 24 [2] - 100:2, 100:5 24:3, 24:4, 89:7, 895 [2] - 62:1, 62:2
acknowledgment [1] -
16-550 [4] - 13:4, 46:2, 24,904 [1] - 7:18 89:22, 94:15 896 [2] - 62:5, 62:9
84:6
74:24, 78:12 25 [5] - 89:14, 89:21, 44 [1] - 11:11 897 [1] - 61:15
acronyms [2] -
16-550(A [3] - 50:1, 104:21, 104:25, 445 [2] - 18:16, 19:5 8th [1] - 118:24
115:25, 122:3
92:5, 116:16 105:18 45 [2] - 3:5, 11:11 act [4] - 43:12, 44:10,
16th [1] - 118:24 250 [4] - 73:8, 90:22, 45,217 [1] - 9:14 44:12, 58:12

Appx0860
 2

action [5] - 36:25, 35:3, 35:17, 35:25, anonymized [3] - 60:1 107:19, 111:25, 42:7
44:15, 118:7, 37:17, 38:22, 39:4, answer [18] - 30:10, 112:22, 122:14, assures [1] - 59:14
118:15, 123:13 41:11, 42:10, 43:10, 31:15, 32:2, 32:8, 122:17 ASTMs [1] - 23:16
actions [2] - 122:4, 44:7, 44:11, 46:19, 39:2, 46:17, 47:16, approving [1] - 125:18 attached [1] - 25:21
122:8 48:18, 48:23, 49:3, 49:19, 50:13, 51:25, archive [1] - 107:7 attempted [2] - 22:25,
activity [2] - 10:22, 49:12, 49:16, 79:11, 52:1, 52:8, 52:22, archiving [1] - 122:25 89:9
58:2 110:18 54:6, 67:11, 88:7, area [2] - 114:23, attitude [1] - 81:14
actual [1] - 118:1 agreement [1] - 37:1 111:16, 111:18 116:24 Attorney's [1] - 2:14
add [4] - 11:11, 90:21, Aguilar [1] - 2:16 answered [5] - 64:19, areas [1] - 46:6 Attorneys [2] - 2:5,
110:11, 129:3 ahead [7] - 9:9, 13:22, 100:8, 127:4, argue [1] - 82:15 2:18
added [1] - 47:3 53:18, 69:14, 91:13, 127:14, 128:2 arguing [1] - 67:9 audible [1] - 54:21
addition [2] - 70:8, 108:12, 128:6 answering [1] - 47:14 argument [1] - 47:22 audit [7] - 26:20,
88:12 aid [1] - 112:11 anytime [1] - 119:17 arguments [1] - 17:13 26:21, 73:16, 90:11,
address [4] - 25:18, al [3] - 1:9, 4:8, 68:25 anyway [2] - 12:25, ARIZONA [2] - 1:1, 103:23, 103:24
68:20, 69:22, 102:15 Alexis [1] - 2:7 127:4 130:8 Audit [1] - 26:24
adds [1] - 122:15 algorithm [2] - 10:23, apologies [1] - 41:4 Arizona [25] - 1:15, authenticate [3] -
adequate [2] - 32:24, 11:1 apologize [5] - 32:4, 4:1, 13:3, 26:11, 72:9, 72:17, 107:4
44:11 align [1] - 36:22 61:9, 90:14, 94:20, 27:22, 27:23, 49:22, authorized [1] - 25:10
adjourned [1] - 129:23 allegations [2] - 70:7, 119:12 50:12, 69:11, 70:4, AVA [1] - 120:19
Administrator [1] - 70:8 appeal [1] - 54:7 70:17, 72:2, 72:8, availability [1] - 113:3
87:23 alleged [2] - 124:20, appeals [1] - 53:25 72:17, 74:9, 75:13, available [3] - 94:16,
admissibility [1] - 126:3 appearances [1] - 76:7, 80:2, 81:17, 97:17, 112:19
16:14 Alliance [2] - 72:8, 4:10 82:16, 83:8, 118:17, average [18] - 6:25,
admissible [1] - 55:20 72:17 appearing [1] - 91:11 119:19, 121:1, 7:1, 7:2, 73:21,
admission [2] - 17:24, allotted [1] - 89:13 APPEARING [1] - 2:1 130:12 87:15, 107:21,
105:18 allowable [1] - 55:23 appellant's [1] - 17:24 Armenta [2] - 2:9, 69:9 108:1, 108:4,
admit [3] - 119:25, allows [1] - 116:2 appellate [8] - 15:18, ARMENTA [14] - 108:10, 109:15,
121:10, 129:14 alluded [1] - 45:17 15:19, 15:22, 15:24, 52:13, 69:8, 69:18, 109:17, 109:24,
admitted [17] - 9:3, almost [1] - 17:23 16:2, 17:11, 18:3, 69:20, 69:25, 70:21, 109:25, 110:3,
21:13, 24:7, 26:7, alone [1] - 46:16 21:17 70:24, 82:1, 84:17, 110:6, 110:13,
28:4, 71:10, 99:18, aloud [2] - 17:8, 20:19 application [1] - 31:5 84:24, 85:7, 85:11, 110:17, 111:10
100:3, 100:4, 100:5, alpha [1] - 118:12 apply [1] - 8:12 85:16, 85:22 averages [4] - 7:1,
105:21, 120:3, alter [2] - 70:10, 74:18 appointed [4] - 25:1, arrive [1] - 11:10 109:2, 110:11, 123:4
121:14, 125:19, altered [1] - 47:3 25:3, 25:7, 53:6 arrows [1] - 57:13 awarded [1] - 22:12
125:20, 129:18 American [2] - 40:2, appreciate [2] - 35:4, art [1] - 115:8 aware [6] - 30:15,
Adrian [1] - 24:24 40:13 128:5 article [1] - 25:21 49:22, 50:4, 50:9,
affect [5] - 58:13, Americans [1] - 95:23 approach [17] - 16:7, articulated [1] - 83:8 50:18, 97:15
108:10, 109:24, amount [6] - 8:5, 16:10, 16:12, 19:18, Arts [1] - 38:7
110:2, 110:17 48:14, 48:16, 89:13, 19:21, 21:22, 24:8, aside [1] - 81:24 B
affected [3] - 58:15, 110:20, 126:8 27:9, 59:2, 68:10, aspect [1] - 33:9
70:10, 74:17 amounted [1] - 23:5 74:13, 98:6, 99:19, assertion [1] - 74:21 BA [1] - 22:11
affidavit [17] - 25:20, amounts [3] - 23:9, 104:18, 112:2, assess [2] - 11:13, Bachelor [3] - 38:7,
73:24, 90:19, 91:2, 113:7, 123:17 120:4, 121:15 76:19 38:10, 38:11
100:19, 101:4, analysis [14] - 20:15, approaching [1] - assist [2] - 46:23, backed [1] - 81:6
101:13, 106:16, 21:2, 21:5, 21:6, 19:19 118:18 background [4] -
107:5, 114:13, 35:18, 39:21, 53:6, appropriate [1] - assistant [1] - 110:5 13:14, 38:15, 87:7,
116:4, 117:1, 118:6, 53:12, 56:5, 56:10, 129:20 associated [4] - 5:21, 109:7
120:24, 123:12, 56:11, 58:14, 59:16, approval [11] - 7:24, 25:18, 57:12, 74:24 backs [1] - 16:4
126:9 74:19 8:13, 8:17, 8:20, assume [2] - 33:6, backwards [1] -
affidavits [1] - 97:14 analyst [5] - 38:2, 8:22, 9:19, 9:20, 44:14 128:22
afternoon [5] - 4:22, 38:4, 38:12, 38:21, 9:21, 9:23, 12:3, assumes [3] - 32:23, bad [3] - 57:10, 95:23,
45:12, 62:3, 68:19, 38:24 77:24 33:3, 44:9 102:19
129:20 analysts [1] - 40:6 approvals [3] - 5:24, assuming [2] - 44:22, ballot [31] - 28:24,
age [1] - 55:19 analytical [2] - 22:15, 9:13, 109:20 65:19 36:4, 36:12, 36:14,
agencies [1] - 56:8 22:18 approve [2] - 77:24, assumption [8] - 48:5, 64:9, 66:10,
ago [3] - 26:18, 35:4, analyzing [1] - 7:22 110:19 32:16, 33:2, 33:11, 81:15, 87:25, 91:1,
84:11 AND [1] - 1:2 approved [15] - 9:15, 33:14, 34:6, 42:11, 91:20, 100:13,
agree [26] - 14:13, Andrew [1] - 71:16 9:16, 9:25, 77:14, 42:18, 43:11 100:19, 100:23,
14:19, 15:4, 18:2, anesthesiologist [1] - 77:18, 78:4, 80:21, assumptions [4] - 101:2, 101:6, 101:8,
22:22, 32:15, 34:5, 96:20 106:18, 107:6, 31:11, 31:14, 31:19, 102:4, 102:6,

Appx0861
 3

102:10, 102:11, 116:13, 116:19, 43:9, 45:11, 51:8, category [1] - 106:10 chromatography [1] -
104:3, 104:4, 104:5, 116:24 52:4, 52:20, 57:24, CD [2] - 6:9, 125:18 22:14
114:2, 116:5, 116:6, big [2] - 31:1, 95:14 59:4, 61:11, 86:22, CD-ROM [2] - 6:9, chron [2] - 61:18, 62:1
116:8, 117:8, bigger [3] - 11:24, 97:4, 98:11, 100:7, 125:18 circle [1] - 122:4
118:19, 125:6 36:9, 89:22 104:23, 105:22, center [1] - 116:9 Circuit [2] - 24:19,
ballots [18] - 11:6, bill [1] - 53:13 108:9, 109:13, centric [3] - 116:14, 53:2
26:22, 28:20, 28:23, bills [1] - 37:11 111:17, 112:4, 117:11, 117:15 circuit [1] - 24:20
49:23, 76:10, 76:14, bit [3] - 94:1, 94:2, 120:6, 121:17, CERA [5] - 87:10, circumstance [1] -
77:17, 78:3, 79:17, 101:8 123:10, 124:23, 87:13, 87:20, 87:21, 119:16
79:20, 80:21, blamed [3] - 81:9, 125:3, 125:23, 128:8 87:22 cite [1] - 80:1
100:12, 101:3, 84:13, 84:14 certain [5] - 48:25, cited [1] - 27:21
101:9, 102:20, BLEHM [24] - 2:3, C 51:3, 54:15, 61:13, citizen [2] - 100:25,
116:11, 120:18 97:1, 99:16, 105:20, 65:21 103:22
bank [2] - 48:21, 49:6 108:6, 108:13, calculate [2] - 109:14, certainly [2] - 25:19, Civil [2] - 69:12, 70:18
barely [1] - 25:14 108:17, 108:25, 109:17 70:21 claim [2] - 70:17, 74:9
base [1] - 64:21 110:23, 111:6, calculating [1] - 110:6 certainty [7] - 30:11, claimed [1] - 23:4
baseball [2] - 90:12, 111:9, 120:2, calculation [5] - 60:2, 50:22, 51:17, 51:20, claiming [3] - 17:17,
110:6 121:13, 123:7, 89:11, 108:11, 51:22, 52:6, 62:23 23:1
based [28] - 9:6, 13:7, 124:22, 125:1, 109:25, 124:19 certificate [1] - 1:23 claims [1] - 22:17
20:14, 20:22, 28:19, 125:15, 126:13, calendar [1] - 118:23 CERTIFICATE [1] - clarification [3] - 91:8,
30:8, 31:10, 35:7, 127:2, 127:7, campaign [1] - 84:15 130:4 101:12, 127:17
36:16, 40:8, 43:12, 127:13, 127:25, candor [1] - 35:4 certification [4] - 40:5, clarified [1] - 23:25
43:19, 44:2, 46:9, 128:2, 129:17 cannot [7] - 63:22, 87:14, 87:21, 88:25 clarify [1] - 33:18
51:25, 64:16, 70:3, Blehm [2] - 2:4, 127:6 64:1, 71:5, 76:5, Certified [1] - 87:22 clarity [1] - 90:21
70:11, 74:19, 83:3, board [3] - 101:1, 79:9, 82:17 certified [2] - 39:24, classing [1] - 87:19
89:16, 111:1, 103:22, 107:12 capture [2] - 103:3, 87:11 classroom [1] - 99:3
111:13, 111:15, Board [1] - 40:3 103:8 certify [1] - 130:13 CLE [1] - 87:19
111:19, 112:21, body [2] - 9:13, 46:9 capturing [1] - 122:25 chairman [1] - 72:16 clear [5] - 25:21,
116:21, 126:16 Borrelli [1] - 29:21 care [1] - 80:24 challenge [1] - 82:22 45:16, 52:2, 70:6,
bases [1] - 77:10 bottom [6] - 17:4, carefully [1] - 12:23 Challenger [1] - 83:21 93:10
basic [1] - 82:5 28:15, 61:14, 61:22, Carter/Baker [1] - chambers [1] - 26:11 clearly [6] - 45:19,
basics [1] - 65:2 62:2, 122:3 76:13 chance [1] - 121:19 53:3, 64:13, 81:17,
basis [9] - 20:21, box [2] - 28:12, 114:13 case [50] - 9:4, 12:24, change [2] - 57:2, 84:21, 113:9
70:12, 83:4, 83:16, branch [1] - 22:18 15:9, 15:11, 16:9, 58:13 CLERK [1] - 4:25
83:19, 83:22, 89:10, break [3] - 60:18, 19:10, 20:3, 20:8, changed [2] - 47:3, clerk [2] - 16:8, 99:25
110:24, 111:3 61:3, 129:20 20:10, 20:11, 20:23, 58:8 click [1] - 73:9
bat [1] - 110:13 brief [1] - 45:5 21:4, 21:16, 21:20, changes [3] - 58:1, clicks [1] - 58:11
batch [9] - 56:19, briefly [4] - 82:2, 22:4, 24:23, 25:2, 58:2, 82:25 clip [1] - 42:14
58:8, 73:8, 73:9, 82:12, 83:6, 89:25 25:15, 35:5, 37:8,
character [1] - 75:18 clipped [2] - 90:23,
90:22, 128:20, broad [4] - 94:10, 47:1, 48:22, 53:7,
characteristics [5] - 102:12
128:25, 129:7 95:7, 98:2, 115:14 53:10, 54:25, 55:2,
94:10, 94:11, 95:7, close [3] - 84:23, 85:4,
bats [1] - 110:8 brought [2] - 15:9, 55:3, 55:20, 55:22,
98:3, 115:14 111:20
batting [1] - 110:11 117:3 57:19, 65:21, 66:24,
characterized [1] - closely [1] - 66:23
bearing [1] - 128:18 Bryan [1] - 2:4 70:1, 71:2, 71:3,
69:11 closer [2] - 94:1, 94:2
BEFORE [1] - 1:19 BSC [1] - 22:12 74:23, 75:13, 79:25,
charging [1] - 37:15 co [1] - 71:8
begin [1] - 116:3 built [1] - 84:4 80:25, 81:6, 82:10,
chart [4] - 11:3, 62:21, co-director [1] - 71:8
beginning [1] - 71:15 82:16, 84:10, 85:10,
burden [5] - 70:3, 82:6, 126:15 coach [1] - 110:5
behalf [2] - 3:3, 3:7 94:7, 99:23, 113:8,
70:19, 71:1, 81:22, chase [1] - 88:3 code [3] - 44:20,
behind [1] - 115:19 126:19, 126:22,
83:7 check [6] - 48:22, 100:14, 123:13
bench [1] - 85:5 127:12
BURGESS [1] - 2:10 49:6, 56:19, 73:17, codes [3] - 44:18,
benefit [1] - 64:12 cases [9] - 31:5, 46:8,
Busch [3] - 72:16, 76:16, 97:15 103:10, 106:8
best [5] - 47:16, 47:23, 46:9, 46:11, 47:2,
72:20, 72:21 checkmark [3] - COIE [1] - 2:7
48:10, 49:8, 130:16 52:22, 53:21, 56:2,
business [1] - 118:22 114:13, 128:10, coincidently [1] -
better [7] - 12:14, 56:3
BY [46] - 1:22, 4:21, 128:18 68:18
30:20, 32:4, 32:14, cast [3] - 28:23, 81:11,
5:5, 6:23, 7:14, 9:10, chemist [4] - 22:15, colleague [1] - 15:9
48:24, 49:2 81:19
14:6, 16:23, 19:8, 38:5, 38:6, 53:10 colleagues [1] - 87:1
between [4] - 12:23, categories [2] - 110:4,
19:23, 21:14, 22:1, chemistry [2] - 22:18,
112:21 College [1] - 38:8
60:3, 87:15, 96:16 24:12, 26:8, 27:13, 38:9
categorized [1] - Colorado [1] - 78:10
beyond [8] - 57:5, 28:6, 31:21, 32:13, chief [3] - 70:1, 71:2,
124:7 column [13] - 5:9,
82:21, 96:8, 114:4, 34:3, 35:24, 42:5, 82:10

Appx0862
 4

5:11, 6:3, 7:15, 7:20, 83:18, 83:22, 89:10 42:11, 61:13 6:2, 7:15, 40:25, 104:15, 110:16,
8:2, 9:14, 9:18, complaint [1] - 40:15 connotation [1] - 41:10, 41:12 110:22, 112:24,
50:23, 51:10, 106:2, complete [2] - 59:15, 46:14 CONTINUING [1] - 112:25, 113:16,
106:15, 112:24 62:18 consider [1] - 23:21 4:19 113:18, 114:17,
columns [4] - 10:9, completed [1] - consideration [1] - continuity [1] - 75:23 119:7, 120:21,
10:11, 105:23, 123:22 85:8 contradiction [1] - 120:22, 122:11,
105:24 completely [3] - 15:6, consisted [1] - 54:17 75:23 122:13, 123:6,
combination [1] - 27:1, 55:6 consistencies [1] - contradicts [1] - 19:3 123:24, 124:1,
100:22 completes [1] - 13:6 contrary [1] - 59:20 124:2, 124:13,
comfortable [1] - 128:24 consistency [4] - conversation [1] - 124:15, 124:24,
14:10 completion [1] - 25:15 12:8, 75:21, 79:9, 42:8 125:8, 125:9,
coming [2] - 78:20, compliance [1] - 92:6 conversion [1] - 8:6 125:14, 126:11
79:17 41:15 consistent [20] - 66:6, convincing [2] - correctly [7] - 17:25,
comment [3] - 53:22, complied [1] - 80:11 66:9, 66:25, 72:2, 17:14, 70:6 22:20, 23:18, 26:10,
55:12, 85:14 computer [5] - 10:22, 75:12, 76:20, 77:25, cool [1] - 96:5 28:25, 29:4, 41:9
Commission [1] - 10:25, 44:15, 90:15, 78:19, 79:4, 92:22, coordinator [1] - corroborate [1] - 33:8
76:13 91:3 94:9, 94:17, 96:11, 84:14 could've [3] - 80:6,
commit [1] - 129:7 computers [1] - 84:5 96:18, 106:12, copied [3] - 16:5, 107:10, 124:8
common [3] - 13:14, concern [1] - 68:3 106:24, 107:1, 54:17, 54:22 COUNSEL [1] - 2:1
38:14, 81:1 concerning [1] - 81:7 111:22, 115:2, 115:7 Copy [1] - 1:23 counsel [11] - 4:11,
commonly [2] - 26:23, Concl'd [1] - 3:8 constitute [1] - 130:14 copy [3] - 16:16, 31:13, 32:1, 37:4,
78:17 conclude [2] - 21:20, construction [1] - 16:18, 22:3 42:2, 56:13, 69:4,
community [1] - 17:18 74:20 82:15 copying [2] - 17:23, 74:25, 79:16, 82:13,
compare [33] - 12:8, concluded [2] - 21:18, Consultants [1] - 18:15 83:12
12:20, 12:21, 12:22, 129:25 23:17 corner [3] - 61:15, count [5] - 10:24,
13:8, 13:10, 13:16, conclusion [9] - Cont'g [1] - 3:3 61:22, 122:4 11:8, 71:2, 123:3
45:24, 63:20, 64:17, 20:22, 21:1, 25:16, cont'g [1] - 3:4 correct [116] - 5:13, counted [4] - 30:2,
64:18, 64:22, 65:12, 27:5, 27:7, 29:2, contact [10] - 107:5, 5:14, 5:16, 5:17, 30:12, 35:8, 62:25
65:15, 66:7, 66:13, 29:5, 29:7, 44:8 116:3, 116:15, 6:15, 6:25, 7:1, 7:3, countenanced [1] -
66:16, 66:18, 66:19, conclusions [3] - 117:9, 117:24, 11:9, 14:10, 14:23, 25:22
66:21, 75:9, 75:17, 5:22, 6:10, 43:11 118:10, 119:2, 15:2, 15:3, 15:15, counterintuitive [1] -
75:18, 75:25, 76:21, concrete [1] - 77:5 121:7, 121:25, 122:7 18:22, 19:14, 20:8, 10:3
76:23, 78:17, 79:9, concur [4] - 94:17, contacted [1] - 107:3 20:9, 20:15, 21:5, counties [1] - 119:20
79:25, 80:7, 92:3, 98:1, 113:14, 124:9 contacting [1] - 23:10, 23:22, 24:24, county [2] - 41:14,
92:10, 92:14 concurred [1] - 106:25 120:13 25:2, 25:4, 27:7, 130:12
compared [14] - 7:6, concurs [1] - 115:22 contained [1] - 28:24 27:20, 30:11, 32:24, County [40] - 2:14,
11:22, 11:23, 11:25, condolences [1] - contains [2] - 102:13, 34:12, 34:22, 35:1, 33:1, 36:3, 36:12,
13:5, 46:1, 56:20, 39:17 111:10 35:15, 38:18, 38:21, 45:2, 52:7, 58:3,
63:5, 63:12, 64:9, conduct [12] - 50:23, contemplates [1] - 38:24, 39:3, 40:10, 59:7, 64:23, 65:7,
66:5, 77:19, 92:5, 51:18, 71:11, 71:20, 84:20 40:11, 40:21, 40:22, 70:15, 71:8, 71:11,
92:7 72:5, 72:13, 72:23, contents [3] - 28:12, 46:3, 46:7, 47:13, 72:4, 72:10, 72:13,
comparing [7] - 45:22, 74:3, 79:19, 88:3, 73:6, 125:18 50:19, 54:6, 56:2, 72:23, 73:2, 73:12,
48:4, 63:15, 64:13, 88:9, 88:12 Contestant/Plaintiff 59:10, 63:10, 63:16, 74:3, 74:6, 76:17,
64:14, 66:23, 115:13 conducted [6] - 28:21, [2] - 1:6, 2:5 63:21, 84:12, 86:4, 80:4, 80:10, 83:13,
comparison [25] - 70:7, 71:6, 72:1, Contestee [1] - 1:8 87:3, 87:11, 87:12, 84:4, 88:18, 89:4,
10:6, 12:5, 13:10, 73:3, 79:1 contestor [4] - 99:5, 88:25, 89:6, 89:7, 89:12, 89:18, 90:16,
36:4, 39:25, 43:14, conducting [2] - 123:3, 124:4, 125:12 89:19, 90:17, 91:4, 90:20, 93:23,
44:10, 44:12, 46:5, 13:20, 86:7 context [6] - 47:17, 91:5, 92:9, 92:20, 103:18, 114:9,
48:20, 49:5, 49:13, 63:20, 63:22, 64:22, 93:13, 93:19, 95:23, 116:10, 116:18,
confer [1] - 42:2
49:23, 58:13, 64:1, 75:15, 76:24 95:24, 96:6, 96:24, 119:22, 124:3, 125:5
conferred [2] - 38:23,
65:18, 66:15, 66:20, continuation [1] - 97:7, 97:8, 100:10, COUNTY [2] - 1:2,
39:2
67:3, 76:4, 76:6, 69:1 100:11, 100:22, 130:9
confidence [4] - 78:7,
77:22, 79:1, 79:23, continue [6] - 7:16, 101:7, 101:15, couple [7] - 5:15,
78:11, 78:12, 81:18
94:14 8:2, 56:12, 61:6, 101:16, 101:21, 26:18, 45:2, 73:21,
confirm [2] - 98:17,
comparisons [6] - 8:4, 92:4, 113:1 102:5, 103:13, 82:4, 87:8, 100:21
128:22
10:17, 10:19, 14:23, continued [2] - 4:13, 103:14, 103:16, couriers [1] - 102:25
confronted [1] - 25:20
36:12, 36:14 40:19 103:20, 104:1, course [6] - 18:10,
confuse [1] - 101:2
compelling [1] - 20:25 continues [2] - 4:15, 104:2, 104:5, 26:2, 26:13, 32:10,
connection [8] -
competent [8] - 70:11, 62:8 104:10, 104:11, 43:18, 69:16
14:20, 26:19, 27:5,
74:19, 83:3, 83:16, continuing [6] - 4:6, 104:13, 104:14, courses [5] - 40:24,
30:9, 34:20, 41:13,

Appx0863
 5

41:8, 41:12, 41:21, 25:9, 68:7, 69:10, 114:9, 114:11, declare [1] - 18:19 determinations [6] -
41:23 70:2, 70:15, 71:2, 115:18, 115:19, decline [2] - 84:22, 5:21, 7:7, 7:9, 7:10,
court [32] - 4:4, 15:18, 74:7, 76:22, 82:10, 116:11, 116:19, 85:3 7:11, 8:13
15:19, 15:21, 15:22, 82:14, 82:22, 82:25, 117:10, 117:14, deem [1] - 129:5 determinative [2] -
16:9, 17:11, 18:3, 83:5, 83:8, 83:9, 117:15, 117:17, deeply [1] - 21:2 57:10, 57:22
19:7, 19:13, 20:21, 83:15, 84:22, 90:5, 118:8, 118:18, defendant [3] - 25:11, determine [12] -
21:17, 22:10, 22:16, 106:6, 106:21, 118:25, 119:23, 25:19, 52:12 28:21, 30:1, 46:22,
23:8, 23:13, 23:23, 115:17, 130:12, 120:13, 120:18, defendants [12] - 55:19, 66:24, 78:18,
24:20, 25:22, 32:5, 130:23 122:2, 126:9 68:20, 69:6, 69:7, 79:4, 79:9, 94:3,
39:9, 53:24, 54:7, Court's [3] - 20:22, curve [1] - 110:1 71:1, 74:25, 76:2, 97:9, 108:19, 115:6
54:13, 56:3, 70:22, 70:3, 70:4 cut [2] - 52:22, 88:3 76:22, 77:6, 78:16, determining [2] -
74:15, 75:13, 80:19, courtesy [3] - 126:20, cutting [1] - 61:25 81:2, 85:9, 85:18 41:13, 46:14
83:14, 125:13 126:25, 128:5 CV2022-095403 [3] - Defendants [3] - 1:10, deviation [1] - 21:6
COURT [119] - 1:1, courtroom [1] - 1:7, 4:7, 68:24 2:18, 3:8 devil's [1] - 14:16
4:6, 5:2, 6:12, 6:16, 125:24 Cyber [1] - 26:24 defendants' [2] - dictionary [2] - 75:17,
7:13, 9:5, 9:8, 13:19, courts [1] - 23:20 82:13, 83:11 75:21
13:22, 14:1, 16:11, covered [1] - 41:24 D defense [1] - 78:6 differences [3] -
16:14, 16:18, 16:21, CR [1] - 130:22 deficient [1] - 22:13 12:23, 75:20, 76:19
19:6, 19:18, 19:22, crafting [1] - 91:21 dad [2] - 107:25, 108:1 defined [1] - 78:18 different [22] - 7:10,
21:11, 21:13, 21:24, Craig [1] - 2:12 DANNEMAN [2] - 9:1, defines [2] - 75:17, 13:15, 27:1, 44:17,
24:4, 24:6, 24:10, Craiger [1] - 2:10 9:7 75:21 48:6, 54:12, 54:13,
26:5, 26:7, 27:11, create [1] - 27:17 Danneman [1] - 2:7 definitely [2] - 10:3, 66:1, 73:13, 74:21,
28:1, 28:4, 31:15, created [1] - 84:3 data [36] - 5:19, 5:20, 54:11 75:16, 83:3, 103:1,
32:5, 32:8, 33:19, credentials [3] - 7:17, 7:23, 11:16, definition [2] - 13:1, 109:19, 113:11,
33:24, 34:1, 42:3, 17:17, 18:20, 25:23 36:16, 56:14, 57:3, 66:17 117:20, 118:4,
43:3, 43:8, 45:3, Criminal [1] - 74:9 58:3, 59:8, 59:9, degree [4] - 22:12, 118:7, 120:25,
45:7, 52:11, 52:14, criteria [1] - 92:23 59:15, 59:21, 59:23, 38:6, 39:20 121:8, 122:7, 127:24
57:6, 57:8, 58:22, critical [4] - 42:10, 59:24, 60:4, 61:12, differently [2] - 13:13,
demeaning [1] - 55:8
59:1, 59:3, 60:11, 42:18, 76:25, 81:7 61:14, 62:10, 62:12, 126:24
demographics [1] -
60:13, 60:17, 60:21, 62:13, 62:16, 72:7, digitalized [2] - 90:18,
criticisms [1] - 20:20 114:18
60:24, 61:2, 61:6, 77:7, 77:11, 77:13, 93:3
criticized [1] - 52:23 demonizing [1] -
61:9, 67:16, 67:20, 81:6, 84:3, 84:7, digressed [1] - 103:6
CROSS [2] - 14:4, 97:22
67:24, 68:5, 68:9, 117:21, 124:4, Din [1] - 15:13
45:9 demonstrated [1] -
68:11, 68:13, 68:16, 125:19, 125:20, Direct [2] - 3:4, 3:9
Cross [1] - 3:5 78:23
68:18, 68:24, 69:14, 126:10, 126:15 direct [7] - 4:14, 16:9,
cross [5] - 3:5, 13:20, demonstrating [2] -
69:17, 69:23, 70:20, data-backed [1] - 81:6 36:24, 45:18, 86:8,
45:4, 53:20, 57:5 17:19, 43:22
70:22, 74:14, 84:19, date [8] - 26:18, 44:15, 87:5, 100:16
CROSS- demonstration [1] -
84:25, 85:9, 85:13, 57:11, 60:2, 62:2,
EXAMINATION [2] - 80:16 DIRECT [2] - 4:19,
85:18, 85:23, 86:6, 101:15, 122:8,
14:4, 45:9 demonstrative [2] - 86:20
86:11, 97:3, 98:5, 130:15
Cross-examination 14:22, 43:21 directed [3] - 69:11,
98:7, 98:10, 99:12, date/time [2] - 57:12,
[1] - 3:5 denied [1] - 81:22 81:22, 84:25
99:14, 99:17, 99:21, 58:10
cross-examination [4] deny [1] - 71:2 director [2] - 71:8,
99:24, 100:4, Dated [1] - 130:17
- 3:5, 45:4, 53:20, department [1] - 41:14 72:7
104:19, 104:22, dates [1] - 121:8
57:5 deposition [2] - 20:6, Directories [1] - 23:16
105:19, 105:21, dating [2] - 17:14,
crosscheck [1] - 55:18 dis [1] - 114:19
108:23, 109:9, 56:6
56:21 depth [1] - 23:14 disagree [1] - 14:18
109:12, 111:1, Daubert [1] - 20:23
CRR [2] - 1:23, 130:22 derive [1] - 7:4 disappointed [1] -
111:8, 111:12, days [5] - 100:21,
cure [10] - 107:4, describe [1] - 46:21 25:13
112:3, 120:3, 120:5, 118:22, 121:4,
107:13, 114:21, described [1] - 72:2 disciplines [1] - 22:14
121:12, 121:14, 123:19, 123:21
116:21, 116:25, designated [1] - 69:3 disclosed [1] - 77:8
121:16, 123:9, deadline [3] - 118:21,
124:25, 125:2, 117:10, 118:20, designed [2] - 73:16, disclosure [2] - 77:9,
119:5, 123:12, 125:6 119:19, 121:3 125:18
125:21, 126:17, 78:12
cured [6] - 107:11, deadlines [1] - 120:25 discover [1] - 75:19
127:5, 127:10, desk [2] - 75:6, 77:3
118:14, 119:1, December [1] - 81:9 discredited [2] -
127:15, 127:21, detail [4] - 14:14,
121:2, 121:3, 122:19 decipher [1] - 96:21 17:16, 20:14
128:1, 128:6, 14:16, 72:25, 120:17
curing [30] - 44:17, decision [5] - 15:24, discretion [1] - 85:3
129:16, 129:18, details [1] - 15:8
71:12, 71:20, 72:1, 16:2, 17:11, 22:3, discussed [1] -
129:21 determinant [1] -
72:14, 73:1, 73:3, 103:20 100:21
Court [30] - 12:13, 80:13
74:4, 102:18, 107:1, decisions [1] - 113:6 discussing [2] -
20:14, 20:24, 22:3, determination [3] -
107:11, 114:7, deck [1] - 117:8 27:20, 50:18
25:1, 25:3, 25:6, 48:14, 48:21, 66:8

Appx0864
 6

discussion [1] - 28:16 23:12, 55:3 55:13 entered [1] - 8:4 53:20, 56:5, 57:5,
disenfranchise [1] - Doe [1] - 117:14 effect [1] - 59:19 entering [1] - 44:20 86:8, 87:5, 99:5,
117:5 doer [1] - 103:17 effort [6] - 116:13, entire [2] - 18:4, 99:15
dishonesty [1] - 46:15 done [21] - 7:18, 8:4, 116:14, 116:17, 126:21 examinations [2] -
dismiss [1] - 71:3 8:16, 10:20, 11:1, 117:6, 119:5, 121:6 entirely [1] - 15:5 47:21, 54:24
displayed [1] - 62:21 12:10, 12:11, 29:6, efforts [1] - 117:17 entries [2] - 58:6, 60:4 examine [2] - 75:18,
disposition [16] - 52:3, 63:23, 91:16, eight [4] - 28:4, entry [1] - 90:3 109:21
60:5, 100:14, 91:20, 93:1, 102:9, 109:20, 110:11, envelope [14] - 64:9, examined [4] - 23:1,
103:10, 103:20, 117:2, 118:9, 121:2, 129:18 66:10, 90:19, 91:2, 23:12, 28:12, 86:18
103:23, 106:2, 121:3, 122:9, either [8] - 4:9, 22:11, 93:3, 100:19, examiner [1] - 39:25
106:7, 106:10, 124:21, 130:15 36:3, 64:11, 69:2, 100:20, 101:13, Examiners [1] - 40:3
112:19, 113:3, double [1] - 53:25 85:14, 103:21, 103:19, 114:13, examiners [1] - 40:7
115:24, 116:7, double-sided [1] - 114:21 117:1, 120:24, example [7] - 32:22,
118:2, 122:21, 53:25 elapsed [1] - 60:3 123:12, 126:9 33:4, 65:17, 94:8,
124:11, 129:13 doubt [1] - 64:12 elected [2] - 81:19, envelopes [1] - 88:1 106:9, 106:23,
dispositioned [3] - Douglas [1] - 24:23 81:20 EPM [2] - 50:1, 74:25 118:22
92:23, 100:12, down [10] - 13:12, election [33] - 30:2, equal [1] - 5:12 excepted [1] - 5:25
100:13 19:7, 32:9, 70:20, 30:10, 35:6, 36:13, equally [1] - 32:11 excepting [1] - 11:17
dispositioning [2] - 100:16, 106:17, 41:14, 46:8, 52:7, ERICH [1] - 3:3 exception [19] - 44:16,
101:3, 102:19 116:2, 122:13, 64:24, 70:11, 71:18, Erich [2] - 14:10, 74:1 65:24, 90:4, 90:6,
dispositions [3] - 123:12, 125:7 73:4, 73:13, 73:25, error [1] - 25:16 90:9, 94:7, 94:12,
110:4, 113:11, 118:4 drag [1] - 13:12 74:19, 81:11, 81:12, especially [3] - 20:25, 95:20, 106:23,
dispute [3] - 53:9, drastically [1] - 66:1 81:24, 84:13, 87:24, 54:10, 75:19 107:10, 113:6,
77:6, 78:21 draw [1] - 35:10 88:4, 88:10, 88:15, essential [1] - 22:14 113:17, 114:2,
disputed [3] - 53:8, drawing [3] - 30:14, 88:19, 89:3, 89:17, essentially [5] - 15:18, 115:21, 117:22,
78:15, 82:9 115:9 103:5, 104:9, 16:3, 22:15, 37:18, 124:8, 128:16,
dissimilar [8] - 66:25, drawn [1] - 59:10 105:12, 111:15, 39:4 128:22, 129:6
92:16, 92:19, 93:4, drop [2] - 106:17, 112:13, 112:14, establish [3] - 70:9, exceptional [1] -
93:18, 93:24, 94:9, 117:8 117:7, 121:2 74:16, 97:25 113:21
97:10 drop-off [1] - 117:8 Election [1] - 87:22 et [3] - 1:9, 4:7, 68:25 exceptionally [1] -
distance [1] - 95:12 duly [1] - 86:17 elections [4] - 46:2, Ethan [1] - 19:10 123:8
distinction [1] - 76:25 duplicate [1] - 100:5 46:7, 71:8, 81:8 ethics [1] - 40:15 exceptions [1] - 49:1
distress [1] - 61:2 during [13] - 70:14, Elena [2] - 2:9, 69:8 evaluate [1] - 23:13 excited [1] - 30:20
district [1] - 19:13 71:17, 73:3, 73:24, ELIAS [1] - 2:8 evaluated [1] - 34:14 excluded [2] - 20:7,
District [1] - 19:14 84:5, 87:24, 88:4, eliminate [1] - 110:2 event [1] - 72:21 21:3
districts [1] - 27:21 88:10, 88:14, 88:19, Ellen [1] - 19:10 eventually [1] - 30:16 excuse [4] - 11:23,
doctor [4] - 39:12, 104:6, 104:9, 112:13 Emily [1] - 2:10 evidence [18] - 17:14, 67:16, 73:25, 76:14
39:14, 68:3, 96:22 duties [2] - 73:12, emphasis [1] - 113:24 17:22, 21:10, 24:3, excusing [1] - 17:13
doctors [1] - 95:22 122:25 emphasized [1] - 26:4, 27:25, 70:6, executive [1] - 27:19
document [41] - 6:8, 95:19 77:5, 79:8, 79:14, exemplar [3] - 93:20,
38:1, 38:4, 38:12, E employed [2] - 36:7, 80:12, 81:3, 82:5, 94:12, 106:16
38:21, 38:23, 39:21, 64:23 82:7, 82:25, 84:23, exemplars [15] -
39:24, 40:6, 40:7, e-mail [3] - 61:18, employee [1] - 90:1 99:11, 124:20 47:19, 48:23, 49:8,
53:5, 53:18, 56:4, 61:19, 116:4 employees [5] - 36:2, evil [1] - 103:17 49:24, 66:11, 66:12,
56:10, 59:12, 59:14, e-mails [1] - 58:21 36:11, 76:17, 79:3, exact [8] - 35:2, 41:24, 90:23, 91:10, 93:23,
61:17, 98:12, 98:21, early [11] - 49:23, 105:7 62:24, 93:8, 93:10, 96:10, 96:22, 97:10,
98:24, 99:3, 105:13, 87:4, 87:25, 89:13, employer [1] - 87:6 96:13, 96:15, 124:7 113:8, 113:14, 129:5
105:25, 107:5, 101:2, 110:7, 114:1, enabled [1] - 113:9 exactly [10] - 18:14, exercise [1] - 85:3
112:7, 112:12, 116:11, 120:13, encountered [1] - 25:4, 25:8, 40:22, exhibit [16] - 16:8,
112:15, 112:17, 120:20 67:10 43:20, 55:16, 75:2, 28:8, 42:12, 43:3,
112:18, 113:2, easier [2] - 10:5, 58:20 end [3] - 53:14, 99:25, 90:2, 96:7, 96:11 43:4, 43:5, 43:12,
114:9, 117:17, easy [1] - 7:12 127:16 EXAMINATION [5] - 54:8, 58:19, 98:8,
118:8, 120:9, EB2016 [1] - 106:3 ends [1] - 118:23 4:19, 14:4, 45:9, 98:17, 98:19, 99:10,
120:13, 120:16, EBRT [1] - 106:2 engage [1] - 36:12 52:18, 86:20 104:20, 112:24,
121:8, 121:20, econalysis [1] - 22:19 engaged [1] - 36:4 Examination [3] - 3:4, 126:18
123:3, 125:11, 126:6 edification [1] - 129:3 English [3] - 13:15, 3:6, 3:9 Exhibit [35] - 4:22,
Document [1] - 40:3 education [5] - 40:25, 66:16, 66:21 examination [18] - 3:5, 14:21, 16:25, 19:24,
documented [1] - 41:10, 41:12, 53:12, ensure [2] - 73:17, 3:5, 4:14, 23:5, 23:9, 20:2, 22:2, 22:3,
118:15 64:25 76:9 25:15, 45:4, 49:6, 24:13, 24:14, 26:3,
documents [3] - 23:1, EEOC [2] - 19:10, enter [2] - 70:16, 74:7 52:12, 53:5, 53:18, 27:14, 27:25, 35:19,

Appx0865
 7

35:21, 35:25, 36:1, 109:7, 123:18 findings [9] - 27:6, 40:13

G
44:9, 58:14, 58:18, factor [3] - 35:17, 28:19, 28:22, 69:13, forget [1] - 101:15
58:23, 59:5, 59:23, 36:2, 36:6 70:16, 74:8, 82:11, forgets [1] - 120:23 game [1] - 110:8
62:14, 62:20, 73:6, fail [3] - 44:16, 65:25, 83:11, 84:20 forgot [1] - 62:24 games [2] - 103:18,
98:9, 104:21, 66:2 fine [9] - 21:8, 44:6, form [3] - 34:8, 66:25, 110:10
104:25, 105:18, failed [6] - 50:23, 70:2, 47:14, 49:20, 60:12, 97:14 General [1] - 55:2
112:5, 120:1, 120:7, 70:18, 70:25, 72:4, 68:3, 109:12, 127:24 formal [1] - 39:20 general [23] - 30:10,
121:11, 121:18, 72:23 fining [1] - 71:10 forming [1] - 33:13 33:11, 34:16, 35:6,
129:15 fair [24] - 10:23, 30:3, finish [3] - 32:2, forth [6] - 50:8, 83:21, 46:4, 49:1, 52:7,
exhibits [4] - 19:18, 30:6, 31:11, 33:15, 108:7, 108:8 83:22, 89:9, 124:19, 64:24, 71:18, 73:4,
24:3, 68:8, 71:10 34:10, 35:9, 36:5, finished [1] - 42:2 126:3 73:13, 73:25, 87:24,
Exhibits [1] - 21:9 36:10, 37:19, 38:25, finishing [2] - 73:8, forty [6] - 24:6, 26:7, 88:4, 88:10, 88:15,
existence [1] - 64:7 39:21, 39:22, 39:25, 73:9 35:23, 43:6, 58:15, 88:19, 89:3, 89:17,
expelled [1] - 30:16 40:1, 41:4, 41:17, firm [1] - 37:11 89:8 104:9, 105:12,
experience [19] - 10:4, 41:18, 43:25, 46:20, first [21] - 10:12, 21:1, forty-one [1] - 26:7 112:13, 112:14
22:25, 23:12, 23:14, 47:18, 50:15, 57:7 25:9, 28:9, 28:11, forty-seven [3] - generally [3] - 46:6,
23:21, 53:5, 64:25, fairly [1] - 76:18 43:15, 58:7, 59:6, 35:23, 43:6, 58:15 46:18, 51:22
95:22, 97:19, 102:6, fall [1] - 117:9 76:9, 78:6, 82:3, forty-three [2] - 24:6, genius [1] - 89:21
111:2, 111:5, falls [1] - 119:18 82:21, 91:7, 91:12, 89:8 gentleman [1] - 19:6
111:13, 111:16, false [1] - 17:19 93:7, 94:11, 95:11, forward [1] - 62:1 gentlemen [1] - 19:6
111:19, 111:23, falsified [1] - 18:20 95:12, 110:10, foundation [8] - 6:13, gig [1] - 37:18
114:12, 129:10 familiar [4] - 26:25, 112:20 6:18, 31:13, 34:7, given [9] - 30:9, 32:24,
experienced [1] - 93:1 49:25, 114:8, 120:10 First [1] - 22:3 34:11, 34:14, 33:1, 34:4, 75:14,
Expert [1] - 23:17 family [1] - 37:7 fit [1] - 106:10 108:18, 125:15 80:1, 87:6, 100:15,
expert [32] - 12:7, fan [1] - 46:13 fits [1] - 80:25 four [3] - 64:19, 65:8, 107:3
17:16, 20:4, 20:5, fancy [1] - 95:14 five [5] - 49:2, 62:10, 87:15 glance [1] - 104:25
20:8, 21:19, 22:16, far [6] - 29:13, 42:24, 105:21, 118:22, four-hour [1] - 65:8 Googled [1] - 12:22
25:1, 25:3, 25:10, 58:8, 71:13, 89:24, 121:4 FRANCO [1] - 1:23 gotcha [1] - 50:20
25:14, 37:18, 46:5, 95:1 flash [2] - 67:2, 80:16 Franco [3] - 130:11, government [1] - 56:8
53:6, 53:9, 54:10, fast [5] - 57:16, 58:16, flashed [1] - 77:2 130:21, 130:22 Governor [3] - 69:9,
55:15, 55:25, 56:2, 67:10, 67:11, 107:16 flicking [1] - 23:4 Frank [1] - 94:9 70:14, 74:5
76:3, 77:9, 77:17, faster [7] - 7:19, 8:21, flip [3] - 62:1, 62:5, frankly [1] - 123:20 governs [1] - 13:3
78:16, 80:4, 80:6, 9:25, 10:4, 65:9, 78:23 fraud [12] - 46:6, grade [2] - 107:23,
108:14, 108:18, 129:10, 129:12 flipping [1] - 23:9 46:12, 46:15, 46:18, 108:16
109:1, 109:4, fastest [3] - 9:17, flood [1] - 79:16 47:6, 47:7, 47:9, grades [1] - 51:3
110:25, 126:3 10:13, 10:14 flourishes [1] - 96:16 47:20, 48:21, 49:6, grading [1] - 110:1
expert's [1] - 81:4 fatal [1] - 78:21 focused [1] - 71:22 76:13, 76:15 granted [1] - 81:23
experts [1] - 22:17 father [2] - 37:24, folklore [1] - 97:22 fraudulent [1] - 76:10 granting [1] - 70:4
explain [3] - 106:6, 107:24 folks [1] - 97:15 fraudulently [1] - 49:7 grease [2] - 53:6, 53:9
106:21, 115:17 fault [2] - 32:11, 44:5 follow [8] - 34:18, free [2] - 19:17, 75:23 great [2] - 14:8, 69:25
express [3] - 63:6, favor [1] - 81:23 62:9, 65:16, 65:19, Friday [1] - 77:8 greatest [2] - 76:14,
63:7, 63:8 February [1] - 59:7 65:22, 66:20, 70:22, front [14] - 16:25, 76:15
expressed [3] - 51:20, federal [1] - 19:13 106:19 27:21, 29:12, 53:22, green [5] - 90:19,
51:21, 63:17 few [2] - 45:15, 114:5 followed [2] - 79:6, 55:11, 61:20, 69:24, 93:2, 98:15, 100:20
extend [1] - 119:18 field [2] - 13:9, 50:6 107:9 75:6, 90:15, 91:12, grounds [1] - 20:25
extended [1] - 126:20 figure [6] - 10:17, following [3] - 4:3, 92:18, 95:15, 98:13, group [2] - 40:20,
extent [5] - 23:13, 95:16, 103:19, 80:19, 107:17 127:8 114:18
31:1, 34:22, 34:23 107:21, 123:4, follows [2] - 64:18, FTIR [1] - 53:10 GROUP [2] - 2:8, 2:10
extra [1] - 119:5 123:15 86:18 fulfills [2] - 59:18, guide [3] - 112:16,
extraordinarily [1] - figures [1] - 12:2 Fontes [2] - 70:15, 59:19 114:17, 121:25
54:17 figuring [1] - 108:1 74:6 full [1] - 36:3 guideline [1] - 65:20
extremely [1] - 25:12 file [8] - 91:7, 93:8, FOR [1] - 1:2 fully [1] - 70:13 guidelines [1] - 65:21
103:10, 113:14, foregoing [1] - 130:13 fundamental [1] - guides [4] - 99:8,
F 115:2, 115:3, forensic [14] - 28:17, 126:15 105:6, 122:7
122:16, 128:15 28:19, 31:4, 31:7, funny [1] - 30:22
fact [17] - 16:4, 43:12, files [1] - 81:4 38:1, 38:4, 38:12, furthered [1] - 63:18 H
44:10, 46:4, 46:23, 38:21, 38:23, 40:6,
fill [1] - 108:3 furthermore [1] -
67:9, 71:21, 79:2, 40:7, 46:22, 56:4,
filter [1] - 90:4 109:5 hac [1] - 2:2
80:8, 81:3, 86:25, 56:10
final [1] - 54:7 half [3] - 75:25, 77:16,
88:12, 93:14, 96:19,
finally [2] - 73:22, 74:1 Forensic [2] - 40:3, 79:12

Appx0866
 8

hand [4] - 61:15, 54:10, 54:11 HOWARD [1] - 2:11 important [3] - 14:14, 30:23, 46:15, 51:23
61:22, 96:16, 122:4 Honor [134] - 4:17, hundred [15] - 7:11, 43:10, 116:23 information [9] -
handed [4] - 16:24, 6:7, 6:22, 9:1, 13:17, 9:19, 12:6, 50:22, imposed [1] - 20:22 21:16, 27:7, 32:23,
54:7, 59:5, 120:9 13:21, 13:24, 14:2, 51:20, 54:23, 62:23, impossibility [1] - 33:12, 34:8, 34:19,
handing [4] - 19:24, 16:7, 16:9, 16:19, 63:2, 73:24, 77:23, 23:2 34:21, 84:1, 102:14
22:2, 24:13, 27:14 19:16, 19:20, 19:21, 78:4, 80:21, 111:15, impossible [1] - initial [4] - 15:21,
hands [3] - 102:16, 21:9, 21:12, 21:23, 111:20 113:24 95:13, 106:14,
104:1, 117:8 21:25, 24:2, 24:5, hundreds [4] - 39:10, improper [1] - 30:12 129:11
Handsel [2] - 72:7, 24:9, 26:4, 26:6, 56:2, 56:3, 111:20 improperly [1] - 35:8 injected [1] - 76:10
72:12 27:10, 27:12, 27:24, hurry [1] - 96:2 IN [2] - 1:1, 1:2 injecting [2] - 101:9
handwriting [9] - 28:2, 28:5, 31:12, husband [1] - 37:24 inability [2] - 64:22, ink [3] - 17:14, 53:4,
46:10, 47:5, 56:5, 31:25, 32:3, 33:16, 94:6 56:6
56:11, 65:3, 65:13, 34:2, 42:2, 42:4, I inaccurate [1] - 89:16 input [1] - 13:11
76:3, 76:19, 95:23 43:4, 44:25, 45:6, inadmissible [1] - inputted [3] - 5:23,
happy [1] - 20:18 50:25, 52:3, 52:10, i.e [1] - 22:18 20:23 10:22, 11:4
hard [1] - 41:2 52:13, 52:16, 57:4, ID [3] - 97:16, 103:4, inbound [2] - 103:2, inside [4] - 90:12,
hardcopy [1] - 58:20 58:19, 58:24, 59:2, 124:7 103:8 101:23, 101:24,
harm [2] - 90:3, 90:6 60:16, 61:1, 67:13, idea [3] - 48:1, 81:14, incapacitation [1] - 103:19
harmony [1] - 75:22 67:19, 68:7, 68:12, 91:11 114:19 insist [1] - 126:22
Harris [1] - 29:17 68:15, 68:17, 69:8, identical [2] - 92:17, include [5] - 11:25, instance [1] - 53:1
Hartman [1] - 2:15 69:15, 69:18, 69:21, 100:2 95:6, 97:14, 113:12, Instance [1] - 22:4
Hartman-Tellez [1] - 73:25, 74:5, 74:11, identification [1] - 116:6 instances [11] - 6:5,
2:15 74:12, 74:15, 76:25, 53:5 included [5] - 7:20, 8:3, 8:15, 8:20, 9:19,
77:6, 77:15, 77:20, identified [4] - 50:23, 7:21, 7:25, 23:16, 10:15, 11:9, 11:17,
hated [1] - 5:25
78:5, 78:15, 78:21, 61:14, 88:21, 114:17 126:10 12:5, 65:22
haves [1] - 47:24
79:23, 80:1, 80:8, identifier [2] - 59:25, instantaneously [1] -
head [1] - 50:2 including [6] - 55:4,
80:15, 80:20, 81:5, 114:21 93:25
hear [4] - 41:9, 85:15, 71:8, 73:2, 73:6,
81:21, 81:25, 82:1, identifies [1] - 120:13 instantly [1] - 116:8
126:2, 127:7 73:10, 96:1
82:12, 83:13, 84:9, identify [1] - 100:15
heard [8] - 26:9, inconsistencies [2] - integer [1] - 122:15
84:18, 84:24, 85:7, identifying [4] - 95:2,
30:18, 31:2, 36:23, 13:7, 94:4 integrity [3] - 81:7,
85:12, 85:17, 86:5, 95:3, 117:19, 129:6
40:2, 70:13, 114:6, inconsistency [2] - 84:12, 117:3
86:10, 86:14, 97:1, identity [1] - 107:4
127:3 13:8, 92:12 intend [1] - 35:14
98:4, 98:6, 98:9, II [33] - 14:25, 70:8,
hearing [8] - 6:8, 6:9, inconsistent [11] - intended [3] - 75:16,
99:10, 99:13, 99:16, 71:6, 71:12, 72:5,
14:21, 30:15, 30:17, 67:1, 92:8, 92:15, 76:24, 97:21
99:20, 99:22, 100:6, 72:14, 72:24, 73:3,
41:3, 69:16, 83:20 93:11, 94:4, 95:3, intermediate [2] -
104:18, 104:21, 73:15, 74:4, 79:18,
hefty [1] - 16:17 113:13, 115:22, 15:19, 15:24
105:17, 105:20, 88:9, 89:6, 89:15,
held [1] - 80:3 116:16, 128:11, interpreted [1] - 79:7
108:13, 108:15, 90:10, 94:19, 94:20,
hereby [1] - 130:13 128:14 interrupt [1] - 113:1
108:22, 109:4, 94:21, 94:22, 94:23,
hesitate [1] - 67:13 incorrectly [2] - 55:17, interrupting [1] - 32:1
109:8, 109:11, 95:1, 95:4, 97:12,
high [3] - 9:24, 73:12 inventory [1] - 4:25
110:23, 111:4, 97:18, 97:19, 100:9,
102:24, 107:22 increase [1] - 58:5 invited [2] - 29:16,
111:6, 112:2, 102:21, 103:13,
high-level [1] - 107:22 increased [1] - 81:15 31:1
119:25, 120:2, 106:25, 112:14,
higher [4] - 9:25, indeed [8] - 10:25, inviting [1] - 17:24
120:4, 121:10, 112:19, 113:7, 114:4
15:18, 72:1, 95:21 71:13, 94:17, 95:6, involved [4] - 37:8,
121:13, 121:15, III [10] - 71:6, 71:12,
himself [4] - 17:15, 95:20, 115:22, 55:3, 87:25, 115:11
123:7, 124:22,
22:16, 23:15, 73:23 72:6, 72:15, 72:24, 128:16, 129:8 involvement [1] -
125:1, 125:16,
73:3, 73:16, 74:4, independent [1] - 30:5 19:10
hip [2] - 60:8, 60:11 126:13, 127:2,
88:13, 114:5 independently [1] - IRS [1] - 25:24
hired [4] - 36:4, 36:12, 127:4, 127:13,
illegal [1] - 76:10 20:25 issue [10] - 23:20,
80:4, 91:19 127:17, 127:25,
illegally [2] - 30:2, indication [1] - 25:22 48:5, 53:15, 70:5,
historical [1] - 66:11 129:14, 129:17,
30:12 indicia [1] - 114:16 70:14, 74:23, 77:1,
hit [1] - 111:25 129:19
image [8] - 90:23, individual [1] - 94:2 78:15, 79:5, 79:14
Hobbs [6] - 1:8, 4:7, HONORABLE [1] -
93:3, 102:12, 103:3, individuals [2] - 72:2, issues [2] - 25:18,
68:25, 69:9, 70:14, 1:19
103:8, 106:16, 122:1 81:7
74:6 hopeful [1] - 102:3
115:5, 122:25 industry [4] - 13:16, item [1] - 28:24
hold [2] - 60:17, hour [4] - 12:18,
images [2] - 28:20, 48:10, 65:21, 66:23 items [3] - 12:24,
101:22 37:11, 65:8
90:19 infer [1] - 96:17 62:10, 118:7
holiday [4] - 118:24, hourly [1] - 37:11
impact [2] - 34:25, infers [1] - 13:6
119:6, 119:18, 121:4 hours [1] - 37:23
35:1 infirmity [1] - 116:25
Hong [6] - 15:10, House [1] - 30:17
importance [1] - 81:16 inflammatory [3] -
17:12, 22:10, 53:24,

Appx0867
 9

54:10, 54:11 123:8, 123:9, 95:18, 95:21, 96:9, line [2] - 39:5, 78:6
J
Kung [1] - 15:13 124:22, 125:1, 97:12, 97:18, 97:19, lines [1] - 51:11
Jack [1] - 2:16 Kurt [2] - 2:2, 37:2 125:2, 126:13, 97:20, 97:23, 99:6, list [3] - 47:23, 48:9,
Jacqueline [1] - 71:15 126:19, 126:21, 99:7, 100:9, 100:10, 101:17
Jake [1] - 2:12 L 126:23, 127:11, 102:12, 102:20, listed [2] - 51:11,
jive [1] - 36:20 127:20, 127:22 102:21, 102:24, 85:21
job [5] - 18:13, 37:17, label [5] - 118:6, League [1] - 110:6 103:13, 105:7, litany [1] - 87:5
65:1, 71:22, 112:11 118:7, 118:15, learn [1] - 107:24 105:9, 105:16, live [1] - 91:23
John [1] - 117:14 121:25, 122:3 learned [2] - 107:24, 106:9, 106:14, Liz [1] - 29:17
Johnson [1] - 94:9 laboratory [1] - 23:16 107:25 106:23, 106:25, LLC [1] - 2:11
joins [1] - 83:14 lack [3] - 20:14, 23:14, least [7] - 13:11, 107:12, 107:22, LLP [2] - 2:7, 2:8
joint [2] - 82:11, 82:14 84:2 62:12, 66:11, 77:8, 107:23, 111:15, local [3] - 94:11, 98:2,
jointly [2] - 70:15, 74:7 lacked [1] - 17:17 88:25, 89:1, 116:14 111:24, 112:10, 115:14
Joseph [1] - 2:15 lacking [1] - 53:7 leave [1] - 99:23 112:14, 112:15, locked [1] - 103:12
lag [1] - 58:9 lectern [1] - 69:22 112:19, 113:3, lodged [1] - 40:16
Jr [1] - 24:20
laid [1] - 108:18 left [7] - 51:9, 57:13, 113:5, 113:7, log [4] - 57:22, 81:4,
judge [13] - 16:5,
Lake [17] - 1:5, 4:7, 118:10, 118:12, 113:12, 113:15, 90:22, 122:15
17:14, 18:3, 18:12,
61:15, 61:21, 68:25, 122:4, 122:6 113:25, 114:3,
23:25, 24:20, 53:2, logged [2] - 44:14,
70:1, 70:5, 70:13, left-hand [1] - 122:4 114:4, 115:4,
53:13, 53:17, 55:6, 129:12
70:16, 70:18, 70:25, legal [2] - 31:5, 54:10 115:20, 123:25,
55:22, 88:6 logging [1] - 57:20
71:7, 74:8, 74:16, legend [1] - 122:5 124:9, 128:9,
Judge [2] - 24:19, logic [1] - 107:18
83:7, 83:16, 83:22 legislature [5] - 26:11, 128:17, 128:24,
33:23 long-held [1] - 80:3
Lake's [5] - 71:2, 71:4, 29:13, 29:25, 76:8, 129:4, 129:8
judgement [1] - 70:16 look [35] - 12:4, 12:10,
71:9, 84:14, 125:12 81:18 leveled [1] - 20:20
judges [1] - 54:12 12:22, 20:19, 49:8,
language [6] - 13:15, lengthy [1] - 53:23 levels [11] - 71:6,
judgment [7] - 69:10, 49:13, 49:14, 49:17,
14:17, 66:16, 66:22, less [57] - 5:7, 5:9, 71:12, 72:1, 72:5,
69:12, 74:7, 81:23, 49:24, 53:11, 65:2,
84:21, 93:11 5:10, 5:11, 5:12, 6:4, 72:14, 72:24, 73:3,
84:20, 84:22, 85:3 65:3, 65:4, 66:23,
large [4] - 34:23, 7:16, 7:19, 8:2, 8:15, 73:15, 73:17, 74:4,
Judicial [1] - 24:19 88:6, 91:9, 92:1,
34:25, 46:9, 54:17 8:16, 8:19, 8:21, 82:21
jurisdiction [1] - 53:16 92:17, 92:21, 93:25,
larger [1] - 7:21 9:14, 9:17, 9:19, licensing [1] - 38:20
jury [1] - 25:22 94:1, 94:2, 95:8,
LaRue [5] - 2:15, 3:5, 9:21, 9:22, 10:9, LIDDY [46] - 83:13,
justify [1] - 21:1 95:11, 96:9, 96:17,
45:4, 62:20, 64:3 10:10, 10:11, 10:12, 86:9, 86:14, 86:22,
98:1, 110:12,
LARUE [7] - 45:5, 10:13, 10:14, 10:17, 97:4, 98:4, 98:6,
K 113:13, 117:4,
45:11, 51:4, 51:8, 10:20, 11:13, 11:20, 98:9, 98:11, 99:10,
120:9, 121:20,
52:3, 52:4, 52:10 12:5, 12:8, 15:15, 99:19, 99:22, 100:2,
Karen [1] - 2:15 123:15, 129:7
last [18] - 6:20, 9:18, 15:16, 36:8, 51:12, 100:6, 100:7,
Kari [4] - 1:5, 68:25, looked [5] - 55:2,
10:7, 25:17, 28:8, 51:13, 63:5, 63:12, 104:18, 104:21,
84:14, 125:12 106:13, 124:5,
51:21, 55:13, 55:14, 63:16, 63:18, 63:20, 104:23, 105:17,
Kathleen [1] - 80:5 125:19, 129:4
58:6, 60:15, 91:2, 77:14, 77:15, 77:19, 105:22, 108:7,
Katie [2] - 1:8, 68:25 looking [8] - 4:23,
91:25, 93:3, 95:14, 78:3, 79:10, 107:19, 108:9, 108:12,
keep [1] - 19:7 9:21, 23:4, 92:19,
100:21, 111:15, 111:24, 122:20, 108:15, 108:21,
keeping [1] - 55:23 102:13, 111:23,
122:13, 127:18 124:14 109:10, 109:13,
key [8] - 8:4, 11:1, 115:8, 115:15
lateral [2] - 91:6, 93:7 letter [11] - 23:23, 111:4, 111:17,
44:14, 57:9, 57:20, looks [2] - 80:16,
latest [1] - 91:6 24:16, 24:18, 25:6, 112:2, 112:4,
57:22, 58:6, 77:6 93:23
LAW [4] - 2:2, 2:3, 2:8, 53:1, 53:14, 95:14, 119:25, 120:4,
keyboard [2] - 75:6, loosely [1] - 29:9
2:10 118:11, 122:6, 120:6, 121:10,
77:3 loss [1] - 32:16
law [13] - 41:16, 49:23, 122:10 121:15, 121:17,
kick [1] - 79:20 lost [1] - 78:8
level [92] - 13:13, 123:10, 124:23,
kind [7] - 40:5, 79:12, 72:3, 75:13, 79:6, low [6] - 109:18,
14:24, 14:25, 70:8, 125:3, 125:23,
90:12, 96:4, 96:5, 82:16, 88:13, 92:1, 109:23, 110:21,
71:17, 71:21, 73:1, 127:17, 128:4,
101:22, 122:24 116:12, 116:20, 111:11, 124:5, 124:6
73:10, 73:16, 76:9, 128:8, 129:14,
kinds [1] - 96:20 116:24, 118:16, lower [5] - 10:16,
79:18, 79:21, 88:4, 129:19
119:17 11:25, 15:19, 15:22,
kitchen [1] - 109:5 Liddy [6] - 2:14, 3:9,
laws [2] - 50:12, 78:11 88:9, 88:12, 88:25, 109:25
knowledge [9] - 21:7, 81:9, 86:9, 86:13,
lawyer [2] - 39:13, 89:5, 89:14, 89:15, LS [1] - 122:10
22:13, 53:4, 53:18, 100:1
39:14 89:25, 90:2, 90:3, lunch [1] - 5:7
72:20, 88:17, 89:16, life [4] - 37:21, 46:16,
lawyer's [1] - 25:20 90:8, 90:9, 91:12,
105:8, 125:17 67:11, 96:3 LUZ [1] - 1:23
lay [2] - 31:13 91:16, 91:20, 93:22,
known [4] - 49:10, lightning [1] - 11:19 Luz [2] - 130:11,
lead [1] - 49:21 94:5, 94:15, 94:19,
77:7, 84:25, 122:20 limitations [1] - 49:1 130:22
leading [17] - 6:9, 94:20, 94:21, 94:22,
Kong [6] - 15:10, limited [1] - 34:23
22:17, 97:2, 97:3, 94:23, 95:1, 95:4,
17:12, 22:11, 53:24,

Appx0868
 10

104:4 mentioned [7] - 16:9, 35:23, 35:24, 42:1, 74:15, 80:20, 83:13,
M
marker [1] - 114:16 76:12, 87:10, 93:6, 42:4, 42:5, 43:4, 86:9, 86:14, 86:22,
machine [1] - 124:3 marks [1] - 115:13 96:15, 106:7, 118:13 43:7, 43:9, 44:24, 97:1, 97:4, 98:4,
magnify [1] - 22:25 mass [3] - 12:17, mentioning [1] - 96:7 57:4, 57:7, 67:18, 98:6, 98:9, 98:11,
mail [8] - 61:18, 61:19, 63:22, 63:24 merely [1] - 67:2 68:7, 68:10, 68:12 99:10, 99:13, 99:16,
76:13, 76:14, 81:15, massive [1] - 81:8 message [1] - 122:6 Morgan [3] - 2:12, 3:5, 99:19, 99:22, 100:2,
90:20, 116:4, 120:18 match [12] - 10:5, met [2] - 81:22, 86:23 13:22 100:6, 100:7,
mail-in [4] - 76:13, 10:6, 92:16, 92:22, method [2] - 55:22, morning [3] - 12:21, 104:18, 104:21,
76:14, 81:15, 90:20 93:8, 93:10, 93:17, 55:23 13:1, 129:22 104:23, 105:17,
mailed [1] - 116:6 93:25, 95:15, 96:14, methods [3] - 17:18, most [2] - 81:7, 91:11 105:20, 105:22,
mails [1] - 58:21 96:22, 96:23 55:19, 121:7 motion [7] - 69:12, 108:6, 108:7, 108:9,
maintain [1] - 105:15 matched [1] - 15:6 microphone [1] - 69:17, 82:11, 82:14, 108:12, 108:13,
maintained [1] - material [1] - 99:7 69:24 83:10, 83:14 108:15, 108:17,
118:11 materials [1] - 91:18 middle [6] - 41:3, Motors [1] - 55:2 108:21, 108:25,
major [1] - 38:9 math [5] - 6:16, 6:21, 84:21, 95:13, 106:2, move [20] - 8:23, 21:9, 109:10, 109:13,
majority [1] - 46:11 107:23, 108:16 106:17, 112:23 24:2, 26:3, 27:24, 110:23, 111:4,
malpractice [1] - mathematical [10] - might [10] - 11:11, 61:15, 61:24, 69:10, 111:6, 111:9,
23:2, 70:11, 74:19, 26:23, 45:2, 57:17, 70:15, 74:7, 90:9, 111:17, 112:2,
84:15
83:3, 83:16, 83:19, 65:22, 85:5, 93:24, 90:10, 95:3, 99:10, 112:4, 119:25,
manager [10] - 84:15,
83:22, 89:10, 89:20, 95:11, 96:22, 107:24 105:17, 109:22, 120:2, 120:4, 120:6,
97:17, 97:25,
124:18 Miller [1] - 80:2 114:4, 119:25, 121:10, 121:13,
100:10, 106:25,
Matter [1] - 1:4 million [1] - 89:13 121:10, 129:14 121:15, 121:17,
113:3, 113:9,
matter [3] - 69:1, mind [4] - 44:3, 55:23, moved [1] - 118:24 123:7, 123:10,
115:21, 115:22
69:23, 126:25 67:3, 99:24 movement [1] - 73:14 124:22, 124:23,
manager's [3] - 94:15,
matters [1] - 87:1 moves [2] - 113:2, 125:1, 125:3,
94:20, 124:9 mine [2] - 18:22,
113:7 125:15, 125:23,
managerial [1] - MCTEC [2] - 103:18, 107:25
moving [2] - 8:19, 126:13, 127:2,
112:15 106:18 minimum [1] - 28:21
109:25 127:7, 127:13,
managers [4] - 94:16, mean [28] - 12:22, miniscule [1] - 122:24
MR [168] - 4:17, 4:21, 127:17, 127:25,
97:12, 112:11, 27:3, 28:9, 33:20, minus [1] - 11:11
5:5, 6:7, 6:15, 6:22, 128:2, 128:4, 128:8,
113:12 33:22, 36:6, 36:8, minute [4] - 20:11,
6:23, 7:14, 9:10, 129:14, 129:17,
mandate [1] - 74:16 36:18, 39:1, 39:9, 37:14, 108:23
13:17, 13:21, 13:24, 129:19
mandating [1] - 76:8 39:12, 39:13, 42:16, minutes [1] - 68:19
14:2, 14:6, 16:6, MS [16] - 9:1, 9:7,
manual [2] - 13:11, 46:19, 47:16, 48:2, mirror [1] - 100:19
16:13, 16:16, 16:19, 52:13, 69:8, 69:18,
65:1 48:25, 53:17, 55:7, misleading [1] - 10:24
16:22, 16:23, 19:8, 69:20, 69:25, 70:21,
Maricopa [46] - 2:14, 58:8, 64:25, 65:20, misrepresentations
19:16, 19:20, 19:23, 70:24, 82:1, 84:17,
36:3, 36:11, 45:1, 66:7, 85:13, 100:18, [1] - 23:21
21:9, 21:12, 21:14, 84:24, 85:7, 85:11,
52:7, 56:14, 58:3, 100:19, 100:21, missing [1] - 32:20
21:22, 21:25, 22:1, 85:16, 85:22
59:7, 59:15, 61:12, 106:11 modified [1] - 75:10
24:2, 24:5, 24:8, multi [1] - 73:1
62:17, 64:23, 65:7, meaning [9] - 42:25, mom [2] - 107:25
47:11, 52:9, 75:15, 24:11, 24:12, 26:3, multi-level [1] - 73:1
65:11, 70:15, 71:8, moment [8] - 18:11,
75:16, 76:23, 79:7, 26:6, 26:8, 27:9, multiple [4] - 48:4,
71:11, 72:4, 72:9, 35:4, 42:1, 42:6,
80:2, 107:9 27:12, 27:13, 27:24, 56:3, 59:17, 113:7
72:13, 72:22, 73:2, 50:17, 80:9, 98:20,
means [13] - 5:9, 5:10, 28:2, 28:3, 28:5, must [7] - 34:18, 48:2,
73:12, 74:2, 74:6, 120:8
5:12, 5:14, 12:25, 28:6, 31:12, 31:21, 67:13, 83:16, 91:9,
76:17, 79:2, 80:4, months [2] - 26:18,
13:16, 31:4, 31:7, 31:25, 32:3, 32:7, 119:18
80:10, 83:13, 84:4, 84:11
106:12, 106:21, 32:10, 32:13, 33:16, Myers [4] - 71:16,
88:18, 89:4, 89:12, MORGAN [58] - 6:7,
109:14, 114:8, 33:22, 33:25, 34:2, 71:19, 71:24
89:18, 90:16, 90:20, 6:15, 13:21, 13:24,
93:23, 103:17, 122:10 34:3, 35:22, 35:23,
14:2, 14:6, 16:6,
114:9, 116:10, meant [1] - 39:18 16:13, 16:16, 16:19,
35:24, 42:1, 42:4, N
116:18, 119:21, measures [1] - 81:17 42:5, 43:4, 43:7,
16:22, 16:23, 19:8, name [13] - 14:7,
124:3, 125:5, 130:13 meet [6] - 70:2, 70:18, 43:9, 44:24, 45:5,
19:16, 19:20, 19:23, 29:24, 40:8, 87:6,
MARICOPA [2] - 1:2, 70:25, 83:7, 83:18, 45:11, 50:25, 51:4,
21:9, 21:14, 21:22, 95:11, 95:12, 95:14,
130:9 92:22 51:8, 52:3, 52:4,
21:25, 22:1, 24:2, 96:4, 96:21, 96:23,
Maricopa's [1] - 62:6 member [3] - 40:12, 52:10, 52:16, 52:20,
24:8, 24:11, 24:12, 102:14
mark [5] - 16:11, 40:15, 122:9 57:4, 57:7, 57:24,
26:3, 26:8, 27:9, names [1] - 14:8
members [1] - 103:1 58:18, 58:24, 59:2,
114:22, 115:1, 27:12, 27:13, 27:24,
59:4, 61:11, 67:13, narrow [1] - 37:21
115:5, 128:14 membership [1] - 28:3, 28:5, 28:6,
67:18, 68:7, 68:10, Natural [1] - 38:8
marked [9] - 16:8, 40:21 31:21, 32:3, 32:7,
68:12, 68:15, 68:17, nature [1] - 34:24
16:24, 19:24, 22:2, Memorial [1] - 119:11 32:10, 32:13, 33:22,
69:15, 69:19, 74:12, near [1] - 108:4
24:13, 27:14, 75:22, mention [1] - 79:16 33:25, 34:2, 34:3,

Appx0869
 11

nearly [2] - 80:21, 83:1 101:17, 101:18, offers [1] - 22:15 120:23, 121:8, 39:1
need [13] - 32:8, 61:3, 106:15, 110:15, office [2] - 103:1, 121:9, 122:13, original [1] - 59:6
61:9, 68:1, 82:16, 116:3, 122:12, 117:3 123:23, 129:2 originally [2] - 105:14,
83:17, 83:18, 94:10, 124:5, 124:6 Office [3] - 2:14, one's [2] - 100:4, 128:21
99:23, 113:10, Number [1] - 98:19 88:14, 116:10 100:5 otherwise [6] - 21:19,
113:20, 117:9, 118:3 numbers [10] - 9:2, official [5] - 1:8, ones [5] - 7:20, 54:22, 75:15, 83:23, 84:25,
needed [3] - 25:18, 17:4, 36:20, 70:10, 97:13, 128:12, 95:5, 96:7, 96:11 85:4, 102:19
27:7, 29:5 74:18, 80:13, 83:17, 128:15, 130:11 oneself [1] - 38:21 outcome [5] - 70:10,
nefarious [1] - 101:8 108:3, 109:17, Official [1] - 130:23 Onigkeit [6] - 71:15, 74:18, 74:20, 80:13,
negligible [1] - 34:25 109:23 officially [1] - 100:9 71:16, 71:19, 71:21, 83:2
never [12] - 20:5, 20:6, numerical [2] - 48:16, officials [1] - 81:19 71:24, 78:9 outcomes [2] - 57:10,
45:20, 46:1, 47:7, 50:5 Ohio [1] - 19:14 open [2] - 4:3, 80:19 57:23
53:8, 84:13, 91:9, Oklahoma [1] - 54:25 opening [1] - 76:12 outliers [2] - 110:14,
96:21, 96:23, 103:9, O old [1] - 19:15 opinion [58] - 10:19, 110:16
126:20 OLSEN [35] - 2:2, 11:3, 11:5, 12:7, outlined [2] - 81:17,
new [3] - 58:8, 60:8, O'Connor [1] - 2:16 4:17, 4:21, 5:5, 6:22, 15:18, 18:5, 18:12, 121:7
126:19 oath [5] - 4:14, 29:10, 6:23, 7:14, 9:10, 20:11, 23:8, 25:14, outreach [1] - 120:15
newest [1] - 61:19 86:1, 86:4, 117:3 13:17, 21:12, 24:5, 28:19, 30:9, 32:23, outside [1] - 101:19
next [10] - 7:13, 9:13, object [6] - 39:9, 97:1, 26:6, 28:2, 31:12, 33:13, 33:17, 33:20, overall [5] - 7:6, 8:13,
9:17, 10:13, 16:8, 108:6, 108:13, 31:25, 33:16, 35:22, 34:4, 34:7, 34:8, 46:9, 62:21, 109:24
25:12, 52:1, 107:20, 110:23, 123:7 50:25, 52:16, 52:20, 34:11, 34:15, 34:20, overblown [1] - 25:23
113:3, 128:7 objecting [5] - 108:24, 57:24, 58:18, 58:24, 34:21, 35:5, 35:10, overruled [1] - 9:8
nice [1] - 65:1 108:25, 126:20, 59:2, 59:4, 61:11, 35:13, 35:18, 36:1, overstepping [1] -
Nicolaides [1] - 80:5 126:22, 127:11 67:13, 68:15, 68:17, 43:19, 43:21, 46:5, 95:6
night [1] - 121:2 objection [27] - 6:7, 69:15, 69:19, 74:12, 47:6, 47:7, 53:24, overused [1] - 14:17
Nina [1] - 15:13 6:12, 6:17, 6:20, 9:1, 74:15, 80:20, 99:13 53:25, 54:20, 55:10, overwhelmed [1] -
Ninjas [1] - 26:24 21:11, 24:4, 26:5, Olsen [10] - 2:2, 3:4, 55:13, 55:14, 59:10, 79:19
nitpicky [1] - 43:24 28:1, 31:12, 33:16, 3:6, 4:16, 5:4, 37:1, 59:16, 63:4, 63:6, own [4] - 71:2, 77:7,
nobody [1] - 103:15 50:25, 57:4, 99:12, 37:2, 52:15, 82:6, 63:8, 63:11, 63:13, 81:3, 84:12
none [4] - 41:12, 99:16, 105:19, 82:24 63:14, 63:17, 63:19,
105:20, 120:2, omissions [1] - 54:18 63:25, 64:7, 64:11,
41:23, 80:7, 124:18
121:12, 121:13, 64:16, 64:21, 67:6,
P
nonjury [1] - 70:14 once [3] - 114:25,
124:22, 125:15, 123:22, 126:20 77:10, 84:1, 116:18 P.C [1] - 2:2
nonsignature [1] -
126:14, 127:22, one [87] - 7:9, 7:12, opinions [13] - 9:5, p.m [1] - 121:2
72:10
128:3, 129:16, 7:21, 10:12, 12:13, 17:20, 30:14, 31:9, pace [1] - 32:12
normal [3] - 66:16,
129:17 15:3, 18:8, 18:14, 33:21, 51:19, 53:23, packages [1] - 118:19
87:4, 103:21
objections [1] - 19:3, 21:6, 22:14, 54:10, 55:11, 56:10, packet [20] - 91:2,
Northern [1] - 19:14
126:19 22:15, 22:16, 22:17, 59:22, 62:13, 62:22 94:8, 100:16,
note [4] - 79:24, 82:5,
obvious [4] - 32:20, 23:23, 26:7, 26:11, opportunity [6] - 100:18, 101:1,
82:8, 126:18
48:25, 76:4, 77:22 26:15, 29:3, 30:13, 78:20, 82:13, 83:12, 101:6, 101:9,
noted [1] - 77:20
obviously [7] - 7:20, 32:19, 32:20, 33:8, 104:24, 107:3, 101:12, 101:20,
notes [1] - 130:15
12:24, 23:11, 54:2, 33:9, 33:22, 35:6, 116:25 102:17, 103:4,
nothing [7] - 57:16,
64:18, 64:20, 110:1 35:8, 35:17, 36:2, oppose [1] - 69:15 103:7, 103:22,
58:17, 59:20, 67:18,
occasions [1] - 54:14 36:6, 40:12, 42:16, opposite [2] - 54:2, 106:22, 107:8,
82:24, 98:2, 107:14
occur [3] - 70:9, 43:13, 43:15, 44:8, 71:14 113:10, 113:20,
noting [3] - 117:21,
83:24, 84:1 48:2, 48:5, 48:7, option [3] - 101:16, 114:2, 117:13, 118:1
117:22, 127:22
occurred [7] - 10:15, 49:17, 50:9, 50:10, 113:9, 119:3 packets [5] - 101:3,
notion [1] - 56:18
43:13, 43:14, 44:12, 53:22, 54:3, 54:5, options [3] - 112:19, 102:23, 110:19,
November [5] -
52:6, 75:1, 84:7 54:6, 54:19, 55:13, 113:4, 113:15 118:4, 122:18
118:24, 119:1,
OF [6] - 1:1, 1:2, 1:18, 55:22, 58:6, 58:7, order [12] - 44:7, PAGE [1] - 3:2
119:4, 119:11
130:4, 130:8, 130:9 58:8, 61:3, 61:4, 61:18, 62:1, 65:17, page [16] - 8:24, 10:7,
number [40] - 5:16,
offensive [1] - 65:6 63:6, 63:23, 64:4, 70:4, 70:5, 75:19, 17:5, 19:5, 20:19,
5:18, 6:14, 7:5, 7:7,
offer [5] - 25:14, 63:8, 64:8, 64:9, 64:13, 76:18, 76:20, 83:17, 22:7, 22:24, 25:17,
7:17, 8:3, 8:8, 10:21,
63:13, 71:1, 82:13 64:17, 66:10, 66:11, 116:24, 118:12 28:8, 34:16, 34:17,
11:2, 11:5, 11:10,
offered [8] - 59:22, 67:9, 67:10, 70:5, orders [1] - 70:3 42:22, 42:24, 42:25,
11:12, 11:24, 12:1,
63:14, 72:3, 72:12, 73:6, 77:9, 81:6, ordinary [2] - 75:14, 61:14, 61:24
36:2, 47:19, 49:24,
72:22, 74:2, 77:5, 85:21, 92:17, 93:2, 80:2 pages [6] - 23:4, 23:9,
51:1, 51:10, 52:21,
81:2 93:20, 95:5, 97:24, organization [2] - 54:17, 59:6, 78:23,
54:8, 54:20, 58:25,
offering [2] - 63:4, 101:14, 105:5, 38:17, 38:24 130:13
60:1, 60:25, 74:18,
63:11 105:6, 106:7, 110:9, organizations [1] - paid [3] - 37:6, 37:7,
89:22, 98:17, 100:1,

Appx0870
 12

37:10 6:6, 6:19, 6:24, 7:4, piece [3] - 84:8, 103:3, Power [1] - 98:25 11:24, 44:21, 72:2,
pain [1] - 60:22 7:9, 7:11, 7:12, 8:5, 115:8 PQ [1] - 115:25 73:1, 82:22, 83:23,
panic [1] - 60:23 8:14, 8:18, 9:13, pieces [1] - 36:7 PR [2] - 59:9, 61:13 84:5, 84:7, 89:4,
paper [2] - 36:7, 84:8 9:19, 12:6, 46:9, pigeonhole [1] - 37:20 practice [2] - 49:8, 101:25, 102:24,
paragraph [13] - 17:8, 50:22, 51:17, 51:20, place [4] - 72:21, 76:9, 111:22 104:6, 104:8, 114:5,
18:8, 18:15, 18:18, 51:22, 51:23, 62:23, 97:16, 114:23 practices [2] - 47:23, 114:7, 114:20,
18:19, 19:4, 20:17, 63:3, 77:23, 77:24, placed [2] - 103:9, 48:10 115:18, 115:19,
22:10, 25:12, 25:17, 78:5, 80:21, 90:11, 123:23 precedent [1] - 80:3 115:20, 116:11,
53:3, 54:1, 54:16 109:22 places [2] - 32:14, predicated [2] - 64:7, 117:18, 120:14,
paragraphs [2] - 19:1, percentage [9] - 7:2, 118:17 64:11 120:18, 122:2,
54:19 8:14, 8:17, 8:20, plain [1] - 79:7 predisposed [1] - 124:21, 126:10
paramount [1] - 81:20 8:22, 9:20, 60:5, plainly [1] - 22:13 46:14 processed [2] - 11:6,
paraphrase [2] - 60:6 plaintiff [2] - 82:23, prefer [1] - 69:21 11:20
55:17, 55:21 percentages [2] - 7:1, 126:3 preferred [1] - 47:12 processes [1] -
part [13] - 26:10, 36:3, 66:4 Plaintiff [1] - 74:16 preliminary [1] - 117:20
40:20, 44:1, 53:11, perfect [2] - 44:24, plaintiffs [6] - 68:16, 115:24 processing [2] -
55:14, 56:20, 62:6, 96:3 69:6, 77:13, 79:15, preposterous [1] - 101:1, 103:22
73:9, 93:19, 101:25, perfectly [1] - 49:20 83:15, 88:21 64:15 produced [3] - 61:12,
105:13, 112:12 performed [5] - 26:20, Plaintiffs [1] - 3:3 presence [1] - 69:3 91:18, 125:12
partial [6] - 69:13, 26:22, 71:22, 73:20, plaintiffs' [3] - 77:17, present [4] - 4:9, 4:12, profession [2] - 14:13,
70:16, 74:7, 82:11, 73:23 81:23, 126:22 69:2, 85:9 38:15
83:10, 84:20 performing [1] - 73:11 plausibly [1] - 74:20 presentation [2] - professional [5] -
participants [1] - 89:3 perhaps [3] - 32:20, play [2] - 103:18, 25:13, 126:21 17:17, 37:18,
participated [6] - 46:14, 58:7 110:10 presented [4] - 53:21, 116:23, 126:25,
88:18, 88:22, 89:5, period [4] - 27:2, played [1] - 80:18 79:15, 105:14, 128:4
89:17, 104:16, 57:21, 95:13, 112:13 players [1] - 110:7 125:13 professionals [1] -
104:17 PERKINS [1] - 2:7 plead [1] - 83:17 presently [2] - 82:10, 101:5
participatory [1] - permission [1] - 19:17 pleases [1] - 90:5 82:25 program [1] - 65:1
91:21 person [5] - 18:23, plenty [1] - 46:8 preserve [1] - 84:12 proper [2] - 90:8,
particular [7] - 20:24, 30:25, 37:5, 39:25, PLLC [1] - 2:3 pretty [4] - 42:10, 100:17
22:18, 28:24, 85:2, 73:7 plus [1] - 101:16 93:10, 94:25, 95:16 properly [1] - 62:25
100:14, 113:2, 122:9 personal [9] - 72:20, PM [1] - 1:16 prevail [1] - 83:19 proposition [1] -
particularly [2] - 14:8, 89:16, 111:2, 111:5, podium [4] - 13:25, previous [1] - 54:22 89:11
105:6 111:13, 111:19, 14:1, 74:13, 86:2 previously [6] - 7:21, protocol [1] - 128:25
parties [6] - 4:10, 111:23, 114:11, point [13] - 18:11, 86:17, 97:5, 99:4, prove [2] - 70:6, 83:16
4:11, 69:2, 69:5, 125:17 19:3, 20:16, 35:5, 125:4, 125:16 proven [2] - 39:10,
84:10, 103:2 personally [3] - 1:8, 40:12, 54:1, 67:4, primarily [2] - 72:17, 80:25
parties' [1] - 4:10 14:22, 48:9 82:3, 91:5, 91:8, 81:10 provide [3] - 25:10,
pass [7] - 6:1, 6:6, 7:9, pertain [1] - 50:13 94:7, 113:24, 114:25 principles [2] - 8:12, 83:11, 120:14
7:12, 44:16, 113:19 peruse [1] - 98:20 Point [1] - 98:25 31:5 provided [11] - 56:14,
pass/fail [1] - 90:4 perverse [3] - 17:21, pointed [1] - 23:2 printout [1] - 98:25 58:4, 62:17, 71:25,
passed [2] - 8:1, 8:6 18:21, 21:18 pointing [1] - 126:25 privilege [1] - 114:25 90:16, 90:22, 93:21,
passes [3] - 5:24, 7:5, PETER [1] - 1:19 points [3] - 62:15, PRNCR [1] - 62:2 97:10, 99:1, 99:6,
7:11 petition [1] - 48:6 62:17, 82:4 pro [1] - 2:2 99:8
passing [2] - 8:14, Philip [1] - 24:19 polling [1] - 97:16 problem [1] - 43:15 public [2] - 72:9,
66:5 Phoenix [1] - 4:1 procedural [1] - 81:18
popped [2] - 60:8,
past [2] - 94:11, 97:14 phoenix [1] - 1:15 120:12 pull [3] - 58:18, 80:14,
60:9
path [5] - 13:7, phone [3] - 101:17, Procedure [3] - 69:12, 90:18
population [1] -
100:17, 103:21, 101:18, 116:3 70:18, 74:9 pulled [2] - 79:13,
114:18
107:9, 116:2 photocopied [1] - procedure [3] - 66:20, 90:21
portion [2] - 54:17,
penmanship [1] - 96:3 55:6 82:3, 82:4 purporting [1] - 72:18
99:8
People [5] - 24:23, phrase [1] - 14:17 possibility [1] - 15:5 procedures [1] - purpose [3] - 76:7,
62:3, 62:7, 72:8, phrased [1] - 67:1 114:20 76:24, 120:14
possible [8] - 15:5,
72:16 physical [4] - 12:7, proceed [2] - 13:22, purposes [2] - 48:21,
28:23, 35:15, 63:19,
people [13] - 33:3, 100:16, 100:18, 73:5, 73:20, 117:12, 86:12 59:16
33:6, 38:14, 57:15, 114:19 124:14 PROCEEDINGS [1] - pursuant [2] - 70:17,
65:6, 66:5, 66:12, physically [1] - 118:1 post [4] - 73:13, 1:18 74:9
78:6, 78:12, 89:17, pick [2] - 5:15, 63:23 102:18, 103:1, 117:7 proceedings [3] - 4:3, push [2] - 81:8,
91:19, 96:2, 120:18 picked [2] - 102:25 postal [1] - 120:21 80:19, 129:25 119:17
percent [28] - 5:23, picks [1] - 8:20 potential [1] - 90:10 process [27] - 4:13, put [21] - 10:25, 55:5,

Appx0871
 13

55:11, 68:8, 71:4, 77:23, 80:22 reasonable [4] - 112:23 remove [1] - 110:16
78:16, 79:3, 80:6, rates [4] - 11:9, 12:19, 116:12, 116:13, reflect [1] - 11:16 removed [1] - 4:24
80:9, 82:9, 83:21, 78:4, 116:21 116:14, 121:6 reflected [9] - 57:3, removing [2] - 11:18,
83:22, 84:8, 89:9, rather [6] - 79:19, reasons [4] - 5:25, 58:3, 58:13, 58:14, 11:19
118:6, 118:7, 119:5, 83:15, 101:6, 52:8, 74:5, 78:25 59:23, 59:24, 62:14, Renberg [1] - 55:1
119:24, 124:19, 114:13, 114:22 reassigned [1] - 73:12 124:18, 125:11 render [1] - 84:22
126:3, 126:5 rating [3] - 9:20, 9:23, rebut [1] - 81:3 reflection [1] - 55:9 rendering [1] - 85:3
puts [1] - 76:17 12:3 rebuttal [1] - 81:2 reflects [2] - 5:19, renew [2] - 40:20,
pyramid [1] - 12:16 ratings [1] - 9:21 recap [1] - 5:6 8:11 83:10
raw [1] - 117:21 received [4] - 26:1, reg [1] - 116:4 renewal [2] - 87:17,
Q Ray [10] - 36:19, 71:9, 59:9, 84:4, 116:7 regard [1] - 53:4 87:18
72:25, 88:3, 89:23, recent [1] - 91:11 regarding [1] - 52:22 renewed [1] - 126:14
QS [1] - 115:25 90:12, 91:13, 94:19, recently [1] - 29:12 regardless [3] - 70:19, repeatedly [2] - 82:6,
qualifications [1] - 95:22, 109:14 recess [1] - 68:19 71:1, 117:12 82:23
20:15 RAY [2] - 3:7, 86:16 Recess [1] - 68:22 register [1] - 114:21 rephrase [7] - 33:20,
qualified [5] - 25:14, re [7] - 1:4, 33:24, recitation [1] - 8:9 registered [1] - 103:4 109:9, 125:21,
55:25, 56:1, 88:24, 79:22, 122:15, recognize [9] - 24:14, Registrar's [1] - 97:11 126:24, 127:3,
108:24 122:16, 122:19 27:15, 76:18, 98:12, Registration [1] - 127:9, 127:10
qualities [1] - 75:18 re-ask [1] - 33:24 98:21, 98:23, 105:2, 87:22 rephrased [2] - 31:17,
quality [2] - 71:23, re-reviewed [3] - 112:6, 121:22 registration [5] - 127:23
95:19 79:22, 122:16, recognizes [1] - 79:2 97:13, 97:14, 115:2, replying [1] - 23:25
quantity [1] - 71:23 122:19 recognizing [1] - 76:4 128:12, 128:15 report [1] - 103:24
questionable [3] - re-sent [2] - 122:15, recollection [2] - regularity [1] - 75:22 REPORTED [1] - 1:22
107:10, 118:4, 121:9 122:16 10:16, 30:6 regulatory [1] - 38:17 reporter [4] - 19:7,
questionables [1] - reach [4] - 44:7, reconfirming [1] - rehash [1] - 47:4 32:6, 70:23, 130:11
118:6 102:18, 118:21, 129:9 reject [8] - 17:22, REPORTER [1] -
questioned [1] - 116:9 121:6 record [18] - 4:9, 6:11, 77:25, 90:6, 90:7, 130:4
questions [14] - 13:18, reached [1] - 43:11 45:16, 45:19, 52:2, 90:9, 94:6, 113:25, Reporter [1] - 130:23
37:5, 45:1, 45:15, reaches [1] - 100:25 69:2, 83:1, 83:6, 114:3 REPORTER'S [1] -
45:18, 47:14, 52:21, reaching [2] - 95:1, 84:12, 91:3, 97:11, rejected [2] - 30:12, 1:18
56:13, 62:21, 63:2, 123:18 97:13, 100:15, 79:22 repository [1] - 97:13
64:3, 67:15, 100:8, read [38] - 5:20, 10:8, 115:21, 126:18, rejection [6] - 10:5, represent [1] - 86:25
114:6 13:1, 17:8, 17:25, 127:18, 127:23, 17:24, 77:22, representative [1] -
queue [3] - 90:11, 18:6, 18:7, 18:19, 128:12 113:22, 113:23, 30:16
94:20, 119:24 20:19, 22:20, 23:11, Recorder [1] - 117:16 114:3 representatives [2] -
quick [3] - 11:19, 23:18, 28:25, 29:3, Recorder's [6] - relate [1] - 46:12 4:10, 69:3
80:15, 94:25 53:2, 53:19, 54:3, 88:14, 88:18, 91:3, related [9] - 25:23, Representatives [1] -
quickly [6] - 58:2, 54:4, 54:16, 54:19, 116:10, 116:18, 26:23, 27:3, 27:19, 30:17
66:1, 66:2, 72:19, 54:20, 55:14, 55:16, 125:6 27:22, 39:13, 39:14, Republicans [2] -
95:16, 123:4 67:7, 67:8, 67:9, recording [1] - 80:18 39:16, 42:12 81:10
quite [3] - 17:20, 67:11, 67:12, 78:24, records [2] - 59:6, relates [4] - 35:19, request [5] - 57:9,
53:23, 123:20 79:7, 82:16, 82:17, 72:9 36:1, 44:20, 59:22 59:7, 59:18, 59:19
quote [4] - 74:17, 92:4, 93:14, 93:15, REDIRECT [1] - 52:18 relevant [2] - 35:17, requested [1] - 59:21
75:18, 75:22, 106:17 96:23, 97:6, 98:21 redirect [2] - 3:6, 36:2 requesting [1] - 59:20
quoting [1] - 54:25 reading [3] - 25:25, 52:14 reliable [2] - 33:14, requests [1] - 72:9
78:24, 115:11 redo [1] - 129:8 34:9 required [12] - 49:24,
R ready [4] - 13:23, refer [4] - 56:16, 83:5, relied [4] - 33:12, 70:5, 73:7, 74:16,
86:12, 118:12, 99:23, 101:1 33:13, 34:8, 34:19 75:3, 80:10, 93:6,
ran [1] - 11:14 118:14 reference [7] - 64:4, relook [1] - 128:20 93:20, 116:12,
random [1] - 90:11 realize [2] - 51:6, 64:8, 64:9, 66:12, remain [2] - 86:1, 86:4 116:15, 116:20,
randomized [1] - 51:25 91:6, 99:9, 112:16 remains [1] - 100:25 121:5
73:16 really [10] - 12:15, referenced [2] - 92:5, remand [1] - 70:4 requirement [3] -
range [1] - 77:15 27:6, 35:6, 101:23, 93:20 remember [13] - 12:6, 38:20, 50:5, 79:25
ranged [1] - 91:6 107:16, 109:23, references [2] - 51:1, 15:11, 15:12, 23:6, requirements [1] -
Rapp [1] - 2:12 110:12, 119:21, 82:5 26:18, 31:2, 42:8, 88:14
rare [1] - 119:16 124:5, 124:6 referred [4] - 26:24, 45:23, 45:24, 56:23, requires [7] - 87:16,
rate [13] - 6:6, 7:24, realm [1] - 15:4 36:19, 82:6, 115:24 61:8, 63:2, 119:15 87:18, 93:18,
8:16, 8:21, 9:17, reap [2] - 81:12, 84:16 referring [8] - 24:16, remind [2] - 38:7, 114:19, 116:24,
10:1, 11:8, 11:13, reason [3] - 23:15, 31:14, 33:17, 51:2, 87:20 119:17, 121:1
37:11, 58:13, 73:21, 48:17, 62:16 51:4, 51:9, 61:13, reminded [1] - 82:23 rescanned [1] -

Appx0872
 14

122:19 reviewer [8] - 14:24, 103:8, 107:8, 124:10 Secret [1] - 25:24 117:22, 118:20,
resemblances [1] - 57:1, 93:22, 94:5, scenario [1] - 48:6 Secretary [4] - 1:9, 128:21, 129:6,
75:19 97:18, 102:10, school [1] - 38:24 44:25, 70:14, 74:6 129:13
resend [1] - 107:6 113:25, 115:4 science [2] - 31:7, section [2] - 28:16, sets [1] - 118:21
reserving [1] - 85:14 reviewers [9] - 79:19, 46:22 116:16 seven [7] - 35:22,
resource [1] - 120:15 89:14, 99:6, 102:16, Science [3] - 38:8, security [2] - 76:9, 35:23, 43:6, 58:15,
resources [1] - 119:2 105:9, 112:15, 38:10, 38:11 81:16 78:4, 118:23, 121:14
respect [17] - 6:24, 113:15, 128:9, Scientific [1] - 23:16 see [53] - 9:23, 12:17, several [2] - 100:8,
8:10, 12:2, 15:20, 128:17 scientific [2] - 17:18, 12:23, 19:25, 22:5, 113:11
34:4, 34:19, 35:5, reviewing [2] - 30:2, 31:5 24:21, 28:15, 33:5, sew [1] - 81:13
35:18, 36:1, 44:9, 111:20 Scientists [1] - 40:13 50:9, 57:15, 61:21, sewed [1] - 84:16
51:3, 56:4, 56:14, Revised [1] - 121:1 scope [1] - 57:5 61:25, 62:4, 62:5, shall [2] - 75:9, 75:17
63:14, 78:13, 79:14, revisit [1] - 21:15 screen [8] - 67:3, 62:10, 66:1, 66:14, share [1] - 32:12
126:14 Reyes [2] - 79:5, 84:9 76:5, 77:2, 80:17, 67:25, 85:23, 87:8, Shayna [1] - 2:13
respectfully [2] - Reynaldo [1] - 94:8 90:15, 90:25, 92:1, 92:3, 92:7, sheer [1] - 23:2
82:24, 83:5 Richer [1] - 117:16 112:20, 126:5 92:10, 92:14, 92:19, sheet [1] - 103:23
respective [2] - 4:11, ridiculous [1] - 49:1 scribble [2] - 96:4, 94:4, 98:15, 98:21, SHERMAN [1] - 2:11
69:5 right-hand [2] - 61:15, 96:13 101:13, 101:22, shifts [1] - 123:18
response [5] - 44:22, 61:22 script [1] - 10:23 102:11, 102:12, Shin [1] - 15:13
62:6, 62:8, 127:13, right/left [1] - 58:10 scroll [5] - 58:7, 105:23, 105:24, short [1] - 23:12
127:18 rightfully [1] - 81:20 58:16, 91:10, 93:7, 106:4, 106:9, shortcut [1] - 43:16
responses [1] - 59:17 risk [1] - 76:15 107:14 106:24, 107:13, shortly [1] - 40:19
rest [2] - 8:6, 68:16 RMR [2] - 1:23, 130:22 scrolled [1] - 58:17 107:17, 107:18, show [12] - 6:17, 6:21,
rested [2] - 69:6, 70:1 Rodgers [1] - 24:19 scrolling [6] - 57:13, 107:19, 111:25, 16:7, 58:23, 72:18,
rests [1] - 82:11 Rodriguez [2] - 2:9, 57:18, 58:11, 64:14, 112:20, 113:8, 77:13, 80:11, 80:15,
result [2] - 57:2, 89:15 69:9 75:6, 129:8 113:14, 117:13, 80:16, 83:2, 97:16
results [1] - 53:10 RODRIGUEZ [14] - sealed [2] - 100:23, 124:12, 126:2, showed [1] - 112:20
resume [1] - 129:22 52:13, 69:8, 69:18, 100:24 126:5, 128:21
showing [1] - 83:7
resumé [1] - 25:18 69:20, 69:25, 70:21, search [1] - 11:14 seeing [1] - 102:10
shown [3] - 44:9, 73:6,
retained [2] - 36:24, 70:24, 82:1, 84:17, season [1] - 110:7 seem [1] - 10:2 122:3
56:7 84:24, 85:7, 85:11, seated [1] - 77:2 selected [2] - 8:8, shows [5] - 7:17,
retainer [1] - 37:1 85:16, 85:22 second [25] - 28:7, 123:14 11:14, 72:10, 79:8,
retention [2] - 25:10, ROM [2] - 6:9, 125:18 31:23, 44:1, 60:10, selection [1] - 83:2 80:12
107:7 Rosa [1] - 2:16 60:17, 60:20, 67:23, send [3] - 97:23, sick [1] - 110:9
retrieve [2] - 5:2, 68:8 roster [1] - 97:16 70:2, 75:25, 77:16, 116:8, 118:2 side [2] - 16:5, 126:20
returning [1] - 117:25 roughly [2] - 11:19, 79:12, 80:15, 82:8, sense [3] - 27:3, sided [2] - 28:9, 53:25
reverify [3] - 107:8, 11:20 94:17, 95:8, 97:22, 66:14, 81:1
sig [9] - 107:9, 107:10,
128:17, 128:19 Rule [4] - 70:17, 74:9, 97:23, 98:1, 107:18, sent [13] - 23:23, 107:11, 113:4,
reverse [2] - 61:17, 83:14, 84:19 110:3, 111:24, 24:18, 59:7, 59:15, 113:8, 113:10,
62:1 rule [1] - 84:21 115:10, 124:10, 103:4, 106:24, 113:17, 113:20,
review [33] - 28:17, ruled [1] - 127:19 124:12 107:1, 118:11, 129:9
28:20, 41:15, 58:1, Rules [1] - 69:11 seconds [67] - 5:8, 122:7, 122:10,
sign [4] - 96:4, 97:16,
72:1, 73:17, 82:20, 5:10, 5:11, 5:12, 6:4, 122:15, 122:16,
rules [1] - 82:5 116:5, 120:23
82:21, 89:24, 90:1, 7:16, 7:19, 8:2, 8:15, 124:4
ruling [1] - 85:5 signature [155] - 12:8,
91:16, 91:20, 94:16, 8:16, 8:19, 8:21, sentence [2] - 25:9,
run [1] - 32:22 13:3, 14:23, 36:4,
95:1, 95:21, 96:12, 9:14, 9:18, 9:22, 41:3
Runbeck [2] - 103:2, 36:12, 36:14, 39:25,
97:19, 98:3, 102:9, 10:15, 10:17, 10:20, sequential [1] - 58:6 43:13, 43:14, 44:10,
118:2
103:13, 106:14, 11:13, 11:21, 12:5, seriously [2] - 117:4, 44:12, 44:17, 44:21,
running [1] - 12:12
107:22, 110:3, 12:9, 51:13, 51:14, 117:11 46:5, 47:19, 48:20,
110:19, 114:5, 57:16, 57:18, 58:10, serve [2] - 20:21, 49:4, 49:8, 49:13,
S 63:5, 63:12, 63:16, 73:17
114:9, 119:21, 49:23, 50:24, 51:18,
123:1, 124:20, sake [2] - 32:5, 117:15 63:18, 63:20, 64:13, Service [1] - 25:24 52:6, 56:19, 57:10,
128:23, 129:1, satisfied [1] - 49:10 64:15, 73:21, 76:1, service [2] - 116:5, 57:11, 57:25, 63:5,
129:4, 129:11 saw [9] - 25:25, 65:11, 77:15, 77:16, 77:19, 120:21 63:12, 63:15, 64:4,
reviewed [12] - 9:6, 77:3, 78:11, 81:1, 78:3, 79:10, 79:11, services [1] - 25:11 64:8, 64:9, 64:10,
30:8, 35:7, 79:22, 104:15, 117:21, 80:16, 80:20, 82:20, set [17] - 31:10, 47:19, 65:12, 65:16, 66:15,
83:7, 106:13, 124:5, 124:19 93:9, 96:8, 96:9, 49:24, 50:8, 58:21, 70:7, 70:17, 71:5,
111:14, 119:24, scale [3] - 12:18, 96:12, 96:17, 97:24, 81:24, 82:19, 82:20, 71:11, 71:17, 71:20,
122:16, 122:19, 63:22, 63:24 115:10, 122:17, 100:15, 103:10, 71:25, 72:3, 72:5,
122:23, 125:20 scan [4] - 103:2, 122:21, 124:8, 124:9 106:8, 115:21, 72:11, 72:14, 72:18,

Appx0873
 15

72:23, 73:1, 73:2, similar [12] - 13:14, 101:8, 118:3 60:13, 67:21, 78:10, 45:20, 48:19
73:8, 73:10, 73:20, 38:15, 66:25, 92:2, sound [4] - 15:14, 78:23, 89:11 string [2] - 61:18,
73:23, 74:3, 74:8, 92:3, 96:18, 97:10, 26:24, 40:17, 54:21 standard [5] - 21:6, 61:19
74:24, 74:25, 75:2, 110:3, 112:10, sounds [3] - 15:15, 48:2, 48:11, 79:1, stroke [3] - 44:14,
75:4, 75:11, 75:25, 112:18, 114:1, 29:22, 101:8 79:2 57:20, 58:6
76:3, 76:8, 76:16, 123:16 source [1] - 37:22 standards [6] - 13:9, strokes [6] - 8:4, 11:1,
76:20, 78:1, 78:5, similarities [3] - speaking [1] - 50:19 13:10, 20:22, 49:25, 57:10, 57:22, 96:16,
78:14, 78:17, 78:19, 12:23, 96:8, 96:10 specialized [2] - 53:4, 50:5, 66:23 115:15
79:4, 79:9, 79:20, simple [11] - 5:9, 5:13, 53:17 stands [2] - 87:20, Stuart [1] - 2:13
79:23, 80:4, 80:7, 5:14, 7:8, 7:15, 8:5, specific [14] - 33:18, 87:22 study [1] - 22:11
83:23, 84:5, 84:6, 9:15, 53:12, 57:11, 33:19, 34:11, 34:19, started [1] - 58:7 stuff [1] - 96:20
84:11, 88:4, 88:9, 63:16, 67:9 34:20, 38:20, 46:23, starting [1] - 5:7 sub [1] - 128:20
88:13, 88:19, 88:23, simply [9] - 6:4, 23:4, 47:5, 75:8, 82:19, stat [1] - 13:2 subjective [1] - 93:21
89:3, 89:5, 89:12, 71:4, 74:21, 75:5, 82:20, 83:17, 83:25, STATE [1] - 130:8 submission [1] - 55:5
89:17, 90:1, 90:24, 76:4, 77:21, 78:13 128:3 State [6] - 1:9, 44:25, submit [2] - 81:21,
91:1, 91:7, 91:11, single [5] - 35:8, 73:7, specifically [6] - 70:15, 74:6, 80:2, 129:1
91:24, 92:7, 92:24, 76:14, 83:21, 90:8 27:22, 36:18, 41:22, 119:19 subscription [1] -
93:7, 93:8, 93:15, sink [1] - 109:5 62:15, 65:24, 123:19 state [2] - 41:14, 116:5
93:22, 94:5, 94:13, sit [5] - 12:13, 50:21, specificity [1] - 83:19 130:12 subset [2] - 7:22, 8:17
94:18, 95:7, 95:8, 51:16, 52:5, 54:2 SPECKIN [1] - 3:3 statement [8] - 25:23, subtract [2] - 11:5,
97:17, 97:24, 97:25, sitting [1] - 75:5 Speckin [22] - 4:14, 30:6, 33:15, 34:10, 11:10
98:2, 99:1, 99:6, situation [1] - 35:2 4:22, 5:6, 6:24, 9:11, 41:17, 46:10, 81:12 succeed [1] - 70:5
101:10, 101:14, six [4] - 49:2, 71:7, 10:7, 14:8, 14:10, States [1] - 54:11 successive [1] - 60:3
102:13, 104:6, 87:15, 120:3 14:12, 17:15, 20:20, states [1] - 75:13 sue [1] - 93:11
104:9, 105:5, 105:9, sixth [2] - 107:23, 32:14, 42:23, 45:12, statistical [6] - 6:10, sufficient [6] - 20:25,
106:12, 106:13, 108:16 52:21, 59:5, 67:20, 20:11, 20:15, 21:2, 48:14, 70:10, 74:17,
106:16, 107:18, sixth-grade-level [1] - 74:1, 77:21, 78:2, 21:4, 28:23 74:18, 83:2
107:22, 108:14, 107:23 78:22 statistician [1] - 109:6 suggests [1] - 55:18
108:17, 108:20, skill [1] - 130:16 Speckin's [3] - 20:23, statistics [2] - 22:11, summarizing [1] -
109:1, 110:24, 21:1, 55:18
skipped [1] - 53:2 22:13 16:2
112:11, 113:13, speculating [1] -
skipping [1] - 53:18 status [4] - 100:14, summary [4] - 6:8,
113:25, 114:5, 111:7
slash [1] - 106:3 115:23, 116:6, 27:19, 27:23, 28:16
114:14, 114:23, speed [3] - 7:19,
sleeping [1] - 37:15 128:21 sunny [2] - 29:20,
114:24, 115:19, 41:22, 44:8
slow [3] - 19:7, 32:9, Statute [1] - 121:1 29:21
115:23, 116:1,
70:20 spelling [1] - 65:2 statute [12] - 13:3, super [1] - 7:12
116:19, 117:23,
slower [1] - 32:7 spent [2] - 37:14, 75:3, 75:8, 75:14, Superior [1] - 130:11
119:21, 121:1,
small [1] - 34:25 72:10 76:24, 80:11, 82:16, SUPERIOR [1] - 1:1
121:9, 123:14,
smaller [3] - 7:22, spousal [1] - 44:16 82:17, 82:19, 93:12, supplemental [1] -
124:20, 125:6,
11:10, 36:8 Square [1] - 55:1 93:18, 116:15 105:13
128:24, 128:25
so.. [1] - 127:14 SR [1] - 123:13 statutes [1] - 79:6 support [2] - 71:5,
signatures [42] - 7:6,
someone [8] - 13:12, stabbing [1] - 60:22 statutory [2] - 79:25, 71:10
11:20, 12:12, 12:24,
13:13, 30:19, 41:13, staff [5] - 99:2, 82:15 supporting [4] - 72:4,
14:20, 15:1, 15:6,
57:17, 58:16, 63:23, 102:25, 120:14, stay [1] - 51:23 72:12, 72:22, 74:2
41:15, 41:22, 45:22,
92:25 122:1, 122:9 steady [1] - 75:22 supports [1] - 71:13
46:1, 48:4, 49:11,
sometimes [2] - stamp [21] - 57:12, stenographic [1] - supposed [1] - 47:20
49:13, 49:14, 51:12,
101:14, 115:24 60:3, 60:4, 106:18, 130:15 Supreme [2] - 70:4,
56:20, 63:20, 64:22,
somewhere [1] - 107:6, 107:12, step [1] - 68:5 83:8
66:8, 66:9, 66:24,
103:17 107:17, 108:5, steps [4] - 65:17, supreme [4] - 54:13,
67:2, 72:19, 73:15,
soon [1] - 13:23 109:20, 110:19, 65:20, 65:22, 66:15 74:15, 75:13, 83:14
73:24, 75:7, 75:10,
sorry [15] - 5:4, 8:1, 111:10, 122:15, still [4] - 96:22, 121:3, surprise [1] - 50:8
76:5, 77:1, 77:14,
39:15, 39:19, 41:2, 122:17, 123:2, 121:6, 126:13 surprisingly [1] - 68:4
79:21, 80:23, 87:25,
41:5, 43:4, 51:6, 123:22, 124:6, stipulated [1] - 84:10 suspect [3] - 15:7,
91:3, 96:24, 97:6,
60:10, 60:22, 61:7, 124:12, 124:17, stop [2] - 32:1, 92:14 21:2, 21:5
109:3, 121:9,
69:19, 102:23, 125:7, 128:10, stream [2] - 101:10,
123:15, 128:18 sustain [1] - 126:23
113:1, 123:13 128:18 103:23
signed [1] - 94:8 sustained [2] - 97:3,
sort [6] - 37:24, 39:20, stamped [2] - 44:15, streamlining [1] -
significance [3] - 127:22
44:16, 89:10, 122:22 127:12
28:22, 28:23, 81:16 switch [1] - 89:21
100:16, 102:24 stamping [2] - 57:13, stretch [1] - 60:14
significant [1] - 76:18 swoops [1] - 115:14
sorted [1] - 5:15 58:10 strict [1] - 118:17
sigs [2] - 118:3, 118:5 swooshes [1] - 115:15
sorting [4] - 101:2, stand [6] - 4:15, strike [3] - 8:24, sworn [2] - 86:1,

Appx0874
 16

86:17 78:2, 84:2, 84:3, 100:4, 104:19, 124:19, 125:25 127:1, 130:14
system [8] - 64:23, 87:6, 97:5, 99:4, 104:22, 105:19, together [2] - 84:8, truth [3] - 9:3, 9:4,
76:11, 78:7, 78:13, 109:7, 111:14, 105:21, 108:23, 110:12 33:4
107:8, 117:20, 120:17, 125:4, 109:9, 109:12, tomorrow [1] - 129:22 try [3] - 43:16, 44:3,
117:25 125:10, 125:16 111:1, 111:8, tons [1] - 122:7 46:16
testifies [1] - 86:18 111:12, 112:3, took [7] - 5:18, 36:7, trying [9] - 19:7,
T testify [2] - 14:21, 120:3, 120:5, 97:24, 124:8, 124:9, 30:22, 43:24, 46:22,
78:11 121:12, 121:14, 124:16, 124:17 49:20, 60:23, 65:6,
table [30] - 4:24, 5:15, testifying [6] - 9:2, 121:16, 123:9, top [8] - 5:8, 12:15, 107:21, 123:4
6:25, 7:2, 8:10, 19:9, 21:4, 46:17, 124:25, 125:2, 28:10, 28:11, 61:20, Tulsa [1] - 54:25
10:14, 11:15, 35:20, 73:7, 126:6 125:21, 126:17, 61:24, 62:9, 78:4 turn [7] - 17:3, 17:4,
35:21, 36:8, 36:9, testimony [37] - 15:9, 127:5, 127:10, topic [1] - 41:24 22:7, 28:7, 41:2,
42:12, 42:14, 42:15, 16:1, 20:4, 20:5, 127:15, 127:21, total [10] - 8:3, 9:12, 61:14, 103:10
42:25, 43:20, 43:21, 20:23, 23:6, 26:10, 128:1, 128:6, 10:8, 11:6, 71:7, turned [1] - 51:6
50:16, 50:17, 50:18, 29:8, 29:9, 29:12, 129:16, 129:18, 88:22, 89:7, 89:8 turning [2] - 10:7,
51:1, 51:2, 51:4, 29:17, 31:10, 36:16, 129:21 totality [1] - 33:6 62:20
51:9, 51:15, 51:16, 36:18, 36:24, 37:6, therefore [1] - 17:21 totally [1] - 44:2 twenty [5] - 99:17,
66:3, 77:20, 84:2 42:11, 45:21, 54:23, thereof [1] - 99:8 totals [1] - 10:9 105:21, 120:3,
tag [1] - 98:15 54:25, 55:18, 56:18, thereon [1] - 62:22 touch [1] - 103:15 121:14, 129:18
takeaway [3] - 9:12, 56:23, 71:4, 71:9, they've [3] - 77:7, touched [1] - 103:9 twenty-eight [1] -
105:15, 112:16 71:13, 71:25, 72:3, 108:4, 118:9 touches [1] - 56:14 129:18
tapping [2] - 75:6, 72:12, 72:22, 74:2, thick [1] - 53:25 towards [1] - 119:5 twenty-five [1] -
77:3 78:10, 79:18, 81:4, third [2] - 8:23, 124:10 town [1] - 110:9 105:21
task [1] - 94:16 83:6, 114:6, 126:3 thirty [1] - 28:4 twenty-seven [1] -
tracked [1] - 122:8
tasked [2] - 90:2, text [1] - 116:8 thirty-eight [1] - 28:4 121:14
trade [1] - 118:12
122:1 THE [137] - 1:1, 1:2, Thomas [1] - 2:14 twenty-six [1] - 120:3
trail [1] - 51:7
tasks [1] - 118:13 1:19, 4:6, 4:25, 5:2, THOMPSON [1] - 1:19 twenty-three [1] -
train [3] - 80:5, 105:9,
team [10] - 88:18, 6:12, 6:16, 7:13, 9:5, thousand [3] - 7:25, 99:17
112:14
110:6, 110:7, 9:8, 13:19, 13:22, 12:5, 54:24 twist [1] - 55:4
trained [11] - 53:11,
110:13, 116:19, 14:1, 16:11, 16:14, thousands [5] - 63:25, two [42] - 7:8, 7:10,
88:24, 89:5, 91:9,
117:16, 118:8, 16:18, 16:21, 19:6, 65:5, 107:2, 111:21 12:23, 20:24, 28:9,
91:20, 95:18,
118:18, 125:6, 19:18, 19:22, 21:11, three [23] - 10:11, 43:15, 49:14, 50:4,
107:12, 107:20,
125:12 21:13, 21:24, 24:4, 24:6, 49:2, 64:14, 50:14, 58:5, 59:6,
111:23, 128:9,
teared [1] - 78:9 24:6, 24:10, 26:5, 64:19, 87:18, 89:8, 63:2, 64:19, 64:22,
128:17
tech [1] - 104:8 26:7, 27:11, 28:1, 89:15, 90:23, 91:2, 66:1, 66:8, 66:24,
training [22] - 13:11,
Technical [1] - 23:17 28:4, 31:15, 31:18, 91:9, 91:25, 92:18, 67:2, 70:3, 73:10,
38:15, 40:24, 41:8,
technically [1] - 82:9 32:5, 32:8, 32:11, 93:3, 93:7, 96:10, 75:9, 76:5, 77:1,
41:21, 41:23, 53:4,
technology [1] - 72:7 33:19, 33:24, 34:1, 99:17, 105:23, 77:14, 95:10,
64:25, 65:1, 65:8,
Tellez [1] - 2:15 42:3, 43:3, 43:6, 105:24, 112:20, 100:22, 103:1,
65:11, 65:14, 76:18,
temps [1] - 118:13 43:8, 45:3, 45:7, 129:4, 129:8 107:7, 109:18,
79:3, 91:18, 91:21,
term [18] - 12:20, 34:6, 52:11, 52:14, 57:6, three-level [1] - 129:8 109:22, 110:8,
93:19, 98:25, 99:4,
46:13, 46:15, 46:18, 57:8, 57:9, 58:22, threw [2] - 117:8, 110:10, 110:11,
99:7, 105:14
47:12, 47:15, 49:2, 59:1, 59:3, 60:11, 119:2 110:13, 113:15,
TRANSCRIPT [1] -
51:23, 66:13, 66:16, 60:12, 60:13, 60:15, throughout [2] - 115:13, 117:20,
1:18
78:17, 90:3, 90:5, 60:17, 60:19, 60:21, 117:17, 126:21 121:8, 123:15
transcript [2] - 55:5,
90:7, 101:5, 110:1 60:22, 60:24, 61:1, throw [3] - 76:5, two-sided [1] - 28:9
130:14
terminology [2] - 61:2, 61:5, 61:6, 109:5, 110:14 type [1] - 49:4
trapped [1] - 17:19
45:23, 84:3 61:7, 61:9, 67:16, thrown [1] - 53:24 typically [1] - 127:1
travel [1] - 37:14
terms [10] - 5:9, 5:13, 67:20, 67:22, 67:24, thumbing [1] - 67:6 typo [1] - 54:22
travels [1] - 30:18
5:14, 7:8, 7:15, 9:15, 68:2, 68:5, 68:6,
time-stamped [1] - TRIAL [1] - 1:19
57:11, 63:16, 65:11, 68:9, 68:11, 68:13,
68:16, 68:18, 68:24,
44:15 trial [12] - 4:7, 15:21, U
80:1 timeline [2] - 118:17, 18:15, 21:17, 22:10,
testified [34] - 6:20, 69:14, 69:17, 69:23, U.S [1] - 103:1
118:20 31:2, 53:8, 69:1,
15:17, 26:9, 30:16, 70:20, 70:22, 74:14, ubiquitous [1] -
title [4] - 38:13, 38:14, 70:14, 71:13, 83:17,
33:12, 38:1, 40:23, 84:19, 84:25, 85:9, 100:20
38:18, 43:1 85:1
41:7, 47:10, 53:10, 85:13, 85:18, 85:23, ultimate [1] - 27:5
today [15] - 30:9, trier [1] - 46:23
53:16, 55:1, 71:19, 86:5, 86:6, 86:11, ultimately [4] - 20:24,
31:10, 33:13, 34:5, trouble [1] - 31:1
71:21, 72:25, 73:5, 97:3, 98:5, 98:7,
34:20, 35:18, 51:19, true [10] - 6:12, 33:2, 31:9, 59:8, 72:21
73:14, 73:15, 73:19, 98:10, 99:12, 99:14,
52:5, 53:9, 55:24, 39:22, 39:23, 40:1, ultra [1] - 30:20
73:22, 77:17, 77:21, 99:17, 99:21, 99:24,
59:22, 63:21, 114:7, 41:20, 43:20, 46:10, umpteenth [1] -

Appx0875
 17

123:17 106:23, 112:10, 104:10, 105:5, 116:14, 117:11, 37:19, 58:20, 67:17,
unable [1] - 97:6 114:17, 124:7 108:14, 108:18, 117:15 67:19, 83:21, 84:2,
uncertainty [1] - 74:22 users [4] - 12:4, 108:20, 109:1, voters [10] - 84:13, 85:19, 97:2, 99:15
under [16] - 4:14, 6:3, 88:22, 95:19, 111:24 110:25, 112:11, 89:13, 95:25, witnesses [7] - 33:7,
10:8, 29:10, 46:2, uses [3] - 13:8, 55:24, 115:20, 116:19, 114:22, 116:25, 68:14, 71:5, 71:7,
49:22, 61:2, 66:17, 75:8 125:6 117:9, 118:18, 71:10, 83:25, 118:14
69:12, 79:5, 86:1, Utica [1] - 55:1 verifications [5] - 5:7, 119:3, 120:20, 121:7 Witnesses [1] - 23:17
86:4, 96:25, 99:5, 5:22, 10:8, 70:9, votes [5] - 28:24, 30:1, WN [1] - 122:12
115:10, 126:9 V 128:25 70:9, 74:17, 81:18 woefully [1] - 53:7
undergraduate [1] - verified [17] - 77:18, voting [3] - 84:13, word [18] - 5:25,
38:6 Valenzuela [28] - 93:8, 106:18, 114:1, 120:13 11:22, 13:8, 13:14,
underlying [1] - 34:6 36:19, 56:24, 71:9, 107:14, 107:19, vs [1] - 1:7 13:16, 28:10, 28:11,
underpins [4] - 59:8, 72:25, 73:5, 73:14, 109:20, 111:14, vulgarity [1] - 81:11 30:19, 30:20, 30:23,
59:9, 62:13, 81:4 73:19, 73:22, 75:24, 111:25, 112:22, 31:4, 45:24, 47:6,
understood [4] - 16:1, 76:2, 79:11, 85:20, 122:14, 122:17, W 47:9, 65:25, 66:21,
85:16, 127:15 85:22, 85:25, 86:8, 123:13, 124:11, 75:9, 76:23
undisputed [4] - 79:8, 86:23, 98:12, 98:24, 124:17, 125:7 wait [5] - 67:24, words [8] - 7:19,
79:18, 80:8, 80:12 100:8, 104:24, verifier [6] - 56:19, 108:23, 124:25 18:22, 18:23, 32:25,
unfair [3] - 18:15, 112:6, 120:8, 57:2, 57:25, 65:16, waived [2] - 4:11, 69:4 55:4, 62:24, 75:14,
53:19, 55:7 121:19, 123:11, 75:11, 128:24 walk [2] - 21:15, 21:16 79:12
unique [2] - 59:24, 125:4, 125:16, verifies [1] - 123:14 Wang [5] - 15:13, worker [6] - 59:25,
103:3 125:24, 128:9 verify [6] - 41:22, 91:1, 20:21, 21:16, 21:20, 60:2, 72:18, 73:11,
United [1] - 54:11 VALENZUELA [2] - 107:6, 110:19, 22:4 80:5, 105:16
universe [2] - 108:3, 3:7, 86:16 123:2, 126:9 wants [1] - 103:18 workers [10] - 50:22,
109:19 Valenzuela's [1] - 94:8 verifying [2] - 72:19, watch [2] - 68:5, 126:2 51:10, 51:16, 51:17,
unless [2] - 48:4, valid [1] - 65:17 87:25 watching [1] - 125:13 65:12, 71:17, 71:21,
75:15 validated [1] - 122:24 versus [6] - 4:7, 15:13, weakly [1] - 25:21 72:11, 107:12
unlike [1] - 103:5 variable [2] - 35:1, 19:10, 24:23, 55:1, Webster's [4] - 66:17, world [1] - 12:13
unreliability [1] - 89:14 68:25 75:17, 75:21, 78:18 world's [1] - 22:17
34:24 variables [1] - 89:21 Veterans [1] - 119:8 weeds [1] - 102:1 worries [1] - 69:20
unreliable [3] - 17:20, variation [1] - 75:23 vetted [2] - 93:8, 97:17 week [2] - 30:18, 70:6 would've [5] - 5:24,
34:21, 34:22 variety [1] - 87:1 vice [1] - 2:2 weird [1] - 96:20 15:7, 22:14, 23:3,
unsatisfactory [1] - various [3] - 10:9, video [4] - 72:18, whatsoever [2] - 77:12
17:15 56:7, 121:7 72:21, 73:6, 77:4 25:19, 113:23 wrapped [1] - 87:8
untethered [1] - 74:21 vault [2] - 103:9, videos [1] - 33:7 whistleblowers [1] - write [1] - 46:25
unusual [1] - 10:2 103:12 vindicated [1] - 16:3 79:15 written [3] - 13:10,
up [32] - 8:21, 11:2, VER [1] - 123:13 vindicates [1] - 18:12 whole [8] - 17:23, 47:3, 49:7
11:12, 15:9, 16:4, verbatim [2] - 17:23, visible [1] - 101:19 28:22, 37:21, 51:2, wrote [7] - 16:5,
19:7, 36:7, 39:10, 54:18 visual [1] - 106:8 51:5, 51:9, 51:15, 18:23, 53:13, 53:14,
60:13, 67:2, 67:21, verdict [3] - 69:11, voice [1] - 51:7 119:19 54:12, 62:3, 96:20
76:5, 77:2, 78:9, 81:22, 85:1 voicemail [3] - 118:10, wholesale [1] - 18:15
78:16, 80:6, 80:9, verification [65] - 122:6, 122:7 wholly [3] - 17:15, Y
80:14, 86:2, 87:9, 13:3, 43:13, 44:21, vote [6] - 30:12, 35:8, 17:21
90:18, 90:21, 90:25, 50:24, 51:18, 52:6, 62:24, 62:25, 74:17, William [1] - 24:24 Yam [2] - 17:21, 17:23
97:23, 99:23, 65:12, 70:7, 70:17, 81:12 win [1] - 83:16 years [10] - 12:12,
102:25, 103:1, 71:6, 71:12, 71:17, Vote [1] - 84:14 wish [3] - 47:23, 48:9, 19:15, 23:3, 51:21,
103:12, 116:5, 71:20, 71:25, 72:3, voter [22] - 90:20, 85:9 55:7, 87:2, 87:15,
118:23, 126:5, 126:6 72:5, 72:11, 72:14, 91:7, 96:19, 101:16, withdraw [2] - 109:10, 87:18, 111:21, 117:2
upsetting [1] - 55:8 72:18, 72:23, 73:1, 102:13, 103:4, 128:3 yes/no [1] - 21:8
urgency [1] - 119:1 73:2, 73:8, 73:11, 103:5, 103:7, 107:3, WITNESS [15] - 31:18, yesterday [3] - 56:18,
usage [1] - 81:15 73:20, 73:23, 74:3, 107:15, 116:14, 32:11, 43:6, 57:9, 75:24, 114:7
user [31] - 5:16, 5:18, 74:8, 74:24, 75:1, 116:15, 117:5, 60:12, 60:15, 60:19, yield [1] - 89:15
5:21, 5:23, 6:5, 7:17, 75:2, 75:4, 76:8, 117:11, 117:15, 60:22, 61:1, 61:5, yourself [4] - 14:23,
7:18, 8:8, 8:10, 8:24, 78:5, 78:14, 79:20, 118:10, 118:21, 61:7, 67:22, 68:2, 38:13, 39:5, 91:16
8:25, 9:11, 9:24, 80:24, 83:23, 84:5, 121:25, 122:19, 68:6, 86:5
10:1, 10:21, 11:6, 84:7, 84:11, 88:4, 123:14, 123:18, witness [22] - 3:2, Z
60:1, 90:2, 90:8, 88:10, 88:13, 88:19, 128:12 4:15, 9:2, 16:7,
91:12, 99:7, 102:12, 88:23, 89:4, 89:5, voter's [3] - 90:24, 17:16, 19:19, 19:21, zero [2] - 108:4
105:5, 105:7, 89:12, 89:18, 99:1, 102:14, 116:4 21:23, 24:8, 25:10,
105:15, 106:9, 101:10, 104:6, voter-centric [3] - 27:10, 31:13, 32:1,

Appx0876
 Second Supplemental Declaration of Clay U. Parikh

I, CLAY U. PARIKH, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and

correct:

1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and would testify

competently to them if called upon to do so.

2. I have a Master of Science in Cyber Security, Computer Science from the University

of Alabama in Huntsville. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Systems

Major from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In February 2007 I obtained

the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certification and have

continually maintained good standing. I also hold the following certifications: Certified

Ethical Hacker (CEH) and Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI).

3. Since December of 2003, I have continually worked in the areas of Information

Assurance (IA), Information Security and Cyber Security. I have performed and led teams

in Vulnerability Management, Security Test and Evaluation (ST&E) and system

accreditation. I have supported both civil and Department of Defense agencies within the

U.S. government as well as international customers, such as NATO. I have served as the

Information Security Manager for enterprise operations at Marshall Space Flight Center,

where I ensured all NASA programs and projects aboard the center met NASA enterprise

security standards. I was also responsible in part for ensuring the Marshall Space Flight

Center maintained its Authority To Operate (ATO) within the NASA agency. I have also

served as the Deputy Cyber Manager for the Army Corps of Engineers where I led and

managed several teams directly in: Vulnerability Management, Assessment and

Appx0877
Authorization (A&A), Vulnerability Scanning, Host Based Security System (HBSS), Ports

Protocols and Service Management, and an Information System Security Manager (ISSM)

team for cloud projects. I also have performed internal digital forensic audits. During this

time span, I also worked at the Army Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) as a

member of the Threat Computer Network Operations Team (TCNOT). I provided key

Computer Network Operations (CNO) support by performing validated threat CNO

penetration testing and systems security analysis. TCNOT is the highest level of

implementation of the CNO Team concept.

4. From 2008 to 2017, I worked through a professional staffing company for several

testing laboratories that tested electronic voting machines. These laboratories included

Wyle Laboratories, which was later acquired by National Technical Systems (NTS), and

Pro V&V. My duties were to perform security tests on vendor voting systems for

certification of those systems by either the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to

Federal Voting System Standards (VSS) or Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG),

or to a specific state’s Secretary of State’s requirements.

5. I have read several reports of analysis of log data from Maricopa County voting

systems used in the 2022 General Election, received responsive to public records requests

(“PRR”), and have personally reviewed the data used to create the reports. I make the

following observations based on new information and provide the following to supplement

the previous Declarations I have submitted for this case.

Appx0878
 Summary

6. Upon analysis and review of the 446 ImageCast Precinct-2 (vote center tabulator)

system log files from the 2022 General Election, there are three critical program faults

which have been identified and are common to all:

a. Election database version and election domain version conflict.

b. Wrong Machine Behavioral Setting (“MBS”) version warning.

c. Both the MBS version used and MBS version “expected” are of a different

Dominion Democracy Suite platform than that which was certified by the

SoS for use in Maricopa County.

7. The database version and domain conflict is one in which the tabulator is

programmed to recognize and has issued a system warning alerting officials that a conflict

exists.

8. Version conflicts are an extremely serious matter which can affect whether the

tabulator accurately reads or records a voter’s ballot because different database versions

are not designed or tested to interface with one another. This is especially significant in

this instance due to the complex relational database architecture of the voting system.

9. Candidates, contests, corresponding ballot bubbles, ballot styles, types and the

relationship between those variables are only a fraction of the material adverse events that

conflict gives rise to which could mean a ballot is not recorded correctly or the vote results

are not accurately tabulated.

10. The voting equipment at issue in Maricopa is manufactured by Dominion Voting

Systems, Inc. (“Dominion”). Dominion’s product manual states that: “The Election Event

Appx0879
Designer client application can be regarded as the most imperative piece of your Election

Management System (EMS), as it is solely responsible for designing your election during

the pre-voting stage of your election event. The creation of your election event within

Election Event Designer is referred to as an Election Project. It is through this Election

Project that your election’s ballots and tabulators will be defined, styled, and deemed ready

for election day.” 1 The MBS file is critical to the election definition and the proper

functioning of the tabulators. Tabulators require Machine Behavioral Settings. “These files

define various aspects of their respective tabulators. Before you can define these

configurations, you must import the master DCF, MBS, or both, into Election Event

Designer.”1

11. The following screenshot is a true and accurate copy from one of the vote center

tabulator system log files from the 2022 General Election showing the conflict:

12. The MBS version programmed and used for the 2022 General Election (5.10.9.4)

is not the version specifically prescribed and certified (5.5.1.4) for Dominion Democracy

Suite 5.5B and certified for use in Arizona by the Secretary of State. 2

1
Democracy Suite EMS Elec�on Event Designer User Guide Version: 5.0:103 September 21, 2016
2
See the so�ware cer�fied for use in the 2022 General Elec�on by the Arizona Secretary of State here: 2022
Elec�on Cycle Vo�ng Equipment-working.xlsx (azsos.gov)

Appx0880
 13. The following screenshot is a true and accurate copy of an entry taken from one

of the vote center tabulator system log files from the 2022 General Election:

14. The same warnings shown in the two screen shots above is present on each of the

446 vote center tabulators used for the 2022 General Election.

15. The MBS file contains the counting rules for the tabulator and among other things,

defines how the contest selections (votes) and ballot styles are processed. The only MBS

version tested and certified by the Secretary of State for use in Arizona is shown below: 3

16. The expected MBS version (5.10.3.4) and the actual MBS version utilized for the

2022 General Election (5.10.9.4) are both derivatives of a completely different Dominion

Democracy Suite platform as shown by the version numbers 5.10 (California), i.e., not the

5.5B platform certified for use by the Arizona Secretary of State. 4

3
A true and correct copy of the Elec�on Assistance Commission tes�ng cer�fica�on Scope of Conformance for the
Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5B is atached hereto as “Exhibit A” (tabulator MBS version highlighted at 5).
4
A true and correct copy of the elec�on equipment cer�fied by the Arizona SoS is atached hereto as “Exhibit B”
(tabulator hardware and cer�fied Democracy Suite pla�orm version highlighted).

Appx0881
 17. The result of these critical faults, individually or collectively, means there is no

way to know if votes cast were correctly recorded or tabulated. The only way to verify the

correct vote would be to conduct a full analysis of the Election Management Server (EMS),

tabulator memory cards, and paper ballots.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 13 day of July 2023. s/

Clay U. Parikh

Appx0882
Exhibit A

Appx0883
 United States Election Assistance Commission

Certificate of Conformance

The voting system identified on this certificate has been evaluated at an accredited voting system testing la-
boratory for conformance to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Version 1.0 (VVSG 1.0) . Components
evaluated for this certification are detailed in the attached Scope of Certification document. This certificate
applies only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration. The evaluation
has been verified by the EAC in accordance with the provisions of the EAC Voting System Testing and Cer-
tification Program Manual and the conclusions of the testing laboratory in the test report are consistent with
the evidence adduced. This certificate is not an endorsement of the product by any agency of the U.S. Gov-
ernment and no warranty of the product is either expressed or implied.

Product Name: Democracy Suite

Model or Version: 5.5-B

Name of VSTL: Pro V&V

 
EAC Certification Number: DVS-DemSuite5.5-B Executive Director
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 
Date Issued: September 11, 2019 Scope of Certification Attached

Appx0884
Manufacturer: Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) Laboratory: Pro V&V
System Name: Democracy Suite 5.5-B Standard: VVSG 1.0 (2005)
Certificate: DVS-DemSuite5.5-B Date: September 11, 2019

Scope of Certification
This document describes the scope of the validation and certification of the system defined
above. Any use, configuration changes, revision changes, additions or subtractions from the
described system are not included in this evaluation.

Significance of EAC Certification

An EAC certification is an official recognition that a voting system (in a specific configuration or
configurations) has been tested to and has met an identified set of Federal voting system
standards. An EAC certification is not:
• An endorsement of a Manufacturer, voting system, or any of the system’s components.
• A Federal warranty of the voting system or any of its components.
• A determination that a voting system, when fielded, will be operated in a manner that
meets all HAVA requirements.
• A substitute for State or local certification and testing.
• A determination that the system is ready for use in an election.
• A determination that any particular component of a certified system is itself certified for
use outside the certified configuration.

Representation of EAC Certification

Manufacturers may not represent or imply that a voting system is certified unless it has
received a Certificate of Conformance for that system. Statements regarding EAC certification in
brochures, on Web sites, on displays, and in advertising/sales literature must be made solely in
reference to specific systems. Any action by a Manufacturer to suggest EAC endorsement of its
product or organization is strictly prohibited and may result in a Manufacturer’s suspension or
other action pursuant to Federal civil and criminal law.

System Overview:
The D-Suite 5.5-B Voting System is a paper-based optical scan voting system with a hybrid
paper/DRE option consisting of the following major components: The Election Management
System (EMS), the ImageCast Central (ICC), the ImageCast Precinct (ICP and ICP2), the
ImageCast Evolution (ICE), the ImageCast X (ICX) DRE w/ Reports Printer, ImageCast X (ICX) DRE
w/ voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), and the ImageCast X ballot marking device (BMD).
The D-Suite 5.5-B Voting System configuration is a modification from the EAC approved D-Suite
5.5 system configuration.

1|P a g e

Appx0885
Language capability:
System supports Alaska Native, Apache, Bengali, Chinese, English, Eskimo, Filipino, French,
Hindi, Japanese, Jicarilla, Keres, Khmer, Korean, Navajo, Seminole, Spanish, Thai, Towa, Ute,
Vietnamese, and Yuman.

Democracy Suite 5.5-B System Diagram

2|P a g e

Appx0886
Components Included:
This section provides information describing the components and revision level of the primary
components included in this Certification.

Voting System Software Components:

Software or
System Component Operating System or COTS Comments
Firmware Version
EMS Election Event Designer (EED) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
EMS Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
EMS Application Server 5.5.32.4 Windows Server 2012 R2 EMS
Windows 10 Pro
EMS File System Service (FSS) 5.5.32.4 Window 10 Pro EMS
EMS Audio Studio (AS) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
EMS Data Center Manager (DCM) 5.5.32.4 Windows Server 2012 R2 EMS
Windows 10 Pro
EMS Election Data Translator (EDT) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
ImageCast Voter Activation (ICVA) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
EMS Adjudication (ADJ) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
EMS Adjudication Services 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
Smart Card Helper Service (SCHS) 5.5.32.4 Windows 10 Pro EMS
Election Firmware 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
Firmware Updater 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
Firmware Extractor 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
Kernel (uClinux) 5.5.31.1 Modified COTS ICP
Boot Loader (COLILO) 20040221 Modified COTS ICP
Asymmetric Key Generator 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
Asymmetric Key Exchange Utility 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
Firmware Extractor (Technician Key) 5.5.31.1 uClinux ICP
ICP2 Application 5.5.1.8 uClinux ICP2
ICP2 Update Card 5.5.1.8 uClinux ICP2
Voting Machine 5.5.6.5 Ubuntu Linux ICE
Election Application 5.5.6.5 Ubuntu Linux ICE
ImageCast Central Application 5.5.32.5 Windows 10 Pro ICC
ICX Application 5.5.13.2 Android 5.1.1 (ICX Prime) ICX
Android 4.4.4 (ICX Classic)

Voting System Platform:

Operating System or
System Component Version Comments
COTS
Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard Unmodified COTS EMS Server SW
Component
Microsoft Windows 10 Professional Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
.NET Framework 3.5 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Microsoft Visual J# 2.0 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Microsoft Visual C++ 2013 2013 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
Redistributable SW Component
Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 2015 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
Redistributable SW Component

3|P a g e

Appx0887
 Operating System or
System Component Version Comments
COTS
Java Runtime Environment 7u80 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Java Runtime Environment 8u144 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Standard Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
2016Standard SW Component
Microsoft SQL Server 2016 2016 SP1 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
Service Pack 1 SW Component
Microsoft SQL Server 2016 SP1 2016 SP1 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
Express SW Component
Cepstral Voices 6.2.3.801 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Arial Narrow Fonts 2.37a Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Maxim iButton Driver 4.05 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Adobe Reader DC AcrobatDC Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
SW Component
Open XML SDK 2.0 for Microsoft 2.0 Unmodified COTS EMS Client/Server
Office SW Component
Infragistics NetAdvantage Win 2011 Vol. 1 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Forms 2011.1
Infragistics NetAdvantage WPF 2012 Vol. 1 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
2012.1
TX Text Control Library for .NET 16.0 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
SOX 14.3.1 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
NLog 1.0.0.505 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
iTextSharp 5.0.5 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
OpenSSL 1.0.2K Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0.14 (Cert 1747) Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
SQLite 1.0.103.0 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Lame 3.99.4 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Speex 1.0.4 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Ghostscript 9.04 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
One Wire API for .NET 4.0.2.0 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Avalon-framework-cvs-20020806 20020806 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Batik 0.20-5 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Fop 0.20-5 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Microsoft Visual J# 2.0 2.0 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Redistributable Package – Second
Edition (x64)
Entity framework 6.1.3 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Spreadsheetlight 3.4.3 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Open XML SDK 2.0 for Microsoft 2.0.5022.0 Unmodified COTS EMS SW Platform
Office
Open SSL 1.0.2K Unmodified COTS ICP
OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0.10 (Cert 1747) Unmodified COTS ICP
Zlib 1.2.3 Unmodified COTS ICP
uClinux 20070130 Modified COTS ICP
Kernel (Linux) 2.6.30.9-dvs-36 Modified COTS ICE

4|P a g e

Appx0888
 Operating System or
System Component Version Comments
COTS
U-Boot 1.3.4 Modified COTS ICE
Google Text-to-Speech Engine 3.11.12 Unmodified COTS ICX SW
Kernel 4.9.11 Modified COTS ICP2
U-Boot 2017.03 Modified COTS ICP2
Zxing Barcode Scanner 4.7.5 Modified COTS ICX SW
SoundTouch 1.9.2 Modified COTS ICX SW
ICX Prime Android 5.1.1 Image 0405 Modified COTS ICX SW
ICX Classic Android 4.4.4 Image 0.0.98 Modified COTS ICX SW
OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0.10 (Cert 2473) Unmodified COTS ICX SW Build Library
OpenSSL 1.0.2K Unmodified COTS ICC SW Build Library
OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 2.0.10 (Cert 1747) Unmodified COTS ICC SW Build Library
1-Wire Driver (x86) 4.05 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
1-Wire Driver (x64) 4.05 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
Canon DR-G1130 TWAIN Driver 1.2 SP6 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
Canon DR-G160II TWAIN Driver 1.2 SP6 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
Canon DR-M260 TWAIN Driver, 1.1 SP2 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
InoTec HiPro 821 TWAIN Driver 1.2.3.17 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
Visual C++ 2013 Redistributable 12.0.30501 Unmodified COTS ICC Runtime SW
(x86)
Machine Configuration File (MCF) 5.5.12.1_20190510 Proprietary ICX Configuration File
Device Configuration File (DCF) 5.5.31_20190423 Proprietary ICP and ICC
Configuration File
ICE Machine Behavior Settings 5.5.6.3 20190512 Proprietary ICE Configuration
ICP2 Machine Behavior Settings 5.5.1.4 20190510 Proprietary ICP2 Configuration

Hardware Components:
Proprietary or
System Component Hardware Version Comments
COTS
ImageCast Precinct (ICP) PCOS-320C Proprietary Precinct Scanner
ImageCast Precinct (ICP) PCOS-320A Proprietary Precinct Scanner
ImageCast 2 Precinct (ICP2) PCOS-330A Proprietary Precinct Scanner
ImageCast Evolution (ICE) PCOS-410A Proprietary Precinct Scanner
ICP Ballot Box BOX-330A Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP Ballot Box BOX-340C Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP Ballot Box BOX-341C Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP Ballot Box ElectionSource IM-COLLAPSIBLE Proprietary Ballot Box
ICE Ballot Box BOX-410A Proprietary Ballot Box
ICE Ballot Box BOX-420A Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP2 Ballot Box BOX-350A Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP2 Ballot Box BOX-340C Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP2 Ballot Box BOX-341C Proprietary Ballot Box
ICP2 Ballot Box ElectionSource IM-COLLAPSIBLE Proprietary Ballot Box
ICX UPS Inline EMI Filter 1.0 Proprietary EMI Filter
ICX Tablet (Classic) aValue 15” Tablet (SID-15V) COTS Ballot Marking Device
ICX Tablet (Classic) aValue 21” Tablet (SID-21V) (Steel or COTS Ballot Marking Device
Aluminum chassis)
ICX Tablet (Prime) aValue 21” Tablet (HID-21V) (Steel or COTS Ballot Marking Device or
Aluminum chassis) Direct Recording
Electronic
Thermal Printer SII RP-D10 COTS Report Printer

5|P a g e

Appx0889
 Proprietary or
System Component Hardware Version Comments
COTS
Thermal Printer KFI VRP3 COTS Voter-verifiable paper
audit trail (VVPAT)
Server Dell PowerEdge R620 COTS Standard Server
Server Dell PowerEdge R630 COTS Standard Server
Server Dell PowerEdge R640 COTS Standard Server
ICC Workstation HW Dell OptiPlex 7440 All in One COTS
ICC Workstation HW Dell OptiPlex 3050 All In One COTS
ICC Workstation HW Dell OptiPlex 9030 All In One COTS
ICC Workstation HW Dell OptiPlex 9020 All In One COTS
ICC Workstation HW Dell OptiPlex 9010 All In One COTS
ICC Scanner Canon imageFormula DR-G1130 COTS Central Count Scanner
ICC Scanner Canon imageFormula DR-M160II COTS Central Count Scanner
ICC Scanner Canon imageFormula DR-M260 COTS Central Count Scanner
ICC Scanner InoTec HiPro 821 COTS Central Count Scanner
ICC Scanner Dell Optiplex 7050 COTS
ICC Scanner Dell 2418HT Monitor COTS
Client Workstation HW and Dell Precision 3430 COTS
Express Server
Client Workstation HW and Dell Precision 3431 COTS
Express Server
Client Workstation HW and Dell Precision T3420 COTS
Express Server
Client Workstation HW Dell Precision T1700 COTS
Client Workstation HW Dell Latitude 3400 COTS
Client Workstation HW Dell Latitude 3490 COTS
Client Workstation HW Dell Latitude E3480 COTS
Client Workstation HW Dell Latitude E3470 COTS
Client Workstation HW Dell Latitude E7450 COTS
ICX Printer HP LaserJet Pro Printer M402dn COTS
ICX Printer HP LaserJet Pro Printer M402dne COTS
Monitor Dell Monitor KM632 COTS
Monitor Dell Monitor P2414Hb COTS
Monitor P2419H COTS
Monitor P2417H COTS
Monitor Dell Ultrasharp 24” Monitor U2414H COTS
CD/DVD Reader Dell DVD Multi Recorder GP60NB60 COTS
iButton Programmer Maxim iButton Programmer COTS
DS9490R# with DS1402-RP8+
UPS Tripp Lite SMART1500RMXL2U COTS
UPS APC SMT1500C Smart-UPS COTS
UPS APC SMT1500 Smart-UPS COTS
UPS APC BE600M1 COTS
UPS APC BR1000G COTS
Network Switch Dell X1008 COTS
Network Switch Dell X1018 COTS
Network Switch Dell X1026 COTS
Network Switch Dell PowerConnect 2808 COTS
Sip and Puff Enabling Devices #972 COTS
Headphones Cyber Acoustics ACM-70 and ACM- COTS
70B
4-way Joystick Controller S26 Modified COTS

6|P a g e

Appx0890
 Proprietary or
System Component Hardware Version Comments
COTS
Rocker (Paddle) Switch Enabling Device #971 COTS
Rocker (Paddle) Switch AbleNet 10033400 (2x) COTS
CF Card Reader IOGEAR SDHC/microSDHC COTS
0U51USC410
CF Card Dual-Slot Reader Lexar USB 3.0 COTS
CF Card Reader Hoodman Steel USB 3.0 102015 COTS
CF Card Reader Lexar Professional CFR1 COTS
CF Card Reader Kingston FCR-HS4 COTS
ATI ATI handset Proprietary
ATI ATI-USB handset Proprietary
ACS PC-Linked ACR38 COTS
Smart Card Reader
ACS PC-Linked ACR39 COTS
Smart Card Reader

System Limitations
This table depicts the limits the system has been tested and certified to meet.
Limiting
Characteristic Limit Comment
Component
Ballot positions Ballot 292*/462** Landscape Ballot: 240
candidates + 24 write-ins + 28
Yes/No choices.
Precincts in an election EMS 1000; 250 Standard; Express
Contests in an election EMS 1000; 250 Standard; Express
Candidates/Counters in an election EMS 10000; 2500 Standard; Express
Candidates/Counters in a precinct Ballot 240*/462** Both
Candidates/Counters in a tabulator Tabulator 10000; 2500 Standard; Express
Ballot Styles in an election Tabulator 3000; 750 Standard; Express
Ballot IDs in a tabulator Tabulator 200 Both
Contests in a ballot style Ballot 38*/156** Both
Candidates in a contest Ballot 240*/231** Both
Ballot styles in a precinct Tabulator 5 Both
Number of political parties Tabulator 30 Both
“vote for” in a contest Ballot 24*/30** Both
Supported languages in an election Tabulator 5 Both
Number of write-ins Ballot 24*/462** Both
* Reflects the system limit for a ballot printed in landscape.
** Reflects the system limit for a ballot printed in portrait.

7|P a g e

Appx0891
Functionality
2005 VVSG Supported Functionality Declaration
Feature/Characteristic Yes/No Comment
Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails
VVPAT YES
Accessibility
Forward Approach YES
Parallel (Side) Approach YES
Closed Primary
Primary: Closed YES
Open Primary
Primary: Open Standard (provide definition of how supported) YES
Primary: Open Blanket (provide definition of how supported) YES
Partisan & Non-Partisan:
Partisan & Non-Partisan: Vote for 1 of N race YES
Partisan & Non-Partisan: Multi-member (“vote for N of M”) YES
board races
Partisan & Non-Partisan: “vote for 1” race with a single YES
candidate and write-in voting
Partisan & Non-Partisan “vote for 1” race with no declared YES
candidates and write-in voting
Write-In Voting:
Write-in Voting: System default is a voting position identified for YES
write-ins.
Write-in Voting: Without selecting a write in position. NO
Write-in: With No Declared Candidates YES
Write-in: Identification of write-ins for resolution at central YES
count
Primary Presidential Delegation Nominations & Slates:
Primary Presidential Delegation Nominations: Displayed YES
delegate slates for each presidential party
Slate & Group Voting: one selection votes the slate. YES
Ballot Rotation:
Rotation of Names within an Office; define all supported YES Equal time rotation
rotation methods for location on the ballot and vote
tabulation/reporting
Straight Party Voting:
Straight Party: A single selection for partisan races in a general YES
election
Straight Party: Vote for each candidate individually YES
Straight Party: Modify straight party selections with crossover YES
votes
Straight Party: A race without a candidate for one party YES
Straight Party: “N of M race (where “N”>1) YES
Straight Party: Excludes a partisan contest from the straight YES
party selection

8|P a g e

Appx0892
Feature/Characteristic Yes/No Comment
Cross-Party Endorsement:
Cross party endorsements, multiple parties endorse one YES
candidate.
Split Precincts:
Split Precincts: Multiple ballot styles YES
Split Precincts: P & M system support splits with correct contests YES
and ballot identification of each split
Split Precincts: DRE matches voter to all applicable races. YES
Split Precincts: Reporting of voter counts (# of voters) to the YES
precinct split level; Reporting of vote totals is to the precinct
level
Vote N of M:
Vote for N of M: Counts each selected candidate, if the YES
maximum is not exceeded.
Vote for N of M: Invalidates all candidates in an overvote (paper) YES
Recall Issues, with options:
Recall Issues with Options: Simple Yes/No with separate YES
race/election. (Vote Yes or No Question)
Recall Issues with Options: Retain is the first option, NO
Replacement candidate for the second or more options (Vote 1
of M)
Recall Issues with Options: Two contests with access to a second NO
contest conditional upon a specific vote in contest one. (Must
vote Yes to vote in 2nd contest.)
Recall Issues with Options: Two contests with access to a second NO
contest conditional upon any vote in contest one. (Must vote
Yes to vote in 2nd contest.)
Cumulative Voting
Cumulative Voting: Voters are permitted to cast, as many votes NO
as there are seats to be filled for one or more candidates. Voters
are not limited to giving only one vote to a candidate. Instead,
they can put multiple votes on one or more candidate.
Ranked Order Voting
Ranked Order Voting: Voters can write in a ranked vote. NO
Ranked Order Voting: A ballot stops being counting when all NO
ranked choices have been eliminated
Ranked Order Voting: A ballot with a skipped rank counts the NO
vote for the next rank.
Ranked Order Voting: Voters rank candidates in a contest in NO
order of choice. A candidate receiving a majority of the first
choice votes wins. If no candidate receives a majority of first
choice votes, the last place candidate is deleted, each ballot cast
for the deleted candidate counts for the second choice
candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last
place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one
candidate receives a majority of the vote

9|P a g e

Appx0893
Feature/Characteristic Yes/No Comment
Ranked Order Voting: A ballot with two choices ranked the NO
same, stops being counted at the point of two similarly ranked
choices.
Ranked Order Voting: The total number of votes for two or more NO
candidates with the least votes is less than the votes of the
candidate with the next highest number of votes, the candidates
with the least votes are eliminated simultaneously and their
votes transferred to the next-ranked continuing candidate.

10 | P a g e

Appx0894
Feature/Characteristic Yes/No Comment
Provisional or Challenged Ballots
Provisional/Challenged Ballots: A voted provisional ballots is YES
identified but not included in the tabulation, but can be added in
the central count.
Provisional/Challenged Ballots: A voted provisional ballots is NO
included in the tabulation, but is identified and can be
subtracted in the central count
Provisional/Challenged Ballots: Provisional ballots maintain the YES
secrecy of the ballot.
Overvotes (must support for specific type of voting system)
Overvotes: P & M: Overvote invalidates the vote. Define how YES Overvotes cause a
overvotes are counted. warning to the voter
and can be configured
to allow voter to
override.
Overvotes: DRE: Prevented from or requires correction of YES
overvoting.
Overvotes: If a system does not prevent overvotes, it must count YES If allowed via voter
them. Define how overvotes are counted. override, overvotes are
tallied separately.
Overvotes: DRE systems that provide a method to data enter N/A
absentee votes must account for overvotes.
Undervotes
Undervotes: System counts undervotes cast for accounting YES
purposes
Blank Ballots
Totally Blank Ballots: Any blank ballot alert is tested. YES Precinct voters receive
a warning; both
precinct and central
scanners will warn on
blank ballots.
Totally Blank Ballots: If blank ballots are not immediately YES Blank ballots are
processed, there must be a provision to recognize and accept flagged. These ballots
them can be manually
examined and then be
scanned and accepted
as blank; or precinct
voter can override and
accept.
Totally Blank Ballots: If operators can access a blank ballot, there YES Operators can examine
must be a provision for resolution. a blank ballot, re-mark
if needed and allowed,
and then re-scan it.
Networking
Wide Area Network – Use of Modems NO
Wide Area Network – Use of Wireless NO

11 | P a g e

Appx0895
Feature/Characteristic Yes/No Comment
Local Area Network – Use of TCP/IP YES Client/server only
Local Area Network – Use of Infrared NO
Local Area Network – Use of Wireless NO
FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic module YES
Used as (if applicable):
Precinct counting device YES ImageCast Precinct
Central counting device YES ImageCast Central

Baseline Certification Engineering Change Orders (ECO)

ECO # Component Description
100503 ICP PCOS-320C & Adding a COTS collapsible ballot box to AVL for use with the ICP
ICP PCOS-320A
100521 Servers and Added DELL P2419H monitor as a display device.
Workstations
100527 EMS Workstations. Added DELL Latitude 3490 computer with updated i3-8130U
processor (Dual Core, 4MB Cache, 2.2GHz) to DVS PN 190-000061 (a
client workstation).
100543 ICC Scanner Update to the DR-G1130 Scanner LCD Panel User Interface.
100588 ICX Workstation Added new models of VVPAT printer for use with the D-Suite ICX
workstation due to previous model becoming commercially
unavailable
100596 EMS Workstation Added DELL Latitude 3400 computer as a client workstation due to
the DELL Latitude 3490 computer becoming commercially
unavailable for purchase
100597 EMS Server Added DELL PowerEdge R640 computer with new processor and
RAM as an AVL to the existing R640 server computer configurations
100602 EMS Server and Added DELL Precision 3431 computer in an EMS Express Server and
Workstations EMS Client Workstation configuration due to the DELL Precision 3430
computer becoming commercially unavailable for purchase
100603 ICC Scanner Added DELL P2418HT monitor as a display device for ICC HiPro
scanner workstation configuration due to the Lenovo 10QXPAR1US
monitor becoming commercially unavailable for purchase

12 | P a g e

Appx0896
Exhibit B

Appx0897
 2022 Election Cycle / Voting Equipment*

County System Type Manufacturer Maintenance Model Firmware Type Software Type

Apache Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Cochise Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Digital Scan DS200 2.17.4.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Coconino Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 2.4.5.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Gila Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Graham Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Greenlee Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Digital Scan DS200 2.17.4.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
La Paz Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Digital Scan DS200 2.17.4.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Maricopa Accessible Ballot Marking Device Dominion Dominion ImageCast X (BMD) 5.5.13.2 Democracy Suite 5.5b
Accessible Ballot Marking Device ICX ATI Unit (BMD) 181-000036 Rev. A Democracy Suite 5.5b
Ballot Marking Device Printer HP LaserJet Pro M402dne Unmodified COTS Democracy Suite 5.5b
Digital Scan Imagecast Precinct 2 5.5.18 Democracy Suite 5.5b
Central Count - Digital Scan ICC Cannon DR-G1130 Unmodified COTS Democracy Suite 5.5b
Central Count - Digital Scan ICC Interscan HiPro 821 Unmodified COTS Democracy Suite 5.5b
Mohave Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 2.4.5.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Navajo Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 2.4.5.1 / 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Digital Scan DS200 2.17.4.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Pima Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 2.4.5.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 2.4.0.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Pinal Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 2.1.10.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS850 1.0.0.0 ElectionWare 5.0.4.0
Santa Cruz Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Yavapai Accessible Ballot Marking Device Unisyn Unisyn FVT OpenElect 2.2 OCS OpenElect 2.2
Central Count - Digital Scan OVCS 1.55 OCS OpenElect 2.2
Yuma Accessible Ballot Marking Device ES&S ES&S ExpressVote (BMD) 1.5.2.1 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Digital Scan DS200 2.17.4.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0
Central Count - Digital Scan DS450 3.1.1.0 ElectionWare 6.0.4.0

*This list may be updated prior to the next election.

Revised August 2022 Appx0898
Arizona Secretary of State