積分 8903
爵位榮郡王
榮銜正一品太師
官職不設品國史館監修總裁官
身份榮王府家主
旗籍滿族鑲藍旗
爵位榮郡王
榮銜正一品太師
官職不設品國史館監修總裁官
兼職
身份榮王府家主
旗籍滿族鑲藍旗
配偶
|
樓主 |
發表於 2020-12-12 12:21:00
|
顯示全部樓層
《Sidney Powell的大海怪訴訟 (終?) - 海怪之死》
被Trump團隊拋棄的Sidney Powell在MI州聯邦法院慘遭滑鐵盧後，在GA州及AZ州的聯邦訴訟同樣以失敗告終。
在GA州的案件，法官直接批准了被告的撤銷案件動議。在聆訊中，法官指出訴訟的荒謬之處 - 原告是在聲稱一個州長及州務卿都是共和黨(而且兩者都是Trump支持者)的州份容許大規模選舉舞弊以利民主黨的候選人。法官亦指出，原告請求法庭去命令州務卿去推翻認證，彷彿這種機制是存在的 - 但根本沒有這種機制(https://www.cnbc.com/....../judge-dismisses-sidney......)。
在MI州及GA州的官司失敗後，Sidney Powell的大海怪只剩下一爪 - 就是AZ州的聯邦訴訟。可是，在今天，連最後一爪也被廢了。
(判決書原文: https://assets.documentcloud.org/....../arizona-kraken......)
與MI州裁決大致一樣 - 法官指出原告沒有起訴資格聲稱被告違反選舉及選舉人條款、其起訴的內容也不構成聯邦訴訟、而且選舉結果早已被認證，聯邦法庭沒有權力推翻認證結果等。這些都是很法律上技術性的東西，也是早前提及的判決已提及過的。
但這份判決書中最引人入勝的地方是，不同於MI及GA案，本案判詞有實質地討論原告的主張，而這部分直接駁斥了原告的舞弊理論(包括Dominion等陰謀論)。
我們之前說過，根據FRCP Rule 9(b)，要聲稱舞弊/詐騙(fraud)，則必須要陳述舞弊的細節("state with particularity")。法官介紹了FRCP Rule 9(b)的標準後，直接指出︰
(以下內容直接引自判決書)
//「原告的舞弊主張不但沒有細節(particularity)，也沒有合理性(plausibility)。原告呈上了300頁的附件，唯一出色的就只有頁數。那些誓詞及專家報告大部分都是基於匿名的證人、傳言、及對其他無關的選舉的毫不相干的分析。」("The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.")//
//「原告呈交了票站觀察員的聲明...但這些人並完全沒有聲稱有舞弊。他們只是在反對AZ州選舉官員認對郵寄投票的簽名的方法及程序、票站裁判的角色及過程、選舉機器的「不規則」、及Dominion投票系統的認證。這些對AZ州選舉官員安排選舉的反對並不足以推翻AZ州的2020年總統大選，因為他們沒有提供證據去支持舞弊主張」("In doing so, they attach declarations from poll watchers that observed election officials...But these four declarants do not allege fraud at all. (See Doc. 1-10 at 18–24). Instead, they raise objections to the manner and process by which Arizona election officials matched signatures on absentee ballots (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 46–48); to the process and role assigned to poll referees in settling unresolved disputes between adjudicators (Id. at ¶ 49); to “irregularities” with the voting machines on Election Day and before (Id. at ¶¶ 50–52); and to the certification of the Dominion voting system on November 18, 2020 (Id. at ¶ 53). These objections to the manner in which Arizona officials administered the election cannot serve to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona because they fail to present evidence that supports the underlying fraud claim.")//
//「原告然後說他們有專家證人可以作證AZ州有大規模舞弊。首先，沒有任何原告的證人指出被告有作出舞弊或指出他們在所謂的舞弊的角色。反而，他們只是聲稱郵寄選票『可能可以由任何人填上然後以其他人名義寄出』、『可能可以由任何第三方人士填上並把選舉轉移到Biden』、或是稱選票『已被消滅而被選舉工作人員、Dominion或其他第三方去取代之』。這些影射並不符合Rule 9(b)的標準。但對法庭來說更值得擔憂的是，所謂的『專家報告』所達成的不合理結論只是因為這些結論是源自完全不可信的來源。」("Plaintiffs next argue that they have expert witnesses who can attest to widespread voter fraud in Arizona. As an initial matter, none of Plaintiffs’ witnesses identify Defendants as committing the alleged fraud, or state what their participation in the alleged fraudulent scheme was. Instead, they allege that, absentee ballots “could have been filled out by anyone and then submitted in the name of another voter,” “could be filled in by third parties to shift the election to Joe Biden,” or that ballots were destroyed or replaced “with blank ballots filled out by election workers, Dominion or other third parties.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 54–58) (emphasis added). These innuendoes fail to meet Rule 9(b) standards. But perhaps more concerning to the Court is that the “expert reports” reach implausible conclusions, often because they are derived from wholly unreliable sources.")//
//「例如，原告的專家證人William Briggs先生作出結論說AZ州選舉官員在處理未寄回的郵寄選票上的『有問題的』錯誤顯示出投票舞弊所以選舉結果應該被推翻。Briggs所依賴的資料數據是來自一名不知道是誰的"Matt Braynard"，而他或可能在11/20/20在其Twitter作出了一個叫"Residency Analysis of ABS/EV Voters"的tweet。除了Braynard那天的tweet外，原告沒有提供任何有關Braynard的身份、資歷、或解釋他所做的電話『調查』所用的是什麼方法。但根據Briggs的報告，Braynard所做的調查對象是GA、MI、WI、AZ及PA州的未知人數的不知名人士，並將其調查『發現』告知Briggs。Briggs的結論『每州明顯有大量有問題的選票』乃假設了Braynard的『調查對象是有代表性的，以及資料數據是準確的』。用這種輕率進路去聲稱以數以十萬的AZ州選票是錯誤的 - 本身就很有問題。Briggs先生的『分析』建基於Braynard先生的『資料』，而這種資料徹底不可靠、不能合理地作為基礎去推翻總統大選、更不可能用以支持對被告作出舞弊的主張。」("Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. William Briggs (“Briggs”), for example, concludes that “troublesome” errors by Arizona election officials “involving unreturned mail-in ballots [] are indicative of voter fraud” and that the election should consequently be overturned. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 54). Briggs relies on data provided by an unknown person named “Matt Braynard,” a person who may or may not have tweeted a “Residency Analysis of ABS/EV Voters” on his Twitter account on November 20, 2020 (Doc. 1-2 at 14, Ex. 2); (Id. at 52, Ex. 3). Apart from a screenshot of Mr. Braynard’s tweets that day, Plaintiffs offer nothing further about Mr. Braynard’s identity, qualifications, or methodologies used in conducting his telephone “survey.” But according to the Briggs’ report, Mr. Braynard conducted his survey of unknown size and to unknown persons in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania regarding absentee ballots, and his “findings” were conveyed to Mr. Briggs. (Id.) In concluding that there were “clearly a large number of troublesome ballots in each state,” Mr. Briggs assumed Mr. Braynard’s “survery [sic] respondents [were] representative and the data [was] accurate.” (Id.) This cavalier approach to establishing that hundreds of thousands of Arizona votes were somehow cast in error is itself troublesome. The sheer unreliability of the information underlying Mr. Briggs’ “analysis” of Mr. Braynard’s “data” cannot plausibly serve as a basis to overturn a presidential election, much less support plausible fraud claims against these Defendants.")
//「起訴書也同樣地沒有任何合理的主張去聲稱Dominion投票設備在2020年AZ選舉中有被駭客入侵。原告明顯關注AZ及其他州份的部分郡中所用的選舉設備的弱點。他們引用了資料去聲稱『眾所周知』的弱點，呈上了對議題關心的民眾、AZ選舉官員及國會議會的信件。原告甚至呈上了一名匿名人士的誓詞，而該人聲稱是委內瑞拉獨裁者Hugo Chavez的知情人士，知道委內瑞拉是如何用選舉設備在該國作出舞弊，而這些軟件的"DNA"則現在在美國所用。可是，這些關注及弱點並不足以聲稱任何在AZ州所用的投票設備的確在2020年AZ選舉中有被駭客入侵。反而，呈上的只有一堆以『可能可以、或者、也許』及『可能有發生過』這些字眼為首的句子。為了支持這種理論，原告呈上了專家Russell Ramsland, Jr.的供詞，他聲稱2020年11月3日晚在Maricopa及Pima郡有『不太可能、且大概不可能的選票暴增』。他說該增長能『輕易地解釋為』Dominion系統『預載了空白選票在檔案中，包括Write-in或其他adjudication-type檔案，然後用覆寫程序將選票全給Biden...』。這種情況是可以想像的。但是，被告Hobbs提供了一個更遠為可信的合理解釋︰因為AZ州在大選前就已經開始處理提早投出的選票，而該增長代表了Mariopa及Pima郡對提早投出的選票的正常入帳，而該入帳是在親身投票關門後短期內作出的。所以，本法庭裁定，雖然這個『暴增』可能可以用非法駭客入侵選舉設備去解釋，但『更相容、更有可能的解釋』是入帳提早投出的選票。原告並沒有將他們的舞弊理論由想像變成合理 - 而這是提出舞弊的聯邦訴訟中必須要做的標準。」("The Complaint is equally void of plausible allegations that Dominion voting machines were actually hacked or compromised in Arizona during the 2020 General Election. Plaintiffs are clearly concerned about the vulnerabilities of voting machines used in some counties across Arizona and in other states. They cite sources that attest to knowledge of “well-known” vulnerabilities, have included letters from concerned citizens, Arizona elected officials, and United States senators. Plaintiffs even attach an affidavit of an anonymous witness with connections to the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez claiming to be privy as to how officials in Venezuela rigged their elections with the help of a voting systems company whose software “DNA” is now used in voting machines in the United States. (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 1). These concerns and stated vulnerabilities, however, do not sufficiently allege that any voting machine used in Arizona was in fact hacked or compromised in the 2020 General Election. Rather, what is present is a lengthy collection of phrases beginning with the words “could have, possibly, might,” and “may have.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 8, 53, 55, 57, 60, 66, 77, 88, 91, 108, 109, 122). To lend support to this theory, Plaintiffs offer expert Russell Ramsland, Jr., who asserts there was “an improbable, and possibly impossible spike in processed votes” in Maricopa and Pima Counties at 8:46 p.m. on November 3, 2020. (Doc. 1 ¶ 60); (Doc. 1-9, Ex. 17) (emphasis added). He suggests that this spike “could easily be explained” by presuming that Dominion “pre-load[ed] batches of blank ballots in files such as Write-Ins or other adjudication-type files then casting them almost all for Biden using the Override Procedure . . . .” (Doc. 1-9 at 9, Ex. 17). This scenario is conceivable. However, Defendant Hobbs points to a much more likely plausible explanation: because Arizona begins processing early ballots before the election, the spike represented a normal accounting of the early ballot totals from Maricopa and Pima Counties, which were reported shortly after in-person voting closed. (Doc. 40 at 17–18). Thus, the Court finds that while this “spike” could be explained by an illicit hacking of voting machinery in Arizona, the spike is “not only compatible with, but indeed was more likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed” reporting of early ballot tabulation in those counties. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards. Id.")//
在總結，法官很直接地指出︰「在公眾世界受歡迎的流言蜚語及射影諷刺並不能替代聯邦法庭所要求的認真的訴訟文件及程序，也絕對不可能成為推翻2020年AZ州選舉的基礎。本法庭除了完全撤銷本案外，別無選擇。」("Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election. The Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss this matter in its entirety.")
|
|
