Judge Denies Subpoenas for Neighboring Michigan Counties in Antrim County Lawsuit, Case Continues

Headlines Politics U.S.

Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer denied subpoenas today for election information being sought from several Michigan counties today in a lawsuit involving election interference. The information was being sought to verify information that was deleted by the clerk in Antrim County, MI.

A case brought in Antrim County by Michigan resident William Bailey claims Bailey’s vote in the November 3 election was disenfranchised because of vote manipulation. The case so far has resulted in the only forensic examination of Dominion Systems voting machines.

The subpoenas being sought were for information pertaining to specific network and application logs that were to be used to provide total vote uploads to verify the accuracy of reported vote totals in Antrim County.

The additional information could also be used to determine if Antrim County showed anomalous cyber activity or third party election interference and compare and contrast cyber forensic evidence as it relates to voting equipment.

The specific data for Antrim County was deleted by County Clerk Sheryl Guy the day after the election on November 4 so Bailey’s attorney Matt DePerno was seeking the corroborating information from several other counties in the state.

Despite the judge’s dismissal of the subpoenas for the information DePerno believes the door is still open. “It wasn’t a complete setback,” DePerno told ITN this afternoon.

“Any case you have has good days and bad days. I don’t view this as a terrible day because we actually still got some good rulings on some of the discovery issues…anything we ask for that’s relevant in some way to Antrim County we get.”

DePerno and his cyber forensic team uncovered a formula on Friday that predicts the level of turnout for voters across all age groups in Michigan with over 99% accuracy. That level of correlation is a strong indication third party interference took place in the November 3rd election. Correlations involving human behavior rarely have correlation values above 80%, DePerno’s team says.

More unusual still is that a second formula found in Ohio (based on Ohio’s demographic and population information) works similarly in all 88 counties there. Yet another formula works just as effectively in all 64 counties in Colorado. Another works just as well in 14 counties in Florida and still another in 14 counties in Pennsylvania.

The position held by Democratic state leaders in Michigan opposing DePerno is that any voting irregularity is the result of “human error.”

Depositions in the Antrim County case are scheduled to begin in May and the trial is set to begin in late spring/early summer.

Join the discussion