Kraken, or Crack-up?

The PDF of the complaint is here. You decide.

There are some comments at Vox Popoli. I take most of what Vox Day writes with enough grains of salt to worry my cardiologist. But he cites some lawyers here

So, here are my few observations as an attorney with decades’ in federal court:

1. In early October, 2020, a federal district judge in this same district (Northern District of Georgia) ruled after several years of litigation that the Dominion software used to monitor this election has substantial issues and it will affect an election. The Plaintiffs were Democrats who filed suit in response to the 2016 election. They sought an order forcing Georgia to use different software. They conducted discovery and hearings over years, including 3 days of expert testimony about how these very voting machines work. The court ultimately denied the request because it was simply too late to change the voting machines since the election at that time was roughly a month away. New cases are supposed to be assigned to judges randomly but I would not be surprised if this case were given to that particular judge since she spent so much time reviewing the litigation and conducting evidentiary hearings. Her findings of fact could be incorporated into this hearing under the legal theory of res judicata.


5. One area where plaintiffs do a good job is in pointing out the number of votes affected by the alleged fraud. One reason this is crucial is that Biden’s certified margin of victory in Georgia was only about 12,000 votes. And the complaint does a good job of laying out substantial procedural and constitutional irregularities with roughly 96,000 votes and further problems with additional votes. The problematic votes far outnumber Biden’s margin of victory, which is hugely significant. Put another way, if Biden wins by 500,000 and they claim that there are problems with 100,000 votes, even if those 100,000 votes are gone, Biden still wins. If the problem votes are gone, Biden’s victory may be gone as well. The complaint does a good job of pointing out not just the alleged problems but the number of votes affected by those problems.

6. What now? The plaintiffs are asking for an evidentiary hearing. That would allow them to present evidence in the form of witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits that would support their claim. Because it is a civil case, they only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, they only have to prove that it was more likely than not that there was fraud and that the fraud influenced the election. They do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court may refuse an evidentiary hearing, in which case Plaintiffs would appeal and argue that they should be given hearing. Given the evidence laid out, I expect that the court will at least order an evidentiary hearing that will be conducted on an expedited scale. (it helps that there’s an evidentiary hearing set in Nevada). After the evidentiary hearing, the court can grant their request, which would be to de-certify the election and force a manual re-count/audit overseen by independent auditors to verify each vote. Or the court could deny it. Realistically this case is likely to be appealed, which is one reason that the District (trial) court is likely to hold an evidentiary hearing. Because an appeal is almost certain no matter who wins the case, the judge’s legal decision in this case is likely not nearly as important as the judge’s factual decisions. The judge’s factual decisions will likely be relied upon by appellate judges even if they disagree with the judge’s legal conclusions. If there is an evidentiary hearing, pay careful attention to the judge’s factual findings, especially as described below.


…and here:

  1. This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they’ve grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I’ve not even completed reading it, I’m taking it slow.
  2. It’s now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she’s representing here, she’s representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight.  Like with Roger Stone, she’s outside the system. 
  3. This suit is a big reason why General Flynn was pardoned this week. Now, the corrupt Flynn trial judge can’t waste time or resources by demanding Powell file extra briefs or come to court and distract her from this. That great Dem delay tactic has been neutralized; Powell is all in on this. 
  4. Page 9, Paragraph 14. Holy shit. 
  5. For about 7 days now, the SJW defense rhetoric I’ve heard was, in part, “Oh yeah? When they going to prove this in court? Put up or shut up.” Now, after Rudy’s hearings yesterday and Powell’s filing last night, they’ve put up—-they put it on the line. Big time. 
  6. The Democratic party lawyers just shit their pants. Biden did as well, but he does that every morning. Their Thanksgiving is officially ruined; they are all going to be working all holiday weekend to file a response.

(Chi) Squaring up Benford’s Law

You may have heard about Benford’s Law. You may have seen the charts. You may have seen the video where the charts are featured. Links to the datasets are included in the description of the video.

I was finally curious enough to look at the data and run a chi-squared analysis of the data. The idea here is that I can compare the observed number of times a given number is the first digit in all the precinct-level counts, and the expected number according to Benford’s Law.

The first attempt yielded huge values, corresponding to wildly improbable differences between the observed first digits of the precinct counts and the values expected according to Benford’s Law. The smallest chi-squared statistic, corresponding to the closest fit with Benford’s Law, was still quite improbable — less than one chance in a billion of being due to chance. The largest ones had a likelihood similar to winning the Powerball grand prize a dozen times in a row.

On further reading, I learned that the Chi-square test is rather sensitive to sample size, even though the sample size does not show up in the formula. Large sample sizes will result in chi-square statistics that look highly significant (highly unlikely) even for small deviations from the expected value.

So I redid the calculation after dividing all of the values for each category by a number intended to make the smallest value in all the categories equal to five.

Why five?

The chi-square test starts to run into trouble when the value of any category drops below five. For a large number of categories, it’s OK if 80% of the values are five or greater. That would mean I could have set it so the second-smallest value is five. However, setting the lowest value at five gave me reasonable results.

I looked at the data for Allegheny County, PA and Fulton County, GA.

Allegheny County, PAFulton County, GA
Trump: total votesX2 = 5.80p = 0.669X2 = 4.00p = 0.857
Biden: total votesX2 = 190.5p = 5.73e-37X2 = 15.50p = 0.050
Apparent shenanigans in Biden’s vote totals in Allegheny County

In both counties, Trump’s precinct-level vote totals match pretty well with Benford’s Law. In Fulton county, Biden’s vote totals are on the edge of significance.
In Allegheny county, Biden’s vote totals vary from Benford’s law by an amount well outside the bounds of chance.

Can we call “shenanigans” here?