All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:18:13
Kari Lake Trial LIVE! Signature Verification on Trial! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, one at a time would pull up, and then we would use the actual green affidavit that was sent in.
Forgive me for interrupting.
I want to just stick with the training right now and the purpose of what you were being trained to do.
And so when you look at this exhibit, if you turn the next page, and you'll see at the bottom slide entitled handwriting analysis, Correct.
Are we live?
We are live.
And if you look at the second bullet point, and I'll read that for the record, the second bullet point at page 8433 states, in the context of the signature verification process for early voting, handwriting analysis is used to verify the identity of a voter by comparing the signature on an early voting affidavit against a known signature on the official voter registration file.
Correct.
And when it talks about an analysis of the signature, what does that mean to you in the context of your training?
I've been watching from the beginning.
I'll summarize it.
Well, we were looking for the way that the signature was either slanted to the right or the left, the beginning of the signature, the way...
Their handwriting, it could be a loop in the very beginning with their name, or at the end, they did a little loop at the end.
And so, turn to the next page, please.
If you turn to page 8434, are these examples of specific characteristics of a signature that you were trained to assess and analyze?
When you were making your comparisons of the two signatures?
Correct.
And if you just keep flipping through to 435, 436, there are a number of different examples here, correct?
The video sucks, by the way.
If you turn to page 8437, the slide entitled Broad Characteristics, Evaluating the Entire Signature.
Do you see that?
Yes, sir.
There are eight bullet points.
What does eight bullet points represent to your understanding of signature verification that you were trained in?
The steps.
The type of writing, whether it be handwritten or if they are doing cursive writing, the spelling.
I was taking notes earlier.
Alignment, the overall size.
Eight items they need to verify.
Are these all different factors that you were trained to assess in making a determination whether a signature on a ballot envelope could be verified with the signature on file with the state?
Yes, that's right.
Yes.
How long would it take you to do this?
If you would turn the page to 8438.
And get ready for gratuitous.
The slide entitled Broad Characteristics?
Correct.
And then the next several slides from 439, 440, all the way over to 441, talk about broad characteristics.
Correct.
What is your understanding of the purpose of assessing broad characteristics of a signature?
Is my volume too low?
I'll just talk louder if it is.
I believe that each individual voter's signature, even when they get older, it does change slightly, but for the most part, it should stay the same.
And how would you utilize the characteristics that are identified in your training materials to analyze a voter's signature?
I'm going to lower court volume a little bit.
Can't go.
Oh, gosh.
Come on, guys.
My poop is fine.
All the different characteristics?
Correct.
And then if you look over at slide on page 8441, which is up on the screen now, do you see where it says local characteristics?
Correct.
The spacing and the size of their handwriting.
So when you say spacing, what are you referring to?
Maybe...
Some signatures, they just flow all together, and others, they would actually have the first and the last name separated, a space in between.
And is that a characteristic that can tell whether a signature should match or not?
Correct.
If you would turn to...
The slide on page 8446.
I will try not to talk too much over the actual trial.
I'd like to discuss the equipment setup that Maricopa provided for you to evaluate signatures for early voting in the 2022 primary and 2020.
Do you see the slide at the bottom entitled "Voter Signatures Accessing the Voter Signature Images?" Yes.
So when you were conducting signature review, were you looking at computer images or actual hard copies of the ballot envelope?
It was the hard copy that was scanned and was on the computer screen.
Can you describe for me and for the court how signature verification would work mechanically?
Sitting in front of a computer screen, what would you do?
So we would come in every day, log into our computer, and log into the VRAS system, the voter signature, and then we would click start and then new.
To bring up a batch of 250 signatures to go through the green affidavits.
Once we click start, an image would pop up.
Once the image popped up, we were supposed to go through our 11 points to verify the name of the voter matched in the history from before.
And it could have been a combination of voter registration forms.
Or past green affidavit envelopes.
And once we had verified the points, then we needed to scroll down and just look at the signature for characteristics that matched.
So when you say scroll down, what would happen to the computer screen when you scroll down?
So you still had the recent green affidavit.
In front of you.
But when you scroll down, you could see all the three that we were given, which again I said was a combination of the voter registration form or past green affidavits that we would verify off of.
So you would have to scroll down in order to verify the signature.
So a lot of times I would scroll down very slowly and then scroll back up because some of them were very difficult.
Can't get AI to do this?
Someone rightly pointed out in Rumble.
Once I verified the signature, if it was a signature that didn't match, then I would click exception, which meant rejection of that signature, which would then go to the level two managers for them to look at.
If it was an approval, then I would press good and that would go on.
And my understanding was is that ballot would come from run back for ballot processing to process.
Can you describe the various levels of signature review at Maricopa County while you were employed?
So level one was mostly part-time employees of the county just for election.
Level 2 were part-time employees that have worked several elections, and they would verify.
They actually had more signatures.
They had the full history.
So they would spend more time going through those signatures to verify if they could see a match in order to approve that ballot or that green affidavit.
Were there any levels above level two?
It's level three.
My understanding there was a level three, and I'm not sure who was handling level three.
So I think it goes to level two if it doesn't pass level one.
Were there any managers that oversaw your work or the other signature?
Correct.
So we were advised several times that we were being...
Sorry.
That we were being monitored and they were doing audits on all of us.
And we were advised that if we were either approving too many or rejecting too many, that we would be called into the office and just talked to.
If it happened a second time, we would be let go.
What do you mean approving too many?
So we were advised that they were watching everything that we were doing.
Were you ever...
Called into the office?
No, sir.
This is Carrie Lake's lawyer.
I was actually assigned extra duties.
Duties.
I guess doing a good job from the primaries.
They assigned me to do missing signatures.
So if a green affidavit was sent in with no signatures, then I would scan all those green affidavit envelopes into the system for them to keep track of which ones came in with no signatures.
And then I was given envelopes to stick the original green affidavit in the envelope with a letter stating that they forgot to sign their signature on the green affidavit form and that they had so much time to send it back.
We gave a specific date.
So I handled this every morning probably for about an hour to an hour and a half when I first came in.
The system's a joke.
You mentioned you started off with the 2022 primary election performing signature review.
Correct.
And that was after a week of training, eight hours a day, five days at eight hours a day, correct?
We didn't.
So when we first came in for the, are you speaking with the general or the primary?
I apologize.
The primary.
Okay, so when I came in for the primary, we did the training, but then they sent, A large group of us to the county recorder's office because they were running behind on new registration forms we handled and also voters that moved.
So they had sent out notices saying, are you still at this address?
And then they would send it back in.
So then we would go into the VM08 to verify their information.
And then pass it on to whoever was in charge of us at the county.
When you talk about going into the VM08, was that part of the signature review process or something else?
It was, but that was more at the curing process when we were done verifying signatures.
These were the rejected ballots that the signatures were no good.
And so we finished on the 11th is when we did the last signatures.
And then we started.
Going back into the history, just to take another look first, whether or not we could find a signature within all of their history.
And once we did that, if we could not, then we would try to locate a phone number and contact the voter to verify their information over the phone.
These are not really the votes that they want to be.
For the primary, can you describe the setup Maricopa had?
Or performing signature review with levels one and two?
It was the same as the general, only they had more of a sense of urgency because we were getting so many ballots in and we had a much smaller crew for the primary election.
So we were working longer hours.
You said during the primary you were working longer hours?
Yes.
Where was the sense of urgency that you mentioned?
Was it the primary or the general?
The primary.
How many stations were set up by Maricopa for signature review?
Primary or general?
During the primary or the general?
During the primary, there was probably six to seven in the second room and maybe six to seven in the first room where I worked.
So about the same as during the general?
So that's between 12. To 14 stations?
Correct, plus the three managers that were for second level that were on the site.
17. So that would be 15 to 17. Correct.
Give or take, compared to the general.
Can you describe the setup for that?
Oh, court is so boring.
I mean, it was pretty much the same.
We focused in on handling all of the verification of the green affidavits.
Whatever was rejected, we sent to Level 2, and then they verified whether or not they could find a signature that matched.
With the general, I felt more of a sense of urgency like we did with the primary.
And we worked literally to the very last day, to the very last second, where with the general, we ended on, would have been Tuesday the 14th at noon, they had us go home.
Okay, they're trying to show that the general signature verification was speaker.
Wednesday was the last day at five, so we didn't understand why we were leaving early when there was ballots left in the bins.
Okay, fine.
And we had asked the manager, are you sure?
Do you want us to go home?
Would you like us to keep trying to call these voters to get these ballots cured?
And they said no.
Do you have an understanding as to the number of ballots being processed for signature verification in the primary versus the number of ballots in the general election that were being processed for signature verification?
There was a lot less for the primary, and there was, I want to say close to 1.3 for the general.
1.3 million.
We didn't have as many for the primary election.
And you say 1.3 million?
For the general.
How many were during the primary?
Can you describe for me the number of stations that were employed for the general election for signature review?
There was about...
24 for the day shift, and that was split between room one and room two.
And then we also had a night crew coming in that they hired that worked from 3.30 to 7, 7.30ish at night.
Were there the same number of level two signature verifiers in the general as in the primary?
Yes.
So that would be three?
Correct.
Tell me, you mentioned shifts.
What shift were you on?
I was on the day shift.
And this is in the general?
Correct.
And I was also on the day shift for primary.
What were the hours for the day shift?
Trying to see how many votes.
For primary or general?
For general.
For the general, we started every morning at 7.30.
And they usually wanted us out the door by 6.30, 7. And when you say out the door, was that the first shift was out the door by 6.30 or 7?
Everyone, including night shift.
So when did the day shift end?
It was supposed to end at 4.35 in the afternoon, but then they were asking people to volunteer to stay.
And so it was just maybe two of us, two or three of us.
My counterpart that sat next to me stayed.
When did the second shift begin and end?
3.30.
And when did it end?
At about 7, 7.30.
So at the same time.
How was it possible to have two shifts working at the same time with 24 stations?
Starting at 3.30 because half of my crew would leave.
They didn't want to stay.
So there was...
Less of us there working.
So at any one time during a day, were there more than 24 Level 1 signature reviewers during the general election?
Not that I am aware of.
How many were there more than three Level 2 signature reviewers during the general election?
To be honest with you, I know just of Andrew.
William and Jeff.
I'm not sure who else was working level two.
This is getting a little confusing and it's there.
Before the general election, could you describe your workload, meaning how many signatures you would review on a typical day?
So the batches were 250.
I did keep a tally on a sheet, so each time I would finish going through a batch of 250.
I would put a mark down.
So every day I usually did between six to eight batches of 250.
I can see your super chat.
I'm not your buddy guy.
How did that compare to your workload during the primary?
Well, we stayed there much later.
Some of us were there till nine at night, some till 10. So we did a lot more as far as batches.
Because of the long hours.
This is a jury trial.
How many days a week was signature verification going on in Maricopa?
In general?
Jesus, clarify it.
The first couple weeks we didn't work the weekends, but the last couple of weekends prior to elections we were there.
This is Carrie Lake's first week.
Was that Saturday and Sunday or just Saturday?
There were some Saturdays and Sundays.
But I also worked...
I was pulled to work in adjudication because they were short and had way too many adjudicated ballots.
So a lot of times, even though we were let go at 7, I was there sometimes till 1030 at night with the adjudication team.
Was there any way that the signature level one signature verifiers and level two could keep track of the number of ballots that were going to be ready for review?
Was there any general notification in the room of the number of ballots that would be ready for review by levels one and two?
Celia Naber, the director, would send us an email every morning of how many ballots that we needed to verify the signatures.
And then she also would put what we hadn't completed from the day before and added it to that number.
So we got emails every day.
For the general election, we didn't get emails.
They actually had a whiteboard in the second room that they would write down the number of Ballots that we needed to verify signatures.
So I really didn't see the numbers that they were putting down because that was not my room.
We didn't have the whiteboard in our room.
But I know that they did write the number of ballots that we had to get through for the day.
Do you have any recollection as to generally what the number of ballots that were to be processed each day?
30,000?
So I know for the first few weeks for the general it was...
Sometimes 50, sometimes 60, sometimes 70. Those first couple weeks.
And is that 50, 60, 70,000?
Yes, sorry.
So that's if they're running two shifts.
I just did the math.
It's 30,000 per shift, give or take.
So 60,000 a day.
Did you interact with the level two reviewers?
I did.
During the general?
I did, yes.
Mainly...
Because we were having so many problems with signatures and the rejections that I would turn around and apologize and say, I am so sorry that I'm sending you these.
Because they were getting overloaded with signatures and they were getting frustrated.
And when you say they, are you referring to level two reviewers?
Yes.
And so how did you know they were getting frustrated?
I'd let you know, why were they getting rejected so much at level one?
We would go out on breaks or at lunch, and Andrew and Jeff would complain about how many they were having to go through, and they didn't think they were going to be able to get through those signatures because there was too many and there was not enough of them.
I do know there were times when rejected signatures that I did send to them, they actually sent them back to us because they got so overloaded for Level 2. So, because we would question, we would ask the manager, you know, I just looked at the signature and I rejected it.
Why am I seeing the same signatures again?
And so they would say, you know, the level two managers are giving, they've got too many to go through, so we're just sending them back to you to re-review and see if there isn't anything that matches.
Re-review.
Who told you that to re-review?
Usually it was either Tony, my supervisor, or Michelle would come in, or Celia.
Because it wasn't just me complaining, it was other people in my room that were complaining of how many.
Because we kept having to call the managers over to come and look at the signatures of how bad they were.
They weren't matching up, and what do I do with this?
So they would come over and just tell us.
You need to be very cautious.
You need to pay attention to what you're doing and remember that whatever you reject or approve, you could be called in to testify.
Okay.
And I think that's why a lot of us were asking them to come over and look because there was so many bad signatures.
How do you know that the...
What signatures that had been sent up to Level 2 were being sent back?
Because we asked.
You know, we had noticed ones that we had already rejected were being put back into the queue.
So we asked, you know, I just did this maybe like a half an hour ago.
If it's a unique name, you're going to remember.
And so a lot of us were stating, why are we seeing these?
Is this not working?
What's going on?
And we were told by Tony or Michelle or Loma or Celia that they kicked it back because Level 2 had too many to go through.
They just wanted to make sure, you know, for us to go back through and really verify whether or not we couldn't find a match.
Couldn't find anything that would allow us to pass it.
So who is Tony?
Tony was my direct supervisor.
Tony.
And was he employed by Maricopa County?
He's a full-time permanent.
Employee.
And Tony sends it back for review.
You mentioned Celia.
You know what to do.
Correct.
And who is she?
She was the director, and she was a full-time permanent employee.
And you mentioned a third person?
Michelle.
She was also a full-time permanent employee.
Here, they got to talk slow so the judge can take notes, as you see.
If the judge stops taking notes, that's a bad sign.
But this is so bloody slow.
What kind of pressure did you feel in processing?
Confection.
Well, I was...
Signatures for signature verification during the general...
Objection?
I think we all felt really pressured when they sent back what we had already reviewed.
Very leading question, even for their own witness.
And we really didn't feel comfortable about approving what we had already rejected.
We had already went through them.
So, you know, when we questioned them about it, they just told us, if you still don't feel like you can find a match, go ahead and reject it.
And I did.
Because I did not feel comfortable approving something that I had already rejected.
We'd already went through them.
I'm going to talk to you a bit about her intro.
Did you ever hear of the Level 2 reviewers complaining about the number of ballots that were being rejected and sent up for them for Level 2 review?
Yes.
It was taking him quite a bit of time because he was having to go through him, meaning Andrew and Jeff.
We're complaining because they were having to spend more time to try and locate a signature that would match throughout their history.
And I asked, you know, I apologize to them, especially for Andrew.
He was there when we started in the morning.
And the next day when he would talk to us, he was there till 9 or 10, sometimes 11 o 'clock at night, trying to go through level two.
I know that Jeff and William always left at 5, 530-ish.
So he was left by himself to get through those for level two.
What number went to level two?
What amount?
During what period of time in the general election did these complaints occur?
All throughout.
Especially for the newer people that hadn't worked the elections.
They didn't feel comfortable with what they were seeing.
They were complaining.
I know that sometimes we even, I know Jeff was keeping track, like a spreadsheet, an Excel spreadsheet, because we were catching signatures of individuals that didn't even belong in the history.
Meaning, say if it's a John Smith, and it was a woman's name, and this wasn't a married couple.
This was completely different names.
So they told us to write down the voter ID, the name of the person, and to give it to Jeff, the second-level manager, and he was keeping a spreadsheet of all of those signatures.
And we were told they were going to clean up the voter history to try and get rid of those out of.
Because we asked, how did these even possibly get into the history?
They're not the same name.
They weren't a relative.
How did this happen?
The addresses were different, everything.
This is not clear enough for the spec.
How do you feel your experience during the general election with the events you're just describing compared to other Level 1 signature reviewers during the general election?
Objection speculation, Your Honor.
That lays some foundation if you're going to ask that.
Did you have discussions with the other Level 1 signature reviewers?
While you were working in the general election?
We really didn't have discussions about those specific signatures.
We were so very close that you could hear them call Tony or Michelle or Aloma over to show them that that name did not belong in the history.
And so that's when Sue, you came in and told us, you need to write down the name, the voter ID, and make sure that you give it to Jeff so that he can...
Complete the spreadsheet, the Excel spreadsheet for us.
How did this affect the rate of processing of ballots in the general election, what you've just described?
This is an important question.
Objection, speculation.
I heard the question generally, not just to the witness.
In your experience, how did it impact the count?
Did what you just described of having to talk with the managers about the ballots that shouldn't be there, how did that affect your ability to process signatures?
It slowed it down.
It made me really check to verify all the points that the voter that we had the green affidavit come in.
Matched what we were looking in the history.
That's not what he wants from you.
So when we started getting them in there, I think we spent more time trying to really make sure that this was the correct voter.
Did you have discussions with your peers on breaks or anything like that?
Or did you overhear comments by other Level 1 reviewers during the general election?
Yes, they were complaining a lot about a lot of the bad signatures.
The room that you were in, is it an open room or were there separate?
No, it's an open room.
We had cubicles, but we could see each other, talk to each other.
It's not just that it caused delays.
If they do the proper signature verification and it takes longer, bad argument.
This has to lead to them skipping over other signatures.
During the general election, were all 24 stations filled during the day that you could observe?
Correct.
There were no open seats.
And did that go from morning until the close of the shift in the evening?
No.
Once 5 o 'clock hit, then there was less of us in room 1. Because we had several people that didn't want to stay over time and went home.
Would that station seat then remain empty?
Yes.
The judge is taking notes.
That's what you want to see, in theory.
Or he's doodling.
Might be writing an O.J. Simpson type.
If I had done certain things during an election, this is how I would have done it.
So yeah, they've got to show that as a result of the delay...
Do you recall November 8th, Election Day?
Yes.
And can you describe what...
You saw happen on election day with the number of ballots that came in.
We didn't have very many ballots on election day.
So a lot of us were pulled to work in other departments.
We maybe had a few thousand to go over in the morning.
And then once we finished, I floored my...
My co-partner that sat next to me was a Democrat, and so they usually, if we had vote numbers, they sent the two of us to go over and work adjudication.
She remarked that the person was a Democrat?
And then others were sent to SCB, which is the special election.
Hi, everyone.
Mark Barden here at Sandy Hook Promise.
How do I skip this?
On December 14, 2012, my seven-year-old son Daniel was shot to death in his first class at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Hold on.
The shooter shot.
I'm going to say close to 298,000 ballots that we had to go through.
It's very overwhelming.
What was...
Did you have discussions with the Level 2 reviewers about this?
Cross-examination, they're going to pick up on that comment about her...
I think mainly just because they were complaining and we would apologize for sending over the rejected signatures that they were getting several.
Again, a couple of them would say, you know, you guys are spot on.
Don't stress.
Don't worry.
You're doing it right.
We're also not finding a match.
Tony comes in and says, hey, stop sending these ballots to level two.
You mentioned earlier that signatures were being kicked back from level two to level one.
Correct.
Did that happen?
During this period when, as you say, you were bombarded with balance?
Yes.
Can you describe in more detail what happened?
Just that we would be going through signatures and then we would notice one that we had just went over that had been kicked back because Level 2 got too overwhelmed with their cues.
This is the crux.
What were you told to do?
And so they would come in and say, we are sending back the Level 2 manager cue to you to...
Just recheck.
Check it a second time and make sure you're not missing anything.
Tony comes in and says, don't send them back to us.
Do you know who made the determination to send the ballots back from level two to level one?
Tony.
You know, when we get up and say something to Tony, I'm assuming it was Celia.
I cannot say that for sure, though.
I just know that it was kicked back to us.
How did you feel when ballots were being kicked back from level two to level one?
Well, it's just adding on the same work that we'd already done.
And most of us re-rejected them and sent them back to level two.
And when you say most of us, who are you referring to?
Within our group in room one.
They were complaining.
How many were complaining when you say a group of us?
Maybe six, seven.
Were they Republicans or Democrats, the ones who were complaining?
Actually, I'd like to know that.
Do you know what happened to the signatures that had been sent back?
A second time.
If they were re-rejected, what happened to them?
Okay.
I don't know because I could not see what level two managers were doing.
This lawyer better know what happened to them and it better be bad because if he asks that question and she doesn't know and it's not bad.
How long did it take to...
Process the 298,000 or so ballots that you say came in on November 9th.
I know that we finished on Friday, the 11th.
Did it surprise you that that number of ballots were processed so quickly?
Yes.
Why?
Because it takes time to actually scroll through and go through those signatures.
And the rejection, it takes even longer for the level 2 manager to go through the full history to try and find a match.
So how long did it take for the 300,000 that came in on the 9th?
Between November 9th and that Friday, how many level 1 signature reviewers did you see on those two and a half days working each day?
Same amount.
Everyone was there, so it would have been the full 24. And how long were the workdays on November 9th, 10th, and 11th?
Again, they made sure that we were out of there no later than 7. Everybody had to leave.
And when you say 7, you're talking about 7 p.m.?
Yes, sir.
So, to your knowledge, did everybody leave at 7 p.m.?
To my knowledge, yes, including the night crew.
So, to your knowledge, there were no Level 1 reviewers after 7 p.m.?
Correct.
Okay, so were there Level 2 after 7?
And that was for the 9th, 10th, and 11th of November.
Correct.
I know that when we got those numbers in, they had advised us that they had, because at the county recorder office, they had brought them over and had them trained by The signature specialist so that they can verify signatures.
So I know that they told us, so you came in and told us that they were also working on it at the county recorder's office and also the special elections board out in their building where they were working.
They were also verifying signatures out there.
Were you told why the normal level one Reviewers were told to go home after 7 p.m., and the signature review function was performed at the county recorder's office?
No, we thought it was odd.
Why did you think it was odd?
Well, because we had observers that were constantly watching what we were doing, but there was, I'm assuming, no observers there.
Who was watching what they were doing?
Don't assume unless you know.
I don't know.
We just thought it was...
You know, we thought they would come to where we worked at.
Maybe they set up in a different area for them to verify signatures.
But they didn't.
They just told us they had the regular county recorder employees working signature there to try and get through all of those.
Did that ever...
During the primary, you had said, I believe, there was a sense of urgency during the primary.
Correct.
They wanted to get as many ballots once the election was over cured.
So, meaning all the rejected ballots that the signatures didn't match, they wanted them, as many as possible, to be cured.
Meaning we were...
Looking up in the VM08 system to go through their full history, and then if we could not find one that matched, then we would call, look for a number to call.
If it wasn't on the green affidavit envelope, we would look in the history for a phone number and try and contact the voter to verify.
They did this for how many?
There were 300,000 after election day.
I'm going to go get a drink while he waits.
Are you aware about primaries?
If the signature verification process was performed at the county recorder's office or any other location beyond MTEC?
For the primaries, they didn't tell us whether or not they were doing it.
They did for the general because we had received so many green affidavit envelopes in from the night of the election.
Would you have been, how willing would you have been to work extended hours on November 9th, 10th, and 11th to process these additional ballots?
We would have stayed late, but again, you know, if they sent us home at 7, most of the time Floyd and I, my partner that was a Democrat, we would run in and mark adjudication.
Until 10.30, 11 o 'clock at night.
Did you work late, or strike that, did Level 1 signature reviewers work past 7 p.m. during the 2022 primary to review signatures and verify them?
Yes.
How late?
Sometimes 8, sometimes 9, sometimes 10. It just varied on how many we had left over.
Because usually they didn't want any more than 2,000 to 3,000 left in the queue for us to get to in the morning with what was coming in the next day.
Did anyone else express concern?
I'll strike that.
Were there signature verification workers at Level 1 that you know worked the primary with you and were also working?
The general?
Yes, both in room one where I worked and also in room two.
Do you know approximately how many level one reviewers worked both the primary and general?
The majority.
Who cares?
He wants to...
Maybe at the most 10. Are you aware of anyone else expressing concerns about why on November 9th,
10th, and 11th, the facility for processing and verifying signatures, people were told to go home at 7 p.m., Level 1 reviewers, for example?
Yeah, we were concerned because there were so many of them to get through.
And we did, we actually, several of us asked if we could stay and help with the process, but they said no.
And when you say they said no, who is they?
Celia, Michelle, Tony, Aloma.
Earlier you testified that there was a board and it showed sometimes 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 ballots to be processed each day.
Do you know if that board was utilized during the November 9th and 10th and 11th?
I don't know for sure.
I was not in that room.
She did start crying in her opening questions, which...
After November 11th, did you continue working in a...
Was there any Level 1 signature review going on after November 11th, to your knowledge?
No, we actually started to cure the ballots.
We went into the VM08 and looked through all the history.
They brought in bins of ballots and they gave us a red bin for rejected signatures, a green bin for...
Ones that we were able to find the signatures that matched.
And then the white ones were ones that we...
I think the white ones were just that they brought them in for us to pull stacks to bring to our desk.
When did you end your work with Maricopa on the 2022 general election?
That would have been the 15th at noon they sent us home.
Do you know whether all the ballots had been completed curing at that time?
No.
Had they or do you know?
There was several bins left over.
I know there was several in our room and we asked the manager, Aloma, and Tony, you know, are you sure you don't want us to stay to complete our work?
And she said no.
And when you say there were several bins, do you have an idea how many ballots were left over?
In our room, I'm going to estimate six to seven, because we had about seven bins in our room left over.
I don't know what was left in the second room, but I know there was many, because they were also working on them.
So those are the ones that have to be clear.
When you say six to seven, is that six to seven thousand?
Correct.
They were the very large mail bins and they had them clear full stuffed.
Did you have any discussions with your colleagues at level one signature reviewers about being sent home?
Yes, we were wondering why they were sending us home when there was still many to cure and we still had one more day.
You all were sent home.
Who was going to do the curing?
The level two?
I have no idea.
Did that ever happen during the primary, 2022 primary election?
No, as I stated, we stayed until the very last second to do the curing process.
We were running.
We were making phone calls.
We were checking through the history.
For the primary, they weren't just curing their ballots through our phone calls.
They were also curing them through text message.
They were curing them through emails, meaning they would send in a copy of their photo ID for us to verify their signature.
And then we would have to run, we would take those forms that Celia and Michelle and Tony had printed out.
And attach it to the ballots that were in alphabetical order.
And then that would go in a separate bin for them to come and grab.
They would stamp it and then forward it on to Runbeck.
They can't be hanging their hat on the curing of the ballots.
They have to be hanging it on the amount that were sent back.
To be approved improperly because Level 2 said, enough sending them to us.
Go back and re-review them.
But by her own testimony, they would re-not approve them, send them back to Level 2. And so now it's going to be a question of what they did with them when they were sent back to Level 2?
Your Honor, we're finished right now, Your Honor.
Okay, no further questions on break.
What?
Your Honor, I'm ready to begin, but I'm cognizant of the court reporter's time.
1040, something about for an hour and a half, so I don't know if the court wants to break here.
No, go, go.
You should go.
Yes, we'll do that right now.
Okay, we'll take a 15-minute break and resume after that.
Can I leave this here?
Yes, ma 'am.
Leave it exactly there, and you can...
Take your break and stretch your legs, whatever you'd like.
So, alright, if we're thinking objectively and we're talking objectively, we'll wait for them to leave the room.
I'm going to leave it in the background while we continue to talk.
Let's see if this is a real 15 minutes.
It's 1.41 Eastern Time.
So they should be back by 1.56 Eastern Time.
Painfully boring?
I'm going to remove.
And so I'm going to see this here.
Okay.
So Bob's Wisconsin Adventures.
First of all, that looks beautiful.
60,000 ballots, 24 people, 10 hours of work.
That's four seconds per ballot.
They had more ballots than 60,000.
So, let me bring that comment off.
Okay, so now they've...
Let me see what just happened there.
Removed from the meeting.
Someone just removed you from the meeting.
I think Arizona court just got kicked out of the meeting.
Oh, well.
They'll come back in.
Hopefully.
Take this out of here.
Take this off.
Okay.
Take this off.
Take this off.
I want to visit Bob Lake, Wisconsin.
Okay, so what did we miss?
I don't know how many days they had for the trial.
I was trying to find that before we continue.
This was the first witness.
They had their opening arguments.
And the opening arguments, both plaintiff, Carrie Lake, defendant, Hobbs, et al., made their statements.
I'm just going to go to my notes because it was enthralling.
In the opening arguments, Carrie Lake's attorneys, We're raising the argument that...
I may have gotten the numbers slightly off, but for about 250,000, 260,000 ballots, the review...
Now I got...
Now I'm getting a sugar level ad.
For 260,000 ballots, the argument was that it took...
The signature verification took three seconds.
For 70,000 ballots, the signature verification took less than two seconds.
And so it sounded like from the opening arguments that what the argument was going to be is that there was no meaningful signature verification.
I don't understand what the hell they were getting at after their first witness.
And I mean, that was long, meandering.
And what points did it make?
I'm going to bring up, I'm not your buddy guy, and I'm going to go take a rumble rant.
To this day, I still wonder why China sent crates full of American driver's licenses.
Remember that story?
Where I believe Texas confiscated that in 2019.
I don't remember that.
Hold on one second.
Stop screen.
Let's go here.
China, crate, drivers, license, Texas.
Thank you.
I'm not seeing anything come up right away.
I'm not your buddy, guy.
I am seeing 3,000 driver's licenses were accidentally sent to crime organizations.
Let's see.
Okay, it doesn't matter.
So, American Dreamer, see the video of one guy verifying 40 plus and other verified six.
I don't know what the point of that witness was.
In the opening arguments, they were seemingly raising the argument that they weren't challenging the protocol because that was one of the distinctions that the judge made, is that if you challenge the protocol, the parties knew of the protocol before Election Day, and your time to challenge the protocol, if you didn't like the protocol, was before Election Day, not after Election Day.
And so the judge said...
You know, you don't get to challenge the protocol after Election Day when you could have and ought to have done it before if you did not like the protocol that was given to the parties and everybody knew about it.
Fine.
What it sounded like the lawyer was going to raise as an argument is that it's not the protocol, which cannot be challenged, but the implementation of the protocol.
How they actually went about verifying the signatures.
It sounded like, in opening argument, they were going to make the argument that there was no...
Signature verification, in that there was no meaningful signature verification, because what you have, as the witness I thought was getting to, is, you know, she was describing the eight criterion, eight criteria, the eight points of verification, eight aspects that you look at when comparing the signatures, and I thought they were going to get to the punchline of eight points for verification, and if it took three seconds for...
A quarter of a million ballots.
What are you doing?
You're doing like a half a second on each element?
Like the letters, etc.
I thought that's where they were going to go with this.
And the ones that took two seconds, the 70,000 for which there was a two-second verification, you know, that's even worse if you have to verify eight points.
It's unfeasible.
You're basically just like rubber stamp, rubber stamp, rubber stamp.
There is no meaningful signature verification.
They might still be getting there because I think that that should be the argument.
Maybe...
What they're getting at with this witness is that even when they raised issues, even when they raised issues, they were being bumped back for review as if Level 2 is saying, don't give us this many issues with the signatures.
Send them back and you know what we're telling you to do when we send them back.
Rubber stamp them because we don't want to see them again.
Maybe that was right.
Okay.
We'll see.
This witness, so she starts testifying, by the way, and it's not to make fun of anybody who cries, period.
It's that, you know, under certain circumstances, it will cause you to come to certain conclusions about the witness.
You might all recall that during the...
The commissioner there, Commissioner Rouleau's inquiry, the inquiry in Canada into Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act, when the mayor, or was it the mayor?
No, the constable, the chief.
When the police chief came in and started crying, I'm like, okay, I'm a little skeptical as to what you're crying about here.
I'm skeptical as to what you're crying about here.
This is not the type of subject that should elicit tears.
This witness comes up and starts crying immediately while she's testifying about how important it is for her and why she got involved in this because she wants to make sure her kids' votes count.
Some people might see crying as emotion, passion, and others might see it as instability and a cause for concern in a witness who might be not unstable because there's nothing wrong with crying, but who might be unstable.
Or bias, or something else might be going on.
So the witness comes in.
She says she's a registered Republican.
She has voted Democrat.
She voted for Obama.
Don't know if she voted for Obama once or twice.
Those who don't get the reference, when I interviewed Mark Robert and Eric Hundley, it seems that Mark Robert of America's Untold Stories voted for Obama not once, but twice.
Now I'm going to go back here.
So she registered Republican, voted for Obama, so has voted Democrat, but wanted to get involved in the voting process because she was disenfranchised, for lack of a better word.
She didn't use that word, but she said, I saw what happened.
I wanted to get involved, make sure it counts, you know, the vote for my kids counts, etc., etc.
Started crying off the bat, not a good sign.
And other than that, we saw her testimony.
So she was counting the ballots.
She did it during the primaries.
Did it during the general.
Thought it was much more thorough during the primaries.
They had a bigger team.
They worked longer days right up until the end.
During the general, they had seemingly roughly the same size team.
But she was told not to work up until the end.
She was not working as long days, apparently, or was being told to leave by 7 o 'clock.
Was not appreciating the fact that the Level 2 review of the signatures that have been rejected by Level 1 were bumping it back to Level 1, saying, you know, implicitly, don't give us so many signatures to verify, fix it.
And that's it, as far as I can tell.
And maybe I'm missing something, because I don't know what the point...
That was their witness and their first witness, and I don't know what they think they proved with that.
This is from...
The Rumble, where we're live.
Telio Hapsis says, counting up by increments of one is literally the easiest mathematical operation for a human and or computer to do.
All of this ad nauseum procedural hair splitting is misdirection, in my humble opinion.
We're going to remove that.
Now, I do have to find where the next live stream is going to be.
Because it seems that the link I had is dead or down.
They cut it.
Let me see what else is going on.
Give me a second, people.
I'm going to try to find another live link.
Okay.
Okay.
Cannot find a live link.
The next live link.
Hold on.
So let's just...
Pull up one article so that we can understand what's going on here.
Ballot curing, because there was an article from the day, although see if it's been updated.
Let me see here.
Published, updated, 518.
So this is November 15, 2022.
Ballot curing, which is what they were talking about.
Ballot curing in Arizona, what is it and why you need to act now if you're affected?
I don't, I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
Carrie Lake's team cannot be hanging their hat on improperly cured ballots, I don't think.
Maybe they can.
Let me just see who's going on here.
Okay.
Robert Gouveia just sent me the link to Maricopa County Courthouse, so I should be able to get the link that we were just using there.
Link.
Give me two seconds.
I'm going to send this to myself.
Paste.
It's been a week since the midterm elections.
Yeah, and while many race predictions have...
There are still ballots to be counted, and for some people, they will need to fix some issues on their ballots before their ballot will be counted.
Here's what you need to know about ballot curing.
What is ballot curing?
According to the Council of State Governments website.
Is this Arizona?
Yeah, it is.
Ballot curing is a procedure where a voter, after they were notified of a signature-related error, is given time to correct that error.
No one signs their signature exactly the same each time, but there are characteristics that we look for in the match.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay.
What is the ballot curing rule for Arizona?
Under Arizona law, voters with inconsistent signatures on their early ballot or voters who did not sign their early ballot are given a chance to cure their ballots.
However, the time for ballot curing differs in each case.
What's the deadline to cure my ballot?
According to Arizona law, voters must cure their early ballot by the fifth business day after a primary, general, or special election or the third business day after any other election.
For voters who did not sign their early ballot deadline to cure, 7 p.m. on Election Day.
According to the Maricopa County Election Department website, the final day for people to cure a signature issue or provide an ID for a conditional provisional ballot, 5 p.m.
November 16. What does the curing process entail?
We sent letters, text messages, yada, yada, yada.
Okay, fine.
In Arizona, the only state...
Is Arizona the only that has ballot...
Okay, no.
Okay, so that doesn't really tell us very much.
Let's get this out of here.
Oh, by the way, this is the only ad I've...
The only thing I've ever...
The second thing I've ordered from an ad that I saw on the internet, only for a product review, I want to see if this ad thing actually works.
Come to think of it.
It should have been delivered to me by now.
Okay, now let me see about that link that Robert Gouveia sent me.
Okay, we're going down.
Let's see here.
Give me a second, people.
I'm going to try to get the Zoom link again.
Thank you.
Harry Lake, live streaming.
Here we go.
Okay, view.
Oh, look at this.
Feed.
Okay, it looks like I've got the feed.
But I'm not sure here.
Hold on one second.
Okay, stop screen.
I've already got it.
And my kid said, you can't get more six-pack.
I've got it.
I'm going to do a product review.
And it will be a business expense.
Okay, now, what the heck is going on here?
I'm trying to find the...
I have this link.
To the court hearing.
Check this out here.
Later.
Here.
Present.
Okay.
I'm going to go court hearings today.
So this is the court.
Let's just do a lake and see.
Blake, Lakeisha, Blake, Lakeisha, Lake.
Okay.
Now we go to the live stream.
The feed.
I guess we're going to go online in a second and see this.
The feed that I had through Arizona TV.
Was cut.
So we're going to see if this brings it up.
We'll take this out for now.
Alright, so that's it.
Now, the other question I wanted to know is how many days is this trial going on for?
Hold on.
Cary Lake trial live.
Let's just see.
Here, this is an article that I will bring up just so we can talk about this.
See how the media's...
Trial begins over Cary Lake's last challenge to the loss.
How do I get rid of this ad?
A three-day trial.
I'm not live-streaming all three days.
Tomorrow, I'll be testifying at the National Citizens Inquiry.
I've been getting my memory refreshed and getting my links up and my evidence that I hope to adjuice.
Tomorrow, should be at 3 o 'clock.
National Citizens Inquiry.
I'll be live-streaming that on my end.
But I know that other people are going to be live-streaming this trial for the remainder of it.
And maybe I'll try to get on it again Friday.
Three-day trial is scheduled to begin over the remaining legal claim in Republican Carrie Lake's challenge of her loss to Katie Hobbs.
Three-day trial is set to begin Wednesday.
The only remaining legal issue is...
Well, let's see how they're describing that.
On the only legal remaining claim, which was signature verification.
The former TV anchor was among most...
Hold on, let me just see if this trial has started again.
It doesn't look like it's back up yet.
Oh, now I just lost my article.
The former TV anchor was among the most vocal in last year's Republican candidates promoting former Trump election lies, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign.
Election lies.
Anybody who believes that they were lies after having seen the Durham report and what Trump said about the Durham report or about being spied on that the same media said were lies, I mean, anybody who just like...
Comfortably says lies.
And not that some of the stuff was inaccurate and incorrect and Fox News and Giuliani and Sidney Powell and others are probably going to pay the price for that.
The false statements.
Read the Time article on the fortification of the election.
Oh yeah, the lies.
While most other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races, Lake did not.
She lost by more than 17...
Thousand votes.
How many million were cast?
Courts have dismissed most of her lawsuit, but the Arizona Supreme Court revived one claim that challenges the implementation of signature verification procedures on early ballots in Maricopa County.
Okay, home to more than 60% of the state's voters.
The implementation of the process.
Well, their first witness, as far as I'm concerned, in my humble opinion, Did not do very much to call into question the implementation.
If anything, if it comes out that the second tier actually went through and approved or rejected ballots after they were re-rejected a second time by the first level, that's going to be bad evidence, not good evidence, for Carrie Lake.
Superior Court, thus Thompson, said in the ruling that Lake alleges...
They fail to perform any higher-level signature verifications on mail-in ballots that have been flagged by lower-level screeners for any inconsistencies.
Okay, good.
Lake's lawyers maintain that they are challenging all levels of signature verification.
Okay, good.
So, all levels, willy-nilly, no meaningful verification at the first level.
Three seconds for eight points verification for quarters of millions of...
Oh, I hear something.
Oh, the trial's coming back.
Okay.
And then what else do we have on that?
I hear something.
I'll bring it up in a second.
Three workers on lower-level signatures who filed declarations according to Lake's behalf said they experienced rejection rates due to mismatch signatures.
I hear it.
Hold on.
Lake versus...
Here we go.
Look at this.
What did I just do?
I just jinxed it.
Have I done something?
Did I mute this?
I did mute it.
Party representatives present or their presence waiting.
We have all respective counsel for all parties present.
So, at the break, we had yet to begin the cross-examination.
I understand you'll be doing that, Mr. O 'Connor?
Yes, Your Honor.
Are there going to be other defendants cross-examining as well?
I think I'm the only one.
We're going to get it.
Very well.
Okay.
And we have the witness.
Remains under oath, and she is ready to proceed.
So you may proceed with cross-examination as soon as you're ready.
They're going to get her on the fact that there was a re-review and that they sent them back up.
Good mid-morning, Ms. Ona Keats.
Ona Keats, sorry.
My name is Jack O 'Connor.
I'm with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
Jack O 'Connor?
I'm going to try to do my best.
The court reporter's here, transcribing everything we say.
Don't try.
It was good on direct.
I'm trying to make sure we don't talk over each other.
If I ask you to stop so we don't talk over each other, it's just to respect the court reporter.
Morning!
First off, I want to thank you for applying to the county, for Maricopa County, and performing a public service for us and working the election and verifying.
The early ballot signatures.
Early ballot affidavit signatures.
As you know, as you witness, we can't...
Politeness.
The county cannot do this without you.
So we appreciate it.
Our loss that you moved to Colorado Springs.
If you find yourself back in Maricopa County, I hope you come back.
Enough with this.
I had cheese for breakfast.
I'm also going to ask you a series of hopefully yes or no questions.
And if I could just get you to answer those questions in a yes or no answer.
Any follow-up?
Mr. Olson or Mr. Glenn will be able to ask you those follow-up questions.
But if you could keep it to a yes or no answer, I would appreciate it.
That was the only useful thing he said thus far.
Okay.
As a...
Well, you said you were part-time, but it sounded like you worked full-time.
As a full-time county employee during this election season and the last election season, were you compensated for that time?
Yes.
Financially compensated?
Yes.
And did you cash those checks or receive direct deposit?
Yes.
Direct deposit.
Okay.
And you said you worked for the county in the primary and the general election.
Is that correct?
I'm just going to focus on the general election.
SO YOU KNOW, THAT NUMBER PERIOD, YOU KNOW, THAT NUMBERS ARE SOMEBODY.
Oh, what the flip.
Hold on.
Refresh.
Refresh!
Okay, this is not me, people.
Don't boomer me here.
This is not me.
June.
Now...
Maybe the beginning of July is when we started.
And that was for the primary and general election.
Is that correct?
Correct, but my training was done during the primary.
Okay.
Now...
What's your background?
What did you do in a...
Prior employment.
You said yes or no, sir.
When my children were little, I worked at the YMCA as a preschool teacher.
And then as they grew older, I was a manager for Marie Callendars for many years.
And then I worked at Lifetime Fitness as a manager in the cafe.
And while I was working at Lifetime Fitness, I went to school and got my medical assistance.
And I started working for a neurologist shortly after I graduated for five years.
Well, side note.
Neurologist doctor, hand signatures.
Better or worse than what you saw?
I'm going to say a lot worse.
Okay, that's good to know.
He usually had a stamp.
He shouldn't have done that, by the way.
There's a way to spin that in your favor.
Outside from deciphering the doctors you worked with, did you have any...
Do you have any prior experience with signature verification or understanding how signatures are loop-dotted and so forth?
No.
And so this training you received in June was your first exposure to this sort of, for lack of a better word, science.
So you had testified that...
The training, in your belief, that was to follow the laws and to do the job, it was also to teach you how to review signatures, the characteristics of signatures, and so forth.
That is correct.
And you still have Exhibit 46 in front of you?
I think that's the training manual.
And the record, or the...
At the bottom right-hand corner, you'll see what's called a bait stamp.
I'm talking about specifically Lake 8-432.
This was your exposure, your teachings on signatures and signature verification.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
That is correct.
And I noted that you said you came into this position wanting to do a good job because you wanted your children's vote to count.
Is that an accurate statement?
My children and my grandchildren.
Okay.
Congrats on grandchildren.
I got cavities.
Did you take that mentality with you as you reviewed these signatures?
No, I was very focused in on verifying signatures, doing the right job, and making sure whether or not the signature matched.
You answered my bad question.
So, based on your training, do you understand that when a signature is determined consistent, that that ballot then is...
Removed and then directed towards tabulation for counting.
Correct.
So once a signature was verified that it was good, then they would take the green affidavit and send over.
Once when the computer system, my understanding was, then the next morning we would have those.
Okay, wait, can you rephrase that?
So I don't.
Once it's verified.
Anytime I ask a poor question, I'm bound to do it.
Please ask me so we can be on the same page here.
Once it's approved, it goes for time.
Based off your training, what is your understanding of what happens to the ballot once you verify it as a good signature?
Then it was sent over to run back.
I guess a list of which were good signatures and those green affidavit envelopes would come over the next morning usually and then it was sent over to ballot processing to open the ballots and count them.
Okay, so it's your understanding that the process would end up with that ballot being counted?
Correct.
So is it safe to say that you wanted to ensure that The signatures on the affidavit were consistent with the signatures you were viewing so that that person's ballot could be counted?
So, we usually would have to scroll down to verify, and as I said again, it was a combination of voter registration forms, past voter registration forms, Prior green affidavit envelopes.
And again, if the signature matched, we would approve it.
If not, it was rejected and sent to level two.
Okay, that's fair.
I want to ask you about your training, the training you went through.
Did part of that training, or the instructor, I should say, did that instructor instruct you to review your 250 signature batch?
Before you clicked the green button to move on to the next batch?
We actually had to go through it twice.
So it would go forward.
Once we got to the end of the 250, then we'd actually have to go back, backwards through the 250, just to make sure we weren't missing anything.
So if it was rejected, I would scroll down and verify whether or not that signature matched.
And when you say verify, Are you verifying what you've already...
On the past history, I'd have to scroll down.
And it was, again, a combination of voter registration forms or prior green affidavit envelopes.
So is it correct for me to say that even though the title is level one...
Well, sorry.
Strike that.
Strike that.
Is it correct for me to say that...
In your role as a title, a level one signature review, you are actually reviewing your batches of 250 twice?
That is correct.
That is correct.
Now, who knows what movie that's from?
1856.
As you process more ballots, could you first review the initial, go through your initial signature review?
Quicker than before?
My question's poor.
Yes, it is.
When you're going back to do the double check, it goes faster?
My question.
By the end of your time with the county, were you more efficient at reviewing signatures than before?
After your time at the county?
What do you mean, like on day five of the general?
I don't know that I would call it efficient.
Probably took my time to make sure because, again, you have to scroll through those signatures.
Sometimes it was handwritten and then they would have a cursive or maybe it was just a star or two S's.
That is correct.
When we called the manager over, I'd ask her, you know, this clearly doesn't match the three that I have to verify off of.
And so, Tony, Michelle, Alomar, or Celia would say, you know, if you see a curvature at the beginning of the signature or at the end, you can approve it.
If not, if you don't feel comfortable, then reject it.
And most of the time, I would reject it.
I did not feel comfortable with that.
Okay.
Okay.
This second review, could you do it quicker than the first review?
No, I did not do it quicker than the first review.
So that you know at the very beginning, so you came in because we were having a lot of problems with the signatures, and advise us, remember, whatever you approve or reject, you could be called in to testify.
So you need to make sure that you're really checking the signatures out before approving or rejecting.
Okay.
So we all know the phrase, and I think it's correct to say, Your focus was on quality of signatures, not the quantity of signatures.
Is that correct?
They were all doing the same batches.
$250 each, weren't they?
You could probably do it quicker.
And by it, I mean review this second review quicker.
But your focus was on the quality of the signatures.
That is correct.
That is correct.
Yeah, I can't unhear that.
And from what you just said in...
Your discussion with Mr. Olson, it sounds like this desire for quality over quantity was not just with you, but with the managers who you were engaging with.
Here he's making a point now.
I'm not sure what they were thinking.
I just know the way of what I was thinking.
The guy in the back was getting up to you.
You previously testified that they wanted you to be the managers.
The three managers you had discussed with Mr. Olson.
This is Katie Hobbs.
They wanted you to be cautious, to pay attention, and to really verify those signatures.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
This is not Carrie Lake's attorney.
This is Katie Hobbs.
And now he's going to say, yeah, it was quality.
And you did the best job that you could.
I did the best job that I could.
With the information I was given.
Yes.
And that's all the information you had was those three signatures, correct?
When we did the curing of the ballots?
No, I had full access to the...
You were just at the level one signature stage.
No, because signatures are still...
You testified you just had those three signatures that you could view, correct?
That is correct.
No, because at one point, when the bins were brought in, we're still verifying signatures.
Celia had us go back through the signatures and...
I want you to go into the VM08.
You could have missed something now that we have the live ballot.
I want you to go in and go through the full history.
If you see one that matches, please bring it to the manager and show them so that they may stamp it and forward it if it was a good signature.
When you say VM08 and Celia, is that talking about the curing process?
No.
VM08 is voting member organizer?
You described or you discussed with Mr. Olson that you were not the only level one signature reviewer.
There was a group of you.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
I'm trying to figure out what VM08 means exactly here.
If the chat knows what VM08 means, nobody defined it.
Some of these signatures were difficult to review.
Maybe you saw an old doctor.
You're not funny, sir.
Give up on it.
A difficult signature.
What did your June training teach you to do?
Not a difficult signature.
What was that analysis you performed?
If it was a bad...
Signature.
I went through the history.
You know, there's certain curlicues at the beginning of the signature, curlicues at the end sometimes.
The way that the signature was swayed either to the right or to the left.
But sometimes it didn't match at all.
And as I stated, I would call the manager over.
I'd raise my hand and call one of the managers over.
And what would he say?
Don't ask the question, but what would he say?
Is he going to ask the question?
But it's correct to say that some of these signature ballot affidavit envelopes, you approved as good signatures.
Is that correct?
There were some that were good, yes.
There was discussion about level two reviewers and managers.
You were not a level two...
Sorry, you were not assigned as a Level 2 reviewer, correct?
I was not.
That is correct.
You just engaged with them.
Well, I think that we were doing Level 2 when we were going back through the history.
And part of that, as you engaged with them, they directed you to, if you couldn't find a match on a re-review, so then...
Re-reject it.
Re-reject it, yeah.
Level 3, are you aware that Level 3 is an audit level?
Like I said, I don't know who worked Level 3. I just know we were informed several times throughout working that we were being audited every day.
And if we were approving too many signatures or rejecting too many signatures, we'd be pulled into the office, given a warning, talked to.
And if it happened a second time, we'd be let go.
I don't understand what she means by this.
I never was called into the office or talked to.
I didn't ask that.
I'm trying to figure out what she means by that.
They're necessarily going to have to approve a lot more than they're going to reject.
What just happened here?
There was some testimony about curing.
Did you participate in this curing process?
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay.
There was a comment at the beginning of this trial that said that the county recorder was simply not performing verification.
Can you rephrase that?
You're saying the county recorder, or are you speaking in regards to MTEC?
Fair question.
Sorry.
No, fair question.
There was a statement made earlier that the county, the county recorder, MTEC, We're simply not performing signature verifications.
Signatures were not being reviewed at all.
Would you agree with that statement, given your prior testimony?
At what level?
I mean...
You explained to us that you reviewed signatures.
That is correct.
Good signatures, some of those signatures.
And you rejected...
Some signatures.
Is that fair?
That is correct.
So did you perform your duty as a level one signature verification to verify signatures?
Yes.
What kind of question is this?
No further questions, Your Honor.
What the hell?
What's going on here?
Nobody's proving anything.
The only problem is it's Carrie Lake who's got to prove something.
There's no other defendants that have cross-examination.
Am I correct?
Nothing from the Secretary of State, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Nothing from the Governor, Your Honor.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, guys.
I think I understand the case well enough to say what the hell is going on.
Back to redirect.
If somebody told you that a level one reviewer reviewed 26,900 signatures with a 100% pass rate at an average of less than three seconds per signature.
Why didn't you ask this?
Would you say that's...
Signature verification as you've been trained in Maricopa.
Objection speculation.
Absolutely right.
Lack of foundation.
It's a hypothetical.
Well, you can't ask a witness a hypothetical.
It's beyond the scope of the cross.
I get it.
But I think that it is.
Why didn't you ask her this?
He rephrased the question.
What you're backtracking to was, did you perform your duty?
As a level one signature verification person, then your question, I believe, goes beyond the scope of CROSS.
I caught the beginning.
I just didn't broadcast it.
Ms. Onika, you were also asking questions about scrolling on the video screen.
That is correct.
Scrolling forward.
And then at the end of the review of the batch, you would have to go back.
I'm going to flag this one.
That is correct.
We're going to get to this.
Can you cue up Exhibit 19, please?
He said this during opening, but the opening statements are not evidence, so they have to have a witness to adduce his statements.
What demonstrative, excuse me, what has been marked as Exhibit 19?
He said it during opening.
Is it a demonstrative or an exhibit?
It's a demonstrative right now, so my apologies.
Okay.
He said it during opening.
But his opening statements are not evident.
Is that the beginning?
So he's got to get a witness to come in and make evidence of what he said was going to be made as evidence in his opening statements.
She didn't do that.
She didn't testify that there was a 100% pass rate for 26,000 ballots on anybody?
Okay, so...
Sorry, I didn't mean to get mad.
You see the video screen?
There's no jury here.
This is a judge trial.
This is a bench trial.
There's no jury here.
You can stop there.
I object to using this document or this video.
Oh my gosh.
This isn't an accumulation of things.
This is an attempt to show a video and use it to get witness from a testimony about an incident or a situation.
It has nothing to do with anything she has personal knowledge of.
Any of this come up in chief.
I haven't heard the question yet, so I'll wait until the question, but ma 'am.
Yeah, it's a bench trial.
If I'm wrong, someone correct me.
I'm going to answer the question until I have a chance to deal with the objection.
I wasn't 100% certain it was a bench trial until someone...
Ask your question.
Watch that video.
Is that signature verification as you've been trained?
Objection, Your Honor.
Does that depict signature verification that you were trained?
Let him make his objection.
Objection.
Policy speculation.
I haven't heard her say she's watched the video.
Why didn't this come out?
Did you watch the video, Ms. Onokai?
No, but this is the chief.
You see the screens flashing forward.
I appreciate your honor and objection before he continues.
Well, I think he's going to follow it with a question.
I'm letting him lay a little bit of foundation before I get to the objection and the ultimate question he wants to ask.
Did that video depict the same setup that you had when you performed Level 1 signature review?
Yeah, the judge is going to allow this.
Do you understand what was being depicted from that video?
Where are we headed here?
Well, maybe let him ask another question.
Laying a quick foundation, Your Honor.
Right, but asking her if she understands what her understanding is is not an appropriate question.
Your Honor, I also want to object.
This video's not been authenticated.
We don't know what that is on that video.
We don't know if it's a loop.
We don't know if it's cut.
We have no idea what we're looking at.
More importantly...
She testified she saw it, but I'll remind the court she was not in here when it was played earlier.
We invoke the rule of exclusion.
I'm going to have to go ahead and say I agree with this.
When did she see it?
We don't know that she saw it, I don't think.
When did you see that video?
Right now.
Did you see that video before?
I just saw it right now.
I think that's what she was talking about.
Counsel had said, did you see that video?
Or did not see the video and she was looking at the screen.
She's testified now that she's seen it and it's I believe it was projected on your screen.
Thank you.
Your Honor, this is why this entire line of questioning respectfully is inappropriate.
Respectfully, Your Honor, the witness is saying it was on her screen.
Before we go back and forth, back and forth, I don't believe what was played, the entire thing that was played for me in opening was played.
It couldn't have been in those a couple seconds.
And so if there's a problem here with what's being portrayed and what you're going to ask her that she understands from watching the video, at least she's got to see the entire video.
Before we even get to the question of what you want to ask her about it.
So if you want to play it for her, I'll let you do that now.
And then we will have question and objection after that.
Understanding that it has not been admitted into evidence, it's something that hopefully you're trying to lay some foundation for.
To get in as evidence?
Am I right?
Yes, Your Honor.
And you'll avow to me.
Uh-oh.
You'll avow to me that you intend to link this up later by establishing the foundation for the video to be admitted.
Yes, Your Honor.
Okay, good.
Now, Your Honor, if I may, authentication, and including how it was created, who created it.
I think that you do for admissibility.
I don't know.
I don't know where this has come from.
You can do that on admissibility.
That is included in foundation, and did you understand that?
Yes, Your Honor.
That's Isabelle.
I'll take it as an officer of the court.
We'll play the video for her if you'd like to, and then you'll ask your question.
Some other witness is going to have to come and admit this video as evidence.
They're using it as a demonstrative for this witness to ask her questions.
Then a later witness comes in and says, okay, that's the video.
I'm the one who took it, I guess, I think, from what I understand.
We call it paparazzi in French, like paperwork and procedural debates that waste the better part of a day at court.
Yeah, maybe I could have stayed in the practice of law if I didn't have ADHD.
I don't have that, by the way.
I've never been diagnosed with that.
Court is...
It's weird.
Because you got...
This is a demonstrative exhibit.
It's not yet evidence.
Because I presume she didn't make the video.
She's not the witness that could admit the video as evidence.
But while she's on the stand, they wanted to get her to look at it.
All right, lay the foundation, as they're calling it.
Ask her the questions.
And then later on get another witness who's the proper witness to admit it as evidence and then it becomes an evidence.
And that's why the judge said, do you avow that someone else is going to come in and put this in as evidence?
But maybe it's a bad order.
I guess they have to figure out the order of their witnesses.
What the heck is going on now?
Did I mute things?
Everyone in that courtroom is bored right now.
Let me just make sure I didn't mute.
I don't think...
What the...
Okay, the volume is there.
Oh, mamacita.
By the way, tonight, Chrissy Mayer, tomorrow night, after my testimony before the National Citizens Inquiry, Blair White, 7 o'clock.
I'm sorry.
Okay, so they're playing the video.
Yeah, but why can't we hear the video?
This is really, you know, not fun for the audience.
By the way, I may or may not be able to go the entire day with this because it's going to overlap with Chrissy Mayer at 7 o 'clock tonight.
Tomorrow, 3 o 'clock, give or take, National Citizens Inquiry.
Tomorrow night, 7 o 'clock, Blair White.
White.
We're going to have a good week.
Then Friday, I don't know.
Now, I bet you they're...
so right now she's probably watching like a training video on signature verification that's a They're probably playing some training video on signature verification.
They're going to ask her if this is what she saw, something like this, or this is what she was taught.
We're getting...
Okay, here we go.
Court reporter seems to be down on the bottom right.
Judge is in the middle.
Top left.
Did you see the time stamp on that video, Ms. Enakite?
He was actually paying more attention to the...
I represent your honor.
It was November 10th, 2022.
Well, let's testify.
Testify!
That's what it said.
Let's testify.
It'll speak for itself.
She testified she didn't see the timestamp.
I was paying more attention to what they were doing.
Did you see two stations on that video?
Yes, sir.
You earlier testified about when signatures were being reviewed that it would have to scroll down.
Do you recall that?
That is correct.
What did you see on that video?
The person on the right was doing it correctly and the person on the left was not.
And why do you say the person on the left was not?
There's no possible way to click through that and be able to verify from the past history in order to verify that signature, regardless if you're going forward through the 250 or backwards through the 250.
We were told to scroll down.
And make sure that we verify the present green affidavit with the past history affidavits.
We didn't spend any time verifying the signature.
So the video on the right, what did the video of the station on the right, what about the computer screen told you that it was being, signature verification was being done properly?
She was scrolling up and down.
Checking the signatures on the past history.
Either a combination of voter registration forms or the green affidavit.
Did you see any managers enter the room on that video?
Objection speculation?
They were slurred.
There'd have to be a foundation for that, and I think we're edging further and further from the scope of CROSS.
Why the heck did this come up in chief?
Did you recognize anybody in that video?
Pardon?
That's not speculation.
It's a yes or no question.
Yes.
Who was it?
Who did you recognize?
Me.
Celia Neighbor.
And then also the person on the left was Stephen.
I'm not sure who the person on the right was.
Thank you, Ron.
Remember the name.
All right.
May we excuse the witness?
I don't know why.
Your Honor, I ask you, may we excuse the witness?
Your Honor, before you excuse the witness, the county wants to object to this entire line of questioning that took place as being beyond the scope of his...
Cross-examination.
What he asked the witness, what Mr. O 'Connor asked the witness, was whether she personally did signature verification correctly.
He did not ask whether anyone else did.
And so what just transpired here was beyond the scope.
And I think that we should be allowed a few questions on re-redirect to discuss just this video.
Absolutely.
It should have come up in chief.
Well, it absolutely is.
It should have come up in chief.
The judge is obviously going to allow a re-examination.
No, not a re-examination.
A re-examination.
Okay.
Your honor, excuse me.
The governor would just like to join in the county's objection and note.
We're not even sure this was ever properly authenticated.
We think we were still in the positive of ever being actually authenticated.
And to the extent that the witness identified anyone in the video based on what?
Everyone was blurred out.
Kind of a common sense objection, candidly.
Sorry.
Join your honor.
I think that it's inappropriate to have gone into that line of questioning.
I do appreciate and understand why the court gave counsel leeway, but I don't think you got anywhere near what was going on in Cross, and I would ask the court to either.
Strike it or give our colleagues here with the county attorney's office an opportunity to redirect her, I suppose, for lack of a better term.
Okay.
Sorry.
I'm not going to strike.
Absolutely not.
Obviously, you're going to be like that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
One thing, Your Honor, I'd like to note.
Mr. Liddy, earlier talking about that video, said that the gentleman that was on there had been...
They know he was there.
They know that that video is authentic.
Otherwise, how would he have known who the gentleman who was clicking like a woodman was on the part of that video?
The knowledge of Counsel for Defendants does nothing for the actual authentication of the video from the perspective of the witness.
She's 100% right.
I'm a little bit puzzled about it.
It's not the authentication of the video that I'm worried about.
I let you use this for demonstrative purposes.
You have out to me, you'd link it up later.
That's not the focus of what I'm concerned about.
It's whether it goes beyond the scope of cross and the questions we're asked about going forward and backwards.
Indirect, I mean cross-examination.
So that was an example of going backwards and forwards.
She was looking at the screen.
She said the one on the left doesn't appear to be doing what I understand to be scrolling up and down appropriately.
The one on the right was doing that.
To the extent that that's the testimony, I will accept that as being within the scope of the cross-examination.
But they're going to get to ask their own questions.
So, back to my question.
May we excuse this witness?
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you all.
Interesting.
I thought it would have been a no-brainer that he would have allowed the defendants to ask more questions.
They would have been able to ask questions in cross, but because they came up in redirect, they didn't have the opportunity to ask questions on this in cross.
Whatever.
Maybe they'll get their questions in on it when it gets admitted as evidence through the proper witness.
So, no, he's not striking, correct?
I think it's subject to that exhibit being admitted as evidence in due course.
Who is the next witness?
Who is the next witness?
Chris Hansen?
The guy who wrote The Muppets?
That's Jim Hansen.
Never mind.
Chris Hansen from the Hansen brothers.
And what?
I flagged a...
Mr. Hanson?
Where is he?
Come forward, sir, and just stand.
This is my clerk right here.
If you'll come forward and stand in front of her, raise your right hand.
She's going to swear you win, sir.
So this happened in front of the witness.
Sometimes I think they call them like speaking objections where you shouldn't do it in front of the witness, but I don't think any of this would have influenced the witness's testimony.
Thank you, sir.
If you'll make your way around to the witness stand and just have a seat.
Make your way around and have a seat, sir.
As soon as he's situated, you may begin.
Who's doing this witness?
I am not.
Seed, Mr. Olson.
Either from seated or the podium, either one.
Oh, you don't do that, sir.
Now I've got to go back and refresh.
The video could not be loaded.
No, I don't want to bookmark that.
I want to go confined lake.
Oh, for heat's sake.
What the?
What the heck is going on?
Gosh darn it.
Are you trying to?
It's a data that I received as a result of a public records request that I submitted to the County of Maricopa.
I'd just like to ask a few background questions first.
Do you live in Arizona?
I do.
How long have you lived in Arizona?
About two years.
Where did you live before that?
I lived in California and the state of Washington.
Do you have any college degrees?
I do.
I have a Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering.
Can you go through your work histories from, say, 2006 to the present?
I have a business.
I provide software services for custom business software and database design.
And have you done that since 2006?
Since 2006, yes.
Are you on your own or do you have a company?
I have a company and I have contract workers that work with me from time to time, but mostly I'm on my own.
Do you have any other positions of responsibility within any political parties?
Yes, I'm the executive director for the Maricopa County Republican Party.
It's really a fancy title for assistant to the chair.
Do you work at, have you ever heard of We the People AZ Alliance?
Yes, I'm a member of that organization and I am the data and technology director for We the People AZ Alliance.
How long have you been the Data and Technology Director for We the People AZ Alliance?
I've been a member of the organization for about a year and a half, and for most of that time, they've entrusted that responsibility to me.
Have you performed any projects for We The People AZ Alliance?
We have the...
The envelope images and the reference images for the 2022 election, and my part in that project has been to design the software that we use to analyze those, and I architected the secure system that we have that holds those images and provides the ability to analyze them.
Have you received any training from Maricopa on any election-related activity?
Yes, I attended the training for signature verification for the primary and worked in the recorder's office right before the primary election, but then did not end up working in signature verification during the primary.
You mentioned you had architected the program for We the People.
With the People AZ Alliance regarding signature verification?
Yes.
What did that entail?
So we have a secure system that holds the reference images for signature verification as well as the envelope images, the affidavit envelope images.
So we have that on a remote server, and then we have a connection to that server at a couple of facilities, and those are secure facilities that provide access to those images to be able to perform signature verification at each one of those locations.
And so we, the people, Easy Alliance is conducting signature verification of actual Ballot envelope, signature images, and the actual record data from Maricopa County or the state?
The We the People AZ Alliance was commissioned by the Arizona Senate to do further investigation of the materials that came out of the audit.
And that was one of the materials that came for the audit is the reference images and the envelope images from the 2020 election.
Yes.
Do you have an understanding?
Hold on, just a second.
Your Honor, objection relevance.
He's talking about the 2020 election and review of signature affidavits from the 2020 election.
Okay.
Do you have an avowal that you're going to link this up?
Yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, the governor also objects on the grounds that to the extent the witness is going to purport to testify on any expertise, he has not been disclosed as a witness.
As an expert.
I'm sorry, as an expert.
We're not offering him as an expert, Your Honor.
Thank you.
He was not disclosed as an expert, but touching on technical things, we should move on to our trial time board.
Okay, thank you.
All the defendants want to join the objections?
So noted.
This appears to be expert testimony.
He's testified that he is the person that designed the software that analyzed the data and performed the signature verification audit.
I think this is where this is going.
The questioning is...
You're going to ask him what the outcome of that was?
No, Your Honor, I wasn't.
I was merely laying background.
I wasn't going to ask him what the outcome was.
I'd sustain all of this on an objection for relevance if you're not going to link it up.
I think maybe I should ask what you were referring to when you said what the outcome was.
Well, let's talk about the expert part of this first.
It appears he's testifying as an expert.
A fact witness would be your last witness who testified about things that were observed, seen, heard, experienced firsthand.
This witness is testifying about scientific evaluations and studies and things that were done through software.
I don't think he got far enough into his testimony for us to know.
It's not a fact witness.
Every expert's a fact witness because they'll testify to what facts were.
So tell me where this is going.
You said you weren't going to link this up.
I told everybody you had to disclose your experts.
I understood that Mr. Hansel was going to be testifying about the public records request.
And the information that was derived, the timing, and the steps that he took to diligently process the information from the public records request because it was most recent that he received that.
This is something completely different than I understood that Mr. Hansel would be testifying to in its actual testimony.
We'll move on, Your Honor.
So I'm sustaining that objection.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansel, do you gather data from Maricopa County regarding election activities?
Yes, I'm part of the process for We the People AZ Alliance for collecting data through public records requests.
Did you issue A public records request on or about February 3rd to Maricopa County?
Yes, I did.
It was a request for information from signature verification from the 2022 election.
It's the public records request that became the Maricopa County number 1482.
Mr. Hansel, on the screen is a document that's been marked for identification as Exhibit 21. Do you recognize this document?
Yes, I wrote the four bullet points in this document.
And is this the public records request number 1482?
It is the one that became 1482, yes.
Thank you.
Does this appear to be a true and accurate copy of the public records request that you signed?
Yes, it does.
This Exhibit 21 is longer than this one page.
Two pages.
There is a long email attached to it.
Mr. Olson, can you hand him Exhibit 21?
Let him look through it and ask him that same question, please.
My pleasure, Your Honor.
It could be the clerk's copy up here that you can use, the one that's marked.
That'll take care of any discrepancy.
I'll try to distract this in discovering.
please yes Mr. Hansel, you've just been handed a document that's been marked for identification as exhibit 21. Take a moment to review it as you are.
This is familiar.
Pardon me?
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear your answer.
This is familiar.
Is Exhibit 20, the document marked for identification.
Is Exhibit 21 a true and accurate copy of the original?
Yes, it appears to be.
And Exhibit 21 is a multi-page document.
There's also an attachment to the letter?
Yes.
And are you identified as the author or recipient of any of those attachments?
I am the...
Author of the conversation on the side of We the People AZ Alliance, yes.
And does this appear to be a true and accurate copy of those email exchanges?
Yes, it does.
Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move for admission.
Your Honor, I'm going to object on Foundation Grounds.
This lengthy email exchange includes...
And I have a color copy.
I don't know if the court has a color copy.
There seem to be sort of interspersed conversations, things written by different people, some of whom are members of the Maricopa County Recorder's Office.
It's not wholly clear who wrote what.
And it is also, the original letter was not by Mr. Hansel, but by Shelby Bush.
Excuse me, Your Honor.
The governor also objects to the extent that this is, well, this extensive back and forth.
Is hearsay and offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Beyond that, we think that it's outside the scope of the trial and is irrelevant to the extent that this is about public records requests and not about whether signature verification happened at levels one, two, and three.
Thank you.
Okay.
Is this being offered to show the public records request that was actually made?
Yes, Your Honor.
And the receipt of the data, which is exempted 20. Okay.
Is there a...
We'll stipulate to the fact that they submitted a public records request.
Okay, but this exhibit, according to Mr. Olson, also shows data that was provided in response?
This exhibit shows the email exchange between Mr. Hansel and the custodian at Maricopa regarding the responses to Public Records Act requests, and then ultimately the date at which the Maricopa County fulfilled that request.
And what you're seeking to prove is?
The request was made, the date it was made, and the date it was fulfilled?
And that the information was provided as stated in that email.
Any objection?
No objection to that.
Exhibit 21, that's admitted.
Oh boy.
Okay, now let's see what they're going to do with this.
I was trying to find out what the object of the request was, and it looked like it was to get video footage surveillance.
With respect to the...
Public records request number 1482.
Do you recall when you received that data from the county?
We went through several iterations before I finally received a file that was close to what I requested or close to what I requested on about April 26th.
And how did you receive that?
It was made available on a download portal.
I logged onto the portal with the password that I was given, downloaded that onto my computer.
It downloaded in a zip file, and the data came in the format of a CSV file that was in the zip file.
Then I removed that, and the data was then available to me.
Who provided that data to you?
My interactions have been with the Maricopa County records custodian.
So that's who it is that provided the email and the download link and the password.
Your Honor, Exhibit 20 is a CD-ROM.
There's not really much to present to the witness, but I would like to question the witness about that briefly to establish a foundation.
Yes, go ahead.
I object, Your Honor.
We're going to question this about an exhibit we're not looking at.
It's highly inappropriate.
No, no, no, no.
Proceed, Mr. Olson, and then if there's specific questions that we have a problem with, we'll address them.
Mr. Hansel, are you familiar with what has been marked for identification as plaintiff's Exhibit 20?
I'm sorry, what is...
The witness doesn't have Exhibit 20?
I don't know how he would answer the question.
I see.
Okay.
I'm going to allow him some leeway to establish the foundation.
If you understood that question, you can answer it, sir.
If this is 20, then yes.
And what is Exhibit 20?
This is the file that I removed from the zip file.
And then had available to me for processing.
And is Exhibit 20, to your knowledge, a true and accurate copy of the data that you received from Maricopa County on April 26, 2023?
Yes, the information I submitted for 20 is a true and accurate copy.
Objection, Foundation.
Okay.
I'll sustain it.
You can ask him how he knows that.
How do you know that's a true and accurate copy, Mr. Hansel?
I'm familiar with the chain of custody when I provided the file and I reviewed the CD-ROM that the information went on after it was copied onto the CD-ROM.
Objection.
Again, Foundation.
I don't know how many lines there are, but I think it might be hundreds of thousands.
I don't know what this is.
And I don't understand how the witness can testify to what it is.
So I just watched a video from We the People Arizona Twitter.
I understand all that, but there...
What data?
Why is it relevant?
He testified that he downloaded it.
And it was placed on a CD-ROM if...
And then you brought the CD-ROM to court and remarked it as an exhibit.
This is painful.
He's looked at the files and said this appears to be what the data was that was Mr. Hansel,
did you oversee the creation of the CD-ROM and the...
Transfer of the data onto that CD-ROM?
Yes, I observed each step of the process and verified the data on the CD-ROM after it was transferred to the CD-ROM.
And was the data transferred onto the CD-ROM also provided to defense counsel via any link?
What's on the CD-ROM?
I don't know how Mr. Hansel would know the answer to that question.
What's on the CD-ROM, people?
Does anybody know?
I don't know if he knows how it's relevant to Foundation, but...
Let's stick with Foundation for just right now.
Can we just, like, spoil the punch on it?
What's on the CD-ROM?
Or sustain the objection, but as to relevance, let's stick with...
He oversaw the CD being created.
Next question.
How have you verified that the data on CD-ROM is the data that you originally downloaded from Maricopa County on April 26, 2023?
What data is on the CD-ROM?
I observed the chain of custody from when it left my computer to the CD-ROM.
I verified the format, I verified the columns, and I verified the size of the file.
What's the data, please?
Just let...
Oh, for goodness sake.
This is turning it...
Oh, my.
We're going to miss the punchline as to what the data is.
Okay.
All right.
I'm going to admit it over the objection.
So...
Next.
We have no further questions at this time.
What the hell is going on?
Any of the defendants?
Okay, they got the data in.
I guess we're going to come back to the data a little later on.
Just confirm that they know what they said.
No, thank you.
It's the CSP from the reference request.
No, Your Honor.
No cross.
Thank you.
All right.
Could they not have just agreed?
Therefore, no redirect.
And may we excuse this witness?
Oh, yeah.
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Hansel, you're free to go.
Okay.
We're going to take the afternoon recess.
We're going to resume 1.30.
So...
1.30.
It's 3...
We'll be adjourned until that time.
All right.
Everybody?
So 1.30.
We're in Arizona, so I think we're two hours behind.
Three o 'clock?
One o 'clock?
They're not taking a half an hour for lunch.
Thank you.
Well, I got to tell you something, people.
What in the bleeming heck?
Let's just wait for the feed to cut before we...
Let's see if we see anything interesting right now.
Fascinating.
The people scurry about for lunch.
They've been looking forward to this moment since the better part of this morning.
Their stomachs are grumbling.
Where is the nearest place to grab some food, they ask.
They joke with each other as they leave the room.
And then the feed gets cut.
There we go.
All right, people.
I may or may not be continuing this as of the time that they come back.
What I'm going to do here is remove this.
This is painful.
I want to bring up one thing.
Which I now understand the video that they must have been watching.
Here we go.
This is from We The People Arizona's Twitter feed.
And I'm also proud to say that I was their 10,000th follower on Twitter.
I'll show you that evidence in a second.
Okay, you are about to see 90 seconds of the signature verification process where one person is in blood red, verifying signatures as fast as they can load compared to the person sitting next to him.
Simpsons, Palmer Simpson, does the rock bottom interview.
Mr. Simpson, you admit you grabbed her can.
Here we go.
Gosh, those floors remind me of high school.
Here we go.
Zooming in.
Showing the time.
Dude on the left.
Bing!
He's not scrolling up whatsoever.
He's doing nothing.
This man's scrolling up on the right.
Then scrolling down.
Yes, the signature matches.
This feels like Eye of the Tiger.
Except in the worst possible way.
So, okay.
This, I presume, is the video that the previous witness watched.
Yep.
Yep.
That matches.
Oh, yeah.
Even if the signatures are all on screen simultaneously to be viewed.
Yep.
Yep.
That's good.
This one's a little off, but we'll let it go.
Yeah, we'll let it slide.
Okay, this one makes it in two.
Oh, yeah.
Nice.
Keep going.
That's one second.
Two seconds.
Three seconds.
Four seconds.
That's pretty much one a second.
In fairness...
We don't exactly know what's going on, and this guy might just be counting the number of ballots to be verified, and then he sends it over to someone else.
He must always speak outside the box.
What might else be going on that could be what we're thinking?
November 11, 2022.
80% of Arizona voters use mail-in ballots that require signature verification.
This is just one of many workers that, quote, verified.
Hundreds of thousands of signatures at less than three seconds.
Dude, that guy was at like one second.
Dude, that guy was at like one second.
This one individual verified almost 27,000 signatures in total.
Can we really trust our language?
Well, that's very interesting.
Hypothetically, people, we might like what we see.
Some people...
Hypothetically, it could be an explanation.
That guy wasn't verifying anything.
He was just counting the number of ballots in a batch to hand off to somebody else.
Conceivable.
I don't know if that's the case.
I don't know if that's the case, but one must not immediately jump to the conclusion that is being presented to us.
I presume that there being...
I presume that we the people Arizona knows what's going on with that.
Okay, let me see here.
I think I'll just bring these up because I...
Can we see my super chats?
Yeah, I got that one way back in the back earlier.
I greatly appreciate what you're doing.
This stream and people, we need to like and share this.
Very important info to hear.
It is.
And thank you for your support.
I'm not your buddy guy.
To this day, I still wonder why...
Okay, so I got this one.
I'm going to keep those because I want to see it.
Conspiracy theory, they stopped teaching cursive to make it easier.
Okay, that was funny, but let me see here.
We got this one.
Hey, Viva, any plans to go to Colorado in the future?
I'm in Colorado Springs.
You would love the outdoor hiking.
Oh, I know that I would love Colorado.
Everybody, so let me see here.
We're going to go...
I think what's going to happen is I'm probably going to end up ducking out of this because this is going to cut into the stream tonight.
And what I'm going to give everybody right now...
is Robert Gouveia's link on Rumble.
He's live on YouTube and Rumble, but I will choose to support Robert Gouveia or link to Robert Gouveia on Rumble.
He's covering it, and so he's going to continue to cover it.
I'm not going to do all three days.
This is painful, but it's interesting.
I'll give you the link to We The People Arizona, to the tweet, and then what I'm going to do is I'm going to go over to Locals right now.
I'm going to do this for everybody.
I'm going to do this with all three platforms.
I'm going to read a few of the tips in Rumble because we have been live there.
We've got a great community in Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I'll read those, basically, the Rumble rants, the tips from vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And then I'm going to duck out.
You can continue watching this with Govea.
I might bring up the National Citizens Inquiry just for a few minutes so we can see what's going on there.
Pam Walker.
$1 tip says, David, it seems like this attorney isn't very sharp.
Would that be a fair assessment?
The questions could clearly be better phrased, more concise, and more on point.
That way you would avoid a lot of the back and forth of these objections.
Buma sent a $1 tip says, Judge is blind and deaf.
I don't know about that, Buma.
And we've got Steve Britton says, Are you seeing these tips as they appear?
And that I am.
And do we have any good memes?
In our VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com community, we've got the infamous Blue Mountain there.
You know, the Joe Biden counting the votes with the Republican one.
S underscore Ren says, Viva.
Biden DOJ removed the whistleblower and his entire team from the Hunter Biden investigation.
Gouveia just put out of it on it.
I'll have a look for that.
But now what I'm going to do right now...
Before I duck out and punt everyone over back to Govea, I'm going to see one thing right here.
So this is the link to Govea.
Everyone, go show some love.
What I'm going to do now is I'm going to go to Rumble and see what the NCI is up to.
NCI Day 1. Oh, this is Restream of the NCI Day 1. So there might not be a National Citizens Inquiry.
That is live today, so I won't be able to get to that.
Any more Rumble France on Rumble?
Oh, Kenzie67 says, frankly...
Well, this is funny here.
Frankly, you should be covering the citizens' inquiry.
I'll be testifying tomorrow, and I...
I thought...
Frankly, you should be covering this national citizens' inquiry.
I know you're on tomorrow, but come on.
The national citizens' inquiry is the...
Citizens attempt to delve into, analyze, break down, expose the government's response to the COVID pandemic in Canada.
I'll be testifying tomorrow.
So people, it's been fascinating.
I'm going to continue listening to this as I tend to family, dogs, all the other stuff and prepare for tonight's stream.
7 o 'clock, Chrissy Mayer going to be talking about getting heckled and...
Dishing out the comedy on the hecklers who objected to her comedy.
You know, her joke of Dylan Mulvaney.
She was also told to get dressed or change clothing before going on an airplane, which also made the news.
We're going to have a good discussion with Chrissy Mayer.
Updates what it's like doing stand-up comedy in a world gone woke.
And it's going to be fantastic.
Tomorrow, 3 o 'clock National Citizens Inquiry.
And one other thing that I was going to say.
And then 7 o 'clock tomorrow night, Blair White.
Stay tuned.
And I'm going to go to Locals and we're just going to do a little exclusive hangout there.
I'm going to give everybody the link right now.
So I'm going to end this on Rumble and YouTube.
You see the dog right on cue is insisting that I go walk him.
I'm going to end it on Rumble and YouTube.
Head over to Locals if you want to have a little after stream pate.
And that's it.
I'll see everybody tomorrow.
It's going to be a busy few days and I got to get ready for tonight.
So that's it.
That's Carrie Lake.
I'll be listening.
I'll be doing, you know, maybe I'll do a 10-minute walkie-talkie tonight and get things going.
Okay, ending on YouTube.
Now, going over to Rumble to end it on Rumble.
Everyone, you know where to go if you want to continue watching this.
The link, people are asking for it.
I thought I already gave it.
Hold on one second.
Oh, the link to Viva Barnes.
I know I gave it to...
I know I gave it to Govea already.
And here's the link to Viva Barnes Law before I end this here.
For goodness sake, I can't do this.
Okay, here.
Content.
Live.
Here.
Boom.
Shakalaka.
Here.
Oh, someone just says they got here.
Oh, Seferdine Squibb says I just got here.
Go back and watch it, man, but it's painful.
It's painful and they haven't gotten anywhere.
As far as I'm concerned for what they need.
Okay, the dog is there.
So I'm ending the stream on Rumble now.
Gonna hang out for a bit on Locals until the dog makes too much noise.
And that's it.
See you on Locals right now.
Locals.
I have so many freaking tabs open.
▲
Export Selection