Constatino, et al. v. Detroit, et. al., Wayne County Circuit Court (3rd Circuit)

This is a lawsuit filed yesterday by Great Lakes Justice Center in Wayne County, Michigan regarding alleged voter fraud during the November 3, 2020 election. They have also filed a temporary restraining order.

Wayne County is the county in which the City of Detroit is located. While you can read it for yourselves, I’ll give a quick summary and highlight some of the allegations and include links to some of the affidavits and evidence cited in support of the complaint.

The parties filing the suit are both residents of Wayne County Michigan, voted in the November 3, 2020 federal election, and were both “poll challengers”. The defendants include the City of Detroit, the Detroit Election Commission, the Clerk of the City of Detroit, the Chairperson of the Detroit Election Commission, the Clerk of Wayne County (a Constitutional Office under Michigan law), and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. These parties will hereafter be referred to as Defendants.

The suit is lodged pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 600.4545(2), which is basically the Michigan statute which gives standing to any citizen to file a suit alleging fraud in voting and in the conducting of elections in the state of Michigan.

The complaint alleges that the election was held on November 3, 2020 and approximately 850,000 votes were reported as cast in Wayne County. The complaint alleges, generally, that the Defendants:

systematically processed and counted ballots from voters whose name failed to appear in either the Qualified Voter File (QVF) or in the supplemental sheets. When a voter’s name could not be found, the election worker assigned the ballot to a random name already in the QVF to a person who had not voted;
instructed election workers to not verify signatures on absentee ballots, to backdate absentee ballots, and to process such ballots regardless of their validity;
After election officials announced the last absentee ballots had been received, another batch of unsecured and unsealed ballots, without envelopes, arrived in trays at the TCF Center. There were tens of thousands of these absentee ballots, and apparently every ballot was counted and attributed only to Democratic candidates;
instructed election workers to process ballots that appeared after the election deadline and to falsely report that those ballots had been received prior to November 3, 2020 deadline;
systematically used false information to process ballots, such as using incorrect or false birthdays. Many times, the election workers inserted new names into the QVF after the election and recorded these new voters as having a birthdate of 1/1/1900;
that on a daily basis leading up to the election, City of Detroit election workers and employees coached voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat party. These workers and employees encouraged voters to do a straight Democrat ballot. These election workers and employees went over to the voting booths with voters in order to watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote;
Unsecured ballots arrived at the TCF Center loading garage, not in sealed ballot boxes, without any chain of custody, and without envelopes;
Defendant election officials and workers refused to record challenges to their processes and removed challengers from the site if they politely voiced a challenge;
After poll challengers started discovering the fraud taking place at the TCF Center, Defendant election officials and workers locked credentialed challengers out of the counting room so they could not observe the process, during which time tens of thousands of ballots were processed.
Defendant election officials and workers allowed ballots to be duplicated by hand without allowing poll challengers to check if the duplication was accurate. In fact, election officials and workers repeatedly obstructed poll challengers from observing. Defendants permitted thousands of ballots to be filled out by hand and duplicated on site without oversight from poll challengers.

The Complaint further alleges that

Wayne County used the TCF Center in downtown Detroit to consolidate, collect, and tabulate all of the ballots for the County and it was the only facility within Wayne County authorized to count the ballots.

Now this is a summary of the allegations in the complaint. These are bare allegations. However, in the specific counts sections of the complaint, these allegations are fleshed out and supported by several affidavits.

An attorney and former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Zachary Larsen provided his sworn affidavit in support of the allegations in the complaint. You can download it and read it for yourself. He explains who he is and what his job was as a validated and certified, that is “official” “poll challenger” during the November 3 election. He explains that he visited sites in Lansing (the Capitol), East Lansing, and Williamston on November 3rd. His description of those visits explains that everything was basically normal, he was able to fulfill the duties of his position, and he was able to properly observe everything that was happening in order to verify and legitimate that the voting process was occurring as it was supposed to. He then describes his experience upon arriving at the TCF Center in Detroit to observe the continuing counting and tabulation of absentee ballots on November 4. Some of his pertinent attestations include:

When I arrived at a counting table and began to observe the process, I noticed immediately that part of the process that was being implemented did not conform to what I had been told in my training and the materials that I had received;
the information I had received described the process that was supposed to be occurring at the tables as follows. A first election official would scan a ballot. If the scan did not confirm a voter in the poll book, that official would then check the voter against a paper copy “supplemental poll book.” The official would then read the ballot number to a second election official and hand the ballot to that official, who would remove the ballot (while still in the secrecy sleeve) and confirm the ballot number. That second official would then hand the ballot (in the secrecy sleeve) to a third official who would tear the stub off of the ballot, and place the stub in a ballot stub envelope, then pass the remaining ballot to a fourth official. The fourth official would then remove the ballot from the secrecy sleeve, flatten the ballot to ensure it was capable of processing, and visually inspect for rips, tears, or stains before placing the ballot in the “ballots to be tabulated box.” However, if that fourth official identified a concern, she would place the ballot back in its envelope and into a “problem ballots” box that required additional attention to determine whether they would be processed and counted. A copy of a diagram that I had received on this process is attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit.
What I observed immediately was that the secrecy of the ballot was not being respected. Instead, the second official at the table where I was observing was repeatedly placing her fingers into the secrecy sleeve to separate the envelope and visually peek into the envelopes in a way that would allow her to visually observe the ballot and identify some of the votes cast by the voter.
Sometimes, the third official whose job was merely to remove the stub from the ballot would likewise remove the ballot from the secrecy sleeve or otherwise peek to observe the ballot. Sometimes a ballot would be removed completely from the secrecy sleeve and then placed back inside and passed along this process.
I conferred regarding this issue with another challenger at a nearby table, and he indicated he had observed similar irregularities regarding the use of the secrecy sleeves.
When that challenger raised the issue with a supervisor, and he was immediately asked “why does it matter?” and “what difference does it make?”
Beyond the legal requirements for maintaining ballot secrecy, both of us were concerned that the violations of the secrecy of the ballot that we witnessed could be or were being used to manipulate which ballots were placed in the “problem ballots” box.
Later that morning, at another table, a challenger identified concerns that ballots were being placed into “problem ballots” boxes purportedly based on the reason that the voter had failed to place the ballot in the secrecy sleeve, while other ballots at the same table were being passed along and placed into the “ballots to be tabulated” box that also did not have secrecy sleeves.
I personally observed that several ballots were placed into the “problem ballots” boxed and marked with a sticky note indicating that they were “problem ballots” merely because of the lack of a secrecy sleeve.
When I spoke with a supervisor regarding this issue, he explained that these ballots were being placed in the “problem ballots” box for efficiency.
From my experience at the first table I had visited (addressed in Paragraphs 15 through 17 above), I had also witnessed ballots that were placed into the “ballots to be tabulated” box that had arrived without a secrecy sleeve. So the differentiation among these ballots despite both ballots arriving in secrecy sleeves was perplexing and again raised concerns that some ballots were being marked as “problem ballots” based on who the person had voted for rather than on any legitimate concern about the ability to count and process the ballot appropriately.
Just before noon, I arrived at another table (which I later contemporaneously noted as AVCB # 23), and I conferred with the Republican challenger who had been observing the process from a viewing screen and watching the response of the computer system as ballots were scanned by the first official.
I asked the challenger if she had observed anything of concern, and she immediately noted that she had seen many ballots scanned that did not register in the poll book but that were nonetheless processed. Because she needed to leave for lunch, I agreed to watch her table.
As I watched the process, I was sensitive to her concern that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was an eligible voter in the poll book, so I stood at the monitor and watched
The first ballot scanned came in as a match to an eligible voter. But the next several ballots that were scanned did not match any eligible voter in the poll book.
When the scan came up empty, the first official would type in the name “Pope” that brought up a voter by that last name.
I reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system, and it appeared that the voter had already been counted as having voted. Then the first official appeared to assign a number to a different voter as I observed a completely different name that was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed ballots on the right side of the screen.
That same official would then make a handwritten notation on her “supplemental poll book,” which was a hard copy list that she had in front of her at the table.
The supplemental poll book appeared to be a relatively small list.
I was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers indicated that a ballot was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll book or the supplemental poll book. From my observation of the computer screen, the voters were certainly not in the official poll book. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters whose ballots I had personally observed being scanned.
Because of this concern, I stepped behind the table and walked over to a spot behind where the first official was conducting her work.
Understanding health concerns due to COVID-19, I attempted to stand as far away from this official as I reasonably could while also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes.
Partly inhibiting my ability to keep a distance, the tables were situated so that two counting tables were likely a maximum of eight feet apart. In other words, you could not stand more than four feet behind one without being less than four feet from another.
As soon as I moved to a location where I could observe the process by which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first official immediately stopped working and glared at me. I stood still until she began to loudly and aggressively tell me that I could not stand where I was standing. She indicated that I needed to remain in front of the computer screen.
I responded, “Ma’am, I am allowed by statute to observe the process.” As I did, a Democratic challenger ran towards me and approached within two feet of me, saying “You cannot speak to her! You are not allowed to talk to her.” I responded, “Sir, she spoke to me. I was just answering her.”
The first official again told me that the only place I was allowed to observe from was at the computer screen. A second official at the table reiterated this. I said that was not true.
Both officials then began to tell me that because of COVID, I needed to be six feet away from the table. I responded that I could not see and read the supplemental poll book from six feet away, but I was attempting to keep my distance to the extent possible.
Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor had explained that the rules allowed me to visually observe what I needed to see and then step back away. Likewise, on Election Day, I had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, I remained in a position where I would be able to observe the supplemental poll book until I could do so for the voter whose ballots had just been scanned and did not register in the poll book.
Both officials indicated that I could not remain in a position that would allow me to observe their activities and they were going to get their supervisor.
This seemed particularly concerning because the Democratic challenger who raised concerns over my verbal response to the official had been positioned behind the second official (the one who confirms ballots as described in Paragraph 13) no further away than I was from the first official at that time and had not been stationed at the computer screen as the officials repeatedly told me was the only place that I could stay.
When the supervisor arrived, she reiterated that I was not allowed to stand behind the official with the supplemental poll book, and I needed to stand in front of the computer screen. I told her that was not true, and that I was statutorily allowed to observe the process, including the poll book.
The supervisor then pivoted to arguing that I was not six feet away from the first official. I told her I was attempting to remain as far away as I could while still being able to read the names on the poll book.
In an attempt to address her concerns, I took a further step away from the table and indicated I would try to keep my distance, and that I thought I was about six feet away from the first official. The supervisor then stood next to the chair immediately to the left of the first official
and indicated that I was “not six feet away from” the supervisor and that she intended to sit in the chair next to the official with the poll book, so I would need to leave.
This supervisor had not been at the table at any time during the process, and she had responsibility for numerous ACVBs. Further, the supervisor’s choice of chairs was approximately three feet to the left of the first official and therefore in violation of the six-foot distance rule.
Accordingly, I understood that this was a ruse to keep me away from a place where I could observe the confirmation of names in the supplemental poll book. The supervisor began to repeatedly tell me that I “needed to leave” so I responded that I would go speak with someone else or fill out a challenge form.
I went to find another attorney serving as a challenger and returned to discuss the matter further with the supervisor. When I returned, she reiterated her assertions and insisted that there was nowhere where I could stand in conformity with the six-foot rule that would allow me to observe the supplemental poll book. Ultimately, to avoid further conflict with the supervisor, I agreed that I would leave that counting table and move to another table.
Between 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m., my colleague and I decided to return to the suite that housed the Republican challengers to get lunch. We left the counting floor and went up to the Republicans second-floor suite.
About 30 to 45 minutes later, an announcement was made that challengers needed to return to the floor. As we attempted to return, we were made aware that the officials admitting people had limited the number of election challengers to another 52 people who would be allowed inside. I displayed my credentials and walked up to near the door where a small crowd was gathering to be let in.
Shortly thereafter, a man came out to announce that no one would be let in (despite the prior announcement) because the room had reached the maximum number of challengers. As he was asked why we would not be let in, he explained that the maximum number of challengers were determined from the number of names on the sign-in sheet, regardless of how many people had left the room.
Many Republican challengers had left the room for lunch without signing out, including myself and my colleague. Accordingly, we were being arbitrarily “counted” towards this capacity limitation without actually being allowed into the room to observe.
When challengers raised this issue with the man at the door, he refused to discuss any solutions such as confirming the identify of challengers who had been previously admitted.
To the best of my recollection, I was never informed that if I left the room and failed to sign out that I would be refused admission or that there would be no means of confirming that I had been previously admitted.

A second affidavit attached to the Complaint explains different problems, including the direction to a City Employee (the affiant) to alter the dates of absentee ballot packages being sent out to voters – that is, the official date that absentee ballots were supposed to be sent to potential absentee voters was made to appear they were sent out within the statutorily required time. The supervisors instructed all workers to engage in this practice.

The affiant further describes that :

“City of Detroit election workers and employees coaching and trying to coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat party. I witnesses these workers and employees encouraging voters to do a straight Democrat ballot. I witnesses these election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote.
I was specifically instructed by my supervisor not to ask for a driver’s license or any photo I.D. when a person was trying to vote.
I observed a large number of people who came to the satellite location to vote in-person, but they had already applied for an absentee ballot. These people were allowed to vote in-person and were not required to return the mailed absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the voter lost the mailed absentee ballot.
Whenever I processed an absentee voter application or in-person registration, I was instructed to input the person’s name, address, and date of birth into the Qualified Voter File (QVF) system. The QVF system can be accessed and edited by any election processor with proper credentials in the State of Michigan at any time and from any location with internet access.
I worked at the satellite location until the polls closed on November 3, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. and properly completed the entry of all absentee ballots into the QVF by 8:30 p.m.
I then reported to work at the TCF Center on November 4, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to process ballots. I was instructed not to validate any ballots and not to look for any deficiencies in the ballots.
Absentee ballots that were received in the mail would have the voter’s signature on the envelope. While I was at the TCF Center, I was instructed not to look at any of the signatures on the absentee ballots, and I was instructed not to compare the signature on the absentee ballot with the signature on file.
All absentee ballots that existed were required to be inputted into the QVF system by 9:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. This was required to be done in order to have a final list of absentee voters who returned their ballots prior to 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. In order to have enough time to process the absentee ballots, all satellites were instructed to collect the absentee ballots from the drop-box once every hour on November 3, 2020.
On November 4, 2020, I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive date that were not in the QVF as if they had been received on or before November 3, 2020. I was told to alter the information in the QVF to falsely show that the absentee ballots had been received in time to be valid. I estimate that this was done to thousands of ballots.

So, these are quotes from two of the affidavits in the lawsuit. I have summarized the allegations above. I have attached the actual complaint, with the affidavits above, and here, and have also included links to the two separate affidavits above. There are additional affidavits, read them separately here and here and here and here.

Suffice it to say that these affidavits describe rife fraud and on a massive scale as it pertains to the actual volume and number of questionable ballots.

The media has gone from no fraud, to no widespread fraud, to no “systemic” fraud. The latter won’t hold up either, so they are going to have to change to “no outcome determinative” fraud, which is what I would have said if I was spinning this all along, because I know the first three will never hold water. Except, that is not true either! There are over 600,000 ballots in Pennsylvania that the US Supreme Court has all but said violated the Constitution, over 100,000 in Michigan and Wisconsin, and enough in Georgia. GAME OVER. Outcome determinative fraud. Sorry, this is the truth.

They will say, once they have nothing else to say that it was impossible for Joe Biden and the Democrats to pull this off, that such massive “outcome determinative” fraud could not have occurred. This is where it is up to the people to determine for themselves when this evidence is presented. Everyone has a right to question their accuser. Everyone has a right to cross examine witnesses. These sworn affiants, these Citizens are the true heroes in this because against all possible fears of retaliation and scorn, and in light of the massive gravity of what they are saying, they have come forward and sworn to it.

Fīat jūstitia, ruat cælum.

Share this:

Like this: