Amicus Curiae Brief — Kristen Lovell, et al., Petitioners v. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, et al.

NO. 23-1172

In the Supreme Court of the United States

KRISTEN LOVELL,

Petitioner,

v.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, ET AL.,

Respondents.

__________________________

LORI TULLOS AND VIRGINIA MCFADDIN,

Petitioners,

v.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, ET AL.,

__________________________

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of Georgia

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

KIM P. BROOKS AND HELEN STRAHL

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Tiffany Jones Ellenberg

Counsel of Record

TIFFANY JONES ELLENBERG

ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC

204 Thomason Street

Madison, GA 30650

(706) 342-4406

tiffany@ellenberglaw.net

MAY 31, 2024

SUPREME COURT PRESS

Counsel for Amici Curiae

♦

(888) 958-5705

♦

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... vi

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE..................... 1

SUMMARY.................................................................. 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4

I.

Synthetic Identity Theft on Georgians,

using False Government Documents,

thereby Manipulating Registrants Entered

into the Voter Database ................................... 6

II. Fraudulent Manipulation of all Dates in

the voter database used to run elections

and perform list maintenance on the voter

database............................................................ 9

III. Fraudulent Manipulation of Absentee

Ballots during an Election ............................. 11

IV. Fraudulent Manipulation of Votes during

and after an Election...................................... 13

V. Improper Registration Data .......................... 15

VI. Improper List Maintenance ........................... 16

SUMMARY................................................................ 16

CONCLUSION.......................................................... 19

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR

AMICI CURAIE BY KIM P. BROOKS

AND HELEN STRAHL

Appendix A

Synthetic Identity Theft on Georgians, Using

False Government Documents, Thereby

Manipulating Registrants Entered into the

Voter Database ................................................... 1a

Appendix A.1

Deceased Fraudulently Reissued....................... 6a

Appendix A.2

Duplicate Registration IDs Fraudulently

Reissued ............................................................ 13a

Appendix A.3

Felons Fraudulently Reissued ......................... 19a

Appendix A.4

Registration IDs Disappearing and

Reappearing ...................................................... 32a

Appendix B

Manipulation of Dates in the Voter

Database ........................................................... 38a

Appendix B.1

Manipulation of Date Added and Initial

Registration Date ............................................. 40a

Appendix B.2

Manipulation of Registration

Date prior to an Election .................................. 42a

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Appendix B.3

Manipulation of Date Last Voted .................... 47a

Appendix B.4

Manipulation of Date Last Contact ................. 50a

Appendix B.5

Manipulation of Date Last Modified ............... 53a

Appendix C

Manipulation of Absentee Ballots during an

Election ............................................................. 54a

Appendix C.1

Unlawful Too Early Ballots ............................. 56a

Appendix C.2

Precinct Address Manipulation ....................... 59a

Appendix C.3

Ballots Mailed to Purposeful Bad

Addresses .......................................................... 60a

Appendix C.4

No Excuse Absentee Ballots Mailed to

Registrants Out of State .................................. 64a

Appendix D

Manipulation of Votes During

and after an Election ........................................ 66a

Appendix D.1

Votes cast on Registrants not on

Voter Roll .......................................................... 69a

Appendix D.2

Swapped Votes from In Person on Election

Day to a Fraudulent Absentee Ballot .............. 75a

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Appendix D.3

Double Votes on Duplicate Registration IDs

for the Same Person ......................................... 78a

Appendix D.4

Non-Reconciled Votes Credited as Absentee

Voting, but not in Absentee File ...................... 84a

Appendix D.5

Votes on Ballots Never Received ..................... 87a

Appendix D.6

Votes on Rejected, Cancelled, and Spoiled

Ballots ............................................................... 89a

Appendix D.7

Votes on Deceased that are Ineligible

to Vote ............................................................... 97a

Appendix D.8

Votes on Felons that are Ineligible to Vote ... 100a

Appendix D.9

Votes on Inactive Voters that didn’t Cure their

Inactive Status ............................................... 102a

Appendix D.10

Significant Changes in the Voter

History File ..................................................... 106a

Appendix E

Improper Registration Data – Unlawful

Votes ............................................................... 107a

Appendix E.1

Not a Full Legal Name ................................... 108a

Appendix E.2

Missing Precinct Information ........................ 110a

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

Appendix E.3

Registrations at Non-Residential properties. 112a

Appendix F

Improper List Maintenance ........................... 115a

Appendix F.1

Active Registrants beyond

Five-Year Period ............................................. 116a

Appendix F.2

Inactive Registrants beyond two General

Election Cycles ............................................... 117a

Appendix G

Secretary of State File Definitions and Sources

Used ................................................................ 119a

Appendix H

Raffensperger Letter to VP Pence and

Congressmen .................................................. 121a

Appendix I

List of Amici Signatories and Donors ............ 140a

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Anderson v. Celebreezze,

460 U.S. 780 (1983) ......................................... 3, 4

Burroughs & Cannon v. United States,

290 U.S. 534 (1934) ........................................... 18

Dennis v. United States,

384 U.S. 855 (1966) ............................................. 5

Duncan v. Poythress,

No. 81-7363 U.S. Ct of Appeals, 5th

Circuit, Unit B 657 F.2d 691 (1981) ................... 1

Ex parte Yarbrough,

110 U.S. 65 (1884) ............................................. 17

Hammerschmidt v. United States,

265 U.S. 182 (1924) ......................................... 4, 5

Hass v. Henkel,

216 U.S. 462......................................................... 4

Lux v. Rodrigues,

561 U.S. 1306 (2010) ......................................... 17

Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., v.

NRC, 479 U.S. 1312 (1986) ............................... 17

Reynolds v. Sims,

377 U.S. at 555, 84 S.Ct at 1378 (1964) ............. 1

Tanner v. United States,

483 U.S. 107 (1987) ............................................. 5

United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980) ............. 5

United States v. Conover,

772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985) ............................. 6

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued

Page

United States v. Gallup,

812 F.2d 1271 (10th Cir. 1987) ........................... 6

United States v. Herron,

825 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................. 5

United States v. Smilowitz,

No. 19-361 (2d Cir. 2020) .................................. 11

United States v. Tuohey,

867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................... 5

United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705 (5th Cir.

1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979) ............. 5

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct 526,

11 L.Ed 2d 481 (1964) ......................................... 1

Williams v. Rhodes,

393 U.S. 23 (1968) ............................................. 18

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Ga. Const. Art. I, § II, ¶ IX(d)..................................... 3

U.S. Const. amend. I ................................................... 9

U.S. Const. amend. IV ................................................ 9

U.S. Const. amend. XIV ........................................ 9, 18

STATUTES

3 U.S.C. § 1 .................................................................. 2

18 U.S.C. § 595 ............................................................ 2

18 U.S.C. § 1018 .......................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 1028 .......................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 1028A ....................................................... 2

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued

Page

18 U.S.C. § 1030 .......................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 1031 .................................................... 2, 19

18 U.S.C. § 1037 .......................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 2721 ...................................................... 2, 8

18 U.S.C. § 2722 .......................................................... 2

26 U.S.C. § 303(a)(2)(B)(iii) ........................................ 8

28 U.S.C. § 371 .................................................. 5, 6, 11

42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(4)(A) ..................................... 7

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................ 11

42 U.S.C. § 1985 ........................................................ 11

42 U.S.C. § 15483 ................................................ 2, 8, 9

52 U.S.C. § 10307 ........................................................ 2

52 U.S.C. § 10307 (a)(c) .............................................. 9

52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) ............................................ 11, 12

52 U.S.C. § 20501 ........................................................ 2

52 U.S.C. § 21144 ........................................................ 2

O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20 .................................................. 11

O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8 ...................................................... 11

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-218 .................................................... 9

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-566(5) .............................................. 11

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-566(7) .............................................. 11

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-566(8) .............................................. 11

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued

Page

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Stephen M. Shapiro et al.,

SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (10th ed. 2013) ...... 17

1

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE1

This case implicates a national security crisis on

a level never before seen. It is in defense of vital interests

of not only qualified Georgia voters, but every qualified

voter across this nation. It is the duty of the courts to

safeguard and defend against the deprivation or dilution

of rights protected by the Constitution(s). “No right is

more precious in a free country than that of having a

voice in the election of those who make the laws under

which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights,

even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is

undermined.”, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 555, 562,

84 S.Ct at 1378 1381 (quoting Wesberry v. Sanders,

376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct 526, 535, 11 L.Ed 2d 481 (1964),

Duncan v. Poythress, No. 81-7363 U.S. Ct of Appeals,

5th Circuit, Unit B 657 F.2d 691 (1981).

Amicis are KIM P. BROOKS, a resident and qualified

elector of DeKalb County, Georgia, and HELEN STRAHL,

a resident and qualified elector of Chatham County,

Georgia. Both possess all the legal qualifications for

voting in the State of Georgia. Amicis, as qualified

electors, have an interest in ensuring that the laws

and Constitution(s) be strictly interpreted and enforced,

1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amici affirm that no counsel for a party

authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person, other

than amici curiae, their donors who are not parties, or their

counsel, made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation

and submission. Pursuant to Rule 37.2, amici notified counsel for

all parties of the intent to file this brief more than ten days before

filing.

2

as intended by their Framers, including their application in contentious elections as 2020 and 2022 have

proven to be.

Amicis are concerned that the executive branch

officials in Georgia violated 3 U.S.C. § 1, 52 U.S.C.

§ 10307, § 20501, and § 21144, National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), Help America Vote Act

(“HAVA”) 42 U.S.C. § 15483 Title III, 18 U.S.C. § 595,

§ 1018, § 1028, § 1028A, § 1030, § 1031, § 1037, § 2721,

and § 2722, Equal Protection under both Constitution(s)

in the last two Federal Elections and appear to be

continuing similar violations in preparation for the

2024 Federal Election.

SUMMARY

This Amicus Brief is filed in support of Plaintiffs’

arguments that the Respondent, Secretary of State

(“SoS”) Brad Raffensperger (“Raffensperger”), and his

office acted outside of the authority of his office,

unlawfully, and in contravention to the Georgia and

United States (“U.S.”) Constitutions and have violated

privacy and voter rights of Georgians through apparent

schemes to cause harm and defraud the U.S. Amicis’

evidence is based on ten years of data and over 60

files exclusively from the SoS, and all results can be

replicated and have been validated. (Appendix G at

App.119a).

Georgia election laws are considered mandates

and therefore the duties imposed by them are ministerial. Failure to perform, or the neglectful performance

of, ministerial duties preclude the defense of sovereign

3

immunity pursuant to Georgia Constitution Article I,

Section II, Paragraph IX(d).

Amicis, along with other data analysts, have

evidence that the SoS participated in conduct that is

ultra vires or in violation of Federal and State laws,

and the Constitution(s). The collection of evidence

suggests multiple schemes to defraud the U.S., and

qualified voters thereof, in multiple Federal elections.

Amicis have analyzed and provided evidence in

the attached Appendices proving that the entire voting

system, including the voter database used to conduct

elections in Georgia, is unconstitutional and noncompliant with HAVA, NVRA, Federal and Georgia

election law from 2020 through today. Not only have

election laws been violated, crimes of identity theft,

forgery, and falsified government documents are

currently being committed on the People of Georgia,

by its own government. The SoS’s own files point to an

entire system of insidious corruption. The evidence

and analysis provided by the Amicis prove the structure

and application of the entire voting system in Georgia

is unconstitutional, affecting the rights of Georgians

and all U.S. Citizens who participate in Federal Elections. “The impact of the votes cast in each State is

affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in

other States.” Anderson v. Celebreezze, 460 U.S. 780,

794-95 (1983).

As qualified electors, Amicis have a strong interest

in safeguarding the integrity of elections from voter

fraud. The State’s claimed interest of ‘efficiency’ does

not outweigh the burdens placed on Georgian’s rights

to the voting franchise and privacy. This Court has

determined that the asserted injury to the right to

vote must be weighed against, “the precise interests

4

put forward by the State as justifications for the

burden imposed by its rule.” 504 U.S., at 434 (quoting

Anderson, 460 U.S., at 789).

The Respondents, as election officials under Oath,

have a responsibility in protecting public confidence in

the integrity and legitimacy of our elections. The People

of Georgia not only have no confidence in our elections,

but also no confidence in our supposed ‘election officials.’

Public confidence in the integrity of our elections

process is vital in order to encourage participation by

lawful qualified electors. As the Carter-Baker Report

observed, “the ‘electoral system’ cannot inspire public

confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect

fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”

ARGUMENT

The summary of findings and evidence provided

in this Amicus is based on technical analysis of the

SoS’s own files. The Appendices provide the evidentiary

proof required by this Court and demonstrates that

Raffensperger and his office seem to be executing

multiple fraudulent schemes. The resulting consequences of these actions have and continue to defraud

the U.S. and the People of Georgia, as well as violate

Federal and Georgia law.

In Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt,

Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States

means primarily to cheat the Government

out of property or money, but it also means

to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful

5

governmental functions by deceit, craft, or

trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or

pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its

legitimate official action and purpose shall

be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane,

or the overreaching of those charged with

carrying out the governmental intention.

In Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188, the general

purpose of this part of the statute was to protect

governmental functions from frustration and distortion

through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any

conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or

defeating the lawful function of any department of

Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107,

128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855

(1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes

any willful impairment of a legitimate function of

government, whether or not the improper acts or

objective are criminal under another statute.” United

States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches

financial or property loss through use of a scheme or

artifice to defraud, but also is designed and intended

to protect the integrity of the United States and its

agencies, programs, and policies. United States v.

Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825

F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587

F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S.

827 (1979).

“If the Respondent and others have engaged in

dishonest practices in connection with a program

6

administered by an agency of the Government, it

constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section

371.” United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276

(10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771.

Amicis have analyzed, and provided evidence to

this Court proving the accuracy of their determinations

regarding violations in the following areas:

I.

Synthetic Identity Theft on Georgians, Using

False Government Documents, Thereby

Manipulating Registrants Entered into the

Voter Database.

Synthetic Identity Theft is rampant in the banking

industry. It is also rampant in the Georgia voter registration database. Identity Theft is occurring on 1) exGeorgians, such as the deceased (Appendix A.1 at

App.6a) and people that have moved out of state, 2)

current Georgians, such as infrequent voters (Appendix

A.2 at App.13a), people who only vote on election day

(Appendices C.2 at App.59a and D.2 at App.75a), and

Felons (Appendix A.3 at App.19a), and 3) non-U.S.

Citizens that never intended on registering to vote.

Most of the Identity Theft is being generated via fraudulent entries into the Georgia Registration Voter

Information System (“GARViS”) and fake Department

of Driver Services (“DDS”) Motor Voter Applications

presented to County Election Officials. The County

Official has no way of discerning a true and correct

DDS Motor Voter Application versus one that is fraudulent. The evidence collected contains theft of

personal identification combined with fraudulent

registration addresses and forged signatures. Not only

is Synthetic Identity Theft rampant, it is the

government itself committing the crime against its

own citizens.

7

Many updates in the GARViS Audit History Log

for an individual Registrant are “DDS System/Data”

updates and “DDS & HAVA Verification Successful –

Status Change” updates which are also fraudulent and

outside the County election official’s participation.

Amicis have analyzed and provided proof to this

Court evidence of deceased Georgians that have been

put back on the voter roll years after death with these

updates in their records. Clearly, a deceased person is

never “HAVA” verified or compliant. Evidence is also

provided of duplicate or “clone” identifications (“ID”)

being created on the deceased, after they died, and

then years later swapped back to their “real ID,” that

they had years prior when they were alive. There are

over 200 cases of Deceased reissued found (Appendix A.1

at App.6a).

HAVA is clear in stating “For purposes of removing

names of ineligible voter from the official list of eligible

voters – by reason of the death of the registrant under

section 8(a)(4)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(

4)(A)), the State shall coordinate the computerized list

with the State agency records on death.” Not only is

Georgia not properly cleaning deceased on the voter

rolls, they appear to be purposefully adding them

back, resulting in the commissioning of Identity Theft.

Amicis have analyzed and provided to this Court

evidence proving massive fraud via duplicate IDs coming

from DDS Motor Voter Applications. Duplicate IDs are

a major key in several schemes to commit Identity

Theft and to defraud Georgians. These activities,

whether knowingly or unknowingly perpetrated,

culminate in the fraudulent certifications of Georgia

and Federal Elections. While there are thousands of

duplicates not cleaned off the voter rolls, there are

8

also over 1,200 duplicate IDs, previously cancelled

that have been fraudulently reissued. (Appendix A.2 at

App.13a).

HAVA 42 U.S.C. § 15483 Sec.303 (a)(2)(B)(iii) is

clear in stating “The list maintenance performed under

subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in a manner that

ensures that – iii. Duplicate names are eliminated

from the computerized list.” Not only is Georgia not

cleaning duplicates off the voter roll, they appear to

be fraudulently reissuing them, and creating double

votes with them, as well as manipulating required list

maintenance activities.

Amicis have analyzed and provided proof to this

Court evidencing false DDS Motor Voter Applications

on Felons showing they are being moved “between two

Counties” multiple times within a few months, all

while they are sitting in jail in a third County. Amicis

also found where the SoS appears to be “scrubbing”

the GARViS Audit History Log of evidence pertaining

to felons. There are multiple schemes to defraud

felons in Georgia, which in turn dilutes the vote for

lawful electors. (Appendices A.3 at App.19a and D.8

at App.100a).

Identity Theft via the DDS is a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2721 - Prohibition on release and use of certain

personal information from State motor vehicle records.

Amicis have analyzed and provided to this Court

evidence proving Registrants being moved in and out

of the voter database, showing up only during an

election, and then disappearing again, which speaks

directly to nefarious software programming and machine

manipulation of the voter database (Appendix A.4 at

App.32a). There are 1,628 Registrants that only show

9

up on the 11/22/2020 SoS Voter Roll and then either

disappear without being cancelled or are cancelled

within 30 days of being inserted.

The evidence provided by the Amicis points to

synthetic identity theft, where a combination of real

and false information is combined to create a fake or

phantom person. These schemes are enabling crimes

in violation of NVRA Sec 6 & 8 & 12, HAVA 42 U.S.C.

§ 15483, and 52 U.S.C. § 10307 (a)(c). (Appendices A.1

at App.6a through A.4 at App.32a for some examples of

the manipulation of Citizen’s Identities). Raffensperger

is directly responsible for ensuring the voter registration

database is maintained and contains only valid,

lawful voters. The perpetration of these schemes,

which appear to be intentional, creates the dilution of

lawful Georgian votes, effectuates illegal search and

seizure, and is in violation of rights to privacy, in

contravention of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Articles I

and II of the Georgia Constitution, as well as a

plethora of State and Federal laws.

II. Fraudulent Manipulation of all Dates in the

voter database used to run elections and

perform list maintenance on the voter

database.

Georgia election laws center around five dates:

Date Added, Registration Date, Date Last Contact,

Date Last Voted, and Date Last Modified. Amicis have

evidence that every one of these dates are fraudulently manipulated in the Georgia voter database,

outside of the County’s participation.

REGISTRATION DATE is paramount to O.C.G.A.

§ 21-2-218 which reads that you must be “registered”

10

in your County by a certain date to be eligible to vote

in an election. Amicis have analyzed the data and

provided evidence that in 2020, while the cutoff date

was October 5th, there were over 9,300 registrants

added to the voter roll after October 25th, 2020, with

an October 5th or before date. Of these registrations

with impossible back-dated dates, over 3,700 of them

received credit for voting. (Appendices B.1 at App.40a

and B.2 at App.42a).

DATE LAST VOTED is the historical record of the

last time a registrant voted. Amicis have analyzed the

data and provided evidence of manipulation in the

Date Last Voted field, which in turn appears to be

manipulation of registrants’ votes. The SoS data

shows a vote update/cast and then a cancellation of

that vote a month or two later. (Appendix B.3 at

App.47a).

DATE LAST CONTACT is used for list maintenance

activity as the means of determining when to move a

registrant to inactive status and eventually to the

purge list in the odd years. Amicis have analyzed and

provided evidence of manipulation via Duplicate IDs

(Appendices A.2 at App.13a and B.4 at App.50a) to

keep a registrant falsely in ‘active’ status and retain

fraudulent entries on the deceased. (Appendix A.1 at

App.6a).

MANIPULATION OF DATE LAST MODIFIED can be

found by reviewing records that should not exist in the

voter database, the deceased for instance, another

impossibility that points to computer manipulation.

(Appendix B.5 at App.53a).

11

III. Fraudulent Manipulation of Absentee Ballots

during an Election.

In U.S. Supreme Court Case 22O155, Texas v.

Pennsylvania, et al., the complaints against Georgia

were centered around signature verification relaxation,

un-monitored drop boxes, and counting ballots prior

to election day. These actions by Raffensperger were

all outside the law and plenary authority granted to

the SoS by the Georgia legislature. The evidence in

the SoS’s own files implies a scheme was being worked

months prior to the 2019 lawsuit and over a year prior

to the Covid19 pandemic, resulting in hundreds of

thousands of unlawful Absentee Ballot Requests that

turned into votes counted.

Raffensperger, outside of the authority of his

office, the law, or current Georgia rules and regulations,

took over Early Absentee Ballot requests which are

normally reserved for the County Officials. Raffensperger approved and supposedly mailed over 300,000

Absentee Ballots that, in violation of Georgia law,

were requested prior to the statutorily mandated date

of May 6, 2020, for the 2020 General election. The SoS

files indicate these requests came in large batches

starting in January of 2019. Neither real humans nor

lawful voters request Absentee Ballots in December of

2019 for a November 2020 election. These actions

appear to be in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c). These

Absentee Ballot ‘requests’, as claimed by Raffensperger,

were well in advance of the 2020 elections or the

supposed Covid19 threat. (See also O.C.G.A. 21-2566(5), (7) and (8), O.C.G.A. 16-4-8, O.C.G.A. 16-10-20

and, United States v. Smilowitz, No. 19-361 (2d Cir.

2020), “The court (2d Circuit) held that 52 U.S.C.

12

§ 10307(c) applied to defendant’s conduct because it

exposed future elections to corruption. In this case,

the prohibitions in section 10307(c) apply to any voter

registration practices that expose federal elections –

present or future – to corruption, regardless of whether

any federal candidate is on the immediate ballot. The

court explained that New York’s registration process

is unitary and thus defendant’s fraudulent conduct

has the potential to affect future federal elections.”

(Judgment Affirmed).

Amicis have analyzed and provided to this Court

evidence proving 235,520 unlawful, too early, ballot

requests that when received turned into votes. This

total was after the elderly, disabled, and military

ballot requests were eliminated (Appendix C.1 at

App.54a).

Amicis have analyzed and provided proof to this

Court the evidence of 1,939 ballots that were mailed

to voters before the lawful date of 09/15/2020 for the

2020 election (Appendix C.1 at App.54a).

Amicis have analyzed and provided to this Court

evidence which appears to prove a scheme to manipulate

lawful electors’ registration addresses, just prior to an

election, enabling bad actors to then request a ballot

be sent to the fraudulently changed address (Appendix

C.2 at App.59a). In other evidence provided to this

Court, there is proof of a scheme to mail ballots to

purposefully created bad addresses. Amicis found 2,700

examples. There is also elector testimony whereby

people were told they had already voted via Absentee

Ballot when the elector had not requested, nor returned

by mail or in person, these fraudulent ballots (Appendix

C.3 at App.60a). This is clear deprivation and dilution

of a lawful elector’s right to vote.

13

Finally, Georgia’s no-excuse Absentee Ballot

requests show several ex-Georgians voting unlawfully

in two Federal elections while living out of the State.

Because Georgia allows this unconstitutional practice,

these felons go unchecked and are still active in the

voter database (Appendix C.4 at App.64a). These

voter registration schemes are supposed to be unable

to happen, according to Raffensperger, Election Registration Information Center (“ERIC”), and GARViS. The

electors, as taxpayers, are paying for these systems,

not only without their consent, but in which they seem

to be being used to help subvert the election process

in Georgia and across the U.S.

IV. Fraudulent Manipulation of Votes during and

after an Election.

While the entire Georgia voter database and

Absentee Ballots are a major source of fraud in Georgia

elections, there is an abundance of additional manipulation of votes before, during, and after an election.

Amicis have analyzed and provided to this Court

stunning evidence proving over 2,000 votes credited

for the 2020 General election that were not even on the

voter roll at the time of that election. It is impossible

to receive an Absentee Ballot or check into a poll pad

with a Registration ID that is not on the list of electors.

Raffensperger seems to agree with Amicis, as he

attested in a letter to Vice President Pence and members

of Congress on January 6th, 2021, “Voters cannot be

given credit for voting in Georgia unless they are

registered to vote.” Though, this is exactly what has

been proven. (Appendix H at App.121a).

Additional evidence included proves some Registration IDs were higher than the available Registration

14

number at that time. Other IDs had not been on the

voter roll since 2015 or 2017, while still other IDs

appear only for a vote credit. Double vote credits via a

phantom duplicate ID of a real person that voted were

also found. This is yet more proof of Synthetic Identity

Theft perpetrated upon Georgians (Appendix D.1 at

App.69a).

Comparing Numbered List reports from the SoS

poll pad check-in data with the Voter History File

(“VHF”) indicates that real voters that voted on election

day, had their vote swapped for a fraudulent Absentee

ballot (Appendix D.2 at App.75a).

Documents received via Open Records Requests

(“ORR”) from the SoS prove that comparing the merged

duplicate ID file with the VHF and the SoS Absentee

file shows over 3,800 double votes. These votes were

then covered up immediately after the election

(Appendix D.3 at App.78a).

Comparing the SoS VHF with the SoS Canceled

ID file, obtained via ORR, shows over 8,700 votes

where the registered voter received credit for Absentee

voting, but was not in the Absentee file, nor was their

Date Last Voted updated. This appears to be proof of

added votes where voting did not occur. (Appendix D.4

at App.84a).

Comparing the SoS VHF with the SoS Absentee

file shows 5,100 votes credited for voting on Absentee

Ballots that were never received (Appendix D.5 at

App.87a). This comparison also shows 450 votes

credited on Absentee Ballots that were rejected by the

Counties (Appendix D.6 at App.89a). Many of these

never returned ballots were the unlawful ones issued

by the SoS as outlined in Appendix C.1 at App.56a.

15

It was widely reported that many Georgians

showed up to vote on Election day to find a vote was

already cast in their name via a fraudulent Absentee

Ballot.

In a recent municipal election, it was proven that

a deceased voter was purposefully put back on the

voter roll and then fraudulently voted only to be called

a “test ballot” by the SoS when challenged about the

finding (Appendix D.7 at App.97a). Deceased voters

are being added in 2023 in apparent preparation for

2024.

Amicis provided evidence to the Court of 8,600

Felons deleted near the 2020 election and 336 of those

received credit for a vote (Appendix D.8 at App.100a).

One Felon voted on 11/03/2020 and was cancelled as

“Felon” on the very same day.

Comparing the vote count of various editions of

the 2020 SoS VHF, Amicis found 54,006 registrants

were deleted and 6,504 were added. (Appendix D.10

at App.106a)

V.

Improper Registration Data

The SoS is also not adhering to proper Registration Data requirements in the voter database. There

are 8,900 registrants without a full legal name and

3,763 without a proper address. A total of 6,678 of

these incomplete registrants had votes credited during

Georgia federal elections (Appendix E.1 at App.107a).

Amicis have provided evidence to the Court of

4,634 registrants during the 2020 Election with no

assigned precinct data, and 146 received credit for

voting (Appendix E.2 at App.108a).

16

Amicis have provided evidence to the Court that

a minimum of 1,000 registrants voted from non-residential properties (Appendix E.3 at App.112a).

VI. Improper List Maintenance

Pursuant to NVRA, HAVA, and Georgia law, the

SoS is required to maintain voter rolls, and the data

suggests in 2020, there were 128,636 Registrants that

should have been inactive instead of active (Appendix

F.1 at App.116a), and 87,830 registrants that should

have been purged instead of inactive (Appendix F.2 at

App.117a).

SUMMARY

The evidence derived from the SoS’s own files

shows: the creation of phantom, fake and fraudulent

electors via the Synthetic Identity Theft of real

Georgians; Electors that are not on the voter roll

receiving credit for voting; Manipulation of dates via

back-dating to give the appearance of a qualified

elector; Double voting; Swapping of real elector’s vote;

Hijacking of inactive voters to add votes; Hijacking of

Georgian’s address to perpetuate Fake Absentee Ballots;

Counting votes on Absentee Ballots never received by

or Rejected by the County; Adding Absentee votes

with no Absentee file data to substantiate the vote;

and violations of most Federal and Georgia Election

laws. This evidence is in addition to the false audits,

hackable uncertified machines, unconstitutional proprietary QR codes, duplicate and test scanned counted

ballots, and unavailable ballots for review, thereby

clearly defining Georgia’s entire election system as

17

insidiously corrupt, from the beginning of the process

thru certification, and post certification alteration of

records. The utilization of these systems allows for

and enables, bad actors to violate the constitutionally

protected rights of Georgian’s and has served to

perpetrate fraud against the U.S.

This Brief is not about which Federal or State

candidate won, but it does prove that no one could

possibly know who the valid winner was. It also proves

that Raffensperger, by failing to perform his ministerial

duties, does not qualify for the defense of sovereign

immunity.

“To justify the extraordinary remedy of a mandatory injunction from this Court, an applicant must

show that the ‘legal rights at issue’ in the underlying

dispute are ‘indisputably clear’ in its favor”, Lux v.

Rodrigues, 561 U.S. 1306, 1307 (2010) (Roberts, C.J.,

in chambers), “such that this Court is reasonably

likely to grant certiorari and reverse any judgment

adverse to the applicant entered upon the completion

of lower-court proceedings”, see Stephen M. Shapiro et

al., SUPREME COURT PRACTICE § 17.13(b) (10th ed. 2013).

“In addition, the applicant must establish that an

injunction is ‘necessary in aid of’ this Court’s jurisdiction.”, Lux, 561 at 1307; see also Ohio Citizens for

Responsible Energy, Inc., v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313

(1986) (Scalia J., in chambers).

Although the Electoral College Clause seemingly

vests complete discretion over how electors are

appointed, the Court has recognized a federal interest

in protecting the integrity of the electoral college

process. Thus, in Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 65

(1884), the Court upheld Congress’s power to protect

the right of all citizens as to the selection of any legally

18

qualified person as a presidential

Yarbrough at 657, the Court stated:

elector.

In

If this government is anything more than a

mere aggregation of delegated agents of other

States and governments, each of which is

superior to the general government, it must

have the power to protect the elections on

which its existence depends from violence

and corruption. If it has not this power it is

helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence

and insidious corruption.

In Burroughs & Cannon v. United States, the

Supreme Court sustained Congress’s power to protect

the choice of electors from fraud or corruption.

The Court and Congress have imposed limits on

state discretion in appointing electors. In Williams v.

Rhodes, the Court struck down a complex state

system that effectively limited access to the ballot to

the electors of the two major parties. In the Court’s

view, the system violated the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored

certain individuals and burdened the right of individuals

to associate together to advance political beliefs and

the right of qualified voters to cast ballots for electors

of their choice. The Court denied that the Electoral

College Clause immunized such state practices from

judicial scrutiny.

The multiple schemes, as evidenced by the SoS’s

own data and files, which occurred in the Federal

elections of 2020 and 2022, are continuing to this day

and are being perpetrated in the 2024 elections. This

implies that, without an injunction, the Presidential

19

election of 2024 is already uncertifiable. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

CONCLUSION

The entirety of the Georgia voter registration and

balloting system is fraudulent, unreliable, easily manipulated, and renders our elections void and invalid.

The current system deprives and dilutes the constitutionally protected rights of qualified electors of their

right to vote and have that vote count. There is at

the least maladministration and at worst fraud being

perpetrated upon the People via: Identity Theft;

Absentee Ballots; swapping of votes; inserting votes;

the counting of votes of impossible or phantom registrants; and the manipulation of the voter registration

database before, during, and for months after the

election period. The ability of these systems to be

exploited in this manner should be sufficient reason

to grant the Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. The SoS

appears to have committed fraud against Georgia and

the U.S. (See 18 U.S.C. § 1031). With the analysis and

evidence provided to this Court by the Amicis and the

additional evidence within the Petitioners’ court filings,

this Court should grant the Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. This relief will ensure that the election process

is conducted in a manner consistent with the U.S.

Constitution and promote public confidence in the

results of future elections.

20

Respectfully submitted,

Tiffany Jones Ellenberg

Counsel of Record

TIFFANY JONES ELLENBERG

ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC

204 Thomason Street

Madison, GA 30650

(706) 342-4406

tiffany@ellenberglaw.net

Counsel for Amici Curiae

May 31, 2024

See digital Appendices A – G in the folder “Exhibits

and Supporting Documents for U.S. Supreme Court

Docket 23-1172” at this link:

https://tinyurl.com/bdhwpkax