Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26K views

    Costantino Et Al V Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Uploaded by

    WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit
    Costantino Et Al v Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Costantino Et Al V Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Uploaded by

    WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit
    26K views13 pages
    Costantino Et Al v Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Original Title

    Costantino Et Al v Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Costantino Et Al v Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26K views13 pages

    Costantino Et Al V Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Uploaded by

    WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit
    Costantino Et Al v Wayne BOC Et Al Opinion & Order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 13
    STATE OF MICHIGAN, IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE Cheryl A. Costantino and Edward P. McCall Jr. Plaintis, Hon. Timothy M. Kenny ‘Case No. 20-014780-AW City of Detroit; Detroit Election Commission; Janice M. Winfrey, in her official capacity as the Clerk ofthe City of Detroit and the Chairperson and the Detroit Election Commission; Cathy Garrett, In her official capacity as the Clerk of Wayne County; and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, Defendants. OPINION & ORDER At a session of this Court Held on: November 13, 2020 Inthe Coleman A. Young Municipal Center County of Wayne, Detroit, Ml PRESENT: Honorable Timothy M. Kenny Chief Judge Third Judicial Circuit Ccurt of Michigan ‘This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, protective order, and a results audit of the November 3, 2020 election. The Court having read the parties’ fling and heard oral arguments, fins: With the exception of a portion of Jessy Jacob affidavit, all alleged fraudulent claims brought by the Plaintfis related to activity at the TCF Center. Nothing was alleged to 4 have occurred at the Detroit Election Headquarters on West Grand Blvd. or at any polling place on November 3, 2020. ‘The Defendants all contend Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements for injunctive relief and request the Court deny the motion, When considering a petition for injunction relief, the Court must apply the following four-pronged test: 1. The likelihood the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits 2. The danger the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm ifthe Injunction is not granted. 3. The risk the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence €an injunction than the opposing party would be by the granting ofthe injunction. 4. The harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. Davis v Cy of Detroit Financial Review Team, 296 Mich. App. 568, 613; 821 NW2nd 896 (2012). Inthe Davis opinion, the Court also stated that injunctive relief “represents an entrao Fy and drastic use of judicial power that should be employed sparingly and only with full conviction of its urgent necessity." /d, at 612 fn 135 quoting Senior Accountants, Analysts and Appraisers Association v Detroit, 218 Mich. App. 263, 269; 553 NW2nd 679 (1996). When deciaing whetner injunctive relet is appropriate MCR 3,310 (AX4) states that the Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the preliminary injunction should be granted. In cases of alleged fraud, the Plaintif must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud. MCR 2.112 (B) (1) Plaintiffs must establish they will Ikely preval on the merits. Plaintiffs submitted ‘seven affidavits in support of their petition for injunctive relief claiming widespread voter 2 {raud took place at the TOF Center. One ofthe affidavits also contended that there was blatant voter fraud at one of the satelite offices of the Detroit City Clerk, An additional affidavit supplied by current Republican State Senator and former Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, expressed concern about allegations of voter fraud and urged “Court, Intervention’, as well as an audit of the votes. In opposition to Plaintifs! assertion that they will prevail, Defendants offered six affidavits from individuals who spent an extensive period of time at the TCF Center. In ‘addition to disputing claims of voter fraud, six affidavits indicated there were numerous instances of disruptive and intimidating behavior by Republican challengers. Some behavior necessitated removing Republican challengers from the TCF Center by police. ‘After analyzing the affidavits and briefs submitted by the parties, this Court concludes the Defendants offered a more accurate and persuasive explanation of activiy within the Absent Voter Counting Board (AVCB) at the TCF Center. Affiant Jessy Jacob asserts Michigan election laws were violated prior t» November 3, 2020, when City of Detroit election werkers and employees allegedly coached voters to vote for Biden and the Democratic Party. Ms. Jacob, a furloughed City worker temporarily assigned to the Clerk's Office, indicated she witnessed workers and employees encouraging voters to vote a straight Democratic ticket and also witnessed election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to encourage as well as watch them vole. Ms. Jacob additionally indicated while she was working at the satelite location, she was specifically instructed by superiors not to ask for driver's license or any photo ID when a person was trying to vote. ‘The allegations made by Ms. Jacob are serious. In the affidavit, however, Ms. Jacob does not name the location ofthe satellite office, the September or October date these 3 acts of fraud took place, nor does she state the number of occasions she witnessed the alleged misconduct. Ms. Jacob in her affidavit fails to name the city employees responsible for the voter fraud and never told a supervisor about the misconduct. Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location, frequency, or names of employees, In addition, Ms. Jacob's offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct orto alte: any supervisor ‘about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results Of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner inthe state of Michigan, IMs. Jacob also alleges misconduct and fraud when she worked at the TOF Center. She claims supervisors directed her not to compare signatures on the ballot envelopes she was processing to determine whether or not they were eligible voters, She also states that supervisors directed her to ‘pre-date” absentee ballots received at the TOF Center on November 4, 2020. Ms. Jacob ascribes a sinister motive for hese directives. Evidence offered by long-time State Elections Director Christopher Thomas, however, reveals there was no need for comparison of signatures at the TCF Center because eligibility had been reviewed and determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters on West Grand Blvd, Ms. Jacob was directed not to search for or compare sianatures. because the task had already been performed by other Detroit city clerks at a previous location in compliance with MCL 168.765a. As to the allegation of ore-dating’ ballots, Mr. Thomas explains that this action completed a data field inadvertently left blank

    You might also like