Understanding the head-spinning series of court orders in Georgia: The federal district court in Atlanta kept reversing himself regarding erasing voting machines in Georgia but, for now, everything is A-OK

If you’re wondering what happened in Georgia on Sunday, you’re not alone. A federal district court issued three different orders about county officials’ plans to wipe Dominion voting machines. Thankfully, the last order gets it right and stops Georgia officials from erasing information on voting machines at the heart of the debate about election fraud.

Word went out that Georgia officials were wiping Dominion voting machines in Fulton County, ostensibly to prepare them for the run-off election, which is more than a month away. In Coreco Ja’qan Pearson, et al. v. Brian Kemp, et al., a lawsuit seeking to stop Georgia from certifying the election, the plaintiffs filed an emergency request for injunctive relief to stop the deletions.

Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. issued an order stopping Union County officials from wiping voting machines:

In addition, Plaintiffs contend that Union County officials have advised that they are going to wipe or reset the voting machines of all data and bring the count back to zero on Monday, November 30. To the extent Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order to preserve the voting machines of the State of Georgia, and to prevent any wiping of data, their motion is granted. Defendants are ordered to maintain the status quo and are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.

This was an appropriate order. The point of injunctive relief is to stop irreversible actions that could negatively affect material issues in a lawsuit.

An hour later, Judge Batten reversed his order because plaintiffs had not named the county officials who controlled the voting machines:

THE DRAMA WENT ON UNTIL LATE SUNDAY NIGHT ....

Lin Wood, upon learning of the order, asked the appropriate question: “Why are GA officials determined to wipe these machines clean [by] resetting them?”

At this point, Lin Wood’s counsel in a different matter filed a “spoliation letter.” I discussed that doctrine here.

Briefly, the spoliation doctrine holds that, when a party to litigation, a person or entity who knows litigation is possible and imminent, or a person constrained by law, destroys documents, that destruction creates the automatic presumption that the evidence so destroyed proved the liability or guilt of the person or entity who carried out that destruction. Put more simply, only someone guilty would destroy evidence.

In the letter, Wood’s attorney but the defendants on notice as to the evidence they will be expected to make available as the litigation continues.

Meanwhile, in Pearson v. Kemp, things were looking grim. However, late in the evening, Judge Batten reversed himself again. In his third (final?) order, Batten summarized the parties’ arguments.

The plaintiffs said that they would amend their complaint to add the county officials, which would address the court’s concerns about jurisdiction. The defendants, who do not include Dominion, said “allowing such forensic inspections would pose substantial security and proprietary/trade secret risks to Defendants.” I’m probably missing something here, but why would Georgia government officials be claiming “proprietary/trade secret risks” in the Dominion voting system?

Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that defendants’ could record any forensic analysis. Afterward, the information would not be released but would be subject only to the court’s review (in camera review). This is the norm in cases involving trade secrets and proprietary information.

Judge Batten decided he needed more information. He gave the defendants until Wednesday, December 2, at 5 p.m. to file a detailed brief explaining their concerns. In the meantime:

Let’s spell this out. Phone call logs are kept for decades. Every text you send,where you were when it was sent,which tower was used to make the connection ect. Is all stored indefinitely and replicated multiple times as to not lose that data. The replication happens in multiple cities world wide. There is no reason this data cannot be replicated and stored. There is no justification for this, particularly at this time. No, legal reason. These people are crooks. The judge, if he is wise, should just call them out on this.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.