Search Posts

Attorney Scott is representing the recall campaign in its litigation and potential litigation and representing it in the matters of WEC. And just for a little bit of background, when I had the investigation into the 2020 election, you know, I couldn't get one lawyer from Wisconsin who was willing to work on the investigation because they were all frightened of no offense, but what the press would do to them and what the opposition would do to them. And it seems wrong that there should be opposition to finding out what happened in an election, but there it is. So ever since then, I have to tell you, I've got a lot of respect for Attorney Scott. I'm very grateful that to work with him and that he is my friend. So we stand before you today, united in our resolve to uphold the principles of democracy and to ensure that the voices of the people are heard. The recall petition against Speaker Robin Voss is a testament to the power of the people and their right to hold their elected officials accountable. We demand that the Wisconsin Elections Commission set a date for the recall election, and that date, according to the statutes, is July 30, 2024. Our efforts to gather the necessary signatures have been met with numerous challenges and unfounded allegations. Despite these obstacles, we've successfully collected over 9,000 signatures, well above the required threshold of 6,850. These signatures represent the voices of the citizens of the 63rd Assembly District who demand change and accountability. It's crucial to address a fundamental issue with Speaker Voss's challenge to our recall petition. You know, Robin Voss did not follow the law, and his response to WEC, his challenge to the petition, may not be lawfully considered by WEC. According to Wisconsin Administrative Code EL-20-035, the complainant, not the complainant's representative, shall verify the allegations of the complaint. The complainant verifies the complaint by signing a statement under oath before a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths. This requirement clearly states that a lawyer cannot sign the challenge on behalf of the complainant. However, Voss did not sign the complaint and instead allowed his attorney to do so on his behalf. Voss's failure to comply with this requirement makes his challenge procedurally deficient and void and illegitimate. Despite this, Speaker Voss has attempted to subvert the democratic process by challenging the validity of our petition through his attorney. He has alleged but shown no evidence of fraud and procedural irregularities, and we stand firm in our commitment to the truth. The signatures we gathered are legitimate, and the people who signed our petition did so with full knowledge of its purpose. Excuse me. It's important to note that even after their extensive challenges, Voss's team seems to have conceded in their filings with the Wisconsin Elections Commission that we have gathered enough signature to meet the required threshold of 6,850 for a recall election. This acknowledgement by Robin Voss's own team further underscores the validity and legitimacy of our recall petition. The burden of proof when it comes to challenging signatures is, was, and will always be always has been on Voss's team to substantiate any claims they make against our petition. They have repeatedly tried to shift the burden onto the electors of the 63rd District despite their challenge being void. They have not proven or even had any evidence of their allegations. Despite their best efforts to undermine our petition, they have failed to present any credible evidence to support their claims. Now we have to highlight a critical issue that undermines the fairness of this process. Attorney James Wateka of the Wisconsin Elections Commission has been providing guidance to Robin Voss's legal team, potentially subverting the statutes and laws designed to ensure a fair recall process. How can we expect a fair shot at this recall when Voss's attorney openly states he's being guided by Weck and Administrator Wolf? You know, I say that because we received from Attorney Fernholtz, who represents Robin Voss, an email exchange that he had with Attorney James Wateka, who is the senior lawyer at the Wisconsin Elections Commission. He's the boss of the lawyers. And I see that Attorney Fernholtz puts his request to bend the rules to Attorney Wateka at 9.02 p.m. So does Robin Voss's attorney have Jim Wateka's personal cell phone? This is not working hour, usual working hours for Weck. And in fact, Attorney Wateka responded about 12 minutes later at 9.15 p.m. and says, "Matt, Administrator Wolf and I have conferred and she granted both of your requests." This leapt out at me because a few weeks ago, I reached out to the lawyers at the Wisconsin Elections Commission to say, "Why haven't you assigned District 63 as the proper district for recall when the Constitution says that it's the electors of the district that elected the Representative who has the right to recall the Representative?" And I went through some back and forth emails with a younger lawyer and then finally I said, "Listen, I know you're not empowered to answer this question or something like that. I know that your answer and my conclusion are going to be different, but what I do not understand is your mental process. I don't understand your points of reference here as to how you're arriving at your conclusion. Would you just please let me know that?" Well, I don't get a return email from the younger lawyer. I get a return email from Jim Wateka who tells me quite smartly, "Well, as you know or should know whatever he said, all of those decisions have to be made by the Commission." All right, so that's for me when I call on behalf of the recall campaign, but when Matt Fernholz calls on behalf of Robin Boss to protect him from having to face a recall, he gets right through not just to Jim Wateka. Wateka didn't say anything to me about, "Let me confer with Megan Wolfe," or "Let me talk with some of the Commissioners," or "Here, why don't you take these steps?" That's why I say one of my first recommendations at the end of that investigation was to abolish WEC. Just as I believe that Robin Boss is the worst of politics, I believe that WEC is the worst of all government bureaucracies. They act as a law unto themselves. They favor one party over the other. Robin Boss's lawyer gets free access to WEC senior lawyer at nine o'clock at night, and I'm lucky if I get a response via email telling me that they're not going to answer my question. It's particularly troubling that this recall was initially driven by Speaker Boss's protection of Megan Wolfe from impeachment. Now it looks even worse that Megan Wolfe and the Wisconsin Elections Commission are seemingly going against the law and the statutes to assist Boss in fending off this recall. This situation not only undermines any trust left in our democratic institutions, but also highlights a serious conflict of interest that must be addressed. We cannot and will not allow the voice of the people of the District 63 to be silenced. This recall is not just about one individual. It's about the fundamental right of the citizens to hold their elected representatives accountable. The attempts to dismiss our petition and deny the people their constitutional right to recall election are unacceptable and undemocratic. The allegations of fraud have been thoroughly debunked. The claims of out-of-district signatures have been disproven by John Van Haden's meticulous work which Attorney Scott submitted to the Wisconsin Elections Commission on behalf of the recall. He demonstrated that the vast majority of the signatures in question were indeed from legitimate residents of the 63rd Assembly District. Furthermore, the instances labeled as fraud were merely citizens assisting their loved ones in signing the petition, a practice that is both legal and ethical, and was noted on the sheet or on a document accompanying the sheet at the time by the person who collected the signature. It's clear that our petition is valid and it's time for the Wisconsin Elections Commission to act. We demand that the Wisconsin Elections Commission set the date for the recall election of Tuesday, July 30, 2024. The people of the 63rd Assembly District have spoken and their voices must be heard and honored. Any further delay is a direct affront to their constitutional right and a betrayal of the democratic principles we hold dear. Let's not forget that this recall is about preserving the integrity of our elections and democracy and ensuring that our elected officials are accountable to the people they serve. The Wisconsin Elections Commission must act now to certify our petition and schedule the recall election without further delay. We won't be silenced. We will not be denied our rights. The time to act is now and we call upon the Wisconsin Elections Commission to uphold the principles of democracy and set the recall election date for Tuesday, July 30. Now I'm going to invite Attorney Scott to make some remarks and then we'll take some of your questions. Thank you Justice Gableman. I don't have any prepared remarks today. I guess I want to just comment on a couple of quick things as far as the law goes. Number one, I'm a practicing attorney so I can't make any political statement here today and I don't intend to make any political statement and also I'm not going to comment specifically on anything having to do with litigation but one comment that's been made repeatedly about this contention that the challenge was not verified by Speaker Voss. It's important that things be verified when called for in the law. Oftentimes when a complaint is filed or other things are filed it's not required that somebody actually swear to it under oath. When somebody swears to something under oath they're verifying the truth of what is there based upon an allegiance to a higher power of whatever that power may be they have an allegiance to. When that doesn't happen that doesn't have the same kind of weight under the law as other things do. So this isn't just some petty grievance about a technical paperwork error. This actually matters substantively in the law. The other thing I wanted to comment on is in the challenge if there is going to be a challenge if it's considered there's a burden of proof here. Speaker Voss has to meet a burden of proof in order to overcome the facial validity of the petition itself. The petition has enough signatures on its face to call a recall election. In order to overcome that facial the facial validity of the petition there needs to be a challenge to it. Without a challenge the burden of proof is not met. Also if the challenge itself does not meet the burden of proof then there is no reason to not call a recall election and that's why we believe that WEC at this point has no choice but to call a recall election. Now finally the timing of that would be the sixth week following the filing of the petition. WEC at this point because they don't have any challenge in front of them or they have a challenge that does not sufficiently meet the burden of proof means that they need to file the petition with themselves I guess and then the recall election must be called for the Tuesday of the sixth week following that filing. So anytime this week if the petition were to be filed by WEC the election would be on July 30th where it would be next week it would be August 6th. And then beyond that I just want to say that there is an issue of conflict of interest here that I think everybody kind of needs to recognize. When you have an elected official that's facing a constitutional process of recall when the decision whether or not that recall is valid is being oversawed, oversawed, overseen by a group that in large part was appointed by that elected official you have a conflict of interest present that I think needs to be addressed. So with that I think that's all I have for remarks and we can take any questions you may have.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, according to your work in this. 42,000 people. 1,500 people voted in Nevada that were dead. 19,000 people voted though they did not live in Nevada and they weren't a college student. 8,000 people voted from a non-existent address. 15,000 people voted though they were registered to a commercial address or a vacant address, and 4,000 people voted in Nevada that are non-citizens. My question to you is, in my state, when someone votes twice, and we do have that occasionally, about 50 times a year that that actually occurs in our state, we prosecute individuals that vote twice. Of this 130,000 instances that you have identified from the 2020 election in Nevada, do you know of any prosecutions currently going on in Nevada for any voter fraud? Not yet, Senator, and that's extremely important.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.