Remaining defendants may raise any factual or legal issues that are specific as to that particular defendant, do we agree that that would be the best way to proceed . Good afternoon, i would like to take the lead. If any other lawyers have any other we would do a little round robin if everyone is going to be acknowledged. I dont think i need an Opening Statement but i will give you the opportunity to make one, i have Read Everything that has been docketed, there are a couple minuscule issues i want to take up. You can reasonably anticipate with his desk what those issues will be. Let me just make sure before i to Opening Statements clarify a few items, make sure we are all on the same page, i think we all are. The plaintiff amended a complaint which was filed this has essentially removed several counts from the original complaint. As i understand now, the only two remaining counts are for alleged violations of equal protections clause of the 14th amendment and the electoral clause, am i correct . That is correct. And to the ash do the plaintiffs agree that the United States court of appeals opinion at the end of last week that the plaintiffs cannot assert standing in this circuit to raise their elections and electors clause claims . Yes, the only clarification seekat we are going to comparative to amend this complaint to restore our due process claim which was mistakenly removed. But we are withdrawing we are preserving for appeal the elector and elections clause, but we will not be proceeding on that. That is one of the issues i would like to talk about at the end of the oral argument. Then, circle back to you we will attend to that issue about a further amendment to the complaint. Claim only outstanding really before this court at this point is the equal protection claim. Speaking for your collective defendants do you agree . Agree, your honor. Thehe plaintiffs bear burden of proof, so ill ask them to present first, mr. Giuliani, go ahead. Your honor would you like me to is it is the easiest for counsel to speak from the table . Thats fine. If you need to use the podium you are welcome to do so, we have just found that during this remained seated at the counsel table, it is not my general preference but i understand. Court, myplease the name is Rudolph Giuliani and i am here on behalf of the plaintiffs, i think the court very much for allowing me to be admitted. Your honor the best description of what we are alleging and again on a motion to dismiss our allegation has to be deemed to be accurate and true, of course that is subject to testing during the hearing. The best description is the situation to widespread, nationwide voter fraud of which is the daypart and that is part of the reason i am here because this is not an isolated case, it is a case that is repeated in at least 10 other jurisdictions. It seems to me in the words of is one of those situations where you never let a serious crisis go to waste. It is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Specifically, the crisis of the pandemic that was taking place. The opportunity to do something had been resisted for two decades which is to create a widescale, open mailin ballot process which we had been warned about by none other than jimmy baker in ajames report they did in 2006 i believe on election reform. They very seriously want us quote mailin ballot and is the Largest Force of voter fraud. I dont think there is any dispute about that, mailin ballot ding is extremely balloting is a stream a dangerous and can be used for voter fraud. We believe in this case we are going to prove that former president carter and former secretary aker were baker were prophets. This new mail and system which i said president carter warned timest, even the new york wrote an article explaining how dangerous this was, they have since changed their position. The whole situation on a smaller scale goes back to as early as 1960 when they held back about couldko chicago so he tidy up the result and make it came out the way they wanted or you can go to 2018 in florida and the governors election and the senate election, the votes from Palm Beach County and Broward County were withheld for town 10 days to see if they could catch up until a group of ballots were found adding from jacksonville to palm beach that appeared to be fraudulent ballots. The election came to an end. We did not have that happen again this year. This practice of holding back votes which happens in my city also, your honor, is a timehonored rectus that is done in the big practice that is done in the big cities. Candy we now have store. We now have a wonderful opportunity to hold back votes even to produce votes after the election to make up a deficit. So what happened . In 2016, in this state in the commonwealth, there were only 256,000 absentee ballots, this year, so far, 2. 6 million. That is a totally different world and a number of and of the allegations take place in these counties, but the principal ones are in philadelphia and allegheny. Democrat controlled by democrats in the case of philadelphia. 60 years, wellknown for voter fraud, i dont know if you kept a list of all the voter fraud convictions in philadelphia, it is just this year a judge claimed guilty to put her fraud and a congressman has been indicted. I can go on and on. Relevant to this case, anddelphia, pittsburgh just a little bit to the west, detroit similar allegations. Milwaukee, similar allegations. The firstudden for time ever, inspectors, watchers, observers, they are called Different Things in different states. Were not allowed to observe the counting of absentee ballots. I have never heard of that happen. I have never heard of an inspector being kept out of an absentee ballot counting because that is the only time that you can assure the validity of the ballot because the minute they are separated, the ballot goes off anonymous and it is lost forever, you can never link it paper. Certifying it seems to be wrong and you cant figure out which vote to cancel. That is why so much emphasis is put on the inspection process before this became the way of voting. Critical, it is our only way to assure that this new form of voting which has been widely criticized as open to massive fraud can be at all policed. It has been not violated in this case, it has been trashed, it has been stepped all over, it has been disregarded here and in 10 other places. In in a nearly similar pattern and also, in the places it happens, they all happen to be big cities controlled by democrats who suddenly have decided that you dont have a right to inspect and absentee ballot. 50 states have this rule, i dont remember this problem ever existing before. The point is this is not an accident. You have to be a full to think this was an accident, that somebody woke up in philadelphia and pittsburgh and milwaukee and detroit and phoenix all the way in las vegas and then way back weatlanta and they decided are going to all over the republicans today. Were not going to let them see it. They also did we are not going to let them see a single absentee ballot. I can give the court these examples of fences put up, as described as corrals or cages. Had a subcontract in all of these places to get that. The point that im making, your, this is not an isolated case. Least 10happened in at other jurisdictions, precisely the same time. What happened in atlanta is totally outrageous. , who is in Lancaster County voted by absentee ballot. I believe that he made a mistake in his vote for absentee ballots. This is a critical mistake. Developed ininsert the secrecy to insert the ballot in the secrecy envelope. Isa vote by absentee ballot a lot. I traveled a lot. I used two vote by absentee ballot a lot. I traveled a lot. The absentee, the outer ballot has all of the information that you need to see. Ive been in these contests myself. They are kind of like wrestling matches. Instead of doing it this way, he unfortunately just put the ballot in without what they called the secure envelope. So that his vote could remain anonymous. , and when they opened quite properly disregarded the ballot. The government is quite strict about that, because again, this is the only way to secure the validity of these results. The same thing happened with mr. Roberts. Philadelphia, in pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and eight other counties, with the encouragement of the secretary of state, there was total disregard. Disregarded this, and they were allowed to cure and inform people that there was something wrong with the entry. Strict re are quite in new york, we call it an assembly district. To have an assembly district, a precinct number, your voter id number, your address, and you need to sign it. If anyone of those things are missing, the ballot is tossed. Anyone. Henry, and of mr. Mr. Roberts, they made mistakes. They were given no opportunity to cure. Thousands of people. It could be hundreds of thousands of people in certain part of the state. The more democratic part of the state regular very full opportunity to cure. We are very many cases where they are being told that they made a mistake. You made a mistake, he did not sign your forename. Your honor, that is a classic violation of equal protection. I have no idea what the standing rejection is. That is bush v gore. This is a bush v gore violation example. They are being discriminated based on their location. And what part of the state you can and what part you can cure the bout, and in the other part of the state you cannot cure the ballot. This denies the right to vote. I do not know what is more serious than being denied the right to vote in a democracy. Therefore, how they could object the standing is almost frivolous, your honor. Now, lets get to the campaign. Caused theat has pleading of the pleadings, it went totally different than that. It was a harm that might possibly happen in the future. It had not happened. This is a harm that has happened. Haveenry and mr. Roberts been denied their right to vote. Their votes have been canceled. The trouble to paint been totally the Trump Campaign has been treated totally different then the bush campaign. Comeest of the state applied with the law. The rest of the state complied with the law. We have no complaints from republican, neutral part of the state about this happening. The only place we have this masse is on bass en counties controlled by the democratic machine that have quite an impressive list of voter fraud convictions as a part of their history and tradition. They did thisn, opportunity on a grand scale. I do not understand what the standing argument is. I do not understand how the president of the United States and the campaign does not have standing to assert, if we are right, which we have to assume that we were treated totally differently in another part of the state, mainly philadelphia and pittsburgh, where we cannot get in a single ballots. And the rest of the state, we had no problem with that. We have never had a problem with that in 50 years. This has never been a problem before. I believe that we are going to prove it. I believe that we are going to prove it way beyond the numbers that we have now. One of the problems that we have in this case, and why we had to amend, is because at the end of last week, we have twice as much evidence as last week. It is not just here, but all over the country. Just yesterday, in clark county, which is las vegas, the election board in clark county, which is five democrats and no are republicans, preferred the election of a democrat, based on irregularities in clark county. He was only part of it. We have five times more. Up ae not bringing frivolous argument here, your honor. This is happening, and to happens in all of these cases. We have begun for lawsuits. We have another one opening tomorrow. We have three others starting, asserting the same thing. How is this not real and tangible and already happening . Why do we come to a federal court . We come to a court because the enforces and protects people against violation of equal protection. It protects voters who had their votes stolen from them. It protects a candidate who appears to have an election stolen in the state of pennsylvania. And i believe in other states. Should we come, but today federal courts when we are talking about an election of the president of the United States . This not an injury. This is not an injury that might happen hypothetically. It happened. The votes have been counted. The illegal ballots that were not inspected at all have been entered and counted. 770 that we can count now. Rest week it was about last week it was about 340,000. When we get to the hearing, it it will probably be about 700,000 will be get to algona county Allegheny County pennsylvania. What am i talking about . Im talking about absentee or mailin ballots that were a singleithout republican having the opportunity to observe anything about the ballots. Behindre tabbed barricades star for away. Even after the closing, you could not see it. No possible chance of staying in the back. This is unfair. This is a disgrace. The is like saying to General Assembly in pennsylvania that we do not care about your law. Runearned we philadelphia the way that we want to run philadelphia. We laugh at your ballots. You have to have people present . We will have them present but behind barricades so far away that they cannot see a darn thing, even when they try to do it by binoculars. They had to . They have to use binoculars this is it fraud . This is total bully this is totally fraud. This would not happen in a bipartisan county. Enter the record, all the political corruptions all the political corruption convictions in photo via over the last 20 years. This does not happen in on displays. It did not happen in the rest of the state which is an honest state. This is an outrage. I have several people back here who entered in thought of you and got nasty. And philadelphia, we objected. We are pushed further back. Several people were assaulted. Several people were percheron, including women. We went to court and got a clarification that we could be six feet closer. , and the general who the gentleman who had the order forgot to bring the order with him. They moved them 12 feet further back instead of six feet closer. Days in philadelphia and we do not see two and a half days in philadelphia and we did not see a single ballots. These people wasted two days of their time to be made fools of. When we got the order and showed it to the sheriff, the sheriff said that if you move one step closer, i will arrest you. This is america. There are going to arrest somebody because they want to observe a ballot to make sure that his candidate is not going to be cheated in a blaze that is well known for cheating . And a place that is well known for cheating echo the net result is to the point that we are at 338,000 and pittsburgh. Over 340,000 and philadelphia. Let me correct what i said. When you look at the separate counties and look at them together it is 1. 5 million votes that were entered illegally. 1. 5 million votes that went in there. Knows to have who complied with the law is an employee of the democratic controlled city or county. Nobody else. In many cases, even democrats were not allowed to see it. They were not allowed to see it because they could not count on the fact the fact that ultimate cracks are crooked. When detroit did it, there was a witness. She was so distracted by the process, she came and reported. They made sure that it stayed with their mafia though be quiet about it. They did not let democrats or republicans see it. Nobody got to see it, completely flaunting the law of pennsylvania. Completelyant, violating what has been universally recognized as a fundamental fairness with these ballots. Every state in the union has inspection requirement. That is not by accident. If it did not have an inspection requirement, now that a third of our vote is being counted by absentee ballots, then you have to have one. You have to have one the youre going to enforce. Is allowed without serious sanctions, this could become an epidemic. You give them an inch, they are going to take a mile. They have already taken a mile. They take a mile, they are going to take the whole city. This cannot be allowed. [indiscernible] they stole an election. These votes are way more than enough to overturn the result of the election. Questions was did they have enough votes to overturn the results of the election . More votes that we need, and we are still getting complaints that we would overturn the results of the election. This is a real controversy. I want to law school. It is always been the simple test for whether or not you have standing. I really do believe that the argument on standing as an argument that delays this. They would like to delay this as long as possible. Court tor, i ask the motion soo deny this that we can quickly move to start to put before you the proof that we have. We have hundreds of affidavits. We question here, is if proceed to a hearing, that is your decision. We question will be, how do present the evidence without burdening the court . A lot of it is repetitious. The repetition proves it over and over again. Have 300ay that we affidavits, declarations, or our own statements written down that will be subjected to the process of affidavit. We do have, in addition to these , which i will submit to the court, judge brann you are welcome to do so. Have they had the opportunity to see this . Mr. Donovan i have not. I do not believe they are part of the complaint. Mr. Giuliani in paragraphs 142 to 149 i marked it. Judge brann we can go back to that. A set tou can supply mr. Donovan. Mr. Giuliani i believe it is 132 two 150. Judge brann continue your argument. Clear, thei to be first one is a picture of the center and philadelphia for the woman appears to be 20 to 30 feet away from the closest accounting area, obviously unable to see anything of significance. I will call that exhibit a. Cocounsel. I used to be a clerk. I hope im doing this right. I like this exhibit a. Judge brann so far so good. Mr. Giuliani in case i need a job after this. This is exhibit a. Again, as second picture to show how far away they were. As you might imagine, there is very serious objection to people who worst thing there like plotted like potted plants. Who were standing there like potted plants. The second one is in philadelphia. The second two, which we will a young woman who is having to use a binocular to try to see. As you imagine, it did not accomplish anything. She was not able to see youing, largely because cannot find anything. And that is pittsburgh. Of ff the course [indiscernible] judge brann mr. Giuliani is representing that exhibits a and b are from philadelphia county. Is inng exhibit c Allegheny County. D. Giuliani and also exhibit is in Allegheny County. Got these coming here today, i will check. If they are different counties, i would check and correct them. Honor,in conclusion your we would ask you to deny the motion so that we can as quickly as practical move to be part of it or we can present the evidence, so that we can show you what we are alleging, which you have deemed to be true now, which is that we could establish improve this with witnesses, photographs, videos, audios, and expert witnesses. Judge brann thank you. Mr. Giuliani thank you, your honor. Judge brann before i turn it to the defense, withdrawd a motion to with the agreement of my client. I discharge to the new counsel strategy. Judge brann i know that, ms. Kerns. But what i do hear it because i had specific questions. I thought since you have been involved and representing the Trump Campaign from the beginning, they might be able to answer. You are welcome. If youre not able to answer those questions, or if you prefer to defer those questions, to mr. Giuliani, youre welcome to do so. But i wanted to have you here today to ask questions that i think you could specifically answer. Ms. Kerns absolutely, and i would be happy to answer anything that you would like. Judge brann you have anything to add to mr. Giulianis argument . No, your honor. We will be representing donald trump and the campaign after. Judge brann understood. Ms. Kerns [indiscernible] judge brann very good, thank you very much. May i use the podium . Thats fine, thank you. [shuffle noises] [inaudible] judge brann are you going to show these on the screen . Mr. Donovan these are hardcopies. Judge brann mr. Giuliani, df a copy . Do you have a copy . Mr. Giuliani i do. Mr. Donovan i would like to thank you and your staff. I know that this is a difficult task. On behalf of the secretary, thank you. The november 23 deadline to certify the Election Results is fast approaching. Is secretary and team working overtime to certify the results. Have received a tremendous amount of briefing. I intend to do my best to distill the arguments rather than repeat them. A couple observations. Im going to focus on the First Amendment of finance. Much of the debate from the council on the other side of the aisle focused on allegations that were not a part of the complaint. The allegations were deleted out of the amendment complaint. They were coming up to provide a redline version. We have focused this afternoon the motion to disband it. Let me start and address with this case involves and what it does not involve. ,or those who have a hard copy i am on page three of the sites. At this point, we have a single claim, and thel actual predicate and the First Amendment complaint is challenging three Election Code practices. Thet, my client alleged there was a procurement of the balanced to election day. Plans to allege the certain of the ballots were ineffective. Some of the voters elected to provisional ballots on election day. The provisional ballots go through a process that involves review and the public process before county boards and they can be challenged in the state court if there any challenges. Thatr three, your honor, certain mailin ballots were not filled out with the Election Code. Havecounties should not counted these, but have been alleged they did. These are three practices that have been alleged to be in violation. This is under state law, that certain ballots should not be counted. That is the basis and complaint of the equal protection claim. I believe that it is just as critical of what is not in the complaint. There is no claim within the complaint that any qualified pennsylvania voter cast one. And not counted. There is no claim that any qualifying voter had a vote wrongly rejected. There is no claim to anybody not eligible to vote voted. And there is no claim of voter fraud that affects the first minute claim. Qualified, all pennsylvania voters had an equal right to vote. Every voter in every county had the right to vote in person or by mail. Unequale is nothing about the ability to cast a vote in this case. [indiscernible] at the end of the day, this case is about a claim. A very limited number of qualified voters had their votes counted. When they should not have been counted under state law. As a relief that has been rejoin certification of every ballot in the state. They do this by alleging that some state officials did not follow the code. That is not in the protection. I will walk through that. No federal court has ever recognized that theory. Anything other, i submit through county ballots not a federals constitutional claim. Now judge, let me go back to slide two. These are the four issues that we are going to address this afternoon. First, the lack of standing. The plans to pursue the equal protection laws. [indiscernible] fatal to the claims. Two, this fails the equal protection claims. Create a a tent to federal cause additional claim, when what they are challenging is state law practices. We will show that that the does the equalsh protection clause. Address ofell be an the final arguments and some other counsel may have points on it. And turn to in slide five. Judge, plans elected to serve the equal protection claim. I would submit to the court that there are three cases that im going to focus on. The Pennsylvania Voters Alliance from october. Second, [indiscernible] third, the decision in western pennsylvania. That is why will focus on. Because i went through your opinion, as your says about standing, article three of the United States courts, condition of the United States constitution limits power. Have power but limited jurisdiction. Thats what you going to say. Law honor goes through the on of particularity, speculation, causation, and redressability. Repeat thetend to law, but i want to apply these effects to it. The plans on standing are limited. Some qualified voters were able to procure provisional ballots and they found out that there mailin ballot was sufficient. Allegationecific their virtue is filled up the county. There is nothing else that sticks out. Theres a thing of the other 60 counties in the commonwealth. This does not establish standing for the individual voters or the campaign. In your honors case, and the Trump Campaign versus the boockvar district. This is all dismissal based on standing. Going to faithfully apply these principles. He explained that this was a quote. If the injury claims does more specific harm to you, or if it depends on a heart never happened, a harm that never happened, you may seek from federal court. The premise is that the right be a delusion of other votes they were cast in the state. It is none a concrete and particularized injury that is not a concrete in particular is injury. The injury is not particularized to the voters or to the campaign, and i submit the proposes plans to submit that claim. The Court Circuit held the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring equal protection claims alleging vote dilution because such a claim was neither concrete nor particularized. Specifically, the court held it. S not a concrete harm that the further held alleged accounting of improper votes is a generalized grievance that is insufficient to confer standing. I know you have looked, but if you look again at the First Amendment complaint, they found allegations the Election Code was not following standards. In the Third Circuit writing, a vote cast by fraud or mailed in by the wrong person through mistake or otherwise counted illegally has a mathematical impact on the final tally and a proportional effect of every vote, but no single voter is specifically disadvantaged. Such an alleged dilution is suffered equally by all voters and is not particularized. The sole equal protection claim in the First Amendment complaint boils down to a claim that some but not all of the defending counties counting mailin ballots with some defect in them or they should not have been counted. Precedent holds plainly that plaintiffs do not have precedent to challenge these votes as they looted under federal law. If an equal protection claim is countyted on unlawful ballots that were corrected, chief justice involvement confirms. The allegations amount to a generalized grievance that the pennsylvania election system is not solid. Every system every citizen thea investment in electoral process. It is a matter of state law. The plaintiffs only basis for the alleged dilution is the Election Code. That is not a concrete harm. Plaintiffs allege fellow electors were treated unequally. That is not a particularized harm to them. It is a generalized claim, again, that the pennsylvania election process was not followed in certain instances. The logical conclusion of the voter plans theory is that whenever an election board counts any ballot that deviates in some way from the requirement of the states legislative region, there is a particularized injury sufficient to confer article three standing provided the remainder of the standing analysis is verified, but allowing standing procession injury strikes us as indistinguishable to a sort of containing thet proper application of the and thation and laws, is what we have here, judge. The campaigns argument is no different. The campaign argues the counting of alleged share ballots or provisional ballots, but it would not affect the campaign in a particularized way. Why is that . Because the ballots being counted were for all races on the ballots. Federal and state. All candidates in state and races were subject to the same roles. I would direct the courts again, this is a case from november 2, 2020. They said the plaintiffs general claim that the county election is being differently than texas other counties does not rise to the level of the sort of tequila rice injury that the Supreme Court had required andconstitutional standing election cases. In the briefing, judge, there were some allegations from plaintiffs that they were denied the vote, but plaintiffs do not actually allege vote denial. Let me start with the two voters. If the concern of the voters was that their vote was denied, they needed to sue their own counties. Fayette and Leah Lancaster counties. They are not the defendants in this case. They did not deny the plaintiffs vote, nor could they. They are not voters in those counties. According to the point ofs allegations, they admit they did it wrong. The request for relief in this case is to stop votes for people in other counties and understanding case law, they dont have standing to generalize, and that goes to slide nine. We now go to dash cam the candidate sue for that in federal court under the u. S. Constitution, not pennsylvania law. The ruling is that such vote would have to be sufficient to change the outcome of the election. We heard numbers today and pictures i dont have everything, just the words. I looked at the complaint, and none of those numbers are in there. In the not alleged where other rotors cast a provisional ballot, if shortch counties provisional ballots. This goes to plaintiffs allege injuries that are speculative. These speculative injuries cannot stand in federal court. I heard from counsel this suchng that there are no allegations. They do argue they want discovery to find facts, but, i know that under the rules, plaintiffs must make allegations that survive dismissal. Finally, theres no sufficient allegations on imminent injury that they allege. They advance specific regardings philadelphia counties. They allege that a philadelphia tonty allowed certain voters cast provisional ballots. Theres no allegations about any other counties, and theres nothing related to the other counties in the common law. Wrap up. I come back to the trinity of these cases. Pennsylvania Voters Alliance from october, and the october campaign versus vote fraud all three found lack of standing, all lay out the law. Voters allege vote dilution. They are not challenging their own counties. The general grievance that counties should follow pennsylvania Election Code and not count other votes is not permissible in federal court. The campaign is not a voter, but they do not have standing. So the allegations they assert do not provide for standing to these allegations. That is not providing for a competitive disadvantage. If valid pennsylvania electors were able to get their ballots to be counted. Standing,to stop on though im happy to answer any. Uestions let me start on equal protection claims. I think that is the place to stop on standing. The challenges in state court nobody is trying to stop state court, but in federal court, theres limitations, and i dont believe they have satisfied, judge. Interrupt want to this flow of argument, but with regard to mr. Giuliani, just orient me how many matters are pending in Pennsylvania State courts . Donovan the one i quote in the pennsylvania Supreme Court currently is the one mr. Refers to as it canvas under state law is a sixfoot or 12foot issue. Some in theave been state court have already been adjudicated. There are some ongoing quick scan he better answer those questions . Them as he will answer part of his argument. Go ahead. Mr. Donovan ok. It fails to state cognizable claims. Again, i just want to emphasize this because it is the current complaint. The plaintiffs claims that certain counties permitted voters to destroy mailin ballots and have those votes ballot and that certain initiatives this alleged violation of state law cannot establish the federal equal protection clause. The complaint continues to try claimate a constitutional out of gardenvariety election practice disputes. Judge ron john held that gardenvariety election irregularities are simply not a matter of federal constitutional concern. Even if they control the outcome of the vote for the election. Allegationstiffs the claim does not involve any persons who are not qualified pennsylvania voters in the commonwealth. Instead, plaintiffs allege certain qualified voters were given notice or figured out that their mail ballots you can go online and it says if the vote is canceled, and they might have gone in person and voted provisionally. If a voter shows up at a polling place and says i want to vote, even if the book shows they have already voted, they have to be provided a provisional. That means that goes through the provisional processing gets figured out later. That is the allegation here. So what is alleged . Plaintiffs allege they dont even ledge that any county counted such a provisional ballot. Many complain again i come back to, they only allege there was a process with respect to philadelphia county, and the as toiffs offer nothing the other 60 pennsylvania counties, so lets turn now to what they allege. The plaintiffs cannot allege that it changes the eligibility. F an actual vote voters can elect to vote by mail or by person. That was equal throughout the commonwealth. That was a choice. The report here that choice for mailin ballot was passed with bipartisan approval. It was passed by the Republican Legislature and signed by governor wolf. Two they said that there was a 15tion that anybody work hard to make sure everybody in the state was able to vote however they chose to, and any select any indication otherwise is just not true. Also, we go to the plan. E judges got to vote somebodys got to vote provisional. That is required under the pennsylvania constitution code. All the u. S. Constitution requires is that a person has a right to vote and that the plaintiff voters do not dispute here that they had the opportunity to vote. I agree with mr. Giuliani. Both of them said they mailed in their votes and did it wrong. There is no dispute there. They had the opportunity to do that. Cannot demonstrate any burden on the right to vote, they had the opportunity. Theres plenty of reasons to have such processes. Sometimes they might have known they would have higher rates of mailin ballots, and counties can allocate resources different without creating a constitutional issue. Just a couple other related examples, different counties have different numbers of polling places. That is not an equal protection claim. Caseudge in the campaigns set having more issues in some areas that have higher fraud, judgellege, and the issues a protection violation, and its just not. The chargers also that somehow counties were limited from fraud protection. The secretary issued her guidance to all counties, all counties, and encouraged all counties to make Information Available to both parties and put it in the system. The fact that some counties may have emphasized these more than others is simply not constitutional violation. Why isnt it . Donovan im going to start going through those cases. You are a little ahead of me. Thats where im heading now. Protectionwith equal employs entirely different election procedures and voting systems within the state, and slide seven. On the next slide, it shows that if this were an equal protection problem on slide 13, it would transform every violation of state election law and every violation into a potential federal equal protection claim, scrutiny from the government interest for failing to do more to stop it. That is not the law. They challenged different drop boxes and different counties and assertat the counties equal protection and plugging different election procedures, and that is what i want to turn to for a moment, is the Trump Campaigns case. They did not appeal the decision. I want to explain why the claim now is not a constitutional violation. Its nearly identical equal protection theories were asserted by the campaign in their case. They are, like here, the campaign alleged pennsylvanias uneven use of drop boxes in different counties violated equal protection for voters in counties without drop boxes. The judge and this is at star 38 of the westlaw decision held that equal protection does not mean all forms of differential treatment are forbidden. Actually, the judge held the campaigns equal protection claim failed at the threshold because a plaintiff cannot allege a pennsylvania system of ferent use of drop foxes drop boxes will result in the of those voting citizen reason not others. Counties may employ different election procedures and systems within a single state, and that is at star 44 of that opinion. Before i proceed, i want to address a couple of points. Bulk of the, the to different ways the county delivers notice, not the way the votes are counted. The flaw, the Supreme Court found floridas interest in certifying different Election Results to be paramount, and they halted the recount because that was having issues that would prevent the state from certifying. They are asking you here to do the opposite. They want the court to issue an injunction that prohibits certification. This is not the first time this came up. A previous decision address the campaigns argument in that case related to bush v gore and held that the claim of different use of drop boxes could be an equal protection clause under bush v gore she said is wrong. Such dilution, if it actually happened, impacts the entire electorate facility, not just voters in the counties where it occurs. I think that answers the question that for federal court claims, equal protection, even taking what they allege is true, that voter dilution impacts the entire electorate equally, not just voters in the county where it occurs. The campaigns allegation is categorically different from the harm issue in bush and cases like that. Just a moment. Im told we have some technical issues. What about the virtual . Sorry to interrupt your presentation. While what im advised by my staff is that ultimately there were 8000 telephone lines set up through at t so that any journalist, any citizen, etc. Expressing interest in listening to this oral argument today can tune in. Well, guess what . We lines have dropped, so are going to take a short recess. It will be short. To get i. T. Department this corrected. We have done this before, but we have not had this many lines we have not had quite this much interest. Im not suggesting there are a thousand people on the line. The clerk told me before i came out there were at least 3700 people who had dialed in, which is wonderful, but they cannot hear. Counsel who are here virtually, you can hear me . Yes, your honor. Quick to do you understand what i just said . We are going to take a brief recess. It was a little earlier than i had hoped. Let the i. T. Department try to get these telephone lines set back up again. Apologies for interrupting. I think we need to do that at this point. We will stand in recess for probably no more than 10 minutes or so. [indiscernible] im sorry, say it again please, sir. Can you hear me . Up on me. Breaking maybe move away from or closer to the microphone. Can you hear me now . Try it again. You are breaking up on me. Im sorry. This letso see if we can tune you back in on a 10minute break . You,have information for though, for your break. Go ahead. What is it . Do your best. The Supreme Court has just issued an opinion on our case. It was my case. Wasrver case, saying there nothing wrong whatsoever about what philadelphia did. Maybe your honor could get the opinion while youre on break. Really good. I will look it up. Thank you very much. Lets check in with his line. The pennsylvania Supreme Court apparently has just ruled and ima decision 72 sorry, i misspoke. 52. Sevenmember court. Affirming the decision. Observer issue is not improper at all. Affirming the trial court. It affirms the trial court versus the commonwealth court, withhat is a 52 decision seven members. I will uphold the decision. I will hold the decision of. That may have some influence as i make my determination here. For those of you down in courtroom three, members of the public, we are taking a short break because there are some technical difficulties with those people who have dialed in on telephone lines, both embers of the press as well as members of the public. The assemblyin room who i believe are exclusively embers of the press, again, we are going to stand in recess, i hope not very long, to get these telephone lines back up, so dont stray too far away. We will be back momentarily. Thank you, counsel. All right, we are back on the record again. As council is aware and the members of the media, and because the public is present, we have the telephone lines go down for reasons that i dont understand. Im told that they are back up again so that the public can the oralte in arguments or try to listen to them. My apologies, mr. Donovan. You were sort of midway through your equal protection argument. You can pick up where you left off. I will. Thank you. We were discussing really why the allegations here do not establish an equal protection claim. Points, and imore want to point to some other cases. Context, thex plaintiffswhat through the campaign have not vote dilution affecting voters in one county more than others but merely different voting procedures in different counties that may contribute different amounts of vote dilution distributed equally across the electorate as a whole. The court finds that this is not an equal protection issue. Finally, with respect to that, i come back to the end of that section. He says it is wellestablished that even violations of state election laws by state officials, let alone violations by unidentified third parties, do not give rise to federal constitutional claims. They have said the equal protection claims fails as a matter of law. Page 27 of our brief to the amendment complaint cited the judge but also two other cases, and i just want to give you the content. One was a northeast ohio call for the homeless where an equal protection challenge was rejected, even amid evidence it cantermining about sometimes vary considerably. Kittens circuit in 2006 that equal protection requires a complaint. Local variety in voting systems can be justified by concerns about cost and so on. The point is, general complaints if there are differences between counties or counties may have counted some ballots differently does not equal a federal protection claim. With that, i move to slide 15. They set under the plaintiffs unlessless county california foists under system on all counties at once, it creates unconstitutional vote dilution in counties that do not participate. Nothing in the constitutional or case law suggests we can micromanage a States Election process to this degree. Slide 16, 2 more cases i just want to take off quickly. What is the fifth circuit recently, where again, they said a law that makes it easier for others to vote does not abridge any persons right to vote. The july 27 and october 1 proclamation which must be read together to make sense, are beyond any doubt measure to make it easier for eligible texans to vote absentee. How this expansion of the voting and district of nevada recently there they said clark county plan to make it easier for more convenient to vote from clark county but does not have any adverse effects on the ability of voters in other counties to vote. Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claim of equal protection violation where they provide no evidence and cannot provide any that the clark county plan makes it harder for voters in other counties to vote. Same thing here for the two border plaintiffs. They said we couldnt vote but nothing any county did anybody did made it any harder. They got to vote by mail. Unfortunately, they didnt do the secrecy envelope and the pennsylvania Supreme Court under state law said thats required so they werent counted. Where does that leave us, judge . Where it leaves us is that the two main plaintiffs as i said, they dont have standing but they also cant make an equal protection clause claim. Because the fact that some counties may have taken some steps to tell people, hey, you can vote provisional if you want and well see it gets counted didnt impact them. They got the right to vote. And the same thing for the campaign. That i talked about earlier about what they talked about for the campaign. And the competitive advantage. And i just went through all these equal protection claims cases including the Campaign Case in the western district. And there, what they cant show here is that any ballot that was counted affected any race differently on ballots and affected all candidates. And thats under federal equal protection law. So to wrap this section up, judge, the secretary fundamentally disagrees with allegations that the pennsylvania Election Code was violated or there was fraud. In fact, quite a huge success during the pandemic that almost seven million pennsylvania citizens voted. But thats not an issue in this case. Thats not an issue in this case. Suffice it to say the plaintiffs allegations as alleged in the First Amendment complaint do not establish a federal equal protection clause that they could pursue and it should be dismissed today as a matter of law. And judge, i want to end my section before i hand off to erincheck there is one case. Mr. Giuliani spent a lot of time on canvass and the pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled and thats moot but the red line the plaintiffs provided about the canvassing, delete it. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted. So here on a motion to dismiss, so i think we have to take the First Amendment complaint, no standing. No equal protection clause claim. And theyve deleted the claims mr. Giuliani talked about. And i want to add one final vote. To say they dont have a federal equal protection clause claim does not mean there cant be challenges. Im sure the campaign here did, they challenged on election day. They challenged after election day and theyre challenging still in state court. That to be decided by state court. But for our purposes, judge, they do not have a federal federal equal protection claim. Thank you, judge, for your time again. I turn to mr. Aaroncheck next. Are you ready to proceed on the abstention issues . Mr. Arabcheck, you may still be on mute. Lets try it again. Unmuted now. Yes. Can we turn him up just a little could we turn you p a little bit in volume, sir . Do you have a volume control . That was good. Counsel, can you hear . Ok. Counsel is indicating yes. You are good there just a moment ago, mr. Aaroncheck. Go right ahead. Thank you, judge brann, and thank you for the courtesy of appearing virtually. I appreciate that a lot. I was prepared and will address abstention. But because a number of the items that mr. Giuliani raised, because of some of the intervening case law from the Supreme Court, your questions that you raised. I want to say that if you a very important statement. And chief justice sailors dissenting opinion in his uling. Heyre not mr. Aronchick. We are having some problems hearing you. Mr. Aronchick, just a minute. Can they put their screens up and see him . That may help. Old on a second. I realize seeing is not hearing. I appreciate they are different senses. But in my mind that helps. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Verl arguments have some verl arguments have some difficulties as you can appreciate. So do the best you can. I do. I do. And i hope that you can hear me. Because youre the important one. I can hear you. So the first point was that the observer issue was decided decisively in the pennsylvania Supreme Court. And you can see that in the ajority opinion. And it checks out almost 90 what mr. Giuliani was trying to argue is somehow involved in this case. And ill address im sure by mr. Giuliani is going to then come up and say, you know, the pennsylvania Supreme Court just committed some kind of equal protection violation by saying that different counties can set up their observation consistent with their local needs differently. I just want to say that im sure hes going to Say Something like that. Because hes very inventive. He just keeps moving on. But on this particular issue, two claims. Number one, there is no constitutional when its over. In judge ranjans opinion, the pennsylvania Supreme Courts opinion, there is no such right. And the creature of state statute depends on the Supreme Court as just what it is. And end of story. Mr. Larson and mr. Giulianis supposed witnesses have a right to observe and they had no challenge to anything and had a right to see what was going on. They did see. Thats over. And cant be hijacked into an equal protection class. Ut number two, chief justice in his dissent on page two, its important. Ballots resumptively cast by pennsylvania electorate isolated, egarded, procedural irregularities that have been addressed. Thats different disenfranchising thousands of voters misguided. What the chief is saying there is the kind of thing that mr. Giuliani is asking, like the mailin ballots, irregularities, is misguided, not available, not happening under pennsylvania law. W, so lets address this observe observer opinion. The second issue, i dont think that mr. Giuliani has ever read judge ranjans opinion or even unders it. Understands it. I dont feel to any degree, the brief that was submitted to your honor yesterday or the day before, judge ranjan, your honor, has before him, a ersion of the same theoretical thing that they are now arguing about the issue. And what i mean is this. In that case, the allegations in that case, they have 200page allegation, in that case all sorts of elements of fraud. Not in this complaint, your honor, not here. Election, this kind of drop box fraud and this person had two ballots in their hand and they showed all kinds pictures, more pictures and what mr. Giuliani is waving around largely irrelevant because of the Supreme Courts opinion by the way. In any event, pictures. And the susceptibility of fraud. They also said that these drop boxes which are susceptible to fraud, some counties have them, makes the experience easier in a pandemic. And other counties may not. And oh, an equal protection violation. Your honor, its the same thing here. Hey tried to say under the complaint, 83 times they said there are allegations of fraud. They took alling 83 out of their amended complaint. Mr. Giuliani is talking about another case. Not the case before you later. Some fancy world. But the case before your honor, they removed all the allegations. Come on. Even if they judge ranjan showed the way here. And want to respect him. And want to respect you. And youre independent of judge ranjan and i understand that. Were in the middle district. He showed you in painstaking detail and went through each of the fraud allegations and rejected them. This picture doesnt say what you said it said. This pick dour is distorting picture is distorting. And he said the history, and something that happened in 1960, 1993, 2001, someplace that some kind of fraud doesnt belong in this case because the case law he cited says you dont go back to those kinds of things to talk about susceptibility to fraud in the present day. Now, what else did he say . He also said that the use of drop boxes, thats ok. Theres a legion of case law. And directed himself and direct you to and said that on the administration of an election, county to county, are not equal protection violations. Nd in this case, a violation that judge ranjan faced, that you faced, are variations where some counties have the ability to make it easier in the pandemic. All counties have that choice. Uniformly. Pennsylvania. All counties could have done it. And they could all have a right and all could have done the same thing. The fact that mr. Giulianis counties didnt do it doesnt mean its not available and doesnt mean its an equal protection violation for the counties that did do it. There is no case that they have cited. There is no case that we can find where efforts to make varying experiences easier, even not in a pandemic. But now particularly in a pandemic, an equal protection violation. What they are doing as judge ranjan said is inverting the equal protection clause turning it upside down. Theyre saying the nature of the canvass, the level of administrative whatever they tried to do for the voters, im not saying its bad or good. Ut whatever the lowest level of the election or and tunities they chose, the opportunity ok. Nd you dont say that we [indiscernible] equal protection violation or a basis of a decision. And total nonsense. And it is not recognized. And more to the point, a threejudge panel, chief judge brooks smith, former chief judge cirica, judge schwartz, not in pennsylvania, by the way, new jersey, a panel decision, unanimous, that said the kinds of the kinds of claims mr. Giuliani here today amount to equal protection violations just dumped. The 0 years, 80 years to pennsylvania to the circuit decisions in 1930 that said the same thing. And if you look at bush vs. Gore, all nine justices said the same thing. Even talking about if theyre wrong, the administration of elections and the counting of votes. Thats not an equal protection argument. Thats not what bush vs. Gore was all about. Not what biden is all about or judge ranjan was all about and thats not what anybody has been all about. So let me just put that equal protection issue over here for a second. And i want to underscore what mr. Donovan was the cases and said the same thing. A short case. D one after another in the current environment as well. Now, two, mr. Giuliani talks about he went to law school, about controversies and he remembers from his first year of Law School Class something about standing. What he doesnt remember is how standing actually is articulated in the case law, ncluding the case which he didnt address. He didnt even bother to address your own standard, in your own opinion. T lets put aside that nor a second. I believe that in front of us, the First Amendment complaint. We dont have one story as mr. Giuliani came here with about clark county, nevada, about 1960, about ozzie myers, about in philadelphia, and called election workers our patriots, are people who are run our elections the mafia. This just is disgraceful. Of anyplace. Including in the Federal District court. No right to a Second Amendment complaint, your honor, under the rules. There is no right to do that. But lets look at whats here. And then in the standing in this your honor, complaint. Thats where the analysis starts. In count one, they talk about by the way, not affecting any amount of votes that matter here. Lets just say lets just take this, their claims, they say equal protection violation. What are the facts youll have of ok at, your honor, out 150 allegations, theres eight with vaguely worded allegations that giving them the benefit of all the doubt, eight vaguely worded allegations that address problems without notice and cure. So you can study them later. Book aph 129, secretary r told all the counties that rejected mail ballots, and everybody. And you can advise candidates and voters about the list of the rejections. So that voters can have the opportunity to exercise their right to spoil their ballot and vote in person or provisionally, vote on the machine, or provisionally if theres some issue. And this is paragraph 129. Boockvar, retary what in the world is telling these counties that they can advise voters that their mailin ballots were rejected so that they can go to the poll and xercise their rights vote in person if the system shows or the provision in the computer. That is a problem . Hardly. Number two, paragraph 27, they say did that. Hallelujah. Whats wrong with telling oters to vote . I feel really bad for mr. Henry and mr. Rogers that their counties didnt tell them, also bad that they wouldnt follow their own instructions and not so bad they didnt know themselves. Aragraph 930, they say what the secretary said. And york. Er i dont know and you dont know and nobody knows from this complaint but what did the others do . Mr. Giuliani waves his hand around and somehow he must have some superior knowledge, and not in the complaint. Its nothing you can do anything about. In evaluating the strength of his complaint. Paragraph 15 and 16, talking about rodgers and henry and heir problems. Nobody told them they had another chance. Paragraph 122. This is the one for standing purposes is amazing that its in this complaint. And that they still ask you to say their standing. Because standing involves as your honor knows your opinion a few things. And part of this is harm. The second is particular to the case in complaining that is traceable, traceable, to the problems that is being alleged. They say in paragraph 124, apart from philadelphia, thats what they know about here, and trying to act if there is some abal in drib counties, ridiculous. But apart from their motives, they say essentially here, there is a huge Public Service campaign and media announcements and information for the public that you have to be careful about filling out your ballots right, declaration, and make sure theyre signed. And make sure the Public Relations campaign. Now, these unnamed voters who they dont talk of people that theyre writing about, to cure their ballot, to vote provisionally so they can exercise their franchise, can this important election, what do they know why these did that . Whether voters listening to the Public Service announcement . And candidate President Trump who told everybody dont vote by mail. Vote in person. How do they know why these voters who went and voted provisionally actually voted . They have nothing in here that traces the supposed time to the individuals that they are complaining about. Nothing. And to speculate about, and that is not a federal complaint. That is not standing. That is not jurisdiction. That was not a case in controversy. Has hat in paragraph 97 as my colleague, mr. Donovan said, there was delusion from the people who voted provisionally. If there was, theres no specifics. There are no numbers in here. They have no basis to judge to figure out what is in front of you from this complaint. But even then, judge ranjan, and back to the decision and back to every decision that deals with this loose concept of vote delusion, if it is somebodys vote was counted improperly it affects everybody else. Not just one person. Everybody equally. And that is a generalized grievance. That is not standing. And then theyll say the last of these paragraphs, as a result of this, President Trump lost votes. And just to accept that. But there is nothing that they can establish that that happened. How do they know that the people, the few people who went and voted provisionally were explained the very how do they know who they voted for . How can you know . Redressability is part of the issue. Theres nothing in this complaint, nothing, that said that these claims whether its by individuals, whether its by the campaign, have any basis of redressability other than mr. Giulianis admission that lets just throw out 680,000 votes which by the way because observers could see things. By the way, and the pennsylvania Supreme Court said you cant do under pennsylvania law. But common sense, your honor, will say that you cant do it. Based on this complaint. Can you imagine anybody understanding a court order canceling 680,000 1. 2 million votes . Based on nothing . Can you the idea of that were being asked to do that, honestly, your honor, im in court a lot, it is disgraceful that we would be asked to do that. Whatever. Not thats it. Woo talk about standing, we dont know anything thats in this complaint. I just looked through all of them. And fundamental about this. Nd that is this. Is complaint is at its core, at its essence, a small complaint about a certain kind of procedure that the secretary says is available to counties. A limited procedure that if that if the ballot wasnt completely come in and sign it, and then well put you into the system for canvass. How did that come about as a matter of state law . Heres how it comes about. For the tate law there is an activity that happens, mr. Giuliani idnt that activity is that e supposed to prepare a register of all of the votes that they are going to count that have been put into the counting system, the canvassing system of mailin votes. They have to prepare a register. So when theyre doing administrative work to prepare that register, to put into the precanvass and the canvass a naturally are looking at the mail that came in. Theyre not opening it. And heres one this isnt signed. And now that your honor knows about it from the voting case and complaining, whats so terrible that there was funding for counties to have sophisticated machinery to move the accounting along. But they didnt. And sophisticated machinery thats coming through, and if it doesnt have a secrecy, imper septemberably less but thats how good the machinery and so, this camera doesnt have a secrecy envelope. And were not going to open it. Ask check it out. Were not going to that is the minimum that counties do. Some counties have small numbers of votes, these are not big numbers, days before. You know you dont want to vote in person because of the pandemic. Perhaps that is why you vote by mail. We are not going to make you go and vote in person because of the pandemic. We are going to tell you that you need to come in and sign your ballot. [indiscernible] know. t all voters had that opportunity and some voters took advantage of it. The second thing that happens is the canvas. In the canvas, you are evaluating votes, what is going and some, according to the Public Relations information in the complaint, that is what they pled. Votepled they couldnt provisionally. So what . Here is the thing. If there is anything wrong about and this gets to the question, mr. Donovan, you asked, under state law remedies and procedures to challenge at the county level, county by county [indiscernible] and on page 10 and 11 of our what we knew about last week when we submitted our brief. Since then, apparently the the bucksdecision, and the common, pleas decision and these are moving through the system. As they should. The new development is that we here is whatning, happened. [indiscernible] the commonwealth of the philadelphia cases unconsolidated and consolidated them for argument on thursday. Have challenges of all sorts to the mailing pallets mail in ballots. None of this is going to affect the outcome of the election. Not even close. [indiscernible] onsolidated those cases thursday. Happened in these philadelphia challenges . Philly are under challenge in the commonwealth court. It is about 8000. These around numbers. I can give you a precise number afterwards. I believe it is about 8000. [indiscernible] right on our heels here, the commonwealth makes a decision, there is going to be an appeal, it is under advisement right now, your honor. And they want an answer to the petition at 5 00. They want answers and i guess they will decide whether they are going to take this particular challenge up at the bench. Rights what we know about now about the county things. [indiscernible] and that is this. There are some things i want to make about abstention some points i want to make about abstention, but i want to bring this up. Faces an issue about whether signatures were even required on ballot declarations, and he said im going to abstain, and im saying to the Trump Campaign, they wrote this, state remedies. Ofs is way before the end certification. This is in august. We have state remedies. Pending and you can intervene. That is your choice. And you can build a new case. That is your choice. But you need to do that. Dont ask me. [indiscernible] claims on bait claims based on state law violations. [indiscernible] same thing here. The ham case, which we name in page 10 and 11 of our case, in common law court. [indiscernible] you can screen them and whether you can vote provisionally. Main piece of it is about whether you can vote provisionally. I wantronson said look, philadelphia or whoever is counting these to separate these. There were 593 ballots segregated. 593. This is the number of magnitude we are talking about segregated. Here is the thing about abstention. [indiscernible] the Trump Campaign knows about that case. They didnt intervene. They couldnt have. Judge branson told them in the summer, you can do it. Instead, they wanted to dress up that issue for you and are asking the court to audit this ofction, to act as some kind superior Appellate Court over state courts. That is how they came about doing this. They did not choose a logical [indiscernible] come running in here and they dont even talk about the complaint. Talking about something that does not really matter. Let micco back to abstention let me go back to abstention. [indiscernible] and i dont even know where to start. Together. Son put them it starts with something that could be pending, basically is what it means. And when we see problems, to let voters know there is a problem and not have to go into the polling place on election day. It is their burden to show why they didnt going to state court, and it is their issue. But they didnt. Honor, i am your pleading that you tell them what im note told them, getting involved [indiscernible] you have whatever opportunities you can speak of to go to the state court. Opportunity [indiscernible] codender the election raise up tothey can the day of certification. Judge diamond addressed the but it is in 2016, too late for them if election day is provided as their remedy. Evidence, andtual unlike statements about, here youaffidavits in nevada, have to show real numbers of votes that are affected. But that is available to them if that is where they want to go. Abstention is, it is abstention on steroids. Here is why. It is abstention on legal steroids. Judge diamond said in the stein case, the stein case was very obstructive. Stein is mr. Giuliani today. Made sweeping allegations about hacked Voting Machines and a series of fraud around the commonwealth. That was jail stein then. Stein is like the trump camp thatjail stein stein then. Is like the today. Stein is the Trump Campaign today. Your case doesnt belong in federal court. It is not an equal protection violation. It is an abstention problem. That is what they said that. Agent. Mpaign, different [indiscernible] and on that point, a judge said the following, that is why i said it is abstention on steroids. Difficultyve some hearing you. I dont know what we do to improve that. I dont say this disrespectfully, but maybe you are moving around too much. I didnt think so, but i am sorry. Judge brann try not to move. I am not moving at all. Once in a while, i will make a characteristic grand move. It doesnt mean i am bored. I will put my fingers to my head. That is as Much Movement as you are going to get from me. You might want to bottle that and see if it improves. The camera is here. I am looking directly at you. So dont move. Mr. Aronchick do i have to go back over any of it . Judge brann pick up where you left off. Jill stein said wait a second, we are a president ial election. Abstention means deference. Here is why. Under three usc section five, congress has said we will leave with theirtates administration, with their expect that will constitution imperative and statutory imperatives of making sure that [indiscernible] and that is the last act. November 23. Is pennsylvania set that up for remedies. Whether the Trump Campaign likes them or not, those are the remedies. What are we talking about . We have a president ial election. We need to understand we have to have the votes certified by the governor on december 8. [indiscernible] in strongn said, in federal court, anything but the most extreme equal protection violations would upset that calendar. Egregious violations of equal protection [indiscernible] for basic fraud fraud here. Not here. Not in this complaint. It was removed. [indiscernible] were involved . In that kind of extreme situation. Not, in my opinion, what this case is all about. [indiscernible] should dismiss this case. There is no need for a hearing. Become. Ircus that will [indiscernible] all kinds of things. They have got nothing. Dismiss this case. Please, dismiss this case so we can move forward with the real issues for this country. This case has for some reason become a lifeline for the Trump Campaign. Electiono get this certified. Please to enter that order. And that is all i have to say. After opening arguments for the lead attorneys, other to knees also spoke before ju