The equal protection clause. But asking this court to invalidate more than 6. 8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified . Your honor, we are not asking you to invalidate 6. 8 million votes. We are asking [indiscernible] approximately 680,000. [indiscernible] it is somewhat unfair for the isson, but if there something wrong with the ballots, [indiscernible] case, itis particular was a claim, two different and it was that uniformly republicans had no opportunity to observe. And on that basis, the conduct was egregious, premeditated, the conduct was planned. It couldnt have just been done on the spur of the moment. The purpose was to have those ballots examined in secret so that only the democratic officeholder would get to see it. This was in two counties at no place else in the state. I heard a representative of chester county, i believe, say that that didnt happen in their county. If that is the case, we would consider dropping that county from the lawsuit. But the reality is, we are not asking for the entire vote to be canceled. We are asking for the remedy that is usually applied when there is a violation of the rules with regard to absentee ballots. And this is an egregious violation, a plan violation. Required. Is really their conduct was egregious. Of 600,000, seven hundred thousand absentee ballots not being examined . It is never happened in american intory has never happened american injury. So the scope of the remedy is because of the scope of the injury. We are not asking for the election to be reversed, but these ballots were not examined. At that is not just a state issue. We would contend that one of the fundamental tenets of a Fair Election of the United States is the ability to expect, particularly mailin ballots which are inherently difficult, fraudulent. You can go to all the authorities. We have been afraid of that for 20 years. Now we have it. The only way we can police the ballots, the one way, that is the inspection. To make a mockery of the inspection, as far as we are concerned your honor, [indiscernible] we have no idea. This has never happened before. The reason i pointed out that it happens in other states to which i was personally criticized, is because there was a connection. There is a connection between philadelphia and pittsburgh. And exactly the same thing happened in detroit, at exactly the same time, and exactly the same thing in milwaukee and exactly the same thing in nevada. Republicans were uniformly refused with the obvious right to inspect an absentee ballot. I have never heard that before, that an absentee ballot wasnt examined, and it was done for a specific purpose. Why wouldnt they have invited the 18 republican inspectors . There were 20 or 30 that they were keeping in a pen. Look at it. It is a good ballot. And where they were and where they started the process at a time per thousand votes. They were behind, and they caught up counting a lot of those ballots very furiously. Say of our witnesses will that they saw them not even look at the envelope, just throw it in the bin, throw it in the bin, throat and the bin. I also take exception to them saying that we didnt lead it and i didnt lead it didnt plead it and i didnt plead it. I was accused of not reading your decision and not understanding it. I have read your opinion and i do understand it. You were dealing with preelection and an argument that would be considered an injury that may or may not happen done a generalized grievance. We are not dealing with that. The election is over. Those two men just lost the right to vote. They lost the right to vote because they were treated differently in the counties in their counties that they would have been treated if they were in pittsburgh, where in fact the secretary buried the law. The law is clear. You cant cure a ballot. The legislature hasnt changed that. The secretary has no legislative power, your honor. That thethey say plaintiffs, our clients, should sue their counties. For what . For following the law and not violating the law like their counties . If i were in the county, i would look at the law and the law said, you you cant cure a ballot. In the secretary says, it is ok to cure a ballot. As a good lawyer, i say to my client, the secretary doesnt mean anything. She cant very the law. It isnt some technical law like, is it three days or four days, it is can you fix the ballot . And it is invalid. That is the substance of the law. And i would tell my client, dont do it. Goingt know what youre to accomplish by suing those two counties. They didnt do anything wrong. The counties that did something wrong are the counties that buried the law to make it easier to accumulate enormous numbers of illegal votes. They say we dont know how people voted. They do know that in philadelphia, the vote was for biden. It is ridiculous to say we dont know what would happen. It was equal over the entire state, what were they doing all over the state . The reality is this was a deliberate plan to do this. And to say that we didnt allege these voter violations of the inspections, your honor, from instance where a mailin ballot is opened or canvassed, poll watchers are supposed to be present. They didnt allow washington representatives to be present when the ballot envelopes were open and when such ballots are counted or recorded. Is that what i said . It is in the complaint. I wasnt making up the complaint and i feel aggrieved by them misrepresenting what i said. To say it is not in the complaint is just plain wrong. In delaware county, observers were denied access to a back room counting area. Other pennsylvania counties divided appropriate [indiscernible] defendantsthe counties, they were denied the opportunity to have observation and secure opacity. Im not sure what opacity means. Last point. Those allegations which take up five pages and also allege, as i said, we didnt love that we didnt allege a specific amount of ballots, but 680 thousand something sounds pretty specific to me. And all of that is incorporated by reference to the vote count and denial of due process. You asked me to be helpful to the court. Believe our equal protection claim is wellestablished and strong. It should not only survive the today, butismiss also awards the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. That is why we are here today. Law [indiscernible] say,hat it cannot do is under the u. S. Constitution, count some votes but dont count other votes, depending on where you reside in this commonwealth. That is what happened here, and that is the simple issue. I know that today, it went off into other issues, but that is the issue why we are here today. Protectionthe equal violations are undeniable, and the fundamental question in front of you is, how extensive and how persuasive or pervasive are those undeniable violations . At this point, if you go through the pleadings, the defendants are askingg and simple, targeted questions. Them to be asking transparent. At the stakes are very high here. We are asking the defendants to be transparent immediately because there is irrevocable harm. We are sitting in talking about all of the votes. Today what we are talking about motions for a preliminary injunction to get us to a hearing on thursday, when your honor will hear what we want to present and then decide this question. Your honor, we are asking for a hearing. Once we have an opportunity to present evidence to you, you will decide whether or not the remedy is to broaden or to narrow, the right remedy, or you will decide whether or witnesses are not turning the truth. But we know longer have an stateunity to go to the court, the Supreme Court of pennsylvania has now decided they only need be in the room and not have an opportunity to observe, which is contrary to the law in other states. The man who was very angry at me, i forgot his name, he said it is not a good equal protection claim. It is a darn good goodue process claim. It used to be a fundamental right in this state. If that is the case commit that gives us another claim. The state courts have virtually does state courts are virtually closed us now. We cant make this argument in the state courts judge, i actually want to answer a question. Page 62 of the First Amendment complaint, plaintiff asked the court to enter judgment in their favor and provide the following, an order of injunction that prohibits the defendant county board of election, and Senate Secretary bookckvar from certifying the results of the 2020 general election in philadelphia. That means no certification of president , for attorney general of the state, auditor, local races and the house. That is what they asked for, judge. When they did not answer your question, that is problematic. I think mr. Giuliani would believe that he deleted the due process claim. When he talked about processing claims, he deleted it. It has nothing to do with the process of this case. It is not in the complaint. I do this because i want to bring this back to this pleading , judge. Theyre asking you forex ordinary relief they are asking you for extraordinary relief. Thank you. I will direct this to the plaintiffs counsel should he choose to respond, you repeatedly mentioned the dangers of voter fraud, in particular susceptibility of mailin fraud. To however, neither country in your complaint seeks relief from any fraud, correct . You on or the amended complaint as it was filed seeks the specific relief i mentioned earlier. So it is correct that you are not alleging fraud in the amended complaint . No, your honor. We incorporate by reference in 150 all the allegations that preceded it, which included long explanation of fraudulent process of, planned fraudulent process. So you are alleging fraud. Yes. So if you acknowledged at the beginning of the hearing that the only issue in the case is the equal protection claim procedure,the curing but you have repeatedly spoken now about claims related to alleged violations of your right to have poll watchers present during the ballot counting process, the poll watching claims were deleted. They are now not before this court, so why should i consider them now at oral argument when you deleted the claims and put them out of this action, something i think mr. Donovan just referenced. Remember what i am bound to look at at this point. That is what i am bound to, the plaintiff. We agree . Certainly, your honor, it has been amended. So since you claim you are alleging fraud in the complaint, putting aside for a moment whether or not i think that is an accurate description of a pleading, this complaint has to satisfy the pleading standard for both the federal rules and civil procedure 9, does it not, of which mr. Donovan is referencing. [laughter] private joke. [indiscernible] your honor. In adherence to the rules, i guess is what he is driving at, arent you, mr. Donovan . Yes, your honor. Isnt that it . Yes, your honor. I have to correct what i said because we have to interpret it we would have to interpret it to charge fraud. Charges what it charges is the conduct in 132149 without character. So the amended complaint, does it lead fraud with particularly . No, your honor. It does not plead fraud, it leads the plan or scheme that we 149 without132 characterizing it. Understood. I have questions in a standing. I understand the new theory is based on the claim that the individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote. The injuryed this is your clients are suffering. Complaint, you allege that the plaintiffs tried to vote in lancaster and fayette but those countries rejected those individual plaintiffs votes. So why. Are you before me in this court suing the defendants from lancaster and Fayette Counties why didnt you just sue the county is that actually caused the clients injuries question mark it has been addressed by the defendant. Is no injuries . It has been addressed by the defendant but not by you. Honor, this issue was triggered when we learned after the election that certain votes were counted and certain votes werent. In terms of certain voters were given the opportunity to cure and certain voters were not. Those voters were in different parts of the commonwealth. We believe we have standing in this court, in a federal court, because the alleged violations turn not ontection transforming the state law into , other thanestion the Third Circuit case we have been talking about, but the unequal treatment of the voters regardless of what the state law says. We are not asking you about state law, we are asking about equal protection. Like i said before, state law does not say what to count and not to count, and that is not an that here, it cannot say under the u. S. Constitution that we are going to treat different differently, and that is what happened here. If you lived in philadelphia or in another county in the north, or the west of the state, your vote was treated differently. The gentleman from the naacp talked about a woman who would notify was notified she had sent in her ballot, and there was problems with it and she was able to get to the Voter Registration office and fix it. That was a compelling story. That we have a compelling story in our complaint, because our two plaintiffs did not even know there was a problem with their ballots until a couple of days after the election, so they didnt have the same opportunity as a plaintiff as a voter in a county where they were being preelection day review of the ballots that there was a problem. That is what the issue comes back to, the unequal treatment, and that is why we have standing in this court under a federal constitutional claim. Your honor, if i may . Interestingly, on page 64 numbers 127, i think the issue that she is describing is clearly laid out, because it says in Philadelphia County they were allowed to cure particularly a lack of the secrecy envelope. That is exactly why mr. Henrys boat was declined in, i guess it was Lancaster County mr. Henrys vote. Whether one is a legal or not, as you point out, i believe it is illegal to cure. The law of the state says that. I dont think the secretary has a right to bury that. Is irrelevant to what we are arguing right now. What we are going right now is they set up a system that allows cure, you cant have it for the northern part of the state but not the southern part of the state. You cant have it for Philadelphia County but not for Lancaster County. Vhat is exactly what bush bi gore is talking about. It is about a classic case of unequal protection. That is the point. The unassailable equal protection claim the two plaintiffs. Particularly mr. Henry, who happens to have done exactly in his county where he was denied the right to vote, what happened in philadelphia where they were given the right. And if the commonwealth it is the commonwealth that denies him the right to vote, not the county. You dont allege that she personally rejected the plaintiffs votes or had any authority to do so, so could you explain how the secretary of the commonwealths actions caused lancaster or free of counties to deny the plaintiffs the right to vote . sw did secretary bookckvar actions affect these individual voters in lancaster and Fayette Counties . Review ouror, if you motion for temporary injunction, you will see that the secretary she is not an elected official and does not have the authority to interpret the law or change the law. Periodically, she would put outside, in not all counties it appears might have followed that advice, in the night before the election, apparently and a mill went out to the counties from the secretary of States Office went outntly an email to the counties from the secretary of States Office, telling the counties during the precanvas the next day. Is one anyone who is counting ballots can look at them. That was the first time anyone would was ever supposed to look at these ballots. That triggers, will why was everyone looking at the ballots before election day . But then undersecretarys office put the email out first of all, it was 8 38 p. M. Some counties apparently followed it and some counties apparently didnt. Our plaintiffs are a great example because no one told them. No one asked them to come in and ballots, and they didnt find out until a couple of days after the election. When they went to their counties afterwards the issue here is hat the guidance nn is in the remedy ultimately in the court of pleas of Lancaster County or for your county or the appropriate judicial district . They make up their own judicial district, isnt that where you go . That would be a state law claim. That would be asking the county, telling the company you didnt treat my individual votes correctly telling the county. What we are here today for is an equal protection argument that all citizens were not treated equally. That is different than just simply taking into a county under a state law claim before the election. Actions of the secretary of state and various county boards of election, voters were treated differently. That is what is in this federal injunction. I want to talk now about the trump campaigns it protection claim which you just referenced. Can you clarify whether the campaign is bringing its own equal protection claim or whether the campaigns claim is derivative of the individual plaintiffs injuries . Follow my question . I think i follow. Judge brann in your argument just a moment ago served as a lead into that. So is the campaigns claim derivative of the individual you have two individual plaintiff injuries. My answer would be it would be both. That it is derivative of the individual voters. But the campaign is also suffering an injury. Remember. Judge brann what is injury . Of the voters are the campaign . Campaign. N the that because of the unequal treatment of the voters in the commonwealth, certain voters were counted properly and certain voters were not. That is why we needed that answered. If everyone wouldve had a chance to cure, equally had a chance to cure, if every voter in the commonwealth had a chance to cure, it is very likely that the result, and this is what we are alleging in our qrl, it is very likely that the results would have been very different. Or on the flipside, if no one had a chance to cure, if no county had a had implemented the procedure, the results would have been very different. That is an injury to the campaign. Kearns, arent. You happy that i cant do in this case ended not exclude you cocounsel . I think you are happy because you honored my judge brann i am asking if you are happy. I am a neutral player here. [laughter] why does the campaign have standing to vindicate the plaintiffs rights come when the individual plaintiffs appear to be capable and willing to vindicate those rights on their own . They can. Judge brann why does the campaign have standing when the individual plaintiffs have the ability, the willingn