Superior Court Judge Brian Amero dismissed most of a lawsuit by Plaintiff Garland Favorito. Mr. Favorito doesn’t seem overly concerned about the judge’s ruling and is, in fact, calling the ruling a “victory.”
The AJC reports – Superior Court Judge Brian Amero’s ruling jeopardizes the prospects for the ballot inspection to continue, though a plaintiff in the lawsuit said he believes it will soon move forward.
The case is an attempt to scrutinize 147,000 absentee ballots based on claims by Republican election observers who said they witnessed signs of counterfeit ballots or ballot stuffing during a manual recount of November’s election results. Election officials have said there’s no indication of fraud after multiple recounts and investigations.
An attorney for the Fulton elections board said the ruling prevents the possibility for an in-person review of absentee ballots using high-powered microscopes in the Georgia World Congress Center, as sought by those who believe fraud resulted in Democrat Joe Biden’s 12,000-vote win over Republican Donald Trump.
“That litigation is finished,” said Don Samuel, a prominent Atlanta attorney hired by the Fulton elections board. “Is there going to be an audit? Not right now … There’s no discovery permitted. There’s no lawsuit pending anymore.”
The judge left in place a previous order requiring the county to produce digital images of absentee ballots and other election records that are public documents under the Georgia Open Records Act.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Garland Favorito, said he viewed Amero’s order as a victory.
Favorito plans to submit a ballot inspection plan next week based on the judge’s order in May to unseal absentee ballots, allowing for high-resolution re-scans of ballots and an in-person review.
“We just want Fulton to be held responsible,” Favorito said. “We could be moving forward any time now unless they try to stall again. Fulton may make a new desperation move to postpone it.”
But Samuel said when the case is over, the prior order to unseal absentee ballot will become moot.
The lawsuit wanted a judge to authorized a ballot inspection after Republican election observers alleged that there were “pristine” ballots with perfectly filled in ovals, as well as batches of ballots cast entirely for Biden in the heavily Democratic county. The secretary of state’s office has said it investigated those allegations and found no signs of counterfeits.
Though Amero dismissed the Fulton elections board, he allowed the plaintiffs to add its five members as defendants, keeping the case alive.
In a statement he made on VoterGa.org, Favorito claims the judge’s ruling is a victory “because it substitutes Defendants by replacing currently named government organizations with individual board members,” adding, “It also moots Don Samuels’ attempt to dismiss our case.”
On June 9, Favorito was asked by the Gateway Pundit if he believed the Fulton Co. officials who’ve been trying to thwart an investigation into voter fraud in the November election “have any more tricks up their sleeves?”
Favorito replied: “Now that they have hired criminal defense attorneys without any elections experience and without being authorized by the Board of Elections, it’s really, really strange, so I would think they have more tricks up their sleeve you know we could see another 30-day delay past June 21st, and they’ll probably throw something else at us, but I don’t – we got into technicalities now so I don’t see they haven’t been able to come up with anything concrete that would stop this inspection from going forward that I can see.”
Gateway Pundit reporter Jordan Conradson asked Mr. Favorito: “Last month, a room full of ballots was found unlocked and open, defying subpoenas. Does that create any concerns for you regarding ballot security from now until the audit?”
Favorito responded, “We’ve been concerned about it since day one. Now the judge did put a protective order on the ballots in January, and Fulton County made a verbal commitment to the court on Tuesday, May 25th in a private meeting with the attorneys that the Sheriff’s Office would monitor and secure that building and they did neither one. They were not monitoring. The sheriffs’ cars went away; they did not secure the front door; it was open. They were not monitoring the alarms either. When the alarm went off, nobody came back for two hours, so they are violating their verbal commitment to the court, and yes, we are still concerned about that, and we’re hoping that the court would show a little bit more concern as well.”