In Defense of John Eastman – Part 1, 2, 3

April 3 | Posted by mrossol | American Thought, Law, Lawfare, Voting Issues

October 4, 2023.  Source: In Defense of John Eastman – Part 1 – by John Droz jr.

I was on the witness stand for 8± hours last Thursday (9/28) and 4± hours on Tuesday (10/3), attempting to testify on behalf of attorney John Eastman. I spent an additional 30+ hours in preparation (reviewing old documents, etc.).

For those who are not familiar with Mr. Eastman, I was going to provide a link. When I searched his name online, the first 100± listings of articles were all left-wing propaganda. (That’s one of the reasons I chose to testify on his behalf.) Here is an objective overview I finally found.

This California trial is an attempt to disbar Mr. Eastman. In my view (as a non-attorney) two issues are being debated:

1 – Did John Eastman have a reasonable basis to believe that the certified 2020 Presidential election results of some states, were likely inaccurate?

2 – If yes, what should have been his legal advice to VP Mike Pence regarding how such likely inaccurate certifications should be dealt with?

John Eastman says YES to the first question. As an election integrity expert (e.g., see here), I also say YES to the first question. The California prosecutor says NO. (Since I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, I can’t speak to the second question.)

FYI, here is a reasonable interview with Mr. Eastman about what this trial is about.

There are multiple Left-wing media sources “reporting” on this trial. Unfortunately, again I couldn’t find any conservative source in the first hundred or so Internet search results (using Duck). After quite a bit of additional research, I finally came across the Intellectual Conservative website.

This is run by a conservative attorney, and she has attended all of the six+ week (so far) proceedings of the Eastman trial. She has written several informative commentaries on what has transcribed. Here is a reasonably accurate article about what happened on my first day of testimony. If you are a glutton for punishment and would like to see what is transpiring here yourself, here is an online link to the trial itself. It’s likely to go on for a few more weeks.

…………..

Most citizens believe that trials and hearings are about: 1) uncovering all the relevant facts, and then 2) making an objective decision based on that information.

If only.

Much of the legal wrangling is about which facts are “admissible” — i.e., allowed to be considered by the court. Sometimes very relevant facts are discarded because a judge (sometimes seemingly arbitrarily) rules that something involved does not meet one or more of a plethora of legal “barriers”. These are things like standing, moot, laches, jurisdiction, etc.

In my case, the prosecution did not want anything substantive I had to say about Question #1 to be considered. Since it would have been a burden to try to disprove the accuracy of my testimony (e.g., about the conclusions of our ten Election Integrity Reports, written by my team of very qualified people), they instead focused on a legal technicality to minimize my testimony. They did not want the court to hear or consider any of my evidence of election anomalies that would support Mr. Eastman.

Their strategy was to assert that I was not an approved expert, so I was not qualified to speak about the conclusions of my own reports (!) or anyone else’s.

To do this, it appeared to me that the prosecution relied on two arguments:

1) John Eastman’s lawyers had not filed the proper paperwork, at the proper time, in the proper way, to have me officially listed as an “expert.” Eastman’s lawyers disagreed with this assertion, but the Judge upheld the prosecution’s argument.

2) I did not have a degree in election integrity, or the necessary “qualifications” to be an election integrity expert. The Judge again sided with the prosecution.

I can’t speak to the first objection, other than repeat that John and his lawyers insist that they did file adequate paperwork to have me legally considered to be an expert.

Regarding the second objection, my non-attorney answer is this…

All of our ten major election integrity Reports are about looking at numbers. I have a degree in Mathematics. Further, as a physicist I have had more mathematics classes than statisticians with a PhD would typically have. Additionally, statistics (matters like Bell curves — aka Gaussian distributions, Standard Deviations, etc. ) were frequently covered in many of my physics and mathematics classes, through graduate school. As such, I am very qualified to discuss numbers, plus I have had formal undergrad and graduate education in statistics.

On the first day of my testimony, the Judge asked Mr. Eastman’s lawyer a question something like: “ How can John Droz be an election integrity expert with only three years of involvement?” The attorney didn’t give a very strong answer, so on the second day, he asked me what would my response be? I felt that whether the definition of “expert” was normal or legal, I would qualify.

Regarding the first, Webster’s definition of “expert” is: “one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.” To demonstrate that I started listing examples of my extensive familiarity with the election integrity topic (e.g., having read some 1,500 articles and reports just in the preparation of my twice-a-month Newsletter).

However, I was cut off before I finished. The Judge said something to the effect that I was making an argument for being categorized as an expert. Well, yes!

I didn’t get to mention the legal definition of “expert” — so what is that?

TheLaw.com Law Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition* define an “Expert” as a “Person examined as a witness in a cause, who testifies in regard to some technical matter arising in the case, and who is permitted to give their opinion(s) as to such matter on account of their special training, skill, or familiaritywith it.”  State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366 [Also see this definition of an expert witness.]

As a professional physicist, it is indisputable that I have mathematical and statistical training. When this is added to my exceptionally extensive familiaritywith the election integrity issue over the last three years, it clearly indicates that I meet the common sense and legal definitions of an election integrity expert.

However, John Eastman’s prosecutor repeatedly claimed otherwise — and the Judge went along with his objections. You decide whose case is better…

To see more about this matter, please go on to Part 2.

 

* The link for this legal definition now has restricted access. Fortunately, before that change, I made a screenshot of what it said:


Leave a comment

Please encourage other open-minded associates to sign up for this FREE substack. Also please post this on your social media. The more citizens that are educated on key issues like this, the better our chances of success…

 

PART 2.

Another significant foundational piece is this: “The major components of the election procedure are: 1) voter, 2) machine, and 3) process  (e.g., ballot handling). Election Integrity means that ALL the major aspects of the election procedure are done accurately, honestly, and transparently, in a timely fashion.”

…………..

I’m not an attorney, but am rather knowledgeable about the election integrity issue, and the 2020 election. From that perspective (and without knowing all the details that have happened to date at the lengthly Eastman disbarment trial), I’m suggesting what I believe is his best defense to the competent lawyers he hired to defend him.

The layperson summary is that there are two (2) major issues being contested here:

1 – Did John Eastman have a reasonable basis to believe that the certified 2020 Presidential election results of some states, were likely inaccurate?

2 – If yes, what should have been his legal advice to VP Mike Pence regarding how such likely inaccurate certifications should be dealt with?

I am not qualified to address the second matter, but the most effective defense for the first issue would be to rely on three pillars. They are (in order of importance):

A) Post-2020 Election Audits,

B) Post-2020 Statistical Reports on the 2020 election, and

C) Post-2020 Misc Evidence about the integrity of the 2020 election.

Briefly, regarding each of these three items —

A) Post-2020 Election Audits of the 2020 election (see our Post-Election Audit Report for details):

To date, based on inadequate state requirements, US post-election “audits” are relatively superficial checks like recounts, canvassing, risk-limiting “audits,” etc. These are lightweight, very limited “double checks” that were chosen because of their simplicity and low costNOT effectiveness!  For example, none of these checks assure us that all the people who voted were legitimate voters, or that there were no machine manipulations of ballots cast, or that there were no subsequent ballot process irregularities. Etc.

The only legitimate way any state official can claim that there were no consequential irregularities in a prior election, is if the state conducted a timely Forensic Audit.  A Full Forensic Audit consists of three key elements: i) a voter audit, ii) a machine audit, and iii) a process audit (i.e., audits of the three elements of the election procedure!).

Note: No precinct, county, or state in the US did a Full Forensic Audit following the 2020 election. ZERO.

A step-down is a Partial Forensic Audit, where one or more of the elements of a Full Forensic Audit is done.

There were only three (3) examples where a Partial Forensic Audit of the 2020 elections was done in a precinct, county, or state, prior to January 6, 2021. These are:

1) A Voter Forensic Audit: Nevada (of Nevada, not by)

2) A Machine Forensic Audit: Antrim, Michigan (of Antrim, not by)

3) A Process Forensic Audit: Rep Claudia Tenney

The results? ALL THREE of these Partial Forensic Audits (done by different people, in different locations, on different aspects of the election procedure) concluded that there were catastrophic failures in the 2020 election process:

1) The Voter Forensic Audit: Nevada — concluded that there were “130,000± instances of voter fraud” (and they have the names of those parties).

2) The Machine Forensic Audit: Antrim, Michigan — concluded “The Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results…”

3) The Process Forensic Audit: Claudia Tenney — a judge ruled that the state of NY committed nine violations of state laws in processing just one federal contest.

So the takeaway from the “A” pillar is that EVERY meaningful audit done in 2020 following the 2020 election indicated widespread major election integrity failures.

++++++++++

B) Post-2020 Statistical Reports on the 2020 election. The following were done by my team of statistical, etc. experts, prior to January 6, 2021:

1) The Pennsylvania Report

2) The Michigan Report

3) The Spikes Report

The results? ALL THREE of these statistical reports concluded that there were significant statistical anomalies in the 2020 election process.

1) The Pennsylvania Report — concluded that there were some 300,000 suspect ballots (where the Presidential vote differential was 80k±).

2) The Michigan Report — concluded that there were some 200,000 suspect ballots (where the Presidential vote differential was 150k±).

3) The Spikes Report — concluded that there was a net of 3± million votes for Biden attributable to unexpected vote spikes.

So the takeaway from the “B” pillar is that EVERY one of these statistical analyses of the 2020 election indicated widespread major issues. [Note for the rest of the election reports done by our team of experts, see here.]

++++++++++

C) Post-2020 Misc Evidence about the integrity of the 2020 election. The following are sample reports from other experts, all prior to January 6, 2021:

  i – Dr. John Lott’s Report,

ii – Security expert Seth Keshel’s information,

iii – Report about Dominion Voting Machines,

iv – Report on Mail-in Ballots, and

v – Report on Wisconsin.

So the takeaway from the “C” pillar is that miscellaneous reports from different experts about the 2020 election also indicated widespread serious election issues.

–––––––––––––––––––

The bottom line is that ALL three of these pillars independently indicate that there were significant integrity issues with the 2020 presidential election.

What is disconcerting is that in many cases the state certification process seems to be more of a rubber stamp, rather than a meaningful, independent verification that the election process just held was accurate. For example, it appears that none of the underlying evidence in the above-referenced reports was addressed by the certification process of the states involved.

That John Eastman expressed concerns about the 2020 certification process of some states, was not only reasonable — but if he had not done so (knowing the above information) it would have been an abdication of his legal and fiduciary responsibility.

Again, this is my opinion as a non-attorney who is quite knowledgeable about the 2020 election.

————————————————————————————————

Note 1: One of the many disingenuous assertions that the mainstream media has spread about the 2020 Presidential election is that fraud and malfeasance would only make a consequential difference if they were “widespread.” That is totally false. Consider the important table on page 40 of our Spikes Report.

There are two powerful takeaways here: 1) if the results of three of these four states were reversed, the results of the entire election would have changed, and 2) just looking at one thing (vote spikes) the results of all four states are probably different.

Since John Eastman likely knew this, it was eminently reasonable that he was suspicious of the certifications provided by each of these states — and others.

Note 3: When I was on the witness stand, the prosecutor tried to communicate that my team’s Reports were outliers — as state officials reported that there were no meaningful election problems. I pointed him to Appendix A of our Recommendations Report. Here we listed dozens of reports by other sources about the failings and vulnerabilities of the US election system. Two key points: 1) these reports were all done PRIOR to the 2020 election, and 2) these are not just conservative complaints, as many of these reports were done by Left-leaning sources. He had no answer to this.

Note 3: I’ve frequently referenced “January 6, 2021” above. That has nothing to do about the unfortunate DC disturbance on that date, but rather that is when the US Senate convened to review each of the States’ 2020 election certifications, and then move forward — or not. I’ll do a future post about the significance of this date.

Note 4: To read more about this interesting hearing that involves our civil rights, there are several articles about what transpired on this website, written by an independent attorney who attended the entire months-long spectacle…

= = = =

Part 3.

To assist late arrivers in getting up-to-speed on this matter, please read my prior commentaries: Defending John Eastman Part 1 and Part 2.

After several months of hearings, etc. last week, the judge rendered her decision and declared that John should lose his law license for a potpourri of “reasons.” Based on my involvement (and 12± hours of testimony), I politely disagree. But I digress…

I had to wade through over 50 one-sided media articles (like the prejudicial and inaccurate recounting by the NYT) before I came to a competent one: “The regime has lost all perspective and decency in its war on its perceived enemies.

After further digging, I also found this excellent commentary: The Heroic Sacrifice of John Eastman. After I posted this commentary, I was sent This Easter, They are Trying to Disbar my Attorney, and Anyone Else who Stands in Their Way.

In my view (as a non-attorney) the two issues debated in this case were:

1 – Did John Eastman have a reasonable basis to believe that the certified 2020 Presidential election results of some states, were likely very inaccurate?

2 – If yes, what should have been his legal advice to VP Mike Pence regarding how to treat certain state certifications of likely very inaccurate results?

John Eastman said YES to the first question. As an election integrity expert (e.g., see here), I also said definitely YES to the first question. (Since I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, I can’t speak to the second question.)

For a sample of the evidence as to why I say YES, see here.

The California prosecutor, and now the judge, said NO to the first question, which meant that the second one was legally moot anyway.

Dr. Eastman is not only a respected Constitutional expert, but he was Dean of the Claremont Law School for over ten years. In other words, he is no ambulance chaser.

If you’d like to follow the next developments of this saga, please go to John Eastman’s relatively new Substack column, for his own commentary!

We are in very dangerous waters when the judicial system misinterprets (or misapplies) the law, for political reasons. That’s how third-world countries have been known to operate.

Yet again we are dependent on Critically Thinking citizens who can see through the blatant bias of the media, as well as the politicization of the judicial system.

If you are wondering what you can do to meaningfully help the victim of this travesty, consider making a donation to John’s Defense Fund.

 

Share

Leave a Reply

Verified by ExactMetrics