The Gateway Pundit reported earlier today that local candidates in El Paso County, CO have filed a lawsuit: Rae Ann Weber, Peter Lupia, Lynda Zamora Wilson, David Winney, Summer Groubert, and Todd Watkins.
This comes after Tina Peters launched her official recount investigation of the Colorado Secretary of State Republican primary.
We wrote about this race numerous times.
Tina Peters, a Gold Star mom, was leading in all the polls in the state for Secretary of State by nearly 20 points.
But then, Peters was upset by a candidate who worked with Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and who outperformed by 35 points on election day.
This was a virtual impossibility.
Popular conservative and MAGA candidate Peters was leading in the polls and had a 15 point lead on her closest competitor Pam Anderson.
It was another Raffensperger Special!
But Zuckerberg’s CTCL Anderson had the night of her life and came back from 15 points down to win by 20 points over Peters.
It was a miracle!
Peters called for a recount of the obviously suspect results. Peters was forced to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge the election. She was able to come up with the money at the last minute as The Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week.
The audit began with an accuracy and logic test of the machines on Friday and the results showed there was significant problems with the state-wide race.
In the petition for this lawsuit, it was stated that the cost, per candidate, was determined to be just over $20,000 each. Almost half of this cost was for “vendor programming and support” in the amount of $10,000, or $250 per hour for 40 hours.
This exorbitant cost for “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious” vendor programming and support prevented Winney, Groubert and Watkins from participating in the recount. The Secretary of State and Clerk and Recorder would not accept partial payments from those candidates, even though the money was to be put into escrow and only used as expenditures were realized.
We also learned from the filing that the “so-called vendor is unidentified” despite “relying on this vendor to substantially participate in the recounts.”
It is unknown what “programming” has been or will be done and why. It is also unclear when the 40 hours of “programming” occurred or will occur. If it already occurred, no one observed this process being done. Any programming prior to the recount, especially by an unknown vendor with no observation, would not be considered running the recount in the same manner as the election as required by statute.
8 CCR 1505-1-10.13 states that:
“If there are unresolvable discrepancies in the test, the recount must be conducted as a hand count under Rule 10.13.5.”
Is it reasonable to consider the following an “unresolvable discrepancy”: An unknown vendor performing unknown programming on machines that produced an exponentially larger adjudication rate from the original testing in May (same exact “test deck”) without any preface or notice that this time the process should produce substantially more adjudicated test ballots?
It is a computer-generated test deck that was used for the previous test in May. They should have known precisely how many ballots would be adjudicated given the reprogrammed parameters! And it should have been disclosed ahead of time so that this wasn’t as much a shock.