Valfusk under USA-valet 2020? Rapporterade incidenter.

V. Evidence Presented

A. Contestants’ Evidence
55. The Court’s orders required Contestants to disclose all witnesses and provide Defendants with all evidence they intended to use at the hearing in this matter by 5:00 p.m. on November 25, 2020.

56. Contestants did not issue their first deposition notices until Friday, November 27, 2020.

57. | Much of Contestants’ evidence consists of non-deposition evidence in the form of
witness declarations. These declarations fall outside the scope of the contest statute, which
provides that election contests “shall be tried and submitted so far as may be possible upon
depositions and written or oral argument as the court may order.” NRS 293.415. The reason for
this is to allow for the cross-examination of the deponent under oath.

58. These declarations also constitute hearsay, as they are out-of-court statements
offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted. See NRS 51.035, 51.065; Cramer v.
State, 126 Nev. 388, 392, 240 P.3d 8, 11 (2010) (“An affidavit is generally inadmissible hearsay.”).
Most of these declarations were self-serving statements of little or no evidentiary value.

59. The Court nonetheless considers the totality of the evidence provided by
Contestants in reaching and ruling upon the merits of their claims.

B. Contestants’ Expert Evidence

i. Michael Baselice
60. Contestants offered Mr. Baselice to opine on the incidence of illegal voting in the
2020 General Election based on a phone survey of voters.

61. The Court questions Mr. Baselice’s methodology because he was unable to identify
the source of the data for his survey and conducted no quality control of the data he received.
Baselice Dep. 29:13~30:8, 34:24—-35:21, 57:13-58:14.

ii. Jesse Kamzol
62. Contestants offered Mr. Kamzol to opine that significant illegal voting occurred in
Nevada during the 2020 General Election, based on his analysis of various commercially available
databases of voters.

63. The Court questions Mr. Kamzol’s methodology because he had little to no
information about or supervision over the origins of his data, the manner in which it had been
matched, and what the rate of false positives would be. Additionally, there was little or no
verification of his numbers. Kamzol Dep. 58:6-11, 58:15—17, 59:22-24.

iii. Scott Gessler
64. Contestants offered Mr. Gessler to opine on the transition to and administration of
mail voting.

65. Mr. Gessler’s report lacked citations to facts and evidence that he used to come to
his conclusions and did not include a single exhibit to support of any of his conclusions.

66. The Court finds that Mr. Gessler’s methodology is unsound because he based nearly
all his opinions on a handful of affidavits that he took no steps to corroborate through independent
investigation. Gessler Dep. 44:12-14, 48:11—25, 50:8-22, 66: 1-7.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20420186-order-granting-motion-to-dismiss-statement-of-contest-1