Capitol News

Petitioners in Antrim County have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that new evidence that has come to light be brought forth in the case.

“The first tranche of new evidence is a forensic analysis report — prepared under a protective order — regarding voting machines, voting materials, and voting data used in Antrim County, Michigan,” the letter states. “This report also implicates voting issues in the state of Georgia.” 

The letter says after an expert analysis was performed, the report was prepared quickly. It notes that the results provide new information and evidence related to the election last month In Antrim County.

“The new evidence specifically provides additional and conclusive evidence of election fraud and irregularities pertaining to the November 3, 2020 election,” the letter states. “The final ‘certified tally’ in Michigan reflected a slim margin of Mr. Biden’s vote count to be 146,000 over that of President Trump, with just under 10 million people living in Michigan.”

The evidence, the letter says, is relevant to the emergency petition filed by the petitioners and corroborates and supports existing evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The petitioners also provided two additional affidavits that they say prove the Dominion Voting Systems website was accessed from Canada, the United States and Serbia.

“Images are attached to the affidavits, demonstrating that Dominion systems were connected to foreign systems around the globe,” the letter states.

The affidavits also include information regarding a Toronto-based Chinese bank that secures intellectual patents involving U.S. elections and Dominion Voting Systems.

The petitioners are asking for the new affidavits and evidence to be filed with the case, as well as new evidence from the forensic examination of the machines to be filed under seal because of a protective order.

“This evidence is crucial to a just resolution of the cases pending before this Court,” the letter states. “The Petitioners stand ready to provide the evidence to the Court under the procedures it deems appropriate.”