Published July 21, 2022, 8:03 a.m.
BNN (Brandenburg News Network) - Dan Hartman, esq Discussing My Legal Battles Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/donna4mi/videos/559114545754205/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BSfokCn_A Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1ypKdEdBrPVGW Rumble: https://rumble.com/v1d2xgr-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-dan-hartman-esq-discussing-my-legal-battles.html
good morning this is donna brandenburg in coming to you this morning oh with brennan brandenburg news network the morning i've got dan heart men that were going to merging to talk to he is my attorney and representing me and my legal cases that we are we are involved in right now represented me in the supreme court and also in the federal laws some bring dan in right now and we're going to have a great morning to with the union good morning doing very good a welcome a good search in the day to day allan lots of talk about of course we so i thought it would be an interesting to give the prospective legal person from you all exactly what happened with the illegal removal from the ballot so let's let's kind of first talk about the first point i'd like to discuss is the way a candidate gets put on to the ballot and when they are running for certain officers including the governor so there is a process in which a person is required to collect signatures and those signatures or gathered on petition drive and the person that actually collected the signature called a circulate and the person who signs the petition saying that i would like to have the candidate and the bold makes an attestation that they are actually a real person and they are entitled to vote in the jurisdiction that they signed their names in addition to that the person who circulates an attestation under old subject to penalty of perjury they have witnessed the signature and that the signature is gathered in their presence meaning of the act observed it and then the signatures put on the form very unusual for a candidate to collect a significant amount of signature instead they rely upon circulators to do that that process which has been rounded michigan for a while is something that you engage him so why don't you kind of fill in how you went about gathering signatures for your campaign i once you indicated an intent to run for on sure ye so we started circulating in collecting signatures i did souse and we also had volunteers that were gathering but during the process we realized that there it probably was a wise thing to hire a couple of companies and it was its instanced practice almost everybody does it the reason why you would do that honestly is not so much for the collection of signatures as it is for the fact that they verify they have sensation technique so it's another level that i believed was an honest way to insure that the signatures were worms they run checkley after ivrything was in question i went through and i saw that they did strike that they believed were not at all of some of the petitions which i think was good so we another to a different after gathering companies in order to help us and make sure that the signatures were scrawled and correct as they could be don't that i would like to just make sure that the viewers understand is that not only is it a standard practice it whether you have a volunteer go out and talk to ten people you still the signature that counts is not the person to no weather to pay volunteer or a company they it is the vote that signs the voting and so when you hire these companies they were they were assuring you that they would have a circulator that would contact the poles ask them to please you and the ballot yet a valid signature and then these circulated that work for the company was the one that would attest that the signature was only collect i want to point out that in this governors race and the republican party the fact that there were candidates in your only allowed to sign a petition for one governor candidate there is a you know i significant amount of significant amount of resources to find and talk to the signature gathers so i had a little bit of experience for working out a petition where i worked as a circulator and i spent a very hard at our day and collected approximately two hundred in i mentioned that only because there was a requirement that you have a certain amount of signatures and how many were you required to collect you recall of course i'm fifteen thousand signatures were required but we turned in twenty seven thousand five hundred because we were warned that the board election would would probably use their discretion to well i'm going to counter that word in what you did was the accepted practice that it ministration to the wrong word for it but that they were not necessarily accurate and how they how they calculated that that was that was a warning i got even before returned anything he provides that a candidate to laclede thousand and smith up to thirty thousand a prachanda happening after the signatures are collected in submitted there is a review process but before we get to that i think it's important for everybody to understand because media has picked up different issues related to the republican candidate that number one you used companies that had gathered signature in previous election and we're in the business of gathering signatures and had no knowledge the circulator were doing anything wrong and we still don't know that that approbrious that's an allegation that's been made and i think it's very important to note that during the legal process for a bureau the lack cassandra bureau license they were very clear that none of the five good material candidates a knowledge of fraudulent signature gathering and i think that that's an important point if there was a fraudulent signatures that were gathered you are the vice as well as supporters of your camp and i just wanted to make the point that during the there was never an allegation that you are the other candidates knowingly collected or submitted you agree that you regret that absolutely absolutely it turns out that after the signatures were submitted you had submitted your first batch of signs and then you submitted a second batch because you have volunteers and you weren't certain that the first company would perform so you had a belt and suspenders it a second set of signal what was really unique about your case unlike the other candidates that were affected by this decision from the board of canvassers they never even acknowledge second is that well we got an affidavit that said that they did in fact acknowledged that when we dropped it off but when we got to the only nonsapient seven thousand five hundred signs and instead of having that number they had seventeen thousand seven hundred and seventy eight signor to my question was that was what to do with the rest of my signals to the lutheran in fact they did lose or will say a gross negligence is probably some other to that could be used here because all of a sudden that second submission was completely gone and i asked director bordenave in the hearing what to do with mother ten thousand signatures he twisted in his chair and refused to answer the question but magically in an affidavit somehow magically when we filed in the michigan supreme court they found it and that anderledy storm novel it was almost laughable it was so so unprofessional an child so when i say when i say discretion that a legal description that's it in his own words making a policies on the fly picking winners and lines our elections and absolutely absolutely not following any lawful processive so i want to pick up right there and the first thing i want to say is that the board of canvas the one that never acknowledged the bureau collections after the board able canvassers her on the twenty sixth of may the board of canvassers never received the information if you hadn't had a receipt showing that they had been we had to show them that you had a real before they even tremens looking for the law since they claim that they found somewhere in their office inadvertently set aside another not where they keep ignition signatures either it wasn't in a room where the petitions they had to go on the back recesses of the office to find them which i find is incredibly ed or it's either absurd nolens or they were complicated and criminal activity let's just say that lets you start here with the comment that as the person that is the four persons responsible for county verifying the sign they have as we saw borne out lately delegated back all of their say duties to the bureau of elections handles and then presents their find it and then they pretty much loton weather not to adopt i wanted to go back to my original point the board of canvassers concluded their hearing in all of the findings without even considering your second setosa so the bureau of elections later said he oh she's right we found the signs they wouldn't have mattered anyway and we'll get into that point this point on i think i wanted your viewers to know that there was no fraud by the campaign in the signature collect there was some submission and then there was this huge regularity were not all your petitions were i even acknowledged as received the board of canvassers who is the one that supposed to make this determination so now let's go and talk about the process so that that are participating in the two party system i understand how the good material side go through this post as i understand it they have a very compact a time and in this appears as those several republican candidates at the signature all the way back and mark came out during the hearing in their final reports in the end of may secretary was aware that they were going to be challenging the circulators but they never advised the campaigns hey there may be challenges to these circulars is that a true state i did not receive any notification of it whatsoever but there seems to be evidence that other campaigns were because there was a trial and made two or nailhead we were not advised of that so we were kind of kept in the dark on the whole rose well more importantly while i do acknowledge that there was a hearing in some of the other campaigns became aware on may the month of march in april by without even advising those campaigns during the time in which they could have sought to have replacement signatures with different circulate and i think the other campaign when i know we did not get any type of notice whatsoever well i wanted just point out that during the may twenty ninth bothering i apologize i said the twenty nights earlier but in that hearing you know it was brought out during that hearing that in their reports they acknowledged the the campaign a big knowledge that the secretary of state had knowledge of circulators it was one of the points that you are not raised at the hearing that why wouldn't you let us know before the april nineteenth submission deadline had had let's talk about how the other campaigns early received notice so on april nineteenth there is a seven day challenge and one of the frustrations that i have with what happened here that it appears as though after from a when in an challenge for a candidates that were removed not yourself they file a written sworn challenge signature and that triggered a hearing on my those can you did not receive a written challenge in any of the violence and that was one of our between us and the other four candidates as you do not receive a complaint you were not aware of this issue and you did not go to the may second hearing and you know there is no indicates an as you are working for a twenty second all the way to make twenty third that you are aware of a problem with your circulators or your signatures being i never got any notification other than finding out about it from as the media and then we were presented report so the staff report came out on mars and that's when the mediator from april to may you run the impression that you would submit well over the fifteen thousand dollar requirement it twenty seven thousand five hundred in and during this period of time the bureau of elections the word of canvases the secretary sat i never gave you any notice of a problem and i think that that's established in the record of one of the other interesting things as some of the other campaigns the other four republican ah removed governor candidates were able to actually do a little bit of resource and they were able to go to the secretary of state and look at signature pages and they were able to do some research prior to the staff supports coming out in the you were effectively not even that opportunity we raised that a due process violate i would categorization ambush two but when we found out on the twenty third i had we had like three disrepair for that hearing completely blind side as an andante now you found a soccer about the twenty come in and help you itemizing the day so we got vainement fifth i mean if i recall right you were actually on the campaign trail in the upper peninsula on the twenty third when you receive notice we say the twenty third were talking late in the day after the new site effectively at the twenty fourth and the twenty fifth to our council and par for a hearing that was going to cure bright early on the twenty six so you are given about somewhere between forty eight seventy two hours to prepare your correct one of the interesting things at the that came up is that they went by alphabetical order at the hearing and obviously your alphabet was at the front of line at the gometra candidate so we got a chance to ask some questions at the and there's a to that entire hearing that is available and if you could make available on your website for anybody who is interested in foliate politics i wanted to mention that during that hearing of patriot from the upper panes raised one of the points that we were prepared to make and that was the fact that the secretary's state in the port of canvassers required to operate with rules that are promulgated administrative procedures act and that they weren't doing and i want to take a moment and discuss the legal effect of that which you our viewers understand tideshead for the rule of law that currently happened in her the secretary of state administration thereof elections and the port of kansas we have a rule michigan called administrative procedures and different and we got to talk a little bit about separation of power in our government we have we decided that when we set up our country nationally and stated power corrupts absolute so we have the legislative executive and judicial in the legislative and become the most powerful decided to split that into a bicameral house they would have to fight between himself with a house and a senate in order to take action and that you would have the branches of government distinct zones of responsibility the legislature is supposed to pass rules the branch is supposed to enforce rules the supreme court is supposed to interpret and apply the facts check and balance on the government the branches over i just mentioned that as some viewers may not be aware of our separation of power the checks and balances where we have to put governance at the local level first the people and most power is retained by local government a township verses are accounting share of verses the authority of the state police are the federal govern we have this dalis the local governments compete with government and we also have branches of government that compete within them that's basically an overview you have any additional comment in kind of the separation of powers of the steam of how we rule ourselves no i think you're doing well here i don't want one thing i guess is that it goes back to the doctrine of the lesser man distraint and that people love rule governante should be closer to the keyhole rather than centralized in a very large in our enlarge at so it should be temperate than it down absolutely and so i wanted just want to just touch base with an just kind of go into a point that when the legislature passed these laws there supposed to ah the representative body create a coover men and one of the problems that you've seen with a governor wedmore for doing or and i want people to understand that your governor when you're lected because your currently in the election or a president when you issue executive order executive orders are supposed to be directed the executive branch don't govern regular reactions are ruled by legislatively past lives do not tuition as interpreted by a supreme court when you ever you see the president or governor issuing executive order directing citizens rather than their agencies are employees there that's the reason that those are subject to challenging her often invalid if they are than i go back to the mandates where the governor put mass mandate on or they did all these different rules they did that under probably a questionable process called the emergency powers and eventually the legislature so the governor and stricter of those emergency power but i wanted just kind of talk about what i would call executive branch over reach and one of these things that happen with in executive or and another way that an executive branch official can do over reach when they passed rules that looked like laws they can do roll than or when a rule comes out of an agency and revered the bureau of elections is an executive and of the secretary so when they pass a rule the rule is to get in effect a interpretation of a statue sufficiently defined by the legislature they have this rule making authority that goes hand in hand authority granted to them by the legislatures as it's not over but they have a process that their supposed to do that they are supposed to through the administrative procedures at the rule allow for public comment and there is an exchange process for the rule is enacted and then everybody has notice of what the rule and i mentioned the one of the biggest issues that has still remains dressed in he asked the fact that the rotation in the board of canvassers he never traveled gate that's the process of creating a rule under the administrative procedure blind citizen i mean by blind citizen anonymous i don't know who it is rather the beginning of the hearing that they don't even have legitimate rule determine what signature verification and that is an extremely important one and i just wanted to reaffirm and reiterate rehearsed the fact that a signature verification and you just mentioned it again that they were making up the rules as they went along and bernenstein the staff re they admitted and then it was set at the hearing they made it what was the word you they were making up rules on the fly and i do recall a very astute person calling to the gordonites true it is the complete and utter good because there was really no policies of precedes or child of than you in the removed every candidate based on a nation by an unelected board of appointed individual well i want to be i want to i want to just to talk a little bit about the procedure so the burlap the signature petitions submitted their called nominating and they determined the five candidates they were going to invalidate any signature by individual when they eliminated those circulators they eliminated any petition nominating petition that that person had a taste it's very important that if the hearing they didn't call these nineteen people didn't distributors were never charged to the state with the crime and when we actually asked the what do diligence they had done in your reports conclusively it appears that they looked at a grand total of thus that were collected by these third party circulated the basically invalid a sufficient number of york petitions by their opinions do you blow the ten thousand or the fifteen thousand threshold because they said anything signed by these nineteen people of which you had made seven or nine of them all were affected you all of those signatures were remote it is that basically how they did that's basically and one of the objections that was raised by every single campaign the law to follow it and not used mentioned earlier there described the law says to compare the signature directly to the voters to be the portable actions the bureau election order acknowledged that they did not compare all of yours that they remind so one of the unique things that we raise in your lawsuit was in order to trigger a review of your signature we believe that the law's pretty clear that a complaint had to have been fired by april and there was that hearing on may so when there was no challenge to your signature that essential process we believe not only shorter chance to respond fairly they really did not they were not raising a written sworn but pallene about your signatures and giving you fair notice and that was one of the distinctions that we raised in your case for us the other can and there is also the other thing that's really disturbing to me as if in fact they suspected a fraudulent signature gathers back in march and they never let any one know and till after after all this process was done it wasn't only a hit job on candidates it was also yet incredibly disturbed that they allowed signature gatherers if he did in fact fact then to have people personal information in their possession without addressing inther is a there is a great or a promoter i would think that it's a to our elected and unaffected on elected officials jump in and warn public that this may be going on and going back to that time line i would have in fact been able to grow out anything in question and get me signatures but they didn't do that and so they allowed a threat to the campaign but the public to continue yea and so it's interesting as there's no abidance that there was any investigation by the secretary of state investigators pristine general or any law enforce the individual and the bureau of elections said that they turned it over to the attorney general well after the april nineteenth deadline had i wanted just a kind of zoroaster i just so everybody can understand some of the legal fondness of your case when oh when do signature were reviewed and they invalidate all of the pages collected by the they labeled those signatures as fraudulent the media indicated that all of the candidates stated in some type of fraud and that was a smear inadvertently or intentionally against the integrity of five candidates that were running one of the things that i was extremely disappointed in an i'm sorry to make this comment the missing go unlike the democratic act did not challenge any of the signatures or rastignac to any democratic and when we were at the board of canvassers it was a one sided attack an republican candidates being on the ballot challenge not by other camps and i want to make it very clear that none of the five candidates that are still in the republican who material race for the other five candidates when over and said by the way don brandenburg has that sign signatures were challenge and there's some evidence to indicate that there was shall we say an it remove these candidates it was an orchestrated cordial and i mentioned that because came out in the news and i don't have first hand information there was i made signature gathers do not collect signatures well the presumption is that this was a set up remove certain governor can i believe that to be true i reasoned that what we're dealing with is your therefore three republican operatives that were opening gathers up to fifty thousand dollars in turn signatures that as well as working for a democrat a oppose an office as democrats democrat i think their congress amours the democrats the signatures were but there's also evidences me i sat evidence that one well i want to just quite out with the point that you were making there is there is an domination that has not been investigated yet and there until there is a criminal investigation of these people and figure out how they effectively sabotage five campaigns there was also only token resistance by the republican party it is not true that a couple of representatives of the republican party made some generic state there was not any significant help from the republican party defend percent of their field was effectively wiped out strategy and that was extremely disappointing to you i know as the candidate well it it goes back to the fact that the political parties are picking the winners in the losers also they are all involved in it they didn't find the election integrity and treat they didn't they didn't come the rest of the trumps with the failure locomotive and so we can assume that the unartistic and in the situation to albania that will well effectively be nothing more than scamp so it's extremely concerned that even if even if you look at this objectively you would think when there were no just group material canvas candidates up and down the thick that were challenged and removed by the secretary of state from being he wanted that and support they wanted to be able to have the elective process think that you would either challenge some of the democrat candidates under similar circumstances or you would challenge are you would defend the candidates a little bit more vigorously and i just want to point out in assent the michigan got and i know that you had lanesport from a lot of country parties but the michigan go pretty much cricket on the issue i mean they made some very token resistance and did not offer very contact your campaign or offer any there was a support there and like you said the three to my knowledge there were no democrat candidate it was it was absolutely a hit job on republican tenets is weller from judge that that i think that they were trying to keep out of the situation if i had that the judges were the signature danvers also intolerant but that was not a morose the goes absolutely silent and just let them go after people in our party not nonono support now nothing yeah and i want a dress to another legal issue and should lose kind of like half you know this little point i want to turn right now to signature verification for absentee bow in twenty sixteen our election system had absentee ballots we're in a very limited fashion what happened is through a ironically a petition gathering signature process my promote the vote morales dark money a changed to election system occur and in that change of election when you look at this objectively you can see that election integrity has eroded systematically since two thousand twelve forward at another discuss we had this process for absent signature verification was raised how it somebody a ballad application to confirm that that signature actually is a legitimate signature in the person we've all seen two thousand miles now how do you know that the person who mailed the ballot is actually the voter i wanted to take a quick digression and make a common about two thousand yes doesn't require a drop box because they can use the post office it is very easy that if you have access to the qualified voter file you have the ability to create like they did for two miles and stopped the ballot box they could all that to northern county and so one of the safeguards against the the body the signature verification where your supposed compare on the ballot application to the qualified voter files since and i want to make sure that you and all of your listeners are aware of one of my huge concerns about those signature comparisons as to be done by the township or the city election one by the county clerk is done by the actual precincts the the secretary of state then says when they opened the ball they compared the ballot signature the ample of signature to make sure that because the already compared the outside signature on the ballot interestingly enough in the secretary of state an they sent out to the township and the election they have said that they don't even have to bother to parry the outside of the ample they just have to compare the inside signature to the outside and in that directed to the election he rode that signature is there not many conscientious the outside signature to the quiet and i want to just mention that i'm not picking on election i'm suggesting that they got a bad directive from the secretary of state and i want to talk about fact that equal protection which is a law in our constitution has been interpreted in a case called buchberg to says that when you do not have a standard for interpreting a violation of equal protection but one of the things we raise in your love there was no standard for interpreting a signature whether it was valid or not not only do they not make the comparison but they didn't even have a standard should they chose to make it come and why that is important is this when it comes to the other type of signature comparison the bureau of the late a or they have issued a rotha they had passed and they issued it at before the twenty twenty election that basically there is a mark it is considered and i being a little bit as when i say what the bakemono disclosed to minuter casay that again before the two twenty election when we had this in record number of absentee a state sent out guidance were interpreted as instruction works are required by law to file what the charge if they don't follow the instruction vaillant you know a lot of the courts don't know their don't have a legal council to determine whether an instruction as lawful or this instruction basically told the clerk that when they receive these absentee ballots all they had to do as compared the two it also it interpreted and said make every oporto make a signature now the presumed valid and if there's a squiggle some redeeming characteristics let it to guidance should have gone through the american state michigan administrative procedures a alan found fill secretary ah and the bureau black and said that this guidance that they had received it was the elegant county clare along with the missing he said that during the election they followed the guidance and as the result the confident they let some bad ballots they soon to change the declaratory and injunctive relief the court of claims and michigan in a written a pig i can send you and you can post on a link if you would like or if anybody asked you for a world the secretary of state in fact was required we go the administrative procedure act and had failed to so what happened sequentially in twenty twenty one a their guidance instruction down to a he administrative procedures at rule submit well it was hotly contested by the michigan fop who did stand up and say wait a minute in standard is no standard at all because i basically allows any signature to go through and to day there is no rule we're going to do in election in august a marian then we're going to do november election in the secretary of state has not complied the requirements of the administrative procedure act to pass a rule for determining whether a signature is valid in an absentee ballot even though they were told they had a duty to do now i mention that because they have submitted a rule and in the political press they got so much comment that the rule was bad the basic got a son said it sort a fact by operation of law rather than participating in the public debate and fixing the role so that our representatives in the michigan goop say with what a political party should be able to have some input not a democratic making body just dictates to rule our process should allow for on the feet it really troubling to me is the big picture in this comes back to the donning petition issue and one for of the secretary of state to any signature on an absentee ballot is in another four of their tongue they then say any signature on a nominating petition presumptively invalid if it was signed by the signature gathered and they never made a compact i would suggest that that is an equal protection we raised both in the supreme court is still alive and panting even though it won't affect your election cycle in the twenty twenty two republican primary that's one of our claims still alive that we have this standard that a signature according to the secretary of state is presumed to be valid it was never challenged so that presumption should have carried through for your thing as well as they haven't properly adopted the standard men standard and infectious it allows arbitrary and capricious process of a political act a determination as to whether not an opposing party candidate should be on the ballot real from a free for all the whole process is the free for all from top to bottom and is in its up to whoever is sitting in the seat at the time and what they want to see don so it gives them the ability to honestly lance hit jobs on people that don't fit in with the establishment and it is there really is a wardrobe tween the political establishment and we the people and noisy i mean i think i think i talk to you about this before the judgment even came down i was so disgusted with the whole process and had been asked to run on the stone piers cartier actually got up and running grouping the republican party to run for the unexperienced to tell the whole massinissa and go to something else that was more representational of the penalties to hardness which is failed spectacularly to represent the people and a moving another direction in which is because i won't i won't buy into or be part of the establishment gordieston on there which is a war against the people of michigan in the united states so i want to point out that the fact that the republican establishment in support the five candidates that were had gone through the process and and were running as republican candidate they gave token support and the fact that here we have this problem i ever been filed in a meek they never got involved in our legal process and they were on notice of the signature shall we call double standard for when we want not any ballot that is male in to be valid the signatures but when it's a republican candidate we're going to save the tainture doesn't and by the way there is no standard so it's whatever the bureau election feel about the candidate to determine their there out exactly i wanted i wanted to just kind of talk a little bit about what you want me to get through and i want to make sure i'm able to do that for really now that we understand the secretary of bureau of elections invalidate your signatures without a standard or they applied what i would call a double standard they apply at one way and then another we we raise these issues and we went to the supreme court and was interesting of the five candidates candidates went to the court of claims two candidates went to the court of appeals and we followed the statute and the supreme court and i want to talk about how that played out if you go to the court of claims like a trial court it would be similar to filling in a circuit when they went to the court of claims two candidates that went to the court of claims received a bad and then they appealed their decision to the court of appeals who affirmed a fact that in legal issues that were raised in the court of claims and then they appeared again supreme court and that would be what the perry johnson the a mark when that rough two other candidates one of them dropped out after finally in the cordial and the other one james crank filed in the court of the pale a case of what is called original jurisdiction and bypassed bilin the court of claims or a circuit court he received the unfavorable i want to point out that each of these other candidates already engaged with lawyers probably sense very close after the objections were filed in the end of a and they had a thirty day running had started before we so we were the last defile we also had the information that the other two values had been tried and we had unique fact which we plead in wisdom in the supreme court and what was interesting about her submission was the statue which the legislature said that we have the right to file directly in the supreme court of original just a firm that with the file incarcerate supreme court your cooncil that you would ransford that there was some old order you can't do that but that was before the statute was enacted in a man two of the judges kind of debate in the very limited opinion about whether or not we should have gone to the supreme court the decision was considered on the merits pretty much a one line response from the supreme court that we have accepted it with considered it and we don't find any merit with very little reasoning and rational basically wasn't ordered to nine without an opinion now there was a opinions about whether not we're in the right court and there was a descent of the decision that said he we should have we should have gone on in all reality it felt like the supreme court sits the henry called to recall what it is it's a coward's way out that that sort of felt like to me is that they took the coward's way out and didn't actually address anything or or i utterson ethics it's clear that they chose not to explain thoroughly the reasoning which was challenged by one of the judges we should have had a thorough explanation of their reasoning that whatever the reason was the they they did not content my person rights are to say what it is and i would categories taking the coward's way out and kicking the case down the down the street for the next through the next court johnson who was a resident of the eastern desert the complaint in the eastern district and you are a resident the western district you find a complaint in the western desert we ask for injuries to prevent the ballot from going forward and we lost on that because really wasn't effective time to do that we still have a live cause of action declared torry relief and were trying to clarify with these legal are in their defender issues including the equal protection claim that are still alive and well i'm not going to do too much on that pending litigation but i i wanted just say that while we had different fact habit he had more knowledge more noise we're able to be posted and presented that may not have had the same fate we were presented in the definitely raised different legal arguments than we did and so by the time our facts were reviewed and felt very much like a wee already seen this when we've already decided and that's just the unfortune of the timing and the lack of a what i would call a deep i also want to point out that for those who follow this i am i've been admitted to the western district but i haven't practiced there in a long time and we encourage some substantial delays in meeting reactivated into their like chronicling which which is unfortunate but obviously i had the knowledge of the facts and we went forward even though we made a cursory an attempt to bring another council you know you and i had discussed that and so there was a little bit a delay there which seemed to be how against this when we wanted to get on the ballot and i accept responsibility for they made it very difficult they put barriers up in order to address the senate and a tiny manner just like when you look at the time line of this entire entire task the other not informing me and having any notification of this scrambling put a case together after the twenty third hearing on the twenty sixth and the argument i heard over and over again while while we just don't have time because the abstemious and he boutillon the third they they it appears to me that it was a concerted effort to run the clock out to the point where we could not have in actual producers to address any of these issues all the way along entire goat rode they were running the clock and on manitoes back to retire i i hear anything he absolved would i believe or that the one of the biggest problems in our elections period so it if we're going to use a weapon that's one of them that they were using to effect or human interfere with the election again yes so i wanted just clarify that i don't believe that the federal district the only barrier up those were just pragmatic barriers license really does that when there's an unprecedented removal of governor canada the captain in the th of may that the all has to be figured out by there they even throughout the days of june sir and so they are screaming fowl that you were wanting to have court review what and i wanted you candidature of where we are here and sedately right and so when i say that that they were running the clock out this this when you look at the time line there were so many anomalies and stalls from the board of elections from the entire process to get to the hearing and then all in the absentee ball the whole process has been a game of running the clock out yes and i think one of the one of their opinions pointed out that a scheme in these time lines need to be reviewed so that a candidate can have meaningful review of i want to ask of you a review here people understand really in some challenges that we number one one of the biggest most compelling issues was but to let the campaigns in all that there was a potential problem while there was still time for the campaign i number two when they chose to not the process of giving you a complaint a notice for the early part of the proceeding and then throw you in at the end with the others and say that you were invalid at that time i was completely unfair and more importantly there's no law they made it up the day could invalidate every signature with no comparison emitted by a circulator the signature standard a shall we say a double standard the secretary of state is willing to ah and an absentee ballot but will not act signatures that have redeeming characteristics in the petition because they didn't even look at and then of course the next issue is is that in the patios doing titanite resting that members of congress the peking signature can merely file a hundred dollar fee and forego the process of collecting in but they didn't make that possible for certain other candidates including good material can so this entire system was you basically denied your supporters the opportunity for you to be on the republican primary all and last time at night as to be the one to say that i say again it's very concerning to me that when we look at effectiveness of the democratic part not only probably ever a signature process but to challenge and remove four of the five candidates and five of these were remote what i would call a very activist administration he has not and i said this is in appropriateness as unfair so that is going to have a chilling effect on other candidates that are going to want to get involved in this process probably what they wanted because you were not and anointed favor of the establishment within the ay so do i thank you for to me we had an hour and unfortunately i have to jump into a court hearing and i wanted to just say that i wanted to if you would be so kind to allow me to conclude with the prayer for us dear haveter we just thank you for this time for we've had a chance to discuss in review the pros that there is a spiritual awakening and more people are returning to read their bible in your to fly those princes very concerned about the two constitutional amendments that further ere our right and that basically legalized abortion and state tax dollars available for it that is good to be on the ballot resign your gathering process we also asked lord that you would select leaders that will will follow the teachings of your bible and will live in accordance with your laws we submit to you that our country and our state been taken for granted the freedom that we have been given that are god given asked that you would restore our land you would allow the process of people that concerned in want to uphold a christian values to get involved in the system and that we would have a debate that is lawful and i and that we would be able to restore a rule of law and just into our executive legislative and court branches in the state of michigan my you so much thanks for thanks for coming on her today and discussing this like to hear ye back on a regular basis it just there's many there's many issues that we rockabout and help inform the people of michigan exactly what the legal processes are and restoring the intestine governments and in the state we need to get it to everything back to the founding documents simplify things put in a pot and in half have a lot not the only way we can do that as foreknowing what that lawful process so i very much appreciate your time to day and every one who looked to the well you know we can go on soames points to make it odd to me even to well understand the glance in with you and knowing the problem also allows us to know how to pick that so think this is a man let go here down abenberger running for governor of the state of michigan and i thank you for doing us today we will in fact be on again i believe i'm going to shoot for every day at eight o'clock in an andalusian my social media channels where outthink you so much we have a wonderful day and i will be talking to against you can go to my telegram she anat brandenburg b r a n d a b u r g for number for i and my website is is brandenburger dot com and then i all save a blow that i've been putting together and that's a that's a wonnerful i do come