Lutz vs. Vu -- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Citizens Oversight (2016-06-16) Ray Lutz, Alan Geraci
This Page: http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1658
More Info: Election Integrity
, Election Audit Lawsuit
- Court Case Moves Forward -- This case is not over! We received a "Statement of Intended Decision" on Oct 26 and Status conference is scheduled for Dec 1, just before election certification.
- Please see the project Election Audit Lawsuit where new information will be provided.
- (M1670) Press Conference: Court Ruling on Anti-Election Fraud Lawsuit -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight, 2016-08-03 Also includes court ruling and explanation.
- Lutz_Vs._Vu_Ruling_on_Injunction_CCE07282016.pdf: Ruling by Judge Wohlfeil on Election Audits Case
- Hearing was held in San Diego Superior Court, July 6, 2016, 1:30pm Dept C-73. (330 W. Broadway, 6th Floor) requesting injunctive relief. This would essentially stop Vu from certifying the election unless he complied with election code 15360, mandating that all ballots be subjected to the 1% manual tally audit. Vu excluded 285,000 ballots.
- Since the judge did not rule on it prior to certification deadline, Vu certified knowing he was in violation of the law.
- Now case has been modified as "Writ of Mandate" which means it will go forward and try to correct this situation for future elections. This should have state-wide application.
- This trial will likely take a number of months. We hope we can get it completed before November.
- We received a "Statement of Intended Decision" on Oct 26 and Status conference is scheduled for Dec 1, just before election certification.
This action was subsequently modified to request for injunctive relief, and now is being handled by former Deputy City Attorney Alan Geraci. Hearing occurred in San Diego Superior Court, July 6, 2016, 1:30pm Dept C-73. (330 W. Broadway, 6th Floor)
On June 16, 2016, the following "Complaint for Declaratory Relief" was filed by Ray Lutz
against San Diego Registrar of Voters Michael Vu and his supervisor, Helen N. Robbins-Meyer, Chief Administrative Officer of San Diego County. This was served to the County Counsel at 12:35pm, and we attempted to serve Micheal Vu directly at 2:35pm but he refused to accept it, so we threw it on the floor at his office.
What is this about
The San Diego Registrar of Voters (SDROV) and many other election districts in California are not complying with the law regarding the 1% manual tally. They are leaving out a vast number of Vote by mail (VBM) ballots that were still to be processed after election day, and also the many provisionals.
--> Please contribute to our war chest: Donate To Citizens Oversight
Header of the filed complaint:
Initial Complaint, filed Pro Per by Ray Lutz
First Amended Complaint. Filed 2016-06-24 by Attorney Alan Geraci. Citizens Oversight added as a plaintiff
County response, filed on 2016-06-30
Our Reply, 2016-07-05
Report on Hearing
The judge did not provide a tentative ruling prior to the hearing. He listened to statements from both sides. Counsel from County was caught off guard and was visibly shaking. Judge asked how many provisionals as a percentage were involved, they said 10%, and he seemed to accept that information as if it were quite a large number.
The Trial was held October 4, 5, 6 and 11, 2016.
Statement of Intended Decision
Instead of producing a complete decision immediately, Judge Wohlfeil published a "Statement of Intended Decision" and he solicited comments by the parties, (normally within 5 days after official reception, as it was mailed, that is Nov 4, 2016) and then scheduled a case status conference for Dec 1, 2016. That date is before final certification.
Case Status Conference
Judge Wohlfeil scheduled a case status conference for Dec 1, 2016 at 3pm in Dept 73 of San Diego Superior Court. This hearing was postponed to Friday, Dec 2 at 11am because no court reporter had been contracted for the hearing.
This was filed on January 10, 2017. The ruling correctly requires that all vote-by-mail ballots must be included in the 1% manual tally audit, but incorrectly rules that provisionals need not be included. The argument by the County and embraced by the court was that we are asking for more than 100% of the ballots to be audited because we want even provisionals that were not accepted to be audited. This argument is ridiculous as we never have asked for more than the validated and accepted provisionals to be included, but it appears the court wanted to give both sides a partial win to prompt appeal.