Thanks for the links. I have reviewed the first link some weeks back. From what I can tell, the judgement falls under the "casual dismissal" category. Aside from the fact that the judgement is loaded with clearly biased editorializations, it doesn't provide adequate justification for its findings. As an example:

> Challengers are allocated one per respective party or organization to each counting board.5 > The only challenger right specifically listed with respect to absent voter ballots is to observe the > recording of absentee ballots on voting machines. M.C.L. § 168.733(1)(e)(i) (“A challenger may > do 1 or more of the following: … Observe the recording of absent voter ballots on voting > machines.”) This requirement was met at all times.6

"This requirement was met at all times". How was this finding reached? The footnotes referenced (5,6) does not provide any indication to how this was reached. Yet, this finding is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided. On what evidence was this finding based?

Further, the judgement states:

> Even Plaintiffs’ “material” allegations could not possibly support their causes of action. If > each and every one of the allegations were true (they are not true), at most, they relate to a small > number of ballots, that could not possibly change the outcome of the election.

This is just factually not true, based on the number of hours of lack of meaningful observation, which would be hundreds of thousands of votes. Again, there is no indication in the judgement how this finding was reached.

THANK YOU however for providing these links. I have not yet looked at the other two and I will review them with the attention they deserve.