Onn | os STACI BURK. 2487 S. GILBERT RD. #106-609 Gilbert, Arizona 85295 (480) 343-4518 staci@asu.edu Representing Self SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, an Arizona political party and political action committee; and STEVE GALLARDO, a qualified elector, Plaintiffs, CV2021-006646 v KAREN FANN, in her official capacity as President of the Arizona Senate; WARREN PETERSEN, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, KEN BENNETT, in his official capacity as the liaison of the Arizona Senate; and CYBER NINJAS, INC,, a Florida corporation, Defendants. MOTION TO INTERVENE Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 7 and 24, Petitioner Staci Burk respectfully moves to intervene.Sia Oy 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM In their Complaint, Democratic Party of Maricopa County and Steve Gallardo (“Plaintiffs”) brings this action seeking an injunction, (V. Cmplt. § 1,) that, if successful, may halt or resti the proposed audit and ballot inspection. (See id., Prayer for Relief). Intervenor Staci Burk has a current pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 20-1243 Burk v. Ducey, et al.), seeking access to the ballots under A.R.S. 16-672 and A.R.S. 16-677 as part of that combined election contest and voter suppression action. The case has been accepted by the Court and is scheduled to be heard in Conference on April 30, 2021. Plaintiff Gallardo is a Respondent in Intervenor Burks! U.S. Supreme Court case and is aware that she has been seeking ballot access sinee December 7, 2020, when he was served with her Complaint. Proposed Intervenor Burk thus has a direct interes s litigation and as such should be entitled to intervene as of right. See infra, Part I. Inthe alternative, the Proposed Intervenor Burk is entitled to permissive intervention, See infra, Part II. Accordingly, this Court should grant the Proposed Intervenor Burks’ Motion, ARGUMENT 1. The Proposed Intervenor Burk is Entitled to Intervene as of Right. Rule 24(a)(2), Ariz. R. Civ. P., provides that intervention must be granted in any case where a party “claims an interest relating to the subject of the action” and “disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Four elements are necessary for a successful motion to intervene under Rule 24(a): “(1) the motion must be timely; 2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must show that disposCm rane ll 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 24 25 26 27 28 action may impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant must show that the other parties would not adequately represent its interests.” Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC vy. Ariz, Lottery, 235 Ariz. 25, 28, 4 13 (App. 2014). Here, all four elements are satisfied. First, the Motion is timely. Plaintiff filed its request for injunction last Thursday. Proposed Intervenor learned of it while she is out of State getting medical care with limited access to resources to file and respond. Burk filed this Motion as soon as possible given her A.D.A. qualifying medical condition and availability of resources. Additionally, this request to intervene has been filed before an evidentiary hearing have occurred, and certainly before any substantive decisions have been reached by this Court, Even if that were not so, intervention here would still be appropriate. The general rule for intervention is that the timeliness aspect is “flexible,” and the most important consideration “is whether the delay in moving fo tervention will prejudice the existing parties to the case.” Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd. (U.S.A.), 162 Ariz, 442, 446 (App. 1989). No prejudice will occur to any party if the Court grants Proposed Intervenor Burk” Motion. Second and third, Intervenor Burk has jportant rights at stake in this proceeding, and absent intervention her ability to assert and defend her rights will be impaired. Intervenor Staci Burk has a current case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 20-1243 Burk v. Ducey, et al.), which has been scheduled and set to be heard in Conference on April 30, 2021. Access to ballots under A.R.S. 16-672 and A.R.S. 16-677 were requested in her initial election contest action filed on December 7, 2020. Upon information and belief, Intervenor Burks case is the only election contest case for the 2020 election pending in any Court. The pending United States Supreme Court case was dismissed pretrial as a result of standing complexities related to Burks additional claim of minority related voter suppression. Defendants Ducey, Hobbs, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in that case unsuccessfully arguedw eb W Si oe a oO u 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the Arizona Supreme Court that Intervenor Burk’s case had no merit. However, the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and specifically ruled the case was not being dismissed on substance. (Burk v, Ducey CV-20-0349-AP/EL). Part of the evidence in the pending U.S. Supreme Court election contest is an audio recorded confession from a man named Scott Koch, who is former law enforcement deputy having Department of Defense security clearance for the Sky Harbor and Williams Gateway tarmac access. Believing Intervenor Burk already had video evidence of his illegal activities on the rip, Koch confessed to Burk that he and "his guys," removed fraudulent ballots favoring Biden from a plane and took them to the Maricopa County Election Center. Burk audio recorded the confession. (Transcript of confession excerpt Ex. A). An affidavit of an eyewitness corroborates Koch's story placing he and his associate Shawn Wilson, behind the secure line at the ballot tabulation center while ballots were being tabulated, (Ex. B). Under A.R.S. § Rules of Evid., Rule 804(b), the following statements are excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that: (A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and (B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability. Even if Koch is unavailable to testify, Koch's audio recorded confession is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted under Rule 804(6)(3)(A). It is would also be admissible in a criminal case under Rule 804(b)(3)(B), since there is a corroborating eyewitness who provided an affidavit and is willing to testify. (Ex. B)ie: 10 WW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘There exists substantial additional evidence of voter fraud in Maricopa County which was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in Burk's case including 1,350 pages of appendices. Intervenor Burk has spent approximately $15,000 on costs (including going into personal debt), spent hundreds of hours of personal time litigating her case for the last five and a half months with nothing to personally gain except getting to the truth and accessing the ballots at issue under ARS. 16-677 ‘These are serious allegations, and—as already stated—Defendants seek to engage an audit in a manner which compromises and will spoil the ballot evidence sought as a remedy in Burk's case scheduled for conference on April 30, 2021. Thus, Proposed Intervenor has important rights at stake in this litigation. And, if she is not party to the litigation, she will not be able to defend those rights. Fourth, the Maricopa County Proposed Intervenors are not adequately represented by the other parties. Counsel Roopali Desai, Andrew Gaona, and Kirsten Yost, representing the Arizona Democratic Party in this case are also Respondent Counsel for Hobbs in the case pending with Burk that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, Desai, Goana, and Yost, on April 15, 2021 (prior to the filing of this action on behalf of the Democratic Party), received a Motion for Sanction regarding spoliation of ballots and voter registration materials found by Intervenor Burk a dumpster located in an open, unrestricted, public access area behind the Maricopa ‘County Election Center. (Ex. C). The ADP Plaintiffs Counsel are also aware that the upcoming audit will spoil the ballots Intervenor Burk is requesting access to. They are on notice in the other case that should the ballots be handled in any way that alters the fingerprints on the ballots, Burk will not be able to conduct forensic fingerprint analysis on the ballots to identify the pattern of fraud which Koch confessed to. Fingerprint forensic analysis has been used by the Alaska Department of Elections in a fraud investigation and is effective at identifying the type of ballot 25 2u 12 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fraud Koch confessed to. The scanner that is being used in the audit proposed by the Senate does not scan for fingerprints and would not likely identify the fraud Koch confessed to, especially if as part of the audit the same individual handled multiple ballots. It would cover up the fraud, https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/1 I/ean_fraudulent_ballots_be_identified_.html a. Plaintiff Steve Gallardo Will Not Represent Intervenor Burk's Interests. Gallardo and His Colleagues Have Also Engaged in Spoliation and Violation of Federal Law with Regard to Ballots and Registration Materials. Plaintiff Gallardo, along with his colleagues are responsible for oversight of the staff at the Maricopa County Election Center. He is also a named Defendant in Burk's SCOTUS case. ‘On March 5, 2021, at approximately 10:45a video camera footage from the election center shows a County employee tossing a yellow DHL bag of shredded material into the dumpster. (Ex. D, still shot of video). On March 5, 2021, shortly after hand delivering her U.S. Supreme Court case documents to the attorneys representing the Arizona Democrat Party in this action (also representing Defendant Hobbs in Burk's case), she went by the Election Center. Burk noticed the warehouse door open with pallets of what appeared to be unsupervised ballots. The pallets appeared similar to the photo Plaintiff Gallardo's colleague Supervisor Jack Sellers provided to the Senate the day before, which was published in the newspaper. During the March 5, 2021 visit, Burk took photos of the warehouse from the open, unrestricted, public access area, which captured the blue dumpsters. Burk did not look inside the dumpsters at that time, (Ex. F, letter photo from Sellers and photos taken by Burk), When Burk showed Earl Shafer her pictures he told her the election center staff which Plaintiff] Steve Gallardo and the other Board of Supervisors oversee, were likely destroying documents and evidence.Ea or sty es Olga) 10 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 4 25 26 27 28 The following day on March 6, 2021, Burk returned with Earl Shafer to the unrestricted, open, public access area. Burk found the yellow bag in the dumpster which had been discarded. Shafer retrieved the bag from the dumpster. Shafer and Burk later examined the contents, Shafer prepared a white board displaying what appear to be 2020 General Election ballots. Burk took photographs and shared the photos. The yellow bag also contains documents which appear to be completed voter registration forms, logs, original birth and death cert embossing, among other documents. (Ex. G, photos). Federal law 52 U.S.C. §20701 requires, "Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector. . .all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of | oll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election. .. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ( Pub. L. 86-449, title II], $301, May 6. 1960, 74 Stat, 88)” Shafer and Burk then gave the yellow bag to Daryl Colvin who then mailed the contents to former Marine Officer James Curtis for safekeeping. Curtis was on the phone with Shafer and Burk as they drove to the Election Center, when the bag was found and on the way home after it was retrieved. Curtis has managed property on behalf of the U.S. Government and conducted investigations in his role as both a Marine Officer and Contractor for 20 years. Burk proffered the shredded bag to the U.S. Supreme Court for constructive possession with James Curtis retaining10 MW 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 25 26 27 28 actual possession on behalf of the Courts until a final decision from all Courts in Burks case have been rendered. ). Defendants Arizona Senate Will Not Represent Burk’s Interests. Defendant Warren Petersen refused to investigate Intervenor Burk's election fraud allegations in December 2020. The audio recorded confession of Koch admitting to taking fraudulent ballots into the Maricopa County election center was sent to Defendant Warren Petersen by Intervenor Burk via text message (prior to the certification of the election) on November 25, 2020 at 10:45am. (Ex. H). Koch alleged that the plane used to transport the illegal ballots was in a hangar at Sky Harbor at the time he confessed. House Speaker Rusty Bowers told Burk that particular hanger is overseen and supervised by House Representative Travis Grantham. Bowers told Burk that Grantham signs off on all planes at that facility. Tra y Grantham is a close associate and prior political running mate of Defendant Warren Petersen, Grantham has ignored Burk’s request to discuss the plane. On a phone call recorded by another individual who was also on the call, Arizona Senate Republican Majority Whip Sonny Borelli told Intervenor Burk that they would not be doing the audit if it weren't for him. He said the Arizona Attorney General’s Office was uninterested in investigating election fraud and the ballots would evaporate if she gave them to them, https://www.azmirror.com/2021/03/1 /top-gop-senator-shredded-ballots-will-evaporate- to-the-ag/ Senator Borel told Intervenor Burk that if the high-level individuals involved in the election fraud got to her first she would be killed, and she should give the shredded ballots to him. He told her she should trust no one. Borelli told Petitioner, "This is the domino. This is the one domino Arizona knocks over and we expose this corruption then the other states fall, too. . .This is so high|u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 level, people, that they want this to go away. . .They can try to silence you, you're a private citizen. They can’t do anything to me. They can bully me all they want but they know they can’t take me out ...[unless] they whack me or I have a suicide." https://www.azeentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/03/1 I/arizona-senator-says-ag- cant-trust-shredded-ballots/4654862001/ ¢. Koch Alleged During His Confession To Direct Participati Both Sides Are Working Together During the recorded confession, Burk asked Koch who was ultimately responsible for the election rigging and why didn't he blow the whistle. Koch said he worked either directly for and involved with County, State, and Federal agencies. He said those responsible for the "election rigging" were "factions" within the government, but ultimately several international families with "money and power" were controlling the operation at the top. He told Burk he was a member of the Koch family and the families involved had more money and power than his family. He said he| did not blow the whistle because those involved were too powerful than anyone can stop. Burk told Koch she thought God could stop it. Koch said he did not believe in God. Burk was also aware two weeks in advance that the vote which would not hold Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was engineered behind the scenes and confronted Borrelli about this during their recorded call. Jeremy Duda from the Arizona Mirror posted the recorded conversation and reported, "Borelli eventually hung up on the women after Burk alleged that a failed, 15-15 vote in the Senate to hold the supervisors in contempt for defying the subpoenas was actually engineered in a secret meeting held by GOP senators." https://www.azmirror.com/2021/03/1 I/top-gop-senator-shredded-ballots-will-evaporate-if-given- to-the-ag/10 WW 12 2B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thus, while it appears that the parties are at odds in this case, Koch states they are working together behind the scenes to defraud the public. Defendants Interactions with Intervenor Burk suggest validity to Koch's statements, as well as those of Majority Whip Sonny Borelli that "high level” people are behind the fraud and want to see the whole thing "go away." IJ. In the Alternative, the Maricopa County Proposed Intervenors Should be Granted Permissive Intervention. In the alternative, Proposed Intervenor should be permitted to intervene as a party who “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law and faet.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). When this standard is met, Arizona courts may consider other factors to guide its decision as to whether to grant permissive intervention, including: (1) “the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest,” (2) “their standing to raise relevant legal issues,” (3) “the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the case,” (4) “whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties,” (5) “whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the sation,” and (6) “whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” Bechtel v. Rose, 150 Ariz. 68, 72 (1986). As with Rule 24(a), Rule 24(b) should be liberally construed. Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251, 272, § 67 (App. 2009) (citing Bechtel, 150 Ariz. at 72). Ultimately, whether a party may intervene under Rule 24(b) is left to the adjudicating court’s decision, See id. at § 68 (concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion in performing Rule 24(b) analysis). =T0eOn a ee am 10 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 4 3 27 28 Here, each factor weighs in favor of permitting the Intervenor Burk permissive intervention. First, the Proposed Intervenor Burk has a distinct interest in the lawful administration of this audit without interference or spoliation efforts by either side. Second, the Proposed Intervenors Burk has standing to defend her right to the ballots sought in her case under A.R.S, 16-677, to be free from spoilative efforts by parties and Counsel acting with insincere agendas on both sides in this effort. Third, the Proposed Intervenors’ interest has direct relation to the merits of this case as the audit as it is occurring directly spoils the ballot evidence in her case by allowing multiple volunteers to handle the ballots ensuring that any forensic fingerprint analysis cannot be accomplished to evaluate the existence of fraud that occurred in the manner Koch described. Burk's interest is distinct from other parties. Fourth, only Burk can adequately represent her interests, as neither side has demonstrated any legitimate interest in doing so until now. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Her life has been threatened and she has been told by Arizona Senate Majority Whip to trust no one. Fifth, the Proposed Intervenor Burk seeks intervention promptly, and as such her intervention will not delay the proceedings. Finally, the Proposed Intervenor Burk will contribute to full factual development of this case, and because she can present evidence directly relevant to the issues raised in this action. Because Rule 24 should be “liberally construed” to protect the rights of all parties, Dowling, 221 Ariz. at 272, § 67, the Court should permit intervention in this case. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Proposed Intervenor Burk respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting her motion; etl1 1. Permitting Burk to intervene in this case to protect her rights and interests since her 2 case has been active since well before an aut was considered and all parties involved : were aware of her pending litigation, 4 5 ; 2, Issue an injunction to ensure that ballots and materials at issue in her U.S. Supreme a Court case are preserved without spo 8 9 3. Not require a bond as Intervenor Burk can demonstrate Defendants knew or should wy have known that the way the proposed audit was structured would result in the spoliation n of ballot access she sought under A.R.S. 16-677 in her case currently pending before the E United States Supreme Court 14 15 16 | I, Staci Burk, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct to the best 17 | of my knowledge. 18 19 20 Respectfully submitted this 26th day of April, 2021. 21 2 2B m4 Z oa By Staci Burk 26 Staci Burk 2487 S. Gilbert #106-609 27 Gilbert, Arizona 85295 a (480) 343-4518 DeORIGINAL FILED to the Maricopa County Superior Court this 26" day of April, 2021; Clerk of the Superior Court 201 W. Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPIES of the foregoing MAILED/ESERVED this 26" day of April, 2021; Roopali H. Desai (ASB# 024295) D. Andrew Gaona (ASB# 028414) Kristen Yost (ASB# 034052) rdesai@cblawyers.com agaona@eblawyers.com COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 ‘Telephone (602) 381-5478 James E. Barton II (ASB# 023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (ASB# 022597) BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC 401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205 ‘Tempe, Arizona 85253 Telephone (480) 550-5165 james@bartonmendezsoto.com jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Arizona Democratic Party and Supervisor Steve Gallardo ‘Thomas Basile (ASB# _ ) STATECRAFT LAW PLLC 649 N. Fourth Avenue, Suite B Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone (602) 362-0036 tom@statecraftlaw.com Kory Langhoefer (ASB# ) STATECRAFT LAW PLLC 649 N. Fourth Avenue, Suite B Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone (602) 362-0036 kory@statecraftlaw.com Attorneys for Karen Fann, Warren Petersen, and Ken Bennett igiS hess (oy eon 10 uN 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Alexander Kolodin (ASB# oI 3443 North Central Ave, Suite 1009 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 730-2985 alexander.kolodin@kolodinlaw.com Attorney for Cyber Ninjas Inc. 14sSc wr 9 u 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted this 26th day of April, 2021 By Staci Bur Staci Burk 2487 S. Gilbert #106-609 Gilbert, Arizona 85295 (480) 343-4518 ORIGINAL FILED and EFILED via TURBOCOURT to the Maricopa County Superior Court this 26" day of April, 2021; Clerk of the Superior Court 201 W. Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPIES of the foregoing MAILED/ESERVED this 26" day of April, 2021; Roopali H. Desai (ASB# 024295) D. Andrew Gaona (ASB# 028414) Kristen Yost (ASB# 034052) rdesai@cblawyers.com agaona@cblawyers.com COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 ‘Telephone (602) 381-5478 James E. Barton II (ASB# 023888) Jacqueline Mendez Soto (ASB# 022597) BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC 401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205 Tempe, Arizona 85253 Telephone (480) 550-5165 james@bartonmendezsoto.com jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Arizona Democratic Party and Supervisor Steve Gallardo Thomas Basile (ASB# ) aia:STATECRAFT LAW PLLC 649 N. Fourth Avenue, Suite B Phoenix, Arizona 85003 ‘Telephone (602) 362-0036 tom@statecraftlaw.com Kory Langhoefer (ASB# ) STATECRAFT LAW PLLC 649 N. Fourth Avenue, Suite B Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone (602) 362-0036 kory@statecraftlaw.com Attorneys for Karen Fann, Warren Petersen, and Ken Bennett Alexander Kolodin (ASB# ) 3443 North Central Ave, Suite 1009 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 730-2985 alexander.kolodin@kolodinlaw.com Chris Viskovie (ASB# +) 3443 North Central Ave, Suite 1009 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 730-2985 cviskovic@kolodinlaw.com Attorney for Cyber Ninjas Inc. By: ae