In Defense of Dr. John Eastman, Esq. Who Questioned the 2020 Election – Part 1

Some of YOUR Civil Rights are also at stake here…

I was on the witness stand for 8± hours last Thursday (9/28) and 4± hours on Tuesday (10/3), attempting to testify on behalf of attorney John Eastman. I spent an additional 30+ hours in preparation (reviewing old documents, etc.).

For those who are not familiar with Mr. Eastman, I was going to provide a link. When I searched his name online, the first 100± listings of articles were all left-wing propaganda. (That’s one of the reasons I chose to testify on his behalf.) Here is an objective overview I finally found.

This California trial is an attempt to disbar Mr. Eastman. In my view (as a non-attorney) two issues are being debated:

  1. Did John Eastman have a reasonable basis to believe that the certified 2020 Presidential election results of some states, were likely inaccurate?
  2. 2 If yes, what should have been his legal advice to VP Mike Pence regarding how such likely inaccurate certifications should be dealt with?

John Eastman says YES to the first question. As an election integrity expert (e.g., see here), I also say YES to the first question. The California prosecutor says NO. (Since I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, I can’t speak to the second question.)

FYI, here is a reasonable interview with Mr. Eastman about what this trial is about.

There are multiple Left-wing media sources “reporting” on this trial. Unfortunately, again I couldn’t find any conservative source in the first hundred or so Internet search results (using Duck). After quite a bit of additional research, I finally came across the Intellectual Conservative website.

This is run by a conservative attorney, and she has attended all of the six+ week (so far) proceedings of the Eastman trial. She has written several informative commentaries on what has transcribed. Here is a reasonably accurate article about what happened on my first day of testimony. If you are a glutton for punishment and would like to see what is transpiring here yourself, here is an online link to the trial itself. It’s likely to go on for a few more weeks.

Most citizens believe that trials and hearings are about:

  1. uncovering all the relevant facts, and then
  2. making an objective decision based on that information.

If only.

Much of the legal wrangling is about which facts are “admissible” — i.e., allowed to be considered by the court. Sometimes very relevant facts are discarded because a judge (sometimes seemingly arbitrarily) rules that something involved does not meet one or more of a plethora of legal “barriers”. These are things like standingmootlachesjurisdiction, etc.

In my case, the prosecution did not want anything substantive I had to say about Question #1 to be considered. Since it would have been a burden to try to disprove the accuracy of my testimony (e.g., about the conclusions of our ten Election Integrity Reports, written by my team of very qualified people), they instead focused on a legal technicality to minimize my testimony. They did not want the court to hear or consider any of my evidence of election anomalies that would support Mr. Eastman.

Their strategy was to assert that I was not an approved expert, so I was not qualified to speak about the conclusions of my own reports (!) or anyone else’s.

To do this, it appeared to me that the prosecution relied on two arguments:

  1. John Eastman’s lawyers had not filed the proper paperwork, at the proper time, in the proper way, to have me officially listed as an “expert.” Eastman’s lawyers disagreed with this assertion, but the Judge upheld the prosecution’s argument.
  2. I did not have a degree in election integrity, or the necessary “qualifications” to be an election integrity expert. The Judge again sided with the prosecution.

I can’t speak to the first objection, other than repeat that John and his lawyers insist that they did file adequate paperwork to have me legally considered to be an expert.

Regarding the second objection, my non-attorney answer is this…

All of our ten major election integrity Reports are about looking at numbers. I have a degree in Mathematics. Further, as a physicist I have had more mathematics classes than statisticians with a PhD would typically have. Additionally, statistics (matters like Bell curves — aka Gaussian distributions, Standard Deviations, etc. ) were frequently covered in many of my physics and mathematics classes, through graduate school. As such, I am very qualified to discuss numbers, plus I have had formal undergrad and graduate education in statistics.

On the first day of my testimony, the Judge asked Mr. Eastman’s lawyer a question something like: “ How can John Droz be an election integrity expert with only three years of involvement?” The attorney didn’t give a very strong answer, so on the second day, he asked me what would my response be? I felt that whether the definition of “expert” was normal or legal, I would qualify.

Regarding the first, Webster’s definition of “expert” is: “one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.” To demonstrate that I started listing examples of my extensive familiarity with the election integrity topic (e.g., having read some 1,500 articles and reports just in the preparation of my twice-a-month Newsletter).

However, I was cut off before I finished. The Judge said something to the effect that I was making an argument for being categorized as an expert. Well, yes!

I didn’t get to mention the legal definition of “expert” — so what is that? Law Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition* define an “Expert” as a “Person examined as a witness in a cause, who testifies in regard to some technical matter arising in the case, and who is permitted to give their opinion(s) as to such matter on account of their special training, skill, or familiarity with it.”  State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366 [Also see this definition of an expert witness.]

As a professional physicist, it is indisputable that I have mathematical and statistical training. When this is added to my exceptionally extensive familiarity with the election integrity issue over the last three years, it clearly indicates that I meet the common sense and legal definitions of an election integrity expert.

However, John Eastman’s prosecutor repeatedly claimed otherwise — and the Judge went along with his objections. You decide whose case is better…

More to come in Part 2, in a few days.

* The link for this legal definition now has restricted access. Fortunately, before that change, I made a screenshot of what it said.

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *