Former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Files Sworn Affidavit Of Election Fraud

Election Fraud:  Worker Assigned Different Names To Voters When Their Absentee Ballot Was Assigned To A Person Who Had Already Voted.

Zachary Larsen, who served as Michigan Assistant Attorney General for eight years, has filed a lawsuit citing election fraud at the TFC Center in Detroit. During his time as assistant AG, he litigated issues of environmental, tax, and administrative law. Larsen has handled cases at all levels of both the state and federal judiciary. He handled cases both large and small including cases in the Michigan Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Larsen was awarded the Attorney General’s “Excellence in Appellate 1dx28720 for mediaAdvocacy” award as a testament to his service.

Mr. Larsen served as a certified poll challenger at the TFC Center. Hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots were processed through the TFC center for the 2020 presidential election. Larsen is listed as a plaintiff in a lawsuit that was filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center. He is one of several plaintiffs in a suit that was filed against the city of  Detroit and Wayne County citing voter fraud.

The lawsuit asserts that Wayne County election officials permitted illegal and fraudulent processing of votes during the Nov. 3 election. The suit sites numerous accounts of unlawful activity and numerous other witnesses have also filed sworn affidavits, under oath, testifying to election-related fraudulent activities they observed directly. According to reports of the filing, the cited illegal actions delegitimize all voters who abide by the law. It has also been asserted that these actions could have had an impact on the outcome of the election overall.

This story has gone largely unreported by mainstream media. However, given the credibility, reputation and civic standing of the plaintiffs named in this case, it is likely the suit will gain attention as it progresses.

View a copy of the filing HERE. 

Below you will find a segment of the election fraud suit, the affidavit sworn by Mr. Larsen — labeled “Exhibit A.”


 As Mr. Larsen watched the process, he was concerned that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was an eligible voter in the poll book because of information he had received from other poll challengers (Exhibit A).

 Mr. Larsen reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system, where it appeared that the voter had already been counted as having voted. An official operating the computer then appeared to assign this ballot to a different voter as he observed a completely different name that was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed ballots on the right side of the screen (Exhibit A).

Mr. Larsen was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers indicated that a ballot was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll book or the supplemental poll book. From his observation of the computer screen, the voters were not in the official poll book. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters whose ballots he personally observed being scanned (Exhibit A).

Because of Mr. Larsen’s concern, he stepped behind the table and walked over to a spot behind where the first official was conducting her work. Understanding health concerns due to COVID-19, he attempted to stand as far away from this official as he reasonably could while also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes (Exhibit A).

 As soon as Mr. Larsen moved to a location where he could observe the process by which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first official immediately stopped working and glared at him. He stood still until she began to loudly and aggressively tell him that he could not stand where he was standing. She indicated that he needed to remain in front of the computer screen where he could not see what the worker was doing (Exhibit A).

Both officials then began to tell Mr. Larsen that because of COVID, he needed to be six feet away from the table. He responded that he could not see and read the supplemental poll book from six feet away, and that he was attempting to keep his distance to the extent possible (Exhibit A).

Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor had explained that the rules allowed Mr. Larsen to visually observe what he needed to see and then step back away. Likewise, on Election Day, he had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, he remained in a position to observe the supplemental poll book (Exhibit A).

Both officials indicated that Mr. Larsen could not remain in a position that would allow him to observe their activities; the officials indicated they were going to get their supervisor (Exhibit A).


Mr. Larsen is not the only person of note to come forward with witness statements citing election fraud in the 2020 race. Another affidavit was filed by a former councilman for the city of Houston, Andrew C. Burks, who publicly professes himself a lifelong Democrat, told private investigators that he believes a long-running Democrat voter fraud ring operating out of Harris County, Texas is still operational and has been active in the 2020 election. Burks has gone on record under sworn affidavits to tell his story, and alleged photographic evidence has been presented for investigation (Read that story HERE).

Author(s)

Share THis

Share on facebook
Share on pinterest
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email