EXHIBIT A: Memo That Proves the ‘Fake Elector’ Prosecutions Are Selective Lawfare
Constitutional Crisis Behind the State ‘Fake Elector’ Cases |Part II
On November 14, 2025, I filed an in the Dane County Circuit Court in State of Wisconsin v. Chesebro, v. Roman and v. Troupis. The filing is not merely a defense of one defendant; it challenges a five-year pattern of selective prosecution, evidentiary omission, and mischaracterization of historical electoral practice. At the center of the brief is —an internal AFL-CIO strategy memorandum titled Election Coup 2020, circulated on October 15, 2020, by the federation’s executive leadership, including the late Richard Trumka, Randi Weingarten, and then-DNC Chair Tom Perez. The memorandum directs Democratic operatives to prepare and transmit contingent elector certificates under the pre-2022 Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) if litigation remained unresolved by December 14: “If litigation remains pending on December 14, transmit contingent certificates under the ECA multiple-returns clause.” That language mirrors the conduct for which Mr. Chesebro and other Republican electors now face felony forgery charges in Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada.
Notably, the Department of Justice has both the constitutional mandate and statutory tools to remedy such perversions of law—through civil-rights investigations, criminal enforcement actions, and federal oversight of state Attorneys General who weaponize prosecution to punish political identity detailed further on. The remedies exist; what remains is the will to enforce them.
The implications are profound. The memorandum demonstrates that Democratic leadership not only contemplated but organized a parallel contingency-elector plan (during zoom calls) under the same statutory framework later employed by Republicans. Congress itself acknowledged the ECA’s ambiguity when, in the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, Pub. L. 117-328 § 701, it stated that the prior language “was ambiguous and required clarification.” As in the 1960 Hawaii election—where both parties submitted contingent electors, and Congress accepted the corrected slate without prosecution—this was settled practice, not fraud. (See Section: “Why the AFL-CIO Document Matters” for full precedent.)
Yet the State of Wisconsin—and its counterparts in other battleground jurisdictions—has constructed a prosecution narrative that deliberately omits this bipartisan reality. The AFL-CIO memorandum, conceived, drafted, and circulated by Democratic leadership months before the 2020 election, outlined a coordinated contingency plan for disputed states—precisely those that later became the epicenters of the “fake elector” prosecutions. That document was publicly available since 2020, yet it has never surfaced in discovery or been referenced in any proceeding, raising grave due-process concerns. The intentional exclusion of materially exculpatory evidence that undermines the very foundation of criminal intent, if confirmed, would constitute a direct violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). Still more troubling, only Republican participants have been indicted for conduct that Democratic operatives had already planned, documented, and circulated—conduct that was, by their own design, to be triggered in the same contested jurisdictions. Such selective enforcement strikes at the heart of the Equal Protection Clause. As Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), and Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), make clear, the Constitution does not permit government to criminalize one faction for executing the very procedure another faction authored and prepared to use.
The human cost of such unequal enforcement is profound. The prosecutions and disbarment campaigns following the 2020 election did not unfold in isolation—they were orchestrated through a coordinated ecosystem of punitive lawfare that punished interpretation rather than fraud. Attorneys and advisers including Julia Haller, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis have been bankrupted, disbarred, or criminally charged not for fabricating evidence, but for articulating legal theories grounded in the same statutory framework that Congress itself later amended—and that the AFL-CIO memorandum shows were contemplated by both political parties months before the election. This pattern of selective punishment was institutionalized through Project 65, a dark-money initiative launched in 2022 with the express purpose of identifying, sanctioning, and disbarring lawyers associated with election challenges. Funded by a consortium of progressive donors and coordinated with political advocacy groups, Project 65 publicly declared its mission to “hold accountable” more than one hundred attorneys who litigated on behalf of Republican clients. Its operations—tracking, publicizing, and referring these attorneys for professional discipline—effectively deputized private actors to enforce a political orthodoxy under the guise of ethics reform.
The danger of such weaponization cannot be overstated. When advocacy itself becomes punishable, the adversarial process—the cornerstone of American justice—collapses. The rule of lenity and the guarantees of due process exist precisely to prevent this outcome. When Congress has admitted statutory ambiguity, no citizen—least of all an attorney fulfilling their duty of representation—may constitutionally be punished for adopting one reasonable interpretation over another. Yet those who advanced interpretations consistent with the text of the pre-2022 Electoral Count Act now face ruin, while those who originated and documented the same interpretation under the opposite banner face no scrutiny. Justice Robert Jackson warned in 1940 that prosecutorial discretion “has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.” When that discretion is used to penalize dissent and protect allies, it ceases to serve justice and instead becomes a tool of governance by intimidation. The result is not merely professional persecution—it is a systemic corrosion of faith in the rule of law itself.
Public records do not document a formal prosecutorial partnership between The 65 Project and state Attorneys General. However, press-reports and advocacy releases allege that The 65 Project is investigating conservative attorneys and may be coordinating with federal and state enforcement bodies.
I didn’t file this because I wanted to make history. I filed it because I couldn’t keep watching the truth sit in silence while justice bent under politics. When no one else moved, I did what any citizen should do—stand up, not out of pride, but out of duty. ~ Terpsehore Maras
Evidence of The 65 Project’s Apparent Coordination with State Attorneys General
The 65 Project, a nonprofit legal-advocacy group founded in 2021, publicly describes its mission as “holding accountable lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results.” Its stated goal is to reform state-bar procedures and deter future litigation that challenges certified outcomes. While no public record—such as joint filings, memoranda of understanding, or contractual partnerships—confirms a formal alliance between The 65 Project and state Attorneys General (AGs), a substantial body of press coverage and advocacy material indicates a pattern of informal coordination, information-sharing, and parallel enforcement activity. These interactions include referrals of complaints to AG offices, synchronized legal strategies, and public acknowledgments of alignment with state-level investigations.
Press and Advocacy Reporting
A March 2022 Axios report described internal planning sessions led by Democratic strategist David Brock in which The 65 Project targeted more than 100 attorneys across 26 states through ethics complaints and media campaigns focused on battleground jurisdictions such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Brock was quoted as intending to “shame” targeted lawyers to render them “toxic” within their firms—an effort that coincided with ongoing AG investigations in the same states.
A 2023 Politico Magazine profile quoted attorney John Eastman alleging “collusion” between the group, bar associations, and the DOJ. Although no direct proof of collusion emerged, Politico noted that The 65 Project’s complaints routinely triggered parallel inquiries by AG offices in Georgia and Michigan. Managing Director Michael Teter acknowledged that the group’s filings were designed to “provide information” to regulators, including AGs. Legal analysts such as Alan Dershowitz characterized this strategy as creating a “McCarthy-era chilling effect” amplified by state enforcement.
A September 2024 New York Times article described The 65 Project’s pre-election outreach warning attorneys in key states not to risk disbarment, citing explicit coordination with Pennsylvania AG Michelle Henry’s office in issuing a joint statement denouncing “frivolous election suits.” In Arizona, complaints lodged by the group against attorneys tied to Kari Lake’s 2022 litigation were referenced by AG Kris Mayes (D) in her 2024 “voter-protection initiative,” which publicly credited outside watchdogs for flagging potential misconduct.
Documented Referrals and State Examples
In Georgia, bar filings show that investigations into attorneys associated with alternate-elector certificates included “external referrals from advocacy groups like The 65 Project.” Press accounts from the Texas Tribune (May 2022) noted that complaints against Sen. Ted Cruz were shared with Georgia’s AG office during its review of the Texas v. Pennsylvania litigation.
In Michigan and Wisconsin, The 65 Project’s complaints overlapped with AGs Dana Nessel and Josh Kaul’s indictments of alternate electors in 2023 and 2024. A July 2023 Washington Examiner article quoted Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) urging federal inquiry into potential coordination after Nessel’s office cited 65 Project research in court filings.
At the federal level, a 2025 Reuters report on election-related litigation referenced “information-sharing” between The 65 Project and the DOJ’s Election Threats Task Force—an inter-agency program that includes state AG liaisons.
Limitations and Counterpoints
No declassified correspondence or FOIA-released materials prove a formal partnership; state bar dockets list 65 Project submissions as citizen complaints. Some referrals have been dismissed for insufficient evidence, and ethics experts interviewed by CNN in 2024 cautioned that the group’s high-profile tactics risk reputational harm before due process occurs. Nevertheless, the timing of complaints, mirrored rhetoric, and public cross-references between The 65 Project and AG offices demonstrate operational alignment sufficient to raise serious due-process and equal-protection concerns. When a private advocacy organization effectively influences prosecutorial and disciplinary machinery against attorneys for advancing a legal interpretation later acknowledged as ambiguous by Congress, the line between political activism and state enforcement becomes dangerously blurred.
Why the AFL-CIO Document Matters
The AFL-CIO’s internal memorandum, Election Coup 2020, is more than a political playbook—it is a contemporaneous record that dismantles the prosecution’s narrative of novelty. Circulated three weeks before Election Day 2020 by the federation’s top leadership, it directs operatives to prepare and transmit contingent elector certificates under the pre-2022 Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) if litigation remained pending on December 14, invoking the statute’s “multiple-returns” clause. The memo goes further, asserting that such a procedure had “never happened before.” That assertion is demonstrably false. In the 1960 presidential contest between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Hawai‘i’s unresolved recount led both Republican and Democratic elector slates to meet on December 19. The Republican slate cast votes for Nixon under the governor’s initial certification; the Democratic slate cast contingent votes for Kennedy while the recount was still underway. When the recount reversed the outcome, the governor certified the Democratic slate retroactively, and Congress—presided over by Vice President Nixon—accepted those votes on January 6, 1961, without investigation or prosecution.
This episode, documented at 107 Cong. Rec. 288 (1961), proves that contingent or alternate elector certificates have historical precedent and bipartisan legitimacy. The AFL-CIO memo thus exposes a profound contradiction: Democratic strategists invoked a lawful procedure, claimed it was unprecedented, and later watched Republican counterparts prosecuted for following the same statutory path. The document establishes three inescapable facts: (1) both parties interpreted the same ECA provisions in similar terms; (2) the practice had been recognized since 1960 as a permissible contingency safeguard; and (3) criminalizing one party’s reliance on that shared understanding constitutes selective enforcement. In short, is the evidentiary fulcrum—it transforms what prosecutors call forgery into what history records as precedent, and what Congress later confirmed was ambiguity, not crime.
For lawmakers, the lesson could not be clearer: the 2022 Electoral Count Act revision was not a repudiation of contingency electors but an acknowledgment that the statute’s prior ambiguity had invited precisely such lawful preparation by both parties. When Congress amends a law to clarify uncertainty, it concedes that the earlier version was open to reasonable interpretation. To then prosecute citizens for relying on that ambiguity is to convert legislative correction into retroactive punishment—a transformation that collapses the boundary between law and politics and strikes at the heart of the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto justice.
These prosecutions raise a question far larger than any individual defendant: whether the law will remain a neutral safeguard of liberty or descend into a partisan weapon of control. Exhibit A now stands in the public record of Wisconsin as unrefuted evidence that both parties understood and contemplated the same statutory process they now seek to criminalize. Yet even as this record emerges, private initiatives such as Project 65—a dark-money consortium openly dedicated to bankrupting and disbarring attorneys associated with one political faction—continue to amplify and legitimize these prosecutions, collapsing the boundary between advocacy and state enforcement. The contrast could not be sharper: former President Trump has used his clemency power to pardon individuals targeted through politicized investigations, while President Biden has pre-emptively issued pardons “in advance” to shield allies from future retaliation—an admission that prosecution has become an instrument of retribution, not justice. Together, these actions reveal a bipartisan recognition that the prosecutorial process itself has been compromised. Courts cannot disregard evidence that negates criminal intent; prosecutors cannot sustain charges built on omission and asymmetry; and disciplinary bodies cannot defend sanctions rooted in political alignment rather than professional misconduct. The rule of law is not preserved through selective punishment but through its equal, unwavering application to every citizen, in every circumstance, without exception.
THE DOJ CAN ACT AND MUST
The Department of Justice cannot remain a passive observer while state Attorneys General wield the criminal code as a political instrument. It has both the jurisdiction and the moral duty to restore the boundaries of law that partisanship has blurred. That remedy begins not with counter-indictments but with enforcement of constitutional standards—federal oversight, civil-rights review, and, where appropriate, prosecution of officials who knowingly deprive citizens of equal protection under color of law. When the guardians of justice themselves distort it, the only cure is accountability within the same framework they swore to uphold. The DOJ must reaffirm that the rule of law is not an optional creed, but a binding covenant—one that forbids the selective punishment of citizens for interpretations of law Congress itself admitted were ambiguous. Anything less invites the collapse of trust that sustains our republic.
How the Department of Justice Can Remedy State-Level Abuse of Prosecutorial Power
Civil Rights Division Oversight
The Department of Justice possesses both the statutory authority and constitutional obligation to intervene when state officials—including Attorneys General—engage in prosecutorial conduct that deprives individuals of their constitutional rights. Under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 14141), the Civil Rights Division may bring civil actions to address a “pattern or practice” of violations committed under color of law. This authority has historically been used to investigate and reform systemic misconduct in jurisdictions where law enforcement or prosecutorial practices undermined due process or equal protection. For example, the DOJ’s intervention in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Sheriff Joe Arpaio, resulted in structural reforms after evidence revealed discriminatory enforcement practices. A similar invocation of § 12601 would be appropriate if a state Attorney General’s office were found to be targeting defendants based on political affiliation, suppressing exculpatory evidence, or advancing prosecutions that contravene established constitutional standards. In such cases, the DOJ may open investigations, seek injunctive relief, or impose consent decrees to ensure that state prosecution complies with federal civil-rights obligations.
Criminal Enforcement of Civil Rights
Beyond civil oversight, the DOJ may initiate criminal prosecutions against state officials who willfully deprive citizens of protected rights under color of law. Statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 242 and § 241 criminalize the deprivation of constitutional rights and conspiracies to violate those rights, respectively. These provisions have been employed against officials who used their positions to retaliate against political opponents, fabricate charges, or otherwise weaponize the law. The Supreme Court in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), affirmed the application of § 242 to state judicial officers whose misuse of authority violated constitutional guarantees. If a state Attorney General knowingly advances prosecutions that disregard Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or discriminatorily targets one political faction in violation of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the DOJ’s Civil Rights Criminal Enforcement Section may bring direct indictments under these provisions. The purpose of such prosecutions would not be political retaliation but the restoration of equal protection under law—demonstrating that no official is above the constitutional limits of their office.
Special Litigation and Federal Intervention
The Department of Justice is also empowered to intervene in ongoing state cases when federal interests or constitutional rights are implicated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 and § 518, the Attorney General and Solicitor General may appear in any court, state or federal, to defend the interests of the United States. This authority has been invoked in critical civil-rights eras, where state prosecutions were used to suppress constitutionally protected activity. The DOJ’s participation in cases involving voter intimidation, selective enforcement, or systemic due-process violations stems from the same statutory foundation. In the present context, the Attorney General could direct the Civil Rights Division to file statements of interest or amicus briefs in state prosecutions involving alternate electors, affirming that such prosecutions must conform to federal standards of due process, mens rea, and equal protection. Through these filings, the DOJ could signal that political selectivity in state-level enforcement undermines national legal integrity and cannot stand unchallenged under federal supremacy.
Inspector General and Professional Oversight
Where evidence indicates coordination between the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General in ways that may violate neutrality or ethical boundaries, internal oversight mechanisms provide another avenue of accountability. The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) are authorized to investigate and refer misconduct involving departmental personnel or federally funded partnerships. If state AG offices rely on DOJ grants, shared investigative resources, or joint task forces while engaging in discriminatory prosecutions, the Inspector General may open investigations into misuse of federal resources. Administrative sanctions or criminal referrals can follow when these inquiries confirm that officials acted with intent to deprive individuals of federally protected rights. This layered structure ensures that even state-level actions cannot escape scrutiny when they are entwined with federally supported law-enforcement mechanisms.
Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause
Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.” The Department of Justice can invoke this principle to preempt state actions that conflict with federal statutes or constitutional guarantees. The DOJ has used this power to restrain states whose policies undermine federal objectives, as in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), where the Supreme Court affirmed federal authority over immigration enforcement. The same doctrine applies when state prosecutions threaten the federal guarantee of due process or equal protection. A state AG who weaponizes criminal law against political adversaries risks encroaching upon rights that the federal government is duty-bound to protect. The DOJ, therefore, can bring preemption suits or seek injunctions to halt prosecutions that violate the Fourteenth Amendment or obstruct the fair administration of national elections.
Congressional Oversight and Special Counsel Authority
The Attorney General can also act through administrative and legislative channels to restore balance. The DOJ may request that Congress convene oversight hearings to examine the misuse of state prosecutorial power, particularly where such conduct implicates federal election integrity or civil rights. Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.1, the Attorney General has authority to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate coordinated misconduct among state and private actors. Additionally, DOJ can condition or suspend federal law-enforcement grants, such as Byrne Justice Assistance Funding, until compliance with constitutional standards is demonstrated. These measures reinforce that federal funding and legitimacy are contingent upon adherence to principles of even-handed justice, not political conformity.
Historical Precedent for DOJ Intervention
The Department’s authority to intervene in state abuses of power is well established. During the 1964 “Mississippi Burning” prosecutions, DOJ charged local officials under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 when state authorities refused to act against conspirators who violated civil rights. Similar interventions during the 1970s COINTELPRO reforms and the 2017 Baltimore Police consent decree reflected DOJ’s ongoing role as guardian against systemic constitutional violations. Each of these episodes demonstrates the same principle: when state actors subvert justice for political or ideological ends, the federal government must act not as an adversary but as the constitutional backstop for the Republic itself.
Restoring the Integrity of Justice
Ultimately, the DOJ’s capacity to remedy misconduct by state Attorneys General is not confined to statutory enforcement but rooted in the Constitution’s design. The Fourteenth Amendment entrusted the federal government with the duty to secure equal protection when states fail to do so. If a state Attorney General’s office systematically prosecutes citizens based on political identity, suppresses exculpatory evidence, or disregards federal precedent, the DOJ not only may act—it must. Through civil suits, criminal prosecutions, federal preemption, and congressional oversight, the Department can reaffirm that justice is not the instrument of the powerful but the inheritance of all. The integrity of the rule of law depends on it.
The filing of the amicus curiae brief in State of Wisconsin v. Chesebro v. v. was never about one man, one case, or one party—it is about the survival of the constitutional covenant that binds the Republic. Exhibit A, the AFL-CIO memorandum, now preserved in the public record, reveals that both parties understood and prepared for the same statutory procedure that is now being weaponized as a criminal act. The prosecutions that have followed, aided by selective omissions, partisan advocacy, and the amplification of initiatives such as Project 65, expose not merely bias but the unraveling of the principle that justice must be blind to politics. When institutions capable of shielding the innocent instead coordinate to destroy dissent, the law ceases to be a safeguard and becomes an instrument of domination.
The Department of Justice now stands at a constitutional crossroads. It can remain silent, allowing state Attorneys General to redefine criminality according to political allegiance, or it can act—drawing upon its statutory and constitutional powers to restore the rule of law. The remedy does not lie in rhetoric but in the assertion of federal oversight: civil-rights investigations under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, criminal enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242, and federal intervention under 28 U.S.C. § 517 and § 518. Through these tools, the Department can remind every state official that prosecutorial discretion is not immunity from constitutional restraint.
To ignore the miscarriage of justice unfolding before the nation’s eyes is to abdicate the Department’s founding purpose—to ensure that liberty does not depend on political fortune. The selective prosecution of one faction for conduct mirrored by another defiles equal protection, corrodes public faith, and leaves every citizen vulnerable to the next political wind. The amicus brief is a warning bell: it documents not a partisan grievance but a systemic failure of fairness. History will remember this moment not for the names of the accused, but for whether the institutions sworn to guard the Constitution had the courage to defend it.
In the end, the law is only as strong as the courage of those who refuse to let it be forgotten.~Terpshore Maras
ENJOY THE SHOW>
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on ! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my . I am 100% people-funded.
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: , , and - and Pre-order for is on presale now.
Want to publish your own Article?
Upgrade to Premium+