Page:Costantino v. City of Detroit (20-014780-AW) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/13

 Perhaps if Plaintiffs' election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCF Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day. Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, Plaintiffs' affiants did not have a full understanding of the TCFTCF Center [sic] absent ballot tabulation process. No formal challengers were filed. However, sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the City of Detroit. Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrected and not credible.

Plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden for the relief sought and for the above mentionedabove-mentioned [sic] reasons, the [sic] Plaintiffs' petition for injunctive relief is DENIED. The Court further finds that no basis exists for the protective order for the reasons identified above. Therefore, that motion is DENIED. Finally, the Court finds that MCL 168.31a governs the audit process. The motion for an independent audit is DENIED.

It is so ordered.

This is not a final order and does not close the case.