Sei sulla pagina 1di 25
INSTRUCTION TO THE COURT AND CONTENTS regarding Original Action in Mandamus Se eer Rayana B. Eldan, Brian Steiner and Daniel Wood + We the prep le of Acizena ‘Stat® ys. united ‘tegether Respondent Secretary Hobbs Exhibit ‘J’ referenced within Mandamus Petition is to be affidavits from the people, forthcoming and to be added to the filing no later than next Friday, September 24" RECEIVED SEP 17 2021 GLERK SUPREME COURT CONTENTS + Instruction and Contents + Certification + Ofiginal action in mandamus + Exhibits A through | * Exhibit J to be forthcoming and hand delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA We the People of Arizona State United Together with: RAYANA B. ELDAN 9119 E. Rainsage St Tucson, AZ. 85747 BRIAN STEINER CASE NUMBER: P.O. Box 50631 Phoenix, Arizona 85076 Original Action in Mandamus DANIEL WOOD 17253 North Rosemont Street Maricopa, Arizona 85138 CLAIMANTS/AFFIANTS v. SECRETARY OF STATE Katie Hobbs 1700 W. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ. 85007 RESPONDENT VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: |. PARTIES: STATUS, STANDING AND ROLES. 41 CLAIMANTS/AFFIANTS: Comes now Claimants/Affiants Rayana B. Eldan, Brian Steiner and Daniel Wood, each one of the people (as seen in Arizona State Constitution Article 2 Section 2), Sui Juris, in this court of record do make the following claims: Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 2 All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights. (Emphasis added] A. Claimants, have inherent powers, as to an authority possessed without being derived from another. [Blacks Law Sth Edition] [Emphasis added] B. Claimants are in relationship to Respondent due to the bond of oath and agreement requiring Respondent to act within certain set forth parameters. C. “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” 16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 D. Claimants are the expressly designated beneficiaries of all acts performed in the official capacity of Katie Hobbs, especially with regards to elections; due to her binding oath to serve as trustee. 2. RESPONDENT: Secretary of State Katie Hobbs is the sitting Secretary of State of Arizona. Secretary Hobbs has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Arizona Constitution, as a condition to serving the people. 2 A. _ The oath of office of Respondent reads: “I, Katie Hobbs, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that | will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that | will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that | will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Secretary of State according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so | do affirm).” 3. Respondent derives ['receives from a specified source’ - Blacks Law 5th Edition] her just powers from the consent of the source, the governed. The office of Secretary of State was established by the people. If Respondent is operating at any time outside of the trust indenture, to protect and maintain individual rights and all provisions set forth in the Constitution, it follows that her exercised power is unjust, and out of bounds of the agreement, and therefore subject to review by this court of record and to mandamus action. Il. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES AND AGREEMENT BY OATH 4. Job duties and description help measure which of the Constitutional articles are the direct responsibility of the Secretary State. “Another important duty of the office is trustworthy, secure elections. The Secretary of State serves as Chief Election Officer for the State. One of the goals of the office is to register more voters and encourage them to become engaged in their elections. The office also certifies: voting devices, election results, candidates and measures to the ballot, as well as the results of statewide elections. Our office performs a variety of administrative functions as well. We grant or deny use of the Great Seal of the state of Arizona, attest to all official acts of the Governor and affix the Seal on all official documents. 5. Aschief election officer of Arizona State who is trustee over trustworthy, secure elections, and as one who ‘certifies: voting devices, election results, candidates and measures to the ballot, as well as the results of statewide elections"; these duties outline which delegated powers Katie Hobbs is trustee over, on behalf of the people. The Constitutional provisions expressly in her care are these: Article 2 Section 21: All elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. [Emphasis added] 7 https//azsos. gov/about-otfice Article 7 Section 1: All elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided that secrecy in voting shall be preserved. [Emphasis added] Article 7 Section 7: In all elections held by the people in this state, the person or persons, receiving the highest number of legal votes ‘shall be declared elected. [Emphasis added] Article 7 Section 12: There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise. [Emphasis added] 6. As the trustee and servant designated to oversee testing, certification and approval of ballot counting equipment, it follows that Katie Hobbs is to ensure that the equipment must adhere to the articles set forth by the people and to protect and maintain our free and equal voice, purity of process, transparency, and guard the individual vote & infrastructure as the highest priority. This responsibility became even more important as election equipment was designated to be critical infrastructure to guard against attack? 2 https://www.eac. govielection-officiels/elections-critical-infrastructure 5 7. The provisions set in place to support the people's rights, for Voting System Machines are in the statutes, and the manual for elections. Accreditation of testing and certification laboratories is within purview of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) per the HAVA act. Such testing safeguards were set in place to guard the people's voice and Arizona chose to abide by these EAC rules for certification of machines. Ill. JURISDICTION 8. Mandamus is a remedy used to “compel a public officer to perform an act which the law specifically imposes as a duty,” and is not available if the act of the public officer is discretionary. Sensing v_ Harris, 217 Ariz. 261, 263 ] 6, 172 P.3d 856, 858 (App. 2007).? 9. Arizona Supreme Court is the proper venue to bring an extraordinary writ before, regarding the Secretary of State of Arizona. ARS 12-2021: Issuance of writ “A writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme or superior court to any person, inferior tribunal, corporation or board, though the governor or other state officer is a member thereof, on the verified complaint of the 5 https’/ holds-that-mandamus-is-not-aveilable-to-compel-the-director-of-the-arizona-department-of insurance-to-entorce/ party beneficially interested, to compel, when there is not a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law, performance of an act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person.” IV, COMPEL PERFORMANCE TO DECERTIFY ALL VOTING SYSTEM MACHINES IN ARIZONA 10. Arizona State Constitution Article 2 Section 32. “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise." [Emphasis added] 11. It follows that Secretary Hobbs is mandated to protect and maintain the individual rights and voice of the people by adhering to the 4 Constitutional Articles mentioned above regarding elections. No express declarations of the people in the Arizona State Constitution say otherwise. If Secretary Hobbs is presented with information that shows, unambiguously, that potentially incurable problematic algorithms exist within equipment under her jurisdiction, she must decertify and recall the machines until the known issues are cured. This protects the people's rights. 12. Certification and decertification are both primary job functions of the Secretary of State. There is not plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law that can fix the problem outlined below except to compel the Secretary of State to protect the people from utilizing voting systems that contain malicious algorithms in any future elections, by decertifying the machines from future use until the problems can be remedied. 43. Claimants/Affiants are not alluding to nor utilizing any information from the current audit to bring forth these claims. Claimants/ Affiants have been researching the Election Assistance Commission and HAVA Act compliance issues along with Voting System Machine algorithms and the history of performance and problems relating to such for several months. That research brings forth reliable fact not related to the current audit, and presented herein as cause for this action. V. FACTS SHOWING CAUSE TO DECLARE DECERTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT 14. No Voting System Machine [VSM] in Arizona has been lawfully certified since 2017, due to the fact that none of the labs purporting to certify the VSMs were accredited. [Exhibit A links below* and on enclosed thumb drive and Exhibit B sections 9,11,12,17-24 ] 4 hftos://vww.bitchute,com/video/1jHf24p7mob0/ hitps:/ itps:/ 8 15. Secretary Hobbs should have been aware that both Voting Systems Test Laboratories (VSTLs): SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC and Pro V&V Inc. were not properly accredited by the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), due to her job duties as well as oversight role. If she was not aware, she found this out in June of 2021. [Video evidence A clearly explains the lack of accreditation in detail] 16. Secretary Hobbs received an affidavit - verified received on June 4th, 2021, hand delivered - which was also submitted to the Supreme Court as Case # CV-21-0149-SA. In the affidavit, Katie Hobbs was made aware of the unaccredited test labs, and given the video evidence as proof. Laboratories not accredited by the EAC were used to ‘certify’ election equipment in violation of Arizona law. 47. Despite the proof in hand, the Secretary of State continued to do nothing to remedy this. The voting system machines all across Arizona are already out of compliance, and not properly certified. The declaration of decertification of all Voting System Machines (VSMs) is needed now because Secretary Hobbs made public assertions - saying that the laboratories doing the certification were accredited to do so. They were not. [Exhibits A & B] 18. In addition to the machines not being properly certified due to the testing labs lacking required accreditation by the EAC, evidence shows that there is a ‘FROG’ block cipher algorithm inside of the election equipment and encryption that obfuscates results of tabulation. Once votes are encrypted, one can not provide a digital chain of custody with attribution, verification and proof that votes were adjudicated 1 for 1 with the people's intended choices being accurately counted. [Exhibits B, C, D, E,F,G] 19. This lack of attribution and verifiability is a violation of Arizona State Constitution Article 2 Section 21, and Article 7 Sections 1, 7, and 12 20. “Arizona’s constitutional right to a ‘free and equal’ election is implicated when the votes are not properly counted.” Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309, 320, 34 (App. 2009). 21. “Elections are equal when the vote of every elector is equal, in its influence upon the result, to the vote of every other elector — when each ballot is as effective as every other ballot.” (Ex rel. Grinnell v. Hoffman, 5 N.E. 586 (Ii. 1886) 22. The right of free and equal suffrage includes not only the ability to cast a ballot, but the right to have it counted accurately and equally. 23. With the use of the FROG block cipher, ‘adjudication’ is happening within an ‘encrypted’ algorithm and getting shuffled to potentially 10 create pre-programmed outcomes. This denies the people the true right to have adjudication open to public viewing as set forth in Election Procedures Manual [EPM] Electronic Adjudication Addendum. [Exhibit I] No person can ‘observe’ or publicly view what is happening inside of the encryption ‘box’, and therefore, we have unwittingly given complete carte blanche to a computer ‘FROG’ block cipher set to ‘run’ scripted parameters as the ultimate ‘observer’. And we are told it's proprietary and to trust. This means that no human can be truly watching the process to verify. 24. “The current nature of algorithms is secret, proprietary code, protected as the ‘secrot sauco’ of corporations.” [Exhibit H p. 6] It takes time to find the discrepancies that a malicious algorithm creates, as it did with the Volkswagen emissions scandal - taking 5 years to uncover. 25. Claimant has a strong interest in resolving the issue of future malicious algorithms insertion into our election machines, and the resulting inability to be certain that there will be purity, freedom, secrecy and equality in any upcoming elections process. 26. Secretary Hobbs is bound to outwardly and officially declare the Voting System Machines (which includes, hardware, software, scanners and all add ons) decertified, pursuant to this mandamus action, since no elected official or worker can make up for this lack of security and transparency, no matter the care taken and no matter the results of any audit. 27. No tules or laws will fix the fact that the people's future vote will be hidden in secrecy, scrambled in an ‘encryption’ and back door that deploys scripts designed to not allow for attribution. This algorithm is a problem for all voting machine companies. “Algorithms within the area of this ‘shuffling’ to maintain anonymity allows for setting values to achieve a desired a desired goal under the guise of ‘encryption’ in the trap-door. The actual use of trapdoor commitments in Bayer-Groth proofs demonstrate the implications for the verifiability factor. This means that no one can SEE what is going on during the process of ‘shuffling’ therefore even if you deploy an algorithms or manual scripts to fractionalize or distribute pooled votes to achieve the outcome you wish — you cannot prove they are doing it... When this mixing/shuffling occurs, then one doesn’t have the ability to know that vote coming out on the other end is actually their vote; therefore, ZERO integrity of the votes” [Exhibit B sections 38, 39, 49] 28. “Trapdoor is a cryptotech term that describes a state of a program that knows the commitment parameters and therefore is able change the value of the commitments however it likes... anyone that knows the commitment parameters can take all the votes and give them to any 12 one they want... Hence you can't prove anyone manipulated anything. The TRAP DOOR KEY HOLDERS can offer you enough to verify to you what you need to see without revealing anything and once again indicating the inability to detect manipulation. ZERO PROOF OF INTEGRITY OF THE VOTE” [Exhibit B section 55] 29. “FROG block ciphers are stealthy. They actually HIDE the actual fixed sequences or primitive operations even when the cipher is known. Normally the key is used as data but a FROG uses the secret key as data and also as a set of guidelines and instruction to create, combine OrALTER the data. That means the secret key (decipher key) is used as a program — therefore FROG INTERPRETS the data as the KEY INSTRUCTS.” [ Exhibit F] 30. “For example. Your ballot goes into the machine. The trapdoor ‘shuffles and cleanses’ ... to anonymize your votes and spits them out on the other side ‘anonymized’ to supposedly match your original data but without looking like the original data so you awarded privacy. You just have to trust them since you aren't allowed to know their secret key. Is this why the EAC appointed companies and states aren't allowed to examine the ‘proprietary code’?” [Exhibit F] 31. “The most incredible part of FROG is that you can't detect it because it is baked into every encryption algorithm because it’s both a key 13 and program... Make no mistake — this ‘proprietary’ software has been used in all US and Global elections since 2000 with the ‘flavor of the month’ Election Machine company.” [Exhibit F] 32. Claimant has an imminent, clear beneficial interest in safe, pure, equal elections and the public interest is involved as well. 33. Claimant asserts that the Affiant of attached Affidavit [B]. Terpsehore (Tore) Maras (author of B, C and F) is a fact witness and must be called in to testify in hearing to explain and make clear the ramifications and workings of the ‘FROG’ block cipher and her knowledge of it being used in elections. 34. No matter the upcoming audit results, the inability to forensically verify or trace and prove fraud or no fraud is a crisis that needs to be addressed before any future elections utilize any of the equipment. The inability to verify means that there is zero integrity of the peoples vote 35. “.. After decryption, if challenged, the administrator or software company that knows the trapdoor can provide you proof that would be able to pass verification. ...Even though this trapdoor doesn’t give rise to a breach in security, its lack of verifiability means that there are NO MEANS to detect if votes have been tampered with.” [Exhibit C p. 7] 14 36. “...the problem with these e-voting machines and companies ‘scanning’ and tallying our votes is that we can’t prove they are manipulating results but we can't prove they aren't either’ [Exhibit C p. 8] 37. “Instead of re-encrypting the shuffled encrypted votes, the malicious mixing component manipulates the input encryption list in an arbitrary way, for example such that the preferred candidate wins the election. Then a fake proof is constructed, which links the manipulated output encryption list to the correct input encryption list. The verification of the proof will succeed and the attack remains undetected... Most of these attacks are undetectable both during and in the aftermath of an election.” [Exhibit G p. 2]. [Emphasis added] 38. Claimants/Affiants have a demonstrable interest, absolute claim and authority to ask the court to compe! Secretary Hobbs to declare all Arizona voting system machines to be decertified and never used again until and if these issues are completely and satisfactorily resolved. 39. Facts show that there is not a way to verify and guarantee that any of the votes tabulated using the current equipment. are fairly and equally counted. ‘FROG’ block cipher makes this so, as attested to by the experience and studies of cryptographers and mathematicians shown in the evidence presented. This malicious algorithm hidden from view has created a situation that does not honor the Arizona constitution and 15 tramples on ClaimantsAffiants right to equal suffrage purity, clarity and verifiability in elections. 40. “The implementation of the commitment scheme in the SwissPost-Scyti mixes uses a trapdoor commitment scheme, which allows an authority who knows the trapdoor values to generate a shufile proof transcript that passes verification but actually alters votes.” [Exhibit E] 41 “The problem derives from the use of a trapdoor commitment scheme in the shuffle proof — if a malicious authority knows the trapdoors for the cryptographic commitments, it can provide an apparently-valid proof, which passes verification, while actually having manipulated votes. There is no modification of the audit process that would make it possible to detect if a manipulation happened.” [Exhibit E] [Emphasis added] If even a forensic audit will not be able to find these manipulations, then we are back to square one with securing the vote for future elections. 42. “We will show how this can be used to produce a proof of a shuffle that passes verification but actually manipulates votes.” [Exhibit E] CONCLUSION 43. The malicious ‘FROG’ algorithm. acting in secret, causes serious damage and harm to the verifiability of the vote, potentially 16 impairing the free and equal right of suffrage, making it impossible to count ‘legal votes’ in upcoming elections. 44. Claimants/Affiants ask that the court order and mandate Secretary Hobbs to quickly issue a public declaration decertifying ALL Arizona Voting System Machines (VSMs) so that no future harm is done. 45. Declaring decertification of VSMs for future elections is the correct thing to compel Secretary Hobbs to do - due to the findings that there is not verifiability of the individual vote when using these VSMs. Indeed Secretary Hobbs’ certification and decertification role is key here. It is similar to a notarization or an FDA approval. If the equipment cannot be verified as ‘safe for use’ going forward, it should not be considered to be certified to be used. The fact that no machines in Arizona have been legally certified since 2017 due to no labs being accredited is a secondary but no less important factor in election purity. 46. Secretary Hobbs is bound to uphold and defend the Arizona State Constitution and would be in breach of agreement and in violation of oath if she will not issue a declaration and decertify the VSMs. If a notary were to knowingly, improperly notarize a faulty document, said notary would have that commission revoked. Secretary Hobbs’ seal and certification role is a serious and important one. Ww 47. Claimants/Affiants vote, voice and individual right to free and equal suffrage with pure, verifiable elections are of intrinsic importance to secure, or we have no voice at all 48. We cannot expect the Secretary of State to be cryptographer or computer expert to have known all of these details. However, she did have full knowledge, since June, about the laboratories not being accredited and has done nothing. 49. Itis therefore necessary for the court to compel Secretary Hobbs through mandamus action to uphold her oath of service as trustee and servant of the people's business, and decertify the machines and forbid their future use within Arizona. With malicious algorithms at play as bad actors, and no security feature or oversight in place that can cure the problem, we may not call any vote going forward, a legal vote, until this is fixed and we can verify each of the people's voices will be heard equally. 50. Claimants/Affiants also ask the court to compel and order Secretary Hobbs to be restrained from destroying any of the escrowed software in her keeping, in case there would ever be an investigation needing such software for review. 51. More of the people of Arizona united together in this claim will be responding by Affidavit and intention to add their voice to this mandamus action up until September 24th, at which time each’s signed 18 notice of intent shall be added to Exhibit J. The voices by affidavit of the people shall be considered to be joining in this claim, united together with the Claimants/Affiants initially listed. WHEREFORE, as a result of the foregoing, Claimants/Affiants respectfully request that proper process be served on Secretary Hobbs, requiring her to answer, act publicly to decertify machines, or otherwise respond for further mandamus action in the time allotted by law and set forth below. Claimants/Affiants wish a response and declaration to decertify by no later than September 30th. Claimants/Affiants ask that this Honorable Court compel Secretary Hobbs to publicly declare to decertify all election equipment (Voting System Machines - which include hardware, software and add ons) until such time as equipment may be able to be deemed safe for use in our future elections in Arizona. Actions requested as part of the mandamus order are these: 1. Secretary Hobbs be compelled to uphold the Arizona State Constitution that she swore to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. 2. Secretary Hobbs be reminded of her oath and agreement to perform, and the breaches in need of cure, and how to do so; that she may act with haste and in good faith. 19 2. Secretary Hobbs be restrained from arbitrarily certifying any voting system machine equipment at all until the issue with 'FROG’ block cipher algorithms and HAVA compliance can be satisfactorily shown to be cured in accordance with law, to protect and maintain the people’s individual rights and right of free and equal suffrage. 3. Secretary Hobbs be restrained from destroying any election software kept on file by her office pursuant to law, in case there may be a reason for further investigation upon information contained herein. 3. That this Honorable Court respectfully remind the Attorney General by mandamus of this court, of the duties vested in him to FULLY and continually enforce and uphold the Arizona State Constitution. That he do so by immediately taking note of these facts about algorithms, certifications, and laboratory accreditation as a consumer issue similar to a recall, or false certification or claim, as well that he be aware of these voting system machines as products and devices that may woefully undermine civil rights by use of maliciously scripted algorithm which aborts the verifiability of the voice and vote of the people of Arizona for any future elections. 20 4 That this Honorable Court order a speedy hearing of this declaratory judgment action and thoroughly review all evidence contained herein within 7 days to understand the facts and law that give just cause to this petition for Mandamus action. 7 days is September 24th. If the court needs clarification and sworn testimony from Terpsehore (Tore) Maras whose Affidavit presents as Exhibit B, (which is the core hub of the evidence), let the Court call this witness to appear in person or by teleconference since she does not reside in Arizona, and let there be adequate time given for examination of the evidence and witness on the record. 5. _ That if Secretary Hobbs will not comply, nor be compelled, within 5 days after the Honorable Court has had time to review the evidence, (by September 30th at the latest), she must show cause as to why she believes the writ should not be granted. If she does so, Claimants/ Affiants shall be given notice and time to reply, raise questions of fact and attend a speedy trial if the facts warrant. 6. Such other relief to which Claimants/Affiants may show themselves to be entitled, such as a return of court filing fees. Respectiully submitted this {7 day of September, 202! a VERIFICATION #1 Ihereby declare, certify and state, pursuant to the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and by the provisions of 28 USC 1746 that all of the foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Executed in Tucson Arizona onthis__Jt& day of Sepieuibeic Inthe Year ofourLord Two tmousand and Twenty One. Autograph of Mifare Notary as JURAT CERTIFICATE Arizone State} Pima County On esi Beplembe r 2021 (date) before me, , aNotary Public, personally appeared p y Roam Sion of Affiant, who proved to me on the bi of Satisfactory evidence to be the woman whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and Acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her autograph(s) on the instrument the woman executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY of PERJURY under the law/ul laws of Arizona State and that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature of Notary / Jurat ; NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ARIZONA Pima County LAURA SCHWICKRATH ‘COMMISSION # 557581 ty Commisson Expees Janay 20,2023 212 PE VERIFICATION #2 Thereby declare, certify and state, pursuant to the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and by the provisions of 28 USC 1746 that all of the foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief Exeouted in TEM OE Arizona on this _ (77. day of SEPTEMBER. in the Year of our Lord Two thousand and Twenty One. ‘Autograph of Affiant Notary as JURAT CERTIFICATE M daicepa. County} On this 1 day of Se OV xe 2021 (date) before me. Lowe my VV a , a Notary Publi Steiner Name of Afiant, who proved to me on personally appeared the basis of Satisfactory evidence to be the man whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and Acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his autograph(s) on the instrument the man executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY of PERJURY under the lawful laws of Arizona State and that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary / Jurat mt 23 VERIFICATION #3 Ihereby declare, certify and state, pursuant to the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and by the provisions of 28 USC 1746 that all of the foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Executed in Tergpe Arizona onthis___ £7 day of co in the Year of our 5 Two via and Twenty One. ‘Autograph of Affiant Notary as JURAT CERTIFICATE Agizona State} Wasicopo County} We “ Onthis | 7 day of 2021 (date) before me, ‘eeoluna WM Gili . Notary Public, personally appeared \ Name of Affiant, who proved to me on the basis of Satisfactory evidence to be the man whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and Acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his autograph(s) on the instrument the man executed the instrument. | certify under PENALTY of PERJURY under the lawtul laws of Arizona State and that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary / Jurat OFFAL SEAL CAROLYN. Gi, oar Pile aa Aone "WEnicoPa COUNTY My Comision Bers MARCH 18 2022 24

Potrebbero piacerti anche