Thank you Denise Hofland, Dina b Porter, and many others for tuning into Rigged by Design with Jason and me.
As promised, below are the documents referenced during Episode 4, listed in the order we discussed them, with brief context for how each fits into the conversation.
This episode focused on how courts, deadlines, and jurisdiction are used to block verification — across criminal oversight and elections alike.
1. January 21, 2026 Federal Court Ruling (Epstein Files – Lack of Jurisdiction)
A federal judge ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant Congress’s request to oversee or compel DOJ action related to the Epstein files. This ruling set the frame for the episode: courts acknowledging concern while refusing authority to act.
Case: United States v. Ghislaine MaxwellCourt: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New YorkJudge: Paul A. EngelmayerDate: January 21, 2026
Coverage:
CourtHouse News summary:https://www.courthousenews.com/trumps-doj-wins-bid-to-ice-congressmen-out-of-ghislaine-maxwell-case/
This ruling dismissed Congress’s request procedurally, without reaching the merits.
2. Smart Legislation v. Rockland County, New York (Jurisdictional Dismissal)
A New York court dismissed a challenge brought by Smart Legislation, the litigation arm of Smart Elections, on jurisdictional grounds without reviewing the evidence.
Smart Elections has appealed this ruling. We discussed this case as a parallel to the January 21 decision—different issue, same procedural shutdown.
Case: Smart Legislation v. Rockland County Board of ElectionsCourt: New York Supreme Court (trial level)
Smart Elections case page (includes appeal notice):https://smartelections.us
The judge ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing, and the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. This does not reflect a ruling on the underlying evidence.
3. Ballot Retention vs. Recount Access
(Federal Requirement, State Lockouts
Federal law requires all states to preserve ballots and election records for 22 months after a federal election.
Federal statute: 52 U.S.C. § 20701https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20701
Michigan was discussed as a concrete example of how this preservation requirement collides with state law: ballots are retained, but a presidential recount must be requested within a 48-hour window after certification, and only the candidate has standing to act.
Michigan recount statute: MCL 168.879 (Download PDF Section)https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-168-879
This illustrates retention without access and how certification deadlines end inquiry even when ballots still exist.
4. USPS Postmarking Policy Change (National Impact)
The U.S. Postal Service has changed how postmarks are applied, dating mail when it is processed, not when it is mailed.
We discussed how this policy applies nationally, not just in California, and how it shifts risk onto voters by making timely mailing harder to prove—especially when combined with court challenges to ballot-counting rules.
Coverage of the USPS change and its election impact:
San Francisco Chronicle (Bob Egelko, Jan. 20, 2026):
5. California Cases: Gerrymandering and Vote Counting Before the Supreme Court
a) California Redistricting / Racial Gerrymandering Challenge (Ruled)Before turning to mail-in ballot counting, we discussed a case brought by Republican plaintiffs challenging California’s use of race in redistricting.
A federal court rejected the challenge, allowing California’s maps to proceed.
CBS News summary of the ruling of Prop 50:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-can-proceed-with-redrawn-congressional-maps/
SCOTUSblog on Republicans’ emergency filing:https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/california-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-strike-congressional-map-as-racially-discriminatory/
(Response expected on Jan. 29, 2026.)
b) Vote Counting / Post-Election Litigation (Standing Case – Ruled)We then discussed the Supreme Court decision that turns elections into legal battlegrounds after the fact by expanding who has standing to sue over election rules.
Case: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Supreme Court opinion (Jan. 14, 2026):https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf
Cornell Law summary:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24-568
This ruling does not change vote-counting rules itself, but it opens the door to litigation challenging how states count ballots.
c) Mail-In Ballot Deadline Case (Accepted for Review)We also discussed the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear a case that could limit states’ ability to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if mailed on time.
Case: Watson v. Republican National Committeehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_v._Republican_National_Committee
This case is pending, but its acceptance alone signals increased judicial scrutiny of vote-by-mail systems.
These are the primary sources referenced during the livestream and are provided to document the mechanics discussed and to show how verification is structurally constrained.
We had a smaller group this week, as Jack Smith was live during the same time slot. I expect we’ll be inundated with hot takes over the next 12 hours. Jason and I will address his testimony next week, but it’s hard to ignore how moments like this add more noise to an already chaotic information environment.
We’ll be live again for the next episode of Rigged by Design on January 29, 2026 at 10:00 a.m PST / 1:00 p.m. EST.
Truth doesn’t come in neutral — Zorha.
If this work matters to you, subscribe to Jasonand me as we keep documenting what others rush past or refuse to touch.
Support is never expected, but always appreciated. Subscriptions and Buy Me a Coffee help keep this work independent, accessible, and ongoing. All core reporting remains free — support simply helps me keep digging.
