Wisconsin Indictment

Case 2024CF001203 Document 2 Filed 06-04-2024 Page 1 of 47 FLED
06.042024
CIRCUIT COURT
DANE COUNTY, Wi
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY 2024CF001293
BRANCH _
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plainiff,
v Case No. 24 CF
KENNETH
J.CHESEBRO
MICHAEL A_ROMAN
JAMES R. TROUPIS
Defendants
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
1. Mary Van Schoyck, being duly sworn on oath, state upon information and belief as follows:
COUNT ONE
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME
Between at least as early as on or about November 17, 2020, and continuing through on or
about January 6, 2021, in Dane County, State of Wisconsin, and elsewhere, the above-named
defendants, together with other individuals not charged in this complaint, agreed or combined with
another with the intent to commit and for the purpose of committingthe crime of uttering as genuine
Case 2024CF001293 Document 2 Filed 06-04-2024 Page 2 of 47
a forged writing or object, namely a “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin”,
knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered, with one or more of the parties to the conspiracy
doing an act to effect the objective of the conspiracy, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 939.31 and
943.38(2); a Class H felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to
exceed 6 years, or both, pursuant to § 939.50(3)(h).
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
1. I am currently employed as a sworn Special Agent for the Wisconsin Department of
Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and have been employed in this capacity since
October 2012.
2. I have been a law enforcement officer since 2005. I have investigated complex
controlled substance investigations, property crimes, assaults, violent personal crimes, sexual
assaults, homicide, misconduct by public officials, as well as other crimes. I have received
specialized training in, and gained experience with, search warrants and subpoenas for documents,
and I have submitted and received court approval for numerous applications for search warrants
and subpoenas during my law enforcement career.
3. I helped prepare this complaint in collaboration with legal counsel from the Wisconsin
Department of Justice, and swear to it upon information and belief, based upon my training and
experience, my personal knowledge, information provided to me by fellow law enforcement
personnel, information provided by citizen witnesses or their legal counsel, my review of publicly
available open source information, or all of the above, as described more fully below.
4. This complaint is a summary of facts to establish probable cause the complaint does
not contain all of the facts known to me relating to this investigation.
2
The Process for Certifying Presidential Election Results
5. According to the U.S. Constitution, the President and Vice President of the United
States are chosen by “electors” from each state. The number of Presidential electors in Wisconsin is
equal to the number of Senators and representatives in Congress at the time. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1,
cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 3 (2020); 1 Wis. Stat. § 8.25(1). In 2020, as now, Wisconsin had two senators and
eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in Congress, so Wisconsin voters elect ten electors
for the Presidential election.
6. The election of these Presidential electors occurs through the statewide popular vote
for the offices of President and Vice President: “Although the names of the electors do not appear on
the ballot and no reference is made to them, a vote for the president and vice president named on the
ballot is a vote for the electors of the candidates for whom an elector’s vote is cast.” Wis. Stat. § 5.10.
Wisconsin law further provides that “[a] vote for the president and vice president nominations of any
party is a vote for the electors of the nominee.” Wis. Stat. § 8.25(1).
7. Under federal law, the Governor of each state must certify who the appointed
presidential electors are for that state. 3 U.S.C. § 6 (2020). The Governor’s certification—sometimes
referred to as the “certificate of ascertainment”—must set forth the names of the appointed electors
and the number of votes cast for the appointed electors. 3 U.S.C. § 6 (2020). The Governor must sign
and transmit this certificate to the United States Archivist “on or before the first Monday after the 2nd
Wednesday in December[.]” 3 U.S.C. §§ 6-7 (2020). For the 2020 Presidential election, “the first
Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in December” was Monday, December 14, 2020.
1
The citations in this complaint are to the version of Title 3 of the United States Code as it existed
during the period from November 2020 through January 2021 (Ex. A). The process for casting and counting
electoral votes pursuant to the statute was subsequently amended.
3
8. Wisconsin law requires the Governor to deliver the certificate to the appointed
Presidential electors by no later than this same date (“the first Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in
December”), because state and federal law both require the appointed electors to meet on that date.
Wis. Stat. § 7.75(1) (requiring meeting to occur at noon at the State Capitol on that date); 3 U.S.C.
§ 7 (2020) (requiring the appointed Presidential electors to meet and “give their votes” on that date).
9. In a statutory provision entitled “Presidential electors meeting”, Wisconsin law
provides as follows:
The electors for president and vice president shall meet at the state capitol following the
presidential election at 12:00 noon the first Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in December. If
there is a vacancy in the office of an elector due to death, refusal to act, failure to attend or
other cause, the electors present shall immediately proceed to fill by ballot, by a plurality of
votes, the electoral college vacancy. When all electors are present, or the vacancies filled, they
shall perform their required duties under the constitution and laws of the United States.
Wis. Stat. § 7.75(1).
10. Federal law defines the process that the appointed Presidential electors must follow.
The duties of the Presidential electors include the following:
a. To vote for President and Vice President. 3 U.S.C. § 8 (2020). Wisconsin law
requires the electors to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated the electors. Wis.
Stat. § 7.75(2).
b. To make and sign six (6) certificates of their votes from the meeting, each
certificate containing “two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the
votes for Vice President.” 3 U.S.C. § 9 (2020).
c. To seal the certificates and certify that the certificates contain the votes for
President and Vice President. 3 U.S.C. §10 (2020).
d. To “dispose of the certificates” by delivering them as follows (3 U.S.C. § 11
(2020)):
i. one (1) copy to the President of the U.S. Senate;

4
ii. two (2) copies to the Secretary of State for Wisconsin;
iii. two (2) copies to the Archivist of the United States;
iv. one (1) copy to the federal judge of the district where the electors met.
11. Wisconsin law defines the process for challenging the general election results.
Following a petition for recount by an aggrieved candidate, appeals can be taken to the circuit court
and to ultimately the Wisconsin Supreme Court. See Wis. Stat. § 9.01 (defining recount procedure).
This recount and appeal process is “the exclusive judicial remedy for testing the right to hold an
elective office as the result of an alleged irregularity, defect or mistake committed during the voting
or canvassing process.” Wis. Stat. § 9.01(11).
12. Federal law provides that if there is any “controversy or contest concerning the
appointment of the electors” and there is a “final determination in a State in the manner provided by
law” for resolving that controversy or contest, the governor must send a certification of that final
determination—sometimes referred to as the “certificate of final determination”—“as soon as
practicable” to the Archivist of the United States. 3 U.S.C. § 6 (2020).
13. Federal law sets forth a process for objecting to electoral votes at the Joint Session of
Congress where the electoral votes are counted, held every fourth year on January 6. 3 U.S.C. § 15
(2020). In 2020, federal law stated that when more than one return of electoral votes from a state was
presented to Congress, the votes counted were those from the electors who were appointed via
3 U.S.C. § 5 and state statute. 3 U.S.C. § 15 (2020). In addition, federal law provided that when the
two houses of Congress disagreed whether to accept the votes of electors from a particular state, then
the votes of the electors whose appointment was certified by the governor were the ones to be counted.
3 U.S.C. § 15 (2020).
5
The 2020 Presidential Election and Subsequent Legal Challenges in Wisconsin
14. On November 3, 2020, an election was held for President and Vice President of the
United States, with Donald Trump and Michael Pence as the Republican Party candidates and
Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party candidates.
15. On November 4, 2020, the Associated Press reported that Joseph Biden and Kamala
Harris won the election in Wisconsin. Thereafter, the Trump campaign announced that it would
request a recount in Wisconsin. 2
16. On November 18, 2020, Donald Trump and Michael Pence filed a petition with the
Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) requesting a recount in Dane County and Milwaukee
County.
17. On November 30, 2020, the WEC Chair issued a “Statement of Canvass” certifying
that the ten Presidential electors for Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris received the greatest number
of votes in the election. (See Statement of Canvass for President, Vice President and Presidential
Electors, Nov. 30, 2020, enclosed as Ex. B.)
18. On November 30, 2020, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers executed a Certificate of
Ascertainment, determining and certifying that the Biden-Harris electors received the greatest number
of votes. The certificate named the ten Biden-Harris electors as the “duly appointed Presidential
Electors for the State of Wisconsin”. (See Governor Tony Evers, Certificate of Ascertainment,
Nov. 30, 2020, enclosed as Ex. C.)
19. On December 2, 2020, Donald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Milwaukee
challenging the election result. Donald J. Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 506 F.Supp.3d 620 (E.D.
Wis. 2020) (the “Federal Case”).
2
https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-wisconsin-joe-biden
636a771c35314b13a5e33cb19092f9d5 (last visited June 2, 2024).
6
20. On December 3, 2020, Donald Trump, Michael Pence, and the Trump campaign filed
lawsuits in Dane County Circuit Court and Milwaukee County Circuit Court, “seeking to invalidate
a sufficient number of Wisconsin ballots to change Wisconsin’s certified election results.”3
Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden, No. 20-CV-2514 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane Cnty.); Donald J. Trump
v. Joseph R. Biden, No. 20-CV-7092 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milwaukee Cnty.). The two cases were
consolidated into one case in Milwaukee County Circuit Court (the “State Case”).
21. On December 11, 2020, in the State Case, the circuit court affirmed the WEC decision
certifying the election results.
22. On December 12, 2020, in the Federal Case, the district court granted the motion to
dismiss filed by WEC and dismissed the lawsuit.
23. On the morning of December 14, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the
circuit court’s judgment in the State Case.4
The Unappointed Elector Plan
24. On November 17, 2020, an attorney acting as outside counsel for the Republican Party
of Wisconsin (RPW), sent an email to organize a conference call with several individuals, including
defendants James Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro.5 Defendant Troupis and Defendant Chesebro are
3
Donald J. Trump et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, 2020 WI 91, ¶ 1, 394 Wis. 2d 629, 951 N.W.2d 568.
4
On December 21, 2020, Governor Evers executed a “Certificate of Final Determination Concerning
Presidential Electors” (enclosed as Ex. G) (see above, paragraph 12). In the certificate, Governor Evers
confirmed that the Biden-Harris electors had received the highest number of votes cast for presidential electors.
5
Chesebro doc. 0900; (Chesebro Ex. 1). On December 20, 2023, I participated in an interview of
Kenneth Chesebro. In connection with the interview, counsel for Defendant Chesebro produced various
documents, including PDFs labeled with file names with numeric designations. During the interview, some of
the documents were marked as exhibits. In this complaint, I will refer to these documents as “Chesebro doc.
[XXXX] (Chesebro Ex. [X])” where the “XXXX” is the numeric designation in the file name of the PDF
produced by counsel for Defendant Chesebro and “X” is the exhibit number of the document marked as an
exhibit for the interview. In the interview, Defendant Chesebro stated that, although he had a Twitter account,
he did not send messages through it. Per a CNN KFile investigation, Defendant Chesebro appears to have sent
numerous messages during the time period relevant to this complaint using a Twitter account named
“BadgerPundit”(www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/kenneth-chesebro-secret-twitter-accountkfile/index.html)
(last visited on June 2, 2024).
7
attorneys who represented the Trump campaign at the time in connection with the recount in
Wisconsin.
25. Following the conference call, Defendant Chesebro emailed a memorandum dated
November 18, 2020, to Defendant Troupis and others titled “The Real Deadline for Settling a State’s
Electoral Votes”.6 In the memorandum (referred to in this complaint as the “November 18
Memorandum”), Defendant Chesebro argued that electors representing Donald Trump and Michael
Pence should meet and cast their votes on December 14, 2020, to preserve the Trump-Pence electoral
slate in the event of “a court decision (or, perhaps a state legislative determination) rendered after
December 14 in favor of the Trump-Pence slate of electors . . . .”
26. On November 25, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent the November 18 Memorandum to
an individual affiliated with the Trump campaign, noting: “Feel free to contact me or Ken Chesebro
if you have any questions.”7
27. In the early morning hours of December 7, 2020, Defendant Chesebro emailed another
memorandum to Defendant Troupis (dated December 6, 2020), this one titled “Important That All
Trump-Pence Electors Vote on December 14”.8 In the memorandum (referred to in this complaint as
the “December 6 Memorandum”), Defendant Chesebro reiterated that the Trump-Pence electors
should meet and vote on December 14, 2020.9 Defendant Chesebro further explained in the
memorandum that the Trump-Pence elector votes could be counted by Vice President Pence at the
Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021, so long as a court challenge was still pending, “even if
Trump has not managed by then to obtain court decisions (or state legislative resolutions) invalidating
6
Chesebro doc. 2320 (Chesebro Ex. 2); Chesebro Ex. 3 (although produced by counsel for Defendant
Chesebro and marked as an exhibit for the interview with Defendant Chesebro, this document did not have a
numeric designation in the file name of the PDF).
7
Chesebro doc. 1545.
8
Chesebro doc. 1906 (Chesebro Ex. 8).
9
8
enough results to push Biden below 270 [the number of electoral votes needed to win the election].”
Defendant Chesebro noted that the strategy he suggested was “bold” and “controversial”.
28. After receiving the December 6 Memorandum, Defendant Troupis sent an email to
Defendant Chesebro, telling him that Defendant Troupis planned “to get it [the December 6
Memorandum] circulated at the White House.”10 Defendant Troupis also sent a separate message to
Defendant Chesebro: “I have sent it to the White House this afternoon. The real decisionmakers.”11
29. On December 7, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent the November 18 Memorandum and
the December 6 Memorandum to a Trump campaign consultant (referred to in this complaint as
“Individual A”).12 In the email sending the memoranda, Defendant Troupis stated in part:
Here are two memo’s [sic] I had prepared for me on appointing a second slate of electors in
Wisconsin. There is no need for the legislators to act. The second slate just shows up at noon
on Monday and votes and then transmits the results. It is up to Pence on Jan 6 to open them.
30. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent Defendant Troupis an email with
further thoughts about “how leverage might be exerted” at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6,
2021, in connection with “having the electors send in alternate slates of votes ”.13 One of the points
Defendant Chesebro made in his email was: “Court challenges pending on Jan. 6 really not
necessary.” In response, Defendant Troupis emailed Defendant Chesebro, stating in part: “This is an
excellent summary of the end game. Thank you.”
31. On December 9, 2020, Individual A emailed Defendant Troupis, asking him whether
he could prepare a “sample elector ballot” for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona,
Nevada and New Mexico. Defendant Troupis forwarded this email to Defendant Chesebro and others,
10
Chesebro doc. 1906.
11
Chesebro texts 0215-16. Counsel for Defendant Chesebro also produced to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice copies of text messages involving Defendant Chesebro, which the Wisconsin
Department of Justice subsequently Bates labeled. In this complaint, I will refer to these text messages as
“Chesebro texts [XXXX]” where the “XXXX” is the Bates number of the document.
12
Chesebro doc. 2052.
13
9
asking Defendant Chesebro whether he would be able to do this, to which Defendant Chesebro
responded: “Oh, absolutely!”14
32. On December 9, 2020, Defendant Chesebro emailed Defendant Troupis a
memorandum (referred to in this complaint as the “December 9 Memorandum”) titled “Statutory
Requirements for December 14 Electoral Votes” with instructions for the Trump-Pence elector
meetings on December 14, 2020. 15
33. On December 10, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent an email to Defendant Chesebro,
attaching a draft of the “elector certificate” to be signed on December 14, 2020, by the Trump-Pence
electors, stating: “Please review.”16 Later that day, Defendant Chesebro sent Defendant Troupis back
a revised draft of the certificate. In response, Defendant Troupis sent an email to Defendant Chesebro,
asking him about how the elector names should be listed on the certificate.17
34. On December 11, 2020, Individual A sent a message to Defendant Chesebro and
Defendant Michael Roman, who was working for the Trump campaign. In the message, Individual A
stated: “Ken—need you to call Mike Roman, copied, ASAP, and fill him in on the whole lay of the
land.”18 Shortly thereafter, Defendant Chesebro sent an email to Defendant Roman, attaching
documents relating to the Trump-Pence electors in Pennsylvania, as well as copies of the
November 18 Memorandum and the December 9 Memorandum.19
35. On December 11, 2020, Defendant Chesebro emailed Defendant Troupis, copying
individuals associated with the RPW, attaching the certificate to be signed on December 14, 2020, by
14
Chesebro doc. 2052.
15
Chesebro doc. 2240. The PDFs of the email from Defendant Chesebro to Defendant Troupis and
the memorandum attached to the email both contained the numeric designation 2240, although they were
produced as separate documents (Chesebro Ex. 14, Chesebro Ex. 15).
16
Chesebro doc. 1329.
17
Chesebro doc. 1458.
18
Chesebro texts 0002.
19
Chesebro doc. 1527.
10
the Trump-Pence electors from Wisconsin, along with other documents relating to the meeting.20
Later that evening, Defendant Chesebro sent the documents to individuals affiliated with the Trump
Campaign and the Republican National Committee, copying Defendant Roman. 21
36. On December 11, 2020, Defendant Chesebro emailed individuals affiliated with the
Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, copying Defendant Roman, “to clarify the
status of my work.” In the email, Defendant Chesebro stated in part: “Jim Troupis (lead counsel in
WI) have [sic] WI well in hand; Jim was the one who floated early on the idea of the electors voting
on Dec. 14.”22
37. On December 11, 2020, in a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the State
Case signed by Defendant Troupis, the Trump plaintiffs mentioned the December 14 meeting of
Trump-Pence electors in a footnote, stating:
Following the recommended approach to situations involving court challenges in

Presidential elections which are not resolved by the time the Presidential electors must cast
their votes pursuant to Art. II, § 1, cl. 4, and 3 U.S.C. § 7 (this year, December 14), the
Trump-Pence Campaign has requested its electors to sign and send to Washington on that
date their votes, to ensure that their votes will count on January 6 if there is a later
determination that they are the duly appointed electors for Wisconsin.
This practice dates back at least as far as 1960, when the Kennedy electors in Hawaii voted
on the date the Electoral College met, even though on that date the Nixon electors had been
ascertained by the acting Governor to have won the state; only after further litigation were
the votes of the Kennedy electors approved and ultimately counted in Congress. See, e.g.,
Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?, 80 N. Car. L. Rev. 1654,
1691-92 (2002). See also Michael L. Rosin & Jason Harrow, “How to Decide a Very Close
Election for Presidential Electors: Part 2,” Take Care Blog, Oct. 23, 2020
(https://takecareblog.com/blog/how-to-decide-a-very-close-election-for-presidential-
electors-part-2) (visited Dec. 9, 2020) (concluding that if “a state wants to have its electoral
votes counted, but which presidential electors were appointed by the voters on election day
remains uncertain . . . there is only one possible solution: both potentially-winning slates
of electors should cast electoral votes on the day required while the recount continues”).
20
21
Chesebro doc. 2051.
22
Chesebro doc. 1755
11
38. On December 12, 2020, Individual A sent a message to Defendant Chesebro and
Defendant Roman, asking in part: “Does VP have ultimate authority on which slate of electors should
be chosen?” Defendant Chesebro responded in part: “A very good argument can be made that the
President of the Senate [Vice President Pence] both opens and counts the vote.”23
39. On December 12, 2020, Defendant Chesebro and Defendant Roman exchanged
messages about the language in the certificates to be signed by the Trump-Pence electors, as pictured
below (with messages from Defendant Chesebro on the right and responses from Defendant Roman
on the left): 24
40. On December 12, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent Defendant Roman “tweaked
language” for the certificate to be signed by the Trump-Pence electors in Pennsylvania. The “tweaked
language” that Defendant Chesebro proposed for the certificate was that the electors “might later [be]
determined” as the “duly elected and qualified” electors. Defendant Chesebro stated in the email: “It
strike [sic] me that if inserting these few words is a good idea for PA, it might be worth suggesting to
Electors in other states.”25
23
Chesebro texts 0004-06
24
Chesebro texts 0351-52.
25
Chesebro doc. 1916.
12
41. In the early morning of December 13, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent Defendant
Roman documents for the Trump-Pence electors in New Mexico, with “the new qualifying language
at the start of the Certificate.” Defendant Chesebro stated: “Might be good to have it added in all
states.”26
42. No qualifying language was ever added to the Trump-Pence elector documents for
Wisconsin.
43. On December 13, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent a message to Defendant Roman,
stating:
Dec. 14 votes going in sets up the possibility of the President of the Senate (maybe not
Pence; maybe he recuses and it’s Grassley or next person in line who is willing to do this)
on Jan. 6 taking the position, well supported by the 12th Amendment in the historical era
in which it was enacted, that according to the original understanding of the Constitution,
he has sole power to both open *and* count the votes—and that he won’t count any State
where there was never careful, deliberate hearings on the merits, with evidence, on asserted
irregularities, either in a court or the legislature. Only Supreme Court could override that
(cuz he’d refuse to open the envelopes of the 6 States unless Court orders him, at minimum
buying time). If not overruled, he could force hearings in the States, but time would quickly
run out, and the state legislatures would have to appoint electors if they wanted to be
counted and avoid the election being thrown to the House (if Nancy then refused to hold a
vote, Senate would reelect Pence Vice President, and he would become acting president on
Jan 20). That’s the possible endgame I saw early on, which is why the Dec 14 vote is so
critical. I will now write up a brief memo on President of the Senate. 27
44. On December 13, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent a message to Defendant Troupis,
stating in part that Defendant Chesebro was “working on a memo” about the “endgame in
Congress.”28
45. Later that same evening, on December 13, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent a message
to Defendant Chesebro, asking: “Is everything under control for tomorrow electors vote?” Chesebro
responded that it was and that “[o]ther states are all fine”, noting that he answered questions from
26
Chesebro doc. 0028.
27
28
13
individuals in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia. Defendant Troupis responded: “Good. Just want
to be sure we preserve our options here without regard to what Wi S Crt rules.”29
The Unappointed Elector Meeting
46. On December 14, 2020,—“the first Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in
December”—the ten appointed electors met in the State Capitol at noon, as contemplated by both
federal and state law. At that meeting, the appointed electors cast ten electoral votes for Joseph Biden
for President and Kamala Harris for Vice President, consistent with the duties outlined in 3 U.S.C.
§§ 7-11 (2020).
47. At approximately the same time on December 14, 2020, nine of the ten Wisconsin
previously selected electors for Donald Trump and Michael Pence also met at the State Capitol. At
the meeting, these nine previously selected Trump-Pence electors voted to elect a tenth individual
who also was present at the meeting as a Trump-Pence elector due to an absence that created a
vacancy. (See “Certificate of Filling Vacancy of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin”, Dec. 14, 2020,
enclosed as Ex. D).
48. For purposes of this complaint, the ten Trump-Pence electors who met at the State
Capitol on December 14, 2020, will be referred to as the “Unappointed Electors” and their meeting
at the State Capitol on December 14, 2020, will be referred to as the “Unappointed Elector
Meeting”.
49. Although he was not one of the Unappointed Electors, Defendant Chesebro attended
the Unappointed Elector Meeting. I have reviewed a video produced to the Wisconsin Department of
Justice by Defendant Chesebro of the meeting.
29
14
50. The Unappointed Electors then voted by ballot for President and Vice President. (See
“Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin”, Dec. 14, 2020, enclosed as Ex. E)
(referred to herein as the “Unappointed Elector Certificate”). The certification of that vote read, in
part:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and
Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify
the following:
(A) That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in the City of Madison,
Wisconsin, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020, to perform the
duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by ballot, and
balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for President; and the
other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as aforesaid [10 votes for Donald
Trump for President and 10 votes Michael Pence for Vice President]
51. The Unappointed Elector Certificate contains a signature block with a signature from
each of the Unappointed Electors. The Unappointed Elector Certificate reflects that one of the
Unappointed Electors, referred to in this complaint as “Individual B”, acted as the “Chairperson” for
purposes of the Unappointed Elector Meeting.
52. The Unappointed Electors were never appointed by Governor Evers to serve as
Presidential electors.
53. The Unappointed Elector Certificate did not contain any statement making it
contingent in any way.
54. One of the documents prepared by Defendant Chesebro in connection with the
meeting was a transmittal memorandum, which stated: “Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please
find duplicate originals of Wisconsin’s electoral votes for President and Vice President.” (enclosed
as Ex. F). The memorandum was addressed to the President of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Archivist,
15
the Wisconsin Secretary of State, and the chief federal judge in the Western District of Wisconsin.
The memorandum did not contain any statement making the Unappointed Elector Certificate
contingent in any way.
55. During or around the time of the Unappointed Elector Meeting, Defendant Chesebro
sent separate identical messages to Defendant Troupis and Defendant Roman stating: “WI meeting
of the *real* electors is a go!!!”30
56. During or around the time of the Unappointed Elector Meeting, Defendant Chesebro
also sent separate messages to Defendant Troupis and Defendant Roman attaching a photograph of
31
the meeting. Defendant Troupis responded with a “thumbs up” emoji. 32 The following day,
Defendant Chesebro sent separate messages to Defendant Troupis and Defendant Roman attaching a
video of the Unappointed Elector Meeting.33
57. Following the December 14, 2020, meeting of the Unappointed Electors, Individual B
issued the following statement: “While President Trump’s campaign continues to pursue legal options
for Wisconsin, Republican electors met today in accordance with statutory guidelines to preserve our
role in the electoral process with the final outcome still pending in the courts.”34
58. At the time of the Unappointed Elector Meeting, no court had issued any ruling that
impacted the outcome of the Presidential election in Wisconsin. 35
30
Chesebro texts 0224; 0359.
31
Chesebro texts 0225; 0358.
32
33
Chesebro texts 0227; 0358-59.
34
Individual B doc. 0109. Counsel for Individual B produced Bates-numbered documents to the
Wisconsin Department of Justice. In this complaint, I will refer to these documents as Individual B doc.
[XXXX] where “XXXX” is the Bates number of the document produced by counsel for Individual B.
35
Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court remained. On December 29, 2020, plaintiffs in the State Case
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a motion to expedite consideration of that petition. On January 11,
2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to expedite consideration of the petition, and the Court
denied the petition on February 22, 2021. On December 30, 2020, following a decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on December 24, 2020, affirming the district court order dismissing the
case, plaintiffs in the Federal Case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a motion to expedite
16
59. On December 15, 2020, Defendant Roman sent an email to individuals affiliated with
the Republican National Committee and the RPW, copying Defendant Chesebro and others, asking
for confirmation that the documents for the Trump electors from Wisconsin had been mailed. An
individual affiliated with the RPW responded that they would be mailed the following morning. 36
60. On December 16, 2020, in an email to various individuals associated with the Trump
campaign (including Defendant Roman), the Republican National Committee, and the RPW,37
copying Defendant Chesebro, an individual affiliated with the RPW confirmed that “[p]ackages have
been mailed” to the same addressees that the transmittal memorandum (Exhibit F) indicated would
receive the Unappointed Elector Certificate. The headquarters of the Republican Party of Wisconsin
are located in Madison, Wisconsin, in Dane County.
Further Planning for Use of the Unappointed Elector Certificate on January 6
61. On December 16, 2020, Defendant Troupis, Defendant Chesebro and others traveled
by chartered jet to Washington, D.C., for a meeting at the White House in the Oval Office involving
then-President Trump. In an email two days later, Defendant Troupis reminded Defendant Chesebro
that “nothing about our meeting with the President can be shared with anyone.”38
62. On December 17, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent a message to Defendant Roman and
Individual A, stating in part:
Things might have been different if we’d won Wisconsin, and that had led other courts,
and state legislatures, to take a closer look, but now the idea of the President of the Senate
throwing a wrench into the Electoral Count Act process seems even less plausible than
before, for both legal and political reasons.
But I think the Act can be weaponized. Jim Troupis testified powerfully about the
hypocrisy of the Biden campaign claiming this was the most transparent, clean election in
history, while at the same time doing everything possible to ensure the courts would not
consideration of that petition. On January 11, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to expedite
consideration of the petition, and the Court denied the petition on March 8, 2021.
36
Chesebro doc. 1222 (Chesebro Ex. 36)
37
38
Chesebro doc. 1149 (Chesebro Ex. 37)
17
look at anything that happened. . . . Now Biden and the Dems, and some squishy
Republicans plan to use a statute from the 1880s that prominent liberal scholars admit is
clearly unconstitutional as their excuse to limit debate to 2 hours and to declare that Biden
‘wins’ the six contested states even if the Senate rejects the claim that Biden won those
states. 39
Individual A responded by asking Defendant Chesebro: “What’s the bottom line?” Defendant
Chesebro responded:
If the Trump campaign were to weaponize the Electoral Count Act in this fashion it could
put the Biden camp in a no-win situation. Either limit debate to 2 hours, over objections
they are using an unconstitutional statute to cover up the rigging of the election, or allow
longer debate, allowing Trump to show in more detail what happened. 40
63. On December 23, 2020, an attorney working with the Trump campaign emailed
Defendant Chesebro a summary of the “January 6 scenario” for using the Trump-Pence elector slates
during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.41 The summary stated, in part:
At the end, [Vice President Pence] announces that because of the disputes in the 7 states, there are no
electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those states. That means the total number of “electors
appointed” –that language of the 12th Amendment, is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has
also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed”
would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then
gavels President Trump as re-elected.
...
The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission—either from a vote of
the joint session or from the Court. . . .
Defendant Chesebro responded by sending a revised draft back to the attorney, with an email stating:
“Really awesome.”42
64. On December 24, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent an email to individuals affiliated with
the Trump campaign, copying Defendant Chesebro and others, about a possible certiorari petition to
the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing the decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.43 Defendant
Troupis stated, in part:
39
40
41
Chesebro doc. 1111.
42
Chesebro doc. 1135.
43
Chesebro doc. 1003.
18
To be blunt, it remains unclear to me what the path is to success, and even success seems ill-
defined. We all want to see this matter to a conclusion, but the obligations that result from
filing a Petition for Cert are very real and are very substantial. I have tried to be realistic about
what needs to be addressed now.
65. On December 26, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent an email to individuals affiliated with
the Trump campaign, confirming that they were directing that a certiorari petition be filed with the
U.S. Supreme Court. 44 In the email, Defendant Troupis stated, in part: “To be clear, it is
unlikely/perhaps impossible, for the S. Crt. to take up these matters and rule before January 6.”
66. On December 26, 2020, Defendant Chesebro sent an email to Defendant Troupis and
others with thoughts about the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.45 Defendant Chesebro
stated, in part, that one way to delay the proceedings would be for Vice President Pence to decline to
open the envelopes containing the electoral votes from Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Defendant Chesebro noted, in bold: “Obviously the discussion of such tactical options is highly
confidential.”
67. On December 27, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent an email to various individuals,
including Defendant Chesebro, noting that they were expected to file a certiorari petition on behalf
of the Trump campaign.46 In the email, Defendant Troupis stated, in part: “My guess is the President
may have some choice comments once our Petition is filed. And this certainly helps tee-up the
January 6 Congressional debate.”
68. Later on December 27, 2020, Defendant Troupis sent an email to Defendant Chesebro
alone.47 In the email, Defendant Troupis asked Defendant Chesebro to prepare “a step by step, easy
to understand, non-lawyerly, process for the Senators/Congressmen and VP to follow on the 6th.”
Defendant Troupis stated that “I can help with how to word it.” Defendant Troupis further stated:
44
Chesebro doc. 1525.
45
Chesebro doc. 1857.
46
Chesebro doc. 1335.
47
Chesebro doc. 2303.
19
So, not an explanation of the law, a simple do this, then do this kind-of document. I just think
they will flounder without a clear understanding and there will be too many cooks in the
kitchen unless we take charge. Again, just a thought. (Your wild speculation of 6 weeks ago
may well have been prescient…)
69. On December 29, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a certiorari petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision in the State Case.
70. On December 30, 2020, Donald Trump filed a certiorari petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision in the Federal Case.
71. On January 3, 2021, Defendant Troupis and Defendant Chesebro messaged each other
about the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. Defendant Troupis sent a message to
Defendant Chesebro: “If each State gets one vote in the House, then Pelosi must take Acting and
allow a vote because I believe the R’s have more States. Am I right?” Defendant Chesebro responded:
“Yes, Republicans have 26 states.” Following additional messages from Defendant Chesebro,
including one where he forwarded an article titled “Ex-GOP Speaker Ryan denounces effort to
challenge Electoral College results”, Defendant Troupis responded: “RHINO—sad”. In response to
an article forwarded by Defendant Chesebro titled “Congress adopts rules governing Jan. 6 Electoral
College count”, Defendant Troupis sent a message to Defendant Chesebro asking: “Does this change
anything we discussed earlier?” Defendant Chesebro responded: “Can’t stop Pence from claiming the
power to count the votes, unilaterally force delay (eg, by refusing to open envelopes).” He further
stated: “Makes it hard force [sic] Pence to allow for unlimited debate in the senate. I assume the
Continuing Resolution, once adopted by the Senate, modified the usual filibuster rules.”48
48
20
Subsequent Delivery of the Unappointed Elector Certificate
72. Following the first mailing (on December 16, 2020) of the documents from the
Unappointed Elector Meeting, concerns were raised that the documents from Wisconsin had not been
received in Washington, D.C.
73. On January 4, 2021, an individual from the Trump campaign emailed Defendant
Chesebro to confirm that the Trump-Pence elector slates “have been received by Congress for
consideration”. Defendant Chesebro responded that “Mike Roman is the guy on top of this” and
advised to check with him. The individual from the Trump campaign then emailed Defendant
Chesebro and Defendant Roman together, asking for confirmation that the Trump-Pence elector slates
“have been received by Congress for consideration”. Defendant Roman responded that all slates were
“confirmed” except the one from Michigan.49
74. Later that evening, however, Defendant Roman sent another email to Defendant
Chesebro and the individual from the Trump campaign, stating: “They will be coming from
Wisconsin.” Defendant Roman and Defendant Chesebro then sent several emails to each other to
arrange the logistics for delivering the Trump-Pence elector documents from Wisconsin to Defendant
Chesebro in Washington, D.C. Defendant Chesebro suggested that a “staffer” should fly to
Washington, D.C., to deliver the documents.50
75. On January 5, 2021, Defendant Roman sent an email to Defendant Chesebro and
another individual, referred to in this complaint as “Individual C”, who was a law student working
part-time for the RPW at the time. Defendant Roman stated: “Ken: [Individual C] lands at BWI at
10:15 ET. She has the WI Electors slate. Please make arrangements to meet.” Defendant Roman then
directed Individual C: “Only give the documents to Ken Chesebro” and provided Defendant
49
50
21
Chesebro’s cellular telephone number. Later in the same email exchange, Defendant Chesebro and
Individual B arranged to meet in downtown Washington, D.C.51
76. On January 5, 2021, shortly before she met Defendant Chesebro, Individual C
messaged Individual B: “5 mins until I make the drop”. She further stated: “I feel like a drug dealer.”52
77. After Defendant Chesebro received the Unappointed Elector Certificate from
Individual C, Defendant Chesebro sent an email to Defendant Roman, letting him know that he had
received the document.53
78. On January 5, 2021, Defendant Chesebro and Defendant Roman also exchanged
messages about delivery of the Unappointed Elector Certificate. Defendant Chesebro suggested that
Defendant Troupis could find someone to help deliver the document, and then asked Defendant
Roman to find someone. Defendant Roman sent Defendant Chesebro a message stating that a
Congressional staffer would meet Defendant Chesebro to receive the document, and sent Defendant
Chesebro contact information for the staffer.54 Defendant Chesebro later sent a message to Defendant
Roman to confirm that Defendant Chesebro had delivered the document.55
79. On January 6, 2021, Defendant Chesebro and Defendant Troupis exchanged messages
about attempting to deliver the Unappointed Elector Certificate to Vice President Pence during the
Joint Session of Congress. Defendant Troupis instructed Defendant Chesebro to call Defendant
Roman to “make sure he gets what he needs.” Defendant Chesebro messaged in return that he was
51
52
Lawsuit Individual B doc. 0265. A lawsuit was filed in Dane County Circuit Court against the
Unappointed Electors, Defendant Troupis and Defendant Chesebro. In connection with the settlement of
that lawsuit, documents produced in the litigation by the defendants, including Individual B, were released
by counsel for the plaintiffs. This citation refers to the Bates number of one of the documents that appears
to have been produced by Individual B.
53
Chesebro doc. 1141.
54
55
22
with Defendant Roman’s “top guy”. Defendant Troupis messaged back: “Excellent. Tomorrow let’s
talk about SCOTUS strategy going forward. Enjoy the history you have made possible today.”56
Subsequent Interviews and Testimony
80. On February 28, 2022, Individual B testified before the U.S. House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the
“January 6th Committee”). During that testimony, Individual B testified in part as follows:
a. On December 12, 2020, the RPW Executive Director at the time sent a
message about a conference call conducted that day about the Unappointed Elector Meeting.
Individual B messaged back: “These guys are up to no good, and it’s going to fail
miserably.”57
b. On January 4, 2020, the RPW Executive Director sent a message to
Individual B as follows: “Freaking Trump idiots want someone to fly original elector papers
to the Senate President. They’re gonna call one of us to tell us just what the hell is going on.”58
Individual B testified that he thought Individual C flew to Washington, D.C., on January 5,
2020, to deliver the documents signed at the Unappointed Electors Meeting.59
c. Individual B testified that he received legal advice that there was a previous
case involving electors from the State of Hawaii in the 1960 Presidential election where two
different slates of electors met.60 Individual B further testified: “[I]f we didn’t meet and a
court subsequently ruled that these [legal] challenges in Wisconsin were successful, the
guidance I was given is it would be irrelevant because the elector meeting has not taken
56
57
Individual B testimony at 67.
58
59
60
Individual B testimony at 16-17.
23
place.”61 He testified that he did not hear from anyone that the documents signed at the
Unappointed Elector Meeting could be used even if the legal challenges were not successful,
stating: “I would have had significant concerns about that. . . . I was told that these would only
count if a court ruled in our favor. . . . [I]t would have been using our electors in ways that we
weren’t told about and we wouldn’t have supported.”62
81. I reviewed a recording of an interview of Individual B that aired on the television
show “Up Front” on December 17, 2023. During the interview, Individual B said in part that he was
“tricked” and was not told of any “ulterior motive or scheme” relating to the Unappointed Elector
Meeting on December 14, 2020. Individual B said that he viewed the meeting as a “contingency plan”
but that “other people had other ideas.”
82. I reviewed a recording of an interview of Individual B that aired on the television
show “60 Minutes” on February 18, 2024. During the interview, Individual B said in part that he and
the other Unappointed Electors met on December 14, 2020, based on legal advice that doing so was
necessary as a contingency in case legal challenges to the election were successful. Individual B said
that he received legal advice before the Unappointed Elector Meeting that the documents signed
during the meeting were “meaningless” unless a court “gave them meaning.” Individual B said that
he did not know there was an “alternate scheme” for the documents.
83. During the same episode of “60 Minutes” on February 18, 2024, an interview with
Individual C also aired, a recording of which I also reviewed. During the interview, Individual C said
in part that she received a call on January 4, 2021, from the RPW Executive Director at the time,
telling her that the Trump campaign wanted documents delivered to Washington, D.C., because they
“got lost in the mail.” In a voiceover during the recording, it stated that Individual C said that she
61
62
24
picked up the documents at the RPW headquarters in Wisconsin on January 5, 2021, and flew to
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin Elections Commission Complaint
84. On February 15, 2021, a complaint was filed with the WEC, alleging that the actions
of the Unappointed Electors violated Wisconsin election laws. Individual B responded to the
complaint, alleging that the Unappointed Electors “acted with the sole intent of preserving standing
and ensuring that if any of the pending legal cases were successful, the court did not claim it was too
late for the appropriate remedy to be awarded.”63
85. On March 15, 2022, the WEC issued a decision dismissing the complaint against the
Unappointed Electors, concluding that the complaint “does not raise a reasonable suspicion that the
respondents violated Wisconsin election law.” The decision incorporated a memorandum from
counsel for the Commission.64 The memorandum to the WEC stated, in part: “This memorandum
does not address other potential violations of law, such as election fraud under Wis. Stat. § 12.13 or
matters that the Complainants have raised to other authorities or discussed in the media, such as
forgery under Wis. Stat. § 943.38, false swearing under Wis. Stat. § 946.32, falsely assuming to act
as a public officer under Wis. Stat. § 946.69, simulating legal process under Wis. Stat. §946.68,
misconduct in public office under Wis. Stat. § 946.12, conspiracy, aiding, or attempt to commit such
acts, or any other matter outside the scope of the complaint.”65
63
Individual B doc. 0110-31.
64
An Assistant Attorney General from the Wisconsin Department of Justice, who is screened from
the investigation relating to this complaint, authored the memorandum.
65
A judge ordered WEC to rehear the complaint without the participation of a WEC member who
also had served as one of the Unappointed Electors. In December 2023, WEC rejected the complaint again.
(https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-fake-electors-trump-2020-062c7b6638b945f816185bdf1f231195)
(last visited on June 2, 2024).
25
86. Defendant James Troupis is a resident of Dane County. Defendant Kenneth Chesebro
and Defendant Michael Roman do not reside in Wisconsin.
Electronically signed by:
Mary Van Schoyck, Special Agent

Wisconsin Department of Justice
Division of Criminal Investigation
Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 3rd day of June, 2024.
Electronically signed by:
s/Jacob D. Corr
Jacob D. Corr
Assistant Attorney General
State of Wisconsin
State Bar# 1035964
26
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. A
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. B
Ex. C
Ex. C
Ex. D
Ex. E
Ex. E
Ex. F
Ex. G

Wisconsin Indictment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wisconsin Indictment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wisconsin Indictment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2024CF001203 Document 2 Filed 06-04-2024 Page 1 of 47 FLED

exceed 6 years, or both, pursuant to § 939.50(3)(h).

STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE

1. I am currently employed as a sworn Special Agent for the Wisconsin Department of

and subpoenas during my law enforcement career.

experience, my personal knowledge, information provided to me by fellow law enforcement

not contain all of the facts known to me relating to this investigation.

The Process for Certifying Presidential Election Results

for the Presidential election.

9. In a statutory provision entitled “Presidential electors meeting”, Wisconsin law

Wis. Stat. § 7.75(1).

The duties of the Presidential electors include the following:

votes for Vice President.” 3 U.S.C. § 9 (2020).

President and Vice President. 3 U.S.C. §10 (2020).

d. To “dispose of the certificates” by delivering them as follows (3 U.S.C. § 11

i. one (1) copy to the President of the U.S. Senate;

ii. two (2) copies to the Secretary of State for Wisconsin;

iii. two (2) copies to the Archivist of the United States;

or canvassing process.” Wis. Stat. § 9.01(11).

determination—sometimes referred to as the “certificate of final determination”—“as soon as

practicable” to the Archivist of the United States. 3 U.S.C. § 6 (2020).

The 2020 Presidential Election and Subsequent Legal Challenges in Wisconsin

Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party candidates.

request a recount in Wisconsin. 2

Electors, Nov. 30, 2020, enclosed as Ex. B.)

Nov. 30, 2020, enclosed as Ex. C.)

Wis. 2020) (the “Federal Case”).

a sufficient number of Wisconsin ballots to change Wisconsin’s certified election results.”3

certifying the election results.

dismiss filed by WEC and dismissed the lawsuit.

circuit court’s judgment in the State Case.4

The Unappointed Elector Plan

Electoral Votes”.6 In the memorandum (referred to in this complaint as the “November 18

December 14 in favor of the Trump-Pence slate of electors . . . .”

if you have any questions.”7

the December 6 Memorandum to a Trump campaign consultant (referred to in this complaint as

excellent summary of the end game. Thank you.”

responded: “Oh, absolutely!”14

32. On December 9, 2020, Defendant Chesebro emailed Defendant Troupis a

memorandum (referred to in this complaint as the “December 9 Memorandum”) titled “Statutory

meetings on December 14, 2020. 15

documents relating to the Trump-Pence electors in Pennsylvania, as well as copies of the

November 18 Memorandum and the December 9 Memorandum.19

Campaign and the Republican National Committee, copying Defendant Roman. 21

Trump-Pence electors in a footnote, stating:

Following the recommended approach to situations involving court challenges in

Electors in other states.”25

The Unappointed Elector Meeting

enclosed as Ex. D).

Justice by Defendant Chesebro of the meeting.

purposes of the Unappointed Elector Meeting.

contingent in any way.

contingent in any way.

of the *real* electors is a go!!!”30

video of the Unappointed Elector Meeting.33

impacted the outcome of the Presidential election in Wisconsin. 35

are located in Madison, Wisconsin, in Dane County.

Further Planning for Use of the Unappointed Elector Certificate on January 6

Individual A, stating in part:

of the real electors is a go!!!”30