73 pervasive and fraught that the October 10, 2017 elections was marred by gross irregularities and massive frauds would have been evidently established and CDHO's denial of the subpoena, affirmed by the NEC Board, was merely intended to ensure that this proof, in the possession of Appellee, would not be brought to light. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 30. Appellants/Intervenors introduced evidence that the ballots for the October 10, 2017 elections did not carry serial numbers; however, serial numbers were placed on the stubs of the ballots. When asked on the cross examination the purpose for restricting the serial numbers to the ballot stubs, Appellee's Executive Director falsely testified that to do that would have exposed to the presiding officer how each person voted. This testimony was debunked by two witnesses for Appellants, who formerly served on the National Elections Commission; but this evidence which conclusively contradicted Appellee's Executive Officer, was never passed upon by the CDHO in his Final Ruling. And so Appellants excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board. 31. Appellants/Intervenors say that on additional cross examination of Appellee's Executive Director on whether the serial numbers were intended for security purposes - to check on which ballots and how many ballots were used at a polling place for voting after voting had been completed - he testified that the serial number was for only administrative purposes. But when crossed as to what was the meaning of "administrative purposes", the question was objected to and the CDHO sustained the objection. And to that ruling, Appellants excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board. 32. Also as to the absence of serial numbers on the ballots, Appellee's Executive Director falsely testified that serial numbers had never been placed on ballots for any election in Liberia and that was the international best practice. On the day of argument (Monday, Nov. 20, 2017), Appellants/Intervenors submitted to the CDHO a ballot from the 1997 elections (newly discovered evidence), which had the serial number on it and the CDHO was asked, that the hearing being administrative in nature (fact-finding) and not judicial, to take administrative notice that, contrary to Appellee's Executive Director that serial numbers had never been placed on ballots for voting in Liberia, ballots for the 1997 elections had serial numbers on them. The CDHO ignored this request and refused to take administrative notice of the evidence which conclusively contradicted Appellee's Executive Director and the CDHO never passed on this evidence and its effect on the October 10, 2017 elections. The refusal of the CDHO to take administrative notice of the historical fact that ballots for the 1997 elections had serial numbers on the ballot stubs which correspond to serial number on the ballots themselves and to acknowledge and accept into evidence one of such ballots from the 1997 elections during the oral argument was an error, as Appellee's own regulation (Elections Hearing Procedures of May 6, 2016, Art. 7.3) provide that legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law shall not strictly apply to