75 Nimba County, who was being investigated by Appellee for possession of ballots which were marked before Election Day on October 10, 2017 - an election offense. The evidence from this investigation would have substantiated Appellants/Intervenors' claim that massive frauds were committed during the course of the October 10, 2017 elections. And to which, Appellants excepted; but the NEC Board refused to pass on this issue and the effect this evidence had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. 37. That the CDHO refused to issue subpoena pursuant to Section 2.9(w) of the Elections Law, and Appellee's own regulations (Elections Hearing Regulations of May 6, 2016, Art. 8.2) for the Presiding Officers Worksheets which would have shown how many voters were recorded to have cast their ballots at each polling station; and addenda produced at the various polling stations nationwide on October 10, 2017, which would have shown how many persons voted illegally on October 10, 2017, without their names being on the FRR. The evidence from these documents would have substantiated Appellants/Intervenors' claim that massive frauds were committed during the course of the October 10, 2017 elections. And to which, Appellants excepted and argued matter before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board did not pass on the issue and the effect it had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. 38. That Appellants/Intervenors urged the CDHO during the argument that Appellee's failure to rebut or contradict relevant species of evidence adduced at the trial by Appellants/Intervenors constituted admission of the facts which the evidence sought to prove. More specifically, Appellee did not produce any evidence to contradict or rebut Appellants/Intervenors' evidence that: (i)The FRR given on flash drives given to the political parties in September 2017 was significantly and substantially different from the flash drive submitted by Appellee's Executive Director under subpoena in November 2017 to the hearing, identified and marked, which confirms that the FRR was altered by Appellee in contravention of the Elections Law; (ii)That the flash driver given to the political parties has 79 Polling Stations in ten (10) precincts missing amounting to some 35, 750 voters; (iii) That in 75 precincts at least one polling station is missing; (iv) That the same Voters ID was assigned to more than one voter and in some cases to up to 5 voters;(v)That several voters existed on the roll multiple times, and gave the names of these voters and their ID numbers;(vi) That the FRR was not published in hard copies (on paper) as required by law;(vii) That the FRR was not posted at the offices of election magistrates or at polling precincts for inspection;(viii) that the FRR was not in sync with the data base posted at Appellee's website, which was accessible by SMS, and which in essence means that Appellee maintained two Voters Registration Rolls for the October 2017 Elections, in violation of the law. These species of evidence were never rebutted and under Liberian law and practice, where evidence by the adversary is not rebutted, it is deemed admitted. Neufville v. Killen, 31 LLR 587; Davis v. Davis, 19 LLR 150. The CDHO never applied this basic