72 evidence relevant to proving fraud should have been admitted and the probative value determined. And so Appellants/ Intervenors excepted and argued the evidence before the Board; but again, the NEC Board never passed on this issue and the effect the evidence had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 26. Appellants adduced evidence that ballots on which voters had already voted were found buried in Glay Town, Grand Gedeh County and video recording of the discovery went viral on the internet. The oral testimonies of two of the persons who dug out the ballots were never rebutted or discredited; photographs of the buried ballots were exhibited; video recording of the buried ballots during the time that they were pulled out of the ground and thereafter was demonstrated. Yet, in his Final Ruling, the CDHO never passed on this material evidence and the impact it had on the October 10, 2017 elections. So Appellants excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board. 27. That further to Count Twenty-Six (26) above, Appellants/ Intervenors say that the NEC Board relied on the self-serving statement of Appellee's Executive Director that the buried ballots were "Know-Your-Candidates" postals, not ballots; but the NEC ignored the unrebutted testimony of the two witnesses that these were used ballots, which means they had been used to vote. The NEC Board also ignored the photocopies of the pictures and the video recording which showed that these buried ballots had the red stripes on the reverse side for presidential ballots and the green stripes of the reverse side for representatives ballots, while the "Know-Your Candidate" ballots had only plain white reverse side. This cogent evidence was completely ignored by the NEC Board in favor of the selfserving oral testimony of Appellee's Executive Director. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 28. Appellants/Intervenors adduced evidence at the hearing to the effect that the FRR is the sine qua non for free, fair and transparent elections and that the FRR was materially flawed, intentionally or unintentionally, and that no free, fair and transparent elections could have been held on October 10, 2017 with such materially flawed FRR. To corroborate this evidence, Appellants applied for subpoenas ducestecum and subpoenas ad testificandum for the presiding officer worksheets and the addenda created all over the country; and even though the CDHO has the power to subpoena witnesses and records pursuant to Article 2.9(w) of the Elections Laws, Section 82.4(a) of the Executive Law (the Administrative Procedure Act) and Appellee's own regulations (Elections Hearing Procedures of May 6, 2016, Art. 8.2), the CDHO denied the application for these subpoenas, much to Appellants' prejudice. And to which erroneous ruling, Appellants excepted; and the NEC Board confirmed the CDHO's ruling. And Appellants/Intervenors except. 29. That further to Count Twenty-Nine (29) above, had the presiding officer's worksheets and the addenda from all over the country been produced as in keeping with the subpoena requested for, proof of how