He does towards the end of the brief, but here is the rub. He basically admits this would be evidence under Nevada Law but the law doesn't clarify this applies to election challenges so the court (i.e., the judge himself) says the evidence must meet a higher standard and based on this, the evidence fails to meet this higher standard. In other words, he took it upon himself to change what the definition of evidence is and then says it doesn't meet this new standard. Clear bias of the court.