Kari Lake vs Katie Hobbs ... plus Arizona Election News

[Pompeii]

[Pompeii]

The Fight for Arizona Election Trial: Lake v. Hobbs Day 1 - 12/21/2022

 

[redmill]

Killary just bought a life policy on Kari Lake . She has a knack for detecting suicides . 

[Pompeii]

3 hours ago, Pompeii said:

The Fight for Arizona Election Trial: Lake v. Hobbs Day 1 - 12/21/2022

 

 On break, will start backup at 3pm.

[Pompeii]

5 hours ago, Pompeii said:

The Fight for Arizona Election Trial: Lake v. Hobbs Day 1 - 12/21/2022

 

 On Break, will be back 5pm eastern

[Pompeii]

In Todays Trial: >>> You missed a GOOD One!

Expert Clay Parikh Testifies and blows them away .... 

 

[Pompeii]

GOT YA!!!! >>> It's an INVALID BALLOT!! 

 

 

[Pompeii]

Final day of Kari Lake's election challenge continues

 

 

[Basset3]

Something is terribly rotten....and it isn't in Denmark, that's for sure.  Appears to be the Democratic Party that gives off that horrible odor.

[Pappy]

 

 

 

 

 

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

Yesterday after end of Trial...

 

 

[Pompeii]

Rundown of Trial highlights plus accusations from 2021 

 

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

.https://t.co/gyjGT7kXBY

THREAD: After reading this judges order in detail, it is a useless exercise to try to counter it with evidence, because he didn’t use any to come to his decision. What an absolute disgrace it truly is. https://t.co/gyjGT7kXBY https://t.co/q7m6AqiJAP

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) December 27, 2022

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

THREAD: This thread will constitute my analysis of the Special Action in Lake v. Hobbs. Buckle up!

Immediately the Lake team uses the proper interpretation of AZ law; that the results of the election are UNCERTAIN. They will get into how the judge erred in his interpretation very shortly.

They state what was proven at trial; failures on Election Day were deliberate. They state what Maricopa has done; Marginalize the deliberate acts with claims of “hiccups” and diminish their impact. This, even as the closing argument blamed voters (Liddy: “You reap what you sow”)

This summarizes nicely the number of ballots in question at a MINIMUM, restates that ballots were misconfigured illegally (truth), and again introduces the signature verification issues which were dismissed due to laches, an argument they refute competently in a few moments.

Here is what they actually needed to prove at trial; that by a preponderance of the evidence, misconduct or illegal votes render the outcome UNCERTAIN. They did this.

Lake is asking the higher court to order a new election. That is the remedy being sought.

Here they explain why Special Action is warranted, due to the fact that Hobbs will be sworn in next week. They want Ducey to remain as governor while they conduct the new election, which will stop any harm to the public due to the overlap.

They are also going to discuss why the dismissal of the other claims of action was incorrect, and place specific attention on signature verification while gently touching on the other claims. For this point, though- the standard the judge used is incorrect. (Highlighted)

Important to understand: On the counts that were not heard at bench trial, the appeals court has to accept the well plead factual allegations as *true*. For the other two which were heard at bench trial, they use the testimony and evidence at trial.

They then go through a summary of two witnesses testimony as to the chaos on Election Day; something we have reviewed in depth and I won’t repeat here again. The first two witnesses they choose are Bettencourt (t-tech) and roving GOP attorney Sonnenklar. (Cont) 

They also point to the over 200 witness affidavits included at trial in exhibit.

Coming out of the gate, they are hammering Jarrett and his perjury on the stand. He testified on FOUR separate occasions that he had never heard of, and it was impossible for, a 19” image to be printed on a 20” ballot paper.

This is nonsense. In truth, he did know that it occurred and he knew that it occurred not only in THIS election, but also in elections prior to this.

Highlighted in yellow is the reason why the judge CLEARLY erred in his decision, and in his glossing over of this fatal flaw in the election. CoC was not maintained, Jarrett couldn’t produce dupes, and I hammered this home in response to everyone saying “but their votes counted!”

There were only two ways this could happen, Parikh testified on day 1.

Either settings were changed to override the ballot image, or another ballot image was loaded in to the system. Both intentional and deliberate.

NO. OTHER. WAY.

Jarrett changed his tune when brought in to testify by defendants. On cross exam, he became evasive. His excuses don’t hold up to scrutiny.

He admitted it had happened several times before in an attempt to show it was a common hiccup, even though he didn’t:

1. Inform the public it had happened
2. Report it to the AG office when directly asked about Election Day issues
3. Inform anyone abt. Root cause analysis.

They then detail the testimony of @Peoples_Pundit and why that was material, and get into CoC issues and the testimony of Ms. Honey. Her testimony was erroneously portrayed by the defense, and the judge took that rather than her words and ran with it. 

Chain of Custody was NOT followed. All ballots are required by law to be counted at MCTEC, and Richer testified there are too many of them, so they are counted at Runbeck.

They then introduce the signature matching issues and their importance, to get into the legal argument on laches shortly.

Here are the issues the appellate court needs to work through. Notice, included are other counts the judge dismissed in the first go round.

The standard by which the appellate court must decide:

We will now get in to the legal reasons that the judge made an error in his decision to withhold relief.

Plaintiff argues they erred in three different respects, discussed in more detail below.

The trial court rejected expert testimony because it provided a “range” that suppressed turnout would have effected the vote, and one side of that range still had Hobbs ahead. However, ranges are accepted and if the range even intimates UNCERTAINTY relief should be granted.

They discuss why the “clear and convincing” standard doesn’t apply to *all* election lawsuits, and dive into instances where that standard would shift the burden to the *defendants* to disprove the allegations set forth; this makes sense if we want to uphold confidence in elec.

The trial court erred in it’s interpretation of “misconduct” as to intentionality, but the appellate court has said differently of election contests. Here, negligent maladministration AS WELL AS intentional acts are considered “misconduct.” If actions render a vote uncertain…

Under the interpretation of the law, the plaintiff showed that the number of non-compliant ballots vastly surpasses the margin of victory. The very appellate court they are in front of has ruled using this standard before, as noted in the last sentence. They set the precedent.

That is important, and powerful. Courts do EVERYTHING based on precedent, interpretation, and the law. If this very court had set precedent to interpret the way that Lake is arguing, to go against their own precedent would be almost insulting to the very court hearing the appeal. 

The lower court erred by requiring “felonious conduct” rather than “outcome altering” or “outcome clouding” impacts; which makes sense, as I said throughout that they aren’t in criminal court, and didn’t have the opportunity for discovery let alone forensics. Think about it.

Next, even though they *did* prove outcome determinative issues, the courts interpretation of that is INCORRECT, otherwise fraud could escalate in ways undeterminative until they aren’t, thereby allowing fraud in elections. This is why *uncertainty* is all that is required.(Cont)

What would stop fraud in elections then, if the requirement would be to come up with an exact number of fraudulent votes each time it was alleged. That reading of statute doesn’t make good sense, and is incorrect. 

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

OAN Roy Francis
UPDATED 1:22 PM PT – Friday, January 13, 2023

The Arizona Court of Appeals has agreed to expedite consideration of Kari Lake’s lawsuit which alleges that the 2022 midterm election was flawed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals has set a date of February 1st for conferencing on Kari Lake’s lawsuit attempting to overturn the results of the 2022 General election.

— Dr. Andrew Jackson (@DrAndrewJackson) January 13, 2023
In an order issued on January 9th, the court ordered a reset of the “matter for conference on February 1st, 2023.” The court has also reportedly agreed with Lake’s argument that her challenge should be handled as “a special action petition.”

According to the order, Governor Katie Hobbs (D-Ariz.) and her lawyers have until January 17th to respond and make the case as to why Lake’s challenge should be rejected.

After a Maricopa County judge had rejected her case in December, the Republican petitioned both the state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had denied her petition, saying that the lawsuit has to go through the Appeals Court first.

Lake filed her lawsuit against Hobbs, Maricopa County supervisors, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, along with other officials. The lawsuit asserts that the county’s handling of the midterm election was flawed and that it had disenfranchised Election Day voters. She argued that these issues were enough to sway the election results. She had lost by around 17,000 votes.

The lawsuit also claimed that dozens of Maricopa County ballot printers had not worked properly on Election Day, resulting in votes that were in her favor not counting.

42%

That's the % of ballots (48 out of 113) that we examined that were 19-inch ballots printed on 20-inch paper.

Our Cyber Expert testified (under the penalty of perjury) that this could not have happened absent of intentional misconduct.

He will do so again for our appeal.

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) January 13, 2023
Lake had hired independent pollster Richard Baris as a witness during the trial. Baris asserted that he thinks the technological issues on Election Day disenfranchised enough votes to have altered the outcome of the contest. He claimed that the majority of Maricopa Election Day voters tended to be Republicans and that between 25,000 and 40,000 persons who ordinarily would have voted didn’t do so because of tabulator and printer issues.

Our appeal is scheduled to be heard before the court on February 1st.

Do not underestimate @KariLake's desire to get justice for the people of Arizona.

It doesn't matter how long it takes.

She will see this through. https://t.co/3wgs5eyKOP

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) January 12, 2023
Maricopa County judge Peter Thompson had thrown out her lawsuit saying that she did not produce enough evidence to support her claims in December, although he ruled that Lake should not be sanctioned and fined to pay thousands of dollars.

A court date for Lake’s challenge has been reportedly scheduled for March

[Pompeii]

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/kari-lakes-election-case-set-to-be-heard-on-feb-1-report/

[Pompeii]

179,000

 

[Pompeii]

 

[Pompeii]

THIS IS HUGE!!!