Kari Lake WINS Right to Bring Election Fraud Case to Trial! - Judge DENIES Motion To Dismiss

a reply to: dashen

I predict that this Judge will receive a Federal Express delivery of Lead to his family, just like the last one...

Case dismissed..

lol

originally posted by: rnaa

Yes, The judge has to rule according to the law.

The plaintiff
1) did NOT demonstrate that any laws were broken AND
2) did NOT demonstrate that 'obvious' problems caused voting issues bad enough to affect the outcome.

Incorrect. The plaintiff did exactly that when they demonstrated that there was no count of the ballots deposited in drop boxes at voting sites that were collected on election day before they were delivered to Runbeck, as required by law. This leaves a gaping vulnerability in the process as ballots may have been injected into the ballot stream that did not come from the voting center drop boxes, and there would be no documentation to safeguard against this. You are either lying, misrepresenting facts, or commenting ignorantly here.

I understand that you have problems, but there are NO chain-of-custody issues and the existing safeguards worked extremely well, exactly as designed.

Lets pause for a moment and examine the 'chain of custody' issue. As I understand it the claim is that some workers at the offside data center injected their own ballots into the data stream. I'm not sure where that charge comes from, but if that had happened, then the various check totals would be in a mismatch - specifically the number of ballots entered at polling stations would not match the number of ballots counted.

But in actual fact the numbers tally exactly. This story is a textbook example of a beat up.

It just did not happen. Period.

Again, your argument here completely ignores the fact that there was no valid chain of custody for those drop box ballots that were collected from voting centers on election day. None of those forms listed the numbers of ballots that were being delivered to Runbeck. This is a major vulnerability that a proper chain of custody would have prevented.

If you're not lying, or attempting to misrepresent the facts of the case, then you are commenting ignorantly here. Whoever you're getting your talking points from is misrepresenting the facts. If you've come to your conclusions by personally watching the trial, then you must have missed a lot of the details somehow. I would suggest in that case that you watch the plaintiff's presentation again, paying closer attention this time.

Laws were broken, and the number of ballots affected were more than enough to potentially change the outcome of the election in question. You are incorrect sir.

a reply to: rnaa

Lets pause for a moment and examine the 'chain of custody' issue. As I understand it the claim is that some workers at the offside data center injected their own ballots into the data stream. I'm not sure where that charge comes from, but if that had happened, then the various check totals would be in a mismatch - specifically the number of ballots entered at polling stations would not match the number of ballots counted.

No. That is one of many problems... it is not the only problem, nor is it the biggest problem.

ALL mail-in ballots are transported directly to Runbeck, the ballot printer, with no documentation at all, much less the documentation required by law. Including ballots dropped off at voting precincts on Election Day, picked up from dropboxes, or received by mail. These ballots are taken to the printer without oversight or observation of any kind.

We have absolutely no idea how many ballots are transported to Runbeck. We have no idea how many ballots Runbeck receives. Nor does Runbeck know because they do not count how many ballots they receive as they are received.

Runbeck has full access to voter rolls, updated in real time, including who has received mail-in ballots, who has and has not voted, and their official signatures on record.

As the printer with full access to voter rolls, Runbeck literally has the means and opportunity to add, remove, create, or change any and all ballots as they so choose and we have absolutely no way to know. None. Nada. Zilch.

The political affiliations and donations of Runbeck principals and employees tell us they also have the motive to exploit their circumstances.

But in actual fact the numbers tally exactly. This story is a textbook example of a beat up.

Yes, creative accounting is a thing. Especially easy when there is no documentation -- chain-of-custody-- by which to verify or audit those tallies.

I don't know if you're ignorant or gaslighting, but the fact is -- as exposed under oath in a court of law -- County officials are NOT following the law, they have lied and evaded telling the whole truth, our ballots are not secure, and our elections are not secure.

Whether there is recourse under the law remains to be seen.

But the lack of election integrity in Maricopa County and Arizona is obvious and very real.

Only to dismiss the case in its entirety yesterday. Just saw that the judge said “Nope” and now Hobbs is governor.

You get what you tolerate. That’s the problem in this country. a reply to: dashen

Finished viewing day 2 just awhile ago. I started with this stream that I linked in an earlier post:
rumble.com...
Switched to this one hoping the video might be better quality, and because the other stream was missing a few minutes from the beginning of the day, which this one contained:
rumble.com...

The defense could not refute the claims made by the plaintiffs that I outlined in my earlier post. They did present a defense of the chain of custody with expert witnesses testifying that "this is how it's always done" with the way the mail in ballots were transported on election day without first being counted, and that because they resided within sealed containers, chain of custody was not broken. This does appear to be contrary to the letter of the law as far as I can tell, and as the plaintiffs continued to assert.

The chain of custody forms did have a space for the number of ballots collected on it, which was filled out on drop box ballots collected before election day, but is left blank on the forms concerning the ballots collected on election day. I don't think the defense CAN adequately explain that omission away, and they did not as far as I can tell.

If the burden of proof is to show that the outcome is uncertain based on the failure of these safeguards, and that safeguards were disregarded, and that this failure does appear to be as a result of a conscious decision within the bureaucracy, then they appear to have met that burden in my opinion. The process does appear to have not occurred entirely within the letter of the law. That was preventable, but it was not prevented.

If they are required to show that the outcome definitely would have been different, and that specific officials are proven to have taken specific actions which changed that outcome, I think they might fall short of that. Knowing that few had the authority to make such decisions is not the same as having high definition video from a registered surveillance camera showing an official pushing the "cheat now" button or giving specific orders to engage in cheating, nor is it the same as a signed confession to that effect.

I have not reviewed all of the evidence presented with the case. In my opinion, if the rules intentionally weren't followed, the election should be overturned and a repeat election ordered, to be supervised by an impartial body. I would order the National Guard to conduct it, just to insult and humiliate the local election office, since they couldn't be bothered to follow the rules. Of course, I'm not the judge ruling on the case, I'm just the bad cabbie. Should be interesting to see how the judge rules.

a reply to: Boadicea

As stated above, in my opinion it seems to rest on the burden of proof required. There may of course be other factors involved that I'm not seeing of course.

a reply to: Fairtrade141

Source? I'm not seeing any reporting that confirms this claim, I think you must be mistaken.

link

“Plaintiff has no free-standing right to challenge election results based upon what Plaintiff believes – rightly or wrongly – went awry on Election Day,” Thompson stated in his order. “She must, as a matter of law, prove a ground that the legislature has provided as a basis for challenging an election.”

On Dec. 19, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge dismissed eight out of the 10 claims Lake originally made in her lawsuit. The judge allowed two of her claims of misconduct by election officials to go forward, but they were dismissed on Saturday.

She lost.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

How many times can you repeat "they cheated" and never prove it?

You lost.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

How many times can you repeat "they cheated" and never prove it?

You lost.

The ballot chain of custody laws were not observed and it's clear they were abused. The court cases have something missing (other states too). Enjoy the coming looting of AZ and the other states that ignored their own laws. Joke's on YOU 🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Doh! Looks like I stand corrected...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

How many times can you repeat "they cheated" and never prove it?

You lost.

Thankfully, I no longer live in that state. Hope you enjoy your open border!

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

How many times can you repeat "they cheated" and never prove it?

You lost.

The ballot chain of custody laws were not observed and it's clear they were abused. The court cases have something missing (other states too). Enjoy the coming looting of AZ and the other states that ignored their own laws. Joke's on YOU 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Says you and Gateway Pundit. Yet no legitimate proof.

Fact check: Chain of custody for Maricopa County ballots was secure

During any election, state and local officials document the control and possession of election materials through a process known as the chain of custody. But some social media users claim this process was disrupted in Arizona's Maricopa County during the recent midterm elections. news.yahoo.com...

a reply to: Annee

The "proof" of custody was not presented in court or your Yahoo article. Just the same usual 2nd hand hearsay. 🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

The "proof" of custody was not presented in court or your Yahoo article. Just the same usual 2nd hand hearsay. 🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣

Where and when was it presented in court?

I'll take hearsay over Gateway Pundit.

a reply to: xuenchen

Burden of proof is on the PLAINTIFF, not the defense.

The defense needs only respond to evidence that shows they 'did wrong'.

What actual evidence was presented by the plaintiff that was not explained?

Were Lake's genius lawyers withholding the actual evidence, saving it up for the appeal? Cause, you know, you don't get to present evidence in an appeal.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

That's how it works here in Chicago, and in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Cleveland, and other heavy Democrat cities. The Democrat who is the BEST CHEATER beats the other Democrats. No Republicans get more than 10% of the vote.

Explained nicely by our former governor: www.breitbart.com...

I guess with the chain of custody documents conspicuously absent from the evidence presented, the proof ISN'T there for the chain of custody misconduct, just a strong implication that it occurred. I can see the judge's point. I think it leaves a haze of suspicion on the case in that they would have been very edifying to the proceedings but were not provided, nor ordered to be provided by the court. I wonder why the judge didn't order those forms to be produced. Did the prosecution petition for them?

It seems as though they might have proved intent on the BOD shenanigans if they had made their case more soundly. It seems as though they may have had all the elements necessary to prove that, and just failed to do so. I thought Mr. Parikh's testimony might have gotten them there but that they might have failed to get there with their questioning.

You could see the implication there, that the system appeared to have been hacked, but Mr. Parikh didn't really lay out the mechanisms by which that might occur in his testimony. Nor did he testify much as to the difficulty of modifying the printer settings, and the technical details of such. I don't know for sure either way, could have been pretty easy to change the stuff accidentally as the defense claimed, could have been really hard as he was saying. It seemed like there was more for him to say there that didn't get said though.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: xuenchen

Burden of proof is on the PLAINTIFF, not the defense.

The defense needs only respond to evidence that shows they 'did wrong'.

What actual evidence was presented by the plaintiff that was not explained?

Were Lake's genius lawyers withholding the actual evidence, saving it up for the appeal? Cause, you know, you don't get to present evidence in an appeal.

They wanted to lose, I would so bet my life on that. Otherwise a person like Lake would have fired the lawyer by now.
She's not that stupid that she really thinks an appeal would stand a chance.
It's a show.

This story has a link to a pdf of the judge's ruling:
redstate.com...

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: peaceinoutz

Republicans best learn to cheat better than the Democrats, or they'll eventually lose every single seat across the entire U.S.

That would be a great event in the country and might save it...

What would happen is some SANE conservatives would develop within the democratic party and take us back to when there were decent, sane, reasonable republicans like Jacob Javits, Chuck Percy, Ed Brooke, and many others and the radicals who blindly support immoral people like Trump, a blatant conman and deceiver will fade away, and the country MIGHT be saved.