Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at declarationsoftruth.locals.com!

2 months ago

557

News Law and Order election Election of 2000 Election of 2020 Election of 2022 Election of 2024 election fraud politicians president presidential election

Kari Lake takes it to SCOTUS
By Terry A. Hurlbut
Kari Lake, candidate for Governor of Arizona in the 2022 Midterms, now has petitioned the United States Supreme Court. Even before those Midterms, Lake and fellow candidate Mark Finchem (who ran for Secretary of State) challenged the fairness and accuracy of Arizona’s electronic voting machines. This might be the first time any court not tainted with network or ideological corruption will hear this particular matter. It is also the first opportunity for the highest court in the land to review electronic voting machines for accuracy. Ironically, those machines went in as a response to an election in which the Supreme Court did intervene. Lake and Finchem’s attorneys show convincingly that those machines were the wrong reform to avoid the infamous “hanging chads.” In this case they seek only recognition of their standing. Once they have that, they want a court to enjoin the use of these particular electronic voting machines.
Kari Lake files her latest case
Kari Lake is now seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) now holds. (Sen. Sinema has declined to defend her seat, thus leaving it open.) Mark Finchem is running for the Arizona State Senate in Legislative District One – with Donald J. Trump’s endorsement.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112085231737372518
https://twitter.com/RealMarkFinchem/status/1767700317435498998
Arizona will hold its Presidential primary next Tuesday (March 19), and the down-ticket primary on August 6. Naturally, Lake and Finchem want to settle this election-integrity matter before that primary, then the general election (November 5).
The luck of the draw in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been hit or miss even since Trump’s first term. Lake and Finchem clearly “missed,” because the three-judge panel dismissed their lawsuit on October 16, 2023, for lack of standing. Immediately their attorneys explored a petition for review by SCOTUS. Currently the SCOTUS docket records contain an Application for Extension of Time to File (Docket No. 23A622). Justice Elena Kagan, the Supervising Justice for the Ninth Circuit, extended the time twice. Now, apparently in the nick of time, the lawyers have filed a 210-page petition for review. Jordan Conradson at The Gateway Pundit has the best coverage, and TGP is also hosting the document here. (Apparently the Supreme Court hasn’t uploaded it yet.)
Essence of the case
Arizona is a Dominion Voting Services State, as is Georgia. In Arizona, Dominion Voting actually uses a Ballot On Demand print device. This device allegedly can produce a ballot in any of a variety of “styles” for voters who, at any given precinct, might be voting in different sets of elections, depending on their home addresses. In most other jurisdictions (including where your correspondent serves as an Officer of Election), OOEs hand voters a ballot from one or more stacks, each stack holding ballots of a particular “style.” But Arizona has seen fit to print ballots of different styles when a voter shows up.
In the 2022 Midterms, that turned out to be an unmitigated and inexcusable disaster.
https://rumble.com/v1t22q0-red-wave-meets-blue-seawalls.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
County-wide election officials delivered paper of the wrong stock and size, causing unforced and fatal printing errors. Chains of custody broke six ways from Sunday. Lines stretched so long that many voters could not vote at all. Chief OOEs, on their own authority or on advice from higher-ups, sent voters to different precincts. The destination chiefs, of course, weren’t ready for them. And incredibly, State superior courts accepted the excuse that the voters involved could and should have voted early.
Questions even before the election
But even before that debacle, Kari Lake and Mark Finchem had reason to believe the BOD devices, and the scanner-tabulators, were unreliable. It was good reason, in the form of reports of vulnerability – and that hacks had taken place before. That’s why they filed their initial action, on April 22, 2022.
Judge John Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the Arizona District dismissed the matter on August 26, 2022. In granting this summary judgment, Judge Tuchi relied on representations from Maricopa County and the Arizona Secretary of State’s office of precautions they allegedly took to ensure that such hacking as Lake and Finchem feared, could not occur. Beyond that the judge held that the claimed security lapses were “speculative.” He referred to the then-ongoing Georgia election-integrity case, Curling v. Kemp (now Curling v. Raffensperger).
https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
In that case, Donna Curling alleged security breaches of specific machines in a specific election. Obviously the judge held Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to a standard of showing that a breach did occur and affected the outcome of an election in which they were then candidates. That’s similar to other cases in which courts held plaintiffs to higher standards of proof than the law requires.
Not only did the judge throw the case out, but on December 1, 2022, he imposed sanctions on Lake and Finchem’s attorneys. Again he took Maricopa County officials’ word on whether elections were secure or not. At the end of his ruling, he wrote:
Imposing sanctions in this case is not to ignore the importance of putting in place procedures to ensure that our elections are secure and reliable. It is to make clear that the Court will not condone litigants ignoring the steps that Arizona has already taken toward this end and furthering false narratives that baselessly undermine public trust at a time of increasing disinformation about, and distrust in, the democratic process. It is to send a message to those who might file similarly baseless suits in the future.
The appeal
Kari Lake appealed the dismissal on September 16, 2022. The case went before Judges Ronald M. Gould, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Patrick J. Bumatay. These judges owe their appointments to Presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump, respectively. These three judges issued a per curiam opinion – thus hiding how each judge voted. They affirmed Judge Tuchi’s dismissal for lack of standing.
In so affirming, the panel relied on the District Court record, which itself relies on assurances of election security. This particular statement by the District Court seems to be the linchpin of the Courts’ opinions:
[A] system that uses paper ballots for recording votes and electronic machines for tabulating them remains a “paper-based voting system.”
Your correspondent disputes that, and so do Kari Lake and Mark Finchem. If that statement were true, then the French would be wasting their time doing all their official counts as manual counts of the paper ballots, or bulletins, voters hand in.
https://rumble.com/v2w24g4-france-votes-on-paper-why-cant-we.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
The French understand something Judges Tuchi, Gould, and Hurwitz apparently do not. Which is: unless the manual count is the official count, one can make subtle changes to the vote that none would suspect until the Secretary of State certified the election.
What does Kari Lake want?
That’s why Kari Lake wants Arizona – and presumably the rest of the country – to run elections in the French way. Which means: paper ballots, and manual counting of those ballots as the official count.
To support their petition for review by SCOTUS, Lake and Finchem allege that Maricopa County officials flat-out lied to the District Court. One can almost presume this, on the basis of other stories that Jordan Conradson has broken in Arizona. For example:
Maricopa County elections staff broke into certified and sealed scanner-tabulators and inserted removable media containing program updates. What began with new records showing this, continued with video evidence.
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1662893154977083395
https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1662872148921434114
The Lake campaign has also briefed several Arizona State courts on the evidence they uncovered.
Jim Hoft reported, in April of 2023, that the Department of Justice, two weeks before the Election of 2020, had announced an election fraud investigation in Arizona. But after the election, they made no report.
Finally, in their petition, Lake and Finchem made six specific “new … allegations regarding standing”:
• First, Maricopa did not conduct the required [Logic and Accuracy] testing, on which the district court relied to find the risk of election interference speculative.
• Second, Maricopa did not use certified software, on which the district court relied to find the risk of election interference speculative.
• Third, Maricopa used software that made all passwords needed to control Maricopa elections available to anyone with physical or remote access, which supports petitioners’ allegations and evidence that past elections were manipulated.
• Fourth, altering election software without the Arizona Secretary of State’s approval is [a] criminal act under Arizona law, A.R.S. §§16-449(A), 16-452(C), 16-1009, 16-1004(B), 16-1010, thereby evaporating presumptions in their favor under Arizona law. See note 5, infra (Arizona’s “bursting bubble” theory of nonstatutory presumptions).
• Fifth, Maricopa’s officials misrepresented their compliance with Arizona election law (e.g., L&A testing, certified software), which negates any presumptions in their favor under Arizona law. See note 5, infra (Arizona’s “bursting bubble” theory of nonstatutory presumptions).
• Sixth, Maricopa officials abdicated control over the complex election systems to embedded private Dominion employees who lack any presumption of regularity under Arizona law. See note 4, infra.
“Note 4” reads:
Arizona election officials benefit from nonstatutory presumptions of regularity, Hunt v. Campbell, 19 Ariz. 254, 268 (1917), but those presumptions do not apply to private actors engaged in an election. Garcia v. Sedillo, 70 Ariz. 192, 200 (1950) (“the officials in this election were not public officials where we can say that there is a presumption that they acted in good faith”).
“Note 5” reads:
For election officials, nonstatutory presumptions evaporate in the face of rebuttal evidence: “Whenever evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the presumption vanishes.” Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 368 (1945); Golonka v. GMC, 204 Ariz. 575, 589-90 ¶48 (App. 2003) (discussing Arizona’s “bursting bubble” treatment of presumptions).
These are the most sensational allegations, because they tell us that the defendants lied to the District Court. (And perhaps it was “a lie, agreed-upon.”) But Lake and Finchem also raise considerations of “procedural” and “unequal-footing” injury, which the lower courts ignored.
Why can’t people understand?
Arizona’s premier newspaper of record, The Arizona Republic, tries to throw cold water on this case. Laurie Roberts’ column of yesterday is typical. Did she even read the petition? Apparently not.
Funny thing. The new evidence sounds pretty much like the same old Maricopa County-is-the-devil argument they’ve been making all along: altered software, faulty testing, coverups, the usual stuff the courts have rejected.
Not this time! The allegations in the petition reflect evidence that came to light after the appeal.
I don’t know whether this is ENIGMA-level spy stuff that'll shock the world. Or whether it's even true. They appear to offer no backup to support their claim in the 210 pages filed with the Supreme Court.
How convenient. Ms. Roberts has forgotten that such things come forward at oral argument.
What I do know is that this appeal still doesn’t offer any evidence that Dominion’s machines – the ones various independent experts have confirmed were not connected to the internet – were hacked.
That’s not the standard of proof, and she should know that if she presumes to cover an appellate proceeding. The standard is what could happen in the future. As the petition clearly states:
The Article III imminence requirement does not require that petitioners wait to be injured. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2210 (2021). Indeed, in the election context, such a standard is unworkable. Instead, imminence for “risk of future harm” requires only a “risk of harm [that] is sufficiently imminent and substantial.”
Which Kari Lake and Mark Finchem also show.
Laurie Roberts’ X feed clearly shows that she is a Never-Trumper and a Uniparty hack. (Uniparty means the Democratic Party and the old-line Republican establishment. The term refers to the collusion between those two entities, in order to shut-out outside apple-cart upsetters.)
The arguments Ms. Roberts makes against Kari Lake’s chief premise are totally specious. A so-called reporter cries “Foul!” on Gillespie County, Texas, for hand-counting ballots in the March 5 Texas Presidential primary.
https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765477241839034555
https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765478129655746614
Laurie Roberts runs with that:
https://twitter.com/LaurieRoberts/status/1765493624312377481
News flash! Counting by hand for a larger population would not mean limiting counting staff to 200 people. With the same ratio of counting officers to votes cast, we could easily turn our elections around in 24 hours. The French do this all the time. And remember: The Machines demonstrably broke down in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2022.
Moving forward
Assuming the Supreme Court accepts the petition for filing, they’ll likely put it on the agenda for next week’s conference. This will take place on March 22. One can probably expect the Originalists to vote to grant review. So Mr. Justice Thomas will need to persuade Justices Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to support him in this. (The Chief Justice is not likely to want to grant review, given his harangue of his colleagues to reject Texas v. Pennsylvania in 2021.)
The issue of “getting rid of the machines” is not before the Supreme Court; only Kari Lake’s standing is. But Lake has asked the Court to remember its intervention in the Election of 2000. That intervention provoked the introduction of electronic voting machines, first by Diebold, then by Dominion Voting, Election Systems and Software, and a smattering of other vendors who divide a ten percent “market share” among them.
Kari Lake has given true patriots their one chance to “get rid of the machines” for this Election. Until that happens, elections will not be secure. Again, arguments against a hand count are inexcusably specious. The French solved that problem easily: let each voter submit a piece of paper for each race or public question. Hiring enough counting officers to count ballots by hand is surely less expensive than:
• Putting those machines into a warehouse,
• Guarding said warehouse against unauthorized intrusion, and
• Paying the legal fees to defend against challenges like the one at issue today.
Link to:
Trump’s endorsement of Mark Finchem, and Finchem’s acceptance of it:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112085231737372518
https://twitter.com/RealMarkFinchem/status/1767700317435498998