What’s going on with election lawsuits? Here’s an update!

9 Comments / 9 Comments

1. @Ted
   The upside is that Lake has a really strong case even for the high bar set by the judge. Among other things, she has a particularly key witness, Clay Parikh, whose credentials include being:

   the lead information systems security officer for the ground missile defense system for Northrop Grumman. Prior to that, he worked for Lockheed Martin and Leidos through their merger as the deputy cyber manager for the Army Corps of Engineers.

   He also worked as a security tester and a security subject matter expert for Wyle Laboratories and Pro V&V. Parikh claims to have tested hundreds of voting systems, including the Dominion and ES&S voting machines, throughout his career as part of the certification process for the EAC and Secretaries of State. He holds a CISSP certification (Certified Information System Security Professional), as well as certification as an ethical hacker and a certified hacking forensics investigator.

   The lynchpin of his testimony will be that

   “given the required standards and procedures involved with the election process, an unintentional widespread failure of this magnitude occurring could not arise absent intentional misconduct.”

   https://yournews.com/2022/12/13/2473242/massive-machine-failures-and-voter-disenfranchisement-in-red-districts-of/

   Parikh’s credentials are beyond anything which might make him anything less than an expert witness, and as such, his statement should bear a significant weight, even before a court which is predisposed to rule against the merits, not to mention the effect it might likely have on public opinion as the case is being publicly streamed. This coming on the heels of the Twitter Files releases could change the mood in the country, and that could certainly have an effect on the courts…maybe.

   FYI Despite all of this, Robert Barnes gives Lake a 1 in 10 chance of winning the trial and a 1 in 20 or less chance of winning on appeal.

2. @Peloni
   That’s my concern also.

3. @Ted
   Turley is correct. The state law was changed in 2020 and lists the following five parameters, any of which will trigger a successful contest:

   1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.

   2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.

   3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.

   4. On account of illegal votes.

   5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal.

   Hence, the judge has absolutely set the bar artificially high. Also, the lack of any revue of the signatures was a strong tell of how the judge was going to rule, IMO. The most basic challenge should have included the signature matches which would easily have failed, which is why the judge did not include it. This in combination with the high bar stated by the judge, consequently, suggests that the trial is simply theatrics to claim that some element of review was offered and it failed. This will then proceed to an expedited appeal process which will have the final say at SCOTUS where at least ACB – who has been a major impediment to election reviews since she became a member of the court – will likely side with the Liberals. Of course, since we have made it to the trial phase, a great deal of malfeasance and outright obvious fraud will likely be exposed by Kurt Olson – who wrote the 2020 Texas Appeal and the Lindel lawsuit which not one state supported – during the trial. This will place a great deal of pressure on the courts to change their previous course.

   This should, however, all be considered in the context that should Lake and her associates win their 2022 election bids, it would mean that they would be free to, and quite motivated to, expose and prosecute everything that took place in the 2020 election, which the established power bearers in the US can not afford to allow.

4. @Peloni
   Ruling. Lake must show at trial that the machines were intentionally tampered with.
   Jonathan Turley says this is not the standard that the law requires.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDKTPSktqI

5. Update on Kari Lake election challenge court case:
   Lake will NOT be calling Kati Hobbs as a witness. Hobbs fought the subpoena to be called to testify, but lost, but Lake has since withdrawn her request for Hobbs to be called. The reason is that Lake will have only 5 1/2 hrs to make her case and she is focusing on the failures in the election process and the Maricoupa election officials. [source: Brian Cates and Tracy Beanz] That’s unfortunate, but strategically fortunate. Tomorrow will be a very interesting day.

6. Abraham Hamadeh lawsuit will go to trial, request to inspect ballots approved

   …
   To prove his claims, Hamadeh requested permission to inspect ballots in Navajo, Maricopa and Pima counties. Judge Lee Jantzen approved that request and set a trial date for 9 a.m. Friday, Dec. 23.

   The lawsuit has been criticized by opponents for lacking any concrete evidence and while Jantzen agreed that his rulings must be tied to facts, he said Hamadeh should be given an opportunity to make his argument. 

   “Plaintiff has a high burden to meet in order to have an election overturned. The Court must make these determinations based on facts and not mere conclusions,” Jantzen wrote. “However, at this stage in the unique proceedings of an election contest, the Court finds the Plaintiff has the right to present its case and even gather additional information.” 

   To be successful, Hamadeh needs to establish that each claim of misconduct he pointed to in his lawsuit actually occurred and that all of it influenced the election enough to compromise the outcome of the race. 
   …

   The second statewide election fraud cast to survive summary judgement. Fraud is a high bar to prove, but the is no chance that these elections were accidentally thrown. Now we get discovery and depositions, and the cases will be televised.

7. Kari Lake heads to trial after judge allows two out of 10 of her election lawsuit claims

   Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is heading to trial after a judge allowed two out of 10 of her election lawsuit claims to move forward Monday.

   Lake had brought forward a civil complaint earlier this month to overturn her 2022 midterm election loss against Democrat Katie Hobbs. Judge Peter Thompson decided that two claims, one regarding her allegations about illegal tabulator configurations and the other about violations pertaining to ballot chain of custody, can move forward.

   “Our Election Case is going to trial. Katie Hobbs attempt to have our case thrown out FAILED. She will have to take the stand & testify. Buckle up, America. This is far from over,” Lake beamed on Twitter.

   To be successful in her lawsuit, Lake’s legal team must prove that “printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome,” according to the judge. She must also show that the lack of chain of custody was “both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.”

   Lake had seized on voting printer malfunctions in Maricopa County during the midterm election and procedural issues surrounding the execution of the election in her lawsuit as evidence that the midterm cycle was rife with malfeasance.

   In the claim about tabulator configurations, she alleged that malfunctioning printers in Maricopa County left them vulnerable to hacking and blamed the situation on “intentional action.” In the second claim, she alleged that there were breaches of policy for the chain of custody of ballots.
   …

   Thank you Kari Lake! This is a momentous victory!

8. Barr must have been aware of the FBI/CIA nexus with Twitter et al, did nothing.
   Barr knew veracity of Hunter’s laptop, squelched public discussion.
   Barr tracked Durham cases, extended time period beyond election.
   Barr’s DOJ did not pursue unconstitutional election changes in PA.

   Video of Barr scoffing at ‘2000 Mules’ is an insult to Americans.

   1

9. Barr stated no fraud and blocked all 2020 investigations!

   1