The Dismissal of Kari Lake’s Election Lawsuit Shows Voter Disenfranchisement No Longer Matters

L. Goudsmit. Lawfare is a particularly egregious crime, because it uses the legal system to destroy the legal system. Judge Thompson deliberately raised the metric for proof in Kari Lake’s election lawsuit to include intent, knowing he would rely on this maneuver to dismiss her case. The appearance of justice is not justice, it is a humanitarian hoax. It is the same deceit used by political medicine to dupe the public about Covid vaccines that are not vaccines. Changing the legal definition of a vaccine does not make an experimental mRNA jab a bone fide vaccine. The jab still does not prevent transmission or provide immunity. Changing the rules of evidence does not legitimize election fraud in Maricopa County, it makes a mockery of the legal system. Kari Lake won the election, and the mRNA jabs are not vaccines. Duping the trusting public through lawfare is the preferred weapon of the radical leftist Democrats, and their globalist handlers. There is no justice in rigged elections, and there is no public health in political medicine. There is only the tyranny of appearances. “Space is no longer the final frontier––reality is.”

Peg Tierney.  There has been much commentary on the trial and the judge’s ruling – but the best one I’ve seen so far is from Rachel Alexander who is an Arizona journalist, election lawyer & former prosecutor. SHE WAS LIMITED TO 1000 WORDS.

By Rachel Alexander, TOWNHALL

The trial court judge in Kari Lake’s election lawsuit predictably threw out her case on Saturday, putting on a sham trial that on the surface looked fair to the general public that doesn’t know any better, but to legal minds was a travesty of justice. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson only gave her two days for a trial and issued his ruling immediately afterwards, even though he could have taken several days, and it was one of the biggest, most important cases in the country. Legal experts believe his decision was ghostwritten, they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say.

The standard should have been whether voters were disenfranchised, not all the additional hoops Thompson added. If inner city blacks had been disenfranchised, Thompson would not have added all those extra requirements, he would have made the law fit. Robert Gouveia, a rare attorney who isn’t afraid to speak up and who describes himself as watching prosecutors, judges and politicians, said the standard should have been whether there was voter suppression.

Instead, Thompson said Lake had to show an extremely vague, high bar in order to prevail, that an election official intentionally caused the printer changes in order to change the results of the election, and that it did affect the outcome. He explained away many of the disturbing election anomalies as accidents or mere coincidences. He ignored the vast majority of them; in a show of arrogance, his opinion was less than eight pages long.

Thompson completely ignored all the voters who saw the long lines and gave up trying to vote, as if they didn’t count. Considering probably well over half of the voting locations in Maricopa County were affected, not to mention they were almost all in heavily Republican areas, this was no small disenfranchisement. Many voters have come forward and told how they were unable to vote for this reason or similar, such as a man who couldn’t find parking in time due to the overcrowded parking lot.

Even with the higher burden required by Thompson, well-known lawyer Viva Frei, whose real name is David Freheit, said Lake’s team showed there was intentionality and believed the case was a slam dunk.

It was clear early on Thompson was going to rule against Lake, throwing out eight of her 10 claims, which included observers’ testimony that 90% of mismatched signatures were accepted. In doing so, he trivialized important, good-faith arguments about constitutional and civil rights. The two whittled-down claims he kept allowed him to hold a trial to appear fair, then declare everything OK and the county in the right. Now the Arizona Supreme Court will be set up to uphold it all because these are fact-specific matters and they must defer to the fact-finding discretion of the Superior Court.

Thompson said in his opinion that it was unprecedented in history to set aside an election like that, but he was mincing words. It’s happened many times. In 2013, in Pembroke, North Carolina, a new election was ordered for town council after it came out that at least two candidates helped bring people to the town’s early voting location who were ineligible to vote. In 2018, in Sharpsburg, North Carolina, a judge merely cited “an irregularity” as enough to order a new election. There, only 20-25 voters were alleged to have been disenfranchised.

In 2019, a judge ordered a new election for a Georgia House seat based on merely finding that four voters were ineligible. Also that year, in North Carolina, Democrats were all too happy to praise a judge ordering a new election where a contractor was accused of illegally collecting hundreds of ballots for the winning Republican candidate. He wasn’t even convicted yet, merely accused.

In 2020, after hundreds of mail-in ballots were discovered in a mailbox in Paterson, New Jersey, a judge ordered a new election in the city council race that was affected. Last year, in Surry County, North Carolina, a judge ordered a new election in the commissioners’ race over the mere action of a poll worker informing voters that one of the candidates was deceased. The courts in these cases did not set high bars for proof unlike Thompson.

In Berlin, Germany this year, the court ordered a new election for the exact same reason Lake requested one, long lines due to logistical issues. There was no requirement of intent or showing that the problems affected the outcome.

The left and its comrades in the MSM pretend that these cases don’t exist, and they pretend that there’s never been any evidence produced in the election lawsuits, when the reality is it’s a staggering amount, especially the witness testimony — one witness’s statements alone has been enough to send people to the death penalty.

Attorney Tom Renz analyzed the decision throwing out Arizona Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem’s similar election lawsuit and came to a similar conclusion, calling the judge’s reasoning “absolute garbage.”

Compounding the problem, hardly any attorneys dare speak up about this, since they risk being targeted and disbarred. So they’re not writing about it or going on talk shows, and the best of the bunch have already been targeted so they’ve either already been disbarred or have to lie low. Nor are they taking on representation, leaving candidates like Lake to rely upon non-election attorneys. When the Cochise County Supervisors gutsily called for a hand count, they could find no attorney who dared represent them.

A friend described the situation, “We don’t have a justice system and voting is becoming pointless. Only Democrat votes matter in our country now.” Voter fraud experts believe the Democrats started targeting states years ago, like Washington and California, then moved on to Colorado. Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania are their latest targets. They intend to move on to states like Florida next if not stopped. Voter disenfranchisement has become the most important issue facing Republicans today, and if not stopped, we will become a one-party nation.

***

by Kari Donovan, REPUBLIC BRIEF

Kari Lake announced that she would file an appeal after a judge rejected her claims in a lawsuit that sought to overturn her election loss in the Arizona gubernatorial race to Democrat Katie Hobbs by around 17,000 votes.

The judge had promised to consider the evidence of highly suspicious problems at vote tabulation centers and in Maricopa, CO, especially where machine tabulators had failed so spectacularly that there could have been no way that all of the errors were not planned and carried out on purpose.

In the end, the judge basically ruled that the election officials were doing the best they could and supported the State’s position that people should vote on election day- because it was too much work for the election officials to handle appropriately.

Lake has shown that she is determined to take the issue to the next level and push for election reform, even in the face of this last loss.

Noteworthy, Lake’s team reported a townhall article that makes a lot of sense:

“The Dismissal of Kari Lake’s Election Lawsuit Shows Voter Disenfranchisement No Longer Matters @Rach_IC :”Legal experts believe his decision [by Judge Thompson] was ghostwritten, they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say.”

The Dismissal of Kari Lake’s Election Lawsuit Shows Voter Disenfranchisement No Longer Matters @Rach_IC:”Legal experts believe his decision [by Judge Thompson] was ghostwritten, they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say.” https://t.co/g4vvqzzbKz

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) December 26, 2022

“The trial court judge in Kari Lake’s election lawsuit predictably threw out her case on Saturday, putting on a sham trial that on the surface looked fair to the general public that doesn’t know any better, but to legal minds was a travesty of justice. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson only gave her two days for a trial and issued his ruling immediately afterward, even though he could have taken several days, and it was one of the biggest, most important cases in the country. Legal experts believe his decision was ghostwritten; they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say,” Townhall reported.

Here is how the local AZ news reported on the shocking- yet somehow expected ruling:

“Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson issued a decision in the suit at 10:45 a.m. on Christmas Eve, shooting down all of Lake’s claims. His decision came after a two-day trial on Wednesday and Thursday in which Lake’s team attempted to convince him that a Maricopa County employee had intentionally tampered with Election Day ballot printers in an effort to disenfranchise Republican voters and that the county’s failure to adhere to chain-of custody rules for early ballots dropped off on Election Day led to thousands of illegal ballots being injected into the system,” Arizona Mirror reported.

Lake tweeted Saturday morning: “This Judge did not rule in our favor. However, for the sake of restoring faith and honesty in our elections, I will appeal his ruling.”

Marin Walsh reported for Conservative Brief:

Judge Thompson wrote in his decision: “Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses — and for that matter, Defendants’ witnesses as well — was asked about any personal knowledge of both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence.”

Over 200 people submitted statements to the court detailing their frustrating experiences trying to vote on Election Day in Maricopa County. However, Judge Thompson stated that many of those voters were still able to cast their ballots.

“This Court acknowledges the anger and frustration of voters who were subjected to inconvenience and confusion at voter centers as technical problems arose during the 2022 General Election,” Thompson wrote.

The AZ Mirror reported:

Lake relied on witnesses like cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh, who testified that issues with ballot-on-demand printers on Election Day were caused by a 19-inch ballot image being printed onto 20-inch paper. He opined that it was done intentionally and could not have happened by accident.

Maricopa County Co-Elections Director Scott Jarrett later explained that the smaller printing size happened after other printer problems had already cropped up on Election Day, when techs changed the settings to “fit to print” while they were troubleshooting. Jarrett said it only happened at three voting centers and impacted 1,300 ballots, though Parikh claimed that he found the missized ballots in batches he inspected from six voting centers.

Thompson did not buy into Parikh’s theory about the ballots.

“If the ballot definitions (sizes) were changed, it stands to reason that every ballot for that particular definition printed on every machine so affected would be printed incorrectly,” Thompson wrote. “As Plaintiff’s next witness indicates, that was not the case on Election Day. In either event, Mr. Parikh acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of any intent behind what he believes to be the error.”

Judge Thompson said that Lake’s team did not provide evidence proving voters were turned away or refused ballots on Election Day.

“No election in Arizona has ever been set aside, no result modified, because of a statistical estimate,” Thompson wrote, regarding Baris’ testimony. “Election contests are decided by votes, not by polling responses, and the Court has found no authority suggesting that exit polling ought to be used in this manner.”

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

An attorney for Maricopa County said the county will likely seek sanctions against Lake’s legal team over its lawsuit, the Washington Post reported.

“Tom Liddy, an attorney for Maricopa County, confirmed to The Washington Post that the county will be seeking sanctions,” the newspaper reported.