Nobody is bothering to consider the implications for the judge if he ruled in Lake's favor. Before you chime in with "but muh rule of law..." ask yourself if there would be any point in him ruling in her favor if the AZ Supreme Court would simply reverse him. That is called judicial suicide.
I have no faith in any court to do anything beyond institutionalizing fraudulent elections. How do we know this judge doesn't share the same sentiment? We don't. But we do know that he is a human being; and human beings universally consider their own self interest.
If people think there is some kind of "plan" here, that is hardcore cope. The only "plan" that could exist in this instance is a plan to show people that its a complete waste of time to file election lawsuits. Or better - that it is actually going to cost those who do so dearly.
If the judge was correct in applying a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof, then the judge was correct in reaching the outcome that he did. Lake could never meet that burden of proof; the evidence she needs is in the hands of the defendant and she has no reasonable nor realistic opportunity to obtain it under the AZ election contest statute framework. I said a few days ago that its clear this statute was written without ever contemplating this level of egregious fuckery in elections. "Clear and convincing evidence" is further proof that even the process for contesting rigged elections is rigged.
Now what nobody is talking about is how the judge's opinion is written. He doesn't discredit the evidence. Not hardly at all. Although I think he misstates the testimony of a witness - a clearly erroneous misstatement. I noticed there is ZERO case law in the opinion to support the heightened evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing evidence" he applied here. His cites do not directly support this contention. I am not sure that standard is appropriate in this context for a handful of reasons. Getting into those would be doing a deeper dive than most people are interested in reading and would consume most of my Christmas Eve. But if people are interested you can just drop me a line and I am happy to elaborate. Notwithstanding the actual judgment in the opinion, the judge, in my view, has set this up for the higher court to reverse him on the standard of proof, which would result in him siding with Lake. And not end up getting reversed by the higher court because it would be at their direction he is applying this standard. He seems moved by the evidence. And under a normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard , it would lead him to side with the plaintiff.
You can call that a "plan" if you want to, but this is more like insurance for the judge because he doesn't trust the higher court. A pyrrhic victory is not a win. Especially for him and his family. If I am right, this judge doesn't trust the AZ Supreme Court not to leave him out to dry. If he doesn't trust them, we sure as hell shouldn't either.
Nobody is bothering to consider the implications for the judge if he ruled in Lake's favor. Before you chime in with "but muh rule of law..." ask yourself if there would be any point in him ruling in her favor if the AZ Supreme Court would simply reverse him. That is called judicial suicide.
I have no faith in any court to do anything beyond institutionalizing fraudulent elections. How do we know this judge doesn't share the same sentiment? We don't. But we do know that he is a human being; and human beings universally consider their own self interest.
If people think there is some kind of "plan" here, that is hardcore cope. The only "plan" that could exist in this instance is a plan to show people that its a complete waste of time to file election lawsuits. Or better - that it is actually going to cost those who do so dearly.
If the judge was correct in applying a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof, then the judge was correct in reaching the outcome that he did. Lake could never meet that burden of proof; the evidence she needs is in the hands of the defendant and she has no reasonable nor realistic opportunity to obtain it under the AZ election contest statute framework. I said a few days ago that its clear this statute was written without ever contemplating this level of egregious fuckery in elections. "Clear and convincing evidence" is further proof that even the process for contesting rigged elections is rigged.
Now what nobody is talking about is how the judge's opinion is written. He doesn't discredit the evidence. Not hardly at all. Although I think he misstates the testimony of a witness - a clearly erroneous misstatement. I noticed there is ZERO case law in the opinion to support the heightened evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing evidence" he applied here. His cites do not directly support this contention. I am not sure that standard is appropriate in this context for a handful of reasons. Getting into those would be doing a deeper dive than most people are interested in reading and would consume most of my Christmas Eve. But if people are interested you can just drop me a line and I am happy to elaborate. Notwithstanding the actual judgment in the opinion, the judge, in my view, has set this up for the higher court to reverse him on the standard of proof, which would result in him siding with Lake. And not end up getting reversed by the higher court because it would be at their direction he is applying this standard. He seems moved by the evidence. And under a normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard , it would lead him to side with the plaintiff.
You can call that a "plan" if you want to, but this is more like insurance for the judge because he doesn't trust the higher court. A pyrrhic victory is not a win. Especially for him and his family. If I am right, this judge doesn't trust the AZ Supreme Court not to leave him out to dry. If he doesn't trust them, we sure as hell shouldn't either.
Interesting - a rig of a rig. What tangled webs we weave...