“The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four Justices to move the case forward.”
That didn’t happen. This guy doesn’t even know this. Check out the docket for yourself. “On appeal from the 10th circuit”
As I said before, this is a horrible lawsuit that is cloaked in people’s righteous anger over election fraud and the failure for any elected official to do anything about it. It reeks of grifting.
Any “law experts” defending this have given it away they are not “experts” or they are just plain retarded.
That we even still hear about this case is proof that people will fall for anything. This is a joke lawsuit written by the clueless and wrapped neatly in everyone’s anger about election fraud. I can’t believe it still gets mentioned here multiple times a day. It will not get a single vote to hear this case. Write this down after you downvote me. But don’t downvote me until you have read all the filings in this case at the district/appeals/scotus levels. I have. That’s how I know how big a larp this has turned into. And at least have the balls to come up with something substantive as to why this case is legit if you are going to downvote. You can search my post history if you want to see my issues with this case.
Of course he didn’t work for the fbi. It was the cia.
Early 20s is the age where mental illness will often manifest. So that is one thing.
Speaking as someone who struggled in their early-mid 20s at being anything but a sloth, I can tell you that a large portion of the problem is that what is expected of you doesn’t line up with what you were meant to do. Combine that with this generation’s participation trophy life filled with bogus platitudes of how adulthood is, there is a massive disconnect. What you thought you’d experience vs what you actually experience causes cognitive dissonance. Which can manifest itself in depression.
I am not sure if I would be who I am today if I did it differently at that age. I never should have gone to college until I was 25. Wasn’t mature enough. I did it because I was expected to. All my friends did and my parents basically expected I would go. Saying nope not doing that didn’t go well for me. College was great socially; none of my education is applicable to my career.
Maybe this isn’t the answer, but after high school kids need to figure out for themselves what they are suited for and what they want to do. Simply “go to college, get a degree” is probably only fit for about 20% of the people who go that route. College might be a better fit later on once you figure out what you want to do.
As a parent, I will not cast judgment on what my kids say they want to do. I remember my own parents doing this and it lead me to paralysis. Couldn’t disappoint mom n dad, right? Until the decision only involved how I felt about it, I didn’t break out of this mess. And it was pretty bad…I was fairly worthless from 21-24. And from 17-20 I was a slight step up from worthless.
Did you see part 4 with Raymond Liddy on the list? Must be brother of that asshat lawyer representing the defense in the Lake case.
Intentional misconduct is an element of the elections contest statute cause of action for claims against the county board. A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1). Well…misconduct is. That misconduct, according to this judge, must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence.” That is an enhanced evidentiary burden over the usual “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The latter meaning slightly more likely than not to be true; or greater than 50% chance. “Clear and convincing” is a mid point between greater than 50% chance of being true and beyond a reasonable doubt.
9th circuit defines it in their jury instructions as “When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For a number of reasons, I am not certain that “clear and convincing” is actually the required and appropriate evidentiary standard. I can go into that, but its a deep dive and most find it is tmi.
Intentional is a pretty arbitrary mens rea applied in a civil context. We aren’t talking about a criminal offense - yes what they did was criminal, but that isn’t part of the election contest statute. And we even impose culpability with potential lengthy incarceration time under both negligence and recklessness. So I am unsure why this is the standard - it is not prescribed by the legislature in the statute. They could have written “intentional misconduct” but they chose to omit that word. We are to assume that the absence of a term in a statute is the equivalent of its exclusion unless otherwise noted.
In tort law, “intentional” means that you intended the act. Not that you intended the outcome. Culpability in most personal injury torts does not hinge on whether you intended to harm someone; only that you intended the act that inflicted the harm. In an elections contest context, simply changing the printer configuration is an intentional act. Skipping the chain of custody forms for drop box votes until they arrive at a central facility is an intentional act. To be considered unintentional, it would require a showing of force, coercion, incapacitation, or sleep. Failing to act by itself, without more, would be unlikely to be considered intentional. Failing to act time after time after time after time would not rise to the level of intentional, but it would be quite easy to find recklessness. Which is often treated the same as intentional.
Disenfranchisement would warrant some sort of remedy. But that was the weakest part of the argument. There is no reliable way to ascertain how many people this prevented from voting. We know it did. But it is pure speculation in any other form. Judge didn’t like it because its a big 17k margin to overcome with basically a guess as to whether it altered the outcome or not. It is probably wrong to consider this question in a vacuum without viewing it in light of the other misconduct claim. I can understand his reluctance on that basis. You gotta be able to identify a sufficient number of people who didn’t cast a vote specifically on this basis. That will be virtually impossible. You’d never know who was a hack plant to sabotage your evidence at trial and who was legitimately disenfranchised.
The inability to get the necessary evidence an ordinary civil case would provide along with time to perfect arguments is the crime of this statute. It never contemplated this kind of shenanigan. If this judge is correct in his application of the law and the standards, this law is incapable of providing relief from lawless elections.
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.
If we get through tomorrow with no ruling, I think that is a very favorable sign. Not a guarantee. Just a higher likelihood of a good outcome.
If he takes the full amount of time, that is almost certainly because throwing out this election will be virtually a first of its kind with this level of bullshit. Which means that he has to do some heavy research to develop as ironclad a ruling as possible. Because if he throws it out and leaves low hanging fruit for the appellate court (could be court of appeals, could be AZ Supreme Court) to reverse him, he will be fucked and it will have meant nothing. This is probably the hardest opinion he will have ever written. And most lawyers have never written anything to this level.
The remedy is a very complex issue; one that is going to require some serious brain power to work out. Can’t hold a one county one office election under AZ law. Nor under 14th amendment (see bush v. Gore). Unsure if he can order a statewide single office election…maybe? Most likely, if he sides with lake, he will order her certification. Running a new one is probably the lowest hanging fruit to reverse this guy. And dangerous in that doing this wrong could result in a higher court throwing the entire case out because it lacks standing - the final component of standing is the relief available is likely to redress the injury. If he lets the higher court boot the remedy as unlawful, it opens the door to there being no remedy. No remedy = no standing. Case dismissed.
So pray for this guy. Not only does he need nuts of steel; he needs 160 iq brain power.
I know a fierce tribal law attorney. One who I pray I would never been on opposing sides with. Lord help the person she was prosecuting. She is now a sitting Supreme Court justice for a tribe. I don’t know that this affects her ability to continue to practice in other tribal jurisdictions. Just FYI, she is NOT based. But she is fierce. She also would probably not know me by name so beyond the link I can give you, I don’t have much else to offer. https://twitter.com/profeaglewoman
Sounds like you have some issues:
- jurisdictional - does the tribe have total jurisdiction over this matter, or can this be moved into federal court?
- double jeopardy - tribal courts and federal/state courts are separate sovereigns. You can, thanks to SCOTUS, be prosecuted by all 3 for the same offense if it violates a statute of each sovereign. Magically this does NOT violate double jeopardy.
- If you could move this, would you want to? For most offenses, tribal courts are not permitted by federal law to imposes sentences longer than a year.
Lawyers don’t like malpractice complaints. But making one in these kinds of circumstances aren’t going to suddenly get them to start working. You need a new lawyer that gives a shit. Focus on these charges and this trial. Work on settling scores after that. Reach out to that tribal lawyer I linked you to. At the very least, she could point you in the right direction.
Isn’t it up to 4 arkancides?
Wasn’t that who they paid a visit to in search of Pelosi’s missing laptop?
Because you have not ever watched a trial where the lawyers had less than a week to prepare. All of this evidentiary shit is worked out 30 days pre-trial. But we aren't having a normal trial. Still, I would agree that there is an appearance of idiocy and incompetence here. Even if it is rationally explained away. Hopefully it does not affect the weight the judge gives the evidence.
It is obvious that Runbeck is an instrument of malfeasance for ballots just like ERIC is the same for voter rolls.
What I cannot figure out is how utilizing Runbeck is illegal according to AZ law as so many claim. I see zero statutes about this. Richer was wise enough to cover his ass in stating that Runbeck cannot process these and does not do so. It is county election workers along with partisan and non partisan observers that do so. However, we know this to be untrue. Except to date, this information has not been mentioned in court by Lake's lawyers.
As someone really dialed into this and been watching this hearing all day, I did not come away with such a clean admission as is claimed. Granted, there is a lot to process. And maybe through deductive reasoning he made this admission. But it wasn't low hanging fruit he left, and I don't think that Lake's lawyer really highlighted this if that was what was said.
Find the duplication number from election day and find the adjudication number from election day. Together, it may very well exceed the total number of votes cast on election day. But for sure it will be more than half of the votes.
I don't think that they did this for purposes of causing havoc at polling stations. I think they did it for purposes of sending more likely than not Lake votes to adjudication instead of adjudicating redundant Hobbs votes. This is more efficient and would not create absurd turnout numbers as crazy amounts of total votes in the system need to be increased in order to ratio Hobbs over the line. Why adjudicate a Hobbs vote when that doesn't help you rig?
I hate this point because it is so damn convoluted. Which makes it difficult to carry heavy weight with the judge unless he damn sure understands what is being said. Here is the best way to put it:
Ballot paper for this election is 20". What was attested to by the expert is that the printers were printing an image that was scaled to 19" paper but it was still printed on 20" paper. This would cause the scanner to reject it when doing its security marker checks because they'd all be in the wrong place.
These ballots are not fraudulent. These ballots are sabotaged. In order to count these (if they ever did) they would all need to be duplicated and printed to the correct scale for the scanners to read. Which, with that sample size, if extrapolated would be 10s of thousands or perhaps even 100s of thousands of sabotaged ballots requiring duplication. Which happens at Runbeck.
The witness stated that it is not possible to inadvertently do this. That the EMS program that executes the printing on a laptop that acts as a print spooler would have to be configured this way. In other words, this could not happen unless it was intentional.
Hopefully he gets the "Big Bob" treatment in gitmo for a long time beforehand.
How could he be worse than Pelosi? Or Swalwell? On par with, ok. But worse? Need to see wtf the dude was up to so as to warrant such honors.
Ya I saw that. If that is the best she's got, its a problem. No judge is going to abide by the law and throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots without some kind of evidence that they were unlawfully cast on some other basis besides lack of chain of custody. They should throw them out for that. But they won't because it will be viewed as some miniscule technical violation. Even though the statutes must be strictly complied with. Hopefully, the attorney(s) tell the judge that he would not be disenfranchising anyone in such a case. The people who disenfranchised lawful voters are the asshats that failed to maintain required chain of custody documents that are for purposes of securing the election.
There needs to be proof of a number of votes injected in this manner that are not real voters casting real votes which exceed the margin of victory. If she can demonstrate that, she's golden. If not, be prepared for a judge to find that this was violated but wouldn't be willing to do anything about it without more.
All they get to present are on the counts regarding the printer issues and the chain of custody. Although chain of custody alone ought to invalidate the entire election, I can tell you with certainty that without proof rising much higher beyond the speculative level, no judge is going to want to throw out the election on this basis. Even though the statutes must be strictly complied with.
There is no “fraud” being tried. And Lake’s lawyers disclaimed they were arguing it. Because fraud has to be pled with particularity - who what when where why. There was none of that in the 70 page complaint. Nor could there reasonably be when the evidence of it is in possession of the defendants. Doesn’t change the standard.
The printer issue looks like its coming down to an expert’s testimony. But if they have not examined the machine, it is not going to be very persuasive. Even if correct.
This is what I mean about the shortened timeline being complete bs and a very difficult hurdle to navigate. I am hoping it is possible. A bad outcome will hang around for a long time.
Does the pope shit in the woods?
I hope she has really damn good evidence. Losing a trial on the merits will be a huge blow to further election litigation across the country. No judge is going to entertain a case again if this one is a dud.
I wouldn’t be worried if this was on a normal trial timeline. But this is super fast without opportunity to do detailed inspections of equipment and conduct depositions. I don’t know how you rebut the presumption in favor of the validity of the election on this short time line. Let alone with little to no investigation.
Would be an injunction if unban was not allowed.
They did not accept the case under rule 11. Never happened. Check the docket for yourself. “On appeal from the 10th circuit.”
You are relying on the interpretation provided by Brunson of his interactions with the clerk of the Supreme Court. None of which make sense. All of your questions are easily explained away.
Circular logic. Every single case submitted goes to conference. The only way it wouldn’t is if they didn’t pay the fee or they didn’t have all their paperwork sent in. Then it would get auto rejected. SCOTUS doesn’t deny people the right to file an appeal. Just won’t hear most of the cases.
The behavior of the court here is standard operating procedure. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Because there is no reason to waste time and money responding to a LARP suit. Their suit is so bad, it speaks for itself. SCOTUS doesn’t need any input from the government to dispose of this appeal.