Well, there certainly is a decimal point before any numbers that show the percentage chance. Perkins Coie wouldn’t be there but to protect deep state assets. And burn them if they can’t save them. Same asshats involved in Russia collusion and having an fbi sciff in their office.

She is a fighter. I am just coming around to the idea that you could have the fight of an entire platoon of navy seals and when you are fighting an entrenched enemy who abides by no rules but you must abide by them, you’re hosed.

I don’t think our pols are good at asymmetrical fights. Here we are after yet another stolen election, and relying on the same courts that upheld the last one. And the courts are getting more belligerent by fining people for these suits. And trying to take away licenses of lawyers that bring them. We have no response for this. Nor effective techniques in giving it our best shot.

Finchem’s lawyer was room temperature IQ. Couldn’t answer basic shit the judge asked. Of course you get booted if you do that. Judges don’t do your job for you. They make a decision based on what is presented to them. Here is a good spiel on that: https://www.stu.edu/Portals/law/docs/academics/student-orgs/jcl/volumes/Volume%204/RyanLuke-EssayThePartyPresentationRule.pdf

Apparently all the good lawyers would like to continue practicing law and have bowed out. Something has to be done about that.

But muh rank n file!

You forgot 2018. And why would unchecked fraud vanish in 2024? Because we all vote harder?

As I get older I am becoming more adept at arguing whatever side opposite the person I am talking to. This is easier said than done and I certainly am not an expert. But I can tell you exactly how a fraudless election in 2024 would go from the deep state side:

November 2024, Trump wins bigly. Without fraud, it is ridiculously lopsided. Deep state comes out and says this is obvious fraud. Nobody wins elections like this, let alone Trump. Russia Collusion 2.0 the redux.

All the major rigging is in counties with large blue controlled cities. No audits will get done. Gas light and stonewall is the name of the game. They might even attempt using all the known vulnerabilities we have talked about since 2020 as a basis to accuse Trump of colluding with hackers or foreign nation intelligence to skew the results.

Bottom line is that there was no need to let 2022 midterms get rigged. At least from the stand point of “gathering evidence.” 2018 and 2020 were way more than enough. This rig is just utterly demoralizing. Makes you feel hopeless like if we can’t even kick the shit out of these guys under these circumstances, when will we ever? People can talk about needing more people to wake up. I think we reached critical mass in this regard after Jan 6. Every day that goes by now, less people will awaken than the day before. Diminishing returns. If people are still asleep, its because no amount of evidence can open their eyes.

Correct. And I am on the record about how I feel about this case. People interested can review my history. Needless to say, I predict 0 of 9 votes to take this case. And even if they did, they aren't trying the case, the issue before the court is whether the district court erred in finding no subject matter jurisdiction. In the bizarre event that SCOTUS takes this case, they won't be talking about national security, fraud, or hearing any evidence. It will be a legal analysis as to whether the complaint has subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts or not. Not a hint more than this.

If they did somehow find subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is just going to boot it on remand for some other shortcoming.

It does not appear that rule 11 is in play. The docket says its on appeal from 10th circuit. So there is no bypassing of the appellate courts here. And even if rule 11 was in play, it means very little. States have an equivalent of rule 11 and it is used regularly.

Oh, if this guy is a "Constitutional Scholar" then I am both the King and Queen of England. And maybe even a prince.

I got a story on this...going to try to make this as short as possible.

There is a Mexican guy that does a lot of work for my business. He has an American name. Out of curiosity, I asked how that came about. He laughed, and told me this story:

He was a soldier in the Mexican army. A sniper, to be specific. And he said he did 6 years of service. His job was to sit on the border in a literal tiny foxhole complete with a bucked for a bathroom. He would do this for days or weeks on end. Any time a known cartel member was in his field of view, he was to take them out. He said he has no idea how many kill shots he has but its plus/minus 1,000 in his mind.

After awhile he said he started to lose focus. Said that you get dejected when you see the US border patrol or other officials openly bringing these cartel guys across. Was like wtf is the point of going through all of this when it appears to make zero difference.

One day, he got spotted in his foxhole by local police. Unsure if said policeman was corrupt, he stayed in the hole. 20 minutes later, a truck with 5 cartel guys got out and filled him full of bullets. He showed me the scars. I couldn't count the number of bullet holes but it was at least 7 or 8 that I could see. He managed to survive and get someone to take him to a hospital in another area.

He was terrified the cartels would find out he survived and go kill his family. So he fled to the border and made an asylum claim. It was granted. Along with basically being in witness protection with a new alias. Hence his American name.

no this is an intentionally misleading headline for people to assume it is a judge that hears cases

Yeragreatamurican! Gityerjabs! My mom was a prison guard. Did you know I studied MMA my whole life? Tick Tock bish!

Did you know Trump colluded with Russia? Adam Schiff said so. That means its actually Trump that is torturing little infants. Need impeachment hearings immediately on this one.

Calling on a company to block access to a platform to speak is indeed not lawful. And he said this not on the house floor so no speech & debate clause immunity. If I were Trump I would sue immediately.

and in every bathhouse hideout he flees to.

Who would have thought all it takes to win in AZ is a fracture in the dem party...

Because magically they will just not rig against Lake in a Senate race. And as if Lake would have the effect in the Senate that she would as governor...gonna go ahead and call this article pure cope.

wasn't it just a lengthy vacation?

and cope harder

This is one of the most deranged lunatics in all of media. With absolutely zero consistency, and an apparent complete lack of self awareness. She is a walking advertisement for Zoloft or Prozac.

How dare you use their own words against them! I see white supremacy misogynist patriarch transphobic homophobic climate change denying election denying bigot all over this post!

And its well known that this was well known to you for awhile, Captain Tick Tock.

I am sure anything is possible. But would require the construction of thousands of new power plants. Not sure there is any will for nuclear power anywhere in the west. Maybe France. But imagine what the sierra club will do when coal plants are proposed…

I would drive an electric vehicle if the technology improved to the point where I could get a full charge in around the time it takes me to fill my empty gas tank. Until then, I am not interested. Likewise I am uninterested in buying $20,000 in batteries every 3-4 years.

But if people are dumb enough to buy, and you can make them with a margin, more power to you for manufacturing them.

They sold because there was no plausible larp they could concoct that would prevent shareholder mutiny. Elon offered them more than the stock was worth. The board can't reject that without breaching their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. And that for sure would be litigated. Not exactly a grey area of law.

Now the real question is, why didn't they put up one of their front groups like blackstone or vanguard or even Soros himself to "buy" it (likely on our taxdollar dime) so Elon didn't get it? Was Russia in Ukraine a problem to funding such a venture? Seems odd that not a single frothing at the mouth marxist capital group (irony duly noted) stepped up to the plate here.

In the legal world, there is no guarantee of outcomes no matter how strong your case might be. What should happen and what actually happens don't always line up. In a sane world, this gets tried because one has to accept the allegations in the pleadings as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. I don't really see how a judge would get around that. But just because I cannot foresee egregious bullshit opinions dismissing a case doesn't mean that there won't be one.

If the judge boots this case, the weakest grounds are going to be on remedy. If the remedy requested cannot be granted, then it will get booted. I've done zero research to see if Arizona has ever thrown out an election and re-done it. So no idea if that is allowed.

I also do not see any way to prove that Lake won. Not on this shortened timeline and not without basically a complete audit. You can read between the lines. But we don't try cases like that.

If a new governor is supposed to be in place by January 2, that is an obstacle to having a new election as a remedy. Lake being named governor is the only viable remedy on this time line.

So put yourself in the judge's shoes with the presumption he is going to fairly adjudicate this case. What do you do with the Jan 2 deadline? How exactly he could push that back is a mystery. Who is AZ's governor in the interim? Since I know jack about AZ law or their state constitution, I don't know for sure if that date can be moved. It would surprise me that it could be moved at all by a judge.

The next thing is how do you decide to install Lake if you have no more than an inference from the evidence she likely won. But no actual hard evidence. The court won't be pulling the ballots out of the boxes and have them counted. I'm not sure the most MAGA of all ULTRA MAGA judges in the country could find their way around this dilemma. If being faithful to the law, how do you name someone the winner with no way to actually demonstrate it?

By this, what I mean is - what objective way will there be after the presentation of evidence that we know exactly which ballots were illegally cast and should be discarded so that we can then subtract those votes from the totals and then discover who the winner was? If Lake thinks that a court is going to derive its own formula from the total and pro-rata deduct it, I think that is a tall ask of any judge. The convoluted mess that is our election system in this country seems to limit itself to not being easily unwound. How do we find the ballot for an illegal mail vote and remove it? I've always been of the understanding that once an envelope and ballot are separated, it cannot be undone.

Likewise, how does a court figure out with reasonable precision how many people were disenfranchised at which locations and with reasonable certainty as to who they intended to vote for?

You could argue that this is an equitable remedy in that Hobbs was a candidate in this election, fucked around badly in this election, and should not be permitted to reap the fruits of this fuckery on her watch and at her direction by being declared the winner. But I am just unsure that is possible under Arizona law.

TLDR; I have no clue what this judge is gonna do and I don't envy his job at the moment.

Courts make contingent scheduling orders all the time. He's gotta clear the docket if there is a trial. Guy can't telegraph a dismissal so plainly by NOT making a tentative trial date. That would be obvious bias, as no motion to dismiss nor grounds to dismiss it have been filed yet.

Based on the propaganda media articles ridiculing this suit, any dismissal is not going to be related to standing. They are going to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings. But this is not in federal court.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1410&context=uclr

According to this law review article, the bullshit Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal v. Ashcroft decisions that cause all sorts of havoc in the standards for pleadings are not law in Arizona (as of 2020 - doubt it suddenly changed when those cases are from 15 years ago). Meaning that "plausibility" is absent from the analysis, and regular "notice pleadings" standards are used. A short and plain statement of the claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief is the standard. And in reviewing the sufficiency of pleadings, facts alleged in the complaint are presumed to be true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

That is a big deal. Iqbal/Twombly are like the key bullshit scotus cases that opened the door to early dismissal of viable cases just based on the incredulity of the judge in reading the allegations. That's bullshit. It is also not what Congress intended when switching to notice pleadings in 1938.

It seems to me that this is a bad framework for deciding election challenges. That is a helluva rushed timeline. And I would bet that Lake would ideally like to be able to depose Hobbs, as well as subpoena various evidence she would not otherwise be privy to but the state would be.

In essence, I do not envy Lake's legal team. They will be on the fly refuting Maricopa board arguments/evidence without any real meaningful opportunity to vet their defenses in advance of having to litigate in a bench trial. These guys could make all sorts of outrageous claims and it wouldnt be possible to comprehensively refute them if you are unprepared.

I'd like to get all of those exhibits they are talking about. It would be interesting to see what they have.

I don't really know what a state AG can do though. Best case is an injunction. But then someone would have to rat on the feds that they are violating the injunction.

It seems to me that it is ripe for a civil rights suit against the feds who were delivering unlawful censoring orders. Some of the bigger names that we have seen in the releases have all they need to go nuts with. And in those suits they might be able to get more info.

And in light of that info, and perhaps maybe even twitter being willing to play ball, a plaintiff might be able to subpoena that information from twitter directly without having to get a court involved. Then you'd have everything you needed to file suit.

Ya but she has extra special super powers. Nobody else in history has ever trafficked kids to nobody. I am unsure anyone will ever match this feat.

In criminal trials, there are a few proceedings which require the physical appearance of the defendant. In civil trials, you don't ever have to appear. You can have the entire case tried by your lawyer to a jury verdict without ever having set foot in the court room.

She doesn't have any reason to be there. Unless she is an attorney, she cannot represent the SoS office in her own capacity. So her lawyer would be doing all the talking anyways. No reason to be there. This is common in civil litigation every day in every court room in the country.