THREAD: This thread will constitute my analysis of the Special Action in Lake v. Hobbs. Buckle up!
Immediately the Lake team uses the proper interpretation of AZ law; that the results of the election are UNCERTAIN. They will get into how the judge erred in his interpretation very shortly.
They state what was proven at trial; failures on Election Day were deliberate. They state what Maricopa has done; Marginalize the deliberate acts with claims of “hiccups” and diminish their impact. This, even as the closing argument blamed voters (Liddy: “You reap what you sow”)
This summarizes nicely the number of ballots in question at a MINIMUM, restates that ballots were misconfigured illegally (truth), and again introduces the signature verification issues which were dismissed due to laches, an argument they refute competently in a few moments.
Here is what they actually needed to prove at trial; that by a preponderance of the evidence, misconduct or illegal votes render the outcome UNCERTAIN. They did this.
Lake is asking the higher court to order a new election. That is the remedy being sought.
Here they explain why Special Action is warranted, due to the fact that Hobbs will be sworn in next week. They want Ducey to remain as governor while they conduct the new election, which will stop any harm to the public due to the overlap.
They are also going to discuss why the dismissal of the other claims of action was incorrect, and place specific attention on signature verification while gently touching on the other claims. For this point, though- the standard the judge used is incorrect. (Highlighted)
Important to understand: On the counts that were not heard at bench trial, the appeals court has to accept the well plead factual allegations as *true*. For the other two which were heard at bench trial, they use the testimony and evidence at trial.
They then go through a summary of two witnesses testimony as to the chaos on Election Day; something we have reviewed in depth and I won’t repeat here again. The first two witnesses they choose are Bettencourt (t-tech) and roving GOP attorney Sonnenklar. (Cont)
They also point to the over 200 witness affidavits included at trial in exhibit.
Coming out of the gate, they are hammering Jarrett and his perjury on the stand. He testified on FOUR separate occasions that he had never heard of, and it was impossible for, a 19” image to be printed on a 20” ballot paper.
This is nonsense. In truth, he did know that it occurred and he knew that it occurred not only in THIS election, but also in elections prior to this.
Highlighted in yellow is the reason why the judge CLEARLY erred in his decision, and in his glossing over of this fatal flaw in the election. CoC was not maintained, Jarrett couldn’t produce dupes, and I hammered this home in response to everyone saying “but their votes counted!”
There were only two ways this could happen, Parikh testified on day 1.
Either settings were changed to override the ballot image, or another ballot image was loaded in to the system. Both intentional and deliberate.
NO. OTHER. WAY.
Jarrett changed his tune when brought in to testify by defendants. On cross exam, he became evasive. His excuses don’t hold up to scrutiny.
He admitted it had happened several times before in an attempt to show it was a common hiccup, even though he didn’t:
1. Inform the public it had happened
2. Report it to the AG office when directly asked about Election Day issues
3. Inform anyone abt. Root cause analysis.
They then detail the testimony of @Peoples_Pundit and why that was material, and get into CoC issues and the testimony of Ms. Honey. Her testimony was erroneously portrayed by the defense, and the judge took that rather than her words and ran with it.
Chain of Custody was NOT followed. All ballots are required by law to be counted at MCTEC, and Richer testified there are too many of them, so they are counted at Runbeck.
Richer also lied under oath. No CoC forms were created at MCTEC prior to transporting ballots to Runbeck, and no documents for ballot retrieval counts exist.
Maricopa and Richer couldn’t account for 15k ballots that Runbeck reported tallied. That is documented via HIS email. That is the least of it as well.
They then introduce the signature matching issues and their importance, to get into the legal argument on laches shortly.
Here are the issues the appellate court needs to work through. Notice, included are other counts the judge dismissed in the first go round.
The standard by which the appellate court must decide:
We will now get in to the legal reasons that the judge made an error in his decision to withhold relief.
Plaintiff argues they erred in three different respects, discussed in more detail below.
The trial court rejected expert testimony because it provided a “range” that suppressed turnout would have effected the vote, and one side of that range still had Hobbs ahead. However, ranges are accepted and if the range even intimates UNCERTAINTY relief should be granted.
They discuss why the “clear and convincing” standard doesn’t apply to *all* election lawsuits, and dive into instances where that standard would shift the burden to the *defendants* to disprove the allegations set forth; this makes sense if we want to uphold confidence in elec.
The trial court erred in it’s interpretation of “misconduct” as to intentionality, but the appellate court has said differently of election contests. Here, negligent maladministration AS WELL AS intentional acts are considered “misconduct.” If actions render a vote uncertain…
Under the interpretation of the law, the plaintiff showed that the number of non-compliant ballots vastly surpasses the margin of victory. The very appellate court they are in front of has ruled using this standard before, as noted in the last sentence. They set the precedent.
That is important, and powerful. Courts do EVERYTHING based on precedent, interpretation, and the law. If this very court had set precedent to interpret the way that Lake is arguing, to go against their own precedent would be almost insulting to the very court hearing the appeal.
The lower court erred by requiring “felonious conduct” rather than “outcome altering” or “outcome clouding” impacts; which makes sense, as I said throughout that they aren’t in criminal court, and didn’t have the opportunity for discovery let alone forensics. Think about it.
Next, even though they *did* prove outcome determinative issues, the courts interpretation of that is INCORRECT, otherwise fraud could escalate in ways undeterminative until they aren’t, thereby allowing fraud in elections. This is why *uncertainty* is all that is required.(Cont)
What would stop fraud in elections then, if the requirement would be to come up with an exact number of fraudulent votes each time it was alleged. That reading of statute doesn’t make good sense, and is incorrect.
They make the claim here again that the printer errors were caused by intentional misconduct. They proved this at trial. The court erred when they didn’t use expert testimony and said these were “mere mechanical errors:
However they failed, adequate testing would have prevented the issues; testing they CLEARLY didn’t do as required by law.
The printer issues were the sole cause of the Election Day issues which disenfranchised voters, overwhelmingly republican ones.
Additionally, they IGNORED the contradictory testimony by Jarrett, who only changed his tune AFTER their expert testified. This points to a guilty state of mind. Just because they came up with an excuse for it after the fact, doesn’t mean it wasn’t misconduct. (See next)
Here is what I think makes it worse. Jarrett was the one WITH PARIKH during inspection. He was the one WITH PARIKH when this was discovered and Parikh asked for the duplicated ballots that couldn’t be produced. He shouldn’t have been SURPRISED about 19” ballots!!
“Hey, Jarrett, I have all of these 19” ballot images on 20” paper that needed to be duped. Can I have those dupes?”
Jarrett: “We can’t find them because we didn’t follow CoC law and it will take AT LEAST a week to get them to you”
It defies credulity. Seriously.
The trial court misrepresented expert testimony, and the CoC issues violated AZ election law.
When I analyzed the transcript, I touched upon how the defense purposefully broke into witness answers to misstate what they had testified to. They did it with Parikh, and with Honey.
“Had Maricopa followed Arizona’s CoC rules, they would have had an exact count of EDDB ballots delivered to MCTEC on Election Day before they were unpacked MCTEC and later transported to Runbeck, a third party vendor.“
“Maricopa’s violation of law constitutes misconduct under A.R.S. §16-672(a)(1). Further, these violations also render at least 25,000 votes illegal…which the trial court did not address—and which render the outcome of the 2022 general election “at least uncertain.”
Now we get into signature matching, which is the last thing in the appeal I will focus on for this thread. Defendants argued removing votes due to issues would disenfranchise voters, Plaintiffs say “not when we want a new election.” Also, Ducey would stay while this happened.
If they struck the illegal ballots prorata, Lake would have won. ILLEGAL ballots, mind you.
Laches clearly wasn’t indicated in the signature matching claim.
I had a small unforeseen delay here, and I am hosting far too many people tonight. I will get back to this ASAP, but in the meantime, you can read the rest of the filing: scribd.com/document/61721…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.