UPDATE: Kari Lake Attorneys File Blistering Response to Maricopa County Filing – Why Were There Over 35,000 Unaccounted for Ballots in the Election – Where Did They Come From?
Maricopa County filed a response to Kari Lake’s Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Courton Monday.
The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on Kari Lake’s stolen election and her lawsuit challenging the fraud in Maricopa County, Arizona. On March 1, 2023, after the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Arizona Appeals Court dismissed the case, Lake filed a ‘Petition for Review’ and a Motion to Expedite Review’ for her election contest in the Arizona Supreme Court.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, on March 2, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to expedite Lake’s lawsuit and scheduled March 21 to consider whether or not they will accept Lake’s new Petition. “At the conference, the Court will decide whether to accept review and schedule an oral argument,” states the order.
Maricopa County submitted a bogus response on Monday, falsely claiming that Kari Lake “presents—for the first time—a misleading factual theory about chain-of-custody documents” and “does not present any argument illustrating a need for this Court to review the court of appeals’ Opinion.”
They don’t even want the Supreme Court to consider this case because they are terrified of how this will end up – so they lie.
The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on the alleged discrepancies corroborated by whistleblower testimony, including missing chain of custody documentation for hundreds of thousands of ballots and the injection of likely phony ballots into the election. Lake also challenges the burden of proof used in the Maricopa County Superior Court and the opinion that Kari Lake did not provide “clear and convincing evidence” of voter fraud.
Lake’s attorneys previously argued that according to Findley v. Sorenson (1929), even if not intentional, election errors can nullify an election if “they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.” This is further confirmed by the opinion in Hunt v. Campbell (1917), which states, “wherever such practices or influences are shown to have prevailed, not slightly and in individual cases, but generally, so as to render the result uncertain, the entire vote so affected must be rejected.”
Lake was required to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that the errors were intentional beyond a reasonable doubt and that the outcome was affected by election fraud, which does not conform to the legal standard set forth above in previous cases.
Kari Lake’s election for Governor of Arizona was blatantly stolen right in our faces. The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on the massive machine and printer failures that targeted Election Day voters, turning out for Kari Lake and Republicans 3:1. This issue occurred at nearly 60% of voting locations in the County. Cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh testified in Kari Lake’s election trial that broken machines and printers on Election Day “could not arise absent intentional misconduct.”
This fact alone cannot be allowed to stand and remains unmentioned in Maricopa County’s response to the Supreme Court. How can anyone possibly claim this was a fair election when 61% of the voting centers had broken and inoperable machines on Election Day?
On Thursday night Attorneys Kurt B. Olson and Bryan James Blehm filed a reply to the Maricopa County response.
The Kari Lake attorneys argue that they have a right to reply due to the numerous factual misstatements and material misrepresentations by the Maricopa County attorneys in their response brief.
According to the Lake attorneys, Maricopa County misled the court about the Lake team’s position. They still refuse to answer the central question of why there are over 35,000 unaccounted for ballots. They also offer no response to the Runbeck whistleblower who testified that ballots could be inserted anywhere in the process at Runbeck and that the employees were inserting ballots into the ballot stream. And Maricopa County is still avoiding the central issues, and that is that the county deliberately ignored mandatory chain of custody requirements, and the failures to do logic and accuracy testing. Clearly, Maricopa County misrepresented the facts to the court. They just didn’t follow the law.
Kari Lake Appeal – Filed Motion and Reply by Attorneys – March 16, 2023 by Jim Hoft on Scribd