Posted on 03/06/2023 10:37:16 AM PST by Michael.SF.
Judge slaps election-denying Arizona Republican with new sanctions over 'bad faith' claims.
In a new ruling, Maricopa County Judge Melissa Iyer Julian argued that the purported evidence presented in Finchem's own filings was enough for her to conclude that his efforts to overturn his loss were not made in good faith.
"Attached to Finchem’s Amended Statement was his own expert’s analysis of the alleged failure to count so-called “black box votes,'" wrote Judge Julian. "Finchem’s expert report identified 80,000 potentially 'missing votes.' Yet, Finchem lost the election he challenged by 120,208 votes. That margin was so significant that even if it were assumed that 80,000 votes were missing and that those votes would all have been cast in his favor, the result of the election would not have changed."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Adrian Fontes Democrat 1,320,619 +52.4%
Mark Finchem Republican 1,200,411 +47.6%
Take away 80,000 votes from from Fontes, then add those 80,000 to Finchem and you would have:
Adrian Fontes Democrat 1,240,619 +49.1%
Mark Finchem Republican 1,280,411 +50.9%
Note: My assumption by adding those 80,000 votes to Finchem is similar to that made by the Judge in taking them away from Fontes.
Finchem wears a cowboy hat and posts regularly on Gab. And the mustache - only a toxic male has that kind of mustache. No liberal female judge is going to anger the Matriarchy by ruling in his favor.
So the judge ignores the evidence and then accuses the plaintiff of “bad faith.” Got it.
Judge must have had a knock on the front door last night.
The percentage of the judicial system not corrupt must be really tiny in Arizona.
The RNC needs to do something about Maricopa County.
If Fincham’s claim was that 80,000 votes were “missing” they would not have been counted in his opponent’s favor. The judge is saying, accurately, that if you award all 80,000 to Fncham he still doesn’t prevail.
Here is the real problem: if evidence shows that 80,000 votes went awry in an election, that much smoke suggests a lot more fire. The entire election was massively flawed and needs a do-over. I don’t know whether Fincham presented hard proof about the 80,000 ballots, or just an allegation, or if he had other claims on top of the 80,000.
The fix is in. Read that part in bold, again. Here are the results of that race:
Adrian Fontes Democrat 1,320,619 +52.4%
Mark Finchem Republican 1,200,411 +47.6%
Take away 80,000 votes from from Fontes, then add those 80,000 to Finchem and you would have:
Adrian Fontes Democrat 1,240,619 +49.1%
Mark Finchem Republican 1,280,411 +50.9%
Note: My assumption by adding those 80,000 votes to Finchem is similar to that made by the Judge in taking them away from Fontes.
What you said made sense at first, but if its just adding 80,000 “missing votes” then there’s no take away from Fontes.
If Fincham’s claim was that 80,000 votes were “missing” they would not have been counted in his opponent’s favor. The judge is saying, accurately, that if you award all 80,000 to Fncham he still doesn’t prevail. But that isn’t the real issue.
The judge is choosing to ignore that 80,000 votes going AWOL in an election indicates something massively wrong. Any such election is fatally flawed and needs a do-over. I don’t know whether Fincham presented hard proof about the missing 80,000 ballots, just alleged it, or if he had other claims on top of the 80,000. Bottom line is that the judge’s “bad faith” comment was made with bad judgement if not even worse faith.
The court seems disinterested in the core issue here. Were there 80K missing votes or not?
Its not whether the outcome of the election would change. If 80K votes when missing, where, when, how and who is accountable? Is the election process broken or being manipulated?
The court seems uninterested in such inquiry and so elections and courts have lost credibility with the American people.
Note the terminology. “Election Denying”, it’s the playbook they use for the climate BS. Alinsky tactics 24/7.
“The court seems disinterested in the core issue here. Were there 80K missing votes or not?”
They addressed that in December when they dismissed the case as being groundless.
thanks. Good point. You are correct.
It should have come down to, was election law followed at all times establishing a lawful election, or were election laws broken with the missing 80k ballots. If election laws were broken, the election was unlawful.
Yeah I agree with you. “Missing” implies they weren’t counted at all. So the judge is right.
But where there is a known error this large, it warrants reviewing the entire election.
The court seems very interested in carrying out a cover-up of electoral malfeasance and corruption. How many million dollars has this "judge" received in under-the-table payments?
‘Bad Faith’ Claims = TRUTH
Another democrat weapon
Check when the judge last took out a “mortgage”, how much it was and when she paid it back. That will tell you everything you need to know about the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.