Posted on 12/11/2022 10:23:41 AM PST by Michael.SF.
I read through the 72 page filing and the evidence is pretty strong that this election was stolen. One interesting part starts on page 15, regarding signature verification. Here is how it worked:
Level One verifiers could flag mailed in ballots for further scrutiny or as invalid. This occurred in the presence of election observers. These ballots then went to:
Level Two and three verifiers. These verifications took place unobserved by independent observers. Level 2 and 3 could overrule level one without further scrutiny.
A running tab was kept on level one rejects vs. Level two verifications. There was a consistent differential in the count. More ballots were being rejected by level one, then were being reviewed by level 2. Meaning many rejected ballots were returned to the verified pile w/o scrutiny.
Starting at about page 40, the "Ruebeck Company is discussed. This was the early vote and day of voting ballot drop off collectors, subcontracted by Maricopa county. They submitted 1149 "Chain oof custody" avadavats for all days of early voting. They had no "Chanin of Custody" avidavids for any ballots collected on day of voting.
This should result in the election being invalidated. But it won't be.
Kari Lake Legal filing against Maricopa County> Kari Lake Legal filing Link to PDF
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
The word is spelled “affidavit”, and pleadings are not evidence.
That caught my attention, too. OP likely doesn’t have spell check and didn’t proofread before posting. I’m normally posting from a phone and don’t make so many errors, but that really does put a damper on the whole point.
Thanks
Read something a while back concerning the reason the Fed’s don’t get involved in these elections, in relation to the Voting Rights Act. Specifically with regards to discrimination.
Federal law describes certain groups that, basically, have special privileges concerning voting. And Political Affiliation isn’t one of them.
So, even if it proven that the machine problems only occurred in Republican areas and Republican voters were disenfranchised from voting or feel that their vote was suppressed, there isn’t much anyone can do about it.
However, if a gay man was disenfranchised from voting or felt that his vote was suppressed then he can drop a lawsuit in a second.
Simple, find a gay Republican voter that had his ballot rejected, put in Box 3 and never counted or got so frustrated with the machines and having to drive all over the county, that he went home and didn’t vote. Drop the lawsuit and get Discovery.
Open that can of worms. That’s what the Left would do. Hell, they’d have 3 buses full of gay men filing suits. With Elias and Alred representing them.
I feel the message is far more important than some errors.
No need to apologize, Big Guy. There are quite a few English Professors and Grammar Nazis on here that love to jump all over folks.
They disregard that this site is more social media that allows for debate, than it is a college, senior year writing class.
For those of us that don’t drink with our pinky sticking out, we get your drift.
Your arguments would be stronger with a little scrutiny of your own spelling and grammar.
Thanks qaz. I was posting from my phone, not that that is an excuse, just careless on my part in not proofreading.
So they are your typos, not in the lawsuit?
Hopium is a hell of a drug
“You better hope that it does. Because if it doesn’t, our constitutional republic is finished.”
You are half right.
This half.... “our constitutional republic is finished.”
“And I don’t mean to be childish, but ..”
YES YOU DID.
Well, well you WERE at the very least.
But since you recognized it yourself, I guess you knew.
(not checking for typos on purpose)
I remember when we could expect justice from the courts. Especially something so blatantly corrupt as the Maricopa County election. It’s so in your face corrupt from many different angle.
Any judge worth their salt, even a biased one who didn’t want to be reversed on appeal, would at least allow all evidence to be presented in a court of law, get sworn testimony, then make a decision based on actual evidence. I don’t know how this process works in AZ but it appears to be a broken process, probably intentionally.
Plus the 300,000 ballots ran through the Runbeck printing place that lacked chain of custody and other glaring problems.
The security envelope for an absentee ballot have printed on it (NOT label affixed) a control number, both human and machine readable, that is an index to the registered voter. That control number is NOT public information during the election and the counting of ballots. The control number shall be different from election to election. I would also suggest the control number include one or more check digits, to prove that the number is correctly formed on its face.
Election procedures are to be updated to make use of the machine-readable control number when performing signature matches.
avadavat
noun
av·a·da·vat ˈavədəˌvat
variants or less commonly amadavat
ˈamə-
plural -s
: a very small weaverbird (Estrilda amandava) native to southeast Asia but often kept as a cage bird, having the breeding male scarlet, darker above, and with white dots on wings and sides and the female and eclipse male olive brown above and grayish buff below
called also strawberry finch
Plenary powers is not discussed so far, but it is the reason the court can’t ‘fix’ things in an election that is not specified in election law. 2 possibilities were presented; correct an election by removing the portion of the ballots known to be undetermined, and therefore, UNLAWFUL was presented in case law, and Lake asked to ‘nullify’ the election, which may not be present in election law as an option in AZ.
From the SoS perspective, certifying the election is part of election law, which is solely the state legislature’s arena, beyond a court.
The one thing she did not do is request a ruling that the election was UNLAWFUL for failure to adhere to state election law.
Non-scribd link?
I’m not subscribing to them to view it.
Bookmark
“Why specifically will the thorough lawsuit be rejected?”
Courts are almost always more liberal than the rest of government and the remedy - overturning an election at the state level - is either incredibly rare or unprecedented.
At best, a court might rule that an existing law (such as Arizona’s vote by mail instead of person) needs to be modified to reduce fraud. In Arizona, both mail in ballots and early, in person voting are treated as “mail in” votes. Voting early in person - which requires ID - is pretty solid. Voting via the USPS has some huge issues. But the legislature wouldn’t tackle those issues or the governor sign any changes unless a court forces their hand.
The absolute best we could hope for is a ruling invalidating Arizona’s current vote by USPS system of “signatures”. I seriously doubt the AZ Supreme Court will touch it.
I would prefer, if mailing ballots via the Post Office is going to be allowed, at least a thumbprint for verification. If you want to vote via the mail, you provide your thumbprint and photo ID.
Note: This year, a provision that would require adding something like your drivers license number to the ballot envelope failed to pass in popular referendum.
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.