[Beave Meister]

This court seems reluctant to get involved in elections. Where are people supposed to turn, to get justice?

[kiryandil]

The gate over King’s Landing, I expect.

[DarthVader]

You are looking at the meaningless political CYA undercard. This is the main event:

https://realfreedomtalk.com/kari-lake-after-lawsuit-hearing-we-will-expose-this-election-for-the-sham-it-was/

[kiryandil]

The "judge" is a Doug Douche-y stooge.

"The Assistant Democrat Deuce" strikes again.

[Jess Kitting]

With prejudice, of course.

Prejudice against election integrity.

[knarf]

[dadfly]

what is the name of the ‘judge’ and who appointed him/her?

[Mark17]

Where are people supposed to turn, to get justice?

I’ll take the 5th on that one. 😆😁🤪

[Lurker]

“Where are people supposed to turn, to get justice?”

Rooftops.

L

[Travis McGee]

[No Party Affiliation]

Use BLM tactics?

[bk1000]

“This court seems reluctant to get involved in elections. Where are people supposed to turn, to get justice?”

Well, we have the ballot box, corrupted.
We have the jury box, which seems also corrupted.
That greatly narrows the selection of boxes from where justice might be found.

[bobbo666]

When the courts are not willing to “hear” and there is even the slightest suspicion of fraud (corrupt judge, not the election) then there can be no justice. None.

The unwillingness to hear the case can only mean that the party in power has no intention of even trying to persuade the voters that honesty was practiced: “See, we had a court case and you lost.” They believe that the voters are irrelevant, not worth the bother.
This is how slaves are treated. This is how your children will be raised. And, harvested.

[cuz1961]

[trustverify0128]

It looks like his filing set him up for failure. From the ruling:

“The evidence appended to Finchem’s own amended statement demonstrates that he pursued this contest in bad faith. Attached to Finchem’s Amended Statement was his own expert’s analysis of the alleged failure to count so-called “black box votes.” 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. Indeed, Finchem withdrew his request to inspect the ballots under A.R.S. § 16-677, suggesting that he had no expectation that an inspection would yield a favorable outcome. This demonstrates that Finchem challenged his election loss despite knowing that his claims regarding misconduct and procedural irregularities were insufficient under the law to sustain the contest.”

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/finchem-sanctions.pdf