- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arizona SCT reverses dismissal of Lake’s signature matching claim
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:25 pm to idlewatcher
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:25 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
“Lake is a loser who lost her race. Muh terrible candidate”
Member that?
Yes all the tribute band losers say this
0
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:27 pm to Wednesday
Today has been a good day!
The NYC sham prosecution goes down in flames. And now this.
Enjoy the “w” gents!
The NYC sham prosecution goes down in flames. And now this.
Enjoy the “w” gents!
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:30 pm to Bard
You are right - but the major thing to bear in mind is that the other six claims were tried, and the judge found that while the delays created an unclear result, the lack of clarity wasn’t enough. They needed to prove that the failure to follow the law changed enough votes to be determinative. I thought they did that with expert testimony. The David DJS guy who lives in Arizona thought that expert testimony isn’t really evidence or something.
With the ones that went to trial, the appeal court would have been required to overturn the factual conclusions of the trial judge - which rarely if ever happens.
In this case, Lake would have to prove that they didn’t follow the rules (which she did do round one with respect to other stuff, so I’m assuming she could do so again). But - she would also have to prove that it affected the result. The only way to do that would be to actually look at the ballots. Which anyone who GAF about this issue has been BEGGING for from the jump.
ETA - because this issue never even made it to trial bc it was dismissed on the ridiculous basis of laches- they would basically have to start over and give Lake a new trial and a chance to prove that they stole an election with counterfeit mail in ballots. It’s the 2000 mules theory. It’s a BFD
With the ones that went to trial, the appeal court would have been required to overturn the factual conclusions of the trial judge - which rarely if ever happens.
In this case, Lake would have to prove that they didn’t follow the rules (which she did do round one with respect to other stuff, so I’m assuming she could do so again). But - she would also have to prove that it affected the result. The only way to do that would be to actually look at the ballots. Which anyone who GAF about this issue has been BEGGING for from the jump.
ETA - because this issue never even made it to trial bc it was dismissed on the ridiculous basis of laches- they would basically have to start over and give Lake a new trial and a chance to prove that they stole an election with counterfeit mail in ballots. It’s the 2000 mules theory. It’s a BFD
This post was edited on 3/22/23 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:32 pm to Wednesday
My bet is that the lower court will manage to find a reason to dismiss again, but I hope not. Either way, Lake can take her findings to the public at the very least.
Jeremy Duda
@jeremyduda
The Supreme Court said the trial judge can still dismiss on non-laches grounds, and that Lake must show the alleged violations affected votes in “sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election” rather than simply making an “untethered assertion of uncertainty.”
Jeremy Duda
@jeremyduda
The Supreme Court said the trial judge can still dismiss on non-laches grounds, and that Lake must show the alleged violations affected votes in “sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election” rather than simply making an “untethered assertion of uncertainty.”
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:39 pm to POTUS2024
At least she’ll get some discovery. The more we shine a light on these corrupt democratic areas, the better. Studying how the Dems cheat and win in these elections will pay dividends, hopefully, in 24.
I’m sure the media are going to try to spin this as a loss for Lake, but it really is a big win since the case will continue and Lake will get another shot to prove up her case.
I’m sure the media are going to try to spin this as a loss for Lake, but it really is a big win since the case will continue and Lake will get another shot to prove up her case.
Posted on 3/22/23 at 10:41 pm to Wednesday
quote:
just want discovery on fake ballots, and a day in court on that issue alone
what is the fake ballot story as youve heard/read?
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:19 pm to Wednesday
quote:
This is a BFD
yes but what can be done? you cant undo elections after a candidate gets sworn into office.
at least thats been the auto reply from MSM about all election fraud
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:22 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Well. What’s different with this ruling, is it’s the first time that ballots will be analyzed individually, and the issue tried on the merits.
If it gets dismissed on a procedural technicality- same shite. But it’s quite difficult to underestimate the importance of the ability to actually present evidence on the merits on an issue about manufactured mail in ballots - which has basically been the issue from the jump.
i have full faith they will come up with some BS about a low level employee shredded all the ballots by acident. there is no end to the lengths they will go to cheat.
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:29 pm to Wednesday
While this slow roles thru the system...Hobbs is doing good work. She just signed an anti-racist hair hiring EO for govt and contractors....good stuff to improve the state indeed.
Democrats really are worthless
Democrats really are worthless
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:37 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
I hope they are well funded
Mike Lindell FU money
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:47 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting review of issue number six to the extent count three of the complaint challenges the Maricopa County Recorder’s application of signature-verification policies during the election. Issue number six asks, “Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake’s claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these”
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:50 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
·
58m
??Whoa??
The AZ Supreme Court just overruled the trial court & now @KariLake’s team can conduct signature verification of Maricopa ballots
Tens of thousands of signatures were approved in violation of legal requirements
This could be the thread that unravels the Maricopa fraud
We will see
Posted on 3/22/23 at 11:53 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
@KariLake: "We have 3 whistleblowers in the signature verification department in Maricopa... Who said that they were rejecting tens of thousands of signatures to the tune of up to 130,000 ballots that were being rejected... Somebody above them was sending them on through anyway"
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:05 am to Jjdoc
quote:
KariLake: "We have 3 whistleblowers in the signature verification department in Maricopa... Who said that they were rejecting tens of thousands of signatures to the tune of up to 130,000 ballots that were being rejected... Somebody above them was sending them on through anyway"
Perfect are they going to come testify to this?
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:10 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Perfect are they going to come testify to this?
I believe they already have.
As I see it right now, the only way this gets fixed is for those same ballots and envelopes to be ran again with it being recorded for the court.
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:11 am to oklahogjr
Sup, fig?
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:14 am to Jjdoc
quote:
As I see it right now, the only way this gets fixed is for those same ballots and envelopes to be ran again with it being recorded for the court
So would these ballots be removed and voided? Will they contact the voters to verify what the voter intended and adjust the totals? How is this resolved?
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:24 am to Herooftheday
To be honest, I don't know. I believe they have the power to over turn it.
Posted on 3/23/23 at 12:53 am to Wednesday
quote:
If it gets dismissed on a procedural technicality- same shite. But it’s quite difficult to underestimate the importance of the ability to actually present evidence on the merits on an issue about manufactured mail in ballots - which has basically been the issue from the jump.
No second bite at the evidence apple. No new evidence. Just a reconsideration of the evidence as presented, without the overhang of laches.
Posted on 3/23/23 at 1:02 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Perfect are they going to come testify to this?
Nope. The appeals courts (including the Supreme Court) can only consider evidence presented in the trial court. (Except in extreme cases, which are not present here).
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News