- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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

AZ Judge rules communication between Cyber Ninjas and Senate R's is public record
Posted on 7/16/21 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 7/16/21 at 9:26 pm
A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge on Thursday ruled that communications between Senate Republicans, the company called Cyber Ninjas and other vendors they hired to audit Maricopa County's 2020 election are public documents.
Judge Michael Kemp said "any and all" records with a "substantial nexus" to the audit are public records, including all communications related to planning the audit, policies and procedures of the audit and all records disclosing who is paying for the audit and how much is being paid.
The nonprofit group American Oversight sued Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, and the Senate, seeking communications with the companies regarding what the senators call a "forensic audit" of the election that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. The Senate asked for the case to be dismissed, but Kemp refused.
American Oversight was formed to investigate the Trump administration, and its founders have Democratic ties.
“It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny,” Kemp said in his order.
The Senate Republicans argued that because some of the requested records are held by Cyber Ninjas and other contractors, they are not subject to the Arizona Public Records Law. Kemp called that argument "absurd" because it would mean public officials could shield records of their official activities, like the audit, by farming the work out to contractors.
"The court completely rejects Senate defendants' argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not 'public bodies' they are exempt from the (public records law)," Kemp wrote. "The core purpose of the public records law is to allow public access to official records and other government information so that the public may monitor the performance of government officials and their employees."
The Senate agreed to pay Cyber Ninjas $150,000 for the work, though that clearly is not enough to cover the full scope of work and equipment used at Veterans Memorial Coliseum to re-tally the approximately 2.1 million ballots.
Trump supporters including a personality with the One American News cable channel and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne have raised money they claim will help fund the audit, though details of exactly where that money is coming from and who is getting paid are not publicly known. The records should help provide those details.
"The public does not know who is financing the remaining costs or what compensation is being made to subvendors or any other entity involved in the audit," Kemp wrote.
Kemp also refused to allow the Senate Republicans to combine the case with a similar lawsuit filed by The Arizona Republic that seeks to obtain records directly from Cyber Ninjas.
Both American Oversight and The Republic opposed combining the cases because they are based on distinct legal arguments regarding why the documents are a public record that should be turned over like all government records.
"Consolidation would result in prejudice to the public," Kemp wrote. "This audit has resulted in significant public concern. Any delay weighs against the purpose of the Arizona Public Records Law which demands an expedited resolution."
American Oversight applauded the decision.
az central
Judge Michael Kemp said "any and all" records with a "substantial nexus" to the audit are public records, including all communications related to planning the audit, policies and procedures of the audit and all records disclosing who is paying for the audit and how much is being paid.
The nonprofit group American Oversight sued Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, and the Senate, seeking communications with the companies regarding what the senators call a "forensic audit" of the election that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. The Senate asked for the case to be dismissed, but Kemp refused.
American Oversight was formed to investigate the Trump administration, and its founders have Democratic ties.
“It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny,” Kemp said in his order.
The Senate Republicans argued that because some of the requested records are held by Cyber Ninjas and other contractors, they are not subject to the Arizona Public Records Law. Kemp called that argument "absurd" because it would mean public officials could shield records of their official activities, like the audit, by farming the work out to contractors.
"The court completely rejects Senate defendants' argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not 'public bodies' they are exempt from the (public records law)," Kemp wrote. "The core purpose of the public records law is to allow public access to official records and other government information so that the public may monitor the performance of government officials and their employees."
The Senate agreed to pay Cyber Ninjas $150,000 for the work, though that clearly is not enough to cover the full scope of work and equipment used at Veterans Memorial Coliseum to re-tally the approximately 2.1 million ballots.
Trump supporters including a personality with the One American News cable channel and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne have raised money they claim will help fund the audit, though details of exactly where that money is coming from and who is getting paid are not publicly known. The records should help provide those details.
"The public does not know who is financing the remaining costs or what compensation is being made to subvendors or any other entity involved in the audit," Kemp wrote.
Kemp also refused to allow the Senate Republicans to combine the case with a similar lawsuit filed by The Arizona Republic that seeks to obtain records directly from Cyber Ninjas.
Both American Oversight and The Republic opposed combining the cases because they are based on distinct legal arguments regarding why the documents are a public record that should be turned over like all government records.
"Consolidation would result in prejudice to the public," Kemp wrote. "This audit has resulted in significant public concern. Any delay weighs against the purpose of the Arizona Public Records Law which demands an expedited resolution."
American Oversight applauded the decision.
az central
Posted on 7/16/21 at 9:28 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
I'd tell that judge they'd be happy to release them just as soon as Maricopa County provides the subpoenaed servers and access codes.
This post was edited on 7/16/21 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 7/16/21 at 9:28 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
another ruling to be used as asswipe material
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:21 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
quote:
seeking communications with the companies regarding what the senators call a "forensic audit" of the election
Is that the new narrative? A forensic audit is just some new made up thing?
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:28 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
You don’t have to obey court orders in Maricopa County.
Everybody knows that.
Everybody knows that.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:29 pm to udtiger
quote:
I'd tell that judge they'd be happy to release them just as soon as Maricopa County provides the subpoenaed servers and access codes.
This.
Even without Maricopa’s end, we know what’s going to happen when the records are actually made public. Hundreds of “Unbiased” Journalists will comb through millions of records in an afternoon to find one sentence, likely taken out of context, and pass it to the national media who will utter it a million times for “Muh Proof of Treason”.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:34 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
I would hope that they expected this from the beginning. If they didn’t, they’re dumb.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:40 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
I get why some of y'all are mad i guess. But isn't this a win for transparency overall in AZ?
Posted on 7/16/21 at 10:58 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
But isn't this a win for transparency overall in AZ?
When only one side is transparent...no.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:05 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
Communications involving government officials regarding official government business is and should always be public record.
What, exactly, is the problem with this ruling?
What, exactly, is the problem with this ruling?
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:07 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
When only one side is transparent...no.
I'm all for both sides having their shite called out here.
A ruling in the opposite direction though would have been extremely bad for transparency across the board.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:07 pm to Chancellor
quote:
Communications involving government officials regarding official government business is and should always be public record.
What, exactly, is the problem with this ruling?
During the investigation? I wouldn’t think that wise.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:13 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
During the investigation? I wouldn’t think that wise.
Ummmmm.. it's an audit not an fbi case. All seems pretty reasonable. Surely no one was stupid enough to say anything crazy in those messages. They had to know this was coming.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:20 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
I get why some of y'all are mad i guess. But isn't this a win for transparency overall in AZ
Guess you missed where there is a refusal to allow the audit.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:24 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Ummmmm.. it's an audit not an fbi case.
Not really sure that matters.
quote:
Surely no one was stupid enough to say anything crazy in those messages. They had to know this was coming.
One would hope.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:25 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
A ruling in the opposite direction though would have been extremely bad for transparency across the board.
Logically - yes.
In these circumstances, it doesn’t matter.
When only one side is transparent, then in reality, you don’t actually have “transparency.”
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:27 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
oklahogjr
I don’t recall you chiming in when the subpoenaed routers weren’t given up even though a court order was issued. Did you miss that thread?
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:32 pm to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
it's going to be interesting how Fann picked Logan out of the hat to lead the entire audit and how Logan ended up chosing the other members of the audit team.
All this could be enlightening based on Trump's contact with Fann after the election and Fann's refusal to disclose how and by whom she was put in contact with Logan.
Fann 's claim that she doesn't remember how she was introduced to Logan is emblematic of the entire audit.
All this could be enlightening based on Trump's contact with Fann after the election and Fann's refusal to disclose how and by whom she was put in contact with Logan.
Fann 's claim that she doesn't remember how she was introduced to Logan is emblematic of the entire audit.
Posted on 7/16/21 at 11:37 pm to texridder
quote:
it's going to be interesting how Fann picked Logan out of the hat to lead the entire audit and how Logan ended up chosing the other members of the audit team.
All this could be enlightening based on Trump's contact with Fann after the election and Fann's refusal to disclose how and by whom she was put in contact with Logan.
Fann 's claim that she doesn't remember how she was introduced to Logan is emblematic of the entire audit.
A conspiracy to rig the audit? Lol.
You people are friggin insane.
This post was edited on 7/16/21 at 11:38 pm
Back to top

24







