re: The former Maricopa County Elections attorney Rachel Alexander weighs in.

quote:

---

I do think the judge had decided what to do before the trial started and that was more apparent with the very quick turnaround on the opinion.

---

I agree.

The parties had done EXTENSIVE briefing during the preceding week or so, in the context of the motion(s) to dismiss. I think that briefing gave the judge a VERY clear idea of what needed to be proved at trial, and I think that he was watching VERY closely for EXACTLY that evidence.

When it was not presented, it was an easy matter to proceed to judgment.

quote:

---

The only negative consequence for any public official, including judges, is being ostracized. These people don’t have vast wealth. But they do have access. What’s the point of being a semi-well paid “public servant” if other well-connected people stop letting your kids into college, stop hiring them once they graduate, and stop inviting you to fabulous parties that only other wealthy and/or well-connected ppl attend. Your needs are met, you just don’t have to pay for them. A Judge can’t buy his way into that lifestyle, but he sure as shite can enjoy it.

---

you have just described the path toward the nation's ultimate failure.

we are already well down that road and it is getting less curvy and more downhill.

The Lib/Progs will continue to cheat until they are as afraid of us as they are of Muslims.

quote:

---

"legal experts" -

---

Please post your bar number.

quote:

---

It’s why I keep going round and round with you about this. The courts demanding that Lake and other litigants prove that the chain of custody rules were not followed without chain of custody documents are requiring that the litigant prove a negative, and demanding they do so without evidence. It’s a legal impossibility

---

Chain of custody, in and of itself, is not going to get KL a revote. I'm not an attorney like you are, so I'll explain in layman's terms what I understand and you can correct me if it's wrong.

The judge was never going to order a revote unless KL persuasively argued that either a shite ton of illegal ballots were counted, or a shite ton of voters were frustrated by printer/tabulator issues to the point they didn't vote, they were disenfranchised.

So the legit chain of custody issues are procedural/administrative. They did not speak to voters being disenfranchised or fraudulent votes being counted because plaintiff's acknowledged that outside of the "50 votes introduced by Runbeck workers, every step of how ballots were handled, transposed, tabulated was done with a Republican observer present.

Nobody is getting a revote order on a technicality. There needs to be compelling evidence that an adequate number of voters were disenfranchised or an adequate number of fraudulent votes were counted.

I thought Rachel Alexander was a horse

quote:

---

This trial was a show trial

---

Fight fire with Fire,

Every purple state with republican SOS in charge of elections need to order black voting areas with undersized paper and the told to put their rejected ballots in a basket and take

two weeks to count illegal republican votes and start to steal elections by sabotaging black voting areas .


Then have republican judges throw out the blacks legal suits .

quote:

---

It was testified that no one counted the ballots that were in the boxes that were sent to be counted. Because of that one glaring breach of election protocol, there is no way to know how many votes were cast or if all of them or more of them were counted.

A new election should have been called by the judge based on that testimony alone.

---

What if testimony also revealed that the ballots were sealed in a container, transported, opened back up at the elections center, adjudicated (transposed) and then tabulated, all with a Republican and Democrat observers accompanying them every step?

Chain of Custody isn’t a technicality. We agree entirely on its significance.

I think counting these ballots without chain of custody documents disenfranchises the votes of those whose votes were documented and cast legally. From a philosophical standpoint, I think chain of custody is an imperative.

Without the chain of custody, the ballots were “illegal votes” bc there is NO WAY for the government to show it complied with the rules. The judge ruled against KL bc the prevailing legal interpretation is wrongheaded. The prevailing interpretation is that a lawyer is somehow going to prove that AZ failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements with direct evidence that each of the 250,000 ballots had a specific defect. That’s impossible to do when the state doesn’t produce the documents. And it’s even worse than they are require, by law, to keep the documents. It is literally the one job of these elections clerks.

You prove the absence of a thing by proving evidence of the absence of a thing - which they did. They had a woman testify to the lengths she went to obtain these documents by FOIA req and the state left her voicemails bc they didn’t want to write down that they didn’t have the documents.

All Arizona had to do was say, Kari Lake is full of shite. Here are the 250000 chain of custody documents. But because they didn’t - the judge found that there was no evidence that 250000 chain of custody documents were defective. It’s wrong. It’s nonsensical. I agree with you it’s wrong. It’s not a procedural technicality. And Kari Lane demonstrated that no chain of custody documents existed.