🚨THREAD: @KariLake has filed a brief in the AZ Supreme Court opposing the sanctions proposed against her for raising the argument that 35,563 ballots were unaccounted for and added to the total ballots at Runbeck.
Hobbs et al had argued this was a brand new claim (false) and…
Hobbs et al had argued this was a brand new claim (false) and…
Lake attorney’s are asking the court to not only deny sanctions against them, but also to consider the brief they just filed as a motion for reconsideration. To read more about the weaponization of sanctions by those who wish to punish honest legal pursuits in AZ, you can read…
Maricopa didn’t ask for sanctions, but the other parties did. In order to request sanctions due to the provisions those parties cite, the court must find (and the lawyers must successfully argue) that they brought claim for an improper motive, or that they pressed issues that…
Back when I was threading and detailing responses, I talked about how government actors are granted presumptions that assume they are acting in good faith. Not so for Runbeck.
Respondents don’t even attempt to show any evidence rebutting the claim, and no one can argue that…
Respondents don’t even attempt to show any evidence rebutting the claim, and no one can argue that…
This entire argument stems back to CoC issues. If proper Chain of Custody were followed, Maricopa would have known if even one ballot were inserted. They didn’t follow process or law, and Maricopa was unaware of the actual ballot totals.
This is a little confusing, but I will explain. The entire reason that Lake raised this issue in the appeal process was to answer and argument that Hobbs herself raised. It was a counter, so it obviously couldn’t have been a “brand new” claim, as Hobbs asserts.
Hobbs cites two…
Hobbs cites two…
The defense (Hobbs) presented exhibits at trial. Exhibit 33 was a compilation of forms entitled “MC Incoming Scan Receipts” which is a recording from Runbeck of the number of early ballot packages it scanned for signature verification and counted on its scanners between 11/8 and…
The next was a compilation of forms called “MC Inbound- Receipt of Delivery.” These are records created at Runbeck documenting ALL early ballots delivered to Runbeck prior to Runbeck scanning the ballots.
Four witnesses, in addition to a county employee, signed these forms for…
Four witnesses, in addition to a county employee, signed these forms for…
Hobbs used these exhibits to “prove” that CoC laws were followed and that Maricopa would immediately know if a ballot were added or removed.
Lake stated that she calculated the number of ballots recorded on *their* forms - dated 11/8-11/9 and noted as “Election Day” and…
Lake stated that she calculated the number of ballots recorded on *their* forms - dated 11/8-11/9 and noted as “Election Day” and…
…the number of ballots recorded on the Receipt of Delivery forms…
And used THEIR NUMBERS to prove the discrepancy of 35,563 ballots more scanned than received.
There is no possible argument here for sanctions, or that there weren’t 33,563 MORE ballots scanned than received,…
And used THEIR NUMBERS to prove the discrepancy of 35,563 ballots more scanned than received.
There is no possible argument here for sanctions, or that there weren’t 33,563 MORE ballots scanned than received,…
For Hobbs to be correct that Maricopa would pick up any of this immediately, they would need to know the exact number of ballots at EVERY stage in the process- which is what the law requires- however, Maricopa ADMITTED that they disregarded that requirement on Election Day…
Even if we accept their excuse that they were just “too busy” to follow the procedure, the result should be at least *close*.
This is a decision usurping difference in vote totals, again, based off of their own (supposedly perfect and infallible) numbers.
This is a decision usurping difference in vote totals, again, based off of their own (supposedly perfect and infallible) numbers.
In her reply on appeal, @KariLake pointed out that the 35,563 early ballots were scanned by Runbeck, but remain unaccounted for in the receipt forms from Runbeck. This is simple math done in rebuttal to Hobbs statement that they followed CoC procedures. They used Hobbs own…
TO THIS DAY- no one has challenged this— they have had ample opportunity to do so. They could have done it at briefing and chose not to. Hobbs claim that this is the “first time” Lake has ever brought this claim for review is just false. It’s a lie.
As already discussed, Hobbs uses the exhibits she presented at trial as an example of how Maricopa would know every single ballot added or removed- but her own exhibits (which are the only forms available) discount her claim. She is just lying, or ignorant. You pick.
As discussed, Maricopa ADMITS they didn’t follow their own procedure, as required, instead of counting everything they just sorted, placed ballots into mail trays and sent them off. They ADMITTEDLY didn’t know how many ballots they sent off to Runbeck to be scanned. Lake was…
So we have Maricopa County admitting they have no true count of the ballots they sent off to Runbeck for signature verification, no clear chain of custody, and a discrepancy of an outcome altering number of ballots mysteriously showing up in the count, coupled with a witness who…
And another thing- they are conflating ballots received *before* Election Day with the ballots being discussed here. The issue at hand is just the ballots received on Election Day and the the day after. Maricopa attempted to conflate ballots received earlier in the count—
But…
But…
Sorry for the brief delay! More, now. Maricopa is arguing that Lake misrepresented the record by comparing an *excerpt* of the exhibit to produce their 35k discrepancy. This isn’t the case.
Here, Maricopa attempts to conflate USPS votes, votes at vote centers etc and state that Delivery Forms are not for votes received at vote centers on Election Day.
Unfortunately for them, the forms themselves dispute this assertion.
Unfortunately for them, the forms themselves dispute this assertion.
The rest of this argument goes on to explain how overly generous Lake was with her totals, giving the benefit of the doubt. In actuality, there were likely FAR MORE votes inserted than the final number.
They conclude the filing with a brief argument about the motion for reconsideration, as well as the reasons why this case will move to the US Supreme Court should they not consider the law properly. Kari Lake fights on. Next, an update on where the signature claims are.
As many of you know, the AZ SC remanded the signature verification claims- namely that Maricopa DID NOT FOLLOW PROCEDURE when verifying signatures - back down to the lower court. But, there is no procedure in place for how this hearing actually happens. So, we are now waiting on…
Lake’s attorneys took the opportunity to motion for reconsideration on the very claims Hobbs said she wanted sanctioned for. Gutsy (and interesting) move.
I am now going to share a bit more information with all of you from previous coverage that may inform your thinking on this case- one of vital importance.
READ: uncoverdc.com
READ: uncoverdc.com
This case is so vitally important. It was DISHEARTENING that I was unable to find any actual journalism on this filing to catch me up to speed when I was away, but I suppose that is why I exist.
PLEASE consider supporting our work at @UncoverDC. We really appreciate it.…
PLEASE consider supporting our work at @UncoverDC. We really appreciate it.…
Loading suggestions...