Maricopa County filed a response to Kari Lake’s Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court on Monday.
The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on Kari Lake’s stolen election and her lawsuit challenging the fraud in Maricopa County, Arizona. On March 1, 2023, after the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Arizona Appeals Court dismissed the case, Lake filed a ‘Petition for Review’ and a Motion to Expedite Review’ for her election contest in the Arizona Supreme Court.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, on March 2, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to expedite Lake’s lawsuit and scheduled March 21 to consider whether or not they will accept Lake’s new Petition. “At the conference, the Court will decide whether to accept review and schedule an oral argument,” states the order.
Maricopa County submitted a bogus response on Monday, falsely claiming that Kari Lake “presents—for the first time—a misleading factual theory about chain-of-custody documents” and “does not present any argument illustrating a need for this Court to review the court of appeals’ Opinion.”
Read Maricopa County’s full response here:
“A petition for review is not the place for Lake to argue that the trial court’s findings of fact were incorrect, nor that the court of appeals improperly accepted the facts that the trial court found,” argue the dishonest attorneys for Maricopa County.
They don’t even want the Supreme Court to consider this case because they are terrified of how this will end up – so they lie.
Lake’s attorneys responded, “contrary to Respondents’ claims, the deferential ‘unless clearly erroneous doctrine’ ‘does not apply … to findings of fact that are induced by an erroneous view of the law nor to findings that combine both fact and law when there is an error as to law’—as here where the trial court and court of appeals applied the wrong standard of review.”
The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on the alleged discrepancies corroborated by whistleblower testimony, including missing chain of custody documentation for hundreds of thousands of ballots and the injection of likely phony ballots into the election. Lake also challenges the burden of proof used in the Maricopa County Superior Court and the opinion that Kari Lake did not provide “clear and convincing evidence” of voter fraud.
Lake’s attorneys previously argued that according to Findley v. Sorenson (1929), even if not intentional, election errors can nullify an election if “they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.” This is further confirmed by the opinion in Hunt v. Campbell (1917), which states, “wherever such practices or influences are shown to have prevailed, not slightly and in individual cases, but generally, so as to render the result uncertain, the entire vote so affected must be rejected.”
Lake was required to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that the errors were intentional beyond a reasonable doubt and that the outcome was affected by election fraud, which does not conform to the legal standard set forth above in previous cases. As stated in our previous reporting and Lake’s reply, Kari Lake is challenging the “standard of review” used in her case.
Kari Lake’s election for Governor of Arizona was blatantly stolen right in our faces. The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on the massive machine and printer failures that targeted Election Day voters, turning out for Kari Lake and Republicans 3:1. This issue occurred at nearly 60% of voting locations in the County. Cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh testified in Kari Lake’s election trial that broken machines and printers on Election Day “could not arise absent intentional misconduct.”
This fact alone cannot be allowed to stand and remains unmentioned in Maricopa County’s response to the Supreme Court. How can anyone possibly claim this was a fair election when 61% of the voting centers had broken and inoperable machines on Election Day?
On Thursday night Attorneys Kurt B. Olson and Bryan James Blehm filed a reply to the County’s response.
The Kari Lake attorneys argue that they have a right to reply due to the numerous factual misstatements and material misrepresentations by the Maricopa County attorneys in their response brief.
According to the Lake attorneys, Maricopa County misled the court about the Lake team’s position. They still refuse to answer the central question of why there are over 35,000 unaccounted for ballots. They also offer no response to the Runbeck whistleblower who testified that ballots could be inserted anywhere in the process at Runbeck and that the employees were inserting ballots into the ballot stream. And Maricopa County is still avoiding the central issues, and that is that the county deliberately ignored mandatory chain of custody requirements, and the failures to do logic and accuracy testing. Clearly, Maricopa County misrepresented the facts to the court. They just didn’t follow the law.
The new reply from Lake’s team, intends “solely to correct misstatements of the record” by the defendants in this case. Lake’s attorneys argue, “in an effort to distract the Court from the core issues, all three Responses attempt to miscast the Petition as primarily raising new and contradictory disputes of fact concerning Maricopa’s violation ofArizona chain-of-custody laws. It does not.”
This refers to the allegation by Maricopa County that Lake changed her allegations regarding chain of custody and “mischaracterized the record to make yet another fantastical claim.” Lakes attorneys write, “Disparaging Lake’s claim as not only ‘new’ but also ‘fantastical’ and a ‘fabrication’, Respondents disingenuously argue that Lake cites chain-of-custody forms in her Petition that she alleged in the trial court did not even exist. Fontes further suggests the Court sanction Lake and her counsel. Respondents are wrong. This issue is not new, was properly raised below, and is properly before this Court.”
“Lake addressed the specific issue of the 35,563 unaccounted for ballots injected at Runbeck on appeal. Just as Respondents do here, Hobbs attempted to mislead the court of appeals in her answering brief below by conflating two distinct sets of forms: (a) a defense trial exhibit, MC Inbound—Receipt of Delivery forms which were filled out at Runbeck and documented the delivery of EDDB ballots from MCTEC on Election Day, and (b) the Maricopa County Delivery Receipt forms which, as discussed above, on Election Day, should have been (but were not) completed at MCTEC with the precise number of EDDB ballots sent to Runbeck.”
Lake’s attorneys continue, “in her reply brief below, as in her Petition to this Court, Lake cited the same excerpt of that trial exhibit of MC Inbound—Receipt of Delivery forms showing how Runbeck received 35,563 fewer ballots on Election Day than it scanned and sent back to MCTEC. Id. Notably, none of the Respondents disputed this issue below by either requesting oral argument after Lake filed her reply, as was their right under ARCAP 18(a), or by seeking leave to file a sur-reply.”
Read the full response below:
Kari Lake Appeal – Filed Motion and Reply by Attorneys – March 16, 2023 by Jim Hoft on Scribd
The Gateway Pundit will provide updates on Kari Lake’s historic Arizona Supreme Court battle and the upcoming conference on March 21!