Friday, March 15, 2024

BREAKING: Kari Lake Goes To the (U.S.) Supreme Court, Brings New/Not New Allegations To Outlaw Voting Machines (READ Petition)

 UPDATE, 3/14/24: "BREAKING: Kari Lake Goes To the (U.S.) Supreme Court, Brings New/Not New Allegations To Outlaw Voting Machines (READ Petition)"

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem told the U.S. Supreme Court today that they have uncovered new evidence of unlawful conduct in past Maricopa County elections, and that the Justices should therefore find that they had standing to file their 2022 suit to ban electronic voting machines.

While not repeating the claims they made in the lower courts that Arizona does not use paper ballots, Lake/Finchem attorneys Kurt Olsen and Larry Joseph do claim to have recently discovered that Maricopa County gave Dominion employees control over the election systems and committed other violations in 2020. Their argument is that the lower courts would not have dismissed the case (and assessed $122,000 in sanctions) but for these discoveries.

Their summary of what they want the Supreme Court to now consider also includes allegations that Maricopa County did not do required logic and accuracy tests, that passwords were not tightly controlled, and software was altered. The full list is found on pp. 17-18 of the Petition, below. However, they are theories that have long been thrown around - maybe even in this case. 

Asked about today's laundry list, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer told Arizona's Law "And, they're not even new."

After considering responses, the Supreme Court will conference and decide whether or not to accept review of the case.

Olsen, Alan Dershowitz and Lake's other attorneys have separately appealed the sanctions to the Ninth Circuit, with oral arguments expected to be in July.

(Previous article: https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2023/10/breaking-9th-circuit-re-dismisses-kari.html)

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thursday, March 14, 2024

UPDATE: AZ Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Grandaddy of All Elections Sanctions Cases; Near Finality On AZGOP's 2020 Case

The Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on the grandaddy of all elections-related sanctions cases, and the Republican-appointed justices seemed skeptical of the AZGOP's post-2020 lawsuit that prompted the sanctions.

The arguments were heard on the road, at ASU's College of Law.

Representing the AZGOP, attorney Dennis Wilenchik echoed earlier arguments that the sanctions for a bad faith filing were only based upon "the political motivation". Jack Wilenchik had warned the Superior Court judge that he would was in "dangerous First Amendment territory into which the Court should not dream of treading".

Judge John Hannah accused Wilenchik and the AZGOP of "gaslighting" and sanctioned them approximately $18,000 for the "futile" and "meritless" suit. The Court of Appeals not only affirmed those sanctions, but added $9,000 more for the "muddled" appeal.

Arizona statutes refer to a post-election hand-counted audit of 2% of voting precincts. However, the then-in-place Elections Procedures Manual recognized that some counties had moved to voting centers, and that an audit of 2% of those would satisfy the law.

The AZGOP knew in September of Maricopa County's intent to audit voting centers, yet did not file the challenge until after the audit was conducted and the official canvass of the election was fast approaching.

Both lower courts found that the lawsuit was groundless because it was against "the wrong parties at the wrong time, and sought the wrong relief", Assistant AG Karen Hartman-Tellez told the justices.

To reverse, the Supreme Court justices would have to greatly redefine the interpretation of Arizona's sanctions statute in order to overrule both lower courts' detailed findings, and likely carve out some special exception for elections law cases.

An opinion in this 2020 elections case is expected within the next few months. (Certainly before a new batch of post-elections cases are filed in November.)

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thursday, March 7, 2024

BREAKING: AZ Supreme Court Splits 4-3 On Odd Statutory Conflict Resulting From 2022's Prop. 209 (Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act)

Arizonans in bankruptcy who received refundable tax credits can breathe a bit easier today, after a divided Arizona Supreme Court ruling on the unfortunate sequencing of a 2022 law and the citizens' initiative restricting "predatory debt collection". However, dissenting Justices fret that the result may usher in an era of the Legislature preemptively amending future citizens' initiatives.

The 4-3 majority determined that Prop. 209 - the "Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act" that passed overwhelmingly - did NOT delete the portion of the exemptions statute that protected certain tax credits (e.g. earned income tax credits and child tax credits). Why the confusion? Because then-Gov. Doug Ducey signed the Legislature's bill adding the tax credit exemption on the SAME DAY (July 6, 2022) that the Healthcare Rising group turned in hundreds of thousands of signatures to put Prop. 209 on the November ballot.

That initiative touched another subsection of the exemption statute (increasing the exempt funds in a bank account), but did not mention the not-yet-existing tax credit subsection. The bill became law in September; the initiative after the election was certified in November.

Once people filing bankruptcy began claiming the new tax credit exemption, a bankruptcy trustee objected, claiming that Prop. 209 effectively repealed it (and he could seize and distribute the money to creditors).

The Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Justice John Lopez, said it is easy to see that it not explicitly repeal it. "Although the Governor signed S.B. 1222 into law on July 6, it did not take effect until September 24 because the Arizona Constitution delays the effective date of non-emergency legislation to allow challenges via referendum. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(3). Thus, subsection (A)(11) did not legally exist at any point during Prop. 209’s qualification process, and it did not become operative until well after Prop. 209’s filing deadline."

Writing for the three dissenting Justices, Justice Clint Bolick bemoans* the possible impact of this decision. "(I)f we green-light the legislature’s ability to preemptively amend ballot measures prior to an election, we may inadvertently turn a highly uncommon situation into a tool to blunt or frustrate the effect of prospective ballot measures. We will then be faced with deciding when to give full effect to the prior statute as amended, when we will seek to harmonize the statute and the ballot measure, and when we will hold that the ballot measure implicitly invalidates the statute."

*Justice Bolick's spouse is in the Legislature, and has recently spoken out against citizens' initiatives. Although the abortion initiative currently circulating is a proposed Constitutional amendment, it is not hard to imagine legislative efforts to preemptively amend future statutory initiatives.

**Author works with amicus Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Lawmakers Kolodin and Rogers Getting Early Start On "Arizona Election Audit 2024"? We Have Questions (NEWS ANALYSIS, Read Memorandum of Understanding)`

Who will be play the role of the Cyber Ninjas in the new release of "Arizona Election Audit 2024"? That is probably the least important of the many questions that Arizona lawmakers Wendy Rogers and Alex Kolodin have prompted with their new announcement of a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Runbeck Election Services.

The press release coming from the Legislature touts their agreement as a "significant achievement" and attaches a one page MOU (without a signature page). It is reproduced below. 

Runbeck is a private company that contracts with Maricopa County, most of Arizona's other counties and elections departments throughout the country to provide specialized elections services. Runbeck is currently owned by Black Mountain Investment Co., which is run by Mihai Toma. Toma's brother, Ben, is the Speaker of the Arizona House and said he would divest his interest in the company last year. (No new financial disclosure statements have been filed since that statement, either with the state or the U.S. House.)

For the most part, the new agreement involves minor improvements to oversight of Runbeck's processes, some of which have been the subject of public records requests in the past. (Runbeck had said it wasn't subject to PRRs.) For example, Runbeck is allowing the Republicans to look at video footage of Runbeck's loading dock from election night in 2022.

The 2nd item in the MOU raises more questions, however. Titled "Legislative Audits of Software", it accepts a new taxpayer-funded audit by some third party hired by the legislative Republicans of Runbeck's use of software in Maricopa County's signature verification and ballot duplication process.

And, this raises a number of questions:

1) Individual legislators - even if they are committee chairs - do not typically have the authority to enter into agreements. (Now-Senate President Warren Petersen had similar issues when he issued post-election subpoenas.) Although no signature page is shown, how are they binding the Legislature (and taxpayers)?

2) At least one of the items seem to allow Rogers and Kolodin to appoint two observers to watch the 2022 loading dock video. Yet, it does not provide for bipartisan observation, as is typical in elections processes. How do they think they can shut out the minority party?

3) This MOU is also a clear end run around the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - both Republican-controlled. How does Runbeck enter into this MOU without written permission from the agencies that have hired it?

4) In the PRR lawsuits, Runbeck has claimed to be exempt from the requests on the basis that it is simply a contractor with a government agency. Will this MOU end up destroying that defense? And, if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? The Cyber Ninjas might have something to say about this. 

5) Does Runbeck's private sharing of information with two hyper-partisan lawmakers allow for selective and misleading release of information - misinformation or disinformation, even - similar to recent disputes in the U.S. Congress?

6) Similar to the State Senate/Cyber Ninjas audit, is this furthering the bypassing of the longstanding, ever-evolving body of *laws* and regulations ensuring that Arizona's elections are efficiently, fairly  and securely run?

Many more questions could - and, should - be asked about this odd agreement between individual state lawmakers and a county vendor. But more importantly, who and how are going to answer these questions? We have begun to ask around, and will supplement as needed.

Responses from state officials, county officials, other lawmakers (and maybe the courts) incoming.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

BREAKING: Judge THROWS OUT Parts of Pair of 2022 Arizona Election Laws; Republican Leaders Testified they Had No Evidence Of Non-Citizens Registered To Vote In AZ (READ Order)

In a comprehensive ruling, a federal judge today threw out parts of Arizona laws passed in 2022 addressing voter registration and citizenship. Her decisions that portions violated the Civil Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act came after Republican legislative leaders (Toma, Petersen) testifies that they had no evidence of non-citizens registered to vote here (nor that there was any evidence of non-citizen voter fraud).

Judge Susan Bolton's 109-page ruling followed a 10-day trial last year, and analyzed the pair of laws that had resulted in concerns that thousands of long-time voters might be purged from the registration rolls because they had not provided documentary proof of citizenship back when they had registered.

The Court finds that though it may occur, non-citizens voting in Arizona is quite rare, and non-citizen voter fraud in Arizona is rarer still. But while the Voting Laws are not likely to meaningfully reduce possible non-citizen voting in Arizona, they could help to prevent non-citizens from registering or voting.

The ruling prevents Arizona County Recorders from rejecting voter registrations on state forms simply because the person did not fill in their state or country of birth. Plaintiffs successfully argued that that is not a material reason to determine whether or not the registrant is a citizen.

Similarly, Bolton found that the part of the bill that gave County Recorders the right to investigate and cancel a voter registration if they "ha(ve) reason to believe" the person is not a citizen would subject naturalized citizens to different standards than native-born citizens.

The ruling also says that Arizona cannot reject state form registrtions that are not accompanied by documentary proof of citizenship, but should instead register those people as "Federal Only Voter(s)".

Bolton found that other arguments from the wide group of plaintiffs were not proven - including that the Republican-dominated Legislature enacted the laws "with any discriminatory purpose". She also upheld the "remaining citizenship investigation procedures, DPOC requirements, and registration cancellation procedures".

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Monday, February 26, 2024

Arizona one of 8 states joining U.S. FTC in suing to block Kroger (Fry's)/Albertson's-Safeway merger

 Arizona AG Kris Mayes, the FTC and several other states are suing to BLOCK the Fry's (Kroger)/Safeway-Albertson's merger.

The case has been filed in federal court in Oregon. The state of Washington already filed their own case to block it, and the Pac NW also has a big overlap between Kroger and Albertson's/Safeway - like AZ.

The FTC and AZ allege that the proposed Kroger/Albertson's merger would create grocery monopolies in: Flagstaff; LHC-Kingman; Payson, Phx-Mesa-Chandler; Prescott Valley-Prescott; Sierra Vista-Douglas; Tucson; Yuma.

Also, AZ is 1 of 15 states where both are UFCW workplaces. The allegations about the unionization are that the merger will allow them to offer lower wages/worse packages to the union.  

The companies have agreed to a TRO, keeping the merger from closing until there's a ruling.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Monday, February 19, 2024

BREAKING: Trump and Lake Allies Expand Elections Lawsuit Against Maricopa County; 3 COCONINO County Practices Now Under Attack (READ Amended Complaint)

Allies of Kari Lake and Donald Trump have expanded their latest elections lawsuit against Maricopa County, adding heavily Democratic Coconino County.


The lawsuit filed by Trump-allied America First Legal on behalf of Lake-allied Strong Communities Foundation was filed earlier this month to relitigate several of the issues Maricopa County has been attacked for during the 2022 elections, and hoping to change some of them for 2024.

At a Thursday hearing, attorneys (James Rogers and Jennifer Wright) told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman that they would file an Amended Complaint later that day to add Coconino County. Arizona's Law has confirmed that it was filed and has acquired that new document (not yet on the docket, below). 

It accuses the northern Arizona county - which includes Flagstaff and a sizable portion of the Navajo Nation - of also improperly cancelling voter's registrations and phone-curing early ballots, as well as allowing unstaffed ballot drop boxes. (The lawsuit also accuses Maricopa County of all of these.)

Drop boxes for early ballots has become a flash point for disagreements, and this case could help iron that out. Arizona statutes do not set forth restrictions on how or where counties can set up drop boxes. The Amended Complaint utilizes the law prohibiting so-called "ballot harvesting" to suggest that counties must have someone standing next to the drop box at all times.*

They head to the dictionary for the definition of "staffed", and then have to look at "unstaffed." Their conclusion: "Thus, whenever “elections officials” are not present, a drop box is not “staffed,” and providing such a drop box is a class 5 felony. Accordingly, the Defendants’ providing of unstaffed drop boxes is unlawful. Indeed, doing so is a crime."

The lack of statutory clarity and the changes in explanations provided by the old and new versions of the Elections Procedures Manual did lead Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen to tell Votebeat reporter Jen Fifield "Holy cow!" Hansen and the other County Recorders were later assured by State Elections Director Colleen Connor that the drop boxes could be unstaffed as long as they are secured.

This lawsuit could test that interpretation, as well as counties' interpretations/procedures on calling voters to cure their early ballot signature issues and cancelling voters' registrations if there is an inter-county address change reported by ADOT.

The parties are also fighting on whether the case should be heard in Maricopa County or somewhere else. The plaintiffs filed there, but quickly asked it to be moved to Yavapai County - which they believe will be more friendly to Republican interests. 

Maricopa County plans to ask the judge to dismiss them from the case as incorrect parties. If that is unsuccessful, they would like the court either keep the case in Phoenix or move it to Pima County.

Judge Adleman repeatedly noted that there are "multiple layers of chicken and egg issues" before he and the attorneys agreed to first address the Motion to Dismiss (to be filed by Wednesday), then (if necessary) the venue, and then (if necessary) a motion by Democratic-allied groups to intervene.

Strong Communities was started and is run by Merissa Hamilton. U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake has tapped Hamilton to head up a significant part of her campaign - getting Lake supporters to return their early ballots.

An interesting side note: Maricopa County has their usual crack in-house team of elections-focused attorneys on the case, but has also retained the services of Snell & Wilmer's Brett Johnson. Johnson and his team typically represent Republican-related interests.

*The anti-"harvesting" provision differentiates between a drop box that a private person or group might set up and one that is "established and staffed by election officials" (A.R.S. §16-1005(E))

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Friday, February 16, 2024

BREAKING: No Labels Asks Judge For $160,000 Attorneys' Fees From Arizona Secretary of State In Suit To Stop Rogue No Labels Candidates

The No Labels party may have failed today in their effort to recruit Joe Manchin to run for President, but they also asked a federal judge this afternoon to order Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to reimburse them for $160,000 in attorneys' fees.

The request was filed late this afternoon in federal court in a case where they successfully prevented Arizonans from getting on the November ballot as No Labels candidates. Three candidates had already filed Statements of Interest for the U.S. Senate seat, a Congressional race and a State House contest.

Attorneys for Fontes unsuccessfully argued that once No Labels became a recognized political party in Arizona, they had to abide by the same statutes as the Democratic and Republican parties by allowing party members to run for any office on the ballot. 

Judge John Tuchi agreed that Fontes' office did not violate the statutes by accepting the Statements of Interest, but that No Labels still had a constitutional right to ONLY run candidates for the Presidency.

The Secretary of State has appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, but Judge Tuchi this week refused to stay his decision in the interim.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

NEW, UPDATE: Kari Lake AMENDS Financial Disclosure Statement To Add Trust; No Indication It's To Protect Assets From Richer

There was plenty of coverage* of the new financial disclosure statement filed with the U.S. Senate by Kari Lake. And that reporting may have prompted Lake to file her (first) AMENDED statement this past weekend.

Instead of owning ZenVideo, LLC as wife and husband, Lake and Jeffrey Halperin (her husband) actually own it - estimated to be worth between $100,000 to $250,000 - as part of their living trust.

The video production company has not earned Lake any income during the past year-plus (per the disclosure statement), and it does not appear that Lake either recently placed it in the trust nor placed it there with the intent to protect the assets from creditors. Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer recently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lake regarding her statements about the elections.

The trust appears to be the type of living trust which would not be protected from judgment enforcement. Lake and her husband placed two pieces of real property into the trust in late 2021, and those documents indicate that the trust is revocable and that they are the beneficiaries. People often use such trusts as part of their estate planning.

Those properties appear to be their home and a condominium, both in the Biltmore area. While a personal home is not required to be listed in the Senate's disclosure statements, Lake does list a rental condo that she is receiving rent of between $1,250-4,165 per month. (The disclosure statement does not list it as a trust asset, and that might require a second amendment.)

(POSTSCRIPT: As noted, Lake lists the condo as being worth between $100-250,000. The Maricopa County Assessor's most recent "full cash value" - which is typically lower than market value - as $273,300.)

*First reported by Brahm Resnik, Channel 12.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

ON OUR SISTER SITE: George Santos Treasurer(?) Hiding Out After Embezzling $50,000 From Arizona Congressional Candidate

Since campaign finance laws - and criminal laws - are implicated, we are cross-posting this Arizona's Politics article here. Arizona's Politics is an older sister site to Arizona's Law. Please head over there to read the rest of the article and to review the FEC filing.

*****

A one-time Treasurer(?) for fraudster/expelled Congressman George Santos is apparently hiding from law enforcement after being accused of embezzling at least $50,000 from an Arizona Congressional candidate.

Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake), who is currently running to regain a seat in the Arizona Legislature, leveled the charges in a letter filed with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") on Sunday afternoon.

(To read the rest of the article, click here)

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 


AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


BREAKING: Kari Lake Goes To the (U.S.) Supreme Court, Brings New/Not New Allegations To Outlaw Voting Machines (READ Petition)

  UPDATE, 3/14/24: " BREAKING: Kari Lake Goes To the (U.S.) Supreme Court, Brings New/Not New Allegations To Outlaw Voting Machines (RE...