Thursday, August 31, 2023

SANCTIONS SCOREBOARD UPDATE, MORE SANCTIONS INCOMING? Finchem (& His Attorney) Files Brief Appealing Sanctions In Election Contest... Plus So Much More (READ Brief)

Mark Finchem - and, his ready-to-retire-before-being-disbarred attorney Dan McCauley - filed their Brief appealing the $48,000 in sanctions imposed for his frivolous Election Contest. Not only did they file it (one day) late, but they try to sneak back in several of the issues which *they* had dismissed one month ago.

The, um, not-tight-and-not-proofread (e.g. "Latches" as a subject heading?) 51-page brief flat out concludes by asking the Court of Appeals to reverse both the sanctions AND the dismissal ("Contestant prays that the trial court be REVERSED and that based on the above this Court reverse the lower court’s Ruling granting sanctions, as under any reasonable analysis, the Contest was clearly filed in good faith and certainly not frivolous.")

(Contrast that with this July 30 statement: "After a series of decisions in the Arizona appellate courts related to the 2022 statewide election, specifically Lake v. Hobbs and Hamadeh v. Hayes, whose allegations more or less mirror Mr. Finchem’s, Appellant has decided to forego the appeal of his election contest dismissal.")

The rest of Finchem's Conclusion is worth reading, too. If only for an example of how not to overturn the sanctions Order... and preventing further sanctions:

Mark Finchem received substantially more than 1,000,000 votes in the 2022 election for Secretary of State. From the feedback he gets from his constituents the vast majority believe he won and the elction should be contested. An evidentiary hearing was seen by Mr. Finchem to at least playcate, if not satisfy, his constituents’ concerns. The judge’s ruling in this case did not mollify any of his constiuents angst regarding the election and only stirred the pot in which claims of election fraud are being brewed. The judge had a duty use judicial restraint and desist from a hostile and angry tone in her Rulings.

The lower court should have been reasonable. Mr. McCauley has been an attorney has been a lawyer for more than 30 years, he has never even been accused of making inappropriate statements or claims to a tribunal. Moreover, the judge was informed by Mr. Fontes’ counsel that his legal fees were guaranteed by a third party. So, Fontes suffered no loss. Now, with the sanctions paid has he received a $40,000 windfall or is his attorney just keeping the money? The public has a right to know where the money went and who profited on this case.

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.

1 comment:

  1. Oof - the sentence at the end of the first paragraph, right before you called out the lack of proofreading in Finchem’s brief, needs proofreading.

    ReplyDelete

BREAKING: AZGOP Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Accept Kari Lake/Mark Finchem Appeal; Repeats Attacks On Dominion Voting Machines (READ Amicus)

The Gina Swoboda-led Arizona Republican Party today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to accept Kari Lake and Mark Finchem's appeal to revive...