BREAKING UPDATE, 3/21: The Real Reason *WHY* Kari Lake Late-Filed Request To Expedite SCOTUS Appeal To Ban Arizona Vote-Counting Machines (NEWS ANALYSIS)
In a move that can best be described as "rich", Kari Lake and Mark Finchem today asked SCOTUS to expedite her appeal Petition. And, the real reason is not that they are (suddenly) more worried about vote-counting machines being used in November - which is what they claim.
The Motion to Expedite comes more than five months after the 9th Circuit issued its Opinion on Oct 16, (as published here, below, in the original article).
Lake had 90 days to appeal. She asked for not one, but TWO, month-long extensions, citing other professional obligations. (Justice Kagan granted them.)
We did not previously publish the extension requests. However, they now are much more relevant. Here they are, below.
Lake's attorneys - Kurt Olsen and Larry Joseph - filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (asking the Justices to accept the discretionary appeal) just under the extended deadline last Thursday. The Clerk set April 17 as the government's deadline to respond.
If they had filed the Motion to Expedite with the Petition, the Court could have decided when to set the response deadline.
However, the real reason for filing the expediting request today was not in the (too-long) 23-page Motion. Rather, it is found in the 176-page Appendix filed separately.
There, we see three new affidavits from key election fraud advocates Clay Parikh, Ben Cotton and Walter Daugherity. These are dated March 18, 19 and 16, respectively.
In other words, even with the five months and two extensions, Lake's/Finchem's/Lindell's team could not finish putting together their Petition. This Motion to Expedite was simply an improper effort to get a de facto third extension to cover up their most recent (work management) failure. (Remember, this case was dismissed, sanctioned, and affirmed on appeal.)
************
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.
***********
Original article, 10/16/23: BREAKING: 9th Circuit Re-DISMISSES Kari Lake Hand Count Lawsuit (READ Opinion)
A panel of 9th Circuit judges did not require much time to affirm the dismissal of Kari Lake and Mark Finchem's lawsuit to force all future ballots to be tabulated by hand.
The unanimous Opinion handed down today agreed that Lake and Finchem had only presented "speculative allegations that voting machines may be hackable", and that they therefore could not establish that they had a right to bring such a suit.
Lake and Finchem had initially attempted to force a handcount in the 2022 elections. That case was dismissed by District Court Judge John Tuchi. Since they both lost in that election, they appealed by arguing that future elections - and they are now both 2024 candidates - should be counted by hand.
Oral argument took place on September 12 in Phoenix. The 9th Circuit panel issued a "per curiam" opinion, in which none of them are listed as the authoring judge. The panel consisted of Judges Andrew Hurwitz, Ronald Gould, and Patrick Bumatay.
The judges found that even if Lake/Finchem had standing, they could not prove that "future injury was either imminent or substantially likely to occur."
Their operative complaint relies on a “long chain of hypothetical contingencies” that have never occurred in Arizona and “must take place for any harm to occur—(1) the specific voting equipment used in Arizona must have ‘security failures’ that allow a malicious actor to manipulate vote totals; (2) such an actor must actually manipulate an election; (3) Arizona’s specific procedural safeguards must fail to detect the manipulation; and (4) the manipulation must change the outcome of the election.” This is the kind of speculation that stretches the concept of imminence “beyond its purpose.”
Separate panels are considering the appeals by Lake's and Finchem's attorneys, contesting the $122,000 in sanctions imposed against them. (There are separate appeals from Alan Dershowitz and the Kurt Olsen/Andrew Parker groups.)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment