Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Merged] Kari Lake Files Lawsuit in Bid to Overturn Arizona Election Defeat


Portre

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It shows you comments are a straw man.

I was countering the claims about the 2020 suits, not putting out a straw man for this case!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. .

Actually, if you look at my post number 48, you see that the majority of cases lost on merit or from those bringing the lawsuits voluntarily dismissing them.

 

Quote

Of 64 cases, the group found:

 

20 were dismissed before hearings on the merits, 

 

14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his allies before hearings on the merits,

 

And 30 cases included hearings on the merits. 

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

The legal term of standing comes down to harm. In some cases like with the Texas lawsuit. It didn't have standing because the party (state of Texas) can't bring a lawsuit claiming damages on behalf of another party (Georgia). The harmed party would have to do that. 

So if an election denier wanted to bury their head in the sand and look at no other court cases or use critical thinking than you could act like that case wasent looked into.

 

Georgia of course brought their own lawsuits which all lost.

The evidence still doesn't get looked at. The court stops the question after "who are you,  you aren't grieved here". Which,  if you look at it from a certain point of view,  could indicate that the Judicial Branch is hesitant to appear to rule,  even indirectly,  on the Executive Branch. 

In not arguing there were any shenanigans, like I said. But it's also wrong to say the evidence was all heard in court,  when it simply wasn't so. 

But I'm repeating myself,  so I'll bow out of this discussion.  Thanks, 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The evidence still doesn't get looked at. The court stops the question after "who are you,  you aren't grieved here". Which,  if you look at it from a certain point of view,  could indicate that the Judicial Branch is hesitant to appear to rule,  even indirectly,  on the Executive Branch. 

In not arguing there were any shenanigans, like I said. But it's also wrong to say the evidence was all heard in court,  when it simply wasn't so. 

But I'm repeating myself,  so I'll bow out of this discussion.  Thanks, 

 

Here is a detail of some of the cases from Republican lawyers and judges.

https://www.witf.org/2022/09/01/these-republicans-did-a-deep-dive-into-2020-election-lawsuits-including-in-pa-heres-why-most-of-them-failed/

Really take note of how many of these actually don't try to claim fraud but really are just trying to throw votes out. That's because there wasent really even "evidence" to look at most of the time. The few times there was anything to look at judges ultimately laughed it out of court.

Places like Arizona even tried to do a ton of computer forensic investigations and came up empty. 

The whole election fraud conspiracy is baloney and dangerous because it is used to trick people into agreeing to attempt overturning elections and throwing votes out. Even tricking the most extreme of followers to storm the capital during the election certification process. 

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The evidence still doesn't get looked at. The court stops the question after "who are you,  you aren't grieved here". Which,  if you look at it from a certain point of view,  could indicate that the Judicial Branch is hesitant to appear to rule,  even indirectly,  on the Executive Branch. 

In not arguing there were any shenanigans, like I said. But it's also wrong to say the evidence was all heard in court,  when it simply wasn't so. 

But I'm repeating myself,  so I'll bow out of this discussion.  Thanks, 

The point you are failingvto grasp is that no harmed complainant brought a suit.

Maybe, the claims of harm, damages, or theft are so empty that the complainant with standing thinks a suing is not woth their cost.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I was countering the claims about the 2020 suits, not putting out a straw man for this case!

Nevertheless...the strawman is a by-product of your intentions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its all really quite simple. Trump was a spoiled whiny little brat that couldn't stand to lose , then ran his mouth continuously about a steal. And still does to this day. The part that gets complicated is how come so many people couldn't see that , and how come they believed him.

Edited by razman
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

How does that counter my comments about the 2020 election cases being largely dismissed on Standing, and therefore the courts did not look at the evidence???

Spartan posted the information about the lawsuits, and now you can post something saying the majority were dismissed on standing, and the evidence...and again, lack thereof, wasn't looked at.

Edited by Agent0range
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

The evidence still doesn't get looked at.

Evidence from who??? Cyber Ninjas?  Even that partisan side show conceded when their "audit" was complete.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, razman said:

I think its all really quite simple. Trump was a spoiled whiny little brat that couldn't stand to lose , then ran his mouth continuously about a steal. And still does to this day. The part that gets complicated is how come so many people couldn't see that , and how come they believed him.

Did you ever wonder why people were like that over men like jim jones or doh applesauce, charlie manson, etc ? They become an odd brainwashed if you will these "leaders" live 24 7 in their minds its bad how deeply delusioned these poor souls are the worse are the ones who do not even live in the USA they come up with the most asinine reasons why they worship tRump even send $$$ to him look at the members here who only post about tRump do not visit any other forum sections, get unhinged if trump is bad mouthed and yet dont even live in the states. It would be hilarious if not so darn pathetic.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, and-then said:

Only cowards refuse to even read a piece because of the source.  

I refuse to read Fake news Award winners CNN.  If that makes me a coward I can live with that label. Haha 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, and-then said:

So i take it from your disclaimer directed as insult the source is shady, shaky and leans way righty?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and-then said:

lol this **** was disproven back in april. Just more Rs that lost still trying to get votes thrown out. Repbulicans only win when they cheat

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and-then said:

OK I read it.  In some way they used AI, i.e. signature recognition software, like banks and credit card companies do  to help verify signatures.  The suit claims the law does not allow that.  I guess we will see.  The rest is newspaper claims, not evidence that will be presented in court.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, and-then said:

Did you even read your own link by chance :whistle:.

It's the same old strategy as in 2020. They are neither trying to claim fraud in court or presenting evidence of fraud.

They are trying to throw votes out based on what they claim is a unlaw procedure.  This is the exact same BS strategy as in 2020. Trying to throw votes out based on obscure technicalities. Judges see right through that strategy.

Quote

 

Borrelli told The Gateway Pundit, “I’m challenging the fact that Maricopa County is the only county that used artificial intelligence to verify signatures on a ballot envelope.” He continued, “there’s nothing in the law that allows them to do that.”

 

“The legislature never passed a law to allow this type of technology. It’s not in the Elections Procedures Manual,” Borrelli stated

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Did you even read your own link by chance :whistle:.

It's the same old strategy as in 2020. They are neither trying to claim fraud in court or presenting evidence of fraud.

They are trying to throw votes out based on what they claim is a unlaw procedure.  This is the exact same BS strategy as in 2020. Trying to throw votes out based on obscure technicalities. Judges see right through that strategy.

 

They all see it but if BOM does it then its okay you know like his affairs with sex trade workers while he had pregnant wife, ive ask if their son in law pulled that would they support him and every T subject heres goes crickets and tumbleweeds when i ask it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

They all see it but if BOM does it then its okay you know like his affairs with sex trade workers while he had pregnant wife, ive ask if their son in law pulled that would they support him and every T subject heres goes crickets and tumbleweeds when i ask it.

My favorite is when everyone is wondering why noone else got arrested over Epstein while ignoring the guy that was friends with him for years, bragged about walking in on teens changing at a pagaent, taken to court/sued over and underaged assualt with Epstein, had one girl recruited from in his house and another attempted recruitment, and uttered, "She say anything about me?" when he was informed Maxwell was arrested.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 4:20 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That's only how the system works if the Court deems that you have Standing.  Once they agree with that,  they'll happily look at the evidence and decide whether there's enough to bring to trial!

If the case is dismissed on Standing,  you don't get a chance to present evidence,  the court says "you don't have standing  we don't care what your evidence may or may not be". 

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. . Despite this,  people still erroneously believe that the suits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

For the record,  I don't believe there was significant enough fraud to change the outcome of the election, so don't take this reply to somehow be evidence that I'm an election denier,  I'm simply addressing a claim that the courts all looked at the available evidence and ruled the evidence insufficient for trial,  because that's not what happened at all,  for the most part!

Do you have a clue as to what standing means? The answer is NO

https://www.brownandcrouppen.com/blog/what-is-standing/

Quote

At its most basic, standing is the right of a party to challenge the conduct of another party in court. Standing is not about the actual issues of the case.

Clearly, that is not what is at issue or what was at issue

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, acidhead said:

and my pronouns are "I/Won" hahaha 

 

The replies are priceless.

Nobody is challenging that she's a denying deplorable so I'm not sure what her problem is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 6:04 PM, and-then said:

Undoubtedly it did in some cases.  In others they were told to drop the votes into a box and they be counted separately.  Huge numbers of those were placed in these boxes but only 17000 were acknowledged.  Even then, some of those were dumped in with ballots that had already been counted and there was no way to count the ones that had NOT yet be tallied.

As for proof, no one here who supports the results is the slightest bit interested in facts that might tend to disprove what they believe.  The proof of this is that unless a media source THEY TRUST covers this story, they simply mock the source and ignore it, smugly, usually.  Quite a game, innit?

Here is a simple hint.  No news service counts the votes. Sounds like you did not know that.

And comments from you on other subjects reveal you are the one that is not "the slightest bit interested in facts that might tend to disprove what they believe." If you actually had facts to support your case you could post them. As we all realize you can't. But please post facts instead of nothing worthwhile as you did here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 6:21 PM, Paranoid Android said:

It's a fact that the majority of cases were dismissed on Standing! 

 

The article is challenging the claim that "not a single court" heard evidence.  I'm not claiming that! I'm claiming he majority of them were dismissed on Standing! Which is true!

Really? I do not believe you. Please support your story.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 6:40 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That's an unwarranted conclusion based on what happened! It's one possibility,  but by no means the only one. 

Nevertheless,  it still means that the courts literally didn't look at the evidence!!!!

 

You claim they didn't look t the evidence. But that is a lie isn't it? Well, maybe you are so clueless you don't realize that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to [Merged] Kari Lake Files Lawsuit in Bid to Overturn Arizona Election Defeat

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.