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

[stereologist]

On 12/11/2022 at 6:48 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That is NOT how it works!

 

I was following cost than most during that time,  risk thank you.  

Obviously you have no idea what you are spouting about.

[stereologist]

On 12/11/2022 at 7:18 PM, 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, 

There is no evidence. And the fact that no evidence was presented caused many cases to be dismissed. The simple fact is that these cases never went to court to hear nothing.

You appear to be arguing that dirt bags should be allowed to waste court time when they have nothing, no evidence, nada, a vacuum of irrational lies.

[+Razman]

Sounds like she's trying to incite violence again , Talking about " Burn it down";.  This is just wrong in so many ways. " I didn't win , burn it down" . 

Edited December 19, 2022 by razman

[+Razman]

Kari Lake calls for imprisoning Maricopa County election officials (msn.com)

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

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

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

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

You just backed up everything I said with your link.  Thank you,  though I don't know you realise you did

Edited December 19, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is no evidence. And the fact that no evidence was presented caused many cases to be dismissed. The simple fact is that these cases never went to court to hear nothing.

You appear to be arguing that dirt bags should be allowed to waste court time when they have nothing, no evidence, nada, a vacuum of irrational lies.

Not what I'm saying at all! I said that the majority of cases were dismissed on Standing,  therefore it's completely incorrect to say the courts ruled on the evidence,  as that did not happen! 

I was wrong on "the majority", turns out it was about a third of cases dismissed on Standing,  and a third were withdrawn, leaving the other third contested. But the overall argument that many of the cases were dismissed on Standing is my point.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

But the overall argument that many of the cases were dismissed on Standing is my point.

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, razman said:

Sounds like she's trying to incite violence again , Talking about " Burn it down";.  This is just wrong in so many ways. " I didn't win , burn it down" . 

Its a trump taught idea you see his worshippers here echo it but the American people are not shrieking violets not door mats trumps bullying threats didnt work and wont work.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You just backed up everything I said with your link.  Thank you,  though I don't know you realise you did

Actually you are are completely and utterly wrong.

If someone has no standing then they are not an aggrieved party.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not what I'm saying at all! I said that the majority of cases were dismissed on Standing,  therefore it's completely incorrect to say the courts ruled on the evidence,  as that did not happen! 

I was wrong on "the majority", turns out it was about a third of cases dismissed on Standing,  and a third were withdrawn, leaving the other third contested. But the overall argument that many of the cases were dismissed on Standing is my point.

That shows how pathetic the cases were. Parties that not aggrieved were filing law suits.

They could have simply posted heir evidence, but they did not. Why? Because they had nothing to exhibit. They could have given their evidence to the aggrieved parties but they did not.

Claiming that being dismissed due to lack of standing suggests any evidence exists is ludicrous.

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 12/19/2022 at 11:32 PM, stereologist said:

Actually you are are completely and utterly wrong.

If someone has no standing then they are not an aggrieved party.

And the Court didn't need to look at any evidence under such a circumstance.  Point made,  thank you very much

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 12/19/2022 at 11:52 PM, stereologist said:

That shows how pathetic the cases were. Parties that not aggrieved were filing law suits.

They could have simply posted heir evidence, but they did not. Why? Because they had nothing to exhibit. They could have given their evidence to the aggrieved parties but they did not.

Claiming that being dismissed due to lack of standing suggests any evidence exists is ludicrous.

Or, did the court used "Standing" as an excuse to dismiss the case!

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 12/19/2022 at 7:50 PM, Golden Duck said:

Pointless post, posting about a pointless button! Such pointed irony!

Edited December 20, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And the Court didn't need to look at any evidence under such a circumstance.  Point made,  thank you very much

Isn't that how people with a brain work society?

If you are unable to deal with the court system then you are sent away.

Hand any of these brainless wonders anything of actual evidence then they could give it to the aggrieved parties.

But they have nothing so they whine that their fake claims of evidence are not presented in a court case where they are not able to.

Thank you for seeing what a pile of manure this is

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Or, did the court used "Standing" as an excuse to dismiss the case!

How low do people have to dive into the cesspool when their fake stories are dismissed outright?

Apparently, their is no depth they will not strive for.

[stereologist]

What do the courts have to say about this loser Trump wannabee?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/judge-allows-kari-lakes-election-lawsuit-proceed-part-rcna62538

Quote

A judge on Monday dismissed most of a lawsuit filed by Kari Lake, the GOP candidate who lost Arizona’s governor race in November, but allowed her to go to trial with a pair of claims challenging Democratic Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs’ victory.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson ruled that Lake can go to trial Wednesday and Thursday with two of her 10 claims, which allege misconduct with ballot printers and problems with ballot chain of custody. Thompson did not take a position on the validity of the two claims, but said Lake should be allowed to present her case.

Let's see if this dirt bag has anything of value

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Isn't that how people with a brain work society?

If you are unable to deal with the court system then you are sent away.

Hand any of these brainless wonders anything of actual evidence then they could give it to the aggrieved parties.

But they have nothing so they whine that their fake claims of evidence are not presented in a court case where they are not able to.

Thank you for seeing what a pile of manure this is

Yes, but don't then turn around and say "the courts looked at all the evidence and dismissed it", when that is clearly NOT what happened! 

[stereologist]

I can't wait for this loser to how how pathetic she is.

 

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yes, but don't then turn around and say "the courts looked at all the evidence and dismissed it", when that is clearly NOT what happened! 

I never posted that. Why are you lying about my posts?

I suppose that you have no morals

[+Link of Hyrule]

30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I never posted that. Why are you lying about my posts?

I suppose that you have no morals

I entered this thread to write what I did, because someone did in fact write that. Hence the reason I posted that Standing meant that the majority of evidence wasn't heard (as noted, I was wrong on "the majority"  but about a third were dismissed on Standing, which was the same amount as was withdrawn by the applicants, and the same amount of cases that were heard in court - roughly 1/3rd each of the 60+ cases). But a third is still a significant number. Read from post #30, you'll see that my post was made 100% to demonstrate that it was wrong to claim the courts looked at the evidence and still dismissed the cases! 

So I'm not lying, I got you mixed up with someone with whom this conversation is about, so if you don't want to read that context and accept that this context is the context under which the post is being made, then don't try and correct my information (especially when I'm not wrong on anything I've said).  

Edit: removing unnecessary jab. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

41 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Pointless post, posting about a pointless button! Such pointed irony!

You keep bringing up the cases dismissed on standing.  

It shows that people are complaing about something where no harm was done.  That sounds like snowflake behaviour.

[+Link of Hyrule]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You keep bringing up the cases dismissed on standing.  

It shows that people are complaing about something where no harm was done.  That sounds like snowflake behaviour.

I keep bringing up that they were dismissed on Standing because people keep saying that the evidence was looked at and tossed, when that is 100% not what happened! If you guys (maybe not you personally, Duck, I was responding to AgentOrange, if you recall the context of the post that brought me into this discussion) didn't keep claiming the evidence was looked at by the courts, we wouldn't be having this discussion! The fact is a third of all the cases were dismissed without the courts looking at the evidence. Whether you think that evidence was solid or worthy of dismissal is a completely separate question, because those cases never got to the evidence phase. Which is fine by me, I've said many times that I don't think there was any significant fraud during the election (not enough to change the outcome of the election, at least). But claiming the evidence was looked at and tossed is objectively false! 

That's all I'm saying, it shouldn't be controversial but somehow it is!

Edited December 21, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[acidhead]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

 

That's all I'm saying, it shouldn't be controversial but somehow it is!

Orange man bad etc.. 

Haha

[stereologist]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Yes, but don't then turn around and say "the courts looked at all the evidence and dismissed it", when that is clearly NOT what happened! 

Where did I say that or are you lying about me?

[stereologist]

45 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I entered this thread to write what I did, because someone did in fact write that. Hence the reason I posted that Standing meant that the majority of evidence wasn't heard (as noted, I was wrong on "the majority"  but about a third were dismissed on Standing, which was the same amount as was withdrawn by the applicants, and the same amount of cases that were heard in court - roughly 1/3rd each of the 60+ cases). But a third is still a significant number. Read from post #30, you'll see that my post was made 100% to demonstrate that it was wrong to claim the courts looked at the evidence and still dismissed the cases! 

So I'm not lying, I got you mixed up with someone with whom this conversation is about, so if you don't want to read that context and accept that this context is the context under which the post is being made, then don't try and correct my information (especially when I'm not wrong on anything I've said).  

Edit: removing unnecessary jab. 

You are very poor at understanding what is happening and here you admit that. Thank you