>>17985109
>JUDGE never mentioned it
Nigga please
Sit on the benches.
The adults got this
Below is the judge's writing
Mentions Runbeck adding votes, faggot
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/viewer-3.pdf
—
Plaintiff alleges that ballots, of some number, were added by Runbeck employeesto the
total in violation of A.R.S. § 16-1016. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the lack of Receipt of Delivery
forms were violations of state law that permitted an indeterminate number of votes to be added to
the official results, constituting misconduct. The Court, drawing inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as it must at this stage, finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim of misconduct
by a person under control of Maricopa County that affected the canvass under A.R.S. § 16-
672(A)(1). Defendants argue that laches applies. However, laches do not apply to contests arising from violation of election day procedures as opposed to challenges to the procedures themselves.
See McComb, 189 Ariz. at 525-26 (laches inapplicable where “little time” existed before election
to file suit). Delay, to the extent there was any, was reasonable here.Defendants dispute the lack of compliance with chain of custody laws and claim that
Plaintiff has misunderstood the forms required. As presented, whether the county complied with
its own manual and applicable statutes is a dispute of fact rather than one of law. This is true as to
whether such lack of compliance was both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.
Consequently, Plaintiff has stated a claim under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
>Defendants dispute the lack of compliance with chain of custody laws and claim that
Plaintiff has misunderstood the forms required. As presented, whether the county complied with
its own manual and applicable statutes is a dispute of fact rather than one of law. This is true as to
whether such lack of compliance was both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.
Consequently, Plaintiff has stated a claim under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
Defendants’ motions are denied as to Count IV.
Count V: Equal Protection and Count VI: Due ProcessDefendants’ motions are denied as to Count IV.
Count V: Equal Protection and Count VI: Due Process