Lawfag has moar comments in Lake case – lawfag has been very harsh and critical od the way this complaint was prepared and framed – and which resulted in dismissal of 8 of 10 claims – NEVERTHELESS if they got the good on the last two its enuf
BUT another msjot ERROR IMO in the complaint – this is summarized by the Jdueg in his pretrial ruling on the tabulator count:
Count II – Illegal Tabulator Configurations
Plaintiff alleges that the ballot-on-demand (“BOD”) printers… malfunctioned because of an “intentional action.” Plaintiff alleges that these combined to provide grounds for setting aside election results based on both (A)(1) for misconduct and (A)(4) for illegal
votes.
…the Court finds that Plaintiff does state a claim under (A)(1). Plaintiff specifically alleges that a person employed by Maricopa County interfered with BOD printers in violation of Arizona law, resulting in some number of lost votes for Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to attempt to prove at trial that 1) the malfeasant person was a covered person under (A)(1); 2) the printer malfunctions caused by this individual directly
resulted in identifiable lost votes for Plaintiff; and 3) that these votes would have affected the outcome of the election.
Plaintiff has…alleged intentional misconduct sufficient to affect the outcome of the election and thus has stated an issue of fact that requires going beyond the
pleadings. Plaintiff must show at trial that the BOD printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome.
OK so whats the problem? It is this – the Arizona statute DOES NOT REQUIRE INTENT! Section 1 ONLY requires “misconduct” and that could be unintentional OR intentional – and section 5 does not require ANY inent OR misconduct - Here read for yourself:
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office… upon any of the following grounds:
-
For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
-
That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person… did not in fact receive the highest number of votes…
WHY DID THEY PUT THIS HUGE BURDEN ON THEMSELVES? Are they that dumb?
As to Custody HERE AGAIN somehow the INTENTIONAL ISSUE is raised? WHY WHY did the judge raise it twice? Its not required – Its not in the statute - It came from LAKE attorneys who wnet out of their way to allege it was intentional so the judge saud ok fine prove it
Here again read for yourself
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.
Bottom line – if they lose the lake team is largely to blame – that said I hope im wrong and this comes through but im not expecting it