Lawfag here
Kist read the Maricopa judge opinion
IMO is must be over turned on appeal as the judge ,ade a serious error of law – he concluded that lae had to prove that:
1) That the alleged misconduct – whether the BOD printer irregularities, or the ostensible failure to abide by county election procedures – was an intentional act. See Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269. 2) That the misconduct was an intentional act conducted by a person covered by A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1), that is – an “officer making or participating in a canvass.” 3) That the misconduct was intended to change the result of the November 2022 General Election. See Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269. 4) That the misconduct did, in fact, change the result of that election. See Grounds, 67 Ariz. at 189.
He is DEAD wrong on items 1 2 and 3 on the standard and burden of proof. The statutes he cites do NOT require proof of intentional conduct nor of intent to change an election -
That is NOT in the code nor in the case he cited – NOT there
It is in fact an absurd standard and lawfag already criticized lake attorneys for even mentioning that in the complaint – In effect open the door for this result? Even so the judge CANNOT cite the law wrong and lawfag saus he did so
All that is reqeired is MISCONDUCT effecting the outcome and that was proven
Misconduct does not have to be intentional again that is an absurd standard
No question in my mind about it and the Arizona SC should confirm this
Will see wut habbens
Link to decision
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4531
Link to case cited
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3253352/findley-v-sorenson/