Election Litigation Status

[Jersey Girl]

I bet you cut your hair, too.

What does that have to do with the case?

It has to do with this comment.

Hey, one time - during my adorable little kid stage around 5 years old or so - I shoplifted one-half of a set of dice from a convenience store. I’m not as innocent as I appear to be.

[Gunnar]

I always thought canpakes was a little dicey.

[Chap]

But, please - tell us more about your fake ‘honesty’. Lol. : D

honestly, watching you move from asking for "examples", to asking for "evidence", and then to asking for "proof"...and now back to you asking for examples has been a good time.
But, as usual and on cue, the peanut gallery drops in to attack the messenger.

Actually, I'd be satisfied with evidence that can survive testing by an expert panel of judges who test and weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion after hearing argument from skilled lawyers who do their best to present the case for or against. How's that going, by the say?

At the moment, I note that even Mr Barr, the man Trump appointed to head the Department of Justice, has said that his teams of expert investigators have not found any fraud that might have affected the result of the election. In other words (as the Book of Mormon says), Trump lost to Biden fair and square. Why would he not know what he is talking about? I mean, if he could have found anything to support Trump's claim, surely he would have publicised it to support the man who appointed him, and whom he has so far served with almost slavish devotion?

[Brack]

In the Arizona election contest, the initial inspection of 100 damaged ballots found one ballot that had been transcribed incorrectly (changing Trump to Biden) and one where the voter had filled in the bubble for Trump and had voted for Trump as a write-in candidate. Plaintiff claims the latter was not counted as an "overbite" but was supposed to be counted. Plaintiff has moved for a continuance of the trial/hearing, which was set for today and a more extensive survey of the damaged ballots (or even a complete canvas, depending on how many damaged ballots there are).

Here is the latest about this.

PHOENIX — A court-ordered inspection of more than 1,600 Arizona ballots cast in the general election found just nine with errors in the presidential race — not enough to declare Donald Trump the winner here, even if that error rate ran through all similar ballots.

The disclosure came in a hearing on a lawsuit filed by state GOP Chair Kelli Ward, contesting the election results.

Ward’s attorney presented a series of witnesses Thursday who testified about seeing errors in how Maricopa County handled ballots that needed to be duplicated.

This happens when an entire ballot — or some of the races on it — is unreadable to automatic scanning equipment. That could be due to physical damage, stains or extraneous marks.

A bipartisan group of election workers then examines the ballot, attempts to ascertain the intent of the voter, and creates what is supposed to be a mirror ballot that can be fed through the machine.

The witnesses told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Randall Warner they saw various errors in the process, with individuals and rescanning machines taking ballots that should have been marked for Trump and either re-marking them for Joe Biden or otherwise altering them so that Trump would not get the vote.

Mistakes occurred during duplication
Scott Jarrett, who works for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, testified that a review of the sample of more than 1,600 ballots showed there were some mistakes made by county workers in duplicating the originals, testified Scott Jarrett, who works for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.

But he said a review of a random sample of these duplicated ballots ordered by the court turned up just nine with errors.

That’s a crucial point.

Jarrett extrapolated that error rate out among the nearly 28,000 ballots that had to be duplicated in Maricopa County. And he said if that same error rate ran through all those duplicated ballots — a point he is not conceding — that would have given Trump 102 more votes.

Biden won Maricopa County by more than 45,000 votes.

He also told the judge that even when there were errors, no vote for Trump was awarded to Biden. Similarly, he said, votes intended for Biden that were improperly re-marked on ballots did not wind up in Trump’s tally.

Jarrett also testified that none of the machines that tallied the ballots are connected to the internet where some outsider could alter the results, and that the equipment and software used in the county was reviewed and certified.

https://tucson.com/news/local/random-co ... 5.amp.html

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Brak. I expect lots of rulings today, but I won’t be able to catch up until this evening at the earliest.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trump is what, 1-41 with regard to lawsuits now?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Trump is what, 1-41 with regard to lawsuits now?

- Doc

That's Marc Elias's count. I think there's some puffery in there. He's a little stingy with the win column and a little generous in the loss column. Plus, Trump is connected with less than half of the lawsuits.

I would count each lawsuit one at a time and decide if it's a win or a loss when it is either voluntarily dismissed or involuntarily dismissed and the time for appeal has elapsed. Or you could count by motions that have requested to stop the count, stop the canvass, stop the certification or undo certification. Either way, there have been upwards of 50 lawsuits filed to flip a Biden win. Working off the top of my head here, one trial judge has granted a TRO, which was quickly reversed by an appellate court. Other than that, no court has been persuaded to stop the process or change the results.

There are a few that are, in my opinion, legitimate election contests filed in accordance with state election laws. The one Brak mentioned is one. I thought the request to examine a sample of the damaged ballots was entirely reasonable. And, based on the initial review, asking for a more extensive review was reasonable. The judge was very fair and moved through the challenge quickly.

[subgenius]

honestly, watching you move from asking for "examples", to asking for "evidence", and then to asking for "proof"...and now back to you asking for examples has been a good time.
But, as usual and on cue, the peanut gallery drops in to attack the messenger.

Actually, I'd be satisfied with evidence that can survive testing by an expert panel of judges who test and weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion after hearing argument from skilled lawyers who do their best to present the case for or against. How's that going, by the say?

At the moment, I note that even Mr Barr, the man Trump appointed to head the Department of Justice, has said that his teams of expert investigators have not found any fraud that might have affected the result of the election. In other words (as the Book of Mormon says), Trump lost to Biden fair and square. Why would he not know what he is talking about? I mean, if he could have found anything to support Trump's claim, surely he would have publicised it to support the man who appointed him, and whom he has so far served with almost slavish devotion?

Maybe watch the video from Atlanta during the alleged water line break?
"Evidence" is when you have election observers leave the counting room under false pretenses, and then remain to produce hidden suitcases full of ballots to be counted without observation...except for the security video cameras...couple that with the "spike" in Biden votes during that unsupervised count and most mature adults would differ with your view of what is "fair and square".

[subgenius]

honestly, watching you move from asking for "examples", to asking for "evidence", and then to asking for "proof"...and now back to you asking for examples has been a good time.
But, as usual and on cue, the peanut gallery drops in to attack the messenger.

Actually, I'd be satisfied with evidence that can survive testing by an expert panel of judges who test and weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion after hearing argument from skilled lawyers who do their best to present the case for or against. How's that going, by the say?

At the moment, I note that even Mr Barr, the man Trump appointed to head the Department of Justice, has said that his teams of expert investigators have not found any fraud that might have affected the result of the election. In other words (as the Book of Mormon says), Trump lost to Biden fair and square. Why would he not know what he is talking about? I mean, if he could have found anything to support Trump's claim, surely he would have publicised it to support the man who appointed him, and whom he has so far served with almost slavish devotion?

"Evidence" is also seeing on video someone, absent pollwatchers that were sent away on false pretenses, run ballots multiple times in tabulator:
https://rumble.com/vblln9-corrupt-georg ... -mach.html

[canpakes]

Hey, subs. Looks like you’re still afraid to state if you believe that widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud occurred.

By the way, the ‘suitcase’ vid has been debunked.