An example of how the election fraud court cases have NOT looked at much of anything.

It's a complete bald faced lie to say that the democrats' election fraud has been properly adjudicated and found to be rare and of no consequence to the election results of 2020 and 2022.

The lie that back in 2020 courts all over properly looked at all the evidence and found that there was little or no democrat election fraud has been repeated ad nauseam by the left for the past 2 years. It’s the perfect Clinton style of deny deny deny, but it doesn’t become true from repetition. What actually happened is that almost every single case that got into the fraud was dismissed for various reasons, such as “lack of standing” and “untimeliness”.

I’m going to take one example case that attorney Tom Renz, who is also on Substack, has partially broken down. I’ll provide a link to his article below, but I wanted to hit the highlights and add more commentary. That case is Mark Finchem’s. He ran for Secretary of State in Arizona this year, supposedly lost, then filed a lawsuit, and it’s just recently been dismissed. While I’m not an attorney, I will tell you that I’ve read hundreds of legal decisions handed down in all kinds of civil cases, including some of the bogus 2020 election rulings, and I am fully capable of comprehending any of those decisions. I’m sure many other non attorney people could do so as well, but it’s a matter of having the time to go through everything.

With almost all legal decisions from a judge or a panel of judges, other cases that were ruled on previously will be cited as part of the ruling. Some of the text of various state or federal statutes are also frequently included. This means that many times to fully understand a ruling you need to read some of the other cases cited, and perhaps the applicable statutes as well. I’ve done that before, but in this case I’m going to rely on the fact that Tom Renz did so, and go with his conclusions in a list format as I provide some additional context.

1. Renz characterizes the dismissal ruling from the judge as “an absolute embarrassment”, and says it should be appealed. (In nearly all civil cases the defense will submit a written “motion to dismiss” the case. In a travesty of justice nationwide, these motions often succeed and the cases are thus never decided on their merits. This topic is worthy of it’s own post, but keep in mind this is what happened with the majority of Trump’s 2020 election fraud cases against democrats and RINOs.)

2. Renz notes that the judge’s ruling indicates that Finchem should have proven fraud just with his written complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss, and he goes on to make a compelling case for that that’s what the judge did. Try imagining how you could prove any legal case without being able to have witnesses testify or being able to present detailed evidence.

3. In her ruling granting the motion to dismiss, the judge cited old cases that have been overturned by changes in AZ state statutes. One was from 1929! Given that there were ZERO electronic voting machines in 1929, and no mail in voting other than for military members and in some cases certain traveling workers, it’s ridiculous to cite a case from that far back.

4. Renz goes on to list the changes to AZ state statute, and points out the fact that such changes overturn any rulings that are in dispute with the new statute. He shows that the statute does NOT require fraud to be shown. You can read the statute yourself and see that easily. “misconduct” and “erroneous count of votes” are two of the possibilities listed in the law that aren’t necessarily intentional fraud.

5. Granting a motion to dismiss stops something called “discovery” in a lawsuit. Discovery is the process of getting evidence from the other side. In election challenges, discovery for a plaintiff claiming that there was fraud or other issues with an election is critical. In Finchem’s case there is no way for him to see ballots, mailed ballot envelopes, election database files, etc. without making it to the discovery phase. This means you can’t check for fake ballots, you can’t compare the signatures on ballot mailing envelopes to see if they match the signatures on the voter registrations, you can’t see any changes to the database record of votes, etc. (FYI, with any secure database transaction logs are kept so you can see exactly what was changed, when it was changed, and which authorized user made the change. With the few election databases that were examined after the 2020 election, no such detailed transaction log was kept, and multiple users often shared the exact same generic login name such that no specific person could be identified for any activity that might have been logged.)

6. The applicable statute also mentions “illegal votes”, and the rules for deciding a motion to dismiss state that anything and everything presented (as long as well pled) by the non moving party (in this case Finchem) must be considered as true. So if Finchem or anyone else said they had evidence of many thousands of invalid voter registration addresses, and/or witnesses stating that thousands of uncounted ballots were mixed with counted ballots, and/or witnesses swearing that almost 300,000 ballots had no valid chain of custody, the judge is REQUIRED to treat those claims as true when deciding whether to dismiss the case. But the “judge” found excuses to not treat Finchem’s claims as true. She’s not the first to do that by any means, but that still doesn't make it right.

7. Renz mentions that included among Finchem’s claims was that Hobbs interfered with the election via social media. His comments here include “The Court apparently also has no issues with possible violation of campaign finance laws as well as what could constitute a RICO and conspiracy charge by an elected official using their office to push or collude with a private company to block advertising by a political opponent in a race she was running in. To suggest the actions alleged were not misconduct leaves me to wonder what would have been done to meet that standard.” We now know from various releases from Twitter and from another lawsuit that Katie Hobbs office absolutely was one of the government entities pressuring and colluding with big tech to suppress political opponents.

8. Renz’s final point on the specifics of the ruling deals with something called “laches”. The gist of “laches” is that you’re too late to make the claim. So where Finchem claimed improper certification of the equipment, the judge ruled he should have done that long ago before the election. Perhaps even years ago. Considering the massive problems on election day, that were said to be the printers, but may haven been the ballot readers or a combination of the two, it’s beyond absurd to “rule” that a new challenge to the equipment is outdated. Who could have predicted the widespread problems ahead of time in this election??

On top of everything else, Kari Lake and someone else did challenge the electronic voting machines in a lawsuit earlier this year, and the judge in that case dismissed it and has ruled that there will be sanctions against Lake’s attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, for bringing it. So if Finchem had filed earlier with respect to voting machines, his attorneys would be punished as well. Dershowitz’s comments about that lawsuit are very relevant, my bold:

This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines in the State of Arizona in the upcoming 2022 Midterm Election, slated to be held on November 8, 2022 (the “Midterm Election”), unless and until the electronic voting system is made open to the public and subjected to scientific analysis by objective experts to determine whether it is secure from manipulation or intrusion. The machine companies have consistently refused to do this.

Plaintiffs have a constitutional and statutory right to have their ballots, and all ballots cast together with theirs, counted accurately and transparently, so that only legal votes determine the winners of each office contested in the Midterm Election. Electronic voting machines cannot be deemed reliably secure and do not meet the constitutional and statutory mandates to guarantee a free and fair election. The use of untested and unverified electronic voting machines violates the rights of Plaintiffs and their fellow voters and office seekers, and it undermines public confidence in the validity of election results. Just as the government cannot insist on “trust me,” so too, private companies that perform governmental functions, such as vote counting, cannot be trusted without verification.

This is absolutely true, and if you know anything about programming and technical issues it’s actually beyond belief. No independent third party ever gets to see the code on the machines, nor even the hardware included. The left wing judge ordering sanctions goes through a long diatribe about how the machines are “certified”, and how there are “logic and accuracy” tests done. He also claims post elections “audits” are done. The truth is calling any of the steps taken an “audit” is damn joke.

Go find a business owner who has been audited by the IRS, and ask if the IRS only asked to see one week’s worth of receipts for expenses. Or if the IRS just asked for 5 different Fridays randomly chosen throughout the year. Or if the IRS said that the business owner could just choose a sampling of receipts that they thought were appropriate. All of the above are analogous to the “audits” and “tests” done to electronic voting machines.

As an experienced programmer, I can tell you right now, with no doubts at all, that I can make sure my program behaves differently on different dates. I can program in switching every 10th vote, or 15th vote, or 25th vote, etc. from the person I want to lose to the person I want to win, depending on how close I think the race will be, and make it only happen on election day when no one will be running any tests. If no independent programmers can review my code, and if there are no paper ballots or all paper ballots are not counted by hand in a true audit, no one will ever know for sure what happened in the code.

And if I somehow have access to the database, I can make changes after the fact. It is ridiculously easy to make massive changes using something like “SQL Server Management Studio”. I’ve done it thousands of times in my own databases. Since management studio is NOT required to reside on a database server, there’s no reason at all for it to be installed on election servers. But it has been found on numerous election servers. Of course if you’ve got remote access to the database server you don’t need management studio installed locally.

I could go on and list more ways you can cheat via software, but the point is you can never prove this without full access to the machines and the source code. If you’re never given this because your cases are dismissed, then sleazeball judges can collude with democrats to punish you for even bringing it up. I suppose ignorant idiot judges could be dumb enough to believe the bullshit about how everything is verified, but I think that’s rare. It’s now standard operating procedure for democrats to try and punish anyone and everyone who dares to challenge their agenda, and even to try and punish anyone refusing to fully play along with their lies and insanity. (The term “misgendering” is just one example. Sorry not sorry, Bruce Jenner is still a man, even though now a pathetic one who gets off by playing with his own fake boobs.) Of course it’s obvious that the democrats’ goal is again to silence their opponents. Make attorneys fear for their livelihoods such that they don’t even take on cases to expose the massive democrat election fraud.

It’s also the case that if there is proper chain of custody for all the ballots, as was the case in Maricopa County in 2020, there’s no way to detect ballots being added in and/or removed after the fact to make sure the totals match changes made by the machines or on the machines. So if some group wants to do a full hand count transparent audit, you fight them in court so you’ve got plenty of time to swap ballots around as needed. If you’ve got a few weeks, it would only take one person to switch tens of thousands of ballots to show that Joe Biden got more votes in your county than Donald Trump did. All you need is access to a democrat donor who just happens to own the ballot printing company.

So the bottom line is that the election fraud court cases of 2020, and now of 2022, have NOT looked at the evidence and heard testimony from witnesses. I’ve talked about this before too:

Step 1 in dealing with election fraud deniers

Ton Renz’s excellent article is here:

Special Article: The Finchem Dismissal Disaster in Arizona - Where is the Rule of Law?

Not to deliberately disappoint anyone, but the judge in Kari Lake’s case has dismissed most of her claims, and my impression from seeing part of one of his ruling is that he’s only allowed 2 claims to stand such that he can “go through the motions” to seem like the case is really being properly considered, before he rules against Lake. I hope I’m wrong.

Branco’s comic below is not exactly on topic, but it’s got enough to convey the idea that you have not gotten justice.