🚨THREAD: Lake v. Hobbs in the Supreme Court of Arizona
This thread will detail the Hobbs/Maricopa et al. response to Kari Lake’s petition at the AZ Supreme Court AND the Lake response to that. That isn’t typical, but the Defendants in the case misrepresented the record, so the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Here are the filings for your review.
1. Hobbs response: scribd.com/document/63188…
2. Fontes response:
3. Lake filing to address issues: scribd.com/document/63189…
Before I begin the thread, I need to direct you to this @Rasmussen_Poll just released this morning. The trolls will be alive and well in the comments, and you need to see this. rasmussenreports.com/public_content…
Most Arizona Voters Believe Election ‘Irregularities’ Affected Outcome
The razor-thin outcome of last year’s Arizona gubernatorial election has made most voters in the state suspicious of the result.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/most_arizona_voters_believe_election_irregularities_affected_outcome
Most Arizona Voters Believe Election ‘Irregularities’ Affected Outcome
The razor-thin outcome of last year’s Arizona gubernatorial election has made most voters in the state suspicious of the result.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/most_arizona_voters_believe_election_irregularities_affected_outcome
These numbers don’t lie… 
The tone between these two filings is generally the same. Enough is enough, debunked claims, undermining results, sanctions, etc., etc., etc 
Here, Hobbs makes the argument that, in essence, voter fraud and uncertainty is OK, until is mathematically proven that the number of votes affected would alter the outcome of the results. 
And here she says that because Lake has disclaimed allegations of fraud, she can’t benefit from the proper statute. 
Here she argues that the trial court’s findings on the issues at hand weren’t “clearly erroneous” and that none of the findings merit the Supreme Court’s review. 
Here, they repeat what the appellate court said, which is an incorrect review of the argument, boiling the printer/tabulator issues down to “speculation” that people couldn’t vote, even though this issue *also* dovetails into the CoC issues (the duplicated ballots were not… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
I am adding this older tweet discussing this point for context. The EPM is ABUNDANTLY clear and precise. The argument here that it isn’t is just glossing over particulars that must be addressed.
Think about the above for a moment. If ballots aren’t counted as soon as containers are opened, what kind of Chain of Custody is there? The argument that ANY length of time can pass between opening and counting is just completely void of good faith or common sense.
This next point is important. It creates a fact pattern that wasn’t alleged and doesn’t exist- and that is purposeful. Notice what they DO NOT address. They DO NOT address the CoC claims and missing forms- they were careful in discussing them.
As a matter of fact, this… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
And AGAIN, the argument about the signature verification was NOT an argument about the PROCESS itself, no matter how many times these people would like to say it was. It was that THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR PROCESS. They keep arguing laches and completely avoiding the actual claim. 
The rest of the pages beg for money. For sanctions. On a valid appeal… 
Fontes’s reply uses the same language as Hobbs’ – “malign and undermine election process,” “Sow distrust for democracy,” etc.
Fontes makes the bizarre claim that Lake didn’t present any evidence supporting her claim.
This is why these people are evil. I’m sorry, but they are. 
Typically, when you have to take cheap swipes like this in appellate replies….you don’t have a very good case. It’s unbecoming to present an argument like this to a higher court (or any court, really), and it has no substance- it is meant merely to be a cocky egoist. 
Next, Fontes tries to insult the appeals process itself. I don’t get this. This is almost entirely the function of the Supreme Court of AZ, or any appellate court. The court will review what lower courts have already ruled and then either affirm or change. So this makes no sense… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
And now, again, the same incorrect claim that Lake is “suddenly” claiming that over 30k votes were injected into the count. They spend a few paragraphs on this, just as Hobbs did, obfuscating the argument and misrepresenting facts.
They are very worried about this argument. So… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
Typically there isn’t a reply to a reply filed, but I assume the Lake team felt this so important they filed one anyway.
“In an effort to distract the Court from the core issues, all three Responses attempt to miscast the Petition as primarily raising new and contradictory… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
This isn’t a “new” issue. They have been discussing the injection of ballots into the count from the beginning. 
This is particular and important, but that is why they are trying to mislead the court- this argument is so important to the point. The Maricopa delivery receipt forms DO NOT EXIST. Maricopa actually admitted in their brief that they didn’t follow procedure and there are no… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
When Maricopa got the ballots, they opened the containers, sorted the EDDB ballots, put them in trays, AND TRANSFERRED THEM TO RUNBECK to be counted. They didn’t count them first as required.
Defendants (all of them) are trying to conflate the slips RUNBECK filled out when receiving those ballots with the ones Maricopa was supposed to have filled out. The two aren’t the same.
In doing this, they admit guilt and prove Lake’s argument. 
Oh boy… This isn’t a good look for Hobbs/Fontes/Maricopa at all. Hobbs included the proof that there was a 35,563 ballot discrepancy using DEFENSE (her) exhibits- the very thing she is claiming that Lake is fabricating out of thin air for the first time now. This is KILLER. 
Lake used that very same evidence– the exhibit that Hobbs/Fontes/Maricopa used and are claiming is just now appearing magically — in her reply brief and petition to the AZ Supreme Court. No one has ever disputed it before, as was their right. They let it right on through… 
And finally, the appellate court acknowledged that the wrong standard was applied by the trial court concerning whether “intentional misconduct” was necessary to establish a valid claim.
Imagine that? You could do anything you wanted with elections as long as it was just a… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 
Speaks for itself. 
I will continue to follow this case as it progresses. Very few outlets are doing so. If you appreciate the work we do at @UncoverDC we could really use your support. Consider helping us here:
