Yes, Judge Peter A Thompson has ruled from the Maricopa Superior Court of Arizona, that success for Mrs. Kari Lake’s lawsuit was contingent upon her being able to prove malicious intent on behalf of the country election officials. [Read 10-page Ruling HERE]
The Maricopa County officials have denied malicious intent and are afforded great benefit of doubt; after all, the election result was duly certified.
Therefore, absent direct evidence of corrupt intent by the election officials, which would require them to make admissions in court, any certified outcome is considered valid.
Additionally, yes there were multiple documented problems with ballots, tabulators and chain-of-custody violations; and yes, there were multiple simultaneous failures which would have impeded accurate voting by the residents of Arizona; however, the Lake campaign could not quantify to a demonstrable certainty, the exact number of votes that were impacted by the simultaneous collapse of voting systems, processes and ballot control standards.
Absent Mrs. Lakes’ ability to scientifically and empirically quantify the exact number of votes impacted, there is no basis for a judgement in favor of the plaintiff.
Lastly, the defendant has requested that Mrs. Lake be punished by the court for attempting to question the certification of the election as validated by her opponent, the court will consider what punishment to impose and proclaim the sanctions after Monday, December 26, 2022.
[Full Ruling Here]
“Plaintiff has no free-standing right to challenge election results based upon what Plaintiff believes – rightly or wrongly – went awry on Election Day. She must, as a matter of law, prove a ground that the legislature has provided as a basis for challenging an election. …
“[O]ne who would contest an election assumes the burden of showing that his case falls within the terms of the statute providing for election contests.” … “It was Plaintiff’s burden to establish each element by clear and convincing evidence. If Plaintiff herself failed to sustain her burden of proof, the matter is decided.” …
“As far as evidence of misconduct is concerned, the Court finds nothing to substantiate Plaintiff’s claim of intentional misconduct.” … “Plaintiff’s own witness testified before this Court that the BOD printer failures were largely the result of unforeseen mechanical failure.” …
“It bears mentioning that election workers themselves were attested to by both Plaintiff’s witnesses and the Defendants’ witnesses as being dedicated to performing their role with integrity. Not perfectly, as no system on this earth is perfect, but more than sufficient to comply with the law and conduct a valid election.” (LINK)
.
The court will now determine what punishment to apply to Mrs Kari Lake.
.
