Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why should lawyers be disbarred for doing what their client pays them to do? Castro's son does not run this country.
Why should lawyers be disbarred for doing what their client pays them to do? Castro's son does not run this country.
Why should lawyers be disbarred for doing what their client pays them to do? Castro's son does not run this country.
You cannot say it was dishonest without an evidentiary hearing that never happened. Try again fascist.Let’s say I’m your lawyer. Let’s say you are charged with a crime. You told me you did it. You are guilty. But if I put you on the stand and you lie I have committed a violation and a crime.
You can not knowingly put forth dishonest information before the court. When a lawyer signs the filing, he is in effect swearing it is true and correct. The crime is called perjury. A lawyer is not a public relations expert. They are representing you regarding legal matters, and have to obey the law while doing so.
You cannot say it was dishonest without an evidentiary hearing that never happened. Try again fascist.
Thank you for confirming that what I posted was true. The AZ Supremes rejected her lawsuit.^^^^^^^^^^^lying sack of human garbage^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Arizona Supreme Court issued a new order on Wednesday, sending a key piece of Kari Lake’s Election lawsuit back to the trial court for further review.
“IT IS ORDERED denying review of issues one through five and seven. The Court of Appeals aptly resolved these issues, most of which were the subject of evidentiary proceedings in the trial court, and Petitioner’s challenges on these grounds are insufficient to warrant the requested relief under Arizona or federal law,” states the order.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting review of issue number six to the extent count three of the complaint challenges the Maricopa County Recorder’s application of signature-verification policies during the election. Issue number six asks, “Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake’s claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these”
It's not my fault that Old Yeller is either too stupid or too lazy to click the tweet to read the rest of it.
View attachment 768483
Dude--this is not a victory for lake..at all.i am not a USMESSAGE BOARD LWAYER like you. But it is not 100% over at this time. Not sure if it is good news or bad news overall or if It could trigger a new election. But you posted edited false BS as always.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
Petitioner may file a response and Respondents may file a reply to Respondents’ Motions for Sanctions in accordance with ARCAP Rule 6(a)(2). The parties shall address as a basis for sanctions only Petitioner’s factual claims in her Petition for Review (i.e., that the Court of Appeals should have considered “the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total of ballots at a third party processing facility”), and not legal arguments (i.e., pertaining to the burden of proof or purported conflict in the lower courts). The record does not reflect that 35,563 unaccounted ballots were added to the total count. The motions for sanctions will be considered in due course.
DATED this __22nd day of March, 2023.
The motions for sanctions will be considered in due course.
Don't math much, do you? the number is question is 35,563....a far cry from '100's of thousands'.In Count three of her complaint, which alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 16-550(A),Petitioner alleged in paragraph 151, “Upon information and belief, a material number of early ballots cast in the November 8, 2022 general election were transmitted in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that the Maricopa County Recorder or his designee determined did not match the signature in the putative voter’s‘ registration record.’ The Maricopa County Recorder nevertheless accepted a material number of these early ballots for processing and tabulation.” Contrary to the ruling of the trial court and the Court of Appeals Opinion, this signature verification challenge is to the application of the policies, not to the policies themselves. Therefore, it was erroneous to dismiss this claim under the doctrine of laches because Lake could not have brought this challenge before the election.
Bottom Line: they accepted 100s' of thousands with Bogus signatures (not following set procedure).//
Poor dumb OX. Reality is not ust a snippet filed in Court.Don't math much, do you? the number is question is 35,563....a far cry from '100's of thousands'.
You really should not copy and paste things that you just don't understand. You are quoting her allegation..not the ruling.
Bottom line--you're an idiot whose partisan leanings have totally blinded you to the truth.~
i am not a USMESSAGE BOARD LWAYER like you. But it is not 100% over at this time. Not sure if it is good news or bad news overall or if It could trigger a new election. But you posted edited false BS as always.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
Petitioner may file a response and Respondents may file a reply to Respondents’ Motions for Sanctions in accordance with ARCAP Rule 6(a)(2). The parties shall address as a basis for sanctions only Petitioner’s factual claims in her Petition for Review (i.e., that the Court of Appeals should have considered “the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total of ballots at a third party processing facility”), and not legal arguments (i.e., pertaining to the burden of proof or purported conflict in the lower courts). The record does not reflect that 35,563 unaccounted ballots were added to the total count. The motions for sanctions will be considered in due course.
DATED this __22nd day of March, 2023.
