How would the Democrat Party change if lying by their members was made punishable by physical punishment? Whipping? Stockades?

[LittleGreenMan]

what? what a stupid post. you mean none went to a JURY trial? of course not, these kinds of cases dont go to a JURY trial. duh. they are BENCH trails which are decided by a judge since its not a case of a criminal case against an individual. duh.
cases were held all over the country not just in dem juristictions. duh. they were heard by a variety of judges, including those appointed by trump.

god you post the dumbest things. lol

Where does it say "jury" in my post? I said none of the cases were allowed to go trial, that's where the party of the 1st part presents their evidence and the party of the 2nd part offers counter arguments, the judge is free to question, demand, exclude, refer elsewhere, rule partially or wholly in, out, up down or sideways. Bench trial is the term you were searching for.

The only criminal part here is you're still free to wander thru society and express your stupidity as though you were in control of your faculties. The closest corollary to your incomplete thoughts, partial understanding and opinions are the little piles of shit on the streets of Sham Francisco. Are you a Calfornicator? Are you in-between drug tests and having a little fling? Released prematurely? Mixed-up your meds? Combining alcohol and hallucinogens? Hmmmmm?

 

[pjmret]

Where does it say "jury" in my post? I said none of the cases were allowed to go trial, that's where the party of the 1st part presents their evidence and the party of the 2nd part offers counter arguments, the judge is free to question, demand, exclude, refer elsewhere, rule partially or wholly in, out, up down or sideways. Bench trial is the term you were searching for.

The only criminal part here is you're still free to wander thru society and express your stupidity as though you were in control of your faculties. The closest corollary to your incomplete thoughts, partial understanding and opinions are the little piles of shit on the streets of Sham Francisco. Are you a Calfornicator? Are you in-between drug tests and having a little fling? Released prematurely? Mixed-up your meds? Combining alcohol and hallucinogens? Hmmmmm?

Then many went to trial ***** I was silly and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant a jury trial. Clearly I should instead have assumed you were a total *****

3xamples of judges ruling on so called evidence

Judge skewers GOP lawsuit to throw out AZ election, citing total lack of evidence

A federal judge has dismissed a wide-ranging lawsuit attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Arizona, bringing an end to the seventh and final lawsuit challenging the results of the state’s presidential election.

www.azmirror.com

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Finding that two voters’ claims about election fraud lack credibility, a Michigan judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit demanding an audit of results in the Detroit area.

www.courthousenews.com

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign's futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

apnews.com

Wisconsin judge said Thursday that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,”

Judge: Wisconsin probe found 'absolutely no' election fraud

A Wisconsin judge says that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,” but did reveal contempt for the state’s open records law by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and a former state Supreme Court justice he hired.

apnews.com

And a summary
In a remarkable show of near-unanimity across the nation’s judiciary, at least 86 judges — ranging from jurists serving at the lowest levels of state court systems to members of the United States Supreme Court — rejected at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters, a Washington Post review of court filings found. The Post found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans dealt blows to such suits, with some writing searing opinions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

Trump’s campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin in Nevada, wrote state District Court Judge James T. Russell, a former lieutenant in the U.S. Army. A fourth-generation Nevadan, Russell’s grandfather was also a judge, assuming the bench after injuring his leg working on the railroad.

In Pennsylvania, Bibas — who sits on a federal circuit court, just below the U.S. Supreme Court — wrote: “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

Writing on behalf of two other judges also named to the court by Republican presidents, Bibas, who graduated from Columbia University at 19 before earning his law degree at Yale, added, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So yes ***** fraud claims went to trial and you morons lost, and not just because of democratic judges duh

 

[LittleGreenMan]

Then many went to trial ***** I was silly and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant a jury trial. Clearly I should instead have assumed you were a total *****

3xamples of judges ruling on so called evidence

Judge skewers GOP lawsuit to throw out AZ election, citing total lack of evidence

A federal judge has dismissed a wide-ranging lawsuit attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Arizona, bringing an end to the seventh and final lawsuit challenging the results of the state’s presidential election.

www.azmirror.com

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Finding that two voters’ claims about election fraud lack credibility, a Michigan judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit demanding an audit of results in the Detroit area.

www.courthousenews.com

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign's futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

apnews.com

Wisconsin judge said Thursday that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,”

Judge: Wisconsin probe found 'absolutely no' election fraud

A Wisconsin judge says that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,” but did reveal contempt for the state’s open records law by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and a former state Supreme Court justice he hired.

apnews.com

And a summary
In a remarkable show of near-unanimity across the nation’s judiciary, at least 86 judges — ranging from jurists serving at the lowest levels of state court systems to members of the United States Supreme Court — rejected at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters, a Washington Post review of court filings found. The Post found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans dealt blows to such suits, with some writing searing opinions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

Trump’s campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin in Nevada, wrote state District Court Judge James T. Russell, a former lieutenant in the U.S. Army. A fourth-generation Nevadan, Russell’s grandfather was also a judge, assuming the bench after injuring his leg working on the railroad.

In Pennsylvania, Bibas — who sits on a federal circuit court, just below the U.S. Supreme Court — wrote: “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

Writing on behalf of two other judges also named to the court by Republican presidents, Bibas, who graduated from Columbia University at 19 before earning his law degree at Yale, added, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So yes ***** fraud claims went to trial and you morons lost, and not just because of democratic judges duh

Universally wrong. All the judges ruled that the charges did not merit hearing in their courts. Some were rejected as the plaintiffs not having standing, some rejected for other reasons or without comment, but all before being allowed to present evidence. Request for action dismissed without examining the evidence is not the same as being allowed to present evidence and finding the evidence does not support a cause of action. Go back to the Home and ask that your full strength meds be restored because you are having trouble distinguishing reality. You entitled to your own opinions, such as they are, but not your own facts.

 

[mark francis]

How did they make it known they wouldn't accept fraud cases? Post your proof lying *****

Link to any cases where courts found voter fraud in 2020 other than the usual handful of random 8ndividual votes

I don't know. You tell me whether or not courts ruled on the evidence after examining the evidence in open court, if as so many courts did, made some excuse for not examining the evidence at all.

 

[pjmret]

Y

Universally wrong. All the judges ruled that the charges did not merit hearing in their courts. Some were rejected as the plaintiffs not having standing, some rejected for other reasons or without comment, but all before being allowed to present evidence. Request for action dismissed without examining the evidence is not the same as being allowed to present evidence and finding the evidence does not support a cause of action. Go back to the Home and ask that your full strength meds be restored because you are having trouble distinguishing reality. You entitled to your own opinions, such as they are, but not your own facts.

You are a *****
Evidence was given the judges ruled on it
How else could they have said things like the evidence wasn't credible duh

Humetewa wrote that the plaintiffs were “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence” to back up their implausible claims of massive election fraud, which included allegations of foreign espionage along with more mundane accusations of illegally cast ballots.

Finding that two voters’ claims about election fraud lack credibility, a Michigan judge on Friday shut down a lawsuit demanding an audit of results in the Detroit area.

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”


They couldn't have said that without looking at the evidence presented, *****


I didn't know anyone could be that stupid but you are

 

[pjmret]

I don't know. You tell me whether or not courts ruled on the evidence after examining the evidence in open court, if as so many courts did, made some excuse for not examining the evidence at all.

They said they did
It's their job
Feel free to prove they didn't, legal *****

 

[mark francis]

Then many went to trial ***** I was silly and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant a jury trial. Clearly I should instead have assumed you were a total *****

3xamples of judges ruling on so called evidence

Judge skewers GOP lawsuit to throw out AZ election, citing total lack of evidence

A federal judge has dismissed a wide-ranging lawsuit attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Arizona, bringing an end to the seventh and final lawsuit challenging the results of the state’s presidential election.

www.azmirror.com

What we are seeing today are judges ruling in accordance with their bias as opposed to judges ruling justly. In order to determine who is wrong as opposed to who is right, we need to air the disagreements in public so the proponents for or against the various opinions can be cross-examined as if in court for the American public to decide just as a court jury would.

Court Finds Arizona’s Signature Matching Process Unlawful in ‘Massive Win’ for Election Integrity | NTD 9-7-23

Court Finds Arizona’s Signature Matching Process Unlawful in ‘Massive Win’ for Election Integrity

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Michigan Judge Rejects Challenge to Detroit Election Results

Finding that two voters’ claims about election fraud lack credibility, a Michigan judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit demanding an audit of results in the Detroit area.

www.courthousenews.com

Michigan judges declare that Americans have no right to have voter fraud evidence examined.

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case - 9 & 10 News (9and10news.com)

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case

April 21, 2022

9and10news Site Staff

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed the Antrim County Circuit Court’s dismissal in the case of William Bailey v Antrim County, which challenged the 2020 presidential elections results.

In an opinion, Court of Appeals Judges Thomas C. Cameron, Mark J. Cavanagh and Michael F. Gadola, rejected Bailey’s argument that the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018, grants private citizens an individual right to request an audit of election results.

“This decision joins a growing number of court rulings that continue to uphold the legitimacy and accuracy of our elections,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said. “As we have remained from the very beginning, my office is committed to preserving the integrity of our democratic system. The panel’s ruling is additional reinforcement in this important fight.”

“This dismissal once again affirms not only the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 election results, but that those claiming otherwise will not be able to use our legal system as a vehicle for furthering their misinformation and conspiracy theories,” added Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “The court’s ruling is a heartening reminder that despite ongoing efforts to dismantle our democracy and make it easier to overturn future elections, the data, the facts, and the truth are on our side.”

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign's futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

apnews.com

Biased judge no doubt toting water for the Democrats who gave him his job stupidly claims there is no justification for holding up certification of suspect election results since the proof of voter fraud has not yet been submitted in the few weeks since the election. As though voter fraud investigations should only take a few days and be completed and proven in court in just a few weeks following an election. What nonsense.

Wisconsin judge said Thursday that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,”

Judge: Wisconsin probe found 'absolutely no' election fraud

A Wisconsin judge says that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud,” but did reveal contempt for the state’s open records law by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and a former state Supreme Court justice he hired.

apnews.com

Another judge who owes his job to the Democrat party issues a partisan ruling that is contradicted by evidence he does not refute.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Bans Drop Boxes, Suggests Biden’s 2020 Victory Was “Illegitimate” (msn.com) 7-8-22

And a summary
In a remarkable show of near-unanimity across the nation’s judiciary, at least 86 judges — ranging from jurists serving at the lowest levels of state court systems to members of the United States Supreme Court — rejected at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters, a Washington Post review of court filings found. The Post found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans dealt blows to such suits, with some writing searing opinions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

In spite of all the judges who stood with Democrats resisting and obstructing voting fraud investigations, the massive evidence of widespread Democrat 2020 voter fraud remains unrefuted.

Trump’s campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin in Nevada, wrote state District Court Judge James T. Russell, a former lieutenant in the U.S. Army. A fourth-generation Nevadan, Russell’s grandfather was also a judge, assuming the bench after injuring his leg working on the railroad.

Trump proved nothing in the few weeks after the election when these premature judgments were issued, but now after the evidence has become more widely known even leftist judges are having to reexamine their rulings.

In Pennsylvania, Bibas — who sits on a federal circuit court, just below the U.S. Supreme Court — wrote: “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

Writing on behalf of two other judges also named to the court by Republican presidents, Bibas, who graduated from Columbia University at 19 before earning his law degree at Yale, added, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So yes ***** fraud claims went to trial and you morons lost, and not just because of democratic judges duh

I know this judge and Democrat leader denied that Democrats were committing voter fraud for several elections when he was committing voting fraud himself.
Office of Public Affairs | Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery | United States Department of Justice

Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery

Thursday, May 21, 2020

has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia.

 

[pjmret]

What we are seeing today are judges ruling in accordance with their bias as opposed to judges ruling justly. In order to determine who is wrong as opposed to who is right, we need to air the disagreements in public so the proponents for or against the various opinions can be cross-examined as if in court for the American public to decide just as a court jury would.

Court Finds Arizona’s Signature Matching Process Unlawful in ‘Massive Win’ for Election Integrity | NTD 9-7-23

Court Finds Arizona’s Signature Matching Process Unlawful in ‘Massive Win’ for Election Integrity


Michigan judges declare that Americans have no right to have voter fraud evidence examined.

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case - 9 & 10 News (9and10news.com)

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of 2020 Antrim Co. Elections Case

April 21, 2022

9and10news Site Staff

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed the Antrim County Circuit Court’s dismissal in the case of William Bailey v Antrim County, which challenged the 2020 presidential elections results.

In an opinion, Court of Appeals Judges Thomas C. Cameron, Mark J. Cavanagh and Michael F. Gadola, rejected Bailey’s argument that the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018, grants private citizens an individual right to request an audit of election results.

“This decision joins a growing number of court rulings that continue to uphold the legitimacy and accuracy of our elections,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said. “As we have remained from the very beginning, my office is committed to preserving the integrity of our democratic system. The panel’s ruling is additional reinforcement in this important fight.”

“This dismissal once again affirms not only the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 election results, but that those claiming otherwise will not be able to use our legal system as a vehicle for furthering their misinformation and conspiracy theories,” added Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “The court’s ruling is a heartening reminder that despite ongoing efforts to dismantle our democracy and make it easier to overturn future elections, the data, the facts, and the truth are on our side.”


Biased judge no doubt toting water for the Democrats who gave him his job stupidly claims there is no justification for holding up certification of suspect election results since the proof of voter fraud has not yet been submitted in the few weeks since the election. As though voter fraud investigations should only take a few days and be completed and proven in court in just a few weeks following an election. What nonsense.


Another judge who owes his job to the Democrat party issues a partisan ruling that is contradicted by evidence he does not refute.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Bans Drop Boxes, Suggests Biden’s 2020 Victory Was “Illegitimate” (msn.com) 7-8-22


In spite of all the judges who stood with Democrats resisting and obstructing voting fraud investigations, the massive evidence of widespread Democrat 2020 voter fraud remains unrefuted.

Trump proved nothing in the few weeks after the election when these premature judgments were issued, but now after the evidence has become more widely known even leftist judges are having to reexamine their rulings.

I know this judge and Democrat leader denied that Democrats were committing voter fraud for several elections when he was committing voting fraud himself.
Office of Public Affairs | Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery | United States Department of Justice

Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery

Thursday, May 21, 2020

has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia.

You morons lost every fraud court case because your evidence wasn't credible
That included many republican appointed ones
None of your wh8n8ng you post can change those facts

 

[mark francis]

You morons lost every fraud court case because your evidence wasn't credible
That included many republican appointed ones
None of your wh8n8ng you post can change those facts

Let's examine the reason courts rejected voting fraud cases.

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal | AP News 1-5-21

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2020, file photo, Maricopa County elections officials count ballots in Phoenix. A federal judge on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2020, heard arguments over whether to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to decertify election results the election results that gave Democrat President-elect Joe Biden his Arizona victory. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)

BY BOB CHRISTIE AND JACQUES BILLEAUD

Published 10:33 PM EST, January 5, 2021

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision dismissing the last in a series of challenges that sought to decerify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

The high court ruling is the second time the majority-Republican court has turned aside an appeal of a court loss by backers of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the election. In all, eight lawsuits challenging Biden’s Arizona win have failed. It comes the day before a divided Congress is set to certify Biden’s victory.

Eight lawsuits failed in Arizona within two months of the polls closing in Nov 2020. That was not time to investigate, collate, analyze and submit voting fraud evidence in court, so that factor alone would prove court cases failed for lack of preparation and investigation, not for evidence that was disproven by the court. But that is not why the court ruled against the voting fraud case. It was not the evidence the court said was invalid, but the people had no jurisdictional right to bring the cases that the high court ruled made the voting fraud cases invalid.

Tuesday’s ruling from a four-judge panel of the high court agreed with a trial court judge in Pinal County that plaintiff Staci Burk lacked the right to contest the election. (The case was dismissed on a technicality by the judge who never ruled that the evidence of fraud was invalid.) That’s because she wasn’t a registered voter at the time she filed her lawsuit, as required in state election contests. Both courts also agreed that she made her legal challenge too late (another technicality that said nothing about the validity of the voting fraud evidence), after the five-day period for filing such an action had passed.

Burk said in her lawsuit that she was a qualified Arizona voter, but officials said they discovered she wasn’t registered to vote. She later said she mistakenly thought “qualified electors” were people who were merely eligible to vote, and that her voter registration was canceled because election workers were unable to verify her address.

The Supreme Court said the fact that she wasn’t a registered voter was fatal to her ability to file an election challenge (the case was dismissed on a technicality, not on lack of evidence of fraud) and that Burk admitted she knew she wasn’t registered.

“There is nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote. “An election challenge ... is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”

Biden won the state over Republican President Donald Trump by more than 10,000 votes and the results were certified last month.

The lawsuit brought by Burk, who isn’t a lawyer but represented herself, is nearly identical to a lawsuit dismissed in early December in federal court in Phoenix.

Burk’s lawsuit alleged Arizona’s election systems have security flaws that let election workers and foreign countries manipulate results. Opposing attorneys said the lawsuit used conspiracy theories to make allegations against a voting equipment vendor without any proof to back up claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona.

No evidence of voter or election fraud has emerged in Arizona.

Despite that, Republicans who control the Legislature are pushing to review how Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, ran its election. Two subpoenas issued by the state Senate seeking an audit and to review voting machines, ballots and other materials are being challenged by Maricopa County. (i.e., the county is obstructing voting fraud investigations)

Two of the failed legal challenges focused on the use of Sharpies to complete ballots were dismissed. (Dismissed without cause given. So typical of leftist voting fraud crooks and their mobocracy of supporters.)

Another lawsuit in which the Trump campaign sought inspection of ballots was dismissed after the campaign’s lawyer acknowledged the small number of ballots at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome. (Evidence of voting fraud is not disproven, just dismissed because in the judges' eyes there was probably not enough fraud there to change the outcome of the crooked election.)

A judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the Arizona Republican Party tried to determine whether voting machines had been hacked. (Voting fraud cases were dismissed by biased judges who didn't bother to support their decisions with evidence or back their rulings with facts and logic.)

Then a separate challenge by Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was tossed out by a judge who concluded the Republican leader failed to prove fraud and that the evidence presented at trial wouldn’t reverse Trump’s defeat. (The case is tossed out, not because the evidence of fraud was not there, but because in the judges' eyes there was insufficient evidence from deep dive investigations [the type of investigations that typically take months to complete] and the evidence was insufficient to have changed the outcome of the election results as reported by the compromised election officials.) The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in an earlier ruling.

And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who alleged widespread election fraud through the manipulation of voting equipment. Burk’s lawsuit repeated some of Powell’s allegations word-for-word. (This lawsuit was tossed out by a compromised judge without even attempting to have the machines examined to determine whether or not the plaintiff's claim was valid.)

___

This story has been corrected to show that the court is majority Republican, not all Republican.

 

[pjmret]

Let's examine the reason courts rejected voting fraud cases.

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal | AP News 1-5-21

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2020, file photo, Maricopa County elections officials count ballots in Phoenix. A federal judge on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2020, heard arguments over whether to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to decertify election results the election results that gave Democrat President-elect Joe Biden his Arizona victory. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)

BY BOB CHRISTIE AND JACQUES BILLEAUD

Published 10:33 PM EST, January 5, 2021

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision dismissing the last in a series of challenges that sought to decerify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

The high court ruling is the second time the majority-Republican court has turned aside an appeal of a court loss by backers of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the election. In all, eight lawsuits challenging Biden’s Arizona win have failed. It comes the day before a divided Congress is set to certify Biden’s victory.

Eight lawsuits failed in Arizona within two months of the polls closing in Nov 2020. That was not time to investigate, collate, analyze and submit voting fraud evidence in court, so that factor alone would prove court cases failed for lack of preparation and investigation, not for evidence that was disproven by the court. But that is not why the court ruled against the voting fraud case. It was not the evidence the court said was invalid, but the people had no jurisdictional right to bring the cases that the high court ruled made the voting fraud cases invalid.

Tuesday’s ruling from a four-judge panel of the high court agreed with a trial court judge in Pinal County that plaintiff Staci Burk lacked the right to contest the election. (The case was dismissed on a technicality by the judge who never ruled that the evidence of fraud was invalid.) That’s because she wasn’t a registered voter at the time she filed her lawsuit, as required in state election contests. Both courts also agreed that she made her legal challenge too late (another technicality that said nothing about the validity of the voting fraud evidence), after the five-day period for filing such an action had passed.

Burk said in her lawsuit that she was a qualified Arizona voter, but officials said they discovered she wasn’t registered to vote. She later said she mistakenly thought “qualified electors” were people who were merely eligible to vote, and that her voter registration was canceled because election workers were unable to verify her address.

The Supreme Court said the fact that she wasn’t a registered voter was fatal to her ability to file an election challenge (the case was dismissed on a technicality, not on lack of evidence of fraud) and that Burk admitted she knew she wasn’t registered.

“There is nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote. “An election challenge ... is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”

Biden won the state over Republican President Donald Trump by more than 10,000 votes and the results were certified last month.

The lawsuit brought by Burk, who isn’t a lawyer but represented herself, is nearly identical to a lawsuit dismissed in early December in federal court in Phoenix.

Burk’s lawsuit alleged Arizona’s election systems have security flaws that let election workers and foreign countries manipulate results. Opposing attorneys said the lawsuit used conspiracy theories to make allegations against a voting equipment vendor without any proof to back up claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona.

No evidence of voter or election fraud has emerged in Arizona.

Despite that, Republicans who control the Legislature are pushing to review how Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, ran its election. Two subpoenas issued by the state Senate seeking an audit and to review voting machines, ballots and other materials are being challenged by Maricopa County. (i.e., the county is obstructing voting fraud investigations)

Two of the failed legal challenges focused on the use of Sharpies to complete ballots were dismissed. (Dismissed without cause given. So typical of leftist voting fraud crooks and their mobocracy of supporters.)

Another lawsuit in which the Trump campaign sought inspection of ballots was dismissed after the campaign’s lawyer acknowledged the small number of ballots at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome. (Evidence of voting fraud is not disproven, just dismissed because in the judges' eyes there was probably not enough fraud there to change the outcome of the crooked election.)

A judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the Arizona Republican Party tried to determine whether voting machines had been hacked. (Voting fraud cases were dismissed by biased judges who didn't bother to support their decisions with evidence or back their rulings with facts and logic.)

Then a separate challenge by Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was tossed out by a judge who concluded the Republican leader failed to prove fraud and that the evidence presented at trial wouldn’t reverse Trump’s defeat. (The case is tossed out, not because the evidence of fraud was not there, but because in the judges' eyes there was insufficient evidence from deep dive investigations [the type of investigations that typically take months to complete] and the evidence was insufficient to have changed the outcome of the election results as reported by the compromised election officials.) The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in an earlier ruling.

And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who alleged widespread election fraud through the manipulation of voting equipment. Burk’s lawsuit repeated some of Powell’s allegations word-for-word. (This lawsuit was tossed out by a compromised judge without even attempting to have the machines examined to determine whether or not the plaintiff's claim was valid.)

___

This story has been corrected to show that the court is majority Republican, not all Republican.

that's a handful of cherry picked cases. out of 60. lol. yes some were dismissed for technical reasons, but of course, i proved that some had the evidence evaluated and rejected. duh

you are a legal *****

 

[mark francis]

that's a handful of cherry picked cases. out of 60. lol. yes some were dismissed for technical reasons, but of course, i proved that some had the evidence evaluated and rejected. duh

you are a legal *****

Yes. That is nearly a dozen cases of the same type and resolution, none of which were dismissed because judges discovered the evidence of fraud was invalid.

 

[pjmret]

Yes. That is nearly a dozen cases of the same type and resolution, none of which were dismissed because judges discovered the evidence of fraud was invalid.

so you mean 48 and more cases you lost for faulty evidence? "wow"
you couldn't convince a single judge with your "evidence". i'm not sure i've ever seen such a pathetic string of losses. lol

 

[mark francis]

so you mean 48 and more cases you lost for faulty evidence? "wow"
you couldn't convince a single judge with your "evidence". i'm not sure i've ever seen such a pathetic string of losses. lol

You keep blowing smoke because you cannot find a single court case where the judge ruled that the evidence of widespread voting fraud was irrefutably debunked.

 

[pjmret]

You keep blowing smoke because you cannot find a single court case where the judge ruled that the evidence of widespread voting fraud was irrefutably debunked.

You keep being a ***** because that isn't how courts work
Why do you like look8ng like a *****? Lol

 

[mark francis]

You keep being a ***** because that isn't how courts work
Why do you like look8ng like a *****? Lol

I should not have to take your words to remind you that no court proved massive Democrat fraud did not occur because courts refused to acknowledge that examining evidence of voting fraud is their duty.