Fogbow

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:25 am If'n you had excellent evidence, you shoulda showed it to the first judge.

He said you didn't have any.

Danraft wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:03 pm Thank you for changing the title.
She was never governor.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:31 am Lake’s camp still thinks they can win. To the Supreme Court, they cry. They are citing a case from a hundred years ago where a sitting governor was replaced by his election challenger nearly a year later after a court determined the challenger was the real winner.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:08 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:31 am Lake’s camp still thinks they can win. To the Supreme Court, they cry. They are citing a case from a hundred years ago where a sitting governor was replaced by his election challenger nearly a year later after a court determined the challenger was the real winner.

In a case with obvious overvotes, ie, ballots with votes for more than one candidate. Which didn't happen with Lake.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:13 pm

Off Topic

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:49 pm I didn’t know that governors used to be called gubernators. I know the word gubernatorial of course, but didn’t know the Latin migrated to the French at some point. Thank Dog!! Can you imagine Gubernator being your official title??

Arhnoold was the Governator!

humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:49 pm I cannot take anyone seriously if they misspell legerdemain.

Ole Leo inserted another D in front of the G.

Ninth grade vocabulary still resonates fifty-five years later!

SANCTION SCOREBOARD UPDATE: Up Is Down As Finchem Attorney Argues Court Should Punish Defendants For Moving For Sanctions (After Court Invited Them To File); READ Response

UPDATE, 1/9, 8am: "SANCTION SCOREBOARD UPDATE: Up Is Down As Finchem Attorney Argues Court Should Punish Defendants For Moving For Sanctions (After Court Invited Them To File); READ Response"

In an 18-page head-spinner, Mark Finchem's I'm-ready-to-retire-before-I'm-disbarred attorney throws the kitchen sink at Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian to try to stave off sanctions. The Opposition filed late last week (and posted publicly for the first time below) starts off with a false statement and ends asking the judge to sanction the defendants instead. In between, attorney Dan McCauley* oddly cites a securities statute as *the* "applicable statute" (rather than Rule 11 or A.R.S. §12-349).** He alternately argues that Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in this case and do apply in this case. The latter is a subject which McCauley (unsuccessfully) argued with Judge Julian on the motions to dismiss the Election Contest. The claim that "literally hundreds of thousand of (voters) then entered properly completed ballots into tabulation machines that repeatedly rejected those votes" is a fabricated statement that also falsely implies that those voters' ballots were not counted.

Chandler attorney Tom Ryan tells Arizona's Law "the only cogent argument is that Mr. McCauley is an old guy about to retire is the only proper consideration the court should make when deciding what to do with sanctions. And what she should do is make all the sanctions awardable against Finchem." In fact, McCauley argues that sanctioning Finchem - a state lawmaker who lost his race for Secretary of State - should not be sanctioned, either, because it is "an improper, devious, bad faith scheme" which the "less obvious goal is to jeopardize his ability to finance his pending appeal." That reference is to the dismissed Mark Finchem/Kari Lake pre-election suit to force Arizona to conduct last year's elections without any electronic machines. Lake/Finchem appealed the dismissal to the 9th Circuit and say they intend to bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court because it "is an important matter to the Nation and Mr. Finchem must not be deterred by a sanction from helping to fund the matter." Of course, that is also the case in which Finchem's and Lake's attorneys are facing $140,000 in sanctions." (More on that case can be found below.) In his closing, McCauley asks the court to both forbid defendants' attorneys from filing the permitted Reply and to sanction them for their "frivolous" Motion for Sanctions. The Motion - appropriately - does not ask for a specific amount. Rather, it asks for Finchem and McCauley to be jointly and severally liable for attorneys' fees and costs, and an additional penalty of $5,000 (A.R.S. §12-349).** The Motion and the Judge's Minute Entry can be found here.

* There is legitimate question as to whether McCauley himself wrote this filing. He consistently refers to himself in the third person and several statements do not appear likely to come from a longtime attorney. Arizona's Law has asked him about this and will supplement as warranted.

** The Response states "Here, the applicable statute is clear and unambiguous. A.R.S. §44-2083 Sanctions for Abusive Litigation, addresses sanctions under ARCP Rule 11 and any applicable Title or Section of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Section D(1) of A.R.S. 44-2083 states in pertinent part that no award of sanctions or attorney’s fees can be imposed if it will impose a burden on a party or attorney and would be unjust, and the failure to make an award would not impose a greater burden on a party in whose favor a sanction would be imposed."

The first words of that statute read "In any private action arising under this chapter...." This chapter is *only* about securities litigation. Neither Rule 11 nor A.R.S. §12-349 contain a clause about considering "burden".

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any response or objection to the relief requested in the petition, shall be filed and served within seven business days after service of the petition upon the respondent.....

humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:49 pm I cannot take anyone seriously if they misspell legerdemain.

Ole Leo inserted another D in front of the G.

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:28 pm

humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:49 pm I cannot take anyone seriously if they misspell legerdemain.

Ole Leo inserted another D in front of the G.

But you spotted his sleight of hand!

humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:16 pm I love it. Guess they are becoming woke. An old man who is on the verge of retirement is at risk for losing his life savings to fund his sunset years. So, judge, please don't sanction him even though the rules allow it.

Why should we have empathy for him when he and his elk have none for others?

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:50 pm Which raises the question: when Dennis moves on to to the great grift in the ground, does that get reported in the Dead Birthers thread? Never struck me as a true birther, just grifting the grifters.

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:55 pm

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:50 pm Which raises the question: when Dennis moves on to to the great grift in the ground, does that get reported in the Dead Birthers thread? Never struck me as a true birther, just grifting the grifters.

Since Popes can now retire, maybe they can loan the hammer to Montgomery's family for when he dies. Watching them hit him in the head may be the only way I would believe he died.

Until then, I won't be announcing anything about him in the dead birthers thread.

Off Topic

I'm seeing that fly around the internet in the last few weeks, so just mentioning that they haven't done that "hammer to the head" thing since the 60s. Stethoscopes are more reliable.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hammer-time/