#AZAudit Maricopa & Other Arizona County Election Audits - #CyberNinjas / Jovan Pulitzer / Fann / Birther Ken Bennett

[bob]

Donations that he/she made would not be made public.

Possibly, but there's usually a (relatively) low threshold before the recipient has to publicly disclose who donated it. And there are organizations that hoover up all the data and create databases of who has donated to whom.

So, unless we are talking about nickel-and-dime donations, the information about them are readily accessible.

And I'm not going to bother to read the motion, but it sounds as if our dude (like Klayman) is relying on the appearance of impropriety. The accusation isn't the judge donated to a party in the lawsuit, but donated an ally of a party. So the "bias" is tenuous at best.

Having said all that, this nonsense is why I believe judges (and their employees) shouldn't donate, to anyone. Even if ethical, it creates this kind of hassle.

[raison de arizona]

And I'm not going to bother to read the motion, but it sounds as if our dude (like Klayman) is relying on the appearance of impropriety. The accusation isn't the judge donated to a party in the lawsuit, but donated an ally of a party. So the "bias" is tenuous at best.

But it's only fifty pages. Shirley it would be worth the effort!

[Jim]

Having said all that, this nonsense is why I believe judges (and their employees) shouldn't donate, to anyone. Even if ethical, it creates this kind of hassle.

That's one way of looking at it...another would be that it creates a convenient way to have idiots like this self-sanction themselves by filing all these frivolous motions.

[LM K]

I'm assuming these are next steps in

1. Fann files with the court informing them that CN still hasn't submitted anything to them.

2. Hannah rules that Logan is now personally responsible for submitting all documents to the Senate.

3. Logan does nothing.

4. Fann files again.

5. Hannah does ... what?


Also, if Logan refuses to attend his upcoming deposition, again, what can Hannah do?

Imo, unless Hannah puts Logan in jail, Logan isn't going to do anything. The threat of jail won't be enough. Hannah will have to put Logan in jail.

[raison de arizona]

Imo, unless Hannah puts Logan in jail, Logan isn't going to do anything. The threat of jail won't be enough. Hannah will have to put Logan in jail.

Indeed, Logan has explicitly stated that he is going to just string it out as long as he can, then declare bankrup(t)cy ( ). I don't think he gets that he is quite likely to get hoist on his own petard. At least one hopes he is. And Fann along with him. And the subcontractors, string them up as well. Hannah is clearly fed up with the whole situation, and is taking steps to make it Get Real. How real can it get though? Will they take a dad of 12 off to the pokey, leaving his starving children to fend for themselves? Inquiring minds wanna know!

[LM K]

Imo, unless Hannah puts Logan in jail, Logan isn't going to do anything. The threat of jail won't be enough. Hannah will have to put Logan in jail.

Indeed, Logan has explicitly stated that he is going to just string it out as long as he can, then declare bankrup(t)cy ( ). I don't think he gets that he is quite likely to get hoist on his own petard. At least one hopes he is. And Fann along with him. And the subcontractors, string them up as well. Hannah is clearly fed up with the whole situation, and is taking steps to make it Get Real. How real can it get though? Will they take a dad of 12 off to the pokey, leaving his starving children to fend for themselves? Inquiring minds wanna know!

Based on the last hearing, I think Hannah is willing to go that far.

Logan has admitted that he has almost no one to turn to. That's on him.

What , well, who is Logan protecting?

[Foggy]

He didn't steal enough money to go live in Río, and Río ain't what it used to be anyhow.

[raison de arizona]

Why should Doug Logan et. all be ascared? Here's what Tom Ryan says.

Well, first off, Karen Fann and Warren Peterson still have a lot to worry about. This is their vendor. The court could still take action against them, especially if Logan & the Ninjas claim the evidence has been lost or destroyed. /1
Second, the lawyer for Logan & the Ninjas has not been let out of the case. He has a duty - as an officer of the court - to ensure that his client complies with the Court's order to turn over the documents. So, young Mr. Wilenchik is not off the hook. /2
Third, Mr. Logan is playing a dangerous game with Judges Kemp and Hannah who are two very bright well respected jurists. Hannah has already warned Logan he was not buying his poor man shuffle. /3
Fourth, the two sets of Plaintiffs seeking the records from Logan & the Ninjas know how to do such things as "pierce the corporate veil." Some of the conduct reported in the press and as stated by Logan himself could cause him to lose the protection of his corporate shell. /4
Fifth, if Logan did not preserve the evidence he could be criminally prosecuted for his misconduct if he deliberately violated the court's order. /5
Last: if I could advise Logan & his Ninjas it would be this: roll over, put your 4 paws up in the air, tell the 2 plaintiffs where everything is, let them pay for it, and let the chips fall where they may with Fann & Petersen. Or be prepared to face the consequences. END

https://twitter.com/tomryanlaw/status/1 ... 26627?s=20

[Foggy]

Best analysis I've seen on this.

[Luke]

Took less than a minute to look it up, OpenSecrets has all the FEC data.

https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-looku ... and=&type=

John Hannah.JPG (86.75 KiB) Viewed 989 times

Arizona Court Rules. This says Supreme Court, not clear if it's for all judges. And really unclear what "make total contributions in excess of fifty percent of the cumulative total permitted by law" is supposed to mean.

Rule 4.1. Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona Effective: September 1, 2019 Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated

VII. Judicial Ethics (Refs & Annos)
Rule 81. Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (Refs & Annos)
Canon 4. A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall Not Engage in Political or Campaign Activity that is Inconsistent with the Independence, Integrity, or Impartiality of the Judiciary (Refs & Annos)
Effective: September 1, 2019
A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 81, Code of Jud.Conduct, Rule 4.1

Rule 4.1. Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
Currentness
(A) A judge or a judicial candidate shall not do any of the following:
(1) act as a leader in, or hold an office in, a political organization;
(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization or another candidate for public office;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose another candidate for any public office;
(4) solicit funds for or pay an assessment to a political organization or candidate, make contributions to any candidate or political organization in excess of the amounts permitted by law, or make total contributions in excess of fifty percent of the cumulative total permitted by law. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 16-905.
(5) actively take part in any political campaign other than his or her own campaign for election, reelection or retention in office;
(6) personally solicit or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4;
(7) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others, except as provided by law;
(8) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office;
(9) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court; or
(10) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
(C) Except as prohibited by this code, a judge may:
(1) engage in activities, including political activities, to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice; and
(2) purchase tickets for political dinners or other similar functions, but attendance at any such functions shall be restricted so as not to constitute a public endorsement of a candidate or cause otherwise prohibited by these rules.
Credits
Added June 2, 2009, effective Sept. 1, 2009. Amended effective Nov. 24, 2009.
17A Pt. 2 A. R. S. Sup. Ct. Rules, Rule 81, Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.1, AZ ST S CT RULE 81 CJC Rule 4.1
State Court Rules are current with amendments received through 11/1/21. The Code of Judicial Administration is current with amendments received through 11/1/21.

https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Docume ... lt)&bhcp=1


A.R.S. § 16-905 is at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00905.htm

16-905. Committee qualification; requirements; exemption; adjustments

A. A candidate for election or retention shall register as a candidate committee if the candidate receives contributions or makes expenditures, in any combination, of at least one thousand dollars in connection with that candidacy.

B. For city and town elections, a candidate for election or retention shall register as a candidate committee if the candidate receives contributions or makes expenditures, in any combination, of at least five hundred dollars in connection with that candidacy.

C. An entity shall register as a political action committee if both of the following apply:

1. The entity is organized for the primary purpose of influencing the result of an election.

2. The entity knowingly receives contributions or makes expenditures, in any combination, of at least one thousand dollars in connection with any election during a calendar year.

D. A filing officer or enforcement officer shall make a rebuttable presumption that an entity is organized for the primary purpose of influencing the result of an election if the entity meets any of the following:

1. Except for a religious organization, assembly or institution, claims tax exempt status but had not filed form 1023 or form 1024 with the internal revenue service, or the equivalent successor form designated by the internal revenue service, before making a contribution or expenditure.

2. Made a contribution or expenditure and at that time had its tax exempt status revoked by the internal revenue service.

3. Made a contribution or expenditure and at that time failed to file form 990 with the internal revenue service, or the equivalent successor form designated by the internal revenue service, if required by law.

E. Except as prescribed in subsections B and C of this section and section 16-938, a filing officer, enforcement officer or other officer of a city, town, county or other political subdivision of this state may not require an entity that claims tax exempt status under section 501(a) of the internal revenue code and that remains in good standing with the internal revenue service to do any of the following:

1. Register or file as a political action committee.

2. Report or otherwise disclose personally identifying information relating to individuals who have made contributions to that entity.

3. Disclose its schedule B, form 990.

4. Submit to an audit or subpoena or produce evidence regarding a potential campaign finance violation.

F. A fund that is established by a corporation, limited liability company, labor organization or partnership for the purpose of influencing the result of an election shall register as a political action committee.

G. An entity may register as a political party committee only as prescribed in chapter 5 of this title.

H. A committee is not subject to state income tax and is not required to file a state income tax return.

I. The dollar amounts prescribed by subsections A and C of this section shall be increased every two years pursuant to section 16-931.

Here are a few recent contributions by Orly Taitz https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-looku ... and=&type=

Money to Candidates TAITZ, ORLY
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 DENTIST AND LAWYER 12-17-2020 $400 Loeffler, Kelly (R) Federal
Money to Candidates TAITZ, ORLY
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 DENTIST 12-17-2020 $600 Perdue, David (R) Federal

That was it for the 2020 cycle. In 2018 she gave to Russia's fav congressman Dana Rohrbacher. She hadn't donated since 2014 to her own campaign.

Money to Candidates TAITZ, ORLY
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 ORLY TAITZ, DDS 10-12-2018 $250 Rohrabacher, Dana (R) Federal
Money to Candidates TAITZ, ORLY
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 ORLY TAITZ, DDS 05-29-2018 $250 Rohrabacher, Dana (R) Federal

Rondeau gave a big $5 in 2014 https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-looku ... on+Rondeau

Money to Candidates WIRTH-RONDEAU, SHARON B
Stafford Springs, CT 6076 05-28-2014 $5 LINDA LOUISE FOR DISTRICT 52 CT STATE REP Connecticut

[RTH10260]

Imo, unless Hannah puts Logan in jail, Logan isn't going to do anything. The threat of jail won't be enough. Hannah will have to put Logan in jail.

Indeed, Logan has explicitly stated that he is going to just string it out as long as he can, then declare bankrup(t)cy ( ). I don't think he gets that he is quite likely to get hoist on his own petard. At least one hopes he is. And Fann along with him. And the subcontractors, string them up as well. Hannah is clearly fed up with the whole situation, and is taking steps to make it Get Real. How real can it get though? Will they take a dad of 12 off to the pokey, leaving his starving children to fend for themselves? Inquiring minds wanna know!

According to Logan he already has no longer money to feed those starving mouths. Did he embeezle the company funds under the guise of an extraordinary salary to himself to stuff the complainers at home?

[Chilidog]

Would any warrants or legal actions by the state have to go through AG Brnovich?

[noblepa]

Donations that he/she made would not be made public.

Possibly, but there's usually a (relatively) low threshold before the recipient has to publicly disclose who donated it. And there are organizations that hoover up all the data and create databases of who has donated to whom.

So, unless we are talking about nickel-and-dime donations, the information about them are readily accessible.

And I'm not going to bother to read the motion, but it sounds as if our dude (like Klayman) is relying on the appearance of impropriety. The accusation isn't the judge donated to a party in the lawsuit, but donated an ally of a party. So the "bias" is tenuous at best.

Having said all that, this nonsense is why I believe judges (and their employees) shouldn't donate, to anyone. Even if ethical, it creates this kind of hassle.

Yes, you could ask every liberal democratic organization if the judge had donated to them, or, if the donor lists are public, scour them yourself, to find the ones he donated to. There is no single place to go to get the information. Donations (presumably to his election campaign) would all be listed in one place, on his campaign finance reports.

But, I agree with you that it is probably unwise for a judge to be politically active outside of his/her courtroom. As you say, it creates the appearance of impropriety.

[bob]

Yes, you could ask every liberal democratic organization if the judge had donated to them, or, if the donor lists are public, scour them yourself, to find the ones he donated to. There is no single place to go to get the information.

Other than Open Secrets, of course.

Smallest donation from the judge on the list is $50; nickels and dimes for many campaigns.

As you say, it creates the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say it creates the appearance of impropriety, which is a legal term of art. I said the Klayman-esque whiner was claiming appearance of impropriety.

And I said these donations created hassles, avoidable hassles.

[notorial dissent]

So, it looks to me like AZ is getting ready to get its just desserts. Hand counting 1.2M ballots, that is a level of stupid beyond belief. I have lived in the largest and smallest population wise. This last year it took the one three days to complete, and the one was still counting almost a week after on some issue or another. My guess is that if they had to do the whole thing by hand it would be a month minimum. This is beyond stupid, but sure sounds like AZ.

[woodworker]

And if Logan believes that filing BK will save him, he will likely be sorely disappointed. First, there is the whole alter-ego, piercing the corporate veil issue which I discussed a number of days ago. But putting that aside, if CN files BK, the BK court now has effective control of the BK estate, which is essentially all of CN's property, including without limitation, personal property, e.g., computer equipment, intangible property, e.g., contract claims against the AZ Senate, CN's "books and records" and any work product produced or created by or in the possession of CN. So, if he files, the BK judge can release all of CN's records and work product.

[noblepa]

We all know that hand counting the ballots is much more susceptible to fraud than machine counting is.

The cynic in me thinks that maybe that is the idea. The republicans want to be able to steal the next election, and the next, and the next . . .

They think that it will be much easier for them to plant loyal poll workers who will find "errors" on ballots for Democrat candidates or just outright miscount them.

Here is Ohio, just about any action regarding the ballots, especially any kind of hand count, requires that both a registered republican and a registered democrat do the counting. I don't know what the law is in AZ or how closely it is followed.

[neeneko]

The cynic in me thinks that maybe that is the idea. The republicans want to be able to steal the next election, and the next, and the next . . .

They think that it will be much easier for them to plant loyal poll workers who will find "errors" on ballots for Democrat candidates or just outright miscount them.

I think that is exactly the idea. Partisan poll workers erring on the side of their preferred candidate. It also means there would likely be more legal challenges and recounts, which means fundraising opportunities and strategically challenging particular blocks of votes AFTER you know which way they went.

[raison de arizona]

Here is Ohio, just about any action regarding the ballots, especially any kind of hand count, requires that both a registered republican and a registered democrat do the counting. I don't know what the law is in AZ or how closely it is followed.

AZ currently hand counts 1% of early ballots and 2% of election day ballots to ensure accuracy. Audit board members are appointed by members of all three parties, Republican, Democratic and Libertarian party chairs. No idea what their plan would be for a full hand count, that would take an awful lot of people.

[Sam the Centipede]

Is hand counting all that difficult? Ok, if you have several elections happening simultaneously, it could be tricky. And it's a pain with proportional voting systems.

But I was in London in 1997 (?) when Tony Blair formed his first government. The polls closed at 10pm on Thursday and sealed ballot boxes were taken from poll stations to each of the 600+ constituency counting centers for a hand count. First results came in about 2 or 3am, most results were in by 8am. A very few constituencies started on Friday morning if they had many remote voters (such as the Scottish Islands), others stopped if they needed a second.recount and the tellers were tired or there was some other issue. At around 8am, Blair had his majority, on the count, not just on projections. So the Brits can do it.

On the Friday morning, I watched television coverage of a string of black cars with police outriders on motorbikes and roling roadblocks whisk Blair to Buckingham Palace to kiss the Queen's ring or whatever it is they do to beatify a Prime Minister. While the helicopter camera tracked the cars across London, a commentator said it was important to appreciate what a wonderful thing we were watching: the completely peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another with no bloodshed, no violence. And all within a day of polls closing, with no early counting (afaik).

As you can imagine, that long ago comment became more poignant last January.

[raison de arizona]

Is hand counting all that difficult?

Ask CN! It apparently takes quite some time the way they did it.

[Sam the Centipede]

Is hand counting all that difficult?

Ask CN! It apparently takes quite some time the way they did it.

Yeah, well, each teller has only ten fingers…

[LM K]

At least this has destroyed Fann's political future. She's not running again.

[Jim]

At least this has destroyed Fann's political future. She's not running again.

Did she decide that before or after her fraudit failure?

[raison de arizona]

At least this has destroyed Fann's political future. She's not running again.

Did she decide that before or after her fraudit failure?

She announced it 11/1/2021, so, after (or during even since we're still in it.)