Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Kari Lake failed to meet a standard that is impossible to meet 

By: Fiz in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (2)
Mon, 26 Dec 22 6:23 PM | 41 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 38592 of 58626
(This msg. is a reply to 38590 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Ayn Rand wrote about what she termed "the sanction of the victim", which is how humans can be led by the nose to participate in their own enslavement and immolation.

That was really the theme behind Atlas Shrugged. And she, of course, was expert in Marxist mind-control tricks such as guilt, distraction, etc. having lived under early Communist rule in Russia before escaping it.

It is POSSIBLE (not easy) for individuals to withdraw their sanction. But it is tricky, because mental constructs like guilt, "patriotism", "love", shame, responsibility, "social contract" etc. are reinforced into us in Pavlovian fashion from the time we are infants. Then these are linked to mental abstractions like "Democracy", "Capitalism", "God", "Social Contract (good citizen), war, bravery, etc.

Then they have you by the balls. Well, actually, you have YOURSELF ... by the head. Because to go against "democracy", "honor", and "Social Contract" has been made tantamount, via a series of conditioning and complex equivalents, to going against your identity. And who would you be without your identity and "your" values? Wouldn't that make you "bad", cowardly, ungrateful, selfish, etc?

At the end, WORDS WHICH YOU CANNOT PRECISELY DEFINE AND CAREFULLY INSPECT are loaded guns which are held to your head. The brilliance of Marxist practice is that it gets each "citizen" to hold the gun to their OWN head ... and, then, pull the trigger on command.

Marxism IS Democracy and Democracy IS Marxism...taken to its logical conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRq5LOyxKLw
-Kenny Loggins, Pathway to Glory:
"Beware, oh Brother beware, don't you listen to the words...They're telling you lies."



 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Kari Lake failed to meet a standard that is impossible to meet
By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 26 Dec 22 5:35 PM 		Msg. 38590 of 58626

December 26, 2022

Kari Lake failed to meet a standard that is impossible to meet

When it is impossible for a party (any party) to meet the required standard to obtain legal relief, there is no justice under the law.

by Ted Noel
AmericanThinker.com

Kari Lake has just lost her trial to overturn the election in Arizona. She presented uncontroverted testimony that the dimensions of the ballot on Election Day were changed from the dimensions that were tested before the election. This caused the ballot readers great difficulty, since they are programmed to look for marks in specific locations, and the size change moved those marks. This then led to great confusion, delays, and departure of voters who could not continue to wait their turn. Those non-voting voters were mostly in dark red areas, so the “errors” disenfranchised Republicans.

Lake presented uncontroverted testimony that the printers were reset to print on the different-sized paper, showing that election officials knew that there was a problem. She presented even more uncontroverted testimony that election officials did not tally the total number of ballots before transmitting them to the central office, contrary to bright letter regulations and law. And finally, she presented uncontroverted testimony that over a quarter million ballots were counted but had no chain of custody, again contrary to law. That “oversight” could allow many thousands of ballots—not votes—to be snuck in to be counted.


Image: Kari Lake. YouTube screen grab.


As Kari Lake noted, the election was run “outside the law.” Yet Maricopa County Judge Peter Thompson ruled that Lake didn’t meet her burden of proof. He relied on case law that says:

• Lake had to prove that the outcome was affected by the irregular conduct of the election.
• Lake had to prove her case by clear and convincing evidence of misconduct by election officials “intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.”
• The Court must assume that election officials acted in good faith as a matter of law.
• All reasonable presumptions must favor the validity of an election.

That’s a pretty tall mountain to climb. Believing that the Democrats cheated is not enough. And the Judge basically ruled that Lake didn’t prove malevolent intent.

Put bluntly, there’s no way that Lake would be able to do that because she would have to go through the discovery process, get emails, documents, and take depositions to develop proof of intent. In short, the time between the election and the trial was too short to meet the standard of proof. We saw this before in Donald Trump’s election lawsuits. There was more than adequate reason to believe that the election was stolen, but not enough time to develop the case.

Uncontroverted testimony ought to be enough to verify the truth of a proposition. In this case, we have both ballot printer and ballot custody issues of sufficient magnitude to cast a significant pall over the election. Many voters signed in but didn’t vote due to those delays. Sloppy custody was either by a deliberate action to allow in extra ballots, or by negligence in instruction and supervision. In either case, it was misconduct by election officials. But it doesn’t prove intent, the impossible standard in a compressed schedule.

At this point, Kari Lake must get an appellate court to revisit those precedents. Put bluntly, they allow the parties in power to get away with literally anything. There just isn’t enough time to build a case for intent. So, officials can claim they “made a mistake,” and no investigation will get far enough to prove their fraud before they assume office. This “Catch-22” is contrary to the basic premise of equality before the law.

Lake can also claim that the Judge erred in his “clear and convincing” finding because that is a subjective standard. The US Supreme Court in Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984) ruled that it means “the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact finer t be convinced that the contention is highly probable.”

As I noted earlier, the evidence is uncontroverted, meaning it isn’t “likely” to be true. It’s actually true. This leaves a radical presumption of good faith to overcome, and whether the appellate court sees that as appropriate, given the magnitude of the malfeasance, is the big question. The appellate court ought to realize that errors involving fully ten percent of the entire voting electorate are larger than those assumed by the earlier courts, rendering their precedents inapplicable.

Will they? If I was a betting man, I’d bet against it. Judicial inertia is large. But true justice requires that the court order the election to be thrown out as utterly unreliable. Given the facts on the ground, no presumption of election regularity can logically be maintained. But granting Lake a victory at this point is a bridge too far.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/12/kari_lake_failed_to_meet_a_standard_that_is_impossible_to_meet.html

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next