Mission Impossible: Dead to Rights
Maricopa County caught red-handed lying about testing, software & certification...
Prescott, AZ April 3, 2024… A Writ of Certiorari filing with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was filed about 2 weeks ago on the morning of March 14. The filing included bombshell, if not nuclear-level, evidence that blows the lid off of the irredeemably compromised elections held in Maricopa, Pima, and Coconino counties in 2020 and 2022. While the companies selling “black box ballot tabulation” machines have done everything they can to hide the so-called proprietary software that runs them, and lawyers for the sovereign racketeers have expended millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to protect the con, the jig is up.
Yesterday, April 2nd, the Lake & Finchem legal team filed a PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF with the U.S. Supreme Court detailing the misrepresentations and false statements made to the court by both defendants and their lawyers. Click the link above to see who those election racketeers are by name.
There are two kinds of lies, one is spoken and one is of omission, the unspoken. Lawyers have a duty (Code of Conduct Rule 3.3) to be truthful and not hide exculpatory evidence. In other words, if they know something presented to the court is inaccurate or an outright misrepresentation, they must disclose that as a matter of ethical behavior. The original case brought in July 2022 asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the electoral corruption of the 2020 election from being perpetrated again in 2022. In the fullness of time, the racketeers have been ensnared in their web of deceit and lies.
The judge in our case was John Tuchi, a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Prior to joining the court, he was an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. Judge Tuchi not only dismissed our case on “standing” but has sanctioned us and our lawyers for daring to question an obviously suspicious election. In fact, the sanctions were levied on the very day the election machines failed for the 2022 mid-term election, now considered irredeemably flawed.
Be a witness, not a suspect…
The Lake & Finchem v. Fontes et al case reveals sovereign fraud in Arizona, it details the systematic introduction of sloppy if not intentional cybersecurity application defects, intentional use of uncertified “Frankenstein” election software, and purposeful deceit by elected officials, unelected officers, and their lawyers. Worse yet, this does not affect just Arizona, but counties and states all across the United States. Every Secretary of State and county elections official should take notice of what is contained in the filing, a Supplemental Brief, made yesterday because at least some of the contents will likely apply to them. Its long past time for transparency.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that petitioners’ injuries are too speculative for Article III based in part on false representations that Maricopa County performed required pre-election logic and accuracy (“L&A”) testing and used certified and approved voting system software. The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari amends petitioners’ allegations of jurisdiction to address those issues. On March 20, 2024, petitioners moved this Court to expedite the Court’s consideration of this matter, providing evidence that Maricopa did not do the required L&A testing and used altered, and hence, uncertified software. On March 27, 2024, respondents all waived their BIO’s [briefs in opposition], and the April 1, 2024, deadline for responding to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite expired without a response. (Filing STATEMENT OF THE CASE)
Pursuant to either this Court’s Rule 8.2 or Arizona law and 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), respondents have a duty to correct false material evidence filed below. And, under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 3.3(a)(1), lawyers must not knowingly either “make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” ARIZ. R. PROF’L. COND. 3.3(a)(1). Regardless of whether respondents’ counsel knew the evidence was false when filed, they are on notice now that the material evidence was false. Rule 3.3(a)(3)’s duty to correct includes disclosure to the tribunal: If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
So what proof of misconduct is there?
The Ninth Circuit expressly relied on false representations that Maricopa’s elections were protected from manipulation: Before being certified for use in elections, the tabulation machines are tested by an accredited laboratory and the Secretary of State’s Certification Committee. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §16-442; see also §16-552 (identical testing requirement for tabulation of early ballots). The certified machines are then subjected to pre-election logic and accuracy tests by the Secretary of State and the election officials of each county. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-449; Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2019 Election Procedures Manual (“2019 EPM”) at 86. In fact, all of the machines were not tested, but instead 5 spare machines were publically tested as a “dog and pony show” to led the appearance of legitimate testing to comply with the law.
The untested machines were those that failed during the 2022 ballot tabulation process at a rate of 7,000 ballots every half hour. “The facts here are not even “intensive” because respondents claimed L&A testing and certified software ensured nothing could go wrong, but the predicate was false: In fact, the software was altered and uncertified and Maricopa did not conduct required L&A testing but also falsely certified it had, dissolving any presumptions of regularity. See Pet. 19 n.5 (discussing Arizona’s “bursting bubble” theory of nonstatutory presumptions). Summary reversal is appropriate here to allow the district court to sift the evidentiary issues in this classic Article III dispute.”1
Will we see relief, or will it be a mirage constantly off on the horizon?
Whether out of arrogance or incompetence, the respondent’s lawyers have failed to respond to the Motion to Expedite. Under Rule 21.4, respondents had 10 days—until April 1, 2024—to respond to the petitioners’ Motion to Expedite consideration of this matter. S.Ct. R. 21.4. Respondents’ failure to oppose the petitioners’ motion waives their opposition to expediting this matter and warrants summarily deciding the case, as argued in the petitioners’ motion and petition. Pet. 34-36; Mot. to Expedite 10-11, 22-23.
Courts generally treat a failure to oppose a motion as consent to the relief requested.
Petitioners Lake and Finchem “[s]how that—inadvertently or not—respondents prevailed below based on false evidence and now intentionally declined either to defend or to correct the allegedly false statements. This Court need not decide the evidentiary issue (i.e., whether Maricopa used altered uncertified software or conducted required L&A testing). It is enough that petitioners’ motion credibly raised evidentiary issues and their petition credibly made amended allegations of jurisdiction.”
What does relief look like here?
Kari Lake and I are asking for the opportunity to be vindicated in a legitimate court proceeding where the merits of the case and the evidence can be truthfully explained,
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.