LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

March 19, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kari Lake’s case isn’t the only one out there, and it certainly isn’t the only one that has been wrongly dismissed; however, from what I’ve seen, her case is one of the strongest. The evidence in her case is absolutely overwhelming and certainly meets the legal threshold necessary to demonstrate that massive numbers of votes were stolen, thrown out, or otherwise in legitimate dispute.

There are cases across the country in other states, but in Arizona alone, we have Mark Finchem, Abe Hamedeh, and Kari Lake fighting like hell to expose the corruption. The selected, not elected, current Governor Katie Hobbs was previously secretary of state and, by no coincidence, was managing the elections, abusing her power, threatening officials, and cheating every chance she could to get her and her buddies into office.

Frankly, regarding the Lake and Hamedah cases (and probably the Finchem case), every one of these garbage judges should be investigated and their rulings overturned. The courts have uniformly dismissed these cases, and there’s absolutely no excuse for that. The people of Arizona need to fight this in every way possible; as it stands currently, their votes don’t count, and any elected officials coming out of Arizona are illegitimate. The more corruption we find in 2022, the more it suggests that Mike Lindell and Trump were right about the election fraud of 2020. After all, the playbook is precisely the same.

As for Arizona, what is going on is that these corrupt judges are relying on the idea that fraud must be proven in order to win the case. This is absolutely absurd. You see, when a case begins; a plaintiff files a complaint. A complaint is a document that lays out the claim.

According to Rule 8 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

The pleading should also be:

(e) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency.

(1) Generally. Each allegation of a pleading must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.

This is a great over-simplification, and there is a lot more that goes into a good complaint, but generally, the complaint simply lays out an overview of what is meant to be fought out at trial. It is meant to be concise and needs only to be plausible to move forward if it meets the other standards.

The problem is that the cases cited have been overruled by statute. In 2020 Arizona passed a number of laws related to election reform. The relevant statute is AZ Rev Stat § 16-672, which states in relevant part:

A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:

1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.

2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.

3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge, or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.

4. On account of illegal votes.

5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes, the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal.

B. The contest may be brought in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa County.

When a law is passed subsequent to a case ruling, it takes the place of the common law established in those rulings if they are in dispute. Further, when determining the meaning of legislation, you begin with the plain language of the text. In this case, the plain language of the text makes it clear that “Any elector” can challenge an election for the reasons listed.

Nowhere in this statute is anything close to an indication that the legislature intended for this to apply only if fraud was shown. Rather, it is quite clear by the plain language of the statute that standing to challenge election outcomes was meant to be broadly construed. However, that is not what we are seeing with these corrupt judges; they are cherry-picking half of a sentence out of a case from the 1920s and hanging their ruling on that partial and, quite frankly, absurd interpretation of the law.

It is clear as day that the courts are just looking for an outcome rather than properly applying the law to the facts; there’s no justice, just an intended outcome. I pray that Lake, Finchem, and Hamedaeh continue to fight until the bitter end. The law is on their side, despite what a corrupt judge says. This is an egregious miscarriage of justice, and everyone needs to be talking about it. To my listeners in Arizona, get out there, organize rallies and marches, and please support Lake and her attorneys; this injustice must be exposed.

A little over a month ago, I published a Substack regarding Finchem’s dismissal that you can read here. Election issues are something I’ve been aware of, but only recently have I been able to dedicate enough time to research what has been going on to really comment. This is not because the issue is not critical, but rather because most of my time has been spent fighting the covid deception and spreading the truth regarding the death jabs.

The impetus for my new focus has been a combination of the fact that we are making progress on the COVID fight and also that my work on COVID has demonstrated that the same people that have been behind the disease and jabs are the same people using the same playbook in the election fraud arena. This led me to dig deeper into what can only be described as corruption in the Arizona election.


The Tom Renz Show on America Out Loud Talk Radio can be heard weekdays at 6 pm ET. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on AppleAndroid, or Alexa. All episodes can be heard on-demand on podcast networks worldwide. Find out more and listen to previous podcast episodes here. Visit Tom Renz’s website: http://Tomrenz.com, and his substack: http://Tomrenz.substack.com.

AMERICA OUT LOUD PODCAST NETWORK
AMERICA OUT LOUD PODCAST NETWORK

America Out Loud is the premier news network with a diverse array of talk shows that inform and inspire. A daily resource for smart people.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doreen Helen
Doreen Helen
1 year ago

Tom,
The only thing stolen in AZ was your common sense.
With a degree in law, you could be working to unify the common good instead of this endless stream of separatism. What a waste of precious time.

The Prisoner
The Prisoner
Reply to  Doreen Helen
1 year ago

You were, of course, unable to refute a single statement in the article. Your ridicule of the author and inability to refute shows the invalidity.

With a degree in law, and basic honesty, the suthor used reasoning, which you do not possess.

Steve Green
Steve Green
Reply to  Doreen Helen
1 year ago

Doreen, how will you ever get the stench of Hobb’ and Biden’s crotches off of your tongue?🤔

Steve Green
Steve Green
Reply to  Doreen Helen
1 year ago

Doreen, I’m glad to know that you got the clot shot. 😂

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link