New Filing in Kari Lake Election Integrity Case

There is a hearing on Friday in the Kari Lake Election Integrity Case to determine how the new action on the signature verification will go forward. This is being filed as a separate motion for relief from judgment.

New evidence shows Maricopa County falsely certified that it passed L&A testing and then secretly tested all of the tabulators on three different days. It also shows they KNEW that 260 of the tabulators WOULD FAIL on Election Day.

New evidence also shows that Director of Elections Scott Jarrett gave FALSE TESTIMONY at trial concerning the BOD printers failures that caused the tabulators to malfunction.

For these reasons (among others we will get to in a moment), Lake is asking for relief from judgment (basically a do-over) under Rule 60(b). If you have newly discovered evidence that you couldn’t have had in time for the previous trial or the fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the opposing party, you can request what Lake is requesting. And they sure do.

Expert witness Clay Parikh is back with more after doing a ton of due diligence and requesting public records etc. after the case was decided. Maricopa was forced to respond to those requests, AND data from the report (BOD Report) investigating the ballot on-demand printers were used.

The new evidence shows that Maricopa violated the law and did not do L&A testing on *any* vote center tabulators on Election Day. Further, after they certified they passed L&A on 10/11/22, they went on to secretly test all 446 of the vote-center tabulators on 10/14, 10/17, and 10/18, and KNEW 260 of them would fail on Election Day.

MORE: Jarrett LIED on the stand when he talked about the 19” ballot on 20” paper. I have been pounding this since day 1, but now we have more. Jarrett’s testimony that this occurred at only 3 vote centers and was caused by temporary technicians changing printer settings in an attempt to fix printer issues on Election Day IS FALSE.

The judge had originally ruled against Lake for several reasons, one of them being that she had not shown *intentional* misconduct on the part of Maricopa officials. Additionally, they have evidence that shows that those “drawer 3” ballots were NOT counted at MCTEC- another thing I have been pounding the table about.

This is going to be a long and detailed thread, but here is the tweet to start at if you are like some “journalists” out there and you can not understand the actual FACTS in this case. This is going to give you a really good background into this VERY IMPORTANT issue. This hasn’t only occurred in 2022 but also several election cycles PRIOR.

If you remember, there was VERY limited discovery given to Lake before her trial. The day before the trial, their expert Clay Parikh was able to inspect a sampling of ballots from 6 vote centers. He testified that he found 19” ballot images on 20” paper in ALL SIX of those vote centers, and it had affected 48 of 113 of the combined spoiled and duplicated ballots.

Here is a key point. One of the arguments CONSTANTLY brought up over and over again here is that those spoiled ballots were duplicated, so they were counted.

What I have always pointed out is that the fact pattern belies that point. Maricopa DID NOT KEEP THE DUPE with the original – so there was no way to tell how the dupe was voted.

Jarrett was working with Parikh and told him he was unable to produce ANY OF the “duplicated” ballots.

Here is the language the judge used in rendering his decision. It was unbelievable to me at the time, given what we just went over, but much like the failure to properly adjudicate the signature matching issue, the judge failed here too.

Both of these points were incorrect.

Here is where the judge is looking for *intentional misconduct* and this becomes important as we go on and also for the legal argument portion of this. I will break that down in English for all of you when we get there.

When I was watching and live streaming this trial and giving commentary, the moments we were about to detail came in SECOND to the audible “holy %#^) that came after the 19” image revelation itself.

Jarret testified AT LEAST FOUR TIMES that he did not know of, NOR DID HE HEAR OF (emphasis mine) a 19” image printing on a 20” paper.

It was pretty clear what Jarrett said- and there was more. If I am not mistaken (and I am going from memory here), I believe he testified it would be *impossible* for this to happen.

The *NEXT* day, Defendants brought Jarrett back to testify. Despite what I just showed you with excerpts from the transcript of the trial, he testified that just after Election Day, he had discovered that 19” ballots were found at 3 vote centers. He alleged this was caused by onsite technicians changing printer settings to a “shrink to fit” setting (fit to print) and that Maricopa was in the middle of performing a ROOT CAUSE analysis. He stated the issue was caused by “temporary technicians.”

When cross-examined that day, Lake asked why he hadn’t disclosed this the day before, and Jarrett wiggled around the issue. He then told us that they had hidden this from the public, and it had happened not just in 2022


The primary in August 2020
The General in November 2020


The primary in August of 2022. . .

Here is some legal argument for you.

There are three (3) criteria that need to be met for this motion to succeed.

1. The newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered before the granting of judgment despite the exercise of due diligence.

2. The evidence would probably change the result of the litigation.

3. The newly discovered evidence was in existence at the time of the judgment.

This fits all three categories easily. Lake didn’t have the evidence until after Maricopa fulfilled its public record requests, the log files she DID have weren’t able to be analyzed properly in the short time she was given, and the Maricopa BOD report wasn’t made available until 4/10/23.

Also, relief would let Lake produce more evidence of additional votes lost,

which would add to the votes at issue in the signature match case- contributing to the materiality of the L&A testing.

There was party misconduct— even if there is an omission that was an accident (not the case here), it is cause for relief.

Maricopa withheld the L&A testing it did and more (it’s all coming- don’t worry)

The court is required to rely on presumptions favoring election officials. The court has to ASSUME that election officials could never do anything intentionally and they are always telling the truth. (Ridiculous- I know)

But when legal evidence is provided that counters that presumption, guess what happens?

That standard is no longer used by the court.

Also, under another rule (too much detail, you can read if you wish), some of the evidence didn’t exist at the time of trial.

Also, the motion is timely and within guidelines for filing/challenging. And, rushing along the case because it is an election- while important – should never negate the ability of a Plaintiff to have accuracy and justice.

We know what happened with the speed of this one-

Maricopa didn’t test the vote center tabulators for logic and accuracy as REQUIRED by law. The system log files demonstrated that.

Continue reading: