[
Final month, former AZ gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and AZ Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem appealed their federal lawsuit in search of to ban digital voting machines to the U.S. Supreme Court docket with new allegations because the case was first argued .
The brand new allegations, reported by The Gateway Pundit, embrace a failure by Maricopa County officers to conduct obligatory logic and accuracy testing, a failure to make use of solely licensed software program on Arizona's voting machines, and important encryption keys saved in plain-text that Databases accessible throughout Arizona audit have been discovered
Coincidentally, the identical crucial encryption keys have been present in plain-text in open data requests in Georgia and New Mexico and recognized in an Antrim County forensic picture report in 2021. Bailey v Antrim Firm
In October 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court docket of Appeals dismissed the case, claiming that Lake and Finchem didn’t have standing and “failed to ascertain that future damage was both imminent or considerably prone to happen.” “
Notably, simply three months later, in a federal courtroom case, laptop science skilled J. Alex Halderman hacked the Dominion voting system in just some seconds, utilizing frequent objects like a ball-point pen, a $10 sensible card from Amazon, and a number of other totally different strategies. , and a $100 BashBunny machine. You’ll be able to learn Gateway Pundit's 3-part collection on Halderman hacks:
Half 3: The Full Scope of the Dominion ICX Hack in Federal Court docket Is Far Worse Than the BIC Pen Hack
On April 2, Lake/Finchem legal professional Kurt Olsen filed one other temporary with the Supreme Court docket after defendant Adrian Fontes didn’t file a petition. essential temporary in protest, Fontes determined to waive any response to the movement to hurry up the temporary as properly.
Pursuant to Rule 15.8 of this Court docket, petitioners submit this supplemental temporary on this regard Moral and authorized implications of temporary waiver of protest by respondents (“BIO”) and Failure to reply to petitioners' movement for immediate motion, Though petitioners reserve the appropriate to maneuver for financial or non-monetary sanctions below Rule 8.2, this supplemental temporary focuses on the moral and procedural points associated to respondents' waiver of their BIOs.
In decrease courts, it was argued by the defendants that because the voting machines have been operating licensed software program and had logic and accuracy testing, the chance of election interference was speculative. Olsen argued within the newest submitting that:
“…the respondents have Responsibility to right beforehand false bodily proof offered in decrease courts, on which these courts discovered the petitioners' accidents too hypothetical for Article III functions. The responsibility to make corrections ends when the litigation – together with the enchantment or time to enchantment – ends. Permitting the respondents to flee prematurely by waiving any response would result in the seal of approval of this Court docket on the misconduct of the respondents:
- If the respondents knew prematurely that their proof was false, He dedicated fraud within the courts.
- If respondents uncover the falsity of their proof via petitioners' immediate movement, respondents Breached his responsibility of candor by forgiving his BIO (temporary in opposition)
You’ll be able to learn the most recent submitting from Tuesday night right here.