Kari Lake admits defeat in lawsuit

[Tripnsweep]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2024/03/26/kari-lake-requests-default-judgement-in-ongoing-defamation-lawsuit/73108712007/

 

She would rather take a big L on this than go through discovery and have some really embarrassing stuff come out. Fits right in with Trump, taking the big L. Should do wonders for her myopic Senate campaign while she's on the hook for potentially millions. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Careful, those that insist on holding both sides equally accountable are going to flood this thread. 

(holding my breath)

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Careful, those that insist on holding both sides equally accountable are going to flood this thread. 

(holding my breath)

[Tripnsweep]

Weird how with all the "personal responsibility" stuff going around, people here would be all over this. I guess the gruft goes on for her. 

[Ohio Elite]

1 minute ago, Tripnsweep said:

Weird how with all the "personal responsibility" stuff going around, people here would be all over this. I guess the gruft goes on for her. 

Be nice if we could read the link genius. My AZ central subscription must have recently expired. 

[Ohio Elite]

[Tripnsweep]

A Maricopa County judge said former gubernatorial and current U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake lost "all rights to litigate the merit" of an ongoing defamation case when she forfeited her ability to defend herself in court on Tuesday.

But Lake will still get the chance to argue for no damages in the lawsuit. In a Thursday morning minute entry, Judge Jay Adleman gave attorneys in the case until late April to determine a schedule for "damages-related discovery" and a settlement meeting.

The order comes after Lake conceded to a default judgment. She was faced with discovery, the formal process of exchanging information between attorneys about witnesses and evidence that could be presented before a jury at trial.

The initial lawsuit, filed in June by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, accuses Lake and her affiliates of spreading false information about Richer after the November 2022 election. He alleges Lake knew, or should have known, the statements were false. Lake and Richer are both Republicans.

Attorneys for Richer previously told The Arizona Republic that discovery was expected to be a monthslong process. The case could have gone to trial during a contentious election year in which both Richer and Lake will be running for elected offices, or immediately after in 2025.

The default judgment helps Lake avoid some discovery and could speed up a conclusion to the suit. Her attorneys are now requesting the matter be resolved before the upcoming state primary and general elections. But Adleman's order suggests she may still have to turn over information to Richer's attorneys that could be used against her in the damages process.

Adleman's order comes days after Richer's attorneys requested sanctions against Lake, claiming her attorneys were "doing everything possible to waste time and stall discovery."

Richer's team also entered an application for default against Lake and her attorneys, alleging her lawyers were refusing to move the case forward.

In his minute entry, Adleman chalks Lake's attorneys' deadline misses up to appellate litigation. Weeks ago, the Arizona Supreme Court lifted a temporary stay in the defamation lawsuit and rejected Lake's appeal challenging his December decision to allow the case to proceed.

He deemed Richer's request for sanctions "moot." But he still cautioned Lake's attorneys in his order.

"The court fully expects the parties to cooperate with one another in an effort to resolve the remaining scheduling issues attendant to these default proceedings," Adleman said.

Lake is the second ally of former President Donald Trump to forfeit their chance to defend themselves against a defamation suit.

Last year, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was held liable for defaming two Georgia election workers. The ruling came after Giuliani failed to turn over information requested by Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss during discovery. The women were awarded nearly $150 million in damages.

Unlike Giuliani, Lake and her attorneys filed a motion agreeing to a default judgment — a highly unusual move. Lake maintains her statements were true, even though she is unwilling to defend them in court. In a statement and video posted to social media on Tuesday, she said she simply doesn't want to spend time or money on the lawsuit.

“The political elite will do anything to hold onto power,” Lake wrote. “They’ve resorted to filing a ludicrous defamation lawsuit to try to stop me and bleed me dry. Taking part in this lawfare just legitimizes it.”

But Richer cast the move as "complete and total surrender."

"Kari: You lied," he wrote in a social media post. "It was all B.S."

[Ohio Elite]

Thanks for clarifying, looks like it's not going in her favor that's for sure. When July 30th comes around and  the votes come in we'll see what kind of damage it really does. 

Defamation not good.

Yet every politician does it these days good lord..

[mspart]

If she lied knowing she lied, then she gets what is coming to her. 

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

If she lied knowing she lied, then she gets what is coming to her. 

mspart

She admitted that she lied by asking for a default judgement against herself. I think she is embarrassed at what might have come out in discovery, and is trying to limit that. But as far as contesting the case, that is over with. She admitted she lied. 

[Tripnsweep]

3 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

Thanks for clarifying, looks like it's not going in her favor that's for sure. When July 30th comes around and  the votes come in we'll see what kind of damage it really does. 

Defamation not good.

Yet every politician does it these days good lord..

No, not every politician accuses somebody in their own political party of breaking the law, saying they did things that are blatantly untrue, doing this knowing that there are wackos out there who will harass the shit out of people on the basis of those lies.

Since she rolled over and admitted she lied, she did in fact defame somebody. Her actions are beyond contesting since she admitted she did it. Now it's a question of how much she has to pay for it. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

Thanks for clarifying, looks like it's not going in her favor that's for sure. When July 30th comes around and  the votes come in we'll see what kind of damage it really does. 

Defamation not good.

Yet every politician does it these days good lord..

No, they don't. Its easy and maybe somewhat comforting to think that, but no they don't. 

Do some? Yes. 

Do all? No. 

The ones that do, most do not do it to a degree that gets you sued. 

Of the ones that do, do they tend to lean one way or the other? Recently, .... YES! 

Fox'News' 

OAN

Alex Jones

My Pillow Guy

Kari Lake

45

Rudy 'Four Seasons(not that one)' G. 

Not to mention attorneys that helped getting disbarred as we type. 

[jross]

Her words did not admit that she lied, but her actions imply that she lied. It could be that she had financial help and guidance that informed her this was the smarter approach to end the trial and pay.  She might also believe her own statements and lack the evidence to prove them.  That doesn't necessarily make her a liar, but that implies she made a dumb mistake.  

[Tripnsweep]

39 minutes ago, jross said:

Her words did not admit that she lied, but her actions imply that she lied. It could be that she had financial help and guidance that informed her this was the smarter approach to end the trial and pay.  She might also believe her own statements and lack the evidence to prove them.  That doesn't necessarily make her a liar, but that implies she made a dumb mistake.  

She can say whatever she wants. Her throwing in the towel on defending this case is an admission that she did do what the plaintiff is saying she did.

If this was easy she would have settled with him before it even got there. Either she is so full of herself she thought she would win, or she has been getting terrible legal advice. 

If she believes her own lies, which were proven false and lacking evidence repeatedly, then she is potentially suffering from mental illness and shouldn't be anywhere near holding public office. 

[Offthemat]

Kari has enough experience in AZ courts to undertake her best strategy.  They have shown her that even when you have the evidence you’re not guaranteed to be able present it in court.  At least not without long drawn out procedures or appeals that might not finalize until after the election.  She did ask Richer to show us, on the doll, where he’d been hurt. 

[Tripnsweep]

42 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Kari has enough experience in AZ courts to undertake her best strategy.  They have shown her that even when you have the evidence you’re not guaranteed to be able present it in court.  At least not without long drawn out procedures or appeals that might not finalize until after the election.  She did ask Richer to show us, on the doll, where he’d been hurt. 

Her experience is losing. Repeatedly. 

Her claims the election was rigged were proven false. She had every chance to present evidence and didn't. She has lost every challenge in court she has brought forward. Even her appeals of those were denied, or she quietly dropped it herself.

Discovery can be a long process. Nobody is denying that. But if she hadn't said the things she said, again proven to be malicious, then she had every chance to fight this too. Usually in civil cases people settle long before it reaches this point. Now she is opening herself up for some embarrassing things to come out during the last part of this. All because she didn't feel like apologizing to someone she knew she lied about. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

Her experience is losing. Repeatedly. 

Her claims the election was rigged were proven false. She had every chance to present evidence and didn't. She has lost every challenge in court she has brought forward. Even her appeals of those were denied, or she quietly dropped it herself.

Discovery can be a long process. Nobody is denying that. But if she hadn't said the things she said, again proven to be malicious, then she had every chance to fight this too. Usually in civil cases people settle long before it reaches this point. Now she is opening herself up for some embarrassing things to come out during the last part of this. All because she didn't feel like apologizing to someone she knew she lied about. 

You couldn’t be more wrong.  If there’s one thread that runs the gamut of lawfare litigation over the last few years, it’s evidence suppression.  

[Tripnsweep]

23 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

You couldn’t be more wrong.  If there’s one thread that runs the gamut of lawfare litigation over the last few years, it’s evidence suppression.  

How was any of her evidence suppressed? She had every chance to present it. Her "evidence" that was presented was mostly hearsay and hypothetical situations. Those didn't fly. 

At some point you should think logically and wonder if maybe somebody who has lost repeatedly in court like that might actually be wrong.

For her, the grift continues.

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

How was any of her evidence suppressed? She had every chance to present it. Her "evidence" that was presented was mostly hearsay and hypothetical situations. Those didn't fly. 

At some point you should think logically and wonder if maybe somebody who has lost repeatedly in court like that might actually be wrong.

For her, the grift continues.

The same way any evidence is suppressed, the judge disallows it.  Do you live in AZ?

[Tripnsweep]

45 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The same way any evidence is suppressed, the judge disallows it.  Do you live in AZ?

Yes. And no evidence has been suppressed. She has had multiple chances to present her evidence as a part of her various lawsuits. It falls into 2 categories with her. It is irrelevant or doesn't prove anything, or it is hypothetical in nature. Courts usually don't like it when you waste their time with these kinds of pursuits she has presented.

Her cases she has brought are akin to filing a lawsuit because you claim somebody stole from you. Then when asked to show proof, your evidence is that your neighbor across the street was possibly robbed, so therefore you must have been too. Then you have an expert witness who is willing to testify they know about robberies in other states and that they, without firsthand knowledge, have concluded you were robbed too. 

Now which is more likely, that different judges and associated clerks and other court employees are engaged in some sort of far reaching conspiracy against Kari Lake, or...

She has presented poorly conceived cases with little or no relevant evidence and continues to lose because of that. 

Not a difficult choice.

[Tripnsweep]

"In previous election-related cases, judges have ruled against Lake in two trials and fined Lake’s attorneys $2,000 and $122,000 respectively for making “false” and “frivolous” claims."

   

[Offthemat]

33 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Yes. And no evidence has been suppressed. She has had multiple chances to present her evidence as a part of her various lawsuits. It falls into 2 categories with her. It is irrelevant or doesn't prove anything, or it is hypothetical in nature. Courts usually don't like it when you waste their time with these kinds of pursuits she has presented.

Her cases she has brought are akin to filing a lawsuit because you claim somebody stole from you. Then when asked to show proof, your evidence is that your neighbor across the street was possibly robbed, so therefore you must have been too. Then you have an expert witness who is willing to testify they know about robberies in other states and that they, without firsthand knowledge, have concluded you were robbed too. 

Now which is more likely, that different judges and associated clerks and other court employees are engaged in some sort of far reaching conspiracy against Kari Lake, or...

She has presented poorly conceived cases with little or no relevant evidence and continues to lose because of that. 

Not a difficult choice.

Partisan gobbledygook.  I’ve seen, read, and heard evidence that was disallowed in some of her cases.  Limits and guidelines as to what constitutes proof and has to be proven.  And yes, judges from the district level to the Supreme Court have evaded the controversy and steered away from the findings of fraudulent election results, likely in fear of the uprising it would cause.  You’re comfortable now, but you follow the company line at your own peril. 

[braves121]

23 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Partisan gobbledygook.  I’ve seen, read, and heard evidence that was disallowed in some of her cases.  Limits and guidelines as to what constitutes proof and has to be proven.  And yes, judges from the district level to the Supreme Court have evaded the controversy and steered away from the findings of fraudulent election results, likely in fear of the uprising it would cause.  You’re comfortable now, but you follow the company line at your own peril. 

Judges from the district level to the level of the supreme court have "steered away from fraudulent election results" because there is none. Kari Lake was claiming her election was rigged weeks before the polls even opened for the republican primary. She either has evidence or she does not, and it is clear she does not. 

Edited March 29 by braves121

[Tripnsweep]

3 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Partisan gobbledygook.  I’ve seen, read, and heard evidence that was disallowed in some of her cases.  Limits and guidelines as to what constitutes proof and has to be proven.  And yes, judges from the district level to the Supreme Court have evaded the controversy and steered away from the findings of fraudulent election results, likely in fear of the uprising it would cause.  You’re comfortable now, but you follow the company line at your own peril. 

They veer away from it because there isn't any credible proof of it. They don't want to entertain the crazies who might try to clog up the court with this gobbledygook and waste time. No judge is going to entertain people who present conspiracy theories as evidence. 

[Tripnsweep]

5 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Partisan gobbledygook.  I’ve seen, read, and heard evidence that was disallowed in some of her cases.  Limits and guidelines as to what constitutes proof and has to be proven.  And yes, judges from the district level to the Supreme Court have evaded the controversy and steered away from the findings of fraudulent election results, likely in fear of the uprising it would cause.  You’re comfortable now, but you follow the company line at your own peril. 

Mike Lindell's and Kari Lake's 'explosive' new evidence of election skullduggery goes pfft

Opinion: Strange, after reading the 52-page appeal — sans sheets — I didn't feel a shock. Not even a slight zap.

Kari Lake and Mark Finchem continue their quest to outlaw Arizona’s vote counting machines, telling the U.S. Supreme Court they have “new evidence” that merits a “do-over” of the 2022 election.

All week long, My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, who is underwriting their lawsuit, has been touting “the most explosive evidence ever!”

“It’s going to be the biggest thing ever, and we are going to save this country!" he said on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast over the weekend.

By Thursday, he’d upgraded his promise to one of global import.

“It’s going to shock the world,” he told Steve Bannon on his War Room podcast, adding that people should buy his percale sheets to pass out to their friends along with the Supreme Court appeal. (“Get ‘em for everybody you know. Tell them about the Supreme Court case and here’s a set of sheets for you.”)

My Pillow CEO's appeal isn't new

Strange, after reading the 52-page appeal — sans sheets — I didn’t feel a shock. Not even a slight zap.

Neither, apparently, did Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.

“Nothing new,” he told me on Friday. “Same old crazy. Zero percent chance the United States Supreme Court decides to spend its very limited time on something so crazy that it got sanctioned to the tune of $100,000-plus at the trial court level.”

Lake and Finchem — then candidates for governor and secretary of state and for the U.S. Senate and state Senate — sued the state of Arizona and Maricopa County in April 2022, seeking to bar vote tabulators in the 2022 election.

They claimed that even if the machines weren’t hacked, they could be hacked and there’s no way to verify the count unless we start voting with paper ballots.

Arizona elections already use paper ballots

Never mind that Arizona already uses paper ballots and, in fact, requires a hand count of a random sample of those ballots to verify the machine count.

U.S. District Court John J. Tuchi dismissed their lawsuit in August 2022, and later slapped the Lake/Finchem lawyers with sanctions and the county’s $122,000 legal bill for their “frivolous” waste of court time and taxpayers’ money.

To prevail, Tuchi said they’d have to not only prove that machines have security flaws but that someone actually manipulated the results to change the outcome of the election.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Tuchi’s dismissal in October, noting the lawsuit “relies on a ‘long chain of hypothetical contingencies’ that have never occurred in Arizona.”

Put another way, a conspiracy must be more than a figment of your imagination — or a marketing scheme to sell sheets — if you want the courts to take you seriously.

Lake and Finchem, in their Thursday appeal, say they have new evidence that warrants a “hand recount of the 2022 election and all future elections to be counted by hand.”

It's the same argument since Trump lost

Funny thing. The new evidence sounds pretty much like the same old Maricopa County-is-the-devil argument they’ve been making all along: altered software, faulty testing, coverups, the usual stuff the courts have rejected.

Add now skullduggery apparently afoot at Dominion Voting Systems. According to the appeal, Dominion configured its tabulation machines in 30 states in such a way that hackers or Dominion workers intent on mischief can easily gain access to the count.

“While this breach has the game-changing magnitude of the Allies’ deciphering Germany’s ENIGMA machine in World War II, it is far worse,” the appeal says. “Dominion leaves the decryption keys bare, in plain text.

“Embedded Dominion employees or any malicious actor who knows where to look can gain total access and control over an election. It is like a bank telling the public they have the most secure vault in the world, and then taping the combination on the wall next to the vault door.

“Even worse, key logging features that would record system activity showing such control can also be manipulated or disabled, thereby rendering any penetration of this system nearly undetectable.”

I don’t know whether this is ENIGMA-level spy stuff that’ll shock the world.

Or whether it’s even true. They appear to offer no backup to support their claim in the 210 pages filed with the Supreme Court.

What I do know is that this appeal still doesn’t offer any evidence that Dominion’s machines — the ones various independent experts have confirmed were not connected to the internet — were hacked.

Still, Lake and Finchem insist we deserve a “do-over relief” and an end to the machine tabulation of votes in America.

Or at least, a new set of sheets.