Maricopa Audit: 11% of Mail-in Ballots Found Defective by Judge in December Court Case

[James_Madison_Lives]

All the courts said not a shred of evidence!


https://evidence2020.wordpress.com/2...ide-potential/

The order by AZ Superior Court Judge Randall Warner in Ward v. Jackson et al reads:

” The Court ordered that counsel and their forensic document examiners could review 100 randomly selected envelope/affidavits to do a signature comparison. These were envelope/affidavits as to which election officials had found a signature match…”

“Defendants’ expert testified that 11 of the 100 envelopes were inconclusive…”

Another 100 ballots examined by plaintiff’s expert, the Trump team, found 6% of the signatures “inconclusive.”

The judge said there was no evidence of “forgery or simulation,” which only means any attempts to fake a signature.

Nevertheless, Judge Randall found nothing alarming in 6% to 11% of two random samples of ballots not matching “the signature on file,” even though, were this error rate to hold, with 1.9 million total presidential votes cast in Maricopa County, with easily 60% of that mail-in ballot, that would represent roughly 70,000 to 130,000 votes.

[Dr.3D]

All the courts said not a shred of evidence!

Obviously they had the best judges money could buy.

[TheTexan]

The judge said there was no evidence of “forgery or simulation,” which only means any attempts to fake a signature.

The phrase "no evidence" means nothing to me anymore, especially when judges say it.

If for example you had a video of a person getting shot, but the shooter was off screen, a judge would declare that there was "no evidence that a person shot him". It could have been an Orangutan who pulled the trigger.

[Sonny Tufts]

The phrase "no evidence" means nothing to me anymore, especially when judges say it.

Both the plaintiff's and the defendants' forensic experts said there was no evidence of forgery or simulation. Do you have any basis to disagree with them?

And the ballots weren't found to be "defective". The matches on signatures on 6% or 11% of the sample were found to be inconclusive, which isn't a defect for the simple reason that Arizona law doesn't require the election workers who check the signatures to be forensic experts who have the luxury of taking up to a couple of hours on each ballot.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The phrase "no evidence" means nothing to me anymore, especially when judges say it.

If for example you had a video of a person getting shot, but the shooter was off screen, a judge would declare that there was "no evidence that a person shot him". It could have been an Orangutan who pulled the trigger.

The problem is everybody acts like when the media or someone in government is proven wrong, caught in a lie, exposed, they expect them to go "Oh, you got me, I"ll stop!" The reality is, "Yeah, what are you going to do about it?"

[TheTexan]

Both the plaintiff's and the defendants' forensic experts said there was no evidence of forgery or simulation. Do you have any basis to disagree with them?

Back when I still had $#@!s to give, I did spend the time to properly fact check this sort of thing.

Very often when a judge said "no evidence", it was basically "there is a giant $#@!load of evidence, but I intend to dismiss all of it because of some bull$#@! X, and therefore there is 'no evidence' ".

Or they would dismiss all the evidence without even giving a reason at all, which was also common. "No evidence"

I no longer give a $#@! however and judges have lost all credibility.

Especially on the issue of 2020 election integrity. But also in general.

And not that I really give a $#@!, but what's your source for the claim that "the plaintiff ... said there was no evidence of forgery" ?

In the ruling, the judge offers that statement as his/her interpretation of the plaintiff's testimony.

But I sincerely doubt that the plaintiff would just volunteer a statement to the effect of "ya, we have no reason to believe these signatures were faked LOL".

More likely it was like:

Plaintiff: "As you can see, these signatures are wildly different than the signatures that we have on file, which suggests that it was signed by someone other than the voter"

Defense: "Do you have any video recordings of people forging these signatures"

Plaintiff: "Uh... no, we do not"

Judge: "OK thanks. Let it be shown in the record that there is no evidence that these signatures were forged."

Sonny - this is why people like you get duped. Zero critical thinking

[TheTexan]

The problem is everybody acts like when the media or someone in government is proven wrong, caught in a lie, exposed, they expect them to go "Oh, you got me, I"ll stop!" The reality is, "Yeah, what are you going to do about it?"

Or just as common, they just go on pretending that it never happened, and the media buries it.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Both the plaintiff's and the defendants' forensic experts said there was no evidence of forgery or simulation. Do you have any basis to disagree with them?

And the ballots weren't found to be "defective". The matches on signatures on 6% or 11% of the sample were found to be inconclusive, which isn't a defect for the simple reason that Arizona law doesn't require the election workers who check the signatures to be forensic experts who have the luxury of taking up to a couple of hours on each ballot.

You seem to be easily fooled by double talk.

Maricopa County found 11% of ballots in which the signatures were deemed “inconclusive,” meaning one could “not testify that the signature on the envelope/affidavit matched the signature on file. ” And this was by the defendants’ – the slate of Biden electors – own expert.

Saying there was "no evidence of forgery or simulation" merely says it didn't look like anyone tried to do a bad fake of a signature. If the expert cannot "testify that the signature on the envelope/affidavit matched the signature on file," then he is saying it is possibly a bad ballot. A standard number for adjudication should be a fraction of 1%. Not 11%.

I would disagree with you and say a signature not matching the one on a ballot is a defect. They had phone numbers to call all of these people to verify but out of possibly 120,000 ballots whose sigs didn't match, if the 11% error rate holds, they only called 20,000. It's right in the court order. The rest got counted.

[oyarde]

Quite frankly I would interpret 11 percent of signatures that dont match to be 20 percent. Twenty percent vote fraud .

[James_Madison_Lives]

Quite frankly I would interpret 11 percent of signatures that dont match to be 20 percent. Twenty percent vote fraud .

Actually spot on. Even with the Napolitano appointed judge getting to set the rules on how the "random samples" were chosen, they still got 11% election fraud.

[Sonny Tufts]

And not that I really give a $#@!, but what's your source for the claim that "the plaintiff ... said there was no evidence of forgery" ?

In the ruling, the judge offers that statement as his/her interpretation of the plaintiff's testimony.

But I sincerely doubt that the plaintiff would just volunteer a statement to the effect of "ya, we have no reason to believe these signatures were faked LOL".

More likely it was like:

Plaintiff: "As you can see, these signatures are wildly different than the signatures that we have on file, which suggests that it was signed by someone other than the voter"

Defense: "Do you have any video recordings of people forging these signatures"

Plaintiff: "Uh... no, we do not"

Judge: "OK thanks. Let it be shown in the record that there is no evidence that these signatures were forged."

Sonny - this is why people like you get duped. Zero critical thinking

So you blithely assume the judge lied in his order about the plaintiff's expert testimony? And no one on the plaintiff's team objected or called a press conference to point out such an egregious error? If I were the expert I'd surely want the order to accurately reflect what I said.

The judge's order was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, whose opinion noted, "The parties also presented evidence after reviewing a sample of the envelope signatures on mail-in ballots. Their experts determined that out of 100 signatures, six to eleven of the signatures were "inconclusive" but neither expert could identify any sign of forgery or simulation and neither could provide any basis to reject the signatures. (emphasis added)" Did the members of the Arizona Supreme Court lie as well? https://casetext.com/case/ward-v-jackson-2

That's why you get duped. When Trump's side loses in court you're convinced it's because the judges are corrupt or part of a huge conspiracy.

[TheTexan]

So you blithely assume the judge lied in his order about the plaintiff's expert testimony?

It's clear you didn't even read my post. I will return the favor and not read yours.