Trump-Endorsed Arizona Attorney General Nominee Abe Hamadeh’s lawsuit is moving forward with evidentiary hearings in his election contest lawsuit on Friday, December 23.
Hamadeh is down by 511 votes out of more than 2.5 million ballots cast in his race, and there is an ongoing recount to determine the winner.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Hamadeh filed a lawsuit in the Mohave County Superior Court against Kris Mayes, Katie Hobbs, and all Arizona County election officials.
The Defendants’ motions to dismiss the lawsuit failed. Count V alleging that “a material number of early ballots cast in the November 8, 2022 general election were transmitted in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that the County Recorder or the Recorder’s designee determined did not correspond to the signature in the putative voter’s ‘registration record,’” was dismissed. more here
There is a peculiar word that is littered across both Lake’s and Hamadeh’s pre-trial hearing results: “laches” (doctrine of laches)
I was baffled by so many of their claims being summarily dismissed by the judge, in this case Hamadeh’s allegation that the ballot envelopes’ signatures did not match the signature of the voters’ registrations. How could that be dismissed out of hand? So I looked up “laches”.
“Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine. A defendant who invokes the doctrine is asserting that the claimant has delayed in asserting its rights, and, because of this delay, is no longer entitled to bring an equitable claim. Failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches: it is a maxim of equity that, “Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent.”
However, delay alone is not enough to prevent a claimant obtaining relief. The consequence of the delay must be that it would be unfair for the court to give relief, usually because the defendant has changed its position because of the delay.
The party asserting laches has the burden of proving that it is applicable. Laches is distinguishable from the statute of limitation, which prevents a party from asserting claims after the designated limitations period has expired.”
How can this be, when the elections were held mere weeks ago? Doesn’t it seem ominous that the judges would invoke or allow the defendants to invoke this kind of straight jacket legal defense? I’m no lawyer, but it seems very strange to me that I’ve never heard or read the word “laches” before now. Not ever. Now I have the feeling it will become a household word.
“you can go to trial, but without your best evidence. That way, we can say that you got your day in court and you just proved you were a sore loser because you lost the case, and then claim this proves ALL the elections were and always will be legit even though they palpably are not.”
…the only reason I can think of a judge dismissing many of Lake’s and Hamadeh’s claims is that rather than assert them before the vote count was concluded they only did so afterwards, when the count went against them. I suppose it could be argued, then, that they were interested in claiming certain elements of vote fraud only when the count went against them, and would not have made these claims had the vote resulted in their winning the election.
Da Judge decries and you get 2 lumps of coal. Merry Xmas & enjoy.
It is too late to make charges regarding an election six weeks ago but it is OK to press for charges against Trump for something that happened almost two years ago. I get it.