Jovan: Lake II Verdict Is In - The Legislators Are The Problem, not Judges; on Borrelli & Blehm

-"taking out the machines" press release came the day before the verdict, it was political theater
-Shiva image audit found nothing that would change the result, then he discredited Jovan's audit: that was the point.
-later they hired him to slowroll the signature audit Pulitzer /Tesla Labs was already doing. Borrelli the point man on this.
-Pulitzer has signatures from ballots and county worker signatures, has compared them and found matches. He couldn't put that on the Senate record or the court record because the lawmakers undermined him.
-BLEHM trashtalking Jovan on Telegram was an assignment from the DS in case Olson called Jovan to testify. Then MC lawyers could discredit him with Blehm's TG posts: the lawyer from his own side who called him to testify. In doing so they preemptively stopped Olson from being able to call Jovan. Remember they scared every lawyer But Blehm from joining Olson? So Olson didn't have any choice in this.Show more

I've come to the opinion that Jovan is right about Blehm. I think he's wrong about some people in the movement but this one walks like a duck, same with Borrelli, same with Rogers, same with HEATHER HONEY. The trials make a little more sense if you consider Blehm was probably a plant.

Some things to understand about Thompson's standard for signatures
1. It's NOT the legal standard, as per Heath and Donofrio, the legal standard is SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. It's true for all nontechnical statues est'd in Miller v Picacho, and was applied specifically to signatures in *Reyes* which was almost the same case as Kari Lake signature count. Thompson went against this ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENT when he made Lake prove EVERY SINGLE BALLOT skipped verification or Lake loses.
2. If you read the 5 pg. decision from Judge Napper on what to check signatures against in AZ:
https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/5354296/judge-napper-ruling-on-registration-record-definition
He writes: "No English speaker would confuse the act of signing up to participate in an event [registering to vote] with the act of participating in the event [sending in a mail-in ballot to vote, which unlike voting in person, does not involve registration].

In the same way, contrary to Jovan's early argument, no English speaker would confuse Training to verify signatures with the Actual Verification of signatures during an election. The total verification standard Thompson pulled out of his A means they would have had to NOT verify every single ballot for Lake to win: even one ballot verified, is good enough and MC wins the case. But Thompson read the exhibits, as Good Lawgic video discusses here
https://rumble.com/v4i2psc-goodlawgic-with-law-and-lumber-on-judge-thompson-and-how-judges-think-in-el.html
and he ALREADY KNEW Lake could NOT meet this standard, it's right there in Jacqui Onigkeit's affidavit that she verified some signatures. The thing to do here is to motion for a new trial and file an ETHICS COMPLAINT against THOMPSON. It's not the legal precedent, it goes Against the legal precedent, and Thompson knew from the pre-trial exhibits before he wrote it that Lake could NOT meet that standard. But in an election contest there's a time constraint and you don't have a chance in this court anyway, the objective may have been to get it to SCOTUS in the most direct route.

3. The reason you need a BULLET PROOF argument is the judges are biased or paid off and they're just looking for the rationale to justify their pre-determined decision. Bernstein more clear on that in the next vid: They're snakes and you have to pin them down. Lake's team wouldn't do this even with Leo and Ryan hand-feeding them the arguments. I think Blehm's job was either to throw the case or fight it with his hands tied behind his back. Bernstein thinks they had moles in the law office.

#jovan #pulitzer #jovanpulitzer #karilake #kari lake trial